Women, Work and Wages

Dr. Sennholz heads the Department of Economics at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is a noted writer and lecturer on economic, political and monetary affairs.

To know the cultural condition of society is to know the position women hold in it. Their influence permeates the whole of life. They cultivate taste, refine manners, broaden views, and patronize the arts. Men mostly “go along” under their influence. Women support literature and music, chain-pion painting and sculpture, and sustain educational, cultural, and social institutions. They are the mainstay of the churches, and the arbiters of taste, style and manners for both sexes. And yet, government statisticians inform us that American women earn only fifty- nine cents for every dollar earned by men. For a society that takes great pride in a long tradition of individual freedom and equality before the law, such inequality of income, if it is true, de mands an immediate explanation.

It is probably correct that the average income of men exceeds that of women although any and all measurements of the difference must be rather suspect. They deal with historical data, not with purposeful individual action. Moreover, government statistics are political statistics designed to serve political ends. Nevertheless, the difference, whatever it may be, calls for an explanation. It is urgently needed to calm the waters that are agitated by old prejudices and new ideologies, churned by party politics and pressure group tactics.

The income differential permits two possible explanations: it either is just and moral, reflecting a difference in economic productivity of both sexes, or it is a grievous injustice that is rooted in man’s behavior, custom, and institutions. If the latter should be found to be true, man must answer for the injustice inflicted on women, for man passed all laws, adopted all regulations, and established the economic and social order.

The Basic Choice of Orders

Economic production may be organized on the basis of private property in the means of production, commonly called “capitalism,” or along the lines of state ownership or control of the means of production, which may be called “socialism” in its broadest sense, or more descriptively, the “command system.” In capitalism, income flows directly from economic production. There is no separation of production from income creation, no “distribution” of the national product or dividend. Economic production is simultaneous income formation through a simple pricing process that is oblivious to extraneous factors, but keenly aware of the contributions made to production. Every man, woman and child receives the full measure of his or her contribution to the production process.

Socialism is an ideology of “just” distribution, which gives it great appeal and popularity the world over. Its raison d’etre is “just” wages, and its objective is “justice” as defined by its authors. Some describe it as equal distribution per head of the population; some prefer distribution according to needs; yet others promote distribution according to merit and service rendered to the community. A few contemporary authors favor distribution according to “comparative worth.” But no matter what version of “just wages” they should advocate, they all reject a close connection between production and distribution. They all rely on an economic czar or commander, or a committee of czars, wielding economic and political power. In their scheme of things income is assigned and allocated according to the commander’s notion of merit and justice, which must ever be mindful of age, ability, sex, and many other factors. There is no market in which the consumers may value the producers’ contribution to economic well-being, no value imputation and price calculation. But there are the commander’s orders that assign work and allocate income.

Work and Income by Command

Distribution according to socialist justice not only opens the doors of arbitrariness, but also establishes a social ranking order similar to that of the military. In the Soviet Union, which is the Marxian stem of all command systems, income justice is derived from the preservation and promotion of the Soviet order as judged by the men in power. Personal income and position are assigned according to the contributions made to the Soviet system, which makes all incomes “political rewards” for services rendered to party or state, and endows all positions with “political ranks” in the service of the Soviet order. It is managed by a new elite consisting of (1) members of the Communist Party and government officials, (2) officers of the armed forces, (3) writers, artists, scholars, and scientists who promote the system, (4) economic executives who manage the production process. The number of independent women in this new Soviet nobility is minute.

Nearly one-half of all Soviet laborers are women, even in occupations that demand great physical exertion and usually are thought to be male. There is little consideration for feminine physique and family obligations. The Soviet woman must labor from dawn to dusk, like a demon for work, not only in her primitive household but also in a vo-cation or profession. Like nowhere else in the world, the married woman and mother of children is forced to labor alongside men in mines and factories.

Women in Mines

In the words of a foreign visitor to the Soviet Union, “I cannot forget the sight of the women whom I met underground in the Kusbass coal mines, not far from the Mongolian border. It is true they did not labor directly as miners, but they operated the machines, ran the trains, and pushed the loaded wagons in the hoisting cage. It always touched me painfully when, in the dim light of my oil lamp, I saw women in unshapely garbs, with ugly headcovers which are a blend of hardhats and scarves, with stark black faces, doing heavy and dangerous work. They obviously felt out of place, had sullen faces, and answered the master’s questions in a grumpy and irritated manner.”[1]

In an economic command system, many men and most women are exploited ruthlessly by government, which may be the sole employer in the system. The particulars of exploitation may differ from country to country, may vary in fascism, socialism, or communism, but they all spring from a common root: the separation of income from production and the dispensation of “economic justice” by political force.

