To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

National Woman's Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Woman's Party
National Womens Party.jpg
Formation June 5, 1916 (1916-06-05)
Extinction 1997
Purpose "To secure an amendment to the United States Constitution enfranchising women" and to pass the ERA
Headquarters Washington, DC
Key people
Alice Paul, Lucy Burns
Website http://www.nationalwomansparty.org/
Formerly called
Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage

The National Woman's Party (NWP) was an American women's organization formed in 1916 as an outgrowth of the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage, which had been formed in 1913 by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns to fight for women's suffrage. The National Woman's Party broke from the much larger National American Woman Suffrage Association, which was focused on attempting to gain women's suffrage at the state level. The National Woman's Party prioritized the passage of a constitutional amendment ensuring women's suffrage throughout the United States.

The National Woman's Party, like the Congressional Union, was under the leadership of Alice Paul, who learned from militant suffragettes in Britain who used a variety of tactics to gain publicity for the cause of suffrage. Paul's strategy was to use publicity to hold the party in power, the Democratic Party and President Woodrow Wilson, responsible for the status of woman suffrage. Starting in January 1917, NWP members known as Silent Sentinels continued their quest for equality by protesting outside the White House.

While the British suffragettes stopped their protests when Britain entered the war in 1914, and supported the British war effort, Paul remained committed to the suffrage cause and continued her campaign after the US entered the war on April 6, 1917. Members of the NWP argued it was hypocritical for the United States to fight a war for democracy in Europe while denying its benefits to half of the US population. Similar arguments were being made in Europe, where most of the allied nations of Europe had enfranchised some women or would soon.[1]

The NWP pickets were controversial as they continued during war time.[2] Many NWP activists were later arrested on the charge of obstructing traffic, and many went on hunger strikes in prison to protest their unlawful detention.[3] Abusive treatment of the protesters, who believed themselves to be political prisoners, angered some Americans and created more support for the suffrage amendment. They were eventually released and their arrests were later declared unconstitutional. In the meantime, NAWSA helped pass the 1917 referendum in New York State in favor of suffrage. In early 1918, Wilson came out in favor of the amendment, and it passed the House, but failed in the Senate despite another round of protests and arrests. After the NWP helped replace anti-suffrage senators in the 1918 elections, the amendment finally passed both houses and was sent to the states for ratification. The Nineteenth amendment was ratified by enough states by 1920, thus giving many women the right to vote. Many African American women in the Jim Crow South remained disenfranchised after the ratification of this amendment.

After ratification, the NWP turned its attention to passage of an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Historian Nancy Cott has noted that as the party moved into the 1920s it remained ideologically consistent in the pursuit of equal rights for women and that:

it remained an autocratically run, single-minded and single-issue pressure group, still reliant on getting into the newspapers as a means of publicizing its cause, very insistent on the method of "getting in touch with the key men."...NWP lobbyists went straight to legislators, governors, and presidents, not to their constituents.[4]

Today, the National Woman's Party exists as a 501c3 educational organization. Its task is now the maintenance and interpretation of the collection and archives of the historic National Woman's Party [5] The NWP operates out of the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument in Washington, DC, where objects from the collection are exhibited.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 140 366
    374
    488
    1 357
    304
  • Women's Suffrage: Crash Course US History #31
  • The NWP Pickets
  • Alice Paul’s 131st Birthday Google Doodle
  • Susan B. Anthony and Votes for Women Go Hand in Hand
  • Amelia Earhart's Famous Speech: "A Woman's Place in Science"

