Homework answers / question archive / Announcements Dashboard Courses Syllabus Modules Discussions Groups Inbox Labster Dashboard Online Tutoring Library History Studio Student Support Amendment Speech Grades People Calendar 13

Announcements Dashboard Courses Syllabus Modules Discussions Groups Inbox Labster Dashboard Online Tutoring Library History Studio Student Support Amendment Speech Grades People Calendar 13

Sociology

Share With

Announcements Dashboard Courses Syllabus Modules Discussions Groups Inbox Labster Dashboard Online Tutoring Library History Studio Student Support Amendment Speech Grades People Calendar 13.4A Primary Source Shirley A. Chisholm Equal Rights CityZoom Primary Sources Primary sources are the original historic ar!facts from an era. They can be speeches, le"ers, poetry, films, photographs, menus, diaries, Congressional legisla!on, newspaper ar!cles, books, pain!ngs, statues, inven!ons, children's toys, clothing, household goods, and more. We explore primary sources in order to gain a more in!mate perspec!ve with history. Nothing compares to reading the words of the people themselves as they describe their experiences and desires. Historians use these primary sources as the evidence that more general historical analyses are based on. Remember to consider the author within their own !me period. Many of the ideas we will encounter as we explore the primary sources of United States history might make us uncomfortable today. The values, language, and ideas exposed might be o?ensive by today's standards. Avoid judging past authors by today's standards. Try to accept the author's views as sincere. Even when we know today that they are incorrect. Even when perhaps they should have known be"er then. This is how we can learn from the past. Read through all of the primary sources provided in each module. Build them into your History Notebook. You will be doing the work of an historian in this course by basing your own wri"en historical analyses in each module on the primary sources. Introduc!on to Shirley A. Chisholm Help 14 Pronto Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman elected to the House of Representa!ves. She was a Democrat represen!ng the state of New York. She was the first woman to run for President as a Democrat and the first woman to appear in a presiden!al elec!on debate. Her parents were immigrants from the Caribbean. Shirley Chisholm a"ended school in a one room school house. Chisholm was an educator before entering poli!cs. Please read the following transcript carefully, paying a"en!on to the ra!onale behind the changes desired: Shirley Chisholm Speech on Behalf of the Equal Rights Amendment 1970 Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 264, before us today, which provides for equality under the law for both men and women, represents one of the most clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in the principles that shaped our Constitution. It provides a legal basis for attack on the most subtle, most pervasive, and most institutionalized form of prejudice that exists. Discrimination against women, solely on the basis of their sex, is so widespread that is seems to many persons normal, natural and right. Legal expression of prejudice on the grounds of religious or political belief has become a minor problem in our society. Prejudice on the basis of race is, at least, under systematic attack. There is reason for optimism that it will start to die with the present, older generation. It is time we act to assure full equality of opportunity to those citizens who, although in a majority, suffer the restrictions that are commonly imposed on minorities, to women. The argument that this amendment will not solve the problem of sex discrimination is not relevant. If the argument were used against a civil rights bill -- as it has been used in the past -- the prejudice that lies behind it would be embarrassing. Of course laws will not eliminate prejudice from the hearts of human beings. But that is no reason to allow prejudice to continue to be enshrined in our laws -- to perpetuate injustice through inaction. The amendment is necessary to clarify countless ambiguities and inconsistencies in our legal system. For instance, the Constitution guarantees due process of law, in the 5th and 14th amendments. But the applicability of due process of sex distinctions is not clear: Women are excluded from some State colleges and universities. In some States, restrictions are placed on a married woman who engages in an independent business. Women may not be chosen for some juries. Women even receive heavier criminal penalties than men who commit the same crime. What would the legal effects of the equal rights amendment really be? The equal rights amendment would govern only the relationship between the State and its citizens -- not relationships between private citizens. The amendment would be largely self-executing, that is, and Federal or State laws in conflict would be ineffective one year after date of ratification without further action by the Congress or State legislatures. Opponents of the amendment claim its ratification would throw the law into a state of confusion and would result in much litigation to establish its meaning. This objection overlooks the influence of legislative history in determining intent and the recent activities of many groups preparing for legislative changes in this direction. State labor laws applying only to women, such as those limiting hours of work and weights to be lifted would become inoperative unless the legislature amended them to apply to men. As of early 1970, most States would have some laws that would be affected. However, changes are being made so rapidly as a result of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is likely that by the time the Equal Rights Amendment would become effective, no conflicting State laws would remain. In any event, there has for years been great controversy as to the usefulness to women of these State labor laws. There has never been any doubt that they worked a hardship on women who need or want to work