My two teenaged daughters want to know why we have failed them. They want to know why -- in 2011 -- the U.S. Constitution still does not state that men and women are equal.
What do I tell them?
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and against the almost 1.6 million women who were part of the class action suit and who had been systematically denied pay and opportunities to advance within the company on par with their male colleagues. My daughters shook their heads in disgust.
And then this: a small article publicizing that 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. Yes, the same ERA that was introduced 88 years ago, and which has never gotten the 38 states necessary for ratification (only 35 came through) to make it a permanent part of the Constitution. Had I not seen that on Huffington Post, I never would have known that it had just been reintroduced. And the only major media coverage I've seen was on the Rachel Maddow show. My daughters looked at me as though it were all my fault.
Not only do the major media ignore this story year after year, but most people I interviewed didn't know the status of the ERA, or even the actual words of the amendment. According to EqualRightsAmendment.org:
The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul, to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.
The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.
The actual words of the simply stated amendment as written by Alice Paul are:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Women (and men) in this country should be (and are) outraged, appalled, and angry at the utter lack of attention it has received. The ERA is probably the one amendment to our Constitution that could actually stop big companies like Wal-Mart from paying and promoting people based on sex... and it was not headline news, even on the heels of the Supreme Court debacle. Passing the ERA could very well be the beginning of the end of the war on women.
Trying to gauge how people are feeling, I put this question out on Facebook and Twitter -- Did you know that the ERA was just reintroduced and do you even care? -- and here are just a few of the many comments I received from all over the country (reprinted with their permission):
Of course I care! Equal work for unequal pay is one of the major disparities left between men and women's rights.Elizabeth Flynn
I did not know! I was just telling my son and his girlfriend (ages 24) about the original ERA last week. I remember being utterly shocked, dismayed, depressed and disappointed that it did not pass the first time around. And it really opened my eyes to inequality. It's time.Linda Landis
For a long time after ERA died (thanks largely to Utah, my home state) I thought it no longer mattered. Equality was settled, time to move on. What has happened just since last November in the War on Women has made it imperative that we get this done.Jann Steckel Swanson
We women must stand united. We must care and we have to incite a rumble and be heard. Equal rights for all should be a given.Vickie Stahl
I teach high school history and my students are always shocked to learn that women are not equal. We have quite a discussion on what it means and why it did not pass.Donna Monica Krause
And this from a man who has two young daughters and would like to see the ERA become a reality this time around:
Women are getting paid less for the same jobs as men, they still must break glass ceilings, and they are being violently attacked and assaulted by males at home and at jobs and constantly face men who are bullies. The ERA can and should be passed by Congress and ratified by the states before the November 2012 elections. It is time for women to unite and demand that the ERA be part of the Constitution. Every member of the House and Senate should be called on immediately before July 4th to add their names as co-sponsor of the ERA. The time for excuses is over.Brad Berger
For those of us who feel deeply about the ERA, this is what we should be asking:
Where are the powerful men and women who could -- with a few encouraging words -- get people out in the streets, writing letters to government leaders, energizing us to fight to make this a reality? Nancy Pelosi? Michelle Obama? In fact, where is President Obama? The White House website posted an "official" position on the ERA which I found disheartening indeed. Tina Tchen, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, wrote a blog about how President Obama has "a proven track record of supporting the ERA" and how then-Senator Obama in 2008 was "a sponsor of a joint resolution ratifying the ERA... " Yes. That's one of the reasons we voted for him to begin with. But what is President Obama doing now that he is in the position to help turn the ERA from fantasy into fact? And, Oprah, if you are reading... we all know what you could do.
There are some who may believe the ERA is an outdated concept put forth by the original vanguard of the women's movement, 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 are still making 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, and there are even fewer women on boards and in senior management than in previous years. There is a War on Women happening in this country, make no mistake. The time has come. No more excuses, no more waiting. And no more Supreme Court decisions like the one handed down about Wal-Mart.
Marianne Schnall, founder of feminist.com, and author of the beautiful book, Daring to Be Ourselves, wrote this to me in an email:
It feels to me like unfinished business to have the ERA left unratified, especially when it is about something as fundamental as establishing the equality of men and women under the law. The fact that women are still so underrepresented and underpaid in this country is evidence that we still need this protection. This is an opportunity to create a historic milestone.
Let this be a call to action: Groups are being formed around the country, and on the Internet, to help get this ratified once and for all. It's a simple decision: If you believe the ERA should become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, consider doing the following:
Don't let another year go by. Let the pride we have in our country -- as we celebrate the 4th of July -- extend to our belief in equality for all. If we work together, we can turn hope into history, and show our daughters and sons that we will not fail them... again.
Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BGrufferman
I appreciate the time you took to read this article, and leave a comment. But here's the truth: women will not be equal in this country unless it is stated in the Constitution. Supreme Court Scalia has admitted TWICE that, according to the Constitution, women are not equal to men.
