Gendering the Nation Online Museum Exhibit
Created by the class of HIST 465 (Topics in Women's History) 2015-16
Queens University, Canada
Gender Discrimination in US History: The Development of American Women's Legal Status Since 1875
The purpose of this museum exhibit is to bring awareness of gender inequality and discrimination in US history. This exhibit has a specific focus on the political and cultural ties that created gendered laws. The main framework is to show a historiographical timeline of US women legal status from 1870 to 1970. Women’s place in American law represents the larger picture of the United States and US nation building. The three main categories that will be shown in this exhibit include Constitutional gender discrimination, legal discrimination against women’s professional, political and economic aspirations, and the rise of women’s rights as a result of pushing the societal boundaries of gender norms.
Specific cases will be examined to highlight gender discrimination in US history. The first case is Susan B Anthony in 1873, then Muller v. Oregon, and then Reed v. Reed.Women were oppressed under US law because of nation building. Nation building plays into what was expected of man and women to strengthen the nation and gender was used to promote US identity and values and therefore promote the nation. Everyone was assigned their roles and play their part to contribute the growing US nation. Nation building was used to create social order, tradition and conform cultural backgrounds. Tradition, in turn, used gender to inspire loyalty and civic duty to the nation.
Overall, where does women fit into the US legal narrative, and where do women fit today? What frameworks in later history were put in place to help bridge the gap of gender inequality? Has America become gender equal today in the opportunities and prospects for both men and women? All of these questions will be reviewed and observed within the framework of this exhibit.
Second Class Citizen: Constitutional Gender Discrimination
Susan B Anthony
In 1872, Susan B Anthony was put under trial for attempting to register as a Republican Candidate for the upcoming presidential election. Within two weeks, Anthony was arrested under a provision of the Federal Civil Right Acts of 1870 in the Constitution that was designed to prevent white men from cancelling black male votes. However, the arrest showed a clear indication of gender biases within the context of the Constitution. Anthony went to trial, and the US district attorney, Richard Crowley used the 14th Amendment to justify Anthony’s inability to register as a Republican because she was of the “female sex”, stating, “…The act of voting was automatically against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity [of the nation]…” Her trial reflected the male dominated, individualistic concept of voting rights that are shown in the 14th Amendment with the use of male Constitutional language.
Biography. “Susan B Anthony”. http://www.biography.com/people/susan-b-anthony-194905.
United States Archives. “Enforcement of Fourteenth Amendment”. https://ia902501.us.archive.org/2/items/enforcementoffou00burc/enforcementoffou00burc.pdf. April 7th 1871.
14th Amendment and the Constitution
The 14th Amendment states, “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. Anthony argued that women are seen as “persons” under the 14th Amendment, however the Court ignored such statements that women were considered citizens and therefore persons and whether women had the right as any other citizen in the United States. The law was based on a sexist assumption that only male children would develop into independent adults and therefore have the right to exercise political power. Women were not seen as equal under the Constitution, and only men were qualified as the gender of being governed. (or) Finding loopholes in the 14th Amendment demonstrated the male dominated legal system of the US Constitution.
Gender discrimination is securely rooted in American law. Courts and State Houses were actively discriminating against women who wanted to vote and enter male dominated professions like law, politics and medicine. In addition, the Courts highly discouraged women who were pursuing full citizenship and based their discouragement through the Constitution, where judges based their decisive views on women from generic stereotypes by believing that women were not “full citizens”. Women were seen as a threat to the patriarchal system and male dominated reality and were dubbed second-class citizens as a result.
The case of Susan B Anthony and the 14th Amendment demonstrate the severe gender oppression in the US legal system. The law was based on sexist assumptions and believed only male children would develop into independent adults to have the right to exercise full political rights and power. Men were seen as capable of being governed, in turn, women was seen as “natural and nonpolitical” to the male counterpart. Women were casted through the traditional women stereotypes and therefore not own any political rights. Women were fighting legislations to be included in the Constitution part of “We, the people…” of America and struggled with the concepts of what it meant to be a US citizen in the US. Susan B Anthony stood up before the Courts and proclaimed:
“For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disenfranchisement of one entire half of the people is a violation of the supreme law of the land… This government is not a democracy but surely is an oligarchy of sex, which makes the men of every household sovereigns; the women slaves; carrying dissension, rebellion into every home of the Nation, can not be endured.”
The Struggle for Substance: Legal Discrimination Against Women's Aspirations
US Department of Labor. “Ten Hour Maximum Working Day for Women and Young Persons”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=3793&filepath=/docs/publications/bls/bls_0118_1913.pdf#scribd-open. April 1913.
19 Laws of Protective Legislation for Women
In 1908, Congress passed 19 Laws that set a maximum number of hours for working women. The laws were passed through the Supreme Court, where it was deemed necessary to “protect” women from working on the basis of “divine insight”. This “divine insight” was reasoned an appropriate act by the judge to shield women from their supposed physiological deficiencies, rendering “her” different from “him”. While the laws were seen as protective legislature for guarding public health and welfare, socioeconomic biases prevailed, as there was “something special and different” about women. The laws violated the Constitutional rights of personal liberty and reinforced traditional stereotypes about working women and restricted job opportunities.
U.S Supreme Court. “Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon”. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/208/412/case.html. February 1908.
Muller v. Oregon
The case of Muller v. Oregon was argued January 15th 1908, where Curt Muller, a Laundry Matt manager, allowed a female employee to work over 10 hours. Muller was fined ten dollars from the Supreme Court, on the grounds of the Protective Legislature for women. The Supreme Court concluded that women were essential to “vigorous offspring, the physical wellbeing of woman is an object of public interest”. The Supreme Court used gendered language to limit women’s societal role and did not consider the individual working on the position of working conditions or job performance, rather justified the case on female physical weakness and procreative abilities for the Nation building.
