It's a special honor for me to have been asked to inaugurate the Lois E. Toko lecture series. Toke, as we knew her, I think knows we're here, happy that we are having this reunion---a reunion of her friends, and women of our generation, and a reunion with new friends, young women of this generation. Those who didn't know her, would have liked her.
She was pretty special. A natural leader, a born optimist. An athlete who had a spring to her walk, and it turns out, and frankly this surprised me -- a terrific business woman. If she had tough hurdles to overcome, as I'm sure she did, she didn't show it.
Most of the time, she was busy pumping up others, and I suspect that is why she wanted her memorial to be this lecture series, dedicated to women's studies, dedicated to expanding the sense of possibility for women's lives. This bittersweet task has given me pause, has made me stop and take stock once again---about how women are faring today in their quest for equality. I will bracket my time frame between 1956--our class, and 1996. Shocking to realize that it is has been 40 years.
But these 40 years span what may be termed a revolution. A lot has happened in this period--three waves of social change occurred--the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the environmental movement, and most of us have been affected by all three.
And as we see, while we have made dramatic progress on all these fronts, we have also from time to time seen the pendulum swing back. We seem to be in a volatile period right now--making it hard to tell, whether the pendulum is going to continue to swing wildly to the right, or will correct itself and find a new center.
It depends who you take seriously-- Pat Buchanan, or the political writer E.J. Dionne whose new book is called they only look dead. I confess I was cheered by the title alone.
But the trend line is clear---life for women and as a consequence, life for men, has changed dramatically since 1956.
I would like to explore how it has changed, both in terms of our personal lives, and our public presence. What have the changes meant?
And what remains undone?
Most pointedly, if we have made so much progress in all fields--access to education, unprecedented numbers in the work force, legal protections--why are women still largely invisible on the evening news, in the morning paper, in board rooms, and conference rooms where the important decisions of our time are being made in finance, politics, and social policy?
Two recent vignettes gave me some insight into how women's personal lives have changed. Both, I might add, were not typical since they involved largely middle class, white women; yet they are indicative of how women have choices today they never had before, but still have many of the same old frustrations. One event was a panel discussion. The topic was turning points in women's lives. The panel included betty friedan, who became a reference point for every person on the panel, as she has become in all of our lives, for the class of 1956 and beyond.
I was struck by the fact that each woman's turning point was different--none revolved around a man, and none saw themselves as victims.
What they displayed was a sense of triumph over adversity, and the excitement that comes with discovering strength.
The first woman talked about what turning 40 meant to her--"I decided to get rid of all that I couldn't be--like being thin--and concentrate on what I really wanted to become." It was at this point that she decided to have children and continue her career.
The second woman talked about teaching billy, her son, to cook, starting a restaurant together, and changing the mother-son relationship to an adult business partnership and what that meant in a hot kitchen. A third woman, who did not want to be like her mother, discovered her grandmother, and the strength of her old-fashioned social women's organizations which knit the fabric of the community together.
A fourth woman described how she was divorced and lost her job on the same day, and subsequent bag lady dreams she had, which elicited nervous laughter from the audience.
And the fifth woman, had a religious revelation, and with unnecessary embarrassment, described how her faith had transformed her life, which she did dedicate to doing good.
What emerged, quite randomly, was a remarkable diversity.
Each woman's turning point was different -- surprisingly original. Few of us would have envisioned ourselves this way in 1956.
Then it was a choice of either/or.
Either you get married and have children, or you have a career. We didn't dare think of divorce. We didn't have a clue about how much we would change, and what the full spectrum of our choices and capacity for growth would be.
As I look back on my own life, maybe I had a clue, because I knew what widowhood meant from my mother--since my father died when I was three. I did know I would have to be responsible for myself but I still was influenced by the romance of my era--that through marriage we would be taken care of. Still I had dreams of a career, I wanted to do both--do it all--marriage, children, and a challenging job. And it was Betty Friedan, and reading her book, The Feminine Mystique in 1963---which told me that my yearnings to be more than a Stepford wife were normal.
I wasn't crazy in wanting a family and a career---society had gotten it wrong by molding us in unnatural ways into a stereotype that did not fit all.
What about Betty Friedan? What did she have to say, some 33 years after the publication of the feminine mystique, the book that changed all of our lives? She discovered the feminine mystique when she was asked to write a magazine piece on the subject: Why has women's education made them so unhappy? She discovered the magazine was asking the wrong question--- it wasn't women's education that made them unhappy, it was the limited definition of women's lives that made them unhappy.
Betty Friedan, you may be surprised to learn, was fired from her first job because she got pregnant. It wasn't that long ago. I didn't get my first job as a newspaper reporter because the editor of the washington post bluntly told me over the phone, "I'm sorry, we decided to give the job to a man."
A lot has changed.
Today I would have sued him.
A lot has not changed.
I was surprised, frankly, when I attended a w\Washington power lunch given by the New Yorker magazine, hosted by the editor Tina Brown, to hear Mary Matalin get up and complain that her husband leaves his underwear on the floor, and she's got to pick it up. Everybody began to weigh in--that men still don't do their share, and these are women with nannies and housekeepers, who feel the strain.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington's Congresswoman, reminded the glittery crowd of their privilege, and said, what about the single poor mother, if it's tough for you, what about her? And of course she was right. What surprised me was that this was a conversation that could have taken place in the 60's, the 70's and 80's. And I suspect, that it is a conversation which is still taking place because while we have more choices, and more success outside the home, we still haven't figured out how to put our home lives and our work lives in equilibrium.
When we move from the personal to the public, what changes do we see in women's lives?
All indications are that the status of women has never been better---women have achieved equal access to education and equality under the law, and are narrowing the earnings gap between men and women--although it is still shocking that even with equal education--women still earn less than men in almost every field, except those heavily weighed in math and technology.
And while more women than ever are in elective office--that progress is not always steady. Fewer women governors are in state houses today than when I was governor. And change in the congress has been modest.
It still surprises me that when we in the United States speculate about the possibility of a woman President, most of us look wistful and conclude, "not in our life time."
Perhaps someday we will be as advanced as Ireland, France, Canada, Portugal, Iceland, the Philippines, Poland, Israel, Turkey, Argentina, Bolivia or Nicaragua. If women have made new choices in their personal lives, why have we not seen changed reflected in the public arena?
A hard question, particularly when the changes have been so dramatic.
In education alone, women have made extraordinary progress. Our own department report states: "The large gaps between the education levels of women and men that were evident in the early 1970's have essentially disappeared for the younger women. Although they still lag behind in mathematics and science achievement, high school females on average outperform males in reading and writing, and take more credits in academic subjects."
In 1992, women earned more bachelor's degrees than men, whereas in 1977, the reverse was true.
Professional degrees grew dramatically, between 1960 and 1993:
--from 2 percent to 42 percent for law degrees;
--from 6 percent to 38 percent for medical degrees;
--and from 1 percent to 34 percent for dentistry.
The early suffragettes, and even the second generation of feminists in the early 70's, thought for sure that once equal access to education was assured, all else would follow.
Not so.
And certainly they believed that once women achieved equality under the law -- where no editor could say, without fear of his life, that you didn't get the job because they decided to give it to a man -- full equality would follow. We had the courts behind us. We would win.
And we believed that once women were in the labor force, as they are today in record numbers, and growing (1990 figures: 58% of women work outside the home, compared to 38% in 1960), that women would be present everywhere, including the highest levels.
A wall street journal analysis showed that while women held 46% of non clerical white collar jobs in 1992---up from 22% in the 1960's---women still hold less than one third of managerial jobs.
I ask once again, why? If progress has been so great in education, in entry into the workforce, in women's internal aspirations and confidence, why aren't we visible at the top?
And let me ask a second question---if progress has been so great, why are women still devalued, objects of violence and ridicule as the cheers at the Citadel painfully showed us, and why are women, and their children, still the poorest members of society around the world?
One example---seventy percent of illiterates around the world are women.
Let me offer some observations.
This seems to be a time when participation in all extra-curricular activities, if you will, is dropping off. "Bowling alone" by Robert Putnam has evidenced a decline in civic life for both men and women, even if the decline for women has been more steep. Interestingly, women who work outside the home have a higher rate of civic participation than those who remain home--a puzzle we have yet to figure out. If one accepts that we all are on overload, one may hope that once it's all sorted out -- as women get used to their dual roles, as the workplace changes to accommodate them, as spouses take more mutual responsibility for child care and homemaking -- women will then be able to exert that extra effort to make it to the board room, to the congress, to the presidency.
