|
Brief Bio:
Seattle, Member of the Ellensburg IWY Conference Coordinating Committee and chair of the Financial Assertiveness Workshop. At the time of the conferences, she was the Equal Opportunity Consultant for the Association of Washington Businesses and was president of the Seattle-King County Chapter of NOW. She has taught classes in financial assertiveness for women at area community colleges and became the pilot coordinator of the AARP's national Women's Financial Information Program. Pro-ERA
|
| Andrews |
Wanda, as a beginning, would you tell me briefly about your growing up years?
|
| Fullner |
Yes, I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Something about your family and your community, your school. How you developed your ideas about your role as a woman at home and in society.
|
| Fullner |
Okay, let me see here, I was born in 1939. We moved to Bellingham when I was a couple of years old. Bellingham, Washington. My mother was not happy at home. She was hard of hearing. And my father was away most of the time. It was never my dream to be a happy homemaker. I was fairly independent as a child. I earned my own money very early, strawberry picking in the second grade, and so on. And I learned that I could do a lot because I had my own money.
And then, when it came college time, I just wanted to learn, and learn more. To me, marriage was a trap. I didn't know how to stay out of it. [laughs] I thought of it as an obligation. Plus, other paths just were not right there before me. So when the feminist movement came along, I think for me it was around 1965 that I read Betty Friedan's book -- that appealed to me. I was at Washington State University at the time. It was ideas. And I still didn't know what my future would be.
It was along about 1969, '70, that the women's movement coalesced in Seattle with NOW. It was just a natural thing for me to want to be involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
What were your major affiliations and networks, then, in the 1960s and '70s? And what roles did you play in them?
|
| Fullner |
In the '60s and '70s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Mm hmm.
|
| Fullner |
Well, I attended the founding meetings of NOW in 1969. But my involvement really took off in the 1970s. I got a job with the Washington State Human Rights Commission to help enforce the new anti-discrimination laws. Title VII was being enforced. And we had our state laws against discrimination. And the business community was really up in arms about the requirement that they had to treat maternity leave like any other sick leave. So I was hired to go into the business community to explain these laws and help draft workable regulations. That gave me a real intense experience with what women's rights were not, as these laws were passed, and the roadblocks to enforcing them.
I was fortunate because I was in an arena where putting heads together with business people, we were able to come up with ways to comply with the laws, that made good business sense. For example, because of the thrust of these laws, job descriptions were being created like they'd never been created before. I mean, we had job descriptions, but they were very sloppy, very general. And to avoid the complaints, they had to be much more specified, so that the questions you asked men and women could be the same questions. And you could aim them directly at the requirements of the job. That was my first real involvement in the women's movement. And it was a very positive one.
That was the first one. But at the same time, NOW was forming in Seattle. So I was going to meetings, and then in conjunction with my job, I was speaking not only in business groups around the state, but also to many women's groups to inform them about the laws and how to claim their rights.
And then, after two years of that job, for personal reasons, I took a year off to find my own path. I mean, I loved that job, but I still didn't know what I would do with my life if I got up every morning and did what I wanted. I had to discover that. So I took a year of freedom, and it was during that year that I was asked to be president of the Seattle NOW.
So I did. And that was an eye opening experience. I was not really a political animal. And at that time, Seattle NOW required political leadership. I turned my attention to things like assertiveness training, and what I called financial assertiveness. I had become pretty expert in, not only women's economic rights and the laws to enforce them, but also financial strategies for women to control their financial lives. So that was my thrust that year.
Then the next year, well, actually, I think it was the year that I was president, IWY came along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
So was NOW the only major women's organization that you belonged to at the time of IWY?
|
| Fullner |
Yes. It was the only one that I was involved with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
How did you view women's role in the home and in society at the time of the conference? And did you see a need for change?
|
| Fullner |
I definitely did, because in 1968, my husband walked out of our home, pulling the financial rug out from under me. At the time I married this husband, I was teaching at Shoreline Community College. And because I was pregnant, come the end of the school year, my contract was not automatically renewed. They had a policy of not keeping a pregnant woman on. So I was just plain cut loose. And I thought, now that's not right.
So I was pregnant, summer came. And during that summer, my husband left our home. And I discovered that I was just up the creek. I had no alternative but to apply for welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
And what year was that?
|
| Fullner |
That was 1969. I had plenty of savings when I married my husband. After he left, I found my savings were gone. Having done what I thought a good wife should do, I put my accounts in both our names. And all my savings were gone. So then I went to the mortgage company to tell them that my baby would be born in four months. I would be back to work. I wanted to take advantage of the FHA rule that said that lenders were to accommodate families in temporary economic difficulties. I had read up on this.
