tv 1968 - America in Turmoil 2018 Womens Rights CSPAN December 31, 2018 6:06pm-7:40pm EST
thank you buffer an insightful conversation 50 years later. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. next from our series 1968: america in turmoil, a look back at women's rights 50 years ago. women protesting the 1968 miss america pageant challenged not only the beauty contest but long-held assumptions about american womanhood when they hung a bedsheet inside the atlantic city convention hall declaring women's liberation. women's rights became part of the national conversation. transforming household and workplaces, and society itself. our guests are deborah's bar from barnard college, and author of one women, sex, power and the quest for protection. and mona jereb, a syndicated columnist and senior editor at the ethics policy center in washington, d.c. she is the author of the upcoming book sex
matters: how modern feminism lost touch with science, love, and common sense. here is betty for dan from may 9 2000 explain why a renewed women's movement was necessary in the 1960s. e had to get rid that. e had to get rid we had to break through that. we had to say, women are people, >> this separate view of women, the feminine mystique, we had to get rid of that. we had to break through that. we had to say women are people, no more, no less. in order then to consciously fight for and realize that we were entitled to the same opportunities, to participate in society. the same opportunities to control our own destiny. the same right to participate in society, to control our own destiny, as men had. and when you think about it, the women's movement in america,
is supposed to have begun with my book "the feminine mystique" in 1963. we were 37 years later. we really have transformed society. they weren't asking in 1963 what do you want to be when you grow up little girl? you will be a mommy like mommy. they didn't ask women what do you do? and just a housewife was kind of a label. that most women had those days. because even , only 1/3 of american women worked outside the home. not all the women went home
agai 30-40 years only a third of women worked outside the home. not all the women went home again after world war ii. but a lot did and two generations didn't have babies in the depression and the war. they made up for it by having babies like mad in the so- called baby boom that some of you may be part of. that was all right. having babies is a good thing. i had three. there are real values in motherhood. it's not just a mistake. but it came to be in the 1950s this kind of doctrine that tried to make housewives and mothers a full-time lifelong pursuit. career women became dirty words, even though i went to and words like career women became dirty.
even though i went to a very good college, smith college, a big woman's college, even in that college, all i learned about the early suffragettes, the feminists, you know, the early feminists. as you know, like they were neurotic spinsters suffering from interpretation of history. it was a revelation to me doing research and be because it was the freudian interpretation of history. it was a revelation to me when i was doing research for my book, the feminine mystique, well, i was going to give a good rationalization for nv. the was the symbol of men, not women and every woman had a right to envy the opportunities that men had. >> the reflections of betty for dan live on c-span -- friedan
live on c-span. joining us from new york is deborah's bar, the former president of barnard college and the author of the book wonder women: sex, power, and the quest for perfection. and mona karen who is a senior ethics columnist and veteran of the reagan white house. the new book sex matters: how feminism lost touch with love, science and common sense. first, barbara what was the first humanist movement and why was there a second wave in the 1960s? >> the waves of feminism are not sort of a natural phenomenon that you can completely define, but generally people would think about the first wave as what would then be called the suffragette movement. it was really the movement from primarily the u.s. and the uk to get women the right to vote. that occurred really in the early 20th century and was largely successful, but wasn't
fully successful so you get now second wave feminism. really, as you said earlier, coming right around the time of the publication of betty friedan's book and cresting in 1968. that was a movement for all of the things that the vote alone had not granted to women. pay equality, the ability to get into ivy league education, the right for women to play sports. all of the things that really society had not yet granted to women at the time they granted them the right to vote. >> mona, let's talk about the arc of this. rosie the riveter, as women went back to the workforce in the 1940s during the height of world war ii, what happened after world war ii, from the mid-1940s until the mid-1960s? >> i discuss in my book sex matters, the mythology that has come down to us about rosie the riveter.
the analogy that we usually get is it was great during world war ii. women got all of these jobs that men were not performing because men were at the front. and rosie the riveter is the iconic image of a woman in an industrial job. the truth is a little more complicated. the fact is women were actually propagandized and encouraged to take these jobs because there was a labor shortage because of the war. they made it seem like a patriotic duty. there was a huge amount of government-sponsored advertising aimed at women trying to get them to take these jobs. the jobs sometimes women enjoyed them but more often, they were really dirty, and dangerous jobs, and women did them again because it was wartime and we were completely mobilized. they did those jobs. after the war, there was a
period of grateful domesticity that followed. the economy was booming. people who had not been able to get married or have families during the great depression, and then during world war ii there was the sort of pent-up demand for normalcy if you will. and so after the war, there was a tremendous rush to the suburbs, and two people having large families and retreating a little bit. women retreated somewhat from the jobs they had taken during the second world war. >> is that how women were idealized in the 1950s? >> the 1950s is interesting. again, i think there is a disconnect between the popular image of what the 1950s were, and the realities on the ground.
