Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Steve Chapman wonders why the Equal Rights Amendment is making a comeback.
edna|4.9.07 @ 7:20AM|#
steve must be a youngster- for those of us who were adults at the time, the idea that equal rights for women was controversial in the seventies is odd. the reach of this amendment was far more of a concern at the time- lawyers are quite expert at taking a seemingly innocuous idea and turning it into a machine for generating even more litigation and decreasing civil freedom in the name of "equality."
Goldwater Cosnervative|4.9.07 @ 7:33AM|#
Isn't this the one that would have led to the abolishment of gender-segregated bathrooms?
edna|4.9.07 @ 8:24AM|#
once the courts get hold of it, who knows? separate-but-equal
may not cut it.
stuff like this is a litigation machine and not much more. sort of
like ada, but enshrined in the constitution.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 8:55AM|#
Equality of women is one of those things that distinguishes us
from the Islamic world. That means that the kind of people who used
to oppose the amendment now have to support it. You know which kind
of people I mean. Conservatives.
Semi-related: Johnny Hart died this weekend.
Response to edna: Isn't civil rights litigation on the decline
(except maybe for police brutality suits)?
|4.9.07 @ 9:31AM|#
"In fact, no one knows for sure what the effect of the Women's
Equality Amendment would be."
That's the thing about freedom - it involves a leap of faith. You
can't know what committing to freedom will ultimately mean. The
drafters of the 14th Amendment certainly didn't think it would mean
integrated public schools.
It's nice that "judicial interpretation" had incorporated gender
into the 14th Amendment, but I'd be more comfortable seeing it in
black letters. There is a power "original intent" faction that's
quite comfortable with the idea of using that slogan to roll back
progress, and I'd rather not sit back and hope that never become a
majority in the judiciary.
|4.9.07 @ 9:33AM|#
edna,
Numerous states have adopted explicit bans on gender discrimination
in their constitutions.
None - meaning "zero" - have seen courts impose unisex
bathrooms.
|4.9.07 @ 9:48AM|#
What are the problems the new ERA is designed to address? Unless there are specific issues the ERA will solve, why throw such an unknown into the Constitution?
|4.9.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Actually, Dave W, the point of the article is that the proposed
amendment is superfluous, if not dangerous.
Codifying the legal equality of women in when that equality already
exists de facto does nothing. It would be like an
amendment that requires everyone to stop at red lights.
And imposing some vague standard of equality also leaves a wide
territory for interpretation. Some court down the line might decide
that it means that the results of 50% of elections must be won by
women, or 50% of businesses must be headed by women.
|4.9.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Shall we throw out the 1st Amendment because of what "some court down the line might" do with the concept of free speech?
|4.9.07 @ 9:54AM|#
not to back joe up but the states also have other identical clauses (e.g. due process clauses) in their constitutions that they have interpreted much more broadly than the federal clauses.
|4.9.07 @ 10:01AM|#
joe,
I just wonder why we need to alter the federal constitution to
guarantee a right that is not being threatened and is already
guaranteed under most state constitutions.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 10:06AM|#
Actually, Dave W, the point of the article is that the
proposed amendment is superfluous, if not dangerous.
Yeah, there certainly are people who are desperate to at the same
time believe that we are better than the Islamic world on the basis
of women's rights, but still not change their historic hostility to
the ERA. So writers, seeking to be popular, are trying to come up
with a credible way of supporting this position.
Personally, I think we need the ERA in case there is a draft (or
potential draft) at some point. If women are to be conscripted on
an equal basis with men, then it will make the US less warlike at
the margin.
|4.9.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Hugh,
That's a fair question.
My answer is, "to avoid backsliding."
I know, it's not exactly up there with "ongoing genocide" on the
priority scale, but it's a legitimate concern.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 10:21AM|#
joe
I agree in principle that backsliding might be a legit concern, but
after a while it just loses its urgency.
In the most arcane legal theory, Elizabeth II has ALL the
governmental power in England. Indeed, the UK doesn't even have a
black-letter (i.e., written) constitution; but I don't think any
Englishmen seriously worry about her dismissing Parliament forever
and making herself a dictator.
After a while (and I would grant you that gender equality has not
been around that long), you just have to accept that custom has
taken over and written words confirming it are no longer
necessary.
