Women's Equality Amendment

[indra]

That's because you've never lived in one. It's nothing but an academic argument for you. And academic arguments mean squat to living, breathing people.

Yep. Very easy to tell others what to do (or not do) when you don't have to live it.

 

[yolland]

Much of the kind of discrimination you seem to be implying should be legal is already illegal under the Civil Rights Act anyway (which applies to sex as well as race), A_W, so I'm not really sure why you're making a distinction between that and the Women's Equality Amendment. The argument for explicitly barring discrimination based on sex via the Constitution (as the Fourteenth Amendment does for race-based discrimination) is more a question of making that protection less vulnerable to possible changes in the political climate; as Justice Rehnquist noted in Meritor v. Vinson (1986): “The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives…the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on ‘sex.’”

One could argue that ultimately the legislative and judicial abuse the Fourteenth Amendment was subjected to for decades ("separate but equal"), not to mention the lingering effects of institutional racial discrimination, call into question how much a minimally worded Constitutional amendment can be counted on to achieve, though I don't really see that as a satisfactory answer to "Why not?"

 

[Dreadsox]

But sagginess isn't.

Nothing wrong with sagginess

 

[Dreadsox]

now time out from breasts....

I am sitting here as a parent pretty pissed tonight. My daughter has played baseball since she was 5. WE reach the third grade and BOOM! WE are being told by parents get her out of baseball, the coaches do not play the girls. She has decided to switch to softball, and wants to know why the coaches treat the boys different from the girls. I have no answer for her. We are talking abou THIRD f'ing grade.

I have chosen the Episcopal Churhc for many reasons, one because I want my kid to see women can do the same jobs men can do. I am just disgusted....no major leaguer was made out of a thrid grade program.

 

[martha]

I have no answer for her.

Tell her she doesn't have it as bad as those poor little girls in Afganistan. That'll make her feel better.

 

[yolland]

^ Not to mention that inequality is perceived and experienced relative to those around you, in the social and political and cultural world you actually know. While I agree there's probably not an 'average American woman' in her right mind who would rather be a woman in present-day Afghanistan, I doubt most 'average American men' would want to switch places with an 'average Afghan man,' whose lot in life likely isn't too good either.

 

[Angela Harlem]

martha, i hope mr martha doesn't mind my falling in love with you

Which is because it was explicitely stated that that intervention was made because people couldn't live their lives

So shouldn't it follow that since women can live their lives then intervention is unjustified.

what a load of whaffle

 

[BonosSaint]

There is no freedom to be employed by a certain employer like there is no freedom to not be offended.

If somebody refused to hire me because I am an atheist then they are excercising control over their property, if I get the government to force them to hire me then I and excercising control over their property.

How much is private business solely funded by the private owner, though? We can assume you would eliminate government and military. And then would you extend it to anyone who receives taxpayer-funded grants and tax breaks, bailouts, professions who receive their licensure through the government and organizations given free access to publicly owned meeting places. Federally insured banks. Perhaps to a company answerable to shareholders, many of whom will be women.

The small business owner, with less than (the number fluctuates) fifteen or twenty employees pretty much has carte blanc in hiring.

And when all is said and done, the antidiscrimination laws don't have as sharp teeth as you would think. The burden of proof is extremely high and there are a million and one ways to hire and fire whomever you want to, a million and one ways to break the spirit of the laws. For every high profile antidiscrimination case won, there are many thousands that are not won and many more that aren't even fought because the price is too high. And frankly, the laws are not enforced very stringently.

There was an interesting case in the Supreme Court in the last few years that ended with a ruling that there are grounds to sue on disparate impact towards protected groups whether you can prove intent or not. In that particular case, it was age discrimination. It will be interesting to see where that leads.


We can argue the philosophy of whether there should be these laws at all. But we chose to have those laws. But what is given by law can be taken by law (as Yolland eloquently noted). A constitutional amendment ups the ante allthough I share some concern that it would be any more enforceable under constitutional amendment than it would be under current law and wonder whether this proposal is anything more than cosmetic.
All that being said, I think you take a risk anytime you open up a constitutional convention and you better know what you are doing and know the consequences of it. But in this case, why not? The social philosophy already supports it.

 

[INDY500]

But when you read things like that ridiculous glass ceiling comment on this thread, it really sheds some light on the types of attitudes which used to be pervasive but remain with us to this day. I mean, to suggest that I should be grateful I have a glass ceiling rather than being dead - you have to ask yourself who thinks this way?

How about someone who believes that in the United States in the year 2007 the glass ceiling is a myth. (gasp)
Here's a few quotes from different articles.

Linda Chavez
It's feminist heresy to say so, but most women including professionals and mid-level executives put their families first.
Climbing to the top of the corporate world often entails cutthroat competition involving 80- and 90-hour work weeks, frequent moves and a fanatical devotion to the job above all else.

