Human Resource Analysis Report for Alibaba Group Equal Rights Amendment Paper



Question Description

part 1

This week you read about the women's suffrage movement and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), two major efforts to establish equal rights for women in the United States. In your discussion post, address the following:

  • Choose a sentence or short section from the article embedded in your webtext reading about the women's suffrage movement. Quote the sentence or section in your post. Along with this sentence or section, briefly explain how your choice illustrates the concept of historical causality.
  • In one or two sentences, summarize the author's thesis statement about the ERA. To support your answer, quote one or two sentences from the article that convey the author's central point.

Respond to your peers by comparing one of their selections to your own. Reflect on the similarities and differences between the conclusions you each made based on the evidence you selected.

Part 2

i. Simone de Beauvoir was the intellectual founder of the women's liberation movement. Tailor this thesis statement into a message suitable for an audience of high school history students.

ii. The women's movement's focus on issues related to sexual freedom, including reproductive rights, galvanized support among many younger women, but it cost the movement support among many older and more socially conservative women. Tailor this message for an audience consisting of students in a Women's Studies class.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

The Women's Movement: The ERA In July 1923, just before the 75th anniversary of Seneca Falls Convention, Alice Paul announced that she would propose a new amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee the same legal rights to women and men. Originally known as Mott's Amendment in honor of Lucretia Mott, one of the organizers of the Seneca Falls Convention, Paul's proposed amendment led to a sharp division in the feminist movement. Supporters of the amendment, led by Paul's National Women's Party, argued that women should be legally equal with men in all respects. Opponents argued that strict equality would require the repeal of protective labor legislation designed to benefit women workers by, for example, requiring them to work shorter hours or exempting them from night work. In general, middle-class feminists tended to favor Paul's amendment while working-class feminists—and organized labor in general—tended to oppose it. (Cott, 1990) Congress was not quick to embrace Paul's amendment. Indeed, it took nearly 50 years before a version of the proposal—by then known as the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA—won Congressional passage in 1972. And, while the path to ratification initially looked clear, opposition by social conservatives quickly surfaced; ten years later, the ratification deadline expired and the Equal Rights Amendment had been defeated. (Burris, 1983) The Fight for Equal Rights, 1923-1972 The ERA, in varying forms, was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until 1971, but it was routinely bottled up in committees and never even received a floor vote until after World War II. In the early 1950s, the division among feminists became apparent when the "Hayden rider" was attached to the ERA. This provision would have preserved the protective labor legislation deemed so important by many labor unions, and many working-class women, at the time. Such legislation included laws that mandated a minimum wage, or prohibited long hours or night shifts, for women workers. Because these laws assumed that women were "different" from men—in the sense of being "weaker" or more in need of special protection—they were vehemently opposed by the National Women's Party. As long as the ERA included the Hayden rider, Paul and the NWP opposed its passage. The Republican Party was the first to embrace the ERA. The GOP national platform first included a plank in support of the ERA in 1940, and President Dwight Eisenhower publicly called for the amendment's passage in 1958. But the combination of firm opposition from organized labor, and feminist opposition to the Hayden rider, continued to block the amendment's passage. (Frum, 2000) Democrats, with closer ties to organized labor, were slower to embrace the ERA. Although John F. Kennedy endorsed the amendment late in the 1960 campaign, he did not push for its passage after winning the White House. Kennedy did take a number of steps favored by women's rights activists: he appointed a blueribbon national Commission on the Status of Women, which lobbied successfully for passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which banned sex discrimination in pay for many professions. He also issued an executive order banning gender discrimination in the civil service. But most of his women appointees, including Commission chair and feminist icon Eleanor Roosevelt, had ties to the labor movement and opposed the ERA. (Wolbrecht, 2000) The amendment's prospects improved considerably in the mid-1960s, as women's rights activists began to make common cause with civil rights activists, and the rise of a new and more activist "women's liberation movement" focused on a wider range