1. 1
Career
Women
in
America:
The
Impact
of
the
Pill
1960-­85
Before
the
revolutionary
changes
of
the
1960s,
women
faced
countless
challenges
in
their
endeavors
to
join
the
professional
workforce,
become
financially
stable,
balance
a
family
and
demanding
career
and
gain
the
confidence
in
which
to
compete
with
men
for
equal
employment
and
pay.
As
the
United
States
underwent
progressive
transformation
with
the
help
of
the
feminist
movement,
the
Civil
Rights
Movement,
the
Vietnam
War,
the
legalization
of
abortion
and
the
introduction
of
the
birth
control
pill,
middle
and
upper
class
women
benefitted
greatly.
The
women
born
from
1955-­‐60
experienced
far
more
accessible
opportunities
than
the
women
of
previous
generations.
The
number
of
women
entering
male
dominated
majors,
graduate
schools
and
careers
skyrocketed
as
this
group
came
of
age.
For
instance,
women
earned
2.7%
of
professional
degrees
(medicine,
dentistry,
law
and
business)
in
1960.
By
1984,
women
accounted
for
33.2%
of
these
degrees.
Enovid,
the
first
oral
contraceptive,
was
introduced
in
the
spring
of
1960.
This
new
birth
control
method
differed
from
those
before
it;
it
was
non-­‐invasive,
taken
orally
and
was
99%
effective.
Its
use
caught
on
quickly,
growing
by
8.5
million
women
in
a
decade.
Enovid
was
packaged
in
a
small,
bright
pink,
plastic
box
and
could
be
hidden
inside
desk
drawers
or
purses.
It
was
nicknamed
“The
Pill.”
Though
the
Pill
was
not
the
first
form
of
successful
birth
control,
its
degrees
of
reliability,
ease
of
use,
and
privacy
surpassed
the
diaphragm,
condoms,
and
spermicidal
foam,
and
until
1973,
an
illegal
and
unsafe
abortion.
The
Pill
was
certainly
a
part
of
the
quickly
changing
atmosphere
and
its
role
deserves
further
investigation.

2. 2
This
paper
will
examine
the
impact
of
oral
contraceptives
on
the
lives
and
futures
of
women
born
in
the
cohort
of
1955-­‐60
as
a
part
of
the
greater
societal
transformations
taking
place
from
1960-­‐85.
My
methodology
involves
researching
the
correlation
between
the
Pill’s
availability
as
a
part
of
various
societal
transformations
and
the
rise
in
female
presence
in
various
occupations
and
schools,
comparing
and
contrasting
women’s
lives
before
and
after
the
decade
of
the
1960s
and
interviewing
five
career
women
born
from
1953-­‐60
who
experienced
this
period
firsthand.
These
women
represent
the
benefits
and
challenges
of
those
who
reached
the
ages
of
18-­‐20,
a
period
associated
with
making
lifelong
decisions,
shortly
after
the
1960s.1
These
accounts
allow
better
understanding
of
the
impact
of
the
Pill
in
accordance
with
a
variety
of
changes.
Accountant
Stephanie
B.
shares
her
story
growing
up
in
a
low-­‐income
neighborhood
in
Phoenix,
Arizona.
She
was
a
part
of
the
major
influx
of
women
obtaining
bachelor’s
degrees
in
business
in
the
late
1970s.
Social
worker
Heather
J.
is
an
example
of
a
career
woman
in
a
female-­‐dominated
field.
She
benefited
from
the
shift
in
women
pursuing
graduate
degrees
and
long-­‐term
careers.
Laney
M.
emphasizes
the
importance
of
dedication
and
long-­‐term
goals
in
seeking
a
professional
career.
She
became
a
physician
and
decided
to
delay
children
until
she
finished
medical
school
and
residency.
Jane
T.
describes
her
college
years
at
Cal-­‐
Berkeley
and
the
female
mentors
in
her
life
that
led
her
to
pursue
a
male-­‐dominated
career
as
a
casting
director
in
Hollywood.
Her
perseverance
in
the
face
of
gender
discrimination
portrays
confidence
and
sexual
liberation.
Attorney
Susan
K.
depicts

3. 3
her
journey
through
law
school
and
her
success
in
raising
a
family
while
balancing
a
high-­‐powered
position
at
a
Portland,
Oregon
law
firm.
Because
this
paper
primarily
focuses
on
upper
and
middle
class
women
and
draws
comparisons
between
lower-­‐income
women,
it
is
crucial
to
note
my
connotation
when
referring
to
specific
social
classes
in
the
United
States.
The
distinction
between
working,
middle
and
upper
class
can
be
construed
in
several
ways
including
a
person’s
education,
labor
or
spending
habits.
In
this
paper,
I
refer
to
these
groups
in
terms
of
occupation
and
income.
Working
or
lower
class
suggests
a
person
whose
job
entails
physical
labor
for
an
hourly
wage
or
who
is
unemployed.
Middle
class
indicates
the
broad
group
that
falls
between
working
class
and
upper
class
and
whose
occupation
is
primarily
blue
collar.
Upper
or
upper-­‐middle
class
constitutes
15%
of
the
population’s
highest
incomes.
This
group
usually
has
a
college
education
and
often
a
graduate
degree.2
At
least
one
person
in
the
household
holds
a
white-­‐collar
job.
The
majority
of
women
flowing
into
the
professional
world
were
middle
and
upper
class
women
with
the
financial
freedom
to
attend
college
and
the
confidence
to
explore
long-­‐term
careers.
Many
of
these
women
were
drawn
to
utilizing
the
Pill
because
they
wanted
the
ability
to
postpone
marriage
and
starting
a
family
in
order
to
pursue
education
beyond
college.
Claudia
Goldin
and
Lawrence
Katz
refer
to
the
marriage
market
during
the
1970s
as
growing
“thicker.”3
This
term
refers
to
the
phenomenon
of
young
women
and
men
who
began
to
postpone
marriage
to
accommodate
their
own
educational
endeavors.
As
a
result
of
a
thicker
marriage

4. 4
market,
women
could
invest
time
in
education
and
careers
without
the
risk
of
losing
out
on
marriage
prospects.
Historians,
economists
and
feminists
have
debated
the
impact
of
the
Pill
in
varying
contexts
and
its
effect
on
changing
women’s
roles.
Demographic
studies
conducted
immediately
after
the
Pill’s
introduction
included
only
married
women
and
contraceptive
use
among
unmarried
teenagers
was
not
studied
until
the
late
1970s.
This
lack
of
data
makes
it
difficult
to
place
the
Pill
into
the
context
of
the
numerous
sociological
changes
of
the
1960s.
Historian
Elizabeth
Siegel
Watkins
accentuates,
"The
pill
did
indeed
revolutionize
birth
control,
and
radical
changes
in
sexual
attitudes
and
conduct
did
take
place,
particularly
among
young
people,
but
no
one
ever
established
a
connection
between
these
two
phenomena.”4
With
a
new
outlook,
numerous
high
school
and
college-­‐aged
women
were
setting
goals
for
their
futures.
Whether
they
took
the
Pill
or
utilized
other
forms
of
birth
control,
graduate
school
and
long-­‐term
careers
were
within
reach.
The
Pill
was
part
of
the
revolution
that
allowed
women
the
capability
to
plan
a
future
career
while
delaying
childbirth.
Life
Before
Oral
Contraceptives
Before
the
20th
century,
women
were
faced
with
the
challenge
of
creating
and
utilizing
less
effective
means
to
control
reproduction.
Because
it
was
difficult
to
limit
family
size,
a
woman’s
role
was
centered
on
childbearing
and
rearing.
This
could
consume
the
majority
of
her
life,
depending
on
how
many
children
she
reared.
Women
lived
with
the
knowledge
that
pregnancy
could
limit
their
life
expectancy
and
compromise
their
health.5
Birth
control
methods
were
often
homemade
formulas
or
contraptions
and
administered
by
the
woman
herself
or
a
midwife.

