Hoosier Antifeminism in the 1970s:

Why Indiana was the Last State to Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

Rachel Wilburn

History 302: Junior Research Project

May 2, 2019
 Wilburn 1

The Equal Rights Amendment is buried into history in the same way that it was buried in

committee for nearly 50 years. From its introduction in 1923, the bill was not approved within

the House of Representatives until 1971 and the Senate in 1972.1 The amendment has been a

controversial piece of legislation amid conflicting ideologies regarding women, specifically

concerning their roles and status in society. Authored by Alice Paul, leader of the Women’s

Suffrage Movement and head of the National Women’s Party during early 20th century, the

Equal Rights Amendment’s three sections are as follows:

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.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.2

This bill that aimed to unequivocally establish equal rights for women has never been

federally enacted, however.3 For this bill to be adopted federally, 38 states were needed to

endorse it within their state legislatures. Ultimately, the Equal Rights Amendment was short

three states, Indiana being the 35th and last to ratify in 1977. Within the Indiana state legislature,

the bill passed only after president-elect Jimmy Carter called the “wavering” Indiana

State-Senator, W. Wayne Townsend while the bill was being voted on. Townsend eventually

voted in favor of the ERA, approving it by the closest possible margin.4 The reluctance to pass

the ERA in Indiana, and the failure to pass it nationally, was a result of persistent opposition

1 ​Rory C. Dicker, ​A History of U.S. Feminisms​ (Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2008), 100.
2 ​H.J. Res. 208, Session no. 2 of 1972. National Archives Catalog,
https://​catalog.archives.gov/id/7455549​.
3
​ ​Dicker, ​A History of U.S. Feminisms​, 60.
4
​Bill Shaw, “President-Elect Convinces State Senator: ERA OKd After Call by Carter,” ​The
Indianapolis Star​ (January 19, 1977), Indiana Historical Society (cited hereafter as IHS).
 Wilburn 2

from conservative women across the country led by Phyllis Schlafly, the national chairperson of

the Stop (Stop Taking our Privileges)-ERA organization. Women opposed other women in

fighting against this amendment, which would have established equality for both men and

women. In viewing Indiana specifically, a perception of the identity of womanhood can be

observed through these female Stop-ERA supporters, as it was understood by them. As they saw

it, their belief system and moral obligation was their motivation in opposing pro-ERA women

during this wave of women’s liberation. As stated by Donald Critchlow in his work detailing

Phyllis Schlafly and her influence on grassroots conservatism, if this was the age of liberation, it

was equally the age of reaction.5 In the reexamination of the Equal Rights Amendment through

addressing anti-ERA women in Indiana and their response to the Equal Rights Amendment, a

better understanding of why Indiana was the last state to ratify the ERA is achieved. The

persistent and traditional viewpoint regarding a certain identity of womanhood promoted by

women themselves is why Indiana found itself debating the amendment until the very end.

The Equal Rights Amendment involves issues regarding to women’s gender and

sexuality, gender equality, constitutionality, politics, conservatism, and feminism. Historical

scholarship surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment has incorporated these areas of study in

different ways. Some historical analyses focus on why it failed, either at the fault of the

supporters for the ERA or those who fought against it. Several works highlight not only the

significance of the national debate concerning the amendment itself, but also the impact of what

the amendment would or would not have had, if passed. Alternatively, others focus on collective

groups of people and their specific relationship to the amendment. A trend in more recent

5
​Donald
T. Critchlow, ​Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 214.
 Wilburn 3

scholarship, however, has focused on the women who led and participated in the grassroots

conservative movement that aimed to prevent the ERA from passing. Led by Phyllis Schlafly

throughout the later half of the 20th century, she inspired a myriad of female followers who were

concerned that the ERA would cause a “cultural breakdown” in American society. These women

who earnestly contested the amendment are noted and detailed in historical scholarship in

reference to what they did and how. Despite this, research and historical works fall flat in

observing the sociocultural significance and complexity of the matter. The Equal Rights

Amendment was more than just a proposed amendment that people debated. With Indiana as a

case study, my research displays the complicated relationship between feminism, conservatism,

and this amendment in its analysis of the perspectives of Indiana women at this time. Anti-ERA

women fought the ERA because they believed it would lead to the degradation of traditional

values and gender roles. In fighting the ERA, these women thought they would be doing a

service to women by doing so. Yet, these often educated, accomplished women who worked

outside of the home challenged this amendment that sought to symbolically provide equal

protection for housewives and working mothers alike.

