It's time (past time really) for the ERA

[nelliebly]

@CAH66

I’m honestly surprised that reliably blue Illinois hasn’t ratified it. Although the Governership has bounced back and forth a bunch…

You must have misread the info in the link in the OP. Illinois ratified it in May, 2018.

[mhendo]

@UltraVires

What do ERA proponents hope to gain by its passage that has not already been achieved by the Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence towards gender since the 1970s?

If it’s true, as you seem to be suggesting, that legislation and Supreme Court rulings have provided women with genuine de facto equality, then I’ll ask you: what harm is there in codifying that equality in the national constitution?

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

That was just a example of the dirty tricks the GOP has been pulling on women, and other non-white males in the USA.

It may or may not have a effect but that’s not the debate.

You used “the various states with their ridiculous restrictions on abortions” as a reason why the ERA is needed. Seems to me that if you use that as one of the reasons that the ERA is needed, it becomes part of the debate.

[Lumpy]

That’s an example of one of the objections to the ERA: just what implications and consequences would we be agreeing to by ratifying it? The ERA is so generally worded that it’s a pig in a poke; there’s no foreseeable limit to how expansively it could be interpreted.

[k9bfriender]

@Lumpy

That’s an example of one of the objections to the ERA: just what implications and consequences would we be agreeing to by ratifying it? The ERA is so generally worded that it’s a pig in a poke; there’s no foreseeable limit to how expansively it could be interpreted.

Can you provide some examples of things that you think would be problematic in their interpretation?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Lumpy

That’s an example of one of the objections to the ERA: just what implications and consequences would we be agreeing to by ratifying it? The ERA is so generally worded that it’s a pig in a poke; there’s no foreseeable limit to how expansively it could be interpreted.

For example, in another recent thread, there was some discussion about situations where women participate in men’s sports leagues and if it might be appropriate to allow men to participate in women’s leagues. If the ERA were to be ratified, I think the case for those wishing to prevent that would be severely weakened.

[Lumpy]

Just thought of an example: since women are only paid 80% as much as men*, it could be mandated that the Federal government must actively intervene in the market to correct this violation of women’s rights: something that would make busing or affirmative action look trivial and non-controversial by comparison.

*True by one very narrow definition, but extremely misleading; see “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

[HurricaneDitka]

Would the military still be able to provide two separate physical fitness standards for men and women under the ERA?

[DrDeth]

@Lumpy

Just thought of an example: since women are only paid 80% as much as men*, it could be mandated that the Federal government must actively intervene in the market to correct this violation of women’s rights: something that would make busing or affirmative action look trivial and non-controversial by comparison.

*True by one very narrow definition, but extremely misleading; see “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

In some states, equal pay for the same job with the same seniority, ect is already the rule, so as long as it is the same job, with the same seniority, same responsibilities, etc, why not?

But yes, that stat is mostly only true do to differences in seniority, etc. However, a very real gap of around 5% does exist, iirc.