1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment?

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by KaySee, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

    To get the full protection from discrimination on basis of a person's sex, it has to be in the Constitution. The U.S.A doesn't protect women as it does men in the Constitution. While the 14th Amendment helps, it can't protect women fully from discrimination.

    Women in the United States often live a lie, because they don't realize that they are not considered equal to the male sex in the United States.


    Equal Means Equal Movie Trailer 2016


     
  2. Kira

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Georgia
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    As simple as it is, a lot of people don't get it just because some areas aren't as bad as others. That's one thing I hate about this country; while a few states might do things the right way, or close, people's human rights don't need to be selected on a state by state basis. Heck, the fact that people don't understand that in this country caused a civil war and people still don't get it. If the country wants to scream at the top of it's lungs how free it is then the least they can do is give out equal human rights, for the whole country.

    I could see it being far less of a train wreck if the amendment was finally added. I'm worried that people will still go out of their way to find some legal loophole though, it needs to be very specific. Until the crazies are out of power I'm afraid history will keep repeating itself.
     
  3. baconpox

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2014
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    "Women in the United States often live a lie, because they don't realize that they are not considered equal to the male sex in the United States." Women don't realize they aren't equal to men because they are. Most women don't feel set back by their sex, most people think both genders are equal, it's people looking for an itch to scratch who think that sexism is still an issue. And really, if women don't feel discourage because of their sex, that's something we should be celebrating, not lamenting and calling them ignorant for.

    Almost nobody still discriminates against women, and there is nothing systematic setting them back (none of the points brought up on the petition are indicative of discrimination, they're all caused by other factors); this is a classic example of passing useless laws to feel better rather than to help anyone. If anyone did discrimate against a woman, the backlash they would face would be enough. There's no need to get the federal government involved because of a few bad people.
     
    #3 baconpox, Mar 18, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
  4. Plattyrex

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Flint
    Gender:
    Male
    Forgive me if I'm mistaking, but don't women have an extremely strong advantage in nearly every legal sense in which someone isat an advantage because of their gender? It seems incredibly silly to suggest that women are at any sort of legal disadvantage, as that is an objectively false statement.
     
  5. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Okay, ask a woman about this. If you identify as a man, there’s a good chance you’ve never thought about these things. Try and be more cognizant of these privileges in your daily life and you’ll understand how much work we have to do to make for a society that is equitable to all people, regardless of their gender. Most men have grown up not noticing this because it didn't effect them negatively.

    Since we are on this subject and you don't believe me, look at this link. Specifically parts that apply to courts and work places, such as 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, etc.
    30+ Examples of Male Privilege

    Also, this amendment is not useless. Why would it be useless? Why?

    Would you take away laws against racism because "it never happens anymore"? Ask a person who is not white this question. I'm not just saying this. I identify as white and have asked. They told me that they still deal with discrimination, often surprised that I bothered to ask. Then they are simply tired, sad, and angry.

    Most of the people on this site have had to deal with discrimination because of their gender or sexuality. Do straight people notice that they have it good? Not usually. Why would this not be the same in this issue?

    Are things better in terms of women's rights now than they were decades ago? Yes. But they are not resolvedand rights are not equal. The 14th Amendment helps, but it doesn't provide full coverage against discrimination. Why not make discrimination on account of a person's sex illegal? Don't assume what you never experienced. Even if it somehow doesn't happen in your area or state, it is an issue just about everywhere else in the U.S.A.. It is naïve to think that this has been completely resolved so soon, just decades after women finally had suffrage (the right to vote)!

    Look at all this. Think. Notice. Think again. Now ask. Ask a woman, especially those with careers, if they think sexism is an issue. If they ever dealt with discrimination because they are women. Don't be surprised when most answer with "yes."
     
  6. baconpox

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2014
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I've talked to women about this, and most of them don't think they're oppressed. I have never heard a woman in real life say she feels held back in society because of her sex. Second of all, "identifying" as male grants me privellige? You can't be privelliged because of an identity. Do trans men in 3rd world countries have male privilege despite being seen as women? Identifying as a man doesn't mean I'm somehow blind to how people interact with one another. I'm transgender, and there was no significant change in how people treated me once I transitioned. I hang out with guys all the time, and they act nothing like how feminists act like they do--I can't imagine any I know even acting like boys do in movies.

    What about how girls in first world countries (excluding intersex ones) can't legally have their genitals mutilated, have their domestic abuse taken seriously, have the education system pandered to them, and are less likely to be indicted of a crime? Both sexes have disadvantages and advantages, you're just ignoring the ones men face.

    It's useless because the law isn't good at defending things like this. If a business wants to deny service to women, let them, and let it ruin their career and social life. They'll go out of business, they'll get what they deserve, and women won't suddenly be seen as subhuman nd lose their suffrage.

