OCR Specification focus:
‘The Equal Rights Amendment campaign and changing employment opportunities shaped identity.’
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) campaign symbolised women’s ongoing struggle for equality in law and society, intertwining with evolving employment opportunities to redefine gender identity in America.
Origins and Aims of the Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) emerged as a central focus of the women’s movement in the twentieth century, seeking to guarantee legal equality between men and women under the US Constitution.
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): A proposed constitutional amendment first introduced in 1923, intended to ensure that rights could not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on the basis of sex.
Initially proposed by Alice Paul and the National Woman’s Party in 1923, the ERA aimed to build on the success of the 19th Amendment (1920), which had granted women the vote.
Its concise wording – “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” – reflected its straightforward demand for legal equality.
The amendment sought to eliminate laws that perpetuated gender-based distinctions, particularly in employment, property, divorce, and other civil matters.
Although early momentum stalled due to resistance from politicians and even some women’s groups, the revival of the women’s movement in the 1960s brought the ERA back into the national spotlight.
Second-Wave Feminism and the ERA Revival
The second-wave feminist movement, beginning in the 1960s, provided the crucial context for the renewed push for the ERA.
Organisations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), founded in 1966, prioritised constitutional equality.
Leaders like Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique (1963), argued that entrenched gender roles limited women’s social and economic potential.
Activists linked the ERA to broader civil rights struggles, framing gender equality as part of America’s unfinished democratic project.
By the early 1970s, public opinion appeared to favour the ERA. Congress passed the amendment in 1972, sending it to the states for ratification with a seven-year deadline.
Ratification Efforts and Opposition
The campaign initially gained rapid support: 35 states ratified the ERA by 1977, just three short of the required 38.
Map showing U.S. states that ratified the Equal Rights Amendment and those that did not during the 1970s–early 1980s campaign. This visual clarifies the constitutional threshold (three-quarters of states) and why momentum stalled after 1977. The map focuses on ratification status; it does not depict later 2017–2020 ratifications debated for legal effect (extra contextual detail not required by the syllabus). Source
Support and Strategies
Pro-ERA activists engaged in lobbying, demonstrations, and grassroots organising to build bipartisan coalitions.
Groups like NOW and the League of Women Voters highlighted the legal and symbolic importance of constitutional equality.
Supporters argued that existing protections, such as the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Title IX (1972), while significant, were insufficient without constitutional backing.
Opposition and Backlash
However, formidable opposition emerged, slowing momentum and eventually preventing ratification.
Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP ERA campaign portrayed the amendment as a threat to traditional gender roles, family structures, and protective labour laws for women.
Opponents warned that the ERA could undermine laws related to alimony, single-sex spaces, and even women’s exemption from the military draft.
State legislatures in more conservative regions resisted, and some attempted to rescind earlier ratifications.
Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no additional states ratified. The ERA failed to enter the Constitution, illustrating both the strength and limits of feminist political mobilisation.
Changing Employment Opportunities and Their Impact
The ERA campaign coincided with significant changes in women’s employment patterns from the 1960s onwards, reshaping both gender roles and women’s identity in American society.
Expanding Workforce Participation
Women’s labour force participation rose dramatically, from around 38% in 1960 to over 57% by 1990.
Time-series chart of U.S. labour-force participation, including a line for women that rises steeply from the 1960s to the late 1990s, corroborating the expansion discussed in the notes. The graphic also plots men for comparison — extra detail beyond the syllabus — but it clarifies the scale of women’s relative gains. Data originate from BLS/FRED. Source
Factors driving this included rising educational attainment, economic necessity, and new opportunities in professional and white-collar work.
Legislation such as the Equal Pay Act (1963) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) outlawed many forms of workplace discrimination.
These changes transformed societal expectations. Women increasingly balanced employment with domestic responsibilities, challenging traditional notions of femininity and the “separate spheres” ideology.
Persistent Inequalities
Despite these advances, structural inequalities remained:
The gender pay gap persisted, with women earning about 70–75% of men’s wages by the 1980s.
Occupational segregation continued, with women concentrated in lower-paying, “feminised” sectors such as education, healthcare, and clerical work.
Discrimination in hiring, promotion, and maternity policies continued to limit advancement.
Proponents of the ERA argued that constitutional equality was essential to addressing these entrenched disparities and preventing legal regression.
The ERA’s Symbolic Significance and Legacy
Although the ERA failed to be ratified by 1982, its campaign had profound effects on American society and women’s identity.
Legal and Cultural Shifts
Even without the ERA, feminist activism contributed to a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to prohibit many forms of sex discrimination (e.g., Reed v. Reed 1971).
