male chauvinism is the only way to describe male control of our institutions from family and school, to business, government, and churches. The late Prime Minister Nehru of India served a number of prison terms before achieving the leadership of his nation. His crime was to agitate for independence. During these periods, he wrote letters to his 13-year-old daughter Indira, who is, of course, the present Prime Minister. Nehru concluded one of the letters with this observation:

If the past has given us some part of truth, the future also hides many aspects of the truth and invites us to search for them, but often the past is jealous of the future, and holds us in a terrible grip and we have to struggle to get free and advance toward the future.

Because we are imprisoned in the past, and beclouded by the present, our insight into the future suffers a myopic vision of the future. Some concepts, however, become quite clear, and the fact is that no group possessing power gives up that power unless forced to do so. It is very interesting, when I sent out a ballot to a coalition of American nuns asking them to vote on what stand we would take on the equal rights amendment, we received ballots back from all but 24 members. There were only two dissenting votes. I still can't account for the two dissenting votes, but some of the younger sisters had said, "Tell us when to appear in Lafayette Park."

Oliva Coolidge in her book "Women's Rights" tells the history of the suffrage movement in America from 1848–1920. From 1848, when the Women's Rights Convention was held in Seneca Falls, N.Y., until the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920, every heroic fast, picket, protest, march, jailing of the 71 years of women's vigil awaiting suffrage is a sign of the oppression of predaceous men who selfishly held the power.

What women ask for in the equal rights amendment is in fact. already the right of women. We have no right to limit them morally or legally. Pope John XXIII of blessed memory reminded in Pacem in Terris that those who have rights have the duty to ask for them. Our rights are in fact not anyone's gift to give, but ours inherently. We have the moral obligation to fight for them.

The false objections regarding State laws, protective legislation, et cetera, should be studied in a White House level convocation in which top legal advisers, both men and women, would elucidate socalled problems and then, in a positive legislative-building document, outline the necessary clarifying ramifications.

Over the past several years I have had the privilege to participate in a number of White House conferences; for example, the White House Conference on Civil Rights. The one on education that is coming in December is the one on dependent children. Why cannot there be a top-level consultation on the subject of equal rights for women? Not to delay the giving of equal rights or its recognition, but to give the top attention of the lawmakers to what is necessary for the responsible passage of this amendment.

Or, in good faith, this committee could implement and set into immediate action the NAACP Board's recommendation to its commitment to and practice of equal rights for women. The convention sponsored by NAACP noted these six recommendations:

That all Federal programs include an equitable number of women and men in their staff and in the participants;

That the Office of Federal Contract Compliance guidelines on sex discrimination be expanded to include goals and timetables;

That to the extent not already done, data collected by the Federal Government include collection, tabulation, and publication of economic data by sex;

That women receive equal pay for equal work;

That the Fair Labor Standards Act be extended to cover every job within reach of Federal authority ***. All employees, including domestic workers and all other workers in the United States should be paid not less than the Federal minimum wage; the equal pay provisions should be extended to executive, administrative, and professional employees;

That title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be amended to include sex (regarding public accommodations).

Finally, I should like to remind the committee that further delay and subterfuge are simply intolerable. We accept your good faith only when the Constitution declares women free. Only when we are assured by our Constitution that there will be no discrimination based on race, or creed, or sex, can we believe in the good faith of men of America. Until that day, we are forced to doubt.

Thank you.

I am particularly grateful to you, Senator, for allowing those of us who favor this amendment to come in in the second round of hearings to present our convictions.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much. Sister Margaret. I might say to you that probably under section V of the 14th amendment we have passed equal protection laws now. But if you have listened, and I know that you have, you realize that if we take this route, we find the nebulous process of making every legal determination, rather than the establishment of constitutional principle. I appreciate your remarks very much and we are delighted to have you before the committee.

Sister TRAXLER. Thank you.

