What She Wants is...

7

a monthly news journal produced for all women. There is no subject unsuitable for our readers and therefore you will find articles on every topic from poetry to politics in each issue. ... equal rights and civil rights

... the right to decent health care and health information

the right to control our bodies the right to support ourselves and our families

... the right to oppose war

... the right to organize in unions and coalitions to advance our cause

the right to excellence in education and freedom from prejudice in learning materials

... the right to accept or to reject motherhood

We are...

Mary Anne, Laurel Brummet, S. J. Caldwell, Jane Darrah, Marlon Dorn, Linda Freeman, Kathy Groenberg, Lesile Greenhalgh, Nancy Handley, Sandy Handley, Meredith Holmes, Shelly Lowry, Mary McCartney, Cynthia Pack, Valerie Robinson, Barbara Rose, Linda Rothacker, Barbara Rausch, Karal Stern, Mary Waxman, Mary Walsh, Jackle Wossel, Helen Williams

What She Wants has open meetings, and any women interested in feminist newspaper work are welcome to attend. The response to our paper has been exciting and we really need to have more people working on it. All of us in the WSW collective have other jobs or go to school, and we put the paper out on our own time. Not only do we need writers and people to sell the paper, we need people to write us letters and give us feedback. We usually meet on Saturday afternoons. Write to us at

P.O. Box 18072

Cleveland Heights, OH 44118

"Mother, what is a Feminist?"

"A Feminist, my daughter,

Is any woman now who cares

To think about her own affairs

As men don't think she oughter!"

1014

ERA THREATENED

Phyliss Schlafly appeared on the Morning Exchange on April 2nd and subsequently made the front page of the Plain Dealer, Ms. Schlafly, who spends her time writing books (she has written seven), running for Congress, and flying around the country to speak against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), feels other women should remain in the home and cultivate the traditional feminine skills.

For whom dous Phyliss Schlafly speak, since she obviously doesn't speak for women, nor even follow her own advice? According to several in-depth articles by Majority Report, a New York feminist newspaper (January 25), one of her large backers is the insurance industry. "W. Clement Stone, the Illinois insurance magnate who was Nixon's largest campaign contributor in the 1968 and 1972 campaigns, donated $33,492 to Schlafly's unsuccessful 1970 Congressional bid. This was Stone's second largest single contribution to à Congressional candidate that year. Stone is founder and head of Combined Insurance Company of America."

Stone also has contributed large amounts of money to the anti-ERA campaign of Pro-America, a conservative "women's organization". Many of its lobbyists are wives of executives of Mutual of Omaha and its affiliates.

Another anti-ERA backer, William Perkins, speaking for Continental Assurance warned recently, "I can assure you that we (insurance companies) have a high batting average in killing bills we don't want and passing ones we do."

"WHY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY?" From Majority Report

Why would insurance companies see more threat in the ERA than other major industries...a threat so formidable that some of them may be bankrolling the anti-ERA forces?

The answer is hypothetical, but it adds up: insurance companies see the ERA as an industry-wide financial disaster. For, a substantial portion of insurance profits (which are currently soaring) are the result of blatant sex discrimination in rates and coverage, combined with guilt-trip sales pitches aimed at men with dependent wives.

In the sale of life insurance, sex discrimination takes the form of ignoring the statistical differential in favor of women (women live longer); while, in health insurance women frequently pay up to 150% of what men pay for equivalent coverage:

Though they pay more, women usually wind up with less inclusive coverage than do men: benefits are of shorter duration, premiums are higher, and pregnancy-related illnesses as well as "female disorders" are usually excluded,

In 1974, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner's Advisory Task Force on Women's Insurance Problems found repeated sex discrimination in insurance applications, in the "high risk" category arbitrarily given divorced women (while divorced men were not considered "high risks"), and in the refusal to allow women who are breadwinners to claim their husbands as dependents.

The ERA could lead to state action against discriminatory practices, and would permit review of state laws applying to the industry, Without the ERA, litigation against insurance discrimination is a slow and minimally productive process,

Insurance companies are afraid of the imposition of maternity benefits and equal benefit rates. But they also share with other large corporations the fear of equal pay for equal work, since they are large employers of women, mostly in low-paying clerical jobs.

Moreover, the very rationale for buying insurance is threatened by the prospect of woman's economic ascension. As women become independent, the metaphoric horror of a helpless wife financially incapacitated by her husband's disability or death stands to lose much of its appeal as an advertising lure.

"WILL EQUALITY DESTROY LIFE INSURANCE PROFITS?" From Majority Report

Women's Liberation, dream of feminists, is the life insurance industry's biggest nightmare. For, the vast bulk of the multi-billion dollar industry's profits comes from large policies sold to married men. And, as men retreat from the role of provider of the family, women will probably not take up the slack in life insurance coverage.

The industry's own statistics for 1972 show that of the $212.274 billion worth of life policies sold that year, 83% of the amount was sold to men, 73% of them married. The average policy taken by a married man was $21,430 compared with $8,010, the average policy sold to a woman head of household.

Also, married men are more likely to buy insurance than are women heads of household. One out of eight such men bought life policies in 1972, but only one out of eleven women heads of household did so.

If married men were no more susceptible to insurance salespeople's guilt tripping than women heads of household, 2,381,191 fewer policies would be sold in a year. The loss would amount to $51.028 billion.

If at the same tirne, married men began taking out the same size policies as women heads of household, there would be an additional industry-wide loss of $58.785 billion.

The prospect of a total industry-wide loss of $109,813 billion per year is a serious one. Either the companies will have to hastily find a new way to make a buck, or they will have to stop the woman's movement, a feat which would seem to be impractical at least.

Thirty-four states have ratified the ERA thus far, leaving four more to go before the ERA can become part of the U.S. Constitution. The deadline is 1979. According to an article that appeared in the Washington Star, if the total of 38 state ratifications is not reached this year, the practical effect would be to put off the question until 1977 because only a few state legislatures have sessions in 1976.

pag: 2/What She Wants/May, 1975