of issues of concern to women. In 1964, Congress banned workplace discrimination based on gender (as well as race, religion and national origin), in the Civil Rights Act; the inclusion of women in the Act reflected, among other factors, the concerted lobbying of Coretta Scott King, wife of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the NWP's Alice Paul. While the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement did not always see eye-to-eye—and tensions between the two would become evident in the late 1960s—their cooperation during the debate over the Civil Rights Act was a critical moment for both. In 1966 feminist author Betty Friedan—whose 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, had given voice to the frustrations of millions of American women—helped found the National Organization for Women (NOW) and co-wrote the organization's Statement of Purpose. NOW, she wrote, would lead "a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes," and would " confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right." NOW, which would formally endorse the ERA in 1967, became the driving force in the second wave of American feminism (discussed on the next page). Along with several other feminist organizations, NOW focused on "consciousness raising"—using highly publicized (and sometimes confrontational) events to increase public awareness of gender inequality—coupled with old-fashioned, hard-nosed lobbying to advance its legislative agenda. In early 1970 NOW disrupted a Senate hearing on a proposed Constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18, and demanded a hearing on the ERA. The following August, on the 50th anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, it organized the Women's Strike for Equality, a protest of more than 20,000 women that highlighted the need for social, political, and economic equality. (Gourley, 2008) Coming at a time of profound social and political change in America—a convergence of the civil rights movement, protests against the war in Vietnam, the rise of the counterculture, and the so-called "sexual revolution"—the demand for equal rights for women suddenly seemed less radical than it had, only a few years earlier. (Frum, 2000) Organized labor, for the most part, dropped its opposition, and political leaders of both parties, including President Richard M. Nixon, publicly embraced the ERA. In 1970 Representative Martha Griffiths of Michigan spearheaded a movement to "discharge" the ERA from the House Judiciary Committee, where it had languished for years. Once given the opportunity to vote on the ERA the full House of Representatives approved it overwhelmingly in 1971. The Senate followed suit in 1972 and before the year was out, 22 states had approved it—more than half the total of 38 states needed for formal ratification. The ERA, it seemed, would soon be enshrined in the Constitution. The Fight for Equal Rights, 1972-1982 The ERA's apparently smooth glide-path to ratification hit severe turbulence in the mid1970s. In 1972 Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist and former Republican Congressional candidate from Illinois, founded the STOP ERA campaign, an effort by socially conservative women to derail the amendment. STOP was an acronym for "Stop Taking Our Privileges," and Schlafly frequently focused on the impact that the ERA would have on laws designed to benefit women: protective labor laws, alimony and child-custody laws, and the exemption of women from the military draft. Opponents of the amendment often cited the labor movement's primary criticism: that the ERA would take away protective labor laws that women, especially working-class women, badly needed. But they did not address just working women; indeed, STOP ERA made the case that the amendment was essentially designed to benefit younger career women, while stripping away protections that older women—housewives and mothers without marketable job skills—could not do without. The emphasis on alimony, as well as on the ERA's impact on Social Security benefits, was a direct appeal to the economic insecurity of many older housewives. More generally, Schlafly and her supporters argued that the ERA, by equalizing the treatment of both sexes, would economically benefit men at the expense of older, unskilled women. (Levenstein, 2014) But economic arguments were only one element of the larger public campaign against the ERA. The assertion that ERA would expose women to the perils of the military draft resonated strongly—not just among younger women but among their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers—in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War. Opponents also focused on what they portrayed as traditional values, arguing that mandating equality between the sexes would disrupt families and upset the social order. These arguments were frequently cited by ERA's opponents in the U.S. Senate, a vocal majority of mostly Southern social conservatives led by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. Ervin, who successfully lobbied the North Carolina legislature to vote against ratification, argued that it would be the "height of folly to command legislative bodies to ignore sex in making laws". (Ervin, 1977) ERA opponents showed