Transcription

Episode 31: Feminism and Suffrage Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. history and today we’re going to talk about women in the progressive era. My God, that is a fantastic hat. Wait, votes for women?? So between Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, and all those doughboys headed off to war, women in this period have sort of been footnoted shockingly.. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. I’d NEVER make a woman a footnote. She’d be the center of my world, my raison d’etre, my joie de vivre. Oh, Me from the Past. I’m reminded of why you got a C+ in French 3. Let me submit to you, Me from the Past, that your weird worship of women is a kind of misogyny because you’re imagining women as these beautiful, fragile things that you can possess. It turns out that women are not things. They are people in precisely the same way that you are a person and in the progressive era, they demanded to be seen as full citizens of the United States. In short, women don’t exist to be your joie de vivre. They get to have their own joie de vivre. intro So, it’s tempting to limit ourselves to discussion of women getting the right to vote with the passage of the 19th amendment, but if we focus too much on the constitutional history, we’re gonna miss a lot. Some historians refer to the thirty years between 1890 and 1920 as the “women’s era” because it was in that time that women started to have greater economic and political opportunities. Women were also aided by legal changes, like getting the right to own property, control their wages and make contracts and wills. By 1900 almost 5 million women worked for wages, mainly in domestic service or light manufacturing, like the garment industry. Women in America were always vital contributors to the economy as producers and consumers and they always worked, whether for wages or taking care of children and the home. And as someone who has recently returned from paternity leave, let me tell you, that ain’t no joke. And American women were also active as reformers since, like, America became a thing. And those reform movements brought women into state and national politics before the dawn of the progressive era. Unfortunately, their greatest achievement, Prohibition, was also our greatest national shame. Oh, yeah, alright, okay. It’s actually not in our top 5 national shames. But, probably women’s greatest influence indeed came through membership AND leadership in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The WCTU was founded in 1874 and by 1890 it had 150,000 members, making it the largest female organization in the United States. Under the leadership of Frances Willard, the WCTU embraced a broad reform agenda. Like it included pushing for the right for women to vote. The feeling was that the best way to stop people from drinking was to pass local laws that made it harder to drink, and to do that it would be very helpful if women could vote. Because American men were a bunch of alcoholic scoundrels who darn well weren’t going to vote to get rid of beer hoses. In 1895 Willard boldly declared, “A wider freedom is coming to the women of America. Too long has it been held that woman has no right to enter these movements (…) Politics is the place for woman.” But the role of women in politics did greatly expand during the Progressive era. As in prior decades, many reformers were middle and upper class women, but the growing economy and the expansion of what might be called the upper-middle class meant that there were more educational opportunities and this growing group of college-educated women leaned in and became the leaders of new movements. Sorry, there was no way I was gonna get through this without one “lean in.” I love that book. So as we’ve talked about before, the 1890s saw the dawning of the American mass consumer society and many of the new products made in the second wave of industrialization were aimed at women, especially “labor-saving” devices like washing machines. If you’ve ever had an infant, you might notice that they poop and barf on everything all the time. Like, I recently called the pediatrician and I was like, “My 14-day-old daughter poops fifteen times a day.” And he was like, “If anything, that seems low.” So the washing machine is a real game-changer. And many women realized that being the primary consumers who did the shopping for the home gave them powerful leverage to bring about change. Chief among these was Florence Kelley, a college-educated woman who after participating in a number of progressive reform causes came to head the National Consumers League. The League sponsored boycotts and shaped consumption patterns encouraging consumers to buy products that were made without child or what we now would call sweatshop labor. Which at the time was often just known as “labor.” And there was also a subtle shift in gender roles as more and more women worked outside the home. African American women continued to work primarily as domestic servants or in agriculture, and immigrant women mostly did low-paying factory labor, but for native-born white women there were new opportunities, especially in office work. And this points to how technology created opportunities for women. Like, almost all the telephone operators in the U.S. were women. By 1920 office workers and telephone operators made up 25% of the female workforce, while domestic servants were only 15%. A union leader named Abraham Bisno remarked that working gave immigrant women a sense of independence: “They acquired the right to personality, something alien to the highly patriarchal family structures of the old country.” Of course this also meant that young women were often in conflict with their parents, as a job brought more freedom, money, and perhaps, if they were lucky, a room of one’s own. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? Please let it be Virginia Woolf, please let it be Virginia Woolf. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either right or I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got. “The spirit of personal independence in the women of today is sure proof that a change has come … the radical change in the economic position of women is advancing upon us… The growing individualization of democratic life brings inevitable changes to our daughters as well as to our sons … One of its most noticeable features is the demand in women not only for their own money, but for their own work for the sake of personal expression. Few girls today fail to manifest some signs of the desire for individual expression …” Well, that’s not Virginia Woolf. Stan, I’m going to be honest, I do not know the answer to this one. However, it has been Woodrow Wilson for the last two weeks. You wouldn’t do that again to me, or would you? I’m gonna guess Woodrow Wilson. Final answer. DANG IT. Charlotte Perkins Gilman in the book Women and Economics? What? Aaaaaah! The idea that having a job is valuable just for the independence that it brings and as a form of “individual expression” was pretty radical, as most women, and especially most men, were not comfortable with the idea that being a housewife was similar to being a servant to one’s husband and children. But of course that changes when staying at home becomes one of many choices rather than your only available option. And then came birth control. Huzzah! Women who needed to work wanted a way to limit the number of pregnancies. Being pregnant and having a baby can make it difficult to hold down a job and also babies are diaper-using, stuff-breaking, consumptive machines. They basically eat money. And we love them. But birth control advocates like Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman also argued that women should be able to enjoy sex without having children. To which