Unknown Speaker 00:00 Please do so later in the lobby, you'll need your lunch ticket. I'm Leslie Kalman, the director of the Barnard Center for Research on Women. And it's my pleasure to introduce the 19th, the scholar and the feminist conference, many a sleepless night in recent weeks. I have pondered this moment. And I'm delighted that this day this conference, and all of you are finally here, welcome. This year, our conference probes the issue of women as changemakers, building and using political power. The planning has been in the making for about a year. And so it began when I like many others, were beginning to have fond hopes that 1992 would be the year of the woman then is now it was spring is a time of hope and renewal, a good omen. It's also the season of the year that includes a holiday that I celebrate Passover. Now, at first glance, the the liberation of the Jews from the tyranny of slavery, and hoping for more women in Congress may seem but loosely connected. But for me, they have something very important in common. Every year during the storytelling that accompanies Passover, there's a particularly rousing catchy song. The verses of the song describe things that God did for the Jewish people in the process of liberating them. And after every verse, The chorus is a single Hebrew word which is dying a new, translated, it means roughly, it would have been enough. So the song goes like this. If God had only parted the Red Sea, Diana, it would have been enough. If God had only given us the 10 commandments, Diana, it would have been enough. If God had only dropped manna from heaven, it would have been enough. Now, ever since I was a child, a skeptical child's not the favorite of my Hebrew school teachers. This song has bothered me. Every year, I think, What do you mean, it would have been enough? This process of liberation seemed to me to be a pretty complicated business. And then as now, I suspected that just one of these acts of God, no matter how nifty would not have done the trick. Now, don't get me wrong, even just one of these miracles would be welcome. It would be nice. But for the difficult task of liberation, one advance alone would not have been enough. I think of the political year of 1992 as the year that some would have us think of as the dying a new year for women. The year women got what should have been enough. We had a whole year the number of women senators tripled. Okay, so now we have six the number of women congressional representatives increased from 7% to 11%. We have women Cabinet appointments, okay, so they don't have kids. All this is good. But Diane knew it would have been enough. I don't think so. Unknown Speaker 03:43 We're at the beginnings, not the end of victory. The good news is that this election year was almost certainly not a fluke, but rather a culmination of 20 years of the women's movement in politics. Over that time since the early 70s. We've been seeing steady increases in the number of women in state and local government. Women are now 17% of the women's mayors, and they're 20% of state legislators across the country, a figure that's triple the number 20 years ago, women have grown savvier about fundraising and for this reason to are better positioned to run and to run effectively. We can look to the future with some confidence. But we need to plan carefully for the struggles ahead. Women have always been targets of state policy, but too rarely the creators of it. This conference asks about the relationship of women to the power of government. How do they get it? What do they do with it? Once they do get it? What should they do with it? We need to think today about how the state's policies and structures affect women and the women's movement. We need to explore the ideas, the laws, the patterns of action that shape politics, and we must look specifically to how women as Lawmakers, judges, bureaucrats, women organized in interest groups, women acting within political parties working in the media, engaging in direct action, how women can do and should transform policy. We need to ask to what are women's interests and to recognize that they may not all be the same, and that the impact of state actions differs substantially depending on our race and class. With that in mind, we need to consider how involved we want the state to be in women's lives and in what ways when do we want the state to stay out of our lives? This conference marks the certainty that women in politics and those of us who are seeking more political power for women must not be reticent, when we insist that we don't yet have enough and when we plan and strategize to get more, let's take a lesson from Dorothy Parker, who when reprimanded for being outspoken, demanded indignantly to know outspoken, by whom. Let's make sure it's not Pat Buchanan, or Dan Quayle, or Pat Robertson. Unknown Speaker 06:21 Before we begin our panel this morning, it's my pleasure to introduce a decidedly outspoken woman, Ellen footer, president of Barnard College. Unknown Speaker 06:39 Thank you very much, Leslie, after listening to Leslie may all decided it would have been enough and you don't need this. Good morning to you all. And welcome to the 19 scholar in the feminist conference, a conference that has the distinction of not only addressing a critical subject, but a welcoming the third decade of the Barnard Center for Research on Women. This morning's task is great, but our participants are every bit up to the challenge for this is truly a most exceptional assembly of talent, for which we should all thank Leslie Kalman, the director of the Center and the one who put this terrific conference together Thank you, Leslie. Unknown Speaker 07:27 The Barnard Center for Research on Women was founded in 1971 as a meeting ground for addressing critical issues concerning the status and condition of women beyond the traditional confines of the classroom. Since then, supported strongly by the college and by friends and foundations. The center has offered program after program, raising hard questions, taking on provocative issues and providing a haven for women to conduct research. In short, it has been both a stimulus for and a source of feminist scholarship. I am reminded here of Rebecca West comment in 1913 that I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that what people when people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute. Unknown Speaker 08:28 Today's conference continues in the tradition of past scholar in the feminist conferences, confronting directly the question whether feminism and endeavoring to chart the way for women as changemakers for women to build and use political power, as Lesley suggested, some may question why this is necessary, following the so called Year of the Woman. But the fact is, that anytime the label the year of is utilized, there's a strong presumption that the single year have has been preceded by a series of years of neglect. And this is precisely the case for women. The mystery writer Dorothy Sayers once observed that facts are like cows. If you look them in the face hard enough, they generally run away. Well, the facts about women are more like bowls, or maybe noodles. While there is reason to be enthusiastically bullish about the achievements of women in recent years. The facts themselves are stubborn reminders, that there is much to be done. As you begin your deliberations about women as changemakers I urge you to do so with as broad gauge to view as possible. Too often in years past, women's issues have been defined as encompassing only matters of equal pay. for equal work, reproductive rights or child care, all critical issues of central importance to women, but so to our issues of crime, poverty, drugs, health care, homelessness, discrimination and the condition of our schools and families. The often overlooked fact is that as tragic as are the consequences of these issues for society as a whole, and as much as they are also men's issues, the victims of these tragedies are disproportionately women, and the feminization of poverty is well documented. So too, as has been demonstrated lately, with horrific clarity by the atrocities in Bosnia, and the disposition of girl babies in China, are issues of international affairs. As you consider the role of women as changemakers. It is vital to remember that if women are to achieve not only equal pay for equal work, but equity in the fullest sense, they must be