yet the median earnings of women working fulltime year-round were only 60% as high as men's in 1968. Only 7% of American doctors are women, only 3% of lawyers and only 1% of engineers. Although women constitute more than half the population, less than 3% of our national legislators are women.

This caste system is reflected in our law which too often contains one set rules for women and another set for men. For example, 20 states have different rules for jury service according to the sex of the prospective juror. The distinctions between married men and married women are particularly invidious. Husbands are by law the head of the household with the right to decide where the family will live. Wives are forbidden to establish separate domiciles. In some states, married women must still apply to the court for permission to set up their own business although no state places such a restriction on married men. Husbands may sue for loss of consortium when their wives are injured by a third party, but many states deny wives a corresponding right.

Not all legal classifications based on sex discriminate against women. Some of the more arbitrary, like the Illinois law establishing the age of majority at 18 for women and 21 for men, are in part beneficial and in part burdensome. Other laws discriminate against men like the draft and inheritance rights in the deceased spouse's estate.

While no single law can eradicate the effect of centuries of oppression of women, the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment would ensure that the burdens and benefits of governmental action were extended to men and women equally.

It has been argued that these legal distinctions between the sexes are invalid and would be struck down under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a proper case were taken to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment could be interpreted to eliminate different treatment based on sex and we agree with the numerous Constitutional scholars who believe it should be so interpreted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has never, in any case challenging different treatment of the sexes, held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited classification based on sex and there is no guarantee that it will do so in the future.

Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would signal the commitment of this country to eliminate discrimination based on sex. It would inform the U.S. Supreme Court in no uncertain terms that Equal Protection of the Laws means citizens cannot be treated differently merely because they are born female. Adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment would force a rapid overhauling of our laws in order to eliminate unconstitutional distinctions.

Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would be an important step in the transformation of our society from one which classifies people according to sex to one which classifies people according to their actual role or function regardless of sex. Because our society has so little experience in conceptualizing people's roles and functions apart from their sex, ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment provides an opportunity to develop new approaches to social problems and new legal concepts to implement them. For example, under current law the husband is the head of the household with the right to manage community property and decide where the family will live. This would have to change under the Equal Rights Amendment. The law could be rewritten to make men and women equally eligible to be the head of the household depending on who earned the most money. Alternatively, the concept of head of household could be eliminated entirely, thus striking a blow at the whole hierarchial notion of family structure.

Divorce laws which are based on the concept that one person must be at fault often declare different grounds or "faults" sufficient for divorce depending on whether the "guilty" party is a man or a woman. The equal treatment required by the Equal Rights Amendment might be best achieved by eliminating the concept of fault altogether rather than by making the list of "faults" the same for both sexes.

Some critics of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, while admitting that it would be beneficial to many women, argue that our present sex-based family law is needed to protect the large number of women who are homemakers. However, it is quite possible to protect homemakers without the sex-based laws prohibited by the Equal Rights Amendment. Family law could be rewritten (as in

the proposed Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act) to give each spouse legal rights in the family income and a forced share in the deceased spouse's estate. Such laws would protect the spouse who stayed at home to rear the children whether the spouse was male or female. Not only would the protection of women homemakers be increased over present law but the rights of men homemakers would be recognized (a possibility not envisioned in present law).

In the area of employment and protective legislation, the Equal Rights Amendment would reinforce the prohibition against discriminatory employment statutes contained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII laws have already been struck down which "protect" women right out of high paying jobs by, for example, forbidding them to work in jobs where they might have to lift more than 30 pounds. Neither Title VII of the Civil Rights Act nor the Equal Rights Amendment would prohibit legislative protection of weak persons. It would be perfectly legal to require job applicants to take weightlifting tests and protect all those who fail to pass (male or female) from being employed in strenuous jobs. Similarly, legislation protecting the general health and welfare by requiring lunch breaks and prohibiting compulsory overtime would be enhanced by passage of the Equal Rights Amendment which would require extending such legislation to cover men as well as

women.

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom opposes the substitute Amendment (S.J. Res. 231) introduced by Senator Ervin which would perpetuate different treatment of men and women before the law. Particularly objectionable is the phrase "to enable them (women) to perform their duties as homemakers or mothers," which would enshrine in the Constitution the role of women as housewives and child-rearers. This is directly contrary to the main thrust of the women's liberation movement which aims to free people from being limited by accident of sex to specific social roles. Unlike Senator Ervin, proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment do not think that a person's social function is or should be determined by his or her sex.

Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment will not guarantee Utopia; it will only establish the legal principle that both men and women are people entitled to equal treatment under law. The Women's International League For Peace and Freedom urges passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (S.J. Res. 61) as a necessary first step on the road to a society free from sexual discrimination.

STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN SUPPORT OF THE "EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT"

The District of Columbia Commission on the Status of Women reaffirms its endorsement of the "Equal Rights" Amendment to the Constitution of the United States adopted by the House of Representatives on August 10, 1970. Our support of this amendment was covered in our statement filed May 4, 1970 with your Sub-Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

We are aware, however, that Senator Ervin, a member of your Committee, has proposed a substitute amendment securing to the states the right to discriminate between citizens of the United States in matters of employment, and otherwise, on the basis of sex, under the guise of preserving so-called "protective" legislation. It is for the purpose of stating our strong objection to this proposal that we appear again to urge you to send to the floor of the Senate the amendment adopted by an overwhelming majority of the House, in language which, in exact words, has been sponsored by more than eighty members of the present Senate.

