because they are women and dubbed replaceable by President Nixon for his state dinner. These hard-working non-executive union members should inform Mrs. Wolfgang that union dues entitle them to full and equal representation. Apparently she thinks waitresses (and other women) don't want equal employment rights. So much for this Aunt Tom's credibility. She should resign.

There is no doubt in my mind that State laws that are "protective" and apply to women only are not protective but are restrictive. They strongly aid and abet employers to discriminate against women. As our personnel director at Colgate-Palmolive Co. testifying in Indianapolis during our title VII trial said (see subcommittee hearings, page 580 for the court of appeals decision in our case):

Oh, there were finishing labor jobs throughout the plant that we could have placed these women in rather than lay them off, but we were protecting our ladies.

They protected us right out of our jobs for 6 months and had been doing this for 12 years previous to the passage of title VII.

I say this-Tillie the Toiler may not have a college education, but she has intelligence, feelings, commonsense, and knows of her rights to equality under the law. Rather than give her sympathy and restrictive State laws, give her equal rights.

LAWW of course does not oppose good labor standards laws that apply to both sexes equally, like the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. But we do oppose laws that apply only to women employees because they limit employment opportunities of working women. Special restrictive laws for women workers have got to go regardless of whether or not the equal rights amendment is passed.

Our union contract provides that all overtime is strictly on a voluntary basis for both males and females. We support such a provision either in union contracts or in the law, but it must apply to both sexes equally, or it will only serve to hurt women. The equal rights amendment would encourage good labor standards laws for both sexes rather than just limiting women.

The Supreme Court has thus far not extended to any female citizen the protection of the fifth or the 14th amendments. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has helped tremendously to get women into court to end discrimination. But why should workingwomen like myself have to spend thousands of dollars on litigation and wait years for a Federal judge to make up his mind as to how he will rule, and perhaps even after all this still have to take cases to the Supreme Court. The equal rights amendment, while it may not solve all ills, would at least give women the rights due them without so much expensive litigation.

We further support the equal rights amendment because it would have a restraining effect on those who abuse and discriminate against women. We need the amendment to further implement the present constitutional provisions, to strengthen the language so no one, and no court, can ever misinterpret the correct language which says women as individuals have equal rights. I agree with a statement made also in the subcommittee hearings last May by Dr. Boyer, when she said:

Opposition is still evinced by those groups whose interest is economic, and who benefit most by keeping women as a cheap labor pool. (Subcommittee hearings, page 442.)

The passage of the equal rights amendment at this time would serve many purposes-it would demonstrate a serious effort at a readjustment of our system of jurisprudence to meet the changes that have taken place over the years. These changes having put responsibilities upon women which the drafters of the Constitution almost two centuries ago never dreamed of. We need the amendment to bolster the various legal actions now in progress.

Senator Ervin has contended that the amendment will keep women with dependent children from receiving alimony. The fact is that most of the women I know, who are divorced, must work to support their children because the child support, if they get any at all, is not adequate for their children's needs. If the equal rights amendment makes it possible for a man to divorce his wife, get custody of the children and alimony and child support, and this is done legally, I say bully for him.

I cannot see that passage of the equal rights amendment would have any effect on grass widows with children who want to remarry. Their chances look better to me with the amendment.

I feel sure also that the passage of the amendment would only make it easier for the Social Security Act to provide more equitable retirement benefits for families with working wives, and to provide benefits to husbands and widowers of women workers under the same circumstances as are provided to wives and widows of men workers.