we have this idea that women in the 1950s, little stepford wives, that they were discouraged from work, from achieving their own individual dreams, and so forth. but if you look at the data, it's actually interesting. women did begin in large numbers going to work. you saw this u shaped pattern of women working. by the way, they streamed into universities. not in the same numbers as men but that was because of the g.i. bill. but women started a pattern of working while they were single, continuing to work while they were in early marriage, cutting back the part-time or no work while the kids were young and then resuming work after their kids were in school. and this is not the image that has come down to us about the
1950s. we have been told that it was a prison, and that women were just baby makers, and homemakers, and so forth. but i don't think that's an accurate picture of the way things were even then. >> evraz bar, let's talk about some of the key players in this time period beginning with betty friedan. who was she? >> i go back one more second. i think mona is exactly right about what the data show, but it's also interesting that the culture celebrated during the 1950s. so even though she mentioned women were working in larger numbers and had been in the past, if you look at advertisements, television shows, what was honored and celebrated, was the happy homemaker. and that is a large part of what betty friedan rose to respond to. so betty friedan was a very bright, very well-educated woman. she began her own career, mostly as a reporter, and sort
of got shunted as many bright women in the field did at that time into reporting on women's issues, and the making of pot roast, the knitting of sweaters. she tells it in her big book and in other forms, she started to get the sense that something was wrong and she went back to her college classmates and started interviewing them. she started interviewing other women in this supposedly idyllic suburb where she was living and she began to focus on what she called the problem that has no name. that was the malaise, the discontent, the depression she found in many women who on the surface would have appeared to have perfect lives, the same life that the culture in magazines, and television shows, were raving about. the major caveat here, the subsequent feminist critics and others have pointed to is the women she was talking about and writing about, and worrying
about, were almost overwhelmingly white, upper- middle-class women. they were the leave it to beaver women of the era. but what her work was focused on, and it's a profound, deep analysis, was looking at how deeply disappointed these women were because they weren't being fulfilled by these lives that they thought were supposed to bring them such great satisfaction. and most people who look at the book focus on the early chapters, where she tells these stories of women crying in the kitchen, drinking with their friends and being so despondent at the phrase she uses, "is this all my life is ever going to be? ochal but as you go deeper in the book, it's a very long book, it's a quite marxist inspired argument because what she is also writing in part is that american corporations, particularly in the television era have paired up with american advertising giants to
create this wave of products that women have to be interested in and buy. so women are being peddled dishwashing detergents and floor waxes, and kitchen equipment, and all of these things that in fact are keeping them fully employed, keeping their homes neat, clean, tidy and living up to some kind of standard. a part of her argument is the energy women could have been spending building careers, building lives of importance, are instead being spent keeping their kitchens clean, which she is pretty quick to tell you is not impact what everyone's life should be devoted to. >> are continuing series looking back 50 years. 1968, american turmoil. we're focusing on the women's movement. we will get to her phone calls. let's talk about more key players during this time period. phyllis lashley. who was she? >> she was a midwestern lawyer, there, and activist, political activist. conservative republican. she took it upon herself to
fight the passage of the equal rights amendment. she felt that far from being a good thing for women, the amendment would actually require in the constitution certain kinds of changes to things like social security acts, the draft, the military draft, and other things that would actually not benefit women. women would have to be drafted just like men. widows would not be entitled arguably to the benefits of their deceased husbands. they are currently eligible for that. and so she started a grassroots movement, and america has a long history of successful grassroots efforts. think of prohibition, which began in similar kitchen tables and garages.
so anyway, she formed this organization stop e.r.a. and was ultimately successful. it had come to within something like three states that needed to ratify it. hadn't achieved it into the seven year time frame. congress extended the time frame but together with her confederates, she was able to defeat it. it still is not part of the constitution today. >> deborah's bar, i want to get your reaction as we look up the make up of the house and the senate because if you travel to the house capital you will see it statue for jeanette ranking, the first woman to serve at the u.s. house of representatives. in 1968, there was one woman in the u.s. senate. when you put it up on the screen, and 11 in the house of representatives. and in today there are 23 women in the u.s. senate and 83 in the house of representatives. can you talk about those numbers?
>> the obvious response of course is this is good. we are moving in the right direction. but i think if you put these 50 years in context, we really haven't come so far at all. i work on the math but we are still looking at situations where women at best are 20 to 25% of positions of power be it in congress or elsewhere. if you go back to the excitement that surrounds the women's movement in 1968, i think there was a deep-seated assumption that 50 years hence, women would be something close to 50% of positions of power. as i argue in my book, what we see across the united states, and across most of the developed world is women seem to max out between 16% and 18% of power positions. it's a little bit better in congress right now, but really
just a very small bit. you can see this as the glass half-full. we have come a long way, but myself, i grew up really just after the second wave. i think women of my generation presumed that by the time we hit the mature parts of our careers, we really would be at something much closer to 50%. >> mona. >> i am just a tiny bit skeptical of the justice by counting metric. of course, i think if women want to be in positions of leadership and have the skills, they absolutely should be. i think there's a lot of evidence the american voter is composed is perfectly happy to vote for american women at every level of government, now. admittedly, it didn't used to be that way but it is i think today. i think there may be other reasons women are not sharing these positions 50-50. i've seen a lot of data that women are just turned off bipartisanship, that they
dislike the combat involved in politics, and so there may be other reasons that women just don't choose to put themselves forward quite as much as men do. >> mona karen. deborah's bar joining us from new york. stephen is on the phone from lincoln university, pennsylvania. go ahead, please. >> can you hear me well? >> we sure can. >> all right, perfect. i would just like to comment on the difference between first wave and second wave feminism. the way i see it, the main problem is first rate some smu had a problem where they can vote, things like that. i agree with the government's solution. second wave seems to say i don't like what women are doing based on what the culture doesn't like women to do. not necessarily with the government is doing to women, or restricting them, but then they want a government solution to that problem through legislation. things i don't believe really work should be done. i think as long as the
government is treating men and women equally, you know jail time, things like that, how they are viewed in the courts, things of that nature, you can do a legislation solution for that. when i hear from second wave feminism i don't like the culture i don't like how the tv portrays women, they should be in the home, so let's have a government solution. let's use the government to enforce what i think women should be at age 20, 30, 40 because i don't like what they are. i just don't agree with that usage of government. as long as the government is treating everyone equally, that's what the government needs to do and not change culture per se. >> thank you for the call. let's turn to deborah's bar, former president of barnard college. go ahead. >> i think there is so many pieces of second wave feminism that i think it's unfair to say that it was all about governmental solutions. if i look at my sector of the world, in higher education, in 1963, and in 1968, the most of
elite educational institutions were closed to women. virtually none of the educational institutions had sports programs for women. those were things that didn't take me need government solutions, the universities themselves opened up and allowed women, and they started to do sports programs for women, but certainly this was moved along by both activism and by governmental policy. something like title ix, which i think has been hugely important in making sure women have equal access to sports programs, which turns out to be a crucially important element of young people's development. i agree with the caller that not everything has a governmental solution, but i think what the activists realized in the 1960s was there had to be some pressure towards giving women greater rights. it wasn't just a question of how the culture was treating them. it was a question of how major institutions were treating them. >> our next caller is teresa from charlotte, north carolina.
go ahead, please. >> i just wanted to mention that i was 18 in 1972. i got married, and by 1980, i still did not have financial autonomy. i could not do anything without my husband. >> mona? >> i am not sure what you're getting at. >> she is still with us, right? no, she hung up. >> she could start her own business, go to grad school, start a family, do many things, but you know? one of the things about the 1968 feminism, the second wave feminism is that you cannot see it just as a part of the women's movement that began with the suffragettes and proceeded on through different ways. you have to see it as part of its era and time. it grew out of a moment in
american history when the new left was rising. when there was tremendous turmoil in our society in general about racial issues, and about the rights of homosexuals, and the rights of the stature of the country, and of course, the vietnam war. and what that entire environment encouraged and midlife if you will was radicalized feminism on many levels and the feminist movement of the second wave is not betty friedan so much but the ones who came immediately after her, really did embraces really radical vision of societal reform to go back to what the caller was asking about culture. they were not to sing we want equal pay for equal work, and we want to have sports programs, they were attacking the entire society of what they
called the patriarchy. marriage, family life, the sexual norms that had prevailed for hundreds of years and everything was going to be almost french revolution style. everything was going to be thrown out and we were going to start over. >> hang on. there were lots of people in this movement. some of them were clearly radical but going back to betty friedan bell and saw, even gloria steinem to some extent weren't nearly going that far. to go to our caller who has left us, i think she is in fact quite right. if you were a married woman in 1969, you couldn't sign for a home mortgage rate credit card without your husband's permission. there were very tactical issue that women face that had nothing to do with sort of the more radical piece of what became the feminist agenda.
>> yeah, i think you and i might disagree about how radical they were. if you look at the writings. there were feminist blockbusters in 1970, sexual politics, the dialectic of sex, the female eunuch, these books were big sellers. they were celebrated on the front page of time magazine. they were very much part of the culture, and they were extremely radical in their solutions. they were doctrine, marxist except for a few quibbles, and they were absolutely endorsing the abolition of the nuclear family, which they felt was the cradle of all problems of women. >> some of those books were but if you go back to betty friedan, robin morgan, that was a much less radical view, and like any movement there is 1 million pieces.
but i don't think you want to condemn the whole movement by looking at specific pieces. it was a long and complex movement, and still is. >> that's true. it is complex. you are right. there are many different feminists, many different schools, sometimes too many. but i do think that i recently reread betty friedan's feminine mystique and i found you know, i found the book to be deeply flawed and though she was not quite on the anti- family bandwagon, she did have some unbelievably silly and even destructive comments in that book such as, describing a suburban home life as a comfortable concentration camp. >> if either of us is lucky
that our books are read 50 years from now people would find some quibbles as well. >> i wanted to point out women earned the right to vote in 1920. in 1923, the first equal rights amendment was introduced in the house of representatives. it passed to the hospital a vote of 354 to 24 in 1971 and passed in the u.s. senate by a final vote of 84-8. between 1972 through 1979, it was ratified by 35 states. three states short of the necessary 38. the ratification deadline expired in june 1982. let's go to colleen joining us from lake walls, florida. >> this is a wonderful topic. i am so glad we are discussing it because girls today just don't comprehend back in the 1960s, the laws on divorce made it very difficult to get a divorce, and there was a lot of
shame involved. you couldn't go and get your own house or you couldn't carry on with your family, with the mother and children couldn't separate themselves from the husband. alimony and child support were so low that you really couldn't maintain your family. the law had a lot to do with it. and people, this society, agree with all that. >> thank you for the call. mona? >> i actually have a different view of the divorce laws and alimony. i actually think that the movement toward no-fault divorce was not an advantage for women. what happened is that both no- fault divorce and treating mothers and fathers as
absolutely equivalent when it came to child custody decisions meant as david from pointed out in his book how we got here, it gave men, that is husband's who were divorcing, more power within the relationship. they could threaten to contest for custody of the children, and sort of forced their wives to accept less in alimony thereby. and sure enough, that is what happened. alimony went down after the introduction of no-fault divorce. so it was definitely a mixed picture. so many of the couples that have divorced, and we have data on this, about two thirds of annual divorces are from couples who have when the divorce is initiated, no open conflict, no serious conflict. once the divorce process gets going, it sometimes reaches
that level, but divorce has been a big problem for women and although obviously the plus side is it has allowed women to escape unhappy marriages more easily, it has also made it easier for everybody to get out of the marriage contract. as somebody once said it's easier to escape a marriage contract than it is a car loan. i'm not so sure that's great for society. >> deborah spahr, agree or disagree? >> a little of both. i think divorce is always complicated, and trying to separate the data issues from the personal issues will always be murky. but i do think as mona just said, the evolution of the law of the past 50 years has made divorce easier. that's probably led to some bad consequences but i think in general it has led to good consequences so that women do have the power, the legal power to get out of bad marriages, and get out of them in ways
that don't destroy themselves or their children financially. >> deborah spahr is the author of one women: sex, power, and the quest for perfection. mona's new book "sex matters: how modern feminism lost touch with science, love, and common sense." >> it's available for preorder on amazon. >> deborah, i want to get your reaction to this tweet from a regular viewer. jim saying, can your guest speculate on why the e.r.a. amendment was not successfully ratified? >> it's a good question and i don't have a great answer for it. i think part of the reason was it took a really long time, as these things do. getting any kind of amendment is a torturous political process. i think as time moved on, we've heard it both from mona and from others, this is not something that was universally admired or desired.
i think time went on, interest lagged, there were some parts of the country that fundamentally did not want this amendment, and to go back to one of our earlier callers and i would tweak is you a little bit, the amendment even if it had passed quickly and easily was not going to be a magic bullet for women's ills or societies ills. so i think even some of the people who had pushed that agenda over the years were able to sort of take their activism and take their objectives, and try to work through them on other channels. it's a very complicated political moment but i think in the end, there just wasn't enough unified support to combat a lot of diffuse opposition. >> during the 1960s also the civil rights movement was front and center. 1964, legislation passed by the house and senate passed by lyndon b. johnson. i want to hear from
congresswoman martha griffith made democrat from michigan. in 1970, she reflected on the civil rights act, and women as part of the language in that legislation. and civil rights , that is who are proposing legal action, as one way of bringing women >> there are those in the women's movement who would correspond very much to the naacp and the civil rights movement. that is who is proposing legal action, as one way of bringing women into full participation in society, and i think that there are also women in the women's liberation movement who would be very much in agreement with the critique proposed by the women's liberation movement. >> what about civil rights? are there civil rights that women do not enjoy? >> i think there certainly are. maybe, i should turn it back to martha griffith. i would like to add one quick note to what she said about the 1964 civil rights act because the or sex provision was really added as a joke. >> don't say that.