The Private Property Order

In free and unhampered markets the consumers are the ultimate bosses of the production process. Their choices and preferences not only issue the production orders, but also create the jobs that fill the orders. They even pay the wages and determine the rates for all participants in the production process. In most cases the consumers are quite unconcerned about merchants and manufacturers. It does not matter whether they are white, black, brown or yellow, whether they are male or female, or worked five hours or fifty hours. Their only concern may be the quality and price of the product that promises to contribute to their personal well-being. The housewife rarely inquires into the race, color, creed, or sex of the manufacturer of the washing machine she may buy. But she undoubtedly is keenly interested in the quality and price of the product.

It is conceivable that consumers seeking personal services may discriminate among the providers of the services. The white piano student may want a white instructor, the black athlete a black coach, the yellow visitor a yellow companion. It is even conceivable that the female patient may prefer a female doctor or the male criminal a male defender. But it is equally feasible that individuals may prefer the opposite sex. The male patient may choose a female doctor and the female client a male attorney. The macho chief executive may surround himself with competent female executives, and the female school supervisor with capable male teachers. But even in all such cases of discrimination the question of quality and price usually enters into the buyer’s consideration.

Consumers Discriminate

Consumer preferences always are discriminatory acts and as such affect the income of producers. Discrimination in production orders constitutes discrimination in income allocation. In short, some people earn more than others because consumers discriminate. If it is true that women only earn fifty-nine cents for every dollar earned by men, it is logical to infer that consumers, most of whom are women, discriminate against women. Women do not discriminate against women on the basis of sex, but rather on grounds of productivity in the market place. They tend to allocate orders and income according to the services rendered for their well-being. Despite all the temptations of discrimination on the basis of sex, they prefer economic well-being over bias and prejudice. If this is true and women do earn less than men, it must be concluded that many women earn less because they produce less in the market.

The Issue of the 1980s

Feminist activists summarily reject this conclusion. They are convinced that men conspire to hold women down and keep them in low-paying jobs, that labor markets inflict harm on women and violate egalitarian and feminist principles. Jobs and income, they argue, are moral and legal entitlements, that flow from natural rights. If the demand and supply forces of the market order do not guarantee such rights, women must seek refuge with the command system that will assure the rights. Political action and government coercion must set just rates for every job.

The doctrine of “just wages” may belong to the armory of socialism or may have deep roots in Medieval economic thought. During the Mid-die Ages the center of economic thought was the doctrine of justum pretium, which provided the rationale for a rigid social order. In final analysis, it was a “station-of-life” doctrine that allocated income and wealth according to the class or es tate in which a person happened to be born. The “just wage” allotted a princely income to a prince and a serf’s pittance to a serf. It did not concern itself with personal productivity, that is, the contribution made to someone’s well-being, but emphasized the rights and privileges of class or estate as defined by the king.

In contemporary setting, the Feminist drive for just wages finds expression in the movement for “comparable worth.” Like the “just price” doctrine of ages past, the “comparable-worth” theory rejects market considerations and, instead, elaborates rights and privileges defined and granted by government. The latter differs from the former only as it builds on sex rather than class or estate. As the hottest item on the political agenda, it has been endorsed by every Presidential candidate and by hundreds of politicians who hope to use it to their advantage. The news media call it “the issue of the 1980s.”

Like the “affirmative action” principle of the 1970s, the “comparable-worth” doctrine may become the law of the land through judicial decree rather than statutory authority of any kind. Federal judges all over the country are handing down orders against employers for discriminating against women. The state of Washington, for instance, was found to discriminate against office workers and ordered to come up with nearly a billion dollars to grant wage hikes and back-pay to certain state employees, mostly women.[2] Numerous other suits have been filed and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges made against several states, municipalities and other employers.

The “comparable-worth” doctrine rejects all market judgments of comparable worth that are visible in the form of equal pay for many different kinds of labor. In the market sense, the house painter who earns the same income as the headmaster of a school, or a band musician, or a business manager, has “comparable worth”; he renders services that are valued equally to those performed by the headmaster, the musician, the manager, and many others. But this is not the meaning of the term used by Feminist activists and Federal judges. Their committees rank jobs according to a complicated point system, based on paper qualifica tions, training, education, human relations, problem-solving ability, accountability, and working conditions. The points then are run through an expensive computer which invariably finds employers guilty of sex discrimination.[3]

Education and Income

The comparable-worth doctrine is an elitist theory that aims to substitute committee points for the preferences and choices of consumers. It seeks to suppress economic reasoning and instead promotes the primitive notion that government deter-ruination and control of incomes are preferable to market forces of demand and supply. It betrays an elitist contempt for manual labor, especially hard physical labor, and reveals an astonishing bias for college degrees.

