- Good evening, welcome to "Feminine Perspective". Our format consists first of discussion by our guest panelists of a topic of interest and concern to women. And second of an opportunity during the last 15 minutes for listeners to participate by calling with comments or questions. Our number is 864-4530. This series is sponsored by the Dean of Women's Office which functions as a women's resource and planning center. We invite you to call our office at any time if you wish to discuss a matter of concern to you or if you wish further information. Better yet come in person to talk or to use our constantly expanding Women's Library in 220 Strong Hall. Last Monday, guest panelist Louise Wheeler and Barbara Bleeyuri discussed legal inequities between the sexes. Tonight our panel will discuss the proposed equal rights amendment to the constitution, the need for it, its history and its present status. Our guest panelist are Loretta Barner, a doctoral candidate in Speech Communications and Human Relations. And Karen Keesling, Advisor to KU Commission on the status of women and immediate past Executive Director of the Intercollegiate Association of Women Students. Do you recall when you first became interested in in or aware of the equal rights amendment Karen?

- Well, it was when I was in graduate school at Arizona State University, I became interested in the associated women students and then in the Intercollegiate Association of Women's Students probably because I was a math major and most of my friends when they'd ask me what I was majoring in would say, oh, and that was about the end of it. And through my involvement then with AWS I became interested in the equal rights amendment.

- How about you Loretta?

- I learned about the amendment as I was learning more and more things about the women's movement. Since that time I have chosen the equal rights amendment as the topic for my dissertation in my division and I've done research that I found extremely interesting on the long history of the amendment. It's been around for about 50 years and the arguments spoke for and against the amendment.

- Last week one of our callers asked about the childcare provisions affecting the internal revenue code. I think we gave a rather incomplete answer to that question and there have been some very recent changes. Could you Karen, tell us about these changes.

- Yes, the Revenue Act of 1971 provides deduction for household health and or childcare up to $400 a month depending on the number of children and the income of the parent or parents combined income of $18,000 or less. The qualifying individuals they have to show that the expense for the household or dependent is necessary for gainful employment and then the dependent has to be under the age of 15 or physically or mentally incapable to care for his or herself. This of course won't affect the 1971 tax but will be in effect for 1972.

- Well, that's a really amazing change, isn't it? From a $600 maximum and with a maximum combined salary of about 4,500, which is a way it was before, which a great majority of people would be able to qualify then if they had dependents as you described. The internal revenue service incidentally told us today that they would be happy to answer questions about it but it doesn't really affect, of course our 1971 income tax. Now the proposed equal rights amendment as it was passed by the house of representatives reads as follows. equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. A passage of such an equal rights amendment would impose upon women as many responsibilities as it would confer rights. Do you feel that this objective would be desirable?

- It certainly would. The objective seems to be to make men and women equal in a legal sense. And that seems to be a very desirable objective to me personally and when I consider the status of other women. So I wouldn't want to have equal rights without the equal responsibility. I don't think that's very fair even to ask for something special without giving your fair share of the work too.

- Why do we need a special amendment? And we have, are we covered by the 14th amendment?

- The constitution is written in terms of people but it also is based on the common law assumptions which consider men and women very differently. And the courts have ruled quite consistently that the 14th amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee that women will not be discriminated against. So the 14th amendment does not help women or at least hasn't helped in the past.

- I agree with Loretta and I also think that having a constitutional amendment sets up a basic principle instead of just going through the courts and taking case by case or taking law by law that sets up a definite principle that people will look at because they would study the constitution more so than they would bills that had been passed.

- To get the idea of having a law for every single case where women are discriminated against has been presented by many people who oppose the amendment as you've indicated but it's not only does it call attention to itself but it's been very difficult for women to get special laws passed to give them equal rights with men. It's taken a long time to get many bills passed just this year a set of several bills that would have been helpful to women in education for example have failed to pass. That method isn't very promising it's also expensive.

- Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a case through the Supreme court?

- Well, on the Reed versus Reed case which was the first one in which a woman was given any rights under the 14th amendment took five years and a lot of expense involved.

- And even then it wasn't a very broad interpretation on that.

- No, it was the narrowest interpretation the courts given yet.

- We discussed that in some detail last last week, Loretta, you mentioned that there were people who oppose the equal rights amendment and I suppose it would be reasonable to assume that those who are profiting from inequalities might do so are there many women who oppose equal rights amendment in your opinions?

