A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy."

- Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

04 May 2012

The Feminist Case AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment


With the surge in popularity of the women's movement in opposition to the "Republican War on Women," there has been a lot of talk about persuading Congress to pass a law giving feminists a chance to persuade the last three states needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923.
Why is passing the Equal Rights Amendment not a good goal for feminists?

Hannah Miyamoto, J.D., M.S., M.A.
1. Diversion of effort. History shows that women's movements are inherently fragile. For example, after the 19th Amendment was adopted in 1920, the next generation of women used their freedom to focus on SEX!* not women's rights. Moreover, the brightest lights entered politics and sought careers. Lillian Hellman, e.g., once explained her embrace of leftist politics over women's movement work by recalling that when she was young, she thought that women's rights was "stale stuff"[1].
Similarly, the Second Wave never had the full support of African-American women until about 1980, because "Black Power" men insisted that African-American women must fight for "their race" before worrying about their gender. By 1980, of course, the Right had poisoned millions of white women to oppose "Radical" feminism.
Passing the ERA would likely have the same effect as passing the 19th amendment: Women would quit the women's movement as soon as it passed, leaving all the other necessary reforms undone.

2. Limited value of the ERA. The ERA--and Alice Paul, Ph.D., A.B., would be the first to concur, if she were alive--will only affect what laws "say," and not what they "do." The most invasive anti-abortion bill applies equally to females and males--even though males don't have a uterus--and therefore is CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ERA.
The answer, therefore, is to enact an amendment that actually achieves what women want, like protect their bodies from legislatures or require equal pay for equal work.

3. "Women are already Legally Equal." Since 1976, all the federal and state courts have been required--thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision--to rule that ALL LAWS that treat women and men differently are INVALID, unless the GOVERNMENT proves they "further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest."
Laws that explicitly discriminate on the basis of sex are already struck down, unless they protect an "important government interest." Examples include the "important government interest" in keeping men out of women's restrooms. 

4. "Equal means Strictly Equal." One ERA supporter argued to me that Courts should treat differently the words and acts that create a "hostile environment" for a female worker differently from the rules for a male's sexual harassment claim. She argued, logically enough, that women are more sensitive to sexual comments than men.
The ERA--remember that most federal judges are Men--would smash that very idea. Making women LEGALLY equal to men would bar governments from adopting any law that *protects* women differently from men. 
Note: Even in 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court used the 19th amendment to help support its ruling that a law guaranteeing women a minimum wage was unconstitutional, since it had previously ruled against laws protecting men from low wages and long hours!

5. "Beware of what you ask for." The principal effect of adopting the ERA would be to require the law to treat gender discrimination the way it treats race and ethnicity discrimination: Forbidden. Unfortunately, for the last 30 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has used that very rule--called "strict scrutiny"--to strike down or limit program after program to help minorities, calling them "reverse discrimination." Of course, the doctrine of "reverse discrimination" has been very useful in blocking the elimination of both racial and gender-based inequality in the U.S.
Passing the ERA would make programs to aid women just as vulnerable to "reverse discrimination" claims, and male judges would be ruling on the cases.

6. "Experience teaches." Perhaps the most significant reason to be cautious about pushing for ERA passage is that the women's movement has deliberately left the ERA aside for 30 years. The case for the ERA is different than it was in the mid-1970s because 1) there were still many discriminatory laws then, and 2) the judges were much friendlier to women's rights then. 
Now, after hard-core conservative administrations have appointed dozens of conservative judges hostile to the goals of feminism to the federal court, is not the time to risk the gains we have made by passing the ERA.

Instead, let's get behind reforms that protect women's rights FROM legislatures that do not always consider the rights of women when they pass laws. One example is the Margaret Sanger Reproductive Rights Amendment, which would prevent Governments from restricting the rights of women and men to control their reproduction, get an abortion, or have access to sex education materials. 


Hannah Miyamoto
Honolulu, Hawai'i



Hannah Miyamoto received a J.D. from Hamline Univ. law school in 1992, and has practiced extensively on gender-related cases. She also holds an M.S. in Women's Studies from Minnesota State Univ., Mankato (2003) and an M.A. in Sociology, focusing on social movements, from the Univ. of Hawai'i at Manoa (2008).

*birth rates rose from 1920-1930, after falling for at least three decades.


