The Jazz Age

CONFIDENCE AND CRISES, 1920-1948 The Jazz Age

Resource:

Defning and Debating Equality

Background

After passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, women activists were divided on where to focus their eforts. The League of Women Voters led voter registration and education. The National Woman’s Party (NWP) drafted legislation and promoted women candidates. The NWP’s primary goal was securing an amendment to the Constitution that declared men and women equal under the law. In 1923, NWP President Alice Paul drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

The ERA was controversial from the beginning. Many of the nation’s most ambitious women activists worried that the NWP went too far. They argued that the ERA was unrealistic and a threat to important protective legislation. Protective legislation included limits on the number of hours women worked and bans on night work. Such laws provided important supports for women, particularly lower-class mothers and workers.

There were two major types of opponents to the ERA. The frst were traditionalists who genuinely did not believe men and women were equal. They argued biological diferences proved that social roles for men and women should be diferent. The second group of opponents believed in equality, but argued the ERA did not address the needs of real women who needed government intervention. Fighting for full equality was a privilege most women could not aford. NWP members, however, believed that protective legislation was demeaning to women and that workplace and other protections should not be based on gender but on need. They argued it was better to secure equal status under the law and then fght for improved social services and revised protections. This debate would continue for decades.

The extreme division among activists prevented the ERA from gaining momentum in 1923. Although the concept never fully disappeared, it would return to a major stage in the 1970s. And, even then, it would prove to be a controversial idea.

About the Document

The frst document is the Equal Rights Amendment drafted by Alice Paul, a sufrage leader who founded the National Women’s Party. This draft was presented to Congress by Representative Daniel Anthony of Kansas in December 1923.

The second document is a broadside printed by the NWP and explains why members believe the ERA benefts women and does not destroy the benefts of protective laws.

Vocabulary

• amendment: A change or addition. • candidate: A person running for ofce. • demeaning: Insulting or humiliating. • Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): A proposed amendment to the United States Constitution stating that rights may not be denied on the basis of a person’s sex. • League of Women Voters: An activist group that was founded in 1920. Prior to 1920, it was known as the National American Woman Sufrage Association. • National Woman’s Party: An activist group and political party founded by Alice Paul and other sufragists who separated from the National American Woman Sufrage Association in 1916. • protective legislation: Laws that are intended to protect a specifc group of people from dangers, abuse, or mistreatment. • voter registration: The process an eligible person must complete in order to vote in an election.

Discussion Questions

• What does the Equal Rights Amendment say? What do you make of the fact that the amendment is two sentences long? • Why was protective legislation the biggest factor in the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment? • How does the National Woman’s Party explain its position in the second document? How do they defne protective legislation? Why do they believe the Equal Rights Amendment will not destroy the benefts of protective legislation? • How might an Equal Rights Amendment opponent feel about the NWP document? What counterarguments could they make? • Women activists were divided on whether it was better to push for the principle of equal rights (through a Constitutional amendment) or to have unequal but efective laws (protective legislation). What do you think about this debate? Can you think of other examples from American history where activists had to choose between fghting for full equality and achieving small steps via compromise?