An Earlier Event in Chicago’s Grant Park: Marching for the ERA on Mother’s Day, 1980

The Equal Rights Amendment:

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. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

***

It’s late afternoon in the Midwest on this long-awaited election day. The prospect of watching an Obama victory celebration at Chicago’s Grant Park this evening has brought back memories of another event that occurred there some 28 years ago.

On Mother’s Day, May 10, 1980, I joined several members of the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Rochester, Minn. for a bus trip to Grant Park to march in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. We’d been instructed to wear the same colors for a show of unity. I stood stock still in amazement that day when I stepped off the bus to see 90,000 women in green and white converging on Carl Sandburg’s “city of the big shoulders.”

According to the Feminist Chronicles: “Marchers came from every state of the union and represented over 300 organizations and delegations. The massive event was conceived and coordinated by NOW. Mayor Jane Byrne, the first woman mayor of Chicago, addressed the crowd, together with Jessie Jackson, Ellie Smeal, TV celebrity Phil Donahue, and Marlo Thomas.”

With hope in my heart, I sat on the ground that day, listening to our speakers while imagining what it would feel like at some far away future date to tell my grandchildren about my participation in this historic event.

To my dismay, Ronald Reagan was elected president that November and ultimately the ERA failed to win ratification by its deadline.

When Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in the Democratic primary, I’m sure that many of those 90,000 women with whom I marched in Chicago in 1980 felt as uplifted as I did. I’m equally certain those same women were as stunned as I was by the tsunami of misogyny against Sen. Clinton in the primary that helped sweep Barack Obama to victory as the nominee.

The tidal wave of irrational hatred of women crested again during the general election when Sarah Palin set foot on the national stage and quickly became the object of slander and ridicule amplified by a media still under Obama’s spell - objectivity be damned.

Just for the heck of it, I’ve scanned the readers’ comments on election-day coverage this afternoon at a couple of leading so-called progressive blogs. To my consternation, I suddenly realized these mostly young Obama supporters aren’t even aware they’re being sexist with their crude, offensive comments that once targeted Hillary Clinton, but are now primarily aimed at Sarah Palin.

Obama’s millions of online supporters don’t appear to know the difference between sexist attacks and civil discourse in discussing political issues; their mindlessly offensive comments are their normative behavior.

But here we are on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008 and what more can I do or say? I confess that a part of me grieves that on a day when many are gleefully anticipating a potential landslide for Obama, my principles dictate that I must sit on the sidelines. A life-long Democrat, there was a time when I longed to see my party return to the White House. But the wounds from the primary and the obviously rigged Democratic convention are still too raw. And having recently left the Democratic Party to re-register as non-affiliated, I can’t bring myself to vote for the lesser of two evils. What a travesty in these perilous times that the name of Hillary Clinton, obviously the best qualified of all the candidates who announced in 2008, is not on the ballot.

Guess I’ll skip TV coverage of the gathering in Grant Park tonight; it would feel sacrilegious.

Gloria Steinem Speaks Out Against Sexism in 2008 Campaign

Photo credits: CBS News

After the “Iron my shirt!” incident at a Clinton campaign event last night in New Hampshire, Gloria Steinem’s op-ed in today’s New York Times was a much-needed lift to the morale of any self-respecting woman.

For me personally, Steinem’s article titled Women Are Never Front-Runners was like a chance encounter with an old friend from the trenches of the second wave of the feminist movement a couple of decades ago.

I’ve met Steinem in person two or three times over the years, but the occasion I remember most vividly was a 1980 gathering in Chicago of over 90,000 supporters to march on behalf of the Equal Rights Amendment. The event was coordinated by Jane Byrne, the first woman mayor of Chicago, who was joined in Grant Park by Steinem, Marlow Thomas, Ellie Smeal, and other feminist leaders.

Years later, Steinem’s words still have the power to stir both the mind and the heart. She began her op-ed today with a leap of imagination followed by challenging her readers to be honest:

“THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

“Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?”

After giving her reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton in this election, Steinem listed her worries about the 2008 campaign, worries that we should all pause to carefully consider:

”But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

“What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

“What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

“What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

That’s a lot to worry about.

Having noted earlier that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, she’ll support him, Steinem concluded:

“This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: ‘I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.’”