« PředchozíPokračovat »
Mrs. MILLER. As far as appointing a commission, as the Wadsworth bill says, why most of those good women down at the Labor Department, all they do is just put down figures. You do not need a commission; you can call up there any day, and they do a good job as far as putting the figures down.
Mr. CHADWICK. Mrs. Miller, thank you for telling us what they do.
Mrs. MILLER. There is one thing the opposition never touches and that is what the State legislature does and the next legislature may undo. What one Congress does the next may undo, as you gentlemen may well know. So that a so-called equalization bill might last for 2 years if they got it.
Now, mention was made this morning about the law in Pennsylvania saying only a woman could be a common scold. Now that is true because we have never passed a law since the old English common law stating that nobody but a woman could be a common scold. In one of the Pittsburgh suburbs there was a man who disturbed the whole neighborhood; he was a nuisance, and so the neighborhood banded together and went to court to have him declared a common scold, and Judge Harkins of the common pleas court found that he could not declare the man a common scold because there was no law for it. He suggested that they pass a law at the next session of the legislature, because--now I am quoting—“in my long experience I find that a man can be just as low down and ornery as a woman.” [Laughter.]
Another thing, they seem to think, or forget to acknowledge, is that widows' pensions, that special law, just as pensions for men are special law, those provisions could still be carried out.
And they are stressing children. We are talking about adults, ladies and gentlemen, we are not talking about children. Before we could vote, we were classed with idiots and children. After we got the vote, we were taken out of the idiot class and then we were put in the children class. Now we want to get into our own class. [Applause.]
May I suggest that that attractive young woman who came here with her complaint from Cleveland go to the Civil Service department-am I right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. REED. I would think so.
Mrs. MILLER. Why, I go to the Civil Service department many times to make complaints; sometimes they are acted on, sometimes they are not. But I wish that she would go there and if I can be of any help to her, I would like to introduce her to France Perkins and see what she can do for you because she is very strong for women.
Now I am going to ask just one more thing that I would like to get in the record. The other day I referred to the mayor of Pittsburgh, the Honorable David L. Lawrence, having a city solicitor who was a woman. I happened to see the mayor again last night. He is very proud of his selection because he says he gets such wonderful legal advice; she has argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for special bills that were put through last year and the supreme court found her arguments valid and the bills were declared constitutional. Miss Anne Alpern was voted by the conference of mayors to represent them before Congress on the Rizley bill. That will interest you gentlemen,
Mr. CHADWICK. May I add another, Mrs. Miller? Within the last week I have heard Miss Vashti Burr, deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania make one of the three most outstanding, professionally sound, convincing arguments in the Tidelands matter, and I think every man in the room recognized her great contribution to that very interesting question.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much; that is very interesting. Miss Alpern is also president of the City Solicitors Association of the United States, the only woman member.
Now it is needless to say that Miss Alpern is a believer in women's rights.
Now before we conclude, I want to ask Miss Anita Pollitzer to say a word.
STATEMENT OF MISS ANITA POLLITZER Miss POLLITZER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. But these thoughts occur to me: first of all, I do not see how one can be for both the equal rights amendment and for the status bill. The Constitution has never discriminated against women. I think it would be a step backward for our Nation, and a sad step, if we should enact a bill, the title of which is, “To establish a commission on the legal status of women in the United States, to declare a policy as to distinctions based on sex.” That is implicit in the title of the bill
. The equal rights amendment does not preclude setting up commissions, now or during the 3 years after the date of ratification. The last section of the amendment was put in at the time Senator Austin and other lawyers sent this amendment to the Senate with a favorable report.
Three years after the date of ratification this amendment will become effective. Within 3 years, or before should they wish the 48 States can set up their own commissions. Kentucky's laws are not like Texas'. Texas' are not like those of Illinois, and so on. They may want to have a commission; they may want to have a commission in the 48 States, but the point is that this
study would be in order that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged."
Section 1 of H. R. 2007 to which we particularly object, Mr. Chadwick, states that it is the declared policy of the United States that in law and its administration no distinctions on the basis of sex shall be made except such as are reasonably justified— I am sure that I am not willing to trust “reasonably justified,” to those commissions or to this commission which will be appointed by the President to make a prescribed policy for the United States.