please, don't say that. it was not added as a joke. the man who originally offered it that he was really going to hurt the bill, but i made the argument, and i wasn't joking. i understood exactly what i was doing. it was excepted not as a joke, but because the people who sat there agreed with my argument, that you would have given black women rights that white women never had. now, i didn't make the further statement, which i think was quite true that no one who brought that bill to the floor had ever considered giving any woman, any rights. and the truth is black and white women got those rights together, but no one who voted that day voted as a joke. >> i am sure that they didn't vote as a joke but there was a great deal of levity in the debate. >> the levity stopped when i
said it seriously. >> i am pleased to hear that. it really didn't work out that way at all but this has been one of the things that is a myth. that has been put out through this whole country that it was a joke. and every woman who says it again and again really aids the supreme court in making a very erroneous decision. >> could you document just a little bit what the civil rights status of women was before and after? >> women don't really have any rights. the 14th amendment has never been applied to give women equal rights, equal protection under the law, she doesn't have any rights. only the right to vote and the right to hold public office. there are the only two rights of the constitution of the united states guarantees her. >> a panel discussion on women, law and politics took place in 1970 at the university of
michigan. this is a photograph from the east room of the white house in 1964. president lyndon b. johnson signing the civil rights act. you can see it is primarily a room full of men. >> right, so i was going to make 2 points. first, women were included in the civil rights act. sex with added so that all the rights guaranteed under that act, it was very clear, applied to women, as well but this comment you hear so often that women did not have any right and you heard it a lot, and you still do, that women didn't receive the right to vote until the 1920s and therefore they had no rights, that's absolutely not true. the fact is if a woman were accused of a crime, she had the right not to incriminate herself, the right to a trial by jury, the right to speak, the right to practice her faith. she had all the rights that her were guaranteed in the bill of rights to all american citizens. there was never a sense even
though there is no equal rights amendment, there is never a sense that those rights were meant to apply only to men. they are universal. >> deborah spahr, did you want to respond? >> no, i think that's accurate. but clearly, there are a significant number of women in this country who feel that despite having these basic rights enumerated in the constitution, whether the reality is that they face different obstacles and men. those obstacles have changed since the 1960s, but they are still there. i think the political question remains, what is the best way to fix that reality for women? is it through law? if it's through law, to what extent must it rely on a constitutional amendment? i think that's where you can have a lot of debate, but clearly women face obstacles, as do people of color in this country that are quite different from those that face white men. >> we talked about conservative
activist phyllis scheifele. in an interview on c-span she discussed her opposition to the equal rights amendment in the 1960s. >> for many years, i debated the equal rights amendment on many of the campuses and of course we won that battle. young women in college today weren't even born, when that broke the fight, so they don't understand it. it needs to be re-explained, but if you look at the feminists whom i debated 20 years ago, they don't have the wonderful things that i have which are 14 grandchildren. that's a whole new life. i think the young women should look ahead and see what is life going to be like you for you 20 years into the future? they need to examine that and find out what they really want because the feminist movement told young women that they should have liberation, and that it was much more exciting to be a corporation vice
president bennett was to be just a plain old mother raising her children. it doesn't always work out that way. >> did you ever think you would be more than just a mother raising her children? >> i am a very hard-working person. i always have lots of hobbies. politics became my hobby. >> that video is available at www.c-span.org. our focus in 1968. 50 years later. we are talking about the women's movement during this time period. josephine is next from livingston, new jersey. go ahead, please. >> i want to use new jersey as the example. i worked in new jersey for 42 years. not once did you ever see a woman in a position of authority. i am talking like cabinet post as an example. right now, for the first time that i can remember, our cabinet right now in new jersey
is predominantly female. how refreshing. i mean, 11 women have been appointed how refreshing. that didn't happen under a republican, i have to say. and not only that, we're finally going to get the bill passed for equal pay. again, how refreshing. do we have to have the laws here? yes, we do. laws give us more rights. unfortunately, we can't do it alone. the more important thing for women out there, they've got to vote. if you don't vote, you do not get your rights. to complain about it, sitting on your to's doesn't work. you've got to vote. thank you very much. >> first of all, it's nice to hear a caller from my old hometown, livingston, new jersey.
i would just point out that equal pay has been the law of the land since 1963, so i don't know what new jersey is planning to elaborate on that fact, but that has been true for a long time. >> next is helen -- go ahead, deborah spahr. >> i would just jump in and echo her comment, women have to vote. particularly, young women have to vote. what i've seen among young women the past few years is a real wake-up call because all of these rights and privileges privileges they thought they could take for granted have been called into question the past few years. i think it's very good they are understanding how important it is for them not just to tweet but to vote as well. >> holly is calling from fullerton, california. >> equally refreshing is a devout republican from california. i was 14 in 1968. my mother read betty friedan's book in the early 1960s, when
it first came out. she went to the local drugstore, saw it on the paper book rack and it transformed my expectations with her newfound philosophy. >> halso, helen? >> because i also when i was 14, the book was still around, and i read it. it opened up a world will also to me that maybe i could do more than just graduate from high school, get married, have kids, and be totally dependent on my husband's benevolence towards me. and live happily ever after. well, ironically, that didn't happen and it would never have happened because economically this would not be feasible. it was just a dream being sold like your guest said earlier. being sold by companies who wanted to sell their products because i did take a class in college. it was american studies called
women in american society. there were more women after world war ii who remained in the workforce than ever before. and now you had two incomes and so companies were going after that extra income because they knew now women could afford, people could afford to buy your cars, cleansers, makeup, clothes, more disposable income. what eventually happened though, i think. i read elizabeth warren's two income trap. your guests may be familiar. she detailed and she did a very good job on it, how eventually over time, as more women entered into the workforce and entered into professions, and for making the same amount of money of their spouses or even more, things started changing economically for everyone in american society. one of the main ones was the
outsourcing of manufacturing to third and fourth world countries. the products were much cheaper, but ironically, the money needed to buy housing costs increase, tripled. housing costs tripled. >> thank you for the call. deborah spahr, did you want to respond? >> just to pick up on where helen started because i think it such an important anecdote, so many women have that moment that they recall. their mother picking up the book at the library, the drugstore, and a friend's house. it was a transformative book and putting all the politics and the legal pieces aside, the fact that a single book woke women up to their potential is itself radical and revolutionary. >> during this time period a few years after 1968 and 1971, the u.s. army put together this film at the time. advising how women serving in the military should look and
dress. the full program will be airing after this program. here is an expert. about your e appearance, your occupation, and your role in life than any young >> ladies, you've come a long way. no question about it. you have more to say these days about your education, your parents, your occupation, and your
you are laughing. >> it is a little antique. compared with some of the messages that we send young women today, like even teenagers , preteens, that they should begin to look sexy and where a lot of makeup and appeal to men and so on at very young ages, i mean, people should look -- what did they say? neat and tidy and clean and fresh. i almost have a wistful sense about that era when that was the goal. >> i am at a disadvantage. i am in new york. i could only hear the film. but to think of what the male
equivalent is -- did any of the army films herman concentrate on looks? >> they do. but in the military today, even the men have to comb their hair a certain way and shine their buccal a certain way. they have to appear a certain way. >> it is a footnote to why they might want to be in the military. and not only this. it comes across so many pieces of the culture. the emphasis on how women look. it is different. it is simply different than for men. >> i agree with that. >> we will go to tallahassee, florida next. krista, good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to dig a little deeper here. i started hearing about this first in college in the early 70s. i was like, whatever. i believed it. i went out in the world and i said, it is not really
happening yet, not in most places. the thing that i think a lot of people don't understand that is really critical is that this is not a political issue. this is a survival issue. up until the 80s, and pennsylvania, there were laws on the books that said how big of a stick your husband could use to beat you. and for what infraction. and if your child would come to you undisclosed sexual abuse, you would be committed. you would not be listened to. >> we are discussing many large phenomenons. you cannot discuss a woman's place in society without discussing many other things besides politics. you are right to say that it is broad, it is a broad subject. but i have to say the idea that men could beat their wives with
the stick of a certain size is a myth. christina summers has exploited that myth in her book. there are certain -- i give feminism credit for the way we have treated race. for a long time, there was no such thing as marital. and it was the case that a woman's own sexual history could be used to impeach them on the stand. and from a feminist perspective -- good for them, the law changed about that. on the other hand, there are a lot of myths about domestic violence by feminists. they have made outlandish claims that, for example, the people most likely to abuse women are husbands. they are actually the least likely to commit domestic violence. the most likely are live-in boyfriends. and so, there is a tendency to
mix up all of the myths with facts. the truth is that married women are the safest of all women. safer than divorced, widowed, single and especially safer than those who are cohabiting. >> i want to put another name on the table. jermaine greer of. she lives in the uk. this is from a 1971 cover story of life magazine. also attributed as a major voice of the second wave feminist movement. she says "women have the right to defend their own values, order their own priorities and decide their own fate." why was she such a large figure during this time period? >> i think she captured a lot of the moment. she is a beautiful writer. and clean. she spoke to a lot of people. it was a moment in time where
people wanted to address these issues. and she was a different voice. a different voice from gloria steinem. she really just put up a finger, a pinprick on some of the deep yearnings that women had, aside from politics. just to have a voice, to have an identity. to have dreams of being something other than a housewife. and she is a beautiful writer. she got a voice out there that people responded to. >> the former president of barnard college joining us from new york. and a columnist and senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center. we have leo from the bronx in new york. good morning. >> good morning. the issue of women's rights, the issue i want to raise is the explosion against people in
the media such as harvey weinstein and charlie rose being abusive towards women. why do you think this happened? why now and why 60 years later? >> let's turn to deborah's bar for that. the #metoo movement. >> this has really been a watershed moment in the women's movement. i don't think it is a splash in the pan. i think it is a very important moment. i think what happened is, the stories have been out there for years about specific men. i really think there was a couple of incredibly devoted journalists who were very careful and very diligent both in new york and at the new york times, who did their homework, and took what had been rumored and really put the facts around them. and they had the advantage of working with a handful of brave women who were willing to risk
their careers, risk their reputations to go public with what had been quiet stories for a long time. and once it was out there and on the front page of the new york times, everything was just a crescendo around it. >> from akron, ohio, sky is next on the independent line. >> good morning. in 1970 and ever since, there is work to acquaint fellow feminists and all with the responsibility to the 99% of slave animals who are female who are kept captive for eggs and milk and then slaughtered to become 99% of fast food burgers. and just as a footnote, every single hibernating bear in alaska, every mother bear in alaska has had her rights
invaded this month by every republican senator voting that her babies may be killed while they are hibernating in a wildlife sanctuary. >> let me jump in. apply that to the women's movement of the 1960s. >> she would go out in the streets and pass out leaflets saying that women were abused by men. why are you abusing your fellow women animals? i think the trump administration is perhaps the worst ever. >> do you want to respond in any way? >> the tenderness toward animals is admirable. i am resistant to the idea that they have rights equivalent to human rights. i think we should be kind to animals and not take them --
and make them suffer unduly but i do not take it to the degree of this caller. >> the fda approves the pill in 1960. 1973 , roe versus wade. why are these two events important to understand during this time period? >> we have been talking for an hour and this is the first time that this critical issue has come up. the emergence of the legal pill and legal abortion are probably in some ways the most important developments that came out of the 1960s and early 1970s. and there are all kinds of arguments that one can put forward and more arguments around abortion. i think when you look back across the broad swath of history, as i am starting to see now, the most important development for women's rights
is contraception. because it is wonderful to argue for women's rights. the laws clearly are very important. but really what gave women the ability to control their destiny was the ability to control fertility. and the combination of contraception which allowed women to decide when and if they wanted to become pregnant and abortion gave them that last option if they became pregnant at a time they didn't want to. that in my opinion is what gave women the freedom to control their destinies. >> if you are pregnant in the 1960s in the workforce, how would your employer typically react to that? >> it wasn't something that was supposed to happen. women were supposed to leave the workforce before they got pregnant. they were supposed to hide the pregnancy should they occur. my understanding, having not been there and with the presumption was, that the moment they got pregnant, they would be out of the workforce. they would go home and take care of the baby because that
is what women did. clearly, that is the difference come at the core between men and women. women get pregnant and men don't. that really is what has kept women in a secondary status for so long. so being able to have a pretty good degree of control over their pregnancy is, in my mind, the single greatest liberating force for women. >> so here we get to the part where we have an important dispute about women and men's life. i believe the feminist movement made a horrible wrong turn when it embraced abortion as the feminist issue. because it alienated millions of american women and men who regard abortion as an abomination. the second part is the tendency to say -- my second point
before i get to this. the pill and other contraception that became widely available in the 1950s could have been taken by women as a way to decide how many children they want and how to space them out and all of that. it did not necessarily mean that women had to sign on to the sexual revolution. unfortunately, the two were lengthy and people encourage both. and i think that also has not serve the interest of women well nor families which are critical to everyone's well- being, men and women. finally, the topic that deborah mentioned. women get pregnant and men don't. and a matter of what it does to women in the workplace. women being pregnant and being mothers and giving birth and nursing and caring for their babies is like the best part of life. and unfortunately, the feminist movement has tended to diminish
and devalue it and see it as an obstacle on the path to the corner office. and i think that has things quite upside down. i think the most important things in our lives involve our families and our personal relationships. and yes, in our incredibly abundant and wealthy country, you can have it all and do it all. but we should not be portraying caring for children and family life as just something that is an impediment to women in the workplace. >> of the book by mona chair "sex matters, how modern feminism lost touch with science, love and common sens ." and also deborah's -- deborah spahr with "the quest for perfectio ." joining us from thomasville, georgia. >> this is one of the most entertaining programs i have
