Ohio History Journal

KATHLEEN A. LAUGHLIN

Sisterhood, Inc.: The Status of Women

Commission Movement and the Rise of

Feminist Coalition Politics in Ohio,

1964-1974

 

 

 

Phyllis Schlafly's STOP ERA organization campaigned vigorously against

ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Ohio during the early

1970s. Armed with loaves of bread tied with pink ribbons, bus loads of

STOP ERA supporters came to the state capitol in Columbus to lobby

against the Amendment when the Ohio House of Representatives' State

Government Committee convened public hearings on the ERA on February

14, 1973.1 The Ohio Coalition for ERA, a statewide alliance of nascent fem-

inist groups and mainstream religious, civic, and professional women's orga-

nizations, joined the pre-hearing "trinket war" by inviting the Housewives for

ERA group to present a planter replete with Ohio statehood symbols to each

legislator.² Mary Miller Young, former president of the Ohio Coalition for

ERA, recalls that the young homemakers appeared at the Statehouse in jeans

only to be told by older women in the ERA coalition to come back in

dresses.  The younger women accepted the advice and returned to the

Statehouse clad in borrowed frocks. Miller Young credits the collaboration

across generations within the pro-ERA movement-made up of women

"representing all walks of life"-for making the ERA a mainstream political

goal, which contributed to its ratification in Ohio in 1974 in spite of STOP

ERA's intensive lobbying effort.³

This essay explains how the sixty-three year old Miller Young, chairman of

the Columbus YWCA's Public Affairs Committee, and her cohorts from

other civic, religious, and service organizations aligned with younger women

inspired by women's liberation to form a coalition group across age, class,

race, and partisan lines.⁴ Not since the turn-of-the-century suffrage movement

 

Kathleen Laughlin is Assistant Professor of History and Women's Studies at Metropolitan

State University, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. Part of this research was first presented at

the Ohio Academy of History Spring Meeting, April 21-22, 1995. The author wishes to thank

Professor Susan M. Hartmann for her helpful comments throughout this project.

 

1. Mary Miller Young telephone conversation with the author March 8, 1996.

2. Columbus Dispatch, February 21, 1973.

3. Mary Miller Young telephone conversation with the author March 8, 1996.

4. This essay adheres to the language of the time period.

• 1
 

40                                        OHIO HISTORY

had so many disparate women's organizations come together for women's rights. The coalition, renamed Ohio Women, Inc., after the ERA victory, continues to be a potent political force no single organization can muster in- dependently, and since 1988 has promoted "Women's Agenda: Ohio"-a short list of policy priorities that seek to further such feminist goals as economic equality and reproductive freedom.5 From 1964 to 1971, Ohio branches of national religious, civic, and service organizations united under a single political goal-the creation of a gover- nor's commission to study the status of women in Ohio modeled on John F. Kennedy's President's Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW). Governor James A. Rhodes' persistent refusal to form a permanent state commission despite the development of national women's rights policies and accelerated activism in other states sustained the women's rights coalition over time. The Republican Governor's philosophy of limited government did not jibe with the federal activism of Democratic presidents Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and the conflicting approaches to governing created a so-     5. Ohio Women, Inc., "Women's Agenda: Ohio,"Columbus, Ohio [no date].

• 2
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                  41

 

cial movement for a permanent state commission on the status of women.

The resulting incorporated sisterhood to maintain pressure on state govern-

ment to formulate policies on women's issues, the Ohio Status of Women

Commission, Inc., founded a statewide ERA coalition that withstood ac-

tivism from the Right.

The institutionalization of a women's economic agenda among prominent

women's organizations formed the basis for a women's rights coalition in

Ohio. In the post-World War II years, national civic, religious, professional,

and service women's organizations forged a policy partnership with the

Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, to promote a women's eco-

nomic agenda that called for employment services programs, a national status

of women commission, and legislation to raise women's wages (state and fed-

eral minimum wage and equal pay for equal work legislation). The Bureau's

system of regional field representatives and sponsorship of national confer-

ences maintained programmatic continuity among women's organizations and

between national organizations and their state branches in the absence of a

women's rights movement.    For example, the American Association of

University Women (AAUW) organized state-by-state campaigns to urge col-

leges and universities to provide additional training for college graduates who

had interrupted their careers to raise families. At the same time, the Business

and Professional Women's Clubs (BPW) executed a program conceived in the

Women's Bureau called Earning Opportunity Forums, which put unemployed

women in touch with employers and state and federal employment agencies.

Coalition organizations also promoted federal and state wage legislation and a

bill to establish a status of women commission in the federal government.⁶

The Women's Bureau's public policy goals maintained legislative commit-

tees within state branches of its coalition during the postwar years, and Ohio

was no exception.    Ohio branches of the Young Women's Christian

Association (YWCA), the AAUW, the BPW, the National Council of Jewish

Women (NCJW), and the League of Women Voters (LWV) had legislative

committees endorsing public policies congruent with the women's economic

agenda. However, prior to the 1960s, political action varied by organization:

groups representing working women sought equal employment rights through

legislation, whereas branches dominated by women not committed to full-

time employment favored service projects and study groups over women's

rights activism. In fact, some women maintained cross-affiliations or left one

group for another in response to organizational commitments to political ac-

 

 

6. Cynthia Harrison uses the phrase Women's Bureau coalition to designate women's orga-

nizations involved with the Women's Bureau's policy goals in On Account of Sex: The Politics

of Women's Issues, 1945-1968 (Berkeley, 1968). For a discussion of the postwar political ac-

tivities of the Women's Bureau and its coalition, see Kathleen A. Laughlin "Backstage

Activism: The Policy Iniatives of the Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor in the

Postwar Era, 1945-1970" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1993).

• 3
 

42                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

tivism. For example, Grace Williams, later to become the first African

American director of the Columbus YWCA, shifted her allegiance from the

National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) to the more politically active

YWCA.⁷ Variegated political commitments notwithstanding, national poli-

cies on women's issues established a foundation for coalitions for women's

rights in the states.

The Ohio League of Women Voters historically endorsed equal pay for

equal work and minimum wage legislation, but generally took no action on

this platform at the local level during the postwar years. Annual conventions

distinguished between the platform and the "current agenda."⁸ Platform en-

dorsements, including wage legislation, remained the same throughout the

1940s and 1950s, but League bylaws mandated that local branches actively

promote only the "current agenda" determined by a consensus of the state

membership each year. Members, loath to support causes that might prove

divisive, lobbied for benign bills to improve election laws, to strengthen

mental health programs, and to establish a state board of education.⁹

The social service orientation of the Ohio League groups reflected mem-

bers' interests. Since 83 percent of the membership had college degrees but

only 13 percent worked for wages, the president, Mrs. Werner Blanchard,

could confidently declare at the 1953 state convention, "We are identified with

95 percent of the women of the world as wives, homemakers, and mothers.