[1] Hellman, Lillian. "An Unfinished Woman: A Memoir." (1969), pp. 29-30, in Ware, Susan, "Beyond Suffrage: Women in the New Deal." Cambridge, Mass.: Oxford Univ. Press (1981), p. 20.

44 comments:

  1. I have wondered a few of these things about the ERA. Would an article that recognizes the misogyny and racism inherent in our culture be effective? Would that work in addition to an ERA-like article to the Bill of RIghts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe, BUT: You would have to write a new ERA and start over. :-( Thanks for asking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You neglect to point out the 3 state strategy.

      Delete
  3. Great points, Hannah, this should be published everywhere you can!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for reading. I didn't even have a chance to send you a link yet.
    Do you think this would make a popular book subject? The full story is worthy of a book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am sorry but this post is just awful and FYI I see no feminist opposing the ERA.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. Hannah is NOT a real feminist. She appears nothing more than a Phyllis Schlafly clone.

      Delete
  6. @Bedelia: Thank you for sharing your opinion. Clearly, it will be necessary to write a much longer explanation of why the ERA would probably hurt the status of women and girls.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are not speaking for the real feminists. You disgrace the meaning of feminist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I would like to agree with you, I don't see a bunch of feminists here climbing over each other to disagree with Miyamoto. In fact 3rd wave feminists show ZERO interest, day after day, year after year, in reviving the ERA. Support for the ERA at this point all seems to becoming from men's groups branded as misogynists. That's right. Feminists have almost all now either decided that support for constitutional equality of genders is misogyny, or they simply don't care to disagree. Since you're the lone voice crying in the wilderness at this point, I suggest you start watching your back not for men, but for other feminists. Do you know what they did to Erin Pizzey, and why?

      Delete
    2. Someone named Josh has not been paying attention. I am a "third wave" feminist (although I could write a book about these labels) and have been ardently fighting for the ERA for the last 5 years, as well as literally HUNDREDS of other women my age in Illinois ALONE. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

      Delete
  8. Disgrace-lol-
    support to any that educated themselves to stand for their cause.

    Clone, ok, so many share similar intrusts.

    If not for those that work twards our rights women like me that have ben living beatdown n survival would be in worse condition than i am now.

    Appriciation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Until women are equal under law with their inalienable rights protected to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which men have granted themselves, women's progress and our sisters will never be safe.

    Women are not paid equally
    Women serve longer prison sentences than men
    Women are unfairly treated by the courts in terms of custody, alimony and child support with no fault divorce.
    Women are not protected by VAWA
    Women are not protected from rape, incest or abuse
    Women don't have reproductive freedom as men do - free of gov't tyranny.

    Sex discrimination has not been outlawed in the Constitution yet like discrimination based on race, religion and national origin.
    It won't be until ERA is ratified.

    Hannah is entitled to her Phyllis Schlafly-esque opinion - to be afraid of equality and progress for women. Some women are. Yet much of what Phyllis touted as bad that the feminists did - she did herself!

    If Hannah doesn't think the ERA will help her, she can continue to live under patriarchy where she will find lots of friends. Living in fear of reprisal for daring to step out of the gender box women live in ain't my cup of tea. Patriarchy is the way it's been in America for over 200 years. Hannah is free to use or not use her equal rights under law.

    I personally won't stop fighting for ERA until women are safe in the Constitution. Imagine America without the 14th Amendment? Scary thought. The ERA is the 14th Amendment for Women.

    The good news is we feminists have the spirit of our Foremothers and the Universe behind us, Ladies! Nothing will stop us again. We are on the road to victory in 3 states for ERA... Onward and Upward :-)

    However, if you are a feminist who believes in equality between men and women, check out United for Equality's ERA 2015 campaign! We have spearheaded a joint resolution to remove the deadline for ratification

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't agree with Ms. Miyamoto's reasoning, but I appreciate her bringing up several points that need to be addressed. I hope that this sparks a dialogue where the various viewpoints present facts and evidence rather than name calling. If the pro-ERA folks could come up with a good solid rebuttal to this, it could serve to strengthen their case when they talk with legislators. Just calling someone "Schlafly-esque" is not helpful. I don't know enough about the history and legal aspects of this to weigh in on this on the deep level it deserves, but someone out there must have that knowledge. If you would share it with the rest of us, you would be doing us all a service. (With deep respect to United For Equality, which is headed up by a dear friend of mine -- you won't win me over with cheerleading, but facts and logic will get me every time.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nancy, I applaud your take on this almost unintelligible (to me) article. Reason: These obtuse objections and others may arise when HJRes 47 and SJRes 39 are discussed.