“Feminism” and “conservatism” are terms which will be utilized throughout this work

and it is necessary to state what is meant by each word. Amy R. Baer’s philosophical

reconstruction, ​Conservatism, Feminism, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese​, examines the possibility

of conservative feminism and establishes the framework of each ideology in her inquiry. In

identifying something as feminist, it references the subscription of ideals and practices that

involve not only advocacy for women, but also the criticism of traditional social norms, as they
 Wilburn 4

have been historically forced and affiliated with gender hierarchy at the expense women.6

“Conservatism,” on the other hand, appertains to the acceptance of these cultural constructions

regarding gender roles, sexual morality, and motherhood as good and necessary societal

foundations for overall human well-being that should therefore, be “protected” and “promoted”

by society as a whole.7 As antifeminist, conservative women saw the Equal Rights Amendment

as an endorsement of this feminist ideology, they saw its destruction as a moral necessity.

Feminism did not liberate women according to them. Feminism directly contrasted conservative

ideals in their refusal and criticism of conventional gender norms involving women.

In speaking of Indiana specifically, the political climate of the state has historically been

conservative due to the gradual migration of southerners to northern states.8 Generally, Hoosiers

have maintained a belief system rooted in tradition and reluctance to change. This conservative

outlook was established in their subscription to fundamental conservative ideals, namely basic

perceptions regarding economics and the role of government.9 The citizens of the state were far

from radical in their action towards revolutionary change. Instead, Hoosiers were radical in the

sense that they often did what they could to prevent such change from occurring. Indiana’s

conservative attitudes resulting from long established socio-cultural conventions affected the

state’s widely accepted societal beliefs, specifically those regarding the state’s opinions towards

women and women’s rights. According to a Gallup Youth Survey taken in 1978, “teen-agers” in

the Midwest and South favored the Equal Rights Amendment and the possibility of voting for a

6 ​ my R. Baehr, “Conservatism, Feminism, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese,” ​Hypatia​ 24, no. 2

A
(2009), 102.
7 Ibid.
8
​Barbara J. Steinson, “Rural Life in Indiana, 1800–1950,” (1994), 206.
9 ​James H. Madison, ​Hoosiers: A New History of Indiana​ (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press, 2014), x; 85.

 Wilburn 5

woman presidential candidate in lower percentages than their East and West regional

counterparts.10 As a midwestern state, Indiana generally shared common conservative beliefs

with Southern states. Although the Gallup Youth Survey focuses on teens, the individuals who

opposed the amendment most fervently were middle-aged and older women. From the

anti-suffrage movement, to the Progressive Era, and finally to the Equal Rights Amendment

during the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970s, Hoosier women have led campaigns

that not only rejected legislation for women’s rights- but firmly fought against it.

The history of women in Indiana is by no means a story of docile, inactive women and

certainly they were not strangers to involvement within their communities. The work of Barbara

J. Steinson notes that women were, “Pivotal, in fact central, players in nurturing and maintaining

the personal social and economic links that bound rural Hoosiers in their interdependent

communities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”11 Many conservative women

who were involved in campaigns opposing the ERA first found themselves in organizations

devoted to the fight against communism in the 20th century. In reference to Hoosier women, Erin

M. Kempker writes in ​Big Sister: Feminism, Conservatism, and Conspiracy in the Heartland​,

“Women learned how to construct and mobilize a movement, and they asserted that this effort

was the particular prerogative of women….Conservative women adapted anticommunist

organizations, rhetoric, and tactics to modern concerns.12 Anticommunism and antifeminism are

separate topics; however, they often overlap with respect to the people that supported these

10 George Gallup, “Gallup Youth Survey: Teen-Agers Back Equal Rights Amendment,” ​The
Indianapolis Star​ (August 16, 1978), IHS.
11 ​Steinson, “Rural Life in Indiana, 1800–1950,” ​Indiana Magazine of History​ 90,

no. 3 (1994), 233.