But the bank told me, "No, we can't do that for you, because your husband's not in the home."
And I said, "Well, you know, I would like to appeal that. Because I'm the professional person between the two of us." And I said, "I also know what the FHA regulation says." The banker told me to come back, he'd speak to the board.
When I came back, he said, "No, ma'am. We do not make accommodations when the husband has left the home." So that was one of the experiences that turned me into a fiery feminist, to get those policies changed.
In December of 1969, my baby was born. Shortly after our state's women's commission was in place. I was already involved with NOW. And things came up that I just went at with a passion. Number one was to change the community property law. The Washington women lawyers were spearheading that movement. Well, it meant a lot to me to get that changed, because when I was married, I was appalled to find I had to get my husband's permission to get a credit card, when I was the one with the full time job and the good credit. He wasn't. [laughs] The husband was the legal manager of the wife's salary.
Well, my husband did not know how to manage money, and he was what you'd call a debtor. [laughs] That's one of the things that put me on welfare when he left the home. So I was really, really happy to join that effort to equalize the management powers in marriage.
So then, Gisela Taber, who was the head of the women's commission in Olympia, recommended me for a new job created by the human rights commission to work with businesspeople. She thought that I had the right personality to be acceptable to businesspeople, and help get compliance with the brand new laws against discrimination in employment and credit. In 1973 we got the new law against credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Against credit?
|
| Fullner |
Against credit discrimination, yeah. And so I joined the ranks of those applying, and I did get that job. That was a very intense involvement for me, going all around the state giving talks on the law. I really enjoyed explaining the law to the businesspeople and ways to comply that made good sense. For example, do not ask the women, "Do you have children?" because that leads to discrimination. But lay out the work schedules and ask men and women alike, "Is there anything in your life that conflicts with these work schedules? How reliable do you think you can be?" That made good sense to businesspeople.
The job went well. Not only did we have a lot of cooperation in the business community, but the commission had me form committees with businesspeople to redraft the maternity regulation and the pre-employment inquiry regulation to make good business sense. It turned out that the compliance made better business sense than the discriminatory practices.
That was a long answer. But it gives you an idea of my feminist involvement at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
In general, did you feel that business was receptive?
|
| Fullner |
Very. And I discovered something that was really strange to me at first. We had a TV commentator on channel four. His name was Lloyd Cooney. Do you remember that name?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Yes.
|
| Fullner |
He was an icon of the conservative point of view. He had argued against passing these laws. He was really a pro-business person. I met many businessmen, including him, who were icons of the problem. But it was these people who gave me entrée into the business community. And they saw the business sense. And they cooperated to make the changes and avoid expensive complaints. That's the whole thing. They didn't want to be spending their attorneys' time battling complaints. They were gracious. Treated me very well.
They had to make some changes. I can remember one time I went to a meeting at the Rainier Club and I was told it was the first time they ever brought a woman to the Rainier Club for a business meeting. Women were not allowed.
Another time in Spokane at a bank, I gave my talk to a group of men. And after the talk, the men went to lunch together and sent me to lunch with the secretaries. I thought that was strange. I asked the person who invited me why I was separated, and he said that the club they went to for lunch did not accept women. And I remember telling them I was very unhappy about that. There was a new law against discrimination in public accommodations. He said, gosh, he just didn't know what to do. I said, "Well, next time, let's just get a better plan going."
Everyplace I went, there was a newspaper article on my talk. These were nice articles. But the reporter would ask, "Is it Miss or Mrs.?" I would say, "Ms." They'd tell me, "We don't use 'Ms.' It has to be one or the other." I'd say, "Well, you don't get one or the other." Then I'd wait to see what they did when the article came out. And what do you know? There'd be "Ms." I was so delighted to have broken the barrier in those newspapers.
So I was seeing a lot of change. But not everyone was as optimistic as I was. When I became president of NOW, I was asked to give a talk in a forum on women's employment rights. The other speakers were quite militant about the need for change and what corporations do. They were right that discrimination was happening. But I was probably a little Pollyanna about it, because I saw so much change happening. And my recollection was that this particular audience did not want to hear the good news. They were too angry about the discrimination.
While I was president of Seattle NOW, there was a lot of power struggling going on, which was just not my forte. I concentrated on getting groups going for assertiveness training, and learning what your rights are, and the language for pressing them. And then the financial assertiveness task force, learning about your credit rights and how to take a picture of your financial situation and about the community property law and how that affects your finances as a married person. So that was my thrust.
