Essay: Differences in the rights and equality presented to men and women

Since the creation of the United States, there was always been an apparent difference in the rights and equality presented to men and women. This can be seen in almost every aspect of history, from the founding fathers to women not being able to vote until 1920, less than 100 years ago. There has been many movements trying to help attain greater equality between the genders, and many organizations created with the same goal. In this paper, I will be focusing on one specific organization: the National Organization for Women, also known as NOW. The question I will answer in this paper is “How effective was NOW in furthering the interests of American women?
After WWII, America was swiftly injected into the Cold War, which was a war between the US and the USSR that had no active military conflict between the two themselves. In this war, the greatest weapon was image, or how people perceive nations. Since image was such an important tool against the USSR, gender equality in America became an issue. There were gender-roles stereotypes, unequal opportunities, unequal pay, and even laws against women having say over their bodies. This not only made the United States look inferior, but caused some disgruntled feelings in the American public. Because of this, women and men alike began fighting for women’s equality. A women named Betty Friedan had a major role in fighting for women’s rights; from writing books to organizing protests. Friedan eventual help assemble an organization that would be called NOW, or the National Organization for Women. From 1968 boycotts of Colgate-Palmolive products to 1970 “Women’s Strike for Equality”, NOW became the organized center of the fight for women’s rights. NOW was established in 1966 and had the goal to help further women’s rights in America. Although the organization faced much criticism, not only because of what it was working to achieve, but on some of its specific battles, NOW has continued its work on achieving its goal and writing its history, even in todays society.
This purpose of this paper is to pick out and evaluate secondary sources and analyze primary sources about my topic. I will determine the historical arguments, an argument to explain why or how something happened in history, that the researches of the secondary sources are implying and evaluate them and show how they are arguing in comparison to my research question. In this paper, there will be four arguments I will present, from four different secondary sources, evaluating the effectiveness of NOW in furthering the interests in American women. I am using four secondary sources because this will give me a good variety of different possible answers to my question while keeping the information manageable. These sources are from researches that have looked back and analyzed the history from the time period and created their answer while using primary sources in their arguments from which, I will be pulling information from. I chose these specific secondary sources because they make a direct historical argument related to my research question. I will also make references to two primary sources, to help verify the information from the secondary sources as well as to inquire in of some of the historical issues surrounding the topic, specifically from the timeframe it is from.  Primary sources are important because they give you insight on what was happening at the time of the issue, as well as background information to help further your understanding. I chose these specific primary sources because they both give insight on NOW’s goals and what was happening in NOW’s early years. In my conclusion, I will use my evaluation of the secondary, along with the information gathered from the primary sources to compile what, I believe, is the most logical answer to my research question, as well as describe what impact the research question itself has on today’s society.
I will begin with my secondary sources, starting with the one arguing that NOW was moslty ineffective, and gradually moving to my final one stating that NOW was effective. In “Expanding the Boundaries of the Women’s Movement: Black Feminism and the Struggle for Welfare Rights”, the author Premilla Nadasen argues that NOW was mostly ineffective in furthering the interests of women in America. Nadasen states that NOW endorsed organizations to help further the women rights movement during the second wave of feminism, but fell though with their promise of help to certain organizations, specifically those run by African American women, such as NWRO, the National Welfare Rights Organization.1 Nadasen references an interview of NOW’s chair of of the Task Force for Women in Poverty, Merreillee Dolan, when making her argument. Nadasen used a direct quote of Dolan’s in her argument: “[poverty] is the most important women’s issue for which we should be fighting.”2 Nadasen argues that in saying this in reference to NWRO and the issues they were fighting, NOW made a promise to help this pat on the women’s movement, but ultimately failed in doing so when things began to get difficult.3 Nadasen also draws references from a magazine article published at the time of the event. This article she used states that NOW’s interest began to dwindle with its upper-middle class, mainly white leadership.4 Nadasen uses this to further her argument by saying that their was a class and race divide that stopped NOW form helping, and in doing so, being ineffective in furthering all women’s interests. Nadasen states “The welfare rights movement, like other Black women’s political struggles, has been rendered invisible on most accounts of feminism in the 1960’s.”5 With saying this, she argues that most women’s organizations of the 60s and 70s, largely NOW, ignored women in minority groups, such as in owner classes and of the African American race, thus making them largely ineffective.
