ERA?

[ClydeR]

The U.S. Senate will vote on a resolution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment this week — 100 years after the measure was introduced, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Monday.

The big picture: The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution would guarantee equal rights legally, regardless of sex.

A Twitter photo of Sen. Chuck Schumer holding a sign saying "ERA Yes," with his accompanying tweet comment "We’re standing together today with champions for the Equal Rights Amendment! It would guarantee that rights are applied equally without regard to sex. And I’m going to bring it to the Senate floor this week."

Opponents argue the ERA cannot be ratified because the congressional deadline for ratification has expired and that it's unnecessary because women are protected under the 14th Amendment and other laws.

What they're saying: "In this ominous hour of American history, the Equal Rights Amendment has never been as necessary and urgent as it is today," said Schumer in a statement Monday.

More... (https://www.axios.com/2023/04/25/senate-vote-equal-rights-amendment-100-years)


Does the United States need an equal rights amendment? The first time it came up for debate, the amendment was foiled by worries about bathrooms.

"In this ominous hour.." That sounds cool.



Read the amendment here.. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1523.pdf

[Parkbandit]

What rights does someone not have in this country that other people do have?

Spell them out.

Be specific.

Hopefully, you come forward with more than "CHESS IS A SPORT!" but given your history, I doubt it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Why do we need that when we have this?:

14th Amendment
Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Methais]

What rights does someone not have in this country that other people do have?

Spell them out.

Be specific.

Hopefully, you come forward with more than "CHESS IS A SPORT!" but given your history, I doubt it.

According to Latrin's mommy, he doesn't have the right to shop for cold cuts all by himself without getting her permission first.

[Methais]

Why do we need that when we have this?:

14th Amendment
Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's a combination of today's democrats being nothing other than performative + said democrats knowing that there are enough NPC retards like Seran who will gobble all that meaningless shit up and then ask for a second serving to be shoved up their asses.

[ClydeR]

Why do we need that when we have this?:

14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, which they did not have until it was ratified. What does that tell you about the 14th Amendment?

[Methais]

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, which they did not have until it was ratified. What does that tell you about the 14th Amendment?

Maybe they didn't know what a woman was back then either.

What is a woman, ClydeR? Please advise.

[Suppressed Poet]

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, which they did not have until it was ratified. What does that tell you about the 14th Amendment?

Ok.

As PB asked, what right or issue specifically is the concern? What right or legal protection isn’t afforded equally today in 2023?

[Suppressed Poet]

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, which they did not have until it was ratified. What does that tell you about the 14th Amendment?

Also to answer your question about what does it tell me about the 14th amendment…the right to vote is not given in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, the 19th Amendment was specific in giving women the right to vote. That was not addressed in the 14th amendment.

Please elaborate on the purpose of this legislation or what Democrats are actually trying to accomplish.

[Parkbandit]

Ok.

As PB asked, what right or issue specifically is the concern? What right or legal protection isn’t afforded equally today in 2023?

Losers like ClydeR never want to get into specifics. They just want to shout into the sky that their rights are being trampled on!

[ClydeR]

Please elaborate on the purpose of this legislation or what Democrats are actually trying to accomplish.

Who said it's Democrats? A Republican is pushing it.

[ClydeR]

Hopefully, you come forward with more than "CHESS IS A SPORT!" but given your history, I doubt it.

Okay, I'll tell you.. the Draft. That's checkmate!

[Methais]

Who said it's Democrats? A Republican is pushing it.

Chuck Schumer is a republican now?



Please elaborate on the purpose of this legislation or what Democrats are actually trying to accomplish.

Probably more trojan horse legislation like usual...


Why it matters: A bloc of at least eight corn belt Republicans are a hard “no” on the bill unless it’s revised (https://www.axios.com/2023/04/22/mccarthy-debt-ceiling-revisions) to remove cuts to ethanol tax credits, Axios has learned.

Too lazy to read the rest, but it's probably safe to assume it's filled with pork and has little to nothing to do with anyone's "rights."

[Seran]

Does the United States need an equal rights amendment? The first time it came up for debate, the amendment was foiled by worries about bathrooms.

"In this ominous hour.." That sounds cool.



Read the amendment here.. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1523.pdf

Women did not have the same rights as men during the drafting of the Constitution and subsequent amendments have only ratified explicit rights to due process, equal protection and voting. Meanwhile, it would require any sex based discrimination to be reviewed with strict scrutiny by adding sex as a suspect class for the purposes of litigation.

So yeah, now that the ratification threshold has been met I'm looking forward to the Archivist adding the 28th Amendment to the Federal Register.

[Suppressed Poet]

So yeah, now that the ratification threshold has been met I'm looking forward to the Archivist adding the 28th Amendment to the Federal Register.

That would be a truly historic moment, but would this *really* be enough to “honor the women that made history throughout history”?

[Seran]

That would be a truly historic moment, but would this *really* be enough to “honor the women that made history throughout history”?

Not doing it would certainly be a dishonor, so I'd say it's a good start.

[Suppressed Poet]

Not doing it would certainly be a dishonor, so I'd say it's a good start.

Damn good start. But your work is really never done, is it Seran? We the people of the PC realm admire your valiant statement defending women’s honor. Despite every woman you have ever met finding you absolutely repulsive, you diligently continue to uphold your creed of simp. For perhaps one day, brave white knight, you will encounter the one female out there willing to look past your obvious social status as a no-value male & reward your nice guy behavior with her affection.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/452/280/50c.jpg

[Solkern]

Women did not have the same rights as men during the drafting of the Constitution and subsequent amendments have only ratified explicit rights to due process, equal protection and voting. Meanwhile, it would require any sex based discrimination to be reviewed with strict scrutiny by adding sex as a suspect class for the purposes of litigation.

So yeah, now that the ratification threshold has been met I'm looking forward to the Archivist adding the 28th Amendment to the Federal Register.

Women didn’t have the same rights, yes and no, women also didn’t have the same responsibility as men, which is why men could only vote, and women could not.

[Neveragain]

Not doing it would certainly be a dishonor, so I'd say it's a good start.

Does this mean men will no longer be required to register with selective service, or, does that now mean women will be made to register?

[Parkbandit]

So, no one can tell me what rights this would give or restore to anyone?

It's just legislation to make legislation?

Looking for specifics.. not feelings.

[Neveragain]

So, no one can tell me what rights this would give or restore to anyone?

It's just legislation to make legislation?

Looking for specifics.. not feelings.

There are none. It's red meat for women that believe they have an extra right to murder their offspring.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Not doing it would certainly be a dishonor, so I'd say it's a good start.

ROFLMAO. Like anyone in congress has honor. We have a drug addict whoring son of the president. The president who is clearly a pedophile and thief. A VP who fucked her way to her position and has no discernible skills at all. A congress full of sexual deviants, pedophiles, thieves, race baiters, and liars.

Lets just stop with the virtue signaling about honor.

[Neveragain]

ROFLMAO. Like anyone in congress has honor. We have a drug addict whoring son of the president. The president who is clearly a pedophile and thief. A VP who fucked her way to her position and has no discernible skills at all. A congress full of sexual deviants, pedophiles, thieves, race baiters, and liars.

