The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Who Speaks for Women

JIM LEHRER: It was the end today of a torch relay from Seneca Falls, New York to the steps of the Albert Thomas Convention Center in Houston, Texas, sites of two national conferences on the rights of women separated by 129 years and 2,600 miles.

Good evening from Houston on the eve of the first government-sponsored conference on women, their rights and their issues. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: This unprecedented four-day meeting is a sequel to International Women`s Year and sponsored by the IWY commission. Congress appropriated five million dollars for the conference, organized something like a national political convention, with delegates elected or appointed in various state conventions beforehand. The conference will work through a long list of issues, including ERA and abortion, to draw up an agenda to give to President Carter. However, the official convention is being challenged by conservative women`s groups led by columnist Phyllis Schlafly. They complain that state conventions which pick delegates did not represent their views, so much of the advance build-up to Houston has centered on the question of who really speaks for American women. Tonight, with our own specially commissioned poll, that`s the question we address. Jim?

LEHRER: Robin, there`s no question that something is about to happen here in Houston, but nobody is really sure at this point what kind of happening it may be -- a calm, cool debate over women`s rights, or a public bloodletting over women`s fights. Today was arrival and registration day for the 2,000 official conference participants, 10,000 or so observers, and another 10,000 who`ve come to hold a counter-gathering. Our reporter, Crispin Campbell, talked to several of the conference dignitaries and delegates about what they expected to accomplish down here, including one of the six male delegates to the conference.

CRISPIN Y. CAMPBELL, Reporter: Are there any special concerns coming from the White House about this conference?

MIDGE CONSTANZA: Only that the President is very interested in what happens at this conference. He`s interested in the resolutions that will be brought to him and presented to him, and also to Congress; and I think he will use it as a guideline of the needs for women and by women, and perhaps will recommend some legislation after he receives the report.

JILL RUCKELSHAUS: All the delegates who are here and all the observers who are here and the nation who is watching what goes on here will understand there are a variety of women who are interested in these issues, issues that range from the plight of the rural woman to the older woman in society, economic protection for homemakers -- this whole range of issues.

MARIANNE BRUESEHOFF, Watkins, Minnesota: Rural women have some unique problems. Some of them are transportation, inaccessibility to some of our programs, like mental health programs, child care programs, even just good doctoring.

DORA YOUNG, Queens, New York: We need something for health and education. And education of course is our most important thing that we should really be working for.

GLORIA STEINEM: If the legislation passes that we`re talking about, now these are recommendations that we`re still going to have keep working and keep lobbying, but it really would make a big difference.

CARMIE RICHESIN, Hawaii: Our special concern is pro-family, it`s pro-life; we have had enough of government interference in our lives, we`d like to keep government out as much as possible. Therefore we are not in agreement with the twenty-six resolutions which very heavily favor government involvement, government intervention, government funding, which would create a tremendous load on the taxpayer.

MARK GODBOLD: There is a sizable segment of the American population -- I believe I a majority of the population -- that is not being fully represented here. The people who I believe are God-fearing people, profamily people, people: who believe as I do, have approximately four hundred representatives here out of 2,000.

LEHRER: Pre-registration wasn`t the only pre-game event today. Some of those who had quarrel with the way the state and national women`s conferences were put together had a chance to express their views officially at what was termed an ad hod Congressional hearing. The hearing, at Houston`s Ramada Inn, was chaired by Congressman Robert Dornan, Republican of California.

NELLIE GRAY, March For :Life: ...IWY powers which are disrupting America, and we need legislation and correction to stop that disruption. It`s really causing Americans to use their personal, limited energies and financial resources to combat an evil. And I speak of this as an evil, unashamedly, because that`s what we`re working against. It`s the evil of a special interest group to gain prestige of Congressional and Presidential support to propagate their own views and actions in a dictatorial way that ignores and tries to suppress the views of the majority of the American people.

LIZ SADOWSKI, New Jersey: When Bella Abzug went before the United States Congress to request five million dollars to arrange conferences across this nation to arrive at a consensus of women`s views she assured legislators all women would be heard, a diversity of views would be represented. And I can assure you in New Jersey that all views were heard; all views, that is, that espoused the radical feminist NOW philosophy.

