DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

Transcribe
Translate

Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

1970-09-25 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 9

Equality under the Law More Of The Same
COMMENTARY 
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
by Ann Elizabeth 

The passing of the Equal Rights Amendment in the House (after 47 years  of resistance) is another interesting manifestation of a certain type of co-option. This one, however, is more complicated, than most. 
First, on the issue of the draft. This amendment, if made part of the Constitution, is supposed to make women subject to the draft, and - as Frank Blair on NBC news put it so cunningly - make it possible for women to demand entrance into such schools as West Point (chuckle). But let us not forget that there is a great conspiracy afoot to do way with the draft. This great conspiracy is supported by an interesting cross-section of people - Mr. Nixon, Reoublicans, Democrats, and oddly, a whole horde of anti-war proponents - men and women alike.  
It looks as if, once again, they (males) will be successful in preventing women full participation in the war machine process. I firmly believe that the ERA and the drive to eliminate the draft system are related in this way: That the general abhorrence to making women draft prone will give impetus to Nixon's plan to do away with the draft and that many, many men and women who already want an end to the draft, will (should the ERA go through) push even harder to see it done. A large group of people seem to be thinking of the draft issue in a very short-sighted manner. The men (and now supposedly, women) don't want to go to Indo-China (an unjust war, etc.) and so they don't want to be drafted. Very simple conclusion ..... do away with the draft. It MUST strike some of these people as peculiar that their bed-partners in this conclusion are Nixon and Mitchell. OK - take another view - a longer view: If U.S. foreign policy continues to be what it is, is it not absolutely mandatory that the U.S. public, man AND women, share the TOTAL responsibility of aggression committed against other nations by our government. And is not that "sharing" involvement assured by the selective service system? To create another set of "professionals" is only another manifestation of the male route to status specialization. And in this case, the professionals would be well-paid, well-housed (according to Mitchell) troops (mercenaries), prepared to apply no individual social conscience to matters of killing, occupation, detention, torture, espionage, and so on. In other words - they would carry out the abstract objectives of our male-dominant government in concrete terms. 
We MUST retain generalized public sanction over the military actions of federal authorities! One other side effect of doing away with the draft is that it would surely weaken the anti-war movement. The Pentagon people would have a carte blanche situation - which is just what they want. 
We should also examine the draft issue from a view of the right of women to bear arms - which to this day his virtually been denied to us. This right is integral with the right of self-defense. In light of the violence mystique that exists in our culture (and the fact that we are so vulnerable and subject to it), we should welcome any opportunity to acquire education in self-defense tactics - including military training and participation. And we must be given the opportunity to RESIST oppression in a meaningful way - not only in matters of individual self-protection, but in a political context, the opportunity to say "hell, no, we won't go" and have it be EFFECTIVE.
The second most-debated aspect of the ERA is the doing away with so-called "protective laws". Quoting from Joan Jordan: "The removal of beneficial legislation will not insure equality but rather increase profits through greater exploitation and inequality than presently exists." 
Consider the fact that nationally, 80% of working women are NOT organized. Therefore without any protective laws and no work contracts, they would be totally subjugated to the whim of unscrupulous employers. 
Many of the protective work laws came into being through hard-fought battles -- laws concerning limitations on working hours, overtime, break periods, lifting excessive weights, cleanliness, good ventilation, adequate lighting, decent restroom facilities. We must not push these laws aside and contend simply that they oppress women workers. While it's true that some of these laws have been unjustly applied to prevent women from securing certain types of employment -- the protective benefits derived from these laws are generally valid, and necessary to all employees - male and female alike. The obvious political thrust should be not to remove these laws but the EXTEND them to include the male work force. At the same time, women must demand a reduced work day and week as they organize. If our movement looks forward to creating a more humane society, the above certainly outlines the most logical political thinking of women concerning labor. 
It may be that the ERA will serve our purposes in the courts and will prove forceful in helping women to enter areas of now male-dominated employment - but beware the co-option dilemma! Don't be easily pacified by this crumb of egalitarianism! It's very possible that the ERA will have only the most minimal effect on ACTUAL opportunities from women. Witness the 1963 Equal Pay Act; the 1964 Title VII Sex Amendment; the 1954 Supreme Court Decision on integration. There is a rather extensive list on Congressional books of laws dealing with the condition of women and civil rights. The female population continues to move backward economically and the Blacks are battling on all fronts ... in spite of these laws! Laws are valid only when the courts enforce them - and we've seen little evidence of strong enforcement of laws concerning women and Blacks ... and other minority groups. 
Do you support the ERA? Why? Are you prepared to enforce it? - to coerce the courts to enforce it? - to go to the streets to do battle to enforce it? Are you prepared to accept (to demand) participation in the military and thusly secure fuller participation in our government?  Are you ready for the employer who will require you to work a 12 hour day with no overtime? Or will the ERA stand as another bit of lip-service paperwork? Be reminded also that 38 states must ratify this amendment before it become part of the Constitutional law. 
It looks good - but it's a pretty complicated hassle. 
Reprinted from the Female Liberation Newsletter, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Feeling only human
I picked myself up
Feeling human
is like a second, 
lost y'r balance, 
that's alright

