The death of pioneering television host Phil Donahue at 88 last week brought to mind my mother Anne Nicol Gaylor’s write-up of her not-so-happy experience on his famous talk show in 1978. It’s a great story and it’s reprinted below. Newspaper articles have recalled that Donahue’s first guest was the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair and have talked about his bravery in not shying away from controversy. But Donahue sure shied away from Anne’s combination of atheism and abortion rights advocacy.
Some years later, I was interviewed by Donahue myself, briefly, on a short-lived program in the early 1980s called “The Last Word with Phil Donahue.” It was something like a 15-minute precursor to the late-night talk shows. I was flown in, and Donahue said hello before the show to us three guests — two religionists plus me — and symbolically groomed each of us. It was clearly his way of breaking the ice and greeting guests. He straightened one man’s tie, patted another guest’s jacket and in my case brought out a comb and ran it through a front lock. Then he asked, “Is your mother still mad at me?” Even today, I laugh about that. Her article about him and the show was widely circulated and it had clearly stung.
I remember watching my mother’s appearance on that show live with such high hopes, terribly excited — an emotion that was quickly replaced as he basically abandoned her on the stage by confusion, then indignation. Donahue’s behavior was unforgivable, although being the showman he was, he ultimately redeemed himself, holding up to the audience the book my mother had written that he’d previously refused to mention.
So, yes, I at least have forgiven him; after all my mother bested him in the end. We both appreciated the philosophy behind the original show, featuring not just celebrities but newsmakers and “regular folk” with a story to tell and a cause to promote. Dan (Barker) would later twice represent FFRF on “The Donahue Show.” On one occasion, he was among five panelists discussing the notion of the afterlife, which brought in many new members. By that time, unless a celebrity was the guest, “Donahue” and other daytime talk shows inspired by it typically resorted to an assembly line of guests dealing with narrow topics, which made it harder to stand out. (The exception is the Oprah Winfrey interview of us in 1984 on “AM Chicago,” which featured only FFRF guests. Dan and I famously met in person for the first time right before the show began, it was his first public appearance since leaving the ministry and becoming an atheist — and, the rest, as they say, is history.)
In those pre-internet days, the “Donahue” show would flash on the screen the mailing address and phone number of guests at the end of each episode — less to be helpful than to fend off reams of unwanted mail or queries to forward. Donahue would read the address too, saying,“Don’t call me, call them.” And the resulting response helped launch FFRF’s national profile in the year the organization officially incorporated. That is something to be grateful to Donahue for.
Below is FFRF principal founder Anne Nicol Gaylor’s historic account of her “Donahue” appearance. Although the double standard she takes to task still exists, Anne was delighted by the end of her life to witness the ascendancy of women news anchors and commentators. The essay is part of the booklet, “Lead Us Not Into Penn Station,” reprinting of some her collected essays, now available only in digital form. A shoutout to Edith Ryan, who is mentioned in my mother’s essay below. Edie is still a member of FFRF and was recently interviewed by Wisconsin media about her experiences advocating for abortion rights in Wisconsin in the pre-Roe days. — Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder and co-president, Freedom From Religion Foundation
Shrill! Abrasive! Acerbic! Inflammatory!
By Anne Nicol Gaylor
Photo by Paul Gaylor
It is axiomatic that a feminist who speaks out publicly on controversial issues automatically is described with one or more of these adjectives: She is shrill, strident, abrasive, acerbic, inflammatory, vitriolic, radical, volatile, emotional, hysterical and militant.
A man who promotes unpopular causes, of course, may be thought of as somewhat misguided, but the adjectives trotted out to describe him are complimentary — he is aggressive, he is straightforward, he is direct, he even “tells it like it is.”
This double standard is not only annoying to women attempting to bring about social change, it has affected adversely the entire women’s movement. When activist women are repeatedly put down, ridiculed or trashed, other feminists are discouraged from activism.
As a proponent of the related causes of freethought and women’s rights, especially the right to choose abortion, I have been described repeatedly in the press as “shrill.” Never mind that my voice is so small that I am forever being told to “speak up.” Because I am a feminist and my commitments are not popular ones, I am “strident.”
My personal stage debut came about when I was newly 5 years old. I had started first grade at age 4 (country schools weren’t fussy about such things back in the ’30s) and because I memorized easily, I was given an impressively long “piece” to speak in the annual holiday program. I knew it backward and forward, but when my older classmates pulled the curtains open and I saw all those strange faces staring at me, I couldn’t say a word.
After an agonizing minute or two, the curtain-pullers mercifully obscured me from public view. A shadow of that terror I felt is still with me, and it is a fact that I am not happy to be in front of an audience — stage, screen or radio. Therefore, I give short speeches, brief responses, and pretty much speak when I am spoken to. The only reason I’m in public view at all is because my causes have been most unpopular, and the things that needed to be said no one else was saying.
Yet, predictably, because I am a woman, and the causes that I promote are perceived by some as threatening, I am labeled “abrasive” and “inflammatory.”
“Ladies” sometimes join sexist males in putting down feminists.
Edith Rein is a name most of you won’t recognize. If you live in Wisconsin, you should — she was a very early and effective abortion rights activist from Milwaukee, referring many desperate women for abortions in the 1960s when it was not only an unpopular thing to do, but a dangerous thing to do.
I had heard about Edie and asked a mutual acquaintance, the lady-like conservative wife of an ultraconservative physician, what she was like. The response was, “Oh, she’s wild!”
