"We don't care about women," a clerk at Marshall Field & Co. told her. "Just men."
That she had a good job — she became Chicago's first female news anchor after joining WMAQ Channel 5 in 1966 — and a fat bank account didn't matter. Her husband, globe-trotting lawyer and failed mayoral candidate Richard E. Friedman, mattered. Bonwit Teller closed her account rather than issue it in her new name.
But change was afoot. Lueloff Friedman explained what would normally be a private frustration in front of a Washington hearing of the National Commission on Consumer Finance in 1972.
"The implication is that a woman has suddenly become a second-class citizen or an irresponsible child who can't be trusted to pay her own bills — just because she got married," she testified. "It's not only unfair and demeaning, but ridiculous and unreasonable that a woman should have to forfeit her economic identity because she changed her name."
She noted that American Express began sending her account's bills to her husband and, when he didn't pay them because she already had, suspended his card, causing him to be locked out of a hotel room.
Congress acted, passing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. President Gerald Ford signed it into law exactly 50 years ago Monday, on Oct. 28, 1974.
Everything old is new again. With a divisive presidential election close at hand, pivoting on the role of women in American society — can one be elected president? Should women be trusted to make their own reproductive choices? — it's a timely moment that recalls the struggles that got us here, and the progress that could be undone.
Everything old is new again. With a divisive presidential election close at hand, pivoting on the role of women in American society — can one be elected president? Should women be trusted to make their own reproductive choices? — it's a timely moment that recalls the struggles that got us here, and the progress that could be undone.
To continue reading, click here.
Not to distract from from the main point, but that other report on the photo of that Sun Times page.... Wow. You don't need to be an opinion columnist to deliver a body blow. We'd never see something like that today in a mainstream outlet, too much equivocating and appeasing, careful selection of words, lest someone gets offended.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean. The installation of the plaque? The vet who hung himself? The suburban horseman accused of cruelty? What am I missing?
DeleteThe vet. I don't think today the words "hung himself" would be used. The entire story of a veteran's suicide in jail after a lackluster robbery attempt, I think is jarring, and by simply listing out the facts in no uncertain terms calls attention to a serious problem before PTSD was even a thing. I think today the wording would have been softened and parts of the story possibly omitted if it was even published at all, as we know veteran suicide is too common.
DeleteOh, I see. You're right. We're all into obfuscation and euphemism now. Nobody has "problems." They have "issues." A car accident on the Kennedy is an "issue." It's sad.
DeleteBut on the radio, a "car accident" is now and has been for several years a "car crash," which seems to me to be a step towards rather than away from reality.
Deletejohn
Actually, the words "hung himself" were not used. The grammatically correct "hanged himself" was what was written, something else that, sadly, is also not valued much in journalism these days.
DeleteOne of the best history books I've ever read is Teddy Roosevelt's history of New York City. A hundred and twenty-five years ago he lamented the never ending influence of the Puritans on American affairs, perpetually trying to get their beliefs incorporated into law. From the day they reached these shores, ironically to escape religious persecution, they have tried to impose their religious certainties on the rest of us.We don't call them Puritans anymore but the mindset is the same, and their religious certainties often involve treating women like chattel.
ReplyDeleteI remember. And even then, I had to work hard as a single woman to get a credit card, getting a loan on my small savings account at a local credit union, and parlaying that into my very first credit card. I have never looked back. And we're not going back.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Eve! No, we are not!
DeleteAll this *and "gantlet" is used correctly!
ReplyDeleteI got married in 1968 and remember the credit card kerfuffle very well. Sears was the last holdout. I also remember that, even though I was a CPS teacher at the time, my salary was not considered at all when we applied for a mortgage for our first home. We are not going back!
ReplyDeleteIronically, ten years later, as a (female) freshman in college, my first credit card was from Sears. I wasn’t even working at the time!
DeleteEvery woman of a certain age has stories such as these. My fav is back in the mid seventies I was being interviewed for a job as a media director at a Catholic high school in the St. Louis area. I was asked if I had children; I lowered my eyes and said, "God hasn't blessed us with children". Guess who was embarrassed?
ReplyDeleteI know it is much easier to view these events through a modern lens, but how ignorant most Americans are is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it is clear why so many people are infatuated with Donald Trump. Stories like this put a magnifying glass onto male fragility. For some reason, American men seem to think equality (both for women and for non-whites) means they are worth less. How pathetic. How selfish. How stupid.
A rising tide raises all boats, yet somehow that's not good enough for men. No matter how high their boats rise, they must sink everyone else's boats. The "rich," the "white," the "maga," conservatives, the right, the fascists.
Make no mistake, the makings of a real man is his ability to help lift everyone else; not in their ability to hold down.
Amen !