Surely, education may develop character and impart knowledge on how to make a living and how to live. But it may not have a direct relationship with personal income. In the private property order consumers reward producers for the services they render, not for the academic degrees they hold or the money they invested in education. When education makes a person more productive in the rendition of marketable services, it tends to yield higher personal income. After many years of training a heart surgeon is likely to earn a satisfactory income.

Whenever education does not impart productivity and usefulness to others, it may make a person learned and wise, but does not afford higher income. The brilliant student of Sanskrit or Gothic may not thereby enhance his earning power. In a free society he is free to pursue his stud ies to his heart’s desire. But he can lay no claim to any income other than that which his customers ascribe and allow. The learned scholar who chooses his own life style, but covets the incomes of others, is not so learned after all. He is a vain and selfish individual who, to make matters worse, may join the enemies of the market order and call for redistribution of other people’s income and wealth by political force. Lamenting the “unfair” distribution of incomes, many elitist academicians and intellectuals readily pass sentence on individual freedom and extol the virtues of one of the many varieties of the political command order.

As the affirmative-action doctrine of the 1970s did little to improve the economic lot of the minorities, so must the comparable-worth program of the 1980s be expected to be disappointing to the Feminists. The judicial decrees openly clash with the inexorable principles of human choice and action. Violating the laws of the market, the judges’ orders are as futile as any order that would seek to revoke the laws of nature.

The comparable-worth program, wherever it is enacted, can be expected to depress the levels of living of most Americans as it raises costs and reduces output. But above all, it hurts the interests of many women whom it lifts right out of their jobs. After all, rising costs tend to depress demand. The program, wherever it is pursued with vigor and force, must be expected to cause unemployment especially among those women whom the judges meant to benefit. More over, it must be expected to distort the labor market by promoting the supply of “comparable- worth labor” and reducing the supply of physical labor that is primarily male. It will boost the number of trained typists, secretaries, and librarians, but reduce that of electricians, plumbers, and house painters. It will increase the number of volunteers for pleasant jobs in friendly offices and pleasing environments, and reduce the number of people who report for dirty or dangerous or physically exhausting labor. In time, this distortion can be expected to restore the pay differential between librarians and house painters, or even make it greater than ever before. The market differentials will reassert themselves, legally or underground, despite all the judges’ orders.

Women and the Law

Throughout the ages the market order has been most supportive of women’s rights. After all, it is the consumers’ order that welcomes the greatest efforts by producers regardless of race, color, creed, or sex. The political command order, in contrast, reveals an uninterrupted record of discrimination. It applies the force of government to benefit one class of subjects at the expense of another class. It thrives on the political support from its beneficiaries, and brushes aside the protests of its victims. Throughout the economic Dark Ages women have been among its favorite victims.

During the last century when women first invaded occupations that had been held formerly by men only, government erected numerous barriers to the employment of women. In most cases labor unions spearheaded the drive. They did not openly castigate the competition of women and demand their purge, but they called for government intervention that would drive women off the labor markets. Unions advocated legislation to limit the working hours of women, fix minimum wages so that they would not be competitive with men, or even prohibit women from certain occupations. All these regulatory laws conflicted openly with the quest for legal and economic equality of women.

Studies of wages paid to women, conducted by labor unions or their political agents, invariably reveal that wages are largely insufficient to maintain a standard of “minimum health and decency.” Consequently government must intervene, they conclude, to protect women and minors. The protection usually takes the form of forced increases in costs, which tend to eliminate the “protected” labor. All states now have legislation that limits women’s hours of work in commerce and industry. Worst of all, they all have statutes designed to suppress the employment of women in their homes on a piece-work basis. Politicians and unionists decry it as the “Sweating System”; women call it the “Convenience System.”

It is a method of industrial production in which productive work is done on the premises of the worker rather than in a shop or factory. It has been used most frequently in the garment industry, especially in inexpensive women’s, children’s, and infants’ wear, but also other products such as embroidery, artificial flowers, shoe ornaments, lamp shades, toys, jewelry, brushes, prepared foods, and many other items. The Convenience System is an ideal system for women with family obligations that may leave some time and energy for income production. Unfortunately, governments and unions are waging an unrelenting war against it.

