Assignment due tomorrow before 10:30 pm central time

The Dynamics of Second-Wave Feminist Activism in Memphis, 1971-1982: Rethinking the Liberal/Radical Divide Author(s): Stephanie Gilmore Source: NWSA Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 94-117 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4316946 . Accessed: 07/06/2011 20:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to NWSA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

The Dynamics of Second-Wave Feminist Activism in Memphis, 1971-1982: Rethinking the Liberal/Radical Divide

STEPHANIE GILMORE

This article presents a history of the Memphis chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) that challenges traditional analyses of second-wave feminist activism as either liberal or radical. Through examples of feminist activism on behalf of the Equal Rights Amend- ment, rape and wife-abuse awareness and prevention, and pornography, the author illustrates how one chapter of NOW, which is typically iden- tified as a liberal organization, was simultaneously liberal and radical. In addition, the author calls for more attention to location in order to understand second-wave feminists' tactics, styles, and structures as well as to make more prominent the nuances and complexities of a movement often obscured by the liberal/radical divide.

Keywords: feminism / feminist activism / Memphis, Tennessee / National Organization for Women

In 1975, feminists in the "rape capital of the nation," as Memphis was known locally, demanded public and political attention to the too-often private issue of rape by marching around the thirteen-block perimeter of Overton Park in midtown Memphis. According to organizer Gail Adkins, "the march was routed through Overton Square because of a recent gang rape in an adjacent parking lot and because one of the bars features top- less dancers," asserting the implicit (and radical feminist) connection between rape and the commodification of women ("NOW Members Protest Violence Against Women" 1975). Chanting "Stop Rape Now" and carrying placards bearing such slogans as "Rape Laws are Made for Rapists" and "Dismember Rapists," these feminists further heightened the city's awareness about rape and protested the notion that, according to participant Marion Keisker, "women are only as safe as civilized man allows."

Although the nuances of the story may be different, many feminists in the 1970s could recount similar tales of activism and public protest against rape and violence against women. Taking back the night remains today as a holdover of radical feminism in its heyday. But what is remark- able, and largely unaccounted for in scholarship on the women's move- ment, is that this group of activists came from the Memphis chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women), an organization that has come to symbolize liberal feminism in opposition to explicitly radical coun-

(?2003 NWSA JOURNAL, VOL. 15 No. 1 (SPRING)

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 95

terparts. In looking at Memphis NOW-a feminist organization that was simultaneously liberal and radical in a "sleepy little river town" (Buring 1997, 17)-I explore the dynamics of feminist activism at the local level and beyond the largest urban centers. Rather than argue against the dichotomy of liberal and radical feminism, I suggest that we turn our attention to the vast space between these concepts and explore how local- level concerns and opportunities shape feminist activism.

As they apply to the literature on feminism and the women's move- ment, liberal and radical mark distinctions primarily on the basis of orga- nizational structure and style and refer secondarily to ideology (Freeman 1975; Evans 1979; Echols 1989; Ryan 1989; Whittier 1995; Ferree and Hess 2000). On the one hand, liberal feminist organizations are typically iden- tified by their bureaucratic system of local, state, regional, and national chapters whereas radical groups tend to be recognized by their grassroots, nonhierarchical composition. Liberal organizations operate within the existing political system, often recognizing legislative change as most effective, and value the ability to sway political authorities to their point of view. On (what is considered to be) the other hand, radical groups often find formal political machinations too restrictive and not quick enough to respond to women's concerns. Thus, they pursue more public, "in-your- face" tactics to bring attention to their issues and undermine the system itself.

While all feminists arguably share women's liberation as their ideo- logical objective, methods and goals have separated them historically. By politicizing the personal, radical feminists brought rape and violence against women into public discourse. In order to make the public aware of women's bodies and crimes committed against them, radical femi- nists often took to the streets, performing zap actions, protests, marches, and demonstrations. Liberal feminists' concern with equity in pay and employment led them to strive for legislative measures. Unlike the issue of rape, pay equity did not generate similar public outcry; likewise, most liberal feminists would not have pursued this or similar measures through radical means (Carden 1974; Freeman 1975; Evans 1979; Hartmann 1980; Ryan 1989; Ferree and Hess 2000). These and other issues, then, have been seen as reflections of ideologies distinguish liberal feminists and radical feminists from one another.

Scholars have acknowledged that liberal feminists and radical femi- nists borrowed structures, styles, tactics, and ideologies from one another, but they have continued to talk about the two branches as distinct, and their studies neglect the impact that location has played in feminist orga- nizational structures, issues, and tactics.1 Sociologist Nancy Whittier, for example, identified local NOW chapters with their national affiliation and their emphases on the national political arena, and radical feminists with grassroots organizations in cities and towns (1995). Historian Alice Echols

96 STEPHANIE GILMORE

maintained that "liberal feminists remained determinedly individualis- tic and in this respect their feminism diverged from radical feminism" (1989, 199). Even when scholars have recognized that liberal and radical -feminists have merged in significant ways, they have tended to view the influence as unidirectional, with radical feminists influencing liberals but not the other way around.

Liberal and radical, then, were terms feminists used in the heyday of the movement, although NOW members at all levels did not typically identify themselves as liberal. But these concepts clearly have staying power. They have been reified through analyses of the women's movement at the national level (NOW, Women's Equity Action League, and Feminist Majority Foundation are typically defined as liberal organizations) or in large cities, mostly along the East Coast (the most recognized radical feminist groups sprang to life in New York, Boston, and Chicago). The distinctions between liberal and radical feminism are important, lived feminist activism happens somewhere between liberal and radical femi- nist ideology. If their strategies, tactics, goals, and methods are examined, most feminists could be defined as both liberal and radical. Focusing on such dynamic feminism addresses a set of nuanced analytical questions. How do feminists respond to particular local issues and opportunities? How is feminist activism shaped by regional difference?

Regional difference allows us to rethink conventional ways of under- standing social movements of the twentieth century. One way to recon- sider the past is through a concept historian Susan Freeman calls "the politics of location" (2000). Critical of lesbian and feminist movement scholarship for "elid[ing] geographical nuances, instead constructing an unlinear, national narrative about lesbian feminism," Freeman illustrates how geographical location affected the construction of a lesbian feminist community in Cincinnati, Ohio (140). Because regional affiliation influ- ences identity formation and experience, scholars have examined how the axis of regional identity has shaped people's lives and experiences differently. In particular, scholars have begun to explore how Southern- ness has shaped social movements and institutions such as slavery, civil rights, and gay and lesbian activism and identity (Genovese 1974; Fox- Genovese 1988; White 1999; Carson 1981; Sitkoff 1981; Marable 1984; Weisbrot 1990; Sears 1997; Buring 1997; Duggan 2000). As scholars part what historian Daneel Buring calls the "magnolia curtain," they reveal not only a distinct region of the United States but also a vital facet of identity that facilitates and explains historical change and unsettles tra- ditional historiography (1997).