The ERA is a short sentence, simply stated, and should -- once and for all -- be a part of the Constitution. Don't be afraid of it. It is not anti-man. It is the first, and very important step, toward equality.
Thank you,
Barbara
If women truly want equality, start with the divorce courts, grant child custody and support on the merits and not on gender. Start speaking out against feminist jurisprudence, no-fault divorce and the misbegotten notion that women can raise children better than men can. You cannot justify the nonsense that goes on in Family Law these days.
You say " 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes" "fewer women on boards and senior management." What is left out is that these are spurious statistics that you won't cite . Women are authors of their own misfortune because they insist on custody, support and staying home and not joining the work force in the same measure as men do. Please tell me that there are an equal number of women who will go drive a truck and let their man stay home to raise the children. Women can but choose not to join the military in the same numbers as men do. This is not an equal rights issue but a matter of personal choice exercised by a large majority of women who choose not to go down the feminist path. Some actually do understand that a traditional 2 parent household is in the child's best interest. This is why NOW is such an exclusive Caucasian coffee klatch. But you and Murphy Brown just go ahead and try reviving a bankrupt feminist ideology that doesn't include the views of minority women. Great Job.
I just found it and it chills me to the bone. I am beyond this threat now, only if they do not make it retroactive. Will they charge women with high blood pressure who develop pre-eclampsia because they are not on meds to control it?
Happy 4th!
Barbara
"Recent reports suggest that young urban women now earn 8% more than male peers."
"Perhaps most surprising, women out-earn men in several male-dominated construction jobs. Female construction laborers, construction supervisors, maintenance painters, and aircraft and vehicle mechanics earn slightly above the median earnings for both sexes."
"Female teacher assistants earn 105% as much as male peers."
"Women also earn more than men in higher paying jobs like occupational therapists, dieticians and nutritionists, and life, physical, social science and health technicians."
"At the same time, there is some evidence that men are discriminated against in female-dominated jobs. A 2010 study found that men were less likely to be called for an interview in fields with 65% or more female workers, an attitude which may be reflected in wages."
Thank you for reading and commenting . . .
Barbara
Have you checked out United for Equality on Facebook? I am the founder and author of HJ Res. 47: Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment which was introduced on March 8th, 2011 - the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day. The US cannot end the human rights abuses of women and girls abroad while denying us constitutional equality at home. There is no need to start all over for the ERA. There are just 3 states left! Join United for Equality's ERA 2015 campaign! Make a contribution to our efforts as we cannot exist on passion alone. Encourage your friends to give what they can. Then call your representatives and urge them to co-sponsor HJ Res. 47 in the House. We are looking for a senate sponsor now! Thanks!
Good luck!!
Barbara
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html
1) Scalia is a textualist and isn't espousing a personal preference one way or another. 2) Scalia was not speaking from the Bench. Any case before the court would have the equal protection of the law applied with gender recognized as a suspect class requiring heightend scrutiny. 4) the article states that Scalia's views are his own and that the other 8 Supremes oppose such a view. 5) The paragraph stating ""In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected," clearly refutes the need for ERA.
Here is feminist ideology taking Scalia out of context. Justice Scalia is a strict textualist. He can only be saying that women as a separate class is not identified as protected, cannot be said to mean that women don’t fall under the protection of the law as stated in the 14th “"..,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." If women are “persons” then a fortiori, women are protected. Men don’t have an equal rights amendment proposed either and would be vulnerable to discrimination as well. Protection for women but not for men would be unequal protection of the law. And still, you avoid the fact that gender is a suspect class in equal protection claims. Stop muddling the issues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html
Your link to Amanda Turkel's article demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension:
"Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new — or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."
"In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2020667,00.html#ixzz1RMCubP9T
Turkel's article is base in part on Adam Cohen's article which identifies Scalia as an originalist who doesn't oppose equal rights. Your post is nothing more than ambush journalism at its worst
Their no need for this amendment.
Women voters outnumber men. If they think women are qualified, they vote for them - and those female candidates would win by sheer numbers of women voters. Obviously many women vote for men because they vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex.
As for "white men doing a horrible job", I challenge you to look at the life you live. Every single thing with more than two moving parts was conceived, designed, built and installed by men, from freeways to bridges, from homes to skyscrapers, from autos to jet airplanes.
The comfortable, air conditioned room you sit in as you prepare legal documents (with your legal degree earned in a college built by men and using their rules of law and philosophy) is all due to men, who have provided you with a level of comfort and luxury that no females in hundreds of thousands of years of development have enjoyed. Since you are an attorney, apparently you were not discriminated against too harshly, or you wouldn't be one.
Yes, men are not perfect and sometimes they do things I'm ashamed of and strongly disagree with, but women are no better.
If women ran the world, we'd all still be in grass huts.
Doubtful.