(2 of 6)
> Sterner enforcement of the equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the bill was before Congress, a Southern opponent frivolously added sex to the standard list of race-creed-color conditions for which no one could be denied a job. Pressure from women's groups led the Government to issue guidelines prohibiting the use of "Help Wanted—Male" and "Help Wanted—Female" rubrics in the classified advertising sections of the nation's newspapers. However, women's rights advocates have found their greatest leverage against employment discrimination in the enforcement of executive orders. Under a 1967 order, federal funds can be cut off to contractors and subcontractors that discriminate in hiring and promoting women. Since most concerns of any size do business with the Government or have a subsidiary that does, federal authorities have a stout stick.
While enforcement of the order in private industry has been uncoordinated and spotty so far, colleges and universities have come under an orchestrated attack that threatens the future of federally funded programs on campus. Complaints against 300 colleges that receive federal aid have been filed by women's groups. Columbia University stands to lose $13.8 million in Government grants; the University of Michigan had $1,000,000 in federal moneys held up because of discriminatory practices.
> Child Care. Late last year President Nixon vetoed a bill that would have begun federal support for a comprehensive system of child-care centers at an initial cost of $2.1 billion. Though part of the cost would be borne by families that can afford it, knowledgeable estimates have it that such a plan could eventually cost more than $30 billion a year—a stunning addition to an already swollen federal budget. Nevertheless, if mothers, including those now on welfare, are to compete freely with men for jobs, they must be able to leave their children somewhere—at a reasonable cost—while they work.
The more radical wing of the movement would not be content, however, with such prosaic gains. They call for a drastic revision of society in general. In their view, the sexual roles must be redefined so as to free both sexes from the stereotypes and responsibilities that have existed for ages. The concept of man as hunter and woman as keeper of the hearth, these feminists declare, is obsolete and destructive for both sexes. It is not enough simply to share these roles without removing the pressures and drives that men now bear. To do so would merely give women, as well as men, heart attacks and ulcers. Hence the argument for freer, less rigidly defined lives for all.