| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 90.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 163 words from this article are provided below; about 355 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 90.2 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Two Paths to Equality: Alice Paul and Ethel M. Smith in the ERA Debate, 1921–1929. By Amy E. Butler. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. x, 167 pp. Cloth, $54.50, ISBN 0-7914-5319-7. Paper, $17.95, ISBN 0-7914-5320-0.)

The dichotomy between egalitarian feminism and social feminism is a familiar theme in women's history. Those two approaches to women's rights—the first advocating formal legal equality between the sexes, the second focusing on reforms designed to improve the situation of disadvantaged women—had emerged during the struggle for woman suffrage. Since that goal was compatible with both brands of feminism, the conflict between egalitarian feminists and social feminists was initially a disagreement over priorities. That unity did not long survive the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. After 1920, social feminists continued their advocacy of protective labor legislation, broadening their focus from maximum hours to minimum wage. The egalitarian feminists drafted a constitutional amendment that on its face prohibited that kind of legislation.

. . .

There are about 355 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.