Cspan dot org slash history. Good evening everybody. Im Betsy Fischer martin the executive director of the women in Politics Institute at American University and good evening everybody. I am betsy fisher martin, director of the women in Politics InstituteAmerican University. Welcome to our virtual series, women on wednesdays. We are glad that you could join us. If this if you who have been to our events, w pei is a non partisan institute of Public Affairs that aims to chose the close the gender gap in political leadership. We offer academic and practical campaign training, and we facilitates research and discussions like this on women in politics. So, tonight, we want to take a look at all the way back 100 years to the era right after the ratification and passage of the 19th amendment. Because, understandably, the fight for womens equality did not stop with the success of the suffrage movement. There was more to do and that is what, our discussion will center on this evening with dr. Rebecca wolf. Who has written an amazing new book. It is intended lured entitled gendered citizen ship, the original conflict over the equal rights rights amendment. 1920 to 1963. And, dr. Doug wulf is a historian who wrote her ph. D. Right here in American University. And we are proud that she is also a w upi Course Instructor the semester teaching a class on this very subject. And i am sure we have a few of her students joining us this evening. Im going to let everybody know before we start that we are going to save plenty of time for your questions. At the bottom of the screen you will see the ask the question button. Please, dont be shy. Feel free to type your question in there and you can also upload other peoples questions that you may be interested in. And if you miss any other discussion tonight and want to share it with friends the replay will be available at the same link that you used to register. So, rebecca, thanks for being here. I am very excited to be here. Thank you for having me. Of course. So we have a lot to cover. This book is amazing. First i will say that when i really enjoyed about the book is that it is sort of a twofer you have an academic component, obviously, with lots of footnotes and references, and sources, but it also reads really really well and is super interesting to read. So i think it is for two audiences. So, anyway, i would recommend anybody who is interested in the subject to grab a copy of rebeccas book. As you can, see theres a green link on the screen and theres even a special Discount Code in the chat if you wanted to buy it. But let me start with two kind of scenes. The first being such on you, secondly for how you as a student of history really decided to study this particular time period in the history of the e. R. A. Because i will note that, if you are with us tonight and you are thinking, was in the fight over the er a really in the 70s with Gloria Steinem . You are probably not alone if you think that. That earlier era is really not written about, nearly to the extent that the liter era of course and the battle has been. So tell us by this moment in history is particularly important . So, that is a really great question and i am going to just start off with how i became interested in the er i to give a little bit of foundation. So just a step back, this book is based off of my ph. D. Dissertation research. I first came to the er a my first day of my phd program. So 2008, 2009. And i will just say things with the e. R. A. Were much different than they were back then they are today. Theres more support for it, and more knowledge about it. But at this earlier time theres really just a general lack of knowledge about the e. R. A. So i came to the topic because my phd adviser at the time, alan lichtman, asked me to give a lecture on the e. R. A. For a class that i was the seating assistant for. So i got into the research. At that point i was like, this is an interesting topic. But we really got me going is, after i get the lecture i opened it up to the classroom discussion and some of the students said that they had no idea that the er a wasnt ratified. So that was interesting. But i consider will matter the scene said something along the lines of, yeah we recognize that there is still persistent sex discrimination against women, but we dont see the e. R. A. As a solution to that problem. So that just set off a lightning bolt of curiosity for me. Why had in the recognition of persistent sex discrimination not cause more of a robust push for the e. R. A. . So i really wanted to solve it seems like a disconnect between realizing that there is still ongoing problems in society that are Holding Women back, but not thinking that the e. R. A. Is the solution to that problem. So around this time, i should also say that i had to read a book for a graduate course called. It is Susan Douglas is where the girls are. It is a great book on the history of womens, the history of medias portrayal of women. And she has great insightful discussion of the e. R. A. In the 1970s as representing the classic catfight imagery that we so often see with how women are portrayed in the media. So this depicts woman is constantly fighting with each other, emotional, just cant get along. And the implicit piece suggestion from this imagery is that this is why women arent fit for leadership positions. And so that strongly influenced my perspective. I want to get away from the catfight industry, i wanted to see if and why the area which struck woods represent more than just a struggle between. Women at first i was just interested in all parts of the e. R. A. As writing on the graduate papers on, it being quite obsessive about him. But i think a more drawn to the earliest years of the conflict because as you mentioned, very little is written about it. And it just seems like a mysterious part of the e. R. A. s history. Because so many of the dividing lines that you see in u. S. History just dont play out the same way as the original area conflict. What i mean by that is you have conservative and liberals on both sides of the issue. You have many women on both sides of the issue, feminism on both sides of the issue. So it is just not an easy conflict to figure with a dividing lines where