When I finally met Edie, I was braced for a fire-breathing dragon. What I found was the gentlest, most mild-mannered, thoughtful person you could hope to know. Edie was a woman whose cause was not socially acceptable — therefore she was “wild.”
In my work for freethought and feminism, I have been interviewed by many press people. Invariably I hear, “But you’re so quiet. You’re so soft-spoken.” Or, tactfully, “I was expecting someone much different.” And, in the memorable case of a wire service reporter, “My boss (male) told me to ‘go out and interview that nut.’”
My introduction to the double standard for outspoken men versus outspoken women came about during one of the first talk shows I did in Madison in 1970 on the abortion issue. My host was a radio personality who has long since gone on to grace TV in another city. It was obvious from the first that he was unhappy with my pro-abortion, anti-religion philosophy and responses which, at that point, were tentatively if not timidly expressed. Midway through the program I got my talk-show-sexism initiation as he demanded out of the blue: “Why are you being so abrasive?”
Incidentally, his very presence on TV today is illustrative of the double standard. He is one of the most physically unattractive men I have ever met; a woman with looks in that league would not be allowed in front of a TV camera at all, much less be paid to be there.
The culmination in sexist treatment for me by a media male was my contact with Phil Donahue, of talk show notoriety, who may be trying to be a feminist but surely has a long way to go. I was not a particular Donahue fan, but I respected his showmanship and his willingness to air controversial topics. I appreciated, too, the program’s spontaneity — there is almost none of that left on television, which has programmed itself down to the second.
I had not asked to be a guest on “The Donahue Show.” They had heard about me somewhere, and my invitation originated with them. I had been asked to send some information about myself, which I did — a one-page bio sheet with my book, “Abortion Is a Blessing,” prominently mentioned. When I got to the studio I told Donahue’s assistant, to whom I had sent my bio data, that I had brought my book.
“Oh,” she said. “I didn’t know you had a book. Let’s have it.”
There followed what can only be described as a pregnant pause.
“Oh,” she said again. “I don’t think Phil will want to show this.”
Indeed, Phil didn’t. He came trotting in, obviously disturbed, and said he could never show my book — it was “tasteless” and would “create a shock wave across America.” Nervous about the program, I felt my confidence ebbing as Phil elaborated on his anti-my-book views. It was very apparent to me and my husband, Paul, that he was unhappy with his guest. I was then informed the first few minutes of the show were terribly important — that was when people decided whether to stay tuned, and that I (a non-actress who had just been rather pointedly criticized) must exhibit “enthusiasm.”
Phil then turned to my husband and asked, “How would you like to be on the show?” Nonplussed (it was his very first TV invitation), my husband referred the question to me. “I am a feminist,” I told Phil. “I would like to speak for myself.” And that was the end of any possible “rapport.” Phil looked grim, his face closed down, and we went on to the set. The cameras turned, and good old Phil left me sitting there on stage and spent most of that long hour in the audience.
The topic was religion and women’s rights. I was able to make a few statements, expressing my opinion that the bible was a rather sexist book. At one point, Phil, tearing himself away from the born-agains, bore down on me, asking out of the blue (you guessed it): “Why are you so vitriolic?”
During a commercial, when the program was almost over, I watched as a self-satisfied Phil came arrogantly down the aisle toward me and I thought, “You sexist! I am your invited guest and by every measure of courtesy you should be putting me at ease and giving me a chance to talk. But because my book offended your Catholic bias and because I do not meet your male standards of smiling effusiveness, you have tried to humiliate me.”
This, I decided, was a game that two could play.
I had interrupted no one throughout the show, but the woman who phoned in next got short shrift. She was taking exception to my earlier statement that religion had too much power in the media. “Let me tell you about the power of religion,” I said (or words to that effect — I never saw the program). “I am probably the first person ever to appear on ‘The Donahue Show’ whose book could not be shown because of religious prejudice. Because I dared to write a pro-abortion book with a positive title about abortion, my book may not be shown.”
Phil turned several satisfying shades of red — and the argument was on.
“I have referred thousands of women for abortions,” I finally got to say. “They have been as young as 12 and as old as 52. Many of them have had nine and 10 children. Many have been ill. I know that abortion is a blessing. It is a blessing for women and a blessing for society.” From all reports, including his own, Phil got all kinds of personal flak from that program — viewers had a glimpse of the real Phil Donahue and I, inflammatory person that I am, got more than 1,000 letters, three out of four of them pro-me.
To those women who list the media as a major impediment to women’s equality, I say, “You’re absolutely right.” There is a feminist reporter here and there who will be helpful, but the opinion shapers in this country are male for the most part and far more interested in football than in human rights.
The Equal Rights Amendment would have whizzed through years ago had the media cared to document its seriousness. Instead, they chose to make a media star out of Phyllis Schlafly.
Had modern television and radio been around at the time of another social revolution, when the abolitionists were educating about freedom for Black people, the chains of slavery would still be clanking. The merits of the issue of freedom would have been ignored as the networks interviewed the clergy about the sanctity of slavery and Simon Legree graced “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press.”
Until feminists become the publishers, the editors, the station owners, the program directors and the hosts, we will have that insidious double standard and women’s rights will continue to be in jeopardy.
One Response
He was funny sometimes when he would start in on someone. I always wondered if he was just trying to make the show seem more controversial or if he actually had conviction about whatever he was pontificating about. I loved waking up to his 11 a.m. time slot in Utah. I had a janitor business and that was about the time I was waking up.
My oldest was so cute back then. He pronounced his name “Donnacutes”. 🙂