actively engaged in the most pressing matters of our time, in our cities, throughout our country, and on the world stage, we must no longer allow women's issues to be placed in a separate category at the bottom of the agenda. This is so for several reasons, not least, because as NGOs equity for women will go equities for others, not in the sense of one following the other in temporal terms, but rather, as a reflection of the Spirit and commitment of the leadership and citizenry of this country, to do right, not only by the community of women, but by all of its people. And advancement of women should come not just because it is the law of the land, but because it is the will of the people reflective of the authenticity of their commitment, and the goodness of their spirit. Writing at the time of the founding of the Women's Center, Mira Komorowski, Barnard's distinguished alumna and Professor of Sociology observed in describing the importance of women's studies. Such studies address themselves to intellectual problems of broad theoretical significance. Moreover, they illuminate the social roots of personal conflicts, and may 1 serve to increase rationality in human affairs. This conference is at route about precisely that women as changemakers, utilizing newfound political power to increase rationality in human affairs, in terms of equity for women, of course, but beyond to the achievement of equity for all, I welcome all of you to Barnard College, and wish you a most enjoyable and highly productive day Thank you. Unknown Speaker 13:51 Thank you I have to introduce her before she knows who she is. Unknown Speaker 14:06 This morning's plenary panel addresses the future of the feminist movement and the nature of the opposition to feminism. My role here is to pose some questions. That's the easy part. I've saved the hard parts for them our distinguished panelists the answers, I've asked the panelists to think about questions like these, where do women and where do feminists go from here? What are our goals? What are women's interests? What should our strategies be for influencing or gaining power? And how promising is the Clinton administration in terms of women's issues and about the women's movement itself? Political and social movements by their nature are not static. If they are to succeed, they must move people. movements must persuade, they must mobilize they must build movements must convert people Not only to new consciousness, but also to action. My question then is this, is the women's movement still moving? Will the movement become co opted or more fragmented? Because we have a friend or two in the White House? How are we going to continue to build? And how shall we meet the challenge of the fervent opposition against us? Let me introduce our panelists who will neatly concisely and fully answer each and every one of these questions. Maybe not, but they do have a collective experience of being in the trenches that is exhausting to consider. Marie Wilson has for the past seven years been president of the MS Foundation For Women. The MS foundation is the only national multi issue Women's Fund in the United States. Ms. Wilson is an expert on women's economic development on reproductive rights and on safety for women and girls. She is co author of a soon to be published book on new models for relationships between mothers and their adolescent daughters. Under her direction, the MS Foundation has launched a widely hailed national campaign called Take Our Daughters to work designed to improve the self esteem of adolescent girls. Take Our Daughters to work day is this Wednesday, April 28, and this is a plug. Unknown Speaker 16:31 Our next panelist Catherine R. Stimson is one of our nation's most renowned scholars in the field of women's studies. She is presently University professor at Rutgers University, and also served there as Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Graduate Education. In 1975, she founded what remains the premier journal in women's studies, signs, Journal of women in culture and society. A few years before that, as a member of the English department at Barnard College, Professor Stimson was the founding director of its Women's Center, now known as the Barnard Center for Research on Women. She is the author of over 150, monographs, essays, stories and reviews on a wide range of cultural and political topics. Also among her legacies is that she was my very first women's studies professor, for which I once again thanks Unknown Speaker 17:29 Tonya millage is a political management and public policy consultant, with particular expertise in women's issues and elections. In 1971. She helped organize the Manhattan Women's Political Caucus, and in 1972, the New York State Women's Political Caucus since 1973. She has been an active and vocal proponent for women's reproductive freedom, and her targets of action include most prominently the Republican Party tough job autonomy, which originated the Republican pro choice movement in 1976. In 1984, she helped found and now directs the New York State family committee. This committee seeks to educate Republicans on reproductive health issues and urges the Republican Party's adopt adoption of pro choice policies. Following the Supreme Court's Webster decision in 1989, threatening legal abortion. Tonya millage became a founder of two Republican pro choice political action committees, one in New York State and won a national PAC, both of which provide funds to pro choice Republican candidates. Thanks for joining us. Unknown Speaker 18:46 Say Walton served for 14 years as the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Under her leadership, Planned Parenthood moved into the forefront of the battle to protect women's reproductive rights and women's health those in this country and around the world. As Walton is the recipient of a stream of awards, including the American Public Health Association Award of Excellence, and the Congressional Black Caucus foundation Humanitarian Award. In spring 1992, Faye Walton was also the recipient of Barnard's Reed lectureship given annually to a distinguished woman who has shown a continuing commitment to serving other women. Of course, none of these honors can compete with the fact that one of the most critical shapers of our daughter's political consciousness, namely sassy magazine, has proclaimed say Walton, one of the 20 coolest women ever. Kathy spiller is appearing today in the place of Eleanor Smeal, who's recovering from a case of pneumonia and regrets very much not being able to be with us today. Kathy spiller is national coordinator of the organizations of which at least mele is president, namely, the Fund for the Feminist Majority and the Feminist Majority Foundation. She is one of the original principals in their founding in 1987. Prior to that, she was for four years the president of Los Angeles now, the fund is presently sponsoring the feminization of power campaign, a nationwide effort to inspire women to seek leadership positions and to promote a feminist agenda. Additionally, the fund runs the largest clinic defense project in the country to protect against the intimidation, violence and harassment of abortion clinics and their clients. Another project of the fund involves working to achieve gender balance in law enforcement as a way of addressing violence against women. I'm delighted to have Cathy with us today and thank her for so graciously coming at the last moment. Unknown Speaker 21:03 Finally, I'm sorry to tell you that jewel Jackson McCabe, who was originally scheduled to be with us this morning has instead had to attend an important meeting in Tuskegee of, of the Tuskegee branch of 100 black women, and is unable to join us she sends her apologies. Our program this morning will begin with statements by each of our panelists to be followed by a coffee break. And then to be followed by discussion and questions from the audience. First, let me introduce Murray Wilson. Unknown Speaker 21:39 I'm delighted to be here because actually, my coming to New York in the first place, began with Barnard I don't think Ellen or anybody here knows this. But I really came to interview for the job at Ms. As a way to see my daughter, who was entering barn I had just gotten to Barnard and I missed her enormously. And I said, Well, I'll interview for this job. I was being a politician, and I was really happy. But I missed her. So I came and I interviewed