not condemn half the human race to servitude and slavery. Many years later D. Cardinal Dougherty, Archbishop of Philadelphia, also favored equal rights for women. And so do we today, Catholic women and men, organized to improve the position of women in the Church and society. We hold that it is of the essence of true religion to liberate all people, to support them in their self fulfillment and to enable them to walk with the dignity and freedom that befits the children of God. We hold that human rights are inalienable and indivisible and that no one individual or class can attain personhood and freedom at the expense of another individual or class. We hold that justice and love are the basis of religion and that the barrier and division which exists between men and women is not in keeping with the Gospel or any authentic religious value. We hold that women must be helped to become persons in this society and that the reconciliation which can then take place between men and women will release both from destructive stereotyping and make possible deep, and lifegiving love, a friendship of equals. We know that law of itself will not bring about change of attitudes but we also know that the relationship between men and women will not change, nor will the low status of women change, until the law guarantees women their full rights. The Joint Committee of Organizations Concerned About the Status of Women in the Church represents six groups: the American Section of St. Joan's International Alliance, the Women's Rights Committee of the National Association of Laymen, Women Theologians United, the Catholic Caucus of the Ecumenical Task Force on Women and Religion, the National Coalition of American Nuns and the Deaconess Movement. These groups actively support the Equal Rights Amendment. Their members are well versed in it. In fact, several of these organizations are also testifying in their own right. As a Joint Committee we want it made clear that many Catholics favor the Equal Rights Amendment and that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine which says that women must be "homemakers and mothers". Some women may choose to be mothers; some may not. To choose; to have self determination is the core of personhood. And those women who choose to be mothers must also have equal rights under the law. We also want it made clear that the National Council of Catholic Women does not represent an authentic Catholic position concerning the status of women. Neither can the NCCW be said to truly represent Catholic women because in many places Catholic women have no choice about membership, either not being permitted to join the organization as in the very large dioceses of New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia or because in many places, every Catholic woman is automatically counted a member. In some ways the NCCW might be compared to a "company union" which allows no freedom regarding membership and which is under the control of the hierarchy-another all male power structure. Although the National Council of Catholic Women has testified in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment I question their right to do so. I wonder if their average member has ever heard of the ERA. I am almost certain that their members have never studied the amendment and I know that most Caholics are not familiar with modern biblical scholarship and recent papal pronouncements encouraging women to seek their rights fully and without qualifications." In many ways the members have been misguided by a bad and outdated theology about themselves and the nature of women. The NCCW has not had a referendum on the ERA for at least ten years but yet its executive council continues year after year to oppose the amendment on the strength only of a vote taken when there was little concern for the rights of women and little consciousness of their plight. A vote taken now by 2 Several examples follow: "Since women are becoming even more conscious of their human dignity they will not tolerate being treated as mere material instruments but demand rights befitting a human person both in domestic and public life." Pacem in Terris, No. 41, John XXIII, April 11, 1963. "You should remind women that perfect equality in their nature and dignity, and therefore in rights, is assured to them from the first page of the sacred scripture." Paul VI, Address to Italian women, Rome, 1965. "As you know, the Church is proud to have glorified and liberated women and in the course of the centuries in diversity of characters to have brought into relief her basic equality with man. But the time is coming, in fact has come, when the vocation of woman is being achieved in its fullness, the hour in which woman acquires in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved." Second Vatican Council, Closing Message, Paul VI, Dec. 8, 1965. a well informed membership might well reverse the position of the NCCW on the Equal Rights Amendment. Whatever the rights of the NCCW to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment and whatever the motives of Senators Erwin and Kennedy in proposing substitute amendments which would make manadatory the very discrimination we are seeking to outlaw, and thus worsen the condition of women, it is important to realize the influence religion has on the situation of women. For the most part religion has strongly reinforced the patriarchical system of society by equating patriarchy with the divine order. Even in a pluralistic and democratic society which separates church and state and guarantees freedom of religion, religious views should not go unchallenged because of the profound effect religion has on our way of life. Various points of view should be heard but they should also be evaluated. The norm of value is if the religious principle in question fosters and promotes the progress and well being of humanity in relationship to the natural environment, i.e., if it will improve the human situation of people. If a religious belief or practice will harm the human situation that harm must be pointed out and such a religious principle should not be permitted to become the law of the land. Also, in a democracy people are entitled to know if a particular view of reality carries the weight of the scholars in its field. As a theologian I would like to point out that a fundamental interpretation of the Bible which holds that women are divinely ordained to be helpmates of men, automatically in a secondary role, physically and mentally weak, responsible for the evil of the world, destined only to bear and nurture children, naturally shy and passive, etc., etc., is not in keeping with the best biblical scholarship. For example, modern scholars hold that the first three chapters of Genesis are to be classified in the literary genre of "myth."3 This means that the beginnings