Equal Rights Amendment

[kitty]

A constitutional amendment that specifically makes men and women legally equal in all senses.

Are you for it or against it?

Some pros to consider:
- gender discrimination would be illegal as men and women would be legally the same.

Some cons to consider:
- possiblities of the following -- women being eligible for the draft, reconsidering labour laws and laws that allow maternity leave to be as long as it is, abortion issues, etc...
- it is somewhat redundant, since the constitution already states that all americans should be considered legally equal (i got that one from the west wing!)

Some history (and y'all lawyers feel free to correct it if I'm wrong):
- the ERA has been on the docket since the 60's and 70's, and has been ratified by some states, but requires a majority (or is it all?) states to ratify it to become a constitutional amendment.

Just curious, I can see both why people would be for it and why people would be against it. i think it brings up an interesting issue in feminism -- are feminists really looking for gender equality or is there a point which some feminists aren't trying to cross when it comes to an end to gender discrimination?

(i did a search and didn't turn up anything on this topic, but mods, please feel free to merge or close if this thread topic already exists).

[Faithless]

Another fine legacy of Ronny-baby.

What is bringing this issue to the forefront again?

[kasia]

i don't get it. then what's the equal amendment clause of our 14th Amendment supposed to do?

and caselaw has interpreted it such that 'legally equal' does not mean 'the same'.

[applehead]

it sounds a bit unnecessary.
what are some other pros?

and i thought gender discrimination is illegal?!

eh, the kind of equality we want would
be hard to enforce by law.

[>:^|]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

Some cons to consider:
- possiblities of the following -- women being eligible for the draft, reconsidering labour laws and laws that allow maternity leave to be as long as it is, abortion issues, etc...

You know, I'm not sure that arguing for "sameness" is the same thing as gender justice. Doesn't it presume a male standard?

[kitty]

Originally Posted by ChottoMatte

What is bringing this issue to the forefront again?

me, 'cuz i was curious what people thought. i found some literature on it while researching the stepford wives for my review and it got me thinking.

applehead, i think the main reason why the ERA is being pursued is because people feel the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens, but that we still have gender inequality. supporters of the amendment feel that we need something explicitly stating that gender discrimination is illegal in order for any change to be affected. basically, that the 14th amendment is too broad and doesn't deal with the specific issue of gender discrimination.

Originally Posted by >:^|

You know, I'm not sure that arguing for "sameness" is the same thing as gender justice. Doesn't it presume a male standard?

i'm not sure if i get what you're saying. i mean, opposition basically said that men and women ARE the different, and legal equality would lead to a loss of that distinction.

[kasia]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

applehead, i think the main reason why the ERA is being pursued is because people feel the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens, but that we still have gender inequality. supporters of the amendment feel that we need something explicitly stating that gender discrimination is illegal in order for any change to be affected. basically, that the 14th amendment is too broad and doesn't deal with the specific issue of gender discrimination.

but it does. and there's also title VII for the workplace and title IX for schools. what could the GRA cover that isn't covered by the 14th A?

[>:^|]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

i'm not sure if i get what you're saying. i mean, opposition basically said that men and women ARE the different, and legal equality would lead to a loss of that distinction.

Well, I'm not sure if I get what I'm saying either, because I haven't worked all the way through the thought yet. But here's the beginning: Under traditional equal protection doctrine, women claim to be the same as men. So that strikes me as being slightly absurd, because the power differential has already caused women to be differently treated, and why should women have to claim to be the same simply to get what men get? Also, in cases where women specifically aren't like men (pregnancy being one obvious example), it appears that women are asking for some kind of "special" privilege.

So the upshot is that this reinforces the male standard and the gender hierarchy.

[kitty]

but gender inequality still exists...

(incidentally, as i said, i'm really of two minds about this amendment, so i'm not actually for or against it)...

[kitty]

hmmm... my post accidentally got a little messed up, so here's what i said in a nutshell:

the 14th amendment gives us all equal protection, but it hasn't proven itself to be working. women still face gender inequality through glass ceilings and not being eligible for the draft. history seems to dictate that laws sometime need to be explicit to combat roots of unfairness like this.

for that reason, i think proponents of the ERA want to see the constitution changed so that it's explicitly fair to both genders. after all, the constitution was written by a male hierarchical system to reinforce a male hierarchical system. so until it is explicitly changed into a gender equal document, it is still reinforcing that male dominant system.

hmmm... what else did i say? oh, to visage, i can see what you're saying, and to some degree i do agree. after all, what does it say about feminism if feminists are in a sense looking for a male system to dicatate TO them that they are equal?

[applehead]

sorry jen!

[kitty]

Originally Posted by applehead

sorry jen!

s'all good!

[kasia]

Originally Posted by kittygirl

hmmm... my post accidentally got a little messed up, so here's what i said in a nutshell:

the 14th amendment gives us all equal protection, but it hasn't proven itself to be working. women still face gender inequality through glass ceilings and not being eligible for the draft. history seems to dictate that laws sometime need to be explicit to combat roots of unfairness like this.

for that reason, i think proponents of the ERA want to see the constitution changed so that it's explicitly fair to both genders. after all, the constitution was written by a male hierarchical system to reinforce a male hierarchical system. so until it is explicitly changed into a gender equal document, it is still reinforcing that male dominant system.

hmmm... what else did i say? oh, to visage, i can see what you're saying, and to some degree i do agree. after all, what does it say about feminism if feminists are in a sense looking for a male system to dicatate TO them that they are equal?

without disagreeing with you, can you please point out where history has dictated that more explicit/specific laws can better combat discrimination?

implementation is key.

i'm not in favor of creating new laws just because the ones in place aren't working. the fact is not that the 14th A, as written or interpreted, isn't protecting us. the problem is enforcement.

just like hate crime legislation. my question to legislators is - why create more? the problem is not that the legislation isn't sufficient - it's just that law enforcement and the courts aren't properly enforcing the laws.

Originally Posted by kittygirl

for that reason, i think proponents of the ERA want to see the constitution changed so that it's explicitly fair to both genders. after all, the constitution was written by a male hierarchical system to reinforce a male hierarchical system. so until it is explicitly changed into a gender equal document, it is still reinforcing that male dominant system.

but it's written sufficiently vague so that it doesn't make a difference that it was written by a man.

[kitty]

without disagreeing with you, can you please point out where history has dictated that more explicit/specific laws can better combat discrimination?

implementation is key.

well, my first thing is that i don't necessarily fully agree with the ERA, so i kinda hoped that someone who knew more about it and was in favour of it would pick up this side of the debate. but anyhoo...

i would think that maybe hate crimes legislation might be an argument here. murder is already a crime, as is assault, battery, etc etc. yet, we have hate crimes legislation to specifically decry hate crimes, which is arguably redundant (and also creates hella problems trying to prove the difference between a hate crime and a 'normal' murder).

also, civil rights legislation during the early 60's, like the civil rights act of '65 and voter's rights act (?) of that time which was passed despite the fact that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were already on the books. yet, blacks were still unable to vote in large parts of the country because people were not enforcing those existing laws, through literacy tests, cultural resistance, etc...

therefore, one could argue that the increased redundancy of the american law is a secondary concern to the furthering of the intent of the original laws by further legislation.

[kasia]

i think kitty makes a good argument b/c the civil rights act of 1964 did help remedy the problem of separate but equal that some have interpreted the 14th A to allow. thus, the 14th A actually wasn't in practice giving the protection that the civil rights act later sought to provide.

i don't know much about the ERA, but going along the same line of reasoning, what situations of gender inequality exist now that the 14th A might actually permit? what can the ERA do to remedy this?