The language of Senator Ervin's amendment would inject into the Constitution a distinction between the people of this nation on the basis of sex repulsive to the fundamental principles upon which our institutions rest.

It would bluntly contradict the admonition of the XIVth Amendment, that "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The purpose of the substitute amendment seems obviously to be to defeat any affirmation in the Constitution that under the supreme law of the United States the people of the United States are equal regardless of any distinguishing classification.

Time and again women's assertion of their right to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution has been denied by the Courts on the ground that under the common law of England women were not entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

The purpose of the amendment adopted by the House of Representatives is to free the women of the United States from the application to them by the Courts of those outmoded principles.

The effect of Senator Ervin's amendment would be to affirmatively deny to women full rights of citizenship under the Constitution and laws of the United States. It would indeed, write the common law of England as it affected English women in the eighteenth century into the Constitution of the United States.

It is not conceivable that the Congress of the United States would seriously propose such an amendment to the legislatures of the States in 1970.

Clearly, therefore, the real purpose of Senator Ervin's proposed amendment is to defeat the House amendment and its purpose, and to prevent any "Equal Rights" Amendment from being proposed by this Congress to the States.

We urge the Senate Committee on the Judiciary not to be a party to this obstructionist tactic. We urge you to do American women the justice of adopting and sending to the floor the amendment proposed by the House of Representatives without the addition of a word.

STATEMENT OF Paula Gail FROHMAN, ZERO POPULATION GROWTH, Inc., WASHINGTON, D.C., ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

The purpose of this statement is to show that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would be a step forward in dealing with one of the United States' most serious problems: overpopulation.

The problem of overpopulation and its effects on the environment will not be discussed here for there is a great deal of literature on the subject available. There are now several volumes of congressional hearings published on the "population crisis;" these include hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives presented in September of 1969. Since then a report has been issued by the House Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population recommending a population policy for the United States-a policy intended to recrease the rapid rate of population growth. Other sources include "The Growth of the U.S. Population," a report by the Committee on Population of the National Academy of Sciences and the "Report of the President's Committee on Population and Family Planning" which was released January of 1968.

The main recommendation made by these sources is that the government should give high priority to extending family planning services to the poor and uneducated. In a recent (May 1970) issue of Science magazine, Judith Blake, a demographer at the University of California, gives strong evidence that such an approach by the government will not solve our population problem. In essence, she is able to show that even if we could prevent the births of all unwanted children by contraceptive measures, the fact remains that people want too many children. The middle class wants about three per family and poorer people about four. With families of this size, our population will continue to grow rapidly. And it is the non-poor who will produce the largest percentage of births despite their smaller families. In the period 1960-1965, the non-poor of the United States produced 68.2 percent of all births. This is due to the fact that the largest portion of our population is non-poor and thereby produces the most children in actual numbers. In the light of her findings, Judith Blake recommends that in addition to providing contraceptive means, the government must take into account and relate to the various pronatalist policies which exist in the United States and which are important causes in our population growth. Pronatalist policies include the "complex social organization and system of incentives that encourage mating, pregnancy, and the care, support and rearing of children." These policies have been evolved over the millennia to give societies a fertility sufficient to offset high mortality rates. Now we find that high birth rates are no longer needed. Blake thinks that coercion will not be necessary. We have only to work toward lifting the pressures to reproduce. In

our society reproduction is a "primary societal end" and so we have social roles that draw most of our population into reproductive unions. Our sexual roles and our occupational roles are so standardized that a female growing up in our society feels that it is her role and social duty to produce children. We can begin by rethinking and changing our ideas of woman's roles. The government can encourage other life styles besides those of marriage and parenthood. And it can extend to women equal opportunity with men to find self-fullfilling occupations. As it stands now, women are not going to be willing to have smaller families and thus give up the one meaningful life's work offered them-unless they have very good alternatives.

As a responsible human being and as a woman, I would not advocate the broadening of sex roles with its far reaching social implications if I were not convinced that such changes would be for the better for both men and women. Overpopulation is a serious problem, but I would not suggest risking the wellbeing of our entire population in a measure to solve this problem. As evidence of the need for change I could cite my reactions from contact with the many people I know, from long talks with my friends of both sexes. I have come to believe that both men and women need wider ranges in which to express themselves— and still be under the sanctions of our society. For instance, when women are allowed to be more aggressive and men more sensitive and understandingwithout our feeling that the woman is "to masculine" and that the man is "too femine," I think we will have taken a step forward. People will be allowed a greater range of choices as to their life-styles and will not have to force themselves to fit our now highly stereotyped sex roles.

There is a growing body of evidence in psychology and sociology that points to the necessity of broading these roles. One piece of this evidence was cited by Edith Green on the floor of the House at the debate of this amendment: Various studies of fourth and fifth grade classes show that while ninety-nine percent of the boys are glad that they are boys, thirty or forty percent of the girls wish that they were boys because boys have greater opportunities.