Everyone of us would say that this responsibility comes first."¹⁰ Writers of

the League history in 1969 suggested that changing demographics led to a

postwar emphasis on civic projects and study groups: "The units [discussion

groups] were a perfect example of the flight to the suburbs, they were usually

held in small, ranch-type houses, where the lady of the house had just put her

children into bed, and plugged in the coffeemaker...there was not nearly

enough progress toward involving people in underprivileged neighborhoods,

or for minority groups to take an active part in the LWV."11

The Columbus League of Women Voters did, however, work with the sim-

ilarly oriented Columbus branch of the National Council of Jewish Women.

Even though the Ohio NCJW had also institutionalized the Women's

Bureau's policy goals, the Columbus group preferred to support service pro-

jects and concomitant public welfare and health legislation.¹² This approach

 

7. Grace Williams telephone conversation with the author September 2, 1995.

8. Ohio League of Women Voters, The Ohio Woman Voter (January 1, 1951), 1.

9. League of Women Voters of Ohio, "Capsule History of the Ohio League of Women

Voters, November, 1965," MSS 354, Ohio League of Women Voters papers, Box 10, folder

historical matters, Ohio Historical Society. Columbus, Ohio (hereafter cited as MSS 354).

10. Ibid., 1.

11. League of Women Voters of Ohio, "Ohio League History, March 1969," Box 49, MSS

354, 17.

12. Minutes, Columbus Branch National Council of Jewish Women, January 22, 1948, Box 4,

folder 4, MSS 403, Columbus Branch of the National Council of Jewish Women papers, Ohio

• 4
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                     43

 

to political activism facilitated networking with the Columbus League of

Women Voters. Members from both organizations cooperated on voter regis-

tration drives, for instance. And there is evidence of shared membership; Mrs.

Cye Landy, past president of the Columbus League, became Ohio NCJW's

legislative chairman in 1959.13

On the other hand, by urging local branches to "translate study into action,"

the Ohio Division of the AAUW attempted to stimulate legislative activism

among its local groups.¹⁴ Promotion of legislation that advanced members'

economic interests, professional prestige, and political clout consumed

Division resources. State AAUW groups lobbied for bills to raise teachers'

salaries and sought appointments of its members to boards of education and

university boards of trustees. A policy newsletter and a coordinating commit-

tee to draft legislation sustained political organizing during the 1950s.¹⁵

The Ohio Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs sur-

passed the political work of other women's organizations by not only endors-

ing the women's economic agenda but actively pursuing public policies in

state government. The presence of political professionals among its member-

ship contributed to this focus on practical politics. Program planners in 1959

used Cold War era militaristic metaphors to describe prolonged activism:

membership represented a satellite that "launches the planning and the build-

ing of the program"; the firing ring of a missile symbolized how the pro-

gramming committee would "stimulate interest in the National Federation";

the finance committee functioned as a missile's warhead; and legislation re-

sembled fuel "keeping us on the go and steering us in much of our rocketing

action.^"16 Rhetoric did not replace activism, however, as the Federation

achieved significant policy victories in the 1950s. In 1958, for example, po-

litical pressure on Republican Governor C. William O'Neill resulted in draft-

ing H.B. 164, to create a women's division in the Department of Commerce.

The following year, the Federation took credit for getting passed a state equal

pay for equal work bill.¹⁷ Indeed, no other state or local branch of the

Women's Bureau coalition actively supported either bill. With equal pay for

equal work enforcement in place, however, the BPW let H.B.164 die in com-

mittee because a separate division for women conflicted with the equal rights

intent of the new law.¹⁸

 

 

Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio (hereafter cited as MSS 403).

13. Mrs. Henry Grinsfelder to Viola Hymes, May 26, 1959, Box 1, folder 3, MSS 403.

14. Edith Wray and Marguerite Duerst, A History of the Ohio Division of the American

Association of University Women 1924-1972 (n.p.: 1972), pamphlet located at the Ohio

Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, 23.

15. Ibid., 32-40.

16. Ohio Business Woman,13 (January, 1959), 5.

17. Ohio Business Woman, 13 (June, 1959), 4.

18. Ohio Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Forty Years of Progress

and Service, 1920-1960 (n.p.: 1960), pamphlet located at the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus,

• 5
 

44                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

A federal response to women's issues in the 1960s actuated political ac-

tivism among both service oriented and politically active women's organiza-

tions. The Women's Bureau accomplished two postwar public policy goals

during the Kennedy administration: federal equal pay for equal work legisla-

tion and a status of women commission. At the urging of Esther Peterson,

Women's Bureau Director and the President's top female adviser, Kennedy es-

tablished the President's Commission on the Status of Women by executive

order in 1961, "charged with the responsibility for developing recommenda-

tions for overcoming discriminations in government and private employment

on the basis of sex...."¹⁹ Such a mandate mobilized women's organizations

of the Women's Bureau coalition-all of which had representatives on the

PCSW-to document injustices and to determine public policies for social

change. On a speaking tour in Ohio in 1962, National BPW president

Katherine Peden urged clubs to "report any evidence of legal discriminations

against women."²⁰ The coalition also joined the Women's Bureau in a re-

newed lobbying effort for a federal equal pay for equal work bill, which passed

in 1963. The formation of the PCSW and the passage of federal equal em-

ployment rights legislation not only gave the women's economic agenda a

federal mandate but also, according to historian Cynthia Harrison, presented

women's organizations with a "unified agenda for women's rights."²¹

The deliberations of the PCSW formalized the partnership between the fed-

eral government and grassroots organizations. Heads of cabinet departments

and Women's Bureau staff worked with representatives from women's organi-

zations to translate the women's economic agenda into viable state and federal

initiatives. Not surprisingly, given the PCSW's composition, four out of

seven research subcommittees investigated employment issues. The final re-

port, American Women, presented to President Kennedy in 1963, considered

women's underutilization in the economy, because of constricted educational,

training,  and  employment    opportunities,  a  national  problem.