men said, “Women can enjoy sex?” Believe it or not, that was seen as a pretty radical idea and it lead to changes in sexual behavior including more overall skoodilypooping. Goldman was arrested more than 40 times for sharing these dangerous ideas about female sexuality and birth control and she was eventually deported. Sanger, who worked to educate working class women about birth control, was sentenced to prison in 1916 for opening a clinic in Brooklyn that distributed contraceptive devices to poor immigrant women. The fight over birth control is important for at least three reasons. First, it put women into the forefront of debates about free speech in America. I mean, some of the most ardent advocates of birth control were also associated with the IWW and the Socialist Party. Secondly, birth control is also a public health issue and many women during the progressive era entered public life to bring about changes related to public health, leading the crusade against tuberculosis, the so-called White Plague, and other diseases. Thirdly, it cut across class lines. Having or not having children is an issue for all women, regardless of whether they went to college, and the birth control movement brought upper, middle, and lower class women together in ways that other social movements never did. Another group of Progressive women took up the role of addressing the problems of the poor and spearheaded the Settlement House movement. The key figure here was Jane Addams. My God, there are still Adamses in American history? Oh, she spells it Addams-family-Addams, not like founding-fathers-Adams. Anyway, she started Hull House in Chicago in 1889. Settlement houses became the incubators of the new field of social work, a field in which women played a huge part. And Addams became one of America’s most important spokespeople for progressive ideas. And yet in many places, while all of this was happening, women could not technically vote. But their increasing involvement in social movements at the turn of the 20th century led them to electoral politics. It’s true that women were voting before the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. Voting is a state issue, and in many western states, women were granted the right to vote in the late 19th century. States could also grant women the right to run for office, which explains how the first Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, could vote against America’s entry into World War I in 1917. That said, the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment is a big deal in American history. It’s also a recent deal. Like, when my grandmothers were born, women could not vote in much of the United States. The amendment says that states cannot deny people the right to vote because they are women, which isn’t as interesting as the political organization and activity that led to its passage. Alright, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The suffrage movement was extremely fragmented. There was a first wave of suffrage, exemplified by the women at Seneca Falls, and this metamorphosed into the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, or NAWSA. Most of the leadership of NAWSA was made up of middle to upper class women, often involved in other progressive causes, who unfortunately sometimes represented the darker side of the suffrage movement. Because these upper class progressives frequently used nativist arguments to make their claims for the right to vote. They argued that if the vote could be granted to ignorant immigrants, some of whom could barely speak English, then it should also be granted to native born women. This isn’t to say that the elitist arguments won the day, but they should be acknowledged. By the early 20th century a new generation of college-educated activists had arrived on the scene. And many of these women were more radical than early suffrage supporters. They organized the National Women’s Party and, under the leadership of Alice Paul, pushed for the vote using aggressive tactics that many of the early generation of women’s rights advocates found unseemly. Paul had been studying in Britain between 1907 and 1910 where she saw the more militant women’s rights activists at work. She adopted their tactics that included protests leading to imprisonment and loud denunciations of the patriarchy that would make tumblr proud. And during World War I she compared Wilson to the Kaiser and Paul and her followers chained themselves to the White House fence. The activists then started a hunger strike during their 7-month prison sentence and had to be force-fed. Woodrow Wilson had half-heartedly endorsed women’s suffrage in 1916, but the war split the movement further. Most suffrage organizations believed that wartime service would help women earn respect and equal rights. But other activists, like many Progressives, opposed the war and regarded it as a potential threat to social reform. But, in the end, the war did sort of end up helping the cause. Patriotic support of the war by women, especially their service working in wartime industries, convinced many that it was just wrong to deny them the right to vote. And the mistreatment of Alice Paul and other women in prison for their cause created outrage that further pushed the Wilson administration to support enfranchising women. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, women’s long fight to gain the right to vote ended with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. But, in some ways, the final granting of the franchise was a bit anti-climactic. For one thing, it was overshadowed by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, which affected both women and men in large numbers. Also Gatsbys. You could say a lot of bad things about Prohibition, and I have, but the crusade against alcohol did galvanize and politicize many women, and organizations such as the WCTU and the Anti-Saloon League introduced yet more to political activism. But, while the passage of the 19th amendment was a huge victory, Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party were unable to muster the same support for an Equal Rights Amendment. Paul believed that women needed equal access to education and employment opportunities. And here they came into contact with other women’s groups, especially the League of Women Voters and the Women’s Trade Union League, which opposed the ERA fearing that equal rights would mean an unraveling of hard-won benefits like mother’s pensions and laws limiting women’s hours of labor. So, the ERA failed, and then another proposed amendment that would have given Congress the power to limit child labor won ratification in only 6 states. So in many ways the period between 1890 and 1920, which roughly corresponds to the Progressive Era, was the high tide of women’s rights and political activism. It culminated in the ratification of the 19th amendment, but the right to vote didn’t lead to significant legislation that actually improved the lives of women, at least not for a while. Nor were there immediate changes in the roles that women were expected to play in the social order as wives and mothers. Still, women were able to increase their autonomy and freedom in the burgeoning consumer marketplace. But it’s important to note that like other oppressed populations in American history, women weren’t given these rights, they had to fight for the rights that were said to be inalienable. And we are all better off for their fight and for their victory. Women’s liberation is to be sure a complicated phrase and it will take a new turn in the Roaring 20s, which we’ll talk about next week. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption to the Libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. I’m gonna go this way, Stan, just kiiidding! Suffrage -

