RETHINKING THE LIBERAL/RADICAL DIVIDE: THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN IN MEMPHIS, COLUMBUS, AND SAN FRANCISCO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Stephanie Gilmore, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Leila J. Rupp, Advisor _________________________________ History Graduate Advisor Professor Susan M. Hartmann Professor Kenneth J. Goings ABSTRACT This project uses the history of the National Organization for Women (NOW) to explore the relationship of liberal and radical elements in the second wave of the U.S. women’s movement. Combining oral histories with archival documents, this project offers a new perspective on second-wave feminism as a part of the long decade of the 1960s. It also makes location a salient factor in understanding post– World War II struggles for social justice. Unlike other scholarship on second-wave feminism, this study explores NOW in three diverse locations—Memphis, Columbus, and San Francisco—to see what feminists were doing in different kinds of communities: a Southern city, a non-coastal Northern community, and a West Coast progressive location. In Memphis—a city with a strong history of civil rights activism—black-white racial dynamics, a lack of toleration for same-sex sexuality, and political conservatism shaped feminist activism. Columbus, like Memphis, had a dominant white population and relatively conservative political climate (although less so than in Memphis), but it also boasted an open lesbian community, strong university presence, and a history of radical feminism and labor activism. San Francisco offered feminists racial and ethnic diversity, a progressive political climate, and a history of gay and lesbian activism. ii Most scholarship on the women’s movement focuses on the East Coast, with scattered attention to larger cities across the nation, yet it purports to offer a national picture of feminist social movements. As my work suggests, such an analysis can emerge only when we attend to regional variance. Memphis, Columbus, and San Francisco constitute a range of political, economic, and social contexts in which to explore feminist activism. Second-wave feminists in these locations were rarely “liberal” or “radical” exclusively but rather embraced dynamic and multiple ideologies along with accompanying strategies, tactics, and goals to create meaningful feminist change. By attending to the dynamics of feminist activism in different locations, this project reconceptualizes the postwar women’s movement in its heyday during the 1960s and 1970s. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project is one of studying feminist activism on the ground, in women’s day to day lives as they created change in the communities they called home. In very special, and different, ways, each city I studied has been a home for me, not only for the physical space it was and is, but also for the many people who opened their homes to me, allowing me to share their lives and histories. My first and greatest debt will always be to the many feminist women who shared their stories through laughter, tears, anger, pain, and love—they taught me more about history, community, activism, feminism, and life than I could ever possibly read in any book. Many colleagues and friends have nurtured me as I struggled with this project, and with life in general. I have been honored to work with Leila Rupp, Susan Hartmann, and Ken Goings, three highly talented scholars who blend kindness and generosity with meticulous academic rigor. Each of them has shaped my writing, challenged me to think bigger, and sharpened my analytical skills; each has also been a friend. The well-respected and creative faculty of women’s historians at Ohio State—especially Donna Guy, Susan, Birgitte Søland, Claire Robertson, Leila (who is now at UC-Santa Barbara) Stephanie Shaw, and Judy Wu—are wonderful feminist- scholars and solid role models for me. My fellow travelers in the women’s history Ph.D. program offered important criticism in and out of seminars, imaginative turns iv of phrase, shoulders to cry on, righteous anger when necessary, great conversation over food and drink, and so much more. They also raised the bar as scholars and their gifts and talents as historians, scholars, and feminists are many—my heartfelt thanks to Susan Freeman, Basia Nowak, Charlotte Weber, Heather Miller, Renée Lansley, Caryn Neumann, Cherisse Jones, and Anne Collinson. At OSU, I also enjoyed four amazing years as managing editor for the Journal of Women’s History. In addition to a behind-the-scenes look at the world of academic publishing, I also found the joys of a feminist workplace. Working with such generous and creative editors and associate editors—Leila, Susan, Birgitte, Stephanie, Claire, and Donna (whose co-editorship in 