The insane Schlafly klan

Phyllis Schlafly is remembered as the one who leads the Eagle Forum and fought to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 80s. For that, she is condemned by progressive women as being of the same character as Benedict Arnold. Indeed, Phyllis’s whole career is one of staggering hypocrisy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#Criticism

The feminist activist Gloria Steinem and the author Pia de Solenni, among others, have noted what they consider irony in Schlafly’s role as an advocate for the full-time mother and wife, while being herself a lawyer, editor of a monthly newsletter, regular speaker at anti-liberal rallies, and political activist.[30][31][32] In her review of Schlafly’s Feminist Fantasies, de Solenni writes that “Schlafly’s discussion reveals a paradox. She was able to have it all: family and career. And she did it by fighting those who said they were trying to get it all for her… Happiness resulted from being a wife and mother and working with her husband to reach their goals.”

Now her son, Andrew Schlafly, is continuing in his mother’s footsteps, and is making an absolute fool of himself as the head of an biased web encyclopedia known as Conservapedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Here’s an example of Andrew’s foolishness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Lenski_dialog

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski‘s 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed the bacteria evolve the ability to metabolize citrate — a rare and complex mutation.[65] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data were in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data were already in the paper, that the “raw data” were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[66] The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called “Lenski dialog”,[67] was widely reported on news aggregate sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that “Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski’s paper] closely”,[68] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[69] Consequently, editors who began to ask too many questions about the issue and about specific links “not allowed in Conservapedia”, were censored and permanently blocked. [70]

Andrew founded Conservapedia because he claimed that Wikipedia was biased to the left, but in fact, being a right-wing extremist, he naturally sees anything even slightly to the left of him as unacceptable, and Conservapedia is a manifestation of his own bigotry.

If people like the Schlaflys ran America, we wouldn’t have a free country at all, but a theocratic empire in republican clothing, and where women are allowed to have careers, but only under men’s terms, not their own. They must be discredited and buried forever!