5. 5
These
techniques
lasted
well
into
the
20th
century
and
were
improved
upon
since
the
ancient
innovations,
ranging
from
the
vaginal
sponge,
abortions,
condoms,
withdrawal,
diaphragms,
IUDs,
the
rhythm
method
and
douching.6
Birth
control
procedures
varied
in
their
degree
of
control
and
privacy;
some
were
conducted
secretly,
others
gave
full
control
to
the
man,
and
a
few
were
cooperative.7
Linda
Gordon,
the
author
of
Woman’s
Body,
Woman’s
Right,
concedes
that
these
devices
proved
successful
for
some
women.
Yet
she
adds,
“…but
these
techniques
cannot
compete
with
the
Pill
or
today’s
legal
abortions
for
effectiveness
and
safety.”
8
The
introduction
of
the
Pill
in
1960
and
the
legalization
of
abortion
in
1973
altered
a
woman’s
outlook
on
her
body
and
future.
Women
could
take
complete
control
of
their
reproduction
and
be
confident
that
their
pregnancies
would
be
voluntary.
Legal
Limitations
The
legal
issues
surrounding
birth
control,
especially
abortions,
have
affected
the
safety
and
accessibility
of
limiting
pregnancy
for
centuries.
Early
in
America’s
history,
abortion
was
an
accepted
form
of
birth
control
and
perfectly
legal
before
the
stage
of
“quickening,”9
a
pregnant
woman’s
initial
sensitivity
to
fetal
movement.
However,
between
1821
and
1841,
performing
an
abortion
became
a
criminal
offense
in
a
number
of
states.
Historian
James
Mohr
discusses
the
evolution
of
abortion
legislation
in
Abortions
in
America,
explaining
that
abortion
became
a
widespread
phenomenon
between
1840
–
1870
among
white,
married,
Protestant,
middle
and
upper
class
women
“who
either
wished
to
delay
their
childbearing
or
already
had
all
the
children
they
wanted.”10
This
was
a
shift
from
the
previous

6. 6
notion
that
abortions
served
single
women
and
those
with
illegitimate,
shameful
pregnancies.
Mohr
notes
that
this
phenomenon
may
be
partially
attributed
to
an
increased
awareness
of
autonomy
for
women.
Women’s
rights
were
gaining
ground
in
the
1840s,
marked
by
the
Seneca
Falls
Convention
in
1848,
one
of
the
first
events
aimed
toward
women’s
suffrage.
In
response
to
the
increasing
presence
of
abortions,
states
added
sections
to
their
criminal
codes,
which
outlawed
abortion
and
in
some
cases,
other
forms
of
birth
control.11
Illegal
abortions
were
unsanitary,
painful
and
resulted
in
extreme
blood
loss
and
possible
death.
If
a
woman
attempted
to
abort
the
child
herself,
she
might
resort
to
injections
of
lye,
douching
with
bleach
or
inserting
a
coat
hanger
into
her
uterus.
Abortions
were
usually
not
discussed
publicly
and
many
felt
they
could
not
tell
anyone,
being
forced
to
deal
with
the
traumatic
experience
alone.
A
century
later,
women
still
struggled
to
find
underground
abortions
and
were
at
risk
of
having
an
unsafe
procedure.
The
women’s
movement
in
the
1960s
encouraged
women
to
become
more
confident
in
questioning
their
circumstances.
Individuals
spoke
out
about
their
abortions
and
the
shame
and
worry
associated
with
the
procedure.
In
The
Feminist
Memoir
Project,
Nadine
Taub
shares
her
experiences
as
one
of
the
few
women
who
attended
law
school
in
the
1960s.
She
admits,
“I
was
a
single
woman
who
had
never
been
in
a
circle
of
women
who
needed
to
get
abortions
–
or
so
I
thought.”
12
She
later
learned
that
a
friend
from
college
had
nearly
died
while
undergoing
an
illegal
abortion
and
when
the
school
found
out,
it
almost
kept
her
from
graduating.
Taub
expresses
that
before
hearing
of
this
experience,
“…I
didn't
yet
know
how
an
unwanted
pregnancy
left
you
almost
alone

7. 7
and
worried
out
of
your
mind,
driving
you
underground
to
risk
your
health
and
future
well-­‐being.”13
When
abortion
was
legalized
nationally
in
1973
following
the
Supreme
Court
ruling
of
Roe
v.
Wade,
women
were
provided
a
sense
of
comfort.
No
matter
the
circumstance,
a
woman
could
seek
a
safe
and
timely
abortion.
Ambitions
The
desire
to
pursue
higher
education
and
fulfilling
careers
has
been
integral
to
the
women’s
movement
since
the
mid-­‐19th
century.
This
movement
gained
momentum
through
female
leaders
such
as
Susan
B.
Anthony
and
Elizabeth
Cady
Stanton,
and
eventually
led
to
the
right
to
vote
in
1920.
Additionally,
there
was
an
increase
of
women
in
higher
education
(female
enrollment
shot
up
100%
in
public
colleges
and
universities)
and
women
held
11.9%
of
professional
positions.14
A
leader
in
women’s
rights,
M.
Carey
Thomas
became
the
president
of
Bryn
Mawr
College
in
1894.
She
was
considered
a
forward
thinker
and
continually
asked
“why”
women
could
not
be
department
chairs.15
She
was
far
ahead
of
her
time,
acknowledging
the
importance
of
education
for
women
and
emphasizing
their
shift
into
male-­‐dominated
fields.
Her
1913
essay
expresses
female
aspirations:
The
passionate
desire
of
women
of
my
generation
for
higher
education
was
accompanied
throughout
its
course
by
the
awful
doubt,
felt
by
women
themselves
as
well
as
by
men,
as
to
whether
women
as
a
sex
were
physically
and
mentally
fit
for
it…I
remember
often
praying
about
it,
and
begging
God
that
if
it
were
true
that
because
I
was
a
girl
I
could
not
successfully
master
Greek
and
go
to
college
and
understand
things
to
kill
me
at
once,
as
I
could
not
bear
to
live
in
such
an
unjust
world.16

8. 8
However,
middle
and
upper
class
women
began
leaving
the
professional
world
during
1930-­‐1960,
evidenced
by
the
dropping
percentages
of
female
principals.
In
1928,
55%
of
principals
were
women,
a
number
that
fell
to
22%
by
1960.17
Even
in
the
field
of
social
work,
men
constituted
a
disproportionate
number
of
executives
in
1968
compared
to
the
overwhelming
amount
of
women
working
in
the
field.
Cynthia
Fuchs
Epstein
wrote
in
1968,
"Although
the
number
of
women
in
the
labor
force
is
enormous
-­‐
28,000,000
and
still
increasing
-­‐
women
who
work
have
settled
for
a
fraction
of
the
job
possibilities
offered
by
the
economy.
And
their
failure
to
advance
into
the
jobs
which
are
valued
most
highly
in
our
society
-­‐
the
upper
strata
of
business
and
the
professions
-­‐
is
striking."18
This
data
demonstrates
that
the
number
of
women
flowing
into
professional
occupations
was
not
on
the
rise
until
after
the
1960s
when
the
cohort
of
women
born
from
1955-­‐60
entered
the
workforce.
Discrimination
Kathleen
McKean,
born
in
1947,
never
thought
about
being
treated
differently
because
she
was
a
woman.
She
only
considered
becoming
a
teacher,
a
nurse
or
working
in
an
office.
She
recalls,
“You
were
not
encouraged
to
become
something
else
or
even
thought
of
it.
I
wanted
to
be
a
model
for
a
while
but
I
never
had
the
self-­‐confidence
to
think
of…being
a
career
woman.”
19
McKean
explains
that
boys
were
the
“smart
ones”
and
girls
were
the
“pretty
ones.”
College
campuses
in
the
1940s
and
50s
indoctrinated
this
thought
process,
portraying
the
“normal”
family
as
divided
by
sex
and
behavior
and
labor
roles
correlating
with
gender.20
Admission
quotas
at
business,
engineering,
architecture,
law,
science
and
university

9. 9
teaching
graduate
schools
allowed
for
less
than
5%
women.21
University
faculties
assumed
that
female
students
would
marry,
get
pregnant
and
drop
out.
If
they
did
graduate,
universities
claimed
that
they
would
never
practice
the
profession.
The
small
number
of
persistent
women,
who
graduated
and
did
attempt
to
practice,
faced
the
prevailing
office
attitude
against
women.
A
female
lawyer
in
the
1950s,
Dorothy
Kenyon,
explains
how
she
was
addressed
by
male
interviewers,
"You
may
be
a
disturbing
element,
falling
in
love
with
people,
and
vice
versa.
We'll
have
to
stick
you
in
a
law
library,
out
of
sight.
In
the
unlikely
contingency
that
you
turn
out
to
be
good,
you'll
probably
marry
as
soon
as
we've
finished
training
you
and
we'll
have
had
all
our
trouble
for
nothing.
Thank
you,
no,
we'll
play
safe
and
take
a
boy."22
Although
a
small
number
of
trailblazing
women
in
the
earlier
part
of
the
20th
century
were
able
to
obtain
professional
degrees
and
employment,
a
cultural
revolution
and
a
mass
influx
of
capable
female
professionals
was
necessary
to
change
the
discriminatory
attitudes
at
male-­‐dominated
offices.
Gender-­Specific
Positions
Many
women
dreamed
of
excelling
in
the
workplace
and
becoming
financially
independent.
However,
early
marriage
and
childbearing
hindered
their
efforts
to
plan
their
lives,
set
priorities
and
make
choices.23
As
a
result,
the
female
workforce
in
the
1950s
and
60s
was
mostly
limited
to
“pink
collar”
positions,
which
refers
to
teaching,
nursing,
social
work
and
clerical
jobs,
all
gender
specific
and
poorly
paid.
These
occupations
also
allowed
a
woman
to
quit
or
take
time
off
when
she
became
pregnant.

10. 10
Because
women
growing
up
in
the
1940s
and
50s
were
surrounded
by
women
in
these
roles
and
men
who
believed
that
women
should
stay
in
this
sphere,
they
prepared
themselves
for
female-­‐dominant
careers.
Born
in
1957
in
a
small
town
in
Arizona,
Heather
J.
explains
that
female-­‐specific
and
low-­‐paying
jobs
were
the
norm
for
women.
She
recalls,
“[they
were]
mostly
teachers,
restaurant
service
workers,
maids,
nurses,
house
cleaners,
day
care…”24
She
also
mentions
that
her
father
and
brothers
lacked
confidence
in
women
and
discouraged
her
pursuing
anything
outside
of
a
traditionally
female
role.
Likewise,
Chris
R.,
who
was
born
in
1950
says,
“…my
parents
were
like
‘okay
you’re
going
to
go
through
high
school
and
you’re
supposed
to
marry
somebody
and
then
that’s
almost
like
your
goal
and
your
career.
But
really
until
I
got
divorced
and…determined
that
I
needed
to
have
my
own
career
and
my
own
self,
that’s…where
I
found
myself
and
went
forward.
I
think
that
[my
parents]
always
thought
that
you
should
just
get
married
and
then
have
kids
and
that
was
it.”25
Technological
advances
in
the
1950s
had
led
to
a
demand
for
low-­‐skilled
office
workers.
Most
of
these
jobs
required
minimal
education
and
offered
little
by
way
of
financial
compensation,
a
combination
that
made
them
predominantly
female.
Office
work
was
considered
a
“white
collar”
occupation
and
women
clamored
at
the
doors
to
be
hired
by
prestigious
law
firms
and
business
corporations.26
As
a
result,
these
companies
could
be
choosy
in
hiring
only
attractive,
single
women;
most
of
whom
quit
their
jobs
or
were
fired
when
they
married
or
got
pregnant,
further
fueling
employers’
abilities
to
place
women
at
the
bottom
of
the
pay
scale.27
Author
Louise
Kapp
Howe
investigated
the
occupation
of

11. 11
an
office
worker
in
the
late
1960s
and
early
1970s,
describing
one
woman,
Vicki’s,
attitude
towards
her
clerical
job
in
a
field
where
women
represented
97%
of
receptionists,
99%
of
secretaries
and
97%
of
typists.
Vicki
says
in
response
to
office
education
school,
“But
don’t
you
see
what
a
fake
it
is…The
schools
want
these
girls
to
think
what
they’ve
been
learning
is
really
hot
stuff,
when
they
know
damn
well
they’re
going
to
go
out
and
get
stuck
in
lousy
no-­‐money
jobs.”28
Vicki
had
recently
quit
her
job
as
a
receptionist
and
was
returning
to
college.
Flight
attendants
experienced
similar
discrimination.
Airlines
restricted
their
hiring
process
to
only
single
women
who
were
young
and
attractive,
building
an
industry
based
on
the
sexual
allure
of
their
hostesses.29
This
continued
well
into
the
late
1970s
and
early
80s.
Heather
J.
was
hired
at
Delta
Airlines
in
1979,
shortly
after
she
graduated
from
college.30
She
explains
that
she
was
chosen
based
partly
on
attractiveness
and
was
subject
to
weekly
weigh-­‐ins.
If
she
failed
to
maintain
her
weight,
she
would
be
laid
off.
In
other
cases,
airlines
fired
their
employees
who
married
or
became
pregnant.
Comparably,
schoolteachers
could
be
let
go
if
expecting;
an
action
that
was
justified
by
school
districts
on
the
basis
that
visibly
pregnant
teachers
might
raise
students’
questions
about
sexuality
and
women
should
be
home
with
their
children
anyway.
It
was
not
until
1978
that
Congress
passed
the
Pregnancy
Discrimination
Act,
in
which
employers
could
no
longer
discriminate
against
pregnant
women.31
Before
this
act,
many
states
placed
teachers
on
involuntary
maternity
leave
when
they
became
pregnant.
In
the
1974
Supreme
Court
case,
Cleveland
Board
of
Education
v.
LaFleur,
two
pregnant
public
school
teachers
challenged
the
maternity

12. 12
leave
rules
of
the
school
board.
These
women
were
asked
to
leave
work
five
months
prior
to
the
expected
birth.
Their
return
was
prohibited
until
the
following
semester
when
the
child
was
three
months
old.32
Women
had
very
little
room
to
negotiate
when
it
came
to
taking
time
off
for
childbearing.
They
accepted
lower
pay
as
an
agreement
that
they
would
leave
for
six
months
to
a
year
and
then
return.33
Employers’
opinions
were
similar
to
that
of
New
York
Times
columnist
Jeremy
Flint.
He
proclaimed,
"The
barriers
may
never
come
down
completely;
many
women
consider
themselves
short-­‐timers
in
the
job
market,
not
lifers,
and
don't
mind
not
being
considered
for
better
paying
jobs."34
Jeremy
Flint’s
assertion
is
erroneous
for
several
reasons.
Working-­‐class
women,
especially
women
of
color,
tended
to
marry
young
and
have
minimal
access
to
any
form
of
birth
control.
They
were
forced
to
stay
in
the
workforce
for
most
of
their
lives
to
support
their
large
families
but
struggled
to
balance
a
full-­‐time
job
with
little
pay
and
young
children.
Grace
Elliott,
a
young
textile
worker
in
North
Carolina
in
the
1920s,
earned
$16
a
week.
She
paid
$5
for
a
cook
and
$2
for
laundry
and
because
she
only
had
$9
remaining,
she
would
wake
up
at
4
am
every
morning
to
prepare
breakfast,
milk
the
cow
and
get
her
children
ready
for
school.
Her
day
job
began
at
5:30
am
and
ended
at
6:00
pm.
She
would
then
return
home,
cook
supper
and
sew
clothes
for
her
children.
After
four
years
of
this
lifestyle,
she
was
exhausted
and
ill,
struggling
with
numerous
pregnancies
and
poverty.35
Flint
also
fails
to
acknowledge
that
women
had
career
aspirations,
especially
middle
and
upper
class
women
who
attended
college.
These
aspirations
were
evident
within
the
feminist
movement
of
the
early
20th
century
and
from
Betty

13. 13
Friedan’s
best-­‐selling
book,
The
Feminine
Mystique.
The
idea
for
The
Feminine
Mystique
originated
from
a
lifestyle
satisfaction
survey
of
her
Smith
College
classmates
that
Friedan
was
asked
to
administer
for
her
15-­‐year
reunion
in
1957.
The
survey
questioned
how
these
women,
89%
of
them
homemakers,
felt
about
their
education
and
its
use
in
daily
life.36
The
findings
were
devastating.
Friedan’s
first
chapter
describes
the
emptiness
and
desire
of
women
to
explore
their
individual
purpose.
Friedan
wrote,
“The
problem
lay
buried,
unspoken,
for
many
years
in
the
minds
of
American
women.
It
was
a
strange
stirring,
a
sense
of
dissatisfaction,
a
yearning
that
women
suffered
in
the
idle
of
the
twentieth
century
in
the
United
States.
Each
suburban
wife
struggled
with
it
alone.”37
Domesticity
Marriage
and
childbearing
complicated
and
often
hindered
a
woman’s
possible
entry
into
higher
education
and
long-­‐term
careers.
Cynthia
Fuchs
Epstein
laments
women’s
educational
status
in
the
1960s,
that
not
only
was
academic
achievement
weakened,
but
college
women
were
less
involved
in
their
academic
work
because
of
the
emphasis
on
a
woman’s
future
role
as
a
wife.38
Most
middle
and
upper
class
women
were
raised
unaware
that
they
were
treated
like
second-­‐class
citizens.
They
were
encouraged
to
thrive
in
the
domestic
sphere
while
their
brothers
and
husbands
took
advantage
of
the
educational
and
financial
opportunities.
As
Kerber
et.
al.
states
in
Women’s
America,
"To
be
a
lawyer
and
a
father
in
America
was
to
be
'normal;'
to
be
a
lawyer
and
a
mother
was
to
be
'deviant.'
Motherhood
was
assumed
to
be
a
fulltime
occupation,
especially
in
middle-­‐class
circles."39
This
mentality
encouraged
early
marriage
and
early

14. 14
childbearing,
making
it
nearly
impossible
for
a
woman
to
balance
a
fulfilling
career,
not
to
mention
that
it
was
frowned
upon.
Although
motherhood
was
understood
to
be
a
profession
itself,
it
was
in
need
of
greater
status
and
respect.
Becoming
a
housewife
placed
a
woman
in
a
gender-­‐specific
role
that
was
difficult
to
escape.
Even
women
who
fully
intended
to
have
long-­‐term
careers
felt
the
pressure
to
marry
early.
Joan
Bernstein
graduated
from
Yale
Law
School
in
the
1950s
and
managed
to
secure
a
job
at
a
New
York
City
firm,
however,
at
age
25
she
felt
she
had
no
place
in
society
and
was
a
failure
because
she
was
still
unmarried.40
In
1960,
the
median
age
of
marriage
was
20.
Newsweek
reported
that
60%
of
young
women
who
entered
college
dropped
out
before
graduation,
“most
to
get
married.”41
Furthermore,
a
Ladies
Home
Journal
study
found
that
most
women
intended
to
work
until
their
first
pregnancy
but
afterward,
“…a
resounding
no!”42
This
was
a
troubling
response,
especially
when
young
housewives
began
discovering,
to
their
shock,
that
the
existence
they
been
groomed
for
since
childhood
left
them
feeling
empty.
A
product
of
this
mindset,
Kathleen
McKean
married
shortly
after
graduating
from
college
in
1969.
She
taught
fourth
grade,
but
quit
when
she
and
her
husband
moved
to
San
Francisco
and
she
became
a
homemaker.
She
references
this
period
as
her
“identity
crisis,”
43
when
she
realized
she
had
been
raised
to
be
a
teacher
and
housewife
but
was
now
at
a
loss
for
who
she
really
wanted
to
be.
Inability
to
Space
and
Time
Births
The
underlying
issue
for
women
who
entertained
the
idea
of
a
long-­‐term
career
in
the
years
before
highly
effective
birth
control
became
available
was
their
inability
to
space
and
time
their
births,
or
simply
limit
their
number
of
children.
At

15. 15
the
turn
of
the
century,
a
female
columnist
for
The
New
York
Times,
Rheta
Childe
Door,
explored
the
demise
of
professional
women
because
of
their
biological
obligation.
She
lamented,
“The
problem
of
modern
woman
is
how
to
vary
from
her
type
as
freely
as
men
vary
without
giving
up
her
right
to
bear
children.”44
Door
acknowledged
that
the
mass
of
women
were
cut
off
from
“active
participation
in
world
movements”45
and
unable
to
seek
fulfillment
or
develop
leadership.
Yet
it
was
impossible
for
a
mother
to
seek
these
opportunities
because
the
labor
of
bearing
child
after
child
and
caring
for
them
took
up
the
majority
of
her
time.
By
the
1950s,
however,
middle-­‐class
American
families
were
able
to
limit
their
large
families
to
two
or
three
children
with
diaphragms
and
condoms,
opposed
to
six
or
seven
in
the
early
19th
century.46
A
diaphragm
is
88%
effective
if
inserted
correctly
and
condoms
provide
a
98%
effective
form
of
birth
control.
Unfortunately,
this
did
not
allow
for
the
prevention
of
pregnancy
entirely
as
the
use
of
diaphragms
and
condoms
are
dependent
on
preparation
and
availability.
Unmarried
women
still
ran
the
risk
of
shame
and
shotgun
weddings.
Country
singer,
Loretta
Lynn’s
1972
song,
“The
Pill”
illustrates
the
restrictions
that
childbearing
placed
on
a
woman:
You
wined
me
and
dined
me
when
I
was
your
girl
Promised
if
I’d
be
your
wife
you’d
show
me
the
world
But
all
I’ve
seen
of
this
old
world
is
a
bed
and
a
doctor
bill…
All
these
years
I’ve
stayed
at
home
while
you
had
all
your
fun
And
every
year
that’s
gone
by
another
baby’s
come47

16. 16
Introduction
of
the
Pill
(1960)
In
the
spring
of
1960,
after
years
of
development
and
testing,
the
US
Food
and
Drug
Administration
approved
the
first
oral
contraceptive,
marking
a
new
era
of
birth
control
and
women’s
health.
Margaret
Sanger
was
the
pioneer
of
a
more
effective
and
independent
birth
control
and
a
prominent
feminist
in
the
1920s.
She
teamed
up
with
Gregory
Pincus
in
the
1930s,
a
Harvard
scientist
who
had
made
strides
in
harvesting
rabbit
embryos.48
More
than
twenty
years
later,
her
determination
to
find
a
99.9%
effective
birth
control
method
that
could
better
women’s
quality
of
life
had
succeeded.
The
majority
of
researchers
and
physicians
at
major
research
universities
also
took
part
in
the
cause
because
they
believed
that
every
child
should
be
a
wanted
child
and
those
who
did
not
want
a
child,
should
be
able
to
prevent
their
births.49
One
of
these
physicians
was
John
Rock,
a
Catholic
with
a
strong
belief
that
the
Pill
was
important
to
the
wellbeing
of
society.
He
aided
Pincus
in
the
testing
of
the
hormone
progesterone
to
inhibit
ovulation
in
humans.50
Two
female
doctors,
Dr.
Edric
Rice
Way
and
Dr.
Adaline
Satterthwaite,
conducted
the
on-­‐site
trials
in
Puerto
Rico,
recruiting
eager
women
who
faced
poverty
and
large
families.
Rock
and
Pincus
administered
further
tests
in
Haiti,
Massachusetts,
New
York
City
and
other
large
cities
throughout
the
world.
These
leaders
envisioned
a
world
of
population
control,
where
impoverished
women
could
live
healthier
lives
and
feed
their
families.
They
also
were
aware
that
it
could
increase
female
independence,
though
no
one
predicted
the
transformative
1960s
and
the
confidence
and
sexual
liberation
that
followed.

17. 17
Young,
married
women
were
quick
to
demand
a
prescription
from
their
physicians
and
the
Pill
became
a
staple
in
middle
and
upper
class
homes
with
phenomenal
speed.
At
first,
oral
contraceptives
were
limited
to
women
who
were
married
and
could
afford
them
–
they
paid
$100
in
1960
until
the
price
lowered
to
$25
in
1965.51
The
cost,
as
well
as
marital
status,
restricted
working
class
women
and
women
of
color
from
access
until
the
Office
of
Economic
Opportunity
devoted
funds
to
providing
free
contraceptive
services
to
lower
class
women
in
1965.52
Those
taking
the
Pill
grew
by
one
million
every
year
following
1960.
By
1969,
8.5
million
had
obtained
prescriptions.53
The
majority
of
these
women
were
married.
Teenagers
and
unmarried
women
found
it
difficult
to
obtain
a
prescription.
Until
the
age
of
minority
changed
from
under
21
to
under
18
in
the
late
1960s,
states
required
that
minors
have
parental
consent
or
in
some
cases,
an
engagement
ring
or
marriage
certificate.
As
one
might
imagine,
reactions
were
mixed.
Oral
contraceptives
were
constantly
associated
with
the
emerging
feminist
wave
and
the
suddenly
visible
sexual
freedom
of
a
younger
generation.
A
Reader’s
Digest
columnist
fretted,
“It
is
a
small
object
–
yet
its
potential
effect
upon
our
society
may
be
even
more
devastating
than
the
nuclear
bomb.”54
Men
also
voiced
their
concerns.
Sam
Blum
wrote
in
RedBook,
“The
only
real
anxiety
anyone
expressed
about
the
pill
in
the
midsixties
was
that
it
might
make
women
more
independent
and
consequently
make
men
feel
more
insecure.”55
However,
in
the
1960s
the
Pill
was
primarily
used
by
married
women
and
simply
allowed
them
more
independence
and
less
anxiety.
“With
the
pill,
we
don’t
have
to
worry
anymore,”
said
a
mother
of
three
in
a
1966
New
York
Times
article.

18. 18
The
same
article
concluded,
"For
most
of
its
users,
it
has
revolutionized
family
planning
and
relieved
a
traditional
source
of
family
tension:
the
fear
of
having
unwanted
children."56
The
Pill
provided
women
with
a
sense
of
security
and
was
associated
with
loss
of
frigidity,
sexual
freedom
and
improved
marriages.57
The
Pill
was
clearly
here
to
stay,
but
negative
opinions
and
legal
issues
threatened
its
availability
until
the
late
1960s
and
early
70s.
A
number
of
historians
and
sociologists
have
underestimated
the
impact
of
the
Pill
on
middle
class
women’s
entry
into
higher
education
and
long-­‐term
careers.
This
is
primarily
due
to
their
focus
on
women
in
high
school
and
college
when
the
Pill
was
first
introduced.
They
overlook
that
the
Pill
was
not
available
to
this
earlier
generation
born
in
the
late
1940s
and
50s.
Prescriptions
were
mainly
limited
to
married
women
until
the
late
1960s.
When
the
Pill
was
initially
introduced,
a
doctor
would
make
the
decision
to
prescribe
birth
control
to
a
woman.
The
major
stir
was
occurring
on
college
campuses
where
many
physicians
required
parental
consent,
unless
the
woman
had
marriage
firmly
scheduled
and
announced.58
On
the
other
hand,
some
physicians
were
more
than
willing
to
prescribe
the
Pill.
Kathleen
McKean’s
liberal
gynecologist,
Dr.
Gordon,
put
her
on
the
Pill
in
1963
when
she
was
16.
At
the
same
time,
her
mother
encouraged
her
to
utilize
oral
contraceptives.59
In
1965,
New
York
Times
journalist
Andrew
Hacker
investigated
the
various
opinions
of
the
Pill’s
behavioral
impact
on
unmarried
women,
a
small
number,
since
most
single
women
could
not
get
their
hands
on
a
prescription.
According
to
Hacker,
Americans
believed
that
more
single,
middle-­‐class
women
were
having
a
sexual
experience
prior
to
marriage
than
ever
before,
as
divulged
in
the
1953
publication

19. 19
of
Sexual
Behavior
in
the
Human
Female
by
Alfred
Kinsey,
in
which
he
reported
that
50%
of
women
engaged
in
premarital
sex.60
Kathleen,
who
was
18
in
1965,
explains
that
the
pill
did
not
increase
sexual
activity
among
her
peers.
She
recalls,
“I
don’t
feel
that
people
became
more
sexually
active.
There
was
just
more
possibility
you
wouldn’t
get
pregnant.
If
you
didn’t
get
pregnant,
there
were
more
possibilities
for
what
you
could
do
with
your
life.”61
Hacker
concluded,
“People
have
always
been
people,
and
sex
is
no
small
part
of
any
person’s
life.
What
is
new
is
the
public
character
of
sex:
the
fact
that
respectable,
not
under-­‐the-­‐counter,
agencies
now
deal
with
the
subject
for
mass
audiences.”62
Sex
has
always
been
a
part
of
human
life;
the
Pill’s
introduction
had
no
bearing
on
this
fact.
Most
notably,
it
added
to
the
changing
ideals
and
freedoms
among
middle
and
upper
class
women.
They
were
experiencing
a
new
identity
and
purpose
for
themselves
that
would
lead
to
gender-­‐equality
in
the
following
generations.
Obtaining
the
Pill
(1960-­73)
Enovid
and
its
successors
were
kept
out
of
arm’s
reach
to
the
masses
of
young,
unmarried,
middle
class
women
in
the
first
ten
years
of
its
existence.
By
the
end
of
the
decade,
oral
contraceptives
were
the
single
most
widely
used
form
of
birth
control
for
the
married.
Despite
the
opposition
of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church,
most
Americans
did
not
view
the
use
of
the
pill
within
marriage
as
controversial.63
The
real
debate
concerned
the
rights
of
minors
to
obtain
the
Pill
without
parental
consent,
mainly
based
on
the
traditional
fear
that
young
people
could
freely
engage
in
sexual
activity
without
repercussions.
In
1960,
thirty
states
still
maintained
laws
restricting
the
sale
or
advertisement
of
anything
relating
to
birth
control.64
Married

20. 20
women
could
quietly
obtain
prescriptions
from
their
doctors
but
it
was
difficult
for
anyone
needing
to
utilize
a
clinic,
i.e.
a
poor
or
unmarried
woman,
to
obtain
any
form
of
birth
control.
Chris
R.
says,
“[The
Pill]
was
not
readily
available
to
high
school
students.
Not
even
really
through
college.”
She
did
not
use
the
Pill
until
she
was
a
sophomore
in
college
in
1970
and
sought
out
a
prescription.65
These
laws
reinforced
the
stigma
associated
with
birth
control
and
the
judgment
that
pre-­‐marital
sex
was
shameful.
It
is
evident
that
the
legal
environment
slowed
the
use
of
oral
contraceptives.
In
the
1960s,
states
with
more
liberal
regulations
regarding
minors
had
35%
more
pill
use
by
15-­‐19
year
olds.66
Furthermore,
in
1967,
when
the
Vietnam
War
instigated
the
official
change
of
the
adult
age
from
21
to
18
with
the
Twenty-­‐sixth
Amendment,
pill
use
numbers
peaked.67
These
changes
in
legislation
were
crucial
to
the
second
generation
of
pill
users
in
the
1970s:
young,
unmarried
women
born
from
1955-­‐60.
This
changing
legal
environment
led
to
the
presence
of
family
planning
services
at
college
health
centers,
which
diffused
oral
contraceptives
to
young
women,
women
who
were
making
career
and
marriage
decisions.
According
to
the
American
College
Health
Association,
in
1966,
only
12
institutions
would
prescribe
the
Pill
to
unmarried
students,
but
by
1973,
19%
of
universities
provided
these
services
freely
and
most
clinics
and
physicians
would
prescribe
the
Pill
without
parental
consent.68
Furthermore,
Family
Planning
programs
were
instated
in
the
late
1960s
to
provide
contraceptive
services
and
long-­‐term
postpartum
medical
care
to
low-­‐income
women.
By
1973,
federal
expenditures
for
family
planning
increased
from
$11
million
(1967)
to
$149
million.
Historian
Heather
Prescott

21. 21
explains
that
the
amendments
allowing
the
use
of
public
funds
for
contraceptive
care
were
highly
controversial
and
passed
only
because
they
would
help
prevent
adolescent
pregnancy.69
This
was
partially
true
since
30%
of
the
2
million
seeking
family
planning
services
were
under
the
age
of
19.
Thus,
women
born
from
1955-­‐60
benefited
from
these
changes
as
they
were
entering
high
school
and
college
at
the
stage
in
which
legislation
was
becoming
more
progressive.
They
were
the
first
generation
of
women
that
could
dream
big
for
their
future
without
familial,
cultural
or
legal
restrictions
that
were
out
of
their
control.
The
Pill’s
availability
to
unmarried
women
served
as
a
tangible
symbol
of
their
budding
independence,
control
over
their
own
bodies
and
a
new
individuality.
Armed
with
a
sense
of
entitlement,
women
began
asserting
their
freedom.
Elaine
Tyler
May
explains
in
America
and
the
Pill,
“Women
led
the
charge
against
the
mostly
male
experts
and
officials
who
prohibited
or
limited
access
to
the
pill,
controlled
information
about
it,
and
dismissed
women’s
concerns
about
risks
and
side
effects.”70
The
first
oral
contraceptives
contained
extremely
high
dosages,
10
milligrams
of
hormones,
and
many
users
experienced
side
effects
including
dizziness,
vomiting
and
anxiety.
Women
began
demanding
information
and
answers
and
questioning
their
doctor’s
advice.
By
the
end
of
the
1960s,
pharmaceutical
companies
decreased
hormone
levels
in
the
Pill
when
they
found
that
lower
levels
were
just
as
effective.
Even
though
its
side
effects
caused
some
distress,
the
Pill
remained
the
contraceptive
method
of
choice
among
young,
single
women.71
Also
during
this
time,
the
women’s
health
field
progressed
and
developed
into
an
open

