While being female (and in some societies considered a minority) I don’t agree with Affirmative Action.
For people to be truly equal, there must be equal opportunities. When giving females and minorities a better chance than the “norm” of white males, the playing field is no longer equal.
Example:
You are racing someone in a car. You top out at 200 mi/hr, your opponent at 150 mi/hr. You win the race, but since you have the faster car, it is assumed by many that the win wasn’t from your driving skills, but because of your “better equipment.”
While AA is necessary in today’s society, in my opinion, AA is a step backward in woman’s rights (and human) more than one forward.
In order to facilitate finding responses that may have already been posted, please refer to the Affirmative Action. . . thread that was still active one week ago.
(I am not suggesting that this thread is redundant or that it should be closed. I’m just providing the link to the most recent fracas for documenetary purposes.)
True, but some would say that women still don’t have equal opprotunities. I mean, for crying out loud, we still can’t get the ERA passed.
There are still jobs in which a male is the “norm.” Females have a lot of trouble getting these jobs.
Women still make less than men doing the same job.
When the previous statements no longer apply, then we will have true equality.
Please explain to this aging chauvinistic swine precisely why you want an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. And while you’re at it, please explain what is different about your ERA as opposed to similar amendments and laws that have been proposed over the years to protect the rights of gays, blacks, and other minority-classed persons of every stripe. I’m of the (admittedly backward and uninformed) opinion that the Constitution protects you as well as it does me; I question the need for another amendment to reinforce what is already in there. (Apparently so do a majority of voters in a majority of states.)
Um, last time I had a look around, there are still a lot of jobs that are filled disproportionately by females. Teaching (primary and secondary levels) and nursing jobs are the first to come to mind.
You know, it may just be that with some occupations, gender makes a difference. Oh hell, let me shed all my PC tatters and just say that I think that in some fields women are better suited by nature and disposition than are men, and vice versa.
Told ya I was chauvinistic. 
{certain unnamed monotheistic deity} bless TBone.
There are many problems with the ERA, which I won’t get into. Remember that many equal-rights laws are twisted. For example, “freedom of employment choice” (In Universal Declaration of HRs, I believe) has been taken to mean that prosititution must be legalized.
Numbers showing this are because many women work part-time in order to have time to gasp support a family. They are not signs of discrimination.
Afirmative Action for anyone is just a crutch. It is the only way some people can get certain jobs. If you level the playing field then the best qualified person will get the job. I have yet to work some where that would keep a bad employee ,regardless of color or gender.IMHO People who demand affirmative action know on some level that their skills are sub-par and they wont succeed without it. If they didnt then they would be confident enough to try and get by on their own merit.I also agree with Tbone2 to an extent. There are just some jobs that both women and men should not do because they just arent good at them. Take being a hotel porter for example. How many women could load themselves down with 2 or 3 big suitcases and carry them to diffrent rooms all day? Then there are jobs that men should never have. Like working at Victorias Secret. How many women would want to go and try stuff on , or buy something a little racy when there is some guy leering at you from behind the register?
Escept that Colin Powell, (who most likely had few to no things given to him as a result of AA, since the military does not indulge in it), supports AA, while Clarence Thomas, (who got several jobs–including his current one), through AA, opposes it.
Whatever the merits or faults of AA, your claim for who will support or oppose it is simply false.
**
The text of the ERA is simply that rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sex. The fact that there is such rabid opposition to it is what I find so perplexing. Pat Roberts, for example (at least I think it was him, or some other whacko) that if the ERA was passed, women would leave their husbands and children, turn to witchcraft and become lesbians.
Now, as to whether the ERA ammendment is ** needed, ** I’m ambivilent. (Japan has had one since WW II, and it seems to be working out for them.) I don’t see where women are necessarily being robbed of their rights on a widescale basis, but on the other hand, I don’t see where it could do much harm.
**
True, but males have most of the jobs as airline pilots, prison wardens, police chiefs, generals, and Commanders in Chief.
**
It really depends on the woman, and it depends on the man. I think that sex has very little to do with character. I’ve known a lot of men who were more caring and better-natured than a lot of the women I have known. During various visits to the doctor, I’ve had male nurses who were gentle and kind, and women nurses who seemed to try to make it hurt as much as possible. I’ve had male teachers who were understanding, and warmly good-humored, whereas some women teachers I have known were inentionally cruel.
“Asshole” is not a gender-specific term, and I’ve known a lot of both sexes.
- Posted by ** athelas ** *
That’s not what I was referring to. Wal-mart, for example, was fined not too long ago for paying female workers less per hour than they were paying the males.
I had a black philosophy professor once who was adamantly opposed to AA on three grounds–(1) it pre-supposes that blacks are inferior to whites, and that they would not be able to succeed unless whites help them; (2) it taints the accomplishments of blacks who succeed without AA; (3) it allows white people to cop out by saying “oh, things aren’t that bad for blacks. they have AA” or “I only didn’t get selected because I’m not a minority”. He concluded by asking if any white people would honestly rather be black.
I think he made very good points, and I tend to agree with him. Even still, I wouldn’t mind if equally (not lesser) qualified minorities got a boost. I think AA is a bigger problem when it’s used as simply “let’s just hire/admit the top XX blacks”. In other words, use it as a tiebreaker and not a leapfrog effect.
As for Bush and the UMich thing, I’d rather see him take on Title IX first (which he also has hinted at). Title IX as it applies to college sports is a joke because it mandates equal opportunity where there is not equal interest. But that’s another rant for another thread.
