Women’s Roles 2000 Overall, the rights and status of women have improved considerably in the last century; however, gender equality has been threatened within the last two decades. Blatantly sexist laws and practices are slowly being eliminated while social perceptions of women’s roles continue to stagnate and even degrade back to traditional ideals. It is these social perceptions that challenge the evolution of women as equal on all levels. In this study, I will argue that subtle and blatant sexism continues to exist throughout educational, professional and legal arenas. Women who carefully follow their expected roles may never recognize sexism as an oppressive force in their life.
I find many parallels between women’s experiences in the nineties and Betty Friedan’s, cofounder of the National Organization of Women, in her essay: The Way We Were – 1949. She dealt with a society that expected women to fulfill certain roles. Those roles completely disregarded the needs of educated and motivated business women and scientific women. The subtle message that society gave was that the educated woman was actually selfish and evil. I remember in particular the searing effect on me, who once intended to be a psychologist, of a story in McCall’s in December 1949 called A Weekend with Daddy. A little girl who lives a lonely life with her mother, divorced, an intellectual know-it-all psychologist, goes to the country to spend a weekend with her father and his new wife, who is wholesome, happy, and a good cook and gardener. And there is love and laughter and growing flowers and hot clams and a gourmet cheese omelet and square dancing, and she doesn’t want to go home. But, pitying her poor mother typing away all by herself in the lonesome apartment, she keeps her guilty secret that from now on she will be living for the moments when she can escape to that dream home in the country where they know what life is all about.
(Fetzer, 57) I have often consulted my grandparents about their experiences, and I find their historical perspective enlightening. My grandmother was pregnant with her third child in 1949. Her work experience included: interior design and modeling women’s clothes for the Sears catalog. I asked her to read the Friedan essay and let me know if she felt as moved as I was, and to share with me her experiences of sexism. Her immediate reaction was to point out that, Betty Friedan was a college educated woman and she had certain goals that never interested me.
My grandmother, though growing up during a time when women had few social rights, said she didn’t experience oppressive sexism in her life. However, when she describes her life accomplishments, I feel she has spent most of her life fulfilling the expected roles of women instead of pursuing goals that were mostly reserved for men. Unknowingly, her life was controlled by traditional, sexist values prevalent in her time and still prevalent in the year 2000. Twenty-four years after the above article from McCall’s magazine was written, the Supreme Court decided whether women should have a right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S.
113 (1973)). I believe the decision was made in favor of women’s rights mostly because the court made a progressive decision to consider the woman as a human who may be motivated by other things in life than just being a mother. Justice Blackmun delivered the following opinion: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also a distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. (Goldman, 205) I feel the court decision of Roe v. Wade would not have been made in 1949. Even in 1973, it was a progressive decision. The problem of abortion has existed for the entire history of this country (and beyond), but had never been addressed because discussing these issues was not socially acceptable.
A culture of not discussing issues that have a profound impact on women is a culture that encourages women to be powerless. The right of abortion became a major issue. Before 1970, about a million abortions were done every year, of which only about ten thousand were legal. Perhaps a third of the women having illegal abortions – mostly poor women – had to be hospitalized for complications. How many thousands died as a result of these illegal abortions no one really knows. But the illegalization of abortion clearly worked against the poor, for the rich could manage either to have their baby or to have their abortion under safe conditions.
(Zinn, 499) A critic of the women’s movement would quickly remind us that women have a right to decline marriage and sex, and pursue their individual interests. However, I would argue that the social pressure women must endure if they do not conform to their expected role is unfair. The problem goes beyond social conformity and crosses into government intervention (or lack thereof). The 1980’s saw the pendulum swing against the women’s movement. Violent acts against women who sought abortions became common and the government was unsympathetic to the victims. There are parallels between the Southern Black’s civil rights movement and the women’s movement: Blacks have long been accustomed to the white government being unsympathetic to violent acts against them.
During the civil rights movement, legal action seemed only to come when a white civil rights activist was killed. Women are facing similar disregard presently, and their movement is truly one for civil rights. A national campaign by the National Organization of Women began on 2 March 1984, demanding that the US Justice Department investigate anti-abortion terrorism. On 1 August federal authorities finally agreed to begin to monitor the violence. However, Federal Bureau of Investigation director, William Webster, declared that he saw no evidence of terrorism.
Only on 3 January 1985, in a pro-forma statement, did the President criticize the series of bombings as violent anarchist acts, but he still refused to term the acts as terrorism. Reagan deferred to Moral Majoritarian Jerry Falwell’s subseque …