22. 22
conversation
between
the
physician
and
the
patient,
especially
as
more
women
entered
the
medical
field.
Patients
reported
that
female
physicians
were
more
sensitive
to
issues
regarding
sex
discrimination,
abortion,
contraception
and
general
health
care
for
women.72
This
heightened
awareness
affected
other
aspects
of
patient
care,
including
adolescents
and
those
in
poverty.
During
the
1960s
and
70s,
the
medical
field
moved
toward
a
specialization
in
adolescent
medicine.
As
the
first
wave
of
baby
boomers
reached
puberty,
additional
medical
facilities
for
this
group
seemed
necessary
and
justifiable.
Physicians
also
began
working
to
eliminate
the
unequal
distribution
of
health
services,
which
had
always
benefitted
middle
and
upper
class
society.
According
to
Heather
Prescott,
“The
founders
of
new
adolescent
clinics
were
frequently
prompted
by
a
desire
to
improve
the
medical
services
for
the
teenagers
who
lived
in
the
impoverished
inner-­‐city
areas…”73
These
doctors
quickly
became
aware
of
the
changing
lifestyles
of
adolescents
of
this
period;
more
and
more
teenagers
from
middle
and
upper
class
backgrounds
had
run
away
or
been
thrown
out
of
their
homes
because
of
issues
with
drug
use,
sexual
behavior
and
political
and
social
conflicts
with
their
parents,
such
as
the
Vietnam
War.
Medical
professionals
who
believed
that
healthcare
was
a
right
and
not
a
privilege
began
working
towards
the
idea
of
a
free
clinic,
which
provided
free
services
and
freedom
from
the
traditional,
formal
hospital
environment.
This
transformation
of
laws
and
attitudes
concerning
women
and
adolescent
health
was
momentous.
With
greater
control
and
knowledge
about
their
bodies,
women
and
patients
alike
were
better
equipped
to
take
it
upon
themselves
to
obtain
better-­‐quality
healthcare.

23. 23
Effects
of
the
Pill
1970-­85
Clearly
women
were
aware
of
the
advantages
of
the
Pill.
It
provided
a
99.9%
effective
birth
control
and
the
ability
to
control
one’s
reproduction
with
ease
and
confidence.
New
York
Times
journalist
Andrew
Hacker
conveyed
the
hopeful
attitudes
of
pill-­‐using
women
in
1965,
“They
hope
they
can
discover
some
genuine
purpose
for
themselves
in
a
new
kind
of
personal
and
sexual
relationship
where
they
and
their
partners
will
be
equals.”74
Women
became,
not
only
equals
with
their
husbands,
but
in
some
cases,
equals
with
their
professional
male
counterparts,
making
up
33%
of
all
professional
degrees
earned
in
1984.75
Young,
single
women
in
the
1970s
experienced
college
without
the
agenda
to
start
a
family
and
get
pregnant.
They
set
their
sights
on
graduate
education,
postponed
marriage
and
infiltrated
traditionally
male-­‐dominated
and
long-­‐term
careers.
Long-­‐term
careers
are
not
only
traditionally
male-­‐dominated
occupations
but
include
social
work,
administration
and
academia.
These
women’s
confidence
sprung
from
independence;
they
could
now
separate
from
the
anticipation
of
childbearing.
They
also
became
more
acutely
aware
of
the
treatment
of
women
as
second-­‐class
citizens,
only
fueling
their
dedication
in
pursuing
leadership
and
managerial
positions.
The
years
1970-­‐1985
saw
a
mass
movement
of
middle-­‐class,
highly
educated
women
into
the
professional
domain
and
the
blending
of
gender
roles
in
the
workplace
and
at
home.
The
College
“Surge”
Martha
Bailey
describes
how
decisions
made
at
ages
18-­‐20
strongly
influence
a
young
woman’s
career
path.
She
argues,
“Not
only
do
women
make
choices
about

24. 24
human
capital
investment
and
occupation,
but
among
women
reaching
that
age
before
the
pill
was
released,
roughly
50%
had
married,
and
more
than
40%
had
conceived
by
their
21st
birthdays.”76
In
contrast,
when
middle-­‐class
women
born
from
1955-­‐60
reached
the
ages
of
18-­‐20,
they
were
hardly
concerned
with
marriage
and
starting
a
family.
The
New
York
Times
discussed
the
surge
in
female
college
enrollment,
highlighting
that
women’s
attendance
had
climbed
by
56%
to
4.7
million
from
1970-­‐79,
a
total
of
1.7
million
more
women.77
The
number
of
men
entering
college
rose
as
well
to
5.1
million,
but
only
by
16%,
a
total
of
723,000.
The
significance
is
that
the
gap
had
narrowed;
there
were
only
410,000
fewer
women
than
men
in
college
in
1979.
Nine
years
earlier,
there
had
been
1.4
million
fewer
women.
In
terms
of
the
United
States
population
as
a
whole,
52%
of
women
graduated
from
high
school
but
only
8%
attended
college
in
1970
and
by
1979,
66%
of
women
were
graduating
from
high
school
and
12%
were
obtaining
bachelor’s
degrees,
a
figure
that
nearly
doubled.78
A
survey
conducted
in
1968
also
showed
that
attitudes
and
goals
transitioned
during
this
period.
The
survey
asked
female
college
freshmen
whether
they
saw
themselves
at
home
or
at
work
at
age
35.
Those
who
thought
they
would
be
at
work
began
low,
around
30%.
The
survey
was
conducted
again
on
college
freshmen
in
the
late
70s
and
a
remarkable
80%
responded
that
they
envisioned
themselves
at
work
when
they
reached
age
35.79
Several
changes
sparked
a
new
mentality
amongst
these
women.
The
means
and
right
to
effective
birth
control
and
safe
abortions
instilled
a
confidence
that
motherhood
could
remain
in
the
somewhat
distant
future,
their
education
was
now

25. 25
an
independent
endeavor,
and
college
was
a
place
to
seek
an
identity,
no
longer
a
holding
tank
in
which
to
find
a
husband.
Born
in
1953
in
Santa
Monica,
California,
Jane
T.
was
confident
from
an
early
age
that
she
would
go
to
college
and
become
a
career
woman.
Jane’s
only
memories
of
her
mother
were
as
a
working
woman.
She
explains,
“For
my
inspiration,
I
needed
to
look
no
further
than
my
own
home.
My
mother
did
not
have
a
job,
she
had
a
career.”80
There
was
never
a
question
in
Jane’s
mind
that
she
would
go
to
college
and
have
a
career
herself
and
the
Pill
was
a
part
of
her
future
plans.
Like
many
women
her
age,
Jane
obtained
contraceptives
from
her
college
health
clinic
at
UC
-­‐
Berkeley
in
1971.
She
had
a
steady
boyfriend
since
high
school
and
had
been
using
condoms
and
foam
but
was
looking
for
an
easier
and
more
stable
form
of
birth
control.
She
says,
“Once
in
college,
I
think
almost
every
girl
I
knew
was
on
the
Pill.
It
was
the
70s,
it
was
Berkeley
and
there
was
no
stigma
about
[it].”
She
discussed
how
boys
just
assumed
she
was
on
the
Pill
and
it
was
automatically
the
girl’s
problem
if
she
got
pregnant.
Furthermore,
no
one
would
volunteer
to
wear
a
condom
because
“that
was
not
cool.”
She
entertained
a
number
of
career
ideas
during
her
years
at
UC
–
Berkeley,
including
law
school,
acting
and
social
justice,
due
to
her
interests
in
the
turbulent
political
landscape
of
the
country
in
the
1970s.
She
applied
to
law
school
and
was
accepted
to
UCLA
but
decided
to
forgo
the
plan
because
she
was
attracted
to
show
business.
She
explains,
“I
kind
of
fell
into
what
became
my
career
as
a
casting
director
in
Los
Angeles.”