a flair for political symbolism: they presented state legislators with apple pies while declaring themselves "for Mom and apple pie," and they pinned signs reading "Don't Draft Me" on the onesies of baby girls. And their efforts quickly had an impact: as conservative opposition to the ERA grew, the pace of ratification slowed dramatically. After 1973 only five more states approved the amendment, leaving it three states short of the required 38. With the deadline for ratification approaching, Congress in 1978 approved a three-year extension of the process, but it was not enough: the clock ran out on the ERA in 1982. As the following video suggests, the inability of ERA supporters to win quick ratification of the amendment gave opponents time to organize an effective opposition campaign against it. The STOP ERA campaign took the amendment's supposedly simple and uncontroversial goal—"Equality"—and showed it to be more complex and controversial than many people had previously imagined. While Phyllis Schlafly's opposition was a major factor in the defeat of the ERA, there were larger forces at work, as well. Less than a year after the amendment was approved by Congress the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade (1973), legalized abortion in many cases. While Roe was seen as a victory for the women's rights movement it was a highly polarizing one, galvanizing strong opposition among social conservatives. Frustrated by the Court's ruling, many of those conservatives set their sights on the ERA as a means of attacking the women's rights movement in general. (Greenhouse and Siegel, 2011) "The Second Half of the Amendment V Process" Congressional champions of ERA in the early 1970s simply did not expect problems securing state approval. Neither Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana nor Representative Martha Griffiths of Michigan, the measure's principal congressional sponsors, anticipated any difficulty in winning ratification for the ERA. "Maybe some other folks thought of it," Bayh later recalled, "I didn't." ...A prime reason for such inattention was a misreading of the history of constitutional amending. Here again ERA supporters focused on the limited data of recent experience rather than the much larger body of evidence available from taking a longer view. Since 1960, in addition to ERA, there had been no fewer than eight major efforts to amend the Constitution. Four amendments were added to the Constitution to deal with poll taxes, participation of the District of Columbia in presidential elections, presidential death or disability, and suffrage for 18 to 21 year olds. At the same time, other amendments failed that would have limited the power of the Supreme Court, overturned its rulings regarding legislative apportionment and school prayers, and provided direct popular election of the president. In every one of these cases, a notable struggle occurred in Congress. Four times when the battle was won, states quickly ratified the amendments, all in less than twenty months. In the other four instances, good reason existed to believe that states would have ratified if Congress had approved an amendment. Thus little attention was given to the second half of the Amendment V process [i.e., ratification by the state legislatures]. As a result neither congressional sponsors, supporters such as NOW, nor anyone else prepared to campaign vigorously for ERA ratification in the states. ...Following a century largely devoid of serious amending activity, save for the three Civil War amendments forced on the South, the twentieth century had already produced twenty substantial and often lengthy attempts at constitutional reform. The southern response had shaped the fate of these amendment efforts. Only one of the eleven former Confederate states had ratified the Twenty-third, or District of Columbia Presidential Voting Amendment, only two the Twenty-fourth or Anti-Poll Tax Amendment. Earlier all but three held out against the Nineteenth, or Woman Suffrage Amendment, and none ratified the Child Labor Amendment. Each of these amendments was achieved with difficulty or, in the case of the Child Labor Amendment, not attained at all. But when five of the southern states accepted the Seventeenth Amendment for direct election of senators, it had more easily won adoption. Moreover, throughout the twentieth century, amendments sailed through ratification when embraced by a majority of the southern states, as had been the case with every other amendment from the Sixteenth in 1913 authorizing the income tax to the Twenty-sixth in 1971 permitting eighteen-year-old suffrage. Furthermore, questionable amendment proposals, such as Representative Louis Ludlow's war referendum plan of the late 1930s as well as budget balancing requirements and Senator John Bricker's proposal to restrict presidential foreign policy authority in the early 1950s, gained serious attention in no small measure due to southern support. Every constitutional amendment proposal with southern backing had to be taken seriously; without such underpinning any amendment became problematic and required almost universal endorsement from non-southern states for adoption. The Women's Movement: Suffrage In 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Principles