I have a question for DUers: Could we create some buzz to try jump-start the Equal Rights Amendment?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Preface: Dear Willy T: We could talk about the end, but I'd rather talk about the beginning.........

Brief Intro: The Amendment, which was written in the 1920s reads as follows:

The Equal Rights Amendment

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.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

If you are over 45, you might remember a time when the Amendment seemed on the verge of becoming part of the US Constitution, only to fall short of the necessary states to pass.

Straightforward Proposition: Suppose we DUers engaged in some creative, perfectly legal, and possibly constructive activity to revive the ERA? Could we, as a group, start some buzz by:

a) Calling or e-mailing our Congresscritters or Senators, no matter where they happen to fall on the political spectrum?
b) Writing some LTTEs?
c) Working the need to finally pass the ERA into conversation on Facebook or into other comment boards?

Maybe DUer Alan Grayson could put in a good word.

Why now?

a) Is there a better time for justice than now?
b) We couldn't do this for my mom before she hit forty; we couldn't do this for my wife before she hit forty; perhaps we could do this for my daughters before they hit forty?
c) Continuing the thought in "B", if nothing else, I'd love to remind those women and men in their teens, twenties, and thirties that this battle still needs to be won. I'm not sure they even talk about the ERA in schools.
d) Todd Akin and Hobby Lobby
e)
f) This idea came to me during a thread with DUer Rain Dog RD and I were actually arguing about his topic , but agreed on this basic premise: Democrats need to be attacking every single issue that Republicans have demonstrated their animosity toward equality. Put another way -- the time has come to revive this issue if for no other reason than to make every single GOP politician support or (more likely) oppose this issue. Every time GOP candidates are forced to discuss women's issues, several of them (figuratively speaking) manage to shoot themselves in the foot. Under such circumstances, we should keep passing them ammunition.
g) I guarantee you have a more thoughtful, eloquent reason than anything I've written. Hopefully you'll write your reason or idea in the thread.

[RainDog]

1. fwiw - I'm a female

and, as I said - I would be all for making this an issue.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. I'm male, but I have a mom, a wife, and two daughters

My older daughter pinned this quotation to a cork board in her room:

"The education and empowerment of women throughout the world cannot fail to result in a more caring, tolerant, just and peaceful life for all." Aung San Suu Kyi

I don't claim to be sexism-free, and I share much of my gender's fondness for admiring attractive women. Nevertheless, like every father, I want the best for my daughters. That does not mean marrying them off to a prosperous man; it means giving them the tools and means to make their own choices in life. So bringing the ERA back to the forefront of public consciousness -- making it an issue for the 21st Century -- and ultimately passing it strikes me as a means to that end.

[Sissyk]

2. Yes, we can create some buzz.

It has to start somewhere so why not on DU?

I accept your proposal, except for facebook. I don't do facebook but will find other ways to spread the word.

Thanks, Algernon Moncrieff!

[RobertEarl]

3. Hell yes!

And if we can derail the misandry on DU for a bit at least, more and more men will get behind the ERA.

I figure most women will be solidly behind the ERA so the country needs but a small minority of men to back it and soon it will become unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against our better half?

[MineralMan]

29. What misandry? I've been a supporter of the ERA since it was first

introduced, as have most of the men I know.

Misandry is not the problem. On DU or anywhere else. It's just not. It's a bogus issue, overall, and a detriment to Democrats. It's a right-wing meme that there is widespread misandry. There just isn't.

[defacto7]

4. I'm in.

[Maedhros]

5. Damn straight!

Go on the offensive. Make the bastards sweat.

[Live and Learn]

6. Long overdue! nt

[pnwmom]

7. RALLY FOR THE ERA IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON SEPTEMBER 12 AND 13.

http://www.wearewoman.us

Join Us To Rally In Washington D.C., September 12th and 13th, 2014

A new generation is taking up the fight to finally put women on equal footing with men and have our right to equal protection under the law codified in the U.S. Constitution. We spoke out loud and clear for equality in 2012, but they’re still not listening, so we’re doing it AGAIN in 2014! We Are Woman, in partnership with ERA Action and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), is organizing a 2-day event in Washington, DC.