Rep. GEORGE HANSEN, (R) Idaho: It`s absolutely absurd, and so what they do is they take a stab at the organized religious minorities of the country; they do it at the Catholics in the guise of the antiabortion complaints, they do it against the Mormons more openly, they just -- well, in fact, one of the press releases Miss Abzug put out over her name was that these so- called "right-wing extremists" -- and she labeled them -- the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society, the anti-abortion groups, the anti-ERA groups and so forth; lumped them all together, political, religious, whatever, into a categorized, labeled situation. I think it`s absolutely disgusting, and any administration that wants to go out carrying the banner of human rights better get its act straightened up.

LEHRER: One of the key witnesses at the hearings, of course, was Phyllis Schlafly, President of the organization known as Stop ERA. She`s the most prominent leader of the national anti-women`s movement campaign and principal critic of this women`s conference. Mrs. Schlafly, what is your major complaint about the conference?

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: First of all, we don`t think the taxpayers should have to provide five million dollars to this special interest group to push their goals. And secondly, we don`t approve of their goals. Their main goals are to ratify ERA, to have government-funded abortions, to give lesbians the privilege to teach in the schools and adopt children, and to get the federal government in a major way in the care of babies.

LEHRER: You say that this is a special interest conference. Do you feel that your organization, your movement, represents the majority of American women?

SCHLAFLY: Yes, I certainly do, and I think we`ve been showing it in the ballot box. Every state that has considered the Equal Rights Amendment in the last two years has rejected it, except one. And the only reason they got the one was because of telephone calls from the White House. In the matter of abortion, it has been voted against in Congress and in state legislature after state legislature. When you put the matter of lesbian privileges up to the polls it`s rejected in most cases. I think we`re clearly on the side of the majority.

LEHRER: Do you feel that your views and those of others who agree with you were excluded from participation in the process that led up to Houston?

SCHLAFLY: Oh, I certainly do. The President appointed a national commission with every leader of every major women`s lib group, an ERA group, including the head of the gay task force, but positively excluded every active known leader opposing ERA from any position; and the same pattern was followed all the way up and down the line. At all the fifty state conferences there was not a single speaker who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment who addressed any general session, and in the little workshops it ran at about the ratio of a hundred pro-ERA-ers to one token con.

LEHRER: Let me ask you the same question that our reporter, Crispin Campbell, asked the delegates and some of the other folks on tape a moment ago. What: is your personal purpose in being here, and what do you want to accomplish as a result of these three or four days in Houston?

SCHLAFLY: This whole International Women`s Year conference was designed by those running it as a media event to approve resolutions which were pre- written a year and a half ago, and then to proclaim that this represents American women. Unfortunately, so that people won`t get the wrong impression, some of us have had to come to Houston to say they do not represent us. We are for pro-family values, and we are opposed to ERA, abortion, et cetera.

LEHRER: So the reason you are here is to deliver that message to whoever will listen.

SCHLAFLY: Right, and of course we had to come at our own expense, instead of at the taxpayers` expense, which the libs are traveling on.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. The National Organization of Women, known as NOW, is the leading women`s movement organization in the country and one of the main proponents of the need for such a conference on women`s rights. Ellie Smeal, a Pittsburgh housewife, is President of NOW. Ms. Smeal, you`ve heard what Mrs. Schlafly has just said. Let`s take these one at a time. First of all, that this conference basically represents special interests and does not represent the majority of the women in this country.

ELEANOR SMEAL: The process of selecting the delegates was very inclusive. There were conferences held in fifty states and in six territories. Any person over the age of sixteen who was a resident of that state or territory could vote at those conferences. They were monitored, there were fair elections, and the results were that people were elected that were overwhelmingly for women`s rights. There have been challenges to those elections, and in every case they were defeated in the courts overwhelmingly. So we feel -- we know -- that it was a just process, and we did a lot to include many, many-different groups. All groups were mailed to, and a wide spectrum of known groups. They were mailed to, there were public service announcements, there was all kinds of newspaper publicity, as much as you can possibly do.

LEHRER: What about the issues she just listed which she said do not represent the majority feeling of the country and those are special interests, political interests more or less.