overtime and on women who need or want better paying jobs; and there has been no persuasive evidence as to how many women benefit from the archaic policy of the laws. After the Delaware hours law was repealed in 1966, there were no complaints from women to any of the State agencies that might have been approached. Jury service laws not making women equally liable for jury service would have been revised. The selective service law would have to include women, but women would not be required to serve in the Armed Forces where they are not fitted any more than men are required to serve. Military service, while a great responsibility, is not without benefits, particularly for young men with limited education or training. Since October 1966, 246,000 young men who did not meet the normal mental or physical requirements have been given opportunities for training and correcting physical problems. This opportunity is not open to their sisters. Only girls who have completed high school and meet high standards on the educational test can volunteer. Ratification of the amendment would not permit application of higher standards to women. Survivorship benefits would be available to husbands of female workers on the same basis as to wives of male workers. The Social Security Act and the civil service and military service retirement acts are in conflict. Public schools and universities could not be limited to one sex and could not apply different admission standards to men and women. Laws requiring longer prison sentences for women than men would be invalid, and equal opportunities for rehabilitation and vocational training would have to be provided in public correctional institutions. Different ages of majority based on sex would have to be harmonized. Federal, State, and other governmental bodies would be obligated to follow nondiscriminatory practices in all aspects of employment, including public school teachers and State university and college faculties. What would be the economic effects of the Equal Rights Amendment? Direct economic effects would be minor. If any labor laws applying only to women still remained, their amendment or repeal would provide opportunity for women in better-paying jobs in manufacturing. More opportunities in public vocational and graduate schools for women would also tend to open up opportunities in better jobs for women. Indirect effects could be much greater. The focusing of public attention on the gross legal, economic, and social discrimination against women by hearings and debates in the Federal and State legislatures would result in changes in attitude of parents, educators, and employers that would bring about substantial economic changes in the long run. Sex prejudice cuts both ways. Men are oppressed by the requirements of the Selective Service Act, by enforced legal guardianship of minors, and by alimony laws. Each sex, I believe, should be liable when necessary to serve and defend this country. Each has a responsibility for the support of children. There are objections raised to wiping out laws protecting women workers. No one would condone exploitation. But what does sex have to do with it. Working conditions and hours that are harmful to women are harmful to men; wages that are unfair for women are unfair for men. Laws setting employment limitations on the basis of sex are irrational, and the proof of this is their inconsistency from State to State. The physical characteristics of men and women are not fixed, but cover two wide spans that have a great deal of overlap. It is obvious, I think, that a robust woman could be more fit for physical labor than a weak man. The choice of occupation would be determined by individual capabilities, and the rewards for equal works should be equal. This is what it comes down to: artificial distinctions between persons must be wiped out of the law. Legal discrimination between the sexes is, in almost every instance, founded on outmoded views of society and the pre-scientific beliefs about psychology and physiology. It is time to sweep away these relics of the past and set future generations free of them. Federal agencies and institutions responsible for the enforcement of equal opportunity laws need the authority of a Constitutional amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act are not enough; they are limited in their coverage -- for instance, one excludes teachers, and the other leaves out administrative and professional women. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has not proven to be an adequate device, with its power limited to investigation, conciliation, and recommendation to the Justice Department. In its cases involving sexual discrimination, it has failed in more than one-half. The Justice Department has been even less effective. It has intervened in only one case involving discrimination on the basis of sex, and this was on a procedural point. In a second case, in which both sexual and racial discrimination were alleged, the racial bias charge was given far greater weight. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of sex should hardly have to be cited here. It is in the Labor Department’s employment and salary figures for anyone who is still in doubt. Its elimination will involve so many changes in our State and Federal laws that, without the authority and impetus of this proposed amendment, it will perhaps take another 194 years. We cannot be parties to continuing a delay. The time is clearly now to put this House on record for the fullest expression of that equality of opportunity which our Founding Fathers professed. They professed it, but they did not assure it to their daughters, as they tried to do for their sons. The Constitution they wrote was designed to protect the rights of white, male citizens. As there were no black Founding Fathers, there were no founding mothers -- a great pity, on both counts. It is not too late to complete the work they left undone. Today, here, we should start to do so. In closing, I would like to make one point: Social and psychological effects will be initially more important than legal