Recommendations included public policies to raise wages, to expand child

care, to provide continuing education and training, and to create opportunities

for part-time employment.²²

The National Business and Professional Women's Clubs and the Women's

Bureau working in tandem planned to actualize the PCSW's recommendations

in the states by establishing governors' commissions on the status of

women. In a meeting arranged by Peterson, BPW officers met with Kennedy

to propose a plan for state commissions on the federal model.²³ Following

 

 

Ohio, 33.

19. Harrison, On Account of Sex, 225.

20. Ohio Business Woman,16 (April, 1962), 1.

21. Harrison, On Account of Sex, 229.

22. Margaret Mead and Francis B. Kaplan, eds. American Women (New York, 1965).

23. Harrison, On Account of Sex, 160.

• 6
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                     45

 

Kennedy's endorsement in 1963, the National urged its state branches to make

the formation of governors' commissions a primary action item. The status

of women commission movement gained momentum when Mary Dublin

Keyserling, Women's Bureau director in the Johnson administration, used her

political clout to encourage governors to establish commissions by executive

order. In addition to lobbying among political elites, Bureau regional repre-

sentatives stimulated grassroots campaigns by providing women's groups

with proposed budgets, draft executive orders, suggested action items, and

membership recommendations.      As a result, representatives from   the

Women's Bureau coalition dominated the membership of newly established

commissions. Regional representatives, as ex offico members of state com-

missions, established a national state commission   network.    Director

Keyserling often attended inaugural meetings. Annual Bureau-sponsored na-

tional conferences of state commissions maintained these networks over

time.²⁴

Yet a state commission was not an Ohio BPW programmatic priority until

1964 because state officers assumed that Governor Rhodes would follow the

lead of other Republican governors and appoint a commission without hesita-

tion. State president Ellen Hostrup did not understand Rhodes' refusal to act

quickly, "Why? What is the delay? Is it strictly political? I may not be a

politician, but certainly we represent intelligent, working, voting women."²⁵

She did suspect political motives, believing that Rhodes did not want to carry

out a program created by a Democratic president.²⁶

Governor Rhodes' distrust of big government deviated from the federal ac-

tivism of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, as is clear from a state-

ment he made in 1963: "'As I see it, government must learn to allow people

to do something for themselves.. .instead of taking their tax money and trying

to do everything for them.'"27 Rhodes consistently campaigned on the theme

of "more jobs through economic growth and fiscal responsibility."²⁸ While

Kennedy expanded the influence of the federal executive by establishing com-

missions and committees to investigate social problems, Ohio's Governor,

with the help of a Republican-controlled General Assembly, sought bureau-

 

 

 

24. For a discussion of the Women's Bureau's role in the creation of governors' commis-

sions on the status of women, see Laughlin, "Backstage Activism."

25. Ellen Hostrup to James A. Rhodes, May 19, 1964, Box 16, folder 11, MSS 353, Governor

James A. Rhodes papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio (hereafter cited as MSS

353).

26. Minutes, 44th Annual Convention Ohio Federation of Business and Professional

Women's Clubs, May 22, 1964, Box 2, folder 8, MSS 783 Ohio Federation of Business and

Professional Women's Clubs papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio (hereafter cited

as MSS 783).

27. Edward J. Mowrey, James Allen Rhodes: "Taxpayer's Governor"(New York, 1963), 6.

28. Richard G. Zimmerman, "Rhodes's First Eight Years, 1963-1971," in Alexander Lamis,

ed. Ohio Politics (Kent, Ohio, 1994), 61.

• 7
 

46                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

cratic retrenchment. To save taxpayer dollars, he established the Council for

Reorganization of Ohio State Government, composed of eighty-eight man-

agers from private business, to reorganize or eliminate departments and agen-

cies.²⁹ Rhodes justified a 9 percent across-the-board cut in state spending, re-

sulting in the firing of over three thousand state employees, by reporting that

the previous governor, Democrat Michael DiSalle, left an eighty-three mil-

lion dollar deficit.³⁰

The austerity climate in state government conflicted with the goals of an

emerging status of women commission movement. Ohio women's organiza-

tions reluctant to lobby for women's rights during the 1950s joined more ac-

tivist groups to solicit a state government response to the policy recommen-

dations presented in American Women. In February and March 1964, officers

representing these organizations sent letters to Rhodes requesting a state

commission on the status of women. John McElroy, Rhodes' chief of staff,

who did not understand why state government should get involved in organiz-

ing women's groups, suggested that an independent group be established in-

stead.³¹ Moreover, he was not convinced that a state commission could ac-

complish anything beyond the PCSW's report, explaining to Hostrup, "I am

sorry that your National Federation made a project of having a commission

appointed. I still cannot advise the Governor that any useful governmental

purpose would be served by appointing such a commission, particularly in

view of the fact that the subject has been so exhaustively treated by President

Kennedy's commission."³²

The inability to join emerging national networks for women's rights-

Ohio did not have a commission by the time the Women's Bureau began

planning an inaugural national conference for state commissions during the

spring of 1964-stimulated the creation of status of women commission ac-

tion committees within the politically active state branches of the BPW and

the AAUW. Lack of representation in national networks caused concern

among participants at the Ohio BPW's convention that year, where members

acted to make a commission a top priority. Dr. Esther Marting, a physician

from Cincinnati, state representative Ethel Swanbeck, a Republican from Erie

County, and former National BPW legislative chairman, Agnes Merritt of

Columbus, made up a steering committee to coordinate a status of women

commission campaign.³³ The Ohio Division of the AAUW set up a similar

steering committee at about the same time to organize local AAUW groups

and to seek the assistance of the Women's Bureau and existing state commis-

 

 

29. Robert Giles, "Austerity in Ohio," The Reporter, Nov. 7, 1963, 40.

30. Zimmerman, "Rhodes's First Eight Years, 1963-1971," 68.

31. John McElroy to Evelyn Eibling, April 2, 1964, Box 16, folder 11, MSS 353.

32. John McElroy to Ellen Hostrup, May 25, 1964, Box 16, folder 11, MSS 353.

33. Minutes, 44th Annual Convention Ohio Federation of Business and Professional

Women's Clubs, May 22, 1964, Box 2, folder 8, MSS 783.

