The 1970 Women’s Strike: A Bit of History

Published on Wednesday, March 08, 2017
by

Fifty years after the 19th (the Suffrage) Amendment had passed, tens of thousands of American women abandoned their husbands, their desks, their typewriters and their waitress stations to march down the avenues in a number of cities to press for a new set of issues.

At the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 53nd Street, a large group of women hold a banner that reads ‘Women of the World’ at the Women Strike for Equality demonstration, New York, New York, August 26, 1970. Tens of thousands of women (and men) marched along Fifth Avenue towards Bryant Park to demand equal opportuntity in employment and social equality. (Photo: Michael Abramson/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images)

Time was, you didn’t need a strike to create “A Day Without a Woman.” That’s just how things were. If you walked into any voting booth on Election Day, or watched any Supreme Court hearing, or tuned in at dinnertime to any television newscast, or found yourself on a rocket ship headed for the Moon, that’s what you’d see: no women, nowhere. Not in the United States, not in most of the world.

That much has changed, thanks in part to women’s strikes, like the one being organized around the globe for Wednesday. The premise is simple: Stay home from work – paid or unpaid – and demonstrate your value by your absence. Make your voice heard by distancing it from the microphone. Whatever you normally do, don’t.

Make it clear what it’s like when women exclude themselves.

As the ancient Greeks saw it, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

The prototype was “Lysistrata,” Aristophanes’ bawdy tale of fifth-century BC Athenian women who denied sex to their men to put an end to the Peloponnesian War. Played more for laughs than liberation, it nonetheless paved the way for centuries of similar tactics, some of which – depending on what talents women withheld – actually worked.

A few millennia later in America, the currency was cooking or charity work, both of which were executed almost exclusively by women. On a summer speaking trip through Kansas in 1895, suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony was asked what women should do to speed up the process of getting the right to vote. “They ought to withdraw from all their charitable work and let the men run things for a while,” she said merrily in Topeka. “[T]he women of Kansas should sit by and fold their hands. If they would stop their helping the men for six months, we would have equal suffrage granted us.” The concept so amused Anthony, she later joked about “the men’s howling over the idea that the women might possibly take our advice and sit down with folded hands refusing to do another thing to help them until the right of self government was accorded.” She teased a reporter in Chicago about men’s fears that “all women should cease even to cook dinner.”

It would take another 25 years, but women’s constant agitation won the right to vote in 1920. Our power is scary when you realize what it can accomplish. Over the years, women would also strike for peace, for improved working conditions, for whatever they were denied. Sometimes they struck out. Sometimes they struck a blow for history. The victories started to accrue.

By the late 1960s, despite half a century of suffrage and the doubling of women in the workforce over two decades, women were still undervalued, underpaid and underrepresented in leading professions. Never mind looking for a woman switching telephone lines, flying a commercial airliner, or rising to the level of U.S. Army general.

At the same time, poverty remained high in female-headed families. Politics was still mostly a boys’ club. There were no female governors or big city mayors, no women in the US cabinet, only 10 in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate. As for the Oval Office, it remained an impossible dream in a nation where managers tended to look at a potential staffer’s body before her resume.

The second wave of feminism revived the art form of the strike in the face of surprisingly glum statistics.

I’m talking about 1970 and the Women’s Strike for Equality.

Enthusiastic and resolute women (and men) in large parade down Fifth Avenue on the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted the women the right to vote, as they march for further women's rights. (Photo by John Olson/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)Enthusiastic and resolute women (and men) in large parade down Fifth Avenue on the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted the women the right to vote, as they march for further women’s rights. (Photo by John Olson/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

ghts  commanded strike organizer Betty Friedan, echoing Anthony’s earlier marching orders to the nation’s homemakers. “Sisterhood is Powerful!”

And how. On August 26, 50 years to the day after the 19th (the Suffrage) Amendment had passed, tens of thousands of American women abandoned their husbands, their desks, their typewriters and their waitress stations to march down the avenues in a number of cities to press for a new set of issues.