seen on cspan. i cannot decide which comment i like the most. i want to say that, obviously anytime one group takes more power, another group loses power. the power comes from somewhere. with the idea that power with the people -- i can tell you that a 55-year-old white man like me has lost power from 1965. and that is fine. i have more obstacles and i have to deal with that. any time you have government involved and you say, he should not have that many obstacles and we have to take care of some of those obstacles, consequences happen. in the 70s -- that is when title ix was put into place i assume. the idea was, we need to have females to participate just
like counterparts. back then, in 1970, college sports was not a nine million dollars business. now that money generated by minority black athletes generating that money. that money is being taken from them and given to the universities and distributed for female sports. and if they had known in 1970 that it would be a 9 billion- dollar business, i don't think they would have done that. had you not had title ix, someone might have said, okay, all these people entertaining us every saturday and only getting paid by an education that they never graduate or get and also maybe one day you will get paid in the nfl. that sounds like modern-day sharecropping. if they had left it alone, that might work out. now they have to have the money. they are not going to get rid
of the female sports. >> thank you for the call. deborah spahr, we will get a response from you on this. >> i would agree critically with two or three of the things. everything has unintended consequences. that is part of what we all have to deal with. i don't know how much the women's sports play into some of the excesses of what we are seeing in college sports. i agree they are excessive and definitely problematic. i want to go back to something said at the beginning which i think is interesting and we don't talk about enough. that is what the impact of the women's movement has been on men. because it has been dramatic. and i think you are right. when one group gets more power, other groups, almost by definition, lose out or find options constrained in new ways. i think it is intriguing that we have had at least 50 years of philosophizing around feminism. as we were saying earlier, there are a million different strands of the monism. all these people are talking
about it and developing theories and policy. we have not talked enough about men over the past 50 years. we have not come up with new models of what it means to be a male and a successful father and husband. and i completely agree that having children is a wonderful thing and being a parent is a wonderful thing. but if women will be in the workforce and be parents, we have to change our ideas of what it means to be a man and be a parent. and we have not done nearly enough work on thinking about the implications of feminism for men. >> let's go to desmond joining us from indiana. you are next. >> thank you so much. such a fascinating panel today. i think both of the ladies here, i could not convince the ladies
here to watch this so i will have to talk about it myself. to expand on what deborah is saying, that is all right. i come from five generations of divorce. what i am not hearing from mona or deborah is at the fact of the matter is, the future with children is what is the most important. and regardless of our political views, we can all agree that husband or wife or whatever, a family with two heads of the household running the family together, is the foundation toward a socioeconomic advancement. and i have not heard that for the entire segment. that is one of the things i told myself before i got married. my wife and i both have full- time jobs. we respect each other.
she is probably better in some things then i am when it comes to the household. but it is the bedrock that we are going to stick together regardless. because of our children. and i am not hearing that from the panel. i will jump off just to hear your thoughts. >> desmond, before i let you go, three girls and any boys? >> no boys. i have six brothers. >> thank you for the call. mona. >> thank you for the question. you may not have heard me say it on the segment but i have a lot in my book about the critical importance of family. that is, i think, one of the great crises we are facing in a society that through both the divorce and unmarried childbearing, families are disintegrating and it does take two parents to raise happy
healthy people and good citizens. not only is it important for the society but it is important for our happiness. all of the social science is unequivocal that, first of all that married people are much happier than single people. and children raised by married parents do better than children raised in any other environment. and it does not rely on class, race or anything else. to come from an intact family, your chances of succeeding in life as a child are dramatically improved if your parents are intact. there have been a number of things tearing families apart. it ties into what we were discussing before this caller. mainly what the feminist movement has done to men. unfortunately, i mentioned there are many good things the feminist movement has done. one of the bad things is that
it has -- portrayed men and women as adversaries. for most of us, the way we live come our spouses are the dearest people in our lives. the most important people. to overlook that is a huge mistake. i cannot drive if my husband or son is not doing well. so to depict thriving and success as being based on gender rather than family structure and the family relationship, is a great mistake and it has led to a lot of unnecessary suffering. >> deborah, i want to move on and talk about what was happening in the 1960s. we have the feminist movement in the second wave as we talked about at the beginning of the conversation. the civil rights movement and of course the antiwar demonstrations that were heating up in the mid to late 1960s.
how did all of that come together in 1968? >> it came together as most people will recall or read about in sort of a giant congregation. it was one of these moments in time when an awful lot was happening. strange bedfellows were created in every sense of the word. movements got smudged together. it was kind of an across-the- board activism. and some things emerging today. what happened i think for the women's movement per se is that it got a little lost in this shuffle. that women were part of the civil rights movement and part of the antiwar movement. particularly in the antiwar movement, it wound up being a movement that was led by men. and the stories of the women involved tell is that they were
forced into disturbing positions in the antiwar movement. you can say the war ended whether or not in response to the movement. but i think the women who got involved with that came away from it having felt that their voices were not heard in the movement the way they might have hoped. and i think there was some reckoning and soul-searching that went on after that point. and i don't know that it contributed to the splintering of the feminist movement but it certainly didn't help the feminist movement regain or build any kind of solidarity after that point. >> 1968, a year and turmoil and 50 years later reflecting on the significance of the developments during that time. low of is joining us from new york. go ahead please. >> i just wanted to say that first of all, it is misinformation to say that american women and marriages are much safer. because it is unreported when
domestic violence occurs in an intact family because it affects the children. it infects -- affects the wife's employment and the husband's employment. i am a retired professor that lived through 36 years of domestic violence. yet i went on to school during the 60s, 70s and 80s. it opened the door for me to go to school. i became a teacher and a lawyer. and educational leadership professor. i taught law for the last 14 years before i retired. i recognized that a system of this inequality in america stretched across all institutions. that was very much a part of how women were constrained from reporting that violence. the incidence of domestic violence reporting among intimate partners is often times much greater because there isn't a family association that restrains them from doing so. first of all, women and marriages have the same
equality to report but it isn't enforced. and when it is reported in a marriage, the law enforcement strives to remain neutral as opposed to protecting them. that research is very evident in information scholarly research and especially among minorities. i think first of all, i wanted to say that. second of all, if it had not been for the women's movement, i would never have understood that i had options to lead a separate life within the marriage and yes, i had children. they all went to college and they are all decent human beings. that was a very difficult road. >> lows was, thank you for your voice. >> it is difficult. a painful question about domestic violence. it is always a horror.