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Not that I consider this a major issue, but the idea that men and women are already equal under the law is negated by this simple fact: in most of the country, a man who takes his shirt off in public is merely considerd vulgar, whereas a woman who does the same thing is branded a sex offender.
|4.9.07 @ 10:24AM|#
The ERA is just the Democrat's version of the Marriage
Amendment. To piss off Republicans, get out the women's vote for
Hillary in 2008, etc.
The ERA will also likely elevate gender discrimination from
intermediate scrutiny to strict/heightened scrutiny that only race
enjoys in the judicial system at the moment - that's not
necessarily a bad thing.
With the current stacking of the SCOTUS, having the ERA in the
constitution is probably a good thing considering how the 'original
intent' crowd and 'strict constructionists' aren't always so.
I also haven't seen any sex-integrated bathrooms in states with
ERAs in their constitution so this is merely a canard. If it leads
to the conscription of women and marriage for gays, those are
excellent unintended consequences and all the more reason to get
behind this amendment.
|4.9.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Jennifer | April 9, 2007, 10:22am | #
Penn 'n Teller just did an episode about this on Bullshit. Boobies
galore, but it was one of their tamer episodes. Volokh from the
Conspiracy made an appearance in it too, to make a very
unpersuasive argument on toplessness.
robc|4.9.07 @ 10:34AM|#
joe,
wrt the 1st amendment, Hamilton/Madison and others argued that a
bill of rights wasnt necessary to begin with. Since the
constitution didnt grant the federal government the power to
infringe on free speech, they couldnt do it. No amendment
necessary.
|4.9.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Passim,
I hear you, but there really isn't a significant monarchist block
in blighty.
On the other hand, here in the states, gender-role-traditionalists
and "original intenters" are something close to half the
population.
Look, I can understand not making the ERA a priority - I certainly
wouldn't want to see the mimimum wage bill, for example, put on the
back burnder so they could debate it. But outright opposition is a
different beast. People who are actively opposed to a
constitutional ban on gender discrimination should be taken at
their word.
|4.9.07 @ 10:37AM|#
robc,
And you can see how well the "since the Constitution doesn't
authorize it, it won't happen" line of thinking has panned out.
|4.9.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Not that I consider this a major issue, but the idea that men and women are already equal under the law is negated by this simple fact: in most of the country, a man who takes his shirt off in public is merely considered vulgar, whereas a woman who does the same thing is branded a sex offender.
Really? Then you'll be able to point me to a woman who was
convicted of a sexual offense for being topless. I doubt you can,
because unlike naked men naked women aren't considered
offensive.
Let's make a bargain: subject yourself to the draft and military
service, and I'll let you take your shirt off.
edna|4.9.07 @ 10:55AM|#
i think there's less danger of unisex bathroom than stupidities like now-federalized suits against small businesses because they have three stalls and a urinal in the men's room, but only three stalls period (no pun intended) in the women's. get the ninth circuit involved and whoo-ee, mandated separate bathrooms for transgendered.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Would the ERA make it illegal to abort a zygote or fetus based on its gender?
edna|4.9.07 @ 10:56AM|#
...or suits against insurance companies for recognizing actuarial differences between men and women. and so on and so on.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 11:01AM|#
joe, I knew you'd call me on that as written.
My point, I guess, is that it involves the passage of time. The
further away we get from hoop skirts and women not voting, the less
necessary laws become. Or, to use my example, When James I was
king, absolutism seemed very threatening...nowadays, who's afraid
of the Queen?
I predict our grandchildren--maybe even our children--will laugh at
all the fuss.
Jennifer--
as for shirtlessness, one argument (with which I do not agree, btw)
I've often heard is that a man's chest is less of an erogenous zone
than a woman's. (Yes, I know! But the overal point is that, however
equal we should be, we are still physically very different.)
Personally, I think only really attractive people (male or female)
should be allowed to take ff their shirts in public. I guess I'm a
lookist.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 11:04AM|#
...or suits against insurance companies for recognizing
actuarial differences between men and women. and so on and so
on.
Maybe it would be more productive for you to channel your political
energies into trying to influence the language used in the
amendment, rather than using these issues to oppose the thing
outright.