As a young reporter for the Associated Press (there were pockets of sanity in American society), I chronicled the journey of a self-described housewife and mom, 28, who lived in a conservative Republican section of Queens, New York. When the alarm sounded that morning, she bucked tradition and decided not to nudge her husband awake. “I thought, to heck with it. I’m on strike,” she told me. Four hours later, she was cheering at a demonstration for childcare centers. And then, trailed by my notebook and me, she marched down Fifth Avenue clutching one-fifth of a banner urging the Senate to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

Protesting women led by the Bread and Roses group march along Beacon Street in Boston demanding rights to abortion and equality in work opportunities and conditions, March 8, 1970. (Photo by Don Preston/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)Protesting women led by the Bread and Roses group march along Beacon Street in Boston demanding rights to abortion and equality in work opportunities and conditions, March 8, 1970. (Photo by Don Preston/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

The women’s movement had gone mainstream.

The strike itself was described, at a time when police estimates actually mattered, as the largest demonstration ever held for women’s rights. It led to the enormous advances so many of us enjoy today. So many, that for a time many of us believed the Revolution we’d just begun was actually over.

The 2016 election proved just how wrong we were.

The coarse misogyny of the campaign and the victorious candidate, along with new threats to women’s health and bodies and rights and sanity, inspired the January 21 Women’s March, an exhilarating day of purpose and uncommon wit. My thirteen-year-old granddaughter is still wearing the pink pussy hat she helped knit. A friend from Vermont giggled over a photo she took of two women carrying brass instruments and the hand-lettered sign, “Fallopian Tubas.”

And when someone asked – pre-empting my own concern – what had really been accomplished, or was it just a feel-good event, someone else pointed out the rise of political activism, the rush to run for office, the numerous lists of Things You Can Do Every Day being emailed around cyberspace. As a result, the power and scope of the January 21 march has galvanized women for the next show of strength – today’s women’s strike.

Organizers understand that many women simply cannot stay off the job; that many more don’t want to leave desperate clients without resources. No problem: Wear red as a show of solidarity; do something – anything – to support the cause. Just maintain the momentum.

“Life hands all of us setbacks,” Hillary Clinton told a thousand cheering supporters at a New York luncheon Tuesday, accepting an award from Girls Inc. for her lifetime of inspiring girls and women. “Everyone gets knocked down. What matters is that you get up and keep going.”

Shaun Robinson, the former TV anchor, now full-time social advocate, was more explicit. Advising a prizewinning Girls Inc. overachiever now headed for college, she said, “You fall down seven times, sister, you get up eight!”

Or, as the woman from Vermont put it, “Why am I taking part in the strike? It’s simple: I’ll keep going because I have to.”

We all do. Because no day should ever be without a woman – unless it’s our choice.

Lynn Sherr

Lynn Sherr is an award-winning journalist and has been covering politics and women’s issues for more than 40 years, mostly at ABC News, where she was a correspondent for World News Tonight and 20/20. Her best-selling books include Swim: Why We Love the Water; Sally Ride: America’s First Woman in Space and Failure is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words. Sherr currently freelances on a variety of platforms, and can be found on Twitter: @LynnSherr.

Let’s Tango

Silhouette of a couple dancing Tango. Author: Bleff. In the public domain.

 A Solution for Post-Election Blues And Celebrants: A Satire in Need of Reading

by Anthony J. Marsella

The world is in shock!  The anticipated outcome of the USA election did not occur. How is that possible? Everything had been set in place for a continuation of the existing Global Order, and the plans to continue to alter the Global Order in favor of those few privileged with wealth, power, position, and person. Now uncertainty! The possibility of an unsavory future for all!

The divisions became clear, hyped by a failed, flawed, and sinister media. Consider: (1) White, Black, Brown;(2) Male, Female, LGBT; (3) Young, Middle-Aged, Old, Very Old, and Unborn; (4) Refugees, Internally Displaced Humans, Immigrants, Homeless, Hopeless;(5) Humans, Animals, Insects, Flora; Urban, Suburban, Rural, Village, Survivalists. All were caught in contention, conflict, clash, and contradiction!