because you are seeing overlaps everywhere. So, i really want to understand what was going on, why does the original theory conflict calling to question so many of our conceptual ways of thinking about trends in u. S. History. And another thing to say about the joint year conflicts is, individuals that we typically share as champions of human rights, like Eleanor Roosevelt. She oppose the e. R. A. And people like francis perkins, the first secretary, first women secretary of labor who is typically cast as a hero and womens history. She also oppose the e. R. A. So just begs the question of, what is really going on . [interpreter] what is motivating people to be opposed to it or to support it. So i really wanted to figure with the dividing line was. And we are going to talk about some of those whats those dividing lines were and sort of the strange bed fellows that came together before it or against it. But i do want to you set the scene on whats life was like for women after the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. Of course, they now than have the right to vote, but little else in terms of rights. And of course we know women of color really didnt even have the right to vote. So, tell us what life was like in terms of rights for women after suffrage . Okay, so that is a great question. And before we get into life after the 19th amendment, the ways in which the 19th amendment serve as a spring port for the conflicts. I was in the main argument i book so the people understand how i am getting at it. So the main argument is that the original conflict created gendered citizenship of the United States. So even though the 19th amendment disrupted the traditional understanding of u. S. Citizenship that gave many 30 over women, and, law and custom, disparities between men and womens positions persisted because e. R. A. Opponents, and the original e. R. A. Conflict, modernized or updated the justification for sex specific treatment in the original conflict. So, to unpack it a little bit to get your question about what women were facing after the 19th amendment, it isnt going to recognize that the u. S. Legal system was founded on a profound commitment to the mildness of rights bearing citizenship. So u. S. Authorities understood white women, and after the civil war, black women. To be citizens. And that theyre habitants of the country. When we came to being a fool citizen entering the rights of citizenship, u. S. Laws and customs tonight women that status of rights varying citizenship because u. S. Legal and political authorities believed that all women were inherently dependents, weak creatures who relied on others, especially men for survival. So im not gonna go fully into all that legal history. If anyone is curious that really dive into the first chapter my book. But is important understand that the original masculine conception of full u. S. Edison ship date mandatory to over women and law and custom. And it is also important to understand the category of sex was commonly used as a valid reason to restrict womens opportunities and autonomy in the home and in public life. So, before and after the 19th amendment, there were an array of sex specific laws and policies that denied orlimited womens right to hold Public Office, serve hundreds, work in certain occupations, even have an independent nationality status. And theyre also an array of sex based laws and customs that continued to favor husbands over. Sorry, continue to favor husbands and fathers over wives and daughters, with regard to property, earning, contracting, inheritance, and guardianship rates. So, when the 19th amendment was passed in 1920, when it is a removed sex as a valid reason for with only the right to vote. So for those that dont know, the actual language of the 19th amendment, im going to try to say it off the top of my head here. Was something along the lines of, the rights of a u. S. Citizen to vote cannot be a bridge or tonight in the count of sex. And the implicit suggestion with that wording is that it affirmed womens right to vote. But because it removed sex isabella reason for restricting the right to vote, it raised all these other questions about okay, well can sex be a valid reason still for limiting and restricting all these other rights like the right to serve on juries and hold Public Office. So, a lot of debates and questions arose in the week of the 19th amendment regarding womens legal status Going Forward. A lot of debates concerned, okay well but really constitutional ramifications and effects of the 19th amendment . Where there implications beyond the vote . Do women have broader Political Rights now . And underlining all these questions were, whether the rights of citizenship after all . Should women still be held to a different legal status or should they be held to the same status as many Going Forward . And something that i kind of touch upon in the piece that i wrote for gender on the ballot was about how some of these arguments played out with regard to womens right to hold Public Office even after the 19th amendment there were some restrictions on womens rights to hold Public Office. So, the concerns in the debates about the transformative possibilities of the 19th amendment played out in the political discourse of the 19 twenties and in several court cases. And for the purpose of my book, what you see is those debates over when the 19th amendment meant a vault into the regional conflict over the equal rights amendment as two different interpretations as of u. S. Citizenship developed. So, if you want i can touch upon how this brings in alice paul. Yeah. Because i was going to ask you about her. I mean, obviously, we had spent the whole 2020 talking about the suffrage centennial, talk about suffragettes, and i think people familiar with alice pauls role in all of that. But she plays a big role in this as well. Tell us more . Absolutely. So, as all these questions are going on about what is womens legal status, whether the nature of rights now that women have implicitly the right to vote. A group of individuals, which alex paul was the leader of, decided that an additional constitutional amendment was needed in order to resolve these issues regarding womens legal status. So, i