Jezebel: equal rights amendment

The Way We Were: Life Magazine Photos Of Women In The 1970s

Dodai — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:00:00 EST

As you may know, the Life magazine photo archive is now online, and we've been showcasing images of women in different decades; the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s. Now, the 1970s.

I've been wondering, while searching, why I haven't been getting as much variety as I'd hoped. Using the search engine, I've used the keywords "women" "woman" "female" and "fashion" or "style" or "models" or "actresses." And last night, it FINALLY occurred to me to try "girls." And of course, all these pictures of women came up. Surfer girls, chorus girls, girls in mini skirts. That's how they were captioned back then. It never dawned on me that I was being too modern about it. So. If you want to see "girls" of the 1930s, "girls" of the 1940s, "girls" of the 1950s or "girls" of the 1960s, I encourage you to poke around, and supplement my galleries of women in these decades.

And now: the 1970s.

California Girls. 1970.

The dog and the chick are living the dream.

Weightlifting Girls, 1972.

Former gymnasts and ballet dancers: Can you recall that thick itchy texture of the aptly named, unflattering thing known as the leotard?

Aspen girls, 1971.

Wow. Just wow. There's a whole series of shots on the "Aspen girl" lifestyle, which seems to involve skiing, swimming and booze.

Youths waiting at Battery Park to see Pope John Paul II. New York, 1979.

Only one young lady doesn't mind waiting to see the Pope. The others are all, "Come on, your holiness. It's freakin' raining."

LIFE Cover 4/2/1971 of pregnant teenager reading in front of class.

Don't you love when the years change and the headlines stay the same?

Enthusiastic and resolute women in large parade down Fifth Avenue on the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted the women the right to vote, as they march for further women's rights. New York, September, 1970.

As the kids say: Awesomesauce.

Six generations of women from an American family. 1972. Photograph by Alfred Eisenstaedt.

Amazing! So cool how some of them have glasses and all of them have the same wide mouth.

Signs saying "Women Unite" carried by women supporters during "Women's Liberation" demonstration on Fifth Avenue and on Wall Street. New York, 1970.

That is unite, not "untie."

Renate Stecher (R) in action during the women's 100 meter race at the Summer Olympics. Munich, 1972.

Do the American uniforms look like Garanimals?

US track athlete Mabel Fergerson in action at the Summer Olympics. Munich, 1972.

Fantastic shot.

Navajo woman modeling turquoise pins & a squash blossom necklace made by Native Americans. New Mexico, 1972.

Gorgeous. Want!

80 yr. old actress Mrs. Judith Lowry on motorcycle with grandson. 1970.

You don't even have to check Ms. Lowry's IMDb page to know that she is your new favorite person.

Congresswoman Bella S. Abzug attending political rally. 1972.

The word champagne and that hat and that dress = not politics as usual.

A female employee checking the gun that her boss keeps in the building for security purposes. 1972.

Note to self: Don't work here.

Female engineer Janet Petra Bonnema who was banned from a tunnel construction site because of superstitions. 1972.

Those fools! Have you ever heard of such an idiotic thing?

Democratic Reprsenative from California Mrs. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. 1972

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke was the first African-American woman to represent the West Coast in Congress. She was a member of the California State Assembly from 1967–1973; was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives initially representing portions of Los Angeles from 1973–1979; represented the 4th district of L.A. from 1979–1980, and retired from the Los Angeles County board of supervisors on December 1 of 2008.

LIFE cover 08/21/1970: Mini skirted woman looking at a midi skirt for possible purchase.

This is an amazing photograph and proof that hem length is news-worthy!

Young African American girl blowing on a whistle. 1971.

I had a dress like that. Smocking was big.

Director Matt Cimber (R) directing the making of porn film "The Sexuous Woman." Hollywood,1970.

Sorry, but sex in that car cannot be comfortable.

Comedinne Phyllis Diller listening to the heart of a young woman during a "Stop Smoking Cruise." 1970.

El oh el at her eyebrows and watch!

Bizarrely dressed woman spectator at Watergate hearings. June, 1973.

"Deep throat is people!"

Gloria Steinem kneeling down beside Bella Abzug during the Democratic Convention. 1972.

This one seems like a good Hanukkah gift, no? Don't forget that any of these can be purchased framed!

Naked woman modeling body paint, which consists of a lei around her neck and pieces of fruit on her abdomen. 1970.

Yes, but: Why?

African American woman sitting on a motorcycle w. her child, part of the growing numbers of black motorcycle enthusiasts. 1971.