Kitchen Debates.
Kitchen Debates
US President Nixon and Soviet Premier Khrushchev hosted exhibits in 1959 Moscow to promote cultural understanding between the two countries. However, the major political debate took place on July 24th 1959 and was dubbed, “The Kitchen Debates” where both politicians discussed the merits of capitalism and communism. Both politicians argued the concept of “women’s space” within the framework of the home and nation building. Nixon argued that capitalist US women were happy and content with the latest appliances in the kitchen to take care of her family, while Khrushchev argued that communist Russian women enjoyed working outside the home to take care of “Mother Russia”. Both politicians were arguing women’s role in society and where women fit into the greater narrative of capitalism and communism.
Second Wave Feminism Movement: Breaking Down Barriers
One of the focuses of the 1960s feminist movement was on workplace inequality, such as salary inequity and accessibility to better jobs. Activists were striving for the establishment of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Civil Rights Act, where the commission would protect women workers through gender discrimination by enforcing the law. The women’s movement strove for equality by lobbying Congress to change laws and publicizing issues to raise awareness on social and political issues, such as rape and domestic violence. Women did not want to be confined to a certain idea of “womanhood” and wanted their expectations of life to expand in various ways.
E-Collaborative for Civic Education. “American Feminist Movement”. https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women.
Progression: Fighting Grounds for Women's Rights
GThe legal status of US women changed rapidly from 1963 to 1990 than it had the previous two hundred years. Women became integrated in public affairs and politics and began with the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Women were pushing to achieve equal rights under the law and the number of legal text relating to women tripled. The Equal Pay Act had a substantial effect on legislative history as it was seriously debated in Congress and determined that women were considered “persons” under the US Constitutional law. The US is a global leader and collective changes of women’s legal status presented the impulse towards a more international egalitarian state. Creating a more egalitarian state means the inclusion of more women in careers outside the home and making changes that affect a wider group of people. Gender equal legislation means more careers opportunities in once male dominated fields. Examples like Ella Grasso and Cardiss Collins strove for careers in politics and made positive changes within legislation and are representatives for women and minorities within the legal system. Grasso and Collins pushed for change and were rewarded for their efforts. While women made strides to change the US legal system, more change needs to be implemented. The fact remains that the US Constitution still does not openly shield women against discrimination. The changing perception about women certainly has altered policy and opinion makers to include women and minorities within legislation. Women can no longer settle for what is being offered and must ask if legislation is truly empowering and equate with true liberation. Therefore, Is it possible to have a completely, unbiased US legal system with zero gender discrimination?
Supreme Court. “Reed v. Reed”. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/404/71. 1971.
U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Equal Pay Act of 1963”. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm. 1963.
Equal Pay Act
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 passed through Congress, and through congressional critics, on the groundbreaking concept of, “equal pay for equal work”. The idea of using the word, “equal” avoided raising the question of women’s place in society. The Act included the first minimum wage on the basis of eliminating gender discrimination on the conditions of job performance, skill, effort and responsibility. While the Act protects both men and women, it was passed to help the wage differences experienced by women. The Act was contested in Congress because voters against it, specifically Republican Katharine St. George, believed voting for it would, “be against motherhood”. The Equal Pay Act shows the relationship between women’s duties and relationship with nation building. Women are starting to be seen through the lens of being a person, and not through the constructed version of gender.
Reed v. Reed
The 1971 Reed v. Reed case gives insight to continued US gender discrimination even after legislation has been past for increased equality. The case was the division of a separated couple in conflict over who is the designate administer of their deceased son’s estate. The Idaho law gave preference to men over women, determining under Section 1314, “…of several persons claiming entitled to administer, males must be preferred to females…” The Court ruled solely on the basis that males are given preference over females, without referencing other individual qualifications. The case was brought to the Supreme Court where it was ruled as an Equal Protection Case. The Supreme Court ruled that administers of estates could not be named in a way that discriminates between sexes.
Women in State Legislature
Cardiss Collins
Cardiss Collins was one of the longest serving minority women in Congress history. She became the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and the fourth black woman ever to serve in the House of Representatives. She served from 1973 to 1997 in the Chicago Democratic Party where she brought to light the economic and social conditions and needs of her urban district. Collins cosponsored the Universal Health Security Act in 1993 and urged National Health Institutes to focus on health issues that concern minorities. She outlined legislation to help elderly and disabled women receive Medicare coverage for mammograms and introduced a law that assigned October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Collins is a perfect example of women moving into politics and legislation to help shine a light on women and minority issues and create a more gender equal environment in the US. National Archives and Records Administration. “Collins, Cardiss”. http://history.house.gov/People/Detail?id=11246.
Ella Grasso
Ella Grasso successfully dedicated her career to public service, effective government and democracy. From 1958 to 1970, she served as Connecticut’s Secretary of the State and became the first woman as Chair of the Democratic State Platform Committee. In 1970, she was elected for two terms in the House of Representatives where she served on the Education and Labor Committee and Veterans’ Affairs Committee. She was the first woman ever to be elected governor in her own right and was the Connecticut governor in 1974. She dedicated herself to the wellbeing of women and citizens of the US and committed herself to bettering the welfare state. She played an important role in politics and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan in 1981, and was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame in 1993.
Connecticut’s Women’s Hall of Fame. “Ella Tambussi Grasso”.
http://www.cwhf.org/inductees/politics-government-law/ella-tambussi-grasso/#.VvFLkcfjLwx.
Where do women fit today? Is America gender equal?