Feeling human
seems to be getting
more difficult
plastic coughing) 

Feeling human is
a sensation 
inside a crowd

Feeling human
is becoming more
and more troublesome
and that's just when
we stop thinking about it

and fall out of this 
writer's tree
at my mother's words

She is well sort of 
screaming, all worked up 
like hysterical

While I sit up here 
angrily denouncing 
her Republicans

she is too wrought up
to care who wins
she is hurt and
all she can think
is suffering
and she cries, 
Be human. 

[cartoon-drawn tree]

A Women?   Sept. 25 1970   nine

Saving...

Equality under the Law More Of The Same COMMENTARY THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT by Ann Elizabeth The passing of the Equal Rights Amendment in the House (after 47 years of resistance) is another interesting manifestation of a certain type of co-option. This one, however, is more complicated, than most. First, on the issue of the draft. This amendment, if made part of the Constitution, is supposed to make women subject to the draft, and - as Frank Blair on NBC news put it so cunningly - make it possible for women to demand entrance into such schools as West Point (chuckle). But let us not forget that there is a great conspiracy afoot to do way with the draft. This great conspiracy is supported by an interesting cross-section of people - Mr. Nixon, Reoublicans, Democrats, and oddly, a whole horde of anti-war proponents - men and women alike. It looks as if, once again, they (males) will be successful in preventing women full participation in the war machine process. I firmly believe that the ERA and the drive to eliminate the draft system are related in this way: That the general abhorrence to making women draft prone will give impetus to Nixon's plan to do away with the draft and that many, many men and women who already want an end to the draft, will (should the ERA go through) push even harder to see it done. A large group of people seem to be thinking of the draft issue in a very short-sighted manner. The men (and now supposedly, women) don't want to go to Indo-China (an unjust war, etc.) and so they don't want to be drafted. Very simple conclusion ..... do away with the draft. It MUST strike some of these people as peculiar that their bed-partners in this conclusion are Nixon and Mitchell. OK - take another view - a longer view: If U.S. foreign policy continues to be what it is, is it not absolutely mandatory that the U.S. public, man AND women, share the TOTAL responsibility of aggression committed against other nations by our government. And is not that "sharing" involvement assured by the selective service system? To create another set of "professionals" is only another manifestation of the male route to status specialization. And in this case, the professionals would be well-paid, well-housed (according to Mitchell) troops (mercenaries), prepared to apply no individual social conscience to matters of killing, occupation, detention, torture, espionage, and so on. In other words - they would carry out the abstract objectives of our male-dominant government in concrete terms. We MUST retain generalized public sanction over the military actions of federal authorities! One other side effect of doing away with the draft is that it would surely weaken the anti-war movement. The Pentagon people would have a carte blanche situation - which is just what they want. We should also examine the draft issue from a view of the right of women to bear arms - which to this day his virtually been denied to us. This right is integral with the right of self-defense. In light of the violence mystique that exists in our culture (and the fact that we are so vulnerable and subject to it), we should welcome any opportunity to acquire education in self-defense tactics - including military training and participation. And we