Further evidence for change is offered in an article "Family Size and SexRole Stereotypes" written by a group of psychologists and psychiatrists' and drawing on several pieces of research. I will cite this article as briefly as possible. The authors had a group of women who were mothers rate themselves on scales with such opposites at each end of the pole as "not at all aggressive" to "very aggressive." Items where the male pole was more socially desirable were termed male-value items; items where the female pole was more socially desirable, female-value items. The positive poles of the male valued stereotypic items describe a rational, competent, active, mature individual who is capable of functioning effectively in our society and is called the "competency" cluster. The positive poles of the female valued stereotypic items describe a gentle, sensitive, expressive individual-the "warmth and expressiveness" cluster. So the description of the typical adult male would be high in competency and low in warmth and expressiveness; females would be just the opposite. Mothers with high competency self-concepts were found to have significantly fewer children than the mothers who rated themselves low on the competency cluster. Of importance is the fact that the incorporation of positive male valued stereotypic traits into the female self-concept of the mothers is not a shift away from the positively valued female traits, rather it is a shift away from the negatively valued aspect of the femine stereotype.

Although greater competence is considered to be a part of the male sex-role stereotype, competency can be thought of in broader terms as a developmental attribute toward which healthy adults of both sexes aspire. This point has been discussed in several books by leading people in the field of psychology-Gordon Allport, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. And the items making up the competency cluster have been judged by psychiatrists and psychologists as attributes of mental health. So the incorporation of some of the items of the com

3

1 Clarkson, Frank E., Susan R. Vogel, Inge K. Broverman, Donald M. Broverman, and Paul S. Rosenkrantz, Science, Volume 167, 390.

2 The major sources for this information were: Allport, Becoming; Maslow, Motivation and Personality; and Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy.

3 Broverman, I. K., D. M. Broverman, F. E. Clarkson, P. S. Rosenkrantz, S. R. Vogel, Journal of Consultant Clinical Psychology, in press.

petency cluster into a women's self-concept shows a growth toward mental health, maturity, or self-actualization. In fact, the role that our society tends to prescribe for a woman—a role of less competence and maturity than that for men-has been considered harmful when viewed from the perspectives of human development and mental health. Now that this prescribed role for women seems to be one of the reasons for larger families, we have even greater justification for opening up more roles to women-and the sooner, the better.

I suggest the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the form of H.J. Res. 264 as the quickest and surest way of starting the change in attitudes and aspirations that will lead to a change in the roles of women and men. I am aware, as are other women, that just the passage of the amendment by the Congress and the several States will not, in itself, bring about an immediate change in all the laws discriminating against women-nor would it change the attitudes and opinions of most of the people in this country concerning the roles of women and men. But it would be the best start that could be made at this time. The psychological effect on girls and women to know that the Constitution, the law, considers and will treat them as equal to men will have a positive effect on their thinking and planning. Mothers whose children are grown and leaving home will look forward to an interesting job; girls in grammar school will be glad they are girls because their opportunities will be equal to boys-apprenticeship programs and colleges will be equally accessible to them. It will not begin at once-this new equality-but with the impetus of the Equal Rights Amendment and the much needed change in some laws that will result, a firm beginning will have been established.

I have listened to several days of testimony for and against this amendment and I feel that most of the objections have been answered. A change in many laws is inevitable with or without the amendment-but the amendment will speed the change. The problem of overtime for women has been adequately answered by Professor Leo Kanowith. In the time it will take the amendment to be ratified by the required number of states, I believe that those concerned and dedicated people will work to see that overtime is not a special privilege or a punishment as the case may be now. But I do not think that the problem of overtime is a reason for not passing or passing in a weakened form the Equal Rights Amendment.

In our society, as in any great, complex, changing civilization the ills are great and the wrongs done one group of the population by another group are great. But immediately before us lies a chance to begin to right the great wrong perpetuated on fifty-one percent of the people of the United States.

TESTIMONY OF MARGUERITE RAWALT, ATTORNEY, CHAIRMAN OF PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (1963), CHAIRMAN OF TASK FORCE ON FAMILY LAW AND POLICY OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL ON STATUS OF WOMEN (1963-68)

Distinguished Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary: It is as a member of the bar who has served as President of the National Association of Women Lawyers, and as Chairman of Presidential Task Forces on Family Law and Policy and on Civil and Political Rights of Women, that I appear before this Committee of lawyer-legislators to advocate your approval, without any change, of H.J. Res. 264, passed by the House on August 10, 1970. In so doing, you are asked to approve the identical language of S.J. Res. 61, sponsored by some 80 members of the U.S. Senate in this 90th Congress. Senators are urged to pass the Resolution which each sponsored, and to resist any amendment thereto, for reasons advanced herein.

The words of the proposed amendment are simple and clear. They follow the 15th and the 19th amendments:

15th A. The right of citizens of the United States to vote-shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th A. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. For reference, the words of the House passed H.J. Res. 264 and of S.J. Res. 61 are set forth: