us women history

The U.S. women’s movement had its beginnings in 1848 when Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott called the Seneca Falls Convention in New York to “discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.”  Stanton and Mott had broad ranging goals for this first-ever women’s convention, as detailed in their “Declaration of Sentiments.” Modeled after the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the document included twelve resolutions concerning the rights, privileges, and obligations of women, eleven of which easily passed. The resolution arguing for woman suffrage was a point of contention among participants. After much debate, Frederick Douglass, the well-known orator, abolitionist, and vigorous supporter of women’s rights, stood up to speak in favor of women’s franchise. His passionate argument helped garner support from Seneca Falls participants, and over 100 of them signed the resolution, enabling it to pass.
Two years later, at the American Anti-Slavery Society meeting in Boston, members resolved to create a national convention for the formal consideration of women’s rights. For the next ten years (with the exception of 1857), delegates met annually at the National Women’s Rights Convention where a wide range of issues was discussed including equal wages, educational rights, women’s property rights, marriage reform, and women’s suffrage. The conventions, known for their hotly debated and frequently unconventional topics as well as standing room only crowds, saw the passage of several resolutions by attendees, who were encouraged to go home and bring pertinent issues before their own state legislative bodies.
The American Civil War brought an end to the National Women’s Rights Convention, and for the next several years, women’s rights activists focused their energies on the abolition of slavery, and on emancipation issues. But at the 1866 American Anti-Slavery Society meeting in Boston, abolitionist Lucy Stone and suffragist Susan B. Anthony proposed the idea of an organization where women and blacks could work together toward universal suffrage. Thus, the American Equal Rights Association (AERA) was formed, with Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass as co-founders. Within a few years, news of an impending 15th Amendment—granting free men of color the right to vote—created a rift among members; while many in AERA considered the amendment a victory, and were satisfied that things were moving in the right direction, others, including Stanton and Anthony were not happy. The 15th Amendment did not extend voting rights to women—a “grave injustice” and even affront to these activists—and they could not and would not support it. AERA members were split in their support, and the organization did not survive the schism.
In 1869, Stanton and Anthony created the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) whose sole mission was to secure woman suffrage. Abolitionists Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe believed that women’s suffrage should remain linked to black suffrage (and to equal rights movements, in general), so they began an alternative organization, the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). At this time, African American women had also created concurrent movements for black women in the U.S., and women like Sojourner Truth and Mary Church Terrell represented an important link between organizations and women, across color, faith, and status. For years, these organizations worked side-by-side for women’s rights. It became increasingly clear, however, that suffrage in particular was going to take a unified effort. In 1890, NWSA and AWSA joined forces, and the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was born.
The founding of NAWSA was an important step toward the progression of the national movement for women’s right to vote.  The strategy of the newly formed organization was to push for the ratification of enough state suffrage amendments to force Congress to approve a federal amendment.  Between 1869 and 1896, only four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho) granted women the right to vote.  When Susan B. Anthony retired as NAWSA president in 1900, she named Carrie Chapman Catt her successor.  Catt served two terms as president (1900-1904, 1915-1920).  Unfortunately, the state campaigns came to a halt in 1896 with no other states adopting suffrage amendments until 1910.
The beginning of the 20th century saw the emergence of a new generation of suffragists who were increasingly impatient with the movement’s seeming inactivity and with its inability to win suffrage for women. Stanton’s daughter, Harriet Stanton Blatch, was particularly instrumental in changing the movement’s tactics for garnering public attention and support. Like Alice Paul, another young suffragist and activist, Blatch had spent time in England working in the British women’s movement alongside the militant Pankhurst family. Blatch and Paul’s experiences overseas led to the adoption in the United States of protest methods that were increasingly public, large in scale, and occasionally militant in nature. Specifically, Blatch brought the suffrage parade to the U.S., and encouraged women to publicly engage the “man in the street” while picketing for women’s rights. Paul, inspired by the Pankhurst family motto to protest with “deeds, not words,” implemented what are considered now to be the movement’s most radical strategies, including the act of picketing the White House during World War I, and encouraging protest via hunger strikes. Blatch, Paul, and Lucy Burns were the leaders of this increasingly radical wave of suffragists, most of whom endured repeated arrest for their actions, and who suffered being force-fed in prison as punishment for hunger striking.
Weary of NAWSA’s slow efforts to lobby individual states for suffrage, Paul and Burns broke from that organization in 1913 and created the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage (which changed its name to the National Woman’s Party [NWP] in 1915). The women of the NWP focused their energies on the passage of a constitutional amendment ensuring women’s right to vote, and were relentless in their attempts to garner public and legislative attention for their cause. Many of their efforts at that time were considered scandalous, particularly during America’s involvement in World War I, when their protests were condemned as “unpatriotic” and even treasonous. Ultimately, President Wilson’s unwillingness to acknowledge the protesters’ demands, and what appeared to be his disregard for their health and safety when they were imprisoned, helped to sway public opinion in support of their cause. Along with increasingly successful state suffrage referenda, it was only a matter of time before the House and Senate “remember(ed) the ladies.”
Spurred on to action by the NWP’s controversial and public tactics, Catt resumed leadership of NAWSA in 1915 and unveiled her “Winning Plan” to build momentum for the federal amendment.  The plan involved campaigning for suffrage both on the state and federal levels, and working toward partial suffrage in the states resisting change.  Simultaneously, Catt cultivated President Wilson’s support and in December 1916 the president urged Congress to pass the amendment.  In May 1919, the House of Representatives passed the federal suffrage amendment followed by the Senate a few weeks later.  The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 26, 1920, and women’s suffrage was achieved. Whether it was NAWSA’s more controlled and traditional methods that succeeded in winning the campaign or the NWP’s more flamboyant and uncompromising tactics, one thing remains certain: the two organizations needed each other in order for the suffrage amendment to pass in 1920.
Many in this younger generation of activists continued their important work in the period from 1920 through the 1950s. Notably, Alice Paul and the NWP immediately began work on passage of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA); NAWSA’s second president, Carrie Chapman Catt, worked on an international women’s movement; and American sex educator Margaret Sanger intensified her campaign for safe and legal birth control. But this period also represents a time of retreat by those working for women’s rights. The U.S. depression in the 1930’s, and the U.S. entry into World War II shifted the focus for some to nationalism.  American women were encouraged to join the war effort, by taking jobs in factories and offices in need of their labor. New ideas about what (especially married) women could and should do began to emerge, particularly when women were again encouraged after the war to “do their duty” by returning to their homes, where they could serve their husbands and “repopulate the ranks.” Moreover, the U.S. Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s provided a model for rights movements at that time, and also served as a real-life training ground for many women. Ultimately, it was the release in 1953 of The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir’s historical analysis of women’s second-class status, which forced the issue into the public arena.
The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960’s, 1970’s, and the early 1980’s was, in part, a continuation of the work of the early suffragists, who sought to have women’s equality fully recognized. Organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), begun in 1966 by Betty Friedan and Pauli Murray, worked to change the institutional structures of society so that women could achieve economic, political, and social equality. Critically important changes took place during this period, including:
•    Betty Friedan’s 1963 work, The Feminine Mystique defined “the problem that has no name” and encouraged women to develop their own careers in addition to marriage and motherhood.
•    1963 Equal Pay Act required that men and women be paid the same amount of money for the same work performed.
•    Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought forth the issue of “protected categories,” and its Title VII helped to create the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, making it illegal to deny employment on the basis of race, religion, country of origin, color—or sex. Title IX of the Higher Education Act provided the impetus and federal funding for women’s sports programs in schools, creating an unprecedented shift in the educational and social experiences of women and girls.
•     In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut struck down remaining anti-birth control laws, and importantly, established a “right to privacy” for all U.S. citizens.
•    The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case declared a woman’s decision to have an abortion during the first trimester a fundamental right of liberty as defined by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, thus declaring as unconstitutional all existing federal and state bans on abortion.
•    The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1972, but failed to get enough states for ratification. It was defeated in 1982 by a coalition of religious and conservative women’s groups that spearheaded the beginning of another backlash against feminism.
The upheavals of the second wave period left their mark. Changes—legal, economic, political, and social—were real, and appeared to be unchallengeable. The 1980s brought a significant number of “firsts” for women in the U.S., including the first female Supreme Court justice, the first female astronaut, and the first woman to be included on a major ticket for the U.S. presidency. Additionally, when a record number of American women were elected to national office in 1992, it was clear that the U.S. women’s rights movement was entering a “third wave” of feminism.  While women have come a long way since the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention and its Declaration of Sentiments, there is still a lot of progress to be made.  The ongoing movement for women’s full equality in the United States is broader and more complex than ever before.  What is certain, though, is that the feminist movement will continue its work for the economic, political, social and personal empowerment of women, in this nation and the world over, until “…the equal station to which they are entitled…”  has been achieved

Visit Our Site

Why Has the United States Only Had Four Female Supreme Court Justices?

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor. And in 2010, President Barack Obama nominated the most recent female Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan. Between those two nominations, there have been only two other women to serve on the Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (since 1993) and Sonia Sotomayor (since 2009). To put that into the context of the history of the Supreme Court, there have been one hundred and twelve individuals to serve on the Court and only four of those justices have been female. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is composed of five men and three women justices. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 80s, how much longer will there be three women on the bench?
During the presidential election cycle of 2016, one topic that sits simmering on the backburner is the appointment of new justices to the Court. One of the more lasting influences of any presidential administration is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Presidents serve for a maximum of two four-year terms. Supreme Court justices serve for life. How do we put that information into a context that allows us to explore the dynamics of the court when looking at issues that relate to women? Where do we start? And what impact, if any, does gender have on the actions of the Court?
First and foremost, it helps to ask, “What is required of an individual selected for nomination to the nation’s highest court?” What credentials must one have to be considered a potential candidate for nomination? The answers to those questions are interesting with many, if not most Americans, not having any idea as to the requirements to sit on the Supreme Court. According to the U.S. Constitution, there are no qualifications stipulated for a Supreme Court justice. There are no age, sex, education, profession, or even native-born citizenship qualifications. And one does not have to be a lawyer; there is not a requirement that a nominee needs to be a law school graduate. The information relating to Supreme Court justices can be found in Article III of the U.S. Constitution:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

That’s it. No other qualifications exist in the Constitution. So if Article III stipulates no requirements for the Supreme Court justices, why have there only been four women selected to the Court? It’s a good question to ask and it all boils down to precedence and preference.
As noted in Article III, the Supreme Court is the only court that was established by the Constitution. Creation of the lower courts was left to the discretion of Congress. The drafters of the Constitution attempted to remove the Supreme Court justices from the whims of the electorate by making them presidential appointments. This is one of the reasons Supreme Court justices can hold their positions for life. They do not have to campaign and appeal to voters to keep their place on the court.
And Supreme Court justices haven’t always held law degrees. Part of the reason stems from the recognition that until well into the 19^th century, law schools were extremely uncommon. The first school set up specifically to study and teach law was Litchfield Law School in 1784. Harvard and Yale established their programs in 1843 and Columbia University in 1858. But for most individuals practicing law during the 19^th century, they became lawyers through “reading law.” One typically read law under the direction of another more experienced attorney.
Access to the Courts:
For women during the 19^th and early 20^th century, access to a legal education was extremely difficult. The first woman on record to receive a law degree in the United States was Ada Kepley, who received her degree from Union College of Law in Illinois in 1870. But even after receiving law degrees, the roadblocks continued to keep women from practicing law. Gender-based stereotypes and the legal status of married women made it difficult for women lawyers. An example of a gender-based stereotype affecting a woman attorney can be found in Wisconsin where Lavinia Goodell was denied admission to the state bar. She had been admitted to the bar in Rock County and practiced law in Janesville, Wisconsin. When she applied for permission to practice before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1875, her petition was denied. In his opinion, Chief Justice Edward Ryan noted:

“The law of nature destines and qualifies the female sex for the bearing and nurture of the children of our race and for the custody for the homes of the world and their maintenance in love and honor. And all life-long callings of women, inconsistent with these radical and sacred duties of their sex, as is the profession of law, are departures from the order of nature; and when voluntary, treason against it . . . nature has tempered woman as little for the juridical conflicts of the court room, as for the physical conflicts of the battle field. Womanhood is moulded for gentler and better things.”

Myra Bradwell had a similar experience in Illinois. Bradwell petitioned to be admitted to the Illinois bar but her petition was denied because she was a woman, and more importantly, a married woman. The bar noted that married women could not make legal contracts on their own. The court stated:

"the applicant --"as a married woman would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client."

Bradwell then appealed her decision to the Supreme Court in the case of Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and the high Court also rejected her appeal. In Justice Bradley’s concurring opinion with the majority, he noted:

"Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex unfits it for many of the occupations of civil law. The domestic sphere is that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony of interests which belong to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. . . the paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases. . . it is within the province of the legislature to decide that certain professions shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which predominate in the sterner sex."

It took a change to the laws in Illinois in 1871 before women could be admitted to the Illinois bar. The legislation noted that “no person shall be precluded or debarred from any occupation, profession or employment (except military) on account of sex.” Women would continue to face roadblocks to their participation in the legal field throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries.
Even if women could practice law within their state, it did not mean that women could argue cases before the federal Supreme Court, which had in place admission rules preventing women from arguing a case before the court. Belva Lockwood attempted to secure the right to argue before the Court and on three separate occasions lobbied Congress to change the rules that prevented women from arguing in front of the Court. Finally, in 1879, she was sworn in as the first woman member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar and in 1879, she became the first woman lawyer to argue a case before the highest court in the land.
Often a precursor to appointment to the Supreme Court, the appointment of women to federal judgeships didn’t occur until 1925, after the ratification of the 19^th amendment. And when women did receive positions on the court, it was often a court that many believed to be more appropriate for women: family and juvenile courts. It took until 1949 before a woman assumed a judgeship in a federal district court. The appointment of a woman of color to the D.C. Court of Appeals, Julia Cooper Mack, didn't occur until 1975.
For many women who wished to pursue positions as attorneys and judges, and then on to a possible position on the Supreme Court, there were many hurdles to clear. One change that made the process less problematic was the passage of Title IX in 1972 which forbade sex discrimination in institutions that received federal aid – which included law schools.
But in a report on the effects of gender in the federal courts, produced in 1994, a task force found that more was at play than law school entrance as women attempted to practice law and move into judgeships. The report noted that the system itself contributed to the exclusion of women from judicial appointments. The lack of women in positions of influence within networks and groups impacted the selection processes for judicial appointments and gave men a better chance to be promoted within law firm partnerships and in public law positions. Along with a lack of networking for women, and the politicking that took place within those networks, studies also showed that women faced inappropriate actions in the courtroom where they were not afforded the same respect as a male colleague.¹
Supreme Court Cases Involving Women’s Issues:
Many cases have appeared before the Supreme Court that directly or solely impacted women in the United States. Yet many of those cases were argued by males and before an all-male court: cases such as Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), Minor v. Happersett (1875), Muller v. Oregon (1908), Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), etc. Those cases set precedents regarding women’s legal status without any female representation in Court. Women may have participated in the preparation of the cases, but did not present or hear them. Although arguments abound that assert that the law is “gender-blind” and that the court only interprets the law as it is written, gender bias can be written into the arguments, as shown in the opinions from previous cases. By noting and asserting that there is a divinely-ordained female sphere for which women should focus their energies, the male experience became the norm and the standard for later opinions that called upon those cases as legal precedent.
Without a voice that points out the reality of women’s life experiences and challenges, male-centric definitions of work, family, health, etc., are the norm and therefore inherently contribute to a gender bias. As Ginsburg noted recently, when looking at the rights of women, the court never fully embraced “the ability of women to decide for themselves what their destiny will be.” She said the court’s five-justice conservative majority, all men, did not understand the challenges women face in achieving authentic equality. "And it's important to note that at least two cases directly relating to women’s issues will appear before the court in 2016: Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, which is about access to abortion, and Zubik v. Burwell, another challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate regarding contraception.
The Future:
So how do women move into positions where they have greater representation in the court system, particularly as it pertains to the Supreme Court? For some, the inclusion of more women to the highest court of the land is a priority. For others, gender is not an issue. But Justice Ginsburg made an important point when being interviewed at the 10^th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in 2012. In that interview, Ginsburg stated that she wished there were more women on the bench of the Supreme Court. She said, “And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough (women on the Supreme Court) and I say when there are nine, people are shocked.” But she points out that no one was shocked when the bench was all male up until 1981. And the belief that an all-female court would somehow be out of line, but an all-male court was normal and acceptable, brings into sharp view the continued need for conversations regarding issues of gender bias, equity, and equality.
¹(See Sandra Day O'Connor, The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force: The Quality of Justice, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 745, 786-87 (1994).)
Also see, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/us/as-gays-prevail-in-supreme-court-women-see-setbacks by Adam Liptak, August 4, 2014)

For more info

Welcome to U.S. Women’s History

Women have always made history and not just ‘contributed’ to it. But unfortunately, they didn't always have the tools necessary to interpret their own experiences outside of the home and family. What’s new in the 21st century is that U.S. women are fully claiming and embracing their past, as well as creating and shaping the tools by which they can interpret those shared experiences The website U. S. Women’s History is designed to bridge the gap between the academic research of women's historians and the general public. The desire is to make this website the “go to” site for anyone wanting to better understand the history of current topics affecting U.S. women’s lives.
Read More