The ERA: good for men, good for women, bad for feminists.

Forums: Politics, American Politics, U S Politics, Usian Politics, E R A
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The ERA is creating buzz again (here and elsewhere). For the record I strongly support it. Many feminist groups are giving vocal support for the ERA, I think it is political device. If the ERA ever has a real chance to pass, you will see feminist groups working hard to stop it.

There are feminist writers who admit this. See for a good explanation http://nationalprogressive.blogspot.com/2012/05/feminist-case-against-era.html, and there are men's rights groups who are supporting the ERA.

My issue in the woman's/men's rights discussion is a personal one. Fathers are parents and should have the same equal responsibility and rights that mothers have. N.O.W and other feminist groups oppose the idea that fathers are equal parents. The ERA would fix this.

So bring on the ERA. And let's at least be honest about what equality really would mean.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,545 • Replies: 59

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Many feminist groups are giving vocal support for the ERA, I think it is political device.

Or they are sincere and it just doesn't fit your beliefs.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Well Engineer, the evidence I give to support this statement is that feminist groups (including N.O.W) are opposing equality when it comes to parenting/custody issues. What is your personal opinion on shared custody after divorce?

Would you support the ERA if that meant equality when it comes to parenting and custody issues (which it would)?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Interesting comments below the blog entry you listed to. The blog itself makes a rather poor and confused case. Basically this lady is afraid of getting full legal equality with men... By definition she is more of a 'women particularist' -- "we are special and need special protection" -- than a true feminist.

0 Replies

There are two other interesting issues where the ERA is good for men.

The first is sentencing equality. Men get significantly longer prison sentences (63% longer) then women for the same crimes and are much more likely to be convicted. If equality under the law is to be had, clearly this inequality has to be addressed.

The second is conscription. The ERA would logically mean that women would have the same responsibility to sign up for the draft as men. There is a lot of pro-ERA literature skirting the issue. It is interesting how they obfuscate the issue, refusing to answer it directly.

My opinion is that of course, if equality is the law that women would have the same legal obligation to sign up for the draft (and serve is selected) that men have. This would mean that in time of war, half as many fathers would be separated from their children. And in my opinion, this is a good thing.

2 Replies

I dont think that we can deal with it now without getting bogged down in a debate about it rights. NOT only is this a problem for the right but I think most everyone is concerned about this new trend of the state being on the hook for $100,00K+ because Joe Blow decides that he wants to be Jane Blow.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Many feminist groups are giving vocal support for the ERA, I think it is political device. If the ERA ever has a real chance to pass, you will see feminist groups working hard to stop it.

You are viewing the ERA based on what it says, with its promise of equality for all.

However, keep in mind that middle provision about "legislation to enforce". The feminists are envisioning legislation that you would consider very unequal and completely unfair.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Section 1 is pretty broad ranging, Oralloy. I think that language alone will be a pretty powerful way to protect men's rights as well as woman's.

I think the main conservative objection to this bill was same-sex marriage. But I support same-sex marriage and anyway, that boat has sailed.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There are two other interesting issues where the ERA is good for men.

The first is sentencing equality. Men get significantly longer prison sentences (63% longer) then women for the same crimes and are much more likely to be convicted. If equality under the law is to be had, clearly this inequality has to be addressed.

Addressed how?

An attempt by MRAs to summarily reduce all men's sentences by 39% in order to make them as short as women's would most assuredly run afoul of the ERA.

2 Replies

@Kolyo,

Men get significantly fewer years of life, that better be addressed. And The ERA demb well better get us men some bigger seats on airplanes, we can not be punished for being bigger.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'd be happy if they just decided futons less than 6' long were unconstitutional.

I got a new one yesterday, and my heels hang off the end of the bed.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There are two other interesting issues where the ERA is good for men.

There's also the Titanic-style 'children and women first'. Would that be repelled under full gender equality? ;-)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

orallloy wrote:

. The feminists are envisioning legislation that you would consider very unequal and completely unfair.

You have some sort of evidence for this largely absurd statement? Any sort at all?

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

What about these cars that the average man can not comfortably fit into?

And I'll tell you something, I was subjected to prejudicial hostility big time for the ten years that I was a stay at home homeschooling dad. What is the plan Stan,? Can we use the ERA to get a massive government effort against it....I mean hell if we can have the government do it for the non existent rape crisis at university then they can stand up for us. Where is our PSA's. Where are the billions of dollars put up for mens rights like they do for womens rights? Why are we constantly treated like second class citizens by this government?

Want to know were the white men come from in supporting R's almost no matter how idiotic they are? Men who dont buy into the "women are victims" story have some reason to not like this government very much, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (figuratively, I personally believe that government is very important, my complaint is that this government sucks so bad and probably needs to be replaced)

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

Quote:

An attempt by MRAs to summarily reduce all men's sentences by 39% in order to make them as short as women's would most assuredly run afoul of the ERA.

That doesn't make any sense. The amendment guarantees "equality under the law". How could this means anything but equal sentences for equal crimes? One gender getting special treatment in sentencing simply because of their gender is the definition of inequality..

There is no reason that sentences for the same crime shouldn't be equal.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There is no reason that sentences for the same crime shouldn't be equal.

As I read it, that's pretty much what Kolyo is saying.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Quote:

There is no reason that sentences for the same crime shouldn't be equal.

As I read it, that's pretty much what Kolyo is saying.

You read it wrong then. Equality is equality.

One principle behind the ERA is "equal pay for equal work". I assume you agree that this means that since the system currently benefits men, that women's pay should be raised so that there is equality.

"Equal sentences for equal crimes" works the same way. Since the system currently significantly benefits women, men's sentences should be decreased so that there is equality.

Kolyo is saying that in the case of sentencing, the current inequality should be maintained.

Equality needs to include everyone. Otherwise it isn't equality.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

"Equal sentences for equal crimes" works the same way. Since the system currently significantly benefits women, men's sentences should be decreased so that there is equality

In drug cases women get lighter sentences on the theory that their kids need them home and probably they were pressured into criminality by men. In intimate partner violence women get lighter sentences because it is assumed that the man was more abusive, and was the first one to to be abusive.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The gender inequality in sentencing is across the board. For example, women receive the same preferential sentencing in the case of vehicular homicide while intoxicated (a crime that has nothing to do with gender).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The gender inequality in sentencing is across the board. For example, women receive the same preferential sentencing in the case of vehicular homicide while intoxicated (a crime that has nothing to do with gender).

You have some actual statistics on that you'd care to post?

2 Replies

The ERA: good for men, good for women, bad for feminists.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know