will just give a little background on alice paul in case people arent familiar. So alice paul was an incredibly influential suffrage leader, as you said. Some scholars described her as representing more of the militant side of the suffrage movement. So she is famous for, she founded the National Womens party, and w p, and she and her party are famous for picketing the white house for a political cause, the cause of suffrage. They were arrested when they were picketing the white house, and jailed. They did a Hunger Strike in jail for the cause of suffrage and then they were force fed. She was well known for orchestrating in organizing the massive and spectacular suffrage parade in washington d. C. In 1913 around president wilsons inaugural celebration. So alice paul was a brilliant strategist for capturing the attention of the press in the overall public to because of suffrage. So, as all of these questions are going on in the wake of the 19th amendment, alice paul and her very good friend alcee hill, another leader of the National Womens party got together with a up incoming legal scholar by the name of Albert Levitt of the George Washington university. He was already working on trying to scare womens rights in certain areas. They got together in the spring of 1921 to try to figure what to do to resolve these issues around womens rights. And i just want to say, so they came to the idea of an initial got social amendment. But first, this additional constitutional amendment was really more of like a clarifying amendment, to really kind of clarify what womens rights should be Going Forward. So, it wasnt at this point embracing the complete constitutional quality that you would see in the er and later on. So, Albert Levitt also actually wrote the first draft of this clarifying amendment and it was very lengthy. He literally wrote every single write that they were trying to get for women, like the right to serve on juries, hold Public Office, havent independently status, things of that nature. And at that point things just really took off. Alex paul really wanted this drafting process to be collaborative and a shared effort. So she consciously went out and brought people into the drafting process. So there was an array of individuals involved, which i tried to capture in chapter two of my book. Microscope hound, he rode up some drafts. Albert levitt said he wrote 35 different drafts. Alice paul wrote a couple hundred different drafts. Lets see, who else was involved . Dean acheson who would go on to be an influential Foreign Policy adviser for president s, he wrote a couple drops and give some advice. So some lawyers within the nwa p helped. Out so just a very collaborative effort and it is really great to go through the sources and see all the different ideas at play. But things started to break down. In the fall of 1921 the collaborative effort kind of fell apart. Well i definitely fell apart. So the main reason that it fell apart is because some of the people involved wanted the clarifying amendment to include a provision that would secure what they believed to be womens natural right to special protection. And at this point, alice paul wasnt against this idea, but she wasnt for. It should kind of on the fence about it all. And when she wouldnt commit to it, and im just summarizing a very complicated history which i go into a more detail my book, but when she wouldnt commit to that saving clouds, or this clause to protect women. Or protect what was believed to be a womans natural right to special protection, the individuals committed to that ideas that alice paul, youre on your own were not gonna help you anymore. And it is actually quite a dramatic and emotional breakdown. Albert levitt and alice paul got in the humongous fight, because he was one of the people who want to the saving close. And it was very distrustful for alice paul. So at that point, she decided to put the amendment on hold. So this was the winter of 1921. And she launched with the National Womens party, a Major Investigation into the legal status of women. Which really took off in january 1922. And so, it is important to understand this Massive Research project because it really gets to the idea of what were women facing in the early 19 twenties in terms of legalized sex discrimination. So, so many of the problematic laws restricting womens autonomy and opportunities where on the state level. And they vary from state to state. So it is a very confusing patchwork of laws. And when alice paul was thinking was, okay lets go and investigate these laws. Lets record, then lets chronicle them, lets see if any of them are beneficial for women or if they are all harmful. And so, within this Massive Research project, which really lasted in the 1920s up until the early 1930s. The nwa p wrote several reports throughout this time. But it was through this process that the n w p became way more critical of the idea of sex specific treatment, and sex specific laws and more attached to the idea of complete constitutional sexual quality. And i just want to say, some of the things that they found in a reports on the sex specific laws that were harmful for women. Some of the reports that they showed i think it was in 40 different states, property acquired through the joint effort of husband and wife still primarily belong to the husband. In several states they still had husbands controlling womens earnings, several states still prohibited women from entering into contracts without their husbands permission. And that is already said, somes restricted womens ability to serve a jury, hold Public Office, were in certain occupations. In some states the father had the right to will await the custody of its child from the mother. So there are a lot of laws are favoring men and giving men dominants over women. And like i said, through the research into these laws, the n w p became way more attached to the idea that six foot suffolk treatment was always going to be problematic for women, and always going to be harmful for women. And that we made in just a clarifying amendment, they needed an amendment that was going to emancipate them from a legal system that had put them in a subservient position. You mentioned emancipate, and you also