asserted women's "sacred right to the elective franchise." Over the course of the next 12 years, voting rights remained a major goal for the emerging women's rights movement, but they were not the movement's sole focus; economic, social, and educational issues also occupied prominent places on the movement's agenda. (U.S. House of Representatives, 2016) The Civil War interrupted the regular business of the women's movement. The National Women's Rights Convention, which had been held annually since 1850, was suspended during the war, and most women's rights activists devoted themselves to the cause of abolition. In 1863, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony organized the Women's National Loyal League to campaign for a constitutional amendment to ban slavery. (DuBois, 1978) Following the war, the right to vote became the central focus of the women's rights movement, but this issue precipitated a sharp division in the movement's leadership. It would take another five decades before women's right to vote would finally be enshrined in the Constitution. This learning block uses the woman suffrage movement as a way to look at the issue of causality and to develop expertise in assessing and locating primary and secondary sources, in support of developing a research paper. Salaries, State Campaigns, and the "Winning Plan" The need for money drove the women's suffrage movement from its early days, leading [Elizabeth Cady] Stanton and [Susan B.] Anthony to compromise over whom they associated with during the 1860s. Wendell Phillips controlled two important bequests and allowed only a small amount to go to women's rights. "Nearly driven to desperation," Anthony needed money to pay for speakers, travel expenses, and tracts. She and Stanton thus accepted an offer by George Train, the notoriously racist Democrat, to pay for a speaking tour and newspaper. Burned by her experience with Phillips, Anthony wanted wealthy women to prioritize giving to the movement. Suffragists understood that they could not depend on men; it would take the financial support of women to make change for women. It was only after Anthony's death in 1906, however, that they began to contribute enough money to turn the tide toward victory. Staffing, one of the two major expenses identified by Stanton and Anthony, remained paramount until the vote was won in 1920. Lucy Stone's observation that "there would be plenty of helpers if there was plenty of money to pay" rang true. The suffrage movement from the 1880s through the early 1910s focused on winning the right to vote state by state, which depended on local and national traveling organizers barnstorming the states, drumming up publicity, and lobbying local politicians. Traveling organizers and national officers worked full time, giving public speeches, planning rallies, and helping to organize local suffrage associations. They brought experience and the ability to draw a crowd. Neither local nor national suffrage organizations had enough funding to pay the significant salaries required. The situation was exacerbated, according to Lisa Tetrault, because women could earn a living through the lyceum lecture circuit in the 1870s - 1880s, a popular form of entertainment and adult education featuring traveling lecturers and performers. They came to expect similar payment, typically between $10 and $100 per lecture, for an appearance at a suffrage meeting. Suffrage organizations thus had to compete with the lecture circuit when they paid speakers appearing at meetings or at their annual conventions at the state or national level. The lack of money available to pay speakers was complicated by the unrealistic but idealistic idea that suffragists should volunteer their time for the cause. Quoting Wendell Phillips, Stanton claimed that "a reformer, to be conscientious, must be free from bread-winning." Suffrage associations were traditionally willing to hire paid organizers but usually did not pay their officers, who were expected to cover the costs of their correspondence and travel. [Only] well-off officers could do so. Hello Everybody, Jumping in here to let you know that the Discussion Post for this week includes TWO ARTICLES. The first prompt question addresses Suffrage, and the SECOND PROMPT QUESTION addresses the ERA article about the history of the Amendment process and its failure - "Historical Misunderstandings and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment". I know it's confusing the way the webtext sets up the two articles, but indeed, the DP requires that you read both. We need to know what the thesis statement is for the second article, not the first. Thanks for your great work so far, and let's keep going. I hope you're all doing well.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer



Response to Class Post



Post 1
Culture wars arose between social conservatives and progressives. The victory of the Roe vs. Wade
amendment was viewed as a historical success for women, but it brought conflict. This conflict
led to the slowdown of the women’s movement. As women fought for their reproductive rights,
conservatives have ...

Qbpgbe_Enycu (25317)
University of Virginia

Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Similar Questions
Related Tags