I recently returned from a reporting assignment in Moscow. There are many mass child care centers there. In Russia, women aren't privileged to bring up their own children. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. was not that far off-base when he quoted the Yiddish proverb, "When God could not be everywhere, he made Mothers."

I talked with many Russian women who viewed the mother role as challenging and engrossing-and wished it were possible to spend more time with their children.

American women who support the Women's Lib movement seem to look upon motherhood and home management as a disease just a cut above leprosy.

If, as Senator Bayh indicates, President Nixon is so reluctant to endorse this amendment, might it be because he envisions its neuter society direction? Though no swinging cat even when he was free to be one, Richard Nixon nevertheless deserves kudos as a substantial family man.

In the end, is this wholesome, backbone method not the route that has made America the world power it is today?

Have the women whose hours are consumed in helping the crippled children, those who preserve religion, the nature clubs, give time to the Red Cross-those women who represent 70% of the feminine vote-been consulted?

As I came off the podium after a speech in Milwaukee last season, a lady with tears in her eyes approached me. "Miss Woodruff, all of the publicity on a woman's proper role has left us so confused. What a relief and a pleasure to hear you speak as you did."

I had concluded a thought about the unspoken delineation of the personal roles of marriage: his as head of the family; hers, as mistress of the home.

Then, "As you have dinner with your husband tonight, think about that delineation. It may bring a glow to your eyes."

When that glow vanishes, so does what makes life worth livin'! In spite of his Alka Seltzer result, that young bride of the TV commercials who made marshmallowed meatballs for her groom at least had a glow-or was it a gleam-in her eye!

[From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Nov. 27, 1969]

"THE MAN YOU LOVE IS CAREER"-WOMAN'S PLACE REMAINS IN HER HOME

(By Betty Parker Ashton)

A television newswoman whose beat has included the Paris peace talks, Moscow and the top American political figures said here yesterday she believes a married woman's place is in the home.

Miss Virginia Woodruff, herself divorced and the mother of an 11-year-old child, said that if she remarries she will give up her career.

Miss Woodruff works for the Mutual Broadcasting System and has a daily newscast called "The World Today." Her talk was on the life of a member of the American press in Moscow and included anecdotes on some of the famous people she's covered.

"I have seen too much to believe that two careers in one family are compatible," said Miss Woodruff. "The man you love should be your career. Women are here to serve and the more they put serving into practice the happier they are going to be."

Miss Woodruff said she had arrived at her views of marriage and careers through serving on the National Commission on the Status of Women and seeing "cold, unfeminine, no-men-in-their-lives" career women whose major aim seemed to be to see the establishment of "24-hour day care centers."

Children are for pleasure, loaned to the mother to nurture for a short time, and they should be loved and cared for by their mothers, she said.

She related a story about a friend who gave up her job when she started a family and reported she had happier marriage relationship when she and her husband assumed traditional roles-his as head of the family, hers as mistress of his household.

During her talk, Miss Woodruff gave what she believes to be the correct version of the story of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's accident last summer. She believes Miss Mary Jo Kopechne, whose body was discovered in the Kennedy car at the bottom of a pond off Chappaquiddick Island, was asleep on the back seat of the car; that Sen. Kennedy and a female companion started out for a mid

night swim; the car plunged off the bridge and it was not until the two were back at the party and Miss Kopechne's absence was discovered that they realized someone else had been in the car.

During the question-and-answer period, Miss Woodruff was asked about Vice President Spiro Agnew's criticism of the press and about the Senate's refusal to confirm Judge Clement Haynsworth's appointment to the Supreme Court.

She said she believes the Vice President "is doing a lot of dirty work" for President Richard M. Nixon and that if the Vice President "succeeded in getting through" control of the press she would turn in her credentials after 20 years' work.

Some of the Tuckahoe members spoke up and said they agreed with the Vice President and feel he is not seeking control of the press.

On the Haynsworth question, Miss Woodruff said she would have been disturbed if the Haynsworth nomination had gone through for she feels he would have been appointed for the same reasons that Abe Fortas withdrew his nomination as Chief Justice.