mentioned special protection. And this is how you kind of divide the pro e. R. A. A stat and the anti e. R. A. Sent. So give us a sense of those definitions and who is lining up on each side of those arguments. And like i mentioned earlier, there are these strange bed fellows meaning that you have liberals and conservatives within one wing, and liberals and conservatives within another wing. Yeah, exactly. So, first time will dive into emancipationism a little bit and then i will get into the protectionist side. So emancipation us were e. R. A. Supporters. They support the e. R. A. And i use the word emancipate, or emancipation to capture the proera position. Because e. R. A. Supporters actually use the same word emancipate or to amanda paid when trying to describe the areas purpose. So for erie supporters, women need to be fully emancipated from their legal subservient position in american society, and they thought that the only way to do that was to, was the strength of a constitutional amendment that would remove sex as a valid legal category in and of itself. So they would basically attack sex specific laws and sex specific policies. And the thinking was that sex could never actually be beneficial for women, sex specific treatment could never be beneficial for women. Because such laws always were tied back to these ideas and embedded in the american legal tradition that hunter stood woman to be inherently weaker and inherently dependent creatures whod relied on men and others for survival. And then this reinforced the idea that men should have dominating control over women and that women couldnt have autonomy over their own bodies in their own lives. So for emancipation is, persistent legal restrictions on womens autonomy in the wake of suffrage created not only fluctuating definitions of womens legal personhood, but also constitutional inconsistencies with regards to the rights of american citizens. So for emancipation is, constitutional sexual equality was the only way to fully emancipate a class of voters from their legal septic subjugation. So, just to backup a second to get back to the history a little bit. As the National Womens party is conducting this big Research Project into the variations of womens legal status across the states, eventually alice paul came back around to writing the amendments and she finalize the writing of the amendment in 1923. But before she came to that wording, which i will say in a second, she originally faced some of her early drafts of the amendment on the language of the 13th amendment. For those who dont know, the 13th amendment is the amendment that freed enslaved persons after the civil war. And the reason that i was posted this is because she believed that a lot of the state level marital status laws where a type of involuntary servitude four married women. So a lot of these, i dont get too much into the specifics of the legal aspects because it can be confusing. But a lot of these marital status laws were formed around the notion that husbands had a right to the body and the free domestic life labor of their wives. So, from alice paul standpoint, this was a type of involuntary servitude for women. But, through the course of the Research Project alice paul another and wpa members were realizing it wasnt just married women who are suffering from the sex specific laws and customs. It was all women in general. So, that is why she brought in the wording up the e. R. A. Tv but it was in 1923, which i have a written down just in case i forget. It was, men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subjects to its jurisdiction and Congress Still have the right to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So very broad amendments that again, embraces this idea of the complete constitutional sexual equality for men and women citizens. I just want to say very importantly, because some people dont know this, alice paul would reward the amendment once more in 1943 when the theory was gaining in popularity. Congressman members suggested that it would be good to reword it to align more with the leaders of the 19th amendment. So the 1943 rephrasing by alice paul is, equality of rights under the law should not be denied or abridged by the United States or any say that account of sex. That language is the same language that we have today for the area. So, the 1943 rephrasing of the e. R. A. , is the same language that the e. R. A. In its primary cause with the 70s and up to this day. Okay, so back to emancipation this. Sorry for all the confusion there. No, it is helpful. All right, so in the 1920s most emancipation were members of the National Womens party. There wasnt much support for the area in the 1920s. That is going to change quite dramatically with the increased support for the e. R. A. In the mid 1930s and 1940s. So as support is increasing for the area, at that point the emancipations position is expanding to include pronounced variations, are pronounced branches in regards to its liberal and conservative variations. So, in other words. Is that, can i stop you right. There for a second because what is going on in the 1930s that is helping this movement take off . Okay, so, in the 1930s with the Great Depression there was an increase in the regulation of working women. The thinking with that working women were taking jobs away from men and men needed jobs more than women because the men were providers and women werent. That is the thinking. So there are certain restrictions on policies to try to push women out of the workforce so that there were more jobs for men. And so as these restrictions were mounting, you are having more and more working women who realize the potential harms embedded insect specific labor policies. And so that is when they start to come more and more over to the idea the e. R. A. And having complete constitutional equality. And then it takes off in world war ii, which i can get into that later. That is primarily because of the economic demands of the war. It brought more women into the workforce. But then the labor laws come back around, too, because and that is also an argument for the production side, right . Yes, great point. I will just say real quick. I feel like im skipping ahead by real quick. World