Looking behind the magnolia curtain to examine the contemporary women's movement, it seems, might yield similar results. What social and political forces brought women together to create a feminist pres- ence? With what success? What issues were most important to Southern

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 97

women? Of course, there is no single answer to these questions because there is no monolithic South. However, my research on Memphis NOW indicates that location directly affected the ways in which women orga- nized and expressed themselves as feminists.

Forming a feminist organization in Memphis occurred in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, and sustaining it meant interacting with a less-than-sympathetic political and religious culture. One historian has observed that "Southerners continue to be profoundly conscious of their regional identity" (Grantham 1994, 330). Religious and political conser- vatism was central to this identity. Memphis's Protestant population, historically composed largely of Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians, provided and perpetuated a worldview and political agenda centered on "'traditional values,' in particular family and gender ethics" as well as race relations (Hill 1983, 1). This religious value system has been buttressed by the equally influential tradition of Southern politi- cal conservatism embodied in a distinctive longing for the past and the myth of the Old South. Permeating these religious and political ideologies are chivalrous notions of womanhood and the need to protect Southern women (Hall 1979; Blee 1991; MacLean 1994). This racial, and racist, concept of Southern womanhood exacerbated political disunity among white women and black women. It also explains, at least in part, how some issues, such as rape and domestic violence, were able to garner political support while seemingly more benign concerns of equal rights were hotly contested in Memphis.

Responding to their environment, Memphis NOW members embraced both liberal and radical feminist tactics, structures, and issues. They grappled with such national issues as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as well as community problems of domestic violence and rape. As a result of the myriad concerns addressed, Memphis 'NOW attracted women from all walks of social and economic life, from housewives to lawyers to tele- phone repairpersons. Indeed, their socioeconomic backgrounds informed the initial ways women felt about feminism and affected the ways they envisioned their relationship with NOW. While Memphis was home to a branch of the YWCA (Young Women's Christian Association), Planned Parenthood, and a chapter of Federally Employed Women (FEW) in 1970, Memphis NOW was the only explicitly feminist membership-based orga- nization in the city until the early 1980s.2 There is little doubt that the lack of viable feminist alternatives to NOW affected the ways that women shaped their chapter to fit their needs and definitions of feminism.

98 STEPHANIE GILMORE

Cultivating a Feminist Organization in Memphis

Understanding the genesis of Memphis NOW demands attention to the cultural milieu in which it emerged. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement permeated Memphis. Peaceful demonstrators desegregated lunch counters, bus stations, and public facilities. They also met resistance in the form of white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, and hate-filled individuals. However, throughout Memphis and the South, the movement allowed many people to follow the nonvio- lent, interracial cooperation that Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, and they worked across racial lines for transcendent goals of equality and jus- tice. By 1968, though, when King went to Memphis to negotiate with city leaders about the local sanitation workers' strike and the apparent racial issues that accompanied this crisis, Memphis was feeling the pressure of more militant groups vying for the recognition of "Black Power" (Beifuss 1990). King and local church officials organized a march not only to bring attention to the plight of the sanitation workers, but also to ameliorate tensions between adherents to passive resistance and the rising militant groups in Memphis.

When King was shot at the Lorraine Motel on 4 April 1968, most Afri- can Americans in Memphis felt that "the shooting . . . was a direct and open attack on the black community itself. He had come to help them and now he was dead" (Beifuss 1990, 401). In the aftermath of the assassina- tion, cities across the nation erupted into violence, and Memphis was no exception. Riots continued in defiance of the police-mandated curfews as many in the city mourned the loss of one of their own. By 7 April, though, Memphians were trying to repair their city and heal themselves by con- tinuing with the march King had planned. A group of people, both black and white, identifying themselves as Memphis Cares, staged gatherings across the city to "express the anguish . . . many Memphians were feel- ing" (434). However, African Americans were neither blind nor deaf to the sentiments many whites expressed, especially those that indicated that the real tragedy of the shooting was that it took place in their city and would cause their hometown to be "misjudged" (406).

In the context of a growing discourse about race, discrimination, and equality-and using both legislative means and street protests-Mem- phians began to form both civil rights and feminist organizations. In some instances, African Americans and white women worked together. For example, an interracial group of women formed the Panel of Ameri- can Women (PAW) in the aftermath of the shooting to talk freely about racial tensions in Memphis. PAW organized panels with representatives from the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faiths, with at least one African American woman among them. One organizer of the local PAW, Jocelyn

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 99

Wurzburg, was also a founding member of Memphis NOW, demonstrat- ing on a personal level the connection between civil rights and women's equality. Like others across the nation, women in Memphis responded to their tumultuous environment and formed a local chapter of NOW (Evans 1979, 2003; Giddings 1984; Echols 1989; Rosen 2000).

Although such white women as Wurzburg linked their feminist activism directly to the cause of African American civil rights, African American women in Memphis were not necessarily drawn to local feminist orga- nizations. Most focused their political activism on issues of race, and their activities on behalf of women were typically for African American women. Several scholars have highlighted the national tenor of racial divides among feminists (Giddings 1984; Hartmann 1998; Thompson 2002; Springer forthcoming), but it also resonated locally in Memphis and its NOW chapter. In Memphis and across the South, feminist activism was caught in the local political "protection" of Southern womanhood, which was a racialized code for ensuring social and cultural distance between white people and African American people-and demonstrating how the "metalanguage of race" operates (Higginbotham 1992; see also, Hall 1979). Early in the chapter's history, NOW had difficulties attract- ing African American women because of their overt suspicions of white women. Ruth Spearman, an African American housewife in Memphis, commented that even if the women's movement succeeded in gaining equal treatment for men and women, "I really don't think black women will ever be treated the same as white women are treated" (Gilliam 1971), echoing Toni Morrison's 1970 comment that African American women "look at White women and see the enemy for they know that racism is not confined to white men" (Giddings 1984, 307). Local African American columnist Art Gilliam suggested that, in comparison to being black, the exclusions women face are minor (1971).

Rather than glom onto a feminist agenda that white women in NOW set, African American women created and sustained their own organiza- tions and workshops. For example, Dot Smith and Helen Duncan, direc- tors of the Southwest Mental Health Center, offered a six-week workshop on "Problems of Being Black and Female" in 1978. Both for and by African American women, this workshop addressed African American women's history, family issues, and images of beauty. One group, United Sisters and Associates (USA), formed with the intent of addressing black womanhood in Memphis and nationwide. In attempting to define and legitimate the concept of the African American woman, establish unity among African American women, resist the exploitation that they suffered, and provide an arena for their emotional and spiritual development, USA directed its energies toward black femininity and beauty. To this end, it worked with Essence magazine to develop the Miss Essence of Tennessee beauty pag- eant, bringing "national attention to black women, to the city of Memphis

100 STEPHANIE GILMORE

and by example present an image of black womanhood in a manner that renders more respect and appreciation" (USA 1972). Indeed, NOW both locally and nationally could not reconcile its feminist critique of beauty standards for women with such an approach; USA and the NOW chapter could not see eye-to-eye on this issue.