I would be interested to see how it applied (if at all) against
landlords and single sex educational institutions. That would
depend on the wording of the thing.
At this point in history, I think the amendment would help men more
than women, on balance.
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 11:05AM|#
as for shirtlessness, one argument (with which I do not
agree, btw) I've often heard is that a man's chest is less of an
erogenous zone than a woman's. (Yes, I know! But the overal point
is that, however equal we should be, we are still physically very
different.)
Indeed, but how much of that is biological versus how much of it is
just invented? A hundred years ago people insisted women couldn't
expose their knees in public lest the republic crumble, yet shorts
are now acceptable summer wear and I don't think any of society's
modern ills can be blamed on that.
I'm just pointing out there is at LEAST one form of behavior that
is perfectly legal for a man but illegal for a woman. Not that I
want to go topless in public; I sunburn easily and find wearing a
shirt to be much easier than re-applying sunblock every 30 seconds.
But it's a matter of principle.
|4.9.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Exactly what problem are we trying to solve with the ERA? How
and where are women not equal before the law, again?
in most of the country, a man who takes his shirt off in public
is merely considerd vulgar, whereas a woman who does the same thing
is branded a sex offender.
Well, I mean other than laws against public nudity that contain
traditional definitions of same.
And I had no idea topless women went onto the sex offender
registries. If so, that should stop.
My answer is, "to avoid backsliding."
No offense, joe, but that's a pretty weak reason to amend the
Constitution. And a pretty weak protection against backsliding.
Take a look at the tattered remains of the Bill of Rights if you
doubt me.
People who are actively opposed to a constitutional ban on
gender discrimination should be taken at their word.
I just think anyone who wants to amend the Constitution should be
able to make a case that the amendment addresses a pressing need in
society. And (sorry, Jennifer), a dearth of topless women roaming
the streets, deplorable as it may be, doesn't quite make the
cut.
|4.9.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Passim, RC Dean, I see your points. I guess I'm just less
confident in the security of gender equality in our society than
you are.
It really hasn't been that long.
Stolzes Säugetier|4.9.07 @ 11:17AM|#
P:
(acknowledge that you also disagree)
While that may be true (perception of female chest), it is the
male's fault if he cannot contain his desires - it is not her
fault!
Yet laws are often clad in the "for her protection" lie. Or! Worse!
It "icks" people out, so, dammit! It has to be illegal!
As you know, we hear arguments against "oben ohne" (ed: "topless")
that revolve around these premises.
However, she never, ever "asks for it". That is (again, recognizing
your that this isn't anywhere close to a position you're stating) a
wicked, evil misogynistic argument. Initiation of sexual aggression
is the individual male's responsibility. Her outfit/lack of outfit
has nothing to do with it.
Again, this is nothing new - just getting the ducks in a row.
Even acknowledging that we're physically different: however erotic
a woman's exposed breasts are for example, we're still talking
about a culture-bound reaction. Breasts may be a cultural symbol,
but our culture's general prudish reaction is by no means an
absolute measure of how humans react!
(probably will have to revisit for editing purposes)
Probably this comes back to the fact that there are social mores
out there that still assign different expectations of behavior -
while this might not be front burner material, being aware of these
differences (that somehow only disadvantage those who haven't
traditionally been the "top dogs") is still important!
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 11:19AM|#
I just think anyone who wants to amend the Constitution
should be able to make a case that the amendment addresses a
pressing need in society.
Fair enough: I'd think that the regulars at this of all blogs would
know better than to think I should be happy with government telling
me "Don't worry your sweet pretty little head about us taking your
rights away. You don't need anything in writin', darlin'. We're the
government. You can trust us."
|4.9.07 @ 11:30AM|#
I agree with Jennifer. With dinks like Coulter running around
only half jokingly calling for the repeal of women's ability to
vote, I'd like a bit more legal buttressing between what we have
today and the mischief the American Talibangelists would want to
implement.
Plus I'd love to see any possible draft extended to both sexes.