Then came the International Women's Year. And of course for that, the real need was for very strong leadership. Power politics, actually. And fortunately, we had some pretty great women in NOW to go forward on that. My role was to give a workshop on financial assertiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Now were you involved in the planning as well?
|
| Fullner |
I did go to planning meetings, mostly as a listener. I was so impressed with people like Elaine LaTourelle and Karen Fraser, because they were politically aware. They knew this was not going to be a shoe-in. They were the ones to structure the whole conference, to set up the workshops, to identify the issues. Now, to identify the issues, I certainly had input on that. I was very much into the women's issues. But I think I was mainly a listener. I just remember being so impressed with the caliber of women that we had working on that planning committee. There were several.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
I was wondering if the issues were defined by the national commission?
|
| Fullner |
Many issues were pretty clear by then. The divorce rate was sky high. And the fallout was straining the welfare budgets. The welfare rolls were escalating during the seventies. So that was one of the pushes, to remove barriers so women could get some income. [laughs] And relieve that problem. But, yeah, issues like how little money was being spent on women's health issues, girls not being able to participate in sports in schools. I think we were pretty aware of the issues. At IWY these issues were presented very succinctly and powerfully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Let's shift gears just a little bit. I'd like to have you tell me about how you got to Ellensburg, to the conference itself, in 1977. About the logistics of getting there, about staying there, something about the atmosphere, and what it was like. I understand there were some surprises.
|
| Fullner |
Oh, I'll tell you, it was an eye opener for me. I just thought it was going to be a wonderful big meeting on all these issues we were going to address. And my workshop was on financial assertiveness. And I was already talking all over Seattle, and finding women very responsive. I saw things like that as really empowering women to make changes in their lives. So I was very optimistic.
I drove over with a groupfrom Seattle NOW. And when I got there, actually, even before I got there, I had heard that there was going to be trouble. That there was an organized effort to defeat our platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Do you recall when you heard that?
|
| Fullner |
I think it was pretty close to the time that we went. I wish my memory were sharper about it. But it was not a reality to me until I got there and went to the first general meeting. Later, one of the women that I was with made a remark that stuck with me. She had been up on stage and she said that she looked out at this sea of polyester. Well, that sea of polyester was the organized opposition to the ERA.
I went over, dressed like a hippie. I had on a jeans skirt and a red bandana around my head. I don't normally dress that way. But I was really enjoying the activism of the time, and I was dressing the part. And there were various Christian denominations represented. But what I was most aware of were the Mormon women. Either they were in greater numbers, or better organized, but somehow I was mostly aware of them. And they were there with their babies, holding their babies. And they were very nicely dressed. And I just, I felt like a scalawag next to them. [laughs] All I had with me were jeans, and a jeans skirt. Not all members of our contingent were like that. The women from the planning committee on stage were very nicely dressed. But when you looked out, you saw a whole lot of feminists like me.
And I think I told you that earlier, that I went to IWY with the anticipation of one who's going to spend an exciting day at the beach. But there was a tidal wave in progress. That's what it was.
But the thing that interested me most was talking to the Mormon women. They were so receptive. I had many conversations. They answered my questions in a very gracious way. The eye opener for me was how sincere they were, and some of the things they were afraid of. You know what? What they are afraid of was already coming to pass. This luxury of being a stay-at-home mother was already slipping away in the seventies. They were fighting to retain that choice of being a stay-at-home mother. They believed it was the only right lifestyle for women. It was part of their religion.
I was reading Phyllis Schlafly at the time, and that new book called Fascinating Womenhood (by Helen Andelin, 1965), which was sort of a bible on the family model of the husband being the head of the household and the manager of the money. From my point of view, that model made women like me vulnerable when the marriage broke down. It left me high and dry when my husband left our home.
The conservative group thought the feminists were saying to them, "No, your home role is not all that important. It's better that you go out and work." That's how they were taking it.
