1. I often discuss media portrayals of the “displaced homemaker.” My account of the group’s presentation in the press is derived from a thorough review of more than 150 popular press accounts of the displaced homemaker during the relevant period.

2. 122 Cong. Rec. 7594 (1976).

3. 123 Cong. Rec. 1981 (1977).

4. 124 Cong. Rec. 11504 (1978).

5. Ibid.

6. Levenstein, Lisa, “‘Don’t Agonize, Organize!’: The Displaced Homemakers Campaign and the Contested Goals of Postwar Feminism,” Journal of American History (March 2014): 1114–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Shields, Laurie, Displaced Homemakers: Organizing for a New Life (New York, 1981), 25, 35.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., xi.

9. Sommers, Tish, Sorrel, Lorraine, and Sojourner, Susan, “With the Wisdom of an Owl: An Interview with Tish Sommers,” Off Our Backs: A Women’s Newsjournal 12 (1982): 6.Google Scholar

10. Ibid.

11. Huckle, Patricia, Tish Sommers, Activist, and the Founding of the Older Women’s League (Knoxville, 1991), 190, 194.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., 34–35.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid. In her account of the phase of the feminist movement most often referred to today as “second wave,” historian Ruth Rosen argues that the “diffusion of feminism” in the 1970s resulted in a kind of “fragmentation” that was troubling on some levels, but also had the effect of making “feminism accessible to new groups of women.” In the case of displaced homemakers, who Rosen argues were emblematic of this process, “fragmentation” required both a shift within existing feminist organizations and perspectives and a shift among women typically considered outside that standard constituency. For Ms. Shields, for example, the issue of displaced homemakers drew her into feminism from a place that she perceived to be outside of the feminist mainstream, because she had “freely chosen” her happy life as a housewife. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 43. Rosen’s own mother had a similar experience, as did many other women profiled in news accounts and organizing materials of the groups. Rosen explains, “Together, they [Sommers and Shields] reached women who would never have imagined themselves participating in the women’s movement. In 1976, for instance, I received an extraordinary letter from my mother . . . ‘I have just gone to an OWL meeting,’ she wrote me. . . . ‘I’m just beginning to see how older women are treated in the courts, by lawyers, by everyone. We’re dispensable. We’re invisible. It’s terribly shocking.’” Rosen, Ruth, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America (New York, 2000): 271–74Google Scholar.

16. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 48–49.

17. The California bill was intentionally gender-neutral and open to men who were displaced from their careers in housework, though activists explicitly recognized the vast majority of its beneficiaries would be women.

18. West’s Ann. Gov. Code former §7321 (repealed 1980).

19. Ibid., former §7320 (repealed 1980).

20. A center in Los Angeles was funded with the 1977 amendment to the original legislation. See West’s Ann. Gov. Code former §7322 (repealed 1980).

21. 123 Cong. Rec. 1984 (1977).

22. West’s Ann. Gov. Code former §7324 (repealed 1980); “Job counseling shall be specifically designed for the person reentering the job market after a number of years as a homemaker. The counseling will take into account, and build upon, the skills and experiences of a homemaker. Peer counseling and job readiness as well as skill updating and development shall be emphasized.”

23. Ibid., former §7325 (repealed 1980).

24. 123 Cong. Rec. 1984 (1977).

25. Cowie, Jefferson R., Stayin’ Alive: The 1970’s and the Last Days of the Working Class (New York, 2010), 12.Google Scholar

26. Ibid.

27. Huckle, Tish Sommers, 196.

28. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 35–36.

29. Klopper, Harold, “State Counseling Proposed for Jobless Homemakers,” Sacramento Union, 4 May 1975Google Scholar; ABF Smith, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives

30. “Staff Analysis of Senate Bill No. 825 (Smith) As Introduced,” Senate Health and Welfare, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives; Tish Sommers, Testimony on Displaced Homemakers Act (S.B. 825), Health and Welfare Committee, California Senate, 14 May 1975, ABF Smith, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives

31. Joint Committee on Legal Equality, Notice of News Conference, 13 May 1975, ABF Smith, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

32. Those organizations represented a broad swath of the political band, including local YWCAs, local governments, the League of Women Voters, democratic and liberal groups (e.g., the California Democratic Council and Americans for Democratic Action), women’s groups (e.g., the NOW Task Force on Older Women, Bay Area Women’s Coalition), and groups focused on aging and older persons (e.g., the California Commission on Aging and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Ft. Point Chapter, San Francisco). Senator Smith’s files do include one letter opposing the bill from a Mr. Reginald D. Jones, who suggested the law would increase the divorce rate and argued somewhat intemperately (“These gals don’t fool anyone”) that the legislation discriminated against men. Senator Smith responded by taking Mr. Jones to task on both of these premises.

33. “Analysis of SB 825 (Smith),” Assembly Committee on Human Resources, 8 August 1975, ARC, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

34. Ways and Means Staff Analysis, SB 825, Displaced Homemakers, ARC, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives

35. Joint Committee on Legal Equality, “A Giant Step . . . ,” Newsletter 3, no. 7 (July 1975), in ARC, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

36. Cimons, Marlene, “Tunney, Burke Bills Pending; Aid for Displaced Homemakers,” Los Angeles Times, sec. G, 18 September 1975Google Scholar.