must be given the opportunity to RESIST oppression in a meaningful way - not only in matters of individual self-protection, but in a political context, the opportunity to say "hell, no, we won't go" and have it be EFFECTIVE. The second most-debated aspect of the ERA is the doing away with so-called "protective laws". Quoting from Joan Jordan: "The removal of beneficial legislation will not insure equality but rather increase profits through greater exploitation and inequality than presently exists." Consider the fact that nationally, 80% of working women are NOT organized. Therefore without any protective laws and no work contracts, they would be totally subjugated to the whim of unscrupulous employers. Many of the protective work laws came into being through hard-fought battles -- laws concerning limitations on working hours, overtime, break periods, lifting excessive weights, cleanliness, good ventilation, adequate lighting, decent restroom facilities. We must not push these laws aside and contend simply that they oppress women workers. While it's true that some of these laws have been unjustly applied to prevent women from securing certain types of employment -- the protective benefits derived from these laws are generally valid, and necessary to all employees - male and female alike. The obvious political thrust should be not to remove these laws but the EXTEND them to include the male work force. At the same time, women must demand a reduced work day and week as they organize. If our movement looks forward to creating a more humane society, the above certainly outlines the most logical political thinking of women concerning labor. It may be that the ERA will serve our purposes in the courts and will prove forceful in helping women to enter areas of now male-dominated employment - but beware the co-option dilemma! Don't be easily pacified by this crumb of egalitarianism! It's very possible that the ERA will have only the most minimal effect on ACTUAL opportunities from women. Witness the 1963 Equal Pay Act; the 1964 Title VII Sex Amendment; the 1954 Supreme Court Decision on integration. There is a rather extensive list on Congressional books of laws dealing with the condition of women and civil rights. The female population continues to move backward economically and the Blacks are battling on all fronts ... in spite of these laws! Laws are valid only when the courts enforce them - and we've seen little evidence of strong enforcement of laws concerning women and Blacks ... and other minority groups. Do you support the ERA? Why? Are you prepared to enforce it? - to coerce the courts to enforce it? - to go to the streets to do battle to enforce it? Are you prepared to accept (to demand) participation in the military and thusly secure fuller participation in our government? Are you ready for the employer who will require you to work a 12 hour day with no overtime? Or will the ERA stand as another bit of lip-service paperwork? Be reminded also that 38 states must ratify this amendment before it become part of the Constitutional law. It looks good - but it's a pretty complicated hassle. Reprinted from the Female Liberation Newsletter, Minneapolis, Minnesota Feeling only human I picked myself up Feeling human is like a second, lost y'r balance, that's alright Feeling human seems to be getting more difficult plastic coughing) Feeling human is a sensation inside a crowd Feeling human is becoming more and more troublesome and that's just when we stop thinking about it and fall out of this writer's tree at my mother's words She is well sort of screaming, all worked up like hysterical While I sit up here angrily denouncing her Republicans she is too wrought up to care who wins she is hurt and all she can think is suffering and she cries, Be human. [cartoon-drawn tree] A Women? Sept. 25 1970 nine