story is not to be taken literally nor in detail. It is neither history nor objective narrative nor scientific fact. The "creation" and "fall" stories are the recorded traditions of a simple people told to help them understand their sublime yet earthy destiny. The stories in Genesis were not recorded until after much of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures and, along with the Christian Scriptures, reflect the patriarchial values and attitudes of their human male authors. For example when Paul tells women to be silent in Church and to ask their husbands if they have any questions he is only reiterating a common household code of the culture in the same way male chauvinists do today.5 Contrary to an older theology, modern biblical scholarship holds that story of Adam's rib was intended to show the basic equality of men and women. This was especially necessary in a culture used to treating women as the chattel of men. That men and women equally shared humanity was a new idea and is not really fully accepted even today. The idea has had an uneven development and was always counterbalanced by a contradictory biblical passage. Thus the man/ woman equality of the Adam's rib story is played off against the evil of appleeating Eve and Paul's antifeminism is not in line with the wholesome attitude of Jesus toward women. These contradictory views on women by the church is the cause of much confusion about the nature of woman both in the minds of some women and some men. It is therefore exceedingly important to make known the position of modern biblicists who say that the antifemininism of Paul was cultural and not religious. Once we understand this it becomes easier also to realize that discrimination against women is not in accord with true religious values. Then one can also see that it follows that the church must correct its own discrimination and that no one can honestly claim that discrimination is by divine intent, or that the Bible supports the subjection of women." With all this in mind it is very difficult to understand how anyone claiming to be interested in the welfare of women can at the same time claim that women should be denied their God-given rights of equal treatment under the law because they must continue to be protected by men and defined solely by one role. 3 Barrose, Thomas. God Speaks To Men. Notre Dame: Fides, 1960, especially page 26. 4 Hunt, Ignatius. The Book of Genesis. N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1960, P. 12. 5 Schillebeeckx, Edward, Marriage, Human Reality and Saving Mystery, 1965. Pp. 171-201. 6 Vawter, Bruce. A Path Through Genesis. N.Y.: Sheed and Ward, 1975, P. 59 & ff. 7 An example follows: "There is therefore in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex because 'there is neither Jew nor Gentile; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Jesus Christ." " (Gal., 3/28). Constitution on the Church. No. 32, Second Vatican Council. The facts show that the situation of women in our society is deplorable. The denial to women of total personhood is not helping them to raise their position in society. Eleven percent of the women in the United States live in poverty as compared to seven percent of the men. Most of the women who support themselves earn a wage only a little above the poverty level and forty percent of all women do work, most of them for the support of themselves or their families. When a household depends on the wages a woman can earn, the whole household usually exists in poverty. The welfare roles of this country are overwhelmingly made up of women and children. On the other side of the scale few women are in the professions; almost no women are in decision making positions and only one percent of women earn more than $10,000 per year. Some of the persons who oppose the ERA are middle-class whites who think of a woman in terms of a husband who truly loves her, treats her well and earns a good living. These people see that this woman is often better off financially than her sister who is trying to "go it alone.” But what these people do not realize is that many women do not have or want a husband eager and able to provide every thing they desire. When a woman is widowed or divorced she often finds she cannot support herself in the way she is accustomed. If her husband is ill, or not so talented or if he dies the woman may find herself in very difficult circumstances. But the most fundamental argument against this position is that as a class women can never become full persons as long as they are forced as a class by society into dependent position. What these middle-class whites fail to understand is that many women exist in dire circumstances either because they cannot or do not want to depend on a man for their support. The whole argument is equivalent to saying it is good to have a dictatorship if the dictator is good or that it is good to be a slave if one has a good master. Women cannot make it on their own as a class unless they are guaranteed the full protection of the laws of this land by the Constitution. That a few exceptional talented women have made it only proves the point. To keep women dependent is to keep them in a child-like status. The personhood of women is at stake as is the welfare of all humanity. The Ervin amendment is designed to keep women in a dependent and subordinated state under the guise of protecting them in roles they have not chosen. The so-called "protective" labor legislation has been shown, in fact, to be a hindrance to the advancement of modern women. Therefore the Ervin amendment must be shown to be what it is: unAmerican and unreligious. The Ervin amendment should not be supported. House amendment 264 should be passed without further delay. To do less also would be unAmerican and unreligious. SUGGESTED READING Bailey, D. S. The Man-Woman Relationship in Christian Thought. London: Longmans, 1959. Callahan, Sidney. The Illusion of Eve. N.Y. Sheed and Ward, 1965. Canneen, Sally. Sex Female, Religion Catholic. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Daly, Mary. The Church and the Second Sex. N.Y. Harper and Row, 1968. Dumas, Francine. Man and Woman: Similarity and Difference. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1966. Hannon, Sister Vincent Emmanuel. The Question of Women and Holy Orders. London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1969. Hauriet, Charles, Beginnings, Dubuque: The Priory Press, 1965, (translated from the French by E. P. Emmans). Hawkins, David. An Evaluation of Recent Views of the Ordination of Women. British Columbia Union College, 1969 (thesis). : Hays, H. R., The Dangerous Sex. N.Y. Putnam, 1964. McKenzie, John, The Two-Edged Sword. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1956. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Woman's Bible. N.Y.: European Publishing Co., 1898. Stendahl, Kristner. The Bible and the Role of Women. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966. The Ordination of Women. A Report Distributed by Authorization of the Church Body Presidents as a Contribution to Further Study, Based on Materials Produced Through the Division of Theological Studies of Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. (condensed by Raymond Tiemeyer), 1970. STATEMENT OF MRS. CAROL FORBES, PRESIDENT, FAYETTEVILLE CHAPTER, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. I am Carol Forbes, president of the Fayetteville chapter of the National Organization for Women in Fayetteville, N.C. I am a parttime student, part-time worker and a full-time mother of three." We are usually proud of our Senators and I'm a little worried today to have to come all this way from North Carolina to present some actual results of our State's "protective labor legislation." Senator Ervin says the women who support the equal rights amendment, without his saving clauses, are simply trying to abolish all legal distinctions between the sexes. I am here to reassure him that we do not believe the equal rights amendment will do this. Senator Ervin has expressed concern that the amendment will eliminate the protection of physical privacy for women. Dr. Margaret Hunt, constitutional law authority at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, recently stated in a letter to Senator Ervin: As you know, equality under the law has never prohibited a classification of rights and responsibilities where the system of classification is reasonably related to a legitimate legal objective. Certainly separate restroom and jail facilities for men and women is such a reasonable classification, and I know of no interpretation of the equal rights amendments which would preclude such a classification. Let me go further and tell you about one of the protective laws which we have in North Carolina which covers us working women. This is one of those pieces of protective legislation that Senator Ervin says should be saved. North Carolina General Statute 95-17 provides, among other things, that women may not work more than a 48-hour week, or in seasonal industries, a 55-hour week. However, they can be worked up to a possible 70-hour week during three separate periods of the year that just happen to cover Christmas and inventory time. The real protection in this law is that it specifically exempts women from overtime pay. It also exempts agriculture workers and domestics from any limitation provision of this article. Most of North Carolina's revenue comes from the products picked by those female agricultural workers, and that is cotton and tobacco. And both those products keep North Carolina in the competitive position of making money. In 1967 an amendment to this act was passed that finally brought all (?) employees who were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act out from State jurisdiction. Before that year, only the males were covered. Another recent amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that affects business who gross over one quarter of a million dollars a year, after excise taxes, brings in most of the textiles plants of North Carolina. However, since North Carolina has thousands of small businesses in the retail field, restaurants, et cetera, and the majority of the workers happen to be women, this helpful amendment does not affect them one bit. There are currently 21,500 women in these areas that are not covered by any helpful Federal legislation, and with exemp 51-146-70- -25 tions continuing, it is not apparent they will ever be helped. We need the equal rights amendment to correct this ever-increasing conflict between Federal and State discriminatory laws, now, not after years of endless confusing court decisions on each law that gets passed. Let me tell you another thing about our protective legislation. Under the child labor laws, we find that 14-year-old boys are legally equated with 18-year-old girls when it comes to getting a job. Girls are specifically denied even trying out for certain jobs. Fortunately, there are no weight restriction laws in North Carolina, but every company that exists in North Carolina uses this limitation to prevent women from holding certain jobs and seeking job advancement. The equal rights amendment will do away with such "protection." Gentlemen, the statutes just mentioned are not protection to us, they are exploitation, and as the saying goes, "if this is the kind of friends we've got, who needs enemies?" I've come to Washington today to let you know that we in North Carolina are astounded to keep hearing Senator Ervin forecast the demise of womanhood if laws such as this are stricken from the books because of the equal rights amendment. That is exactly what it will do and that is why we want it. During this past week I was instrumental in getting the women of the North Carolina AFL-CIO to caucus with me about passing an equal rights resolution indicative of their anger at the discrimination they receive from our State daily. Out of this session came a women's rights resolution and No. 1 on its list of demands was the demand for passage of the equal rights amendment as it stands. All these women work long, hard, exhausting hours, and many are competent to advance further into their fields than they've been allowed, but under our North Carolina State labor laws, under Federal laws, and even with union help, they are denied job advancement, and even certain jobs, because of either hours limitations, denial of overtime pay, or complete exemptions from any helpful wage coverage. They are affected by any one of these "protective" restrictions, or any combination of them, and gentlemen, they are angry. My now activities have led me to meet with working women from all fields in North Carolina and I can vouch for their anger and frustration. That is why I am here today, to try to help them keep the equal rights amendment secure in its original wording, without Senator Ervin's destructive substitute. We demand he listen to us, for if he does not do it now, he will have to do it when he is up for reelection. I pity the results then. Thank you for listening to my testimony today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may wish to ask. I would like to turn my microphone over to Mrs. Elsie Hales who is vice president of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America. But I would like to add one more thing. And then any questions you wish to ask me I will be more than happy to answer. In North Carolina, fathers are considered the natural guardians of children. Mothers are not. We have no fair employment practices law, and we have no equal pay to protect us. And even to this day a woman's signature is needed with her husband as a joinder in selling |