Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1996 The qualE Rights Amendment: natural rights arguments and the commonplaces of stock response Kerrie Sue Elliott Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Elliott, Kerrie Sue, "The qualE Rights Amendment: natural rights arguments and the commonplaces of stock response" (1996). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 16250. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/16250 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Equal rights amendment: natural rights arguments and the commonplaces of stock response by Kerrie Sue Elliott A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Major: English (Rhetoric, Composition, and Professional Communication) Major Professor: Rebecca E. Burnett Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1996 11 Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the Master's thesis of Kerrie Sue Elliott has met the requirements of Iowa State University Signatures have been redacted for privacy ill TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 Background .................................................................................... 1 Purpose ......................................................................................... 6 Previous Research ........................................................................... 13 Sources ........................................................................................ 17 Organization .................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 2. WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE AND THE 1923 ERA ............................. 20 The Suffrage Debate: An Overview ........................................................ 20 Pro-Suffrage Argument ................................................................. 22 Anti-Suffrage Argument ................................................................ 28 Theology Commonplaces .......................................................... 28 Biology Commonplaces ............................................................ 31 Sociology Commonplaces ......................................................... 33 Define-and-Divide Commonplaces ................... ; ........................... 36 The 1923 ERA Debate: An Overview ..................................................... 40 1923 Pro-ERA Argument .............................................................. 42 1923 Anti-ERA Argument .............................................................. 46 Biology Commonplaces ............................ .......... ....... ....... ....... 46 Sociology Commonplaces ......................................................... 49 Define-and-Divide Commonplaces ............................................... 52 Meaningful and Meaningless Commonplaces ................................... 57 The Interim: An Overview .............................................................. 63 CHAPTER 3. THE 1970S ERA ................................................................. 66 The 1970s ERA: An Overview ............................................................. 66 1970s Pro-ERA Argument ............................................................. 72 1970s Anti-ERA Argument ............................................................ 80 Theology Commonplaces .......................................................... 80 Biology Commonplaces ............................................................ 84 Sociology Commonplaces ......................................................... 88 Define-and-Divide Commonplaces ............................................... 93 Meaningful and Meaningless Commonplaces ................................... 96 CHAPTER 4. A THE OR Y OF COMMONPLACES ........................................ 105 The Familiar Plot ........................................................................... 106 The Normative Message ................................................................... 111 Reassurance and Escape ................................................................... 112 Known Information ........................................................................ 113 Deeply Held Beliefs ........................................................................ 116 Immediate Environment ................................................................... 118 Implications and Further Research ....................................................... 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................ 122 IV ABSTRACf Rhetorical analysis regarding the persuasive capabilities of anti-ERA argument is not widely available even though some feminist authors have published texts that recount the political reasons why a federal Equal Rights Amendment failed in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, anti-ERA argument did not begin with the effort to ratify an ERA in the 1970s or even with the first effort to pass an ERA in 1923. An outline of the history and pre­ history of anti-ERA arguments helps interested scholars identify a set of rhetorical commonplaces that are components of all anti-ERA arguments. The rhetorical commonplaces that comprise all anti-ERA arguments are characteristically emotional appeals, and they utilize familiar plots and normative messages, which reassure voters that voting against an ERA is reasonable and just. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. The amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (H.J. Res. 21, S.J. Res. 75) As a politically interested teenager in the latter part of the 1970s, I often wondered why these fifty-two words seemed to cause so much wrangling between political groups and such rancor between otherwise amiable acquaintances. When people were" asked about the Equal Rights Amendment, they had an immediate, almost instinctively favorable or unfavorable opinion of the measure. Even the most rational and peaceful of discussions never ended in people really changing their minds or being swayed in the opposite direction. As a passive supporter of the federal and Iowa ERA in the early 1980s, I began to listen with particular interest to the arguments that were unfavorable to the ERA. Anti-ERA arguments, I found, sounded vastly different from pro-ERA arguments. They included a great deal more visceral, value-laden material that appealed to people's deep-seated beliefs about women, society, and the family. I also found that many pro-ERA rhetors clung to lofty ideals such as "simple justice for all," while the rabble tore each other to pieces over ideas like unisex bathrooms and witchcraft. As a brand-new, eighteen-year-old voter in 1982, I watched the anti-ERA, attitude­ centered arguments won the political and rhetorical contest, as the extended deadline for full ratification of the federal ERA elapsed without much fanfare. As a pro-ERA activist in 1992, I listened again to the same anti-ERA arguments and the same pro-ERA arguments with the same defeated result for the state ERA in Iowa. As a new-generation feminist who has experienced the drawbacks of even using "that word" to describe myself, I truly have struggled to understand how anyone in good conscience 2 could vote against equality for women, how any American could deny basic human rights to half of the population, and perhaps, most important, how any voter could be persuaded to this action. With my political opinions fully formed toward the left, those elusive yet powerful anti­ ERA arguments in my memory took on a partisan cast. And yet, the arguments I hear today against passing an ERA sound much the same as they did when I was a teenager, when I wasn't really sure about what I thought of "equal rights." I hope this final thesis satisfies my curiosity about anti-ERA arguments and contributes helpful ideas to others regarding exactly what anti-ERA arguments are and why they have worked so well. Two rather surprising discoveries in my research should be clear at the outset. First, both pro- and anti-ERA public arguments have, in fact, remained virtually the same over generations. And second, the history of those arguments does not begin with the first ERA debate in 1923, but with the woman suffrage debate that began in 1848. Of course, to fully understand what anti-ERA arguments are and why they work, it is necessary to also understand pro-ERA arguments. Pro-equality arguments can be called natural rights arguments, which were first expressed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1848, and were used in 1923, and the 1970s, to defend passage of a federal ERA. Natural