Walking Through Death Valley Days

Machismo is back in style. It never really left us, of course. But it has made a furious comeback like a dauntless cowboy out of an old western.

We need only look at the headlines to see what sort of women are getting what kind of attention in this new era. We all know Nancy Reagan's decorating preferences for the White House. Phyllis Schlafly is telling us that if we women are sexually harassed at work, perhaps we should look at how we're dressing and walking. And the only woman in a prominent position in the administration, U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, is rivaling Alexander Haig, Jr. for public callousness toward the Third World poor and their struggles.

But this is only the visible tip of a dangerous iceberg. Beneath the surface is a calculated effort by the Reagan administration to undermine the progress of the recent past toward equality for women. During the election, a "pro-family" stance formed the backbone of Reagan's presidential platform. Issues which greatly affect the future of societal and family roles for women and men were primary in the whirlwind of campaign rhetoric.

The term "pro-family" has been revealed as meaning status quo at the expense of women. It has been used to justify increasing militarism in the name of protecting all that has been the basis of traditional American family life, especially Mom confined to the kitchen with her apple pie.

The April issue of the National NOW Times reported that "for the first time ever recorded, men and women voted quite differently in the presidential race." An Associated Press/NBC News poll showed that men backed Reagan with a 56 to 36 per cent edge, while women split their vote 47 to 45 per cent.

Growing numbers of women are recognizing patriarchy as the cornerstone of the Reagan administration. The burgeoning defense budget is the logical extension of this patriarchal dominance; nationalism is chauvinism exponentially multiplied. The administration views women's equality wearing the same blinders with which it looks at Third World self-determination: as a threat to power and superiority. The violence inherent in patriarchy lurks in Trident submarines as well as lower pay for women.

It is ironic and tragic that a so-called "pro-family" president is doing so much to destroy the families of the poor, and placing the greatest hardship on women. More than 79 per cent of the poor in this country are women and children, and women comprise 70 per cent of the poor above age 65. Women are disproportionately dependent on federal assistance. The already precarious financial security of poor women and their children will collapse completely when programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, school lunch programs, and subsidized housing get slashed under Reagan's new budget.

Seventy per cent of the participants in the CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) program, which provides job training for low-income people, are women; it is scheduled for a drastic cutback and eventual elimination. This and a loss of subsidized childcare will force many women back to a choice between home and employment, returning them to depleted welfare rolls.

One of the most successful government programs is WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), designed for pregnant and nursing women and their children who have been diagnosed as "nutritionally at risk." A recent Harvard study determined that for every dollar invested in the program, three dollars are saved from hospital costs for children born with serious medical problems. This program is being cut by one-third.

The Women's Educational Equity Act and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the only federal aid programs aimed at eliminating sex discrimination in schools and colleges, face a cutback of 25 per cent. They will have to compete with 50 other educational programs for state- and local-level "block grants."

Meanwhile we are at a critical juncture regarding issues which directly affect women. June 30 marks the beginning of the one-year period left for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA); three more states must ratify in order to reach the required 38. Many anti-abortion groups are attempting to forge a legislative "Human Life" initiative. And in the Supreme Court, a landmark battle is being waged over the inclusion of women in the military draft.

President Reagan has expressed his opposition to the ERA, as have many conservatives in Congress. The strongest arguments against the amendment come from linking its passage to legalized abortion and the drafting of women.

Unfortunately, the secular feminist movement has used abortion as a test of comitment to women's equality. Access to abortion is considered part of "reproductive rights." While we at Sojourners do not believe that anti-abortion legislation is the answer, our Christian faith and. belief in the sacredness of all human life compels us to embrace a pro-life stance.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), representing several other feminist groups, recently came out with a statement declaring that the exclusion of women from the draft "consigns them to a second-class status." The statement views exclusion as a symbol of discrimination which feeds the idea of the defenselessness of women.

The upcoming decision has a catch-22 flavor to it: If exclusion is upheld, the decision may pave the way for a return to pre-1970s tolerance for sexual discrimination. And if women win, we lose.

What must be heard is a clear voice in support of the Equal Rights Amendment but in opposition to two rights many of us would rather not have: abortion and inclusion in the draft. The question is not, should women be drafted, but should anyone be drafted? Our commitment to life cannot allow us to support the taking of life represented by both abortion and the draft.

With these two issues we are stepping into dangerous territory which has previously been occupied primarily by right-wing conservatives. But we cannot allow the parameters of the debates to be set by prevailing social values. We must be clear that our commitments come not from a belief in the inferiority of women, but from a deep belief in the value of women, which forces us to question the very value system of a society which is patriarchal and militaristic.

Conservatives are quick to point to the breakdown of families and to the moral and spiritual deterioration of the society, blaming these to a large degree on the movement of women into new roles. What is overlooked is the way women are made victims of patriarchy's violence. Abortion has less to do with women's freedom than with a society which devalues the raising of children. Inclusion in the draft has less to do with women's equality than with our society's devaluing of human life.

Contrary to a conservative belief that families are being neglected as a result of progress toward equality in recent years, a recent study shows that on the average men put in nine hours a week on family care, women 29 hours. And in paid work, men put in 44 to women's 40. Of a total of 122 hours, the equivalent of three full-time jobs, women pick up 69 of those hours and men 53. Not surprisingly, employed women are experiencing increasing levels of stress and high incidence of "burnout," which are the symptoms of a new affliction known as "double day syndrome."

The future of the family does not depend on a return of women to traditional roles, but on the movement of men into new ones. When the society moves away from a view of the world defined by money and power, men will cease to be threatened by women discovering their potential.

We must work for more partnership, more flexibility, more mutuality in raising families and in work outside the home; because until the society embraces change, women will continue to pay a high price for their equality.

The conservative mood in the country makes the present seem like death valley days to women. But we do not need to accept the step backward that is being dealt to us. God has created us as daughters. The times call for more compassion, more courage, more commitment. Let us live by these and thus walk forward in faith.

Joyce Hollyday was on the editorial staff at Sojourners when this article appeared.