First of all, because women NOT participating is then used as an
excuse as to why they're not equal (nice circular logic there,
hmmm) and second, if there's a chance that little Janie will get
shot up as well as little Jonny, I hope there will be more
resistance to getting the US involved in Stupid Military
Adventures.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 11:42AM|#
I propose a compromise:
Re-initiate the ERA, but state in the wording that no one may vote
on it unless/until 20 years have passed. If it has been forgotten
by then, it was never necessary. If it has been remembered by a
sizeable number of people, then we'll have to do a collective mea
culpa for the delay.
I think, despite the cultural quirks such as male-v-female
toplessness*, seperate loos, etc., everything will work out/
already has worked out.
*side note: there used to be an anti-male discriminatory policy in
my home state regarding clothing removal. Female exotic dancers
were allowed to be completely nude, whereas males had to were
G-strings or jocks. Both, of course, were allowed to be topless.
The reason given was similar: our bodies are different. Legally,
generative organs which were more than 50% internal could be
exposed, but those which were more than 50% external could not be.
The law was quietly repealed in the early 90's when a rather
enterprising club for gay men insisted that police "measure" the
percentages for each dancer....
Passim|4.9.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Oh, and speaking of equality...
I want a law against all those mothers (single and double) who look
at me funny when I'm the only dad (without a wife) who shows up at
parent-teacher night.
|4.9.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Legislating positives like this should only be done in
emergencies. It is hard to see how this sort of thing can be
enforced without taking a dump on a whole slew of individual
choices. As with the Civil Rights Act, if there is a static state
that can't be broken up by voluntary action, I'll reluctantly sign
on.
If you do this when you don't need to, you are asking for
trouble.
|4.9.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Fair enough: I'd think that the regulars at this of all blogs would know better than to think I should be happy with government telling me "Don't worry your sweet pretty little head about us taking your rights away. You don't need anything in writin', darlin'. We're the government. You can trust us."
So, er, which of us men here has a greater protection for his
rights than that?
Noam Chomsky Blow Up Doll|4.9.07 @ 11:52AM|#
"I want a law against all those mothers (single and
double)"
oh - your kids go to
Heather's school?
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 11:54AM|#
So, er, which of us men here has a greater protection for
his rights than that?
Which rights do men have that aren't written in the Constitution?
Granted, the government can and often does choose to ignore what's
written there, but getting the government to abandon said ignorance
becomes much easier when you can wave a document and say "You know
damned well what you're doing violates this."
Seriously: when did y'all become so confident in government's good
intentions that you think half the population should just shrug and
say "Yeah, I trust you and I'm sure you'll never try giving me the
shaft?"
|4.9.07 @ 11:58AM|#
"Seriously: when did y'all become so confident in government's
good intentions that you think half the population should just
shrug and say "Yeah, I trust you and I'm sure you'll never try
giving me the shaft?"
I question the idea that asking the government to enforce
egalitarian outcomes really helps in the way you are
suggesting.
LarryA|4.9.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Not that I consider this a major issue, but the idea that
men and women are already equal under the law is negated by this
simple fact: in most of the country, a man who takes his shirt off
in public is merely considerd vulgar, whereas a woman who does the
same thing is branded a sex offender.
Sort of like women can wear pants, but woe unto the man who wears a
skirt. (Unless it's plaid, pleated, and has a little purse hanging
in front.)
|4.9.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Which rights do men have that aren't written in the Constitution?
Jennifer, we don't even have all of those (and none of them
intact), and you know that. What little we have is the same thing
you have - what Teams Red and Blue haven't taken away, yet. For
what it matters, we do have fairly strong protections against laws
that treat sexes and races differently - protections that are for
the most part stronger than the protections against simply weaking
the rights for all concerned.
Seriously: when did y'all become so confident in government's good intentions that you think half the population should just shrug and say "Yeah, I trust you and I'm sure you'll never try giving me the shaft?"
I haven't. I'm just amused at the claim that men in general are any
less threatened. I don't have any protection that you don't - a
vote, a set of vocal cords, and ten fingers. If people in
government want to screw me over, they're not going to have any
harder time than if they chose you as their target.
(Probably an easier time in this case, since I don't write for a
newspaper.)
|4.9.07 @ 12:11PM|#
And Grumpy, if we're really worried about half the voters being somehow disenfranchised in violation of the 19th Amendment, how exactly would an ERA help?