war ii, the sex specific labor laws were suspended because they needed more women to work to fulfill the economic demands of the war. So then this is undermining the idea that women are inherently incapable of performing the same tasks as men. So, but back to what i was saying with the, as he emancipations position is growing in in the mid to late 1930s and taking up in the 1940s, you are seeing and expansion whether it is conservative live and liberal variations. So you have conservative image of patient or conservative e. R. A. Supporters, like senator edward berke of nebraska, and what conservative emits patient is found in the proarea e are a position, was that it aligned with their support for private enterprise and their criticisms of the government and economy. So they would often frame their arguments for the e. R. A. Around notions of a citizens right to economic self fulfillment. And that women and men should be able to participate in the marketplace in the same terms. And also there is a little bit, well i should also say, conservative emancipation is were understanding rights in terms of negative rights. So seeing rights as being a way to shield individuals from government intrusion in their lives. And there is also a little bit of legal formalism playing out in some of these more conservative arguments for the area. Which is basically the idea that if sex isnt a valid reason to withhold the right to vote, then you kind of sex be a valid reason to withhold other rights like the right to serve on juries. And so you have to have it consistency in the law. So the usa conservative support for the e. R. A. , most people are like what would you do . Him out . So it is almost assertive libertarian component, right . Maybe. Yeah, thats a great point. And some of my students for my e. R. A. Class actually pointed that out to you. I think that is a valid connection to make. But then youre also having liberal emancipation this, talking about e. R. A. Supporters. And they are seen in the area more as positive rates. So they are thinking about the e. R. A. And teams of expanding the governments influence and ensuring that the government has a responsibility to protect men workers as well as women workers and ensuring that the government offers policies that will ensure Economic Security and social wellbeing for men and women citizens alike. Now, even with these differences and how they are seeing what the e. R. A. Could do in the past, both conservative and liberal emancipations are still expressing their core support for the e. R. A. In the same terms as men and women should be able to participate as citizens of the same terms. And sex should not be illegitimate classification within itself. That when women imaginable equality before the law. So, now there is the other side. It is a little bit more confusing to talk about this side because i think people have some preconceived notions of certain definitions. Let me take a sip of water for a second. So, you will talk about this. There will be the liberal component of the anti e. R. A. Argument . Yes. Which again, is like what . A lot of you will find it surprising. Yes, like Eleanor Roosevelt opposing the e. R. A. That is fascinating to learn. So she is pretty much what i call a liberal protectionist. So the anti e. R. A. Side, i describes protectionism more protectionist. And i should just point out, for people who havent read my book, the way that i am using the term protectionism in my study, i am not referring exclusively to advocates of special labor legislation. So for those that dont know, special labor legislation or special labor laws arose in the late 19th and early 20th century is as a way to regulate womens working conditions and shield women from economic exploitation. So these versus the civic labor laws that determined the jobs, and tasks that women were allowed to perform. A regulator their work hours, prohibited them from working nights in certain instances. Sometimes gave them a minimum wage law. But these regulations were really based on the idea that all women were mothers, or potential matters, and womens roles in the home necessitated the extra special oversight of the government. So you have those liberal minded e. R. A. Opponents who love those labor laws and oppose the e. R. A. As a threat to those labor laws. And you also have conservative minded individuals who do not like labor laws, but they are still opposing the e. R. A. So both conservative and liberal protectionists believe that women required special protection. They just deferred and where that protection should come from. So, for conservative protection this womens protection to primarily come from the male head of the household. They thought that government Reform Efforts, like those special labor laws, undermined has been governing authority in the household. Now, liberal protectionist believe that government Reform Efforts could also serve as affective instruments of protection for women. Even with those differences though, you still have, like i said before, liberal and conservative protectionist believing that women needed special consideration and special protection because of their roles as mothers and caretakers of the home. A shared desire to preserve the possibility to treat many women differently on the count of psych that the passage of the 19th amendment, and in the face of the developing equal rights campaign, fueled that protection is position. So, alongside this desire, protectionist believed that while women should be respected as rights bearing citizens, they didnt want the law to categorically group womens rights with mens rights. So, as i described in my book, protectionist, conservative and liberal protectionists, reasons that actual sexual fairness meant securing two distinct but equally valued sets of rates for men and women citizens. So, a key point here is that the arguments against the e. R. A. Didnt simply revolve around the idea that women shouldnt have rates, or that they should be denied the rights as full citizens. In actuality, e. R. A. Opponents insisted that they were the ones who were protecting womens rights. Right, which is why protectionist, the wording of that makes a lot of sense. And that is also what