The Opt-Out Revolution
(By: LISA BELKIN, New York Times

Look, for example, at the Stanford class of '81. Fifty-seven percent of mothers in that class spent at least a year at home caring for their infant children in the first decade after graduation. One out of four have stayed home three or more years. Look at Harvard Business School. A survey of women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 found that only 38 percent were working full time. Look at professional women in surveys across the board. Between one-quarter and one-third are out of the work force, depending on the study and the profession. Look at the United States Census, which shows that the number of children being cared for by stay-at-home moms has increased nearly 13 percent in less than a decade. At the same time, the percentage of new mothers who go back to work fell from 59 percent in 1998 to 55 percent in 2000.
Look, too, at the mothers who have not left completely but have scaled down or redefined their roles in the crucial career-building years (25 to 44). Two-thirds of those mothers work fewer than 40 hours a week -- in other words, part time. Only 5 percent work 50 or more hours weekly.

Time was when a woman's definition of success was said to be her apple-pie recipe. Or her husband's promotion. Or her well-turned-out children. Next, being successful required becoming a man. Remember those awful padded-shoulder suits and floppy ties? Success was about the male definition of money and power.
There is nothing wrong with money or power. But they come at a high price. And lately when women talk about success they use words like satisfaction, balance and sanity.

That's why a recent survey by the research firm Catalyst found that 26percent of women at the cusp of the most senior levels of management don't want the promotion. And it's why Fortune magazine found that of the 108 women who have appeared on its list of the top 50 most powerful women over the years, at least 20 have chosen to leave their high-powered jobs, most voluntarily, for lives that are less intense and more fulfilling.
It's why President Bush's adviser Karen Hughes left the White House, saying her family was homesick and wanted to go back to Austin. It's why Brenda C. Barnes, who was the president and C.E.O. of Pepsi-Cola North America, left that job to move back to Illinois with her family. And it's why Wendy Chamberlin, who was ambassador to Pakistan, resigned, because security concerns meant she never saw her two young daughters.
Why don't women run the world?
Maybe it's because they don't want to.

By Katherine Post and Michael Lynch

The glass ceiling, a close relative of the pay-gap myth, bears a striking resemblance to the statistical manipulation and inferred generalizations of its ancestor. It would be disingenuous to suggest that discrimination no longer exists; but discrimination is illegal, and abuses of the laws should meet with swift justice. In today's world it is not pervasive and systemic discrimination but a myriad of decisions and considerations -- personal choices -- that determine a person's role in the market place.

Again from the CBS poll that I guess no one wants to acknowledge because then you'd have to admit that women have prospered without the ERA.

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

Better
82%
Worse
4%
The same
13%

So really, who has the outdated thinking around here?

 

[INDY500]

I didn't take that "you don't have it as bad as other people" shit from Indy, and I won't take it from you either.

Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut!

 

[yolland]

A couple telling passages you omitted from Belkin's article, which I realize was very long:

...I say this with the full understanding that there are ambitious, achieving women out there who are the emotional and professional equals of any man, and that there are also women who stayed the course, climbed the work ladder without pause and were thwarted by lingering double standards and chauvinism. I also say this knowing that to suggest that women work differently than men--that they leave more easily and find other parts of life more fulfilling--is a dangerous and loaded statement. And lastly, I am very aware that, for the moment, this is true mostly of elite, successful women who can afford real choice--who have partners with substantial salaries and health insurance--making it easy to dismiss them as exceptions.

...''My fantasy is a world where there are two kinds of people--ones who like to stay home and care for children and ones who like to go out and have a career,'' [Tilghman] says. ''In this fantasy, one of these kinds can only marry the other.'' But the way it seems to work now is that ambitious women seem to be attracted to ambitious men. Then when they have children together, ''someone has to become less ambitious.'' And right now, it tends to be the woman who makes that choice.

...the latter phenomenon being one whose roots Belkin never questions, as if social and cultural expectations placed on mothers to prioritize family over career, assume primary accountability for the household, and above to all measure their own mettle first and foremost in terms of parenting achievements, with all the self-doubts about what one's career achievements really prove and amount to that entails--not to mention the general tendency of family leave policies to shortchange fathers, though they ain't that generous for mothers either--don't have any bearing on the matter. I wonder if she knew about the Harris poll in 2000 which found that 80% of men in their 20s and 30s considered a work schedule which allowed for generous family time more important than a challenging or high-paying job. What a bunch of guilt-neutered wusses, eh?

Anyhow, none of Belkin's highly selective evidence should have any bearing on whether or not women require either legislative or Constitutional antidiscrimination protections. The implicit argument underlying all that putting of Lady Madonna on her pedestal and in her place could of course just as easily be used against the Civil Rights Act too.

 

[martha]

Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut!

This is only the second or third time you've called me a name in response to something I've said, but "slut" is pretty desperate. Wait, lemme guess: You love gals; it's the only the uppity ones that piss you off, right?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wow

Another thread of mine down the toilet with insults. I guess he will claim it was a "joke".

 

[martha]

Wow

Another thread of mine down the toilet with insults. I guess he will claim it was a "joke".

