Women's Equality Measure Faces Long Odds

... the same problem it has always had-- it's way too vague and hard to define. "Equality is hereby guaranteed to all people regardless of their shoe size or height and weight" would be equally vague and hard to figure out what to do with. One thing for sure: it'd make loads of money for certain kinds of lawyers. How it would actually be implemented though, we already know: any time a woman would want something she isn't getting, she would use it as a threat against whoever is telling her no.

One could say that something like the ERA by whatever name it is presented would be of greater benefit to men. I disagree. In implementation, this would be the Great Elastic Clause of Phemininism used to beat men further senseless and marginalize us. Conservatives are worried about abortion issues? Hell, I am worried about just plain being able to live a decent life as a man in such a world as this would usher in. It's already none too pretty (hear the violins playing just for me...?)

1) It's redundant. Look at the last line of Amendment 14, section 1:

US Constitution, Amendment 14 (in part)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2) It's not wanted, by feminists. An equal rights amendment that guarantees application of laws to persons of both genders would afford men some of the protections that women claim are just and necessary only for themselves.

3) It would be ineffective. Look at point (1) again. The protections already exist in the constitution, and are already being misapplied and ignored.

I want to see how the protections against genital mutilation plays out if the amendment is passed. Will women forgoe their own protection to continue the tradition of cutting up their males? Or will they reluctantly give up the practice to protect their own female children? Or more likely, will they ignore any medical benefits of female circumcision in order to make wildly exhaggerated claims about the medical benefits of male circumcision.

Phyllis Schlafly is still alive right?

She will have a ball with this attempted rad-fem retro-circus to bring back the ERA!

Since the amendment cannot possibly pass the full Congress, it will have the utility of getting Hitlary and 'Bama to show their rad-fem credentials.

Schlafly clips on youtube.com would be a real treat!

After it passes, which privileges and special women-only rights will they be giving up first?