Fri 9-12-14 – DAY OF ACTION

We will visit legislators on Capitol Hill to deliver a list of the people who signed our pledge to vote and seek support for removal of the ERA ratification deadline and more! More details coming soon!


Sat 9-13-14 – CONSTITUTION DAY RALLY

We are putting our legislators on notice:

We will not wait another 200 years for equality; we demand equal protection under the law NOW.
If you don’t support our rights, we will not support your candidacy.
We demand DEEDS not WORDS, and we VOTE– if we elect you and you don’t take action in support of equality, we will vote you OUT.

We hope you will join us and connect with others at what promises to be a fun and inspirational rally with some great speakers and presenters! More details are coming soon.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

10. Thank you! DU should be spreading the word about this.

September in DC should be a great time for a rally.

[librechik]

15. more like this on the topic page, please? For the next 6 wks? n/t

[Enthusiast]

8. Sounds good. I'm in.

[reddread]

11. please dont give Phyllis Schlafly a public podium

can we just wait a little longer?
evil sure seems to impact longevity favorably.

[Laelth]

12. Why?

As it stands now, women get preferential treatment under the law. The ERA would abolish that. That's why it has no chance of actually being ratified by the states.



-Laelth

[CBGLuthier]

13. Preferential Treatment? Like being arrested when they do not fulfill their roles as incubator?

Like being told they have to endure screams from madmen and madwomen while seeking health care. Like being told their bosses foolish beliefs outweigh their health care issues?

I could go on but I would hope you get the fucking point.

[Laelth]

14. I certainly understand that you are angry.

But my experience tells me that women do, in fact, get preferential treatment currently under the law of the United States and the various states of the union.

The 1st Amendment protects all those "being told" examples you list, and the 1st Amendment applies equally to men and women in this country. I challenge you to find just one case in which the actual law in the United States or, for that matter, in any state of the United States, obviously is prejudiced in favor of men.

I am not aware of any such law.

-Laelth

[CBGLuthier]

16. I am not a legal expert. how about you explain how women get preferential treatment

while we wait for some legal scholars to weigh in.

[Laelth]

17. Fair enough.

I am, in fact, an attorney, and while I would never claim to be an expert on all areas of the law, I have had enough exposure to the law to form a reasonable opinion on this subject. I am going to spend some time, here, to tell you what I know, and I hope that you receive what I have to say in a way that doesn't make me feel like I wasted my time.

Take, for example, selective service. As far as I know, men are still required to give the federal government their names and addresses so that they can be called up to defend the nation and sacrifice their lives in defense of the nation when the need for soldiers may arise. Women are not required to do this. This is clearly, blatantly discriminatory on the basis of sex, but the SCOTUS allows this. That's because the SCOTUS knows, as do I, that women are entitled to preferential treatment under the law at this time in our history. If the ERA were to be ratified, this preferential treatment would have to be abolished, and there is no great interest in abolishing this preferential treatment, so it seems unlikely to me that the ERA could get ratified at the present time.

My primary practice area is domestic relations (i.e. family law--divorce, child custody, spousal abuse). I can confidently say that the courts in which I practice undoubtedly favor women. Womens' complaints of spousal abuse are treated seriously (as they should be) and are vigorously prosecuted. Male complaints of spousal abuse are laughed out of court. Women have a much easier time getting custody of their children. Women have a much easier time getting state assistance in pursuing their legal matters. Women are far more likely to receive government assistance (in all forms) when they apply for said assistance. WIC (as a federal program) is blatantly discriminatory on the basis of sex--the name of the program is Women, Infants, and Children, and yet this law is allowed to stand even though it clearly discriminates against men. Personally, I like WIC. I think it's a great program, but I won't pretend that it isn't discriminatory. It is.

If the ERA were to be ratified, however, all the discriminatory laws that we have in this nation that favor women would be subject to legal challenges, and they would likely be abolished. That's why I think it's very unlikely that the ERA could be ratified in this environment. Our current law favors women, and most of us like it that way. Why, if this is true, would we want to enact the ERA?



-Laelth

[CBGLuthier]

18. OK, I think I got the picture now. Thanks for the illumination on your thinking.

You did not waste your time as I know exactly where you are coming from. It just is not a place I wish to go. But thanks anyway.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Refreshing.

A look at the names who recommended the OP suggests that, by omission, the DU'ers who most vocally self-describe as feminists agree with you.