Most states have legislation designed to eliminate industrial homework. Some states prohibit, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, the manufacture by homework of numerous articles such as food products, children’s clothing, and tobacco. Others require the licensing of homeworkers and the inspection of homework premises. Federal attacks on the homework system have taken the form of minimum wage legislation, which is designed to eliminate the homework performed by women and children. All along, labor unions are raising their barriers to female employment through unrelenting seniority rules. Varying in detail, they discriminate against women in hiring, layoffs, promotions, and so on.

During the 1970s rapid technological improvements have reopened the doors for profitable homework by women. The computer-word processor, which is coming to the market at ever lower prices, is creating new opportunity for women to perform clerical and accounting work, engage in research and provide information, from a home computer via modem to any other computer bank in the country. Exciting opportunities await a homemaker equipped with a terminal and knowledgeable in the ways of modern technology.

In the coming years government and labor unions may want to close this door again to female independence and opportunity. It will be interesting to observe the methods which the intervention will take: license or franchise, control of premise or equipment, interference with communication, imposition of minimum wages, or outright labor prohibition. Surely, politicians cannot be expected to leave working homemakers alone!

It is ironic and yet so revealing of contemporary thought and mentality that the same governments now haughtily legislate equality of the sexes. In June 1963 the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, providing for equal pay for women. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed em ployment discrimination on grounds of sex, race, color, or national origin. In 1965 two education acts, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act sought to eliminate discrimination in schools. In 1972 the Education Amendments Act expressly forbade sex discrimination against students and employees in federally assisted education programs.[4] And yet, twenty years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act and despite all the laws and regulations that were to follow, American women are said to earn only fifty-nine cents for every dollar earned by men.

The legislative activity on behalf of women does not spring from the desire to remove old labor-law restraints on women. Having been imposed in the name of “protection,” they probably will stay on the books. The activity must be seen as just another offshoot of the “command ide ology” that seeks to use the law in an effort to promote an economic command system and reform human nature. It had, and continues to have, all the characteristics of a political ideology that endeavors to erase natural inequalities, to bring equality to white and black, old and young, and to make women the equal of men.


For more than a decade countless American women struggled to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Their efforts ended in defeat on June 30, 1982, when the deadline passed with three states short of the thirty-eight needed for ratification.

The wording of the amendment was innocuous enough: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” In the end the proposal failed because most Americans suspected that the movement wanted more than “equality of rights under law.” They saw the amendment as a manifesto for Feminist radicalism that finds conflict in every issue and seeks to reform human nature by political force. To them, the struggle for ERA was linked with the movement for abortion, homosexual rights, nuclear freeze or disarmament, and other controversial issues.[5] Worn-en’s rights advocates were talking about the “gender gap” and “part- ing-of-the-ways” between men and women. But before they actually parted they showed marked preference for “liberal” politicians who promise to use government force in human relations, and revealed open hostility toward conservative candidates defending traditional values.

The political, social and economic ideology of ERA proponents has never been in doubt. According to Eleanor Smeal, the former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the amendment failed in the end because “the Republican Party led the attack.” She released a list of 137 Republican state legislators who she said were primarily responsible. She also charged that “the Reagan administration is threatening the economic and social gains women achieved in the last decade.”[6] At other times she blamed “the special corporate interests that profit from sex discrimination.” This explanation differed little from those that would blame profit-seeking corporations for racial discrimination or class inequalities, or would indict corporations for low wages and obscene profits, for labor unemployment and consumer gouging, for air pollution and water poisoning, and for many human failings and vices.

Women’s rights advocates applauded the Emergency Jobs Act (PL 98-8) that provided $1 billion for jobs and services of benefit to women. In 1983 they lobbied for the Economic Equity Act (HR 2090, S 888 of 97th Congress), which promised changes in tax and retirement matters, dependent care, insurance rates, regulatory reform, and child support. Complaining about “ingrained patterns of discrimination,” they are ever eager to call on government for more laws and regulations, closer bureaucratic supervision and greater government expenditures on behalf of women. They readily file discrimination lawsuits against employers in the hope that “affirmative-action judges” will find new ways of ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court, in fact, paved the way by ruling that women may file suit under the 1964 Civil Rights Act without having to prove discrimination. A woman merely needs to show that her sex was used in the determination of her pay scale, in order to obtain a judgment against her employer.

