The ERA? Well, why not?

[CTyankee]

Let's get organized!

Start here: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Learn about the renewed battle for the Equal Rights Amendment!

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. What do you think the practical effects of passage will be?

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

[CTyankee]

2. I think we don't yet know the full extent of it but it would be a very powerful tool in

cases where case law has not fully worked. Plus, it is a good thing to have women in the Constitution. I don't think you can argue against that.

When I was involved in the last ERA battle in the 80s we viewed women in combat as being about the jungles of Vietnam and we shuddered. It was a powerful argument against ERA then. That is certainly not the case now. Back then, women didn't dare TRY to go into the service academies. The early pioneers who did often dropped out. But now, we see women among the top grads of the academies. An ERA would have swept those barriers away. It would have been less time and cost consuming.

I think as a practical matter we could very well see some of the applications to economic conditions faced by women. We see constitutions in other constitutional democracies in Europe where women have greater protection and have more equitable economic rights. That is probably the one area I would see some practical application. So we could look to those democracies where such a situation exists and get a better idea...

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. There's something to be said for making both ends of the stick equally sh*tty.

I'm all for it. But kiss the women, infants and childrens program, the male-only draft, women's shelters, the violence against women act, the women's educational equity program and the homeless women veterans act (among others) goodbye.

Also, expect lawsuits against the Social Security administration for administering a system which is intentionally structurally biased toward paying more money to women and expect affirmative education in school districts which graduate too few boys and hire too few male teachers.

[CTyankee]

4. Only if we want both ends to be shitty.

For instance, here is the page on Women's Rights from website on human rights in Sweden: http://www.humanrights.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=39&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=39. I offer this as an example. I notice, particularly, a section on violence against women. This is a more inclusive way of doing what we do piecemeal. We can do better.

Western Europe and other nations are way ahead of us on this. I noticed recently an article in the NYT that pointed out that the U.S. Constitution is being used less as a model for emerging democracies around the world, in favor of other countries more flexible and more rights enhancing protections. We Americans tend to think that ours is the end all and be all of constitutions and that's the end of discussion.

Your examples raise precisely this issue. There is a view, which you have outlined here, that human rights are some kind of zero sum process. It is that kind of thinking that I think is very rights-defeating at the outset.

[DCKit]

5. +1 The benefits outweigh the negatives. We need to become more sane about dealing...

with gender equality.

One thing we've got to work on is getting the 'Stepford Wife' (R) women out of politics. They don't all always vote against the best interests of women, but there's certainly a disconnect there - some real jaw-droppers, too.