That theory depends on a lot of things changing---
Flex-time, flexiplace, job sharing, all those family friendly policies, which we also in the department of education are furthering to enable parents to be more involved in their children's education--is still more the exception than the rule. Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal reported not long ago that men who were married to women who also worked advanced less rapidly in the workplace, because they, too, did not have a spouse "to take care of the homefront." Until we recognize that long-term productivity, as well as the very social fabric of our society, will depend upon the ability of corporate america to accommodate the change in family work patterns, it will be difficult for women to be present in equal numbers at all levels. The present downsizing trends, which ignore the human consequences, make it unlikely that such a sea change will happen soon.
It is a valid question.
But again, the choice cannot be entirely either or.
The fact is that when decisions are made about welfare reform, about education improvement, about the size of the military budget, about health care for women---the presence of women does make a difference. The questions change, as well as the answers.
If anyone doubts the importance of women in high places, let me give you two small but significant examples from the recent press. The first female chief of staff of the university medical center has made domestic violence an issue.
The story reads:
"When Linda Robertson talks to doctors at university medical center about domestic violence, they listen. "Not because she's a former domestic violence victim with a gripping story. (She isn't) "And not because all doctors have a strong interest in the subject. (Most don't) "No. They listen to her because she's a respected physician and because she is the boss. "
Another story from the times--headline:"Mexican diplomat at U.N. new advocate for women":
"Rosario Green is Assistant Secretary General for political affairs, the highest ranking woman in the united nations secretariat--in a position to make a significant difference."
Women in positions of power can make a difference.
The women's breast cancer initiative came about because Barbara Mikulski was in the Senate, there was female leadership at the national institute of health, women's advocacy groups gained strength-- all these lead to change in research, funding, and attention to women's health issues.
Yes, we are more independent financially, and take responsibility for ourselves, and often our children. And we have freed ourselves internally from stereotyped expectations of what women should be--knowing that education is not what is wrong, but what is right about the status of women today. But we have not reached out--either to other women, or to the public arena itself. It is time for a new level of sisterhood to emerge. One that not only shares stories within nice hotel meeting rooms, but one that is ready to listen to the stories of women all over the world, from all walks of life, whose lives remain constricted.
The Beijing World Conference on women was perhaps a watershed in that regard. For the first time, women from all over the world found their commonality. It was both a celebration and a revelation. New strengths, dialogues, and an agenda emerged, and the issues were amazingly universal: violence against women; education for women; legal rights for women; economic opportunities for women--like the model of the Grameen Bank, which we could learn from.
It was in Beijing that Hillary Clinton's words rang out, "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights." The phrase works both ways. If women want to be included in the larger human family, we also have to shoulder their burden---for all human rights, not only our own. And the spirit of Beijing, and the achievements of the last 40 years, have to be catapulted forward. A social conscience must emerge that may be sparked by injustices perpetrated on women, but then must expand to wage war against injustice and inequity everywhere. A large and exhausting demand. But we will not have our own place in society assured, until and unless we expand our horizon, our sense of responsibility as citizens of the world.
And finally, we must recognize our own worth--that the female experience is valid, that it need not be subverted; that we can be both feminine and leaders; that we can be both wives and mothers; if we choose, just as men can be husbands and fathers, if they choose, and have a fair place in society. As women have reinvented their lives, -- coped with change and challenge -- perhaps we can be the teachers, the models.
The greatest attribute in this global, downsizing economy is flexibility--the new Darwinism will grant survival power to those who are most inventive, who can restructure not only a corporation, but their own lives, and women have proven they are highly skilled at precisely such reinventions.
As I make the request to you to continue to seek equality in your personal lives, but not settle for that alone---but take the next step, and further the ongoing quest for social change on a grand scale, I know that the biggest barrier may be your own doubts about whether it is worth it to risk so much for a system that may not respond, or worse, may harm you by its greed, or corruption.
Is it worth it? You have a right to ask.
From my perspective, as I look back on my political life, I know I have had ups and downs, and times when I have earnestly questioned the political system itself---and times when I was disillusioned, and it is tougher today than ever---and yet, I continue to believe that it is worth it to participate in the political life of one's times. There is nothing more exhilarating, frankly, than to be able to reflect one's values in the public arena, through a platform, to project ideas and see some of them realized. Most people don't think that happens. That there is no connection between one's values and believes and the public persona that is projected. Not so. It happens. You can make it happen.
And we need you there, so that our equality will make a difference, not only for women's rights, but for human rights.
Thank you.
[Back to the Speeches Menu]