• 8
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                    47

sions in developing a successful campaign.34 The Ohio BPW vowed to seek a legislative solution if Governor Rhodes did not establish a commission by October 1964.35 With no action forthcoming, the organization drafted and lobbied for Senate Resolution No. 70. Even though S.R. 70 would not establish a commission, it would empower the re- search arm of the Ohio General Assembly, the Legislative Service Commission, to determine if discriminatory state laws existed to warrant the formation of a state commission on the status of women.36 Clearly, legisla- tive strategists in the Ohio Federation hoped to sway Rhodes with docu- mented inequities. Apparently sharing this viewpoint, the Ohio NCJW weighed in on S.R. 70.37 The resolution passed in the General Assembly on August 9, 1965, and BPW member Ethel Swanbeck joined six House col- leagues on the Legislative Service Commission's Subcommittee on the Status of Women.38       34. Wray and Duerst, History of the Ohio Division of AAUW, 45. 35. Executive Committee Minutes, Ohio BPW, 22 July 1964, Box 2, folder 9, MSS 783. 36. Ohio Business Woman, 16 (May, 1966), 4. 37. "Resolution to Mr. Hoffman on S.R. 70, October 1964," Box 7, folder 10, MSS 403. 38. "Interim Report of the Governor's Committee on the Status of Women, December 12, 1966," Box 23, folder 5, MSS 353, 25.

• 9
 

48                                                     OHIO HISTORY

 

Passage of S.R. 70 represented a hollow victory for only five states did not

have a commission or division on the status of women in 1965. Absence of

a commission in Ohio indicated to activists that heretofore singular lobbying

efforts failed to muster enough support to challenge the limited government

orientation of the Rhodes administration. As a result, the Public Affairs

Committee of the Ohio YWCA organized a meeting of women's organiza-

tions' leaders to build a coalition for a status of women commission.

Regional representatives from the Women's Bureau, on hand at an October 8

luncheon attended by representatives from the NCJW, the LWV, the NCCW,

the BPW, the AAUW, the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), and

the YWCA, gave a progress report on the work of existing governors' com-

missions before the participants set about forming a steering committee to

organize a statewide coalition, the Ad Hoc Steering Committee on the Status

of Women.³⁹

The emerging commission movement stimulated political activism among

service-oriented women's organizations. Representatives from the AAUW

and the BPW, already busy with internal commission action committees, left

a power vacuum on the newly formed state steering committee to be filled by

women from less politically active organizations. Helen Samuels, a member

of the Metropolitan Columbus League of Women Voters, served as a liaison

between the Ad Hoc Committee and state and local Leagues.⁴⁰  Dorothy

Langley, of the Columbus branch of the National Council of Catholic

Women, became Ad Hoc Committee chairman, and Mrs. Henry Grinsfelder,

representing the Columbus section of the NCJW, was elected secretary.⁴¹

The Ad Hoc Committee invited 250 leaders of women's organizations to at-

tend a meeting, scheduled for March 31, 1966, in Columbus, to organize a

citizens' committee on the status of women. Organizers attributed extensive

media coverage of the invitation to Rhodes' announcement-released just

twenty-four hours before the event-that he intended to form, by executive

order, a governor's committee on the status of women to present a report to

him in a year's time.⁴² Statewide press coverage of women's rights activism

had triggered Rhodes' interest in avoiding controversial issues.⁴³ Yet his

concession to the commission movement did not deter 106 meeting partici-

pants representing forty-one women's organizations from creating the Ohio

 

 

 

39. Minutes, Luncheon Discussion on Ohio Commission on the Status of Women, Friday,

October 8, 1965, Box 1, folder minutes, 1965-69, MSS 426 Ohio Commission on the Status of

Women papers, Ohio Historical Society (hereafter cited as MSS 426).

40. Metropolitan Columbus League of Women Voters,' Monthly Bulletin, (November, 1966),

2.

41. "Press Release March 24, 1966," Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

42. Mary Miller to Mary C. Manning, April 11, 1966, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS

426.

43. Zimmerman, "Rhodes's First Eight Years, 1963-1971," 69.

• 10
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                49

 

Citizens' Committee on the Status of Women.⁴⁴ Langley and Grinsfelder re-

tained their positions as chairman and secretary, respectively.⁴⁵  Since the

Legislative Service Commission planned to release a report on laws affecting

the status of women by January 1967, the newly formed Citizens' Committee

began immediately to monitor the fact-finding work of the Subcommittee on

the Status of Women. Of course, improving the status of women in Ohio

through a permanent state commission on the status of women remained the

long-range goal. The Governor's promise, evincing political clout, embold-

ened the coalition to continue the campaign for a permanent commission.

The Governor's Committee on the Status of Women nevertheless marked a

victory for the commission movement, as members of the Women's Bureau

coalition moved on to a policy-making body in state government and repre-

sented Ohio in national commission institutions. Representatives from the

NCCW, the NCJW, the AAUW, the YWCA, and United Church Women

gained seats on the twenty-six member committee, but close to a fourth of

the membership-six appointees-came from the BPW. Four BPW    mem-

bers, including Rhodes' appointee for chairman, former BPW state president

and Xenia's Republican mayor, Olive Huston, joined commission movement

organizers Agnes Merritt and Esther Marting. To be sure, BPW leadership of

the initial lobbying effort for a commission paid off in Committee representa-

tion, but its Republican ties did not hurt either. Notably, Rhodes did not ap-

point any representatives from black women's organizations.⁴⁶

National networks influenced the direction of Ohio's Committee on the

Status of Women. Several Governor's Committee appointees attended the

Women's Bureau's Third Annual Conference for Governors' Commissions on

the Status of Women held in Washington, D.C., in June 1966. Able to ex-

change ideas with women from other states, the Ohio contingent came away

from the national conference determined to consider economic equity.⁴⁷ As a

consequence, the Governor's Committee mirrored the organizational chart of

the President's Commission on the Status of Women.      All of the

Committee's   research  subcommittees  considered  economic  issues:

Counseling and Education, Opportunities, Employment Practices, Image of

Ohio Women and Their Responsibilities, and Family and Employed

Women.⁴⁸ Moreover, the Committee followed the PCSW's practice of invit-

ing professionals to serve as consultants to subcommittees. Several female

professionals from business, academia, and government embarked on research

 

 

44. Minutes, Meeting to Discuss the Formation of an Ohio Citizen's Committee on the Status

of Women, March 31, 1966, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

45. Ibid.

46. "Interim Report of the Governor's Committee on the Status of Women," December 12,

1966,"Box 23, folder 5, MSS 353.

