That’s a ridiculous statement. What do you mean by “the right thing?” Henry Ford did the “right thing” when he developed and sold an affordable automobile. Bill Gates did the “right thing” when he revolutionized the computer industry. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. Business, not government, has improved our standard of living dramatically in this nation. Business, not government, provides our food, our houses, and the variety of things that make our life livable.
On the whole, yep. Sure, a few individuals continue to discriminate. But as a whole, discrimination does not hold back women or minorities in this nation.
You’ve given no evidence that discrimination actually exists.
Let us be clear: this is not necessarily the case, and not even probably the case.
And even if it were the case, given that there are areas where gender difference can much more reasonably be asserted as requiring disparate treatment, it is likely that “compelling state interest” would be more broadly drawn in gender discrimination cases than in race discrimination cases. Which, in my opinion, is the true basis for the intermediate level of scrutiny in the first place. :rolleyes:
Women are discriminated against regularly in the work world. They are not promoted as fast, they are not considered for top jobs and they are often treated poorly by employers when the need time off for pregnancy and its after-effects. You can see this daily if you choose; the university I am currently attending for licensing as a teacher has many a professor who warns the female students that they can and will be discriminated against, regardless of the law on the subject, if they are pregnant during interviews, etc. Will it always happen? No. Does it still happen regularly? Yes.
I have myself over the last decade witnessed discrimination against female employees in the legal world, the retail world, and the education world. Further, studies document the effect of it regularly. Contrary to your wishful assertions, it isn’t just the result of women having less desire for higher-paying jobs, etc.
Now, will the ERA change that? Probably not, which was the main argument against the amendment in the 70’s. It has potential for unintended consequences (see, for example, the results under California’s Civil Code §51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act), where Ladies’ Nights are no longer allowed in bars, among other things). It won’t fix the main “ills” of discrimination. It is argued that it is therefore unwanted as an amendment. I’m not saying one way or the other, but quite clearly, asserting women in our society aren’t discriminated against is just wishful thinking of the worst sort.
Certain women are certainly discriminated against. I still fail to see any widespread discrimination against women as a whole, though. For the most part, in my opinion, men and women are treated equally in the work world.
Everyone is discriminated against in the work place (by every one I mean people from every class/gender/race/social group et cetera.) Now, white males of prime age have it pretty good, but there are certainly situations where they are discriminated against.
Ultimately some employers are assholes, it’s just the way it is. Where the government needs to get involved is when they do something clearly discriminatory in my opinion. The problem with a great deal of discrimination that still exists is, there is already strong legislation against it that can’t be enforced because it is usually done in a way that cannot be proven in specific cases.
I’m interested in why you say that, when it seems to be pretty much exactly what the amendment’s proponents intend. Please explain.
I think the true basis for intermediate scrutiny was to address gender discrimination without elevating it to the constitutional level of race-based or nationality-based discrimination.
Are you saying that inherent gender differences will serve to water down strict scrutiny (assuming the ERA makes it applicable to gender discrimination)? Mind clarifying this?
But people have already pointed out why this is not discrimination in most cases. Women are not promoted as fast or as far because they work shorter hours, are less flexible, they take more years off work and they choose not to work in many high risk or otherwise arduous postions that give opportunity for early advancement and experience. It is hardly surprising that a woman who works a standard 8 hours a day, 9-5 in a routine inner city establishemnt and has taken 5 years out of the workforce to raise her kids is not promoted as far or as fast as a man who works 12 hours a day, on call in remote areas as a roving troubleshooter and has been working his entire life. And that doesn’t matter whether we are talking about engineers, doctors, accountants or any other profession.
If you can provide any evidence that women with comparable work histories are not promoted as fast and are not considered for top jobs then by all means show us. Until then this is just an argument form assertion.
That is doubtless true, and the same is true of men when they need time off for pregnancies. Employers don’t like to have to deal with staff shortages. Oh, what’s that you say, men don’t get to take time off for pregnancies? Well gee, what does that tell us? That everyone is discriminated against?
What problems would that be? I don’t really see a lot of women being oppressed solely because of their gender in this nation. I don’t see them being denied jobs or equal rights because of their gender. I fail to see what problems need to be addressed by the ERA.