Lets just stop with the virtue signaling about honor.

A man dressing up in women's clothing, he stole from the airport baggage claim, isn't honorable?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A man dressing up in women's clothing, he stole from the airport baggage claim, isn't honorable?

How about marrying their brother? Wanting to commit genocide on Israel? Killing millions of defenseless babies as policy?

[Seran]

Women didn’t have the same rights, yes and no, women also didn’t have the same responsibility as men, which is why men could only vote, and women could not.

Women didn't have the same responsibilities because they weren't allowed to and treated as chattel by "God fearing men" who were taught to treat them little better than servants. Women's suffrage reversed that.

[Seran]

Does this mean men will no longer be required to register with selective service, or, does that now mean women will be made to register?

The latter.

[Seran]

The Conservatives in this thread prove just why the ERA is needed. I feel sorry for the women in your life, hopefully you don't treat them as badly as you disrespect them here.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The Conservatives in this thread prove just why the ERA is needed. I feel sorry for the women in your life, hopefully you don't treat them as badly as you disrespect them here.

Bro, I feel sorry for the children in your life. What you do is illegal and immoral. Stop being a pedophile.

[Solkern]

Women didn't have the same responsibilities because they weren't allowed to and treated as chattel by "God fearing men" who were taught to treat them little better than servants. Women's suffrage reversed that.

Is was more because of military conscriptions. Men had to go fight and die for our country, women did not. That’s the main reason women didn’t get to vote.

Women are still not required for selective services. Talk about privilege.

[Neveragain]

The latter.

I truly hope that the Democrats, that are frothing at the mouth over this, highlight in their soundbites that women will now be made to go fight in wars.

[Neveragain]

Women didn't have the same responsibilities because they weren't allowed to and treated as chattel by "God fearing men" who were taught to treat them little better than servants. Women's suffrage reversed that.

Women were treated as chattel slaves for being asked to keep the house in order while the man was out plowing the field with a horse driven plow?

You actually buy that shit?

Have you and your ilk ever considered that men and women had this discussion thousands of years ago and women decided that tending the fields sucked ass and taking on the role of housekeeper was a better bargain?

[Suppressed Poet]

The Conservatives in this thread prove just why the ERA is needed. I feel sorry for the women in your life, hopefully you don't treat them as badly as you disrespect them here.

You crack me up bro.

https://slang.net/img/slang/lg/white_knighting_6152.jpg

[Suppressed Poet]

Women were treated as chattel slaves for being asked to keep the house in order while the man was out plowing the field with a horse driven plow?

You actually buy that shit?

Have you and your ilk ever considered that men and women had this discussion thousands of years ago and women decided that tending the fields sucked ass and taking on the role of housekeeper was a better bargain?

Also ask him how were women treated in other places where men are/were not God-fearing. Surely it’s just western Christian nations that did not allow women to vote or be politically active, right? Surely women’s suffrage was achieved first in other places first, right?

[Parkbandit]

Women didn't have the same responsibilities because they weren't allowed to and treated as chattel by "God fearing men" who were taught to treat them little better than servants. Women's suffrage reversed that.

Even though Democrats fought against it, the Republicans prevailed.

[Suppressed Poet]

The latter.

Did you know that women: run slower, carry less weight, shoot less accurately, become injured more frequently, and can become pregnant making them combat ineffective for long periods of time? They don’t belong in combat. That is something we as humans have understood for thousands of years. Go on…call me sexiest for saying so…

[Neveragain]

Also ask him how were women treated in other places where men are/were not God-fearing. Surely it’s just western Christian nations that did not allow women to vote or be politically active, right? Surely women’s suffrage was achieved first in other places first, right?

Women's suffrage was only made possible by the acts of men that brought on the industrial revolution. The acts of those men were driven by their physiological predisposition to provide and protect their partner.

James Brown was a philosophical genius on the subject.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd1-HM234DE

[Solkern]

Did you know that women: shoot less accurately

I 10000000% disagree with you. When my wife is angry. She has impeccable aim with those frying pans, and other objects she throws at me. I’m sure that wouldn’t change with a gun!

[Seran]

I truly hope that the Democrats, that are frothing at the mouth over this, highlight in their soundbites that women will now be made to go fight in wars.

Equality has both benefits and requirements. Women's groups have been arguing for inclusion in selective service for a long time and to that point, I don't think there's going to be any animosity about registration. You do understand that conscription or draft still had medical fitness and exemptions that apply equally to men and women, right?

[Seran]

Did you know that women: run slower, carry less weight, shoot less accurately, become injured more frequently, and can become pregnant making them combat ineffective for long periods of time? They don’t belong in combat. That is something we as humans have understood for thousands of years. Go on…call me sexiest for saying so…

I'm certain you understand women don't spontaneously get pregnant from the air or water they intake, right? The same discipline against fraternitization amongst ranks applying to men would apply equally to women. Women can also he trained to shoot more accurately, just like their male counterparts.

Everything else is a pure biological 'duh' moment. It you don't think that the military could as effectively make use of women in service while respecting physiological differences, then you're severely underestimating out Armed Services.

[Seran]

Women were treated as chattel slaves for being asked to keep the house in order while the man was out plowing the field with a horse driven plow?

You actually buy that shit?

Have you and your ilk ever considered that men and women had this discussion thousands of years ago and women decided that tending the fields sucked ass and taking on the role of housekeeper was a better bargain?

An argument about the misogynistic practices of the past and the biblical inspiration for that treatment isn't a justification for continuing to deny equal rights in the modern day. But if you'd like to represent that it does.. well, I'm sorry for you.

[Neveragain]

Women's groups have been arguing for inclusion in selective service for a long time and to that point, I don't think there's going to be any animosity about registration.

Confirmed, Seran is gay and knows nothing about women.

Like honestly, who cheers about being a part of the group that has the right to be sent off to wars by politicians?

[Neveragain]

An argument about the misogynistic practices of the past and the biblical inspiration for that treatment isn't a justification for continuing to deny equal rights in the modern day. But if you'd like to represent that it does.. well, I'm sorry for you.

So women were the chattel slaves while chilling in the house and the dude was out plowing the fields?

Make it make sense!

[Suppressed Poet]

I 10000000% disagree with you. When my wife is angry. She has impeccable aim with those frying pans, and other objects she throws at me. I’m sure that wouldn’t change with a gun!

My wife is actually really good at accurate shooting under ideal conditions at the range. If she takes her time and is on her A game, she can shoot a full sized steel 9mm pistol about as accurately as me. She struggles with racking the slide with most pistols though due to hand strength & stubborn refusal to learn the proper technique. Give her something with a little more kick (like a smaller lighter pistol or a hotter caliber) and that accuracy degrades very quickly.

My justification for stating women shoot less accurately:

1) Combat is way different than recreational range shooting, and it is a fact that men are better equipped to handle that stress and operate under those conditions than women are comparatively. There are always exceptions. No doubt there are some women who can shoot more accurately than some men in combat, but broadly speaking men will have an advantage.

