61 CHRONICLESnPERSPECTIVEnSTILL CRAZY AFTER ALL THESE YEARSnby Janet Scott BarlownAfter the 1987 convention of the National Organizationnfor Women, USA Today published the results of ann”informal survey” of 703 NOW members. Forty-sevennpercent of the respondents said that “women are doingnworse in 1987 than in 1980.” Twenty-four percent saidn”women are doing better.” Half the members questionednbelieved that “NOW should focus more on family andnchild-care issues.”nThrough the responses of its own membership, thenbest-known feminist organization in the country shot itselfnin the foot. If a 47 percent plurality of the NOW membersn]anet Scott Barlow covers popular culture from her homenin Cincinnati, Ohio.n^il-lJ.u_nnnsurveyed believe that women are “doing worse” today thannthey were seven years ago, how does this organizationnexplain its own failure? If only 24 percent of its membersncan assert that women today are “doing better,” how doesnNOW justify its existence? And how much more “focus” onntheir welfare can America’s children bear from an organizationnwhich, by its own admission, doesn’t agree on muchnand can’t accomplish what it does agree on?nIn an informal survey conducted in my own household,n100 percent of the women available for questioning (me)nagree on the most significant single accomplishment ofnorganized feminism: It has done more to undermine thenpublic image of women and the real rights of children thannany individual, group, or social/political movement in memory.nAs a result of 20 years of feminist protest, there are nowntwo prevailing female stereotypes: the one feminismninvented—the perpetual victim; and the one feminismnreflects — the know-it-all malcontent.nWhatever happened to the supposed feminist role model,nthe self-possessed woman of assurance and purpose? Shenexists. In fact, she has always existed. It just happens thatnfeminists don’t like her. If organized feminism had thencourage of its convictions, it would give its highest award tonPhyllis Schlafly, a woman who, against great odds and withnskill, determination, and confidence, took on a big bully andnwon. The problem is, the big bully Mrs. Schlafly took onnwas organized feminism and its pet project, the Equal RightsnAmendment. And to compound the problem, she used innher challenge the first credential of her opponents—thenperspective of the female citizen. Might not that fact of itselfnhave given feminists, even in defeat, some measure of pride?nBut this was war; and you don’t conduct war with a taste fornirony or pride in your adversaries. Possessing only thencourage of its prejudices and jealous always of its ownnpolitical power, the women’s movement looked at PhyllisnSchlafly — a self-realized female if ever there was one—andnsaw not a role model but an enemy.nThe movement’s reaction to the example of PhyllisnSchlafly was only one illustration of the hypocrisy ofn”sisterhood.” From the beginning, organized feminism wasnits own worst enemy, the best excuse to avoid any legitimatenissues it may have raised. Because women activists werenobsessed with making noise and placing blame, it never wasnpossible to consider any individual feminist question on itsnmerits. And some questions did have merit. Any womannover the age of 40 who has not experienced at some time, innsome context, a man’s prejudgment of her attitudes ornabilities is, it seems to me, a woman either quite exceptionalnor very distracted. There was a time when I thought thatnfeminism had made one small contribution — singular andnhighly qualified, but positive—by bringing the experiencen