|
Gilda Djabarzade
Author's Bio
Jane J. Mansbridge was born on August 12, 1949. She attended Wellesley College and received her B.A. degree. She then earned her M.A. and PhD degree from Harvard. Mansbridge has taught at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and is the Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University, where she teaches political science and democratic theory. Mansbridge has written Beyond Adversary Democracy and Why We Lost the ERA. Her second book, Why We Lost the ERA, was a co-recipient of the American Political Science Association's Victoria Schuck Award and the Gladys M. Kammerer Award.
According to Jane J. Mansbridge, author of Why We Lost the ERA, it was neither male power, male dominance, male majority, nor male influence that affected the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, in 1982. The failure of the amendment lay in the fact that it was inadequately supported and advertised by the weak pro-ERA movement. Mansbridge argues that "much of the support for the amendment was superficial" and "based on a support for abstract rights, not for real changes."1 Even though the Equal Rights Amendment did not promise any drastic changes in society or social roles of men or women, many Americans believed it would and because they were not ready for such changes, they opposed the amendment. The weak leadership of the pro-ERA movement, the lack of communication and unity between its members, and the lack of political debates also affected the failure of the amendment tremendously.
Mansbridge begins her book by explaining how and why feminists and the pro-ERA movement lost the amendment. Mansbridge argues that the amendment would only have benefited specific groups of people, rather than all women and that "the ERA applied only to the government and not private businesses." 2 The amendment was only advantageous to working women and so created substantial opposition from homemakers and the conservative right. Also, the amendment was believed to end "special benefits" provided to homemakers and stay-at-home mothers. 3 Thus, it had no "noticeable effect, at least in the short run, on the gap between men's and women's wages."4 Therefore, it was hard to prove that the ERA would have "made any of the substantive changes" that most Americans--especially women--wished for. 5 However, the full equality that proponents of the amendment argued for--the equal military draft and the unisex public toilets--was the biggest downfall of the amendment. But only the radical feminists proposed such drastic measures. Mansbridge and the other more moderate feminists firmly believed that such a draft would never occur, however, because of the danger and harm that it could instigate on women. Even if the country was in a dire need for soldiers, Mansbridge argues, Congress would still not allow the equal military draft to become effective.
In addition, the more arguments supporters of the ERA made for full equality, the more they hurt themselves and their chances of the amendment's ratification. Arguments arose over the "equal sharing of political and economic power" between a married couple.6 People saw this as an infringement upon their private rights. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's power to enforce such equality between a husband and a wife made the issue even worse since "very few Americans want[ed] the Supreme Court to tell them how to live." 7 More arguments opposing the amendment came from conservative religious groups, such as Protestants and Catholics, who opposed some of the benefits and rights the amendment granted to women, such as making abortions a woman's choice as well as legal. Such conservative, religious groups believed that with the ratification of the ERA, abortions would increase exponentially, and because they believed in pro-life, they wanted to prevent the increase in the number of abortions. Not to mention, the working class and Southerners--especially agrarian Southerners who depended on their wives to take care around the home and in the field--opposed the equal rights amendment. They believed that a woman's job was to help take care of the family and the home, not to get a job outside of the home when there was so much work to do around the house. Families with a low income and large families with many children held similar beliefs that a woman's primary goal should be to take care of her children and to ensure that they mature physically, mentally, and emotionally, as well as to take care of the house. Devout churchgoers and fundamentalists looked to the Bible to defend their belief that women had to take care of the home and the children. Thus, by the late 1970s, "the ERA activists had a real problem explaining how this amendment" would help women. 8
Then, Mansbridge spends two unnecessary chapters--whereas one chapter would have been sufficient--describing the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the equal military draft. Moderate feminists such as Mansbridge, strongly believed that the equal military draft would never be enforced, but argued for such a draft because it would symbolically give full equality to women and end discrimination in the military. Mansbridge argues that women are as much capable as men to fight and hold combat duties. She argues that this amendment would give women a chance to rise up in rank and thus receive better wages and prestige. In addition, this amendment would open up seventy-three percent of the combat positions that were "off-limits to women." 9 Many senators and representatives in Congress disagreed that women should be allowed any duty in the military, especially combat duties. Representative Martha Griffiths, who was the "primary sponsor of the ERA", believed that although the draft was equal, "once [women] were in the Army [they] were put where the Army told [them] to go."10 Mansbridge interprets Griffiths' words to mean that once women are in the Army, they would most likely hold non-combat positions such as telephone operator or nurse. Members of the National Organization for Women, NOW, argued that by preventing women to work in combat duties, the Army prevented the careers' of those women who stayed in the military from growing and "reinforced stereotypes of women as weak and unfit to serve their country." 11 Mansbridge added to this by explaining that "women are as much citizens of their country as men" are, and thus should be allowed to serve their country.12
Feminist lawyers' who defended the amendment in court also contributed to the amendment's failure. Some lawyers were unwilling to compromise their own beliefs and positions to help the equal rights amendment win ratification in the four, key Southern states because their interests and devotions were to their own principles rather than to "passing the ERA" or "to an organization like NOW." 13 The Supreme Court's decision in Frontiero vs. Richardson and Craig vs. Boren--both of which established judicial inquiry for gender laws--especially convinced feminist lawyers that the equal rights amendment would do nothing more than the Fourteen Amendment. In addition, some legislators argued that the ERA would create social chaos. For example, under the equal rights amendment, Boy and Girl Scouts, the prisons, as well as sports would have to be integrated. This integration of sports would actually hurt women because it would not allow women to continue competing once they lost against men, because after all, men are physically suited better for some sports than women are. The integration of prisons would also create lots of upheaval as well.
