who remains as a child throughout his adult life is an object, not a mature specimen, and the definition of a child is: one without responsibility.

At the very center of all human life is energy, psychic energy. It is the force of that energy that drives us, that surges continually up in us, that must perpetually be reaching for something beyond itself. It is the imperative of that energy that has determined man's characteristic interest, problem-solving. The modern ecologist attests to the driving need by demonstrating that in time when all the real problems are solved man makes up new ones in order to go on solving. He must have work, work that he considers real and serious, or he will die. Even if he does not die of starvation. That is the one characteristic of human beings. And it is the only characteristic, above all others, that the accidentally dominant white male asserts is not necessary to more than half the members of the race, i.e., the female of the species. This assertion is quite simply a lie. Nothing more, nothing less. A lie. That energy is alive in every woman in the world. It lies trapped and dormant, like a growing tumor, and at its center here is despair, hot, deep, wordless.

No man worth his salt does not wish to be a husband and father; yet no man is raised to be a husband and father only and no man would ever conceive of those relationships as instruments of his prime functions in life. Yet every woman is raised, still, to believe that the fulfillment of these relationships is her prime function in life.

Listening to these young women who put in even more bitter words than I would, because they have been educated in an era when the expectation of human rights for every American has been more than in the era when I grew up and was educated-listening to those words, I ask the question of myself: Am I saying that women have to be liberated from men? That men are the enemy? No, I am not. I am saying that men will only be truly liberated, to love women and to be fully themselves, when women are liberated to be full people. To have a full say in the decision of their life and their society and a full part in that society.

Until that happens, men are going to bear the burden and the guilt of the destiny they have forced upon women, the suppressed resentment of passivity, the sterility of love, when love is not between two fully active, fully participant, fully joyous people, but has in it the element of exploitation.

It is the insensitivity to this fact which I submit is the crux of sexism, and which made me say that Judge Carswell could be called sexually backward.

I say that men will not be fully free to be all that they can be as long as they must live up to an image of masculinity that denies all the tenderness, the sensitivity, in a man that might be considered feminine. Because all men have that in them, as all women have the potential in them of truly active, participant human dignity, women not just as objects, but as subjects of the story. Men, also, have in them enormous capacities that they have to repress and fear in themselves, living up to this obsolete and brutal maneating, bearkilling, Ernest Hemingway, crewcut Prussian sadistic, napalm all the children in Vietnam, bang-bang you're dead, image of masculinity, the image of all powerful masculine superiority that is absolute. All the burdens and responsibilities that men are supposed to shoulder alone, makes them, I think, resent women's pedestal-which I believe Judge Carswell still believes. Up from the pedestal is what young women say. That pedestal, that enforced passivity, may be a burden for women, but it is also a burden for men.

Men are not allowed by their masculinity, or what they believe is their masculinity, to express their resentment against that.

That hostility is so severe today that the rage, the violence implicit there, may explode in the 1970's in a way that will make the violence of the 1960's look almost pale. The violence that is now breeding because of the inequality, the sex discrimination, to which Judge Carswell is so blind, this violence is becoming explosive.

Men are not allowed by the obsolete image of masculinity to express their resentment. Men are not allowed to admit that they have sometimes been afraid. They are not allowed to express their own sensitivities, their own needs, sometimes, to be passive and not always active. Their own ability to cry. So, they are only half human as women are only half human until they have a full voice and a fully active part in our emerging human society.

That is why in your confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court, it is so very important to appoint a man who is at least free of the worse sex prejudices of this country, of this society, not a man who embodies them.

The specific forms and instances of discrimination against women are easy to document. Voluminous evidence demonstrating widespread social and professional discrimination on the basis of sex has been, and continues to be, gathered. This obviously will be coming before the Supreme Court in the 1970's. In most States the domicile of a married woman is that of the husband, which means that she cannot vote or run for office if she lives elsewhere. She cannot legally do business in her own name, and, in many instances, she cannot borrow money or contract for anything without the approval of her husband. This will undoubtedly come before the Supreme Court. Rape by a husband is legal. This will undoubtedly come before the Supreme Court. In many States the husband has complete legal control of all property owned by both jointly. This will obviously come before the Supreme Court in the 1970's. Often laws relating to property passing at death discriminate against women. There is a Supreme Court decision barring women from jury duty, although a recent lower Federal court decision has gone the other way. In some States a woman can be sentenced to jail for a longer period of time than a man who commits the same offense. Women are barred from many publicly funded educational institutions on the one hand, and from publicly licensed places of public accommodations on the other. We are already aware of cases here that will undoubtedly be coming before the Supreme Court in the 1970's. Perhaps the most effective area of discrimination is in employment. This is the nitty-gritty of the issue and this is where Judge Carswell is on record by refusing even to give a hearing to a decision which the chief judge said would make the law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment dead.

