Equal Rights Amendment getting another look

[Thondalar]

Story: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140810/us--equal_rights_amendment-4a1e405788.html

For those not familiar, back in 1923 a woman wrote up what would have been the 20th Amendment, basically stating "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
It finally passed both houses of Congress in 1972, and went to State legislatures for ratification. The time limit for completing ratification was 1979...at that time there were 35 of the required 38 States on board, so it was extended to 1982. In 1982 there were still only 35 States signed up, so it was called dead. Now, people are trying to revive it. The most vocal opponent of it back then, a woman by the name of Phyllis Schlafly, is now almost in her 90s, but still speaking out about it.

My favorite part:


"They lost and they can't stand it," (Schlafly) said in a telephone interview. "They're doing it to raise money, to give people something to do, to pretend that women are being mistreated by society."

(other opponents contend) the ERA would force women into military combat, invalidate privacy protections for bathrooms and locker rooms, undermine child support judgments and jeopardize social payments to widows.

Yeah, ladies. Come get you some equality. I'm all for it.

[Warriorbird]

On the one side you have a measure that won't even ensure pay equality. One the other you have a bunch of Chicken Little moral panic nonsense. Stupid all around.

[Candor]

OK I am going to ask two dumb questions.

What laws currently in effect would be nullified by the amendment if it was ratified?
What laws currently don't exist which would motivate a need for the amendment?

[Thondalar]

OK I am going to ask two dumb questions.

What laws currently in effect would be nullified by the amendment if it was ratified?
What laws currently don't exist which would motivate a need for the amendment?

Well, that's not really what this is. This would say that you have to apply all laws equally to men and women. No special treatment...a good example would be custody battles. Right now, women overwhelmingly get whatever custody they ask for. This would make sure that men get a fair shake.

[Gelston]

OK I am going to ask two dumb questions.

What laws currently in effect would be nullified by the amendment if it was ratified?
What laws currently don't exist which would motivate a need for the amendment?

I'd imagine all the military restrictions against women serving in certain jobs would be removed.

[Thondalar]

I'd imagine all the military restrictions against women serving in certain jobs would be removed.

Yep, they would have to be.

[Latrinsorm]

OK I am going to ask two dumb questions.

What laws currently in effect would be nullified by the amendment if it was ratified?
What laws currently don't exist which would motivate a need for the amendment?The Hobby Lobby ruling isn't precisely a law, but it would be interesting to see how the strict constructionist judges reacted to this Amendment if another suit was brought after its passage.
The most vocal opponent of it back then, a woman by the name of Phyllis Schlafly, is now almost in her 90s, but still speaking out about it.She might not be the person you want to charge into rhetorical battle with. A brief perusal reveals these tidbits:

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."

While working to defeat a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment, she warned it would force courts to approve same-sex marriages.

"Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate. While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap. Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It's sort of a straw feminism issue to frame it the way OP did because I want to break it down the way Third Wave Feminists tend to view these issues (though I obviously don't speak for all ladies everywhere).

When men pursue custody, they tend to have more money than the women and thus have more resources to toss towards lawyers and proving an ability to provide. Because of that, joint custody is absolutely the norm and men are awarded full custody many times when they pursue it for valid reasons. Not that sometimes some men and their children fall between cracks, but the same can be said for women and being victims of violence, etc. The custody issue is an issue largely because a lot of men don't PURSUE custody in the first place because of largely messed up social issues-- interested fatherhood seen as weakness in an otherwise masculine man, and childcare seen as a woman's work, the idea put out there that they may as well not try because courts won't favor them or will punish them, etc.

I oppose the draft as it stands, but if it must stand as it stands, I fully think and agree that both men and women must register for it. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who academically understands and agrees with feminism and disagrees. If they disagree, it's probably because they also disagree with the idea of a draft in the first place. So while they won't say women should sign up for the draft, they also vehemently disagree that men should either.

Locker room and bathroom laws tend to be laws pushed by second wave feminists who are exclusionary of Trans women as not "natural born women".. Many times they view Trans women as perverts and other nasty things. Third wavers reject this and accept Trans women (women assigned male at birth who transition to woman) as "one of us" and thus the issues of locker room and bathroom laws are exclusionary and sexist against gender minorities outside of the cissexual norm. As such most third wavers would love to see more neutral locker rooms, bathrooms, etc with privacy barriers installed in mind for the modest among both genders to use as they see fit and everyone else can just co-exist.

As far as social security payments to widows, they should be made with a mind to the era in which and circumstances the people lived. So yes, a widow who lost her husband in the 60's would be paid differently than a widow today. But so should men who lost wives in the Red Cross, etc. But a widow and a widower would NOT be paid differently according to their gender today and that is as it should be.

I'm sure plenty of people are against all of the above but to frame it like the women's right's movement (feminism) somehow lobbied for things and now wants to take them back is very ignorant of the progression of Feminism through first wave to third. You don't have to agree with it (parts or all) but it's pretty cohesive from an academic stand point and not hard to understand why someone from an older wave would disapprove of what the newer waves are attempting to do.

