Running head: ERA

The Triumph and Tragedy of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA):

Radicalized but Not Ratified

Emily Kennach

Historical Paper

Senior Division

Word Count: 2498

 ERA 2

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by

their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, 17761

The fight for equal rights in the United States is a history rich of advocacy and activism

by both women and men who believe in constitutionally protected gender equality. From the first

women’s suffrage movement in 1848 by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott at the first

Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York to the introduction of the Equal Rights

Amendment (ERA) by Alice Paul in 1923, the fight for gender equality continues to advance

throughout history.2 Designed to give American women equal protection under the law in areas

such as employment, education, and civil society, the ERA was drafted by Alice Paul and

introduced to Congress in 1923. The initial conflict between women over the ERA was setting a

goal of enabling women to have the same opportunities and situations as men against the goal of

enabling women freely to be different from men without adverse consequences. As never before

in nineteenth-century controversies, these two were seen as competing, even mutually exclusive

alternatives, where women were against women, feminists against feminists, conservative

against liberals, deeply dividing U.S. society, and prompting conversations about the meaning of

legal equality for women and men ever since.3

1
Huls, Mary Ellen. United States Government Documents on Women, 1800-1990: A Comprehensive Bibliography.
Vol. 1, Social Issues, Bibliographies and Indexes in Women's Studies, Number 17. (CT: Greenwood Press, 1993).
2
Howard, Angela M. and Frances M. Kavenik, ed., Handbook of American Women's History, 2nd ed. (CA: Sage
Publications, Inc., 2000).
3
Weatherford, Doris. American Women's History. (New York: Prentice Hall General Reference, 1994).
 ERA 3

Origins of the ERA

The first visible public demand for women’s suffrage in the United States was held on

July 19–20, 1848, in Seneca Falls, New York. The principal organizers of the Seneca Falls

Convention were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. This helped steamroll the

movement until the House of Representatives initially passed a voting rights amendment on June

4, 1919, giving women the full right to vote.4 The long struggle for woman suffrage was finally

won with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. But the most prominent woman

suffrage leader of the time, Alice Paul, argued that a further constitutional amendment was

required to guarantee complete gender equality.5

Alice Stokes Paul (1885-1977), a Quaker from Mount Laurel, New Jersey, was a key

figure in the passage of the 19th Amendment. While many suffragists left public life after the

enactment of the 19th Amendment, Alice Paul believed the true battle for equality had yet to be

won. In 1923, in Seneca Falls for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Woman's

Rights Convention, Alice Paul introduced the first version of the ERA, which was called the

"Lucretia Mott Amendment" at the time. The amendment was introduced in Congress the same

year and every session ever since until it passed in 1972. 6 In 1943, the ERA was rewritten and

dubbed the “Alice Paul Amendment.” In its current wording it reads: “Equality of rights under

the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”7

4
Becker, Susan D. The Origins of the Equal Rights Amendment: American Feminism between the Wars. (CT:
Greenwood Press, 1981).
5
Weatherford, History, 24.
6
Schenken, Suzanne O'Dea. From Suffrage to the Senate: An Encyclopedia of American Women in Politics. 2 vols.
(Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1999).
7
Rutherford, Barbara. The Women's Movement: References and Resources. (New York: G.K. Hall and Co., 1996).
 ERA 4

Feminists Split

Since the 1920s, the ERA has been accompanied by discussion among feminists about

the meaning of women's equality. The fight over the ERA did not pit women against men — it

pitted two ideologies against each other.8 Alice Paul and her National Woman's Party asserted

that women should be on equal terms with men in all regards, even if that means sacrificing

benefits given to women through protective legislation, such as shorter work hours and no night

work or heavy lifting. Opponents of the amendment, such as the Women's Joint Congressional

Committee, believed that the loss of these benefits to women would not be worth the supposed

gain to them in equality.9

Despite early gains by the feminist movement, the rise in social conservatism led

Americans of both genders to draw limits on a constitutionally mandated equality between the

sexes.10 The opposition to the ERA was led by Mary Anderson and the Women's Bureau

beginning in 1923. These feminists argued that legislation including mandated minimum wages,

safety regulations, restricted daily and weekly hours, lunch breaks, and maternity provisions

would be more beneficial to the majority of women who were forced to work out of economic

necessity, not personal fulfillment.11

Pro-ERA

Pro-ERA advocacy was led by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and

8
Berry, Mary Frances. Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution.
(IN: Indiana University Press, 1986).
9
Becker, Equal Rights Amendment, 46.
10
Tierney, Helen, ed., Women's Studies Encyclopedia. 3 vols. (CT: Greenwood Press, 1999).