12 ​Erin M. Kemper, ​Big Sister: Feminism, Conservatism, and Conspiracy in the Heartland

(Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2018), 60-61.

 Wilburn 6

ideologies. The fact that these antifeminist women were first affiliated with anticommunism

activism is telling of their beliefs and conservative worldview. Communism was observed as an

conspiratorial enemy to “American” ideals and freedom, and specifically the American family.

As communism conflicted with the conservative mores of these women and was therefore seen

as threatening to the well-being of the nation, Hoosier women revered the fight against it as their

responsibility. In that, the identity of these women is illustrated through their assuming the role

of a protector against this threat. The assemblage of women demonstrates how Hoosier women

mobilized and were inevitably better able to assemble themselves collectively in fighting the

ERA; these women were already familiar with organizing political groups aimed at promoting

their worldview.

One cannot accurately understand the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment without

examining the influential role of the Stop-ERA’s national leader, Phyllis Schlafly, whose own

early political efforts engaged in the fight against Communism.13 Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative

political activist and lawyer, is best known for her staunch commitment to antifeminism that

manifested itself most notably in preventing the national ratification of the ERA. Schlafly’s

motivation spurred from her status as a devout Catholic in which she consequently viewed the

fight against the ERA as a moral responsibility of women to “restore virtue to politics” as “the

moral guardians of the nation.”14 She believed that the women’s liberation movement was

destructive to the societal framework of America, specifically regarding women’s roles within

their families and communities. In a 1976 ​Anderson Daily Bulletin​ article from Anderson,

Indiana, titled, “Has Women’s Lib Gone Too Far- Or Not Far Enough?: Seven Prominent

13
​Critchlow, ​Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade​, 41.
14 Ibid.​, 48.
 Wilburn 7

Political-Minded Women Give Their Answers,” Phyllis Schlafly stated that, “Most women

would rather be loved than liberated. They would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or a

factory machine. Women’s Lib is waging a special war on Cinderella and other fairy tales which

end with the heroine finding her Prince Charming and living ‘happily ever after.’”15 Schlafly

firmly believed that feminism and women’s liberation went against necessary, elemental laws of

nature that she asserted ​all​ women inherently wanted to follow. She dismissed the feminist

movement in its promotion of ideals that she asserted women would never find true fulfillment

in.

Phyllis Schlafly believed the ERA threatened more than just women’s presumed

aspiration towards a “happily ever after,” however. To Schlafly, the Equal Rights Amendment

was as a serious threat to motherhood and the American nuclear family, which she labeled as an

“endangered species” during one of her speeches in Kokomo, Indiana in 1979.16 She believed

that the amendment would remove legal responsibility of the husband to support his wife,

therefore making the wife “equally responsible” to provide half of the financial burden.17

Therefore, if the ERA was passed as Schlafly saw it, the American housewife would then be

regarded as the most vulnerable person in the United States. The women’s liberators, or “libbers”

as they were often called by Schlafly, along with the presumed consequences of the ERA, were

regarded as an impending danger to this way of American life. The ratification of the ERA

would begin a downward spiral of detrimental consequences involving morality and the legal

15 Frances Spatz Leighton, “Has Women’s Lib Gone Too Far- Or Not Far Enough?: Seven
Prominent Political-Minded Women Give Their Answers,” ​Anderson Daily Bulletin​ (June 5,
1976), Indiana State Library (cited hereafter as ISL).
16
​Loni McKown, “ERA Defeat Urged,” ​Kokomo Tribune​ (September 19, 1979), ISL.
17
​Phyllis Schlafly, “The Right to Be a Woman,” ​The Phyllis Schlafly Report​ vol. 6, no. 4
(November 1972), Indiana Historical Society (IHS).
 Wilburn 8

rights that women experienced within the nation. Schlafly saw it as a woman’s duty to fervently

oppose the ERA in order to prevent such cultural destruction.

