1
Running Head: THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
The Equal Rights Amendment & Social Change
Your Name Here
Southern New Hampshire University
2
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
The Women's Suffrage Movement ushered in a new era of progressive ideas and social
reforms. With time and hard work, suffragists secured the right to vote with the 19th Amendment
in 1920. As a result, a critical piece of legislation known as The Equal Rights Amendment
(ERA); initially named the Lucretia Mott Amendment, was introduced in Congress. The
Amendment sought to expand equality between the sexes. Ultimately the U.S. failed to ratify the
ERA due to a divide between traditional and modern feminist ideologies. Feminists argued
against each other on what the ERA would mean for American culture and social progress.
Since the ERA's introduction to Congress, there have been many changes to American
society. Progress for true equality between Americans has continued slowly and painfully. In
time various groups like the LGBT community sought and gained equality and protection on
several vital issues. Given the social transformations since 1920, public opinion has changed, and
arguments have evolved on what equality means for American life. Given the societal progress
made over the years, we must question the arguments of those supporting and against the ERA
and how it fits in the evolving society of today.
Constitutionally we continue to lack true equality between all citizens as a fundamental
right. Given the history of our nation, it has been by design to equalize civil liberties and make
all citizens equal under the law. We must hold steadfast to the ideals set forth by the founders.
Citizens and legislators alike must effort to create a more perfect union and reintroduce an
updated version of the ERA into Congress.
Congress approved the ERA in 1943 and shifted the challenge for its supporters to
securing three-fourths of the State's, in hopes of ratification. With the revised and submitted
ERA, the passage appeared necessary and righteous, yet a divide between feminists would prove
the task challenging. Sam Ervin, a Senator from North Carolina, complained to the Senate that
3
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
there was no time limit on the ERA's ratification (Kyvig, 1996). Without any opposition, a rider
was attached to the ERA, designating a time limit on the proposed Amendment. Unbeknownst to
congressional sponsors and civilian supporters, the time limit would prove arduous. A time limit
on proposed amendments is not necessary, and Senator Ervin's complaint was merely a political
tactic, "which was overlooked," and aligns with, "[a] lengthy list of objections on whatever
grounds he could find" (Kyvig, 1996, p.56). The imposed time limit is now seen as a
contributory cause in the long line of challenges, leading to the ERA's failure.
Other challenges laid ahead in ratifying the ERA. A significant portion of feminists
believed that women and children, "for whom they were principally responsible [for] faced
economic, social, and marital exploitation," if the ERA were to pass (Kyvig, 1996, p.49). While
feminists were able to unite over the single cause in securing the right to vote, they were
ideologically divided due to ideas about what the ERA would mean for their roles as a wife,
mother and their children. Beyond the individual beliefs disuniting the two factions of feminists,
several large organizations opposed the ERA. One of the most influential and vocal was the
National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. One of their arguments was that if the ERA
were successful, "women's proper roles as mothers, wives, and moral beacons would be sullied
through participation in politics" (Kyvig, 1996, p.48).
In current American culture, families and functions are different than the traditional
gender roles applied in the 1920s. Mothers and fathers tend to work, dividing their time equally
toward child-rearing, and supporting the household financially. It would be amiss to believe that
the predilections of a previous generation reign supreme in overall American society currently.
The de facto social climate doesn't and hasn't aligned with the de jure reality in many decades.
4
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
While organizations and traditional feminists yielded a siege against what would now be
considered a "common sense" amendment; anti-ERA supporters like Phyllis Schlafly fueled the
discussion by instilling fear among the people. Schlafly fought zealously against the ERA;
testifying in Congress and speaking her opinion publicly on the ERA and what it would do to
American families and society. Here is an excerpt of Schlafly's testimony in Congress in 1983,
"the word used in ERA is "sex," not "women," and the "sex" in the ERA is not defined or limited
in any way. One would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to be aware of the political activism
of the homosexual community and their attempts (usually unsuccessful) to legislate their "gay
rights" agenda at the Congressional, state legislative, and city council levels" (Testimony of
Phyllis Schlafly, 1983).
It's clear that in Schlafly's testimony is that of a relic when compared to modern social
views. Had Schlafly repeated the same words today, she would be damned by the majority of the
American population. While her rhetoric was socially acceptable in that era, it is most definitely
not a reflection of American society today. Her testimony is just one example of the fearmongering, self-righteous political agenda used by Schlafly to divide and slay meaningful
legislation.
While Schlafly and others organized against the ERA, Mary Frances Berry testified
before Congress on the realities of inequality in the United States. Berry's testimony connected
gender inequality to various aspects of American life, "We also documented sex discrimination
in a lot of other areas including marital property, domestic relations law, social security,
disability, pensions, the administration of justice and the military . . . we believe that one reason
sex discrimination persists is that we lack a firm constitutional basis for equal rights on the basis
of gender" (Testimony of Mary Berry, 1972).
5
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
Berry also understood the historical perspective relative to the passing of constitutional
amendments stating this, "We are not dissuaded because it is taking a lot of time to get ERA
passed. If you look at the history, constitutional amendments, most of them, if they are
substantive, take years to get passed. It does not bother me" (Testimony of Mary Berry, 1972).