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 12:14PM|#
I question the idea that asking the government to enforce
egalitarian outcomes really helps in the way you are
suggesting.
No, it's a matter of requiring the government itself to refrain
from discriminating on the basis of sex. There's a difference
between the Civil Rights Act (which requires private individuals to
refrain from discrimination and can be argued against on
libertarian grounds) versus those constitutional amendments
forbidding the government itself to restrict rights of citizenship
based on skin color.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Exactly what problem are we trying to solve with the ERA?
How and where are women not equal before the law, again?
Draft.
Prison conditions.
Marital property laws.
C'mon, RCD. You know this stuff.
|4.9.07 @ 12:20PM|#
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any state on account of
sex."
Are the authors of this amendment aware of the difference between
sex and gender? The conspiracy loving libertoon in me suspects that
the wording is intentional. < ref Radley Balko H&R post
"Under The Bridge Downtown">The amendment could be supported by
Big Sexual Predators in a bid to get their Floridian members out
from under that bridge in Miami.< /ref "Under The Bridge
Downtown">
My less suspicious nature is willing to accept it as the result of
our public funded education system.
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#
"If people in government want to screw me over, they're not
going to have any harder time than if they chose you as their
target."
Well taken point, however, once you get into reproductive rights,
there are compelling arguments that her rights exactly are
threatened!
I understand that there are those who don't feel that way, but that
is a legit concern.
Or: even though the 2nd amendment exists, it's constantly
threatened.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 12:26PM|#
NoStar,
Even though I use the word gender when referring to people these
days--I've been beaten down--I still insist that male and female
are sexes, not genders. Gender is merely a noun class, a purely
grammatical function. Call me a traditionalist, but what should I
make of those languages which have more than three genders?
"Nouns have gender; people have sex (except me)," as my grammar
teachers said.
|4.9.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Well taken point, however, once you get into reproductive rights, there are compelling arguments that her rights exactly are threatened!
If that were the ultimate concern, someone would have brought that
up before then (as opposed to "Coulter wants to take womens' votes
away!), and/or we would be talking about a reproductive-rights
amendment.
For that matter, in the matter of reproductive rights and child
care, absolutely nobody here, including myself, you, or Jennifer,
has ever argued for legal equality between the sexes on
that issue in my hearing. In fact, some of us have had long,
drawn-out arguments as to how inequality should be legally
crafted.
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:34PM|#
"In fact, some of us have had long, drawn-out arguments as to
how inequality should be legally crafted."
true dat!
excellent points in your post!
|4.9.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Thanks, Moose.
I still remain unclear what rights my magical Y chromosome protects
against violation in just the way Jennifer suggests womens' rights
can be violated.
|4.9.07 @ 12:40PM|#
And to clarify, I have no problem with an ERA. I just don't understand what it's expected to accomplish.
|4.9.07 @ 12:41PM|#
once you get into reproductive rights, there are compelling
arguments that her rights exactly are threatened!
Right now, the protection for reproductive rights boils down to (a)
whatever cultural/social norms might inform the Ruling Class (which
will be unchanged by the ERA) and (b) the goodwill of no fewer than
five (5) SCOTUS Justices.
IOW, exactly what the protection for reproductive rights will be
after the ERA goes into effect.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 12:43PM|#
I'm going to leave here before someone suggests, as certain John-Edwards-type lawyers ultimately will, that women have a right to subsidized jock-straps and men have a right to subsidized tampons.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 12:57PM|#
For that matter, in the matter of reproductive rights and
child care, absolutely nobody here, including myself, you, or
Jennifer, has ever argued for legal equality between the sexes on
that issue in my hearing. In fact, some of us have had long,
drawn-out arguments as to how inequality should be legally
crafted.
Child custody law should be gender neutral.
Oh, that's right. You can't hear me due that filtration
thingee.
|4.9.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Eric, RC,
You do realize that the language as crafted would forbid
discrimination against males too, right?
edna|4.9.07 @ 1:05PM|#
C'mon, RCD. You know this stuff.
yeah, the stuff that makes rain for litigators. you wouldn't happen
to be a lawyer, wudya?
|4.9.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Passim,
"Gender" as a noun classification proceeds from mammalian sexual
identity classification.
|4.9.07 @ 1:11PM|#
You do realize that the language as crafted would forbid
discrimination against males too, right?
