“The first Jewish women’s liberation convention, held in New York City recently, served notice that the day is soon approaching when the role of Jewish women will no longer be charted by men alone,” we wrote in a 1973 news brief titled simply “Women’s Lib.”
U.S. Rep. Bella Abzug of New York, a rising star in politics and feminism, spoke at the convention.
“Let us remember,” she said, “that Queen Esther rose to power through the beauty contest route and once in power had to risk her life at the command of a man who worked safely behind the scenes.”
The brief ended with a patronizing line: “Is there a male bold enough to challenge that observation?”
The tone seems like a relic now. But how were women discussed and recognized in our publication through the decades? Since March is Women’s History Month, it seems like the right time to examine how this publication covered Jewish women’s ongoing efforts toward equality.
Going back to our founding editor in the late 1800s, it’s clear that Rabbi Jacob Voorsanger of San Francisco’s Congregation Emanu El was rather tepid on the subject of women’s rights, including the right to vote.
“I do not say now that woman is not entitled to such political recognition as would illustrate the declaration that her inalienable rights are the same as those of man; but I also say earnestly and emphatically, that such a recognition at an improper time, at the wrong period in our educational progress, would be fraught with dangers to the future the extent of which cannot possibly be calculated.”
He wrote those words in 1896 in an editorial titled “The Women of To-Day.”
Voorsanger didn’t specify any of those “dangers” but stressed that the world wasn’t ready for a gender shakeup. A woman’s role had always been separate from a man’s, and “this point of view, thoroughly old-fashioned as it is, has much in its favor to commend it,” he wrote.
“Deep down at the root of our social evils is this reluctance to be old-fashioned, this hankering after new gods whose worth has not been tried, this mistaken idea that woman used to be a slave, and that her freedom means the breaking up of the domestic relations which are the strongest and safest protection of our lives.”
No one could argue that Voorsanger was ahead of his time.
In 1928, Rabbi Elliott Burstein of San Francisco’s Congregation Beth Israel likewise used our pages to muse on women, their capacity for courage and their responsibility for countering the bogeyman of assimilation.
“Would that the Jewish woman today would inspire as her mother did — keep the sacred fires of her beautiful ideals of purity always glowing, spread the sunshine of a sweet and benign disposition in her home, instill within her children’s hearts a love for traditional values and ways of life, and above all, be herself prepared to uphold and re-establish her Jewish heritage!”
By the 1940s, the tenor was beginning to change and an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with women’s limited public roles was starting to grow.
“The evolution of the Jewish woman through history has taken her from her first role as benevolent guide to the family to a far more complex position in society that knows neither boundary nor barrier,” Betty Tigay wrote in 1944.
Deep down at the root of our social evils is this reluctance to be old-fashioned, this hankering after new gods whose worth has not been tried
This sentiment continued to slowly advance, and by the 1960s the murmuring was louder.
“American women demand equal rights in philanthropy as they do in politics and the professions, Mrs. Marvin C. Stang of New York, national director of the United Jewish Appeal women’s division, said here today,” this publication wrote in 1963. (The irony of our use of her husband’s name to identify this philanthropist is not lost on us in 2024.)
The desire for equality went well beyond philanthropy. Women wanted careers — and recognition. They began to seek roles as rabbis and cantors and as decision makers in Jewish organizations and synagogues.
“The American Jewish Congress has announced support of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment barring discrimination based on sex,” we reported in 1971. “At the same time, the Jewish organization said it would undertake a study of the role of women in Jewish law and tradition to determine ‘if rights and obligations assigned on the basis of sex and considered enlightened at the time are appropriate and adequate of the needs of Jewish life today.’”
Four years later, we heralded Frances Green as the San Francisco Jewish Welfare Federation’s first woman president — and one of only two women with that type of leadership role in the U.S.
However, the fits and starts toward equality were visible in that article.
“Franny Green is quick to tell you that she is no soldier in the legion of Women’s Lib,” Geoffrey Fisher wrote in that article. “She does declare that she thinks women with proper qualifications should be free to compete with men in seeking high office and leadership roles.”
In 1976, the local Jewish Youth Athletic League voted to allow girls to play on basketball teams. Our story was titled: “Local JYAL: Women’s Lib Comes to Basketball Here.”
What about the stance of the newspaper itself? Well, in 1973, we wrote:
“This newspaper has never taken a stand against the Women’s Liberation Movement, nor does it intend to do so. As a matter of fact, we are inclined to support equal pay for equal service, women bus drivers, football players, jockeys, black jack dealers, astronauts, deep sea divers.
“We might even agree that women should give up their seat on a bus to a man, that women should pick up the restaurant check when dining with a man, that the women of the house should mow the lawn and repair the leak in the roof.
“In all humility and sincerity we want to state unequivocally that we will fight for the right of women to attain any and all of these things.”
That sounds good, right? But apparently the newspaper’s styleguide was off-limits.
“We draw the battle line when the ladies demand that this newspaper alter its editorial style by adopting the use of ‘Ms.’ as a prefix for names of the female gender. Our style is to use ‘Mrs.’ or ‘Miss’ unless some other form is specifically requested by the individual. … We hope our position on Ms. will not create any undue mis-ery.”
Thankfully, this publication has left that kind of thinking in the dustbin of history. (The pun was terrible, too.) We ditched all courtesy titles long ago. And our women’s section no longer focuses on committee meetings, tea parties, wedding announcements and holiday recipes. In fact, there is no “women’s section.”
This newspaper wasn’t particularly at the forefront of the women’s rights movement, although we got there eventually. But in honor of Women’s History Month, it’s worth repeating the words of the Jewish Welfare Federation’s Phyllis Cook, printed here in 1975:
“The challenge of feminism, if confronted, can only strengthen Judaism.”