That kid definitely knows his mom is cooler than all of the other moms.

Employees of Saks Fifth Avenue watching a fashion show promoting midi-length skirts. 1970.

That front row is all disapproving malcontents. Love them.

Actor Rock Hudson sitting on MGM lot w. eight midi-skirted starlets who play opposite him in "Pretty Maids All In a Row." Hollywood, 1970.

Each of these dresses is wonderfully ridiculous in its own special way, and Rock Hudson knows it.

Instant Dress, 1972.

This dress also came in blue, and hopefully with instructions. It was called the "Instant Dress" but appeared to be a nylon sarong.

Instant dress, 1972.

Serving suggestions.

Actor Curt Jurgens w. wife and two female companions lathering up in a bathtub he had built in his den. France, 1972.

I want to go to there.

Candace Bergen, 1970.

This woman should always be surrounded by pastel rainbows.

Jane Fonda, 1971.

Jane Fonda, doing what she does best — bucking the system.

LIFE cover 05/07/1971 Feminist Germaine Greer.

Oh, hey!

Newlyweds kissing in heart-shaped tub on honeymoon at Cove Haven resort in the Poconos. 1971.

That camera on the tripod just left there all alone is Creepcity, USA.

"Lance Link - Secret Chimp" - TV Program. 1970.

Really? Really, America?

Contestant and Life Magazine reporter Judy Fayard on TV game show, "The Dating Game." Hollywood, 1972.

Sending out a big kiss to one of the best shows ever!

Cover of LIFE magazine dated 06/09/1972 w. pic of feminist Congresswoman Bella Abzug.

Again: Don't you love when the years change and the headlines stay the same?

Graduating African Americans wearing African style fashions at Howard University, during commencements. 1970.

Loving those glasses on the far right.

Kids' Wigs - J.C. Penny's Dept. Store. 1970.

Kid wigs! Click to see more styles!

Children at school bus stop. North Carolina, 1971.

Headband? Check. Glasses? Check. Braces? Check. Short-shorts? Check. Floral notebook? Check. Graphic jumpsuit? Check. Awesome sneakers? Check. Too cool for school? CHECK!

Life Magazine Photo Archive [Google]
Earlier: The Way We Were: Life Magazine Photos Of Women In The 1960s
The Way We Were: Life Magazine Photos Of Women In The 1950s
The Way We Were: Life Magazine Photos Of Women In The 1940s
The Way We Were: Life Magazine Photos Of Women In The 1930s

Going Forward After Intolerance Wins Out On The West Coast

Megan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:40:00 EST

Let's just all admit it. False optimism aside, the religious wackjobs who spent millions upon millions of dollars to deny equal rights to U.S. citizens because of whom they choose to spend their lives with have won the day in sunny and supposedly liberal state of California. As of 9:40 ET this morning, with 95% of precincts reporting. the Intolerants were winning by 403,573 votes out with about 522,329 remaining to be counted. Those opposed to restricting civil rights in this country would have to take 80% or more of those remaining votes to win. So, the 2 million absentee ballots received yesterday aside — as they're likely to break the same way as the vote broke, if not more conservatively — it's over. The question remains, though: where do equality advocates go from here?

There will be a case filed by the LGBT community against the amendment, though on what grounds that remains unclear. If their legal strategy through the years has shown one thing, it will resolutely not be a Supreme Court challenge, not right off the bat. They'll likely start slowly in the state courts, seek an injunction and try to have the proposition overturned on technical legal grounds. It's a decent strategy...if you're not a man or a woman in, say, the Midwest who would really, really like the state to acknowledge the legal validity of your same sex relationship.

Basically, everyone acknowledges that same-sex marriage advocates are trying to wait out the Supreme Court. But why? In December, a case emerged in Rhode Island that seemed like it could be suitable for, at least, overturning the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act, which says that states need not acknowledge the validity of gay marriages in other states. In this case, a couple married in Massachusetts later moved to Rhode Island and even later sought a divorce — but since Rhode Island doesn't recognize their marriage, it can't grant them a divorce. At the time, my (conservative) legal sources told me that this case could present a clear challenge to the DOMA under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, or the Full Faith and Credit Clause. According to my sources, the clause requires states to accept the validity of contracts signed in other states and marriage, according to the state, is nothing but a contract. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that he's not sure he could rule in favor of upholding the DOMA if it were challenged on Constitutional grounds. Of course, if this were to actually happen, it would set California up to have to acknowledge the legitimacy of same sex marriages performed in other states even as its constitution didn't allow for them to be performed in-state, but stranger things have happened.

