…any unintended effects that help men you can think of?
Couldn’t a guy getting shafted in a divorce challenge based on that?
That may be too nebulous, but how about a guy challenging a prison sentence in which women usually receive a lighter sentence.
Ok…maybe my first example was more solid.
Anyone?
One may be that male fashion models and porn stars would have to be paid as much as their female counterparts. AIUI, this is one career field in which women usually earn considerably more than men.
Also, daycare centers and kindergartens couldn’t discriminate against male job applicants.
As far as prison sentencing goes, my WAG is that men wouldn’t be getting lesser sentences than they currently do; women would be getting heavier sentences than they currently do. So men might not actually “benefit.”
Potential benefits for men:
More equal treatment in divorce - a man earning less than the woman getting alimony, for example.
More equal treatment in child custody cases.
Probably others, but those two are the first to leap to my mind.
First, let me say that the ERA doesn’t propose to make women equal to men. It proposes that women ARE equal to men and as such deserve the same rights and privileges.
But, more to your op: It’s the exact argument that RBG used in Craig v Boren in 1976.
So…you guys are smarter than me on this subject but as I understand it…the basic function of an ERA is to provide the protection that the 14th amendment has been interpreted to do so. Right? The 14th amendments ancillary interps can change over time, but an ERA would provide the protection the 14th amendment has been used for.
Is that correct? Thats sort of what I got from John Oliver.
So. . .it’s all kind of a lesson in tortured logic.
The words woman and female appear nowhere in the Constitution.
It isn’t until Amendment XIX that the one and only time the word sex appears.
In the original version of the Const (incl the Bill of Rights) there are 2 kinds of humans specified; persons and citizens. All citizens are persons, of course. But, originally, not all persons were citizens. Citizens could vote and hold office and be lawyers and all the things related to official govt business. In 1787 women maybe could be considered persons, but were never considered citizens.
We spring ahead to the late 1860’s and the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments.
XIII freed the slaves.
XIV made all persons born in USA citizens, and gave them equal protections.
XV allowed that ALL citizens could vote.
Surely women’s rights could be established under the equal protection clause of XIV. Not so fast, says the court. Taken as a whole those three amendments are talking about ex slaves and granting them citizenship. And by the mores of the day citizens still did not include women. So the equal protection clause seems to only apply to black men.
Now we’re at 1919, and the XIX Amendment. And, finally, the Const says something specific about women. But all it says it that they have the right to vote. It still does not give women full citizen status.
Jump ahead to the 70’s. Women have been voting for 50 years. They’re in Congress. They’re lawyers and judges. They’re running companies. They;re everywhere doing everything men do. Surely they’re considered citizens now and are protected fully by the Constitution. And the Court’s reply is. . .Probably. . .
So that’s where we stand today. That women are PROBABLY the same as men, with all the same rights and privileges. Probably.
But, it’s still not completely resolved. Just the other day a Supreme Court Judge said this (actually said in 2011)
So, it seems that, unfortunately, the issue is still up for debate, and the ERA proposes to end that debate.
mc
Happens now. I got both alimony and child support - as well as primary custody - in my divorce and that was in South Carolina.
Women will be expected to deal with their own toilet seats.
Well, somebody was going to say it. 
Equal treatment of men in cases of family law is certainly more common than it used to be, and I’m glad you were treated fairly, but it’s by no means universal in the US.
Yeah, but you don’t need an amendment for that. The laws on the books now are gender neutral (for the most part) but it’s the implementation of those laws that is the problem.
MHO: The ERA is an obsolete concept and has been for many years. It was a valid thing when it was drafted in the 1920s, but in the meantime, laws have been passed that cover the things its writers had in mind.
Only, those laws are piecemeal. Saying “those laws cover it” is akin to saying “well, several States already recognize SSM, so there’s nothing to be gained from Federal recognition.”
ERA also affects transexuals and people with problematic genitalia and/or genetics and, while it doesn’t affect privately-held companies, it affects people in interactions with any branch of the US government. Parental benefits from a US body would have to be offered equally to any parent, for example.
I doubt it would actually help men, but it would certainly provide a new legal casus belli to relitigate all sorts of issues. The selective service. Any form of affirmative action. Lack of Ashton over make underachievement in schools, and lack of admissions to universities. Enforcement of child support and alimony. The existence of alimony, as based on the assumption that men will adopt traditional provider roles. Men having to pay child support for children they didn’t want, even make rape victims, because the safety valve of abortion isn’t available. Companies that have maternity leave but don’t have paternity leave. Criminal sentencing. Title XI kangaroo courts on college campuses. The predominate aggressor doctrine in domestic violence cars. The existence of women only domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centres.
Everything’s up for grabs.
Colleges like Smith and Wellesley would have to accept men.
Right. From 1868 until the 1970s, the 14th Amendment was not held to cover most things that today we think of as pretty basic in “equal protection of the laws.” So much so that states were free to prohibit women from voting and a further amendment was requires to guarantee women’s suffrage.
Starting in the 1970s, the Court started applying the 14th Amendment to women, thereby obviating the need for the ERA. Indeed, in the early 1970s, the ERA had huge momentum which faded after the Court changed its jurisprudence.
To pass the ERA today would get rid of this sensible dynamic and arguable apply equal treatment in ALL absurd respects instead of just in the intermediate scrutiny approach. For example, at a public university, a man should be allowed to play on the women’s volleyball team; such a thing would destroy women’s sports.
But if the courts decided that the fourteenth amendment applied to women 100+ years after it was passed, it could just as well decide that since it isn’t specifically spelled out out doesn’t apply.
If there’s room for interpretation – which there obviously is or it wouldn’t have taken all that time for women to be franchised-- , then there’s room for that decision to be reversed. And if you think it’s silly to think that the courts can’t be persuaded that previous decisions can’t be wrong, may I direct your attention to Roe vs Wade. Thought we’d settled that one, but apparently not.
Are they the government?
IIRC, if they receive federal funding, they cannot gender-discriminate under the ERA.
Both Wellesley and Smith are private colleges, not public or government supported (individual students might get government financial aid, but that’s not the same as the school itself getting funding).
Also, Smith already admits men to its graduate and certificate programs.
Wellesley is a bit more strict - they only admit women, and by their criteria that means they won’t admit transmen but will admit transwomen. But then, their whole raison d’etre is to educate women. But since they’re a private school they’re allowed to do that.
Would the ERA, if passed, only require that public institutions not discriminate on the basis of sex? If it would dictate that men and women be paid the same when working for private companies, I don’t see how a private college could still discriminate in admissions. When the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it was debated whether anti-discrimination laws applied to a private business. I think most people here felt that they did.
Or, if women-only colleges could continue under the ERA, they might become ineligible for any government funding, like research grants. I don’t know how much Wellesley and Smith rely on those sources now, though.