2) Look no further than our military range qualification standards (with a desire for an acceptable percentage of women to pass) for proof. When they took a gender specific qualification approach they lowered shooting accuracy standards for women. When they took a gender neutral approach to standards, they lowered overall shooting accuracy qualifications to account for women.

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm certain you understand women don't spontaneously get pregnant from the air or water they intake, right? The same discipline against fraternitization amongst ranks applying to men would apply equally to women. Women can also he trained to shoot more accurately, just like their male counterparts.

Everything else is a pure biological 'duh' moment. It you don't think that the military could as effectively make use of women in service while respecting physiological differences, then you're severely underestimating out Armed Services.

What do you think is going to happen when men & women are sharing the same fox hole Seran? It’s probably beyond your life experience or comprehension to imagine that, but try.

No doubt women are capable of serving in the military and performing just as well as men, but for combat or physically demanding jobs…no. That woke thinking & ignoring scientific biological differences between the sexes will make us weak where we must be strong.

[Suppressed Poet]

Women's groups have been arguing for inclusion in selective service for a long time and to that point, I don't think there's going to be any animosity about registration.

I can’t tell if that’s the retardation talking or the bat shit crazy virgin. Go poll women if they desire to be pressed into military service and get back to me on that one. Hell, most men are not enthusiastic about being forced into military service.

[Elanthil]

I was in a foxhole...with a woman...in 1986 in basic training, even though it was something of a no no back then. I jokingly (being 18 at the time) asked her if she wanted to bust my cherry (I was a virgin), and she hit me with the butt of her rifle and said "I will gouge out your eyeballs and finger fuck the holes!"...so...I think army women will be just fine in war if they all have that kind of attitude!

[Suppressed Poet]

I was in a foxhole...with a woman...in 1986 in basic training, even though it was something of a no no back then. I jokingly (being 18 at the time) asked her if she wanted to bust my cherry (I was a virgin), and she hit me with the butt of her rifle and said "I will gouge out your eyeballs and finger fuck the holes!"...so...I think army women will be just fine in war if they all have that kind of attitude!

That’s funny as hell.

But you also kinda make my point that at least a conversation around & a good possibility of bumping uglies is likely to occur in that kind of situation. When I was 18 I pretty much lived with having a boner 24/7.

[Seran]

Is was more because of military conscriptions. Men had to go fight and die for our country, women did not. That’s the main reason women didn’t get to vote.

Women are still not required for selective services. Talk about privilege.

With the goal of that changing, the ERA would pave the way for a selective service registration for women as well.

[Seran]

What do you think is going to happen when men & women are sharing the same fox hole Seran? It’s probably beyond your life experience or comprehension to imagine that, but try.

No doubt women are capable of serving in the military and performing just as well as men, but for combat or physically demanding jobs…no. That woke thinking & ignoring scientific biological differences between the sexes will make us weak where we must be strong.

You're making quite a big jump to conclusions about the lack of discipline of our troops and the ability of their commanding officers to enforce unit cohesion without their boning. Women and men can serve together, they won't get cooties or spontaneously knocked up and I doubt God will smite them in their fox holes either.

[Suppressed Poet]

With the goal of that changing, the ERA would pave the way for a selective service registration for women as well.

Spoken like a true Marxist.

[Parkbandit]

With the goal of that changing, the ERA would pave the way for a selective service registration for women as well.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to require women to register for the Selective Service.

[Suppressed Poet]

You're making quite a big jump to conclusions about the lack of discipline of our troops and the ability of their commanding officers to enforce unit cohesion without their boning. Women and men can serve together, they won't get cooties or spontaneously knocked up and I doubt God will smite them in their fox holes either.

We have already throughly explored this topic in the film Starship Troopers. Have you seen it? Spoiler alert: The men and women that end up serving in combat together fuck each other.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrankFortunateEastsiberianlaika-size_restricted.gif

https://y.yarn.co/37df1e5d-febf-47e2-9837-33633d3c2767_text.gif

[Seran]

We have already throughly explored this topic in the film Starship Troopers. Have you seen it? Spoiler alert: The men and women that end up serving in combat together fuck each other.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrankFortunateEastsiberianlaika-size_restricted.gif

https://y.yarn.co/37df1e5d-febf-47e2-9837-33633d3c2767_text.gif

Prior to popular belief, Hollywood does not always mirror reality. I think you'd do best to separate your own personal beliefs about women being incapable, along with your perceived lack of control and reevaluate. Take some pride in our armed services for once.

[Seran]

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to require women to register for the Selective Service.

...that is not the purpose of the ERA, but a secondary effect that would likely result. Feel free to read the prior posts before blithely jumping into the conversation with your misrepresentation of the topic.

[Suppressed Poet]

https://youtu.be/lgBlegaNrdk

[Suppressed Poet]

...that is not the purpose of the ERA, but a secondary effect that would likely result. Feel free to read the prior posts before blithely jumping into the conversation with your misrepresentation of the topic.

So what is the purpose of the ERA? What rights are not equal today in 2023?

[Neveragain]

With the goal of that changing, the ERA would pave the way for a selective service registration for women as well.

There's no fucking way I would allow my daughters to register for the draft.

You're fucking insane.

[ClydeR]

So what is the purpose of the ERA? What rights are not equal today in 2023?

You're focused one of two important questions. The first question, which has been discussed in this forum, is what rights the ERA would grant and what obligations it would impose. The second question is the level of protection the ERA would provide. Regarding the second question, the 14th Amendment, which you wisely mentioned earlier in this thread, is interpreted by the courts as imposing a lower level of protection against sex discrimination than against racial or religious discrimination. Sex discrimination is protected by the 14th Amendment on the same level as discrimination based on legitimacy, which is discrimination against children born out of wedlock. If you search for "quasi-suspect class," you'll find articles about the difference between the two levels of Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment. The ERA would cause sex discrimination to receive the same level of protection as race and religion.

[Parkbandit]

...that is not the purpose of the ERA, but a secondary effect that would likely result. Feel free to read the prior posts before blithely jumping into the conversation with your misrepresentation of the topic.

You've been incapable of being specific about what rights any US citizen doesn't have that other US citizens have... and this was the only thing you brought up.

Maybe you would like to offer an actual answer this time.. or do you just want to go scream into the sky that your rights are being violated?

[Suppressed Poet]

There's no fucking way I would allow my daughters to register for the draft.

You're fucking insane.

Seran also demands a D&I remake of the film Saving Private Ryan. Captain Miller needs to be casted by Whoopi Goldberg in order to better represent women of color.

[Seran]

There's no fucking way I would allow my daughters to register for the draft.

You're fucking insane.

It's not your choice if it was the law.

[Seran]

You've been incapable of being specific about what rights any US citizen doesn't have that other US citizens have... and this was the only thing you brought up.

Maybe you would like to offer an actual answer this time.. or do you just want to go scream into the sky that your rights are being violated?

Just because you've not followed the thread isn't anyone's fault but your own.