At the time, I was teaching the basics of financial management, and also the assertiveness that goes along with it. My divorce fueled my passion for women gaining financial independence. And if they were going to be in the home, to be aware of their vulnerabilities and to know what to do about them and how not to be a lean-to in the marriage, so that if the husband weren't there, the wouldn't fall flat economically. I wanted to write a book called How to Be a Wife and Not Get Screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Did you find areas where you did not sympathize with their point of view?
|
| Fullner |
Well, yes. [laughs]
They truly believed that their homemaking role was God-ordained. But I was sad that they would not acknowledge that that role isn't for everybody. And that in some marriages, women are the best managers. What was good for them was not good for me. So I definitely wanted to see the culture grow to make room for both of us. I was a casualty in the cultural framework of the time. And I was fighting to change the framework so that there wouldn't be as many casualties as I had been. I mean, I had gone on welfare when my husband left the home. And I was so grateful that that safety net was there. And that's the first time that I was conscious of how important it is to fund safety nets. I've been a devoted taxpayer ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Were there others, in the group that you were part of, the NOW Coalition, let's call it. Did you find that others shared your efforts to form bridges?
|
| Fullner |
No. I really didn't. Because, you know, there were some pretty strong battles to fight. And we needed warriors. Most of my cohorts in NOW were doing the battle. After that year of being president, I turned all my efforts to financial education for women. I saw myself as a bridge. I was sort of building bridges for women. I taught classes in community college and gave workshops.
After IWY, the American Association of Retired Persons came to town. AARP had done a big survey of the nation to identify the pressing needs of women. They identified several areas of great need, including healthcare. Another was poverty. They had great statistics, showing that in widowhood, women tended to sink below the poverty line. So they created a program to teach women how to take charge of their financial lives.
Fortunately, I was teaching my classes, and I was recommended to meet with the AARP people who came to town. I became the coordinator for their program called the Women's Financial Information Program. This program aimed at mid-life and older women. The rallying cry was, "Take charge of your money, take charge of your life."
My job was to develop the curriculum and to write the workbooks and to do the training to launch this program all over the nation. I was one of the team. But my responsibility, mainly, was the curriculum. I just relished this role of presenting things in a way that was interesting to women who had never managed finances before. That's what I mean about being a bridge. And of course had I had my more militant hat on—that red bandana, it wouldn't have worked. [laughs] It was more natural for me to be a teacher instead of a warrior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Let's get back to the conference for just a few more minutes. I'd like to have you go back to some of the atmosphere.
|
| Fullner |
Yes. The atmosphere. The women in their polyester suits, carrying their babies, seemed serene and relaxed.. But other than that, there was so much intensity because right during the conference, it was, wow, all these people stormed this conference. It looked like we were not going to get our platform across, and like the Mormon women were going to outvote us. There were a lot of strategy meetings going on. How do we swell our ranks? Because this was our opportunity to get our platform passed and to get our delegates elected to go to Houston. It was very, very tense.
And I do recall something else. I knew all of this was going on. And I personally did not know how to relate to it. On the last day, I didn't wait for everything to be over. [laughs] I called my husband and said, "Please come to Ellensburg and get me." So he did. And I just remember I felt so relieved to be in the car, listening to music, driving home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
So you missed the final election?
|
| Fullner |
No, I voted. And I knew we were going to be okay with our slate. A flood of women had come from all over the state to join in the voting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
By "women from all over," you mean the liberal women?
|
| Fullner |
Yeah. Yeah. But I left ahead of the women I rode with. And I just felt like I escaped the fire. [laughs] So glad to be going home. For everybody else I knew there, it was quite exhilarating. For me, it was exhausting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Were there surprises that you hadn't anticipated, other than the conservative women showing up? I'm thinking about insights in terms of the role of women in society, and how women thought about themselves?
|
| Fullner |
I'll tell you why it was so hard for me. I often had conservative women in my financial workshops and in my consulting in the business community on new laws against discrimination. It was important that I establish a rapport, in order to be a person who was truly helpful to these people. When I met all these women, organized women against the ERA, and heard their very well organized talks on the panels, I just thought how do we get this communication going? And I don't know that there was any other way but just simply to bulldoze as much as we could, to get the votes. But it pained me to think that there was a win/lose situation for anybody on these issues which, if really fundamentally understood, should not have been a threat to anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
So in your opinion, were there some positive outcomes?
|
| Fullner |
Well, yes. [laughs]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Maybe I should rephrase that. What were some of the positive and negative outcomes of the conference?
|
| Fullner |
For me it was a consciousness raising thing. I can't speak for the others, but I had no idea there was such strong opposition to women's rights. It was a real eye opener. The positive thing was that we did go forward. Shortly after the Houston conference came the international women's conferences in other countries.
For me, the changes came in steps. I started with NOW locally. It was a personal thing to change the laws that were victimizing me. And then the business community. That was a big effort for change and it was very positive. The next step was in the colleges teaching finances to women. Those classes were always filled to capacity. After that, it was AARP, ten years, going around the nation with the Women's Financial Information Program. Conservative, liberal, it didn't matter. Women came there for very nuts and bolts reasons, changing from within.
