Most women over 50 I know are displeased -- to put it mildly -- that the Equal Rights Amendment is still not a permanent part of our U.S. Constitution. Every year it is introduced to Congress, and every year it sits and languishes, even though there are many supportive groups trying to push it along.
That's all about to change.
Women over 50 have experienced -- firsthand -- what gender inequality can do, making us uniquely qualified to lead the younger generation into battle. We just need to dig deep down inside ourselves to find that passionate belief that women and men are equal, and should be viewed as such in the eyes of the law... and once we do, there will be no holding us back.
One reader left this comment on another article I wrote recently:
Growing up in a family of only female children, our equality was never questionedÂ. We were expected to get outside and mow the lawn just as if we had been male children. We were expected to get the dinner dishes done just as if we were the female children we actually were. We were expected to bait our own fishing hooks, learn to change the oil in our own cars, and debate the topics of the day with reason and intelligenÂt arguments. Equality definitely meant we weren't too delicate, too squeamish, too unintelligÂent, or just otherwise too "girl" to handle any task our mother and father threw our way.Growing up in a military family, we were also somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. Small bases, small communitieÂs, but lots of the same expectatioÂns from males and females alike (at least as far as we as children saw things).
It wasn't until I got out into the "real world" that I experienceÂd gender discriminaÂtion. Street harassmentÂ, workplace sexual harassmentÂ, education system "gender-apÂpropriate" career choices "encourageÂment", domestic and sexual violence against women, media messaging that objectifieÂs and limits the role of women in our society, pay inequality -- there hasn't been a year that's gone by that I haven't either experienceÂd these things directly or indirectly through female friends and family members. And now I'm seeing my daughter experience these same things directly and indirectlyÂ.
To say we don't need the ERA is to say we don't need oxygen.
This is reality, and women over 50 understand that we have a moral responsibility to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed -- once and for all -- for our daughters and granddaughters.
What's the Current Status of the Equal Rights Amendment?
The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul, to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is a simply stated sentence which no man or woman with a sense of justice and fairness should be against:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
What is the current status of the Equal Rights Amendment?
There are two main strategies for getting the Equal Rights Amendment passed at this time:
There are some who may believe the ERA is an outdated concept put forth by the original vanguard of the women's movement in the 1960s, and one that is no longer relevant. The truth, in fact, is quite the opposite. It has never been more important, essential and urgent than it is now. Women continue to be undervalued, underemployed, and underpaid -- across all sectors -- compared with their male counterparts. This must be changed.
Why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment?
Earlier this year, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment at an event in Washington D.C. I asked Rep. Maloney this question: Why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment? She answered:
Laws can be repealed. Judicial attitudes can shift. We continue to see demonstrable cases of systemic gender discrimination -- even in this day and age when women have come so far. Establishing the clear unambiguous language of the Equal Rights Amendment into the U.S. Constitution would have a real impact on our national consciousness. Our democracy rests on the principle of 'liberty and justice for all.' We need the ERA to ensure that this concept applies equal to women.
I presented the same question to Carolyn A. Cook, founder and CEO of United 4 Equality, who wrote the HJ Res. 47 resolution, which would effectively call for Congress to officially remove the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, and who has just started a new campaign to ratify the ERA in 2015. She said:
Women in the armed services are fighting on the front lines in two wars to protect and defend a constitution that does not protect and defend them. The U.S. strongly urged Iraq and Afghanistan to include women in their new constitutions as they rebuild their societies; yet we have not led by example.
Complacency will kill the Equal Rights Amendment, and so will thinking it's no longer relevant. Just as important, we need to change the tone of the discourse. Let's stop thinking about equality in terms of us against them, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, men vs. women. Reframe the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment and ask yourself this question:
Is it the right thing to do?
And, consider this: Can a country that prides itself as the leader and protector of democracy in the world, and one which implores other countries to include the word "women" in their constitutions (Afghanistan and Iraq), still not protect the rights of women in its own?
Post50 Women . . . here's what we need to do:
. . . and lastly, raise your voice, loud and clear, and don't stop until the Equal Rights Amendment is fact . . . instead of fantasy.