Lissa:
"Now, as to whether the ERA ammendment is needed, I’m ambivilent. (Japan has had one since WW II, and it seems to be working out for them.) "
Was that a typo about Japan? Have you ever been there? The only jobs women get are serving tea to men. (Somewhat of an exageration, but not much.)
Kindly explain what the ERA would add to the Constitution that isn’t already present under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
One of the reasons I support affirmative action has to do with a very different concept I hold regarding how it works.
Some opponents claim that it means that “unqualified” people get jobs, admission to college, etc. I think that’s crap. No college and no employer and no contractor in its right mind would accept or hire an unqualified candidate. But among a field of many qualified candidates, it should have a right to choose. If, among that field, there are candidates whose ethnicity or gender or socioeconomic group is thought to be underrepresented in the current organization, I believe it has the right to choose that person over others. Presumably it believes (as I do) that there are benefits to the organization when those people are included.
If the organization’s hiring/contracting/admissions process is so automated (or has so much volume) that it has to institute a special system to get those desirable people to the top of the queue, than that should be its prerogative as well (whether it means a special hiring process, or points added to a profile score, or whatever).
This is what is going on at U-M. U-M wants more women engineers, more male nurses, more black and hispanic and native american students, etc. It has devised a process to help it enroll them–a necessary thing given the 20,000 undergrad applications it must process each year. It has no interest, however, in admitting students who don’t meet its minimum standards. It is admitting students from among a pool judged to be qualified.
There are many people who believe that a university must adhere to the belief that all candidates can be ranked absolutely, and that the candidate with the SAT of 1370 is inherently and unquestionable more worthy and more qualified than the candidate with the SAT of 1360. Thus they make the claim that certain admits are “less qualified” and that people have been “unfairly” passed over. I understand their reasoning, but I disagree with it.
The problem, of course, is that no matter how much I think it should be the right of an organization to engage in AA practices, I realize that the constitution may prohibit it under certain interpretations of the equal protection clause. Which is why it’s going to the Supreme Court again.
After Japan’s surrender in WWII, Beate Sirota Gordon, a 22 year old woman who worked on McArthur’s staff, was asked by him to include something in Japan’s new Constitution about women’s rights. She added the following two articles:
The Japanese were furious at the change in women’s status. According to one article about Ms. Gordon: "The names of those who had actually drafted it were kept secret for years for fear that, if Japanese conservatives learned that the writers were amateurs and that one had been a young woman, they might have covinced the Diet to alter it drastically. So it has only been recently that Gordon’s story and the story of the drafting of Japan’s post-war constitution has emerged. "
Just responding to this comment:
“True, but some would say that women still don’t have equal opprotunities. I mean, for crying out loud, we still can’t get the ERA passed”
I am no expert about the ERA. But in my experience a number of pieces of legistlation that have great sounding names are actually quite crummy when you look at them. Consider Bush’s “Clean Air Act” which gives you anything but. Could be that the ERA was simply flawed rather than shot down because of sexism.
Lissa:
Sorry for not being clear. I never doubted your facts about an ERA in Japan. It’s just when you said that “it seemed to be working out for them.” I’ve been to Japan many, many times, and if Japan is a model for women’s rights under an ERA, then women in this country better pray it never gets passed here…
I’m no expert, either, but I don’t necessarily see anything harmful or flawed in this:
I’ll agree with you that things could be better for women in Japan. Their struggle is one of culture, whereas some would say that America’s is one of legal status.
My point was that the ERA of Japan has not caused rampant social ills in the way that some Fundamentalists and others claim that it would cause here in the US.
- Posted by ** Dewey Cheatem Undhow ** *
I’m not suffeciently educated on the subject myself, so I did a little research and came up with this. This site has these reasons as to why the ERA is needed:
While I don’t necessarily agree with the site’s assertion that without the ERA women’s rights could begin to erode ala *The Handmaid’s Tale, * some of the points they made seem reasonable.
Lissa:
It has caused no harm in Japan because it is invoked maybe once every 25 yrs. Americans are so litigious that as soon as you define another “right” there will be 300 million law suits-- one for each of us.
Anyway, what’s wrong with the 14th ammendment that we have to spell out Women:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
I’m amazed we’re even talking about this-- are there even 3 people in this country who are still pushing the ERA? I thought it died out with polyester leisure suits back in the 70s.
**
I’m not so sure. Anyone that has a glaring example of sex discrimination can already sue, so I can imagine that the ERA would increase the number of suits filed by a huge number. It would naturally increase the numbers somewhat, but I can’t imagine that it would be that overwhelming. Is there really that much (valid) sexism that a huge number of suits could be filed?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally pushing for the ammendment to be passed. I think we’ve made enormous strides in sexual equality over the past few decades. Sure, we have a ways to go, but I think we’re headed in the right direction even without having the ammendment on the books.
I posted the link to the site because I’m not very educated on the subject myself, and I wanted to give the reasons that some people have for saying that we need the ERA. I should have written: * “Lissa has no responsibility for the opinions expressed herein. Lissa does not endorse or support any claims made by this site, but posts it for information and entertainment purposes only.” *
My only point in bringing it up was to mention the rabid, passionate opposition to it in some sectors. Some folks, Fundamentalists especially, oppose the very concept of women having equal rights. While I don’t know if the ERA is necessary, I wouldn’t fight against it, because I just don’t see where it could do much harm, besides potentially increasing the number of lawsuits filed for sex discrimination.