Equality it appears, is overrated.

[kcr]

22. The fact you think courts favor women is telling

Numbers say otherwise and the numbers don't lie.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. To which numbers are you referring?

These?

[kcr]

25. It's the same thing with both

People who believe the myth will point at custody numbers and say, see? There's proof. Yes, when you don't take into consideration whether the parent requested custody or not. Once you do? The numbers flip. Men are more likely to win custody when they seek it.

Pointing at the raw data while failing to take into consideration other factors and immediately drawing the conclusion that this is proof that women are favored is misleading. The fight for equality shouldn't ignore factors that exist that create inequality. Sure, just pointing at the numbers can make it seem one way. But if you actually read articles that delve in to the topic of the reasons where they discuss the theories behind why the numbers look the way they do, it often points to a much different picture. Take drug crimes for example. Women are much more likely to take central roles in the drug trade. Taking that into account weakens the argument that they're simply being favored and given lighter sentences because they are women. That and the fact that wome nare actually more likely to be convicted when it comes to drug offenses in state courts. It's the same thing with people who point at higher rates of minorities as proof they're more inclined to be criminals. They don't factor in the economic and social injustices that skew those numbers. Both men and women are far more likely to be convicted and receive harsher sentences if they are minorities.

[Laelth]

24. I am open to any evidence you have.

I'd like to see the numbers to which you refer.

-Laelth

[kcr]

26. Here are a couple, to start with

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm

From link above: Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

The study concluded:

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.

[kcr]

27. More

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_myths.html Addresses the claims about abuse.

Especially tough on working moms http://www.workingmother.com/special-reports/custody-lost

From the article, it notes that when father's seek SOLE custody, they win at least 50 percent of the time:
Today, it’s not uncommon for fathers seeking sole custody in a contested case to prevail at least 50 percent of the time. And Dad is asking for joint or primary custody more and more: Over the past decade, the number of fathers awarded custody of their children has doubled, according to the latest data. In the current generation of dads, gender doesn’t dictate who changes a diaper or consoles an infant. And as fathers become more entrenched in their roles as cocaregiver, they’re less willing to hand off that role when a marriage breaks down. Women are now also shelling out more child support and sometimes paying alimony.

[Laelth]

33. There's a lot of variance in domestic relations law, admittedly.

My experience in Court differs from those findings.

How about WIC and selective service? Would you deny that those laws are blatantly discriminatory on the basis of sex? I hope not.

Do you want to see the ERA abolish those laws or modify them to make them non-discriminatory?

Can you provide an example of one actual law in the United States that is blatantly discriminatory in favor of men?



-Laelth

[kcr]

34. Yes, I would deny it

A benefit for pregnant women is hardly discriminatory. And they can still apply for their own chidlren.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. A review of the reasons why the 14th amendment isn't applied to sex is instructive.

Rotsker v Goldberg

In 1981, the supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment isn't applicable to institutional sex discrimination, and for that reason the male only draft is legal.

It's also the reason that no one is ever going to challenge the White House Office of Women and Girls or the Office of Women's Health and the other provisions of the ACA that only apply to women.

If we really want equality I'm all for it, but in my experience (of which your post is exemplary) most DU'ers haven't really thought it through.

If we really do want this, we have allies.

[MineralMan]

31. Actually, they don't at all. That's another MRA meme that

is used for effect, but that is not true at all.

[Laelth]

32. I gave examples above.

I have taken courses in law school on the subject. Even if this is an MRA meme, it's still the truth.



-Laelth

[brooklynite]

28. No

Not that you shouldn't try, but no, you can't create buzz...

First, it's extremely difficult under the best of circumstances to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, in in the current political environment, it's impossible.

Second, if you want to really create "buzz" you're going to need to do some serious organizing and lobbying, not post messages on a political blog.

[MineralMan]

30. Personally, I think that we should encourage Democratic Candidates

to declare their support for the ERA, because that would help them get elected, but until we have solid majorities in both houses of Congress, a general movement for the ERA isn't timely. Get majorities in both houses and in as many state legislatures as possible, and the ERA would be a natural goal. Right now, I think a concerted effort to focus on electing more Democrats to legislative offices both federal and state, would be a more useful focus for people who have time to push for things.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!