What is feminism? Fighting for female equality? Equal pay and treatment? Or participating in a march on the streets of Washington D.C. dressed up as a woman’s genitals? Regardless of what it is, and how it is practiced, feminism has changed dramatically since the first wave in the 1870’s, but what hasn’t changed is the very opinionated writings either for, or against feminism and the ERA. In The Equal Rights Amendment, Boyd K. Packer reveals the problems behind the ERA movement by prioritizing the family and emphasizing the roll of the woman in the household. Through religion, family values, and personal beliefs, Packer contributes his opinions about women and their rights during the 1970’s.
In order to first understand why Boyd Packer …show more content…
As discussed in class the “ideal family” at this time was: one husband, one wife, and 2.5 children. The man of the house, the breadwinner, supports his family by working to pay off the bills, keeping food on the table, and providing a house to live in. The wife on the other hand is the homemaker (cooks, cleans, etc…) who fills the home with children, and tends to every need of her family. Obviously, Packer supports the, “ideal family” even if the reality behind it is still very class/ race oriented. This is a problem because not every family in America is fortunate enough to have one parent making all the money. In a lot of cases, especially in minority groups, the mother and the father both work maybe two or three jobs just to make ends meet for the family. The idea that only the father can work a full time job and have his family live a comfortable lifestyle was, and still is, a very uncommon situation in America. Even if the article is very much against the idea of the ERA Packer points out at the end of the reading, “I am for protecting the rights of a woman to be a woman, a feminine, female woman; a wife and a mother. I am for protecting the rights of a man to be a man, a masculine, male man; a husband and a father. I am for protecting the rights of children to be babies and children and youth, to be nurtured in a home and in a family” (Packer 1977). The only setback with Packers wording in this quote is that it is not necessarily a right to be feminine, and a wife, and a mother: when equality for women is more of a privilege that defines their liberty, not their equality. This was a very common thing to see in the 1970’s, men trying to pass off human liberties as rights in hopes of deterring away from the ERA
In order to first understand why Boyd Packer …show more content…
As discussed in class the “ideal family” at this time was: one husband, one wife, and 2.5 children. The man of the house, the breadwinner, supports his family by working to pay off the bills, keeping food on the table, and providing a house to live in. The wife on the other hand is the homemaker (cooks, cleans, etc…) who fills the home with children, and tends to every need of her family. Obviously, Packer supports the, “ideal family” even if the reality behind it is still very class/ race oriented. This is a problem because not every family in America is fortunate enough to have one parent making all the money. In a lot of cases, especially in minority groups, the mother and the father both work maybe two or three jobs just to make ends meet for the family. The idea that only the father can work a full time job and have his family live a comfortable lifestyle was, and still is, a very uncommon situation in America. Even if the article is very much against the idea of the ERA Packer points out at the end of the reading, “I am for protecting the rights of a woman to be a woman, a feminine, female woman; a wife and a mother. I am for protecting the rights of a man to be a man, a masculine, male man; a husband and a father. I am for protecting the rights of children to be babies and children and youth, to be nurtured in a home and in a family” (Packer 1977). The only setback with Packers wording in this quote is that it is not necessarily a right to be feminine, and a wife, and a mother: when equality for women is more of a privilege that defines their liberty, not their equality. This was a very common thing to see in the 1970’s, men trying to pass off human liberties as rights in hopes of deterring away from the ERA