Phyllis Schlafly cast as feminism’s anti-hero in new series ‘Mrs. America’
Cate Blanchett plays Phyllis Schlafly in the new series on Hulu Mrs. America.
(REVIEW) One minute, Phyllis Schlafly is dodging unwanted sexual advances and navigating conversations with high-powered men who would rather treat her as a secretary than an intellectual asset. The next she is speaking to a sea of housewives leaning on a natural law argument for keeping women in the home.
In FX Entertainment’s new Hulu series Mrs. America, starring Cate Blanchett, this sort of whiplash is around every corner. The limited, nine-episode series opens in the 1970’s and tells the underrecognized story of the counterrevolution in the women’s movement: a battle against feminists led by Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan led by Catholic political activist-lawyer, self-identified housewife and mother of six children, Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly successfully led a conservative grassroots movement to squash the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
This is a woman who said “if marriage is to be a successful institution, it must have an ultimate decision maker, and that is the husband,” based on Bible verses about Christ’s headship of the church. She believed gender roles are necessary for the order of society. She also paved the way for Reagan’s presidential win (and maybe even Trump’s win).
The goal of the women’s movement was not clear or unified in the seventies, and it’s still not now. Schlafly is cast as an anti-hero rather than a villian in the feminist movement. She has a law degree from Washington University, a master’s in government from Harvard and several published books on nuclear strategy, and yet she fights to be taken seriously in conversations about national security and constitutional law. Her political activism encouraging traditional gender roles takes her out of the kitchen and into situations where she is the only woman in the room.
Historically, Schlafly opposed the ERA out of concerns about losing gender-specific privileges many women relied upon. She worried about the loss of “dependent wife” social security status, separate restrooms for men and women, and women’s exemption from select services like the military’s draft, arguing that low-income women had the most to lose from the amendment.
She did not oppose women working outside of the home in principle, but resisted the idea of women forced out of roles they wanted to keep, like full-time mothering. The show captures this nuance. Her character supports Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pay Equity Act, other tenants of the women’s movement, but contends that the specific literature of the ERA will ultimately do more harm than good.
In one scene, she schools Republican congressmen over the provisions in the ERA, eventually convincing them to change their stance and oppose it by arguing the Constitution already protects women from discrimination. She does not fit squarely into the category of fundamentalist or feminist, which is part of what makes her so polarizing and difficult to grasp.
Of course, her nuanced views also mean her portrayal will stir controversy, particularly among her fans.
In an interview with the conservative publication The Federalist, Schlafly’s daughter Cori calls the depiction of her mother an “unbecoming Hollywood-ization” that ultimately paints her in an unfavorable light.
Despite her general distaste for the show’s portrayal of her mother, Cori acknowledges that Schlafly’s organizational prowess shines through. For better or worse, it is women’s voices Schlafly amplified—and the voices of women who were otherwise not present in the political landscape. Her grassroots organization was composed of female activists who were advocating for a different view of what women’s progress ought to mean.
The show captures those frustrations of women who wanted to make more traditional choices and felt their power to do so diminishing. In one beauty parlor scene, a friend of Phyllis and eventual member of her movement painfully recalls her experience of being overlooked as a housewife at a dinner party with working women.
The host “was introducing everyone at the table. Two of the wives work. One’s a lawyer, one’s in business. And after he introduced Buck, he skips over me completely. Doesn’t even say my name. Thank you, Gloria Steinem,” she said.
In a later speech, charismatically addressing a luncheon full of housewives and their daughters, Schafly says, “If you dare to choose the path of full-time mother, well, then there must be something wrong with you. If you don’t feel enslaved, then you’re just dumb and unenlightened. In fact, you’re not even a person.”
The Equal Rights Amendment in its most recently proposed form reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” It passed with the necessary two-thirds vote in the House in October of 1971, was met with bipartisan approval by the Senate in 1972 with 84% of Republican Senators voting yes, and then was ultimately frustrated by grassroots opposition led by Schlafly.
This ideological shift within the GOP has shaped the conversation since.
Familiar sentiments like, “Now the ERA, next we’ll have genderless bathrooms and girls in foxholes” are frequently reiterated in Schlafly’s circle. “Women are the primary caregivers because they bear the children, and if you have a problem with that, you’re going to have to take it up with God,” Schlafly is made to say in the show.
The character of Phyllis Schlafly, an often perplexing breed of antihero, demands that viewers make room for nuanced female characters, and that is good practice for making space for women in real life. Sometimes you cheer for her as she refuses to be steamrolled in an intellectual conversation. Other times you cringe at her crass or unsettling comments.
One may disagree with her ideas or dislike that sort of woman, but the story of Schlafly’s rise to power proves that one cannot simply ignore them. Regardless of one’s political disposition, it is a mistake to think the conversation about feminism, femininity, and what the end goal of the women’s movement should be is settled. It is also a mistake to reduce the women’s movement into simple dichotomies.
The show captures not just the multiple angles of a polarizing character or the obvious division between figureheads like Steinem and Schlafly. It also makes a place for the millions of smaller fault lines within each of their movements.
On the side of ERA activists, women disagree vehemently about which Democratic candidate to back and how and when to push for abortion rights. Within Schlafley’s movement, divisions over whether to tolerate racist rhetoric nearly cause a schism. On both sides, characters find themselves sacrificing principles for a greater political end.
Perhaps one of the show’s greatest strengths comes from the meticulous attention to detail. From the set coloring to the costumes, to packs of antique cigarettes, every design choice is intentional.
It captures a world that looks so different from today and yet shocks the viewer when you hear how similar it sounds. The obvious safeguarding against artistic anachronism draws attention to the things that remain the same and the conversation that is still ongoing.
Liza Vandenboom is a student at The King’s College, an intern at Religion Unplugged, and a religion columnist for the Empire State Tribune.