One of the persons testifying here previously called all people supporting the equal rights amendment militants. If this is true, and it may well be, I suggest he get on the bandwagon and start waving banners, because the days of antifeminism are drawing to a close and the antiquated laws allowing discrimination against women are passé. The opponents of the equal rights amendment claim that it is the business and professional women who are pushing for the amendment and imply this shows that industrial womenworkers should be against it. Nothing could be further from the truth. This tactic of the opponents is for the purpose of trying to divide women who are working together for their rights. I am glad business and professional women are for the amendment. In our area, the business and professional women recognizes all women as persons whether or not they are in the professional field, and some of us, while we are factory workers, have been invited to join business and professional women. In conclusion, let me state that the men who are being discriminated against also will be benefited by the passage of the equal rights amendment. I firmly believe this has been a large factor in the minds of the 81 Senators giving their support to this amendment. They are farsighted enough to see that men and women working together will lessen their load of decisionmaking and worrying. I hope this is true, and that the intelligent men and women we have elected to office will continue to "keep the faith" and pass this amendment now. Thank you.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Miss Sellers, very much. And I appreciate it and I want to apologize to the other witnesses, but you and I have been discussing this for the last few days and I just thought I would take the advantage of it.

Miss SELLERS. Thank you, very much.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Miss Sellers. We now will have Mrs. Wilma Scott Heide, chairman of the board of the National Organization for Women.

And she has with her the distinguished minority leader of the U.S. Senate, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Hugh Scott, who is also a member of this committee.

Mrs. HEIDE. Senator, I was going to ask if I could sit at the side, it is very hard to hear back here, after Senator ScottSenator CoоK. Perfectly all right.

Mrs. HEIDE (Continuing). Introduces me.

Senator Cook. We can turn the sound up a little bit, Mrs. Heide. Go ahead, Senator Scott. It is nice to have you here.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here and thank you very much for recognizing Mrs. Heide at this time. As you know, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Mansfield, and I, stopped the equal rights amendment at the door of the Senate. This was a parliamentary procedure to make certain that this committee, of which I am also a member, would act on a time certain to avoid fears-which to my mind were justified-that otherwise it might be difficult to persuade the committee to act in time to secure action on the floor during this session of Congress. Because of our action, the committee is under instruction from the Senate to report with recommendations on or before the 19th of September. I am very glad that this is so as I am one of the cosponsors and supporters of the equal rights amendment. It is my pleasure to introduce to this committee the Honorable Wilma Scott Heide, who is a commissioner of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Committee, a behavioral scientist, and chairman of the board of directors of the National Organization for Women, Inc., NOW.

She says say, "NOW," because NOW is what they mean. It is a great pleasure, Mr. Chairman to introduce Mrs. Heide.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Senator Scott.

Mrs. HEIDE. Thank you, Senator Scott.

Senator Cook. And it is awfully nice to have you before the committee.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILMA SCOTT HEIDE, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST AND CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., NOW

Mrs. HEIDE. I do thank you, Mr. Scott, for introducing me to this hearing group this morning. I think a couple things should be made clear before I get into the main body of my rather brief statement.

I do think human rights are invisible by any category. Whether I am an activist for human rights, I am not a bubble head as has been stated by Members of the U.S. Congress. I do not burn bras, and I think this is as good a place as any to set the record straight. No woman has burned any bras. The only one who has burned a bra as far as I know is a man. I think the other statements we have heard have been products of the creative imaginations of the people of the

media. I am a middle-aged, middleweight, middle-class product of mid-America. I am told I look like somebody's wife. I am. I am told I look like somebody's mother. I am, of two daughters. I am told I look like a Sunday school teacher. And I have been until I realized what I was teaching.

I would like to reveal things that I have not revealed to my friends. It has been said that the proponents of the equal rights amendment are middle-class, professional women. I want to set straight that I and many other activists will not in many ways benefit from the passage of the equal rights amendment ourselves. I have pumped gas. I have cleaned homes. I have sold papers. I have shined shoes. I have sold everything manageable and some things not manageable. I have worked in the factory. And in working in the factory regardless of protective laws, I was not protected. I was prevented from doing the kinds of things I knew I was able to do. And when I challenged the barriers that were present I was threatened with retaliation or dismissal. I have worked as a hospital attendant at ungodly hours. I am a registered nurse not now practicing that profession. But when I did I noticed that the people who suffered from excessive weight lifting were invariably men, and it was women of my size or smaller who were lifting them, and nothing in the protective legislation was applied to prevent that.

