still struggling for equality in America-this enlightened libertarian country. In a nation deeply committed to equality and caught up in the ordeal of righting its deficiencies, it is strange to hear testimony given to this committee that equality for women is to be avoided. Forced labor, imposed upon women in Communist countries, has been pointed out-and it is true-but everyone, even men under these absolute governments, are pawns of the State. Individuals have no rights. Rights, under the Communist system would challenge the primacy of the state, so they simply do not exist. What puzzles me is how equality for women is suddenly going to dehumanize America; that our Government, institutions, and people will suddenly be channeled into the moral vacuum of communism and the right of a free choice will disappear. In addition, two contradictory points of view have been made simultaneously by the opposition: (1) The disaster that would overtake society if the equal rights amendment were passed, and (2) That women already have equality under the fifth and 14th amendments, and under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without being an attorney it seems to me that these arguments cancel each other out. The objections which impress me as being alarmist and not quite credible, are these: 1. That women would be indiscriminately drafted for military service. 2. That marriage and the family would disintegrate. 3. That the courts would be overwhelmed with litigation. First, there is no doubt that if our country were invaded and the security of our families at stake, American women would respond instinctively just as Israeli and Polish women. But with selective service already rejecting 50 percent of the eligible men, it is scarcely likely that they would draft women-and if they did-women would be assigned to work in areas of their various capacities—just as they are today as volunteers, and just as men are assigned. Second, the contrived specter of the dissolution of marriage and the family assumes that the structuring of the Nation's society would disintegrate because women were granted equality, and that the whole area of attitudes, practices, and customs would change. This amendment is not going to change physiology, psychology, or human nature. We cannot change women into men any more than the civil rights bill could change black into white. Women, as first-class citizens, will continue to do what comes naturally-and that is to be a woman. As for discarding the feminine trappings which improve our appearance, don't hold your breath. We are not about to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Third, there may be some litigation, some new legislation, and there may be elimination of some existing statutes, but our Constitution and system of jurisprudence provide for progress to be made in this way. We do not cling to an ancient wrong because its correction would be inconvenient or because it would add to the burden of the courts. This type of thinking has impeded progress since the beginning of time. It is never valid and is not valid here. The opposition expresses concern for special legislation designed to protect women. This legislation has become an albatross. It shields injustice. It is used as a buffer between women and opportunity, higher wages, promotions, and better positions. Court interpretations have failed notably to correct these inequities and much of it has been repealed at State levels. We also reject as unrealistic the implication that equality for women will "endanger our health, safety, privacy, education, or economic welfare, or that it will diminish our capabilities as homemakers and mothers." I submit that these so-called protective laws now in existence do not meet the test of nondiscrimination. Some more of the same is not going to help us. Women represent 40 percent of the work force of the United States and if you wonder why so many are complaining about discrimination, take a look at almost any payroll. Despite the fact that women are sole providers for a high percentage of the Nation's families actually one-third of the poor the average woman worker earns 58 cents for every dollar paid a male worker. This is down from 64 cents in 1967. In 1968 a woman with 4 years of college was earning an average of $6,680, while a man with the same educational qualifications was earning $11,795, and the gap is widening. This despite all of the inequities supposedly prevented by amendments V, XIV, and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the 14th amendment the Supreme Court has never held that a law discriminating between persons on the basis of sex was unreasonable or unconstitutional. While recognizing that women are persons and citizens within the meaning of the amendment, the Court denied that it conferred upon women the right to vote. This decision was handed down in 1874, and it stood until 1920 when, after 72 years of struggle, the 19th amendment was ratified. The major target of the equal rights amendment is inequities of this kind which are still looked upon by the courts as permissible. It is possible that discrimination against women might eventually be corrected by legislation, but these remedies are not adequate substitutes for fundamental constitutional protection. Very few women have the means to finance interminable litigation which usually forms the