47. Ibid., 19.

48. Ibid., 6.

• 11
 

50                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

projects at the behest of the Committee, thereby expanding the reach of the

commission movement beyond core women's organizations. Members of

women's organizations became investigators, too.  For example, the

Columbus Section of the NCJW urged its members to read the Legislative

Service Commission's report on discriminatory labor laws in order to make

informed contributions to Committee deliberations.⁴⁹

Through public hearings, questionnaires, interviews, and regional confer-

ences, research subcommittees revealed persistent discrimination against

women workers in promotions, in entrance to the professions, in training and

education, and in wage rates. The Employment Practices Subcommittee re-

ported that protective labor legislation (labor laws that defined women as a

separate class of workers in need of special protection) in Ohio "shut women

out of quite a number of jobs" and detailed employer bias against promoting

women to supervisory and managerial positions in education and in busi-

ness.⁵⁰ Survey data documented that one-fourth of employers in private in-

dustry would lay off women first, and close to half of employers would not

promote women to supervisory positions because they were "emotionally un-

stable," "lacked skills or showed an unwillingness to be trained," or had

"physical limitations."⁵¹ Barriers to advancement also existed in the educa-

tion field; 75 percent of school districts reported policies that prohibited the

promotion of women to administration positions because of "emotional in-

stability and the need to recruit more men to the field."⁵² More than 50 per-

cent of employers in the service industry reported that female workers were

"generally undependable."⁵³

The Counseling and Education Subcommittee spotlighted unfair treatment

of girls and women in high schools and colleges. Researchers discovered high

school subjects not open to girls, and investigations of women's status in

higher education uncovered evidence of female enrollment quotas and in-

equities in scholarship awards.⁵⁴ The Opportunities Subcommittee put an

exclamation point on the significance of educational discrimination by publi-

cizing the dearth of women in Ohio's professional ranks, in which women

comprised less than 3 percent of attorneys, 6 percent of physicians, and 1 per-

cent of scientists and engineers.⁵⁵

By advocating public policies to address documented economic and educa-

tional inequities between men and women, the final report of the Governor's

 

 

49. "Plans for 1966-67 Legislative Year," Box 7, MSS 403.

50. Women in the Wonderful World Of Ohio: Report of the Governor's Committee on the

Status of Women, Box 23, folder 5, MSS 353, 22.

51. Ibid., 18.

52. Ibid.. 19.

53. Ibid., 20.

54. Ibid., 15.

55. Ibid., 46.

• 12
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                 51

 

Committee, Women in the Wonderful World of Ohio, provided an antidote to

Rhodes'commitment to limited government. The report's title, taken from a

travelogue published by the Department of Tourism entitled The Wonderful

World of Ohio, could not have been more ironic given the report's documen-

tation of persistent inequality.⁵⁶ Recommendations suggested the formation

of several new state committees, divisions, and programs to consider the

needs of women as a group: a consumer protection bureaucracy and a child

care services program; a committee to interpret the impact of Title VII on

employment in Ohio, and a state committee to set standards for household

employment; and a women's division within the Bureau of Employment

Services.  Additional recommendations urged the appointment of more

women to policy-making committees, boards, and offices in state govern-

ment.⁵⁷

The entire Status of Women Committee made only one recommendation,

however-the creation of a "permanent committee, division, or commission

on the status of women."⁵⁸ The Legislative Service Commission's

Subcommittee on the Status of Women had also recommended the formation

of a permanent state commission. Yet Rhodes refused to institutionalize a

committee whose report deviated so dramatically from his vision of govern-

ment.

Reports on the status of women from within state government legitimized

the single-issue orientation of the emerging women's rights coalition. In re-

sponse to the recommendations of the Governor's Committee, the Ohio BPW

in 1968 promoted the establishment of a permanent status of women com-

mission and the repeal of protective labor legislation.⁵⁹ Meanwhile, United

Church Women of Ohio called a statewide meeting of women's organizations

with a focus on the question "Where do we go from here?," which produced a

strategy to establish a status commission by statute.⁶⁰ Toward that end, the

meeting formed another steering committee, the Ohio Women's Steering

Committee for a Commission on the Status of Women (the Ohio Citizens'

Committee for the Status of Women Commission stopped meeting after the

Governor's Committee disbanded) to draft and circulate legislation to wom-

en's organizations for comment before another statewide meeting in May.⁶¹

The Public Affairs Committee of the YWCA organized the May confer-

ence, at which time Ohio's two female state senators, Marigene Valiquette, a

 

56. Zimmerman, "Rhodes's First Eight Years," 69.

57. "Women in the Wonderful World of Ohio," 15-32.

58. Ibid., 51.

59. Ohio Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Pride in the Past Promise

for the Future, 1920-1970 (n.p.: 1970), pamphlet located at the Ohio Historical Society,

Columbus, Ohio, 38.

60. Mary Miller to Pauline Wessa, January 24, 1966, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS

426.

61. Ibid.

• 13
 

52                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

Toledo Democrat, and Clara Weisenborn, a Republican from Dayton, agreed

to sponsor a bill. Women's Bureau field representative Marguerite Gilmore

reminded participants that Ohio would not be represented when Vice President

Spiro Agnew's project on federal and state cooperation considered the work of

the state status of women commissions in formulating national policies, even

though Nodine Cook Henniger, Governor Rhodes' deputy assistant and

representative to the conference, had been attending national status of women

commission meetings. Since the Governor's Committee disbanded in 1967,

Ohio women's organizations did not participate in national networks.⁶²

Commission movement activists protested this lack of involvement of Ohio

women in national forums; Pauline Wessa, Columbus Citizen Journal

Women's Editor, reported that responses to Henniger's decision to attend na-

tional meetings were "vehement and vocal."⁶³

Draft legislation proposed at the YWCA conference sought implementation

of a status of women commission under Chapter 41 of the Revised Code,

Labor and Industrial Relations, but Steering Committee members later re-

jected an association with labor legislation. The Ohio Women's Steering

Committee did not want a commission concerned with gender-specific wage

legislation, especially considering the Governor's Committee's recommenda-

tions and the BPWs effort to repeal protective labor laws. The Committee re-

drafted a bill for implementation under Chapter X of the Revised Code,

Commissions.⁶⁴

Reconsideration of the commission bill to avoid any association with pro-

tective labor legislation did not deter the Ohio BPW from drafting a compet-

ing bill to create a women's division with cabinet status in state government.