Next, I became interested in women's situation worldwide. My next effort was in the microlending movement that provided small loans to women in Third World countries. Small loans that enabled them to double, triple their incomes. It didn't take much. Microlending started in India over twenty-five years ago.
And we started a microlending program right here in Seattle.It is helping women raise their incomes, which they use to tend to the healthcare of their family, the nutrition, and education for their children. So I'd say my interest is still pretty focused on issues like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
It sounds like that's something that nobody could really be against.
|
| Fullner |
No, but you ask the question, did good results come out of IWY? Yes, our state became recognized as a leader on women's issues. IWY was also beneficial to me personally. Number one, somebody gave me a photo that they took of me while I was giving my workshop. And this person wrote on the back, "This is how the Mormon women saw you." I looked at that photo, and I was absolutely appalled. I had that red bandana around my head. I was wearing sunglasses that turned shady in light. Now I don't mind hippies whatsoever, but in that arena, to present myself that way, I realized, given my personal mission of being a bridge for empowering people, that this did not serve me. That photo had such an impact on me.
The IWY experience helped prepare me to be effective in the work that I'd be doing for many years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Before we started the interview, you mentioned something about a workshop on COYOTE?
|
| Fullner |
Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Could you comment on that? I thought that was very interesting.
|
| Fullner |
[laughs] That was one of the workshops I attended. I remember my workshop was filled to capacity. But I think the COYOTE one was packed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
And that stands for Come Off Your Old Tired Ethics?
|
| Fullner |
Cast Off Your Old Tired Ethics. Yes. I wish I remembered the woman who was the head of the COYOTE organization. They wanted to legalize prostitution. This woman gave a history going way, way, way back. I mean, not just saying that prostitution is the oldest profession. [laughs] But documenting it historically in Egyptian times, and giving good reasons for why it needed to be legalized. And why this should be just as legitimate a profession as giving massages. And I thought that was an interesting concept.
You know, I host Japanese students. And I've learned that prostitution is combined with massage legally in Japan. Or a kind of prostitution. It's just done very differently than it is here. And there doesn't seem to be the crime associated with it as it is with prostitution here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Were there some outcomes from the conference, either directly or indirectly, that affected litigation against prostitutes? Or penalties for prostitutes?
|
| Fullner |
I can't remember when it all happened, but now men, not just women, are arrested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
That came later, didn't it?
|
| Fullner |
Yes. And men are fined, too, as well as the women. So that was equalized. Another improvement is in the area of spousal abuse. We even needed a new law for that. Because in the old days, men could beat their wives with impunity. The law just didn't get involved with spousal violence. And now, of course, it's recognized that that violence works both ways. I think that we've come a long way on that one.
And then, of course, there have been huge strides in healthcare, women's healthcare. On all the issues we addressed back in 1977, we have made great strides. And yet when you look at where we are, you can get discouraged and think, oh, we have so much work to do! But look where we were. It's just changed so much.
I know my daughter, she hasn't got a clue as to what my situation− well, she does have a clue. She watched me. But it's not a reality to her, because she's had so much freedom to pursue her dreams in life. She has not run into barriers. And she's an interracial child. As an interracial child, she's half African-American. She has not directly experienced discrimination. She's aware of racial discrimination that's been around her. But it has not been a stumbling block for her. Halleluiah! There's been a lot of changes, and of course, we live in Seattle, that welcomes diversity, and is probably better on women's rights and gay rights than many other locations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Gay rights, you just mentioned. Would you comment on the lesbian caucus?
|
| Fullner |
Gay rights was a bone of contention. No one in our NOW group wanted to see any discrimination because of sexual orientation. But there was a fairly militant lesbian group in town, as well as a militant feminist socialist group. These groups—now to the best of my memory, gee, I wish there was a book I could refresh my memory on, but I remember the first meeting I was going to lead for Seattle NOW. I was told this meeting was going to be stormed by the radical lesbian group.
The concern was that we needed to get together our platform to go to the national NOW conference, and did not want them interfering with the issues that we were going to vote on. I was asked to discourage the lesbian group from attending. And me, the bridge person, I stood out front of the doors and greeted them as they came, and invited them in. I welcomed them when I opened the meeting. And I think I took them by surprise, because there was no contention in that meeting. We talked about the issues that were going to go to the national conference.