2002 kept the Journal at OSU and kept me employed there)—was a true delight. It was the “Journal girls,” as Leila lovingly referred to the managing editors, who kept me going—Heather, Basia, Susan, Charlotte, Cherisse, Gretchen Voter, Anne—and we will always share a certain bond, especially for the Chicago Manual of Style. Going far beyond the call of duty as assistant to the chair (which for much of my time at OSU was Leila), Gail Summerhill always kept tabs on me; when life intervened with the progress of my dissertation, she always and genuinely asked me how I was. She also understood and listened when the answer was not “fine.” Joby Abernathy, whose impressive talents and abilities to navigate the bureaucratic red tape never cease to amaze me or anyone who knows her, made it possible to finish this project while not actually being on campus. Her joie de vivre and wonderfully warm laugh made some days bearable and many more even better. She reminded me that in this final stretch of paperwork and signature-gathering, the graduate students v fall in love with her; she also pointed out, correctly, that I wouldn’t have far to fall because “we already love each other.” Thanks, Joby. Beyond the halls of Dulles, many other friends in the academic community supported me, believing in the importance of this project and my abilities as a feminist historian to write it. To say that Jan Sherman was my M.A. thesis advisor at the University of Memphis is true, but that hardly captures all that she has done for me as a mentor, writer, editor, scholar, and role model. She and her husband Charlie cooked, ate, read, talked, laughed, and cried with me. Charlie delivered the red wine whenever Jan broke out her red pen; recalling that gesture brings tears to my eyes and a smile to my face. Suzanne Lebsock, Jan’s former advisor, suggested to me (and a crowd of uncomfortable and decidedly not-feminist historians) that “the purpose of history is to foment feminist revolution.” I’ve enjoyed and used that line quite a bit; in this era of backlash against feminism and progressive causes in general, I believe it now more than ever. I also owe a special thanks to Eileen Boris, who was one of the original readers on my first article and who continues to inspire and amaze me with her boundless enthusiasm and assistance to those of us starting to come up the ranks. (For the record, she’s also one of the most stylish women I know!) While on fellowship, I also spent this past year as a Research Associate at the Five College Women’s Studies Research Center, housed at Mt. Holyoke College. There, I have found a joyous feminist community of scholars, and am thankful to Amrita Basu, EB Lehman, Ara Wilson, Dorit Namaan, Danielle Bassett, Anne Thalheimer, Mary Renda, Joyce Follett, Sherrill Redmon, and June Lapidus for sharing their work with me, and for sharing their enthusiasm for mine. I especially vi thank the “bowlers,” Danielle and Anne, for reading chapter drafts, offering helpful comments, and otherwise commiserating in fun ways. So many colleagues and friends reminded me that I’m not alone in this academic journey and encouraged me to finish, whether at conferences, over drinks or meals, via email or phone. For this commitment and support, I thank Leila, Susan, Ken, Birgitte, Jan, Suzanne, Eileen, Kimberly Dugan and Mara Lieberman, Anne Valk and Leslie Brown, Marisa Chappell, Steve Valocchi, and Verta Taylor. On many of these scholars’ various recommendations, I have enjoyed the financial support of several grants, including a Schlesinger Library Dissertation Grant, Coca-Cola/Critical Difference for Women Grant, Oscar Wilde-Gertrude Stein Grant (OSU GLBT Office), and a Presidential Fellowship (OSU Graduate School). These funds have facilitated my research and writing. I am particularly thankful to the team of outstanding archivists who reorganized the NOW papers at the Schlesinger Library—they are Cheryl Beredo, Johanna Carll, Katherine Gray Kraft, Sarah Dunbar, Samira Mehta, Greg Morrissee, Maggie McNeeley, and Jessica Tanny. For sharing personal papers, I thank Audrey May, Janet Burnside, Aileen Hernandez, and Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. I am also grateful to the eleventh-hour heroes—David Dinsmore, whose archives on second-wave feminism are immensely valuable, and to Amy Shope at the University of Memphis and Kim Klausner, formerly of the GLBT Historical Society, who made copies and helped fact-check in the archives when I couldn’t get there. Closer to home—a complex and complicated image for me—I thank many people who have been and became my family. I first thank my biological parents, vii Jilda and Henry, for doing their best in spite of the circumstances both given to them and created by them. I am especially grateful for and thankful to my sister Suzanne.