Phyllis Schlafly/ Karen Decrow debate at Columbia College

Tonight's topic is on humanism, economics, and equal rights amendment I'd like to introduce to you, Martha Reinbolt. She's currently teaching english literature Stephen's College and she will be our moderator this evening, Martha. [Applause] [Applause] In these days of individuality, it's nice to find a few common denominators. With us tonight for our debate is Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly and Miss Karen DeCrow. You'll be getting to know them as individualists shortly so I don't think that's my role. The common denominators as you know they're women, they're authors, they both have degrees in law, and we're happy to say they're both here with us tonight. I thank you for being here and let's get on with the debate. [Audience]

I'm delighted to be here with all of you tonight. I'm especially pleased to have Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly and Miss Karen DeCrow here to talk to us about humanism economics in the ERA. All of us, women and men are in a continual quest to understand more fully who we are, where we are, and where we might be. In this quest we see but through the eyes of others. Our search for identity is never accomplished alone but in a community of friends both men and women. Tonight we will look in various mirrors. We will discuss the reflections of the lives of women and men in various economic and social situations. In this humanistic context, I hope we will all learn about ourselves and our society. Will you describe your concept of the ideal woman both psychologically and economically? And the second question, what is the

ideal environment for young women today? What should our society supply which will enable young women to reach their full potential? [unclear] Thank you, madam. Very very difficult question. The ideal woman, what is she? The great thing about this world we live in is that we are all so very different. Each one of us has a unique set of fingerprints with all the millions of people who've lived in this world. They haven't yet discovered any two people with the same fingerprints. Each one of us has been given a unique set of talents, of assets, of handicaps, of circumstances that is not the same for anybody else. I think the ideal woman is the woman who fulfills the mission that God has a planned for her life

and they're all different. Each one of us has a different mission. Different talents and, um, circumstances to bring to living out her life. And so that's what I think the goal toward we all- which we all should strive toward is to fulfill the mission that God has a planned for each one of us. Now, getting down to more practical terms on the matter of the economic attitude of women toward life I must say that I believe that every woman should prepare herself to support herself. I grew up believing that there was no way I could go to college unless I worked for it myself and worked my own way through. And I grew up, which I think is a very fine way for girls to grow up, believing that you have to have some skill in order to support yourself in life if circumstance should require it. Or to be prepared to go into the workforce at any time in your life. There's nothing new about that idea. A lot of women, it's true, don't have it but there's nothing new about it. My mother before me

grew up feeling the same way and she prepared herself, as I did, with two degrees before she got married. So that when adversity hit during the depression she was prepared with the skill to keep us from being hungry. I think that's the economic attitude toward life because we live in a world where nobody guarantees you a job and we have to be prepared to support ourselves. Psychologically is maybe even more important. I think that the ideal woman has a positive attitude toward life, not a negative attitude but a positive attitude in being thankful that she lives in the greatest country in the world. And that she has every opportunity to make what she can of her own talents and assets in this world. I think the positive woman recognizes that there are differences between men and women. These differences that are part of our very nature. And that their, and that to fail to recognize these differences, um, makes all kinds of frustrations. The great

opportunity that women have, which is different from men, is that God has given to women the ability to participate in the creation of human life. This is what enables a woman to have a very varied career. To help to give birth to a new child. Uh, the next statement will be by Miss DeCrow. The initial question that we were asked to respond to is "will you describe your concept of the ideal woman both psychologically and economically?" and my answer to that is I do not believe that the ideal woman and the ideal man differ psychologically or should defer psychologically and I do not believe that the ideal woman and the ideal man should defer economically. The environment that I believe most women grew up in was not as liberated as that in which Phyllis Schlafly grew up in