Last year 89 percent of the women in the labor force earned less than $5,000, as compared to 40 percent of the men. Further, women are paid 40 percent less than men holding the same jobs. This is shown by U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. Today there are fewer women principals of schools, fewer women professors, and fewer women lawyers than there were in 1950 on a percentage basis.

The percentage of women in executive, decisionmaking jobs, even in traditionally female professions such as schoolteaching, social work,

and library work, is going down. Automation and the advent of new technology reduces blue collar jobs requiring heavy muscles and brings men into some of the jobs previously considered feminine, such as elementary schoolteaching and social work. Yet women, because of sex discrimination in employment and the kind of discrimination that was upheld by Judge Carswell in the Marietta Martin decision, are still being denied access to training opportunities in the jobs in society that are at the frontier and that are not about to be replaced by automation. I submit to you, gentlemen, that you cannot in good conscience, and out of your obligation to the 51 percent of this country who are women, you cannot confirm the appointment of Judge Carswell to the Supreme Court.

Senator HART. I apologize for having to miss some of the testimony. But I enjoyed what I heard, and I think the lecture is deserved. You know, I have been brainwashed on this subject at home. [Laughter.]

Mrs. FRIEDAN. I hope so.

Senator HART. In a way, men, North and South alike, have had the hang-up that some of us suggest our distinguished chairman had when he grew up with reference to another matter, a racial matter. I am sure that in the South, the white man genuinely believed that the black man was happy. It was only when an outside agitator came in that there was trouble; he believed that. In most cases, it did not reflect cruelty, he just instinctively felt that way. Now, of course, most realize that that was not the attitude of the black man; quite the contrary.

Well, most men, until the very recent past, honestly thought that the only unhappy woman was one who did not understand how happy she should be. We just assumed that these roles you have just described were appropriate, inherent in the law of nature, the result of nature's law. Now, you say you hope I am brainwashed. I hope I am. But I think many men are. We do realize that we were making the same wrong assumption about women, their role and their feeling, that perhaps the chairman was making about how happy the fellows were in the field.

You caution us that the revolution by women may be comparable to the revolution of the men in the fields in the South. I do not know. But it would behoove us, not in order to avoid revolution, but to do what makes good sense, to understand the new advice, the feelings that are much more widespread than most men now understand.

It is a fact that we deny ourselves the talents that are lost so long as these idiotic distinctions are drawn. I must say, we even react as men when a woman voices this message sharply. I am sure you are immune by now. But men do hate to be lectured on this subject, especially by a woman as strong as you. But all men should read your book, then maybe we would all have a little better understanding of why your concern is so sharp for us.

Thank you. I hope I escape having a glove laid on me when I get home.

Mrs. FRIEDAN. Thank you, Senator Hart. I think, of course, that men are not the enemy, that they have this, as I say, blindness because

they have been brainwashed by society, as even women themselves have been brainwashed. And they are not the enemy. There is no conspiracy of men against women or to keep them down, to keep them barefoot and/or pregnant or even a conspiracy to keep them out of jobs. I do not believe that. I think that men must have the blindness removed and confront women simply as human beings. This is the essence. We cannot any longer take sex discrimination as a joke in employment or in any other field. Up to now, you know, that has been the simplest way to dismiss it, to take it as a joke. I have even seen certain signs of that here. But I think it is a tribute to the fact that you gentlemen have begun to be aware of the importance of this problem and the new voice that you have permitted me to testify. I have been told, although I do not know whether this is true or not, that I am the first woman representing an organization devoted to women's rights who has ever testified about the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. If so, I think that your having permitted me to do so-while I believe it is certainly our right to have a say is your recognition that you must consider very seriously the interests of the 51 percent of women in confirming this nominee, Judge Carswell, on whose record such a serious question is raised.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bayh?

