Women's Equality Measure Faces Long Odds

[babylonsister]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070403/D8O9D7U00.html

Women's Equality Measure Faces Long Odds
By Jim Abrams


WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats face long odds in their effort to revive an Equal Rights Amendment that failed three decades ago, even if unisex bathrooms are no longer much of a fear factor.

Now dubbed the Women's Equality Amendment, the measure has much less support now than when it sailed through Congress in 1972. It died years later when only 35 states - three short of those needed - endorsed it.

What supporters hope will become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution states in its key line that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

With Democrats controlling Congress for the first time in a dozen years, "prospects are better now than they have been in a very very long time," Terry O'Neill, executive director of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said after the constitutional amendment was introduced in the Senate and House last week.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, said he plans hearings on the modern-day ERA. Sponsors said their goal is to get House and Senate votes on it before 2009.

"I would love for the American people to see who votes against women's equality," said O'Neill.

more...

[omega minimo]

1. Especially if it is trivialized and trashed by "journalists"

"....Faces Long Odds" By Jim Abrams

"...face long odds in their effort to revive.... failed three decades ago, even if unisex bathrooms are no longer much of a fear factor.
Now dubbed........the measure has much less support....... sailed through Congress..... died years later... only 35 states....."

Let's see, how many different ways can Abrams present the concept of revival in negative terms as the setup for his piece? Throws in a crack about unisex bathrooms fear factor........

"What supporters hope will become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution" is "dubbed" _______. :evilfrown:

The MEASURE HAS MUCH LESS SUPPORT NOW (how does he know that?) than when it "sailed" through Congress (as if it was effortless and times have changed so don't bother). And anyway it "died" when "ONLY" 35 STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this negative crap before the guy tells you what it IS:

"What supporters hope will become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution states in its key line that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

What supporters "hope" is that honest efforts to pass the Amendment will not be undermined by spin and journalistic sabotage. Supporters aren't "hoping" -- they know that it will be a struggle, esp. in the face of this sort of slanted "reporting."

[cgrindley]

2. I don't know about you but I still do NOT want

unisex restrooms. I don't want women in the men's room.

[omega minimo]

3. and see how EASILY the trivialization works!

:evilfrown:


Did you miss the point on purpose or just miss the point?

[cgrindley]

4. If you have to ask...

you're just going to have to learn to live with disappointment.



PS it was a joke. Lighten up.

PPS actually, I really don't want women in the men's room, but I don't think that the ERA would force the issue. Besides, they don't want men in the women's room either.

[omega minimo]

5. I've already learned to live with the

fact that, on DU, unless you used the :sarcasm: there's no way to tell you weren't serious....... and in fact, you were, since you added your PPS.

BTW "It was a joke. Lighten up" is another way to triviialize the discussion and the people trying to discuss. We've "learned to live" with that too.

[cgrindley]

7. So we can't joke about the ERA?

That's actually the punchline of a number of pre-existing jokes in long term storage from the 1970s.

Do you have a problem with men wanting the men's room to be utterly off limits to women?

[omega minimo]

11. DU has provided smilies for your convenience

to help get your intended humor across....... If you are sure that your post was obviously in jest, maybe reconsider.

Jumping to a conclusion "so we can't joke about the ERA" or "you have a problem with men wanting the men's room to be utterly off limits to women?" is strawman stuff that further deflects the (potential) discussion.

So you were "joking" about the bathrooms, even though you acknowledged it matters a lot to you, and you've continued that focus elsewhere in the thread..........................

:shrug:

[cgrindley]

14. I'm not joking about the restrooms

I was ribbing the ERA, which everyone including me supports.

I certainly do not support women in the men's room, but I doubt that's an issue as I don't think that the ERA means unisex restrooms, although if it does, I guess I can always rethink my support for the ERA.

and I also think that smilies are retarded.

[cgrindley]

9. On DU support of ERA

I'm probably not too far out of line to suggest that absolutely everyone here supports the ERA passing. (That includes me, by the way. I want to see it pass, too).

But if you get all bent out of shape following a supporter and a friend of the ERA riffing on the old unisex bathroom chestnut, how are you going to face serious criticism from people who don't want the constitution ammended?

[juno jones]

6. Lots of unisex bathrooms everywhere.

I'll guess you'll just have to take up your objections with my grocery store, two of my fave restaurants and my video store...Having and maintaining two separate bathrooms is a financial burden on small buisness and I don't think it should matter to anyone. I mean,you DO close the door don't you? Besides, I go into the 'men's' room in bars all the time when there are ridiculous lines for the ladie's loo. Sorry if that offends, but when ya gotta, ya gotta...