While Nadasen was arguing that NOW was ineffective, my secondary secondary source argues that NOW was slightly ineffective. In “A Religious Feminist- Who Can Find Her? Historiographical Challenges from the National Organization for Women”, author Ann Braude argues that NOW was slightly effective in furthering the interest of women in America. Braude argues that NOW considered themselves “secular” and was inclusive to people of all races and religions, but mainly used those in minority groups for show to help bolster NOW’s image.6 Braude draws reference to an image of NOW founders, which includes a nun in full dress, African American church leaders, an Hispanic union leader and Betty Friedan.7 Braude uses this image, which she states was reprinted many times, to strengthen her argument because she explains that while these people where shown in a major photograph from the time, their groups had little help during from NOW during the time and these peoples impact and importance was inflated to help NOW look more inclusive.8 Braude also uses direct quotes from Betty Friedan and Sister Joel Read, a catholic nun, to help further this argument. In the quote from Friedan, she states how “eloquent and commonsensible” Read was and how important she was in the birth of NOW.9 Braude then goes on to say how Read recalled nothing about this important role Friedan claims she played. Braude claims this is inflating the importance of someone from a minority group, and by doing this NOW is trying to seem inclusive of everyone.10 Braude states that while they were very inclusive of different religions and races, they did minimal work in focusing on the religions nature of the members lives. She states that when members joined NOW, their religions were pushed to the back burner in their lives, and some religious people, such as Sister Joel Read, had to walk away from NOW so she further her religious experience because NOW made it a small part of her life, which makes Braude believe that NOW was only slightly effective in furthering the interests of women in America.11
In my third secondary source, the author argues that NOW was mostly effective, unlike the other two sources I have presented. In “Out of the Revolution, into the Mainstream: Employment Activism in the NOW Sears Campaign and the Growing Pains of Liberal Feminism”, Katherine Turk argues that NOW was mostly effective in furthering the interests of women in America. Turk argues that NOW was very interested in helping women in America, but lost some of their values in the 70’s and 80’s and  begun to have a slight divide over values, which went on to hurt women, by having a divided organization, more than help at the time.12 Turk references a court case between NOW an Sears from May 1975 in her argument, explaining that this was the start of the divide over what they were working towards.13 Turk believes that this case was the beginning of the momentary fall that NOW had. Turk explains that this case was between NOW an Sears over the need of distribution of women throughout the company, rather that just a few women in higher levels, to meet quotas of women in the company.14 In this court case, Turk explains that “In 1975 a political struggle within NOW elevated a new group of leaders who prioritized ideological and procedural unity, directing NOW resources away from grassroots-driven activism and toward efforts to add an equal rights amendment (ERA) to the US Constitution.”15 She then goes on the argue that this power shift resulted in strained relationships with government agencies and employers because they began to be more military-like. This caused some strain with some members, causing them to question what NOW’s goals where and whether they had shifted.16 Turk uses a survey of the Chicago NOW members in 1973 to help show the reserved feelings of the members at the time. This survey shows that Chicago NOW was one of the strongest chapters in 1973, with excited members. Within a few years, Turk explains that Chicago NOW had become a lot more lose, with leaders telling women to deal with issues themselves and stand-up for themselves.17 Turk explains how this began to hurt women more than help because she explains how some members started to become more radical and it reflected badly on the organization as a whole. Turk later goes on the argue that NOW did return to their original goals and refined their methods, becoming mostly effective in furthering the the interests of women in America.18
