Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Moreover, there is serious doubt about the ability of a society to progress if it stifles the development of half its population.

We can no longer afford to channel women into the role of childbearer and career. Not only is this role too narrow, it is simply dangerous to the quality of life, to our resources and to our environment to confine women so that they will have too many children.

Overpopulation is no longer a shadow hovering in the distant future; it is a very real threat for our lifetime. Masses of people are demanding an ever higher standard of living; but we are faced with the possibility that our resources may not support even minimum standards for the numbers that unchecked population growth will produce. With an ever lengthening life span, a trend to smaller families, and an increasing interest in a lifelong career, today's women present a new challenge to the male-dominated society. Acceptance and encouragement of fully achieving women will enrich society, but thwarting the aspirations of half the population will lead to ever-increasing conflict.

Open the doors of opportunity a little. Pass the equal rights amendment-in its original form, without change or addition. Please do not create further delay by tying the amendment up with other legislation, such as the 18-year-old vote or direct presidential election.

Women have waited too long already. It is way past time to show American women that they can work within the system to achieve justice and full opportunity.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Cook. Thank you so much, Mrs. Faust. I appreciate it. I will not ask any questions, as I have stated, because I can only congratulate you for your statement.

Mrs. FAUST. Thank you.

Senator Cook. I wonder if Mary Lou Burg is here. Miss Burg is the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU BURG, VICE CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Miss BURG. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to present the statement.

However, in deference to your time and to the time of the people in this room, may I just say that I am submitting my statement for the record.

I am wholeheartedly for the amendment as it stands, the House Joint Resolution 264, and I urge its passage.

Thank you very much.

(The statement follows:)

TESTIMONY OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL VICE CHAIRMAN MARY LOU BURG FOR THE U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Mr. Chairman, as Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee I have become increasingly aware that many of the women in this country, representing various women's liberation groups already have or are in the process of losing faith in governmental processes and electoral politics as a method of achieving their goals and redressing their grievances. As a person committed to one political party-and dedicated to the concept of our two party governmental system, I am alarmed and distressed by this growing alienation. I believe that something less than militancy is effective . . . yet the voices of women's activist groups across the nation become more strident and suggest that an even more

rampant militancy might be the wave of the future if women's struggle for equality in a society based on liberty and enlightenment is denied.

The movement is here the idea whose time has come is here. As a woman who chose a career of business and politics and who has pursued that career for almost 20 years, I know from first hand experience that if all people are created equal, some are created more equal than others. And that is what my statement is all about.

The legal, economic, educational, professional-and regrettably the political facts of life cry out from all sides that women are not treated as equals. We have, regardless of ability, talent, effort and determination, been the object of a colossal put-down.

The issue before this subcommittee is the Equal Rights Amendment. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this amendment, first introduced in the Congress of the United States in 1923 and again being debated now, 47 years later, is that women are still unequal to men in the eyes of the law. I find it ironic that 194 years after the Declaration of Independence stated "all men are created equal" I am here today to enter a plea for an amendment that is in effect a matter of simple justice. It's also strange that after stating the previous history, I, along with many, many others still encounter a "what's the hurry" reaction.

The desire to be recognized, accepted and treated as equals under the law should have no gestation period. It was a matter of simple justice then-it is a matter of simple justice now.

The backers of the Equal Rights Amendment are often called radical. Why? Certainly women of the United Automobile Workers aren't radical-or for that matter the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, or the Federation of Republican Women, or the National Council of Colored Women's Clubs, or the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Certainly Presidents Kennedy and Johnson didn't appoint radicals to high governmental positionsnor has President Nixon appointed radicals to the Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities and to the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Certainly Senator Smith is not a radical-or Congresswomen Griffiths and Dwyer.

What is the position of women radicals? The Communist Party of the United States has long opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and recently re-affirmed its opposition in a pamphlet called "Enter Fighting: Today's Women, A MarxistLeninist View" by Clara Colon, published in March, 1970.

Even a superficial acquaintance with the women's liberation movement would lead one to suspect that the revolutionary radicals of the movement would be opposed, since they believe the system is so corrupt that it must be torn down. Both the August issues of "It Ain't Me Babe," the Berkeley women's liberation paper, attacked the Equal Rights Amendment urging its amendment along the lines of the Hayden Rider, which nullifies the amendment. "Off Our Backs," the Washington, D.C. women's liberation paper, said when announcing the May hearings, "For those who still believe in the power of the Constitutional Amendment to change social conditions, the subcommittee will hold hearings, etc."