- I think most of the women's groups stand for the equal rights amendment, are working very hard to get it passed but there are some labor groups which have stood against the amendment since it was introduced and they generally feel that protective legislation would no longer exist for women if the amendment were passed

- What labor groups are you referring to? One of the prime and movers in the history I mean, in setting up the legislative history has been Olga Mudhar from the United Auto Workers. And she claimed in her testimony that the United Auto Workers were unanimously behind the equal rights amendment. So this leads to what?

- As far as I know, that's is the only labor union that's come out in favor of the equal rights amendment. So the FLCIO and other unions are not in favor

- If their primary objective is there are fears as to what would happen to the protective labor laws, what kind of an answer do those who favor the equal rights amendment get to that?

- One answer is that many of the laws that are designed to protect women if they are protection, should be protecting men too. And therefore we should pass legislation designed for both men and women which would be okay under the equal rights amendment. If it's not protecting women it's probably preventing them from earning wages they'd like to earn or from having the kind of job they'd like to have. And if that's the case we shouldn't have those kinds of laws on the books.

- Also, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 title seven was passed many States have already said that they or have taken off their protective legislation laws and so they don't exist in many States today.

- And some of the courts of course have said that the to the title seven takes proceedings over State laws. Ohio just recently came to that conclusion, about half of the women are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other half don't have, of course this kind of coverage. There are other kinds of laws that are often thought of as protective and prohibit something before one citizen and not for another, can we comment on that? Like how working in certain kinds of jobs or certain hours, or lifting certain kinds of weights

- So far Bree there are only seven States that still have some kind of hours restriction and all the rest are either by the attorney General's office or by State legislation have done away with the limiting them hours.

- And something to think about and take the case of weightlifting, there are men who probably should not be lifting certain weights either. So we're going to have weightlifting laws that should be based on the ability of a person to lift weights, not on a person's sex. We're going to have laws regarding whether people can work at night or only in the day. That should be, well, I can't think of a case where there should be a law like that, other than a person's own decision to work at night or in the day.

- I wonder how that ever came about? That the decision is made that certain hours that women couldn't work to be sure that they get them off the streets or are they more dangerous on the streets than men or what would conceivably be behind that?

- At one time I think the labor leaders were attempting to pass those laws for everyone so that some people wouldn't have to work 10, 15 hours in one stretch and the most effective way to get them pass I think they discovered was by saying that women needed that kind of protection. It's still and have succeeded in reducing the number of hours man can work to a certain amount since the early part of this century.

- We're just saying if it's good it should be good for everyone. Now just last year, late last year I believe it was Ohio had such case before its courts on the weightlifting. I think they had a 35 pound limit and it came to the conclusion or the other court ruling was that all employees, if that was a requirement for 35 pounds all employees should have a right to or must be given the right to approve if they wish to do that they could lift that weight if it was a reasonable thing. Cause we even have had some executive positions that have required the ability to lift a certain weight. Well, would the passage of the equal rights amendment, well, no, you talked about the protective legislation. Let's go back just a moment to other objections that some people have given to who opposed the ERA, what about the draft? We've heard a lot about that.

- That's the one that I've probably heard the most about having been a representative of a national women's student association. They've looked at the students that are of draftable age to see what they say. And at the intercollegiate association of women's students national convention, last year, we passed the resolution saying whatever selective service system existed that women should be taken equally with men. I think the reason behind that is what I said before women with equal rights should have equal responsibility. And the problems now with the military or the women are really held back from volunteering. There's a 1% quota for women in the military and they have to have a higher score, they also have to be high school graduates before they can even volunteer for the service. And there are many more women who want into the service than can get in right now. So I think it would be an advantage to many of them.

- Do you know what the requirement is now for a woman who wishes to join the army the educational requirement?

- She has to be a high school graduate.

- How about a man? He doesn't have to graduate from high school.

- He doesn't really have to have any formal education, does he?

- I don't believe so.

- Other than the ability to pass the exam, right?

- One of our past staff members is teaching members of the army to read and write. They have educational level below the fifth grade the ones that she's teaching. So this really makes quite a difference. I note that according to our time that we would have be happy to have your questions and comments. Our number again is 864-4530 and we would welcome any questions or comments that you'd care to make. Till someone calls well, we'll just continue with the discussion. Are there any other disadvantages that you can think of other than just the sheer unfairness of saying that one sex must be high school graduates and the other sex doesn't have to fulfill that educational requirement? What other advantages are there being a veteran?