[Suppressed Poet]

You're focused one of two important questions. The first question, which has been discussed in this forum, is what rights the ERA would grant and what obligations it would impose. The second question is the level of protection the ERA would provide. Regarding the second question, the 14th Amendment, which you wisely mentioned earlier in this thread, is interpreted by the courts as imposing a lower level of protection against sex discrimination than against racial or religious discrimination. Sex discrimination is protected by the 14th Amendment on the same level as discrimination based on legitimacy, which is discrimination against children born out of wedlock. If you search for "quasi-suspect class," you'll find articles about the difference between the two levels of Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment. The ERA would cause sex discrimination to receive the same level of protection as race and religion.

This reeks of utter bullshit.

Can you give me an example of where sex discrimination is occurring in 2023? I’ll award bonus points if your example of sex discrimination would have been legally protected if it were instead race or religious discrimination. What actual real world problem are you trying to solve?

[Suppressed Poet]

It's not your choice if it was the law.

And there you have it… Seran wants to see young women mowed down by machine gun fire on the beaches of Normandy.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Take any polarizing topic in recent history, and Seran has 12 degrees in taking retarded stances on it. Can you imagine how insufferable this pedophile is in person? I bet his family disowned him a long long time ago.

[Suppressed Poet]

Take any polarizing topic in recent history, and Seran has 12 degrees in taking retarded stances on it. Can you imagine how insufferable this pedophile is in person? I bet his family disowned him a long long time ago.

I hope the actual person is a happy intelligent individual that just gets his jollies off RPing as Seran and trolling us on the PC. I’m pretty certain at this point that is not the case, but I do hope that for him.

[Seran]

This reeks of utter bullshit.

Can you give me an example of where sex discrimination is occurring in 2023? I’ll award bonus points if your example of sex discrimination would have been legally protected if it were instead race or religious discrimination. What actual real world problem are you trying to solve?

Phillips v. Martin Marietta: Supreme Court decision which had to rely on Title 7 to grant relief to a woman who was turned away from employment due to having young children.

Reed v Reed: Supreme Court decision overturning an Idaho statute which gave a male inheritor first rights in an estate case over any female descendents.

Frontiero v Richardson: Supreme Court cases which overturned a federal statute granting automatic benefits to a male service member benefits for a spouse, while conversely requiring documentation of financial dependency and approval of any female service member seeking benefits for their spouse.

Pittsburgh Press v Pittsburgh on Hyman Relations: Supreme Court decision overturning an employer right to print employment ads targeting Male or Female help wanted as free speech. Reaffirming that gender based employment is discriminatory.

Stanton v Stanton: Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Utah statute indicating men reach majority at 18, while women reach majority at 21.

This is just in the 1970s, there are so many more landmark Court cases surrounding gender inequality laws relying on federal code of equal protections clause in lieu of a Constitutional Amendment declaring women have equal rights as men.

[Neveragain]

It's not your choice if it was the law.

The fuck if it's not.

I'm an enemy of the state the moment this country requires women to register with the selective service.

[Suppressed Poet]

Phillips v. Martin Marietta: Supreme Court decision which had to rely on Title 7 to grant relief to a woman who was turned away from employment due to having young children.

Reed v Reed: Supreme Court decision overturning an Idaho statute which gave a male inheritor first rights in an estate case over any female descendents.

Frontiero v Richardson: Supreme Court cases which overturned a federal statute granting automatic benefits to a male service member benefits for a spouse, while conversely requiring documentation of financial dependency and approval of any female service member seeking benefits for their spouse.

Pittsburgh Press v Pittsburgh on Hyman Relations: Supreme Court decision overturning an employer right to print employment ads targeting Male or Female help wanted as free speech. Reaffirming that gender based employment is discriminatory.

Stanton v Stanton: Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Utah statute indicating men reach majority at 18, while women reach majority at 21.

This is just in the 1970s, there are so many more landmark Court cases surrounding gender inequality laws relying on federal code of equal protections clause in lieu of a Constitutional Amendment declaring women have equal rights as men.

So if I understand you correctly as I am not going to take the time to look up those cases, SCOTUS ruled in favor of women on each of those cases? Equal Opportunity Employment Act happened in what…the 1960s? Makes sense then.

I really have no problem with women being afforded equal protection and rights as men under the law, but it seems to me we already do that. And if that is indeed the case…then what the hell are we doing here? Political clout that accomplishes absolutely nothing?

[Suppressed Poet]

The fuck if it's not.

I'm an enemy of the state the moment this country requires women to register with the selective service.

You wouldn’t be alone. A lot of people would not be ok with that.

[ClydeR]

Can you give me an example of where sex discrimination is occurring in 2023? I’ll award bonus points if your example of sex discrimination would have been legally protected if it were instead race or religious discrimination. What actual real world problem are you trying to solve?


Why does the example need to be from 2023? What about 2033? A purpose, but as note earlier, not the sole purpose, of the ERA is to prevent the deprivation of rights in the future by states or the federal government. There are existing amendments to the Constitution that do not address current problems and did not address current problems at the time they were drafted and ratified. Those amendment are still needed. What's wrong with buying insurance just in case, especially when the required number of states already went to the trouble of voting in favor of it?

[Suppressed Poet]

Why does the example need to be from 2023? What about 2033? A purpose, but as note earlier, not the sole purpose, of the ERA is to prevent the deprivation of rights in the future by states or the federal government. There are existing amendments to the Constitution that do not address current problems and did not address current problems at the time they were drafted and ratified. Those amendment are still needed. What's wrong with buying insurance just in case, especially when the required number of states already went to the trouble of voting in favor of it?

It just seems to me like a giant waste of time & it’s complete nonsense.

I suspect that the real motivation behind it is so the Dems can tout it as a big historic bipartisan legislative accomplishment that happened under Biden’s leadership. Even though it achieves absolutely nothing, we have a ton of stupid people in this country that will believe only after this passes did we finally have gender equality & protection from the boogeyman conservative majority SCOTUS who seeks to return women’s place in society to a time before the 20th century. Sound about right to you?

[Seran]

So if I understand you correctly as I am not going to take the time to look up those cases, SCOTUS ruled in favor of women on each of those cases? Equal Opportunity Employment Act happened in what…the 1960s? Makes sense then.

I really have no problem with women being afforded equal protection and rights as men under the law, but it seems to me we already do that. And if that is indeed the case…then what the hell are we doing here? Political clout that accomplishes absolutely nothing?

If you've no problem with equal protections and rights, why exactly are you stomping your feet so hard over the majority of states and now the Senate wishing to ensure the 28th amendment is in fact adopted? Over the last century there have been huge strides, up until the reversal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment which makes women's rights a foundational principle seems to be your enemy.

[Gelston]

There's no fucking way I would allow my daughters to register for the draft.

You're fucking insane.

“Allow”. It isn’t up to you. They’d be 18.

[Neveragain]

“Allow”. It isn’t up to you. They’d be 18.

It's not going to be up to politicians either.

Shit will burn to the ground if women are required to register, period.

[Neveragain]

If you've no problem with equal protections and rights, why exactly are you stomping your feet so hard over the majority of states and now the Senate wishing to ensure the 28th amendment is in fact adopted? Over the last century there have been huge strides, up until the reversal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment which makes women's rights a foundational principle seems to be your enemy.

