Class Six:

Important Women’s Voices

With the exception of Fannie Lou Hamer’s powerful plea to seat the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964, we haven’t heard women’s speeches. Undoubtedly, there were many—speaking out for women’s rights, civil rights, for peace, and against the war. But women weren’t very well represented in the elective bodies or in other highly visible positions of power. Since they weren’t well represented in leadership positions, they weren’t recorded. In addition, men controlled the media and, therefore, controlled how women were presented. As a result, there’s not much of a record available on YouTube, for instance, so they aren’t truly represented here. What we get are bits and pieces of speeches or interviews contained in programs from or about the time. We often have to go outside the decade to find complete speeches.

One notable example came a decade earlier when Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith stood up to the powerful demagogue, Senator Joseph McCarthy, in her 1950 “Declaration of Conscience” speech:

In this well-crafted and courageous speech, the Senate’s only female member, in her first term no less, urges her party not to “ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear.” (Sounds like it could be given today about another demagogue who was twice impeached by the House while in office.) Smith is also a harbinger of another young Congresswoman, also in her first term, Rep. Barbara Lee, who rises before her chamber fifty years later to explain her sole dissent to the resolution to use force in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Since there are few recordings available, this class relies heavily on programs about important women in the decade and the issues women spoke out on during the 60s and the 70s. There are some gems in the form of speech excerpts in these programs; notably, the short clip of a speech that Rep. Shirley Chisholm gave to the unwed mothers’ graduation from Bedford-Stuyvesant High School in the program “The Irrepressible Shirley Chisholm”.

When we can hear their powerful voices, we realize that most of them were not issuing strident diatribes against men, but rather giving us well-reasoned and reasonable arguments for equality with data and stories to back up what they were saying. And they are concerned about the well-being of men and children as well as women.

It’s interesting to note that the women’s leaders frequently compared their pursuit of justice with that of the Black civil rights leaders of the day.

We do have texts of speeches by some important women of the day to look at; e.g., Rachel Carson’s 1963 speech to the Garden Club of America, Shirley Chisholm’s floor speech in the House proposing and supporting the Equal Rights Amendment in 1969, Gloria Steinem’s Senate testimony in favor of the ERA, and Betty Friedan’s keynote address at the first National Conference for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. In this powerful speech, she not only articulates the need for a woman’s movement to gain their deserved status, but also proclaims abortion as a woman’s civil right.

Background Programs and Videos

Vanderbilt Program on TV Coverage of Women’s Movement

Betty Friedan 1977 Interview on Thames Television

Betty Friedan CBC Interview 1964

Rachel Maddow Honoring Shirley Chisolm‘s Election to Congress in 1968

Shirley Chisholm NBC Program “The Irrepressible Shirley Chisolm” 1969

Shirley Chisholm: The First Black Congresswoman interview

Gloria Steinem: Feminist Activist interview

Speeches

Rachel Carson Garden Club of America Speech January 8, 1963: READ (text only)

When I first read this speech, I thought it was very well written, but perhaps more appropriate for a paper than a talk. A speech generally has more “air” as I call it—places that allow the speaker to pause. A speech is not as densely worded as an article might be. And frequently uses repetition to make sure important points get across since the audience can’t go back and read something again. Also, a speech often has a mix of short and long sentences. And, generally, has more figures of speech—images, alliteration, allusions. A speech sounds different than an article read aloud. At the same time, I recognize that she’s not trying to inspire a group of protesters or talk to concerned constituents. She’s a scientist talking to a group of women who share her love of living things and the environment.

But on reading it again, I see that she did a number of things that good speakers do. First, at the beginning of the speech, she extends a “handshake” to the audience. That’s when she pays tribute to the Garden Club of America—her audience—and she goes on to show them that her interest and theirs are in line. She makes a connection with them.

Also, she provides a “roadmap” for the audience of what she wants to talk about in her speech at the end of the introduction. She says that she wants to “assess with you some of the progress that has been made and to take a look at…the struggle that lies before us.”

In the body of the speech, I think she does an excellent job of providing examples of what she’s talking about so that her statements are backed up with evidence and data. And she is able to talk about science in language that everyone in that audience can understand. Not too many scientists have this gift.

Also, this speech is not all “gloom and doom” as many people may have assumed since it is being given by the author of “Silent Spring”. I was taken by her even-handedness. Occasionally, there’s even a glimpse of humor or certainly facetious wit when referring to the chemical industry. At the same time, you have to take this woman seriously because she has the facts to back up the assertions that she is making.

Another indication of her awareness of what’s required in a speech is her use of anaphora. She only uses it once, but she uses it effectively when talking about how to get out of the present deplorable situation, i.e., the overuse and careless use of “biocides” as she calls them. She has a succession of clauses beginning with “we must…” to enumerate the actions that need to be taken. Note the use of the inclusive pronoun, “we”. She is talking to allies when she is talking to the Garden Club of America.