- Well, of course there are all the educational advantages of being a veteran when you come back, you get the GI bill to go to school. And you also, while you're in the service have a lot of educational benefits. We had some hearings last year here at K U and a woman major was here going to school and getting her PhD and that was of course being paid for by the service.

- It's an alternate option for someone who's not certain that they want to go to college and yet they can learn a skill at the same time, travel benefits for people who want to do that sort of thing. And of course, for someone who's worried that a frail 90 pound girl may be sent to the rice patties or something to fight just as the military now does people. If women were drafted they would be assigned to positions, which they can fulfill not positions which they are unable to fulfill. Also, I noticed in some testimony that I've read nine out of 10 of the jobs now done in the army or done by or people who could be civilians and only one in 10 really carries a gun and goes out in the front line. And that's what we usually see is that one out of 10. So there are a lot of jobs that women could do equally with men.

- Is it possible too, that the census statistics show us that men are moving out of poverty much faster than women are. That the service has been partly responsible for this in the skills that they've taught to the men who have joined?

- I think that definitely.

- And as the military increases their pay salaries, which they're just beginning to do. It could be a very good beginning job for a woman

- With the volunteer army that the president and many others are talking about, it's going to remove or other interesting argument concerning the passage of the equal rights amendment I should think. But would the passage of the equal rights amendment achieve equality for women immediately or specifically, what would it do?

- What it would do is give a legal ground for a woman who felt that she had been treated unequally on account of sex to base a case on right now.

- What about men?

- It would also give a man the same ground.

- It would also say that no state or federal government or state government could pass a law that treats men and women differently. And then each law that's on the books now would have to be looked at to see if it discriminates against men or women and be changed.

- Some specific laws and it probably would affect, would be restrictions on the property rights of women. And in a divorce cases many States have already made the changes but in all divorce cases, alimony could be given to either the husband or wife, depending on who needed it. And custody of the children would depend upon the welfare of children rather than upon the fact that the mother is the one who generally gets the child.

- Anything else that would do?

- May do a lot of different things would mean that out of the laws that still exist about maximum hours just for women or weightlifting would have to be eliminated in a certain period of time as the amendments written right now it's seven years. And so that would give the States considerable time to change their laws seven years from the date that the Congress passes the amendment until the date that it actually is totally in effect.

- And what time, when would that be?

- After it's ratified by all of the States that would be in effect two years after the last day. No, just three fours in the States.

- Well, where is the CRA now in the legislative process?

- Well, on October the 12th that passed the house and then went to the Senate and it went to the Senate subcommittee of the judiciary and that committee by a vote of six to four approved the urban substitute which reads neither the United States nor any state may make any law treating men and women differently unless the treatment is based on sociological or functional differences between them.

- Imagine that being in the constitution

- Physiological or functional difference, in other words that would be building the principle of equality into the constitution rather than the opposite.

- Inequality, inequality, inequality. So this substitute now goes to the whole committee the judiciary committee, and they have a chance of reversing that and taking the wording from the house. I think there were about three senators that they're not sure how they're going to vote and those three could make a big difference, then whatever form it comes out of the Senate judiciary committee it we'll go to the Senate floor we hope in February, early in February. And we're not really sure right now whether it's going to pass or not. Last year two amendments were tacked on the draft amendment to exempt women from the draft and then the prayer amendment which is just a tactic used by senators to defeat a bill. And as long as Senator Ervin is around we're not really sure whether it's going to pass or not because obviously they can't, you know spend day after day packing on amendments and having to vote them one way or the other. So it'll just depend on how much support Senator Bonds, Senator Cooke can get.

- Since this is an election year and every Senator this year is up for election. Women, have a good chance to affect what the outcome of this legislation will be by putting some pressure on the people that they're going to elect.

- I don't believe every Senator just a third of it. But that's certainly enough to change, I would imagine then that there would be a considerable number of questions. I asked these men as to, as to what their stand is in regard to the equal rights amendment.

- Also a lot of women's groups are trying to put pressure now on the President because he hasn't come out in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment and thinking that if he gave his support that that might help an awful lot this year.

- No, I understand that he has come out in favor of it along with every president since Truman but you mean he hasn't in the passage of it.

- One more new Supreme court justice has testified before the subcommittee. He said the president was for it but and most of the testimony was really against the equal rights amendment.