and I believe most women this country do not grow up believing that they are going to have to support themselves. I believe the message that is given to most young girls is if you are attractive and sweet and pleasant and find Mr. Right, he will support you for the rest of your life. Alas, that is not true but that is the message that is given to young girls. So, I will concur one hundred percent that I think the greatest economic message that we can give to college age women is prepare yourself to support yourself. Do not think that if you are fortunate enough to find Mr. Right that his function should be to support you. Now, I think it may be somewhat of a radical departure to suggest that men and women do not differ psychologically. Certainly the way we have been trained up until this point has not been in an androgynous mode. Androgynous meaning a mode where gender is not particularly relevant

in psychological makeup. I think the excitement, the most interesting aspect of the feminist movement is that for the first time we are suggesting that there is not one gender which is more athletic, there is not one gender which is more passive, there is not one gender that should be making twice as much money as the other, there is not one gender which should be dominating the US Congress, there is not one gender which is better qualified to be judges, there is not one gender that is better qualified to bring up children. This is a new message. This is a different message and I think a very interesting one. With regard to the psychological concepts, it's one thing to say the right things and it's another thing to really believe them. It is my contention, having traveled to probably a hundred colleges throughout this country in the last couple of years, that one aspect of equality between the sexes is being arrived at. That women and men

both do believe that there should be equal pay but that another aspect is not even being touched. I believe most women on college campuses are still waiting for the phone to ring. I believe most women on college campuses are nervous that if they aspire to be brain surgeon's a lot of guys might not want to go out with them. I believe that most female and male college students believe when they get married the women are going to do the majority of the housework and have the major responsibility for childcare. And I know that women are still moving across the country to live, not only with their husbands but now in the great age of liberation they move across the country to live with their boyfriends. And to me, that is not exactly where liberation should be taking us. So, I think we have a great deal of work to do to get the other side of the equation, perhaps to use freudian terms. On the work side people are starting to think about equality between the sexes. On the love side that is not happening. I would like to read you one quote about

psychology and about how it's much easier to liberate yourself in your head then it is in your life. This is written by a woman who was explaining how difficult it is to really be an equal in our society even though she intellectually is a feminist. And you can call and believe yourself liberated anytime you want to but you most likely will never escape your own irrational and contradictory obsessions, desires, needs, and myths. On the other side of the rainbow there is still someone waiting for you with chains. [applause] [applause] The next question that I would like to address both to Miss DeCrow and Mrs. Schafly is what is the self image that you as a woman personally strive toward. Miss DeCrow will you begin please? Well, I think since there's only three

minutes allotted to this question, I will devote it entirely to aging. I believe that when I was growing up and my friends and I were twenty years old, we could not conceive of being thirty. When I was twenty five years old I was worried my husband was going to be looking at eighteen year olds. Every woman I knew who was forty when I was growing up lied about her age. The big secret that my sister and I had to keep was how old her mother was. Although, as we approached twenty the world might've guessed that she still wasn't sixteen. The women that I know and love who are seventy years old still call themselves girls, still consider it enormous compliment when someone says oh you don't look a day over sixty. I believe that where as no one particularly wants to get old the impact of that on women's lives is so different than on men's. There is a commercial right now for a skin moisturizer, keep your age a secret. I tore out an

ad the other day, on men gray hair is distinguished; on me it's just plain old. I think if there is a three minute answer that I would give the self self image that you as a woman personally strive for it is the ability and I would give total thanks to the feminist movement for changing my fear of going from twenty four to twenty five. The ability to be thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, with luck ninety, a hundred, hundred and ten and love it and be proud of it and not worry about grey hair and not worry about crows feet. Ninety percent of the cosmetic surgery that is done in this country is done on women. So, that is what I consider the, one of the most pleasing aspects of a self image which I have changed in the last decade and one which I would like to pass on to people of twenty. [applause]

