Episode Recording -- “The Rise and Fall of the Equal Rights Amendment”

01:30–04:47: The ERA and Gloria Steinem’s Vision: The history of the ERA from its origins

with Alice Paul in 1923 to its political breakthrough in 1972 is detailed. Gloria Steinem’sadvocacy is explored, emphasizing her radical vision for equality and the legal discrimination

women faced.

04:47–06:34: Phyllis Schlafly and the STOP ERA Movement: Phyllis Schlafly’s grassroots

opposition to the ERA is covered, including her belief in traditional gender roles and her

successful efforts to stop the amendment through home-centered activism and religious

messaging.

6:34–07:38: Two Americas, Two Women: The cultural and ideological differences between

Steinem and Schlafly are compared, showing how their competing visions reflected a deeper

national identity crisis.

07:38–08:35: The ERA’s Modern Afterlife: The ERA’s renewed momentum in the 21st century

is discussed, including recent state ratifications and legal challenges. Julie Suk’s perspective

frames the ERA as both a legal and moral imperative.

[0:00–0:45] Opening

What does equality mean—and what happens when your Constitution doesn’t promise it to you?

In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment—just 24 words long—looked ready to change American

history.

It passed Congress. It won support from a majority of states. And then, it failed.

Today on my podcast, we follow the rise and fall of the ERA—told through the eyes of two

extraordinary women who defined its battle: Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly.

One saw the ERA as a long-overdue correction. The other saw it as a threat to everything she

believed America stood for.

But this story is bigger than just an amendment. It’s about the fault lines of American identity.

About the women who shaped the future by fighting for—and against—change. And it’s about

us.

[0:45–1:30] Introduction

WILL:

Hey everyone, I’m Will Snead.

The Equal Rights Amendment—or ERA—may be one of the most famous amendments never

added to the Constitution. Its failure continues to raise questions about the meaning of equality,

the limits of political progress, and the power of cultural resistance.

In this episode, we’re diving into how the ERA came to be, why it failed, and why it still

matters—through the voices of Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly.

They weren’t elected officials. But they shaped a national debate—about womanhood, power,

and the soul of American law.One built a revolution with words and protests. The other countered it with prayer, pie, and

political strategy.

Their conflict was about gender—but also about class, religion, identity, and control.

[1:30–4:47] The ERA and Gloria Steinem’s Vision

The ERA wasn’t new in 1972. In fact, It was nearly 50 years old.

Suffragist Alice Paul first introduced the amendment in 1923, just three years after the 19th

Amendment gave women the right to vote. To Paul, voting was only the beginning. What women

needed, she argued, was full constitutional recognition as equal citizens (Suk, We the Women, p.

5).

But for decades, Congress refused to act. The ERA was seen as unnecessary—especially when

women were expected to stay at home, depend on their husbands, and defer to male authority. It

was labeled radical and quietly pushed aside.

That changed with the rise of second-wave feminism. In the 1960s and ’70s, a growing number

of women began to challenge the institutions that shaped their lives—marriage, the workplace,

the media, the law.

By the early 1970s, Gloria Steinem had emerged as the face of that challenge.

Steinem had started out as a journalist—but her coverage of the feminist movement turned her

into one of its most prominent leaders. She co-founded Ms. Magazine and crisscrossed the

country speaking to packed college campuses and convention halls. Here is an interview of her’s

from 1972: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-10mPHRwYE

In 1970, she testified before the U.S. Senate in favor of the ERA.

Her message was not polite reform. It was a call to reimagine the nation:

“We are talking about a revolution, not a public relations movement.” said Steinem (Steinem,

1970, American Yawp Reader)

At the time, the legal system treated men and women differently in nearly every area of life.

Employers could advertise jobs “for men only.” Banks could deny women credit without a male

co-signer. Pregnancy could lead to automatic termination from a job. And there was no

constitutional clause to guarantee otherwise (The American Yawp, pg. 365; HIST 202 lecture

notes).

Steinem believed the Constitution needed to speak directly to women. Without that, equality was

just a dream deferred.The ERA offered that promise: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged

by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

In 1972, Congress finally acted. The ERA passed the House and Senate with bipartisan

support—354 to 24 in the House and 84 to 8 in the Senate (Suk, p. 8). Then it was sent to the

states for ratification.

And at first, things moved quickly. 30 states ratified the ERA in the first year alone. By 1977, 35

had signed on. Just three more were needed to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution.