- And was this Mr. Rehnquist now a member of the Supreme court. We hear a lot about the wire women unwilling to compromise to take through some qualifications rather than saying, no, we want it exactly the way it was worded in the House of Representatives, is it any qualifications at all, is there really any reason for not compromising this exact wording?

- The qualifications that have been presented for women to consider so far nullify the effect of the amendment and would be of no service to us to pass an amendment which would simply continue allow the inequalities to continue.

- I'm just saying we have a call coming in. Hello?

- Yes. The Dean Tyna, this is Joan Hadley. And I wanted to ask Karen if she knows how the Kansas Senator feel about the Irving amendments?

- Did they hear the question, okay, Karen

- I'm not sure how the Kansas senators will vote on the urban amendment. I do know that Senator Pearson has come out as a co-sponsor of the equal rights amendment as passed by the house but Senator Dole has not come out one way or the other. He did vote for the substitute last year that by putting in as it is Senator Pearson

- Do you know which senators are very much for this Irving amendment and against the original bill?

- Well, lists available to say exactly how every Senator voted on them.

- But I don't know for this year except in the sub committee, but there were four three others besides urban who voted for it. Those were Senator Eastland, Senator Fom, Senator Thurman Senator for Husca, and Senator Burdick. Those are the ones who voted with urban and the subcommittee.

- Now what I was wondering was it perhaps we should write letters to those particular senators about our feeling on this particular urban amendment.

- I think it would help of course to Dolan and Pearson but also to write to I believe McClellan from Arkansas one of the ones that people were saying can be swayed as far as coming out in favor of the equal rights amendment he's on the sub committee on the judiciary committee. So that would help to write to him and to the other members of the whole judiciary committee. And we do have those lists in our office and the Dean of women's office. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Our number again is 864-4530 Hello?

- Yes, I have a question about the equal rights amendment and welfare mothers. I heard that some women's groups thought that it would be not to their benefit to pass the equal rights amendment concerning welfare women. I wonder if you could present that point of view and tell me exactly what your point of view might be on this.

- Do you want to comment on that?

- It seems to me that welfare should be based on what the needs of people, not on the sex of people. And there's no reason why women who need money should be not able to get it after the passage of the equal rights amendment. Their needs should be the basis and not the sex of a person.

- I don't know what particular welfare group that you're talking about, but I personally attended good many meetings that have had welfare mothers and other welfare recipients there and have not really heard this point of view. Have you carried? No, I haven't heard that either. Well, perhaps this is another thing that we might look up and comment on next week, but I cannot think off hand why it would have any effect on the--

- Well, they didn't specify but all they said was it would probably have a disparaging effect on welfare recipients especially the mothers, welfare mothers.

- Well, we certainly will look into it. And also if you, you know, if you don't want to wait until next week, if you call the office we'll certainly procure this information for you.

- Okay, thank you.

- Thank you for calling.

- Hello, is there another call? I'd like to announce that we have two events coming up next week of a considerable interest to women. one on Wednesday, not next week but this week this Wednesday day after tomorrow February 2nd at 7:30 PM in the union Robin Morgan who's the editor of "Sisterhood is Powerful" will speak in the big eight room under the auspices of ASUA minority forum. If you are not familiar with this book, you'll find that it's an excellent collection of essays from by a number of people, on a variety of subjects of concern to the women's movement. And then on Thursday of next week February the 10th at 8:00 PM, Marlene Sanders and I one of the ABC correspondent and one of the few women correspondents in the United States I believe there are now six. will speak in Woodbrook auditorium of the Kansas union as part of a week long spring symposium sponsored by the KU commission on the status of women. So this Wednesday, Robin Morgan in the union and a week from this Thursday, Marlene Sanders, ABC correspondent the public is welcome at both events without charge. If an organization you belong to is presenting a program of interest to women, let me know and we'll be glad to announce it on this program on Monday night. Next week our topic will be women in the professions. We will be joined by the present chairman of the committee, WVUP and last year's chairman at least two women, Marilyn Stock's Hed and John Hadley will speak next week, discuss the question of women in the professions. I thank you for listening. I hope you'll join us again next week.

- And again, next week for another in this series of live programs. It's 7:30, you're tuned to Public Radio KANU. Clear to partly department like cloudy skies with little change in temperature the low temperature expected to be in the teens. And now by recording traditional jazz, these programs are.