I propose we revive and push toward making ERA the law of the land.

[cornermouse]

In view of the number of sexist posts that have appeared recently on DU, I think it's time women fought back and the movement towards passage of the ERA be revived till ERA is the law of the land.

[Divernan]

1. So what has HRC done in her 35 years of experience to push the ERA?

[cornermouse]

2. FInd another place to post.

This is about ERA, not Hillary and not Obama.

[Divernan]

5. Your reference to the recent number of sexist posts does seem

to tie into the protests of HRC supporters that her opponents are sexist. And sometimes they are.
But, as a one-time teacher of women's studies, your OP made me think about the ERA, which I confess I haven't done in awhile. And that led to my question. A lot of HRC's supporters say that feminists should support her. And I haven't read any references to her promoting the ERA either during her years as First Lady, or during her Senate years. If she HAS, I think it's something her feminist supporters should be praising. And if she hasn't, why not?
I just googled this:
"The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time. In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), it has been introduced as S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY). These bills impose no deadline on the ERA ratification process. Success in putting the ERA into the Constitution via this process would require passage by a two-thirds in each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states."

A large number of today's DUers probably have little knowledge of the history of the ERA or the fight for it back in the 70's, or how in 1980, the Republican party removed the ERA from its platform. I think it would be a good thing if you posted about the ERA, but start with the history of it, and explain what happened and where it is now.

[cornermouse]

9. To be honest, I find it difficult to deal with the fact (?) that

I would have to tell anyone what the ERA is about. Do they really not know?

[Divernan]

13. I think so. It's been a pretty dead issue since around 1980.

That's a whole quarter of a century. Look at my post below re how few Senators even co-sponsored Kennedy's Joint Resolution. And I think they're all Dems - well, except Lieberman. Given the poor quality of civics/history education in US schools, and the fact the amendment never was finally ratified, I'd be surprised if the people in their teens, twenties and thirties know much, if anything about it. Hooray for Sen. Kennedy for continuing to submit legislation on it every year.

[durutti]

3. Good luck.

Unfortunately, there's hardly any feminist movement to speak of anymore, at least in this country.

[MaryCeleste]

7. The feminist movement is in serious need of a makeover

The overt and compelling issues have been dealt with in the eyes of most people. Some in the leadership have have are not, and have lost credibility because of it. Also there seems to be a failure to account for womens choices at times.

There are still issues, but the current feminist structure does not seem to be addressing them effectively or reestablishing its credibility.

[cornermouse]

11. No they have not been dealt with.

If anything, they have regressed during the past 8 years of republican "leadership".

"Failure to account for women's choices". What an odd phrase. Why should women have to account for their choices and to whom?

[MaryCeleste]

15. The full quote was "in the eyes of many"

Clearly the vast majority seem to think that the need is over and things are good. The current feminist leadership is clearly not articulating clearly for them that problems remain.

As for the choices, I am trying to (re)find a great article from a while back (recent computer crash lost a lot of good stuff) which discussed a study that found that a significant fraction of the the Ivy League women with professional degrees had opted out of the workforce to be mothers and wives. Some were concerned was that those who had benefited from progress and some how regressed and were not in the fight any longer. The article discussed how this was really a full expression of freedom to choose ones role. Made a good read. Similar expressions have been seen in at least one feminist political party in Scandinavia which suggested that women who stayed home should repay the cost of their education. Its an interesting concept and it also addresses/explains some of the pay disparities.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

4. I agree with you... unfortunately

I think many people on this board (women included) want you to sit down and shut up!

Sad, isn't it?

[MaryCeleste]

6. If the ERA were law, what do you expect would change in the US?

Seriously, what effects could we realistically expect to see? I could see the establishment of non-heterosexual marriages, but what else would change?

[zanne]

8. We're only three states away from ratification of the ERA...

It's been that way since the early 80's. In the early 70's, when women like me first started advocating for its passage, we got nothing but chuckles from men and mostly silence from other women. The inclusion of the Equal Rights Amendment in our constitution would assure women of first-class citizenship. Unfortunately, any consideration of pushing for its ratification has been relegated to the dustbin. Some people say that women have "equal rights" now, but that won't be true unless it's stated in the constitution itself.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

[cornermouse]

10. Agreed.

"Some people say that women have "equal rights" now, but that won't be true unless it's stated in the constitution itself."

The recent level of hostility toward women appears to be rising and not just on DU and elsewhere on the internet. When I look at my granddaughter's face, I think we need to try again. What I've seen lately is not the world I want her to live and work in.

[Divernan]

12. Not any more. The legislation starts from scratch: here are current co-sponsors

When it was first proposed back in the 70's, 22 states passed it the first year, but then opposition began (remember Phyllis Schaffly?) and it never was passed by enough states. It needed to be passed by 38 states in 7 years to be ratified. A big source of opposition was the possibility that women would be sent into combat. That wouldn't be an issue now, though.
S.J.RES.10
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. (introduced 3/27/2007) Cosponsors (24)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.40
Latest Major Action: 3/27/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(24), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Biden, Joseph R. - 3/27/2007 Sen Boxer, Barbara - 3/27/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 3/27/2007 Sen Cantwell, Maria - 3/27/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 3/29/2007 Sen Clinton, Hillary - 3/27/2007
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 3/27/2007 Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/27/2007
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 3/27/2007 Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/27/2007
Sen Harkin, Tom - 3/27/2007 Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/27/2007
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 5/24/2007 Sen Lautenberg, Frank - 3/27/2007
Sen Levin, Carl - 3/27/2007 Sen Lieberman, Joseph - 3/27/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert - 3/27/2007 Sen Mikulski, Barbara - 3/27/2007
Sen Murray, Patty - 3/27/2007 Sen Obama, Barack - 3/29/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard - 3/29/2007 Sen Schumer, Charles - 3/27/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 3/27/2007 Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon - 3/27/2007



THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov

[Xithras]

14. NOW doesn't even support the ERA anymore. They have a new one.

It's called the Constitutional Equality Amendment and is a more general gurantee of absolute equality based on sex, race, religion, etc.

The problem with the ERA is that it would change very little in America today. Most of the grievances women had that propelled the ERA to its near passage have since been fixed through the passage of other federal laws and judicial decisions. Most of the remaining private sector discrimination against women wouldn't be impacted by a new ERA anyway. There are some theoretical changes that an ERA would have (like making forcing women to submit to the currently non-existent draft), but it would have almost no impact on our lives as we live them already. The changes its supporters hoped to promote are pretty much all here already.

The biggest beneficiary of a revived ERA would actually be gays, not women. Several gay rights activists have pointed out that a gurantee of sexual equality would essentially mandate states to recognize gay marriage.