Perhaps more to the point, though, was the fact that some African American women felt that they had little to learn from white feminist consciousness-raising. Although Memphis NOW's minority women's task force leader Merle Smith applauded NOW for its actions on behalf of feminism and women's equality and stayed with the organization "to keep black women visible in the movement," she also understood how many women of color would not be attracted to the chapter. She stated, "you see, we come from a strong matriarchal society and were raised to be feminists, something white women found out about later" ("Old Doubts Deter Feminists" 1973). The Civil Rights Movement clearly affected both white and African American women, but they tended to organize sepa- rately and concentrate on different issues. It is quite likely that women forged alliances across racial lines within feminist organizations when local issues demanded them (Hartmann 1998; Naples 1998). Any alli- ances, however, were plagued with the reality that race had everything to do with capturing the ear of local political leaders. The mostly white membership of Memphis NOW would always have more political voice than black women in Memphis. The dialogue between white and African American women in Memphis, which both mirrors and complicates the national picture other scholars have painted, only reinforces the point that there is no singular narrative of feminist activism.

Toeing the National NOW Line: The ERA

The best example of Memphis NOW mirroring the national organization was through its efforts on behalf of the Equal Rights Amendment. This amendment, seeking "equality of rights under the law" for all regardless of sex, represented liberal feminism most directly because it advocated women's equality without directly challenging cultural and social gender roles. In pursuit of the amendment, Memphis NOW utilized the federated structure of the national organization, and its actions on behalf of the ERA reflected liberal feminist tactics. NOW also grappled with supporting this amendment in opposition to anti-ERA women who, acting on behalf of Southern womanhood and traditional Southern identity, insisted that the ERA disrupted traditional gender roles.

In April 1972, Tennessee helped to set the tone of apparent support for the ERA across the nation by becoming one of the first states to ratify the amendment. In fact, within two weeks of congressional passage, the

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 101

Tennessee House gave the ERA a unanimous vote, and an overwhelm- ing majority in the Senate offered their support (Tennessee House 1972; Tennessee Senate 1972). Like other chapters across the nation, Memphis NOW expressed satisfaction with its apparent success. The chapter sat back and, as a result, watched its success unravel.

In Tennessee and other states around the nation, Phyllis Schlafly's STOPERA campaigns emerged with the goal of blocking the ERA and its perceived violation of the rights of women across the nation (Schlafly 1977; Berry 1986; Mansbridge 1986; Mathews and DeHart 1990). Former Miss America Barbara Walker Hummel led local opposition to the ERA through Memphis-based AWARE (American Women Are Richly Endowed). AWARE women defined themselves as housewives and moth- ers who supported the notion that men and women were essentially dif- ferent and who believed that the "equality" granted in the ERA would jeopardize the privilege and protection that women, in their opinion, currently enjoyed. As political activists, AWARE members presented an anti-ERA skit on the floor of the Tennessee House of Representatives. Upon its completion, Representative W.K. "Tag" Weldon, a Republican from Memphis, asked the General Assembly to rescind the amendment's ratification. The debate over whether or not the state could revoke its sup- port of the amendment raged for two years.

Memphis NOW's response to the rescission measure reveals national NOW's early sentiment toward efforts to rescind and the seemingly laugh- able notion that the ERA would not succeed. Members of Memphis NOW waged a letter writing campaign to their state representatives in support of the ERA and remained sufficiently concerned to orchestrate a blood drive to raise money for the NOW Emergency Fund for the ERA (Willis 1973; "NOW Women Sell Blood to Finance Campaign" 1973). When individual representatives debated the rescission measure in their home communities, Memphis NOW participated in these town meetings, but their contributions did little more than replicate national NOW's attitude that the ERA was a foregone conclusion. In one public forum, for example, NOW women merely carried signs stating "Case by Case Is too slow" and " 1776 Was for Women Too" to articulate their support for the amendment ("Women's Rights' Supporters Take Floor" 1974). Memphis NOW wrote letters, organized petition drives, and lobbied-time-honored (and histori- cally identified liberal feminist) strategies-to keep the ERA alive in the Volunteer state (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982).

In contrast, anti-ERA activists used dramatic tactics to make their points. AWARE presented another skit on 4 December 1973 at the General Assembly of the Shelby County Delegation, a town meeting held periodi- cally for legislators to canvass their constituents' sentiments. Designed to demonstrate yet again their opposition to the ERA, AWARE presented, among other things, a full rendition of "I Enjoy Being a Girl," complete

102 STEPHANIE GILMORE

with piano accompaniment, reinforcing their idea of womanhood through such lyrics as,

I'm strictly a female female And I hope that my future will be In the arms of a brave and free male Who enjoys being a guy having a girl like me.

Through this performance, AWARE reinforced the idea that "equal rights" meant that women had to give up being traditional "girls" (Mem- phis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [January 1974]). At this meeting, NOW representatives Carole Hensen, Linda Ethridge, and Lou Farr had "no designs of speaking on the 'dead issue,"' but offered their arguments in response to the demonstration. The attending members were concerned by the anti-ERA advocates' "apparent success" at the meeting but only encouraged their sisters to write "at least one more letter" in support of their amendment. Rather than respond in kind with pro-ERA demon- strations and a visible presence, Memphis NOW members continued to confine themselves to letter writing.

Following the national group's lead, Memphis NOW also pursued the goal of the amendment to the exclusion of other laws. As a result, AWARE women seemed more willing to work with politicians for piecemeal legisla- tion designed to alleviate specific problems that women faced. For example, Hummel reported that her organization supported two national bills spon- sored by Senator Bill Brock (R-TN) that would make it easier for women to obtain credit in their own names. By pursuing the ERA as the only accept- able measure, Memphis NOW seemed rigid, unwilling to endorse this or any other legislation that sidestepped the larger amendment.

In the state legislature, debate over the rescission effort-which was ultimately a debate over womanhood-culminated in Senate Joint Resolu- tion 29 rescinding Tennessee's support of the ERA, finally passed in Febru- ary 1974 (Tennessee Senate 1974). When the measure came to the House of Representatives, legislators debated the issues of the ERA from restrooms to religion in front of "500 sign-waving and baby-toting women" divided on the measure ("Legislators Vote to Rescind ERA Ratification" 1974). At the end of the deliberation, the house rescinded its ratification by a vote of 56 to 33. That the state attorney general's office ruled that the resolu- tion was unconstitutional became a sidebar to this story in Memphis and nationally. At bottom, Memphis NOW could not compete with the idea of protected traditional womanhood couched in Southern fears of federal encroachment on states' rights, and they did not work very hard to do so.