Miss Woodruff said that as an American reporter in Moscow she was constantly followed, her hotel room was "bugged" and her mail opened.

Members of the foreign press live in a separate area of Moscow, in tremendous-by Russian standards-apartments of five or six rooms, which have been broken into so frequently the area is now under police guard. The Muscovites live three or four families to a two-room apartment with "murky green wallpaper, overhead lightbulbs and sleazy curtains," she said.

The Russians are very fearful of the Chinese and believe China wishes to take over the entire Soviet. They feel that the "Yellow Peril" may bring the United States and the Soviet Union closer together.

Russian churches, some of the most beautiful and unusual in the world, said Miss Woodruff, are being promoted by the government as tourist attractions and symbols of Russian history, on which there is a new emphasis. Only one per cent of the people attend church and only the very elderly are interested in religion, she said.

A new Society for the preservation of Artistic and Historical monuments has been formed in Russia and the ministry of culture has recently spend $5.5 million on restoration of historical shrines, she said.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. HOFFA, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

We in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have, since our beginning, been engaged in a battle for equal rights. We have long supported equal pay for equal work, and other such measures which wipe out differentials and discrimination from one individual to the next in all areas of life.

As president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I wholeheartedly support the Equal Rights for Women amendment to the constitution with the belief that this amendment should be submitted to the states for ratification with all possible dispatch.

This amendment is the culmination of all of our good intentions and public utterances of good faith in this area. Good intentions should always be given the strongest possible impetus, and ratification of the Equal Rights for Women amendment is the kind of impetus which would accomplish the fact and cleanse the souls of those who heretofore have only given lip service to this imperative objective.

TESTIMONY OF INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS

AMENDMENT, SEPTEMBER 1970

TOWARD A SOCIETY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

The stress, tension and conflict in American life during the past decade, in race relations, in the confrontation of generations, and in the current phase of American women's struggle for equal rights, have come about because the laws, institutions and prevailing attitudes of our society have been slow to accommodate themselves to the pace of change and the rising demand from several quarters for the greater realization of democratic promises and commitments.

This stress, tension and conflict have called forth a variety of demands for "law-and-order": as if order in a democracy could be pulled out of a hat without

reference to the democratic imperative that law be responsive to human needs and aspirations. A democratic system clearly cannot work if it is not open to reform, and if justice is unconscionably delayed and therefore unreasonably denied. What is more, the scientific, technological and social revolutions of our time have accelerated the tempo of historical change, telescoping the time-scale on which democratic institutions must demonstrate their relevance and responsiveness. American men waited from 1787 until 1913 for election of United States Senators by direct popular vote; American women waited from 1787 until 1920 for the right to vote at all. Perhaps such delays can be explained to a degree by the fact that Americans were primarily absorbed throughout most of that time with the economic development and geographical expansion of the nation. But today the most critical frontiers are social and environmental, having to do with questions of justice and quality. In such a drastically changed environment, it can be safely predicted that American women will not wait another 133 years for the removal of the remaining barriers that stand between them and their assumption of first-class citizenship.

That is why affirmative action by the Senate on the Equal Rights Amendment can be so important, substantively and symbolically. What is needed now is an unequivocal Federal lead, from the President on down in taking American government at every level out of the business of discriminating against women as a class, on the basis of their sex.

This is what the so-called "protective" laws of the States do-they discriminate against women as women, under cover of the claim that they are protective of women. This claim would be laughable, and these laws would be laughed out of existence were it not that the history of the struggle for women's rights shows that the "protection" of women has been a class strategy-working women, which is to say most women before and during the industrial revolution, were expected to do, and did, their full share of the drudgery of the world. The minority of women who were "protected" were upper-class women, and their protection was contingent on their acquiescence in a regime of dependency and passivity. Such women found their first opportunity to break out of this golden cage, here in the United States, in the abolitionist crusade to free the black man from slavery before the Civil War. The struggle of women for equal rights and status and that of black Americans for freedom and equal opportunity have been closely related; and although white women have not undergone as a class the suffering and indignities that have been the lot of black Americans, their status and their roles in American society and in the American economy have been more similar than many might suppose. The class nature of the "protection" traditionally given to some women but denied to others was eloquently defined in 1851 by Sojourner Truth, former slave who became a celebrated abolitionist and feminist, in answer to a clergyman who had said that women, as physical weaklings, were not entitled to civil rights:

"That man over there says women need to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages or over puddles, or gives me the best place and ain't I a woman? "Look at this arm! I have ploughed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me-and ain't I a woman?