[Candor]

I'd imagine all the military restrictions against women serving in certain jobs would be removed.

Women would need to register for Selective Service when they become 18. I think it is safe to say that a lot of women would prefer not to have this requirement mandated on them.

[Warriorbird]

Women would need to register for Selective Service when they become 18. I think it is safe to say that a lot of women would prefer not to have this requirement mandated on them.

http://margotmagowan.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/lorax.jpg

These days I hear they can even speak for themselves and own property.

[Gelston]

http://margotmagowan.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/lorax.jpg

These days I hear they can even speak for themselves and own property.

Bullshit. They don't even know how to get on the internet.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Whatever Gelston, sometimes we pick the lock to the special shoe cabinet and escape outside of the kitchen!

[Methais]

Bullshit. They don't even know how to get on the internet.

And all they know how to do in MMOs is heal.

I assume if this law passes, a dude can beat himself up, tell the cops the woman did it and she'll be hauled off to jail with no further questions asked?

[ClydeR]

This story is about making men and women use the same bathrooms. That's all it was ever about, except for a decisive moment 34 years ago.

Picture it. 1980. Detroit. Republicans are gathering in America's great industrial city to finalize their platform. The Republican Party's national platform has officially supported amending the Constitution to provide equal rights for women for 40 years. Goldwater's heir is the new sheriff in town. He and his supporters don't want an amendment. They also don't want a nasty fight with women in their own party. What to do? Behold the birth of the "Unity ERA," a part of the 1980 Republican Party platform that would be acceptable to everybody. As quoted in full below, the Unity ERA allowed that women should continue to enjoy legal protections from being drafted. You can read it for yourself to see if you can glean any other policies.


Women's rights

We acknowledge the legitimate efforts of those who support or oppose ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

We reaffirm our Party's historic commitment to equal rights and equality for women.

We support equal rights and equal opportunities for women, without taking away traditional rights of women such as exemption from the military draft. We support the enforcement of all equal opportunity laws and urge the elimination of discrimination against women. We oppose any move which would give the federal government more power over families.

Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is now in the hands of state legislatures, and the issues of the time extension and rescission are in the courts. The states have a constitutional right to accept or reject a constitutional amendment without federal interference or pressure. At the direction of the White House, federal departments launched pressure against states which refused to ratify ERA. Regardless of one's position on ERA, we demand that this practice cease.

At this time, women of America comprise 53 percent of the population and over 42 percent of the work force. By 1990, we anticipate that 51 percent of the population will be women, and there will be approximately 57 million in the work force. Therefore, the following urgent problems must be resolved.

Total integration of the work force (not separate but equal) is necessary to bring women equality in pay;

Girls and young women must be given improved early career counseling and job training to widen the opportunities for them in the world of work;

Women's worth in the society and in the jobs they hold, at home or in the workplace, must be re-evaluated to improve the conditions of women workers concentrated in low-status, low-paying jobs;

Equal opportunity for credit and other assistance must be assured to women in small businesses; and

One of the most critical problems in our nation today is that of inadequate child care for the working mother. As champions of the free enterprise system, of the individual, and of the idea that the best solutions to most problems rest at the community level, Republicans must find ways to meet this, the working woman's need. The scope of this problem is fully realized only when it is understood that many female heads of households are at the poverty level and that they have a very large percentage of the nation's children.

The important secret about old age in America today is that it is primarily a woman's issue, and those over 65 are the fastest growing segment of the population. With current population trends, by the year 2020, 15.5 percent of our population will be over 65; by 2035, women in this age group will outnumber men by 13 million.

In 1980, 42 percent of women between 55 and 64 are in the work force. Half of the six million elderly women who live alone have incomes of $3,700 or less, and black women in that category have a median income of $2,600. How do they survive with the present rate of inflation? The lower salaries they earned as working women are now reflected in lower retirement benefits, if they have any at all. The Social Security system is still biased against women, and non-existent pension plans combine with that to produce a bereft elderly woman. The Republican Party must not and will not let this continue.

We reaffirm our belief in the traditional role and values of the family in our society. The damage being done today to the family takes its greatest toll on the woman. Whether it be through divorce, widowhood, economic problems, or the suffering of children, the impact is greatest on women. The importance of support for the mother and homemaker in maintaining the values of this country cannot be over-emphasized.

In other sections of this platform, we call for greater equity in the tax treatment of working spouses. We deplore this marriage tax which penalizes married two-worker families. We call for a reduction in the estate tax burden, which creates hardships for widows and minor children. We also pledge to address any remaining inequities in the treatment of women under the Social Security system.

Women know better than anyone the decline in the quality of life that is occurring in America today. The peril to the United States and especially to women must be stressed. Women understand domestic, consumer, and economic issues more deeply because they usually manage the households and have the responsibility for them. With this responsibility must also come greater opportunity for the achievement and total equality toward solution of problems.

More... (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25844)

[Methais]

Picture it. 1980. Detroit.

http://underscoopfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/sophia-golden-girls.jpg

[Gelston]

This confirms that ClydeR needs to retire as a satire.