Mansbridge clarifies that the amendment's public support was only surface-deep, therefore relying too heavily on the "appealing concept of 'equal rights,' not on support for substantive changes in" women's roles. 14 Mansbridge proves her thesis by explaining that America was not ready for an Equal Rights Amendment that would guarantee women equal rights at home, in the workforce, and in politics. With the passage of the ERA, women would have been drafted and assigned combat duties as well as moved up in rank in the military. Women would also have had to work and earn at least fifty percent of the household income and been able to earn equal wages for equal work just like men. Women would also have been able to run for political office, as well as receive government funding for abortions. Moreover, women would have to do only half of the house chores, while the men did the rest. Although this amendment held so many advantages for women, American citizens were not ready for such drastic changes in the roles of women and men, and many believed that the ERA was too radical and in fact, "un-democratic", because it deprived married couples of their rights of privacy. Married couples argued that they did not want the Constitution to run their lives and tell them what to do, where to work, or how much to work. People were ready for only the abstract and symbolic changes that the amendment would bring: for example, no job discrimination based on gender.
In Why We Lost the ERA, Mansbridge purposefully writes in the first and third person. Mansbridge's purpose for choosing these points of view is to allow the reader time to pause and reflect on "what he or she might have done" with the ERA and its proponents and opponents' arguments. 15 Also, Why We Lost the ERA is biased because its author is a woman as well as member of the pro-ERA movement. Why We Lost the ERA is particularly biased because Mansbridge had not studied the STOP ERA movement as much as or as closely as the pro-ERA movement. Thus, her description of the STOP ERA movement made it seem more effective and the arguments stronger than the arguments of the pro-ERA movement. Mansbridge explains that if she "had studied the STOP ERA movement as closely as [she] had studied the pro-ERA movement", her discovery would have weakened the STOP ERA movement. 16 But because Mansbridge knew more about the pro-ERA movement, she criticized it more than the opposition movement and hence weakened the pro-ERA movement. Mansbridge writes that it was the strength of the opposition movement--the opposition movement's great communication skills, unity, experience, organization, strong leadership, and national political debates and rallies--that weakened the arguments of the amendment's supporters. The STOP ERA movement was especially effective because its leader, Phyllis Schlafly, reached out to the average citizen and delivered powerful, persuasive speeches--most of which turned Americans against the equal rights amendment. Schlafly always attacked the weak areas of the proponents' arguments by asking questions, such as which gender-discriminating law the ERA would change, a question that even the leaders of the pro-ERA organization could not answer.
According to Catharine A. MacKinnon's The University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 54, Mansbridge's book Why We Lost the ERA, is "a mordant celebration of an inert fact: after a long tormented life , the old ERA is dead."17 MacKinnon, in her critical review agrees with Mansbridge's reasons for the failure of the ERA: that it was the weak, shallow support of the American public and the reluctance of Americans to accept major changes in the roles of women and men. However, MacKinnon then states that Mansbridge's book and the equal rights law "both assume that politics sets the real ground rules for politics for women." 18 MacKinnon also explains that both Mansbridge and the equal rights law believe that Americans--especially women--do not want gender equality. Therefore, Mansbridge assumes that it is her, as well as other feminists' responsibilities to change society and give equality to all, instead of accepting society and the laws as they are and being realistic about politics and the American public. MacKinnon goes further to criticize Mansbridge's book by writing that Why We Lost the ERA does not evaluate the amendment itself and blames women--the amendment's supporters--too much for the failure of it, rather than considering what these proponents of the amendment were up against.