Pardo, Thomas C., ed., The National Woman's Party Papers, 1913-1974: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition. (NC:
11

Microfilming Corporation of America, 1979).

 ERA 5

ERAmerica, a coalition of nearly 80 other mainstream organizations. Supporters of the ERA

point to the lack of a specific guarantee in the Constitution for equal rights protections on the

basis of sex. Between 1972 and 1982, ERA supporters held rallies, petitioned, picketed, went on

hunger strikes, and performed acts of civil disobedience.12 Key feminists of the time, such as

Gloria Steinem, spoke out in favor of the ERA, arguing that ERA opposition was based on

gender myths that overemphasized difference and ignored evidence of unequal treatment

between men and women.13 In 1973, future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

summarized a supporting argument for the ERA in the American Bar Association Journal:

The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the
rights and responsibilities of men and women. It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines
between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in
which each person will be judged on the basis of individual merit and not on the basis of
an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.14

ERA Opposition

Phyllis Schlafly was perhaps the most visible opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Her “Stop Taking Our Privileges, Equal Rights Amendment” campaign hinged on the belief that

the ERA would eliminate laws designed to protect women and led to the eventual defeat of the

amendment. They argued that the amendment would guarantee the possibility that women would

be subject to conscription and be required to have military combat roles in wars if. Defense of

traditional gender roles proved to be a useful tactic. They took homemade bread, jams, and apple

pies to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against

the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie."15 They appealed to married women by

12
Mansbridge, Jane J. Why We Lost the ERA. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).
13
Weatherford, History, 139.
14
Ibid, 142.
15
Rutherford, Movement, 75.
 ERA 6

stressing that the amendment would invalidate protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the

tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases. It was suggested that

single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated and same-sex couples would be able to get married if

the amendment were passed. Women who supported traditional gender roles started to oppose

the ERA.

Tragedy Amid Triumph

The ERA was introduced in Congress three years after women won the right to vote in

1920. It went nowhere and withered. The 1960s brought renewed attention to the amendment.

When second-wave feminism took hold in America, it ushered in a tidal wave of new support for

the concept of constitutional equality between women and men.16 In 1923, support for the ERA

had been considered radical, but in the 1970s support came from mainstream America as well as

from more liberal elements. United States law increasingly called for equality of the sexes—the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, banned sex-based employment discrimination. But

advocates wanted to take equality a step further, and their goal looked to be within reach. Thus,

when protective legislation was revealed to have harmed the very group it was intended to

protect, liberal feminists had an additional reason for urging passage of the ERA.17

By 1970, notes the Congressional Research Service, “Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy,

Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon were all on record as having endorsed an equal rights

amendment.”18 Suddenly, it seemed, the ERA was having its moment. The National

Organization of Women vigorously promoted the amendment. Women organized huge

16
Mansbridge, ERA, 86.
17
Ibid, 97.
18
Steiner, Gilbert Y. Constitutional Inequality: The Political Fortunes of the Equal Rights Amendment. (Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1985).
 ERA 7

demonstrations in its favor. In 1972, both houses of Congress passed the amendment. It sailed

through the House, picking up a 93.4 percent majority, and won a 91.3 percent majority in the

Senate. Now it was up to the states to ratify it. It would need three fourths of the 50 states to

become law. And it would need to be ratified within seven years thanks to an agreement by both

parties.19

Twenty-two states rushed to ratify, but, by 1975, momentum had slowed. Mounting

opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification

to a standstill. Rallied by the amendment and the belief that the ERA would be the final push for

legislative equality, in February 1977, The National Organization for Women encouraged a

boycott of all states that had not ratified the amendment. At the same time, Phyllis Schlafly and

other conservative groups worked to prevent the ERA's ratification. By arguing that gender

equality would force women into the military, including combat, and to lose preferential

treatment in child custody cases, Schlafly and her organizations helped stall the ERA's

momentum.20

As the ratification deadline approached, Congress extended it by three years, to 30 June

1982. Even after this extension, supporters could only secure favorable votes from only thirty-

five of the thirty-eight states needed for passage.21 Five states, meanwhile, rescinded their

endorsements. Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, and Kentucky, and South Dakota all voted to rescind

Arrington, Theodore S. and Patricia A. Kyle. "Equal Rights Amendment Activists in North
19

Carolina". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. (Spring, 1978).