for the job. And as life goes, they talked me into the fact that you could make more political change at the MS foundation than being a politician in Iowa. And it worked. So I really credit Barnard with that, as well as giving my daughter and absolutely smashing education. She's a performance artist in Santa Fe, who does work on domestic violence through performance and other issues and with the greatest education in the world. And I'm also glad to announce that this morning, based on conversations that have already had my career has changed again, I've just been appointed the head of the FBI. And we had this meeting, I thought you should know about it. They figure I've got as much chance of being confirmed as anybody. So so it's a really momentous, feels good. Yes. The other thing I cannot resist tell you because of this wonderful thing about the Year of the Woman is I loved it. I don't think people picked it up much last year when Gloria said, would they ever think of calling it the year of the do? You know, it was really, it was quite something? Well, I It's so interesting, because when somebody tells you you get to address whether feminism you get all excited, like, Oh, this is wonderful. And the new thing where where do you start? Well, I can't look at the women who are in this room, many of whom I know and trust and love. And women who were up here who have kept education together and who have kept the Republican Party, at least from going off the side of the Earth. Fay who, well, almost Fay who has been the strongest and steadiness voice for women and reproductive freedom in this country and reproductive health. And Kathy Spiller, who is probably the one of the brightest organizers who has ever come out of our movement. I mean, with her feminism, it's in pretty good shape if the leadership that you see here is anything or any indication, but I do because we get challenged to say what do we think is going on? I do want to talk to you about what I think the challenges are. And I think they are challenges of courage. And I say that with some fear and trembling, because I think the lives of everyday women in this country are usually just plain studies in courage. But I think there's more courage to be had. And I want to tell you a couple of things. I feel like we've learned this year from some things we've done that I think give us a great deal more claim to courage. And the first thing is I want to address what Leslie mentioned, and that is what do we do with this administration? I think it's about having the courage to claim what we paid for and to pay for what we now claim. I Never trust an administration no matter how good They are. And it occurs to me that what what again, I think Gloria Steinem said about Franklin Roosevelt, you know, Franklin Roosevelt was elected. And then he turned around and said, You elected me, now make me do it. That's what the courage is about in regard to the Clinton administration, they are our administration, we did elect them, there was a very little publicized gender gap. And now our role is to have the courage to make them do what we know they want to do. And that means, by the way, something that really does have to happen, I think, in this country, and that is a much stronger relationship between the national and the local women's community, because that's how constituency gets built. And that's how change gets pushed. And what we and I think Kathy is working on this a great deal. What happens is that the local women are the ones closest to the people who can make that change happen, only are not always feeling represented well and fully by the National. So one of the things that I've learned, certainly through the work at ms is the courage of local women, and the fact that they have to be connected nationally. The second thing that it seems to me is the courage to really push harder. Unknown Speaker 26:22 What what Ms did the largest survey, a bipartisan survey that's ever been done, called women's voices this fall or this past summer? And what we looked at we did we oversampled across race and class that's never been done to hear what the voices of women were saying. And one thing that I think really surprised us was what they said about leadership. Three quarters of the women in this country actually feel that their lives are different, because of the women's movement, led by African American women and Latinas. The women in this country credit the women's movement, with changes led by African American women and Latinas. Three quarters of the women in this country believe and I think for the first time, that the leadership of this country, this country would be better off, if half the leadership are women. And that goes for men as well, more men than ever before, believe that the leadership would be better the country would be better. If over half the women were in leadership positions. That is an amazing statistic. And again, led by African American women and Latinas. I say that because we have a woman date for change. We have this power that is out there because women really believe in women. And I'm afraid that we won't have the courage to take it far enough. And get into a particular political example, I want to talk about just a minute the Freedom of Choice Act, the reversal of the Hyde Amendment, and what goes on around health care. I think we have a woman date that says we can push harder than we think we can push and not leave any women behind. Not our daughters, not poor women, not women of color. And I'm concerned that what we'll do is not know that we have a woman date that allows us to push as hard as we want to push. That may be a good time or thing for us to debate this morning. But we have the voices of women in this country supporting us. The third thing in terms of courage I want to talk to you about is the courage that we have found from working with adolescents and pre adolescent girls, and this whole business of Take Our Daughters. I have never seen anything, by the way, take off. Like Take Our Daughters. This was the little project that ate Cleveland. We had thought that this would be a nice project to do in New York City and not nice. It was our way of trying to get the country's attention on the strong and courageous voices of our daughters. And once it got out there. People everywhere have called us in 50 states in Japan and Korea to join this project. I want to talk about that a minute. Because when I talked to Carol Gilligan a couple of years ago about her research on girls, the thing that she and I said is how do you keep the public's attention focused on girls, and what could we do? And what we thought about was it first we said you know what if we could design an ad that just had the faces of all different kinds of girls, and after every two television program and on every billboard. And everywhere in this country, it had the following words, a girl is watching this, what is she learning about being a woman? Now, I say that because I woke up this morning, and I changed a little of what I wanted to say to you, I saw the paper. And I saw what happened with this whole tail hook thing on the front of this paper, this shirt about women as property. And what came out of the whole investigation, the number of people are who are involved. And I said to myself, in terms of power, a girl is reading the paper this morning, what is she learning about being a woman? And then I looked down and saw that the young man in New Jersey, are going to be out on bail. And until all claims are until all of their, you know, retrial things are exhausted. And I thought a girl is watching that. What is she learning about being a woman? So one thing I want to bring to you is the voices of girls who really are watching us. And what are they learning about courage? And about being a woman? What are they learning about standing up and telling the truth? I say this, because for one thing, we have an advisory committee of young women, and they are so smart about what we're doing in this community. They look at us and they see how we struggle with power. And they completely get it. And they are concerned about our voices being heard. Finally, one of the little girls, when we were having this power discussion said, you know, she was talking about what happens when men take women's ideas, and well, why didn't the women fight, but if she fights, they're mad at her, but if she doesn't fight that she's mad at