Heeding Rhodes' public pronouncements that he did not want to create addi-

tional commissions, the BPW abandoned its long-standing lobbying effort for

a governor's commission.⁶⁵ According to Kathryn Moore, a commission

movement activist from the Ohio Division of the AAUW, the BPW's action

led to a "heated discussion" at one of the organizing meetings.⁶⁶  The

Steering Committee proposed the women's division alternative to Senator

Valiquette, who strongly denounced the strategy to advocate a separate cabinet

officer for women's affairs on the grounds that many departments needed to

consider women's issues. Since Valiquette had promised to confer with the

Senate majority leader, Piqua Republican Theodore M. Gray, on a commis-

sion bill, the Steering Committee continued to solicit additional sponsors for

 

 

62. Minutes, Ohio Women's Steering Committee of a Commission on the Status of Women,

June 3, 1969, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

63. Columbus Citizen Journal, May 16, 1969.

64. Minutes, Ohio Women's Steering Committee for a Commission on the Status of Women,

June 3, 1969.

65. Ibid.

66. Kathryn Moore telephone conversation with the author, August 2, 1995.

• 14
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                  53

 

the original legislation.⁶⁷  Twenty-four senators in the 108th General

Assembly agreed to sponsor the Status of Women Commission Bill, S.B.

435.68

Once again, Governor Rhodes' unwillingness to support a commission

provoked activists to stage another statewide gathering of women's organiza-

tions. As party leader, he had the political clout to move S.B. 435 out of the

Republican dominated Rules Committee. The Women's Bureau director in

the Nixon administration, Elizabeth Koontz, planning to speak at a meeting

of United Church Women of Columbus and Franklin County, offered to try

to set up a meeting with Rhodes for the Steering Committee. But members

declined Koontz's help because they wanted to solicit his support for S.B.

435 before the end of the legislative session, and Koontz's visit was to take

place after that time.⁶⁹ Steering Committee chairman and former president of

United Church Women of Ohio Lucille Cooks from Shaker Heights did try to

involve Republican Congresswoman Francis Bolton, an honorary member of

the Governor's Committee, in the cause: "It is unbelievable that Ohio is one

of only two states now without a permanent government agency for women

whether known as a Commission, Bureau or a Women's Affairs Department.

Anything that you can do to assist us or any suggestions you may have will

be gratefully received."⁷⁰ Representative Bolton, perhaps reluctant to precipi-

tate a conflict within the state Republican party, avoided the dispute. Rhodes

would not meet with organized women before the Rules Committee decided

on the fate of S.B. 435, so the Steering Committee retaliated by calling a

"status rally."71

On Saturday morning, October 18th, 1969, fifty women gathered at the

downtown Columbus YWCA for a "status rally."⁷² The Rules Committee's

tabling of S.B. 435 followed the failure of a six-year campaign to convince

Governor Rhodes to form a commission by executive order, and left the

Steering Committee to consider another plan of action. Therefore, Rhodes

surprised commission activists by issuing an executive order forty-eight hours

before the rally creating a women's division with an eleven-member advisory

committee in the Bureau of Employment Services. As defined by the execu-

tive order the proposed women's division's function mirrored the work of

 

 

67. Minutes, Ohio Women's Steering Committee, May 20, 1969, Box 1, folder historical ma-

terial, MSS 426.

68. Ohio Women's Steering Committee, "Bulletin II: Telling It Like It Is, September 2,

1969," Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

69. Minutes, Ohio Women's Steering Committee, July 30, 1969, Box 1, folder historical ma-

terial, MSS 426.

70. Lucille Cooks to Frances Bolton, August 26, 1969, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS

426.

71. Ibid.

72. Notes Taken at Ohio State Rally for a Commission on the Status of Women, Saturday,

October 18, 1969, Box 1, folder OCSW, MSS 426.

• 15
 

54                                                     OHIO HISTORY

 

governors' commissions: to serve as a clearinghouse for information on pro-

grams for women, to help state agencies meet the needs of women, to conduct

research on the status of women, and to evaluate existing legislation affecting

women.⁷³ Discussion of the proposed division dominated the morning ses-

sion after chairman Lucille Cooks asked participants to comment on the

Governor's decision. Activists had mixed reactions to Rhodes' last minute

response to women's organizations.

While some women expressed satisfaction that the Governor had at least re-

sponded to their efforts for a status of women commission in state govern-

ment, most speakers questioned the effectiveness of a division within a bureau

charged to serve the unemployed.⁷⁴  Democratic state senator Marigene

Valiquette interpreted Rhodes' action as a "diversionary tactic" to keep women

from coming together.⁷⁵ Stating that the executive order was "appropriate for

the month's Trick or Treat," she asked the Governor to, "Please take off your

mask."⁷⁶ The ten thousand-member Ohio BPW, represented at the rally by

Agnes Merritt, alone embraced the women's division as a key victory for the

commission movement.⁷⁷

Representatives from other women's organizations did not follow the

BPW's lead in interpreting a women's division as a bona fide answer to a call

for a commission. In the main, the group remained unconvinced that the

Rhodes administration would provide leadership on the improvement of the

status of women without persistent political pressure from outside of state

government, especially since the executive order did not spell out details re-

lated to the division's operation, such as an effective date for the appointment

of an advisory committee.⁷⁸ Moreover, by this time many activists wanted a

commission independent of a particular government agency so as to be free to

consider many aspects of women's lives other than as workers.   Helen

Mulholland, Executive Secretary of the Mansfield YWCA, made a motion

that the Ohio Women's Steering Committee be incorporated as the Ohio

Commission on the Status of Women. Marguerite Gilmore, Regional

Representative of the Women's Bureau, again on the scene, reminded the

group that only states with "official state commissions" could be represented

in the national organization of status of women commissions, although sev-

eral states had two organizations, a citizens' group and an official state com-

mission.⁷⁹ The group formed a permanent citizens' organization, the Ohio

Commission on the Status of Women, Inc. (OCSW), and in view of

 

 

73. Columbus Dispatch, October 20, 1969.

74. Notes Taken at Ohio State Rally, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

75. Dayton Daily News, November 14, 1969.

76. Ibid.

77. Notes Taken at Ohio State Rally, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

78. Columbus Citizen Journal, November, 4, 1969.

79. Notes Taken at Ohio State Rally, Box 1, folder historical material, MSS 426.

• 16
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                55

 

Gilmore's comments, renewed a commitment to work for an official state

commission.

Even while actively involved in recruiting women to serve on the Women's

Division's Advisory Committee, members of the OCSW raised questions in

the news media about the effectiveness of a division dependent on the political

party in control of the Statehouse. OCSW board member Esther K. Statts

from Dayton remarked to reporters that "Every change of party control gives

the governor twelve new appointments."⁸⁰  Rhodes' appointment of his

deputy assistant, Nodine Cook Henniger, to head the new Women's Division

confirmed commission movement activists' concerns about the influence of

party politics. An administration insider, Henniger served as a liaison be-

tween the Rhodes administration and women's organizations. Her attendance

at national meetings of state commissions without consulting women's orga-

nizations certainly did not engender a vote of confidence from the OCSW ei-

ther.