which is not dissimilar from what weve seen the arguments against the e. R. A. In the 70s, right . Exactly. Yes. So i do, in my apple log, suggests that it is a little bit more confusing than whatever going to say right now but, a lot of the arguments that licit were appealed to in the 70s where arguments were put forward in the original e. R. A. Conflict. So one quick thing to note though, one protectionist were doing is, through the course of the original e. R. A. Conflict, freshens moved the arguments against equal rights or equal legal treatment away from a pre19th amendment emphasis on the reasons to exclude women. They move towards a post19th amendment emphasis on the need to protect and develop a distinct citizenship for women. And for protectionist, women special rights include things like, being exempted from military service, shielded from the ravages of capitalism, and kept safe in their domestic roles. So, again, from the protectionist point of view, it wasnt that women should not have raids, it was that they should have their own saturates. And so this is how you see the original conflict transforming the nature of american citizenship away from whats had been a single gendered masculine model into a dual gendered model with a separation of rates specific to men and women. I wanted to ask you, you mentioned Eleanor Roosevelt which makes me think of the president s, right. So, can you talk a bit about president ial support or opposition to the er a during that time period with fdr, truman, eisenhower, who were back and forth on the amendment and give a little conflict context as to why . Yes. So the fdr administration, with the exception of fdrs second Vice President henry wallace. He actually supported the e. R. A. , but pretty much everybody else in the administration is not. Because the fdr administration was really full of a lot of liberal protectionists. And again, the thinking for liberal protectionists is that women needed sex specific labor laws because women hand special needs that, special treatment would recognize. And i just have a great little antidote to add here. When fdr had passed away, alice paul supposedly said, the greatest threat to the amendment has now been removed. So, that just shows you how intensely opposed to the e. R. A. The fdr ministration was. Now truman, actually came out in support of the e. R. A. When he was a senator. And then he reaffirmed that supports when he became president. And a part of that, the significance of that, is it shows just how much the e. R. A. Had gained in popularity during the 1940s. But as i talked about, i think it is in chapter five, he started to back away from the amendment a lot. Through the course of his presidency. And that is because so many, when the protectionist started to reassert themselves in the post war era, they really went after truman and said to him if you openly support the area, we are going to withdraw our support from you. So when i went to the president ial library, trumans president ial library, and i went through some of the related source materials, some of his president ial advisers said the equivalent of its political dynamite. Either way you throw it its gonna should be set up in your face. So he did come out and say he was against it, but he just decided to stop talking about it. And then eisenhower, the same kind of thing happens. That doesnt sell like a politician. I know. So eisenhower kind of did a similar thing. So when eisenhower was elected, e. R. A. Supporters thought that that would be a great thing for the e. R. A. Because they thought that he would align with the emancipations position. And he came out at a speech in Madison Square garden, and said i support the e. R. A. And so they were all excited about it. But then, if you go through his president ial source materials, as i did at his library, you see that he was saying in private things, like i dont know the ra is. So, his support for it was pretty lackluster. And again, i think it was his secretary of labor was very against the e. R. A. For the same idea of women needing site special protection in the industrial realm. And so, partly because of a secretary of labor eisenhower, like truman, also backed away. He didnt come out and say that he was against it. He just again decided to be quite quiet about it. So, it just shows, that shows you how protections were able to reassert their dominance in the post war period. Right. And so, in the book, it says original conflicts of equal rights amendment, 1920 1963. Why 1963 . Whats significant about that . Great question. So, let me just back up for a second. As i said in the 1920s, there wasnt very much progress in the area. Its sort of for various reasons. And then there was a lot of pro e. R. A. Moments in the late 1930s and then really taking off in the 1940s. And then after the war ended certain societal developments create a ripe environment for protectionist to reassert themselves. I hope i am not going too much into detail here. The postwar readjustment anxiety and the feeling that social instability would only come back if women left their jobs and the workforce and returned home, allowed protectionist to reinsert their dominance so im going to do a bit of detail here. But the idea that women left the workforce in order to stay home, is kind of a meth. In the immediate post world war ii period, women did leave the workforce but then they went back to work. So by the, i think its like may 1948, the number of womens working in the workforce started to increase again quieter magically to the point where in the 1950s that numbers of women working outside the home was higher than that during world war ii. And so, where women working outside of the home is aligning the massive patients insistence that women should be free to choose how to participate in life. They should just be confined to having primary duties in the home. So that is creating a lingering, would i call a lingering emancipation. So the area still floating around, both Political Parties indoor cement and is brought to the front in 1940 1943. Which is quite a annoying to protectionists. So in order to stamp out the e. R. A. , they had to readjust the opposition strategy and stopping against the area but