Reading Response #3: Feminism and Family Values (Part I)

Allison Brown HIST 4340: Women Dr. Hampton 18 April, 2023 Reading Response #3: Feminism and Family Values (Part I) Chapter 1 Marjorie J. Spruill’s Introduction to “Four Days That Changed the World,” the opening chapter of Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, examines the cultural and political turmoil that came to a head at the 1977 National Women’s Conference in Houston, Texas. Spruill’s argument centers on the conference as a pivotal moment in the fight for women’s rights, which exposed deep divisions in American society over issues of gender, sexuality, and family. Spruill asserts that the National Women’s Conference was the culmination of a decade-long struggle for women’s rights, which began with the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s. The feminist movement of the 1970s sought to address the systemic inequalities that women faced in American society, including discrimination in the workplace, reproductive rights, and gender-based violence. However, the movement was also deeply divided over issues of race, class, and sexuality, as well as the role of women in the family. Spruill argues that the conference marked a turning point in the fight for women’s rights, stating that it was “a culmination of more than a decade of feminist activism and political organizing” (Spruill, 1). The conference was designed to bring together women from all walks of life and political affiliations to draft a plan of action to promote women’s rights. Despite its noble intentions, the conference became a battleground for opposing views on gender, sexuality, and family values. One of the most contentious issues at the conference was the role of women in the family. The conservative wing of the women’s movement, led by Phyllis Schlafly, argued that the traditional family structure was under attack and that women’s liberation threatened to destabilize society. Schlafly believed that the feminist movement was seeking to “force women out of the home and into the workforce” (Spruill, 3), and that the family unit was essential for the well-being of children and society as a whole. In contrast, the liberal wing of the women’s movement saw the family unit as a source of oppression for women, arguing that women’s domestic duties prevented them from achieving full equality in society. As Spruill notes, “liberals saw the traditional family as an institution that perpetuated inequality between men and women” (Spruill, 4). Liberal feminists saw women’s liberation as essential to breaking down the patriarchal structures of society and achieving true gender equality. The conference also highlighted divisions over issues o sexuality and reproductive rights. Conservative delegates opposed the inclusion of language in the conference platform that supported reproductive freedom and abortion rights, while liberal feminists saw these issues as central to women’s liberation. As Spruill notes, “abortion, sexuality, and reproductive rights were crucial issues for many of the women attending the conference” (Spruill, 7). Spruill’s analysis reveals the deep divisions in American society over issues of gender, sexuality, and family values that continue to shape political discourse today. She argues that the National Women’s Conference marked a turning point in the fight for women’s rights, exposing the fault lines within the feminist movement and highlighting the need for continued activism to promote gender equality. As Spruill concludes, “The conference itself did not produce the political changes that its supporters hoped for, but it helped to raise awareness of women’s issues and paved the way for future generations of feminist activists” (Spruill, 12). 1 Chapter 3 “To Form a More Perfect Union,” the fourth chapter of Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, delves into the contentious debates surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s. Spruill argues that the fight over the ERA exposed deep divisions in American society over issues of gender, family values, and traditional roles. Spruill begins by contextualizing the debate over the ERA, noting that the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s sought to address the systemic inequalities that women faced in American society, including discrimination in the workplace and in access to education and healthcare. The ERA was seen as a crucial piece of legislation that would enshrine gender equality into the Constitution. However, the ERA was also deeply polarizing. Conservative groups, led by Phyllis Schlafly and her organization STOP ERA, argued that the ERA would undermine traditional gender roles and the family unit. As Spruill notes, “Schlafly claimed that the ERA would destroy American families, force women into combat, and open the door to gay marriage” (Spruill, 43). Schlafly’s arguments resonated with many Americans who saw the ERA as a threat to traditional values and the social order. Spruill argues that the debate over the ERA highlighted the deep divisions within the women’s movement over issues of gender and family values. Liberal feminists saw the ERA as essential to breaking dow patriarchal structures that oppressed women, while conservative feminists saw the traditional family unit as central to women’s identity and well-being. As Spruill notes, “The ERA debate highlighted the deep divisions within the women’s movement over issues of gender, sexuality, and family values” (Spruill, 44). The fight over the ERA also highlighted divisions over issues of race and class. Many women of color and working-class women saw the ERA as a distraction from the more pressing issues facing their communities such as