And that I have no sense of humor.

 

[anitram]

If INDY thinks the ERA is unnecessary and all us women are just peachy, then what is the danger of enacting it? What is he so afraid of?

Oh that's right, it being misinterpreted and allowing those gays to have equal rights too.

If it's not one thing, it's another.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I don't support it for some of the same reasons the ERA failed before. In giving equality in good ways, such as equal pay, it would also mean, (from what I've heard) things like bathrooms and gym classes being joined, there could be no more sex separated privacy. There could also be no exceptions for things like women not being able to physically do some jobs, they'd be expected to be the same as a man, which of course they aren't. So I'll take the good things about it, but I fear the little hidden bad things no one may be considering. You can't have it both ways.

 

[martha]

I don't support it for some of the same reasons the ERA failed before. In giving equality in good ways, such as equal pay, it would also mean, (from what I've heard) things like bathrooms and gym classes being joined, there could be no more sex separated privacy. There could also be no exceptions for things like women not being able to physically do some jobs, they'd be expected to be the same as a man, which of course they aren't. So I'll take the good things about it, but I fear the little hidden bad things no one may be considering. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DrTeeth]

You just can't make this shit up

 

[Vincent Vega]

I think it willy also ban the Y-chromosom.
So I'm against it.

 

[DrTeeth]

I think it willy

Freudian slip?

 

[anitram]

things like bathrooms and gym classes being joined

We are coming for your urinals!!!

 

[Vincent Vega]

Freudian slip?

Ups

 

[AttnKleinkind]

Wow, this all seems so bizarre to me. I live in Canada, and I know equality under the Constitution is pretty recent, but I had no idea that it wasn't the same way in the States. I guess I'm just rather young and naive. I mean, I was so surprised when I read this thread. I've never heard of the Women's Equality Amendment and I'm surprised it's still an issue.

 

[INDY500]

This is only the second or third time you've called me a name in response to something I've said, but "slut" is pretty desperate. Wait, lemme guess: You love gals; it's the only the uppity ones that piss you off, right?

Didn't realize that you also go by the name Jane.

What better way to answer the antiquated 70's feminist theories expressed here (apparently with a straight face), than with Dan Aykroyd's over-the-top 70's parody of the "male chauvinist pig." The role I'm apparently playing in this thread.
Nothing personal. Just that some of us remember the humorous aspects of the "battle of the sexes" that helped define the 70's.

Which makes it love-15 and your serve Billy Jean.

 

[Irvine511]

i this thread.

in many ways, it's FYM at it's best -- smart, snappy, bitchy, funny, informative, and a wide variety of viewpoints in constant engaging engagement wtih one another. from highbrow to lowbrow with nary a moment to catch one's breath.

i wish i had jumped in sooner to participate, but i haven't a clue as to what to add.

and Martha's "beter than the poor little girls in Afghanistan" comment nearly made me spit up my tea.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Wow, this all seems so bizarre to me. I live in Canada, and I know equality under the Constitution is pretty recent, but I had no idea that it wasn't the same way in the States. I guess I'm just rather young and naive. I mean, I was so surprised when I read this thread. I've never heard of the Women's Equality Amendment and I'm surprised it's still an issue.

I am 100% in favor of the ideas and the intent of the ERA, but I always get uncomfortable when people start talking about amending the Constitution. The Constitution is designed to be an organic, living, breathing document that is open to judicial interpretation, and that can evolve over time, without editing it. It's supposed to be amended only in extreme cases.

There are lots of important issues that are regulated, but are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Take another topic that every sane person is in agreement on: child abuse is bad. But there's nothing in the constitution that explicitly bans child abuse. But if one politician starts clamoring, 'Amend the Constitution to ban child abuse!', all of a sudden, if you're against such an amendment, you can be cartooned into being pro-child abuse.

 

[yolland]

Well it's not like it has a chance of passing, so I don't think you need to get too uncomfortable about it. I don't see child abuse being analogous to "equality of rights being abridged or denied before the law on account of sex", either in terms of scope or vulnerability to politicization. So far as I know there isn't anyone out there arguing that where kids really belong is at home being beaten, or that most kids given the choice would rather be beaten than loved unconditionally because that's just too hard on their authority-craving nature, or that an amendment against child abuse would lead to parent internment camps or legalization of children beating adults or forced communal childrearing, or that Studies Show most kids reckon they're better off than Oliver Twist so what's the big deal if a few hundred thousand are abused every year, that's just the result of their myriad of personal decisions and considerations which ultimately determined their role in their families.

 

[MadelynIris]

canadian law:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Hmmm.... sounds a lot like US law.

 

[yolland]

That's part of their Constitution (section Fifteen of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

 

[financeguy]

Feminism is essentially built on a tissue of lies.

In Western societies, from health care to jobs to education to paternal rights , it is men that are discriminated against, not women.

However, I wouldn't expect the self-regarding navel-gazing 'liberal' coterie on here to realise that.