After this setback, Memphis NOW abandoned the ERA until 1977, when Congress extended the amendment's ratification deadline. At this time, national NOW concluded that the ERA could not be ratified by its 22 March 1979 deadline, and support from all levels of the organiza-

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 103

tion emerged to fight for an extension. In July 1978, 100,000 activists marched on Washington to illustrate continued and renewed support for the ERA. Memphis NOW sent ten members to the march and engaged in yet another letter-writing campaign to their legislators urging their sup- port for House Joint Resolution 638, the measure that would extend the life of the ERA campaign. Their efforts were again countered by anti-ERA forces, many of whom drove from Memphis to Washington to meet with their representatives directly and give them homemade bread, a symbol of woman's appropriate place in the home ("Loaf of Bread, Talk with Sena- tors Aim at Keeping Women in 'Place"' 1978). Pro-ERA forces were able to win what would become a moot victory, though, with the extended date of ratification set at 30 July 1982.

When Eleanor Smeal, president of NOW, rallied the troops with the call that "women should be outraged that there must be a vote to determine whether there will be equality for women," Memphis NOW responded (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [August 1981]). They raised money-specifically, the newly minted Susan B. Anthony dollars-for the ERA through parties and flea markets and pushed for ratification in neighboring Arkansas and Mississippi. Chapter president Betty Sullivan encouraged Memphis NOW members to join the national ERA Message Brigade, a nationwide computer bank service that notified members when a state legislature was scheduled to vote on the ERA. The brigade rein- forced the political tactic of letter writing, something Memphis NOW had practiced since the beginning of this debate.

Memphis NOW also took the message of the ERA to the local airwaves. For example, on 30 June 1981, the day signifying one more year to ratify the ERA, Memphis NOW broadcast a series of public service announce- ments on the necessity of the amendment and held a press conference on the importance of the ERA for women nationwide. In addition, members gave the ERA increasing attention on their radio and public access cable television shows, "Women NOW." Former member Lynda Dolbi recalled one experience on the talk radio show. After speaking for a short time, she fielded questions from the radio audience. One man called into the show, voicing his opinion that supporters of the ERA amounted to "a bunch of lesbians who wanted to go to the bathroom with men." According to Dolbi, this call was the one she was waiting for: "I said, 'you know, what strikes me as odd is that you would even say that. Think about it. Why would a lesbian want to go to the bathroom with a man? Don't you think lesbians would want to go to a women's room?"' Answering this man's challenge was "one of life's high points" for Dolbi (1996).

In many instances, though, high points would be the exception to the rule. As time wore on, women were spurred to increased activity as it became more and more apparent that the ERA was losing ground. In a desire to see the ERA become the law of the land, the Memphis affiliate

104 STEPHANIE GILMORE

sent delegates when NOW hosted demonstrations in Illinois and Florida, states with the greatest possibility of ratifying the amendment. In Chi- cago, "a busload of Memphis women [promised to] bury the image of the helpless, stay-in-your-own-backyard Southern belle." Carrying a banner proclaiming "The South Will Rise and Ratify," thirty-seven women from Memphis NOW joined a sea of thousands of ERA supporters in a lakefront march urging Illinois legislators to ratify the amendment ("Memphians Go to Illinois to Urge ERA Ratification" 1980). Two years later, members of Memphis NOW geared up for the final ERA battle in Tallahassee, Flor- ida. Forty-one members made the overnight trip to the Florida capital for the rally. One member recalled the high emotions and desperate zeal of the participants:

Memphis NOW was one of the last groups to move out marching the "last mile" to the Capitol so we were able to count and feel the fervor and grassroots power behind equality for women. Marching ten abreast, each unit with its gold, purple, and white banner in the lead, the chanting line stretched down the valley and up the hill to the Florida Capitol a mile away. No media report or picture yet has captured the intensity of those women, men, and children. (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [February 1982])

At the height of passion for the ERA, Memphis NOW carried its struggle to the bitter end, but no amount of commitment could save the amend- ment. Just months before the deadline, Florida, like Illinois, failed to ratify the ERA. Despite the letter writing and late public demonstrations of NOW women at every level, the ERA died on 30 June 1982.

Although their anecdotes provide nuances to the national story of the ERA, these recollections replicate those reported in the literature in many ways. These subtleties illustrate how the Memphis chapter fol- lowed national NOW, utilizing the federated structure of the organiza- tion to the best of its abilities. However, the story of Memphis NOW also demonstrates how the trope of Southern womanhood shaped the debates about the ERA (Mathews and DeHart 1990). Because AWARE women framed the debate, NOW women in Memphis not only had to defend the amendment but also had to deny categorically associations with their Southern heritage. When Memphis NOW invoked the myth of Southern womanhood, it was to "bury" its image in favor of a Southern woman who supported equal rights. Yet many politicians and citizens in Memphis were uncomfortable with the idea of relinquishing the Southern woman- hood that had "protected" them. Though race was a silent factor in public discourse on the ERA in Memphis, it clearly defined the debate and resur- rected familiar concerns about equality of all women and all people. As a result, Southern identity not only intersected with the struggle over the ERA, but it also provided a framework for this debate.

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 105

Acting Like a Radical Feminist Collective: Rape and Wife Abuse

Unlike the ERA, rape and wife abuse entered public discourse as a result of feminists' insistence that "the personal is political," and most scholars write about the origins of rape crisis and wife abuse centers as the projects of radical feminists (Echols 1989; Whittier 1995). However, in Memphis, the NOW chapter made the personal political by initiating public debate on rape and wife abuse and generating facilities through the assistance of an umbrella structure of women's organizations, the Women's Resource Center (WRC).

Founded in 1974 by Memphis NOW, the local YWCA, and city chap- ters of Planned Parenthood, Girls Club, Church Women United, Federally Employed Women, and the League of Women Voters, the WRC dedicated itself to "serv[ing] the varied needs of women in the Greater Memphis Metropolitan area not currently met by existing social service agencies and/or local, State, and Federal Government programs" (The Wheel 1974- 1982 [March 1974]). Over its eight-year existence, basic funding came from its membership organizations, but other sources of revenue included federal Comprehensive Education and Training Administration (CETA) program funds and a grant from the United Methodist Church. Through- out its tenure in the Bluff City, WRC offered a laundry list of community services, including assertiveness training, financial educational programs, and other seminars "contributing to a new perspective for women of our area" as well as support groups for women experiencing the emotional trauma of divorce ("Women's Resource Center of Memphis" 1977). It also provided a speaker's bureau, a job bank and training program for women seeking employment outside the home, legal counsel, a library of books on women's history and feminist issues, and programs "designed to focus attention on the changing needs and interests of women as they become more visible and vocal" (The Wheel 1974-1982 [October 1982]). Because the WRC was working within the necessary political channels to secure funds for facilities for raped and abused women, NOW women could adopt a more radical approach and actually utilize both liberal feminist and radical feminist tactics. Although members never explicated it in femi- nist statements, literature, or other extant sources, they were also able to manipulate the well-documented and racialized notions of womanhood and protection of women's bodies.