    Also, it's ontuse and offensive you assume I've never experienced sexism. I had a boy tell me I'm nit smart because I was a girl (pre-transition) yet I still don't believe girls are opressed because that was nothing more than banter, from a child. I've heard girls say guys are stupid as well, they are the same, and neither are a big deal.

    I have thought about this, I have talked to women, nobody who's not obsessed with finding male privilege is going to "notice" (i.e. make up) what you're talking about.
     
  7. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    The law is a step in the right direction, not the final goal. Plenty of men aren't discredit of their misogyny, but still thrive. Just look at all the sexist politicians out there. I want the guarantee that they will be ruined. Even if it ruined every single person every time they were sexist, does that make it right in the first place? No. I would rather not let it happen in the first place.

    As much as I would like to believe that society would work things out for the better on its own, that isn't how things work. This is a loophole that is better off gone.

    And I know that "women won't suddenly be seen as subhuman nd lose their suffrage." The key word is "suddenly." Just taking away a right for a group won't make them less as people in the eyes of society, but it starts the slide towards it. Putting people as equal to the law, even if it isn't enforced well, will at least put it as a legitimate concern.

    Also, sadly you are not viewed as born and biologically male by society, so you don't get the same exact privileges that men who are. So you can't give an accurate and personal representation of them in a social context. Unless you have been viewed as biologically male since always. This is the law and society in the U.S.A. we are talking about.

    To quote Justice Antonin Scalia in 2011:

    "Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."

    Oh, there was public outcry against this and people celebrated his death a few years later, but that doesn't change the fact that the situation on the constitution has not changed. Judges are still allowed to be prejudiced towards women without legitimate legal consequences. Once again, 5 years ago.
     
  8. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Mar 22, 2016 — 44 years ago today, the ERA was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. But it was only ratified by 35 of the 38 necessary.
     
  9. BobObob

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I'm pretty sure that the article is wrong about the US Constitution not protecting equal rights on the basis of gender. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment pretty much protects equality based on all kinds of factors, unless the judge(s) believe that a good enough justification exists for the different treatment. The quote they used from Scalia only reflects Scalia's position, not the position of the US judicial system in general.

    That being said, I don't think there is any harm in explicitly adding equal rights on the basis of gender to the US Constitution.
     
  10. Skaros

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Can I ask how the Equal Rights Amendment would solve those issues? Assuming they are all real.

    Because none of those "issues" have anything to do with law. You can make an argument for social structure, but how the hell would an amendment change that?
     
    #10 Skaros, Mar 22, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  11. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Making types of discrimination illegal has been needed before. According to the legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, racism is illegal. Not sexism. It was necessary to make discrimination on account of race illegal. When anti-discrimination in put into the law, it will have a huge effect on a society's social structure. When these laws were put in place, it changed our society for the better. Law and society are intertwined.

    The ERA would make discrimination on account of gender illegal. It would be a guarantee against discrimination. For some, it simply isn't needed. For other women, finding equality with men is difficult. Especially in court. Legally, sex discrimination is not as bad as racial discrimination. Any kind of discrimination should be just as bad as the other.

    ERA: FAQ
    "The ERA would clarify the legal status of sex discrimination for the courts, where decisions still deal inconsistently with such claims. For the first time, sex would be considered a suspect classification, as race currently is. Governmental actions that treat males or females differently as a class would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny and would thus have to meet the highest level of justification – a necessary relation to a compelling state interest – to be upheld as constitutional."

    Also, compared to the rest of the United Nations, women's rights are falling behind in the United States. Even though the U.S. leads in human rights, we fall behind when it comes to women's rights. We have yet to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. CEDAW is described as an international bill of rights for women, it was instituted on September 3, 1981.

    In December of 2015, the U.N. sent human rights experts to assess the overall treatment of women in the U.S.A. in a 10 day tour.

    “We understand the complexity of federalism, but this cannot be regarded as a justification for failure to secure these rights, which are universal, indivisible and inalienable,” the experts underscored.

    "The UN human rights experts noted that, despite the efforts of the current administration to take measures to eliminate violence against women, such violence is persistent and is exacerbated by the lack of gun control. "

    "The U.S. is one of three countries in the world that does not guarantee women paid maternity leave, according to the U.N. International Labour Organization."

    “We were appalled by the over-incarceration of women, mostly for non-violent crimes, and the failure to find non-custodial solutions for mothers of dependent children."

    The U.S. rates 22nd in wage equality.

    Women are severely underrepresented in government offices. Women make up 50% of this country, but there are less than 50% of women making up the Cabinet, Congress, state legislature, and governor offices.