Commission movement activists did find encouragement in Advisory

Committee appointments.   Movement veterans from the BPW, Olive

Huston, Agnes Merritt, and Dr. Esther Marting, moved on to the Advisory

Committee. They were joined by three other movement stalwarts and former

members of the Governor's Committee on the Status of Women: Lucille

Cooks, Dorothy Langley, and Jeanne Brodie. Yet five committee members

did not come from the movement-four women worked in business or social

services, and one member represented organized labor.⁸¹

Finally, Ohio women became permanent participants in state commission

institutions sponsored by the Women's Bureau. In June 1970, six months af-

ter Rhodes' appointment of the Women's Division's Advisory Committee, a

Washington conference commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the

Women's Bureau led to the formation of a new umbrella organization to coor-

dinate state commission activities nationally, the Interstate Association of

Commissions on the Status of Women. Not wasting any time, one Ohio

representative to the Washington conference, Women's Division Director

Nodine Cook Henniger, became secretary of the national body.⁸²

A burgeoning feminist movement also tested the OCSW's ability to form

coalitions.  According to the Columbus Citizen Journal, the National

Organization for Women (NOW) and the "lib movement" planned to stage a

"theatrical protest of the midi skirt" followed by a "teach-in on the status of

women" in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of women's suffrage.⁸³ In

 

 

80. Dayton Daily News, July 5, 1970.

81. Women's Division, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, Women's Division News, May

1970, Series 799, Box 7, 1.

82. Women's Division, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, Women's Division News,

August 1970, Series 799, Box 7, 2.

83. Columbus Citizen Journal, August 21, 1970.

• 17
 

56                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

contrast, older women from Columbus' women's clubs chose to observe the

anniversary with a style show featuring the midi and miniskirts. The OCSW

avoided the competing events. Rather, it released a statement advocating po-

litical solutions to ending discriminatory practices against women as alterna-

tives to NOW's "dramatic" tactics.⁸⁴

Two distinctive streams of women's rights activism emerging from a grow-

ing feminist movement and from within the Women's Division did not dis-

rupt the commission movement's networks and single-issue orientation. The

new Women's Division actually contributed to maintaining the commission

movement by sponsoring a state conference on the status of women a day shy

of the one-year anniversary of the "status rally." Again, the Women's Bureau

provided continuity-Director Koontz gave the keynote address.⁸⁵ Division

dissemination of a roster of women's organizations and publications also sus-

tained networks. But more important, the movement's primary political goal

appeared within reach when a state constitutional prohibition against a third

consecutive gubernatorial term pushed Rhodes into the 1970 Republican pri-

mary for U.S. Senate against Robert Taft, Jr.⁸⁶ For the first time in close to

a decade, Democrats had a chance to win a governor's race. The 1970

Democratic party's platform plank calling for a permanent commission on the

status of women attested to the political cache of the commission movement

despite the emergence of new women's rights organizations.⁸⁷

Democrat John J. Gilligan's election as Ohio's sixty-second governor in

1971 ended the deadlock between Rhodes and women's organizations; but, cu-

riously, movement leaders renewed an effort to get a status bill through the

Republican-dominated General Assembly. Certainly Gilligan, a progressive

in the tradition of the New Frontier and the Great Society, did not oppose cre-

ating new government agencies, commissions, and divisions. He quickly set

out to form a state environmental protection department, a consumer protec-

tion program, and additional human services departments and divisions.⁸⁸

Rather than pressure the liberal Democrat for a separate commission on

women, the OCSW spent its political capital on efforts to promote women to

cabinet posts and to state commissions and boards in an expanding state gov-

ernment.⁸⁹ There are several additional reasons for this retreat from the tactic

to get a status of women commission by executive order. The existence of

the Women's Division allowed Ohio to take part in national networks, a

 

 

 

84. Ibid.

85. Women's Division, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, Women's Division News,

August 1970, Series 799, Box 7, 25.

86. Zimmerman, "Rhodes's First Eight Years," 78.

87. Columbus Citizen Journal, September 15, 1970.

88. Hugh D. McDiarmid, "The Gilligan Interlude, 1971-1975," in Alexander Lamis, ed.

Ohio Politics (Kent, Ohio, 1994), 92.

89. Columbus Dispatch, November 14, 1970.

• 18
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                      57

movement goal all along. In addition, the election of Ohio's first woman government executive, Gertrude Donahey, as state treasurer, represented an- other way to achieve a female presence in state government. Most notably, Gilligan's appointment of Emily Leedy from Berea, vice president of the OCSW, to head the Women's Division, brought the commission movement closer to policy-making. By the 1970s, then, movement struggles to change government fundamen- tally from the inside complemented the single goal of a permanent status of women commission. To encourage younger women to join in the protracted struggle for a commission, the OCSW cosponsored a one-day workshop on political activism with Ohio State University's Women's Self-Government Association; a flyer announcing the event asked for volunteers to transport students to the workshop. At the same time, Commission board of trustees member Esther K. Statts carefully distanced the OCSW' s activities from radi- cal feminism saying, "We don't consider ourselves militants. But we do think women ought to have a broader part in the affairs of state. If a woman is capable, she ought to have the right to promotion, equal status, equal salary."90 With help of representatives from the League of Women Voters, Senator Marigene Valiquette instructed participants on the legislative process     90. Dayton Daily News, March 2, 1971.

• 19
 

58                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

in preparation for another battle over a status of women commission bill.