Although she is not indicative of Indiana’s conservative culture exclusively, addressing

Schlafly’s political background and influence on conservatism within the Republican party is

essential because she represented an ideology that many antifeminist women in Indiana endorsed

and resonated with, especially those involved in the Indiana state chapter of the Stop-ERA

organization.18 Phyllis Schlafly toured several Indiana cities throughout the 1970s, including

smaller towns like Kokomo, Indiana,19 advocating for her beliefs in her animated speeches.

Indiana was not a state that Schlafly needed to devote extra effort in persuading, however. The

state had historically been inclined towards conservative politics, Indiana women had already

mobilized in the fight against communism (which Schlafly had as well), and finally, Schlafly’s

intelligent propaganda techniques collectively were the perfect combination for a strong

anti-ERA campaign in Indiana.20 Phyllis Schlafly came to be the leader of the conservative,

middle-class, American women who saw the world around them as declining morally and felt the

need to act as the protectors against such decline. Preventing such moral and societal degradation

would certainly be augmented if the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass. As Schlafly sought

out to persuade the country in opposing the ERA, she played a special role in the grassroots

conservative movement that resonated with women who not only believed the same things that

Schlafly believed, but also resonated with her status as an educated, religious woman working

18 Erin M. Kemper, ​Big Sister: Feminism, Conservatism, and Conspiracy in the Heartland
(Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2018), 67.
19
​McKown, “ERA Defeat Urged,” ​Kokomo Tribune​, ISL.
20 Patricia A. Tillson, ​The Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment: A Propaganda Analysis of

Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA Campaign​ (Ann Arbor: UMI Press, 1996), 15-16.
 Wilburn 9

outside of the home. She became the quintessential antifeminist, anti-ERA woman they could

identify themselves with.

The fight against the ERA in Indiana is mainly attributed to three Hoosier women who

found themselves in significant leadership roles. Jan Buechler, the Stop-ERA chairperson;

Beulah Coughenour, an Indianapolis City-County Councilwoman; and Joan Gubbins, a state

senator all publicly promoted their position towards the amendment. Each of these women had

their own personal and specific reasons as to why they thought the ERA should be stopped;

however, these beliefs often overlapped. Both Beulah Coughenour and Joan Gubbins had

attended Phyllis Schlafly’s “Anticommunist ‘school’ for politically minded conservative

women” where they were taught how to conduct themselves within the political arena, both in

appearance and rhetoric.21 Indiana women against the Equal Rights Amendment, like Buechler,

Coughenour, and Gubbins, believed that if the the amendment passed, it would usher numerous

detrimental consequences for women and society. These consequences had both a legal and

symbolic or cultural component. Some common conceptions of what these women thought the

ERA would do involved the reduction of states’ rights,the elimination of single sex colleges and

activities,22 and women being forced into the draft where they would have to fight in combat

units.23 With regards to the discrimination that women faced at that time, anti-ERA activists

believed that women already had all of the legislative “tools” necessary to resist such

21 Kemper, ​Big Sister: Feminism, Conservatism, and Conspiracy in the Heartland​, 67.
22
​Leslie Duvall, “‘ERA Not The Solution,’” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (September 1, 1976), IHS.
23
​McKown, “ERA Defeat Urged,” ​Kokomo Tribune​, ISL.
 Wilburn 10

discrimination.24 With these supplementary perspectives, the amendment was deemed as not only

detrimental for women, but also frivolous and unnecessary.

Clearly the ERA debate had legal weight due to its nature as a proposed amendment to

the United States Constitution and its subsequent anticipated legal consequences. Yet, what

anti-ERA women thought the amendment would force women to do along with the rights that it

would presumably take away exhibits what they thought was good and right for women and

society, therefore exhibiting their cultural perception of what womanhood should be. The

contention between feminist and antifeminist discourse often manifested itself in legal

arguments; however, this fight was a symbolic and ideological one. Although Michelle M.