      WE MUST BE READY. I intend to send this to our 4 legal teams nationwide.

      On the other hand, I applaud CCook for her impassioned reply. It makes my heart Rock! PS Carolyn, I am taking every advantage for ERA in response to this War on Women.

      "Connect the dots. ERA is focussed on making sex discrimination A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
      This legislative War on Women consists of an overwhelming barrage of sex discrimination. (Although our Natl Equal Rights Amendment Alliance takes no position on reproductive rights per se, since ERA does not regulate that, we find WE MUST VIGOROUSLY OBJECT to the the inhumane intent to discriminate on the basis of sex incorporated in all those bills, whether refusing to vote for the proposed VAWA or voting to put shackles on imprisoned women in labor or shutting rape or domestic violence crisis centers or the others that cramp women's right to self-determination re her own body. That's our position:
      ERA focusses against sex discrimination.
      War on Women is en toto blatant sex discrimination.
      ERA is a fix.

      ERGO, Let's GO GET the ERA and stop dithering!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  11. I don't think Hannah is anti-feminist, and I have much respect for her progressive politics, but her arguments against ERA are misguided and weak. The points raised in her essay are "what-ifs" that have no bearing on the precarious legal situation facing all women in the US -- and that is the absence of clarity in the Constitution on the status of women other than voting. All other rights won on behalf of women were done by court decision, statute, or executive order - all of which can be easily changed or reversed. It's a patchwork loosely held together by the threads of grievances that each piece is meant to correct.

    For example, I worry about the future of Title IX, which gives women equal access to education. As conservative scribes raise alarm about more women than men graduating from college, and conservative commentators harp "save the males," I can easily see future curling back of certain programs or imposing limits as the wagons are circled in Camp Patriarchy. Grove City College did not want to comply with Title IX, so it did not accept direct federal funds, but it took in millions of federal student financial aid. The college claimed that this indirect funding was immune from federal requirements. The Supreme Court ruled that college still had to comply with all aspects of Title IX in all areas. However, this is one aspect of Title IX that conservatives maintain deprives them of their 1st Amendment rights. With the recent hue and cry over free contraceptives for employees of church-owned hospitals and schools, the indirect funding of contraception was still challenged as an "unconstitutional" affront religious freedom. So this is one example of rights that could easily be lost without constitutional protection.

    Another matter still hanging in the balance is the status of women. In my lifetime, women were once regarded as the property of men. A daughter was property of a father, until she became a wife who was the property of a husband. A man could beat his wife and not be charged in most jurisdictions because his wife was his property and he could do as he liked with his property. The culture was divided on the perception of domestic violence -- what was once called wife beating. Some people abhorred the practice, but others actually supported it as a way to "keep the little woman in line." We've kind of glossed over this aspect by enacting laws by statute or court decision, but again, these can be changed easily. One thing the 14th Amendment does is give personhood status to black men who were formerly enslaved as the property of white men, but it is absolutely silent on the status of women. Justice Scalia has said emphatically that he does not view the 14th as a protection against gender discrimination. Now that the patriarchy is actively seeking constitutional personhood status to zygotes, women's personhood is easily pushed aside without clear constitutional guarantee. That can only be done with ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scalia and his clones can't even distinguish between "The People" and "Persons". Until maybe someone learns how to open a dictionary, don't expect any real progress on gender issues, either. And should that day ever finally come, you can expect there will be much bigger fish to fry.

      Delete
  12. Well said, Carolyn!!! As the U4E Louisiana Coordinator, I echo your sentiments! Living here in the oppressed South (and it's getting worse every day), we deal with women like Hannah, Phyllis Schaffley wanna bes, all the time. How can you be a woman and not want full legal equality for every other woman! It is traitorous! The women who oppose the ERA are worse than the men! And then we have those "women's" organizations who may not "oppose" the ERA, but sure won't help get it ratified. These organizations want to pass one piddling law at a time, piecemealing together their idea of equality, when all it will take for women to receive full legal equality is ERA ratification--one law, three more states! We don't need to spend our time sitting in legislative halls from here to eternity passing miniscule laws that will never make one iota of difference in outlawing sex discrimination and can be overturned by a single vote. But that's what's happening in legislatures across America. Women, wake up and stop being Hannah's and Phyllis'! Stop spending all your time chasing your tails on these ridiculous petty laws and start working for passage of the one law that will do it all--the ERA! Come on board the U4E train and end sex discrimination the right way, the only way--through the ERA! Posted on behalf of Camille M.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From an American perspective, I believe the issue is broader than individual programs, initiatives, and political movements. The real issue comes down to nothing less than the definition of the American identity and character on human rights. Women's rights are human rights. In the United States of America's very Declaration of Independence and declaration of its identity as a nation, it states "we find these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal."