26. 26
Throughout
this
period,
1,000
lawsuits
were
filed,
imposing
affirmative
action
at
universities
and
corporations
to
end
gender
discrimination
and
the
hiring
of
men
instead
of
women.
The
courage
and
confidence
to
question
the
American
legal
system
began
with
the
National
Organization
for
Women
(NOW),
founded
by
Betty
Friedan
and
Pauli
Murray
in
1966.
It
became
one
of
the
most
prominent
and
influential
forces
in
fighting
the
courts
and
legislatures
for
equal
pay
and
employment.
Their
first
success
occurred
when
they
represented
Lorena
Weeks,
a
woman
who
worked
for
Southern
Bell
and
applied
for
a
promotion
in
order
to
send
her
three
children
to
college.
Weeks
said
that
her
application
was
returned.
She
explained,
“They
said
they
appreciated
that
I
wanted
to
advance
within
the
company,
but
it’s
a
job
not
awarded
to
women.”81
Weeks.
v.
Southern
Bell
was
one
of
the
first
big
victories
in
ending
job
discrimination
against
women
and
NOW
soon
welcomed
more
radical
women,
educated
in
the
ways
of
civil
rights
protests.
In
1973,
Betty
Friedan
reflected
on
these
societal
changes
in
a
New
York
Times
article,
explaining
that
society
had
been
transformed,
so
that
women,
who
happen
to
be
people
who
give
birth,
could
make
their
own
responsible
choice
whether
or
not
–
and
when
–
to
have
children.82
Childbearing
no
longer
barred
them
from
participating
in
society
in
their
own
right.
83
In
her
frank
tone,
laced
with
accomplishment,
Friedan
stated,
"...the
importance
of
work
for
women
goes
beyond
economics.
How
else
can
women
participate
in
the
action
and
decisions
of
an
advanced
industrial
society
unless
they
have
the
training
and
opportunity
and
skills
that
come
from
participating
in
it?"84
These
feminist
ideals
certainly
influenced
young
college
women
as
they
looked
to
the
future.

27. 27
Women
born
from
1955-­‐60
began
to
prepare
themselves
for
long-­‐term
careers;
they
were
taking
more
math
and
science
courses
in
high
school,
choosing
college
majors
that
were
more
like
those
of
their
male
peers
and
demonstrating
a
greater
attachment
to
a
future
career.85
Indicative
of
this
transformation,
physician
Laney
M.
was
drawn
to
the
field
of
medicine
as
young
as
12
years
old
and
despite
her
upbringing
in
a
small
farming
community
in
Durand,
Illinois,
she
was
determined
to
pursue
her
dreams
of
becoming
a
doctor.
She
recollects,
“I
was
always
intrigued
by
the
doctor’s
office
and
everything
that
went
on
there.
I
felt
like
medicine
combined
some
of
my
interests
in
science,
people
and
service.”86
Born
in
1956,
Laney
provides
evidence
that
female
roles
were
quickly
changing.
She
says,
“It
was
always
expected
that
I
could
change
tires,
drive
a
stick
shift,
pitch
in
with
livestock
chores,
and
defend
myself.
No
excuses
for
being
a
girl.”
During
high
school,
Laney
was
serious
about
her
studies
and
though
birth
control
was
not
discussed
in
her
household,
the
attitude
was
that
decent
young
women
did
not
get
pregnant
before
marriage.
The
majority
of
her
friends
were
not
sexually
active
in
high
school
and
Laney
did
not
have
a
need
for
the
Pill
until
1984,
after
meeting
her
husband
in
1983
and
marrying
in
1986.
Laney
was
in
residency
in
Family
Medicine
during
this
period.
She
says,
“Reliable
birth
control
allowed
me
to
postpone
child
bearing
until
a
time
when
it
was
compatible
with
my
career
and
family
goals.”
The
Pill
presented
an
advantage
for
women
like
Laney,
seeking
professional
degrees.
Though
Laney
did
not
find
the
Pill
to
be
necessary
in
her
teenage
years
and
early
20s,
it
allowed
her
the
security
of
avoiding
pregnancy
at
a
pivotal
point
in
her

28. 28
career.
She
attests,
“I
think
an
unplanned
pregnancy
certainly
could
have
derailed
the
best
of
plans
and
[it]
helped
me
control
my
future
and
allowed
me
to
pursue
my
career
goals.”
The
increasing
rates
at
which
women
were
earning
bachelor’s
degrees
in
male-­‐dominated
majors
emphasize
the
shift
in
how
women
viewed
college
and
their
lifetime
goals.
Women
earned
9.1%
of
all
bachelor’s
degrees
in
business
in
the
years
1970-­‐71,
by
1984,
they
received
45.1%
of
such
degrees.87
Women
flooded
into
the
life
science
majors
as
well,
the
core
curriculum
required
to
apply
to
medical
school;
27%
of
life
science
majors
were
women
in
1970
and
by
1980,
they
constituted
50.7%.
The
engineering
field
also
experienced
a
major
increase
in
women:
in
1970,
1%
of
engineering
degrees
were
awarded
to
women.
10
years
later,
women
constituted
14%
of
earned
engineering
degrees.88
Their
success
was
indicative
of
their
confidence
and
future
plans.
By
1990,
women
surpassed
men
in
college
attendance
and
graduation,
obtaining
53%
of
all
bachelor
degrees
awarded
across
the
United
States.89
A
revolution
had
taken
place
and
women
claimed
the
most
empowering
benefit:
choice.
Graduate
School
In
1970,
women’s
career
choices
changed
abruptly
and
graduate
schools
experienced
an
enormous
increase
in
applications
from
women.
Quotas
relaxed
in
response
and
the
number
of
women
obtaining
graduate
degrees
increased
significantly.
Women
earned
31.7%
of
master’s
degrees
in
1960,
40.1%
in
1970
and
50%
by
1980.
They
earned
10%
of
PhDs
in
1960
and
increased
to
34%
by
1980.
Most
outstanding
is
the
increase
of
professional
degrees
earned
by
women

29. 29
(medicine,
dentistry,
law
and
business):
2.7%
in
1960,
6.3%
in
1970,
18.72%
in
1976
and
33.2%
by
1984.90
A
1982
medical
school
graduate,
Laney
was
part
of
the
major
flood
of
women
into
the
medical
schools.
Similar
patterns
are
evident
for
architects,
economists
and
engineers.
Overall,
the
number
of
women
obtaining
graduate
degrees
increased
103%
from
1970-­‐79.91
Most
of
these
professions
are
highly
lucrative
fields
and
the
small
percentage
of
female
professionals
in
previous
years
reflects
the
societal
notion
that
men
were
the
primary
breadwinners.
Their
increasing
presence
from
1970-­‐85
suggests
that
this
notion
was
quickly
changing.
The
transformation
in
female
career
choice
is
best
explained
by
Claudia
Goldin’s
“quiet
revolution”
theory,
which
states
that
a
woman’s
decision
concerning
labor
involvement
is
based
on
whether
it
will
be
“long
and
continuous”
or
“intermittent
and
brief.”92
She
clarifies
that
women
joining
the
labor
force
is
not
revolutionary
since
women
have
been
employed
in
the
United
States
historically.
The
impact
of
the
Pill
and
the
changing
social
climate
is
revealed
in
the
rapid
shift
of
choice
and
liberation
in
women
applying
to
male-­‐dominated
institutions
and
male-­‐
dominated
careers.
These
choices
reflect
the
change
in
confidence
and
the
ability
to
find
satisfaction
and
identity
in
one’s
job.
The
turning
point
in
this
decision-­‐making
is
visible
in
the
1970
surge
of
graduate
school
applications,
especially
professional
schools.
The
Pill’s
simultaneous
availability
to
college-­‐aged
women
relates
to
this
pre-­‐meditated
change
and
a
woman’s
predicted
success
in
school.
On
the
contrary,
women
who
have
children
while
enrolled
in
graduate
schools
are
more
likely
to
experience
strain
balancing
family
and
education
and
experience
a
higher
dropout
rate.93

30. 30
Equality
in
the
Workplace
Prior
to
legislation
like
the
Equal
Pay
Act
(1963),
which
prohibits
wage
disparity
based
on
sex
and
Title
IX
of
Higher
Education
Act
(1972),
which
forbids
sexual
discrimination
in
education
and
collegiate
sports,
job
discrimination
and
harassment
restricted
women
hoping
to
gain
footing
in
the
professional
world.
It
was
perfectly
legal
for
employers
to
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
sex
and
it
was
not
unusual
for
a
woman
to
be
asked
if
she
planned
on
getting
married
during
a
job
interview.94
The
small
percentage
of
women
hired
into
male-­‐dominated
professions
found
themselves
transferred
to
certain
areas:
female
journalists
to
the
women’s
page,
doctors
to
pediatrics
and
lawyers
to
real
estate
and
insurance
law.
Women
constituted
6%
of
doctors,
3%
of
lawyers
and
less
than
1%
of
engineers
and
though
more
than
half
a
million
women
worked
for
the
federal
government,
they
made
up
1.4%
of
workers
in
the
top
four
pay
grades.95
This
discrepancy
fueled
anger
in
the
1960s
and
70s
as
women
joined
forces
in
the
feminist
movement.
An
anonymous
“Roberta”
expresses
this
sentiment.
She
declares,
"Jobs
for
women
are
not
as
readily
available
as
jobs
for
men.
Interesting
jobs
in
which
women
don't
have
to
face
exploitation,
under-­‐utilization
of
their
talents,
discrimination,
misogyny
and
male
domination
are
at
a
premium
indeed.”96
These
assertive
and
bold
ideals
of
the
women’s
liberation
movement
were
integral
to
the
blending
of
gender
roles.
In
1962,
a
New
York
Times
columnist,
Martin
Tolchin
lamented
the
differentiation
of
gender
roles,
which
deterred
young
women
from
male-­‐dominated
fields
because
they
were
considered
“masculine.”
Tolchin
said,
“It
isn’t
that
women

