Phyllis Schlafly and Betty Friedan: Equal Rights Amendment Debate (1976) (video)

[Music]

Host: I’m sure. This is a segment of good morning that we’ve all been waiting for. I’m going to begin with a little introduction of what the Equal Rights Amendment is about. Last year, the UN declared 1975 as International Women’s Year. There were a lot of speeches and conferences, and some felt that progress was made for women, and that it was successful. While others argue that absolutely nothing was accomplished, that there were major setbacks, beginning with the stalemating of the Federal Equal Rights Amendment and the crushing state defeats in New York and New Jersey.

In order for the Equal Rights Amendment to become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, 38 states must ratify it by March of 1979. Already 34 have, however, 2 of those 34, Tennessee and Nebraska, have rescinded it, thus ending up in court order decisions. Now, we’re going to discuss the Equal Rights Amendment with two ladies here; one is a proponent and one is an opponent to it.

An opponent to the equal Rights Amendment is Phyllis Schlafly, National Chairman for the STOP ERA. She is publisher of the Phyllis Schlafly Report and the author of A Choice Not an Echo. And the proponent to the Equal Rights Amendment is one of the country’s most leading feminists, I’m talking about Betty Friedan. She is the author to the Feminine Mystique.

Before we get into talking about the pros and cons of the Equal Rights Amendment, I think for the benefit of our viewers, it might be kind of interesting to see what it says here in the Equal Rights Amendment. It’s very short when you think of amending the Constitution, something that’s very serious. You think that it’s lengthy and complicated.

The Amendment reads as follows. Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As you can see, it’s pretty brief. It’s only 52 words. So is the Equal Rights Amendment too vague, or does the Equal Rights Amendment simply extend women’s rights to men, thus equalizing them? What is your opinion? Betty, can we hear from you?

Betty Friedan:  Well, you see, I think we simply must. And I think we should do it rightfully in 1976, the 200th year of the Republic. Get the Constitution equally applied to women. I mean, we know now, we’ve spent 10 years really delineating all the areas where sex discrimination exists. Discrimination basically against women, but some ways, that men are victims of it, too.

And we’ve got a lot of laws that have– we’ve made some gains to say that it is wrong to have sex discrimination in employment, in education, in pay, in mortgage, in credit, in all these things, even in sports against women. But these laws are not being enforced. And with the economic crisis that we’re in now, where really inflation is giving and layoffs are really facing women with hard times, there’s danger, even that some of the programs and laws against sex discrimination will be removed.

And we need the constitutional guarantee of equality. And we also need it because there are great many people, especially housewives, who really are discriminated against, who’s all the work they have done in the home to help build up whatever income the total family has and so on and so forth, there is no law that now exists that makes those women who have been working as housewives insured in their own right for old age, for Social Security.

There is no insurance that if that marriage should end in divorce, as it is for all too many people, that that women’s contribution will be considered equally in the disposition of the property, and there is no provision, even really, as it is now, to enforce child support, much less alimony for women. We really, absolutely need Equal Rights Amendment to enable all the young women and men that are coming out of law school now to create new bodies of law that will really protect women.

Host: Phyllis.

Phylis Schlafly: When you make the laws apply equally to men and women, you end up taking away many of the rights that women now have, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment will make our young women subject to the draft and military combat the next time we have one of these wars that we have every 10 years, because no longer could you have it just apply to males. It would have to apply equally to females.

And then ERA is a big attack on the rights of the homemaker. The laws of every state make it the obligation of the husband to support his wife. To provide her with a home. To support their minor children. The woman in the home can draw Social Security benefits based on her husband’s earnings, even though she’s been a homemaker all her life.

Now, all these things will be lost when you apply a rule that says that everything must be equal. Now, until you can make it equal for men to have the babies, just like women, then it is a double burden to the women to say that the rules for family support should be equal on the husband and the wife. ERA ends up in taking away the right of the wife to be supported by her husband, and to have the right to get credit in the stores based on her husband’s earnings and all the rights of a wife.

Host: Can we talk about the draft? We know that the draft so far has been abolished until a national emergency, and already, women are serving in the armed forces in the military.

Phylis Schlafly: Yes. And they have the best of both worlds. They have the same pay, the same rank, the same fringe benefits. But they’re kept out of combat. And men would be glad to take that kind of a deal if they could get it.

