Directions: a) Review the context of the women’s rights movement to 1945 – look up anything you can’t explain b) Read the stats, look at the picture and consider the life of a typical middle class woman in the 1950s – define cult of domesticity and baby boom c) Read the excerpt from Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and summarize her main idea d) Read one part of each issue (economics, reproductive rights, opportunity, Equal Rights Amendment, and politics) – summarize what happened and evaluate how much it helped with women’s equality / Your partner will read the other half and you will teach each other next block Context to 1945 1. The American Revolution and Republican Motherhood 2. The Cult of Domesticity 3. 1848 Seneca Falls Convention 4. Industrial Era: working (jobs and conditions), social stress 5. Progressive Era: political action, voting, prohibition, reproductive rights, Muller v. Oregon 6. 1920s Social Change 7. WWII Economic and Social Change Post World War II Cult of Domesticity According to Betty Friedan, by the end of the 1950s:

The average marriage age had dropped to 20

14 million girls were engaged by 17

Women attending college had dropped from 47% in 1920 to 35% in 1958

60% of women dropped out of college to get married (Ph. T – Putting Husband Through)

Betty Friedan – The Feminine Mystique (1963) For over fifteen years there was no word of this yearning in the millions of words written about women, for women, in all the columns, books and articles by experts telling women their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers. Over and over women heard in voices of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire--no greater destiny than to glory in their own femininity. Experts told them how to catch a man and keep him, how to breastfeed children and handle their toilet training, how to cope with sibling rivalry and adolescent rebellion; how to buy a dishwasher, bake bread, cook gourmet snails, and build a swimming pool with their own hands; how to dress, look, and act more feminine and make marriage more exciting; how to keep their husbands from dying young and their sons from growing into delinquents. They were taught to pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted to be poets or physicists or presidents. They learned that truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights--the independence and the opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for.

ECONOMICS: A)

PROVISIONS OF EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 An Act to prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the "Equal Pay Act of 1963." Prohibition of sex discrimination (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, Institute for Women’s Policy Research 2010

From National Women’s Law Center FAQ Sheet (accessed January 25, 2019) Women in the U.S. who work full time, year round are typically paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. The wage gap has stagnated, with very little change since 2007. This gap in earnings translates into $10,169 less per year in median earnings, leaving women and their families shortchanged. This disparity is the top concern of working women. Although enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and civil rights laws and other progress, including increased access to reproductive health care, have helped narrow the wage gap over time, addressing the significant pay disparities that remain is critical for women and their families. Among full time, year round workers, women who started, but did not finish high school, make 74 cents for

every dollar their male counterparts make. In 2017, women in the United States with only high school diplomas working full time, year round were

typically paid only 76 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. Among workers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, women typically make 75 cents for every dollar men

make. Even when women earn a Bachelor’s degree, they still make less than what men with an Associate’s degree

make ($52,439 and $54,700, respectively)—and men with only a high school degree but no college education typically make more than women with an Associate’s degree ($42,440 and $40,641, respectively).

Causes of the Wage Gap

Despite the fact that women have made enormous gains in educational attainment and labor force involvement in the last several decades—gains which have helped close the wage gap over time—unequal pay remains pervasive. Below are some of the reasons why

Women are paid less for the same work.

Women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs and underrepresented in high-wage ones.

Women’s work is devalued because women do it.

Caregivers are discriminated against and face barriers that result in lower pay

B) Civil Rights Act of 1964 In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352. The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law. From Wikipedia (accessed January 25, 2019) This list names all the women who currently hold CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies. Women currently hold 26 (5%) of CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies. (Fortune 500 companies are the largest companies on the baiss of revenue)

Mary T. Barra, General Motors Co. (GM)

Gail Bourdreaux, Anthem, Inc.

Michele Buck, The Hershey Company

Safra A. Catz, Oracle Corp.

Mary Dillon, Ulta Beauty

Michele Gass, Kohl’s

Lynn J. Good, Duke Energy Corp.

Tricia Griffith, The Progressive Corp.

Marillyn A. Hewson, Lockheed Martin Corp.

Vicki Hollub, Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Margaret Keane, Synchrony Financial

Mary Laschinger, Veritiv Corporation

Anna Manning, Reinsurance Group of America

Kathryn Marinello, Hertz Global Holdings

Kathleen Mazzarella, Graybar

Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp

Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup Co.

