Talk:Equal Rights Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Sex" vs. "gender"

Anyone else wonder about the issues that might theoretically arise based on the usage of the word "sex" instead of "gender"? Dante Alighieri 11:35 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Yes. In English, sex refers to men and women. Gender refers to an aspect of grammar that does not even exist in English. The use of "gender" to mean "sex" is inaccurate. It has been theorized such inaccurate use of the word "gender" increased in the past forty years because some people were squeamish with the word "sex." However, the new usuage of gender has become popular enough that some consider the usuage standard. I am opposed to such inaccurate usuage. I am changing the word "gender" in the first sentence of the article NOT because I am opposed to such usuage, but simply because the ERA uses the word "sex." If one can not say what one means, one can not mean what one says.

[edit] both viewpoints

We have a nice part here about the views of those who opposed the amendment, but very little reasoning behind those who supported it. Coolgamer 22:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article seems quite well reasoned. Why is anyone complaining? — 70.105.78.205 28 Jun 2005

I would certainly like to see more on this. I don't understand why people opposed this and I just tried Googling it and all I got was feminist websites and stuff like that. As stated above, the article provides virtually no reasoning for opposition. Someone please include it. Cookiecaper 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see that section now. This is weird, I should have seen it before. Oh well, carry on. :) Cookiecaper 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Reverted from ==Opponents of ERA== and placed here pending citation of one or more member who "stood against civil rights".

"some who stood against civil rights, and some who stood for civil rights. "

Nobs01 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative paths to equality

There are no alternative paths to legal equality except a constitutional amendment. The only right women have within the constitution is the right to vote. All their other "rights" and "privileges" are based on interpretations of other amendments. Interpretations are subject to change meaning that women's "rights" are vulnerable. Laws are not protecting women from sex discrimination, as evidenced by the currently pending case in which the largest class action law suit in the history of this country involves 1.6 million women suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination. Now that it has come out that Judge Roberts, nominee to the Supreme Court, opposed the ERA, this page is likely to be used frequently. It's important to keep is current.

Twice now the attempt to paint opponents of ERA as opponents of equality has been made. This is clearly POV. nobs 01:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. If you're referring the "POV subhead" "Other paths to equality", I was simply trying to shorten the heading. It previously read "Alternative efforts to achieve equality", which is the same meaning in more words (and so just as arguably POV). — Mateo SA | talk 03:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not to reopen a thirty year old debate, but the reference obviously publishes the POV that without ERA, women do not have equality. It also publishes that POV that opponents of ERA, then and now, are bigots who oppose equality. This issue was debated at all levels of society, from the United States Congress, to State Legislatures, the Supreme Court, several election cycle were held in the interim, the general public had numerous inputs in countless forums over many years as to whether women suffered from gender disctrimination without passage of ERA. The conclusion is final and historic. The American people through Constitutional processes decided ERA was not necessary, because under the Constitution of the United States, women have equality. Only a fractional minority, in thier POV, beleive the rest of America are bigots for opposing "equality". This clearly is a minority POV. nobs 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Your notions of who is the minority and the American people speaking is a little bit off-base. The anti-ERA people were and are the minority, but the process for constitutional amendments is such where a minority can block an amendment. For example, if all 13 of the old Confederate states wanted to block a constitutional amendment against all the other states, they would be capable of doing so. This is certainly not what the "American people" decided. The idea that the "American people" were anti-ERA and a "minority" was for it is ludicrous, polls show the majority of Americans were and are pro-ERA, the ERA passed the House of Representatives with 354 yeas to 24 nays, and the majority of states ratified the ERA. Ruy Lopez 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Bias in the US Code

This section seemed ridiculously long given its relevance to the article (very little). It looks like it was placed there just as a way of discrediting ERA supporters by listing the siller viewpoints of one of its siller advocates. I was initially going to delete the whole section, but given that, for all I know, this might be an extremely significant book (though the section does not attempt to explain its significance), I simply cut the list of claims down to a single paragraph. If I'm wrong and this book is somehow relevant, please accept my apologies and revert my edit, but preferably explain why a biased review of this book is relevant to the ERA. 194.216.55.225 11:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)--

What is the general consensus here? Do most people think the ERA needs to be ratified, or is that simply a step backward for the women's movement. It seems that the real reason it got squashed was be cause Republicans didn't want bigger government, a phrase they use whenever something doesn't seem to suit their fancy.Mary Hope

Biased? I took those quotes right out of the book (some my call it a "report" like the 9/11 commision's report, but it is in fact a book. The purpose of the report was to show why the ERA was needed. Publius 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

See comments from Talk:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Geoff.green 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

"For instance, ERA advocates point out that the notion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women."

Has any advocate actually made a statement which amounts to "the ERA would not require it, because it is already permitted"? Somehow I doubt it. And if they have, it seems like an obvious enough fallacy (confusing 'require' and 'permit') that a better example should be used instead. Ken Arromdee 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting this *again* after it was restored by an anonymous user. Please justify the statement or don't put it in. The fact that Congress *could* draft both sexes equally is not the same thing as a requirement that we *must* draft both sexes equally. It's like arguing that a Constitutional amendment that taxed everyone at 100% would do nothing because the government could impose a 100% tax even without the amendment. Ken Arromdee 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LDS vs. ERA

I wonder if any attempt has been made to include the role of the LDS church in defeating the ERA? One reference is this article. Anyone want to take a stab at this? Alienus 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Where is the support section? Is it just "anti-opposition"? I've cut the following:

Supporters of the ERA characterize these implications as "scare tactics" designed to obscure the real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women. Supporters assert that the myths which opponents perpetuate about the ERA are either without merit or concern separate issues which the ERA would not affect. For instance, ERA advocates point out that the assertion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact that, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women. Opponents respond that the status quo, in which Congress may draft women—but has chosen not to—is different from a requirement upon Congress to do so. [1].

This passage refers to "real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women" without saying what they are. It looks like an argument based on, "There's nothing wrong with it, so let's do it." Surely there's more to it than that.

Did I read the article too hastily, though? My impression is that the article is 90% about the progress of the campaign to get ERA approved. But what are the reasons for it? (Too obvious to mention?)

Please repair this passage and put it back. Preferably, with a huge list of reasons favoring ERA! --Uncle Ed 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currnet Status of the ERA

I removed the following line: "Polls show that a majority of Americans continue to support the ERA, and efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions—in the legislatures of those fifteen states which never ratified the measure—have increased in recent years."

I have a hard time believing that this question (Do you support the ERA?) is even polled any more. The deadline for ratification passed more than a quarter of a century ago. More so, until a cite can be given to show that efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions exists, let alone are increasing, I do not think this belongs in the article. — Linnwood 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)