    This is not "cheerleading," my friends. It is a series of statements of facts and logic. But let us never forget that every great movement for American advancement begins with commitment to a dream.

    We know from the writing of that period that humanity has been described in male-centric terms, e.g., "mankind." We also know that women denied such equality in many ways. But the American identity that declares itself to accept (without caveat), not just the idea, not just the campaign, but the very self-evident TRUTH, that "all men are created equal," should also accept the self-evident TRUTH that "all men and women are created equal."

    As a nation, America has struggled not only with campaigns and policies, programs and politics, it has also struggled with the finding the courage to consistently stand by our convictions. So it was on one August afternoon, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had to state at the Lincoln Memorial how "It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color." He had a dream. All of pragmatic policies and initiatives must begin with such dreams and such truths. America finally accepted the challenge to live up to the promises it made and enacted laws to realize its declaration, its Constitution, and the 14th and 15th Amendment to the Constitution. But it first needed people with the courage and persistence to demand that America is responsible for the truths and ideals it declares.

    Today, we need the same courage and persistence on women's equal rights, both as a TRUTH we hold self-evident, as well as a Constitutional guarantee. We get impatient for change. We naturally seek one solution that will solve all injustices. But history has shown us that the pathway to ending injustice and building equal rights is a long path that will not be solved only with the politics or passions of any one day. It requires a consistent view of a dream for equal rights as something all people deserve without question, without reservation, and without ever looking back. It requires building blocks of change, so that others can reach the next step. Just as America needed other Constitutional Amendments to change the injustices against Americans of color, so we also need a Constitutional Amendment to complete the work started by the 19th Amendment. We need the Equal Rights Amendment, not just for now, but for tomorrow.

    Every step we take towards equal rights makes us a better and stronger nation and a better and stronger people. It helps build our national security and it helps build our national character. Most important of all, it helps build our national compassion and respect for one another.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have a dream. It is a dream that can and will be realized by these United States. It is America's rendezvous with a destiny and a history that it must build not just because of its past and its present, but also to embrace its future.

    I dream of a day where women shouldn't have to ask about their equality in this nation, because the equality of all women and all men is a truth that all Americans hold self-evident. I dream of a day when our nation's greatest document includes an affirmative statement of equality for all, regardless of their sex, and that no one would dare defy such a law of the land in every city, town, court, and part of this great nation. I have a dream. I have a dream one day, that Americans will stand united together, hand in hand, sister and brother as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hannah, I appreciate your comments on the Equal Rights Amendment. You have the advantage of a much more stellar education than I and I hope my feminist sisters recognize that fine mind and allow you the room to develop and grow. While we may not agree on your conclusions, I applaud you for putting them forth.

    While your advantage may be academic, I have the advantage of having lived for 73 years, experiencing what it is like to be a woman in this world. Having watched laws being passed and then gutted or struck down by a single vote, I realized until women are permanently etched in the Constitution we have no hope of of halting this backward slide.

    Linda Wharton (Rutgers Law Journal, State Equal Rights Amendments Revisited, Volume 36, Issue 4) says "The effectiveness of the Supreme Court's application of the Equal Protection Clause to sex discrimination claims has been limited by various factors, including its reliance on a formal equality model of analysis that primarily protects against discrimination by governmental actors in instances where men and women are similarly situated. This analysis, embedded in constitutional doctrine by an emerging conservative majority, insulates from heightened scrutiny legislation that impacts women more heavily than men or regulates women in areas, such as reproduction, where men and women are biologically different or women are otherwise not similarly situated to men."

    When a woman brings a sex discrimination case it is not looked on with Strict Scrutiny by the courts. This is the bottom line.