    ""So many people really believe that U.S women are way better off with respect to rights than any woman in the world," Raday said. Sadly, that is just not true. "

    Improving life for women legally opens doors to changing this country socially in regards to women in society. This isn't saying that our society automatically hates women, it is saying that women aren't as equal to men as the should be. The way I see it, the United States is not against women, but it sure isn't for women. It's for men.

    The Equal Rights Amendment

    The U.N. Sent 3 Foreign Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified.
    United Nations News Centre - Women in US lagging behind in human rights, UN experts report after ?myth-shattering? visit
    Women's Rights Lagging in the US - UN Officials 'Horrified' After Visiting
     
  12. Skaros

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    And it seems, from my point of view, that the underrepresentation of women in offices seems to simply be because people haven't voted them in or there's just not as many qualified women to choose from. When you look at the same example in regards to races, you also see racial minorities underrepresented in government offices despite the fact that they are constitutionally protected. This inequality in representation may very well just be the result of social structure, or de facto circumstances. There's no law saying it has to be this way, and if you still get the same results with minority races, then perhaps a constitutional amendment isn't the answer you're looking for.



    I'm not opposed to this amendment, but I just don't think it will make a difference. You made many statements but still didn't answer my question: How will this amendment help?
     
  13. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    While the quote from before reflects Scalia's opinion, it is still possible for other judges to have this opinion and get away with it. Which is something I don't want.

    ERA: FAQ
    The protection of equal rights exists in federal law, and as I mentioned earlier. While women's rights have come leaps and bounds from where they were a century ago, women still don't have their rights fully protected. Laws and statutes that advanced women's rights are vulnerable.

     
  14. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    To answer your question, I am firm believer that law changes government and society.

    People in movements wanted to end discrimination. So they worked, organized, and advocated to get laws passed that did that. It had to start with the government because society couldn't hold that up.

    Society is a flawed, insubstantial thing. Government is too, just less so and a bit more permanent.

    Laws shape government.

    The government changes the shape of it's society.

    Society shapes lives.

    That is why I believe the Equal Rights Amendment will change things for the better.

    But this is all my opinion. I just want you to consider it.
     
  15. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Response from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Representative from New York’s 12th District:

    Complete message here:

    Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment: Decision Maker Response
     
  16. KaySee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Reasons not to put ERA in the Constitution (in Arkansas (but cites many other states in this), but looking at it you can tell most of this would work basically everywhere else):
    1. ERA would put "gay rights" into the U.S. Constitution.

    -Authorities, such as the Yale Law Journal, have stated that ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to homosexuals and generally implement the gay rights and lesbian agenda because of the phrase ‘on account of sex.’ This is interpreted as including sexual orientation.
    -The supreme courts of Hawaii and Massachusetts ruled that ERA requires same-sex marriage. Four of nine judges on the Washington Supreme Court agreed that ERA protects same sex marriages. A judge in Maryland ruled the same way.

    2. ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution and make abortion funding a new constitutional right.
    - In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that ERA requires the state to pay for all abortions for low-income women.
    -The American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that ERA requires tax funding for abortions because it is classified as a medical procedure.
    -The Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the state ERA requires abortion funding.

    3. ERA will jeopardize single-sex programs and schools.
    -force the sex integration of fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events
    -ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX which allow for single- sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities. The end of single-sex colleges
    -risk the income tax exemption of all private schools and colleges that make any difference of treatment between males and females
    -Religious schools run by churches and synagogues that do not ordain women, or which treat men and women differently, would lose their tax exemption

    4. ERA would take away important rights and powers of grassroots control and of the states.
    -would give power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA: "sex" and "equality of rights
    -Section 2 of the ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, abortion, homosexual laws, sex crimes, private and public schools, prison regulations, and insurance.
    -Even if states already had same-sex marriage, federal judges could still require a state to recognize same-sex marriage or to give equal benefits to same-sex couple

    5. ERA would take away legal rights that women possess - not confer any new rights on women:
    -women would be drafted as men are
    -"unisex insurance" would be required, meaning that women would not get lower insurance rates than men
    -ERA would make unconstitutional the laws that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife

    6. ERA would forfeit male veterans’ rights.
    -Rep. George Gekas (R-PA) offered an amendment to prevent ERA from wiping out veterans' preference, but this was voted down.
    -?

    Many attempted amendments to change many of these things. None ever seem to get through.
    Six reasons to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment

    ---------- Post added 14th Apr 2016 at 03:31 PM ----------

    What are the arguments against passing the Equal Rights Amendment?

    "Off the top of my head, I can think of four current issues that would be on shaky grounds were the ERA to become ratified:

    1. The Women Infants, and Children program
    2. mumble mumble reproductive rights mumble mumble
    3. The Violence Against Women Act
    4. The acknowledged and accepted sex bias in family and custody law"
     
    #16 KaySee, Apr 14, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2016