herself. And finally they said, You know, I don't think women fight hard enough. I said, Do you really think that and a little girl across the circle said, Nah, I don't think that it's not that women don't fight hard enough. It's that not enough women fight. Unknown Speaker 32:07 Now, that's what our daughters are watching and learning not enough women fight. And I say this, because I think what we what they're also learning is that this fight is about a radical solidarity of women, a radical solidarity, in rich by what Audrey Lord knew would always enrich us a real genuine appreciation and articulation, of difference of difference by race and class and sexual orientation. And something that brought women together. Our daughters have to have a joined radical solidarity, of good community of women, in order to deal with this. And that means courage beyond what we have done in this country before. And adjoining and take our daughters is just a part. And I have to add, I've never seen anything like what men have learned through this project. We have men who come and talk to us. And then they go out and they talk to little girls. And one man came back, he said, I heard girls talk about men and fathers is the enemy. That is never happening to my daughter. And so I'm very encouraged about men as well. And finally, just in terms of sparking discussion this morning about whether feminism and where's power going, I think we have to look at the whole notion of what does it mean to put women at the center of your life, that's starting to happen. It's starting to happen. And as the most radical thing I heard, Elon and Faye talk about the fact that they would cancel anything to get together to see people in the women's community for lunch. What is really hard and what I daughter see when they come to adolescence is that men and not women are still the center of life. And that's the message that it's not safe to be at the center of your own life. And in order to deal with that I want to talk finally, about what's kept that apart race and class that we have to have discussions about disability age, but sexual orientation. I want to leave you with a parting words that it is not about who you sleep with, that is a transgression and patriarchy. It is about whether you choose to give your life's energy to women. If you put women at the center of your life, if you choose to give your life's energy to women, then you will have transgressed beyond any charge of being a lesbian. One of the things that I most love and admire about Gloria Steinem is that years ago, she stood up in front of women and said, Why doesn't everybody just come out? And that may be the thing to do that everybody comes out. But to come out as loving women is the real piece of courage. Each end to put women at the center of our lives is the core of political power. Thank you. Unknown Speaker 35:21 Marie, quite correctly, has called on us for courage. And in that spirit After thanking Lesley and Ellen for bringing us together, in that spirit, I want to tell you begin with a tale of courage in this very auditorium. I was a young professor here, and I was invited to join a team for a pickup basketball game between the women's liberation team on the one side, and the male faculty on the other. I don't know what it means, but I was the only faculty member on the women's liberation team. And I was given a little t shirt that I still have with the women's liberation symbol on the back and the word ace. It turned out to be totally complimentary since I fold out in the first quarter. And I turned to the referee and I said ref. I haven't done anything wrong. She said, Lady, if I had called everything you done wrong, you would have been out of here in 30 seconds. Well, it was really a contrasting study of power. The men had practiced week after week after week, and the guys came in muscles flexing. The women hadn't practiced. They were counting on their cheerleaders. Their cheerleaders came in in witch's house and carrying broomsticks, and their idea of a cheer was to go hex, hex, hex. Well, the score came out enough man 20 women, two men 40 Women for after I found out I took his my responsibility going behind the Blackboard on which the score was being registered and he racing the men score just to make it a little better, but the women kept hex, hex and then one of the most aggressive muscular machismo of the men fell to the floor with a broken ankle. And the women cheerleaders instead of saying women power had this spasm of guilty. When did we really do that? Did we break Bob McGann's ankle? Shall we say it was courage in the mind but insufficiently acted out? My general subject in my few minutes is going to be women, information and feminism. As we all know, in the 1960s, the struggle for women the feminism the the sense of equity and autonomy and change that consumes us all. The struggle for women emerged as exactly the same time as the Information Society. Some date in 1962, what is considered the founding text of the information society by The Economist Fritz Macklowe was published. In 1963. Betty for down published The Feminine Mystique. In 1972, the Japanese issued a very important plan for their society, called the plan for information society. And in that same year 72 ms magazine went into action. 1977 The American Library Association said how do we devise libraries for the Information Age and in that same year 77 Elaine Shaw, Walter published a literature their own, and Barbara K. Smith published toward a black feminist criticism. In 1982, John Naisbitt in mega trends, told Americans that the most important change in their life was towards an information society. And in that year, Kelly, Carol Gilligan, who may be the footnote of choice, at least DeVos Marie authored in a different voice. Now, what does it mean? Are these simply publication coincidence? I don't think so. In the Information Society, education matters, not just for self enlightenment, but education matters. As for survival, and for success. And so as one commentator is written, quote, although not very felicitously upward access through the social economic strata this society is assumed to depend upon advanced education even more than it present. Unknown Speaker 40:23 And so we supporters of the struggle for women know that women must be full citizens of the information society. And opponents of the struggle for women do not want women to be full citizens of the information society. And it has been feminism that for centuries has cared passionately about education, and information. And for us, education and information has been the necessary means to the ends of autonomy, dignity, equality, mobility, self sufficiency, power, and even with luck, a little pleasure. So misogynist and the blindest of gender traditionalists have been right to fear the consequences of information for women. I'm sure you all know a feminist button, which reads, I think, therefore, I am dangerous. Now self consciously and imaginatively, contemporary feminism has structured itself as an educational reform movement with five goals. And I would suggest that these five goals mattered in the 1960s and still matter in the 1990s and that the Clinton administration can support them all. And what are they first, feminism would improve child rearing and socialization practices. And other people here can speak to that better than I. But I would say support any measure against spousal abuse, support any measure against child abuse support Headstart, sup support nutrition. The second educational goal was this, feminism would organize a small consciousness raising groups in which women would learn from each other about their lives in order to change those lives. And I guess maybe no state power can do much about consciousness raising groups, nor should they. In fact, I think if there was a bill to give government funding for consciousness raising groups, something would have gone a little wrong. The third goal is that feminism would attack the media, the studios that market lessons and images often trumped up for a mass culture. And here, I think a Clinton administration can support access for all constituencies and all people to cable TV, to really make cable TV and radio, a grassroots activity. And the fourth educational goal was that feminism would create cultural alternatives. A splendidly new art, literature, film, music, journalism, and religion. And here, the Clinton