Nickerson’s research in ​Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right​ focuses on the

political endeavours of housewives specifically in Southern California during the mid-twentieth

century, she also speaks to the grassroots conservative movement generally in addressing how

conservative women became activists who sought to protect moral ideals and therefore defend

their communities. This “housewife populism” shaped how, “Domesticity, femininity, and the

state related to each other in the conservative mind.”25 In the same way, the controversy

regarding the Equal Rights Amendment revealed more about how Indiana women thought of

womanhood and a woman’s identity. For example, the overarching equal rights that the first

section of the proposed amendment aimed to guarantee prompted anti-ERA women to believe

that it would force the American people to integrate into a more unisex society, one that did not

separate men and women with respect to gender. Anti-ERA women believed that this pervading

24 Linda Maugans, “Responds to Sen. Tipton on the ERA Debate,” ​The Kokomo Tribune
(February 28, 1979), ISL.
25 Michelle M. Nickerson, ​Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right​ (Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), ​160.

 Wilburn 11

separation in society was good and right. They saw the present institutions and norms as

protection for women resulting from “reasonable differences between men and women based on

factual differences” that would be dissolved with the ERA’s ratification and subsequently

endorsed by the Federal Government, as Jan Buechler claimed in 1979.26 In opposing this

legislation, anti-ERA women believed it would have a direct effect on the preservation of the

socio-cultural framework of society involving women.

For Stop-ERA antifeminists, the Equal Rights Amendment was seen as something that

would not grant more protection from women, but rather, it would bereave women of these rights

and privileges attributed solely to women. As seen in a 1976 article published by the Anderson

Herald, Beulah Coughner stated that she was in fact an advocate for women’s rights. Yet, she

claimed women had already been experiencing these rights through legislation enacted by the

government, such as the Equal Pay Act. The overarching ERA amendment that sought to grant

equality of rights not on the basis of sex would alternatively, as she saw it, “Deprive women of

some of their most important rights and privileges.”27 Again, the Equal Rights Amendment dealt

with legislation and constitutionality, but the significance is found in how these women reacted.

Their reactions are telling of what they believed women should and should not do. As the ERA

was seen as a threat to family values and other societal norms, the opposition towards it was

influenced by a moral responsibility that these women had to protect themselves and their

families. Coughner and other anti-ERA women saw women’s most necessary and important roles

26 Maugans, “Responds to Sen. Tipton on the ERA Debate,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​, ISL.
27
​“‘Deprive Women of Rights’: ERA Setback Boosted,” ​Anderson Herald​ (October 19, 1976),
ISL.
 Wilburn 12

within the domestic sphere. The ERA was seen as a piece of legislation that would discourage

this and take away the privileges of housewives and mothers.

In Indiana, the Equal Rights Amendment was a widely discussed and debated issue.

Several Hoosier newspaper articles outlined both pro-ERA and anti-ERA opinions, showcasing

the disparity in thought about what the ERA meant for women. These opinions often detailed

why individuals believed the legislation would entail a positive or negative outcome, if passed.

In doing so, the ideological and symbolic weight of the proposed amendment was revealed in the

reactions of these women, who were either for or against the proposed amendment. Within the

viewpoint that the ERA would lead to the deprivation of rights, rather than a greater security of

rights, the perception by anti-ERA women exhibits what they deemed the most valuable of

womanly duties, namely their responsibilities to their home and families. A ​Kokomo Tribune

article titled “Speakers Detail Pros, Cons of ERA at SOS series” recounted a panel discussion

titled SOS (Searching for Solutions) that was held in Kokomo, Indiana in 1980. The goal of the

workshop was to allow time for both pro-ERA and anti-ERA women to voice either their

advocacy or concerns regarding the amendment. The pro-ERA side included Shermie Schafer,

Jeanne Miller, and Ginny Webb; the anti-ERA side included Rolena Jackson, Jan Buechler, and

Evelyn Pitschke.28 Miller and Pitschke were both practicing attorneys at the time and examined

the amendment from a legal standpoint. Other women focused on the symbolic, moral weight of

the amendment and its cultural consequences. At the time of this panel discussion, Rolena

Jackson was the former president of Stop-ERA and Jan Buechler was the current Stop-ERA

chairperson. Jackson stated that the ERA was a threat to the institution of marriage, specifically

28“Speakers Detail Pros, Cons of ERA at SOS Series,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (April 17, 1980),
ISL.
 Wilburn 13

in its perceived consequence that the ERA would allow for the admission of same-sex marriage.