Rape became a central national issue as well as a local one by the early 1970s. In Washington, DC, NOW announced its commitment to confront- ing rape as a violation of women's physical bodies as well as a social ill that needed to be alleviated. But in Memphis, the issue of rape took on a personal tone as women confronted their city's reputation as "the rape capital of the nation": in 1973 alone, 534 rapes were reported with victims

106 STEPHANIE GILMORE

ranging in age from eighteen months to 84 years. Since contemporary FBI statistics relied upon self-reporting and asserted that only ten percent of rapes were actually reported, the numbers were likely closer to 5000 ("The Comprehensive Rape Crisis Program" n.d.).

Frustrated, angry, and determined to confront women's sense of help- lessness in the face of such a crime, Memphis NOW sought to address women's concerns about rape. Rather than limit their efforts to letter writ- ing, they worked with the police department and WRC to initiate a Com- prehensive Rape Crisis Program in the city. In concert with local feminist attention to rape as a public issue, the Memphis Police Department cre- ated a Sex Crimes Squad. They hired more women to work as counselors, extended their hours into the nighttime, and began using unmarked cars to go to victims' homes in an attempt to protect privacy and anonymity. Hospitals also worked with the police by providing speedier care for rape victims, examining women in private hospital rooms instead of more public emergency rooms, and processing and upgrading physical tests to obtain evidence for the prosecution of criminals (Memphis NOW News- letters 1971-1982 [1974]). At the same time, Memphis NOW established the city's first rape crisis hotline, staffed with volunteers and managed by the WRC. NOW member Pam Hazen coordinated "People Against Rape" to solicit the larger community's aid in exploding myths about rape and pursuing legislation. In her speeches, Hazen decried Memphis's "badge of infamy" and chastised judges and prosecutors for "totally and unethically ignor[ing] the victim," contending that women were doubly victimized by the perpetrator and the justice system (Adams 1975).

By the end of 1974, the crisis seemed to be escalating: Memphis women reported 607 rapes and attempted rapes. What was most shocking though, was that only fourteen percent of the crimes ended in an indictment, and only nineteen percent of those resulted in a conviction. Not content simply to work within local institutions, NOW women raised the stakes by taking their cause of protection and safety for women to the streets. Commemorating the fifty-fifth anniversary of women's suffrage, approxi- mately thirty-five NOW members protested rape in their city with a "Take Back the Night" type of demonstration. This action, highlighted at the beginning of this article, exemplified their commitment to radical feminist tactics and the philosophy that linked rape to the commodifica- tion of women.

Their radical efforts raised political awareness about rape and propelled the Memphis Police Department to form a Comprehensive Rape Crisis Program to complement the Sex Crimes Squad. Perhaps in recognition of Memphis NOW's efforts in bringing rape to the foreground of social consciousness, Mayor Wyeth Chandler appointed chapter president Julia Howell to serve as the director of the city's first Rape Crisis Program. Under Howell's direction, the program shifted from a CETA-funded opera-

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 107

tion to a component of the city government on 1 July 1978, insuring the longevity of public support for the program. Because the chapter both used radical tactics and took advantage of institutional structures in place, what began as Memphis NOW's grassroots response to a local problem had become "an integral part of the city government" in the space of five years (The Wheel 1974-1982 [1978]).

Since violence against women was not limited to rape and sexual assault, Memphis NOW also addressed the problem of wife abuse.3 While the national organization acknowledged wife abuse as a violent act against women, the impetus for the formation of the local task force did not come from a national directive. Rather, chapter member Angie Russo initiated the effort. In August 1975, she relayed to her fellow chapter members a story of a friend who told her about the latest in what had become a series of fights she had with her husband that, in this instance, resulted in a broken arm, concussion, and black eyes. Devastated and angry that this woman felt she had to stay with her husband out of fear because she had nowhere to go, Russo convinced the chapter to take action against wife abuse and established a public forum to confront the concerns of local women involved in abusive relationships with husbands and boyfriends (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [1975]1.

Through the new task force, Russo generated a series of lectures and panels to raise community awareness about wife abuse. Disgusted by the fact that local law enforcement coded wife abuse as regular assault rather than a separate crime, Memphis NOW recognized that women could not turn to the police for help. Operating outside this restrictive situation, the chapter opened the city's first wife abuse hot line in September 1976. The chapter financed the line and volunteers staffed it for three hours daily (Conley 1976). In addition, members from Memphis NOW and WRC- sponsored support groups converged to provide immediate counseling and helped abused women find therapy and temporary shelters (Davis 1976).

As part of their September meeting, Memphis NOW held an open panel discussion for the larger community entitled "Wife Beating: The Crime That Goes Unpunished." Member Edie Sewell told the story of Marie G. Hamlin, shot to death by her husband after years of abuse. Police knew that Millard Hamlin made threats against his wife twice before that month, but they failed to follow up. Sewell then cited FBI statistics to illuminate the seriousness of the crime: in 1974 alone, 1285 wives were murdered by their husbands. Other abuse victims on the panel admitted to losing confidence in themselves, feeling "emotionally shattered" to the point that "the damage that was done . . . is irreparable" (Conley 1976). Before long, like radical feminists in other cities, the chapter decided that a hot line was not enough and set out to design a shelter for abused and battered wives that would give women relief from dangerous situations and safeguard women during the long legal process.

108 STEPHANIE GILMORE

Under the auspices of the WRC, Memphis NOW organized a Wife Abuse Crisis Service in June 1977. Under Russo's direction, the service opened a temporary shelter in August 1979, the first step en route to a more permanent facility (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [1979]). The shelter offered women safety as well as a separate space to think and discuss options. Moreover, the shelter gave women a community of sup- port and care, things evidently missing from their home life. After 1982, the YWCA adopted the Wife Abuse Crisis Center and funded additional and more permanent shelter space. To celebrate the opening of this new and more secure shelter that was seven years in the making, Memphis NOW hosted "An Evening of Feminist Theater" by bringing the Rhode Island Feminist Theater (RIFT) to town. RIFT presented "Internal Injury," an original play about an abused wife. By embracing feminist theatre, an outgrowth of cultural and radical feminism, Memphis NOW demon- strated that they were not an exclusively liberal organization.

Memphis feminists recognized that abused women often lacked finan- cial resources to enable them to leave, so NOW and WRC established the "Women's Crisis Loan Service of Shelby County" in June 1978. The loan program began with a $2000 contribution from WRC-affiliated organi- zations, but through donations, it gradually accrued funds to empower eligible women to leave abusive situations and start a new life. So great was the need that the fund quickly suffered serious depletions (The Wheel 1974-1982 [19781). Memphis NOW raised another $2000 at a fundraiser for the loan service, but funds still fell short (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [November 1978]). It is ironic that so many women utilized this service that the WRC was forced to shut down the loan auxiliary the next year. Still, the program illustrates the understanding that abuse was exacerbated by women's disadvantaged economic situation (The Wheel 1974-1982 [February 1979]).