Perhaps reflecting a more hopeful climate for women in politics, several

workshop sessions taught participants how to recruit and select women candi-

dates for political office and how to testify before Assembly committees.⁹¹

Congressional passage of the proposed 27th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1972 for ratification by the

states eclipsed status commission politics and facilitated coalition building

with the feminist organizations Statts decried as militant. The OCSW, as the

only statewide coalition of women's organizations, abandoned the commis-

sion effort to organize a statewide campaign for ratification of the ERA in

Ohio. In the summer of 1972, the OCSW sent ERA information to its

member organizations and to recently created feminist groups: the National

Organization for Women, the Ohio Women's Political Caucus, the Women's

Equity Action League, and the Black Women's Political Caucus.  In a man-

ner consistent with commission movement organizing, the OCSW sponsored

several organizing meetings to create a statewide steering committee for ERA,

including a meeting at Ohio State University to renew efforts to bring

younger women into the coalition.⁹² In order to guide ERA politics in local

communities, the newly configured Ohio Coalition for ERA, with a steering

committee made up of representatives from commission movement organiza-

tions, organized a county-by-county campaign, and the OCSW, with the help

of the Women's Bureau, provided new county chairpersons with ERA infor-

mation kits.⁹³ The Ohio League of Women Voters produced an ERA cam-

paign manual with instructions on effective political organizing, including

sections on how to conduct a phone survey, how to construct a legislator's

questionnaire, and how to write a press release.⁹⁴

Esther Statts and her colleagues from the status of women commission

movement found themselves side-by-side with "militants" from feminist or-

ganizations in the struggle for ERA. In an organizational pattern reminiscent

of the PCSW and the Governor's Committee on the Status of Women, repre-

sentatives from forty-seven women's organizations and fifty-three county

coalitions broke into six task forces: publicity, new organizational sponsors

for ERA, county organization, fundraising, legislation, and education.⁹⁵ The

Ohio Coalition for ERA Newsletter kept all groups involved in planned activ-

ities and provided up-to-date information.  Besides providing information

about statewide activities, the newsletter published tips for presenting the

 

 

91. Ibid.

92. Audrey Matesich to Elizabeth Boyer, November 6, 1972, Box 2, folder 12 ERA, Series

799.

93. Ibid.

94. Ohio League of Women Voters, "Era Yes," Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

95. Minutes [no date], Ohio Coalition for ERA, Box 1, folder organizational, MSS 419 Ohio

Coalition for ERA Papers, Ohio Historical Society (hereafter cited as MSS 419).

• 20
 

Sisterhood, Inc.                                                 59

 

ERA to the people of Ohio. Advice presented in the December Newsletter

warning that a "hippie image" might turn potential supporters against the

ERA indicated strained relations in the new alliance: "Have you seen the

slouchy, bedraggled, barefoot hippie style woman appearing anywhere repre-

senting an issue? Would you think much of the ERA if you were on the other

side of that image."⁹⁶

A fully developed statewide coalition orchestrated a formidable pro-ERA

lobby at hearings convened by the Ohio House's State Government

Committee on February 14, 1973. Representatives from fifty-seven women's

organizations attended the hearing and fourteen pro-ERA speakers testified, in-

cluding Mary Ellen Ludlum, president of the Ohio League of Women Voters,

Ohio BPW member Marilyn Heath from Dayton, and Ohio State University

student Ellen Rubin.⁹⁷

Formal ERA networks sustained activism despite the Ohio Senate's rejec-

tion of the Amendment in 1973 and the existence of an opposition force led

by Phyllis Schlafly and several Ohio religious leaders trumpeting the

American family. Thirty-two states had ratified the ERA by the time the

110th General Assembly considered the Amendment again in 1974. Before

another vote on the ERA, the Ohio Coalition for ERA organized a rally at the

Statehouse on January, 13, 1974, attended by 1,000 women.⁹⁸ On the day of

the Ohio Senate vote to ratify ERA, pro-ERA senators wore red carnations in

honor of the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Marigene Valiquette.⁹⁹  Even

though a permanent state commission on the status of women remained elu-

sive, the women's rights coalition achieved two political victories in 1974:

ratification of the ERA and Governor Gilligan's executive order creating the

Task Force for the Implementation of ERA.

Governor Gilligan appointed the fellow Democrat and commission move-

ment stalwart Senator Valiquette to the Task Force along with Mary E.

Miller (Young), an OCSW board member and President of the Ohio Coalition

for ERA. Republican BPW activists, so prominent on status of women in-

stitutions created by the Rhodes administration, got the cold shoulder from

the Gilligan administration.  Both parties snubbed African American

women.100

Miller's cross-over affiliations illustrate the intricacies of coalition politics

for women's rights in the late 1960s and early 1970s. From her positions as

Special Projects Director and chairman of the Public Affairs Committee for

the Columbus YWCA, she became involved in organizing for a state com-

 

96. Ohio Coalition for ERA, "Newsletter," Box 1, folder organizational, MSS 419.

97. Columbus Dispatch, February 14, 1973.

98. Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 13, 1974.

99. Columbus Dispatch, February 7, 1974.

100. "Executive Order Creating Task Force for Implementation of the Equal Rights

Amendment,"Series 799, Box 2.

• 21
 

60                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

mission on the status of women, becoming a board member of the citizen's

lobby, the Ohio Commission on the Status of Women, Inc., in 1970. When

Congress ratified the ERA in 1972, Miller Young says becoming the leader

of a statewide coalition for passage of the ERA in Ohio "was a natural transi-

tion."¹⁰¹ She also made the transition from social movement activist to gov-

ernment insider with the formation of the Governor's Task Force on ERA.

The Task Force formally merged with the OCSW in October 1977 to form

Ohio Women, Inc. Miller accepted a position on the board of the new orga-

nization, a position she held throughout the 1980s.

The commission movement convinced activists that public policies on

women's issues would not be forthcoming without sustained political pres-

sure from outside of state government. Steering committees spearheading

lobbying efforts of more than twenty women's organizations evolved into a

permanent women's rights coalition group, the Ohio Commission on the

Status of Women, Inc. By the time Congress passed the Equal Rights

Amendment for ratification in the states in 1972, Ohio had a permanent net-

work of women's organizations in place from which to build a statewide ERA

coalition that included nascent feminist organizations. Paradoxically, failure

to achieve the political goal of a permanent status of women commission led

to the formation of independent institutions to maintain a loose coalition of

diverse women's organizations. By remaining independent, or as some would

have it, outside agitators, the Ohio women's rights coalition survived partisan

politics and a backlash to the modern women's movement. By the mid-

1980s, after failure to gain ratification of the ERA in two-thirds of the states,

feminists attempted to revive the ERA as a political issue by seeking passage

of a new amendment in Congress. According to historian Susan Hartmann,

when a new ERA bill failed to emerge from Congress, many feminists shifted

tactics to promote public policies on specific economic issues.¹⁰²  Ohio

Women, Inc. continues to maintain a state public policy agenda focused on

improving women's economic status in the "Wonderful World of Ohio."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101. Mary Miller Young telephone conversation with the author March 8, 1996.

102. Susan M. Hartmann, From Margin to Mainstream: American Women and Politics Since

1960 (New York, 1989), 170.

• 22