It is in many ways appropriate that you invited a son of Massachusetts to address this distinguished gathering tonight – because, as many of you know, the first women’s organization in America was founded by Anne Hutchinson in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Her reward for initiating this now popular movement was condemnation by the Council of Elders and banishment into exile. All of us in Washington hope and pray that this same fate will not befall Esther Tufty or your other officers.
The chief prosecutor of Anne Hutchinson, of course, was Governor John Winthrop – who had previously recorded in his diary the fact that the wife of his friend, the Governor of Hartford, had suffered a mental breakdown – and that this had been the result, he said "of giving herself wholly to reading and writing. For if she had attended to her household affairs, and such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling to meddle in such things as are proper for men, whose minds are stronger, she would have kept her wits."
Many of my colleagues in the political world – or at least many of my fellow members of the male sex – are no doubt convinced that the members of this organization (who, I understand, both read and write) are meddling in such things as are proper for men. But I doubt that any of them who have been interviewed by some of your leading members would ever agree that the minds of men are stronger.
I am particularly interested in this organization for another reason.
I would not be at all surprised if my own daughter Caroline would be interested in joining the ranks of your profession. She has an attractive appearance, a well-modulated voice – at least some of the time – and lives by the clock. She has already tried to break into the television world – or at least break into our television set.
But I am concerned that my daughter – and other career girls now and in the future – will be unable to find sufficient openings of interest in the radio and television industry. I have never been able to understand why our networks and local stations do not offer us more women news analysts and reporters. If their voices and appearances are suitable to forecast the weather, why not to forecast the news? If women can make the news – in Congress, in the United Nations or as ambassadors subject to Senate confirmation – why cannot more women also report the news? We now permit them in the executive suite, in the beer parlor and in the smoke-filled rooms of politics – why not on the news programs? It is high time, it seems to me, that some supreme court of the communications industry ordered an end to the discrimination that confines women to the weather and social notes, repudiated this form of "separate but equal" and ordered these barriers broken down with "all deliberate speed." It is time that we were just as concerned about the equal opportunities for women in this industry as we are about the equal time for political candidates.
I realize, of course, that these barriers have been largely erected by the ancient enemy of women – men. Even the United States Senate, which I represent here tonight, has not always permitted women to attend Senate sessions in any role. Early in the 19th century, Senator Wright, of Maryland, with traditional Southern chivalry, favored the proposition on the grounds "that their presence gives a pleasing and necessary animation to debate, polishing the speakers' arguments and softening their manners." But John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, whose harsh Puritan austerity reflected the ways of his state, replied that the ladies "introduced noise and confusion into the Senate, and debates were protracted to arrest their attention." (The motion to admit "the ladies" was defeated that year, 16 to 12.)
In later years this policy was reversed – and there were many occasions when members of both Houses had reason to recall the wisdom of Senator Adams’ warning. In the debates over the Missouri Compromise, foreign ministers, distinguished guests and even Senators themselves found their places occupied by the ladies of Washington. During the Webster-Hayne debate, a lady sat in Senator Hayne's seat while he stood by her side speaking. In the midst of Henry Clay’s speech on the Missouri Compromise in the House of Representatives, the gentlemen would tie oranges and other gifts in handkerchiefs at the end of long poles and hand them up to ladies in the gallery. Other ladies would harass Daniel Webster and other eminent members with requests for poetic expressions in their albums; while still others, according to Harriet Martineau, caused no little annoyance in the galleries with their waving plumes, their continual chatter and their inability to sit still "for any length of time." When Senator James Buchanan in 1836 sought to go still further and provide that each Senator could officially introduce two ladies on the Floor each day, the Senate firmly rejected his resolution – aware, perhaps, that Senator Buchanan might have been influenced by his status as a bachelor.
In the last forty years, of course, women in increasing number have not only observed but fully participated in the work of the Senate and all of our public bodies. They have served with distinction in positions of the highest responsibility – including even an Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of manpower. To the dismay of those husbands who charge that women are constitutionally incapable of balancing even a bank account, we have seen several able women serve as Treasurer of the United States.
But the subject is not yet a closed one, even in the English-speaking world, as demonstrated by the debate two years ago in the British House of Lords over whether women should be permitted to serve in that august body. "When I said a woman's place is in the house," one Earl was reported to have said, "I didn’t mean this one." The opposition was perhaps best summed up by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who stated:
"I believe that there are certain duties and responsibilities which nature and custom have decreed men are more fitted to take on; and some responsibilities which nature and custom have decreed women should take on. It is generally accepted, for better or worse, that a man’s judgment is generally more logical and less tempestuous than that of a woman... If we allow women into this House where will this emancipation end? Shall we in a few years’ time be referring to 'the noble and learned Lady, the Lady CHANCELLOR?' I find that a horrifying thought. Shall we follow the rather vulgar example set by Americans of having female ambassadors? …I trust that the (vote) will portray the feeling that I feel sure nine out of ten noble Lords have in their hearts – namely, that we like women; we admire them; sometimes we even grow fond of them; but we do not like them here."
Whatever one may think of Lord Ferrers’ remarks – and it should be noted that the bill passed the House of Lords without difficulty – the fact still remains that we should have more women in the fields of news analysis, and radio and TV journalism – as a matter of principle, as a matter of common sense and as a matter of improving the industry itself. For no artificial distinctions should be drawn in an age when the issues are so complex that we need in this industry the best minds and the most alert eyes, from whatever source.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 902, "American Women in Radio and TV, New York City, 30 April 1959." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.