My final secondary source is arguing that NOW was effective in furthering the interests of women in America, unlike the previous secondary source, which argued it was only mostly effective. In “Extending the ‘Bright Line’: Feminism, Breastfeeding, and the workplace in the United States”, author Judith Galtry argues that NOW was effective in furthering the interests of women in America.  Galtry argues that NOW ignored and challenged  the 1990s AAP  policy of breastfeeding infants as “anti- working women” and challenged them by bringing up points of the injustice of appropriate breastfeeding dumping facilities in workplaces.19 Galtry also argues that “NOW has upheld the liberal values of equality, liberty, and justice and the paramount importance of gender-numeral legislation in order for women to attain equality in paid employment and political life”.20 Galtry references direct quotes from a NOW member working against this policy from the 1990’s, as while as using direct quotes from the APA to argue her points.21 She also references Lise Vogel’s 1990 article from the collection Feminist Studies to further argue the impact of NOW by stating “…gender-specific protective labor, even if of the apparently well-intentioned variety such as maternity leave, ultimately disadvantages women…”.22 Galtry draws reference to NOWs statement of purpose, which states they will help fight against policies against women, to help strengthen her argument that NOW was effective in furthering interests of women in America by standing by its values and holding up it’s end.23
We are now going to look at two primary sources. I am referring to primary sources because they can help strengthen or diminish arguments.  Primary sources are important in research because of  the insight into the time period and first-hand information on events that occurred. The first primary source I chose is NOW’s statement of purpose, which was written by NOW’s founder and first president, Betty Friedan and was presented at NOW’s first national conference in 1966,  and it is a official record of the organization. This document outlines NOW’s goals and promises to American women and what they are going to fight for. I picked this document because many of my secondary sources use it as a reference in their arguments, and because I believe it can help shed some light on what NOW’s intentions were when it began. I hope to find information on what NOW promised to do in order to help women while going through this document. In this document, Friedan states, on behalf of NOW, that “[NOW] organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society.”24 This is saying that NOW will help the women being singled out in the workforce with difficult polices and that they will fight against bad policies that are causing discrimination gains women. This is helps strengthen Judith Galtry’s argument that NOW was effective, but also strengthens Premilla Nadasen’s argument that NOW was mostly ineffective. Galtry argued that NOW was effective in furthering interests in American women by fighting against social policies presented that restricted women on when and how long they were allowed to breastfeed. This quote helps this argument by stating how NOW would “…break through …prejudice and discrimination” because it proves that NOW would fulfill its promises, or at least some of them.25 Nadasen’s argument, on the other hand, stated that NOW was ineffective in furthering the interest of women in America because they did not seem to help women in minority groups and did not support all organizations to help women, even if they stated they would.26 This document helps this by stating “…support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations….”27 This goes to show that NOW said they would help, but Nadasen argues that NOW, in fact did not help, even when stated they would. Friedan also states that “[NOW does] not accept the token appointment of a few women to high-level positions in government and industry as a substitute for serious continuing effort to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities. To this end, we urge American government and industry to mobilize the same resources of ingenuity and command with which they have solved problems of far greater difficulty than those now impeding the progress of women.”28 This shows that NOW does not believe that major companies should only have a few women in positions of power, but rather should continually have women throughout the companies in all levels and positions based on their abilities and experience, much like hey have men. This weakens Katherine Turk’s argument that NOW was only mostly effective in furthering the interests of American women. Turk argues that Now was only mostly effective because they started to lose sight of what was important in the 70’s and 80’s and begun hurting the image of American women rather than helping it. This quote weakens this argument because Turk uses a court case against Sears to prove her point, but the case used was on that was tying to get women throughout the company rather than just the few in the higher levels.29 This quote shows that this was one of NOW’s original goals, and that’s what they were doing in the 70’s and 80’s.This source helps both strengthen and diminish some arguments I’ve presented in this paper. It shows exactly what NOW was planning on doing, which was furthering the ingests of women in America. The document helps either prove or disprove the argument about whether NOW was effective in doing so or not.
