Brooke Soderbery: Can you share a little of your experiences working on State [Equal Rights Amendments] ERAs. 

Eleanor Smeal: Well, the first state ERA that I worked on was the one in Pennsylvania, which was in 1970 to about 1972, we brought it. Then, once it passed, we had cases lined up. We took a case on sports. We sued the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Association because it forbade women, girls, to play interscholastic sports. In Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh NOW Chapter was very big and very talented, and they challenged right away about the sports. We won that case. And that started interscholastic sports. Up until that time, they were spending in the Pittsburgh system, $250,000 for boys interscholastics, and nothing for girls. And so we won the case on the basis of the Pennsylvania ERA. Another thing that people don’t realize, or maybe not would not know, is that under the Pennsylvanian ERA, we took a case against the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which was a major newspaper, because it had “Help Wanted: Boys and Men and Women” [seperated]. We did a mathematical analysis of it, and the chances of a woman getting a decent pay out of this was very, very low. There were only 20 job categories for women, and there were 220 for men. So under the math file, they [men] got so much more money. The National Public Newspaper Publishers Association, I might not be exactly right in the name, came against us, saying that the classifieds ads were important, and people wouldn’t go through them all unless they had two big categories like that. We challenged that, and we won. The thing that was so magical, the minute we won, within a couple days, all advertising on newspapers dropped the sex thing. 

Soderbery: Wow, that’s something people don’t talk about a lot. Do you have any other stories or topics that you wish were discussed more?

Smeal: People don’t even understand. I get so frustrated. That was a good discussion that we were having. It was an hour, and there was a fire drill, so we didn’t get as much out there as we wanted to. It’s so hard to get times in these conferences, and we’re gonna run this one, that talks about the impact. And I know the impact because I lived it, and I know how we felt. We thought, “Oh my goodness. We got interscholastic sports for girls, and we got the classified ads to drop the just two choices!” It was like magic. We could not get over how powerful it was.  Basically, if we would win, we have to have a litigation strategy at the same time. We can’t let the opposition use it for litigation that would hurt it. We have to be aggressive on it. We have to think in terms of, we’re so used to discrimination that we forget the most easy cases you should take. I personally think we should be putting more time towards it.

Soderbery: In discussions about the ERA, debates often come up about whether the future of it is in the courts or the legislature. What do you think about the future of the ERA in courts?

Smeal: Well, it depends on the court. I mean, if you’re a good lawyer, you don’t go into a thing that you think you’re gonna lose. It would depend. I think that it would create profound changes, and it would definitely, definitely affect women’s employment and pay because they’re being cheated. When it’s called payday, “equal pay day”, they’re only talking about wages. They’re not talking about: Do you get health insurance with it? Do you get benefits? Is there a retirement plan, etc? Do you get a stock option? Do you get some free stock? I could go on, and you put all that in, then that margin, the money gap, would be much higher.

Soderbery: How long have you been discussing that equal pay day isn’t actually equal compensation?

Smeal: I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said it. I’ve worked with both Democrats and Republicans. By the way, I finally got the Democrats under Obama to study it. It took so long. I mean, it just drives me crazy, because it’s obvious. They couldn’t get the statistics. Anyway, a woman who was in charge of federal contracts, she figured out that the top 100 corporations in size already report to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunities Commissions) on the basis of sex with differences, so they wouldn’t even have a new thing to file. It’s already there. She was a part of the team and convinced Obama to require it for the top, larger 100 companies. Guess what happens? That’s his last Executive Order. The other guy comes in named Trump, and he reversed it. He’s been against this the whole time. He has a circle of high flyers, people who give money, etc, that are interested in having a cheap labor force, and that cheap labor force is female.

Soderbery: In what other ways have you discussions repeat and things loop back around over time? 

Smeal: That’s what I was trying to tell them [conference attendees]. We passed the right to vote in 1920. That campaign started in 1848, a long campaign. Now they’re talking about putting it back in. Even thinking about that just drives me wild. I mean, why? Why? How dare they say that it’s better for the family. The major argument is that it’s better for the family if only one person votes, and that one person has to be the man. Why is that better for the family? Look at how many people are divorced. Look at how many people are mothers, are single mothers, and they have no male character there. And the whole thing makes me so upset. Why is that even being entertained? Why would people think in terms of that, and why would women put up with it? In so many states, the divorce laws are very discriminatory. Well, we’ve got to go after them. You can see it, we just did a panel, and with three or four of us really knowing it and talking very fast, we got through very little.

Soderbery: What do you think are some really important things people need to know about the ERA and its history?

Smeal: They should know as much as they can about what we’re not getting. One of the things is, there’s discrimination and divorce law. Quite, quite large. We have good statistics on it. There should be a way to equalize that, especially since she usually is not the woman, but her children are living with them. In other words, these are not fresh data, so you’d have to get fresh data, but something is that after about five years, the typical male stops paying for the kids. Well, they’re gonna be living for more than five years. And why is that? Because he’s getting married again. I’m no expert in divorce law. I do know that there are states where you shouldn’t choose to get divorced there. The best state is California because it has an equal provision. Whatever the estate is, if they have a house or whatever it is, they have to split it in half.

Soderbery: Then the ERA could be used to ensure…

Smeal: That more states would do that, not leave her sort of with no way to support the children. Basically, even if children are not involved, it should be split in half during that marriage, for the length of the marriage. As I say, that is what they do in California.

Soderbery: Have you people always used the ERA and state ERAs as a way and talk about that in the context of divorce?

Smeal: They hardly ever talk about divorce. What they talk about is equal pay. Equal pay is the wages you get. I’m glad they talk about that, but in addition to wages you get, as I mentioned before, does it cover health insurance? Are there retirement benefits? In other words, what are the benefits of the law? And you’ll see there’s a huge gap. 

Soderbery: Thank you so much.