actually offer up their own alternative comprehensive measures. And with these alternative comprehensive measures, protections put for the idea that the best thing for women would actually be alimited equality that recognized its both men and women have equal value and citizenships but having a separation of rights because a separation rolls. And so, some of these alternative measures where things like the women status bill, the equal pay act was actually largely an effort by liberal protectionists, and then the biggest one was the president s commission on the status of women. So the president s commission on the status of women released its final report in 1963. So, don report is such a big deal when it comes to the e. R. A. Esther peterson, the big architect of the p e s w which is the abbreviation of the president s commission on the status of women. She was an ardent e. R. A. Opponent. And she believed that with this commission it can make the e. R. A. A ready to offer up alternative ways for in proving woman status which she called a more balanced practical perch towards removing the arbitrary discrimination of women and keeping which she believed to be equitable to sanctions in place. Protections finaland so in the , its so important, as i described in chapter six, because protectionists finally came to an answer that they were trying to develop since the 19 twenties. Which is the idea, how do we get the law to recognize women as full rights bearing citizens, without taking away the lives ability to treat women differently from. In what they did in the pc s ws offer up an alternative constitutional approach to just summarize it quickly. It basically recommended that interested parties should put forward should pursue litigation of a supposedly arbitrary legal sex discrimination with the idea that going up to the Supreme Court, having the Supreme Court ruled it arbitrary distinctions arbitrary sex discrimination against women violated womens rights of citizens under the 14th amendment the thinking was we could say that the e. R. A. Is not needed because women have the 14th amendment which would allow the court to draw clear lines between arbitrary discriminations, and supposedly equitable distinctions. Such that you would find a limited constitutional equality for men and women citizens great that was all super helpful so weve come weve covered the we have a couple of questions i want to get to in a remaining minutes with you here. Lets see this is an interesting question from aj was their religious support of the e. R. A. . Religious support . Thats a good question its easier to say that there is religious opposition to the e. R. A. You do see in the 1970s, opposition. But you see religious opposition in the regional conflict. But support . I have to say, i didnt see it, actually. Clearly in the source materials that i was looking at. Not to say wasnt there, its not something i saw. Its a really good question. Heres a question from sydney. He asks, to it extent does race play a role in the e. R. A. In your research to find any differing support based on race . Thats a very good question. Its not an easy question to answer. I have some notes here to make sure that we can answer to the best of my ability. Like so many other areas, the regional e. R. A. Conflict, the role of race overlaps. Theres not a clear dividing line. When i mean by that is that you have black americans supporting it and opposing it. You have racist ideas permeating the pro e. R. A. Position, and the anti e. R. A. Position. You have support for a civil rights legislation for both the pro and anti e. R. A. Positions. Just to give you a little detail, and i wont go too much into detail, because i know were short on time, but mary church terrell, of the National System situation of colored women, she was a e. R. A. Supporter. Her organization endorsed e. R. A. But mary who was a wellknown civil rights activists during the 1930s and 40s, she opposed the e. R. A. She was more aligned with the liberal protectionist stance. She was supporting the women status bill, which was a protectionist measure to stamp out the e. R. A. Then we also have raced racist attitudes permeating both positions. You have someone like Florence Kelly who is a social reformer. She was a big e. R. A. Opponent, testifying in congress in the 1920s saying something to the effect of, if the e. R. A. Was to pass, it would mean that black men and white women would have the same rights. Just a very racially charged argument to try to flare up peoples opinions. Then you also have people on the protectionist side, like esther peterson, and representative emmanuel celler, who hated the e. R. A. , but also wrote very strong were very strong supporters of the civil rights movement. In their mind, racial discriminations were unnatural transgressions against people. But they thought that sex discrimination could be equitable. They believe that men and women were so different in their social and biological roles in society. Then on the pro e. R. A. Side, you head people like mary church terrell, and other individuals like emma lets, of the National Womens party, seen the e. R. A. Being part of when large struggle. Then you also have on the pro e. R. A. Side, individuals like representative howard smith who was a segregationist, a white supremacists, racist, not a good person in many ways, supporting the e. R. A. Because in his mind he believed that it would ensure that black americans didnt have an advantage over white women. In his mind, the e. R. A. Meant equality for white men and white women again, with so many other areas in the original conflict, you see these blurred lines share okay heres a question im sure you never get. Dealing with whats next. Its a great question from isabelle. She says given the renewed interest in the e. R. A. , in congressional hearings, conversations around virginia of course well watch miss america, and learned about that. And then people taking that to the next level. Do you think were in the third conflict . Im so glad that she said that. Thats something i talked about in our class. I do think were in a third e. R. A. Conflict. Because im a historian, its a lot easier for me to talk about things that have already