I repeat my earlier question(s): Exactly what problem are we trying
to solve here?
I've certainly never suggested that I thought discrimination
against males was a problem that needed a Constitutional fix, so
I'm not sure why joe is directing this question to me.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 1:26PM|#
I've certainly never suggested that I thought discrimination
against males was a problem that needed a Constitutional
fix
Unless you are draft age, getting divorced from an unreasonable
spouse or sell cocaine, then the problems really don't need a fix
at all.
They did have a white lawyer in the prison on OZ, but that was
teevee.
|4.9.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Also, I'm actually curious: can anyone find an instance of a woman being convicted for a sex offense and being put on a sex-offender list for nothing more than taking off her shirt in public?
No!!!! Wholesome Moose!!!!|4.9.07 @ 1:42PM|#
with pictures? with pictures?
no. must. resist. urge. to. 'bate.
not 'bating.
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 1:44PM|#
I still remain unclear what rights my magical Y chromosome
protects against violation in just the way Jennifer suggests
womens' rights can be violated.
Tell me about it. I'm still trying to figure out why my lack of a Y
chromosome would have made me legally subhuman throughout most of
history.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Discrimination against men is endemic in the US.
If there is any amendment needed, it is one which protects men from
non-men such as the Alan Aldas and Woody Allens of our
country.
When you can logically explain why I am looked upon as
weird--perhaps even sick--because I took my teenage boys to a
centuries-old all-male bath in Budapest, where I dared appear naked
in front of my equally-naked kids, while my next-door female
neighbour can bathe her 4-yo son without reproach, then I will
consider that this country might need some sort of ERA.
Until then...as I said before...give it a generation (20 years).
Right now, women have all the advantage.
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 1:55PM|#
When you can logically explain why I am looked upon as
weird--perhaps even sick--because I took my teenage boys to a
centuries-old all-male bath in Budapest, where I dared appear naked
in front of my equally-naked kids, while my next-door female
neighbour can bathe her 4-yo son without reproach, then I will
consider that this country might need some sort of ERA.
Was your female neighbor naked at the time? If not, I'd guess maybe
that's why.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Jennifer
Please pay attention, for a change! The difference is appearing
nude in front of the child vs. bathing the child. Bathing the child
involves touching.
THAT'S WHY.
|4.9.07 @ 2:01PM|#
I still remain unclear what rights my magical Y chromosome protects against violation in just the way Jennifer suggests womens' rights can be violated.
Tell me about it. I'm still trying to figure out why my lack of a Y chromosome would have made me legally subhuman throughout most of history.
OK, since you're not actually going to answer any of my questions,
another question:
So, how are we going to fund this Time Patrol that will enforce the
ERA throughout all of human history?
|4.9.07 @ 2:02PM|#
...And what will we do when this massive cross-time intervention leads to suicide bombers blowing up George Washington's boat while it crosses the Delaware?
|4.9.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Also, should private time travel be regulated, and what governments (and when?) have jurisdiction?
Passim|4.9.07 @ 2:06PM|#
I'm sorry, Jennifer, but you seem to go from being very
reasonable at one glance...
...to completely ignorant, stupid, and evilly offensive the next
time I dare check a thread.
I try to be gentlemanly, but your ignorance deserves no deference,
gentlemanly or otherwise.
Jennifer|4.9.07 @ 2:08PM|#
I try to be gentlemanly, but your ignorance deserves no
deference, gentlemanly or otherwise.
I'm sure I'll manage regardless. By the way, I was thinking about
your complaints on the other thread and I've concluded you're
right: the reason you've had no luck in finding your dream woman is
because every single woman you meet is fucked up; the problem
clearly doesn't lie within you.
The world's three billion women just don't know what the fuck we're
missing.
|4.9.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Exactly what problem are we trying to solve with the ERA? How and where are women not equal before the law, again?
Draft.
Prison conditions.
Marital property laws.
