Longtime conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is in the news again. This time, it’s because she has committed the cardinal sin–in the purist conservative rule book– of endorsing Donald Trump. As a result, she’s about to be booted from the throne she has occupied since the 1970s. The rest of the country may not remember her, but liberals in Missouri sure do: In the 1970s, she was the founder and outspoken leader of the “Stop-ERA” organization that later morphed into the “Eagle Forum.” Through the years, it has been an effective, if disproportionately influential, group that opposes just about anything that might guarantee or expand women’s rights—including those of the reproductive variety.

The purpose of this post is not to rehash Schlafly’s ignominious history of standing in the way of progress for women. In fact, my disdain for her and her ideas make it painful for me just to type her name on my screen.

But now, the Schlafly phenomenon has resurfaced–just when I had almost forgotten how much damage she has inflicted through the years—and how much of a hypocrite she was. [She had a prominent career as a lawyer—leaving her young kids, as I recall, with sitters while she went to law school and worked—circumstances that she derided for others and tried to prevent by blocking passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.]

So now, she’s getting a new 15 minutes of fame. She’s 91—and one of the people plotting to oust here from the Eagle Forum is her own daughter. The renewed publicity — delicious, I must admit — has sparked a memory for me. [Do I now need a “trigger warning” for potential, politically traumatic Schlafly flashbacks?”] Fortunately, this is more of a humorous [I hope] memory. Here it is:

Somewhere in the 1970s, the St. Louis chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League [NARAL] started holding an annual fundraising auction. It usually took place at the fancy home of a wealthy supporter. [It’s still going on, I think. I just don’t go anymore, because it’s gotten too far into the financial, fashion and social stratosphere for me.] But back then, when people came in blue jeans and ponchos, I attended. I usually bought something—often a work of art or photography by someone local—at a bargain price.

One year, as a joke, the auctioneers offered a framed picture of NARAL’s arch-enemy, Phyllis Schlafly. When the item went up for bid, it had the desired effect–everyone laughed. I don’t think the organizers really expected that anyone would pay even a dollar for such a thing. But I was in a lighthearted and generous mood. And it was for a good cause. So I put in a bid, when no one else would.  It was probably for $100 or even less. And I won.

When I went to claim the loathsome thing, I expected to be booed for even touching it. Instead, I received a round of applause and kudos—for my bravery and sense of humor, I guess.

For several years after that, I schlepped that framed photo with me as a “white elephant” gag gift [and it did, indeed, make many people gag] for birthday parties and other events. It got a laugh, but I kept taking it back home with me because no one ever wanted it.

Many years after it had outlived its usefulness as a political joke, I think I tossed it in a trash can. I know it’s out there somewhere, adding to the pollution in a landfill. But today’s development in the halls of power of the Eagle Forum make me almost regret ditching it. The way things are going in this political year, I could use the chuckle.

The post Phyllis Schlafly: Back in the news, and in my memory appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Phyllis Schlafly made a name for herself in the 1970s as founder and leader of the Eagle Forum, which vehemently opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, she wants to “protect” her name, by preventing a St. Louis-based craft beer-maker from trademarking the name “Schlafly” for its product. Her lawsuit is both annoying and amusing.

The basic story is this: Phyllis Schlafly wants to keep her name from becoming associated with beer-making. In her lawsuit, which she filed with the U.S. Patent Office and Trademark Office, she claims that the word “Schlafly”…

In connection with its usage as a surname… has the connotation of conservative values, which to millions of Americans (such as Baptists and Mormons) means abstinence from alcohol.

An average consumer in Saint Louis and elsewhere would think that “Schlafly” is a surname associated with me, and thus the registration of this name as a trademark by Applicant should be denied

So, I guess that means that Phyllis Schlafly views herself as a brand.

Why do I care? I suppose that, having lived through her awfulness in the ERA fight, and having watched her continue to position herself as the queen of conservatism, just seeing her picture on the front page of my daily newspaper [St. Louis Post-Dispatch] is enough to raise my blood pressure.

In the 1970s, I somehow “won” a framed picture of Phyllis at an auction that benefited a progressive [we called ourselves liberals then] women’s organization that was fighting against her views. Of course, the portrait was a joke item, and we all got a good laugh from it. I remember continuing the tradition when I offered the Schlafly pinup as a gag [in all senses of the word] gift at a white-elephant party. Since then, the Schlafly brand has faded a bit–or, perhaps it has been overshadowed by even more radical, right-wing women like Michele Bachmann. By comparison, I must say, Schlafly–with her legit law degree–seems like a mental giant.

But I digress. One amusing aspect of Phyllis’ lawsuit is that, contrary to what one might imagine, the beer-maker has not appropriated the Schlafly name out of the blue, which would be a violation of trademark laws. From what I understand, it’s not okay to get a trademark of a famous person’s last name without his/her consent.  But in this case, the  owner of the beer company is named…wait for it… Tom Schlafly. He is Phyllis’ nephew. She married his uncle.

Oh, and by the way, her lawyer is a Schlafly, too: her son

Also on the save-my-name-from-the-riff-raff bandwagon is Phyllis’ other son, an orthopedic surgeon. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he has said that

Many people in the St. Louis area have the last name and that trademarking the name would cause him harm.

Registration of the mark falsely suggests connection between me and alcoholic beverages sold by Applicant, to the detriment of the reputation of a medical professional such as myself,” Dr. Bruce Schlafly wrote in his notice of opposition in September 2012. In September 2013, the two opposition cases were consolidated by the trademark office.

I just wonder whether the rest of us could–or would–have the resources and the balls to try to prevent businesses, founded by people who share our last names, from trademarking their company names. My birth name is Shur. Do you know how many companies have used my family’s name as an alternative spelling for “sure” in their names? Neither do I. But there are a lot of them. I could spend my entire life trying to keep my birth name from being associated with, for example, an auto repair shop [“Shur-Way Auto Body”] , a grocery store chain [“ShurSave Markets”], or even “Shur-Flo Gutter Protection System.” But I guess I’m just not sufficiently egocentric or protective enough of my image–or wealthy enough–to do it.

The post Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t want her name associated with beer appeared first on Occasional Planet.