Host: Wouldn’t they be subject to the same exemptions as any man?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, but there were millions of people who served. Since the end of World War II, there have been 5 million young men drafted. Now, do you want 5 million young women drafted involuntarily and sent in off to these wars that the politicians will surely get us into again?

Betty Friedan:  I really don’t– I mean, you have real reasons, OK, but not hypocritical ones and not false ones. There is no draft now. I don’t want another draft in 10 years. I don’t think– I mean, I don’t see–

Phylis Schlafly: But you know we’ll get one.

Betty Friedan:  No. I don’t at all. There is nothing inevitable about war. And I think the American people have learned a lot from the Vietnam War. And there won’t be, again, so easy way of risking the lives of American boys or girls–

Phylis Schlafly: A lot of naive people said that after Korea. Oh, we’ll never get involved in another war after Korea.

Betty Friedan:  Well, it’s our responsibility that we not get involved. If there is such a thing as just and necessary war, though, for the defense of the nation, there isn’t any reason that women should be exempt on the basis of sex. No reason at all. I mean, your daughter or mine should have any– not to defend society when the son’s–

Phylis Schlafly: OK. Well, that’s a fundamental difference between those who are for ERA and those who are against it. You think my daughter should serve? I think women should have the choice not to serve.

Host: I think a woman wouldn’t want her son killed any more than she’d want her daughter killed.

Betty Friedan:  Right. It shouldn’t discriminate against–

Host: Shouldn’t a woman have a right to defend her country as a man has a right?

Phylis Schlafly: She’s got the right. If she feels that’s her obligation, I think she should run, not walk, to the nearest recruiting office and sign up. But you are absolutely taking away the rights of the young women by ERA. And you have to be kidding to call that an advance for women.

Host: Can we move on to another point? Support. Now, Phyllis, you mentioned that a man has or woman has the privilege or the right to have her husband support her. Are you familiar with the McGuire versus McGuire in Nebraska of 1953?

Phylis Schlafly: Oh, sure. That’s the only case the proponents can cite out of all the thousands of domestic relations cases in this country. And that doesn’t prove anything except don’t marry a man to reform him.

Host: No, but Betty, are you familiar with McGuire versus McGuire?

Betty Friedan:  Well, I simply know that the law and the courts, as long as a marriage is intact, the law does not interfere between that.

Host: Ongoing marriage.

Phylis Schlafly: The law interferes an ongoing marriages all the time. What do you think abortion is? The law comes in and says a woman can kill her own unborn baby, and the father doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Host: But the law doesn’t say that you have to. The law says you have a choice.

Betty Friedan:  The law doesn’t say that any woman, because she’s married to a man, can like some fairy tale, get any house, get any–

Phylis Schlafly: No. It’s in accord with his means. In accord with his means.

Betty Friedan:  The law doesn’t interfere.

Phylis Schlafly: In most states, it’s under criminal penalties, the husband has to support it. Now, do you want to put the wife under criminal penalties?

Betty Friedan:  This is not only not true, and it is not true, for women in existing marriages. But even when there has been a divorce, and now it’s like, well, you have to realize the insecurity that–

Phylis Schlafly: ERA is not going to keep your husband around, if you can’t keep him yourself.

Betty Friedan:  No. It is not, but the inequity now and the reason we need ERA is that if the marriage ends in divorce, there isn’t any provision that gives the work of the wife equal value.

Phylis Schlafly: But look, under the existing custom, she usually gets the children, and that’s worth a lot more than money.

Betty Friedan:  If you knew– you see, I am divorced and I don’t know your situation, but if you knew the reality of the economic problems that women are facing in divorce, if you knew, in my own state, for instance, where there’s been 1,000% increase in the divorce rate and how women one year after divorce can’t collect child support, and sometimes they can’t even take care of their children.

Phylis Schlafly: Yes. But aren’t they glad they go the children.

Betty Friedan:  And so they need the Equal Rights Amendment, and they need Equal Rights Amendment to remove the inequities that now exist, to get some real protection. Not every woman waltz around the way you do going to law school.

Phylis Schlafly: And you can. You can waltz around like I do too.

Betty Friedan:  No. But, I mean, I understand the economic problems of women who, even if they are married, their husbands are being laid off, and–

Host: Yeah. But should the women always get the child? Maybe the woman isn’t always deserving.