You and I both know that the ERA is not intended, and will not be
interpreted, to give men equal rights with women. It is only meant
to give women equal rights (but not equal responsibilities) with
men.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Oh, Passim, you have to not give in the urge to go ballistic on Jennifer. I did one time, and very much regretted it. She is basically nice, and she is one of those writers who makes it easy to tune out the shrill stuff when it occurs. She probably has, on balance, a good influence on others. like anybody else, she is wrong sometimes, but she is a lot more persuasive when she is right than when she is wrong, so you can kind of roll with her stuff with relative ease.
|4.9.07 @ 2:20PM|#
I can't remember the senator's name, and my google skills are
failing me, but the funniest comment I heard during the debate on
the first ERA was a senator saying"
"Will this amendment eliminate menstruation for women or require
menstruation for all people? I need the answer to that before I can
cast a vote."
Needless to say, his comments did not go over well with many
women.
Product Placement|4.9.07 @ 2:24PM|#
(actually, Eric, in a pinch, absorbo brand tiny American flags
can be useful)
*opens up can of Brondo. It's got electrolytes.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 2:26PM|#
You and I both know that the ERA is not intended, and will
not be interpreted, to give men equal rights with women. It is only
meant to give women equal rights (but not equal responsibilities)
with men.
Oh, I know it is not intended to do the things I said.
Nevertheless, I think the actual applications will be exactly what
I said. If feminists knew how the thing would be applied after it
is passed, then they would not be supporting it. good thing, too,
because the problems I identified are substantial and real.
|4.9.07 @ 2:29PM|#
...If I were to time-travel back to 2000 once each year until I died, should all of my future selves be allowed to vote for Gore?
|4.9.07 @ 2:30PM|#
jake,
Google doesn't help me either, but I did locate the Museum of Menstruation, for what that's
worth.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Jennifer
I hope you and 3 billion other girls (as most are) do indeed think
of me as inadequate. I have had the honour of knowing only three,
all of whom are gone now. I have seen all three worry about certain
advantages men have; and right they were to be concerned.
But I never saw them, nor any of their literal nor metaphorical
sisters, worry about the DISadvatages men have.
I was on your side. I still try to be, but you and your ilk make me
your enemy.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Dave W (and Jennifer)
I know, I should NOT go ballistic. I try...I really do!...but I
fail repeatedly.
|4.9.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Passim, if you don't enjoy throwing melodramatic fits about how angry you get while commenting here, maybe you either should get a hold of yourself, avoid reading the comments of those people who make you throw melodramatic fits, or stop reading and leaving comments here.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 2:58PM|#
OK, Eric
good advice. I'll keep reading for now, but you're right. I'll
refrain from comments.
cheers.
|4.9.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Amend my earlier thoughts due to not reading TFAmendment. I thought we were going for a civil rights sort of thing here. I don't care if we restate equality under the law until we are blue in the face. So long as we are ONLY talking about equality under the law, I see no problem at all.
Chucklehead|4.9.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Frankly, women demanding equality with men is pretty stupid. They ought to demand more rights and privileges simply because they are responsible for, and needed to, keep future generations of humans coming.
|4.9.07 @ 3:31PM|#
This is a blast from the past! If the ERA is coming back, will
platform shoes and disco be far behind?
Based on this thread, the benefits of the ERA seem to be:
-Women would have to be drafted if men were drafted.
-Women would be able to go topless in public (unless there are laws
forbidding both men and women from doing so).
-The government would extend recognition to same-sex
marriage.
-There will be no "backsliding" on sex equality. That is to say,
the government (which is accountable to a 50% female electorate)
won't be able to pass new laws recognizing the differences between
men and women. The (unelected, and mostly male) federal judiciary
will protect us against such a possibility. For instance, public
schools will have to be coed (which the Supremes require in most
cases even *without* an ERA), but of course bathrooms can still be
segregated by sex.
-"prison conditions" will be ameliorated in some unspecified way.
Does this mean coed prisons?
-Marital property laws will be changed.
Have I missed anything?
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 3:35PM|#
"prison conditions" will be ameliorated in some unspecified
way. Does this mean coed prisons?
Only if "separate but equal" doesn't work. It was 50 years from
Plessy to Brown on the schools. the screws would have an
opportunity to get their act together before the judges sent in the
lady cons.
|4.9.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Wait, nevermind, I can see that logic. It'd presumably be opposed by the same logic now that says "Sure, gays can get married to people of the opposite sex, to."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245