Lawmakers Seek to Reintroduce ERA

Now that I'm done laughing hysterically at the paranoid delusions described in that article...

The ERA would do far more for men than it would for women, even if the intent of those pushing it again is misandric. Think of the class-action lawsuit in California against DV laws for women only. The ERA would make such misandric nonsense illegal. Ditto for unequal parenting after divorce - it would become illegal to presumptively deny fathers equal custody of their children, would it not? Also, health care disparities, "affirmative" discrimination against men, life expectancy, draft laws, etc. etc. etc. The ERA sounds good to me, and if it really would have been of more benefit to women than men, it would have passed last time around without so much as a whimper. The fact that it was defeated by misandric politicians means it must be good for men.

First proposed in 1923, the ERA states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

Men are discriminated against throughout western society, and they have no tools with which to fight that discrimination. The ERA would give them such a tool. ERA is about REAL equality, and that's the LAST thing American feminists want. Let's give it to 'em.

What laws do they feel are currently worded to only benefit men I wonder?

Deleted

I agree with RandomMan. Even though the ERA is being pushed to promote `equality for women', it will actually help get rid of the bias in laws such as VAWA, or the California law. Here in India, we have a problem because the Indian Constitution permits the govt. to have special laws for women, so any constitutional challange to one sided DV laws is next to impossible.

I suspect the "commie worth" proponents who are pushing this are not interested in "equality of opportunity," but instead "equality of outcome." In other words, "comparable worth" under a new ERA would give a woman the same pay for doing a lot less than a man is expected to do. Uh, isn't that kind of what we have now with women firefighters?

"Gender norming" is the term used in situations where women can't perform physically to the requirements of the job, the requirements that have been demanded of men for decades or longer.

Don't be fooled by the title of this ERA, it does not stand for "Equal Rights." This legislation would be a lot more accurately called the "Extra Rights Amendment" as it would be applied to women, and the "Everything-but Rights Amendment" as it applies to men, IMO.

Ironic that a bill which is worded to try and assure gender neutrality is labeled the "Women's Equality Amendment"?

Men are discriminated against throughout western society, and they have no tools with which to fight that discrimination. The ERA would give them such a tool. ERA is about REAL equality, and that's the LAST thing American feminists want. Let's give it to 'em.

In the past, the term "rights" has meant the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Unfortunately the term has evolved to mean (in practice) whatever the politically powerful want. Any desire, regardless of its relationship to constitutional guarantees, is a "right" if it's properly promoted.

IMO our country has abandoned limited government based on principles (i.e. the constitution) and now works under a free-for-all. There are no overriding principles; anything that can be forced through a legislature of professional panderers becomes law.

The ERA is purely symbolic. Its passage will demonstrate that feminists have enough influence to change the constitution, so politicians don't dare mess with them (as if they don't shudder at the thought of voting against a fem issue now). It will be used as just another club to beat up anyone that disagrees with rad-fems.

Unless MRA's become far more influential the ERA will be used as a tool for the rad-fems to have their way.

Sorry for being such a pesimist but I'm convinced that's what's in store for us unless/until we become a much, much bigger force.

If my memory serves me correctly, from my government class in high school, there is a thing called an "unamendable amendment", which basically means that the amendment cannot be repealed or changed.

If the feminists truly want to be perceived as sincere about equality, then let them propose the ERA be an unamendable amendment. They know full well that a constitutional amendment requiring full equality can be used by men as well as women. That would mean no more male genital mutilation, no more male-only Selective Service, no more female-only DV shelters, etc... But they'll never go for that. If the ERA is not unamendable, all they'll have to do is say that it's not being used properly and then amend it. But if it's unamendable, they know they'll be stuck with it. Which is exactly why they will not propose it be unamendable.

Perhaps a legal scholar on the board can verify this for me. Is my memory working correctly? There is such a thing as an unamendable amendment, isn't there? Or is my memory worse than I thought?

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

They would simply never propose such a thing because of "woman's prerogative" [the option to change her mind at any time for any reason without repercussions]

Every woman I have ever met instinctively holds "woman's prerogative" to be a sacred right and so they simply don't think about potentially negative outcomes for their choices because they can always change their mind later without consequence.

That and nothing is unamendable. Even if you can't change an amendment, you can always introduce a new one that negates the effects of the old one. We're talking about Government, politics, and law here... NOTHING can't be changed at the whim of the powers that be.