This service demonstrated how NOW and the umbrella group in Mem- phis generated alternative institutions at the grassroots level to alleviate women's suffering. Though they could not sustain the loan service, the chapter continued its educational activities, joining with other women's groups to extend awareness of domestic violence to the greater com- munity. In November 1978, NOW along with several other local orga- nizations such as the Democratic Women of Shelby County, WRC, and the National Conference of Christians and Jews, hosted a workshop on "The Problem of Wife Abuse." This two-and-one-half hour assembly illustrated that spouse abuse was not just a domestic problem but rather one of the family and the community. It also spotlighted the shelter for battered women, soliciting financial support and underscoring its impor- tance for Memphis. NOW members also worked to change the current legal system that favored the abuser by placing the entire burden of physi- cal proof on the often reluctant victim without attention to the husband's prior arrest record, previous calls to the police for other instances of wife

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 109

abuse, or the woman's testimony (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [November 1978]).

At a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee of the Tennessee legislature, Memphis Legal Services attorneys and chapter members Sherry Myers and Bonnie Ragland discussed the dismal situation of legal recourse for abused women. Family violence in the state was considered a misdemeanor; accordingly, police were unable to make an arrest until the victim produced a sworn warrant for the arrest of the abuser. By defining abuse in these narrow terms, most victims were unable to process imme- diate complaints because the department would only issue warrants on weekdays from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Given that the majority of domestic violence episodes occurred at night or on weekends, most women were forced to wait hours or days to seek any legal recourse, leaving plenty of time for their husbands to apologize or to continue to beat them. Fur- thermore, police still often refused to intervene because they regarded domestic violence as a "family matter." Myers and Ragland insisted that male judges and police officers often minimized wife abuse and humili- ated victims through mockery or scorn after they testified. The Tennessee legislature passed a bill in January 1979 that would alleviate this situation by allowing an arrest without a warrant and by not requiring women to file a formal petition. Nine months after the law went into effect, Myers and Ragland urged the legislature to encourage enforcement of the new laws (Memphis NOW Newsletters 1971-1982 [September 1979]).

Memphis NOW's efforts to combat rape and wife abuse evince its com- mitment to employ whatever tactics were necessary to effect change. The same was true in the struggle against pornography. When the most egre- gious example of the genre, Snuff, premiered in Memphis in 1977, lurid advertisements boasted that it was "the bloodiest thing that ever happened in front of a camera!! The film that could only be made in South Amer- ica-where life is CHEAP!" (Findlay and Findlay 1971/1976). The finale of this film was a woman's murder. Members of Memphis NOW attended the movie on its opening night. The next day, several members walked through the rain in front of Towne Cinema, the film's host, with picket signs, protesting "violence against women [and] a film that advocates kill- ing women for entertainment" (Fox 1977). The chapter picketed the theater and circulated a flyer calling for an end to sexual violence in the media:

Violence for sexual pleasure is portrayed in crime and magazines, TV, police shows, [and] slick publications such as Playboy and Penthouse. "Snuff" films are the missing link between media violence against women and actual vio- lence that women experience daily. ("Enough SNUFF" n.d.)

NOW members also expressed outrage at the racist attitudes of "a society which says the lives of nonwhite people, particularly women, are less valuable and more available for exploitation than European and American women."

110 STEPHANIE GILMORE

The ensuing controversy over pornography and the degradation of women prodded Towne Cinema owner George Miller to defend the movie as being "no worse than Texas Chainsaw Massacre or a lot of other violent films." What seemed to anger him the most was white women demon- strating at his theater, which historically catered to an African American audience: "People see these white women in front of my theater and they just know they don't want to be in the middle of it. I have been harassed from the beginning and now I got white folks picketing me" (Fox 1977). Chapter president Jackie Cash denied that the picketing was racially motivated against him in particular, insisting that the inherent and vio- lent racism and sexism of the movie he chose to show demanded their actions. Although no member ever explicitly stated so, it is likely that the ability to take advantage of racist notions of protections of Southern (white) womanhood figured into their tactics and the ensuing fear that the movie theatre owner faced if he "threatened" white women. Memphis NOW was the only organization that protested this movie; any objection among African American women was not recorded in any of the local newspapers. The chapter's efforts were successful: within days, Towne Cinema pulled the film (Fox 1977).

As the actions to stop violence against women reveal, Memphis NOW was not simply toeing the national NOW feminist line or utilizing liberal feminist tactics. Instead, members responded to local situations through whatever means they deemed necessary. Memphis NOW took the lead in bringing rape and wife abuse to the social and cultural forefront because these were issues most pressing to Memphis women. They merged zap actions, such as the protest in response to Snuff, with institutionalization and working within the system to create a Comprehensive Rape Crisis Program, highlighting the dynamics of feminism that attention to loca- tion reveals.

Radical and Liberal Feminism

Given that it embraced multiple organizational structures, tactics, and issues, Memphis NOW cannot be described simply as a liberal feminist organization. Women in Memphis NOW were simultaneously liberal and radical. When they worked toward goals defined by the national organi- zation, most specifically the ERA, they operated within formal political channels and adopted more sedate activist tactics. As Memphis NOW confronted violence against women's bodies, however, this same group of women employed radical tactics and rhetoric and embodied radical feminist ideology. Yet as they marched in the streets and politicized the personal, they also worked within "the system" to institutionalize local centers to assist physically violated women. In the face of Southern

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 111

politics, radical feminist tactics combined with liberal ones worked most effectively. When, in 1975, NOW chose as its conference theme "Out of the Mainstream, Into the Revolution," they combined and complicated feminist rhetoric and activism, focusing on a range of issues from pay equity to rape and wife abuse. What are purported then to be clear divi- sions between radical and liberal feminism are actually less distinct, suggesting that we must look beyond the constructs of radical and liberal feminist ideology in order to understand feminist activism. Attention to location, perhaps, reveals that nowhere is this dichotomy rigid. Instead, we should look to the dynamics of feminist activism and the context in which it emerges.