DeleteI have aunts tell me how their employers would hand their paychecks to husbands (or fathers when unmarried) without their permission. Bankers allowed husbands to withdraw from or even liquidate a woman's individual account without input or knowledge of the woman. One had her house sold without her knowledge by her husband! This in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteWhen I moved to Chicago in 1979 the want ads were still segregated by gender and, famously, the Berghoff only had male wait staff. I was clerking on the 7th Circuit and we got a case from a woman noting that her new credit card had only her husband's name on it. The bank's defense was that it really was her card, but the cards did not include "courtesy titles" so it didn't have the "Mrs." that was really her name. She lost. Affirmed on appeal, with my judge dissenting.
ReplyDeleteTrump preaches the gospel of domination constantly and relentlessly. All else is secondary, irrelevant even. Those who like him likely find that aspect his most attractive and enduring quality and why they are just as relentless in their support. They experience that dominance vicariously through him, and they can't get enough it.
ReplyDeleteRemember her well. Jorie Lueloff was a pioneer in the mid-60s…the first female reporter in Chicago TV to cover hard news and to be an anchor person. She was pretty and perky, too…can I even say that? And she had a long career in Chicago TV and journalism. Also had a column in the Sun-Times for a while.
ReplyDeleteBut I had completely forgotten that she also was the wife of Richard E. Friedman. I remember him well, too. Friedman was the Lincoln Park attorney who challenged Mayor Richard J. Daley in the 1971 election, when he was at the height of his power and seeking a fifth term. Friedman took him on when almost nobody else would.
He not only lost big, he got clocked. Daley won 48 of 50 wards, and almost 70% of the vote. Friedman was the North Side yuppie candidate before there were yuppies. And he wasn’t afraid of the Democratic machine. But Friedman wasn’t just involved in government and politics…he was also quite an adventurer. Flew hot air balloons and gliders, climbed mountains, prospected for minerals, kayaked, and leaned judo. He died last year, at 93.
After losing to Daley, Friedman married Jorie Lueloff and went to work for the federal department of Health, Education and Welfare. He advocated for sculptures outside public buildings, making him partly responsible for the Batcolumn sculpture and for Alexander Calder’s famed Flamingo at the Federal Building. Jorie and Richard were a dynamic duo…a power couple before the term was invented. And each of them, in their own way, left their mark on Chicago.
Can you say that, or *should* you? Perhaps only if you make similar remarks about male anchors, which I somehow doubt. I’m sure she’d prefer remarks about her professionalism. Most women aren’t interested in assessments about their looks from strangers, even positive ones. It’s reductive and objectifying.
Delete"Can I say that?" means "Am I allowed to say that?" Apparently, one of the anonymous commenters doesn't think so. Which anonymous? Perhaps if they were numbered, there would be more certainty. But thanks for sharing, whichever anonymous you are.
Deletejust figure that comment came from ALL the anonymouses grizz. and dont be dismissive about it. they are letting you know something important
DeleteGrizz — I think this is a clash of mindsets here. You reflect the older style and an acknowledgement of unvarnished reality that isn't supposed to be spoken anymore. Newsreaders of both sexes still tend to be attractive, as a group. Just not as individuals. Apparently. I don't create the world, I just try to live in it.
DeleteYou sum up Ms. Lueloff, one of the subjects of the post, in a few sentences, and are compelled to mention her looks. We can all see what she looks like in the photo, so your comment isn’t adding information. You then devote paragraphs to her husband and his accomplishments, but say nothing about his appearance. The unvarnished reality is that, all too often, a woman’s looks are given a weight that a man’s are not. Don’t even get me started on “perky.”
DeleteYou’re “allowed” to say pretty much whatever you want here, pending our host’s approval. But what you say about others tends to also reflect on yourself. Is that the person you are, or want to be? One who values style over substance, but only for women?
Thanks, Mr. S. You just reminded me of an old picture of Sinatra that I have.
DeleteA big smile on his face, and a fedora atop his cabeza. And the caption?
"It's Frank's world. We just live in it." So true. But not anymore.
Things change. It would be nice 50 years after allowing women credit to trust women enough to elect one over one of the worst men this country ever spawned
ReplyDeleteOne paragraph devoted to Ms. Lueloff, and three for Mr. Friedman.
ReplyDeleteI wondered if anyone would voice objections to that. Apparently so.
Apologies for the "perky"...a big mistake. No way to delete it. Sorry.
The proliferation of anonymouses has made heated "discussions" more difficult.
It's like doing battle with a windmill...or an octopus.
One doesn't even know if one's replies are to one person...or a multitude.
Have tried my best, over the years, to avoid any pissing contests here.
Will not engage in one now,
Grizz, do you need to address specific commenters, rather than the ideas they express? Your voice is distinctive, yes, but no one knows who Grizz really is. In effect, we’re all Anonymous here.
DeleteYes, I believe I do. Similar names, each one having different ideas, get me confused. The Anonymice do not all share the same views. Different strokes, and all that.
DeleteThere's one Coey. And one Grizz 65 (Not 65 Grizzes...which reminds me of the kid who had the disease and who famously called it "65 Roses"). Isn't that a better way?
in order to avoid misunderstandings and confusion, some places have rules that require usernames...either real names or pseudonyms...and they do not allow Anonymous Participants. Not so here. Not my house, not my rules..