20
Rutherford, Movement, 81.
21
Slavin, Sarah. The Equal Rights Amendment: The Politics and Process of Ratification of the 27th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. (IL: Westwood Press, 1982).
 ERA 8

their prior support of the amendment. In 1983, the extension expired, and the ERA was never

made a part of the United States Constitution.22

Significance

The failure of the ERA forces us to see the longer history of equal rights in its true

complexity. The battle of the ERA in the 1920s foreshadowed the memory of opposing opinions

among women, while illustrating the inevitable imbrications of women's legal and political rights

in their economic situation. While the controversy demonstrated the difficulty of protecting

women on the economic stage while offering them opportunities, the debate more fundamentally

challenged the mobilization of women as a group in response to the call for equal rights. What

type of group were women when their professional, social or other loyalties were varied, when

not all women saw the interests of "women" or what constituted sex "discrimination" in the same

way? The ideological dimensions of this problem intersected both class consciousness and

gender identity. The debate's intensity, both then and now, measured how fundamental the

revision of the policies and practices of economic and civic life derived from a male norm was,

in order to give women complete freedom - and to women of all sorts.

In the end, the changes that took place in those years came from many quarters and for

many reasons. The lengthy public debate on the status of women and the call for a constitutional

amendment has heightened expectations for change, and changes have followed. Women of all

classes and stages came together in search of solutions to issues that some believed were caused

by gender discrimination and inferior status to women's equality. The debate of the 1920s

brought to light the question of whether "equal rights" - a concept adopted, after all, of the

political tradition male - met the needs of women. Inevitably, women on both sides of the ERA

22
Berry, Constitution, 143.
 ERA 9

issue have become involved in the political process and have begun to learn how levers of power

are activated at different levels of government. Ultimately, the cumulative effect of all these

forces has triggered a series of elective, legislative and judicial actions that have contributed, and

no doubt continue, to make a positive contribution to fundamental changes in the status of

women in history.

Applicability

In the current legal structure, some laws exclude women from their legal rights,

opportunities or responsibilities. Some are conceived as legislation conferring special benefits, or

protection, on women. Many of the efforts to create a separate legal status for women stem from

a good faith attempt to defend their interests. Nevertheless, the overriding effect has been to

reinforce the social and economic subordination of women. Our legal structure will continue to

support and impose an inferior status on women to the extent that it allows any differentiation of

legal treatment on the basis of sex. History has taught us that in such a dual system one group is

always dominant and the other subordinate. As long as a woman's place is defined as separate, a

male-dominated society will define her inferior.

Women still suffer from widespread gender-based violence, undergo extensive regulation

of their reproductive lives, experience wage discrimination in all occupational categories,

subjected to biased gender considerations in hiring, promotion, and discriminatory treatment by

employers in pregnancy and motherhood, among numerous other practices that seek to subjugate

women. A strong amendment in favor of women's equality remains a crucial need. Ratifying the

ERA is imperative because of the principle it perpetuates. Refusing to ratify the amendment

because it is "redundant" is sexist in itself, because it implies that the codification of women's

equality is not important enough for time and legislative efforts. This mindset diminishes the
ERA 10

importance of women's rights and must be amended through the ratification of the ERA. The

Equal Rights Amendment is needed to constitutionally affirm that the bedrock principles of our

democracy — "all men are created equal," "liberty and justice for all," "equal justice under law,"

"government of the people, by the people, and for the people"23 — apply equally to all women

and men in the United States of America.