I have been a college and university teacher and in administration. I am now a sociologist. Whatever I have achieved in spite of any barriers I now know that I shall never achieve my full potential. The equal rights amendment is not for me.

Our subject today and for the past 4 days, presumably, is the U.S. Constitution, and the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. It reads: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied by the United States or any State on account of sex." The Constitution is advanced as the basic legal document of the United States that spells out the prerogatives and limitations of the individual States.

The Declaration of Independence states: "All men are created equal.” Men did not and does not mean the generic for people; it meant and means literally, males. When the Constitution was written, a Negro man was considered three-fifths of a person and no woman was legally considered any fraction of a person. Only men wrote the Constitution; women were expressly excluded in intent and content. It would, therefore, seem that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution is tantamount to legislation without repre

sentation.

Now, I am informed that for several days of these hearings constitutional lawyers and others opposed the proposed equal rights amendment, House Joint Resolution 264, as though the Constitution itself were some sacrosanct and immutable document. Well, a document affecting the lives of all citizens that denies the existence of over half the citizens is less than sacred and should not be allowed. The 25 amendments to the U.S. Constitution denies its immutability. On those grounds alone, the equal rights amendment is necessary to declare unequivocally and irrefutably that women are persons or people entitled to equal protection of and coverage by

laws, no more and no less. Now, that is where the matter should stand. Either women are people or we are not people.

No one who is opposed to the equal rights amendment denies discrimination exists. All have suggested other remedies. None to the best of my knowledge have indeed initiated those remedies over the long history of their need. If we as women are people, then we must be declared as people with this amendment and have all the rights and responsibilities of the rest of the population. If we are not people, and not entitled to equal rights and protection under the law, then we should never be permitted to vote; we should not have to pay taxes and we should not be bound to obey laws not intended to protect us or grant us the birthright of every male. That, then, is the basic question: Are women people? In a government of the people, for the people, and by the people; our race, our religion, our nationality, our sex, our formal education, our occupation, our life style, our political opinion, our height, our weight, our state of health, our advancing years, our number of childrenif any, our residence, none of this is relevant to our personhood. Our Founding Fathers (no mothers or other women) did not see women as people and no Congress ever since has recovered in clearly articulated ways from this myopia.

Now, with the question of social role. Again social roles are learned phenomena. Parenthood is a social role after birth, legislator is a social role, teacher is a social role, soldier is a social role, nurse and physician are social roles, engineer and President of the United States are social roles. With several crucial exceptions, all social roles can be fulfilled by some men or some women. Therefore, there are only two roles or jobs no man is or could be qualified to perform: Human incubator and wet nurse; likewise, there is only one role or job for which no women is or could be qualified to perform: Sperm donor.

Such is the sex role stereotyped conditioning of our society that my possession of a uterus somehow uniquely qualifies me and all women for homemaking and housework and presumably my husband and all men despite generally superior muscular strength are disqualified for these physical roles. Now, this is a scientific falsehood. My ability to reproduce two children does not confer on me the unique ability based on my sex to care for and raise these children any more than my husband's biological ability to father these children disqualifies him from child care. And so it is with other women and men as classes of people. Homemaking and child care are learned social roles without biological imperatives as to who performs them.

It is my information that the distinguished Senator Ervin of North Carolina has quoted the Bible as his source of authority to justify legislating into the Constitution such a travesty of justice as Senate Joint Resolution 231. I doubt if the Senator would depend on the authority derived from the knowledge and insights of 2,000 years ago or even 1776 for his medical care, his means of transportation, his communication facility anywhere else in the world or, I trust, his concepts of the legal rights of one person or group to enslave another person or group. The Bible and the religious beliefs it espoused are hardly models to which women can safeguard their independent personhood. Yet, the Adam's rib mythology survives today,