but to say that the data are wrong because people are unlikely to report, that is not a good way to deal with statistics. you can't say the numbers would be higher if more people would report. you could say, we suspect it is underreported but you could not say that it is x percentage because it is not reported and you don't know it. i am not convinced people would be more willing to report it with living together situations. i would also say that when you look at people's self reporting of happiness, you also see that people who are in married and committed relationships report higher levels of happiness as well. if there was a tremendous amount of abuse going on in those relationships, i don't think you would have that kind of self reporting. >> there were reports of 1968 at the miss america competition in new jersey. 1969 miss
america was going to be crowned in september of 1968 and ms. illinois, judith ford, the winner. i want to share with you a portion of how nbc news cover this in september of 1968. >> the women segregation movement organized several events. the group assessment proliferate. they are colorful with red stockings. and as explicit as the feminist for older women's liberation. they are addicted to acronyms. radical action projects.
>> the full nbc news program is on "real america" following this program. you can get more information on our website on cspan.org. deborah's bar, as you heard what was happening in the late 60s and early 70s, what are your thoughts? >> first of all, i believe that this is a an urban myth. very clever performance staged to protest at the miss america and to throw the bras into trash cans. showing women's opposition to things like the miss america pageant. if we think about the time of activism, it was a beautiful way to organize a protest. it got a lot of attention. it was very visual. and it worked. i think it really galvanized women to get out there and focus on something that was, at
the end of the day, silly. a beauty pageant. not deeply important for anyone. but it really captured people's attention. and on this particular subject we were talking about earlier, the way in which women are always evaluated on looks, whether it be in a beauty pageant contest or in terms of being recruited for the military. it was really a highlight of activism. we still talk about it years later. >> let's go to fran and palm beach gardens, florida. go ahead please. >> my question is for deborah. how big the parts you think brown, cosmopolitan magazine played in the women's movement? >> i think hellen gurley brown was a very important figure. she was not a deep philosopher. she never claimed to be. she had a kind of feminism that later feminists would denounce
because it was really a feminism about using women's sexuality as a tool of power. but hellen gurley brown was brilliant. not only in terms of shaping her own career but in realizing that her position at cosmo gave her a platform that nobody else had. she was not trying to make it on to the talk shows. she was trying to make it to 17, 18 and 19-year-old girls and she did. i think she really inspired a whole generation of young women to think about careers and think about exciting lives and think of themselves as something other than housewives. was she perfect? no. if you read some of her tips now about how to our makeup, they are deeply cringe worthy. she found a voice and she used it and she got the attention of millions and millions of young
women. >> she had this blockbuster called "sex and the single girl" which was a huge influence on the culture at the time. she later claimed she was the first feminist. when we read sex and the single girl now, not only will you cringe at things like your advice on how to catch a man, but you will cringe when she says that it is perfectly fine to have affairs with married men. and she lists the pluses and she says, we are not talking about outright being -- having the office going. there was an utterly immoral view that she took about sexuality and women's behavior that did not set a good tone for what was to come. >> mona chair and deborah's
bar. and other figure in this time period, america's first lady. lady bird johnson. deborah's bar, what role if any did she play in the women's movement? >> i'm not sure to be honest. i don't know all that much about her which probably says something about the kind of feminism i have read about and researched. i think any first lady is deeply constrained by what she can do, particularly at that moment in time. she did not have a lot of degrees of freedom. she was defined by the role. but i think was in the confines of that role. she pushed the boundaries. she tried to show herself as a woman who -- was sort of the number one housewife in the country. a woman who very much stayed true to the ideals of the wheel dedicated wife and mother. but still was an intelligent
and smart woman with ideas of her own and a platform that she tried to use. i think she did about as best as she could do under those particular circumstances. >> we will go to toledo, ohio next. calvin. you are next. >> i would like to talk about when they signed the discrimination law against black men and black women, you know, they had to hire black men and black women. and then they slept in that jewish people were the minority and white women were the minority. >> not sure exactly what you mean by that. accept that you are thinking that there are special affirmative action programs for jewish people and white women. there were, informally for white women. i don't think jewish people
were considered a minority that deserves special treatment. and fact, my father, back in the 1930s, applied to medical school but could not get in because at the time there were quotas meaning there was a topline number of jews to be accepted to any medical school class. and above that, they would not accept you. so he had to do something else. >> deborah's bar, another lady's voice during this time period and julie chisholm. why was she so influential? >> she was a woman in the political realm and used her voice. she probably separated herself from the more radical feminists. she was someone that worked inside the system. she was someone who really stood for women across the country. women of color in addition to white women. which was another whole part of
the movement which was lost in the early days. and she was a fighter. she was someone fighting from the inside. i think if you look across the whole panel of women you brought up, you see how you meet all the persona. you need this sort of wild ones writing for the magazine. you need the activist burning the bras. and you need sure elitism was inside the system and fought to get inside the system and is pushing through the muddy, murky and important work of getting laws changed. >> let me go back to the announcement for president in 1972. representative, a deborah credit -- democrat from new york. >> i am not a candidate of
black america although i am black and proud. i am not a candidate of the women's movement of this country. although i am a woman and i am equally proud of that. >> i am not the candidate of any special interest. i stand here now without endorsement from many big-name politicians or celebrities or any other kind of prop. i do not intend to offer to you the tired and clichis which have been an accepted part of our political life. i am the candidate of the people of america.
fellow americans, we have looked in vain to the nixon administration for the courage, the spirit, the character and the words, to bring out the best in us to restore faith in the american dream. yet all that we have received and return, just another political manipulation. deceit and deception, and deference to the individual problem. and divisive politics. pitting the young against the old. a labor against management. north against south. black against white. >> deborah spahr, when you hear that, is it really the intersection of the women's movement and the civil rights movement in this period? >> it is those things and
more. listening to her, you cannot help but be inspired. i think in many ways, she paved the way for obama, hillary clinton, elizabeth warren. she says it all. she says come i'm not the candidate for the people of color or the women's movement. i am a qualified candidate. so i think that she both encapsulates the civil rights movement and the women's movement. but ultimately, she goes for what i think is the most important which is recognizing people of merit and people of intellect. and she is all of those things. >> let's go to robert in brooklyn, new york. go ahead please. >> with rosa park, going to the back of the bus. second question i have,.