What could be done?  I thought about this for a few moments and came to this conclusion:  Everyone must learn to Tango not tangle! Yes, Tango! Inherent in the Tango are the very solutions the world urgently needs.

Consider the nature of the Tango:

Alchemy! Two as one!

Artistry in every movement!

Compelled and compulsory sensuality, sexuality!

Controlled passion!

Disciplined emotions!

Distant intercourse! (Better than distant learning)

Healing intensity!

Immediacy prayers!

Intimacy contact!

Ordered expression!

Tolerated yearning!

Enough, you get the idea! The Tango does things to dancers and viewers that need to be done to comfort, assuage, mollify, placate, and to enrage, arouse, provoke.

And then I got carried away with the possibilities.  World leaders and major players must dance the Tango with each other. Imagine Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton (Yes, yes, who is my partner?), Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu, Xin Jing Ping, President Rodrigo Duerte, Presidents of European nations (whoever is in office at this time or next week), corporate presidents, military officers,billionaires, Federal Reserve System members and leaders. The list is sizeable, but finite!

Please, before you proceed with this tale, click on this link and enter the moment.

Now, can you just imagine what would happen when Obama strides on to the floor, leaning slightly forward, arms at his side, to meet Putin, who is much in smaller height, but bigger in chest and ego. Obama asks courteously: “Who is dancing lead!”  Putin, more knowledgeable in tangles of all sorts, replies:  “Comrade, there is no lead in Tango! It is ecology!” “Oh yeah, of course! Just like climate change, and oil pipelines stuff,” Obama replies.

At this point, the music begins, the lights dim, and the world waits! A single violinist offers the first bars!  The dancers stare at each other, and say: “Do not step on my shoes!” They were made in Bangladesh! Then in an intimate whisper to each other, they both say:  “It is easier to make war than to dance this stuff.” In a poignant moment, both twist and snap their heads, as is required. “Ouch!” “Yy!” Drones circle overhead!

Politicians in Iceland decide the entire country will learn to Tango! “It will become our national dance!”And in Argentina, residents take to the streets dancing the Tango, restoring their soul, lost for years because of dictators. In Italy, people cry: “The Tango is like eating a stuffed artichoke.” The Greeks yell: “Oopla!” The Poles say the Tango is nice, but you can’t beat the Mazurka! Ghetto gangs in Chicago say: “Who needs order! We like the Krump! Everything moves at the same time.”

The Viennese, holding their coffee cups, say: “Nice but too passionate!  We prefer the Waltz.” Finns, slightly hesitant about proximity, clothes, and Russia, say: “Maybe it would be better if everyone sat in a sauna.”  And Whirling Dervishes in Turkey say: “If you added a few more spins, the Tango has possibilities.” And Strip Teasers in exotic girl bars say: I Tango with my pole! And in the Vatican, the Pope, does the Tango in the solitude of the Sistine Chapel; he recalls what he has missed with regret! And India tries to remind the others of their ancient Dancing Goddess, Shiva (Nataraja), and her cosmic dance of creation.  And in Silicon Valley, in the silence of the night, robots dance: “The Robot.”

And so it goes! Efforts after a common solution reveal, no matter how good the intention and the solution, it is hard for people to escape their conditioned preferences, habits, and comfort zones.  It is easier to keep the status quo.

A satire! Yes, of course! But hasn’t the world been forced to endure a satire at the hands of the world leader dance? Is it possible dancing the Tango could heal and bring reform?

And if you did not click on the link above, get into the spirit now and see what you missed.

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., a  member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

11/9/2016

 

Your father taught you WHAT? Part 2.

Wood engraving by John Charlton, 1890 cover of Graphic Magazine entitled “Of Danger All Unconscious.” In the public domain.

A recent post introduced an analysis by cognitive psychologist George Lakoff regarding supporters of Donald Trump.  Lakoff stresses the arch conservative’s  investment in a “strict father” authoritarian, white male supremacy moral code. Today’s post shares Lakoff’s psychological analysis of How Trump Uses Your Brain to His Advantage.”