Her speech concludes with warnings of some of the ways that the chemical industry is trying to undermine attempts to regulate or require necessary testing on their products. In addition to suggesting that the Garden Club of America and other environmental organizations try to change the income tax law that is benefiting the chemical industry’s lobbying effort, she leaves them with some practical advice all of them can follow. When confronted with information, ask: “Who speaks? And why?”

This is a reasonable and effective persuasive speech.

From what I understand, Ms. Carson was a very reluctant public speaker. But she certainly had important things to say. And we can be grateful that she had the courage to get up and speak and the concern and expertise to write the books that she did. We could use her today in the fight against climate change.

Shirley Chisholm Proposes Equal Rights Amendment (House Floor Speech) May 21, 1969: READ (text only)

In this short, but articulate speech, Rep. Chisholm compares the situation of women with Blacks. Both are victims of longstanding prejudice. Both are considered to be inferior to their white male counterparts. But she points out that at least, thanks to protests and activism, racial prejudice is beginning to become unacceptable because “white America is beginning to admit that it exists.” Whereas prejudice against women is still acceptable. “There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as ‘for men only.’”

Being Black and a woman, she’s got the credibility to make this particular comparison. She also points out that in the political world, she has far more often been discriminated against because she’s a woman than because she is Black.

She then goes on to make a rational case for the amendment by citing the data. How women outnumber men in this country by three and one-half million, but women just occupy two percent of the managerial positions. And that there were no women on the Supreme Court or on the AFL-CIO council and only ten in the House of Representatives and one Senator. (Fortunately, some things have changed since 1969, but we are seeing considerable losses of hard-won rights.)

Chisholm was no shrinking violet. She took on the powers that be—whether it was her own party leaders who wanted to place her on an inconsequential committee or bigoted southern congressmen, she had the wit and umbrage to stand up for those who needed it most and the rhetorical skills to shape a persuasive argument. In this particular speech, she does a good job making the case for the ERA by not only dramatizing what women faced in the workplace (first interview question: “Do you type?”), but also by refuting the two most common arguments against it—that it’s not needed and that it would wipe out existing legislation protecting women. Her point: if women were equal, they wouldn’t need special protection! She concludes her speech by coining the phrase, “male supremacist myth”, to describe those who say that one sex needs protection more than the other.

She would become a mentor to and inspiration for the women who followed her.

Betty Friedan Keynote Speech “Abortion: A Woman’s Civil Right” February 14, 1969 (**Text provided separately.)

Betty Friedan Co-founder of NOW date uncertain—probably later than 60s:

Betty Friedan ignited the second wave of the women’s movement with her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique. She was a co-founder of the National Organization of Women in 1966 and an acute commentator on the changes taking place in the 1960s. A good examplis her description of the long-haired young men who are “strong enough to be gentle” in her 1964 CBC interview.

The occasion of this speech is the first National Conference for Repeal of Abortion Laws, but Betty Friedan is taking on a much bigger issue—institutional sexism. She is the keynote speaker.

The speech is one of only three by women to be included in a compendium of great speeches, The Penguin Book of Twentieth Century Speeches. It’s well-written and well-reasoned which a persuasive speech has to be.

Since we have videos of her speaking, you can easily hear and see her saying these words. She has the best speechwriter for capturing her voice: herself. Her task is a tough one: taking on motherhood and marriage. Two things so embedded in the American fabric that they shouldn’t be questioned. Yet, she does. And does it well. Recognizing full well what the women’s movement is up against and the negative image that “women’s libbers” have already gotten.

Along with numerous examples of how women are treated and very clear writing, she uses rhetorical devices like anaphora and alliteration.

She uses anaphora to raise and answer the questions foremost on people’s minds.

“Am I saying that women must be liberated from sex? No. I am saying…”

“Am I saying that women must be liberated from motherhood.? No. I am saying…”

“Am I saying that women have to be liberated from men? That men are the enemy? No.”

As a man learning about and reading this speech for the first time, I regret it took so long to find it. As she says in the speech, “…men will only truly be liberated to love women and to be fully themselves when women are liberated to have a full say in the decisions of their lives and their societies.”

Later she says, “If we are allowed to become full people, not only will children be born and brought up with more love and responsibility than today, but we will break out of the confines of that sterile little suburban family to relate to each other in terms of all of the possible dimensions of our personalities…”

She was also prescient about the urgent need for many more women in the professions if we were to solve the big societal and ecological challenges ahead of us.

Clearly, this is not just some diatribe against men or a pro-abortion rant, but rather a vision of a better future. Too bad more people, not just men, didn’t hear or read this speech sooner. Where’s our Betty Friedan today when we urgently need strong voices against repression.

Hillary Rodham’s 1969 Wellesley Commencement Speech May 31, 1969

This video shows us a thoughtful and articulate young woman, unafraid of breaking down barriers and correcting a male Senator who spoke just before her. It’s a preview of the formidable politician and public servant she would become. Like a more seasoned speaker, she shows that she has listened carefully to the person who spoke before her and responds to what he had to say before beginning her speech.

