Last March, a dozen-ish Senators (pretty sure all big-time Lefty Democrats) re-proposed the adoption of the dreaded Equal Rights Amendment. Much appreciated for its lawyer-less simplicity, it reads as follows: “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 would be easy to assume that this bunch does actually represent modern feminist thinking, so I invite our resident feminists to comment on why they would support the bill as written.
Well that is definitely as simple as it gets. I can't think of any reason to argue against it at the moment. I am looking forward to seeing how people interpret it and what they think of it though.
The devil is in the details, as always. Title IX was supposed to be about having more girls in sports. The idea was that a college could not have more male sports scholarships than female sports scholarships. The problem was that not enough girls were into sports, and thus schools were forced into CUTTING sports -- for men. You can see the results at any college campus. Most schools have a football team and a basketball team, but no soccer team and not much in the way of minor men's sports. The reason is that a football team is huge, and it takes up so many scholarships that the school cannot have both football and soccer and be IX compliant. So instead of increasing sports for girls, title IX decreased sports for boys, in the name of equality, of course. Which is really equal, except for the poor kids hoping for a soccer scholarship. I tend to suspect the same thing for ERA, only on a wider scale. Instead of having more female welders, we'll reduce the male welders, that sort of thing.
I don't really see how your response even remotely addresses what they stated, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Seems like you're grasping at straws in regards to this.
The idea behind title 9 was the same idea as ERA. That's the point. The point is that title 9, which was supposed to give equal sports opportunity to males and females on college campuses ended up doing so by ending men's sports programs. I'm not questioning the intent of the law, but I do think that it might have the opposite effect of what liberals and feminists think it will have. It might mean that someone would start hiring more women -- not because they're good, but because they fear that they'll face a lawsuit. That's the thing -- there's a fair chance that the law will backfire in ways that we cannot predict.
I oppose the law, because then it hands over the power to the Supreme Court to decide what "equality" is. Let's not forget that this is the same court who ruled "separate is not equal". So is there going to be absolutely no gender segregation allowed anywhere? This is a ridiculous silly concept, which I am sure progressives are going to try to push in every single facet of our lives, and it will have detrimental consequences. Men will be expected to adjust their behaviour just because women are around. This is exactly what has happened in Sweden. The feminists demanded gender neutral bathrooms, then complained about men not being clean enough. http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ke-urinating-while-standing-illega-l-men.html
If the equal rights amendment was passed, I hope it could be used to give men equal rights to their unborn child.
I don't think modern feminists would come anywhere close to support of a true ERA. They do not want equal rights with men in any way, shape or form. That's why the ERA never passed in its 100 years of life. The caveats that would be needed to redefine "equal" made no sense, of course. .
But I would love to watch the SC trip over their own hypocrisies trying to redefine a mathematical term, "equal". Men are already expected to change their behavior and then told to grow up if they complain. .
