|
Mr. Speaker, when a
young woman graduates from college and starts looking for a job,
she is likely to have a frustrating and even demeaning
experience ahead of her. If she walks into an office for an
interview, the first question she will be asked is, "Do you
type?''
There is a calculated system of prejudice that lies unspoken
behind that question. Why is it acceptable for women to be
secretaries, librarians, and teachers, but totally unacceptable
for them to be managers, administrators, doctors, lawyers, and
Members of Congress.
The unspoken assumption is that women are different. They do not
have executive ability orderly minds, stability, leadership
skills, and they are too emotional.
It has been observed before, that society for a long time,
discriminated against another minority, the blacks, on the same
basis - that they were different and inferior. The happy little
homemaker and the contented "old darkey" on the plantation were
both produced by prejudice.
As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the
truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener
discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am
black.
Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it
will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because,
slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists.
Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very
little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double
pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as
"for men only."
More than half of the population of the United States is female.
But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions.
They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet No women
sit on the AFL-CIO council or Supreme Court There have been only
two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are
none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the
diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10
Representatives.
Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the
United States than men, this situation is outrageous.
It is true that part of the problem has been that women have not
been aggressive in demanding their rights. This was also true of
the black population for many years. They submitted to
oppression and even cooperated with it. Women have done the same
thing. But now there is an awareness of this situation
particularly among the younger segment of the population.
As in the field of equal rights for blacks, Spanish-Americans,
the Indians, and other groups, laws will not change such
deep-seated problems overnight But they can be used to provide
protection for those who are most abused, and to begin the
process of evolutionary change by compelling the insensitive
majority to reexamine it's unconscious attitudes.
It is for this reason that I wish to introduce today a proposal
that has been before every Congress for the last 40 years and
that sooner or later must become part of the basic law of the
land -- the equal rights amendment.
Let me note and try to refute two of the commonest arguments
that are offered against this amendment. One is that women are
already protected under the law and do not need legislation.
Existing laws are not adequate to secure equal rights for women.
Sufficient proof of this is the concentration of women in lower
paying, menial, unrewarding jobs and their incredible scarcity
in the upper level jobs. If women are already equal, why is it
such an event whenever one happens to be elected to Congress?
It is obvious that discrimination exists. Women do not have the
opportunities that men do. And women that do not conform to the
system, who try to break with the accepted patterns, are
stigmatized as ''odd'' and "unfeminine." The fact is that a
woman who aspires to be chairman of the board, or a Member of
the House, does so for exactly the same reasons as any man.
Basically, these are that she thinks she can do the job and she
wants to try.
A second argument often heard against the equal rights amendment
is that is would eliminate legislation that many States and the
Federal Government have enacted giving special protection to
women and that it would throw the marriage and divorce laws into
chaos.
As for the marriage laws, they are due for a sweeping reform,
and an excellent beginning would be to wipe the existing ones
off the books. Regarding special protection for working women, I
cannot understand why it should be needed. Women need no
protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to
protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working
conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs, and
provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women
need these things equally. That one sex needs protection more
than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and
unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myths that society
is trying to cure itself of at this time. |
