https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/equal-rights-amendment-virginia-trnd/index.html

First proposed by suffragist Alice Paul, the ERA, then known as the "Lucretia Mott Amendment," was first introduced to Congress in 1923, but the effort to pass it -- which requires the approval of three-fourths of states, or 38, to be added to the Constitution -- didn't gain real traction until the women's movement of the late 1960s and '70s. In March 1972, Congress finally passed the ERA and sent it to the states to ratify within a seven-year window, later extending the deadline to 1982.

In the mid-70s, the ERA looked headed for ratification. But after an initial flurry of approvals, support for the ERA stalled under pressure from social conservatives and anti-feminists like the late Phyllis Schlafly, the organizer of the "STOP ERA" campaign. She claimed, among other things, that it would lead to more widespread abortion and require women to serve in the military.

"ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else," she once said.

By the 1982 deadline, only 35 states had ratified the amendment, though five that had earlier passed it had by then rescinded their support. Despite the ERA being reintroduced in every Congress since the early 1980s, the effort to add it to the Constitution languished for decades.

Recently, the rise of the #MeToo and Time's Up movements, along with more women in legislative power, has renewed interest in passing the ERA. Two other states -- Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018 -- have since ratified it, bringing the total number of states to 37. (ERA proponents reject the argument that states can rescind ratifications they've already passed.)
The possibility that a 38th state is primed to pass the ERA has already triggered conservative legal challenges.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2020 11:13AM by anybody.

Sounds like it might be too late for ratification.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-department-late-pass-equal-rights-amendment-68152635

40 years does seem a little too long to get approval.

As a personal little footnote to this, I had my first little crack in my shelf during this first push to ratify the ERA. In the early 70's, my DH was in graduate school in St. Louis. I was not working because I was expecting a baby and had a a toddler. Our RS homemaking days for a few months consisted of working on a project of opposition to the IL push for ratification. The plan was to make a bunch of signs that we would then take on a bus trip to the IL state capital during some kind of protest. I admit that I participated in the sign making, but felt some disquieting thoughts. I kept them to myself, of course.

On the day of the bus trip, I just could not bring myself to participate. I didn't go. And that little nagging voice in my head kept saying that equal rights for women was not a bad thing.

I guess I was just too darn independent minded to be a good mormon. I also worked my whole adult life....gasp!

Gemini, that is because you are an uppity woman!

At least one amendment took well over a century to pass, so 97 years from first introduction would not be close to a record.

Surprisingly (ok, I was surprised!) in a recent Utah poll, the ERA had wide support, something like 65 or 67%, this in spite of the LDS reiteration of their opposition. Virginia looks like it will be the 38th state to ratify, but Utah is still in the running. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Utah put the ERA over the top! Utah did put repeal of prohibition over the top, and has a decent claim on legalizing same-sex marriage in the US.

Who’d have thunk? Utah, of all places. Go, team!

Seriously?

with the Mormon Legislature in control???

Perhaps a voter initiative... Hmmm

Washington State (others?) has an ERA, no big challenges with it as far as I know;

some women were sun-tanning topless near the UW campus in Seattle, got arrested & convicted. They appealed their conviction citing the state's ERA;

the state Supreme Court upheld their conviction(s), by the wracked 'reasoning' that female breasts deserved to be hidden because they were part of the reproductive process....

I'd love to see that decision reversed, I think it could be in today's legal climate; look how social change allowed inter-racial marriages, then later SSMs. Things change over time even if some ppl Deny that happens.

P.S. That's because now when a guy and his wife get pregnant when she's ready to deliver, he gets fired -- right? So that will be equality to fire her, too.

Got it.

I'm so glad you aren't unclear on the concept of equality!

Do you know anything about how Ruth Bader Ginsberg made so much progress towards a gender-neutral legal system? I think you don't.

You see, she faced a huge burden when in 1959 she graduated first in her class at Columbia Law School. No one wanted to hire a woman. She had sterling recommendations from the dean of Harvard Law School and from Columbia professor Gerald Gunther, who in final exasperation threatened to stop sending any clerks to a US District Court in NYC if he did not give a chance to the best law student, and promising attorney, he had ever seen. Due to the support of those apparently deluded men who thought the best lawyers should be able to practice law, she was hired and proved exceptionally good.

She then switched to public interest law, where she promoted equal rights for women. There too she encountered a problem, for the federal judges all the way up through the supreme court could not identify with women and hence would not treat them as equals. Ginsberg again turned to her mentor, Gerald Gunther, who persuaded her that the way to advance gender equality was to advocate for men who were suffering from discrimination--the man who was denied disability or social security when his wife died because he was a man, discrimination against the man who was denied legal rights because he was caring for his children while his wife was hospitalized, etc. The supreme court judges were able to see the problem in such cases and voted for gender equality to protect men. Ginsberg had made them see how rules that disadvantaged women also disadvantaged men and hence had to be changed.

What Ginsberg realized was that gender equality works to the advantage of both sexes. You can challenge laws or practices that discriminate against women or you can challenge those that discriminate against men. It doesn't matter. Once the principle of equality is enshrined in constitutional law, there is no winner or no loser.

Returning to your examples, there is no question that men suffer discrimination in the divorce process certainly regarding custody, often regarding alimony or child support. From my perspective, one of the great advantages of the ERA is that it would give a constitutional basis for men to challenge, and courts to overrule, those misandric institutions as well as misogynistic institutions.

As for the notion that the ERA would end maternity leave, where does that come from? Isn't the obvious answer to infants' need for intensive care parental leave rather than maternal leave? In some Scandinavian countries, for instance, couples are granted a year or so of paternal leave and they get to decide whether the mother gets the full year, the father gets the full year, or they split the year.

There are other problems in your post, but I think I've made my main point. This isn't a zero-sum game. In gender terms it is a win-win game. The principle of equality helps men as much as women--and even more importantly, children.

Excellent response. I, and I think others will as well, appreciated it.
Though I think your points will be lost on the poster who clearly wants to play the victim.

Thank you, CateS.

Yes, a most excellent response.
I agree it will be lost on its intended target.

When I read posts like this, I can feel my testosterone level go up.

Oh lol macaRomney, it is hard to tell if you are trolling for fun or just willful ignorance. In 2019 women made $.79 on the male dollar. Google is your friend dear :). And as to maternity leave going away, instead it is transitioning more and more to "family leave" where the Dad gets some time off too.

Susan I/S


> And as to maternity leave
> going away, instead it is transitioning more and
> more to "family leave" where the Dad gets some
> time off too.

Ghawd knows I deserve it!! Didn't earn it, juysdt deserve it...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2020 11:17PM by elderolddog.

LOL EOD. I am sure Sauciekinz gives you exactly what you deserve!