I like her speech. It seems genuine and fresh because she isn’t yet on the national stage, under a spotlight of intense scrutiny of everything she says, everything she does. And she has written it herself and is talking about the experience she and her audience have shared. Yes, it’s a privileged audience, but she isn’t going to let them rest on that privilege. She knows big things are being asked of them and she’s encouraging them to go out and do them. My favorite line is “Fear is always with us, but we just don’t have time for it. Not now.” (That tone of impatience sounds like her, doesn’t it?)

In the four years these grads have been in college, they’ve witnessed numerous urban riots, the huge expansion of the war in Vietnam and violent responses against those who oppose it, and the assassinations of MLK and RFK. Yes, these are scary times, but they only summon her to act, not to shrink in fear, as the older alum she mentions does.

She was the first student to speak at a Wellesley commencement and listening to her, it’s easy to see why she was selected. She comes across as incredibly honest and genuine. And a leader.

Angela Davis speaking at UCLA October 8, 1969

Angela Davis was an activist and intellectual. Scary to most whites because she’s not only a strong voice against the white establishment—represented here by the Board of Regents of the University of California system but also because she’s a communist.

In this speech which seems to be largely unscripted, she talks about a conspiracy against Black and brown people, alleging that the powers that control the university have a different goal for education than she and the faculty. She believes that education should liberate minds, not mold them in vessels of conforming values. And bases her case on the make-up of the Board of Regents which was composed of and represented the banks and the corporations of the state, not the people of the state. She even echoes President Eisenhower’s concerns about the effects that government research grants have on academic freedom of expression.

She also recognizes and cites examples of how institutional racism pervades the university. And cites research, albeit informal and anecdotal, to back her claims. She mentions “research done by friends…” on several occasions. I’m not sure how much credibility that research might be accorded in a different venue with a more objective audience, but it seems to work in this setting.

She feels very strongly that politics should be brought into the classroom, not left outside it. Having just been fired for her politics, she finds a supportive audience in the students and faculty listening to her speech.

Hearing her castigate the Board of Regents, is a lot more pleasant to listen to than hearing the much angrier, much cruder, Eldredge Cleaver say similar things.

However, like her male contemporaries, she is seen as someone to be concerned about because of the seriousness of her allegations and because of her “Natural” hairstyle. She was immediately recognizable. And suspect. A threat to white control and the status quo.

Gloria Steinem Senate Testimony for Equal Rights Amendment May 6, 1970: READ (text only)

While technically not a 60s speech since it took place in early 1970, it’s important to have an example of Gloria Steinem’s strong voice represented in the course. After all, she is the one most of us immediately think of when we think of the Women’s Movement. This testimony at a Senate hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a good example of her intelligence, her wit, and her ability to articulate what the women’s movement is all about.

Effective testimony by an invited guest before Congress has to be respectful, concise, clear, and as much as possible, convincing. And despite the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to pass, this is effective testimony. Steinem’s statement does a very good job of anticipating and answering as best she could the questions on the Senators’ minds about this amendment. While she may not have made many converts to her point of view since the country was still mired in a patriarchal mindset, she does a very good job of articulating the various myths about the sexes. In a sense, she is saying much the same thing that Betty Frieden said in Feminine Mystique. Only this time her audience is primarily male – the vast majority of officeholders.

Notice how she uses transitional phrases to help the Senators follow her argument about the sex-based myths. She also uses humor to try to disarm some of the more difficult things for these males in power to hear. An excellent writer, you can hear her way with words in such memorable phrases as “…women’s liberation is men’s liberation too” and the wonderful concluding line that pays off the paragraph about the male tendency to subjugate people who are different than them, “After all, we won’t have our masculinity to prove.”

This is a particularly poignant line coming as it did only two days after National Guardsmen killed four students on the Kent State campus who were protesting the Nixon Administration’s invasion of Cambodia.

This testimony formed the core of the commencement address she gave to Vassar graduates three weeks later.

Congresswoman Bella Abzug Speech from the 1970s, but a good definition of Women’s Movement:

While not elected to political office until 1970, Bella Abzug was long an outspoken activist, lawyer, and voice for women’s rights and social justice. According to her House of Representatives’ bio, Norman Mailer once described that voice as “an instrument that could boil the fat off a cab driver’s neck.” But again, there’s not much in the way of video footage to show and hear her in action in the 60s. What we do see is a clip from a talk in 1977 in which she refutes the common “elitist” charge against the women’s movement: “(It is) not some upper-middle-class thing that people try to make it but US…”, the working-class, neighborhood women she is addressing.

We also have a great example of her humor in the spoof of the American Express “Do you know me?” advertising campaign of the time.

Bella Abzug’s Humor—American Express Card Parody