The campaign spurred widespread public debate on the meaning of equality and women’s roles, influencing policymaking and workplace culture.
Identity and Feminism
The ERA movement fostered a new sense of collective identity among women, linking legal equality to personal autonomy, self-determination, and civic participation.
Employment became not merely an economic necessity but a vital component of women’s social status and empowerment.
Feminists reframed work as a site of liberation rather than subordination, challenging assumptions that domesticity was women’s “natural” sphere.
Continuing Relevance
Efforts to revive the ERA have persisted into the twenty-first century. States such as Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and Virginia (2020) have ratified the amendment, reigniting debates about its legal status and necessity. The continuing campaign underscores how constitutional equality remains a powerful, if unfinished, aspiration.
Broader Implications for Civil Rights
The ERA campaign illustrates key themes in the history of American civil rights:
The interaction between legal change and social movements, showing how activism shapes constitutional discourse.
The limits of formal equality without deeper structural reform, evident in persistent gendered inequalities in work and society.
The evolving relationship between gender, identity, and citizenship, as women sought not only equal rights but recognition as full participants in the nation’s political, economic, and cultural life.
Through the lens of the ERA and shifting employment opportunities, the twentieth century saw profound redefinitions of what it meant to be a woman in America — a transformation that continues to evolve.
FAQ
The failure to ratify the ERA in 1982 forced feminist organisations to adapt their strategies beyond constitutional amendment campaigns. They focused more on achieving equality through legislation and judicial interpretation of existing constitutional provisions, such as the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Groups also invested in grassroots political mobilisation, encouraging women to run for office and influence policy from within. By shifting towards incremental reforms in employment law, education, and reproductive rights, feminists continued advancing equality despite the ERA’s defeat.
Opposition from certain women’s groups stemmed from concerns about losing “protective” labour legislation, such as limits on working hours or conditions designed specifically for female workers.
Conservative women’s organisations, most notably Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA, argued that the amendment would dismantle traditional gender roles and family structures.
They warned it might lead to outcomes such as:
Compulsory military service for women
Loss of gender-specific legal privileges (e.g., alimony)
Removal of single-sex spaces
These arguments resonated with socially conservative voters and contributed significantly to the amendment’s failure.
The Supreme Court filled part of the constitutional gap left by the ERA’s failure by broadly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
Key cases included:
Reed v. Reed (1971): The Court struck down a law favouring men as estate administrators, recognising sex discrimination as unconstitutional.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973): It extended equal benefits to female military spouses, emphasising gender equality under law.
These decisions, though not as sweeping as an amendment, provided a judicial foundation for challenging gender discrimination, gradually shaping women’s legal status.
The economic restructuring of the 1970s and 1980s created new job opportunities for women but also introduced new challenges.
Growth in the service sector and decline of heavy industry opened roles in healthcare, education, and administration, areas where women were often concentrated.
Rising inflation and dual-income household needs meant more women entered the workforce out of economic necessity.
However, part-time and low-paid work expanded more rapidly than professional opportunities, limiting economic gains for many women.
This context shaped debates over workplace equality and fuelled support for the ERA’s goals.
The ERA remains a powerful symbol of unfinished gender equality. Despite its failure by 1982, the campaign inspired ongoing activism and periodic revival attempts.
Since the 2010s, states like Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia have ratified the amendment, prompting debate over whether these late ratifications count. Legal disputes continue over deadlines and constitutional procedure.
The ERA also influenced contemporary feminist movements, providing a historical foundation for campaigns on equal pay, reproductive rights, and workplace equity, and reinforcing the principle that constitutional change is a long-term, evolving process.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the main aim of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) campaign in the United States?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying that the ERA sought to guarantee equality between men and women under the law.
1 mark for specifying that it aimed to prevent rights from being denied or abridged on the basis of sex.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two ways in which changing employment opportunities shaped women’s identity in the period of the Equal Rights Amendment campaign.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks for each way explained (maximum 6 marks total):
1 mark for identifying a relevant way employment opportunities shaped identity.
1 mark for describing how this change occurred or what it involved.
1 mark for explaining how this shaped women’s identity or status in society.
Examples of valid points:
Increased workforce participation meant women were no longer confined to domestic roles, helping redefine their social identity as active contributors to the economy.
Access to professional and white-collar jobs expanded women’s aspirations and self-perception, reinforcing ideas of equality and independence central to the feminist movement.
Legislative changes such as the Equal Pay Act (1963) and Title VII (1964) improved workplace rights, strengthening women’s sense of entitlement to equal treatment.