>> rosa parks. >> i see rosa parks as exclusively a figure of the civil rights movement. it happens to be the case that she was a brave woman. her point was not for women. it was for african-americans. and if she had been a white woman, she would have been allowed to sit in the front of the bus without any problems. i thought this was truly about civil rights for african- americans and not so much part of the women's movement. natalie portman has made clear, the reason she was not accepting the award was that she does not want to seem to endorse the prime minister who she does not support. not that she was lending any kind of support to opponents for israel's existence. >> just as a reminder, back in 1918 a century ago, one female member of the house of representatives was from
montana. in 1968, there was one in the senate. 11 female members in the house of representatives. today there are 23 in the u.s. senate. 83 in the house of representatives. deborah spahr, what do you think 2019 will look like? >> 2019 could be interesting. i don't have the numbers at my fingertips. i heard we have more women running for office now than ever before. i really hope -- we shouldn't elect someone simply because of their gender but i hope we will see a wave of really talented and deserving smart women rushed into office. we had the first baby on the floor of the senate this past week. tammy duckworth brought her infant with her. i think this is a beautiful watershed moment as well. i think we will hopefully get women and numbers and both the house and senate so we can start to see some shift in
policy. and i don't mean to imply that women will or should vote as women but there is pretty good data to suggest that women are less inclined to be partisan when they are in congress. but there is more of a willingness among women. and i think particularly right now, to work across the aisle and work for policies that matter and figure out ways to get things done without getting stuck on audiology on either side of the aisle. i hope that is true. we have to get above this 20% threshold. as long as women are stuck at 20%, they will always be a visible minority and treated as women rather than just representatives. the time has come now to move beyond those thresholds. >> the last caller from new britain, connecticut, go ahead please. >> hello. i am 92 years old. i am black. i have never been part of the
women's movement primarily because i think they feel black women. they failed all women because i don't know if anybody noticed but all the videos you have been showing for the past half hour, all the people black and white, women and men, are all white. i looked hard to see if there was one blackface there and i couldn't see one. it is not just blackness but being poor. it is the fact that women -- to do anything, she is not striving to be on the top of the ladder or go through glass ceiling or whatever they call it. no. they want to be able to do what they want to do and be free. all women want that. and the women's movement did not include them. >> deborah spahr, a response
and. >> i think you are right. i think that has been one of the most powerful criticisms against a second wave feminism. that it was white, wealthy and well-educated. it started to become more diverse towards the end of 1960 and into 1970. that is the time it started to splinter and lose power. we are very much in need and getting a third wave of feminism which is focused more on socioeconomic issues, issues of color and issues of gender. i would say to the caller that you are only 92 and don't give up hope. there is still time. >> my final question. i will begin with mona. the legacy 50 years later of the women's movement. >> very mixed. obviously some good things have happened. liberty. expanding opportunity for women has been terrific.
the damage though to family life and a sense of solidarity with men has been lost. we have had 50 years of basically sex wars in various forms that i think have led to the total of unhappiness in the world. and what i hope for from a new feminism going forward will be an acknowledgment of the real differences between men and women and a recognition that women cannot thrive at the expense of men and vice versa. that we thrive first and foremost as families. and third, that devoting ourselves to our children is one of the best things that human beings do. and we have to find better ways of prioritizing families and children together.
>> deborah spahr. 50 years later, the legacy. >> i believe now -- is too early to tell. i think we are in the early days. i tend to think of things in a broad swath of history. women lived in fairly -- very narrowly circumscribed roles. they tried to shape those in fundamental and radical ways. it would be somewhat naove to believe that you can completely change these deeply set conventions and only 50 years. i think we are still in the early era of this. i am much more optimistic than mona. i think we have come a long way in 50 years. women can do things, dream of things and have a voice that my mother and certainly my grandmother's generation could not have dreamed of. there is a lot of work left to
deal. we have to do a better job of thinking about the lives and the struggles of poor women, black women, immigrant women, refugee women and a whole range of other women. we also have to look at the men's piece of this. we have to figure out what roles for men look like in ways that don't put the same constraints on them that we had one time put on women. and finally, we have to do what i would refer to as the math. this goes back to the parenting. it takes more than one person to raise a child. the old way of social organization actually works. the men earn the money and the women took care of the children. it worked as a social structure. once we started to shift to the women's peace of this and get women things to do other than, or in addition to raising children, we have to shift the whole equation. we have to think of different ways of taking care of children and families without constraining either women or
men are without putting ill effects on children. we have not done that yet but i'm optimistic that we will. i think the movement has come a long way in 50 years and society, despite the bad things come has come a long way and 50 years and we have to keep pushing it forward. >> from our studio in new york, deborah spahr, the offer -- author of "the quest for perfection." we have mona chair and her new book "sex matters, how modern feminism lost touch with science, love and common sense." to both of you, thank you very much for a thoughtful and interesting conversation here on cspan and cspan three american history television. we appreciate it. >> next from our series 1968, america in turmoil, a look back at the media's role 50 years ago. americans were eyewitnesses to war in vietnam, astronauts orbiting the moon, chaos on city streets and assassinations
. television and news magazines captured america at its most volatile, vulnerable and vibrant, while shaping the stories they covered. early in 1968, cbs news man walter cronkite delivered his on-air assessment that the bloodied experience of vietnam is to end in a stalemate. our guests are former cbs and nbc journalist marvin kalb, the founding director of harvard university's sure and stand center on media, politics and public policy. and pulitzer prize winning photographer david kennerly who was a west coast based upi photographer in the late 1860s. -- late 1960s. he covered rf k's presidential campaign, the iraq war and the white house. here is cbs news coverage of the 1968 democratic national convention in chicago. >> chicago, illinois.