Murdering humans isn't a right, never has been.

Democrats, the party of killing babies, forcing women into combat and taking away women's rights for men in dresses.

[Suppressed Poet]

If you've no problem with equal protections and rights, why exactly are you stomping your feet so hard over the majority of states and now the Senate wishing to ensure the 28th amendment is in fact adopted? Over the last century there have been huge strides, up until the reversal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment which makes women's rights a foundational principle seems to be your enemy.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this will not solidify the right to an abortion.

So let me get this straight… We already have a 14th Amendment, a 19th Amendment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and a ton of additional federal legislation in place that protect women’s rights. You can’t tell me of any problem we have in our society today, nor can you articulate one you anticipate in the future, that this amendment would protect women’s rights which isn’t already protected by legislation already in place. And yet, you expect me to throw my support behind a constitutional amendment which in practice really wouldn’t do anything? Listen Fed Boy… I know you love government so much that you welcome all manners of all additional bureaucratic busy work, but most people don’t love it when government wastes our time and/or money with incompetent action.

And to answer your question in the best way I can with an anecdote: So somewhat of a trend in the corporate world these last few years is people add to their email signature their preferred pronouns. It’s an obvious virtue signal. Honestly, I got absolutely no problem with people doing that nor do I pay it any mind when I see it. I do not participate. We’re here for business, and that’s none of my business. About a year ago we had this little article on our company intranet news page from some D&I HR director strongly encouraging employees to participate as it shows support for the LBGTQ+ community at work. How the fuck does listing your preferred pronouns on your email signature show support towards our LBGTQ+ community? That makes absolutely no gahdamn sense. And why the fuck are you asking me to put the equivalent of a bumper sticker on my email signature when it’s perfectly obvious my pronouns are male oriented? I refuse to participate in such nonsense fuckery, but I also do my absolute best not to judge or make my concern others that choose to do so. If, however, there comes a day that my employer deems listing preferred pronouns on our company directory page and/or email signature is mandatory…my hand to God I would immediately resign & walk away. Because fuck you, that’s why.

[Gelston]

It's not going to be up to politicians either.

Shit will burn to the ground if women are required to register, period.

Lol, no it won’t.

Hell, Israel has compulsory service. You saying you are a bigger pussy than Israeli fathers?

[Seran]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this will not solidify the right to an abortion.

So let me get this straight… We already have a 14th Amendment, a 19th Amendment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and a ton of additional federal legislation in place that protect women’s rights. You can’t tell me of any problem we have in our society today, nor can you articulate one you anticipate in the future, that this amendment would protect women’s rights which isn’t already protected by legislation already in place. And yet, you expect me to throw my support behind a constitutional amendment which in practice really wouldn’t do anything? Listen Fed Boy… I know you love government so much that you welcome all manners of all additional bureaucratic busy work, but most people don’t love it when government wastes our time and/or money with incompetent action.

And to answer your question in the best way I can with an anecdote: So somewhat of a trend in the corporate world these last few years is people add to their email signature their preferred pronouns. It’s an obvious virtue signal. Honestly, I got absolutely no problem with people doing that nor do I pay it any mind when I see it. I do not participate. We’re here for business, and that’s none of my business. About a year ago we had this little article on our company intranet news page from some D&I HR director strongly encouraging employees to participate as it shows support for the LBGTQ+ community at work. How the fuck does listing your preferred pronouns on your email signature show support towards our LBGTQ+ community? That makes absolutely no gahdamn sense. And why the fuck are you asking me to put the equivalent of a bumper sticker on my email signature when it’s perfectly obvious my pronouns are male oriented? I refuse to participate in such nonsense fuckery, but I also do my absolute best not to judge or make my concern others that choose to do so. If, however, there comes a day that my employer deems listing preferred pronouns on our company directory page and/or email signature is mandatory…my hand to God I would immediately resign & walk away. Because fuck you, that’s why.

Don't think any of the majority of the states which ratified the amendment were counting on your support anyways, your beliefs about the inferiority of women and their segregation from men on duty are the antithetical 'traditionalist' belief which is dying out.

You don't support it, regardless of the case law showing why the ERA is necessary, so don't. But don't pretend you support women, but then white knight the belief you'd support it if it weren't a waste of time, that's disingenuous.

[Suppressed Poet]

But don't pretend you support women, but then white knight the belief you'd support it if it weren't a waste of time, that's disingenuous.

Someone kindly add “white knight” to the long list of words & their definitions that Seran doesn’t understand.

https://media.tenor.com/gJEgNDoaXIIAAAAd/terry-silver-terry-silver-cobra-kai.gif

[Suppressed Poet]

Lol, no it won’t.

Hell, Israel has compulsory service. You saying you are a bigger pussy than Israeli fathers?

I don’t give a fuck about Israel’s compulsory service. This is America. It’s not admirable nor does it show your toughness to compel women into military service. In fact, we should have a military force comprised of volunteer professionals for as long as we are able to do so.

Edit: That may have came across as harsh / blunt / rude. Israel has very good reasons that they require women to serve which are unique to Israel’s geography, population, and circumstance. That’s fine for them. We don’t share those circumstances here, and those reasons have no application in the United States of America. Just like how they have military doctrine to carry firearms in condition 3 (mag loaded & inserted with no round in the chamber), what may make sense for Israel may not make sense in the USA.

[Seran]

I don’t give a fuck about Israel’s compulsory service. This is America. It’s not admirable nor does it show your toughness to compel women into military service. In fact, we should have a military force comprised of volunteer professionals for as long as we are able to do so.

Edit: That may have came across as harsh / blunt / rude. Israel has very good reasons that they require women to serve which are unique to Israel. That’s fine for them. We don’t share those circumstances here, and those reasons have no application in the United States of America.

If America was in a war that requires institution of a draft, your argument is women shouldn't be a part of it because they're weak and boys will be unable to resist making them pregnant. Disregarding the obvious ignorance and chauvinism, you'd make our country weaker by ignoring one half of the able bodied and competent population.

[Neveragain]

Lol, no it won’t.

Hell, Israel has compulsory service. You saying you are a bigger pussy than Israeli fathers?

No, I'm saying only morally repugnant governments force women into combat.

The fact that you are ok with forcing women into combat only proves you're the pussy.

[Neveragain]

If America was in a war that requires institution of a draft, your argument is women shouldn't be a part of it because they're weak and boys will be unable to resist making them pregnant. Disregarding the obvious ignorance and chauvinism, you'd make our country weaker by ignoring one half of the able bodied and competent population.

How did that last draft go? Forcing women to fight in the jungles of Vietnam for failed French imperialism would have been great for public support.

[Suppressed Poet]

boys will be unable to resist making them pregnant.

I did not say that.

I said women are physically weaker than men. That is an undeniable fact.

I said women can become pregnant making them combat ineffective. That is an undeniable fact.