She further believed that the amendment would bring about a society where women would be

stronger and more in control, therefore making men weaker and causing a “cultural breakdown.”

Jackson also concluded that the ERA would precipitate the ubiquitousness of day school in

American society, providing a “cop-out for women who do not want the full responsibility of

marriage.” These statements clearly outline long-established convictions regarding marriage and

motherhood from anti-ERA Hoosier women. However, it more importantly demonstrates how

intensely the ERA became associated with matters that were not explicitly outlined in the ERA’s

three sections. Anti-ERA philosophy was telling of what they believed certainly, but it was also

used as a persuasive technique to deter support for the amendment itself.

Similar articles were also published in other Indiana cities. An ​Indianapolis Star​ article

titled “How Would ERA Affect My Daughter?” presented the opinions of four women, both

pro-ERA and anti-ERA, referencing how they believed the ERA would have generational

consequences for women.29 Elaine Donnelly and Phyllis Schlafly spoke to how they believed the

amendment would take away rights from women and girls. Even if Schlafly was not physically

present in the state, her influence is observed in articles like this, and countless others, that gave

her a platform to further dispose people against the ERA. Elaine Donnelly, the national media

chairperson of Stop-ERA in Detroit, stated that the ERA would cause the expulsion of single-sex

sports. In her own section, Phyllis Schlafly labeled the ERA as a scheme by the Federal

Government to seize more power that would take away rights that women have always had. She

assured that the ERA would force women to become combat foot soldiers and make it

29Milton Rockmore, “How Would ERA Affect My Daughter?,” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (February
20, 1979), IHS.
 Wilburn 14

unconstitutional to obligate men to support their families. It would threaten wives, widows, and

the American woman, who she regarded as the “luckiest creature in the world.” Again, the

amendment was associated not with providing equal rights for women; instead, it was associated

with the government’s imposition of women into a status that anti-ERA women felt women did

not belong in.

The notion that the American woman was the “luckiest creature in the world” and the

“most fortunate” was an interpretation utilized by anti-ERA women as a persuasive statement

aimed to convince others why the Equal Rights Amendment was unnecessary. Jan Buechler

wrote in 1979 that, “Of all the classes of people who ever lived on the face of the earth, the

American woman is the most fortunate. She has the most rights, the most choices, and the most

opportunities.”30 Her statement here outlines why the ERA was seen as unnecessary and

dangerous. The perception of Buechler and other women who were against the ERA was that

American women already were equally protected and the ERA would remove such rights. They

then publicly associated the ERA with a cultural disruption, causing individuals to fear the

consequences of the amendment. However, not all women who believed that American women

were the most fortunate viewed that belief as reason to condemn the ERA. In fact, a former

suffragette wrote in response to Phyllis Schlafly’s visit to Kokomo, Indiana, that, “Instead of

denouncing the ERA, as Mrs. Schlafly...did in Kokomo Tuesday night, she might consider why

women in America are as fortunate as they are...It is because a few thousand women who sought

equal recognition worked for and demanded equal rights with men.”31 Even women whose lives

30 Maugans, “Responds to Sen. Tipton on the ERA Debate,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​, ISL.
31 Bertha N. Cardene, “A Plea for the ERA Amendment,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (September 24,

1979), ISL.
 Wilburn 15

involved domestic capacities denounced anti-ERA sentiments and defended the ERA. Jill

Chambers, a self-identified housewife, responded to a male perspective on why he denounced

the ERA in questioning, “Why would people fear such a fair and just amendment? It probably

harks back to the same kind of unfounded fears of what would happen if women had the vote... I

have found pride in my role of housewife through the women’s movement.”32 Chambers

identified the connection between the Women’s Suffrage and Women’s Liberation movements,

that being the “unfounded fears” that individuals thought would culminate if such an amendment

passed. In the same way that Hoosier women feared women’s suffrage and communism, fears

about what the Equal Rights Amendment would generate subsequently ensued.