It felt unstoppable.

But the tide was about to turn.

[4:47–6:34] Phyllis Schlafly and the STOP ERA Movement

While Gloria Steinem inspired feminist rallies, another woman was organizing a quieter—but

equally potent—revolution.

Phyllis Schlafly, a constitutional lawyer and political organizer, saw the ERA as a threat to the

family, to tradition, and to womanhood itself.

In her eyes, the feminist movement misunderstood the true power of women. She didn’t want to

be equal to men—she believed women were different by design, and those differences were

sacred.

In 1981, she wrote that feminism encouraged women to see themselves as victims and taught

them to blame men for their unhappiness (Schlafly, 1981, American Yawp Reader). She rejected

the idea that women were oppressed—and insisted that the home was not a prison, but a place of

influence and dignity.

To stop the ERA, Schlafly founded STOP ERA.” Her campaign warned that if the ERA passed,

women would be drafted into military combat roles, lose custody battles, and be forced into

gender-neutral restrooms. (Tindall & Shi, Pg. 1361)

But Schlafly’s real genius was grassroots organizing. She built a movement not from political

offices, but from church basements and living rooms.

STOP ERA volunteers wrote hand-written letters to lawmakers. They stood outside courthouses.

They baked pies and brought them to legislators—along with firm opposition.

They painted feminists as cold, elitist, and out of touch with real women.And they succeeded. A wave of opposition swept across conservative states. Some even tried to

rescind their earlier ratifications—a legal gray area that still sparks debate today.

By 1982, the ten-year ratification deadline expired. Only 35 states had ratified. The ERA fell

short.

[6:34–7:38] Two Americas, Two Women

Steinem and Schlafly never debated in person—but they shaped public perception in profoundly

different ways.

Steinem wore aviator sunglasses, spoke about abortion and workplace equality, and called for a

feminist future.

Schlafly wore pearls, praised homemaking, and promised to defend the family.

Julie Suk, an era scholar, describes the clash this way: a fight between constitutional inclusion

and cultural preservation (Suk, p. 11). In one corner stood those demanding recognition. In the

other stood those defending tradition.

The debate wasn’t only about law. It was about who belonged in the American story—and how

far we were willing to go to include them.

It was also about race, religion, and region. Many of the ERA’s strongest opponents came from

the South and Midwest, where evangelical Christianity and traditional gender roles held strong

sway (HIST 202 lecture notes). Others feared that the ERA would dismantle their way of life.

What the ERA revealed was that Americans weren’t just debating rights. They were debating

identity. And that debate hasn’t gone away.

[7:38–8:35] The ERA’s Modern Afterlife

Even though the ERA failed in 1982, its story didn’t end there.

In recent years, it’s returned to the spotlight. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017. Illinois followed

in 2018. And in 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify—bringing the total needed, but

decades too late (Lehn & Lewis pg. 320).

Now the question is in legal limbo. Can an amendment be added to the Constitution after its

deadline?

Julie Suk argues that the answer isn’t just legal—it’s moral. The ERA, she writes, is about

correcting an original omission in the Constitution. Women were never explicitly included—and

that silence has had consequences (Suk, p. 18–20).Today, as debates rage over reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and the role of

government in gender identity, the questions the ERA tried to answer feel more urgent than ever.

The amendment may be old, but the struggle is current.

[8:35–9:27] Conclusion & Reflection

So what does the story of the ERA teach us?

It reminds us that progress is never guaranteed. That social movements can rise—and

fall—based on who shows up, who speaks out, and who holds power.

Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly shaped public discourse not by holding office, but by

offering competing visions of what America could—or should—be.

And while the ERA didn’t pass in 1982, it forced the nation to wrestle with difficult truths about

equality, citizenship, and who gets to be seen.

Steinem once said: “The truth will set you free—but first, it will piss you off.”

The truth of the ERA? It’s still unfolding.

Whether it’s revived or not, it has already changed the way we think about law, gender, and

justice.

The story isn’t over. And the Constitution, like the country it governs, is still a work in progress.

[9:27–9:47] Outro

Thanks for joining me on Echoes of Equality. I’m Will Snead.

If this episode made you think, share it with a friend, look up the text of the ERA, or ask your

state legislator what they think about it. Democracy doesn’t just live in history books—it lives in

what we choose to remember and what we choose to do next.

Until next time—keep asking questions. Keep listening.