Then section 5 of the status bill says: the legislative bodies of the several States and their political subdivisions are urged to declare by resolution or other appropriate form of procedure the adoption of a legislative policy in conformity with the policy of the United States.
Through the adoption of the amendment, we are trying to override the condition which now exists, which the courts have often declared for, and which is everywhere present today, that law can discriminate because of sex.
The amendment would not preclude laws for widowers or widows, health legislation, maternity, nor laws for any special group; the text of the amendment will show that: "Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.'
I cannot hear it said, that the Status of Women Commission of the United Nations has gone against equality in any respect. By standing for health standards for workers or laws for mothers it has not violated equality. We endorse every report which has been issued by the Commission on the Status of Women of the United Nations.
Of course under the amendment you can have the differences based on any particular group, as was pointed out yesterday, but not for a whole sex. Motherhood is not sex.
It seems to me it would be a very sorry day for the American people when we get the idea that platform pledges, and I quote, "are not based always on conscience or opinion.” I personally do not know on what we would ever then base our own voting.
I want to say, too, that to me it is very disappointing to have an agency such as the Women's Bureau which is under an executive branch of the Government, and I thought supposed to execute policy, come for thin opposition to a particular measure which is in both party platforms. The Republican platform says: "We favor submission
Congress to the States of an amendment to the Constitution providing for equal rights for women,” and the Democratic platform says: "We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment on equal rights for women.” The very people who speak here were speaking against these platforms, and this amendment that was being considered then.
Equality is almost a national policy. I say “almost” for this reason: When the President of the Nation, when the President of the Senate, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives, when 40 governors-present and immediately past-and the majority of the present governors have specifically endorsed the text of something that is before you, and your parties have promised to submit it to the people, I ask you not to destroy our faith in government by not submitting it to the people.
Mr. Wadsworth spoke about correcting the law in slow, orderly fashion. I hope we will do that, as that last section of the amendment provides time to do.
Mr. Sifton, of the CIO, spoke of the conditions of women in industry. Doesn't Mr. Sifton think it would be all right to improve the conditions of men? Men get hernia from lifting heavy weights. This amendment will not level down; this amendment will impose the kind of thinking the Fair Labor Standards Act now seeks to do. This act contains no sex discrimination. The equal-right amendment will cause an examination of the laws, and under it health standards will be based on an industrial and not on a health basis.
Mr. Chairman, we know that passing a constitutional amendment is slow, but its gain is permanent. We ask you to favorably report the equal-rights amendment, to pass it on to the House of Representatives, and to allow the people to decide.
I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs. MILLER. May I express to you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee, our heartfelt thanks for the courtesy and the time and the patience that you have shown to us in these hearings?
Mr. REED. Who will appear for the opponents?
Mrs. YOUNG. I want to make one correction for the record, if I may, and about 2 minutes' worth of comments.
It was said a moment ago that the A. F. of L. has an inconsiderable number of women members. I have been informed by one of the executives of the Trade Union League that they have over 1,000,000 women members.
Also, Miss Borchardt is a member of the A. F. or L., a member of the legislative committee, and was authorized to represent the A. F. of L. today at this hearing.
My comment has to do with the feeling that I have after listening to this hearing. I feel a little like Hector and Achilles must have felt in the tragic moment in the Trojan Wars when the issue was finally drawn and they fought their last great fight over the dead body of Patroclus. That is what we are doing. This is a dead issue.
We agree that we want equality. That issue is not a point of difference between us. The difference is a matter of procedures. Judge Chadwick made the point a moment ago that he thought that these two pieces of legislation were not mutually exclusive, that one might precede the other.
I want to go on record as saying that I have always felt that if an amendment is necessary and desirable, and if one could be drafted that would satisfy the millions of American women who feel that this amendment does not do the trick, that is a matter which might be settled by the Commission we have proposed, which would provide a mechanism where different points of view could be brought together.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot settle differences in a hearing like this. We come with one set of opinions and we leave, perhaps, a little strengthened in that set of opinions; and goodness knows how you people feel.