Scholars have engaged with the notion of conservative feminism in the wake of the Equal

Rights Amendment. Although the prominent Indiana women who opposed the ERA did not

self-identify as feminists, but rather rejected it, they nevertheless exhibited what can be

understood as feminist virtues for this time. They were educated, intelligent women, working

outside the home, in a historically male-led dominion and political sphere. Evelyn Pitschke was a

practicing attorney at her own office for 35 years when she began to fight against the Equal

Rights Amendment.33 Joan Gubbins was an Indiana state senator34 and both Jan Buechler35 and

Joan Reynolds36 were headpersons in a prominent organization, albeit Stop-ERA. The nation’s

anti-ERA leader, Phyllis Schlafly, was highly educated; she worked her way through college at

32 Jill Chambers, “Finds Roche on ERA Vexing,” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (December, 30, 1975),
IHS.
33 “Speakers Detail Pros, Cons of ERA at SOS Series,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​, ISL.
34 Joseph Gelarden, “House Approves ERA; Quick Senate Action Seen,” ​The Indianapolis Star

(January 13, 1977), IHS.

35
​“State’s Ratification of ERA to be Revoked by Resolution,” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (February 6,
1979), ISL.
36
​“‘Deprive Women of Rights’: ERA Setback Boosted,” ​Anderson Herald​, ISL.
 Wilburn 16

Washington University, earned a master’s degree from Radcliffe University, and obtained a law

degree from Washington University.37 When Schlafly ran for Congress in 1952, her image as a

housewife challenged the “male-dominated political machine” that ran American politics from

its beginning.38 A woman, let alone a housewife, running for a Congress at this point in

American history confronted societal conceptions about gender in politics. Yet, each of these

women obstinately opposed the amendment because of its promotion of feminist ideals. As

Catherine E. Rymph exhibits in her work, ​Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from

Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right​, an increase of socially conservative women in

politics, specifically within the Republican party, opposed feminist-backed legislation, such as

the ERA, and ultimately outnumbered Republican women who endorsed more feminist ideals.39

While Phyllis Schlafly became known as the model “Republican Woman,” Republican feminism

began to be increasingly recognized as more of an oxymoronic concept with the growing number

of “Antifeminists of the New Right,” whose campaigns, “Proved successful in winning the

Republican Party in the war over feminism.”40 Despite this, some women have still identified

themselves as conservative feminists following the failure of the ERA, such as the historian and

author, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.

In reorienting the understanding of how the ERA failed to focus not only on what the

women who fought against it did, but also what that meant for womanhood symbolically is

necessary for a more comprehensive understanding of the history of the amendment. Indiana’s

37 Patricia McCormack “Leader of ERA’s Opponents Begins to Anticipate Success,”​ United

Press International​ (1977), IHS.
38
​Critchlow, ​Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade​, 48.
39 Catherine E.​ ​Rymph, R ​ epublican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through
the Rise of the New Right ​(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005),​ 206.
40Ibid.,​ 19.
 Wilburn 17

conservative history and the previous experience of women in anticommunism organizations

were the foundation in which the ERA found itself confronted with reluctance and hesitation in

Indiana. Phyllis Schlafly’s pervasiveness across the country through her Stop-ERA organization

inaugurated a decade long vendetta polarizing the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment and

introduced fears that convinced people that the ERA would usher in adverse, radical

consequences for women and society. Schlafly resonated with Hoosier antifeminist women, who

wanted to conserve their understanding of womanhood. Although these women lost the battle in

Indiana, they won nationally. The Equal Rights Amendment has still not been federally enacted.

However, instead of attributing its failure solely to the efforts of anti-ERA women across the

country, history must consider why these efforts to impede change for women have persisted.

The possibility of change for women has been met with such mistrust, most interestingly by

women themselves, because of deep-seated traditional and conventional views of womanhood

that are difficult for some to challenge. To analyze this conservative identity of womanhood, is to

better understand how an amendment that aimed to guarantee more rights for women became

seen as one that would take those rights away.

