wm (02/06/83)
The following article is by Caryl Rivers, associate professor of journalism at Boston University. It is reprinted here without permission. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill ---------------------------------------------------------------- E.R.A.'s Death, and Fear of New Women As a new equal rights amendment begins it journey in Congress, it is important to understand why the old E.R.A. was not ratified by the states. It died largely because of a very real but unarticulated fear of what would happen to the world if women changed. In a society that gives its highest rewards to the doers and the makers of money, there is also an understanding that all this activity is supported by an invisible network of helping and caring, which is the "glue" that holds society together. At some level -- often subconscious -- people worry that without the glue of nurture, things fall apart. The center cannot hold. This is not an unreasonable fear. In a world that seems increasingly alien and lacking in human connections, a diminution of caring would be a terrible blow. Many people see the E.R.A. not as a symbol of what women might gain but of what society might lose. The challenge for E.R.A. supporters is to detach that fear of loss from the issue of justice for women. But it's tough to convince people that when women gain access to full citizenhood, the family will not perish, nor will tenderness between men and women disappear. The fear of women's changing has a long history, and rational arguments don't make a dent. Early in the century, it was argued that women would be "hardened" and the family destroyed if women got the vote. Why does legislation that gives women a greater share of power raise the specter that women will be radically changed by it? Because society still operates on a "male" idea of power as a means of self-aggrandizement. Even though many men are able to integrate a concern for people and a sensitivity to human feelings into their managerial style, we don't think of power as something to be used for the good of all. So, we assume that women will use power exactly the way men are supposed to. Will women abandon caring and helping as they move into the wider world? The early evidence suggests that most will not. Most will not become like the Margaret Thatchers and Indira Gandhis who have to out-tough the tough guys to survive at the top. In most women, the notion of responsibility for others is deeply ingrained from early childhood. A psychoanalyst, Jean Baker Miller, defines it as an understanding that "I must care for those who are not me." The power of this message is illustrated by the work of a Harvard University psychologist, Carol Gilligan, who studied 144 men and women to determine the ways in which they made moral decisions -- decided what was right and wrong. She found that women often made such decisions differently from men, giving more weight to the impact these decisions had on others. Women also have a complex view of how decisions could affect relationships. A moral decision made on abstract principle alone seems too bloodless for women. Women, it seems, are bringing this complex, people-oriented view of the world into their new roles. When two psychologists, Grace Baruch and Rosalind Barnett of the Wellesley Center for Research on Women, studied 300 women between the ages of 35 and 55, they found that many working women were very aware of the needs and feelings of others and tried to find ways to incorporate these perceptions into their job performance. As one woman put it, "I've discovered that nice people can have power." As women gain more access to power, they may move away from the traits of passivity and dependence, too often called "feminine." But most will retain a way of looking at life in which caring is vital. It may be that only when enough women move into the work place and discover that female values can survive there will they be able to succeed without imitation men. A "critical mass" may be necessary before women can change the game -- not just play it. And, as old sex stereotypes ease, men may be permitted the intimacy and concern for others that the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson has called "generativity." When caring is decreed to be solely the province of women -- and then, if women are excluded from art and commerce and politics and law -- no wonder that society takes on the appearance of the jungle. "I must care for those who are not me" is a message to be heeded by all people if modern society is to survive. Seen in this light, the equal rights amendment is a step toward a world that is more humane, not less. But this is an argument that is not easy to make. The fear is still there. Maybe only time -- and a new generation not made unesy by the shadows of the old -- will be able to erase it.