Equality under the Law More Of The Same COMMENTARY THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT by Ann Elizabeth 
The passing of the Equal Rights Amendment in the House (after 47 years  of resistance) is another interesting manifestation of a certain type of co-option. This one, however, is more complicated, than most. First, on the issue of the draft. This amendment, if made part of the Constitution, is supposed to make women subject to the draft, and - as Frank Blair on NBC news put it so cunningly - make it possible for women to demand entrance into such schools as West Point (chuckle). But let us not forget that there is a great conspiracy afoot to do way with the draft. This great conspiracy is supported by an interesting cross-section of people - Mr. Nixon, Reoublicans, Democrats, and oddly, a whole horde of anti-war proponents - men and women alike.  
It looks as if, once again, they (males) will be successful in preventing women full participation in the war machine process. I firmly believe that the ERA and the drive to eliminate the draft system are related in this way: That the general abhorrence to making women draft prone will give impetus to Nixon's plan to do away with the draft and that many, many men and women who already want an end to the draft, will (should the ERA go through) push even harder to see it done. A large group of people seem to be thinking of the draft issue in a very short-sighted manner. The men (and now supposedly, women) don't want to go to Indo-China (an unjust war, etc.) and so they don't want to be drafted. Very simple conclusion ..... do away with the draft. It MUST strike some of these people as peculiar that their bed-partners in this conclusion are Nixon and Mitchell. OK - take another view - a longer view: If U.S. foreign policy continues to be what it is, is it not absolutely mandatory that the U.S. public, man AND women, share the TOTAL responsibility of aggression committed against other nations by our government. And is not that "sharing" involvement assured by the selective service system? To create another set of "professionals" is only another manifestation of the male route to status specialization. And in this case, the professionals would be well-paid, well-housed (according to Mitchell) troops (mercenaries), prepared to apply no individual social conscience to matters of killing, occupation, detention, torture, espionage, and so on. In other words - they would carry out the abstract objectives of our male-dominant government in concrete terms. We MUST retain generalized public sanction over the military actions of federal authorities! One other side effect of doing away with the draft is that it would surely weaken the anti-war movement. The Pentagon people would have a carte blanche situation - which is just what they want. We should also examine the draft issue from a view of the right of women to bear arms - which to this day his virtually been denied to us. This right is integral with the right of self-defense. In light of the violence mystique that exists in our culture (and the fact that we are so vulnerable and subject to it), we should welcome any opportunity to acquire education in self-defense tactics - including military training and participation. And we must be given the opportunity to RESIST oppression in a meaningful way - not only in matters of individual self-protection, but in a political context, the opportunity to say "hell, no, we won't go" and have it be EFFECTIVE.
The second most-debated aspect of the ERA is the doing away with so-called "protective laws". Quoting from Joan Jordan: "The removal of beneficial legislation will not insure equality but rather increase profits through greater exploitation and inequality than presently exists." Consider the fact that nationally, 80% of working women are NOT organized. Therefore without any protective laws and no work contracts, they would be totally subjugated to the whim of unscrupulous employers. 
Many of the protective work laws came into being through hard-fought battles -- laws concerning limitations on working hours, overtime, break periods, lifting excessive weights, cleanliness, good ventilation, adequate lighting, decent restroom facilities. We must not push these laws aside and contend simply that they oppress women workers. While it's true that some of these laws have been unjustly applied to prevent women from securing certain types of employment -- the protective benefits derived from these laws are generally valid, and necessary to all employees - male and female alike. The obvious political thrust should be not to remove these laws but the EXTEND them to include the male work force. At the same time, women must demand a reduced work day and week as they organize. If our movement looks forward to creating a more humane society, the above certainly outlines the most logical political thinking of women concerning labor. It may be that the ERA will serve our purposes in the courts and will prove forceful in helping women to enter areas of now male-dominated employment - but beware the co-option dilemma! Don't be easily pacified by this crumb of egalitarianism! It's very possible that the ERA will have only the most minimal effect on ACTUAL opportunities from women. Witness the 1963 Equal Pay Act; the 1964 Title VII Sex Amendment; the 1954 Supreme Court Decision on integration. There is a rather extensive list on Congressional books of laws dealing with the condition of women and civil rights. The female population continues to move backward economically and the Blacks are battling on all fronts ... in spite of these laws! Laws are valid only when the courts enforce them - and we've seen little evidence of strong enforcement of laws concerning women and Blacks ... and other minority groups. Do you support the ERA? Why? Are you prepared to enforce it? - to coerce the courts to enforce it? - to go to the streets to do battle to enforce it? Are you prepared to accept (to demand) participation in the military and thusly secure fuller participation in our government?  Are you ready for the employer who will require you to work a 12 hour day with no overtime? Or will the ERA stand as another bit of lip-service paperwork? Be reminded also that 38 states must ratify this amendment before it become part of the Constitutional law. It looks good - but it's a pretty complicated hassle. 
Reprinted from the Female Liberation Newsletter, Minneapolis, Minnesota Feeling only human I picked myself up
Feeling human is like a second, lost y'r balance, that's alright Feeling human seems to be getting more difficult (plastic coughing) Feeling human is a sensation 
inside a crowd Feeling human is becoming more and more troublesome
and that's just when we stop thinking about it and fall out of this writer's tree
at my mother's words She is well sort of 
screaming, all worked up like hysterical
While I sit up here angrily denouncing 
her Republicans she is too wrought up
to care who wins she is hurt and all she can think is suffering and she cries, Be human. [cartoon-drawn tree]

A Women?   Sept. 25 1970   nine