poverty and racism. As Spruill notes, “The ERA became a symbol of white middle-class feminism, one that was out of touch with the realities facing many women of color and working-class women” (Spruill, 49). Despite these divisions, Spruill argues that the women’s movement achieved significant gains during the fight for the ERA. The movement brought attention to the systemic inequalities faced by women and pushed gender equality to the forefront of political discourse. As Spruill notes, “The ERA became a symbol of the women’s movement’s commitment to equality and justice” (Spruill, 68). However, the ERA ultimately failed to gain ratification by the necessary number of states, and Spruill examines the reasons for this failure. She notes that the conservative backlash against the ERA was successfu framing the debate as a choice between family values and feminism, leading many Americans to oppose the ERA on the grounds that it threatened traditional values. As Spruill notes, “The ERA was defeated because of a coordinated conservative backlash that successfully framed the issue as one of ‘family values’ vs. ‘feminism’” (Spruill, 70). Spruill’s analysis of the ERA debate highlights the deep divisions in American society over issues o gender, family values, and traditional roles. The debate over the ERA exposed the fault lines within the women’s movement and highlighted the need for continued activism to promote gender equality. As Spruill concludes, “The fight for the ERA may have ended in defeat, but it paved the way for future generations of feminist activists to continue the struggle for equality and justice” (Spruill, 70). 2 Chapter 4 “What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women?” is the fifth chapter of Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics. In this chapter, Spruill examines the backlash against the feminist movement in the 1980s and 1990s, arguing that conservative groups successfully framed the debate over gender equality as a choice between feminism and traditional values. Spru begins by noting that the feminist movement of the 1970s achieved significant gains in the fight for gender equality. However, the backlash against the movement was swift and intense, as conservative groups sought to roll back the gains made by feminists. As Spruill notes, “The feminist movement of the 1970s had achieved significant gains, but the conservative backlash of the 1980s and 1990s sought to undo those gains and turn back the clock on gender equality” (Spruill, 71). One of the main targets of the conservative backlash was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which had failed to gain ratification in the 1970s. Conservative groups argued that the ERA would undermine traditional gender roles and family values, and they mobilized against it with great success. As Spruill notes, “The conservative backlash against the ERA was successful in framing the debate as a choice between family values and feminism, leading many Americans to oppose the ERA on the grounds that it threatened traditional values” (Spruill, 72). Spruill argues that the conservative backlash against the feminist movement was also drive by fears about changing gender roles and the erosion of traditional values. As women gained more opportunitie in the workplace and in politics, some conservatives worried that men would be emasculated and that the family unit would be destabilized. As Spruill notes, “Conservative groups saw the feminist movement as a threat to traditional gender roles and the social order” (Spruill, 77). The conservative backlash against feminism was also fueled by a religious revival in America, as evangelical Christians mobilized against the perceived secularism of the feminist movement. As Spruill contends, “The conservative backlash against feminism was closely tied to the rise of the religious right, as evangelical Christians mobilized against the perceived secularism of the feminist movement” (Spruill, 81). Spruill argues that the backlash against feminism in the 1980s and 1990s was successful in limiting the gains made by the feminist movement. The Supreme Court, which had been sympathetic to feminist causes in the 1970s, shifted to the right in the 1980s and 1990s, making it more difficult to achieve victories in the courts. As Spruill notes, “The conservative backlash against feminism succeeded in limiting the gains made by the feminis movement, as the Supreme Court shifted to the right and made it more difficult to achieve victories in the courts” (Spruill, 88). However, Spruill also concludes that the feminist movement of the 1970s paved the way for future generations of activists to continue the fight for gender equality. The gains made by feminists in the 1970s inspired a new generation of activists, who continued to push for gender equality in the face of conservative opposition. As Spruill writes, “The feminist movement of the 1970s may have faced a fierce backlash in the 1980s and 1990s, but it paved the way for future generations of activists to continue the fight for gender equality” (Spruill, 92) 3 Chapter 5 “An Alternative to ‘Women’s Lib’” is an insightful analysis of the conservative women’s response to the women’s liberation movement in the United States during the 1970s. The article examines how the “profamily” movement emerged as a response to the perceived threat of feminism and “women’s lib” (Spruill, 93). Through this examination, Spruill sheds light on the complex relationship between conservative women and the women’s liberation movement, highlighting the ways in which conservative women challenged and co-opted feminist ideas to suit their own agendas. One of the key arguments Spruill makes is that conservative