SMEAL: Well, if we can take them just one at a time, for example -- and I would not phrase them the same way, of course, that she just phrased them - - for example, the right to choose an abortion or family planning or reproductive health, although it might be losing in Congress and in the state legislatures, the polls show overwhelmingly that people believe in it, and in fact most couples in the United States do practice contraception. And of course, one million American women last year had an abortion that was reported, and we estimate that probably that many had one that was not reported. As far as the ERA, we consistently have performed in the majority in the public opinion polls; and in fact, two thirds of the state legislatures have approved it and have ratified it -- two thirds of the population. And I could go issue by issue where we have clone well in the public opinion polls and in fact have produced a tremendous support for these issues.

LEHRER: Do you feel that the 2,000 delegates; who are here represent in an official way the majority view of American women?

SMEAL: I know one thing for sure: that the elections were inclusive, that they were open and fair, and that there do represent those constituencies. Now do I believe that there is a majority? I do believe that. I believe strongly that the majority of people are for improving the status women. They want equal pay for equal work, they want full employment opportunity, they want for their daughters full educational opportunity, improved sport programs, etc.

LEHRER: Is this a media event; as Ms. Schlafly has just said?

SMEAL: It`s interesting that she says that this is a media event, because in many ways I feel the alternative conference is a media event. I feel that these conferences, which were in all the states and in the territories, were an educational process and in fact a great experience in the country of a plebiscite on issues. I think it`s the first time the country has ever had conferences to vote on issues, not just on personalities. And I think the important thing here are the issues and the diversity of them -- wife beating, rape, et cetera.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes. We thought we`d like to get a view from women who do not feel represented by either the official women`s movement and conference or airs Schlafly`s group. One such woman is Joy Kennedy, a housewife from Orange, New Jersey and author of The Neurotic Woman`s Guide to Non Fulfillment. Ms. Kennedy, why do you feel that neither Ms. Smea or Ms. Shy represent you?

JOY KENNEDY: Well, actually, I think my main concerns are in areas other than those that they`re concerned with because I feel that the problems and complaints of black people, inasmuch as black people have liter ally been in bondage just a hundred years ago, are more significant than the problems and complaints that women have. But certainly as a choice between the two, I would be much more on the side of -- I would be proERA, very definitely.

MacNEIL: You would find yourself in sympathy with some of the issues on Ms. Smeal`s side?

KENNEDY: Certainly, much more. would be completely in another area; two of them I would say that I would that they represent, yes.

But I just mean my major energies but if I were to choose between the be pro-ERA and for most of the issues.

MacNEIL: Are you saying that being black is more important than being a woman as far as your attitude to these issues is concerned?

KENNEDY: Absolutely. That`s what the thing is; yes, exactly. I think it`s much more significant.

MacNEIL: And what about your attitude to the world of men?

KENNEDY: Well, I think that the women that are the feminists tend to not only be pro-woman, which I would be also, but I think they tend somewhat to be anti-men, and I am definitely not on their side in that respect either. And I would also say that as a black woman the problem that I would have would be that the propaganda has been, let`s say, from the billboards to the TV commercials to even on the corners, the trash cans would glamorize the white standard of beauty; so I wouldn`t have a problem to be considered a sex symbol, that wouldn`t be one of my problems, you know. In fact, that would be a problem I could deal with rather pleasantly. So I think a lot of these issues that they have are not issues that would concern me; and in fact, I think some of them are rather frivolous. But as she said, things like equal pay for equal work, and of course abortion -- because I think the idea of having a child and just giving it away is absurd; I wouldn`t even want to give away a little kitten, and I think that`s a horrible alternative, to have a baby and give it away and not know how it`s going to be, and so I certainly would be for abortion, and I don`t think you can compel people to have a child. That seems just absurd to me.

MacNEIL: We`ve asked each of the other ladies in Houston, how significant or representative do you think your views are? I mean, there are a lot of black women in the women`s rights movement.