Contents

Early history

After their experience with militant suffrage work in Great Britain, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns reunited in the United States in 1910. The two women originally were appointed to the Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In March 1913, the two women organized a parade of 5,000–8,000 women (by differing estimates)[citation needed] in Washington, D.C. on the day before Woodrow Wilson's inauguration. Though planned as an elegant progression of symbolically dressed, accomplished, and professional women, the parade quickly devolved into chaos due to violent reactions from the crowd and a lack of support by the local police. The D.C. police did little to help the suffragists; the women were assisted by the Massachusetts National Guard, the Pennsylvania National Guard, and boys from the Maryland Agricultural College, who created a human barrier protecting the women from the angry crowd.[6]

After this incident, which Paul effectively used to rally public opinion to the suffrage cause, Paul and Burns founded the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage in April 1913, which split off from NAWSA later that year. The Congressional Union began publishing a weekly newspaper, The Suffragist, in November 1913. Paul and Burns were frustrated with the National's slower approach of focusing on individual state referendums and wanted to pursue a congressional amendment. Alice Paul had also chafed under the leadership of Carrie Chapman Catt, as she had very different ideas of how to go about suffrage work, and a different attitude towards militancy.[7] Catt disapproved of the radical strategies, inspired by the British "Suffragettes", Paul and Burns were trying to implement into the American Suffrage Movement.