23
Huls, Women, 6.
ERA 11

Annotated Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Arrington, Theodore S. and Patricia A. Kyle. "Equal Rights Amendment Activists in North
Carolina". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. (Spring 1978): 666-680.
Two political scientists examine characteristics of ERA activists in North Carolina. They
looked at "political activity, political attitudes, personality characteristics, socioeconomic
status (SES), religion, social cross-pressures, geography, and parental influences" of ERA
and anti-ERA activists.
Becker, Susan D. The Origins of the Equal Rights Amendment: American Feminism between the
Wars. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Written before the end of the ratification process. Becker looks at the history of ERA.
She examines the origins of the ERA, National Woman's Party activities, why people
supported ERA or opposed it, and what the American feminist movement during the
1920's and 1930's was like.
Berry, Mary Frances. Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process of
the Constitution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Berry begins by discussing the process of amending the Constitution, then examines the
progress of several proposed amendments: income tax, prohibition, woman suffrage, and
child labor. She compares ERA to these previous amendments and concludes that ERA
failed because "supporters did too little, too late of what is required for ratification of a
substantive proposal".
Boles, Janet K. The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process.
New York: Longman, Inc., 1979.
The author conducted a case study in Texas, Georgia, and Illinois to determine whether
the community conflict and traditional interest group politics models were applicable to
ERA ratification politics. The book was written before the ratification process ended. The
author wanted to find out why the ERA, which was popular, had such a difficult time
being ratified by the states.
Carver, Joan S. “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature.” The Florida
Historical Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, 1982, pp. 455–481. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/30149853.
An excellent primary source. Contains a legislative history of the ERA's first twenty
years in Congress, an article by the National Woman's Party which answers common
questions about the amendment, and short articles in support and opposition of the
amendment. Authors of pro and con articles include writing in support: Alice Paul, U.S.
Senator Hattie W. Caraway, U.S. Representative Margaret C. Smith, Pearl Buck, and
Katharine Hepburn; and writing in opposition: Carrie Chapman Catt, American
ERA 12

Association of University Women, National Council of Catholic Women, and the

National League of Women Voters.
Eisler, Riane Tennenhaus. The Equal Rights Amendment Handbook. New York: Avon Books,
1978.
This is a great primary source. A detailed how-to manual for people interested in getting
the ERA ratified in the three remaining states. It was written during the ratification
process by an ERA advocate and lawyer who consulted with many activists. One of the
author's main purposes was to correct misconceptions of the amendment. The "Strategy
Guide and Action Checklist" is especially interesting for people studying activism.
Equal Rights Amendment Project. The Equal Rights Amendment: A Bibliographic Study /
compiled by the Equal Rights Amendment Project; Anita Miller, project director ; Hazel
Greenberg, editor and compiler. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976.
The Equal Rights Amendment Project was a national resource center on the equal rights
issue. The book was published before the end of the ratification process. Materials are
divided into: Congressional Publications; Other Government Publications; Pamphlets,
Brochures, Reports, Papers, and Other Documents; and Periodical Material. Excellent
table of contents makes it easy to find the listing for a narrow publication type, such as
House of Representatives' hearings.
Huber, Joan. "Attitudes Toward Women and Work, 1978." Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research 2009 (1978): n. pag. University Libraries.
Web. http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=ICPSR22860
Article discusses interviews with women describing their conditions, wages, and
treatment in work, urging grand movement for civil, religious, political, and social rights
for women.
Mansbridge, Jane J. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Mansbridge was a participant in the ratification struggle and studied it when she realized
it would fail and after ratification failed. She argues that the American public did not
want a substantial change in gender roles and that the Supreme Court would probably not
take advantage of the amendment. She said that proponents were unwilling to
compromise because they were ideologically committed to equality.
Secondary Sources:
Feinberg, Renee. The Equal Rights Amendment: An Annotated Bibliography of the Issues, 1976-
1985, Bibliographies and Indexes in Women's Studies, Number 3. New York: Greenwood
Press, 1986.
Continues the Equal Rights Amendment Project's bibliography. Instead of grouping
materials by type, it groups them by subject. Subjects are: Public Opinion and Party
Politics; Federal and State Interpretations of the Equal Rights Amendment; Employment;
Education; Family and Religion; The Military; Ratification Efforts; Boycott, Extension,
ERA 13