women saw themselves as the “true” feminists, seeking equality for women within the framework of traditional gender roles and the family structure (p. 94). This idea of “equality within difference” was central to the conservative women’s movement, which sought to protect the family and traditional gender roles from the perceived threats of feminism. As Spruill notes, “conservative women viewed the family as the cornerstone of American society and believed that women had an important role to play in preserving it” (Spruill, 94). In this way, the conservative women’s movement positioned itself as a counterpoint to the radicalism of “women’s lib,” which was seen as a threat to the family and traditional values. Spruill also highlights the ways in which conservative women used language and symbols from the feminist movement to promote their own message of “equality within difference.” For example, many conservative women used the phrase “women’s liberation” in their own literature and speeches, but redefined it to mean something different from the radical feminist agenda. As Spruill argues, “For these women, women’s liberation meant the right of women to define themselves as they wished and to pursue their own interests and goals” (Spruill, 98). By co-opting feminist language in this way, conservative women were able to tap into the energy and momentum of the feminist movement while promoting their own message. One of the most interesting aspects of Spruill’s analysis is the way in which she explores the tensions within the conservative women’s movement itself. While these women were united in their opposition to “women’s lib,” they held a variety of opinions on issues such as abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the role of women in the workplace. As Spruill notes, “The women’s movement was not a monolithic entity, and the differences among its members were often as significant as the similarities” (Spruill, 95). This diversity o opinion within the conservative women’s movement highlights the complexity of the debates over gender roles and women’s rights during this period. Overall, Spruill’s article provides a valuable perspective on the ways in which conservative women responded to the feminist movement in the 1970s. By examining the ideas and tactics of the conservative women’s movement, Spruill sheds light on the complex relationship between feminism and conservatism in American politics. As she notes, “The conservative women’s movement was not simply a reactionary force; it was a dynamic and multifaceted movement that drew on the energy and ideas of feminism while simultaneously challenging its basic assumptions” (Spruill, 113). Through her nuanced analysis, Spruill offers a compelling account of the debates and struggles that shaped the gender politics of the 1970s and beyond. 4 Discussion Questions 1. How did the National Women's Conference in 1977 serve as a catalyst for exposing the deep-rooted ideological fissures within the feminist movement, particularly with regard to issues such as gender, sexuality, and family values? a. Can these divisions be traced back to the fundamental differences between liberal and conservative feminists, and if so, what were the main arguments put forth by each faction with respect to the role of women in the family? b. Furthermore, how did conservative groups, led by the prominent anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, mobilize public opinion against the ratification of the ERA so effectively? 2. How did the National Women's Conference in 1977 reflect the larger societal tensions surrounding gender, sexuality, and family values in the United States during this time period? 3. In what ways did the differing perspectives of conservative and liberal feminists regarding the role of women in the family reflect broader ideological debates in American politics during the 1970s and 1980s? 4. How did Phyllis Schlafly and the conservative groups she led successfully mobilize opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and what did their campaign reveal about the state of the conservative movement in the late 20th century? 5. To what extent did the debate over the ERA highlight divisions within the women's movement not only over issues of gender and family values, but also over race and class? How did these various intersecting identities shape the ways in which different feminists approached the issue of women's rights in the United States? 5 Discussion: Chapters 1-2 ● ● Why were the “Women’s Rights” and “Pro-Family” movements seen as mutually exclusive? Why was it important that the two movements have equal representation in Houston? ● What were the major issues that divided the growing women’s movement, in the years leading up to the ● convention in Houston? What were the steps taken within the women’s movement to resolve these issues? Chapter 3 ● In what ways did Betty Ford defy the traditional image of the “First Lady” of the US? Why did this make her such a popular advocate for women’s rights? ● ● Why were ERA opponents appalled at her behavior? What were the major obstacles faced by the international women’s Convention in Mexico City? Why did the media focus so much on the conflicts that took place? ● What important goals were accomplished in spite of these problems? Chapter 4 ● Why did Phylis Shlafly make the statement quoted at the begining of the chapter? How does Rosemary Thomson support that statement? ● Why did both women amintatin that the feminist movement was creating discontent rather than ● responding to it? What were the primary arguments for and against publicacy funded childcare? ● What were the objections held by conservative women against the ERA? 6