I don't want to imply that all the women in women's liberation groups take the same position on any subject or that all of them are revolutionary. There is no national structure and there are no national positions. The beliefs and tone vary widely from one group to another, but many are strongly under the influence of the more radical elements of the SDS, and I think it is fair to say as Eileen Shanahan did in her August 16th article in the New York Times "The Equal Rights Amendment has become a top priority issue with many women's groups, though not the most radical ones, such as Women's Liberation." I think it is important to note here that the women's liberation movement is a generic term and includes women aligned in groups plus women not specifically aligned at all, but who feel the spirit. Meanwhile "Women's Liberation is one specific group.

It must also be understood that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment are women and men, young, middle aged, and old-white and black, who are strongly committed to our Constitutional system, and who are seeking to strengthen it through the proper channels.

I am committed to this approach because I still believe in the system. I want it to work. I think it can. I know it must.

Forty-seven years, however, is a long time to wait for something that should be ours as a birthright. And now we're in yet another hearing-reviving all the old arguments-listening to all the familiar bromides-when the central point,

the heart of the matter is, and was, equality of rights under the law without regard to sex!

There is a special concern about the legislation already on the books protecting women. But is it protection or is it insulation? Insulating women from opportunity is not protection. Keeping us from higher wages and equal pay for equal work is not an advantage. Preventing faster promotion based on merit is no service. And denying us positions of leadership and policy making is denying this country the utilization of all its resources. We don't want this kind of protection. We don't want these favors. We want to be accepted as human beings, free, independent people with all the coinciding benefits-equal compensation, equal opportunity and a partnership of effort. For example, the State of Delaware repealed all of its state labor laws applying only to women in 1966. The Delaware Department of Labor and Industrial Relations reports no complaints or problems to date relative to this repeal.

Women will no longer be quiescent on this basic right. Our mood is changing. Our will has changed. Now I realize that many women are happy and feel complete as wives, mothers and homemakers. I have no quarrel with that. I don't want to change that nor do I want to disturb marriage and the family institution. They are the very foundations of western civilization. They're ennobling and enriching. I merely want recognition of the achievement potential of more than half the population of this country. I want this Amendment to reflect in a positive way an expression of national policy.

I hope this Congress does what the 5th, 14th and 19th Amendments-and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not-correct the void in our Constitution by ratifying us as first class citizens with equal rights under the law. And I urge passage in the United States Senate of the same resolution, House Joint Resolution No. 264, without change and without amendment.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much. We are delighted to have you and we are delighted to put your statement into the record in toto. We have a gentleman here who both Senator Cotton and Senator McIntyre have requested have an opportunity to speak to the committee.

We are delighted to have you, sir. Would you give your name to the reporter, please?

STATEMENT OF HENRY BAILEY STEVENS, DHL, DIRECTOR EMERITUS OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SECRETARY OF MEN'S LEAGUE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Mr. STEVENS. I am Henry B. Stevens. I have been director emeritus of the extension work at the University of New Hampshire for many years.

I come here as a surviving member of the Young Men's League, which used to operate in the early teen years of this century and gave the women some help in getting their vote. I cut down my testimony to 3 minutes, but I will file that and simply say that in this Men's League of the old days, the men were not concerned just in getting the vote help, to get the vote for women, they were greatly imbued with a need to have equality across the board.

Miss Paul has been urging me to develop now a men's league for equal rights. I think that as I look over the great majority which the amendment received in the House and the commitment of all of so many of the Senators here in the 91st Congress is pretty much a men's league anyway.

I would say that as a textbook this 800-page report of the committee of the hearings last May is full of confirming evidence that this bill should be passed, and I want to compliment you on your patience, sir, and I will take no more of your time.

As a surviving member of the Men's League in the suffrage movement and as assistant editor of the historic Woman's Journal, 1912-17, I promised Alice Paul at the Jeannette Rankin dinner here last June that I would endeavor to express again the partnership of men in furthering this great drive of women to achieve an equality of the sexes and that specifically I would come down from New Hampshire to testify at this hearing. I assumed that the opponents of the women's rights amendment had discovered new objections since your hearings of last May with the same facility which the antisuffragists used to show in the teen-age years of this century.