It is difficult to judge the impact of the ERA movement. Although it was permeated by political and economic radicalism, it did reveal a powerful desire for sexual equality. It ushered in some changes in law and, more significantly, brought marked changes in tradition and custom. During the 1970s numerous states amended their constitutions to guarantee equal rights for both sexes. All kinds of institutional barriers came down, even a few labor laws. And above all, many mental barriers that were rooted in tradition and custom gradually disappeared.

Tradition and Custom

It is important to distinguish between tradition that is anchored in natural constitution and tradition created by institutional factors. Both together tend to obstruct women from moving into many occupations and employments in which they could have been more productive. Tradition and custom assigned certain vocations and professions to men, and relegated women to a sphere of “women’s work” and “female professions.” It is true, the doors were usually open to new trades and professions that appeared in response to new technology. But in occupations which men for a long time regarded as their own, tradition exercised a powerful restraining influence.

Custom, in general, is a practice that has become habitual. A businessman calls individuals who rely on him his “customers.” Much of the common law in Anglo-Saxon countries is based on what had become customary and traditional. When customs command respect by virtue of being old they are said to have a glorious tradition. Their acceptance rests on the tacit conviction that their survival through the ages is proof of their worth and, therefore, justifies their preservation. The employment of men and women in certain occupations rested on the obvious differences in physical strength and capability, and represented a natural division of labor. The differences in physique assigned heavy labors to men, and life supporting, lighter housework to women. For thousands of years human survival undoubtedly depended on this natural division of labor.

What used to be an obvious necessity of nature may, in modern times, have become a tradition that no longer serves man’s best interests. Modern technology may greatly reduce the disutility of labor, especially strenuous physical labor, and convert it to a pleasant push-button activity that can be performed by any responsible individual. Women now appear in labor markets that are traditionally male because modern technology may afford them labor productivity similar to that of men. In this sense, technological progress in free societies necessitates continuous revisions of tradition and custom. The women’s rights movement is on the side of progress whenever it is requesting such revisions.

It is especially important to question tradition and custom that are resting on man-made laws, especially labor laws. They may offer spurious justifications for legal obstacles and create mental barriers. The latter tend to be highest with fellow-workers and their trade unions, and lowest with employers, the most maligned group of society. Employers are always under the pressure to use labor most effectively and advantageously and, therefore, are least susceptible to costly tradition. They may be subject to natural inertia and reluctance to learn, like anyone else. But it is unlikely that employers will for long oppose female labor if it is found to be higher in productivity and lower in cost.

There Is a Difference

To the dismay of most employers the use of female labor rarely affords any advantage. There are few women who devote their whole lives to income production, but many who dedicate their lives to their families. Rightly or wrongly, many employers are living in constant fear of losing their female workers to home and family. As one employer put it:

“There are many jobs we may teach a woman; but it does not seem worth the effort and expense to teach her because the brighter she is, the more likely she is to go off and get married, just when she is beginning to be of some use.” Or, she may leave because she is pregnant, or her husband is transferred. Or she may refuse to be transferred for reasons of family. In fact, she may not even want to shop around in the labor market in order to sell her labor at the highest price. Family considerations may be more important to her. Therefore, she must expect to earn less than an equally capable male worker because she will be producing less.

Most women spend but a few years of their lives in economic pursuits. The common age at marriage being 21 to 25, they may spend a few years before they are married, and again later when the children have left the nest. The amount of work a wife may supply to the market may depend not only on her wage rate, but also on the total income of the family. Empirical researchers have found that female market labor responds negatively to husbands’ incomes; the more husbands earn, the less likely are wives to work. But there is a positive response of a woman’s ability to earn income to her inclination to work; the more she can earn the more she is likely to work.[7]

In recent decades women throughout the capitalistic world have flocked from home to office or factory. In the United States, more than forty per cent of married women now are estimated to be earning extra incomes. This shift from home to market must be explained not only by the phenomenal reduction in physical exertion as a result of modern technology and application of capital, but also by the growing opportunity cost of home work. As American industry provided an ever increasing variety of goods at lower prices, it became more advantageous to buy them in a store than to make them at home. In other words, an hour’s work in the office became more productive in providing goods for the home than an hour’s work at home, which persuaded millions of married women to seek market employment. But even then they may want to limit their labor to times and places that allow for family chores. The office hours should not conflict with family hours, the place of work should not be too far from home, and above all, the production demands should not be overly exhausting, depriving her of the strength needed at home.