Lakoff’s basic argument is that conscious thinking is a tiny portion of what goes on in the brain, and that indeed an estimated 98 percent of all mental activity is unconscious. (Think of times when you started driving to see a friend on Saturday and all of a sudden realized you had passed your exit and were on your way to work—conscious enough to drive safely but led unconsciously onto the route to work.)

Unconscious thought, Lakoff maintains, is influenced by certain basic mechanisms that Donald Trump and his team manipulate with finesse. These mechanisms include:

  1. Repetition. Words have links in the brain to circuits that give them meaning. Think about what you do when you are learning a new word or name—you repeat it and repeat it and perhaps also repeat its definition or its connection with something familiar.  Those repetitions strengthen the neural connections associated with the word and make it easier to activate them. So, when Trump says over and over again that “I am the only one who…”,  our brains tend to fill in the rest of the message whether we consciously believe it or not (“…can make America great again.”
  2. Framing. One of the mantras of the Trump campaign is “crooked Hillary,” framing Hillary Clinton as a crook who deliberately perpetrates crimes for her own benefit. Framing her this way evokes a common myth in the minds of conservatives—that is, what is illegal is also immoral according to Strict Father Morality (making, for example, a lot of anti-war and pro-environment activism “immoral”). Thus, at Trump rallies, we increasingly hear “Lock her up, lock her up!”
  3. Well-known examples. Trump repeatedly refers to examples of “Muslim terrorists” widely amplified in the popular media to maintain and exacerbate fears, which unconsciously activates desire for a strong no-nonsense father to fix everything. And they are told exactly who can play this role for them.

Lakoff goes on to describe other forms of mind control used by the Trump campaign. Read them for yourself and decide whether you think he makes his case.  And, given what you have learned about Lakoff’s analysis, what kinds of connections do you think human minds, particularly conservative minds, will make when they get swamped with photos and stories concerning the infidelities of former President William Clinton? Do you think the promulgators of those photos and stories are conscious of their effects?  How about the recipient of those messages?

Honoring a national hero, Part 2.

bacevich militarism bk picture

By Kathie Malley-Morrison

Andrew Bacevich has confronted our nation with some hard truths about the dismal state of democracy in this troubled and troubling election year.  He has also shared his wisdom on the forces that led to our current debacle.

Factor 1 is the evil effects of money.   Bacevich suggests that people read Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig’s book,  Republic Lost, Version 2.0., or see Lessig’s 18 minute TED talk .  The message is not a happy one: “Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States radically changes the way it finances political campaigns, we’re pretty much doomed to see our democracy wither and die.”

Factor 2 is “the perverse impact of identity politics on policy”—the assumption that increasing diversity in our leaders will necessarily lead to better politics, truer democracy. Bacevich comments: “In the end, it’s not identity that matters but ideas and their implementation… Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself amend the defects exhibited in recent years.  For that, the obsolete principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington remains enamored will have to be jettisoned.  In his own bizarre way (albeit without a clue as to a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that; Hillary Clinton does not.

Factor 3 is “the substitution of “reality” for reality.”  To understand this principle, Bacevich recommends reading Daniel Boorstin’s book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.  Presidential campaigns today are, according to Bacevich, using a term from Boorstin, “pseudo-events.” By now, he comments, “most Americans know better than to take at face value anything candidates say or promise along the way.  We’re in on the joke — or at least we think we are.  Reinforcing that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have abandoned mere reporting in favor of enhancing the spectacle of the moment.”

So, what do you, the reader, think? Is democracy being steadily subverted by the rich and powerful, their banks and international corporations legitimized as human citizens by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision? Is electing a man of color or a woman to the nation’s highest office enough to ensure that democracy can be strengthened and extended to all?  Can we preserve democracy if the corporate media create exciting public spectacles that serve to protect both the status quo and those very same rich and powerful people who control them and much of what goes on in politics?  Or do none of these factors seem like the real problem to you?  Is our democracy doing just fine?