basis for corrective law-and few women here would live that long. It is easy to understand why we are loath to continue on this long road to nowhere and why we mistrust the courts. We have been advised in these hearings against being "hasty" or "impatient" and to allow ample time for "consideration." The equal rights amendment has been before Congress for 47 years without ever reaching the floor of the House for a vote until August 10, 1970-22 years without even a hearing. Under the circumstances the advice to go slow prompts us to beg your indulgence if we seem hasty. The time has long since passed when we can sit quietly and hope that somewhere, somehow, sometime, things in the future will be better. Alvin Toffler has written a book entitled "Future Shock." It concerns the thrust of change in our lifetime and is hauntingly and alarmingly true. He divides the past 50,000 years into 800 lifetimes of 62 years each. Six hundred and fifty of these were spent in caves. Only during the last 70 has it been possible to transmit in writing the experience of one lifetime to another. Only in the last four could we 51-146-70- -23 measure time precisely. The electric motor came into being in the last two. Almost every thing we use in daily life belongs to the final 800. The real story of Toffler's book is that people have simply let technology happen without adequate preparation or compensation for it in our society. It is a sound premise. There is no better example of backwardness than the reluctance to recognize that women are a part of the 20th century too. The future belongs to those who seize its opportunities. We want to do just that, and to participate as equals. Going back to Dolly Madison, Abigail Adams, Socrates, and the Bible, to deny women first-class citizenship is unrealistic in 1970. We live in a changing world and we must change with it or we wind up hugging the corpse. The political logic of the case for the amendment is impressive. With the exception of the Armed Forces there are 7 million more women of voting age in the United States than there are men. Women, unfortunately, have never used this strength. Once given the right to vote, the 19th amendment was considered an end in itself, which it was not. But now the mood is changing. The proliferation of women's activist groups across the Nation speaks eloquently and often stridently for itself. Approaches vary widely, but the goal is the sameequal rights and protection under the law-spelled out in the Constitution. It is unthinkable, in my opininon, that in this 20th century, when we have countless examples of women's capacity to undertake any assignment and complete it with distinction, we have not recognized in the basic laws of this Nation the simple fact of equality. We urge you to recommend passage of House Joint Resolution 264 without change or amendment. We do not have organized influence, funds, or lobbyists. Most of the women appearing here came at their own expense and at considerable personal sacrifice. However, we trust that pressure is unnecessary for this distinguished committee to recognize the justice and fairness of this appeal. There could be no clearer summation of our objectives than the slogan of those early proponents of women's suffrage: "Principles, not policy; justice, not favor; men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." Senator Cook. Thank you very much, Mrs. O'Donnell. We appreciate it, and to show that I am not showing any partiality I wonder if Mrs. Harriet Cipriani is here? Mrs. O'DONNELL. May I say one thing more? Senator Cook. Yes, indeed. Mrs. O'DONNELL. I would like to leave with you to be included in the record the joint statement signed by Mrs. Nelly Peterson for the Republican Party. Mrs. Cipriani is vice president of the Democratic Party. Senator Cook. Thank you very much. We are delighted to have it. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN A JOINT STATEMENT ON EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT As representatives of large organizations of women approving the Equal Rights Amendment as it was passed by the House of Representatives in House Joint Resolution No. 264, we urge passage in the Senate of the same Resolution without change and without amendments. 1. Our position was not assumed lightly, abrasively, nor frivolously. Both constitutional amendments and federal legislation have failed to be recognized by the Supreme Court as establishing equality for women, or even to apply to women. We feel that the Equal Rights Amendment now before the United States Senate is the one unequivocal, enduring method of establishing women as equals before the law, and providing equal opportunity within our society. 2. Because of superficial arguments being advanced in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment we reject the notion that either state or federal laws, subject to court interpretation, can remedy the injustices at issue, and we reject as spurious the idea that equality will endanger our "health, safety, privacy, education, or economic welfare," or diminish our capabilities as "homemakers and mothers." 