Reading in the New York Times last week the testimony of Myra H. Wolfgang of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union and the legal argument of Professor Paul A. Freund of Harvard regarding women and the draft, I thought "This is it the new attack, the attempt at final rebuttal."

But, gentlemen, the next day I received in the mail this copy of the hearings of May 5-7. This 800-page report is a remarkable compilation of all the arguments for and against the amendment.

Mrs. Wolfgang had already said her say. She did not need to return to harangue the lady lawyers and the Business and Professional Women of America.

Professor Freund could only appear in person to repeat his fear of legal implications already uttered for him last May by Mr. Meiklejohn. These old arguments_were_completely demolished by the detailed evidence of Marguerite Rawalt, Jacqueline Gutwillig, Virginia Allan, Caroline Bird and many others.

The book is so full of constructive and timely material that I think it must have given Congresswoman Martha Griffiths courage to break through the age-old dam in the House and to lead the way for the smashing victory of this vital cause. Surely, with more than two-thirds of the Senate long pledged in favor, the 91st Congress will make a great step to the liberation of women.

I can add little to this powerful testimony except to assure you that the leaders of the presuffrage Men's League James Lees Laidlaw, Dudley Field Malone, Winston Churchill the novelist, Witter Bynner the poet, Judge Ben Lindsay and many others were by no means concerned along with winning the vote for women. They had a deep feeling for equality across the board.

But you gentlemen are on a tight schedule. You heard the case last May and it has not changed, except that it has indeed been strengthened by today's testimony.

I can only compliment you upon the scope and generosity of your hearings.

Senator Cook. Thank you so very much, and it is nice to have you here.

Miss Bostanian.

STATEMENT OF MISS ARMENE E. BOSTANIAN

Miss BOSTANIAN. My name is Armene E. Bostanian. Thank you, Senator Cook, for permitting me to have 1 minute.

The reason I do not have a prepared statement is that by telephone I was advised that only legal scholars were intended to be heard at this hearing.

Senator Cook. Well, you have seen that that has not been the case. Miss BOSTANIAN. Sir, I have such an important point to make, and I wouldn't make it if any of the legal scholars had pointed it out, but I feel that no one could be aware of this point unless he had experienced what is involved.

I would like you to know that I am a career civil servant who after coming up for promotion several times, when I was the highest woman in a bureau, was dropped instead of being promoted, without a prior hearing.

I am now negotiating for my reinstatement and restoration.

Persons attempting, they say, to help me, have shown me the following statement from the responsible officials in the executive department involved. I will read this statement:

"There is no statute applying to the Department of Labor which requires it not to discriminate against women."

Now, this leaves, or this uncertaintly by executives recognizes that they do not regard the mandate of an Executive order as equivalent to a statutory obligation. Therefore, of course, I am unable to indicate to what extent such thinking exists among executives in the executive department. But from my own experience, and this statement, I can only conclude that to protect the equal employment opportunities for employment and promotion of all Federal women, we must have this equal rights for women amendment now, absolutely now.

I, for one, can no longer tolerate having my annuity and my career confiscated by such arbitrary thinking as I have quoted.

Thank you.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Miss Bostanian. I think there are probably more situations of this kind in Government at all levels than obviously any of us know, and we are delighted to have your remarks.

I would like to give recognition to the fact that Miss Avery, who is an attorney in Richmond, has been with us during all of this, and I would like to thank her for having sat through this, and I would also like to say that I think all during May and all during this time, that Mrs. Broy and I have been holding down all of these things, is that not correct, Mrs. Broy?

Mrs. BROY. Yes.

Senator Cook. I think we have held it down since this started.
Miss Avery.

STATEMENT OF MISS NINA HORTON AVERY

Miss AVERY. I am Nina Horton Avery, a practicing attorney-at-law of Richmond, Va.

Mr. Chairman, I especially want to express my appreciation of your being here today. I congratulate you on what I consider phenomenal patience and your noble effort to keep the testimony to the point, equality of rights under the law.

I am chairman of the Women's Joint Legislative Committee for the Equal Rights for Women Amendment to the Constitution, and that committee is composed of representatives from all of the national organizations in the country which support and which have endorsed and are working for the passage of the amendment. I have a list of

« AnteriorContinuar »