    Justice Antonin Scalia stated in the California Lawyer in January 2011, "Certainly the Constitution doesn't require sex discrimination. The only question is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't"

    Unfortunately, Hannah, what happens to most women is that they do not recognize the inequality until it is too late (Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). Ihope you keep exploring and dialoging and can someday appreciate the women who have sacrificed to allow you to get an advanced education, play sports, pursue a career.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi, thank you for all your comments, which I have read avidly. I've just responded to most of the issues you have read. Please read and comment upon:

    http://nationalprogressive.blogspot.com/2012/05/response-to-criticism-of-feminist-case.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Having worked so long for ERA ratification in just 3 of the 7 ERA-active states, I am reminded that I have run into 5 female lawyers like this, with obtuse ERA objections in imperious tones. As if they were truly "stellar" scholars, they seem to reach for something to argue acidly about and not at all to be informative. If they truly wanted to inform, they would be clear, and it would be welcomed.

    What IS it with some of these women lawyers who speak with rock-hard certainty when they know very well that they possess only one certainty, their own.

    Let's look into her objections and see if they do hold merit. Goodness knows, some of these may testify AGAINST ERA in Congress. Let us be PREPARED.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In the U.S. in 2012 the 21st century, there are 1,682 to 1800+ abuse shelters for women, 5,000+ abuse shelters for animals, and "0" abuse shelters for men. (N.D.V. Hotline, N.C.A.D.V., and A.S.P.C.A.). respectively.

    Despite the fact that domestic violence occurs at nearly the same percentages against men, as it does women, there is no funding, no facilities and no contribution at any level to help men deal with this growing epidemic. More than 1 in 4 men in the United States has experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.(The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report).


    More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to this study published by the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) released in December, 2011 53% of domestic violence victims were men.

    So, why is there not a single domestic violence shelter in the U.S. for male victims.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because if the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts have to go. Don't you realize that empirical procedure is just one more tool of The Patriarchy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1GnQ_k7Vok

      Delete
  20. My Granny always said that there was an alternate universe where intelligence resides amid the absence of gravity. After reading this rambling, my Granny was right.

    May I add that your degree in Women's Studies did not serve you well. Women in the 1960s didn't use their new political legitimacy for "SEX!" as you put it. Baby, it was "SEX, DRUGS, and ROCK-N-ROLL." By the way, 1969 was the most revolutionary year in the history of our nation and to undermine it as so is a stain on your credibility. But all is fair in love and war. I wish you well as you continue to mislead people in this obnoxious way.

    ReplyDelete
  21. . This is a very inaccurate article reminicint of all the propaganda that killed ERA in the last go round. For one thing reproductive rights are not part of ERA- unless men grow uteruses there is no overlap- men have the right to their body (can get a vasectomy or donate sperm if they wish), women would have to same rights to their gender equipment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is a very inaccurate article reminiscent of all the propaganda that killed ERA in the last go round. For one thing reproductive rights are not part of ERA- unless men grow uteruses there is no overlap- men have the right to their body (can get a vasectomy or donate sperm if they wish), women would have to same rights to their gender equipment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I’m all for an Equal Rights Amendment so long as it comes with a comparable Equal Responsibilities Amendment that still holds men to 18 years of child support but bans all elective abortions. That demands that women register for the draft before they can vote, serve on a jury, collect Social Security etc. just like a man has to register. That demands that women get NO preferential treatment in the court system instead of getting custody about 90% of the time and the woman getting about 60% less prison time for the same crime as a man. That demands that male homeless shelters get funded based on the demographic percentage of homeless (which are OVERWHELMINGLY male) instead of women’s homeless shelters hogging the vast majority of the funding to serve a small fraction of the homeless population. You see, unlike female supremacists, er, sorry, I mean “feminists”, I actually DO want equality between the sexes. REAL equality, not female supremacy unconvincingly dressed up as equality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Equal responsibility wouldn't just mean men paying for kids that are their, it would mean men not paying for kids that are not theirs. This is no less a serious problem. I only bring this up because your own points have so far failed to get the comments section disabled. The most efficient way to getting comments sections disabled on a feminist web page is usually just to post the words "paternity fraud", which I have already done below. So if you have anything to add, make it quick. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't on pages like this anyway, since not responding is "failure to engage" and responding with a cogent disagreement to the primary article content is "bullying". Welcome to the world of Victorian Fainting Couch Feminism, where pointing out transparent internal inconsistencies in what someone says is now "rape". But only if you have a penis. You can't win. Because, no matter how right you are, trying to win, itself is a form of sexist oppression.