3. The Equal Rights Amendment is not new. It has been before Congress for 47 years. It is supported by the largest and most responsible women's organizations in the United States. We are not Johnny-come-latelys to this struggle but for years have worked diligently and constructively for justice and equality. We have no desire and no intent to disturb marriage and the family, which are the foundations of Western Civilization. We are proud to be American women. ELLY PETERSON, Assistant Chairman, Republican National Committee. President, National Federation of Republican Women. MARY LOU BURG, Vice Chairman, Democratic National Committee. Deputy Vice Chairman, Democratic National Committee. Senator Cook. I might say that Mrs. Cipriani called us. She is vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee and she asked if she might appear and we obviously said she could, and I assume that she is not here. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Sister Margaret Traxler, National Coalition of American Nuns. Is she here? STATEMENT OF SISTER MARGARET ELLEN TRAXLER, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FEDERATION OF JUSTICE, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COALITION OF AMERICAN NUNS Sister TRAXLER. My statement will not be long but I would like to preface it with just a couple of remarks because women are stereotyped and I think that we as nuns suffer from a further stereotypical approach which people have and in order to lend some kind of weight to what I would like to say, I would like to briefly list some of the involvement which has been mine. I am director of education at the National Conference of Federation of Justice. Over the past 8 years, it has been my privilege to develop programs countering white racism over the country. For example, in one of our projects we have what we call the university on wheels. On this faculty, which is affiliated with Loyola University in Chicago, we have 30 people all who hold doctorates in their respective disciplines and these people go out as teams and approach white racism or intergroup relations through their doctoral disciplines and through an interaction of these academicians, through practitioners, people of the poor on welfare, people here in the lower socioeconomic strata. We are able, we think, to approach the white middle class in a way which is more realistic. Another program, we have an urban education which is involvement in theory in which we train people in connection with the urban training center for Christian mission. Eighty-four percent of the people working in the inner city have no special preparation for this kind of sensitive work. Through an urban involvement theory and practice course we are able to train people, largely women, for this kind of service. Third, I have been able to establish 38 schools for high school and junior high school dropouts over the country in the past 6 years. These have expanded into an adult literarcy program and this experience has given me much to listen to the voices of many people, particularly women, who I think have been spoken for and who have themselves spoken in these hearings, and I have followed closely the proceedings from the present, I am not going to duplicate any of the papers that have been presented but I ask myself what is the one basic argument which human beings following the western tradition of logic, I hope I don't oversimplify or give us too much credit, the one argument which I think would be most pursuasive, and so that is what I have tried to do in my simple statement. And so, Senator, with your permission I would like to speak in favor of the proposed equal rights amendment as it was passed in the House Joint Resolution No. 264. In the joint coalition of American nuns, there are 1,937 sisters. We have organized on a broad basis principally to study and speak out on human rights the cause of women in the modern world which we call the Universal Sisterhood, takes priority over any of the work that we hope to do. And if you will allow me, I would like to begin with a story about a French saint, Therese of Lisieux, sometimes known as the Little Flower, and I hope that doesn't turn anybody off. Therese was celebrating her fourth birthday and her parents placed before her a choice of several possible gifts. "Which one of them will you choose?" her father asked. "Why, I'll take them all,” replied the future saint. We are precisely in this situation today. The human rights of women are set out before us. We are asked, "Which ones will you choose?" Our answer is simple, is logical, is the only one possible for a reasonable choice: We will take them all. We want all of our human. rights. We want our rights avowed by this Congress, women's equality expressed firmly and categorically into the language of the Constitution; and after that, we may speak of further legislation which may be necessary to safeguard and confirm these rights. It is physiologically destructive to refuse categorical recognition of women's rights in the Constitution; and then to assure women that they are free and that so-called protective legislation is for their benefit. One would have to have the viewpoint of a woman in order to understand what it means to be denied a categorical statement of her human rights. Human beings simply do not premise their freedom upon restrictive limitations and qualifications. Before I make the next remark, I would like to point out I do love men very much and one can now look upon the contrary scene and say male chauvinism governs our institutions. This may be unconscious on the part of many individual men, but |