 Wilburn 18

Bibliography

Archives:

Collection # M 1417 OM 0694 BV 5378. Equal Rights Amendment Materials, CA. 1960–1990.
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, IN.

The Indiana State Library’s provision of access to Newspapers.com; Specifically: the ​Anderson
Herald, Anderson Daily Bulletin, ​and​ The Kokomo Tribune​.

Primary Sources:

Chambers, Jill. “Finds Roche on ERA Vexing.” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (December, 30, 1975),
ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, Indiana Historical Society (cited
hereafter as IHS), Indianapolis.

Duvall, Leslie. “‘ERA Not The Solution.’” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (September 1, 1976), ERA
Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS, Indianapolis.

Gallup, George. “Gallup Youth Survey: Teen-Agers Back Equal Rights Amendment.” ​The
Indianapolis Star​ (August 16, 1978). Equal Rights Amendment Materials, CA.
1960-1990, ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS, Indianapolis.

Gelarden, Joseph. “House Approves ERA; Quick Senate Action Seen.” ​The Indianapolis Star
(January 13, 1977), ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS,
Indianapolis.

McCormack, Patricia. “Leader of ERA’s Opponents Begins to Anticipate Success.”​ United Press
International​ (1977), ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS,
Indianapolis.

Rockmore, Milton. “How Would ERA Affect My Daughter?.” ​The Indianapolis Star​ (February
20, 1979), ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS, Indianapolis.

Schlafly, Phyllis. “The Right to Be a Woman.” ​The Phyllis Schlafly Report,​ vol. 6, no. 4
(November 1972), Equal Rights Amendment Materials, CA. 1960-1990, Anti-ERA
Publications, Box 1, Folder 18, IHS, Indianapolis.

Shaw, Bill. “President-Elect Convinces State Senator: ERA OKd After Call by Carter.” ​The
Indianapolis Star​ (January 19, 1977). Equal Rights Amendment Materials, CA.
1960-1990, ERA Related Newspaper Clippings, Box 1, Folder 6, IHS, Indianapolis.

Cardene, Bertha N.. “A Plea for the ERA Amendment.” ​Kokomo Tribune​ (September 24, 1979),
Indiana State Library, (cited hereafter as ISL).
 Wilburn 19

Maugans, Linda. “Responds to Sen. Tipton on the ERA Debate.” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (February
28, 1979), ISL.

McKown, Loni “ERA Defeat Urged.” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (September 19, 1979), ISL.

Spatz Leighton, Frances. “Has Women’s Lib Gone Too Far- Or Not Far Enough?.: Seven
Prominent Political-Minded Women Give Their Answers” ​Anderson Daily Bulletin​ (June
5, 1976), Indiana State Library (cited hereafter as ISL).

“Speakers Detail Pros, Cons of ERA at SOS Series.” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (April 17, 1980), ISL.

“State’s Ratification of ERA to be Revoked by Resolution.” ​The Kokomo Tribune​ (February 6,

1979), ISL.

“‘Deprive Women of Rights’: ERA Setback Boosted.” ​Anderson Herald​ (October 19, 1976),
ISL.

Secondary Literature:

Baehr, Amy R. “Conservatism, Feminism, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.” ​Hypatia​ 24, no. 2
(2009): 101-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20618149.

Critchlow, Donald T. ​Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade​.

Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv39x79b.

Dicker, Rory C.. ​A History of U.S. Feminisms​. Berkeley: Seal Press, 2008.

Kempker, Erin M.. ​Big Sister: Feminism, Conservatism, and Conspiracy in the Heartland​.
Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2018.

Madison, James H.. ​Hoosiers:​ ​A New History of Indiana​. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2014.

Nickerson, Michelle M.. ​Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right​. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2012.

Rymph, Catherine E.. ​Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through
the Rise of the New Right​. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005.

Steinson, Barbara J. “Rural Life in Indiana, 1800–1950.” ​Indiana Magazine of History​ 90, no. 3
(1994): 203-50. ​https://www.jstor.org/stable/27791761​.

Tillson, Patricia A.. ​The Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment: A Propaganda Analysis of
Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA Campaign.​ Ann Arbor: UMI Press, 1996.