administration can change three agencies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Institute of Museum services, so that those three agencies become genuine supporters of intellectual and cultural freedom. And so those three agencies take genuine risks and support innovative, artistic and intellectual and cultural work. And finally, finally, a fifth goal would be that we would transform that utopian verb, or at least alter the sights of formal education, from childcare, to research centers. And here there are a number of policies that can work. Unknown Speaker 44:41 Now, the explicit Alliance and the end of these goals between feminism and education has had its triumphs, especially in higher education, and D the triumphs have been such that a friend of mine has written about higher education that feminists are beset by the fear that academe will declare premature victory for women and higher education that the students will believe that the crisis has passed. And that to contemporary students, feminists will seem feminine deadheads congregating periodically around a few aging leaders so as to hear a tired repetition of a few standard tunes leftover from the 1960s. And the triumphs have been genuine. And the triumphs I believe, need to be extended. In the United States, at least, most overt discrimination has disappeared. We are aware of sex discrimination is an issue of on campus rape, of date rape and sexual harassment. And I would hope that the Clinton administration would support efforts such as those now going on in the now LD e f. to support efforts to take work against sexual harassment from the workplace and higher education into the high schools and junior High's Meryl Streep once said, and Vassar commencement address that she asked what is real life like? And she said, it's not like college, it's worse, real life is like high school. And I did like high school when I was there. And I really think in part because of the greater sexual harassment, high school is worse No, not to mention the violence. We are to, we are much more aware of the differences among women, especially the racial differences. And we are much more aware of the need of giving access to women of all races, all classes. People know this statistic, but let me remind you of it. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of Native American women attending college increased 30% The number of Asian American women 9%. The number of African American Women's 16%, the number of Hispanic women 73%. The number of white women 15%. And if there's anything I would we were talking about this before we mark up in this panel, if there's anything I would like the Clinton administration to do is to make sure that access is still available to information and education for people of all classes and races. And that means financial aid. And it means policies and plans such as childcare centers that will keep people in school once they get there. And another triumph is of course, the change in our curriculum to include new subjects about race, about gender, about sexual preference, and the Department of Education, and other federal funding agencies can support the transformation of the curriculum. But a couple of other suggestions is I regard the future of women in the Information Society. I have my market share of dread. And I do fear that we will not grant women full citizenship in the Information Society. And we will not grant her access to basic literacy. If some night you can't sleep, C span isn't doing it for you. In herbal teas called sleepy time are not working. Read table 1.3 of the 1989 UNESCO statistical yearbook. And it will give you the percentage of men and women over the age of 15 Unknown Speaker 49:18 who were illiterate in 129 countries and territories. And the percentage of illiterate men is alarming. But the percentage of illiterate women is even more so. Of these 129 countries, the sexes are equally literate in fewer than 20 countries. Women are more literate than men in only 11 places. All of them small, most of them in the Caribbean, and men are more literate than women in every other one of these countries. So I would urge the Clinton administration to support not only reproductive rights internationally, but sheer basic literacy. And when I have my moments of dread, I think to have equal access to the science and technology that are the foundation of the information society. A recent study, the AAUW study found that 49% of the boys in the 11th grade in American high schools had used an electricity meter, whatever that is. Unknown Speaker 50:30 But only 17% of the girls. Now I don't know what an electricity meter is, but I want the other 83% of the girls to get it. Unknown Speaker 50:46 In 1989, men took 91.8% of the doctorates in engineering in American Graduate Schools, women 8.2%, men took 81.2% of the doctorates in the physical sciences, women took 18.8%. So Clinton administration, shape up the primary schools in terms of science education for young women. Nor, I fear, will we give women the information they need about themselves, about their history, and about their capacities for love and work in the Information Society? I fear in the absence of information about body health and sexuality. And the story of the silicone gel implants seems impart a story about women being both misinformed and uninformed about their health. And the story also seems, in part, a story about some women who still obey powerful cultural norms that reduce their identity to their flesh, and to their sexual allure. And ironically, the information society tells us that our minds, not our bodies are our power generators. So I have my little anxieties. But some of you have heard me say before that I have a stubborn muscle in my optimism. Murray preaches courage, I preach optimism, given my choice of being a Pollyanna or not, I will take Pollyanna whenever I can. And so the muscle of my optimism flexes and insists that history can be its Nautilus machine, as well as RAC and Catherine Wheel. So let me leave you with an optimistic story about women in the Information Society. And it comes from my hometown newspaper, The New York Times. adjourn journal that Marie flashed it before you and as you know, it's a journal that often throws acid on optimism. But in 1991, there was a headline, Brooklyn College firsts marshals and roads. And for the first time and it's 61 year old history, Brooklyn College had won both a Marshall scholarship and a Rhodes scholarship, both prestigious both for study in England. We all know that President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. We may also remember that in great part, thanks to the women's movement, women could become Rhodes Scholars, eight years after President Clinton was well, the winners were women. Lisette Naevus, who had won the Rhodes and Toba Friedman, who had won the Marshall and Toba. Friedman said that she had never planned to go to college. But she was working as a secretary and she found her mind quote, going to mush. And a friend said, Try college. And in my cynical moments, I say college does not turn your mind to mush, but it turns it to all brown. And so Toba Friedman went to Brooklyn College and took a course in English history taught by a woman named Bonnie Anderson, one of the founders of women's history. And Friedman said she blew me away. And so Clinton administration work for Lee it's yet Naevus and Toba Friedman thanks. Unknown Speaker 54:51 Think they both blew us away. They're wonderful. I went through a political nervous breakdown in 1992 So it's wonderful to come and be revitalized and share in the excitement of another 2050 100 years of the Barnard Center for Women. Like many of those of those on this panel, I began working in the women's movement in 1971. Very early on, it was clear to some of us to if there was to be meaningful change. If women's lives are going to improve, we needed a hell of a lot of political power. It was not going to be enough to have women's studies programs, consciousness raising sessions, our own theatres, our own magazines, newspapers, and research institutes like this first rate one here at Barnard. We knew we had to learn how to understand each other, how to talk to each other, how to set our issue agendas, and how to work together. But we also knew we had to lay the groundwork for assaulting the male power structure. Piece by piece, we built the political movement, much of our