KENNEDY: I think some black women would be, but I don`t know how much energy they have to devote. The thing about me is that I have a limited amount of energy and the energy and time that I do have I would de vote more to black causes. But if you have a certain amount of energy I think that it`s probably worthwhile, and I certainly think that if you`re going to be working that -it`s important to try to have a better salary and try to have a better job and so forth.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, to satisfy our own curiosity about who really does speak for American women, we commissioned the Roper Organization to do a nationwide poll. Six hundred women were interviewed earlier this week, and these were the main results: Question: Would you say your views on women`s role in society are best represented by the women`s rights movement or by the people who oppose that movement?

Thirty-one percent of those polled said their views were best represented by the women`s rights movement. Twenty-one percent sided with the opposition. But twenty-six percent said neither group best represented their views, and another twenty-two percent said they didn`t know. Thus almost half of the sample, forty-eight percent, did not identify with either the movement or the opposition.

But when it came to specific issues the situation changed. Question: Are you in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment or opposed?

Fifty-three percent said they were in favor. Twenty-two percent said they were opposed. Fifteen percent said they had mixed feelings, and ten percent didn`t know.

But two years ago another Roper poll showed sixty percent in favor of ERA. So in that time support for the amendment has dropped by seven percent, although the majority of women are still pro-ERA by more than two to one

Women were also asked what impact the women`s movement has had on their lives. Were their lives better, or worse, or not affected? Twenty-seven percent of the sample said their lives were better because of the movement. Three percent said worse, and seventy-two percent felt their lives had been. unaffected.

But when asked about. the impact of the women`s movement on the next generation, forty-eight percent thought women`s lives would be better then. So women appear to think the results of the women`s movement will be more long-term than immediate.

Let`s look a little more closely at which women hold which views. The women`s rights movement gets its greatest support from single women -- sixty-one percent of the single women in the sample support the women`s rights movement. Women aged under thirty years old; forty-six percent of them.

And college-educated women, forty-one percent of them support the women`s rights movement. Support for the movement is weakest among the least educated -- that is, with grade school education -- seventeen percent of them; women over fifty years old -- twenty percent of them; and married women in general -- twenty-six percent of them only, support the women`s rights movement. Clear support for those opposed to the women`s rights movement, such as Mrs. Schlafly, seems to hover around twenty percent among all groups. And remember that just about half of our sample, forty-eight percent, say they`re on the fence.

Let`s discuss these poll results, first of all with our guests in Houston. Ms. Smeal, if only thirty-one percent of American women say your movement: represents their views, why is that so small if you are the mainstream, as you claim to be?

SMEAL: Actually, I think those figures are quite remarkable, because with all the distortion about the women`s rights movement itself it`s amazing that so many people identify right with it and its name, and it`s even more amazing, frankly, that we are doing so well on all the issues. In addition to that I think another really remarkable thing about the statistics you just released is that twenty percent of the people identify with the anti- movement, and that is exactly almost the proportion of delegates who are here who are anti.

MacNEIL: Ms. Schlafly, that`s a remarkable observation. If twenty percent - - and I`ve heard this figure before -- of the women at this conference represent, roughly speaking, your views, and you pick up twenty percent across the board in this poll, doesn`t that demonstrate that the women`s conference is in fact representative of your views?

SCHLAFLY: No, it doesn`t demonstrate that at all, and if you didn`t get NOW to pay for that poll, you really got gypped. I`ve seen a lot of loaded questions, but I seldom have seen one so loaded as the one that you didn`t read but is on there and really in effect accuses Phyllis Schlafly of being against women`s rights. Now to phrase the question that way is really completely dishonest. I am for the rights of women: the right of women to be exempt from the draft and from military combat duty; the right of a wife to be supported by her husband. And when it is couched in the framework of women`s rights, you have simply not presented an honest...

LEHRER: I think the audience doesn`t know what you`re speaking of there. Robin, let me just read the raw data on the poll so we`ll know what it talks about. It`s the third question here, which we didn`t give the results to ...

MacNEIL: The key phrase is "women`s rights movement."

SCHLAFLY: Yes, and if you ask me if I am for women`s rights, I will say yes, I am for women`s rights, and therefore your poll is absolutely invalid.

LEHRER: Well, the questions that were asked that Robin gave the results to, this was just to try to identify -- he had Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem on the same list -- it was just to identify you. I don`t understand your complaint.