Staying connected is a powerful tool: "Friend" me on Facebook, and "Tweet" me on Twitter (BGrufferman). Please visit my website--www.bestofeverythingafter50.com
Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BGrufferman
Glen Pearson: 3 Nobels For Women Don't Equal Progress for So Many
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-feminist-fantasy-of-male-privilege/
There is nothing extraordinarily noble about war or soldiering greater than working for peace and rearing children. Sorry, but you may feel as I do when you look back on 70 years of war, started and largely waged by men.
I argue that women who leave babies and toddlers to be tended by others while they serve are putting not only their lives but their children's future at risk. I contend that rearing children is the single most important task in any society. Women who conscientiously believe what I believe should not be subject to a potential draft.
You may not remember this, but I do. Men with children were not subject to the draft during World War II. Family and children were so respected that brothers in uniform were exempted from combat roles if and when one of them was killed in action. Our society has changed for the worse since these rules were in effect.
And, for the record, my father who was not required to serve, volunteered and did serve at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. I would never favor an ERA that could be used to compel separation of women from their children, even in war time. The sacred duty to one's children is equal to the sacred oath soldiers take to defend their country.
It's time to pass the ERA - NOW.
Ms. Grufferman, I am one of the post-50 people you mention, but the truth is, we have way bigger fish to fry these days and this isn't one of them. Let's put some of this energy behind the unconscionable 16% unemployment rate we're currently experiencing (see Barry Levinson's post today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/the-economics-of-abbott-and-costello_b_1115502.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics), the lack of transparency involved in the billions more the Fed gave to the banks than what was disclosed in the initial bailout without the nation's knowledge or approval http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html, and that our militarized police forces around the country are pepper-spraying peaceful demonstrators because they can.
The ERA amendment will mean nothing unless this country is healthy and strong. And right now, I believe far more dividends will be paid if we invest our time making sure corporations and financial institutions are re-regulated. To me that is Job #1.
We over-50s are the Queens of multi-tasking. Certainly we can handle the ERA and the other problems this country is facing.
Thanks for reading, and commenting . . .
Barbara
Sign up and serve! Insist on doing your fair share in combat roles - equal pay for equal work means equal death, dismemberment and brain injury tolls.
Put up or shut up.
I have some reservations about the ERA proposed: It should be framed to read at the end, "sex or gender." This would extend equal rights to trans-gendered persons. The difference between sex and gender is well-explained in a current Stanford Magazine article that includes interview material from trans-gender students.
Second, I would not want courts or government to use the ERA to mandate military service on the part of women. Although many women may wish to be warriors and not to be discriminated against in type of service, many others do not want to be subject to combat. There is good reason for societies not to demand women fighters. The most important job in any society is child-rearing. Children suffer when mothers, especially, leave them to serve, and even more when mothers are killed or maimed. The whole point of defense is to defend the next generation and allow it to grow up unhindered.
I think the ERA needs to be rewritten before I could support it.
Equality means...equality.
Equal treatment in combat, selective service, equal treatment in the just us system and family court.
Equal treatment in "choice".
No more affirmative action, no more quotas. No more VAWA. No more rape shield.
It's time to man up to the equality table.
I support an ERA that champions children and that exempts mothers from compulsory military service.
Coercion and compulsion are the opposite of freedom. What if you must choose between two responsibilities, loyalty to your child and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms? I think men and women should be free to choose, and that if we really needed a war, both men and women would choose to defend the country.
Right now, men and women are free to choose to serve in a voluntary professional military. No one is coerced into joining. But in a draft, all are potentially compelled.
Past drafts have made exceptions for males with children. I am arguing that women should also be excepted.
Let men and women who do not have children serve in combat if they choose. That way we will have a society worth defending because it is a free society that also recognizes our sacred responsibility to be there for our children.
How something as fundamental as this can raise so much ire is shocking while the fact that it does is pathetic and frightening at the same time.
It is heartbreaking, unnerving, and . . . motivating. There is a tremendous schism in this country about the Equal Rights Amendment (which is evident by the comments, as you suggested), and I am still not sure I understand why.
But, we need to keep fighting the good fight here. It's time.
Thanks for reading and commenting,
Barbara
So those who advocate an amendment need to state, specifically, what it is that needs changing. And why does it need changing in this form?
IMO, our current legal regime pretty much gets it right.