[applause] I would now like to ask Mrs. Schlafley to answer the same question. The self image that I personally strive for is simply to do the best job I can at whatever task is at hand and I think I have tried to do that all my life. Whether the task was washing bathrooms or ironing shirts or any of the household chores or whether the task is writing a newspaper column or whatever it is, I have tried to do the best that I could, uh, at each particular task. I have tried to be accurate in everything that I say. I was on, for example, a CBS spectrum, um, commentaries for nearly five years twice a week. I never had to retract anything I ever said. I was the only one who never had to retract anything. I worked very hard at all the things that I

do in order to achieve the best that I can at every particular task and I think the sense of achievement in whatever it is whether it's taking care of a baby or teaching a child to read or writing a column or any other task no matter how high or lowly that it is, uh, is one of the great satisfactions in life. Knowing that you did your best. The next question that I would like to pose to our speakers is what woman in history would you hold up as a role model to young women today? Mrs. Schlafly will you begin our discussion of this? Well, I'll pick a couple you probably haven't heard of but maybe would like to hear about. One of them was Saint Margaret of Scotland. She was a Hungarian woman brought up in the Hungarian court who was shipwrecked off the court- off the coast of

Scotland. And in real fairytale style the king of Scotland came down and found her on the ship, fell in love with her and married her, made her his queen. She had six children, her husband adored her, and she was largely responsible through her influence over her husband in civilizing, educating, and Christianizing the country of Scotland. Another role model from history, another positive woman who was both a mother and active in public life was Saint Bridget of Sweden. A positive woman of the fourteenth century. Widowed with eight children she then undertook to be a leader in public life, she undertook to try to raise the moral tone of her time, she lectured kings and popes, she founded hospitals and religious orders, she preached the virtues, the great virtues of marital fidelity and

other virtues that were needed to be taught at the time, and she had a tremendous influence among the leadership of Eur- of the Europe that she lived in. I think they are both positive role models from history. [applause] Well, this was a fun question and predictably I didn't pick just women. At first I picked Amelia Earhart and that may be because I spent half my life in bumpy airplane flights but I have a great feeling of admiration for women who do things as the first woman, that's kind of sentimental but I like it very much. Also Elizabeth Blackwell who's the first woman doctor who comes from about ten miles from where I live. So, I feel a kinship with her. Also, Antonia Brico who tried for thirty years to be a conductor of a symphony. Actually, did get to conduct a symphony and then was not allowed to

conduct for thirty years and waited quietly until they finally allowed a woman to conduct a symphony again and return to the podium. Another of my role models, which I'm sure will surprise everyone, is Mozart. Because I think Mozart has given me more happiness in my life than any person no longer living. Another person in my life who I admire greatly is Jon Stewart Mill who I believe enunciated first and best the social and historical perspective on women which certainly has been a guide to my thinking. Another person I admire greatly is Charlotte Perkins Gilman who was on the minority side of the suffrage fight at the turn of the century but who turned out to be correct. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was one of the first people to say if you give women the vote period you're not going to change the status of women. You have to go to the roots of what goes on in institutions, you have to look at the family, you have to look at the church,

you have to look at the society as a whole. She was very right. Perhaps my two greatest role models that I think about are Dr. Martin Luther King who is a person who has lived during my lifetime who I use as a guide, particularly when I am exhausted and want to quit. But my greatest role model in the entire world who I think about at least once a day, Susan B Anthony. I've read all her letters. She lived in central New York where I live and she drew, drove her a sleigh through the snow where I drive my Pontiac and I feel, although she might not exalt me, me to the category of her soul sister, she certainly is mine. Those are really fun things tonight. Um, the next question the speakers to discuss is what is the most pressing social problem facing women today? Miss DeCrow will you begin? Before we came on stage I

said I wouldn't take three minutes with this and I won't. I would like to remind you that when the President's advisory committee on the status of women tried to give advice to the President on subjects that he didn't think were women's issues he fired the co-chair Bella Abzug. I believe that the greatest social problem facing every person in the country today is inflation. Is the fact that if you earn a dollar today it's gonna be worth ninety cents tomorrow and probably fifty cents in two years. And the commission, the President's commission on the status of women wanted to address with him economic issues and economic problems and he felt that those were not women's issues and they should confine themselves to women's issues such as equal rights amendment and equal credit opportunity. I think that any issue that you discuss today can only be seen in the context of economics and in the context of inflation and in the context of unemployment. So, I would