"I could work as much and eat as much as a man-when I could get it-and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman?

"I have borne thirteen children, and seen most of 'em sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain't I a woman?" (as cited in "Sexual Politics", Kate Millett, 1970)

The argument that the Equal Rights Amendment should not be passed because its passage would endanger laws that protect women is absurd, but it is also dreary and depressing, because it is the traditional argument echoing down all the long years since women first began to reach out for the allegedly unalienable rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by a free society and representative government.

It is depressing because it betrays an ignorance of the history of women's treatment in societies and by governments dominated by men, and of women's struggle to obtain the equal protection of our laws, a petition to this day denied by the Courts, despite the 5th and 14th Amendments, and by the Congress.

The argument that the Equal Rights Amendment would endanger so-called protective laws for women is depressing, moreover, because it bespeaks either an ignorance of or an indifference to the actions that this Congress should be

taking to foster a society and economy of opportunity that would be protective of the best interests of men and women alike.

To cite some obvious examples of what has not been done, but should be done, to protect and advance the common interests of men and women as workers and citizens: a democratically planned attack on poverty in this country would benefit and protect millions of men and women who are direct victims of poverty, as well as indirectly benefiting the rest of the country by transforming many of these millions of poor Americans from economic dependents into productive and tax-paying citizens.

Again, a high-priority, comprehensive attack on the physical and human ills of our cities, by transforming them from disaster areas into livable communities, would benefit both the men, women and children who inhabit them and the suburban residents around them who depend in one way and to one degree or another upon them, and who suffer directly or indirectly from the human degradation and disorder our neglect of the cities has spawned.

Several years ago a presidential commission on technology and the American economy suggested that the Federal government should act as an employer of last resort for men and women who were unemployed because the private sector of the economy did not or could not employ them; and the commission estimated that over 5 million useful jobs in various types of public service work could be created locally under Federal financing. With reference to such programs that had been initiated on a small scale, the commission stated:

66

. . . They recognize the anomaly of excessive unemployment in a society confronted with a huge backlog of public service needs in its parks, its streets. its slums, its countryside, its school and colleges, its libraries, its hospitals, its rest homes, its public buildings, and throughout the public and nonprofit sectors of the economy. They recognize that employing the unemployed is, in an important sense, almost costless. The unemployed consume; they do not produce. To provide them meaningful jobs increases not only their income but that of society.

Such a program would protect and advance the welfare and well-being of millions of men and women, directly and indirectly.

It should also be recalled that the Employment Act of 1946 undertook what in effect constituted a national commitment to provide "useful employment opportunities for all those able, willing, and seeking to work". That commitment, in the ensuing 25 years, has been honored much more in the breach than in the observance. If it were dusted off and made the basis of Federal employment policy, millions of men and women alike would benefit from its effects.

It is within this broader perspective of action, it seems to use in the UAW, that the Federal government and the Congress in particular should focus their concern about women, for women are not a separate species. This broader focus of action would benefit both men and women, on the principle, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, that "a rising tide lifts all the boats". This is a large and largely neglected truth, but it is still only a partial truth, particularly when government policy stresses aggregate growth and fails to allocate resources and services to high-priority needs.

Therefore the Congress, if it is genuinely interested in protecting women, as distinguished from protecting state laws which actually discriminate against women, has a double obligation. It must act affirmatively on the Equal Rights Amendment, initiating the process which will lead to ratification of the Amendment by the States and its incorporation in the Constitution. At the same time. equal rights for women would be limited, precarious and even tainted with the frivolous and unreal in a society where gross inequities suffered by both men and women continue to exist and the general quality of life is severely impaired. Thus the second obligation of the Congress, in addition to initiating the process which will render men and women equal under our laws, must be to make a serious commitment to eliminate the gross inequities in our society which impair the quality of life without regard to gender. It is only through such a dual course of action that the equality of men and women under the laws can attain its full meaning.

