Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
NOW News Bay Area Chapter, April 1990
Page 3
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
NOW News Bay Area Chapter, April 1990 - Page 3. April 1990. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. October 23, 2021. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/490/show/484.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(April 1990). NOW News Bay Area Chapter, April 1990 - Page 3. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/490/show/484

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

NOW News Bay Area Chapter, April 1990 - Page 3, April 1990, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed October 23, 2021, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/490/show/484.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title NOW News Bay Area Chapter, April 1990
Use and Reproduction In Copyright
Date April 1990
Publisher National Organization for Women. Bay Area Chapter
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women
  • Feminism
Subject.Name (LCNAF)
  • National Organization for Women
Subject.Geographic (TGN)
  • Texas
Genre (AAT)
  • newsletters
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Location HQ1101 .N682
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b2332563~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 3
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_312c.jpg
Transcript AUSTIN — Local ministers and rabbis have purchased a newspaper advertisement supporting women's right to abortion because it's time to "end the silence of the mainline churches'* on the issue, a spokesman said. "No one here is pro-abortion. We all believe in preserving life whenever possible," said the Rev. Jim Rigby, a Pres- byterian minister, at a news conference Thursday. However, he said, "Many people get in situations where pregnancy takes a woman beyond her resources ... We believe that women are capable of making their own ethical choices." Denominations represented by 77 clergy signing the half-page ad which ran in Friday's Austin American-Statesman include Episcopal, Methodist, Jewish, Presbyterian and United Church of Christ, Rigby said. LOOK WHO IS ON OUR SIDE!!! "The matter of abortion inevitably involves a conflict between the gift of life and the gift of freedom to choose, regardless of the precise point when one believes a human embryo becomes a human being," says the statement by the group, called Clergy for Responsible Reproductive Choice. Making such ethical decisions for another person is not "in keeping with the mes- sage of the Bible as a whole, nor in harmony with God's gift of freedom that f is inherent in the sanctity of human life," it says. The statement sets boundaries on the group's support of the right to abortion, saying it is not ethical to choose abortion to select a child's sex or as a primary means of birth control. It says, "The gift of life should take increasing primacy over the gift of freedom" as a pregnancy comes closer to term, and gives support to legislation that restricts abortion after viability, when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer gives states broader powers to regulate abortion. Anti-abortion activist Bill Price of Dallas said the ad is unusual and called the churches supporting it "a bunch of liberal denominations." "I don't think they're coming from the kind of churches that are growing and making things happen in the Bible Belt," said Price, president of Texans United for Life. He said the Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic denominations are the largest in the Bible Belt and support the pro-life movement. Domestic chores weren't always women's work In January 1973 a young criminal named Paul Giles was ordered by a British magistrate to clean an elderly person's house as a punishment lor his offense. On hearing this, women around the world might be forgiven tor wondering just what heinous crimesithey must have committed to justify their life sentences ol housework. Women in the industrialized world did not gather together over lea one afternoon and agree to work unpaid at cleaning, cooking, laundry, child care, and nursing out of the sheer kindness of their hearts. No, they were given little choice. They were, as Ivan II- lich put it, "flattered and threatened, by capitalist and cleric" into their current situation. A number of authors have investigated the history of housework and have discovered that the housewife role is a very recent one indeed—and confined to industrialized societies. As sociologist Anne Oakley put it: "Othercultures may live in families but they do not necessarily have housewives. They have women, men, and children whose labor is woven together to create a home and livelihood for the whole family." As a woman in Kenya, for instance, starts to untie the shawl securing a baby to her back so she can wield her hoe with more freedom among the maize stalks, another child will be there to take the baby from her While she works, her daughters will be pounding sorghum and fetching water tor the evening meal, her sons driving goats and cattle to fresh grazing, her husband sinking wooden poles into the ground for a new house. All of these activities are work, but those that we would term housework are so intricately interwoven with agriculture that it is difficult to tease them apart. The growing of food and the growing of children are both vital to the family's survival. Without children the food cannot be grown; without food there can be no children. Who would dare make the judgment that holding your youngest baby on your lap is less important than weeding a lew more yards in the maize field? Vet this is the judgment our society makes constantly. Production—of autos, canned soup, advertising copy—is important. Housework—cleaning, feeding, and caring—is unimportant. How did this degradation of domestic work come about? And how is it that women in our societies are expected to do all this work alone? Well, according to Oakley, Illich, and other historians, this situation set in with the growth of the cities, factories, and mines in the early 19th century. By 1850 half of the United Kingdom population were living in cities. In those days factory and mine owners did not care who did their work for them and hired whole families to dig coal or weave cloth in the textile mills. It might have continued that way, too, except for two reasons. First was the extraordinarily high infant mortality rate in the dreadful city slums where the workers lived. This came about largely because attention to domestic chores among the new proletariat had been reduced to an absolute minimum, crowded out by the demands of wage labor. Babies were left uniended in filthy hovels with no water or sanitation and weaned onto gruel as soon as they were born, to free their mothers for work in the factories. The general "condition of the working class" became a cause for serious concern among capitalists. Malnourished, disease-ridden, stunted, and crippled by the conditions in which they lived, the workers were less and less able to do a good day's work. Meanwhile, as machines became efficient, fewer workers were needed to work them—which was the second factor contributing to the creation of the housewife. (At this point the story starts to read like a conspiracy—though in fact capitalism tends to operate more by trial and error, rather like Darwinian evolution, with the "fittest," by which I mean the most cost-effective for capitalists, economic arrangements surviving.) It turned out that the most cost-effective way to run a work force was to remove women from the factories and put them to