Deanna Mulligan, Guardian Life Insurance

Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc.

Phebe N. Novakovic, General Dynamics Corp.

Patricia K. Poppe, CMS Energy

Barbara Rentler, Ross Stores, Inc.

Virginia M. Rometty, International Business

Machines (IBM) Corp.

Joey Wat, YUM China

Geisha Williams, PG&E Corp.

Glass Ceiling: an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: A) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – PBS Supreme Court In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control. The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and Buxton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1965. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed. Further, this right to privacy is "fundamental" when it concerns the actions of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." Because a married couple's use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to overcome that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Because Connecticut failed to prove this, the law was struck down as applied. Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut law should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas as to where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, allows the Court to find the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White argued that a fundamental right to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract. Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).

B) Roe v. Wade (1973) – PBS Supreme Court Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized. At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion. However, these restrictions were challenged amid the sexual revolution and feminist movements of the 1960s. In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution. Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972. In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions. However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern. Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that

Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.

OPPORTUNITY: A) From Futureofchildren.org In 1971, for the first time, supporters of child care representing myriad concerns, such as the importance of child development, the needs of working parents, the benefits of compensatory education, and community economic development, came together to craft and lobby for comprehensive child care legislation. The proposed Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 declared that comprehensive child development programs should be available as a matter of right to all children regardless of economic, social, and family background, although priority would be given to those with the greatest economic and social need. The program, to be funded at $2 billion annually, included federal standards for quality and money for training and the purchase of facilities. Care was to be free to families earning up to $4,320 ($25,037 in 2015) and offered on a sliding scale to families earning up to $6,960 ($40,337 in 2015) per year in 1970 dollars (about 44% and 74%, respectively, of median income in 1970). President Richard Nixon had supported a federal role in subsidizing child care to enable mothers at the lowest income levels to take full-time jobs. He declared, "My one conviction [is] that the Federal Government's role wherever possible should be one of assisting parents to purchase needed day care services in the private, open market, with Federal involvement in direct provision of such services kept to an absolute minimum." But when the Child Development Act of 1971 came before him, he vetoed the legislation, saying, "For the Federal Government to plunge headlong financially into supporting child development would commit the vast moral authority of the National Government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing over against [sic] the family-centered approach."

The veto message stunned supporters because there had been little indication of the president's intention. Later, Elliot Richardson, President Nixon's secretary of health, education, and welfare, attributed the veto less to the president's views on child care than to his need to placate those who strongly opposed his rapprochement with China. The moment of opportunity for federal support for a comprehensive child development program appeared to have passed. Consider: Why would public, universal, and affordable (in many cases free) day care improve opportunities for women? B) Overview of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance.

Participation in Sports

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Ratified by Congress in 1972. Not approved by 38 states, therefore, not added to the Constitution of the United States. A) Phyllis Schlafly, 1972 In the last couple of years, a noisy movement has sprung up agitating for “women’s rights.” Suddenly, everywhere we are afflicted with aggressive females on television talk shows yapping about how mistreated American women are, suggesting that marriage has put us in some kind of “slavery,” that housework is menial and degrading, and—perish the thought—that women are discriminated against. New “women’s liberation” organizations are popping up, agitating and demonstrating, serving demands on public officials, getting wide press coverage always, and purporting to speak for some 100,000,000 American women. It’s time to set the record straight. The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century. The truth is that American women never had it so good. Why should we lower ourselves to “equal rights” when we already have the status of special privilege? The proposed Equal Rights Amendment states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” So what’s wrong with that? Well, here are a few examples of what’s wrong with it. This Amendment will absolutely and positively make women subject to the draft. Why any woman would support such a ridiculous and un-American proposal as this is beyond comprehension. Why any Congressman who had any regard for his wife, sister or daughter would support such a proposition is just as hard to understand. Foxholes are bad enough for men, but they certainly are not the place for women—and we should reject any proposal which would put them there in the name of “equal rights.” Another bad effect of the Equal Rights Amendment is that it will abolish a woman’s right to child support and alimony, and substitute what the women’s libbers think is a more “equal” policy, that “such decisions should be within the discretion of the Court and should be made on the economic situation and need of the parties in the case.” Under present American laws, the man is always required to support his wife and each child he caused to be brought into the world. Why should women abandon these good laws—by trading them for something so nebulous and uncertain as the “discretion of the Court”? The law now requires a husband to support his wife as best as his financial situation permits, but a wife is not required to support her husband (unless he is about to become a public charge). A husband cannot demand that his wife go to work to help pay for family expenses. He has the duty of financial support under our laws and customs. Why should we abandon these mandatory wife-support and child-support laws so that a wife would have an “equal” obligation to take a job? By law and custom in America, in case of divorce, the mother always is given custody of her children unless there is overwhelming evidence of mistreatment, neglect or bad character. This is our special privilege because of the high rank that is placed on motherhood in our society. Do women really want to give up this special privilege and lower themselves to “equal rights”, so that the mother gets one child and the father gets the other? I think not.… B) Concrete Reasons for the ERA – Chicago Tribune (May 27, 1980) The decision of the Illinois General Assembly will soon decide whether Illinois joins the 35 states which have approved the Equal Rights Amendment. Failure of the legislators to act will result in the courts acting instead. ERA is not going to go away. People who believe in justice realize it is time for fair and equal treatment of women by law in our courts. But ERA does not apply to customs.

Mothers and wives are among the hardest working people. Yet in some states, widows are automatically denied an equal right to the home, savings accounts, and other property acquired during the marriage; widowers do not have to pay inheritance tax, but the widow is required to pay. Last month’s figures show about 42 million working women whose income (already taxed) helps accumulate that estate, besides their homemaking work. In 42 “common law” sates, the law give the husband complete control over all property, including his wife’s inherited property, and his wife’s earnings, and he can sell “community” property without his wife’s consent; a wife loses control of her own funds unless he puts them in a separate account; women have no rights of ownership of assets in marriage. In these states, when a marriage ends in divorce, women have to depend on the court for distribution. The Illinois equal rights constitutional clause is not sufficient to protect women in a mobile age when about 500,000 citizens are affected by business relocations each year, or when people retire to other states. ERA needs to be a national condition. Being in favor of ERA is not anti-men. It should assist what men now attempt to do with insurance, etc. to protect the future wives and daughters. Audrey Tjepkema Legislative Chairman, Schaumburg Branch American Association of University Women

POLITICS: (look at statistics after your reading)

A) Sandra Day O’Connor (History Channel) Sandra Day O’Connor (1930-) was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006, and was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. A moderate conservative, she was known for her dispassionate and meticulously researched opinions. For 24 years, Sandra Day O’Connor was a pioneering force on the Supreme Court and will always be remembered as acting as a sturdy guiding hand in the court’s decisions during those years—and serving a swing vote in many important cases. In 2009 her accomplishments were acknowledged by President Obama who honored her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas. Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to serve as a justice on the United States Supreme Court in 1981. Long before she would weigh in on some of the nation’s most pressing cases, she spent part of her childhood on her family’s Arizona ranch. O’Connor was adept at riding and assisted with some of ranch duties. After graduating from Stanford University in 1950 with a bachelor’s degree in economics, Sandra Day O’Connor attended the university’s law school. She received her degree in 1952 and worked in California and Frankfurt, Germany, before settling in Arizona. In Arizona, Sandra Day O’Connor worked as the assistant attorney general in the 1960s. In 1969, she made the move to state politics with an appointment by Governor Jack Williams to state senate to fill a vacancy. A conservative Republican, O’Connor won re-election twice. In 1974, she took on a different challenge. O’Connor ran for the position of judge in the Maricopa County Superior Court. As a judge, Sandra Day O’Connor developed a solid reputation for being firm, but just. Outside of the courtroom, she remained involved in Republican politics. In 1979, O’Connor was selected to serve on the state’s court of appeals. Only two years later, President Ronald Reagan nominated her for associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. O’Connor received unanimous approval from the U.S. Senate. She broke new ground for women in the legal field when she was sworn in as the first female justice on the Supreme Court. As a member of the court, Sandra Day O’Connor was considered to be a moderate conservative. She tended to vote in line with her politically conservative nature, but she still considered her cases very carefully. In opposition to the Republican call to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights, O’Connor provided the vote needed to uphold the court’s earlier decision. Many times she focused on the letter of law, not the clamoring of politicians, and voted for what she believed best fit the intentions of the U.S. Constitution. Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the court on January 31, 2006. Part of her reason for retiring was to spend more time with her husband, John Jay O’Connor. The couple has been married since 1952 and has three sons. She divides her time between Washington, D.C., and Arizona.

LOOK AT THE STATS ON WOMEN IN OFFICE AT END OF RESOURCES B) Hillary Clinton (Biography.com) Hillary Diane Clinton was born Hillary Diane Rodham on October 26, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. She was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, a picturesque suburb located 15 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. Rodham attended Wellesley College, where she was active in student politics and elected senior class president before graduating in 1969. She then attended Yale Law School, where she met Bill Clinton. Graduating with honors in 1973, she went on to enroll at Yale Child Study Center, where she took courses on children and medicine and completed one post-graduate year of study. Clinton worked at various jobs during her summers as a college student. In 1971, she first came to Washington, D.C. to work on U.S. Senator Walter Mondale's sub-committee on migrant workers. In the summer of 1972, she worked in the western states for the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern. In the spring of 1974, Rodham became a member of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff, advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal. In 1974, she became a

faculty member of the University of Arkansas Law School in Fayetteville, where her Yale Law School classmate and boyfriend Bill Clinton was teaching as well. Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, at their home in Fayetteville. Bill Clinton was elected governor in 1978 at age 32, lost reelection in 1980, but came back to win in 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1990. Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and, in 1977, was appointed to part-time chairman of the Legal Services Corporation by President Carter. In 1988 and 1991, The National Law Journal named her one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America. During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary emerged as a dynamic and valued partner of her husband, and as president he named her to head the Task Force on National Health Reform (1993). The controversial commission produced a complicated plan which never came to the floor of either house. It was abandoned in September 1994. In 1998, the White House was engulfed in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Though she publicly supported her husband, Mrs. Clinton reportedly considered leaving her marriage. He was impeached, but the U.S. Senate failed to convict and he remained in office. In 1999, Clinton decided she would seek the U.S. Senate seat from New York held by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was retiring after four terms. Despite early problems and charges of carpet bagging, Clinton beat popular Republican Rick Lazio by a surprisingly wide margin: 55 percent to 43 percent. Clinton became the first wife of a president to seek and win public office and the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. She easily won reelection in November 2006. In early 2007, Clinton announced her plans to strive for another first—to be the first female president. During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Senator Clinton conceded the nomination when it became apparent that nominee Barack Obama held a majority of the delegate vote. Shortly after winning the U.S. presidential election, Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. She accepted the nomination and was officially approved as the 67th U.S. Secretary of State by the Senate on January 21, 2009. On June 6, 2016 Clinton was hailed as the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic Party and the first woman in the United States' 240-year history "to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party," according to the Associated Press. Despite most polls and pundits projecting she would win, Donald Trump defeated Clinton for president in November of 2016. Clinton later addressed falling short of becoming the first female president of the United States: "I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday, someone will, and hopefully sooner than we might think right now."

LOOK AT THE STATS ON WOMEN IN OFFICE AT END OF RESOURCES

Women in Office (Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics – Accessed January 2019) Presidents: 0/45 First Major Party Candidate: Hillary Clinton - D (2016) First Major Party VP Candidate: Geraldine Ferraro - D (1984)

Sarah Palin – R (2008) Cabinet/Cabinet Level Offices: 7/23 First: Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, 1933 (appointed by FDR) Supreme Court Justices: 3/9 (4/113 historically) First: Sandra Day O’Connor, 1981 (appointed by Reagan) Senate: 25/100 (25%) First Elected: Hattie Caraway, 1932 (Arkansas) House of Representatives: 102/435 (23.4%) First Elected: Jeannette Rankin, 1916 (Montana) First (Only) Female Speaker: Nancy Pelosi, 2007-2015 & 2019- (California) State Governors: 9/50 (18%) First Elected: Nellie Ross, 1924 (Wyoming) First Elected without being wife or widow of previous sitting governor: Ella Grasso, 1974 (Connecticut) Statewide Executives: 86/312 (27.6%) State Legislatures Senate: 503/1972 (25.5%) House/Assembly: 1609/5411 (29.7%) Mayors Cities of 30,000+: 297/1365 (21.8%) 100 Largest Cities: 23/100 (23%)