Mr. REED. Do you think we have poker faces ?
Mrs. Young. You have had very gracious and friendly faces, I must say, Mr. Chairman. I would not be able to detect from your expression how you felt about this matter.
I would also like to applaud Mrs. Miller's thanks to you all. I think you have been very fair and gracious to both sides and I wonder why in this day when we seem to be spinning toward chaos we have to spend time this way. I am not sure it is a very profitable way to be spending our time.
We are agreed on a policy for equality; we are agreed that this matter has to be accomplished piece by piece. I think even our opponents feel that this attack has to be through education which would break down the cultural conceptions that underlie discrimination. Laws and fiat give us no weapons for tearing down these ancient prejudices. We are not any further along than before unless in the process of getting legal changes we educate a few people to what we are talking about.
We feel there ought to be an orderly way to do this through a declaration of policy that is a realistic declaration; and the provision for a mechanism for getting together to agree upon objectives. It is a procedural difference between us, and I want to leave that with you as the last word from my side in this issue.
Mr. REED. I think the committee wishes to commend all the ladies that have testified and were here, both on the previous occasion and today, for the fine spirit that was exhibited toward the committee and toward each other. Such verbal brickbats that were cast around seem to have been well cushioned and there is one thing I think the committee certainly can agree upon, that so far as the presentation of each side in this controversial issue is concerned, that you ladies certainly believe in equal rights as among each other anyway in the presentation of your arguments, and the committee appreciates very much the presentation that you made to us, and I think that it is quite illuminating
Now the responsibility will come to us to determine from the testimony offered what we shall report to the full committee. We shall hold the record open for 10 days for any further statements that anyone wishes to file, either supporting any of the pieces of legislation under consideration or against; and with that we will adjourn the committee meeting. (Applause.)
(Statements filed were as follows:)
STATEMENT OF Hon. Estes KEFAUVER IN HEARINGS ON LEGAL STATUS OF WOMEN
I am an exceedingly practical man. I have always found, as a practical matter that there is considerable difference between a woman and myself. My reading of history and literature have tended to substantiate this view. Indeed, it was not until I came to the House of Representatives that I discovered there were people who seemed to doubt such a common-sense point of view. Since then I have been keeping my eyes open for some documents to prove my point. I note that one distinguished doctor and psychiatrist recently said:
"Women are no more like men that a spiral is like a straight line.” Or take a broader research, that made by Edward Bernays, who says he polled thousands of scientists, anthropologists, doctors, and others. This is the way he summarizes their replies:
From birth through life, the physical mechanism of females is quite different from that of males, even aside from the primary sex characteristics. The male skeleton has a larger frame in relation to the issues which it must sup port, the male has a larger lung space, proportionately, and he is of course more heavily muscled. But women's stomachs are larger than men's. In proportion to total bodily weight, their brains are larger.
"The functioning of nearly all glands, the rate of metabolism, and the behavior of elements in the blood stream are quite different. Indeed, the trite phrase 'red-blooded he man' is fact rather than flattery since the male has billions more red corpuscles in his blood and even his hemoglobin content is about 10 percent higher than the female's. On the other hand, the bodies of women adjust themselves much more efficiently to changes in temperature-they are cooler in hot weather and warmer in cold weather.
“Although women live longer than men, they are sick much more often. From this it is reasonable to conclude that the female mechanism is more susceptible to the initial contraction of disease but has a greater capacity to fight it and recover without fatal consequences
Psychological differences between men and women are a little more difficult to summarize, but the experts apparently agree that they exist. All of this correlates with my reading of the "great books" which recount the endless variation in the relationships between men and women and the subtle differentiation of sexual characteristics, which-you will agree gentlemen-make life more interesting.
Having established to my satisfaction that men and women differ fundamentally, I hasten to say that I am a firm believer in the rights of women, just as I am a firm believer in the rights of men. The rights of human beings were brilliantly set forth in the Declaration of Independence. But even that document, great as it is, needs to be emplemented by law. We draft our laws in the light of its great principles. Without those laws we cannot live peacefully. In those laws, the rights of men and the rights of women must be spelled out beyond