Without a well defined, high-profile issue that clearly demonstrates discrimination against women, and is susceptible to a concrete remedy, political mobilization of women will not take place. Women have, in the past, mobilized politically for some well-defined causes when definite corrective measures were achievable. Despite high levels of resentment about the general status of women, most women today are not inclined toward political action because they do not perceive the problem as being susceptible to civil remedies. It would, therefore, take a clearly defined form of discrimination, that had a practical remedy, for women to mobilize. (Thus, the argument takes the form of modus tollens, i.e., if women organize it is because they have a clear, remediable issue, women currently perceive no such isolated issue and so they do not organize.)
Notable instances of the political mobilization of women include the Suffrage movement, the pro- and anti-ERA movements, and the electoral response to the Clarence Thomas hearings in several states. In each instance the issues appeared to be clearly defined to those women who mobilized to promote or defeat issues or candidates. Regardless of whether or not the issues truly were well-defined, or even whether supporters actually understood the issues, the proponents of particular viewpoints believed that they were so defined. In each case there was also a goal that, when accomplished, would be taken to mean that their ends had been achieved: obtaining the vote, passing or defeating the ERA, and electing or defeating political candidates.
Regardless of which side women took on these issues they were mobilized by the belief that a wrong of some sort was being perpetrated and could be remedied by political action. Women mobilize on either side of these questions, and what appears to be discrimination to some is acceptable or even valuable to others. Whether women joined in with NOW or s...