and Rescission; Defeat; Television News Coverage; After 1982. Many entries are
annotated. Book also includes an introduction: "The Equal Rights Amendment as a
Mainstream Political Issue", an organizational resources appendix, including a list of
ERA supporters as of 1978 , an author index, and a subject index.
Howard, Angela M. and Frances M. Kavenik, ed., Handbook of American Women's History, 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2000.
Book is a good introduction to the field of women's history. Includes entries about the
Equal Rights Amendment and the National Woman's Party. The Equal Rights
Amendment entry discusses why it took so long for the Equal Rights Amendment to gain
national attention.
Huls, Mary Ellen. United States Government Documents on Women, 1800-1990: A
Comprehensive Bibliography. Vol. 1, Social Issues, Bibliographies and Indexes in
Women's Studies, Number 17. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993.
Approximately fifty pages of this book contain citations about Equal Rights Amendment
in several categories. Some citations are annotated. An excellent resource for researchers
interested in government documents pertaining to the Equal Rights Amendment.
Krichmar, Albert (assisted by Barbara Case, Barbara Silver, Ann E. Wiederrecht). The Women's
Rights Movement in the United States, 1848-1970: A Bibliography and Source Book.
Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1972.
Contains seven pages of annotated citations of pro- and anti-ERA writings from 1924 to
1971, most of which are articles in periodicals. The list is certainly not comprehensive,
but a select list of articles from popular and lesser known periodicals.
Krichmar, Albert (assisted by Virginia Carlson Smith and Ann E. Wiederrecht). The Women's
Movement in the Seventies: An International English-Language Bibliography. Metuchen,
NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1977.
Entries listed under Equal Rights Amendment in the index. The book includes over 50
citations from 1970-1975. Mostly magazine articles and Congressional hearings. Some
citations are annotated. ERA entries are scattered throughout the bibliography which
makes it more difficult to use.
Marrilley, Suzanne M. "Towards a New Strategy for the Era: Some Lessons from the American
Woman Suffrage Movement". Women & Politics 9, no. 4 (1989)
The author argues that future leaders of ERA ratification efforts can learn lessons from
the American suffragists of the early 1900's. Article includes a review of why ERA failed
and a summary of the United States woman suffrage movement.
Mathews, Donald G. and Jane Sherron DeHart. Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State
and the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
The authors studied the ratification process in North Carolina, but argue that North
Carolina is representative of the nation. They argue that the conflict over ratification is
ERA 14

about gender. The text begins with a narrative of the history of ERA and the second half
examines the feelings of pro- and anti-ERA women and the North Carolina General
Assembly.
Pardo, Thomas C., ed., The National Woman's Party Papers, 1913-1974: A Guide to the
Microfilm Edition. Sanford, NC: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1979.
An excellent guide to primary sources about National Woman's Party's Equal Rights
Amendment work. Contains a detailed timeline of National Woman's Party activities and
lists contents of microfilm collection. Includes a description of arrangement of the papers,
complete and brief reel lists, an index of important correspondence, and background
information.
Rutherford, Barbara. The Women's Movement: References and Resources. New York: G.K. Hall
and Co., 1996.
This book has an excellent annotated bibliography of thirty books and journal articles that
discuss various aspects of ERA. Books and journal articles were written both during and
after the process.
Schenken, Suzanne O'Dea. From Suffrage to the Senate: An Encyclopedia of American Women
in Politics. 2 vols. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1999.
Volume 1 contains an alphabetical index of entries in both volumes and page numbers of
primary sources, as well as an index of entries arranged by category. Entries include see
also and references. The eight page entry for Equal Rights Amendment provides a
comprehensive history of the amendment. Also includes articles about state equal rights
amendments, ERAmerica, National Woman's Party, National Organization for Women,
and Alice Paul.
Slavin, Sarah, ed., The Equal Rights Amendment: The Politics and Process of Ratification of the
27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Special double issue, Women & Politics 2
nos.1 and 2 . IL: Westwood Press, 1982.
When this collection of articles was published, it was clear that the Equal Rights
Amendment would not be ratified. Articles explore attitudes of women state legislators
toward ERA, factors influencing state legislative responses to ERA, political ideology of
opponents and proponents, a case study of coalition politics, and an examination of the
influence of campaign contributions on ERA ratification in Illinois.
Steiner, Gilbert Y. Constitutional Inequality: The Political Fortunes of the Equal Rights
Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1985.
A study of why ERA was not ratified. Steiner focuses on the period from 1971 to 1982.
The author, a senior fellow in the Governmental Studies program of the Brookings
institution, concludes that ERA failed because advocates missed their window of
opportunity, which was only open for a very brief period of time.
ERA 15

Tierney, Helen, ed., Women's Studies Encyclopedia. 3 vols. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1999.
This three volume set contains multiple entries that describe various aspects of the Equal
Rights Amendment. Equal Rights Amendment entry by Melissa Hausman contains an
excellent outline of the ideology and legal issues of the ERA and includes references for
further reading. This encyclopedia contains a detailed index.
Weatherford, Doris. American Women's History. New York: Prentice Hall General Reference,
1994.
Equal Rights Amendment entry provides a good discussion of initial opposition to the
amendment. Woman's Party entry describes the party's shortcomings. The article about
Alice Paul is negative and downplays her work after the passage of the 19th Amendment.
Contains brief article about the National Organization for Women.