However, Senator Ervin's insertion of the time limit for ERA ratification would later prove the
challenge much more difficult. The ERA had supporters, as well as opossers, but the voice of
fear, along with political restraints, hindered progress at the national level.
The lobbying of organizations against the ERA, by the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, damaged
the de facto social frameworks for the LGBT community. In the time since the failure of the
ERA, the LGBT community persevered and secured the right to get legally married; a result of a
landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. Paving the way for legislation protecting
members of the LGBT community from hate crimes based on sexual identity and expression, and
are now punishable under federal law. The reach extends to discrimination based on sexual
orientation and discrimination when it comes to housing and employment as well. Had the ERA
been introduced without time limits, and the opposition leaders like Phyliss Schlafly been unable
to speak their public distaste on current social norms; the ERA would have succeeded, and
equality would be distributed more equitably to all groups of citizens in this country.
While obtuse tactics are not new to American politics, the reality is the actions of a few,
impact the lives many. Had the ERA passed Congress without time limits attached, the
probability for success in today's political and social environment would be near-absolute.
American citizens and especially young adults are more accepting of equality and tolerant of
diversity in all walks of life than ever before in American history.
6
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
When we consider the social dynamic of families in current culture, versus that of the
early, to mid-1900s, there are only remnants of the societal trends of the last generations. When
we consider families with children, in over 63% of the families, both parents work (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2018). If we review that statistics from 1967, only 43% of families had dual
income (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). The change between now and then is 20%, which is a
significant increase. When we consider the traditional views of women being primarily
homemakers, the statistics no longer align with the social status.
When we consider workforce participation, we must consider home life dynamics. While
both earn income, both are absent from the home. Family home time and duties are more equally
distributed. We are erasing the previous generations dated ideas and stereotypes on male/female
gender roles in the home. This is an important topic to dissect when we start considering how
society aligns with government policies, relative to divorce. There is little to no equality between
men and women when it comes to divorce. According to the 2013 Census, updated January of
2016, only 17.5% of fathers had custody of their children (Grall, 2016). The disproportion
findings overwhelmingly indicate a prejudice between men and women within the family court
system.
Only a handful of states have legislation protecting both parents equally when it comes to
children and property. Overwhelmingly courts side with mothers for sole custody, leaving fathers
only four days a month, on average to see their children. When we consider inequality, the ERA,
and the social trends and dynamics over the last century; we must recognize the slow and painful
timeline that reflects the various aspects of gender equality. With no federal protection between
men and women, states can legislate and divide property and custody rights however they
choose, without having to answer to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ERA failing added a multitude
7
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
of complexities to Americans in the process or having gone through a divorce. The
complications and entanglements run wide and deep in the country when we examine gender
equality on a micro and macro scale.
One example relevant to recent events, if we consider the recent mass shootings that have
grown in number over the last two decades; we see direct connection statistical findings related
to fatherless homes. Author Warren Farrell in a recent interview and piece written by the
Washington Times said this about children of divorce where fathers are absent, "[These Children
are] much more likely to drink, much more likely to do drugs, much more likely to be depressed,
much more likely to be suicidal, much more likely to be violent, much more likely to be in
prison, and they're also much more likely to commit mass shootings" (Richardson, 2018). This
further indicates how the inequality between men and women cause considerable damage to not
only adults but children as well.
Looking though history, we can draw a line connecting crime rates, poverty, suicide, and
other severe issues in this country to nationwide statistics on divorce and parenting inequalities.
Historians and future historians can continue research through many avenues. Census data and
statistics will continue to validate the impact of inequality in the United States. Inequality
between genders has had a severe impact in several critical perspectives of American life. We
must ask how we let the fearful ideologies expressed by those like Phyllis Schlafly influenced a
generation of Americans to continue a history of inequality. When will equality at the federal
level be addressed in a meaningful way? If there is one thing we can learn from history, it is not
only the observance and analysis of past events that shape the future, but the ambition of
progressive thinkers, activists, and those refusing to settle for anything less than what is
philosophically sound, to transform society, government, and law.
8
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT & SOCIAL CHANGE
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Employment Characteristics of Families, Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf
Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary, Equal Rights Amendment: Hearings before the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, 98th Cong., 1st sess. on H.J. Res. 1, July 13, September 14,
October 20, 26, and November 3, 1983, Statement of Mary Frances Berry,
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary, Equal Rights Amendment: Hearings before the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, 98th Cong., 1st sess. on H.J. Res. 1, July 13, September 14,
October 20, 26, and November 3, 1983, Statement of Phyllis Schlafly
Grall, T. S. (2016). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2013. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S.
Census Bureau.
Kyvig, D. (1996). Historical Misunderstandings and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.
The Public Historian, 18(1), 45-63. doi:10.2307/3377881
Richardson, B. (2018, March 27). Link between mass shooters, absent fathers ignored by antigun activists. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/27/mass-shooters-absent-fathers-linkignored-anti-gun/