The split was confirmed by a major difference of opinion on the Shafroth-Palmer Amendment. This amendment was spearheaded by Alice Paul's replacement as chair of the National's Congressional Committee, and was a compromise of sorts meant to appease racist sentiment in the South. Shafroth–Palmer was to be a constitutional amendment that would require any state with more than 8 percent signing an initiative petition to hold a state referendum on suffrage. This would have kept the law-making out of federal hands, a proposition more attractive to the South. Southern states feared a congressional women's suffrage amendment as a possible federal encroachment into their restrictive system of voting laws, meant to disenfranchise the black voter.

Paul and Burns felt that this amendment was a lethal distraction from the true and ultimately necessary goal of an all-encompassing federal amendment protecting the rights of all women—especially as the bruising rounds of state referendums were perceived at the time as almost damaging the cause. In Paul's words: "It is a little difficult to treat with seriousness an equivocating, evasive, childish substitute for the simple and dignified suffrage amendment now before Congress."[8]

Militant suffragists

 March 8, 1913 front page of Woman's Journal
March 8, 1913 front page of Woman's Journal

Women associated with the party staged a very innovative suffrage parade on March 3, 1913, the day before Wilson's inauguration.[9]

During the group's first meeting, Paul clarified that the party would not be a political party and therefore would not endorse a candidate for president during elections. While non-partisan, the NWP directed most of its attention to President Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats, criticizing them as responsible for the failure to pass a constitutional amendment. The National Woman's Party continued to focus on suffrage as their main cause. It refused to either support or attack American involvement in the World War, while the rival National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) under Carrie Chapman Catt gave full support to the war effort. As a result, a diverse group of activists such as pacifists and Socialists were attracted to the NWP due to its opposition to an anti-suffrage president.[10]

Picketing the White House

 NWP members picket the White House during the Silent Sentinels protests in 1917; the banner reads, "Mr. President, How Long Must Women Wait For Liberty."
NWP members picket the White House during the Silent Sentinels protests in 1917; the banner reads, "Mr. President, How Long Must Women Wait For Liberty."

While the British suffragettes stopped their protests in 1914 and supported the British war effort, Paul continued her struggle for women's equality and organized picketing of a war time president to maintain attention to the lack of enfranchisement for women. Known as "Silent Sentinels", their action lasted from January 10, 1917 until June 1919. The picketers were tolerated at first, but when they continued to picket after the United States declared war in 1917, they were arrested by police for obstructing traffic. Many of the NWP's members upon arrest went on hunger strikes; some, including Paul, were force-fed by jail personnel as a consequence. Anne Henrietta Martin, the NWP's first vice chairman, was sentenced to the Occoquan Workhouse, though Wilson pardoned her in less than a week.[11] Other suffragists arrested during the picket included Helena Hill and Iris Calderhead.[citation needed] The resulting publicity at a time when Wilson was trying to build a reputation for himself and the nation as an international leader in human rights was designed to force Wilson to publicly call for the Congress to pass the Suffrage Amendment.[12]

Wilson favored woman suffrage at the state level, but held off support for a nationwide constitutional amendment because his party was sharply divided, with the South opposing an amendment on the grounds of state's rights. The only Southern state to grant women the vote was Arkansas. The NWP in 1917–1919 repeatedly attacked Wilson and his party for not enacting an amendment. Wilson, however, kept in close touch with more moderate suffragists of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. He continued to hold off until he was sure the Democratic Party in the North was supportive; the 1917 referendum in New York State in favor of suffrage proved decisive for him. In January, 1918, Wilson went in person to the House and made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill. The innovative non-violent tactics of the NWP were a contributing factor in getting Wilson to change his position on the suffrage bill. It passed but the Senate stalled until 1919 then finally sent the amendment to the states for ratification.[13] Scholar Belinda A. Stillion Southard has written that "...the campaign of the NWP was crucial toward securing the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment."[14]

Fighting for equal rights

After the ratification of the Nineteenth amendment in 1920, the NWP turned its attention to eliminating other forms of gender discrimination, principally by advocating passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, which Paul drafted in 1923. The organization regrouped and published the magazine Equal Rights. The publication was directed towards women but also intended to educate men about the benefits of women's suffrage, women's rights and other issues concerning American women.

"Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction."[15]

The NWP's agenda was at times opposed by working class women and by the labor unions that represented working class men who feared low-wage women workers would lower the overall pay scale and demean the role of the male breadwinner. Eleanor Roosevelt, an ally of the unions, generally opposed the NWP policies because she believed women needed protective legislation, not equality.[16] However, the National Woman's Party found protective legislation to relegate women to a lower class, and aimed their work on the ERA and other legislation to combat this second class citizenship status. The NWP argued that protective labor legislation would continue to depress women's wages and prevent women from gaining access to all types of work and parts of society.

After 1920, the National Woman's Party authored over 600 pieces of legislation fighting for women's equality; over 300 of these were passed. In addition, the NWP continued to lobby for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment[17] and under president Sarah Tarleton Colvin, who served in 1933, pressed for equal pay.[18][19] Scholar Mary K. Trigg has noted, "...the NWP played a central role in the women's rights movement after 1945. It stuck to its laser-like focus on the ERA, doggedly lobbying year in and year out for the amendment's introduction in Congress."[20] In 1997, the NWP ceased to be a lobbying organization. Instead, it turned its focus to education and to preserving its collection of first hand source documents from the women's suffrage movement. The NWP continues to function as an educational organization, maintaining and interpreting the collection left by the work of the historic National Woman's Party.

 First Lady Betty Ford's "Bloomer Flag"
First Lady Betty Ford's "Bloomer Flag"

Congress passed the ERA Amendment and many states ratified it, but at the last minute in 1982 it was stopped by a coalition of conservatives led by Phyllis Schlafly and never passed. However, in 1964 the NWP did succeed, with the support of conservatives and over the opposition of liberals, blacks and labor unions, to have "sex" added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus achieving some of the goals sought by the NWP.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In 1963 Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex.

The prohibition on sex discrimination was added by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginian Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee. He was a conservative who strongly opposed civil rights laws for blacks, but he supported such laws for white women. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133.

 House Rules Committee clerk's record of markup session adding "sex" to bill.
House Rules Committee clerk's record of markup session adding "sex" to bill.

Historians debate Smith's motivation—was it a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to both civil rights for blacks and women, or did he support women's rights and was attempting to improve the bill by broadening it to include women?[21][22][23] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions.[24]

Smith was not joking: he asserted that he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths,[25] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment.[24] For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment—with no linkage to racial issues—in the House because he believed in it. For decades he had been close to the National Woman's Party and especially Paul. She and other activists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment.[26] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[27] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats.

Publications

 Nina E. Allender, The Spirit of '76.' On to the Senate!, 1915
Nina E. Allender, The Spirit of '76.' On to the Senate!, 1915

The Suffragist newspaper was founded by the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage in 1913. It was referred to as "the only women's political newspaper in the United States" and was published to promote women's suffrage activities.[28] Its articles had political cartoons, a form of visual propaganda, by Nina E. Allender to garner support for the movement and communicate the status of the suffrage amendment.[28]

The woman who reads our paper will be informed as to happenings in Congress, not only suffrage happenings, although they come first, but all proceedings of special interest to women. Men do not realize how serious are the changes that are taking place in the conduct of Congress. Women will have to inform them. Only in the pages of The Suffragist will you find the information you need.