Senator Cook. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mrs. J. T. Grace, of Chevy Chase.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LYNNE S. GRACE, HOUSEWIFE, OF CHEVY CHASE, MD.

Senator Cook. Mrs. Grace, go right ahead.

Mrs. GRACE. Thank you. I didn't know that you weren't going to give me qualifications for being here and I haven't got them listed in my head right now.

Senator Cook. I have here Mrs. J. T. Grace, housewife, Chevy Chase, Md.

Mrs. GRACE. Actually, the listings that I had given, which is really the reason why I am here, I think depends to a large degree on the experience I have had in a number of different jobs and some excursions I have made to England. I would like to begin by saying when I was 15 I had a job tending horses and later that year, after completing a modeling course, I was a fashion model for å length of time. When the school year started, I was able through relatives to take a hat-check job to help me earn some money during the year.

The next year I decided I would like to earn some money and possibly go with a group of 24 girls to England, so I took a job as a candy sales girl, and unfortunately because of ill health I was not able to keep the job up or to go. So the next year I decided that I would earn some money during the summer as a waitress and earn money to go to California, which I did, and also try the hippie life out there for 6 weeks, and was disgusted with it and came back. So I skipped a year in here. I went on two scholarships to universities, as an art major, as an English minor.

And I think I should list as my qualification there the fact I was a child prodigy in art, and that once at the university I was told by my teachers in art and also my English teacher they had nothing further to teach me and with my talent I should try and develop it on my own. I think this in a way qualifies me to talk on the subject of various ways women have of expressing themselves outside the home.

After that year at the university, because of the advice I had given, I thought the best thing to do was go and further my education in Europe, so I took a job as a telephone operator here in Washington, D.C., earned my money and went over by myself. I was at the time just going on 19. I went alone to England and tried to make a go of it. I had to put my talents to work as a portrait artist and was successful at it, getting $100 apiece for a portrait of a dog. However, because of difficulties with my work permit, I had to take immediate work after that and actually was a London charlady for a while.

I have known extreme poverty. And having come from Chevy Chase, Md., where my family is a member of the elite country club, I think I have seen the extreme of working conditions and grievances and various differences in outlooks toward work. And these were my qualifications.

Briefly for a time I also worked as a disk-jockey secretary, so I had a wide variety and I would like to point out the change of jobs is not due to incompetency nor due to being fired but due to circumstances.

Now, I didn't plan on saying this and actually this is something else.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak here. My proposal was that it is men who are being discriminated against and not women, and I assumed this topic with all the information that I collected over the last 5 years. However, I didn't realize the enormity at the time of trying to put this idea across. I realize that I am actually trying on my own to combat the tonnage of literature and the various news conversation and rest on the Women's Liberation Movement, and I am afraid I couldn't do it, I couldn't present here adequately a complete case full of statistics as to the complete discrimination against men.

Senator Cook. Well, Mrs. Grace, let me make it very clear to you, I think in regard to this hearing, in regard to the Constitution, proposed constitutional amendment, that there is a great difference between what we propose as an equal rights amendment for both men and women in this country, regardless of sex, what some want to refer to as the Women's Liberation Movement. We are not here discussing Women's Liberation Movement as such, and we are not here discussing

many of the things that have occurred in many of the discussions that have been carried out as a result of that movement. We are here to discuss the constitutional amendment for equal rights regardless of sex, and you are right, this applies to both men and women. And to that extent, in this discussion, and your discussion on the equal rights amendment, I think we should discuss not only those areas where some rights are now extended to women that should be extended to men but vice versa. So I merely want to make that for the record because I think that we are talking about two altogether different things.

you give

Mrs. GRACE. Well, actually, sir, I can only hang myself if me enough rope, but actually I was trying to show there is a con

nection between the two and

Senator Cook. Well

Mrs. GRACE. Could I try?

Senator Cook. Yes; you certainly may. But what I wanted to get over to you and give you an example, for instance, in Miss O'Donnell's testimony, which she just finished, she said in 1968 a woman with 4 years of college was earning an average of $6,600 while a man with the same education qualifications was earning $11,795.

I know this is a problem but we talk in terms of equality when we say if a woman is making $6,680 and a man is also making $6,680, let's take for instance, if they were working for the Federal Government, the retirement benefits to a woman would be less than the retirement benefits to a man for the same amount of money. A man making $11,000 and a woman making $11,000, a woman receives less in social security and yet she pays in the same amount of money. These are the things that I at least for myself personally talk to you about in this business of equality. And the other efforts in the field of women's ability to earn a living, ability to be considered for promotion, this is what we are talking about in terms of equality and not so much some of the more maybe romantic things that might be included. within the framework of the phrase "Women's Liberation." Continue.

Mrs. GRACE. Yes, sir.

I appreciate this and I actually had taken it into consideration and tried to pinpoint the reason why in the first place saying that these people had equal abilities there would be this discrepancy in the amount of money that was earned and whereas I state categorically that I do believe that there is discrimination against women. I wanted to pinpoint the reason why this might have arisen and proposed that whereas it might be fully substantiated there might be some reason that we are overlooking which should not be overlooked as to their being some basis for some discrimination along the lines of sex and not ability or anything else.

I don't know if that answers the question. However, when I was faced with having to supply all the statistics to counterbalance my one argument here which is definitely against the men and definitely opposite to women obtaining a larger measure of equal rights, I realized that I couldn't cope with this volume of statistics on my own, and I had to try and narrow it down to the one difference between males and females and try to base my arguments on that.

What I am saying is I would like you to bear with me because the explanation is going to seem to take a rather bizarre turn for awhile,

it won't last very long, and I don't get down to an embarassing point, it is all written there so I know I don't go beyond that embarassing point, but I would like you to bear with me because I do show how this bizarre and diversionary point does relate to what we are dealing with here.

I would like to begin then if I might.

My premise is simple. I would like to see the amendment killed off on the grounds, not that females are or are not being discriminated against, but that they are not equal to men and, as such, rate no further special concessions by Congress at all.

I am firmly convinced, no matter how well looked into and how well substantiated the female's specified grievances would appear to be, that it is the current massive push for female liberation and equality that has resurrected this amendment after its rest of 47 years, a rest only briefly broken some 20-odd years ago which came to nothing. As such, we are really dealing with a massive dissatisfaction on the part of women, and the amendment is only a soundingboard. I might point out some of the testimony given today did not start off or really follow the trend of the basic legal angles but actually we are trying to expound that men are in a superior position and that women should be recognized for their equality. And I think that this is germane to the issue.

It's my belief that to answer their demands in this official way is to symbolically recognize their cause is to officially admit to some measure of truth in what they are professing about equality. And this is rubbish.

At best it's an assertion yet to be proved. Which, I might point out, means that the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States has been convening this past week to answer the question, "When Are We Going to Stop Beating Our Wives," one of the oldest courtroom tricks in the book. Worse yet, it has fallen for it. No one as yet has questioned that the women are wrongly being mistreated; we are all just debating what to do about it.

If a female deserves slightly lesser opportunity, there is no mistreatment in dealing with her that way. Justice Frankfurter stated that "There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals" and this states even better what I mean. It has been my observation that, in fact, it is the men in this country who are discriminated against by the females to some degree in practically all areas of common, everyday human experience.

I would therefore like to base my testimony on two things: the specific nature peculiar to females no matter what talents, credentials or qualities they possess extraneous to it, and two, the basic inequality women impose on men in this country contrary to the male's natural birthright.

Between the two I hope that the reason for the general dissatisfaction, which is the real issue in this meeting, will become a great deal clearer. And that the demands hiding it can be given the symbolic gesture of utter dismissal they deserve.

To begin with, the only unchanging difference between human males and human females which psychologists and psychiatrists have been able to determine actually has nothing to do with genital difference, nor with secondary characteristics-behavior patterns of male and