It is in the interest of all members of society that woman should develop her ego and join man as equal, freeborn companion and partner. She should develop her personality in accordance with her inclinations, desires and economic circumstances. But the basic differences in sexual character and physique cannot be outlawed any more than other inequalities of the human race. She cannot escape the burden of motherhood, of childbearing and child-rearing that consume her energies and tend to remove her from the labor market. Pregnancy and the nursing of children take many years of her life and deprive her of the opportunity to be active professionally. While man may be pursuing ambitious goals, woman is a child-bearer and nurse, carrying the burden of human reproduction. In order to compete with man and develop her abilities in economic life she may have to renounce her womanly functions and deny herself the greatest joy, the joy of motherhood. A few extraordinarily gifted women manage to achieve both, perform great deeds in addition to motherhood.

Affirmative-action judges are blind to the obvious. They actually find employers guilty for considering sexual limitations and situations. Oblivious to human nature, they issue court orders that seek to suppress it. They are hurting the very individuals they seek to benefit. By raising the cost of female labor they are reducing its demand which, in simple economic language, is tanta mount to creating unemployment. The “marginal” employees, whose productivity was barely covering their employment costs before the judge’s order, are rendered “submarginal” by the order; that is, they are made to inflict losses on their employers and thus, for purposes of employment, are made destructive rather than productive. In short, they are rendered unemployable. A Supreme Court decision that interprets the law in such an “affirmative” fashion may condemn many thousands of American women to long years of unemployment.

No society can rest for long on a judge’s order and the power of the police to enforce it. A society, to prosper, must be built on the solid foundation of freedom and morality: these are the principal elements of its strength and the guarantors of its prosperity. []

1.   Klaus Mehnert, Der Sovietmensch, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart, 9th edition, 1962, p. 87.

2.   The federal judge ruled that the state violated federal laws by “direct, overt and institutionalized discrimination” that was “intentional” and is “continuing now.” Unable to refute the comparable-worth doctrine, attorneys for Washington state argued that the judgment will have a “devastating” effect on the state’s economy. The retail sales and use tax would have to be increased to 7.9 percent from 6.5 percent. Or, a 55 percent business and occupation surtax would have to be imposed. The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 1983, p. 18. This writer questions the attorneys’ analysis. The judgment will merely create high rates of unemployment among the beneficiaries and greatly reduce the bureaucratic effectiveness of the state. To find employment many women may have to leave the state for other areas that offer market rates rather than court- ordered reparations.

3.   For a thorough discussion of the comparable-worth doctrine see: Ruth G. Blumrosen, “Wage Discrimination, Job Segregation and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Journal of Law Reform, Spring 1979 (V. 12, No. 3), pp. 399502; Cotton Mather Lindsay, Equal Pay For Comparable Work: An Economic Analysis of a New Antidiscrimination Doctrine, LEC Occasional Paper, University of Miami Law and Economics Center, 1980; E. Robert Livernash, ed., Comparable Worth: Issues and Alternatives, Washington, D.C., Equal Employment Advisory Council, 1980; Suzanne E. Meeker, “Equal Pay, Comparable Work, and Job Evaluation,” Yale Law Journal, January 1981, (V. 90, No. 3), pp. 657-680; Bruce A. Nelson, Edward M. Opton, Jr. and Thomas E. Wilson, “Wage Discrimination and the ‘Comparable Worth’ Theory in Perspective,” Journal of Law Reform, Winter 1980 (V. 13, No. 2), pp. 231-301; Donald J. Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann, eds., Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1981.

4.   June Sochen, “Women and the Law,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Book of the Year, 1980, pp. 485, 486.

5.   Probably the most effective opponent of ERA was Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly of Alton, II1. In 1972, when the amendment was passed by Congress, almost unopposed, she launched a crusade against it. She founded a national organization, The Eagle Forum, and took her message coast to coast, charging that ERA would weaken the American family. After ERA’s defeat, the Forum continued its “profamily” educational effort. Cf. The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Box 618, Alton, Illinois.

6.   Congressional Quarterly, Weekly Report, January 30,1982, p. 160; July 3, 1982, p. 1586; April 23, 1983, p. 781 et seq.

7.   Cf. Jacob Mincer, “Labor Force Participation of Married Women,” Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Princeton, N.J., 1960, pp. 63-97. John D. Durand, The Labor Force in the United States, 18901960, New York, Social Science Research Council, 1968, pp. 216-217.