ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 30, 1997 TAG: 9704010007
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: MARIANNE MEANS HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Today's generation of young women takes for granted the gains made by feminism, but it may take a Constitutional amendment to protect those gains
First Lady Hillary Clinton seemed a tad optimistic the other day during her African tour when she predicted that we will elect a female president within 20 years and even see women seek the White House in the next election.
When she added, ``I have thought a lot about this,'' her audience at the University of Cape Town erupted into laughter. Even in Africa the first lady is known as an ambitious political figure who may have ideas about seeking office herself some day.
Yet no one knows better than the president's wife how intellectually complex and emotionally confused public attitudes are toward working women. For all the progress toward economic, legal and political equality, cultural judgments by which men and women are measured remain separate, different and often unfair.
So it is that the Equal Rights Amendment - which was passed by Congress a quarter of a century ago but fell three states short of ratification - was re-introduced in Congress earlier this month.
It was greeted with yawning indifference. Both the passion for it and the firestorm of opposition have been exhausted.
The hard-edged feminism of the 1970s has given way to a younger generation of women uncomfortable with its aggressive connotation. They take for granted the impressive achievements of women since the feminist revolution. They also take no guff from sexists who could legally have intimidated their mothers and grandmothers.
In the bad old days, sexual discrimination was pervasive and deeply rooted. Women had no access to independent credit lines and mortgages, unquotaed admission to graduate schools and professions, abortion, high-ranking jobs in the military, competitive pay scales, financial backing for entrepreneurship or divorce settlements that gave them a fair shake.
If two women without male escorts walked into a fashionable restaurant, they were told no tables were available or banished to a dark corner.
There were no enforceable legal remedies for sexual harassment in the workplace or spousal abuse at home. The subject was publicly taboo. Women got all the blame for unwanted grope and grapple as well as outright violence.
Many arguments against gender equality were downright silly. The fear of unisex toilets gripped those who had never flown on an airplane. Burning bras became a frivolous symbol although only one such minor demonstration was ever publicized.
Indignation that the ERA would clutter up the Constitution came from conservatives who now crusade to trivialize that revered document with other amendments they like better. They find a flag-burning ban, balanced budgeting, praying and anti-abortion more worthy than women's rights.
As the first lady suggested, women now exercise increasing political clout and economic influence. Nine senators and 51 members of the House are female. In contrast, there were no female senators and a mere 14 women in the House in 1972, when the ERA passed.
Hold the cheerleaders, however. Although they are half the population, women still represent less than 10 percent of the Senate and little more than 10 percent of the House.
President Clinton was elected with a preponderance of women's votes, winning 54 percent of them against 38 percent for his GOP rival Bob Dole. Women's salaries now average 76 cents for each dollar earned by men, still unequal but a far fairer ratio than three decades ago, when women earned 43 cents to each male dollar.
Televised sports has discovered that women who play basketball, golf and skate can draw both advertisers and audiences. Even retail clothiers are trying to please female customers by adjusting sizes outward to fit real bottoms instead of those belonging to skinny models.
Progress, however, came about neither accidentally nor easily. It required perseverance, money, legislation and judicial interpretation.
Only after a long and expensive legal battle last year, for instance, did the Supreme Court force Virginia Military Institute to abandon its tradition of educating only male students with funds raised by state taxes levied on both men and women. A class action suit filed recently against Home Depot has a familiar ring, charging the company with sexist job discrimination.
In the House the revived ERA, introduced by Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., has a mere 30 cosponsors. It has no ratification deadline, as most constitutional amendments do, making it needlessly vulnerable to attack. In the Senate, Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stood up for the cause once again but skipped the fanfare with a modest written statement.
The basic problem here is that complacency is overshadowing the need to preserve the gains. In terms of economic opportunities and lifestyle choices, women are doing better than those of previous American generations and enormously better than women in many other countries.
But the philosophical pendulum swings. Laws change. Judicial attitudes shift. The only guarantee that women will never be treated as inferior again in this country is to engrave the principle of gender equality in the Constitution. Ask any woman: When it comes to power, you just can't trust a man.
LENGTH: Medium: 95 linesby CNB