happened. Im much better analyzing things when the dust has settled. The third e. R. A. Conflict is already unfolding. Im very interested in how certain things are playing out. I will say, and i say this in my epilogue, we still see protectionist and emancipation its core ideas influencing both the pro and anti e. R. A. Positions, but theres also developments. We also have now a much more fluid understanding of gender than whats in the original conflict. And even what was in the 1970s. Im not sure how thats impacting the struggle, i havent come to an opinion on how its impacting it. I guess, lets wait a couple of years, and ill probably have a better understanding,. Once things have settled a little bit. Along the same lines, faith is asking what do you think the likelihood is of the e. R. A. Being ratified now . Thats a good question. So i will say that i had written an oped in the Washington Post in march 2021, basically addressing that idea, the likelihood of the e. R. A. Two pass. For those who dont know, the e. R. A. Have recently gained three state ratification is to have the 38 states that required for full ratification. Its not yet ratified because of ongoing questions because of the deadline, whether its valid or not that could again i dont have all the details. But i said in that Washington Post oped, when society goes through major upheavals, like the Great Depression or world war ii, it creates the dominant cultural consensus to align with the ethos of emancipation. But we all went through with the covid19 pandemic, may have given e. R. A. Supporters a chance to finally push the e. R. A. To get fully ratified. Im not sure if that window of opportunity has closed yet, but its quite possible that its provided the extra push that e. R. A. Supporters have needed. Great. Heres one more question. Has the growing representation in congress of women impacted the fate of the e. R. A. . That is a great question. Do you think that it is the gaining women in congress, that it is more likely . I dont know. Do you think its more likely that would be passed, or maybe could say that it is seen as less need for it because we have more representation . I dont know. I guess either way. So i will say that in the original e are a conflict, there are considerable amount of Women Congress members who oppose the e. R. A. Because of this idea that they thought it was better for women to have their own set of raids and to have sex specific treatment. So just because you have an increase of women in congress doesnt necessarily correlate to having an increase in support for the e. R. A. I think it really has to do with having a difference in views of what men and womens roles were in society, having a more fluid approach to it, or more traditional approach to it. You know, sometimes i see floated around the idea of is the e. R. A. Necessary now. With the fact that there is so many more advancements more women. I mean, i dont believe that there are still a lot of societal barriers against women. But yeah, i have seen people before the argument that there is nowhere near the same amount of illegal discrimination against women as there was in the original conflicts. And that amendment goes after laws. It is a constitutional amendment. So i have seen people say, but it really helped with the continued disadvantages against women which are our more due to social practices friendly guy sex discrimination. But i will say, if i can quickly, that what i see as the response from her supporters today is something along the lines of the e. R. A. Is Still Necessary because it would provide a robust break from that legal tradition that had produced so many of those social practices and social inequities against women. And, do you think for example looking back to the philippine slash sly days. One of the biggest arguments against the ra was this idea of military service and women in combat, and the draft, et cetera. Is that, because we now have women in the military, is that argument then kind of removed from the picture . I would say so. So, if you go to the eagle forum website, they still actually have this idea that the e. R. A. Would force women into combat at the same level as men. So, again, it gets back to this protectionist idea that women have sexual rights and one of those rights as being exempted from combat or military service. But as you said, in recent years there has been Greater Movement towards the recognition that women, that there should be a gender equality in terms of civic obligations. So a, lot of time civic obligations go hand in hand with rights. And the thinking is, to have certain rights we need to be able to carry out certain obligations. And so, i think what you are referring to is and 2013, the department of defense, officially lifted the ban of women serving in combat positions. And then two years later, the department of defense moved all generates restrictions to make women eligible for every military service role. And then in 2019, i think it was, a federal judge ruled that the only male requirement for Selective Service draft systems was constitutional and sexually discriminatory. It was declaratory judgment, so it didnt produce a court order. So the only mayor draft is still in place. But again, when we see this Greater Movement towards gender equality in terms of civic obligations, i believe it does open up a pathway for greater gender equality in terms of rights. Great, well i think we are out of time that thank you for taking us through this amazing arc in your book. I would encourage everybody to have the opportunity to check it out. So doctor dewolf, thank you so much for being with us. Live, sunday september 4th, on indepth. Uc berkeley governmental studies color, Stephen Hayward will be our guest to talk about leadership, Ronald Reagans political career, and the american conservative movement. He is the author of several books including two volumes in the age of reagan series. Greatness, and patriotism is not enough, about the scholars you change the course of conservative politics in america. Join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, tax, and tweets. Indepth, with Stephen Hayward, live sunday september 4th at noon eastern on book tv. On cspan two. [i