31. 31
need
to
be
aggressive…it’s
that
a
little
girl
growing
up
needs
the
image
of
a
woman
of
talent
and
ability
who
can
be
feminine
and
still
do
a
job.”97
By
1970,
with
the
influx
of
women
graduating
from
professional
programs,
bias
began
to
ease
and
affirmative
action
forced
universities
and
corporations
to
accept
women
without
regard
for
their
gender.
Also
contributing
to
women’s
presence
in
the
workplace
was
a
rejection
of
female
submission
and
the
capability
to
question
authority.
Attorney
Susan
K’s
reaction
to
the
gender-­‐discrimination
she
witnessed
in
everyday
life
invigorated
her
aspiration
to
be
a
successful
career
woman.
She
recalls,
“I
was
motivated
to
have
a
career
by
the
sexism
I
saw
in
daily
life
growing
up.
It
wasn’t
just
in
my
family,
mine
was
pretty
ordinary
in
that
respect,
but
women
weren’t
really
listened
to
very
much
and
their
opinions
didn’t
matter
and
they
didn’t
have
any
economic
power
and
I
just
didn’t
like
that,
I
didn’t
want
to
be
in
that
position.”98
Throughout
college
Susan
was
unsure
about
her
future
plans
and
her
final
decision
to
attend
law
school
resulted
from
her
defiant
nature.
A
professor
that
Susan
disliked
but
respected
led
her
in
that
direction.
She
remembers,
“He
said,
I
don’t
think
you
want
to
do
that,
I
don’t
think
you’ll
be
successful
at
that
and
encouraged
me
to
become
a
professor
and
not
to
go
to
law
school.
I
just
think
I
have
a
rebellious
streak
in
me
and
I
went
well
I’ll
show
you
and
I
ended
up
taking
the
LSAT
and
going
to
law
school.”99
Susan
graduated
from
Lewis
and
Clark
in
1980
and
then
law
school
at
the
University
of
Oregon
in
1984.
The
transformation
had
finally
occurred
for
these
determined
women.
The
growing
number
of
strong
and
successful
women
pursuing
these
types
of
careers
influenced
teenage
girls
and
as
workplace
conditions
improved,
they
were
even

32. 32
more
inclined
to
follow
in
their
footsteps.
Though
1970
was
the
turning
point,
the
late
1970s
and
early
80s
reflected
this
trend.
Women’s
earnings
comparable
to
men
rose
and
more
women
developed
attachment
to
the
workplace
and
their
personal
success.
Ethnographic
research
by
economist
Claudia
Goldin
confirms
that
lower
income
and
poor
women
developed
a
greater
attachment
to
their
work
as
well.100
These
women
experiencing
career
success
confirmed
that
they
were
also
more
content
at
home.101
Later
Marriage
Age
At
the
end
of
the
19th
century,
a
growing
number
of
feminists
and
elite
women
were
choosing
not
to
marry
or
start
a
family
because
of
their
intent
on
joining
the
professional
workforce,
aware
that
household
duties
and
childcare
would
hinder
their
goals.
Though
suffragists
and
feminists
argued
for
more
rights
and
opportunities
for
married
women
and
mothers,
Reta
Childe
Door
illustrated
the
realistic
outcome
for
a
married
woman
in
1915.
She
wrote,
"Marriage
had
taken
her
out
of
intellectual
work
and
made
her
into
a
domestic...her
position
seemed
wholly
irrational."102
Years
later
in
1960,
it
was
still
difficult
to
be
a
married
woman
and
a
professional.
The
marital
status
for
female
lawyers,
scientists,
engineers
and
physicians
was
strikingly
disproportionate
to
their
male
colleagues:
8.2%
of
male
lawyers
remained
single
while
overwhelmingly,
32.2%
of
female
lawyers
were
still
single;
9%
of
male
engineers
were
single
while
a
whopping
37%
of
their
female
colleagues
were
single
and
likewise,
88%
of
male
physicians
were
married
while
only
50%
of
female
physicians
settled
down.103

33. 33
Although
women
showed
interest
in
professional
careers
and
utilizing
their
skills
acquired
in
college,
marriage
often
signaled
the
end
of
workforce
participation.
Even
in
1970,
as
legal
amendments
enforced
gender
equality
in
the
workforce,
Cynthia
Fuchs
Epstein
warned
that
early
marriage
could
still
limit
a
woman’s
options.
She
explained,
“If
a
young
woman
decides
to
marry
early
she
has
put
herself
in
a
position
where
she
has
taken
on
many
more
demands
than
she
anticipated
acquiring
and
which
compete
heavily
with
the
demands
of
career
preparation."104
She
held
that
if
a
woman
delayed
marriage
and
established
a
professional
career
prior
to
marriage,
her
husband
would
be
more
accepting
of
her
career.
As
the
Pill
diffused
among
young
college
women
and
their
futures
became
more
focused
on
a
career,
they
no
longer
felt
the
need
to
find
a
man
for
economic
support.
Their
attitude
toward
careers
that
required
a
long-­‐term
commitment
changed
and
delaying
children
meant
they
could
invest
themselves
whole-­‐heartedly.
Susan
K.
says
that
the
Pill
allowed
her
to
delay
having
children
for
seven
years
after
getting
married.
She
explains,
“We
postponed
childbearing
until
after
both
of
us
had
a
chance
to
get
our
feet
on
the
ground
career-­‐wise.”
Having
children
made
Susan
realize
the
difficulty
in
maintaining
a
full
time
job
and
raising
a
child
simultaneously.
She
says,
in
retrospect,
“I
definitely
knew
I
could
not
have
children
and
get
law
school
launched,
graduate
from
college
and
get
my
career
started.
[The
Pill]
was
instrumental
that
way.”
She
believes
that
in
her
profession
as
an
attorney,
it
is
almost
impossible
to
raise
children
and
have
a
full
time
job.

34. 34
The
timing
of
the
Pill’s
availability
to
unmarried
women
directly
correlates
with
later
marriage
age.
Among
women
born
in
1950,
almost
50%
married
before
age
23
but
fewer
than
30%
of
women
born
in
1957
were
married
before
then.105
In
the
1970s,
individuals
between
the
ages
of
20
and
25
were
more
commonly
single,
meaning
that
others,
including
women
not
attending
college,
were
joined
in
the
wave
of
postponing
marriage.
For
those
graduating
from
college,
the
marriage
age
increased
from
22.4
for
women
born
in
1947
to
25
for
women
born
in
1957.106
Claudia
Goldin
and
Lawrence
Katz
display
this
trend
as
a
result
of
accessible
and
reliable
contraception,
which
impacted
a
number
of
choices:
women’s
“college-­‐going
and
graduation,
post-­‐college
education,
chances
of
having
a
high-­‐powered
professional
career,
age
at
first
marriage,
labor
force
participation
and
age
at
first
birth.”107
Goldin
and
Katz
add
that
feminism
certainly
complemented
and
reinforced
the
Pill’s
impact,
encouraging
women
to
take
advantage
of
social
change.108
The
Pill
forged
a
somewhat
different
pathway
among
lower-­‐class
women
and
minorities,
as
conflicting
perceptions
of
its
role
and
significance
were
confused
with
suggestions
of
classism,
racism
and
gender
bias.
Some
African
American
men
saw
the
Pill
as
a
genocidal
weapon
to
create
an
all-­‐white
society.
African
American
women
rejected
this
notion
and
when
Planned
Parenthood
in
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
was
forced
to
close
because
of
firebomb
threats,
black
women
organized
its
reopening.
Elizabeth
Siegel
Watkins
argues
that
the
Pill
had
a
similar
result
in
the
black
community
as
it
did
in
middle-­‐class
circles.
She
states,
“Within
parts
of
the
black
community,
evaluations
of
the
Pill
broke
down
gender
lines.
For
these
women,
as
for
so
many
other
women
around
the
country,
the
Pill
represented