      Delete
  24. The mere fact that men's rights groups are in favor of the ERA at this point explains why feminists have essentially turned against it. Men at this point are eager for equality, and women are fearful of it. This tells you, in a nutshell, who is really benefitting from the present conditions of legal inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No flames yet? Let me try again. If the article were titled "The Africist Case Against The Emancipation Proclamation", readers would have no problem understanding that the author must really be opposed to total slave emancipation, and not simply against emancipation as constitutionally provided for by white legislators. Practically every point Miyamoto makes here is essentially transposable to the kind of article I describe. The only thing that makes what she actually says seem any less absurd is simply that the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect over 100 years ago, and the ERA still hasn't, as such. Seriously. Yes. Look at the article and transpose each of the arguments. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end racist oppression and has not ended it. And yet the Proclamation oddly continues to receive broad tacit support from US Citizens of ALL racial backgrounds. So why, if practically no one at this point wants to throw out the baby with the bath water in regard to the Emancipation Proclamation, should Miyamoto be so eager to do so in regard to the ERA? Apply Occam's Razor. People who suffer the most from inequality are almost always the ones who want to end it the most; people who benefit the most from inequality are almost always the ones who want it to continue the most. Miyamoto is not invested in the solution to gender inequality in the US; she is invested in the problem. In other words. the solution, for her, is actually a problem. Her career depends on the existence of various gender inequalities to fight one by one. If Cui Bona is Ad Hominem, then, yes, OK; I just used Ad Hominem. My suggestion to her is that she could probably do even better business after the ERA is passed, since that would most likely eventuate the exposure of about 1 in 15 American women (over the course of a lifetime) to prosecution for paterntity fraud, which would basically have to be treated like any other form of fraud. That's a lot of defendants, and thus, also a lot of clients for her.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nothing but the 13th amendment (Prohibition of Slavery) prohibits any conduct by an individual or private business. The ERA would do the same thing as the 14th amendment does to race discrimination. Lawyers call this the "State Action" requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nothing but the 13th amendment (Prohibition of Slavery) prohibits any conduct by an individual or private business. The ERA would do the same thing as the 14th amendment does to race discrimination. Lawyers call this the "State Action" requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nothing but the 13th amendment (Prohibition of Slavery) prohibits any conduct by an individual or private business. The ERA would do the same thing as the 14th amendment does to race discrimination. Lawyers call this the "State Action" requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Nothing in the Constitution but the 13th amendment (Prohibition of Slavery) prohibits any conduct by an individual or private business. The ERA would do the same thing as the 14th amendment does to race discrimination. Lawyers call this the "State Action" requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think you're intelligent enough that in missing the point of the analogy, you almost certainly have to be doing so deliberately. Both the 13th and 14th Amendments have the effect of making persons less unequal. You seem to agree that the ERA would have an effect similar to the 14th Amendment. If I understand correctly, then, you agree that, like the 14th Amendment, the ERA would have the effect of making persons less unequal. And yet you oppose the ERA. This all seems to add up to the statement that you oppose making persons less unequal. Have I got this right, or do you actually believe that the ERA would make people more unequal? If that's it, instead, then do you also oppose the 14th Amendment for doing the same thing (in your words)? Or is it that you oppose one kind of inequality but support the other kind of inequality? Why would you do that? Or is it that changes to the Constitution which are merely inadequate should all be rejected? If that is it, then, again, why should the 14th Amendment not also be rejected? It's difficult for me to imagine that your real position is not among the ones I've suggested here. Please either explain how your real position differs from these, or answer the question that pertains to the position you choose to recognize as yours, As long as you don't provide this clarification, you ought to realize that you leave readers with the impression that you do oppose making people less unequal, and that this impression supports what critics of 3rd wave feminism are saying about 3rd wave feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Equality means equality. Anyone who opposes this, is an abomination.

    Women wants equality if it benefits them, but if not, they support the old traditional ideas.

    Sorry... You can work, you can have sex whomever you want, you can have an abortion, you can choose not marry or having children, you can be general or presidence, you can even be a Pope, but also you have to work and earn money, you can not depend on aynone, you can not expect men to pay for your lives and luxury, you have to go and die at wars just like men die for thousands of years... etc. Men are not your slaves anymore, accept it and take responsibilities. Men are no more held accountable for your actions, your so-called weaknesses and your bad choices. You are in charge of yourself now.

    Equal means equal!

    ReplyDelete

Translate