success and 92 That so called year the women, that's a joke, I agree. came because we had built the feminist political tools. We had the training, we had the recruitment, we had the funding, we had the grassroots, we had the policy ideas. And finally, we had women candidates, and we had reapportionment. The 22 year painstakingly build painstaking building was finally paying off. But it was too too slowly. And it still is. From the beginning, I have been guided by a two party view for gaining political power. That is, our Feminist Revolution would only succeed when we wielded substantial influence in both political parties. My hope college dream was that the basic premises of feminism would be accepted by majorities in both parties, and that we Republican and Democratic feminist women would struggle and debate over the details of public policy. I have never believed and I do not believe now that a third party was a valid option. I think Alice Paul, with all her great struggles prove that. After the brutalization of the last 12 years, my dream has been sorely challenged. Many Republicans and independent women voted for Clinton. We worked for Dianne Feinstein and for Barbara Boxer, and other progressive candidates, and we rejoiced in their victories. Republican and centrists. Women are often asked why we don't become Democrats, since we so often find ourselves aligned with Democratic candidates. But that question blurs the complexity of the feminist movements efforts to gain and retain and I emphasize retain political power. It is a cliched superficial question that my sisters asked me as to why don't you become a Democrat? And I think the question needs to be analyzed more closely. First, there are the polarization concerns. If centrist and Republican feminists give up on the Republican Party, doesn't their action further polarize the nation? If there is not diversity and variety in both parties? Aren't we inviting the inevitable ethnic, social, religious and racial hatreds that we see in too much of the world? Does polarization help the cause of feminism? Or are we hurting our potential to grow? second set of concerns our inclusion concerns. Aren't we feminists giving up on a substantial number of political women? If we don't participate in Republican primaries and conventions, and in similar events in areas dominated by anti feminist Democrats? Unknown Speaker 59:47 How do we reach those women politically? If we never reach out and help them fight their battles? And aren't we taking an enormous risk of being shut out? In states, where Republicans or anti feminist Democrats are the majority, and I would just suggest you look at the case of Pennsylvania, headed by anti choice Democrat, Governor Casey, who brought us the Thornburg and then the KC case. Third, there are the maintaining our gains concerns. If feminist public policy gains from one party, how much do we stand to lose when our opponents win elections? How do we hold on to what we have one? If we're only in one political grouping? Let us not forget that the American political system is decentralized to encourage diverse viewpoints, and de emphasizes monolithic solutions. How do we protect ourselves against a repeat of those horrendous Reagan Bush years? All these questions are at the core of any philosophical debate about political power will not solve them today. But it's worth considering considering more deeply. One question. Does a revolutionary movement consolidate its gains and become more broad based in his ideology, as it winds power? Or does it better? Or does it do better by keeping its base more narrowly focused? Or put more simply? Are we now secure with our modest power and mature enough to welcome centrists with their pragmatic and less ideological ideas into our movement? What about short term practical considerations? The ones that were talked about by Moray and by Katherine they are in one sense, easier to respond to, in a political context. The religious right led by Paul Wyrick and pat robertson seeks and is in some places already using the Republican Party for its own fascist and anti say fascist. Ross Perot is on an ego aggrandizing political trip, heading toward the 99 Excuse me, 96 elections, with a possible three way split in the electorate. Feminists from all political parties and all persuasions must help the President. The breaking off into a feminist third party will isolate us from the mainstream, we will be talking too often to each other. With our energy directed at building a third party, money and resources will be siphoned away from local and state feminist candidates and causes, we will lose momentum by such an effort. Need I repeat what we already know? If we don't win elections, we won't have any political power. At least real political power. We will have the kind of power we had before the modern women's movement. There will be fewer feminists wielding power if we squander what we have on a third party movement. I remember many years ago, my mother telling me that the highest flattery was imitation. How was I to know that the leadership of the Bush campaign would take the ideas of the feminist movement and twist them around and try to use them for their own ends. Last August, I walked out on the Republican convention. I couldn't stand to hear one more attack Unknown Speaker 1:04:24 about women and families, as though all of us in the feminist movement, all of us who would work so hard, disliked families, disliked children were against women did not love our husbands and on and on and on. Buchanan, Robertson bush, and both quails were too much. And I am also sorry to say that I was heartfelt and sick as I sat in my hotel room the night that Barbara Bush spoke. I had wanted to go home to New York. I couldn't get out of Houston. So I sat in my hotel room and watched those speeches on Wednesday night. And yes, Pat Robertson was outrageous. And Pat Buchanan on Monday had been outrageous. Maryland quail was what we always knew Maryland quail would be Maryland quail should have been here with us. Maryland quail is a very smart woman who somehow can't quite understand what has been happening to all of us over the last 3040 50, hundreds of years. But the sad part to me was Barbara Bush, because Barbara Bush, who should have known better, was used in an unfortunate and I think despicable way. And I sat there in my hotel room, and I said, that dream of mine that dream about that to parties and feminists in both parties. Yes, I realize it's a contradiction, and I've realized it for years. But I also am an optimist, just like Katherine. And I said, I can't let this go on any longer. So I walked out. And I faced what I didn't want to face, which was that as far as I was concerned, at least for the near future, my two party dream was over. And many of my colleagues that I have worked with in the Republican feminist movement, and the independent women feel the same way. Why Rick, and Quayle and Robertson and all the rest of those scoundrels will get no help from us, under the guise of the so called Big Tent. But I am haunted by the polarization of America's politics. Do we really want a feminism that turns its back on mainstream women? Are we not strong enough now to embrace a more broad based coalition? I remember when we founded the Manhattan Women's Political Caucus in 1972, down at the new school, or maybe it wasn't the new school, it was PS 41. It's been a long time. And I remember getting up and saying that it was important that there be feminists in both political parties. And you may remember Richard Nixon was president then. And we were all tied up in hating the Vietnam War. And many of us were active in the anti war, Vietnam War movement, but we were Republicans. And I stood up to PS 41. And I opened by saying, I am a Republican Woman. And most of the women in the room booed at me. And I remember Carol Kreitzer, some of you may know Carol Kreitzer, was a reform, Democratic leader from the vi d club, a very liberal Democratic Club, stood next to me and tell people to be quiet, that I had a right to speak. Well, it's 22 years later, and the pro choice Republican women are taken seriously. But what has happened is that most of us are very tired. And we don't know whether we want to continue. But as I said, we cannot turn our back on those mainstream women. I don't know the answer, but I know we must face the issue. We lost twice to Reagan, and wants to Bush because