37. Enrolled Bill Memorandum to Governor, 22 September 1975, GCBF chap. 1063, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

38. Sommers, Sorrel, and Sojourner, “With the Wisdom of an Owl,” 6.

39. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 48.

40. The typed recommendation “VETO” is crossed out and “sign” handwritten next to it. The last line of the document similarly reported that “EDD recommends that the bill be vetoed,” where the typed “vetoed” is crossed out with a handwritten “signed” next to it. The substance of the report, however, is against signing and instead argues that EDD and CETA should “continue the handling of the needs of the unemployed.” Human Resources Development, Health and Welfare, Enrolled Bill Report, 23 September 1975.

41. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 53–55. The committee voted 7–0 in support of the bill.

42. Ibid., 56–61.

43. Letter to Members of the California Legislature, Edmund G. Brown Jr., 26 September 1975, GCBF chap. 1063, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

44. State Senator Jerry Smith, Letter to Governor Brown, undated, GCBF chap. 1063, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

45. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 63.

46. Ibid., 76–77.

47. 123 Cong. Rec. 25306 (1977).

48. Andre, Rae, Homemakers: The Forgotten Workers (Chicago, 1981), 219.Google Scholar

49. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 73.

50. Ibid., 74.

51. Andre, Homemakers, 190.

52. Ibid.

53. Dudley interview (“When we went back to Congress, that was what they knew and saw”).

54. The initial bill filed by Representative Burke was H.R. 7003. Representative Burke introduced several versions of the bill over the next several years. The primary vehicle for the bill’s goals became H.R. 10272, introduced on 21 October 1975. Alliance from Displaced Homemakers, “News from the Alliance for Displaced Homemakers” 1, no. 1 (June 1975), located in ABF Smith, SB 825, 1975, California State Archives.

55. The following details regarding the initial federal bill are derived from the author’s telephone interview with Barbara Dudley on 7 January 2015. Dudley’s account diverges from other retellings of the bills that emphasize California’s leading role. Specifically, most accounts note that Burke’s bill was filed after the California bill and passed much later. Dudley’s account that she and Sommers approached Burke before anything happened in California adds a new chapter to this history while correcting a misapprehension that the legislation originated in the form of a state bill. Testimony by Representative Burke herself buttresses Dudley’s account, as recounted herein.

56. Among other noteworthy aspects of her career in Congress, Representative Burke was the first member of Congress to have a baby while in Congress and to be granted maternity leave by the Speaker.

57. 94th Cong., H.R. 10272, 12 November 1975.

58. Dudley interview; e-mail from Barbara Dudley, 8 January 2015. For examples of primary source material on the Wages for Housework campaign, see Baxandall, Rosalyn and Gordon, Linda, Dear Sisters: Dispatches from the Women’s Liberation Movement (New York, 2001), 258–60, 278–79.Google Scholar

59. Shields, Displaced Homemakers, 47; Dudley interview.

60. Senator Tunney introduced S. 2353 on 17 September 1975 and S. 2541 on 21 October 1975.

61. Cimons, Marlene, “Tunney, Burke Bills Pending: Aid for Displaced Homemakers,” Los Angeles Times, 18 September 1975Google Scholar.

62. Representative Randall expressed a typical sentiment when he said to Representative Burke, “I think what the committee is more interested in is to try to be helpful in the enactment of this measure. We first want to be certain that it has merit. I don’t think we have to be convinced much of that.” House Select Committee on Aging, Equal Opportunity for Women (Displaced Homemakers and Minority Women), 94th Cong., 1st sess., 12 November 1975, 11.

63. Ibid., 14–15. The comparison to welfare recipients has been recently discussed in Levenstein, “‘Don’t Agonize, Organize!’”

64. House Committee on Education and Labor, The Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemakers Act, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 18 November 1976, 51.

65. Gordon, Linda, Pitied, But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935 (New York, 1994).Google Scholar

66. House Committee on Education and Labor, The Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemakers Act, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 18 November 1976.

67. One displaced homemaker testified, for example, that “I feel that welfare is a last resort for most of us. Homemakers should be assured of having some security when the husband and the children leave home.” Ibid., 32.

68. For example, Ms. Sally Martinez, president of the Los Angeles County Commission on Women, urged the committee members to broaden their definition of the displaced homemaker: “You were saying earlier that perhaps you would zero in on people in the fifties age bracket. . . . However . . . [we] urge you to consider the younger women, to consider the fact that women who have been married for 20 years by the time they are 35, and to consider the fact that in many, many minority areas, black, Chicano, Latino, whatever, there are women who are displaced at a much earlier age.” Ibid., 22–23.

69. House Committee on Education and Labor, The Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemakers Act, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 18 November 1976, 19.

70. Representative Burke’s revised bill, H.R. 28, was introduced on 4 January 1977. By 30 January 1978, H.R. 10270 (the version of the bill that ended up moving through Congress) had 110 cosponsors.

