Viewing page 15 of 17

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[begin page 28]]

being constantly schooled to think conscription of women is a patriotic necessity it would seem a good idea to get behind some of these vague terms that are being tossed around such as "compulsory community service," "total war," "home defense," etc., and find out what this is all about.
     Who are the people who want conscription of women and why?
     Pearl Buck, the noted writer tells a meeting of the National Women's Party that women must share responsibility with men to save democracy.  That sounds fine but in the next moment she is endorsing the Equal Rights Amendment which labor recognizes as a threat to all the protective legislation for women that has been won.
     Margaret Banning, the writer, talks about release for the American women's emotional drive, and to whom does she talk about it?  To the National Assn. of Manufacturers, that body of big business men who are intent on wiping out the Wage and Hour law, the National Labor Relations Act and who want [[sic]] to put a seven-day work week into effect without paying overtime wages.
     Emily Post, the efficiency expert of table manners, is also concerned about women and urges that they use some of their energy in paring down relief.
     These are the women who are talking about conscription of their sex, and like a lot of other speakers they insist that they are for keeping America at peace.  Yet they talk about "total war."
     As Senator Wheeler said about the statement of 170 people urging Roosevelt to take further steps which would get us into war, "you won't find any farm organizations, or any mothers' organizations or any youth organizations signing petitions to the President urging him to declare war."
     And you won't find any labor unions or auxiliaries or mothers' clubs demanding the conscription of women either.

[[centered]]  28  [[/centered]]
[[end of page 28]]

[[start of page 29]]
[[bold, large font]] A Women's Program For Peace [[/bold, large font]]

NO WONDER women are in the forefront of the fight for peace.  Every day their lives are filled with more examples of what war and war economy means to them and their families.
     To women this war means loss of husband, son or brother.  It means higher living costs and less money to spend.  It means higher rents, for poorer housing.  It means increased sickness and disease.  It means higher taxes on lower incomes.  And it means a constant threat to their civil liberties.
     We have seen what happened to women  in the last war.  They worked at men's jobs long hours and for low pay with living costs unchecked.  Today there is a demand by business that we have longer hours and low wages, that strikes be banned and that civil liberties be curbed in the interest of "defense."  Yet big business is making as much and more profits than they did in 1929.  Meat trust profits went up 1,176 per cent in 1939 over 1938; for the first nine months of 1940 duPont profits rose 89%, Jones and Laughlin Steel profits rose 2,130 per cent, and these are only a few.
     Women as well as men are being called on to make "sacrifices," to give up their gains and to accept lower wages, curbs on their rights and higher costs of living for "defense," and an increasing number of people are asking, "Defense of what?"
     The people who demand these sacrifices at first promised to keep America out of the war.  Now they ignore the

[[centered]]  29  [[centered]]
[[end of page 29]]