Contacted for comment, Harvard professor and constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe disagrees that a DOMA challenged based on full faith and credit is a viable legal strategy.

There is no chance that the Court would hold that DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which unfortunately doesn’t compel states to accept marriages from other states and wouldn’t compel them to do so even in the absence of DOMA. The only possible constitutional challenge to laws like Prop 8 would be that it violates the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. I believe such a challenge has merit but am quite confident that the Supreme Court as currently composed wouldn’t agree. And because the only Justices who are likely to be replaced during the Obama presidency – at least in his first term – are those to the left of center, there is no prospect that this unfortunate situation will change in the foreseeable future.

Well, that's depressing, even if it is some legal recognition that marriage provides people protections under the law and denying it to people based on sex is a likely violation of the 14th amendment.

Going back to my initial, more conservative source, he agrees with Tribe's analysis of the equal protection clause's applicability to same sex marriage, adding that it is his understanding that Scalia might, in fact, rule the same way. He points out that while the Court does not recognize that the state has a compelling interest for discriminating or differentiating based on race, that it does, in fact, allow for some level of acknowledgment of sex within the law (see: women in the military). But, even then, the argument that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting its citizens from getting married based on the sex of the citizen they wished to marry would be a stretch.

But that, actually, brings up another question . The Equal Rights Amendment would have curtailed even more sharply the "compelling interest" argument offered for sex differentiation/discrimination allowed by the Supreme Court — in fact, that was one of the reasons it failed. It said:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I also think this might be a perfectly good time to mention that the President-elect, Barack Obama, co-sponsored legislation this Congress to amend the Constitution in exactly this way. Just, you know, pointing it out, wish-list style. Especially since, in my opinion, the Democratic Party's pander-y official opposition to marriage equality apparently let plenty of Democrats feel free to vote for this abhorrence. I think we're owed one.

Proposition 8-Same Sex Marriage Ban [San Francisco Chronicle]
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Winning [San Francisco Chronicle]

Earlier: Marriage Equality? Money Talks, And Politicians Ought To

Standing Up For Equality Can Have Its Downsides

Megan — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:30:00 EDT

Matt Welch at Reason is all up in arms over an ages-old report unearthed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Barack Obama supports equitable Selective Service requirements. Selective Service is — if you're not aware — a pre-draft procedure for which all men 18-25 have to register in case we decide to institute a draft. Women can't register for it since the military prevents us from serving in combat — although more than 100 female soldiers have died in Iraq. But what bringing up equity in the Selective Service is supposed to remind people of is not that we're involved in a war in which thousands of Americans are dying or anything, but that equal rights for women — and the great conservative boogeyman of the eighties, the Equal Rights Amendment — can be, like, bad. And of course us ladies don't want our equal rights if it means we gotta put the seat down in a public restroom and whatever.

What Obama said, back at the YouTube debate last year, was:

And I think that if women are registered for service — not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft — I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do.

Conservative women's groups argued a year ago, as during the ultimately unsuccessful fight to enshrine women's equality in our constitution, that women don't really want equality if it's uncomfortable for us sometimes. The president of Concerned Women for America, Wendy Wright, said:

On the surface, Americans want equality, but when you get into the nitty-gritty of laws that would not allow any distinction to be made between men and women, that's when Americans say, 'That's going too far. Men do have a natural sense of wanting to protect. Women have a natural sense of wanting to nurture. These are both beautiful characteristics — highly valued characteristics. And it's demeaning to deny that women have certain characteristics that are different than men.

Gag.

Look, would I want to register for the Selective Service? No, not at all. Of course, I was also kind of freaked out when I accompanied by high school boyfriend to do it, too. It's a likely-unnecessary system for a draft everyone swears won't happen anyway, not that either candidate is offering to get rid of it. But do you know what I like less than the thought of registering to register for a draft? Not having equality. So, you know what? I'm happy to pee in the damn unisex restroom, I'm happy to register for the Selective Service and I'm happy to not get special treatment for being a woman if it means that you have to pay me as much as a man. Deal? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Girls Gone ~~Wild~~ Killed [Reason]
Candidates Differ On Female Draft [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
Democratic Candidates Back Selective Service For Women [Baptist Messenger of Omaha]
The Equal Rights Amendment And The Bible [Brethren Revival Fellowship]
Phyllis Schlafly, Then and Now [The Slog]