So I was uncomfortable, because I knew that there was going to be some pretty heavy politicking that needed to go on in our local NOW. And that was just not my cup of tea. And, again, fortunately, we did have some really good strategists who would caucus. And we all went to the national NOW convention in Chicago. And it turned out well. But it was kind of like IWY. But this time, instead of people against the ERA, it was against ideas that were too radical. We were after platforms that we could turn into legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Fascinating. I think you've answered some of my next question, but perhaps you could say a little bit more about it. From your perspective, how have women's lives changed since the conferences? And in what ways have they stayed the same?
|
| Fullner |
The changes are so easy to see. Look at Condoleeza Rice, a black woman, secretary of state. And I think the fact that we have a very, very conservative Republican president, the fact that she was appointed in his administration kind of solidified affirmative action gains. I don't think Clinton could have solidified that gain like Bush could. An arm of my family is very right-wing Republican. Because Bush brought this woman into his cabinet, they can accept her. If Clinton had, no, it's just− [laughs] So I've been really aware of things that he's been able to say. After Katrina, Bush talked about the effects of past discrimination. Just the fact that he said it made it truth to many die-hard conservatives.
You see young women in sports now. Women's athletic events are well-attended moneymakers now. Women's sports are not even an issue in the schools anymore. And there are many women doctors and attorneys. As Nancy Pelosi says, she has cracked the marble ceiling of Congress. So yeah, we see all that.
Yet there's so much carryover of the old roles of women. And I know myself, it's easy for me to be very assertive as a single woman. But in marriage, when my husband would assert something in a patriarchal way, or whatever, it was very difficult for me to assert myself. Very difficult, because I didn't want to appear like a . . . [Wanda rolls her eyes], because it just didn't seem becoming. [laughs] I still see that women still have a long ways to go to really claim their inheritance. We always have to be vigilant on claiming our rights and seeing that they are enforced.
The need now, I think, is the encouragement and validation of young people, men and women, for partnership, for developing their talents, for gaining confidence in who they really are, what they really want in life, and that might be political, but it's also, I think, very much a spiritual venture that everyone has to undertake. Fortunately, there's been enough societal change, so that women can find support for charting their own course now. But yes, there's a lot of work to be done, personal and political.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Of the issues that were of concern in Ellensburg, which ones do you feel have not been resolved? Which ones are still being debated, and may have a long way to go?
|
| Fullner |
Well, you know, the big fear was that women would lose their ability to be full time homemakers, and that ERA would cut into protections for women. And in a way, that has come to pass. The no-fault divorce has made it very difficult for women who have been really severely wronged. The courts won't even look at the circumstances . You divide the property. You look at what either spouse needs to get on their feet. But there was a loss of protection.
But the overall trend has been very good. Now we see husbands, or fathers, as well as wives, as the predominant caregiver at home when the children are small. Or the one that keeps the house. It's easier now for a couple to work it out between them which one is going to assume the greater income earning role. If there's going to be a division of roles, they're freer to work that out. This is good.
But I would like to resurrect this wonderful choice of one spouse being able to be at home, tending home and children. Although the homemaker role was never mine, or never one that I welcomed, I want men and women to have that choice. I want to see that choice resurrected in all its glory, actually, just as I'd like to see us glorying in roles like Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the House. She had her role as full time mother and wife. Of course, she was in a strata where she could afford a lot of help, so she was also very active in the community.
But the average family is a struggling family today. It takes both husband and wife earning money, which means there's more money to spend. So prices go up, the prices of homes go up, of course, affected by interest rates and everything else. But those two-income families are even less able to afford the stay-at-home parent they were in the fifties. I would like to see more focus on raising the children. Family, I think, is getting short shrift, unless they're wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
I think we've covered most of my questions. In summary, is there anything else that you think we should talk about, or that you would like to mention?
|
| Fullner |
I can't think of anything. [laughs]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Well, we've certainly covered a lot of ground, and I thank you so very much. It's been enlightening. Oh, you have something else. Oh, good.
|
| Fullner |
I just think it's so great that there is the Women's−
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Women's History Consortium?
|
| Fullner |
It's wonderful to have the Women's History Consortium, funded for projects like this,while there are plenty of people around to talk about it. To get these remembrances archived, that's just wonderful. I'm so happy to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Andrews |
Thank you so much for being a part of it. Sharing memories from thirty years ago can be difficult, but I think you did it extremely lucidly and clearly, and your oral history will be a great contribution.
|
| Fullner |
Oh, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
[End Interview.]
|
|
|