I also said if you put men and women together sharing a fox hole & in the brutally intimate with your fellow soldiers conditions that our troops have to endure in combat, sex is bound to happen. It could be the dude raping the chick, or the chick raping the dude, or consensual between two, or maybe she just fucks the whole unit because she is a dirty cum slut…lots of situations can happen man. I suppose that is my opinion. I think it’s a perfectly fair reasonable assumption that if you put a bunch of horny teenagers together of the opposite sex that share the same living quarters, it’s likely there will be some fucking going on.



Disregarding the obvious ignorance and chauvinism, you'd make our country weaker by ignoring one half of the able bodied and competent population.

Ha! Ok let me ask you something your ignorant ass hasn’t even considered… If both men & women are pressed into military service, what are you going to do about our children? Put them in compulsory Joe Biden’s sniffing camp while mommy & daddy are fighting in a war?

[Solkern]

Personally, I wouldn’t want my daughter to ever have to do selective services. Next, I don’t know any women that would want to do it. A lot of these feminist talk a lot, but when it would come time to step up, they run away. Finally, I’m not sexist, but women should not have to go to fight and die for our country, that’s a man’s job. I am sure that there are some women that would love to go and fight, and if they want to they should! But those women are the extreme minority.

My wife leans conservative, she believes in traditional gender roles. Her job is to take care of our family, my job is to provide. My job is to go and protect her, our family and our country, her job is to look after our future.

She has told me countless times, this is our house, but my job to make sure it’s a clean comfortable place for our family, it’s your job to keep, the bills paid, frig full, protect our family and and we have all that we need.
Yes, I do of course help her around the house, but if I didn’t, she wouldn’t even care, and would probably prefer it because I always fuck shit up lol

[Seran]

I did not say that.

I said women are physically weaker than men. That is an undeniable fact.

I said women can become pregnant making them combat ineffective. That is an undeniable fact.

I also said if you put men and women together sharing a fox hole & in the brutally intimate with your fellow soldiers conditions that our troops have to endure in combat, sex is bound to happen. It could be the dude raping the chick, or the chick raping the dude, or consensual between two, or maybe she just fucks the whole unit because she is a dirty cum slut…lots of situations can happen man. I suppose that is my opinion. I think it’s a perfectly fair reasonable assumption that if you put a bunch of horny teenagers together of the opposite sex that share the same living quarters, it’s likely there will be some fucking going on.




Ha! Ok let me ask you something your ignorant ass hasn’t even considered… If both men & women are pressed into military service, what are you going to do about our children? Put them in compulsory Joe Biden’s sniffing camp while mommy & daddy are fighting in a war?

Compulsory service never existed without compassionate releases, medical releases, school releases etc. You act as if a theoretical draft would be the end of our civilization without any concept of how effective female members of the armed services are. Do you think a woman with minor children wouldn't get a waiver? You're insane. Some 38% of women polled actually agreed with the requirement of entering selective service with another 10-11% undecided.

[Solkern]

Great article, on why women should not be in the selective services.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/8/3/22594821/im-a-feminist-a-mandatory-military-draft-would-be-terrible-for-our-women

In 2012, when we undertook a “surge” in Afghanistan, 310 American soldiers died, with less than 4,000 wounded. In that same year, more than 700 U.S. women died in childbirth, with another 52,000 suffering a profound bodily harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure or aneurysms. The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is now more than double what it was 30 years ago (it’s now 17.4 per 100,000 and rising).

Glad we want our women to do selective service, so they can die fighting and die back home! The great privilege to die at least twice as much as men!

[Suppressed Poet]

Do you think a woman with minor children wouldn't get a waiver? You're insane.

No.

Why would women get a draft waiver for having minor children? Why wouldn’t men receive a waiver? You’re being sexist and creating gender inequality.

[Gelston]

I don’t give a fuck about Israel’s compulsory service. This is America. It’s not admirable nor does it show your toughness to compel women into military service. In fact, we should have a military force comprised of volunteer professionals for as long as we are able to do so.

Edit: That may have came across as harsh / blunt / rude. Israel has very good reasons that they require women to serve which are unique to Israel’s geography, population, and circumstance. That’s fine for them. We don’t share those circumstances here, and those reasons have no application in the United States of America. Just like how they have military doctrine to carry firearms in condition 3 (mag loaded & inserted with no round in the chamber), what may make sense for Israel may not make sense in the USA.

Other than Vietnam, compulsory service has only ever been used in dire times. Because of Vietnam it would take a fucking lot. But Neveragain is acting like requiring women to sign up for the Sekrctive Service would lead to mass riots and shit.

[Solkern]

Other than Vietnam, compulsory service has only ever been used in dire times. Because of Vietnam it would take a fucking lot. But Neveragain is acting like requiring women to sign up for the Sekrctive Service would lead to mass riots and shit.

We are getting riots over fucking pronouns right now, it wouldn’t even surprise me if riots did occur over this.

[Neveragain]

Other than Vietnam

"Other than the most recent use of the draft."

It was no big deal, man!

[Parkbandit]

Just because you've not followed the thread isn't anyone's fault but your own.

You would have been better off to just pretend you didn't see my post than to post this.... given you have not articulated a single right that is being violated that requires the ERA to solve.

[Parkbandit]

I hope the actual person is a happy intelligent individual that just gets his jollies off RPing as Seran and trolling us on the PC. I’m pretty certain at this point that is not the case, but I do hope that for him.

And he's just pretending to be a miserable, retarded loser for the past 2 decades here?

[Seran]

No.

Why would women get a draft waiver for having minor children? Why wouldn’t men receive a waiver? You’re being sexist and creating gender inequality.

Because that is the way our country operates? A draftee isn't selective if it would cause an extreme hardship to a single parent household, they're attending college, or have other medical reasons to be excluded as approved by the oversight board.

[Parkbandit]

If you've no problem with equal protections and rights, why exactly are you stomping your feet so hard over the majority of states and now the Senate wishing to ensure the 28th amendment is in fact adopted? Over the last century there have been huge strides, up until the reversal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment which makes women's rights a foundational principle seems to be your enemy.

Roe wasn't law.. it was an overstep by the SCOTUS which was sent back to the States to determine.

If you believe that it's a woman's body and it's up to them what they do with it... then I'm sure you are ok with pregnant women drinking alcohol, smoking whatever they want and taking any sort of drugs that make them feel better?

It's a pretty stupid argument by a pretty stupid Party that relies on pretty stupid people to vote them in.

[Suppressed Poet]

Because that is the way our country operates? A draftee isn't selective if it would cause an extreme hardship to a single parent household, they're attending college, or have other medical reasons to be excluded as approved by the oversight board.

Do only women attend college or endure the hardship of being a single parent? You see how you are not making sense or being equal like you intended? Then next you will create so many exemptions that makes it easy to escape selective service, thus defeating it’s purpose.

[Neveragain]

Because that is the way our country operates? A draftee isn't selective if it would cause an extreme hardship to a single parent household, they're attending college, or have other medical reasons to be excluded as approved by the oversight board.

Sending any family member off to die in a war is going to be an extreme hardship to any family.

"they're attending college"

So basically, you want to follow the same line of poor/black people fighting wars that white rich people start?

You're everything the anti-war liberals were against.

[Seran]

Roe wasn't law.. it was an overstep by the SCOTUS which was sent back to the States to determine.

If you believe that it's a woman's body and it's up to them what they do with it... then I'm sure you are ok with pregnant women drinking alcohol, smoking whatever they want and taking any sort of drugs that make them feel better?

It's a pretty stupid argument by a pretty stupid Party that relies on pretty stupid people to vote them in.

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

[Seran]

Do only women attend college or endure the hardship of being a single parent? You see how you are not making sense or being equal like you intended? Then next you will create so many exemptions that makes it easy to escape selective service, thus defeating it’s purpose.

You're inferring and argument I didn't make. Any single parent household would likely qualify for that exemption, which is the sole discretion of the Selective Services board.

[Suppressed Poet]

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

Is that why you are the way you are? Makes sense.

[Shaps]

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

?

But I thought a fetus was NOT a human.... why would smoking crack or meth matter?

I mean... what's more "intentional mortal harm"?.... smoking crack or abortion? You tell me.

Once again... Leftist logic is fucking absurd.

Fucking moron.

[Neveragain]

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

How has something that is not living gained an addiction in the womb?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l3vR7WqD8Ej4feyju/giphy.gif

[Suppressed Poet]

And he's just pretending to be a miserable, retarded loser for the past 2 decades here?

0.000001% chance he is like an Alex Jones type character on the PC but totally different in real life.

[Seran]

How has something that is not living gained an addiction in the womb?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l3vR7WqD8Ej4feyju/giphy.gif

You really are dumb.

[Seran]

?

But I thought a fetus was NOT a human.... why would smoking crack or meth matter?

I mean... what's more "intentional mortal harm"?.... smoking crack or abortion? You tell me.

Once again... Leftist logic is fucking absurd.

Fucking moron.

That moment when someone tries to substitute mockery to cover how poorly they've made their own argument. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

I just want to make sure I have your logic down here... it's 100% a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to do with her body.

So a pregnant woman should be able to:

1) Get an abortion up to and including a moment prior to birth
2) Drink/smoke/do drugs throughout the pregnancy
3) Commit suicide at anytime as long as it's not with a gun because ZOMGGUNCONTROL!

Good talk.

[Parkbandit]

You really are dumb.

https://media.tenor.com/yaHuZ9dK1igAAAAC/irony-meter.gif

[Neveragain]

You really are dumb.

How does something that's not alive become addicted to drugs?

If I shoot heroin into a corpse will the corpse become a junky?

"Murdering the baby is fine, smoking and drinking though...that's where I draw the line! ~ Seran"

[Neveragain]

I just want to make sure I have your logic down here... it's 100% a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to do with her body.

So a pregnant woman should be able to:

1) Get an abortion up to and including a moment prior to birth
2) Drink/smoke/do drugs throughout the pregnancy
3) Commit suicide at anytime as long as it's not with a gun because ZOMGGUNCONTROL!

Good talk.

I think you're missing a little. It's ok to do drugs while pregnant as long as you kill the baby before it passes through the birth canal. If you don't kill the baby, only then are you a bad person. Killing the baby is not harmful to the baby, only the drugs harm the baby

[Suppressed Poet]

I just want to make sure I have your logic down here... it's 100% a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to do with her body.

So a pregnant woman should be able to:

1) Get an abortion up to and including a moment prior to birth
2) Drink/smoke/do drugs throughout the pregnancy
3) Commit suicide at anytime as long as it's not with a gun because ZOMGGUNCONTROL!

Good talk.

Seran: We need to respect women and defend their honor!

Also Seran: Women should be conscripted into military service and be subjected to the brutality of combat!

[Shaps]

That moment when someone tries to substitute mockery to cover how poorly they've made their own argument. I'm embarrassed for you.

This is your illogical argument... year after year I keep hoping you might stop being a fucking moron... and year after year, I realize that you will always be a moron.

Why we keep entertaining, or even stating facts, in any conversation with you is beyond me... I suppose we're just hopeful.

[Neveragain]

This is your illogical argument... year after year I keep hoping you might stop being a fucking moron... and year after year, I realize that you will always be a moron.

Why we keep entertaining, or even stating facts, in any conversation with you is beyond me... I suppose we're just hopeful.

It becomes difficult to defend your supposed ideology of science when half your ideology is based in complete fiction.

[Seran]

I just want to make sure I have your logic down here... it's 100% a woman's choice to do whatever she wants to do with her body.

So a pregnant woman should be able to:

1) Get an abortion up to and including a moment prior to birth
2) Drink/smoke/do drugs throughout the pregnancy
3) Commit suicide at anytime as long as it's not with a gun because ZOMGGUNCONTROL!

Good talk.

I'll never cease to be amazed how the far faaaar right tries to boil everything down to an entirely misrepresented position of the Democrat party platform.

Women should be free to get abortions, the common law in most states limits second or third trimester abortions unless it's medically necessary, which is the party position.

Women certainly do whatever they want with their bodies, just as men do. If a woman decides to take a child to term and it becomes clear she's a risk to the infant at the time of birth then protective services steps in to care for the child. Since neither Republicans or Democrats have passed any federal laws regarding drinking or smoking during pregnancy, but have provided full funded education regarding the dangers, your position is nonsense.

Federally, suicide is not illegal. I can't think of any states where it is, but you've apparently gotten it into your head that the Democrat platform solely wants to outlaw firearms to end suicides by gun? Umm, no again.

You just keep trucking along with your crackpot theories.

[Neveragain]

If a woman decides to take a child to term

"Killing your child is OK, doing drugs...state confiscation of your child. ~ Seran"

Make it make sense!

[Methais]

The Conservatives in this thread prove just why the ERA is needed. I feel sorry for the women in your life, hopefully you don't treat them as badly as you disrespect them here.

Seran moments before this post was made:

https://media3.giphy.com/media/o240WC04PLhew/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952dwi9f217pt66lsre2cqz16ooc1t9 2j9vnvsyxjkd&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

[Solkern]

Every single person I know, on both the right and left are 100% against women in the selective service. They are 100% for women who volunteer to service, but are 100% against mandatory service.

[Methais]

I'm certain you understand women don't spontaneously get pregnant from the air or water they intake, right? The same discipline against fraternitization amongst ranks applying to men would apply equally to women. Women can also he trained to shoot more accurately, just like their male counterparts.

Everything else is a pure biological 'duh' moment. It you don't think that the military could as effectively make use of women in service while respecting physiological differences, then you're severely underestimating out Armed Services.

Hey Seran, can men get pregnant?

[Methais]

Confirmed, Seran is gay and knows nothing about women.

Like honestly, who cheers about being a part of the group that has the right to be sent off to wars by politicians?

I didn't know Seran played WoW Classic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnGsUxA2ugw

[Methais]

Take any polarizing topic in recent history, and Seran has 12 degrees in taking retarded stances on it. Can you imagine how insufferable this pedophile is in person? I bet his family disowned him a long long time ago.

Seran is basically if diarrhea were a person.