Phylis Schlafly: She doesn’t. If she is deserving, she doesn’t. But where things are and the judge,

Host: The judge determines that in the final analysis.

Phylis Schlafly: Sure, if she isn’t a fit mother, she shouldn’t get the child, but she has a presumption that other things being equal, she gets the child. However, ERA is not going to get her support payments for her child. In fact, ERA says the husband doesn’t no longer has the obligation.

Host: Are we getting support payments for the child without ERA?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, you’re getting a lot more than you’ll get under ERA.

Betty Friedan:  The ERA will not change that at all. But, but by seeing that the equal, the Constitution must apply equally to women, there will now be the possibility of undoing the inequities that, for instance, do not put any value whatsoever on the work that the woman has been doing in the home.

Do you know that did they, now that a woman has been married 19 years. And most of those 19 years, she’s been home taking care of the kids. And that’s a situation of a lot of women today. There is a divorce, whether she chooses it or not. There’s a divorce and the husband remarries.

She is not insured for her old age in her own right on that 19 years of that whole 19 years where she’s been at home taking care of the kids. And he has, built up his income. She is not entitled to anything. If he remarries and then he dies or she reaches 65. No way. The way that is unequal.

Host: Well, Betty, where does equal Rights Amendment come in to benefit her–

Betty Friedan:  No.

Host: If that should happen, when she goes back into the work force?

Betty Friedan:  If we get equal Rights Amendment. I think we would very quickly have a court case that would say that it is, that Social Security laws, pension plans, all of these things must ensure the woman in her own right. Must ensure the woman in her own right, and not as the spouse.

Phylis Schlafly: That will only be achieved by requiring the husband to pay double Social Security taxes on his wife in the home. And this means that the average family where the wife is in a home will be a hit for the family tax of another almost $1,000 a year. Now, that’s the only way you’re going to get that–

Betty Friedan:  No that’s not it.

Phylis Schlafly: And it’s a very high cost of ERA.

Host: Well, what percentage of women, I want to know if any of you have the figures are getting alimony now. And how can you explain–

Phylis Schlafly: But I don’t think that has anything to do with it.

Betty Friedan:  7%.

Host: How can you explain the phenomena already without the ERA that men are receiving alimony from some women?

Phylis Schlafly: Because it’s a matter of state law. In about half the states, alimony only goes from the husband to the wife. And about the other half, it can go either way. And you can run your state the way you want it.

Now, I don’t think we’re going to improve things by letting HEW decide these things, which is what ERA will do. It transfers these authorities to the federal government.

Betty Friedan:  It does not.

Phylis Schlafly: And Section 2 says that the federal government will have the power to enforce it. And I think it’s better to decide our alimony laws, our divorce laws, our marriage property laws at the state level, where in most states women have a better deal than men.

Betty Friedan:  Well, I happen to believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is a very important document, and I happen to believe that the Bill of Rights is essential. It evolves, and it’s essential for Americans and our liberties and equality.

I don’t take them lightly, In the year 1976. And I think that it is high time they be applied equally to women. And with all the hypocrisy, that is all the equal Rights Amendment. And that is what it says, that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and the Constitution of the United States shall be applied equally to women.

That means that there will be a constitutional underpinning on the laws against sex discrimination that now exist, and there will be the constitutional underpinning to remove the remaining areas of inequity that plague women, and that really are economically enormously damaging to women. And, in the unknown future.

Phylis Schlafly: Well, it was back in 1875 that the Supreme Court said the women have all the constitutional protections. In the case of Minor versus Happersett. We have all the constitutional protections that men have, and ERA is not going to add any more constitutional, but it will cause all kinds of nonsense.

Host: Before you raise any more points, we’re going to have to break here. We’ll come back and talk about other facets of the ERA, pro and con. We’ll talk about homosexual marriages, and we’ll talk about co-ed toilets and co-ed schools right after this.

[Music]

[Audio buzz]

[Music]

Host: We’re back discussing the pros and cons of the Federal Equal Rights Amendment with proponent Betty Friedan and opponent Phyllis Schlafly. We discussed the draft, we’ve discussed support, and of course, we’ve only scanned the surface. And unfortunately, because of a short amount of time that we have, I want to touch on a couple of other things. We want to talk about co-ed bathrooms, and single sex schools, which fellas you feel will be–

Phylis Schlafly: Well, under the present federal law, the admissions to single sex colleges are exempted from the fundamental federal law against sex discrimination. So we have some schools that have remained all women, like Smith or Wellesley or Bryn Mawr. Now, that would become illegal under the Equal Rights Amendment because they discriminate by definition on the basis of sex. And you can have no exceptions in ERA.