simply, uh, mentioned that I do think that the most pressing social problem for everyone, no different for women than men except it would perhaps bare more heavily on women since more women are poor in this country. Eighty percent of the people who live below the poverty line as defined by the department of agriculture are female. So, the inflation problem would be hitting them the hardest. Well, I agree. That's one of our main topics of agreement tonight. The most pressing topic, eh, problem facing women is the same problem facing men. What's happening to our money? How the government is depreciating our money so that it isn't worth a week after we earn it what it was when we put in our labor. And I think the principle cause of that is the actions of government. The government has been spending more than it's been taking in and when the government spends more than it takes in it rolls the printing presses and that cheapens the value of our money. They spend money

for foreign aid and they give loans at low interest to all kinds of foreign countries. They spend all sorts of money that they shouldn't be spending. They roll up these deficits and we are now paying the price. I know that, uh, political speakers for years have been warning of this and a lot of people wanted to discount what they've said but we see the results very clearly. We see it every week when we go to the grocery store and the principal problem is what government is doing. And I think that is the most important problem facing both wo- women and men. Thank you very much, both of you. We would like to move now, after this discussion of more general issues, to a direct discussion of the economic implications of the equal rights amendment. This part of the program will assume a debate format. There will be a ten minute statement by Miss DeCrow followed by a ten minute statement by Mrs. Schlafly

and then there will be a time for rebuttal. Um, so we will get right now down to the nitty gritty. What are the economic implications of the ERA? The major implication of the equal rights amendment is legal and that is in my presentation what I plan to address in one sentence tie in the first part of the program to the second part, I dont know if that is a coherent whole to you all. The equal rights amendment is one aspect of changing the social and economic and political roles of women in this country. It is not the total aspect but it is so important and so critical that many, many people identified with the women's liberation movement, with the feminist movement are devoting a majority of their time to getting the equal rights amendment passed. Women in the United States do not have legal equality. There is only one way to assure legal equality for the women in the United States and that is to ratify the equal rights amendment.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by any state or by the United States on account of sex. We have until June thirtieth 1982 to include this essential amendment in the United States Constitution. We must get ratification of three more states. We must get ratification in Missouri. [applause] We desperately need an equal rights amendment and postpone the fun, the sexiness of talking about role models and gender free societies. Talk about equal rights amendment, that is what we need today. We need it in Missouri. We need the equal rights amendment because there are thousands of laws, state laws and federal laws which discriminate on the basis of sex. There are for example over eight

hundred sections of the United States code which discriminate on the basis of sex. The equal rights amendment will not change the country overnight. It will not force men to change diapers. It will not force women to play professional football. It will not end sexism. It will end sexism under the law. We must end sexism under the law. It will tell every judge, it will tell every legislator that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal, is unconstitutional. The judges on the Supreme Court are waiting for an equal rights amendment. Let me read you, Justice Powell said the following in the front nero case 1973. He said at that time he could not support sex as a suspect classification. There is a compelling reason for deferring a general categorization of sex classifications as invoking strictest test of judicial scrutiny. The equal rights amendment which, if

adopted, will resolve the substance of this precise question has been approved by the Congress and submitted for ratification by the states. By acting prematurely and unnecessary the court has assumed decisional responsibility at the very time when state legislatures are debating the proposed amendment. Decision on equality for women is not premature. The judges on the Supreme Court are waiting desperately for an equal rights amendment. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a decision maintaining a separate boys high school and girls high school in the city of Philadelphia. The decision includes the finding that the science facilities in the boys' high school are superior to the science facilities in the girls' high school. This is a public school. This is the two best academic schools in the city of Philadelphia, except the one for boys is better than the one for girls. That is not even separate and equal. That is separate and unequal. We need an equal rights amendment to guide that Supreme Court. We need the