Situations unique to or important to women in Memphis may not have been deemed as critical to NOW women in other areas, or vice versa. For example, NOW women in Washington, DC focused their attention on national policy, which is understandable given their location since the mid-1970s in the nation's capitol. Their feminist counterparts in Chicago built upon what they called their "Midwestern practicality" by focusing on such bread and butter issues as daycare, urging local NOW members to work on behalf of all parents and children. To this end, they conducted door-to-door surveys of homes in two wards to assess the community's needs for child care (Chicago NOW Newsletters [Decem- ber 1970, September 1971]). NOW members in San Francisco and New York chapters developed coalitions with other feminist organizations to develop cooperative childcare programs; promote women's caucuses in unions, professions, and political parties; and combat insulting images of women in the media (Carden 1974; San Francisco NOW Newsletters [September 1969]). Boston NOW members acted locally through a task force on women in higher education, increasing awareness of gender dis- crimination at area universities and colleges. They were also instrumental in initiating the Institute of Women's Studies at the seven seminaries of the Boston Theological Institute (Boston NOW Newsletters [April 1970]). While the national organization was concerned with daycare and coalition politics, chapter members demanded attention to other issues. Moreover, members in local chapters pursued such issues as women's studies pro- grams at local seminaries because they mattered to women in the area. Their feminist expressions, like those of Memphis NOW, are situational and do not simply conform to a traditional model of feminist activism. Turning attention to feminist activism that operates between liberal and radical provides a more dynamic way of conceptualizing feminist protest to reveal a more complex women's movement.

While much more work is left to be done on local-level feminist orga- nizations and expressions, I seek to draw some general conclusions here. First, the story of Memphis NOW suggests that local feminist groups, whether affiliated with national organizations or not, may not be either

112 STEPHANIE GILMORE

liberal or radical, but are more likely both. Moreover, the issues, goals, and strategies used to garner political attention and change may determine how to locate the group as either radical or liberal. National NOW may fit more neatly into the liberal side of the framework, especially in compari- son to radical women's groups of the past. However, local NOW chapters, such as the one in Memphis, reveal how this dichotomous model is not complex enough to capture fully the reality of the women's movement for many of its participants.

Secondly, and related, analyzing the importance of situational poli- tics and feminists' responses allows for a more accurate understanding of feminist expression. What issues compel a group of women to act? How do they interact with and affect the existing cultural and political milieu? While a single narrative will not answer these questions with completeness and certainty, they deserve to be asked. In the case of Mem- phis NOW, the Civil Rights Movement in their town gave women the impetus to organize, and they responded to the violence in their city. But local political and social conditions offered primary issues for Memphis NOW to contend with and resolve. Rape and domestic violence were not contested in part because these concerns allowed Southern politicians to continue the model of "protection" that "rescued" and "saved" South- ern white women while simultaneously addressing and taking seriously feminist issues. Though such racist ideologies were not discussed in the public discourse, it is certainly presumable that Memphis feminists were able to make such quick and impressive gains because the trope of Southern womanhood-with all of its racist baggage-so thoroughly permeated Memphis politics. So when Marion Keisker commented that "women are only as safe as civilized man allows," she was able to fall back-however silently-on racist notions of "civilized man" as well as the seeming need for women to be protected ("NOW Members Protest Violence Against Women" 1975). If this is the case, then it also explains why policy makers, for example, did not openly embrace equal pay as a feminist issue in the march toward equality. Equal pay would, no doubt, threaten the social order of family and gender roles, especially the notion of husband as breadwinner. Equal pay, as a plank of the ERA, then, ulti- mately buckled under the pressures of those who openly embraced notions of Southern womanhood. When it came to equal rights, womanhood was hotly debated because it was seemingly threatened.

Uncovering such dynamics, then, begs the question of whether femi- nist activism in the South is exceptional. Southern political and cultural dynamics certainly affected the ways in which feminists grappled with issues, and this case hints at Southern exceptionalism. We will be able to make more certain claims of such exceptionalism when we have more studies of feminist activism in Southern cities. Memphis NOW mem- bers chose to work within the system while also working outside of it by

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 113

taking matters into their own hands. To meet these challenges, Mem- phis NOW responded to the political and cultural environment of their Southern city while affecting the local political structure, community, and lives of women they touched. Their actions shaped and reshaped their environments in meaningful ways, but issues of race, in particular the racialized trope of womanhood, would be impossible to overturn. Mem- phis feminists in NOW, however unwittingly, manipulated the notion of protection to their advantage while attacking Southern womanhood openly in contests over equal rights. Location clearly matters when we talk about feminist activism because we have to understand women's day-to-day contexts in order to make sense of how and why women acted and responded in the ways they did to feminist challenges.

Perhaps most important, Memphis NOW demonstrates that it may be more appropriate to think about feminist activism-then and now-in terms of dynamism rather than static labels. While the terms liberal and radical are clearly important to feminists and scholars, they are not mutually exclusive in terms of feminist activism. Feminists have been, and continue to be, simultaneously liberal and radical. What seems necessary is more research on the dynamic activist tactics, styles, and organizational structures that feminists employ in many different places across the country.

My thanks to Janann Sherman, Leila J. Rupp, Verta Taylor, Susan M. Hartmann, Heather Lee Miller, Susan Kathleen Freeman, Eileen Boris, Anne Collinson, and Elizabeth Kaminski for reading many drafts of this article and offering insights about the many ways to understand feminist activism.

Stephanie Gilmore is a Ph.D. candidate in Women's History at Ohio State University. She is currently working on her dissertation entitled, "Rethinking the Liberal/Radical Divide: The National Organization for Women in Columbus, Memphis, and San Francisco." Correspondence may be sent to Gilmore at Department of History, Ohio State University, 230 W. 17th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; gilmore. [email protected].

Notes

1. Jo Freeman acknowledged that "structure and style of action rather than ideology . . . more accurately differentiates the various [radical and liberal feminist] groups," and recognized that "even here there has been much bor- rowing on both sides" (1975, 481). Other scholars also point out that such "borrowing" has taken place, though they are reluctant to provide concrete examples. For example, Ferree and Hess have indicated that "the most marked change [among feminist activists and organizations in the decade between

114 STEPHANIE GILMORE

1973 and 1982] was a muting of the distinctions between the collectivist and bureaucratic strands as they became interwoven into the different strategic forms of associations" (2000, 125). Evans acknowledged how "the radical ideas and cooperative forms of the women's movement were reshaping the more conservative, tightly structured 'women's rights' branch of the movement" (1979, 215). She further described the impact of radical women on liberal ones, noting how, by the early to mid-1970s, national NOW "strengthened its posi- tions on issues like abortion and lesbianism and had considerably changed its style. In several cities NOW became the chief instigator of the new conscious- ness-raising groups" (215). Whittier also noted that the boundaries between liberal and radical groups became blurry as activists and organizations coop- erated across their structural and stylistic differences, but maintained that the distinction between radical and liberal feminists was meaningful to the participants (Whittier 1995, 4-5). Echols dated the merger of radical and liberal feminism to around 1973, when "many liberal feminists came to agree with radical feminists that there was a political dimension to personal life," and she noted specifically how "NOW chapters began to establish consciousness- raising groups for interested women" (1989, 199).

2. Though YWCA, Planned Parenthood, and FEW can be considered femi- nist organizations, the first two are not membership-based organizations but rather service providers. FEW is a membership group, but their focus was limited to the strictures implied by their name. Thus, while other groups may have a feminist mission and goals, NOW is separated from these groups because of the broad base of issues they addressed and their membership- dependent structure.