Let us suppose that a Congress or a State legislature in session during years when Sojourner Truth was a slave had enacted a law to protect female slaves from the rigors of working in the fields. Such a law might have stipulated the number of pounds a female slave could lift, or the maximum number of lashes she could receive. Would this law be protective of female slaves? Or is it cou

ceivable that what was really required was an emancipation proclamation, a law removing the indignities and hazards suffered by male and female slaves alike, through the abolition of the institution of slavery itself and the development of a society in which free men and women both could work in dignity and find employment according to their interests, needs and capabilities?

Slavery has been abolished, but we have not yet found our way to that society and economy of equal rights and opportunity. Moving toward that society and economy should be the main preoccupation of this Congress. Helping to create such a society and economy is certainly the major goal of the UAW, along with an active interest in moving this nation and the community of nations toward peace, without which the gains of union members and the rest of the community can be washed away like castles in the sand.

We in the UAW support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment as an essential step on the way toward such a society. We do not view it as a panacea; there are no panaceas. If there were, this Congress and the UAW and all other institutions and agencies could be dissolved and we could all relax and enjoy ourselves in a state of happy anarchy. But if the Equal Rights Amendment is not a panacea, neither is it the Trojan Horse which would spread chaos and collapse of our legal system if lodged within our gates, as its opponents and those who support the resolution proposed by Senator Ervin are eagerly trying to persuade us it is.

The Equal Rights Amendment will not work miracles, any more than the civil rights laws and the equal pay act have worked miracles. It will not foment revolution in the relations between the sexes, for it is designed specifically and exclusively to affirm women's legal rights, not to reform the human relationships between men and women. And we are all aware, after the experience of the last decade, that laws alone have a limited effect on human relationships. In this respect again, the struggle for women's rights is not unlike the struggle of black Americans for equal rights and opportunity: both are part of the larger struggle for human dignity and the general enhancement of the quality of life; and both are at the mercy of attitudes, values, assumptions and habits of mind— many of them, in the case of women, held unconsciously by many men—which have been taken in, so to speak, with the air people breathe and which cannot be taken out or legislated out of existence by the mere passage of laws. Nevertheless, laws have a considerable influence on behavior, when they are administered well and vigorously enforced. And the Equal Rights Amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the States, while it would not causes chaos or revolution, would accomplish the considerable action, we repeat, of providing the leverage to take American government and American laws out of the business of discriminating, and condoning discrimination, against women. There has been a calculated campaign on the part of some opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment to create confusion and fear with respect to the effects of that Amendment on present state laws affecting women, particularly working women.

Rather than regarding the Equal Rights Amendment as a threat to the present discriminatory laws and their dubious protections, the passage of the Amendment and the process of ratification should be seen in the light of the opportunity that will be offered, at the Federal and State levels, to extend the real benefits in present laws to men and women alike, or to enact new laws in areas where present legislation may become unconstitutional under the Amendment. The Congress, the State legislatures, the trade unions and other organizations have a responsibility to effect these essential reforms. As an alternative to opposing the Equal Rights Amendment on the ground that women in some occupations who are without strong union representation would be left in the lurch if present maximum-hours laws for women were abandoned, we propose to the Hotel and Restaurant Employes and Bartenders Union and other unions with similar misgivings that a concerted campaign by all interested unions of the AFL-CIO and the Alliance for Labor Action be organized to replace such laws, which are used by employers to deny women workers rights and benefits to which they are entitled, and to enact in their place updated, uniform laws which protect both men and women from unacceptable work practices.

The UAW was mandated by its April, 1970 convention to "make every effort to have maximum hours of work and voluntary overtime provision extended to all workers by legislation on the federal and state levels." We invite the Hotel and Restaurant Workers and all other concerned unions to join us in this effort.