[cgrindley]

8. If it is an open restroom with urinals and stalls

yes, it certainly offends me and I believe represents sexual harrassment. I don't give a damn how badly someone of the opposite gender needs to use the restroom. They are not welcome in the men's room.

[Solon]

23. Oh I see, you are afraid you would end up being "sized up"...

is that it. Also, if you thinking simply BEING in a specific room for a single purpose actually constitutes sexual harassment, then you need to look up the definition of the word.

[CTyankee]

10. As someone around during the last ERA go round, I am sorry to see this thread degenerate

into the unisex bathroom discussion. It is a sad commentary on DU that this goes on.

Let me tell you what is important in this fight: I watch my granddaughters as they are growing up and I want the same rights for them as for males in this country. To have that they must be in the Constitution, just as men are.

Now if anybody has any problem with that, then let's hear your justification.

[omega minimo]

12. "It was a joke. Lighten up."

Sorry, couldn't resist a reference to the bizarre and/or calculated deflection in the subthread above.

You're spot on-- "It is a sad commentary on DU that this goes on." The really sad commentary is that not much else DID go on. Your kick and this one may give the topic another shot.

I don't think anyone can meet your challenge for "justification." We are seeing the effects of the Backlash-- and those subjected to its influence don't even realize that they are. Maybe it's a testement to limited awareness on the subject that bathrooms are the first thing that pop into some minds-- or not. It's the "old joke" from the last go-round. Will it be used again to, yes, trivialize the issues?

I've listened to Lush Rimbaugh a few times recently (because Ed Shouts drove me to it.). Many of the bogus attitudes we see on DU are Dittohead speak. Don't know if it's injected directly or filtered through the culture by repetition, but the "feminazi" memes have infected the general public and "even on DU."

[cgrindley]

15. Get a life

everyone here supports the ERA.

Unisex bathrooms, on the other hand, perhaps not so popular.

[omega minimo]

16. Get a clue

cgrindley (1000+ posts)  Sun Apr-08-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't know about you but I still do NOT want
unisex restrooms. I don't want women in the men's room.

cgrindley (1000+ posts)  Sun Apr-08-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4.PS it was a joke. Lighten up.
PPS actually, I really don't want women in the men's room, but I don't think that the ERA would force the issue. Besides, they don't want men in the women's room either.


:silly: :crazy: :freak:

[cgrindley]

18. I hate having to explain myself

The original post was a complaint that we'll probably see critics of the ERA using non-issues or distracting issues to draw attention away from or trivialize the ERA. On the internet, even on DU, a post that earnest is begging for a response.

So I went ahead and did it.

The Original Poster thought that my objection over a non-issue really was an actual attempt to trivialize the ERA. That's the part that drew the "lighten up."

Then on second thought, however, I realized that although I support the ERA, I still don't want women in the men's room.

I apologize for sarcastically ridiculing the ERA with an issue that actually deserves to be used to ridicule things (although quite possibly not the ERA, although no one has of yet posted a defence of the ERA based on restroom use).

[CTyankee]

17. they are not the issue; the issue is equal rights for women. Please treat it as such.

Remarks about unisex bathrooms belong in the Lounge, if at all.

[cgrindley]

20. So we've had two examples of attack on the ERA

one joking (the restrooms) and one probably serious (combat), and yet there doesn't seem to be much of a will to present a defence... a defence of equal rights? either no one actually cares or if the issue does come up for debate, it's going to lose.

[Nikki Stone1]

13. I agree. I remember the fight for ERA, and one big argument was,"Oh no, we'll have women in combat"

Guess what. We do. And no ERA in sight.

[cgrindley]

19. No you don't

combat, to some, I suppose, includes pilots and other people who are routinely inside of combat areas--what the armed forces call "colocation" and which is a policy still not supported by the Pentagon--but actual combat is carrying ground weapons in a combat zone with the express purpose of engaging the enemy.

So how would you address the issue?

[Solon]

24. OK, the objections to Unisex bathrooms are a mystery to me...

I'm too young to remember the first go-around of the ERA, but many places in my area have Unisex bathrooms, and most of the time, I assume its more for cost savings than any political/social statement. Believe me, if I ran a business, shop, whatever, with a floor plan that I designed, it would have ONE major public restroom. I don't see an objection, guys generally block the view of their pertinent parts at the urinal with their bodies, and many urinals have "mini-dividers" for lack of a better word. Toilets, for both men and women, are in individual stalls, so I don't see where people would be uncomfortable in such a situation. One thing that IS a mystery to me is this, one person bathrooms that are divided up by sex, I mean, the gas station nearest to me has two bathrooms, one for men, one for women, but neither bathroom is big enough to service more than one person, why the hell do they need to divide those up?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. K&R good article

[omega minimo]

22. !

:kick: