When I first noticed MAKERS on the internet, I was thrilled. After tediously examining every detail on the website, I wasn't so thrilled. For example, Phyllis Schlafly was considered a MAKER. Even after an effort by NOW founder Sonia Pressman Fuentes to convince MAKERS that Schlafly didn't make women's progress, but impeded it, she continued on the website and went on television with an ambiguous role at best. Ms. Schlafly is largely responsible for the fact that we have no federal Equal Rights Amendment today. There were others on the MAKERS website whose profession was improved due to early NOW and other feminist forces, who still bad mouthed feminists on the website as if we were not a helpful force in their career improvement. It somewhat was the "I'm not a feminist but" syndrome. Hopefully this has been removed from the website after complaints were lodged.
I'm not "against" MAKERS. Clearly, of their chosen group, there are far more feminist oriented women than not. Gloria Steinem, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are stunning examples among the dozens more feminists who have always been champions of women (not just their own careers). From VFA, co-presidents Jacqui Ceballos and Sheila Tobias, plus brilliant organizer Heather Booth, appeared on the film. That was great.
But there were mistakes; prominent feminists not included; and genres, the arts for example, virtually left out. As a woman who was a teenager in the 1950s; a NOW leader on local and state levels, and ultimately on the NOW National Board in the 1970s; what I might call point of view was distorted, and certainly reality was to some extent.
One distortion was in regard to the so-called "Sexual Revolution". One MAKER (who I was not familiar with as a feminist) declared that we (apparently referring to those of us who grew up in the 1950s) "were all virgins", (apparently meaning at marriage). Then she clarified slightly, "most, anyway". Unfortunately she had just uttered what is conventional wisdom, not truth. Some lazy researchers have spread the idea that the advent of the pill changed lovemaking culture overnight.
Having grown up in the 1950s I attest that simply isn't true. Even the "kissing scene" on MAKERs wasn't authentic. The Kinsey Report was first published in the early 1950s, and it was found that roughly fifty-per-cent of young women had premarital intercourse. This was years before the advent of the pill. It was also before abortion was legal. But even the unwed mother homes; the underworld experience, to say nothing of the physical danger of illegal abortion; the articles in Ladies Home Journal; did not prevent at least half or more teenagers and young women from having sex before marriage. Thankfully condoms were widely available. Thankfully some knew of the rhythm method. With the advent of more effective contraception, rhythm has been disdained, but I believe that many teens with regular periods were spared unplanned pregnancies because of it. Of course there was coitus interruptus. Eventually some were able to obtain diaphrams from understanding doctors.
For the most part, a more discerning consideration of male partners was undertaken then, as a quick trip to the altar was generally the most desired outcome in case of pregnancy. While sometimes those quick trips to the altar eventually led to divorce; many "had to" marriages are still in tact, or remained in in tact for a lifetime.
The point of this discussion is the message the tea party, the anti-abortion fanatics, and such, will derive and use. Can't you just hear it? “The women are now saying they were all chaste back before the pill and abortions. We must take all of it away.”
The other distortion had to do with the ERA and what was really going on with it. During the early Second Wave feminism days, many feminists adopted the concept of "sisterhood". That had to do with caring about other women and particularly seeing us "as one", united, sharing newly defined strengths.
What MAKERS showed of some women opposing us was true. But they didn't tell the full story. Opposition numbers dwarfed dramatically against ours. Phyllis Schafly was a power token. So it wasn't exactly woman against woman as portrayed. Some corporate, some religious right power defeated us. In that day, those institutions were more male driven than now. Just a few state legislatures handed us the defeat. They were male dominated. I'm not generalizing about men. More than not were great supporters. But the fact is we were defeated by power, and at that time men had much more of it than women.
MAKERS has many attributes. But we must keep a close watch, and particularly of their corporate sponsors.
No comments:
Post a Comment