This is the third post in our series “Mobilizing Motherhood,” focused on mothers in twentieth-century industrial and environmental activism.
In 1977, the League of Women Voters, an American non-profit organization, began a series of no-cost Car Care clinics across the country to provide instruction in basic car maintenance. Partnering with the energy company Atlantic Richfield, the League encouraged women to gain experience changing tires, jump-starting batteries, and learning to deal with other common car needs. By stressing that Car Care was “Not for Men Only,” Atlantic Richfield and the League sought to educate women to “help themselves,” borrowing feminist language to dispel the notion that cars were “part of a ‘man’s world.’” These promises of a “new emancipation” paired with older notions of maternal responsibilities, namely as consumers and caregivers. By learning how to “care” for their cars, women would be able to save money on gas and maintenance and avoid accidents, ensuring they (and their family) would be safe on the road.[1] In this way, these workshops are demonstrative of the efforts the League of Women Voters to engage Americans on energy issues in the 1970s—designed to inform while still participating in the gendered ideas and expectations of the age, even at times challenging them.[2]
Atlantic Richfield Company, advertisement, folder 1, box IV: 200, LWV, LOC.
Formed in the aftermath of women winning the right to vote in 1920, the League sought to provide information on various public policy issues across the country. They were particularly involved in advocating for environmental and economic reforms in the mid-1900s, framing their efforts as nonpartisan and educational. They engaged in a style of advocacy that connected maternalist and gendered authority with expertise, both from their own members and from invited collaborators. Much like earlier women’s organizations that framed their efforts as a form of ‘municipal housekeeping,’ the League drew on their members’ roles as mothers to explain the need for clean drinking water or public health reforms. As a result, the League has often been treated as a more moderate counterpart to other women’s groups in the 1960s and 1970s, but, in fact, many members had quite radical views. For example, in 1971, in response to questions from local Leagues on air pollution issues, 67 of the 964 local Leagues polled called for eliminating the internal combustion engine, 116 supported restricting the use of automobiles, and 57 demanded “the jailing of polluters (including company executives).”[3] And although the League did not typically consider energy issues directly, its promotion of environmental and public health initiatives meant that it had “been at work on energy related problems for many years” without realizing it, as Gwen Murphree, who became the first chair of the League’s Energy Task Force, later put it.[4]
When the 1973 oil embargo began, the League had yet to establish firm positions on energy issues. They instead responded to the political and economic consequences of the crises, specifically as it pertained to the environment and public health. Many local Leagues braced for political leaders and industrial lobbyists to exploit “the crisis atmosphere” to demand “extensive damaging changes to the Clean Air Act.” Lois Jeffrey, one key member of the League’s Environmental Quality committee, recommended an “outpouring of letters from ‘grass roots’” to ensure policymakers held the line and protected pollution laws. She noted that other environmental laws might be attacked, including water regulations, arguing “power plants and refineries will use the ‘energy crisis’ argument” to advance their deregulatory goals.[5]
In practice, the League focused most of their energy efforts in the 1970s on education, working to provide information on the energy crisis and the importance of conservation. These initiatives seemed on the surface to be enormously successful. At its 1974 national conference, the League voted to form an Energy Task Force to provide guidance on energy-related issues. While the new group sought to establish its positions, the LWV Education Fund began producing booklets covering the “energy issue,” ranging from an overview on oil to the relationship between clean air goals and energy needs.
The League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area, “Conserve Energy” booklet, folder 6, box IV: 244, LWV, LOC.
However, the League’s many members held disparate views on how best to approach energy, primarily centered on how radical the League’s energy positions ought to be. For example, following an Energy Conservation Conference held in November 1974, the League produced a statement on energy they believed was representative of member thinking, stressing conservation and the importance of educating the public on energy issues. But many local Leagues rejected the statement, viewing it as a series of “vague platitudes” with “no teeth.” Members of the Anchorage League, for example, remained confused on what the priorities of the League even were— economic or environmental—and declared the statement akin to “apple pie and motherhood,” meaning something everyone supported while not providing actual actions.[6]
Furthermore, the Fund relied on resources and expertise provided by Shell Oil company to produce their worksheets, continuing a partnership that had begun during the League’s efforts to produce educational material regarding the environment in the 1960s. Interestingly, both League leadership and Shell decided to hold off on crediting the company for its financial support. Even this early there seemed some discomfort among leadership—or at least a recognition of the optics—regarding the association of the League’s work with energy multinationals. There also appeared to be concerns about how the public would perceive these partnerships. In meetings hosted by the Tucson branch of the League of Women Voters, for example, members found the public did not believe the pronouncements of energy experts and government officials. “But they trusted us,” one member recalled, “because we were fellow consumers and our only ‘vested interest’ was the same as theirs—our children’s future.”[7]
And while the League received some grants from government bodies such as the Office of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Energy, it also relied on money provided by corporate energy giants like Exxon. This assistance paid for activities ranging from the car-care workshops to industry-funded helicopter flights for League leaders to tour oil refineries and offshore platforms in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. One member wrote League leaders to express her discomfort about “establishing new League connections with the energy magnates who appear to be exercising undue influence over national energy policy and non-policy in high places.” In response, Murphree assured her that the League wasn’t going to be “bought by any donor,” nor would their positions be compromised.[8]
Despite its best efforts, the League ended the 1970s with a decidedly partisan reputation. Several key leaders took positions in the Carter administration, and the larger shift in American politics surrounding environmental and energy issues caused many to associate their positions as with the Democratic party. Even so, League members continued advocating for public health and environmental reforms as both mothers and citizens, and these priorities ultimately shaped how the League approached energy issues as well.
[1] Atlantic Richfield Company, “A Woman’s World,” June 30, 1978, folder 1, box IV: 200, Records of the League of Women Voters [hereafter LWV], Library of Congress, Washington, DC [hereafter LOC].
[2] “Filling Station Revolution Features Feminine Touch,” San Gabriel Valley Tribune, June 15, 1977, folder 1, box IV: 200, LWV, LOC.
[3] Ruth Clusen to Members of the National Board, “Air. Quality Position,” Mar. 24, 1971, folder 2, box IV: 247, LWV, LOC.
[4] Gwen Murphree to S. David Freeman, June 19, 1974, folder 7, box IV: 245, LWV, LOC.
[5] Lois Jeffrey to National Board, “Effect of Emergency Energy Legislation on the Clean Air Act,” Jan. 4, 1974, folder 9, box IV: 245, LWV, LOC.
[6] Lois Sharpe and Isabelle Weber to National Board, “Response to national board’s request for CONCURRENCE on Energy Conservation statement,” May 1, 1975, folder 1, box IV: 245; Vera Engelhoch, “Notes on Unit meeting of LWV of Anchorage,” April 16, 1975, folder 1, box IV: 243, LWV, LOC.
[7] Qtd. in Monica Sullivan, National VOTER, Summer 1978, folder 12, box IV: 198, LWV, LOC
[8] Gwen Murphree to Elizabeth S. Johnson, Dec. 22, 1975, folder 5, box IV: 245, LWV, LOC.
Warren Dennis