equal rights amendment to give equality to the homemaker. A bill, for example, recently introduced in the House of Delegates in the state of Virginia to recognize the economic value of the homemaker was literally laughed out of the chamber. As a contrast, in the state of Pennsylvania which has a state equal rights amendment the economic value of the unpaid work of the homemaker has been recognized for the first time. Opponents of the equal rights amendment often tell you that the housewife is now supported in grand style and this support will stop when the equal rights amendment is passed. This is not true. There are numerous court cases which show that a woman has no right to the interference of the court in determining her level of support. The present laws failed to give protection to the mother who must raise her children alone. No matter what the reason death, separation, or divorce. Divorced

women and children live on an average of two hundred and eighteen dollars a month. The men who are supposedly supporting them, in quotes, live on an average of eight hundred dollars a month. Three out of five one parent households almost each of them headed by a woman are on welfare. Within three years following a divorce only nineteen percent of fathers are still paying child support. Opponents of the equal rights amendment often tell you that men will leave home and not support their families if the amendment is passed. Is it the inequality in the United States Constitution which keeps forty million men at home supporting their families? The equal rights amendment will make women's gains, those which we have made, permanent. Without the equal rights amendment in the constitution the shift of a few legislative votes could wipe out equal employment opportunity, could wipe out equal credit opportunity, could wipe out equality in education laws. The law which gives

women the right to sue for employment discrimination, for example, would not be on the books if three senators had changed their votes. Thank you very much. Mrs. Schlafly? In order to amend the constitution you have to have what is called a contemporaneous consensus consisting of two thirds of both houses of congress and thirty eight state legislatures. There is absolutely no way that ERA can get that. They had seven years, they had seven years and they couldn't sell it. Although the average time for ratification of all constitutional amendments including even those that were ratified in the days of pony express communication is one year and four months, they couldn't sell it in seven years. Not even

with all help from the White House, from the federal pay rollers, and from the expenditure of millions of dollars of federal money. And so, what they are trying to do now is to patch together an illegal consensus and ram it in the Constitution anyway. Of cause, they no longer have a two thirds majority in either house of Congress. That was proved in this extension vote last year and there's no way they can get thirty eight states unless they count states as voting yes when the states have said they want to be counted as voting no. And that's exactly what they are trying to do because five of the states had previously ratified have rescinded. So, their plan is to harass the unratified states and to make them vote again and again and again and again by threatening to spend or withhold federal money. Or by threatening their economic boycott and then to use the power of the federal government to account the rescinding states as voting yes when they want to be counted as voting no. I don't think they ought to be allowed to get by without even if your for

ERA because that's no way to play with the American Constitution. Now, why is it, why is that the people are rejecting it? Well, I think that section two explains all this federal interference. Section two is what gives total federal control in the enforcement clause. You ought to be up here discussing this, as well. There are a lot of opinions out there. [applause] But for the time being on the question of the extension to the equal rights amendment time period being illegal and the equal rights amendment being effectively dead I would simply like to repeat what Mark Twain said when he picked up a newspaper and saw that he was dead, the

reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. [applause] However, in this room tonight we are not going to decide whether the extension is legal. Those people who want to challenge the extension will do so in a court and the court will determine whether the extension period is legal. I personally, as a lawyer, believe it is legal but no one is asking me. The constitutional requirement is that amendments be passed within a reasonable time. I say to you that seven years is reasonable. Seventy years is reasonable. Missouri should keep voting until Missouri gets it right. [applause] [applause] I also call to your attention the fact that eighteen of the twenty six amendments to the