— The Suffragist, 1914[28]

After the amendment for the women's right to vote was passed, the publication was discontinued by the National Woman's Party and succeeded in 1923 by Equal Rights.[28] Published until 1954, Equal Rights began as a weekly newsletter and evolved into a bi-monthly release aimed at keeping NWP members informed about developments related to the ERA and legislative issues. It included field reports, legislation updates and features about the activities of the NWP and featured writing from contributors including Crystal Eastman, Zona Gale, Ruth Hale and Inez Haynes Irwin.[29] Josephine Casey appeared on the cover of the publication in April 1931 as a result of her recurring column about the labour conditions of female textile workers in Georgia.[30]

Notable members

 The Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, Washington DC, Headquarters of the Historic National Woman's Party
The Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, Washington DC, Headquarters of the Historic National Woman's Party

See also

Further reading

References

  1. ^ Behn (2012).
  2. ^ Cott (1987), pp. 51–82.
  3. ^ name="nationalwomansparty.org" "Learn:National Woman's Party". 
  4. ^ Cott (1987), p. 80.
  5. ^ "About the NWP". 
  6. ^ Baltimore Sun, March 4, 1913
  7. ^ Flexner, Eleanor (1959). Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 259. ISBN 0-674-10654-7. 
  8. ^ Adams & Keene (2008), p. 103.
  9. ^ Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle, enlarged edition (1959; Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 255–257.
  10. ^ Cott (1987), pp. 59–61.
  11. ^ "Photographs from the Records of the National Woman's Party". Doris Stevens, Jailed for Freedom (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1920), 364. The Library of Congress. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  12. ^ Doris Stevens, Jailed for Freedom, edited by Ronald McDonald (1920; NewSage Press, 1995), pp. 59–136.
  13. ^ Lunardini, Christine A.; Knock, Thomas J. (1980). "Woodrow Wilson and woman suffrage: A new look". Political Science Quarterly. 95 (4): 655–671. doi:10.2307/2150609. JSTOR 2150609. 
  14. ^ Southard, Brenda A. Stillion (2011). Militant Citizenship: Rhetorical Strategies of the National Woman's Party, 1913-1920. College Station: Texas A & M Press. p. 190. 
  15. ^ Carol, Rebecca; Myers, Kristina; Lindman, Janet. "The Equal Rights Amendment". Alice Paul: Feminist, Suffragist and Political Strategist. Alice Paul Institute. Retrieved 10 Feb 2016. 
  16. ^ Paula F. Pfeffer, "Eleanor Roosevelt and the National and World Woman's Parties," Historian, Fall 1996, Vol. 59, Issue 1
  17. ^ Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums (Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 24–44.
  18. ^ "Mrs. A. R. Colvin to Be Honor Guest". Minneapolis, Minnesota: The Star Tribune. December 17, 1933. p. 26. Retrieved 3 January 2018 – via Newspapers.com.  open access publication – free to read
  19. ^ "St. Paul Woman Elected". Minneapolis, Minnesota: The Minneapolis Star. November 6, 1933. p. 7. Retrieved 3 January 2018 – via Newspapers.com.  open access publication – free to read
  20. ^ Trigg, Mary K. (2014). Feminism as Life's Work. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. pp. 178–179. 
  21. ^ Freeman, Jo (March 1991). "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy". Law and Inequality. 9 (2): 163–184. 
  22. ^ Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century (2008) p. 187–88
  23. ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. pp. 245–246, 249. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. 
  24. ^ a b Gold, Michael Evan (1981). "A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth". Faculty Publications – Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History. Cornell University Press. 
  25. ^ Lynne Olson, Freedom's daughters: the unsung heroines of the civil rights movement (2001) p 360
  26. ^ Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century (2008) p. 187 notes that Smith had been working for years with two Virginia feminists on the issue.
  27. ^ Cynthia Harrison, On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945–1968 (1989) p. 179
  28. ^ a b c d "Suffragist Newspapers". National Woman's Party. Retrieved April 21, 2015. 
  29. ^ "Equal Rights Newspapers". National Woman's Party. Retrieved December 27, 2015. 
  30. ^ Storrs, Landon R.Y. (2000). Civilizing Capitalism: The National Consumers' League, Women's Activism, and Labor Standards in the New Deal Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-6099-9. 

External links

This page was last edited on 3 January 2018, at 23:27.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.