The second primary source I chose is very different form my first, to make sure I have a variety and look at the information from different points of view. My second primary source is the Civil Rights Act, which was passed into 1964. While this law was passed before the official founding of NOW, its founding members used this as a foundation for the organization and in one of its more prominent goals, which was to end discrimination. NOW also worked to make sure that the Civil Rights Act was being followed in society once it was founded. The Civil Rights Act is a law that was proposed and passed to end discrimination in the workplace as well as in other areas, such as with voting. In this document, I hope to find information. On what NOW was supporting and how that fits into the arguments created by the secondary sources. Both Nadasen and Braude had the argument that NOW did not focus on minority groups, such as in race or religion, when furthering the interests of omen, but the Civil Rights Act states that “[the workplace cannot] discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”30 What this is saying is that, legally, the workforce is not allowed to discriminate, such as not hire someone for a job, because of race, religion, or gender. This act of legislation was heavily supported and enforced by NOW, which weakens the arguments made by Nadasen and Braude that NOW did not work in helping those in minority groups. This Act also states “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”31 This is saying that everyone or any race, religion, or ethnic background is allowed to enjoy any services offered at a public place without discrimination or segregation. This also helps contradict Braude’s and Nadasen’s arguments that NOW was uninterested with the interests of women in these minority groups, since NOW worked so hard to keep this piece of legislation enforce. This section also helps strengthen Galtry;s argument that NOW was effective in furthering the interests of women in America by showing that NOW wanted the equal opportunities for people to enjoy public places with discrimination, as Galtry argued that NOW was always fighting for equal opportunities for women, primarily in the workplace and in public.32 This document helps show some flaws in my first two secondary sources, while also strengthening my final secondary source. Now that I have evaluated my secondary sources and analyzed two primary sources, I will move onto my conclusion to my research question.
In this paper, I have analyzed four secondary sources, as well as two primary sources. I used primary sources since I did not do my own original research on the research question and was drawing conclusions from experts who have done their own research and presented historical arguments. I used primary sources to help form my own conclusions, as well as confirming the information presented in the secondary sources. After completing my analyzation of these sources, I came up with my own answer to my original research question: was NOW effective in furthering the interests of women in America? I believe that NOW was mostly effective in furthering the interest of women in America, but was  not totally effective. I have reached this conclusion because while all my secondary sources presented strong argument, I believe that Turk presented the strongest argument in my third source. While Nadasen, presented a good argument, I felt as though it lacked flow in the argument, but had strong set of primary sources that information was drawn from.  Galtry, on the other hand, had a strong sense of what she was talking about, but lacked in primary sources to help better strengthen her argument and give it validity. I had the most difficulty going between Braude and Turk because both had very strong arguments as well as many references to a variety of primary sources. Ultimately, I decided that Turk had a stronger argument because She had more primary sources and her argument was better put together. While some of these secondary sources were further on the “ineffective” side of the argument, they still brought up many points showing that NOW was at least somewhat effective in its fight, as you can see in Nadasen’s argument when she stated that NOW did help at the beginning, it later backed out. You see it  as well as in Braude’s argument when she uses the image as a primary source, one that showed that NOW did have diversity in its group and brought minorities to the spotlight. While Nadasen thought that NOW was more ineffective than effective in furthering the interests of women in America and Braude thought it was only slightly effective, both brought up points that NOW did further the interests of women in America, but they argued that NOW didn’t further the interests of ALL women, but rather focused on middle-to-upper class, white women in America. This part of their arguments influenced my answer greatly, making me believe that NOW was only mostly effective, since they did not do much to help further interests of women in minority groups.
This research topic is related to today’s society because America is currently going through similar issues and difficulties as in the past. Also, NOW is still a prominent organization that continually fights for equality among genders, as well as equality between ethnic backgrounds. While my conclusion states that I believe that NOW was mostly effective because of their lack of work in minority groups, in recent years I believe that this has changed. Discrimination between the races, especially against the women of minority races, have been increasing high in todays society, but I believe that with help from organizations such as NOW, that can change for a more equal future.