or economic results. As Leo Kanowitz has pointed out: Rules of law that treat of the sexes per se [inevitably] produce far-reaching effects upon social, psychological and economic aspects of malefemale relations beyond the limited confines of legislative chambers and courtrooms. As long as organized legal systems, at once the most respected and most feared of social institutions, continue to differentiate sharply, in treatment or in words, between men and women on the basis of irrelevant and artificially created distinctions, the likelihood of men and women coming to regard one another primarily as fellow human beings and only secondarily as representatives of another sex will continue to be remote. When men and women are prevented from recognizing one another’s essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become. ! HIST 1-The U.S. Since 19… Pages 13.4B Primary Source NPR Interview with Phyllis Schlafly "Why Feminism Has Made Women Unhappy" SPRING 2021 Account Home Announcements Dashboard Courses Syllabus Modules Discussions Groups Grades People Calendar Inbox Labster Dashboard Online Tutoring Library History Studio Student Support 13.4B Primary Source NPR Interview with Phyllis Schlafly "Why Feminism Has Made Women Unhappy" CityZoom Primary Sources Primary sources are the original historic ar!facts from an era. They can be speeches, le"ers, poetry, films, photographs, menus, diaries, Congressional legisla!on, newspaper ar!cles, books, pain!ngs, statues, inven!ons, children's toys, clothing, household goods, and more. We explore primary sources in order to gain a more in!mate perspec!ve with history. Nothing compares to reading the words of the people themselves as they describe their experiences and desires. Historians use these primary sources as the evidence that more general historical analyses are based on. Remember to consider the author within their own !me period. Many of the ideas we will encounter as we explore the primary sources of United States history might make us uncomfortable today. The values, language, and ideas exposed might be o?ensive by today's standards. Avoid judging past authors by today's standards. Try to accept the author's views as sincere. Even when we know today that they are incorrect. Even when perhaps they should have known be"er then. This is how we can learn from the past. Read through all of the primary sources provided in each module. Build them into your History Notebook. You will be doing the work of an historian in this course by basing your own wri"en historical analyses in each module on the primary sources. Introduc!on to Phyllis Schlafly Help 14 Pronto Phyllis Schlafly is credited with stopping the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. A mother of six, she a"ended law school and founded the Eagle's Forum, a staunchly conserva!ve poli!cal organiza!on. She ac!vely opposed the feminist movement. Her 1972 speech opposing the Equal Rights Amendment contains the following points: American women are the most privileged group to have ever existed in a society The United States is founded on respect for the basic unit of the family. This founda!on on the basic unit of the family is based on the fact that God gave women the ability to have babies and not men. Because men cannot have babies, they have to make sacrifices in other ways. The Chris!an system of male chivalry that developed in the Middle Ages is the founda!on of men's sacrifice to society and provides the protec!ons necessary for women to fulfill their role as mothers. This is evidenced by the respect shown to Mary, Jesus' mother. The American system of free enterprise has created technologies that make child rearing and home making even easier for American women. These protec!ons are the basis of freedom for American women to fulfill their role as mothers. The Equal Rights Amendment threatens these protec!ons for American women. It would create gender-neutral bathrooms and require women to be included in the dra$. The women's libera!on movement is "a total assault on the family, on marriage, and on children." You can read the en!re What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women? 1972 speech if you wish. In 2014 Phyllis Schlafly was interviewed on NPR. She explained why she believed that feminism had made American women unhappy. You can listen to the interview and/or read the transcript that follows. Please read the following transcript carefully, paying a"en!on to the ra!onale behind why American women are unhappy. Phyllis Schlafly 2014 NPR Interview Transcript MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And now we're going to hear from a woman with a very di?erent take on things. Phyllis Schlafly is without a doubt a conserva"ve icon. She's a mother, a lawyer, a columnist, author, a radio host - one of her biggest achievements though, was her campaign to stop the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1970s. Here's a clip of her talking about this in 1978. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there's nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obliga"on of the husband to provide the support. It is his obliga"on and his sole obliga"on. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed. MARTIN: And, in part thanks to her, it wasn't. The amendment fell short by three states, largely due to her grassroots campaigning. She didn't stop there though - I spoke with her in 2011 about what was her latest book at the "me "The Flipside Of Feminism" and I started by asking her when she became a cri"c of the movement. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST) SCHLAFLY: When I went to the hearings for the Equal Rights Amendment and I heard what they were saying, and they had absolutely no benefit to o?er women, but we could see a lot of disadvantages in it. MARTIN: What is it that you saw that made you feel that way? SCHLAFLY: What that amendment would do is to make all laws sex-neutral. Well, the typical, classic law that is not sex-neutral is the dra# registra"on law. And we were s"ll in the Vietnam War in 1972. I had sons and daughters about age 18. My daughters thought this was the craziest thing they ever heard. You're going to have a new amendment for women? And the first thing is they'll have to sign up for the dra# like their brothers. Now, that was an unsalable proposi"on. MARTIN: Is it true that you took the bar exam wearing a disguise so that you wouldn't be inundated... SCHLAFLY: Well, yes. MARTIN: ...By the media? SCHLAFLY: My children didn't want me to take the bar exam because they were afraid that if I failed, like Ted Kennedy, it would be on the front page. So I wore the black wig and went up and nobody recognized me the first day. But the second day of the exam, when I le#, I walked right into the arms of a Chicago Tribune photographer and reporter. MARTIN: And you did pass. SCHLAFLY: Of course I passed. MARTIN: How did you manage though - as a mother of six, as your husband was - certainly had a busy career of his own, and being as significant a na"onal figure as you have been - how did you manage? SCHLAFLY: Well, poli"cs was my hobby. And I really spent 25 years as a full-"me homemaker before I did any par"cular traveling around. And by that "me, the children were well along in school or college. And they were very suppor"ve. My husband was very suppor"ve. I told the feminists the only person's permission I had to get was my husband's. MARTIN: Talk a li$le bit about the new book, if you would. What is it - your message in this book - that you feel is par"cularly current for today? SCHLAFLY: A lot of people don't understand what feminism is. They think it is about advance and success for women, but it's not that at all. It is about power for the female le#. And they have this, I think, ridiculous idea that American women are oppressed by the patriarchy and we need laws and government to solve our problems for us. They have made their close alliance with the Obama administra"on. And they're always crying around about things like the di?erences between men and women are just a social construct. So they're really in a fight with human nature. I would not want to be called a feminist. The feminists don't believe in success for women and, of course, I believe that American women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on the face of the earth, can do anything they make up their minds to do. MARTIN: Do you feel that feminism has made any contribu"on to American life? SCHLAFLY: No. I think it's made women unhappy - it's - to make them believe that we live in a discriminatory and unjust society, and that they should look to government to solve their problems. MARTIN: What is your advice to the young women in your family - and the men - for that ma$er? SCHLAFLY: Well, I think as we say in the book, that it's unfortunate that colleges and women's studies courses guide women to a career path that has no space for men, marriage or children. And I think you should plot a life that will give you the joy of marriage and children. MARTIN: You know, I hear many young men say that they want careers that will allow them to more fully enjoy family life too. SCHLAFLY: Well, I think so. But they find - some of the women say they don't want to take care of their own babies. I don't know why a man would marry a woman like that. I tell the college kids they ought to find out if the girl they're da"ng is a feminist or not. MARTIN: I guess what I was asking is - I hear a lot of young men say that they want the same thing. They want careers that will allow them to enjoy family life as well. Is that wrong? SCHLAFLY: No, it's not wrong. But I do think that gender roles are valid. We do look to the men to be providers and protectors. Now there's some people who successfully plan it another way and they don't have to get my permission to do that. (LAUGHTER) SCHLAFLY: They simply have to find a young man who wants to do that. MARTIN: Can I ask you about race for a minute? There is a very large percentage of out-of-wedlock birth in the black community. But African-American women on the whole are not terribly suppor"ve of the feminist movement - have not been kind of strongly iden"fied with it, do embrace marriage, don't embrace a lot of the an"-male rhetoric that you're so cri"cal of. And yet, marriage is not as prominent in our community - in the African-American community - as it was even in 1959... SCHLAFLY: Yeah. Well, I... MARTIN: I'm just curious why you think that is. In 1959, for example, African Americans were more likely to be married than whites were, but now it's the reverse and I'm just wondering if you have an opinion about that. SCHLAFLY: Yes. And you realize it's not poverty that's caused that because all during the Great Depression, the black family was intact and together and they didn't have these handouts. I think when Lyndon Johnson ins"tuted lavish welfare, they gave the money only to the woman and that made the father irrelevant. He lacked his role, his duty as a provider, so he took o?. And that is just simply so unfortunate. The illegi"macy rate is now ge%ng very large - even across the board among the white people. And it's too bad because we know that most of the social ills come out of mother-headed households. So if you're asking me for the cause, it doesn't really have anything to do with race. It has to do with the financial subsidies that were given to women, making the father provider irrelevant. MARTIN: As we men"oned, this is a Wisdom Watch conversa"on, so we always like to end by asking - do you have some wisdom that you want to share? SCHLAFLY: Well, yes. I would say, don't be taken in by feminism. Just remember, American women are so fortunate. When I got married, all I wanted in the world was a dryer so I didn't have to hang up my diapers. And now women have paper diapers and all sorts of conveniences in the home. And it is the men and the technology that has made the home such a pleasant place for women to be. So I hope they will use that pleasant place to raise their children. MARTIN: That was the conserva"ve author and ac"vist Phyllis Schafly, speaking to me in 2011. Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further informa"on.