The concept of equal rights for women is as old as the ancient Greeks; the Greek philosopher Plato advocated for equality between the sexes in his Republic. Few civilizations have even approached this equality, however, and it has only been in modern times that women have been granted legal rights which were routinely applied only to men. Actual equality in society has lagged far behind legal emancipation, many believe.

Legal rights for women have evolved in the United States since the early 1800s. Pennsylvania was the first state which had a medical school for women (1850). Other professions also began to permit women to practice most states did not admit women to practice law until the middle of the 19th century, and virtually none did before 1820. In most states, married women were not permitted to own property or enter into contracts until the mid-1800s.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted giving women the right to vote. It was not until 1933 that a woman served as a member of the President's cabinet (Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor) in the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited sexual discrimination with regard to most employment issues. A proposed amendment to the Constitution to grant women equal protection under the law (the "Equal Rights Amendment") was passed by the Congress in 1972, but failed to receive approval from three-fourths of the states needed to ratify it in the prescribed time period for it to become effective.

Laws which exist in every state provide that women must receive equal pay for equal work, a concept which only a few decades ago was unthinkable. "Comparable worth" laws have been proposed in several states which would end the disparity between the pay of women in historically "female" dominated professions (such as teaching, nursing, and secretarial work) and "comparable" positions which are dominated by males.

Although sexual discrimination remains a problem at all levels of society, women have risen to leadership positions in government, business, and the professions, but not to the same degree as their male counterparts.

http://www.remember.org/guide/History.root.stereotypes.html

Femme Covert: The common law principle, imported to the American colonies from England, that stripped a woman of her civil existence upon marriage. As The Lawes Resolutions of Women's Rights (London, 1603) explains it:

Man and wife are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or little river incorporateth with Rhodanus, Humber or the Thames, the poor rivulet looseth its name, it is carried and recarried with the new associate, it beareth no sway, it possesseth nothing during coverture. A woman as soon as she is married, is called covert, in Latin, nupta, that is, veiled, as it were, clouded and overshadowed, she hath lost her streame . . . To a married woman, her new self is her superior, her companion, her master.

Married women could not own property. Their inheritances and any wages earned became the property of their husbands. They had no right to refuse the sexual advances of their husbands, nor did they have joint guardianship of their own children. (A husband could place his children in apprenticeships without the consent of their mother and, in his will, he could name a guardian other than the children's mother.) There were regional differences in the application of this principle. Some Southern colonies, for example, had very strict laws requiring an independent examination of a wife before a husband could sell property that had originated in his wife's family. Dower-a widow's right to the use (but not the ownership) of one-third of her husband's real property for the remainder of her own life-was also considered one ameliorating consideration. http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/1univ/hist/ws/content-d8.htm

Married Women Property Acts

The 1852 law passed in New Jersey: http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period_3/womenspropact.htm

Woman Suffrage

The Susan B. Anthony Trial: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html

A History (from the PBS presentation, "One Woman, One Vote": http://www.pbs.org/onewoman/suffrage.html

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.

 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification

History from the Library of Congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/today/jan11.html

See also: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/overview.htm

Women in Combat

The idea of women in combat is not unusual anymore. They should be able to hold combat positions because although physical strength matters, the military still needs the intelligence that women can bring. Also, banning women from the combat hurts their military careers. Although women account for only ten percent of the enlisted personnel (Time, 8/21/95/ Pg. 31), they are still a major part in the armed forces. Their performance recently has generated support from Congress and the public for enhancing the role of females in the military.

During the Persian Gulf War, women were sent to the Middle East to fly helicopters, service combat jets, refuel tankers, and load laser-guided bombs. Their performance has led the world to realize that women are extremely useful in combat. Defense secretary Dick Chaney said "Women have made a major contribution to this [war] effort. We could not have won without them." Leaders in the field agreed. The Gulf War had the largest deployment of women in the armed forces in history. These women encountered the same risks as the men they served with. Twenty one females lost their lives (Holm, Women in Combat: The New Reality, pg. 67-68).

In the Persian Gulf, there were no exact positions and all areas were equally vulnerable, so the idea of safe havens for women was not really applicable. By many armed forces policies, females are banned from combat jobs and units, but in the Persian Gulf War females were assigned to battleships, aircraft carriers, and marine support groups dug into the desert. From their experience in the Persian Gulf, military women have earned the right to be treated as equals with men and not as protected individuals. In spite of their record as able combat personnel, there are laws and policies that restrict women in the United States Military from serving in positions that require them to engage in direct combat. Women in the Air Force and Navy are barred from aircraft and vessels that have a chance to be exposed to combat.

The official, established policies of the Army and Marine Corps exclude women from combat (Snyder, pg. 75-76). These policies prohibit women, on the basis of gender only, from over twelve percent of the skill positions and thirty-nine percent of the total positions offered by the Department of Defense. Such policies excluding women from combat need to be repealed by Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" insures every citizen "the equal protection of the laws." Although the clause is not applicable to Federal government, the Supreme Court said the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from making unreasonable classifications. Therefore the set laws and policies that exclude women from combat not only violate the Fifth Amendment, but also deny women their fundamental right to engage and excel in their chosen occupation.

There have been many court cases involving women in combat over the years, although there has never been a case directly challenging the constitutionality laws and regulations banning women from combat. In the case of Frontiero vs. Richardson, the court rejected the idea that "man is, or should be, woman's protector or defender," which in actuality, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage. In Satty vs. Nashville Gas Co., the decision stated that gender does not determine who is able to perform capably as a soldier. In the case of Schlesinger vs. Ballard, it was realized by the Supreme Court that the combat exclusion hinders the abilities of women to gain the experience needed for promotion within the military.

The combat exclusion puts women wishing to obtain qualification for high-level positions at a disadvantage, because leadership training is usually acquired in combat-type positions. Although many females are not eager to go into combat, there are women who can and want to do the job. In a time where technology takes over battle lines and brains might be more important than brawn, a reason to exclude women is non-existent.

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/essays/combat.htm

From the Center for Military Readiness, the 1992 Presidential Commission: http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=65

from PBS Frontline, a chronology from 1942: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/plus/cron.html

For documents related to How  Women Involved in Radical Religious and Political Movements in Europe Affected the Women's Rights Movement in the Nineteenth Century United States.

Consider the following court interpretations:

Bradwell vs. Illinois: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/62.htm

a biography of Myra Colby Bradwell: http://search.eb.com/women/articles/Bradwell_Myra_Colby.html

Minor vs. Happersett (1874): http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

A legal case between Virginia Minor and Reese Happersett. Minor, president of the Woman Suffrage Association of Missouri, attempted to register to vote in 1872 as implied by the 14^th Amendment. Happersett would not allow her to register and the result was a lawsuit.

Minor lost her case in 1873. In 1875 the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court as a test of women's 14th Amendment rights. The court rejected the argument that voting was a right of citizenship. And the court upheld the right of individual states to give women the right to vote within their own borders.