Now, I don’t know why anybody wants to take away from women your right to choose a single sex school, if that is your choice. But I think this is the psychology of compulsion, and the intolerance of those who are pushing for a gender free society, which doesn’t recognize any difference, or any separation of treatment between men and women anytime, anywhere.

Host: What about the schools that exclude women?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, I think you have your right. You have your choice. 95% of our people prefer co-ed schools. But why stamp out the right of the minority that wants to choose a single sex school.

Host: Betty, do you have any comment?

Betty Friedan:  Well, I think that the basic thrust is that the quotas, and the outright barring of women to law school, to–

Phylis Schlafly: Name one law school that bars women.

Betty Friedan:  Until recently–

Phylis Schlafly: Name one law school at bars women.

Betty Friedan:  Until recently, Harvard Law School barred women until fairly recently.

Phylis Schlafly: Name one that today bars women.

Betty Friedan:  And now–

Phylis Schlafly: You know it’s illegal, and violates Federal Law.

Betty Friedan:  Now it’s illegal. But I wanted to say that the thrust of, as I’ve said, we have a new law barring sex discrimination in education. And it should if it is enforced right, it should bar not only the quotas, an outright denial of access to higher education on the part of women.

Or to tracking that keeps women in high schools out of the best education, but it also should bar those indirect quotas which make women have to have higher grades than men to get into the same school, and so on. But we already know that name, one that law isn’t being enforced. In other words, in the–

Phylis Schlafly: Name law school where women have to get higher grades to get into school.

Betty Friedan:  Oh, this is–

Phylis Schlafly: Name one.

Betty Friedan:  This is true in–

Phylis Schlafly: Name one.

Betty Friedan:  Universities, I can name I could name 30, 40–

Phylis Schlafly: Don’t name 30. Just name one.

Betty Friedan:  What? One school where women have to get higher grades to get into school.

Betty Friedan:  I would suggest to the viewers to tell Mrs. Schlafly the situation. I can name any number of them, so I’m not going to name–

Phylis Schlafly: Well, OK. The upshot of what you said is that Smith and Wellesley would be forbidden to maintain themselves as all women’s schools, and would be required to go co-ed without any quota. Now, why do you want to stamp out their right? In every area, this is a denial of freedom of choice.

Host: But are you saying, Phyllis, that there is no longer a quota for women, that women no longer have to work twice as hard in schools where they are co-ed.

Phylis Schlafly: That’s correct. Oh, sure. That’s correct. I mean–

Host: How do we know this?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, I’m in a good law school now, and they have half women.

Betty Friedan:  Yeah, OK for you, but not for the ones coming after you. And that’s what I can’t stand. The hypocrisy of someone who takes advantage of rights and opportunities, and knows and is enjoying equality. And then says, and uses the very advantages–

Phylis Schlafly: I got a degree from Harvard 25 years ago. I was in equality with the men. Now this is nothing new.

Betty Friedan:  Yeah, right.

Host: Can we move on to co-ed bathrooms?

[Giggles]

Can we talk about that? Already, we go to the same bathrooms on airplanes and buses. Does this mean that with the equal Rights Amendment, Phyllis, if it is passed, that there will no longer be men, and women on the doors, but us, or whatever?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, it’s a matter of whatever the Supreme Court decides. If you have any faith in what they’ll decide. And you it may not matter to you–

Host: You think the Supreme Court will decide for us all to go to the same bathroom?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, I think so, but I recognize other people think contrary. But you just said it’s all right with you to have co-ed bathrooms on planes.

Host: Didn’t say that it was all right. I said already we go to the same bathroom. Not at the same time.

Phylis Schlafly: OK, But the thing is, do you want it in grade schools?

Host: Will we have it in grade school?

Betty Friedan:  In grade school, it exists probably in a lot of places anyway. Look, let’s have some sense about this silly bathroom argument. I mean, the bathroom argument absolutely symbolizes all of the nonsense that’s being spread to create false fears about the equal Rights Amendment. There is nothing in the equal Rights Amendment that will affect the privacy of the way people go to the toilet. Nothing, whatsoever. Now wait a minute.