Of course, the 14th and 15th amendments (along with the 13th amendment) were necessary because the constitution, as originally written, was explicitly racist. This isn’t the case in regards to gender. Any change that needs to be made can be made via simple legislation.
I still support the ERA, even though I think its practical effects would be minimal. It’s the kind of thing the constitution ought to say, and it would stand guard against any future resurgence of sexism.
Your “drift” is that you confuse making a profit with “doing the right thing”, which in this context is obviously meant to mean the right thing morally.
And government has done just as much, and one of the major ways it has done so is by restraining bad business behavior and enforcing equal rights; otherwise they’d still be selling arsenic-laced baby food and forcing women to give the bosses sex to remain employed. And it was the government that ended slavery; business liked it just fine.
Companies only make a profit if they serve the needs and desires of people. Sure, if people are immoral, companies will provide immoral things (porn sure has a market, for instance). But companies profit, in general, by improving people’s lives. My life is certainly better because companies are seeking profits. I’m glad to be able to drive a car, type on a computer, watch satellite TV, etc. I’m also glad to have fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter, a refrigerator to keep my food healthy, and a nice house to live in.
Yes, because arsenic-laced baby food would have a huge market. :rolleyes: Whatever.
Without government support, slavery would never have survived. The government was instrumental in allowing the slave trade and forcing people to return runaway slaves. It was also instrumental in forcing people and businesses to discriminate against blacks.
I’m much more afraid of the government’s power over me than the power of business over me. If I don’t want a business involved in my life, I simply refuse to buy its products or services. If I don’t want government involved in my life, well, I’m out of luck.
The original article linked by the OP is highly deceptive on its own. It suggests that a “Democratic Congress” could somehow pass an amendment through new inertia. In reality, Congress can only propose an amendment to the states for ratification by a 2/3rds vote of the entire Congress. That part is impossible but then we get to the hard part. 3/4 of the states have to ratify the ERA before it becomes an amendment. That means that only 13 states of any size, shape, population, or political leaning have to actively or passively fail to ratify it for the ERA to be dead in the water yet again. I can stare at a U.S. map and pick out many more states than that who would never ratify such a thing. The whole debate is academic. The Constitution is notoriously hard to amend for this reason.
It interests me that both of you assume that the ERA is all about women’s rights. It doesn’t mention women at all. It’s about equal rights regardless of gender. You may be oblivious to the discrimination that goes on against women, but don’t you at least notice the discrimination against men?
Examples:
Which gender is more likely to lose in custody battles?
Which gender is more likely to have to pay alimony?
Well that’s easy enough. How many female United States presidents have we had? How many female Supreme Court Justices? How many female cabinet members compared to male cabinet members? How many vice presidents? What is the ratio of female senators to male senators either presently or through history? And in the House of Representatives?
Don’t tell me that capable women don’t want those jobs.
How about in the teaching profession – especially in public schools run by the government? Surely the state doesn’t discriminate.
Most teachers are female. There are some principals that are female, but most are male, especially in high school. Directors of Schools are overwhelmingly male.
Do women spend more time at home away from work taking care of the children? It’s likely that she does. For one thing, if one parent has to stop working, it’s more likely to be the one with the lower wages and that’s usually the woman. And by tradition, she’s the one likely to be called at work to come and pick up a sick child at school. (Of course, a man’s work is more important, right?) Then there are one parent families and which parent is likely to be there for the child on a day to day basis?
Where is the evidence that a man works a longer day than a woman?
I am not sure how any amendment could address those things Zoe Maybe we could have a 2 for 1 special on votes for female candidates? How about a little rock, paper, scissors action to determine which of the major party presidential candidates has to go with a female VP. I am just not seeing it in this context.
Well that’s easy enough. How many female United States presidents have we had? How many female Supreme Court Justices? How many female cabinet members compared to male cabinet members? How many vice presidents? What is the ratio of female senators to male senators either presently or through history? And in the House of Representatives?
Don’t tell me that capable women don’t want those jobs.
[quote]
What is your point? Women tend to not reach the higher tiers of jobs because they have less continuous work experience when compared to their male counterparts.
Sorry. My above post had a misplaced quote tag and it wouldn’t show up for some reason.
What is your point? Women tend to not reach the higher tiers of jobs because they have less continuous work experience when compared to their male counterparts.