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I sat here with a great deal of interest not only listening to the words but sensing some of the reaction in the hearing. At the risk of being critical or stepping on toes, I think the fact of some of the reaction here is evidence of a certain amount of male smugness that some of us have.

On the other side, I am hopeful that your voice and others will be successful in really painting the picture, the size of the problem. When we talk about 68 percent of the employed women having no husband, no man in the household, being the sole source of support of those children, I think this dramatizes the problem that we have in the question of employment discrimination. The fact that 75 percent of those women and their families and children are already living in poverty accents the critical nature of this problem.

The injustices that you point out in the last part of your testimony graphically express that many of these are perhaps quite normal concerns involving a woman as a mother, as an integral part of the household, that many of the items of discrimination have no relevancy to a woman being a mother to keep a household together and to minister to the children. I am hoping that the day will come when we can right some of these injustices. I appreciate your addition to the record. Mrs. FRIEDAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cook?

Senator BAYH. Will the Senator yield, please?.

Senator Cook. I always do.

Senator BAYH. You are very kind.

Since Senator Tydings is not here, he wanted me to make an unequivocal statement that he is for women. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Senator Cook. I appreciate it.

Senator Cook. First, let me say that I am delighted that this is a revolution, and I think it should be. I have a daughter who is a sophomore at Northwestern and I have a daughter who I hope will be a freshman at Yale. That in itself is some revolution.

I also hope that for some fairness for you and all the women of the United States that Mrs. Romney does run for the U.S. Senate. [Laughter.] I think we need more women in the Senate.

Senator HART. See how we fall into the trap of making judgments on the basis of sex. This is supposed to be irrelevant. [Laughter.] Senator BAYH. That is not a true test of equality, pitting those two together. [Laughter.]

Senator HART. Would you not agree that that ought to be irrelevant?

Senator Cook. I might also say that I ran against a woman and she was the former president of the National Business and Professional Womens' Clubs. She is a friend of mine, I am fond of her, and it was a fantastic campaign. We truly covered the issues.

Senator HART. If the Senator will yield, I did the same thing in 1964. The lady is now Republican national vice chairman.

Senator Cook. You see, I keep yielding all the time.

There are some things I would like to get straight in all fairness to the nominee. In this ruling, in which Judge Carswell said that no sex discrimination was involved-you will admit that Judge Carswell did not write the opinion of the lower court, did not sit on the case? Mrs. FRIEDAN. But he joined in the denial of the hearing.

Senator Cook. But this was not a court of last resort. The rights of the respective parties were well preserved. You will admit this?

Mrs. FRIEDAN. Yes, but this is such a clearcut case in an area that is of enormous importance in terms of the future, and he is on the record here in a way that women can't take lightly. It is too serious a matter. Senator Cook. You say Judge Carswell justified discrimination against women by the peculiar doctrine of sex-plus? Now, he neither adopted the opinion of the lower court nor adopted the dissenting opinion. Would you agree with this?

Mrs. FRIEDAN. No; because I was here yesterday, and I heard Judge Carswell say in answer, I believe, to a question of Senator Bayh that he did indeed understand that by denying the hearing, denying the request of the Chief Judge Brown for the case to be reheard-as you know, Chief Judge Brown felt it was such a flagrant violation of sex-in denying this, Judge Carswell did indeed understand that he was in effect establishing as a precedent the lower court decision which, as I have said in my testimony, would automatically now mean that any employer in this land could refuse to hire or could summarily fire a woman with children under six. He said he understood that.

Senator Cook. You understand also that Mrs. Phillips was not really applying for a job, she was applying as a trainee for a job, under a program of trainees.

Mrs. FRIEDAN. And women very badly need more job training than they are getting. The problem of high school dropouts today, the highschool dropout rate of girls and especially of black girls and the denial to women of adequate job training in both the private and public sector, is a very, very serious problem.

Senator Cook. Well, let me ask you this: Do you feel that, by reason of the great significance that you put on it, this is his attitude and this will continue to be his attitude?

Mrs. FRIEDAN. Senator, I no more than you, can be a mindreader. I can only judge by the record.