[Methais]

Phillips v. Martin Marietta: Supreme Court decision which had to rely on Title 7 to grant relief to a woman who was turned away from employment due to having young children.

Reed v Reed: Supreme Court decision overturning an Idaho statute which gave a male inheritor first rights in an estate case over any female descendents.

Frontiero v Richardson: Supreme Court cases which overturned a federal statute granting automatic benefits to a male service member benefits for a spouse, while conversely requiring documentation of financial dependency and approval of any female service member seeking benefits for their spouse.

Pittsburgh Press v Pittsburgh on Hyman Relations: Supreme Court decision overturning an employer right to print employment ads targeting Male or Female help wanted as free speech. Reaffirming that gender based employment is discriminatory.

Stanton v Stanton: Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Utah statute indicating men reach majority at 18, while women reach majority at 21.

This is just in the 1970s, there are so many more landmark Court cases surrounding gender inequality laws relying on federal code of equal protections clause in lieu of a Constitutional Amendment declaring women have equal rights as men.

Suppressed Poet: Can you give an example of where sex discrimination is occuring in 2023?

Seran: Here are a bunch of court cases from the 1970s!


Also Seran: Why does everyone think I'm stupid?

[Methais]

Why does the example need to be from 2023? What about 2033? A purpose, but as note earlier, not the sole purpose, of the ERA is to prevent the deprivation of rights in the future by states or the federal government. There are existing amendments to the Constitution that do not address current problems and did not address current problems at the time they were drafted and ratified. Those amendment are still needed. What's wrong with buying insurance just in case, especially when the required number of states already went to the trouble of voting in favor of it?

Shut the fuck up Latrin.

[Methais]

Personally, I wouldn’t want my daughter to ever have to do selective services. Next, I don’t know any women that would want to do it. A lot of these feminist talk a lot, but when it would come time to step up, they run away. Finally, I’m not sexist, but women should not have to go to fight and die for our country, that’s a man’s job. I am sure that there are some women that would love to go and fight, and if they want to they should! But those women are the extreme minority.

My wife leans conservative, she believes in traditional gender roles. Her job is to take care of our family, my job is to provide. My job is to go and protect her, our family and our country, her job is to look after our future.

She has told me countless times, this is our house, but my job to make sure it’s a clean comfortable place for our family, it’s your job to keep, the bills paid, frig full, protect our family and and we have all that we need.
Yes, I do of course help her around the house, but if I didn’t, she wouldn’t even care, and would probably prefer it because I always fuck shit up lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjLT-xI8_MA

[Methais]

I don't know if you realize this, but smoking and drinking are legal and yes a woman who is pregnant may do so heedless of the circumstances. A women who didn't get an abortion and chose to take a child to term which is doing hard drugs such as cocaine, meth, etc. is birthing a child with some severe defects and likely an addiction. As that is intentionally doing mortal harm, that child is taken away at birth for protection.

Are you saying that you're adopted? Or did your mom slip through the cracks on that one after she had you?

[Methais]

That moment when someone tries to substitute mockery to cover how poorly they've made their own argument. I'm embarrassed for you.

Can a "clump of cells" develop drug addictions?

[Seran]

Every single person I know, on both the right and left are 100% against women in the selective service. They are 100% for women who volunteer to service, but are 100% against mandatory service.

And yet 36% of women and 55% of all men support women being eligible for the draft and being required to sign up for selective service as men do at age 18.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/military-draft-women-support-2021

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And yet 36% of women and 55% of all men support women being eligible for the draft and being required to sign up for selective service as men do at age 18.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/military-draft-women-support-2021

Yeah, but 100% of the people he knows are 100% against it. Solkern only deals in absolutes. Surprised he didn't drop a "literally" in there.

[Suppressed Poet]

And yet 36% of women and 55% of all men support women being eligible for the draft and being required to sign up for selective service as men do at age 18.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/military-draft-women-support-2021

Let’s assume for a moment this is a legit study that we can use. I am not sure that it is, but let’s assume that for just a moment…

You failed to mention a couple things:

2. Support for drafting women into the military has decreased significantly since 2016
In 2016, 63% of Americans supported drafting women, as well as men, if the military draft were reinstated. In this most recent poll, only 45% of Americans are in favor.
In 2021, over half of all men (55%) support drafting women, compared to about a third (36%) of women.

Why would you even cite this when it doesn’t support your argument? Over 60% of women are not cool with being drafted.

I will also say that war and being drafted to go fight for your country sounds like a romantic abstract concept to a lot of people. When it’s a real possibility like a WW3 situation where you are actually likely to be drafted & can die a horrible death in combat, I suspect you will find support for that to drastically decrease.

[Neveragain]

I suspect you will find support for that to drastically decrease.

The moment daughters start coming home in body bags, is the moment you lose all support for a war.

[Methais]

Let’s assume for a moment this is a legit study that we can use. I am not sure that it is, but let’s assume that for just a moment…

You failed to mention a couple things:


Why would you even cite this when it doesn’t support your argument? Over 60% of women are not cool with being drafted.

I will also say that war and being drafted to go fight for your country sounds like a romantic abstract concept to a lot of people. When it’s a real possibility like a WW3 situation where you are actually likely to be drafted & can die a horrible death in combat, I suspect you will find support for that to drastically decrease.

Seran doesn't care about any of that as long as his welfare checks are still arriving.

Seran thinks more women in the military = more taxes being paid = more welfare for him.

[Seran]

Let’s assume for a moment this is a legit study that we can use. I am not sure that it is, but let’s assume that for just a moment…

You failed to mention a couple things:


Why would you even cite this when it doesn’t support your argument? Over 60% of women are not cool with being drafted.

I will also say that war and being drafted to go fight for your country sounds like a romantic abstract concept to a lot of people. When it’s a real possibility like a WW3 situation where you are actually likely to be drafted & can die a horrible death in combat, I suspect you will find support for that to drastically decrease.

Why cite it? Because while Solkern has a circle of friends he's apparently talked to about equality in the draft, his anecdotal claim isn't indicative of what a true sampling believes. Women in the military and draft is an interesting abstraction, but really it has got zero implication on whether or not the Equal Rights Amendment should be introduced into the Federal Register now that it has met the minimum ratification threshold. I can see this being done under Biden.

[Methais]

Why cite it? Because while Solkern has a circle of friends he's apparently talked to about equality in the draft, his anecdotal claim isn't indicative of what a true sampling believes. Women in the military and draft is an interesting abstraction, but really it has got zero implication on whether or not the Equal Rights Amendment should be introduced into the Federal Register now that it has met the minimum ratification threshold. I can see this being done under Biden.

What if a women gets drafted and she says "No because my body my choice." should she still have to serve anyway? Asking for Latrin's mom's cold cut guy's friend.

[Gelston]

What if a women gets drafted and she says "No because my body my choice." should she still have to serve anyway? Asking for Latrin's mom's cold cut guy's friend.

She can choose to go to jail instead.

[Methais]

She can choose to go to jail instead.

Racist.

[Suppressed Poet]

She can choose to go to jail instead.

Or Canada. Same diff.