For background - this amendment nearly passed (needed only 3 more states to ratify it) but was defeated after a concerted push by anti-feminist forces who claimed this would destroy American families and force women to work and also force them to be drafted into the armed forces.
Families have already been destroyed to an extent, but this law does imply equal drafting (not doing so would violate the law) and should in principle deem the outcomes in family courts and current sentencing practices illegal. You can make a case this is better, but I suspect if it is duly enforced that the consequences will not be as intended.
For background - this amendment nearly passed (needed only 3 more states to ratify it) but was defeated after a concerted push by anti-feminist forces who claimed this would destroy American families and force women to work and also force them to be drafted into the armed forces.
Did anyone know that Saddam Hussein had a lot of labour laws that made "two-income" families practically necessary (many children ended raised by their grandparents), and he conscripted women into his military (the largest in the Arab world before Operation Desert Storm). Is he considered a role model or cautionary tale equal gender rights, though.
One day, maybe all the people living in the Dark Ages who feel we're obliged to wallow with them will all give up the ghost. Probably optimistic, but here's to hoping.
The U.S. Constitution was a glorious, innovative, novel, and exceptional document like no other in the world when passed in 1787. But now, because of the immense onus of making any change, no matter how badly needed or screamed out for, it's lagged horribly behind most other First World Countries. Plus, the utter and complete lack of any public initiative or mandatory consultation by referendum in the process means it's completely controlled from the top by an entrenched, corrupt, self-serving, plutocratic elite. And, strangely, this situation didn't seem to be what the great American iconic Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, seemed to have in mind. His quote, "a young man should not wear an old man's jacket," was him opining that the U.S. should have a WHOLE NEW CONSTITUTION (not just even a couple of amendments) every generation.
And Uncle Tom was a Black slave. But I'm a straight, cis, White male of British Isles extraction and Protestant, First World, Middle-Class upbringing, and I'm a staunch proponent of equal rights for all and ending all institutional, exploitative, and socially-backwater oppression.
Whether you realize it or not, you are really not helping the cause for ERA to get passed when you say things like this.
And let me drive the point home - and I didn't ask if your comment was morally righteous. I mean purely from a strategic point of view. Things like this give the proposed ERA and feminism, in general, a bad name. And let reiterate: Whether it deserves a bad name/reputation isn't what I'm asking. It's a simple matter of fact of the reality.
edit: the feminist movement has a man-hating reputation with many people, as the majority (even women) not identifying as a feminist. You should be actively trying to fight that reputation instead of outright supporting it. Otherwise, you will not get more people to join your side.
Hopefully, Trump doesn't re-elected. But in the current political climate, winning the popular vote even by a margin of almost 3 million is impossible to get things done.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.