Could Michael Moore Know Why Women Are Unhappy?

In Michael Moore's new film Capitalism: A Love Story, Ronald Reagan slaps a woman so hard across the face that there were audible gasps in the audience. Granted, this was an old film clip and Reagan was "acting" but Moore was making the point that along with cozying up to Wall Street in a manner heretofore unseen, Reagan also reversed the forty year Republican position on the Equal Rights Amendment, dashing the hopes of women across America.

The women's movement had been in full adrenaline overdrive for almost two decades and federally protected equality had been tantalizingly close when, in 1982, the ERA fell three states short of ratification. I believe in that moment the country delivered a body blow to both the movement and the collective psyche of the American woman that we are still reeling from. Twenty-seven years later, eighty-six years after Alice Paul drafted it, women in the United States of America still do not have equal rights under the constitution.

Well, I'll admit I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a feminist scholar. I'm not even a shrink or a psychic. But I've got something of a hunch about why women, as a group, are unhappy. We've done a great job indoctrinating ourselves to put others first -- even in the "macro" abstracted realm of equal rights. If this were any other group being denied equal rights we would be out there fighting for justice tooth and nail, but because it's us... gosh, we don't want to make a fuss -- we're fine, really, we'll get by. But, ladies, by dropping the pressure on our government to provide the majority of its citizens with the protection of equal rights under the law, we women are complicit in this unjust status quo. By allowing this injustice to persist we are betraying not just our sex but also the ideals this country was built on.

Here is the language of the ERA: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Am I really in the minority in finding this modest paragraph self-evident and indisputable? I find alternately surreal and deeply disturbing that there were people out there who thought it would be the end of civilization should the ERA pass, and actively torpedoed it. Why is this still even a question? Aren't all people supposed to be equal in the U.S.? Aren't women people? What on earth is going on here?

The answer lies, as with so many areas of trouble and decay in our society in the calculated and deliberate obfuscation in place, either legal or institutional, that creates the Orwellian nightmare that is the new America. Sure, everyone should be equal, and they are, we are assured; there are other laws protecting women, states laws, Title VII, Title IX, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, on and on, it doesn't need to be federal - this is not the time! Don't we have enough problems to deal with in this country? Why bring the big bad Federal Government in on this? It's working fine the way it is! But here's the thing: upon closer scrutiny, it's not.

The common wisdom to leave the protection of women's rights to the states and/or rely on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in cases of sexual discrimination leaves justice for women in the hands of a constantly shifting jurisprudence. And we know how quickly things can change in that milieu - Ashcroft, anyone, Gonzales? There are so many loopholes and gray areas in relying on this patchwork of laws that the possibility of discrimination, and legal protection for those engaged in it in the private sector, is practically assured (see below for footnote on excellent article).

"Properly interpreted, an equal rights amendment would be a permanent guarantee of basic human rights for women," said previous NOW President Kim Gandy. "With such an amendment to the Constitution, our fundamental rights and liberties would no longer be subject to the ever-changing political cycles."

Simply put -- are women, should women be equal or not? Not implicitly equal. Not equal in New York state but not so much in Georgia. Not equal in every area as compared to men. Just equal, plain and simple? If the answer is simply yes, then why oh why is passing this amendment such a big deal? If the answer is no, women are somehow less equal than every other group protected by the US Constitution - let's just get that out there on the table. I would very much like to see which of our Senators and members of Congress are willing to stand up and make that statement to the one hundred and fifty two million of us of the "gentler" sex.

We must stop skirting the issue and make an unequivocal statement that eliminates misinterpretation. We must, collectively, make this statement: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

On July 21st of this year, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney reintroduced the ERA, as has happened each year since 1982. This year, however, it needs to be ratified. Let's give her the support she needs by pressuring our representatives to join with her in co-sponsoring it and put it to a vote. I'd say eighty six years is just about long enough, wouldn't you?

Call it my woman's intuition, but I think that might make us happy.

[referenced article in the Rutgers Law Journal: STATE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS REVISITED: EVALUATING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ADVANCING PROTECTION AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION by Linda J. Wharton ]

 

 

Comments

[meglopes]

How did I not know this? How do we not know this as women?
I always figured it was the undertones that I had to watch out for in society - the slight joke about how women shouldn't be allowed to drive or the off the cuff comment that our job is in the kitchen. All very funny when you know who it's coming from, but when there are still HUGE discrepancies between man and woman like this - not so funny after all.

Thanks Kamala for sharing this with the world. I have as well - tweeted it to the world.

[Qx]

Dear Kam,

my learning curve is much longer than I expected for me to get registered with Hoff Po and finally posting my overdue comment here...

first of all, THANKS for the education and great information on ERA. Empowering women = empowering children+family = empowering future = empowering men = empowering ALL. today's Oprah show also told great inspirational stories about how women being empowered could lead to a better society for all... Pls check out www.Oprah.com/forallwomen for details...

looking forward to more great articles from you Kam!

Qxing

[dragonlad]

Wow, Kamala, I had no idea this was still an issue. Thanks for enlightening me and I'll make sure to do my small part in the grand scheme of things.

[mdelavina]

It hasn't been that long that women have had the right to vote in this country -- the U.S. was one of the last Western nations to grant women that right. And here's one last sobering thought: My dad, who just turned 87, was born less than two years after women won that right.

I'm glad you've so eloquently raised such an important issue, Kamala.

[Glenn206]

Very informative article Kammy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of this being an issue in 2009 considering all the gains women, particularly white women, have made since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ERA calls to mind the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation outlawed discriminatory voting practices aimed at African Americans, particularly those in the south. But similar to the ERA, the Voting Rights Act is not a permanent part of the Constitution. It was “extended” in 2006, believe it not after much debate, for an additional 25 years. I don’t get it. Extend rather than install. Unfortunately, there are powerful forces threatened by these ideas and are doing everything they can to thwart their progress. I’m in full agreement with you, permanent equal rights for all American citizens or for no one (my words not yours). I think passage of these bills would make most of us very happy. After all, what kind of America do we want to live in?

[ed conway]

Kamala,
Your article is excellent, well written and I appreciate your thoughts on the Equal Rights Amendment…­..It is a an educational process to inform everyone.

[kejia]

Let's do it!!! Tell us how to get started.

[Elsie1927]

Dear Kamala:
Your article is excellent and I greatly appreciate your educating the public that the Equal Rights Amendment remains unfinished business for the Constitution. But are you aware that there is a Three-state Strategy that would recognize the ratification of three more states? Please go to www.eracampaign.net to learn more about it. Thirty five states have already ratified it and we shouldn't have to start over. If we go that rout, it will probable take another century to get ERA ratified and that is what the antis want.

[billgbg]

Provisions for equal pay for employment should have been enacted as far back as the President Kennedy and Johnson years of the mid sixties. The fact that gaps still exist is damning for our people and is far more important than procescuting expensive wars abroad which accomplish nothing.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

Unfortunately, in today's America, you'd probably get more support for an amendment which aims to deny people equal rights, rather than giving them equal rights.

[Mildred Lewis]

Excellent post. I would love to know why the ERA hasn't gained momentum. Is it a matter of education? What is it that people are rejecting within the legislation? Since the bill has been regularly re-introduced, are people now treating it as political theater? Have its benefits been defined? Where do younger women stand? Older women? Women of color? I think this raises many, many questions.

[mairs]

I don't think the Right could stand it. First a black president, then the ERA issue coming up again? They would certainly blow a gasket. There's only so much a conservative can stand.

[sjones66]

All the more reason to do it, then. And while we're at it, throw in marriage rights for everyone.

If we did all of that (liberal version of shock and awe, perhaps), they would be so busy freaking out, we might actually get some other things passed -- like healthcare.

[WhatPriceEntropy]

Ouch. Once again I'm hit with the hot kiss at the end of a wet fist known as reality. I, like the majority of the country, was unaware this amendment had never passed. We have formally addressed slavery and segregation at a federal level but can't get this ratified? Shameful.

Clearly there are many important issues swirling around right now but to describe this as less important is to miss the whole point of this little democratic­/equality-­and-justic­e-for-all experiment called the United States.

Thanks Kam. Carrying the torch is as much about light as heat.

j

[Kamala Lopez - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you, for the support!

[pastorep]

Kamala,

Your article also proves just how ignorant I am. Being white and male all my life, and legal for 37 years, I have taken my rights for granted and assumed that all of us in the United States were equal under every law in every state.

In a world where terrorists who support giving women no rights at all are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, it is now even more important for the ERA to be passed if not in all 50 states, then federally. Just as Ronald Reagan's democratic challenge to the people and government of the former Soviet Union made a safer, more peaceful Europe, so too our ERA, if adopted by the United Nations, would be a major step in bringing about a safer, more peaceful World.

Equal rights for every Woman and every Man in every state (and in every country)!

[Kamala Lopez - Huffpost Blogger]

Right on! You speak to an important corollary to the argument in favor of ERA - our global stand on women's rights. How can we be publicly and actively pursuing rights for women in other countries, using their oppression as justification for our military aggression, when these rights are not guaranteed here at home? We need to set the example first.

[44Frank]

If this means women will be burning their bras again, then I'm all for it. Bras are UNGODLY expensive and I love my wife au naturel...
Even if there's no bra burning and the cost of cups continues to climb, I sincerely support (no pun intended) Kamala's point(s) --
...now before anyone wastes time on hate mail, I love Kam (and just wrote a sitcom with her), I happened upon this article by chance, and agree with her completely, but couldn't help myself... let's not forget that the best part of male/female interaction is not sex (unless it's with me) it's humor. Love you Kam, doubt you'll ever see this.

[Kamala Lopez - Huffpost Blogger]

Ha ha! Thanks for the comment :)

[Rowland Perkins]

I read Kamala Lopez's blog on the current state of women's equal rights and couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it is just a another demonstration of the phobeas and fears harbored by many conservatives and right wingers in general. Why the battle over healthcare, where is the justice there? They no longer seem to care about Americans, only the Republican Party's power position. Their spinning the facts on almost everything into at best is confusion and at worst (most of the time) outright lies. Unless we Democrats stand in a united front and tell our elected leaders exactly what we expect of them we will deserve what we get. President Obama's efforts to reach bi-partisian positions has only resulted in delays, not a common agreement, allowing these delays to possibly submarine his whole agends.

[Yareli Arizmendi]

Thank you Kamala, reincarnation of Alice that you are!! Part of the problem is that in this day and age, most people -- including women! -- feel this is a non-issue. I'm talking about our younger generation of women and men who, if asked, would assume this law is already on the books. Perhaps we should cite cases in which not having it on the book has damaged the rights of women in recent history. It's easy to ignore or push aside things when they seem to 'have happened in the past,' but not reflect the present. Perhaps we should raise the question: Why is it so hard to sign the ERA into law? Who benefits from not having it in THE book? Gracias!

[Kamala Lopez - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes - there are several groups that benefitted when the ERA was stopped last time, one group in particular, is interesting to look at right now:
The Health Insurance Companies (yes - it's true and strange how all these issues tie back to greed) who cover women and their health issues much less than men. For example, under many plans Viagra is covered while Birth Control is not.

But I agree that part of the "re-education" process of American women that lies ahead involves us getting to the bottom of who is actively opposed to it now and what the real reasons are - and then telling the truth as far and wide as possible.