SCHLAFLY: Well, I don`t understand why you`re giving so much time to a poll of six hundred people. If you want to talk about a real poll, look for example on ERA at the vote in the State of New York, where the ERA proponents had everything going for them and it was overwhelmingly defeated.

MacNEIL: Ms. Schlafly, we`re quite satisfied to stand by the poll; we have every faith in the Roper Organization, who did this up. They`ve been demonstrated to be very accurate, skillful pollsters in the past...

SCHLAFLY: But it`s all a matter of how you ask the question.

MacNEIL: Well, that is their business, not ours, Ms. Schlafly, and they`re professionals in the business.

SCHLAFLY: You should get NOW to pay for it.

MacNEIL: (Laughing.) Well, we accept contributions.

LEHRER: It`s your position that these poll results don`t mean anything, is that what you`re saying?

SCHLAFLY: Why, sure! If you ask people, are you for women`s rights or are you for Phyllis Schlafly, that is the silliest, dumbest question I ever heard, and that is in effect what you were asking them.

MacNEIL: How about on the actual issues, Ms. Schlafly? How about support for ERA, for example?

SCHLAFLY: Oh, good, I`m glad you brought that up. ERA has been defeated in every state that`s considered it in the last two years except one. Those representatives who`ve been voting no over the last six years have been facing the voters every two years and they keep getting re-elected because their constituents like the way they`re voting...

LEHRER: Which is what the poll shows, of course, that ERA has dropped -- support has dropped. But that`s not a valid result? You can`t have it both ways, Ms. Schlafly.

SCHLAFLY: The valid poll is the poll in the ballot box.

SMEAL: But I could talk to the ballot box in those fifteen states. In fact, people have reversed their votes after they were elected on a pro-ticket.

MacNEIL: Let me ask Ms. Kennedy, who`s been listening to this. What do you think of the figure in our poll that showed that seventy-two percent of the women say that their lives have been unaffected by the women`s movement so far?

KENNEDY: I would think that would be difficult to find anyone whose life has not been affected. to some extent. I think even husbands are affected. I think people`s attitudes when they hire people are affected; I think that even if you want to get an apartment, I think everyone`s life is to same extent affected.. And I want to say also that I think a lot of the problems that black people and black women have do transcend the problems that white women have, and some problems transcend color. So I do think that I have something in common with them, but I just mean I`m not working specifically for them. But I think everyone`s life is affected.

Mac:NEII.: We had another finding, Ms. Smeal, on this poll which I didn`t publish just. then, and that was we asked if women in America had heard of this conference; and only eighteen percent told us that they had heard of the existence of this conference. If the conference was so widely advertised, as you said earlier, in all the state pre-conventions, why would so few know about it?

SMEAL: It`s one of our problems in communicating with the public just generally. If you`d asked the same question on how many people know who their state senator is or their state representative, you would find that the polls would show even fewer than that percentage would know or even, in fact, their federal senator or their federal representative. It`s very difficult to communicate to people about political and educational and community events. If. this had been a poll on a football game, however, there is so much constant repetition of it that it`s easier to get out. But there was a considerable effort to get out the knowledge of these conferences. And we do know for sure, for example, that the organized opposition certainly knew about the conferences and then put up opposing slates. And we do know that organizations all over this country -- religious organizations, women`s organizations, educational organizations - - across the whole wide spectrum were informed. We did the best we could with limited funds; and in fact, incidentally, media did help us with public service announcements and of course interviews.

MacNEIL: So Ms. Schlafly, finally, what do you think of the fact that so few women have heard of this conference? You`ve been, in your way, publicizing it very hard.

SCHLAFLY: Well, I think that`s not surprising. The IWY circularized only the organizations they wanted to have attend. Their executive director admitted in a court case that they had sent invitations to one thousand organizations and individuals but specifically did not send any to Stop ERA. They really didn`t want us there. And when some of our people showed up they were greeted with hostility. The general attitude was, if you`re not for Equal Rights Amendment, you don`t have any right to be here; go get your own five million!

MacNEIL: Thank you very much, Ms. Schlafly; thank you, Ms. Smeal. And good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Ms. Kennedy. That`s all for tonight. Jim Lehrer and I will be back on Monday night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.