71. Senator Bayh’s bill, S. 418, was introduced on 24 January 1977. Senator Bayh had 19 cosponsors a year later. Senator Tunney lost his reelection campaign in 1976 and was no longer in the Senate when these revised versions of the bills were introduced in Congress.

72. Letter from Secretary of the Department of Labor Ray Marshall to Representative Harrison A. Williams Jr., 12 September 1977, located in record of hearing of Senate Committee on Human Resources, Displaced Homemakers Act, 1977, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 12–13 September 1977, 114–15; Letter from Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, in ibid., 112–13.

73. Earlier in the year, Representative Benjamin Rosenthal (D-N.Y.) had introduced a bill to amend CETA by incorporating displaced homemakers within Title III. In introducing the bill he argued that it would be “a cruel hoax to prepare these women who have already lost their families and suffered greatly, for jobs which do not exist. Title III of CETA should be amended to help the homemakers of America who, thus far, we have honored only on Mother’s Day and ignored in their times of plight.” 123 Cong. Rec. 26661–62 (1977). The bills introduced by Burke and Bayh, however, were the significant ones in this effort.

74. 123 Cong. Rec. 38805 (1977).

75. 124 Cong. Rec. 1323–26 (1978).

76. 123 Cong. Rec. 1978 (1977).

77. Love, Keith, “How Do You Put a Price Tag on a Housewife’s Work?” New York Times, 13 January 1976Google Scholar.

78. Levenstein, “‘Don’t Agonize, Organize!,’” 1127–28.

79. 124 Cong. Rec. 6254–58 (1978).

80. Dodson, Angela, “Programs Multiply to Help Displaced Homemakers Cope,” New York Times, sec. C, 18 June 1986Google Scholar.

81. Ibid.

82. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology and Structural Unemployment: Reemploying Displaced Adults (Washington, D.C., February 1986), http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8632.pdf.

83. A technical report funded by the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor found that “most projects enroll under 20 displaced homemakers, and over three-fourths serve 50 or fewer.” Jill Miller and Abby Spero, Is the Job Training Partnership Act Training Displaced Homemakers? A Technical Report on Services to Displaced Homemakers under JTPA (Displaced Homemakers Network, October 1985), 1.

84. Though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and officially prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sex at that time, it would be years before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (the agency tasked with enforcing Title VII) took any action on sex discrimination. NOW was initially founded to force the EEOC to act on its statutory mandate. Ruth Rosen provides one account of the link between NOW and EEOC inactivity in The World Split Open, 70–81.

85. 121 Cong. Rec. 33482 (1975).

86. House Select Committee on Aging, Equal Opportunity for Women (Displaced Homemakers and Minority Women), 94th Cong., 1st sess., 12 November 1975, 10.

87. 123 Cong. Rec. 9656 (1976). Stetson and Mazur have noted that the Women’s Bureau of the Labor Department, while relatively absent from the public discussion over displaced homemakers, “worked behind the scenes” to include the group within targeted job-training programs. Dorothy McBride Stetson and Amy G. Mazur, “Women’s Movements and the State: Job-Training Policy in France and the U.S.,” Political Research Quarterly 53, no. 3 (2000): 608.

88. MacPherson, Myra, “Hill Unit Examines Plight of Widows and Divorcees,” Washington Post, 13 September 1977Google Scholar.

89. House Committee on Education and Labor, The Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemakers Act, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 18 November 1976, 56.

90. House Committee on Education and Labor, The Displaced Homemakers Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 14 July 1977, 65–66 (emphasis in original).

91. Dudley interview.

92. House Select Committee on Aging, Equal Opportunity for Women (Displaced Homemakers and Minority Women), 94th Cong., 1st sess., 12 November 1975.

93. Sommers, Sorrel, and Sojourner, “With the Wisdom of an Owl,” 6.

94. A 12 September 1977 Senate committee hearing, for example, included opening remarks by Senator Nelson explicitly citing CETA’s failure to proportionately serve women as an example of the ways it was currently failing displaced homemakers. Senate Committee on Human Resources, Displaced Homemakers Act, 1977, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 12–13 September 1977, 2–3.

95. Ibid.

96. New York State Department of Labor, “Displaced Homemaker Program Puts Thousands Back to Work: Labor Department Encourages More to Sign Up,” 20 November 2009, http://www.labor.ny.gov/pressreleases/2009/November20_2009.htm.

97. Dwoskin, Elizabeth, “A Federal Program Pays to Put Homemakers to Work,” Bloomberg Businessweek, 18 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-10-18/a-federal-program-pays-to-put-homemakers-to-workGoogle Scholar.

98. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers with children under the age of eighteen did not work outside the home. That number represents an increase from the nadir of 23 percent reached in 1999 and reflects numerous demographic trends, including an increase in the number of mothers who would like to work but cannot find a job in this economic climate. D’Vera Cohn, Gretchen Livington, and Wendy Wang, “After Decades of Decline, a Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers,” Pew Research Center, 8 April 2014, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/#fn-18853-2.

99. Dudley interview.