constitution have had no time limit. On the question of recision, states which voted yes and want to change their vote, that also will be decided by the court. I believe that it is legal, the department of justice believes it. The position that recision is not a constitutional thing to do is correct but that also will be tested, we cannot decide it here tonight. On the question of family law the equal rights amendment will not send decisions on family law down to Washington. That is something that I do not believe is a reason why we should not ratify. With regard to the grandmother clause, I say you show me a grandmother who when grandfathers decide to walk out the door and I show you a grandmother who does not have any monetary protection right now. We can do for our grandmothers and our granddaughters is to pass equal rights amendment. With regard to the draft, as you know President Carter said yesterday he did not favor registering people between eighteen and twenty three

although Secretary of Defense Brown has said that he does want such a thing. The proponents of the equal rights amendment have always said that Congress has had the power to draft women. Congress can draft women today if Congress chooses. Women can be drafted without an equal rights amendment, women may be draft without equal rights amendment. And the main thing you can say about the military today is that it discriminates against women. A high school dropout male can join the military service. A female needs a high school degree. I learned yesterday that on some intellectual type tests that they give, the males must score nineteen percent, the females fifty percent to get into the armed services. Lastly, I would like to point out to you that the women in this country between eighteen and twenty three do not want to be drafted, do not want to be sent into combat. I would also like to point out that the men in this country between eighteen and twenty [applause]

[applause] [applause] I can see that a number of you also have things that you want to raise with Miss DeCrow but let's let Mrs. Schlafly answer her first. That's right, that's right. The men don't wanna be drafted but I can assure you the college students in the nineteen seventies and the nineteen sixties during the Vietnam war didn't wanna be drafted, either. And those who were drafted in the earlier wars didn't wanna be drafted anymore than you were. ERA will not save the men from being drafted. All ERA will do is to require the young women to be drafted, too. And again it is just simply very difficult how anybody can see that as an advance for women's rights. There is a tremendous effort in the pen- among the Pentagon civilians in Washington today to reinstate the draft and require it to apply to people and

not just males. And if you are the ones who are saved from being drafted you can thank Stop ERA for protecting you from that fate. You have to remember the enormous difference between the volunteer military and the wartime involuntary military. It's not voluntary in wartime and it isn't voluntary whether or not you go into combat. Ah, all ERA will do is to require us to bring the same fate to the young women and it is just absolutely beyond me how anybody could consider this an advance for women's rights. We are the greatest defenders of women's rights in opposing the drafting of women and sending women into military combat duty. Now, the equal rights amendment has been called a symbol. Ah, because of this time extension it is really becoming a symbol of unfairness. Other amendments may not have had a time limit but this one did. When it came out of Congress the resolution said "resolve that the

following goes into the constitution if ratified by three fourths of the states within seven years of date of passage." And what the proponents are trying to do now is just exactly like demanding a losing football team, demanding that a fifth quarter be played and maybe a six and a seventh quarter to give them time to catch up and saying that only the losing team will be allowed to carry the ball. It wouldn't, even the losing team is not going to put up with that type of playing around with the rules. The equal rights amendment is not a game. It's our sacred Constitution. And, uh, whatever rules of fairness should apply to to games ought to apply a thousand times over to the Constitution. There is no way that anybody can in fairness justify the proposition that it's okay to allow states to switch from no to yes but that they're going to use the power of the federal government to forbid them to switch from yes to no. It just is so contrary to American understanding of fairness that I don't believe they ought to be allowed to get by with it.

Okay, we were told that we were given some sob stories about women in poverty and about their grandfathers leaving grandmothers and all that sort of thing, ERA doesn't have anything to do with that. ERA is not going to keep husbands from leaving from leaving their wives. ERA is not going to raise your pay or give you a promotion. ERA will not solve the divorce rate. ERA will not do any of those things. All ERA does is to change the laws and there aren't any laws that discriminate against women. All the differences, all those thousands of laws that make differences they're all for the benefit of women and a great many of those a great many of those laws which exist are the ones which give women that priceless exemption from being assigned to military combat jobs. That is what those exemptions are. [applause] I want to thank

um, alright you guys