Women's Equality Amendment

[BVS]

I know this is difficult for many to believe, but I full support women's rights (I don't include abortion and affirmative action as women's rights).

Each and every woman deserves to be treated equally and should be paid the same as a man for doing the same job.

How do you say that with a straight face?

 

[BVS]

3) Politics aside for a moment. Really, aren't there countries around the world more in need of 'equal rights for women' then the good 'ol US of A?

I love how conservatives always turn to the, well you're lucky other countries are much worse off agument.

 

[martha]

Oh, Indy. You are a riot.

In addition, there's no public groundswell for this.

Sez you. If there were "a public groundswell" for this, you'd be even more frightened. If there were a "public groundswell" that met your criteria, would you support it then? You populist, you.

1) It's not needed. Women enjoy every constitutional right as men and full employment rights since 1964. Where's the urgency in 2007? We now have a female Speaker of the House, what, 15 elected female U.S. senators (up from one in 1972 and she was appointed), Title IX in college sports, Roe v Wade, The View on daytime TV, and even Danicamania at my sacred Indianapolis 500?

You're right! All these things point to total equality for women. :smackshead: Why didn't we girls think of this? Good thing you big strong men are here to point out how very far we've come.

2) The ambiguity. Because the word in the amendment is 'sex' and not 'women', some courts might interpret this as 'orientation.'
And we've seen this as state ERAs have been cited in striking down same-sex marriage bans in Maryland in 2006 and the Hawaii supreme court ruled in 1993 that their state ERA mandated same-sex marriage. (Which started the whole DOM movement)

Yeah, God help us all if women and homosexuals are treated with dignity and equality.

3) Politics aside for a moment. Really, aren't there countries around the world more in need of 'equal rights for women' then the good 'ol US of A?

You're so right. Why improve our situation when there are women being murdered for being raped in other countries? That makes so much sense it took a man to come up with it.

 

[INDY500]

Sez you. If there were "a public groundswell" for this, you'd be even more frightened. If there were a "public groundswell" that met your criteria, would you support it then?

Who ran for office in 2006 pledging to revisit the ERA?
Why wasn't it in Speaker Pelosi's First 100 Hours agenda?

This is nothing more then the Democratic equivalent of the Republican flag burning amendments. Symbolic acts meant to appease the loyal supporters. Only instead of asking opponents "what they have against Old Glory," those not on board the ERA train are asked "what do you have against women?"

Why improve our situation when there are women being murdered for being raped in other countries? That makes so much sense it took a man to come up with it.

No, it doesn't take a man, I think most women also realize that it's better to have a "glass ceiling" over your head then 6 feet of dirt.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No, it doesn't take a man, I think most women also realize that it's better to have a "glass ceiling" over your head then 6 feet of dirt.

Yeah, those are essentially our choices..

Wow, we females should just thank our lucky stars and keep our traps shut-we have it so good here. All those news stories about women being raped and murdered in the US must be fake.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Brilliant move by the Dems. It's a wedge issue, like the ones Karl Rove would plant before elections.

They don't really expect to get an amendment passed, but they want the country talking about this. It puts Republicans on the defensive (who can be against guaranteed equal rights for women?) and it should help get out the vote. This plays right into Hillary's hands.

55% of all voters right now are women, remember.

 

[anitram]

No, it doesn't take a man, I think most women also realize that it's better to have a "glass ceiling" over your head then 6 feet of dirt. [/B]

We're supposed to be thankful for the glass ceiling?

The generosity of a straight, white, Christian male....

 

[INDY500]

Yeah, those are essentially our choices..

Wow, we females should just thank our lucky stars and keep our traps shut-we have it so good here. All those news stories about women being raped and murdered in the US must be fake.

And the ERA will put an end to that? Rape and murder cases against woman aren't prosecuted in this country?

You'll have to come up with more than feel-good platitudes to convince me that the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

You'll have to come up with more than feel-good platitudes to convince me that the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended.

No I was merely responding to your feel-not-so-good platitude. I mean come on, we should be grateful for the glass ceiling vs being six feet under? Do you realize how that comes across?

I guess it's much easier to point fingers at how it is for women in other countries than to take an honest look at what could still be done here for women.

 

[INDY500]

Brilliant move by the Dems. It's a wedge issue, like the ones Karl Rove would plant before elections.

They don't really expect to get an amendment passed, but they want the country talking about this. It puts Republicans on the defensive (who can be against guaranteed equal rights for women?) and it should help get out the vote. This plays right into Hillary's hands.

55% of all voters right now are women, remember.

Well somebody gets it. Only it will never take off as a wedge issue because the vast majority of those 55% of voters don't see any need for this. Only die-hard feminists and far-left activists can manage to get excited about the ERA in the year 2007.

Anyway, I thought only mean Missouri Republican governors played politics with women's issues.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

But according to the latest polls the majority of women say they won't vote for Hillary already-and in certain scenarios the "women's issues" push would have the opposite effect, it would turn people off. Cause oooh, it's like threatening and stuff...