The only way it will be affected is, if having only one bathroom in a small company, like, say, if you had only one bathroom in this television station, and if that was used to deny a woman a job by saying, “we have only one bathroom.” And that sometimes has been used as excuse to deny a woman a job.

In that instance, either they’d have to put in a second bathroom, or they would have to let the women and the men use the bathroom, but not necessarily at the same time you understand. Now–

Phylis Schlafly: Well, that has nothing to do with it. The point is, can you go by a certain door?

Betty Friedan:  To hysterical about the whole thing. Let’s realize certain facts that in the American Family, we all grew up in. I grew up in Peoria, Illinois, and I don’t know where you grew up in, but unless we were quite rich, there was one bathroom in the house.

And that bathroom was used by Mama and my daddy and by, and Jane, if she visited in by junior, and Janie and grandma and grandpa. But they didn’t use it at the same time, and great sinful immorality did not ensue.

And in Italy, where I was recently visiting, and I went to see the Pope, and in a restaurant near the Vatican, when I had to go to the bathroom, I went in the bathroom, and there was a priest washing his hands in the outer part.

And I thought, “oh, my heavens, I’ve gotten into the wrong, the men’s room.” And in Italy, right there, the Vatican, the good respectable restaurant had a bathroom with the toilet. Cubicles were private, but the restroom was–

Phylis Schlafly: OK. But I would just like to say this is demonstrated that you’re perfectly comfortable with the situation where you have no discrimination between men, and women in regard to restrooms. And it’s one thing where you’re talking about planes or homes, but it is something else. Again, when you’re talking about grade schools.

Host: OK. Can we move on to the next point. Will the ERA, if it is passed, help the marriage of homosexuals? Will they be able to get married under the law?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, ERA says that equality of rights shall not be denied on account of sex. Now, if you want to deny a marriage license to a man and, a man, it’s precisely on the basis of sex that you deny it. And therefore I feel we would have immediate litigation. And about four out of five of the lawyers I ask on this say, yes, the homosexuals will win.

Host: You don’t think they should get married?

Phylis Schlafly: I do not think that homosexuals should have the rights of husbands and wives. Which are the rights to adopt children, to file joint income tax returns, or to teach in the schools.

Host: Aren’t they protected under the Constitution like every other American? The right–

Phylis Schlafly: Sure, they have free. They have free speech, free press and all that sort of thing. But they should not have the particular rights that belong to husbands and wives.

Host: Even if it makes them happy?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, no, it may make you happy to commit all kinds of crimes. We don’t judge–

Host: Homosexuality is a crime?

Phylis Schlafly: Well, it is in many states.

Host: Betty, you want to comment.

Betty Friedan:  Well, I think that the right of sexual privacy and the right of choice. This is a basic American right. And homosexuality is not a crime. I mean, and it isn’t–

Phylis Schlafly: It’s against the law in many states. But however, that isn’t what we’re discussing. ERA won’t affect what they do behind a closed door, but it will affect their public rights. And I do not think that perverts should have the rights that belong to husbands and wives.

Host: Do you feel that homosexuals are perverts?

Phylis Schlafly: I certainly do.

Host: American Psychiatric Association said no.

Phylis Schlafly: Well, that’s their opinion. I have my opinion.

Betty Friedan:  Yes. But I think that the Constitution of the United States, whether you like somebody or don’t like somebody, applies. And they have the right to their protection. But not everybody has to have blonde hair and blue eyes–

Phylis Schlafly: Husbands and wives.

Betty Friedan:  And look, as far as I have been told by lawyers, the homosexual marriage is not something that stems from the equal Rights Amendment. That says discrimination on the basis of sex. And–

Phylis Schlafly: That’s exactly what it is.

Betty Friedan:  In this instance, sex doesn’t mean what you do in bed at night. It means whether you are the female sex, or the male sex. Homosexuality can be male or female. There’s nothing in that.

Host: Excuse me for interrupting. Betty Friedan, Phyllis Schlafly, I want to thank you for joining us. I’m sorry. We’ve run out of time. I’d like to invite you to come back. We have until 1979 to discuss this matter.

Betty Friedan:  Well, I we get it ratified in 76.

Host: Well, best of luck to both of you. Maybe that’s mutually exclusive, I don’t know. Thank you both for joining us on Good Morning. It’s been very interesting.