we didn't recruit and include those women. And when I mean we I mean the feminist. Ignoring them, again, will be our Achilles heel, at least in the political sense. Unknown Speaker 1:08:54 Our opposition is cutting. And as I suggested at what happened in Houston, they cloak themselves in our words. They use family. They use life. As Kathy spiller will tell you, they argue about freedom of speech as they stop women from going into the clinics. They talk about their right to choose, as they obstruct doctors from entering their their place of business. They talk about freedom of religion as they attempt to impose their religion upon us. Mainstream women don't know much about our words. They hear our words through the likes of Helms and Dornan and hatch. And yes, Casey and O'Connor. Our challenge is to welcome these women into the fold and at the same time made the maintain the heart edge of our goals. Yes, it is a balancing act. But balance is at the heart of any civilized democratic political system. For me, it is the only way we can retain some peace and sanity in this unsafe world. And in the bargain, we might increase our political power. I think we need to try to get those mainstream women Thank you. Unknown Speaker 1:11:00 I have three hard acts to follow, not five, Leslie and Ellen. When we're tempted to think about these as unique times, I think we can listen to the voices of Lucretia Mott, the abolitionist and Quaker, when in 19 1850, she wrote that let woman then go on not asking as favor but claiming as right the removal of all hindrances to her elevation in the scale of being. Let her receive encouragement for the proper cultivation of her powers so that she may enter profitably into the active business of life, employing by her own hands, in ministering to her own necessities, and quote, when thinking about the comments that I wanted to make to you today, I felt that those were very appropriate words. Because when we look back and think of these times as advancing the power of women, will we see them as times that we have employed our own hands, to minister to our necessities? Or Will these be times blighted by the continuing and DS indifference and the indecency of that indifference to our aspirations? Our progress blocked by anger, by hatred, by violence, and the gains that we have achieved in our struggles for social equality, being gains that are eradicated by the political process, because in 1992, the year of the so called Year of the Woman, notwithstanding, our rights are more fragile today than they were in 1980. The America of the 1980s was an America in which class and privilege were exalted sexism and bigotry surfaced in shocking forms, battles that we thought were fought and won on equality and racial justice, where we fought, and women were really quite at the center of the struggle. I must say that if the performance of the Clinton administration is any indication, there will still be some battling to do even though Mr. Clinton has done some very important, has taken some very important steps to eradicate a number of the destructive policies of the Bush and Reagan years. But as we face those battles, I hope that we will not lose a sense of the lessons of history and that we must remember that the supporters of those policies are still very much with us here and now. And so it's very tempting to get caught up in the blush of political victories, and not understand that there continues to be an entrenched system that perpetuated the policies of repression against women, and that continues to be with us. The prolonged battles to enter to end the policies of hostility towards women, and our rights, and the battles to end political exploitation of race and class, which rose to outrageous proportions in the 80s are inextricably tied. So when we think about the ideology of our movement, we must understand that we really are a part of a much bigger, larger social struggle for equality of many Americans. 140 years ago, Lucy Stone wrote that the right to vote will be swallowed up and the real question of whether a woman has a right to herself and that question applies to Americans of all races and socio economic positions. She went on to say say that it means very little to me to have the right to vote on property, etc. If I may not keep my body and its uses to my absolute right. But after 12 years of the systematic reconstruction of the federal courts, the rights of women to keep our bodies and their uses, has been seriously damaged, damaged by the weakened concept of 12 years of persistent battering of the promise of our constitutions guarantee of equality, of justice, of privacy, of liberty. The courts have gone a very long way. And we must deal with the reality that now the Supreme Court of the United States has invested in the presidency, enormous powers that in 1980, it did not have. And those powers unfortunately, have been at the expense of women. Unknown Speaker 1:16:06 We sometimes talk about the losses that we have sustained and the political reality of the last 12 years as though it was done by someone else. But the American people elected for three terms of office, not one but two anti woman presidents. How many of you in this room voted for Ronald Reagan and George Bush, how many of us did not work actively for their defeat? So we must take responsibility for where we stand, and further to take responsibility. And things will not automatically change for the better because there is a president in the White House supportive of the issues that concern women. And I say that very consciously the issues that concern women, not the women's issues. But let us not forget that we can't take for granted the person who lives in the White House will do the right thing, or that he indeed will not and someday that she will not also make the wrong decisions and choices. Byron White is leaving the court as an appointee of John Kennedy. Harry Blackmun, one of the most liberal justices in the Supreme Court's history was Mr. Nixon's selection. So it's like Will Rogers said that even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. This is a time for important change. Change will need to be made and laws. Many steps will need to be to be taken to correct the egregious errors of errors of the past 12 years. But there can be no real change until this society truly comes to grips with the fundamentals. The fundamentals that women must be equal, there will not be real change until women take responsibility for that happening and take the leadership for our rights. We cannot assume that a male dominated power structure will do it for us. And if we needed any evidence of that, we can look to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation of Clarence Thomas, a man who told us that he had not heard about read about or discussed Roe v Wade in 19 years and we still got him confirmed. Unknown Speaker 1:18:59 The name of the game will be politics. And there is no doubt that a profound change took place in the political landscape in 1992. We can't take it for granted that because we elected minorities and women that we will regain lost ground without the agenda of our concerns being pressed. Getting some women elected is only the beginning. vigilance and a commitment to making sure that they do not get sucked up and caught up in the power of politics is our responsibility. We must never again underestimate the lengths to which the power structure the political process can be used against us to deny us our birthright not as women but as Americans. To control the most private aspect of our lives and thereby our destiny, we must not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States permitted the President of the United States to impose a gag order on women denying us the full right and access to our First Amendment. Unknown Speaker 1:20:28 We must not forget that Webster stands as the living memorial of this supreme court's permission to establish religion in the law, the violation of our first liberty, the right to practice the religion of our beliefs, and not to have it imposed upon us by law or by preambles of the law. We must not forget that the Supreme Court of 1993 ruled that women's free right to travel could be impeded by outlaw bandits outlaw vandals. And that Casey was permitted by the Supreme Court to impose the process of thought and mind control on women, discrimination of women by class, that is the discrimination against minor women was allowed by that great Bastion, the protection of our constitutional privileges the Supreme Court. And most of all, we must not forget that there are some in this country who do not believe that Americans have the right not to be murdered, if we disagree with their ideology. The same time that we engage the political mechanism to change the social infrastructure that is still aligned against women. Each of us has a special obligation individually, to work to create fundamental change. And that can be an enormously empowering process. It does not take cast our armies of 1000s she leave here today think about what will I do? By virtue of my choices and the way I conduct my life to empower another woman. And Carol Gilligan's excellent book to which you have already heard reference and making connections she describes how girls retreat from early from an early sense of power, subduing themselves in order to achieve social approval. She found that in adolescence girls experience a crisis in response to society's demand that girls keep quiet. They noticed the absence of leadership among other women, and so they keep quiet. What Dr. Gilligan describes as creative aggression is then nipped in the bud and their ability to take on the world in the way that they see it becomes stifled for the sake of acceptance and approval. How many of us have not fought hard enough and long enough and vigorously enough for our rights because we were afraid of the social disapproval? All of this stunts our ability to dream, our ability to grow beyond ourselves, and when lacking the self esteem, we are particularly susceptible to discrimination, abuse, and violence. We are socialized as women to be nice and to say that there are no problems. We must understand that when we move against the establishment, the traditional power establishment, we are working against our conditioned instincts. We have to say that there is a problem, and that that problem is deeply embedded in the attitudes of our culture. And we as women must not rest until it is eradicated. Advancements mean that we will break the limitations on the traditional convention that self sacrifice is a virtue, primarily for women. Elizabeth Stanton once told a reporter put it down in capital letters. self development is a higher duty than self sacrifice. Unknown Speaker 1:24:59 The thing That retards and militates against women self development is that we have been conditioned to engage in self sacrifice. leadership must be found not outside us, but within each of us. And so you leave here today, having identified one leadership characteristic that you can employ toward the advancement of women's equality. Advancement will require that we resolve not to compromise our commitment for social approval. Advancement will mean that we will not tacitly participate in maintaining the institutional structures that can pit 10 you to compel women to be secondary. After all, we are 51% of the population and we ought to start acting like it. Unknown Speaker 1:26:03 Yes, there have been gains and much has been made. And it is important that we make these great strides. But we don't yet have a steamrolling momentous trend going here. The history is very much against us between 1776 and 1976. Listen to these numbers. If you see how much catching up we have to do. Men outnumbered women in the Senate of the United States by 1700 15 to 11. Men outnumbered women in the House of Representatives 19,591 to 87. Men outnumbered women 507 to one and presidential cabinets. And until Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981. There had been no woman on the Supreme Court and the 200 year history of this nation. Well, I suppose we can say that it is something like 600 men to maybe half a dozen women now in the cabinet of the presidency. We must not rest until American politics reflects 51% women as a reflection of the makeup and the concerns of this nation. If we failed to become directly involved in the political process, we give in to those forces that have worked against us. And that mean that we have to fight those same battles again, that should never have been brought up, let alone held up for contention, and held up for debate. I leave you with this final thought. Political power is never bestowed. It must be taken. Abigail Adams once wrote to John Adams, in 1776. And I quote, if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment rebellion. And we will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice. I sort of liked the way Sojourner Truth commented on all of this struggle, because I think she wrapped it up very nicely. When she said, If women want any rights more than they got, why don't they just take them and not be talking about it? Let's stop talking about it and take what is rightfully ours. Unknown Speaker 1:29:24 Whether feminism, I'm very optimistic actually about the future course for feminism and the chances for gaining in our lifetimes equality for women. And I think I'm so optimistic because I think that feminism is well positioned in our society. First and foremost, we're very popular movement, despite what we frequently see printed in the mainstream media and hear repeated day in and day out. In fact, as Has the MS survey has shown in other surveys before it. The women's rights movement is a very popular movement with widespread support among women in particular, but as well increasingly among men, and that, in fact, the majority of women in this country identify themselves as feminists. A shocking fact, for many of us, it's why the Feminist Majority took its name when we formed in 1987, is that we wanted to remind people that feminists are the majority, and that we are a popular movement, and that we're a movement whose strength is drawn in many ways, from our diversity. We are everywhere. We are a multi issue and multi tactical movement. There is an organized feminist movement in all in every aspect of our culture, in journalism, in government and politics, education, medicine, and science, law, business, sports, the arts religion, I don't think there is a single aspect of our society and culture that you could name that I could not find the organized feminist movement within. The real crisis is that in every area of our culture, women and particularly feminists have virtually no power. We are underrepresented in every decision making body in the society. The most obvious, and perhaps the one that's been most frequently recent focused on is in the area of government in the area of politics. Despite the significant, magnificent gains of last year, we are still underrepresented in Congress and in the state legislatures. In fact, at the current rate, that women are gaining political power, it is another two generations before women have equal power in the state legislatures. And it is more than two centuries before women will have equal power in the United States Congress. And as I think we have long passed, left the argument over whether or not the representation of women where decisions are made makes a difference. I think Anita Hill dramatized it, because it was so clear for everyone to see on primetime television. But in fact, much of the research that's been done by centers for the study of women and women's studies, has been to show that women in fact make a significant difference when they're represented where decisions are made. The agenda changes, the focus of debate changes, the issues that are considered important change. Largely, of course, because we grow up in a very sex segregated society, we grew up with very different experiences, and in fact, have very different lives than men. I think that where feminism must focus is how to gain power, and how to gain equal power. And there is only one way to measure equal power. And that is when we count the number of congressional members and when we count the number of governors and when we count the number on corporate boards, and on college and university boards of trustees and among tenured professors, and among law partners, and on and on is that we can count equal numbers. We can never be satisfied with only influencing power, the goal of feminism must be to gain equal power. Unknown Speaker 1:34:19 We need new strategies in the political arena, and in the business and and in many aspects of organized decision making. One such strategy that we've been pushing is the whole strategy of gender balance rules. We want rules that