3. The term wife abuse reflects their concern with battered women within monogamous heterosexual relationships, most typically marriages. This is the term they used and one I have elected to keep in order to reflect their agenda accurately.

References

Adams, Alayne Barry. 1975. "Memphis' Badge of Infamy." [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 23 May.

Berry, Mary Frances. 1986. Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Beifuss, Joan Turner. 1990. At the River I Stand. Memphis, TN: St. Luke's Press. Blee, Kathleen M. 1991. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s.

Berkeley: University of California Press. Boston NOW Newsletter. Herstory. Microfilm. Addenda IA, reel 7. Buring, Daneel. 1997. Lesbian and Gay Memphis: Building Communities Behind

the Magnolia Curtain. New York: Garland Press. Carden, Maren Lockwood. 1974. The New Feminist Movement. New York: Rus-

sell Sage Foundation.

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 115

Carson, Clayborne. 1981. In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chicago NOW Newsletters. Herstory Microfilm. Addenda lA, reel 7. Conley, Michael. 1976. "Task Force Looks at Wife Beating." Memphis Press

Scimitar. 8 September. "The Comprehensive Rape Crisis Program." n.d. Memphis NOW Papers. Special

Collections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Davis, Anna Byrd. 1976. "Memphis Group Offers to Help Wives." Memphis Press Scimitar. 2 July.

Dolbi, Lynda. 1996. Personal interview with author. 6 March. Duggan, Lisa. 2000. Sapphic Slashers: Sex, Violence, and American Modernity

Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Echols, Alice. 1989. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. "Enough 'SNUFF."' n.d. Memphis NOW Papers. Box 5, folder 25. Special Col-

lections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Evans, Sara. 1979. Personal Politics: The Roots of Women's Liberation in the Civil

Rights Movement and the New Left. New York: Knopf. .2003. Tidal Wave: How Women Changed America at Century's End. New

York: The Free Press. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth Hess. 2000. Controversy and Coalition: The New

Feminist Movement Across Four Decades of Change. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Findlay, Michael, and Roberta Findlay, dirs. 1971/1976. Snuff, aka The Slaughter. USA/Argentina: Michael Findlay/Monarch Releasing Corp.

Fox, Thomas. 1977. "Acting, Fakery in 'Snuff' Should Bring Its Well-Deserved Demise." [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 27 September.

Fox- Genovese, Elizabeth. 1988. Within the Plantation Household: Black and White Women of the Old South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Freeman, Jo. 1975. The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay. Freeman, Susan Kathleen. 2000. "From the Lesbian Nation to the Cincinnati

Lesbian Community: Moving Toward a Politics of Location." Journal of the History of Sexuality (January-April):137-74.

Genovese, Eugene. 1974. Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon.

Giddings, Paula. 1984. When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. New York: Morrow.

Gilliam, Art. 1971. "Few Black Faces in Women's Lib Crowd." [Memphis] Com- mercial Appeal. 7 June.

Grantham, Dewey. 1994. The South in Modern America: A Region at Odds. New York: Harper Collins.

Hall, Jacquelyn Dowd. 1979. Revolt Against Chivalry: Jessie Daniel Ames and the Women's Campaign Against Lynching. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hartmann, Susan. 1998. The Other Feminists: Activists in the Liberal Establish- ment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

. 1980. From Margin to Mainstream: American Women and Politics Since 1960. New York: Knopf.

116 STEPHANIE GILMORE

Higginbotham, Evelyn Brooks. 1992. "African American Women's History and the Metalanguage of Race." Signs 17(2):251-74.

Hill, Samuel S., ed. 1983. Religion in the Southern States. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

"Legislators Vote to Rescind ERA Ratification." 1974. [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 24 April.

"Loaf of Bread, Talk with Senators Aim at Keeping Women in 'Place."' 1978. [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 10 August.

MacLean, Nancy. 1994. Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marable, Manning. 1984. Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruc- tion in Black America, 1945-1982. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.

Mathews, Donald G., and Jane Sherron DeHart. 1990. Sex, Gender, and the Poli- tics of the ERA: A State and a Nation. New York: Oxford University Press.

"Memphians Go to Illinois to Urge ERA Ratification." 1980. Memphis Press Scimitar. 10 May.

Memphis NOW Newsletters. 1971-1982. Memphis NOW Papers. Special Col- lections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Naples, Nancy A., ed. 1998. Community Activism and Feminist Politics: Orga- nizing Across Race, Class, and Gender. New York: Routledge.

"NOW Members Protest Violence Against Women." 1975. Memphis Press Scimi- tar. 27 August.

"NOW Women Sell Blood to Finance Campaign." 1973. [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 6 April.

"Old Doubts Deter Feminists." 1973. [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 7 August. Rosen, Ruth. 2000. The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement

Changed America. New York: Viking Press. Ryan, Barbara. 1989. Feminism and the Women's Movement: Dynamics of Change

in Social Movement Ideology and Action. New York: Routledge. San Francisco NOW Newsletter. Herstory. Microfilm. Addenda IA, reel 7. Schlafly, Phyllis. 1977. The Power of the Positive Woman. New Rochelle, NY:

Arlington House. Sears, James, ed. 1997. Lonely Hunters: An Oral History of Lesbian and Gay

Southern Life, 1948-1968. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sitkoff, Howard. 1981. The Struggle for Black Equality, 1954-1980. New York:

Hill and Wang. Springer, Kimberly. Forthcoming. Living for the Revolution: Black Feminist

Organizations, 1968-1980. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tennessee House. 1972. Tennessee House Journal. Records for March-April.

Bound volumes, government documents, Ned W. McWherter Library, Uni- versity of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Tennessee Senate. 1974. Tennessee Senate Journal. Records for January-April. Bound volumes, government documents, Ned W. McWherter Library, Univer- sity of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

. 1973. Tennessee Senate Journal. Records for March-April. Bound volumes, government documents, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

THE DYNAMICS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN MEMPHIS, 1971-1982 117

. 1972. Tennessee Senate Journal. Records for April. Bound volume, gov- ernment documents, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Thomson, Becky. 2002. "Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second Wave Feminism." Feminist Studies 28(2):337-55.

United Sisters and Associates. 1972. Press Release. February. Jocelyn M. D. Wurz- burg Papers, Special Collections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Weisbrot, Robert. 1990. Freedom Bound: A History of America's Civil Rights Movement. New York: Norton.

The Wheel. 1974-1982. MVC Periodicals. Special Collections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

White, Deborah Gray. 1999. Ar'n't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.

Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of Radical Wom- en's Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Willis, Jim. 1973. "Some Reports Termed False on Equal Rights Amendment." Memphis Press Scimitar. 6 March.

"Women's Resource Center of Memphis, Inc." 1977. Jocelyn M.D. Wurzburg Papers, Box 3, folder 15, 14 June. Special Collections, Ned W. McWherter Library, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

"Women's Rights' Supporters Take Floor." 1974. Memphis Press Scimitar. 9 March.