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well somebody gets it. Only it will never take off as a wedge issue because the vast majority of those 55% of voters don't see any need for this. Only die-hard feminists and far-left activists can manage to get excited about the ERA in the year 2007.

Anyway, I thought only mean Missouri Republican governors played politics with women's issues.

Women who are trying to get a career very well know that they have it very difficult to break through the glass eceiling, and that their pay isn't equal to that of a man.

You are always worried about the economy. You should consider that many companies are failing because they rather promote a man into a top position than a woman. The majority of bankruptcies is caused by wrong decisions made by the management.

I don't want to say that either it is due to men getting promoted, or that women are free from failure. But still, in many cases the outcome might have been much better if it wasn't for the glass ceiling.

 

[martha]

I think most women also realize that it's better to have a "glass ceiling" over your head then 6 feet of dirt.

Wow. This is really an amazing thing to actually think. Welcome to the 20th century. Except it's already over.

 

[martha]

the vast majority of those 55% of voters don't see any need for this.

And you know this how?

 

[INDY500]

Wow. This is really an amazing thing to actually think. Welcome to the 20th century. Except it's already over.

Not for the countries that treat women like it's still the 7th century.

 

[INDY500]

And you know this how?

Masculine intuition.

No, actually here's a CBS poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965224.shtml

OVERALL STATUS OF WOMEN COMPARED TO 25 YEARS AGO (Among Women)

Better
82%
Worse
4%
The same
13%

IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR A STRONG WOMEN’S MOVEMENT?(Among Women)

Now
Yes
48%
No
45%

1992*
Yes
57%
No
35%

They didn't even pose a question about the need for the ERA. Must not have seemed very important.

 

[DrTeeth]

Not for the countries that treat women like it's still the 7th century.

I bet there's an INDY500 in any of those countries, opposing any necessary progress by pointing out worse situations.

 

[martha]

They didn't even pose a question about the need for the ERA. Must not have seemed very important.

Oh no.




Do you ever sprain anything jumping to conclusions? Or are you just always right?

 

[martha]

I bet there's an INDY500 in any of those countries, opposing any necessary progress by pointing out worse situations.

They're called the Taliban in one of those countries.

 

[deep]

we don't need no ERA

besides

if it is so bad being a woman

they have the right to get a sex change operation (in America)

nuff said

 

[martha]

No, because then we'd be gay men, and still no better off.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Well somebody gets it. Only it will never take off as a wedge issue because the vast majority of those 55% of voters don't see any need for this. Only die-hard feminists and far-left activists can manage to get excited about the ERA in the year 2007.

Anyway, I thought only mean Missouri Republican governors played politics with women's issues.

"She's the promise / in the year of elections / oh sister, I can't let you go / like a preacher stealing hearts in a traveling show"


It's an election season, so of course everything is politicized, but I think the logic behind the ERA is good and worthy. Constitutional amendment proposals almost NEVER get anywhere, since they're so difficult to pass (need 2/3 vote), and I've been around politics long enough to know what's going on any time any politician, from either party, proposes an amendment.

A successful and admirable politician, in my book, is someone who (a) knows how to play the political game and (b) stands for the right principles. (And not in that order!)

The reality is that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, it will be partly because women voted for her in large numbers. She knows this, and this is why she has enlisted Democrats in making the ERA amendment an issue. And I admire her for it -- she is a savvy, smart politician who knows how to play the game and get elected.

I admire her even more for her principles, and she has fought for equal rights during her entire career, as a lawyer, advocate, first lady, and senator.

 

[martha]

It's an election season, so of course everything is politicized, but I think the logic behind the ERA is good and worthy. Constitutional amendment proposals almost NEVER get anywhere, since they're so difficult to pass (need 2/3 vote), and I've been around politics long enough to know what's going on any time any politician, from either party, proposes an amendment.

Have any of you been around long enough, or even read enough of this thread, to understand that ERA isn't a new thing????

 

[LyricalDrug]

Have any of you been around long enough, or even read enough of this thread, to understand that ERA isn't a new thing????

Yes of course, that is well known. But it's now being dusted off because Hillary is running for President. The Clintons are brilliant strategists and they know how to mobilize their base.

 

[martha]

Yes of course, that is well known. But it's now being dusted off because Hillary is running for President.

Really? How do you know this?

 

[verte76]

I remember the first ERA, too. It should have passed, but it didn't. We need it.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Really? How do you know this?

Cos' I just do

 

[martha]

Cos' I just do

Indy's "masculine intuition"?

Well, assuming that as fact really does diminish the legitimacy of the need for ERA.

And it is a legitimate need, no matter what the frightened boys say.

 

[A_Wanderer]

^A legitimate need for certain groups with their own ends; but given but if it was ever used to force private organisations to have quotas or break up clubs that discriminate by sex it would be very wrong.

 

[anitram]

^A legitimate need for certain groups with their own ends; but given but if it was ever used to force private organisations to have quotas or break up clubs that discriminate by sex it would be very wrong.

You already have human rights codes which deal with some of those issues in different jurisdictions, so it's not like it doesn't exist.

The Canadian Charter explicitly recognizes affirmative action as a valid equality right.