Judith L. Hudson's Michigan Law Review, Volume 86--another critical review--explains that "Why We Lost the ERA is a book about understanding the political process, and some of the book's most fascinating moments involve[s] the description of key issues which define[s] the ERA activists' platforms."19 Hudson also believes that Mansbridge did a good job "describing the context in which the amendment's struggle took place, and at analyzing the effect which this social context may have had on the debate." 20 In addition, according to Hudson, Why We Lost the ERA is a descriptive and analytical book, as opposed to being political. Hudson also writes that Mansbridge never criticizes the nation for the failure of the ERA, but rather tries to show the lessons the struggle for the amendment can teach about political and social movements. However, Hudson writes that Mansbridge has little to say about the pro-ERA movement and does not express her personal beliefs on whether the amendment's proponents should have done things differently or what feminists should do in the future. Overall however, Hudson believes that this book is well researched, understandable, thoughtful, and "a window onto one of the most important political events of our time."21 Thus, while MacKinnon criticizes Why We Lost the ERA for being based on too many assumptions and not enough on reality, Hudson believes that Mansbridge's book is written well for a political science book even though it lacks a resolution or a conclusion.
I believe that this book is a valid source to study the reasons that led to the ERA's failure to pass ratification through all thirty-eight states. Mansbridge not only provides the arguments of both the supporters and the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, but also criticizes both sides and their arguments. Mansbridge also provides quotes from credible politicians like representatives of the house (Griffiths) and senators, as well as graphs and data of surveys of Americans supporting or opposing the amendment and its effects. I, however, believe that Mansbridge should have "studied the STOP ERA movement as much as she studied the pro-ERA movement" so that she would have no bias."22 I would rather have a book written by an author not involved in either of the movements and someone who is not a feminist or a woman.
According to Mansbridge, American politics has continued shifting to the right from the 1970s to 2000. More people have taken conservative stands on the nation's leading political and controversial issues, such as the ratification of the ERA. Although in 1972 the ERA passed the Senate by a vote of eighty-four to eight, which is more than the two-thirds required for ratification, "on June 30, 1982, only thirty-five of the required thirty-eight states had ratified this same amendment." 23 This illustrates that over the ten-year period, between 1972 and 1982, Americans had shifted further to the right. According to Mansbridge, Americans had become afraid of change, especially social change, between the roles of women and men. Americans did not want women to be drafted into the military, use same-sex public toilets, or integrate men's and women's sports, prisons, or Boy and Girl Scouts.
American politics and Americans become more conservative and traditional in their beliefs and outlook on life, politics, and society primarily because of the Watergate scandal during ex-President Nixon's term in office. This incident occurred in 1972 and lasted until 1974. All the corruption that occurred during Nixon's term in addition to the fact that Nixon had denied and lied to the American public about many of the corruptions that he himself was involved in, reduced political involvement and excitement. Americans began to draw away from and participate less in politics and the government as a result of this scandal, and over the years, they became more conservative as they pulled away from the government and did not want the government to be involved in their everyday life. Because "Americans became less exposed to society and politics, they became more conservative." 24 Thus, people did not want women to work outside of the home, or for the government to fund abortions. This impact on American politics remains effective today, especially since more people have become conservative in their outlooks and have even voted more conservative on issues concerning the whole nation, such as gay and lesbian rights, stem cell research, and euthanasia, for example.
Nevertheless, the opponents' arguments and effective movement and leadership overpowered the pro-ERA movement and made its arguments void. Although the supporters of the ERA knew that their arguments were making their own case weaker, they believed that it was "better to fight for something good and lose, than to fight for something bad and win." 25 Some might argue though, that it was to women's advantage that such an amendment was never ratified. After all, such an amendment would have put a heavy and even dangerous burden on women by requiring them to take part in every aspect of society and life, even activities, which were better suited for men.
Endnotes
1. Mansbridge, Jane J. Why We Lost the ERA. London: University of Chicago Press, Ltd.,1986, 2.
2. Mansbridge, Jane J. 2.
3. Mansbridge, Jane J. 4.
4. Mansbridge, Jane J. 7.
5. Mansbridge, Jane J. 10.
6. Mansbridge, Jane J. 12.
7. Mansbridge, Jane J. 20.
8. Mansbridge, Jane J. 35.
9. Mansbridge, Jane J. 42.
10. Mansbridge, Jane J. 59.
11. Mansbridge, Jane J. 67.
12. Mansbridge, Jane J. 90.
13. Mansbridge, Jane J. 104.
14. Mansbridge, Jane J. 123.
15. Mansbridge, Jane J. 124.
16. Mansbridge, Jane J. 130.
17. . Rev. of Why We Lost the ERA, by Catharine A. MacKinnon. The University of Chicago Law
Review. Vol. 54, No. 2. Spring 1987, pp. 762.
18. Rev. of Why We Lost the ERA, by Catharine A. MacKinnon 768.
19. Rev. of Why We Lost the ERA, by Judith L. Hudson. Michigan Law Review: Survey of Books
Relating to the Law. Vol. 86, No. 6. May 1998, pp.1408.
20. Rev. of Why We Lost the ERA, by Judith L. Hudson1409.
21. Rev. of Why We Lost the ERA, by Judith L. Hudson1410.
22. Mansbridge, Jane J. 23.
23. Mansbridge, Jane J. 30.
24. Mansbridge, Jane J. 42..
25. Mansbridge, Jane J. 56.
| |
