Personal About Politics: Equal Rights Amendment Rising Up From the Ashes.

If we could just catch up with the rest of the world on parental leave benefits, I would be happy (for now).

I feel that it's politically unwise to revive this amendment right now. There is a huge momentum behind health care reform and other economic issues. Democratics need to be single-minded, achieve what's achievable, and move on with renewed momentum. I fear that diverting their slim mandate with divisive social issues will only make it harder to complete much more achievable goals.

I'm all for equal rights for women, and was raised an ardent feminist. That said though, no supporter of the ERA has ever been able to explain to me why we need it in light of the protections afforded to all citizens by the 14th:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

Doesn't the equal protection clause guarantee your rights? If not, why not? It even says every "person," not "man."

On some issues I agree with Dr. Laura, in that the Feminist movement is today hurting the Women's Rights issue more than helping it. On other Issues, I do not believe the extended leave up to as I have heard of 1 year (France I believe that was) is right either. 2-3 months I think should be enough to make sure all is good, and recovery enough that the woman can come back. To further this, I agree and support the in work child care facilities as they do offer more than what state, federal, and private facilities do, in that it reduces cost to the parents (which can be absurd) and keep the child closer to the parent(s) than the others.
I agree with you that it has come a long way, and there is still some ways to go, but there also has to be a give and take on this, in order to have a funtioning society where as the way we have developed ours today.
As far as for a woman's ability in the work place, maybe because I am a man I don't see it as much as some women, but there are numerous Women owning and running businesses, doing many things once thought of as a man's job, and so on, and doing very well in these positions.

Well said. If we are so virtuous and already giving women equal rights, as some infer as the reason for not needed this amendment, then why not put it in writing and be done with it. What is there to be afraid of?

american women need to be more involved in politics and demand their rights..far too many women are wasting their time glamming up and shopping rather than be conscious about the injustice they are facing

ERA for women is redundent. I guess you forgot to mention that as part of George Will's editorial.

It would be fair to link to the source you are editorializing on so people can easily get the full context, but then when were you ever fair to conservatives?

Without the full force and effect of a Constitutional amendment, there are still many paleolithic-minded self-styled "Conservatives" who will balk and sidle their way out of providing basic human rights to what amounts to more than 1/2 of the population.

I'm sure that the Republicans would LOVE to see us all in housecoats blissfully cooking them dinner while ironing their shirts and bearing their brats - but the 1950's are dead and gone and it's about time these paleocons woke up and smelled the cappuccino.

Joan,

What about the Democrates that feel the same way?

If this is going to be a political discussion, please remember:
Conservative does not always equal Republicans
Republicans do not always equal conservative
Liberal does not always equal Democrat
Democrats do not always equal liberal

I posted a brief piece today (spawned from Racheline's recent threads) because I'm sort of tired of the whole "we can vote on your rights" claptrap.

Women are just as human as men. Period. We should ratify the ERA and be done with the debate.

Human rights - we all get them or nobody gets them.

As soon as we pass the ERA for women, will the same be done for men? As a middle-aged white male that owns a business I am considered too privaledged to get government/municipal contracts when asking to compete on a level playing field with "minority-owned" businesses. I accept the discrimiation and pay the "extortion fee" to a minority business to actually supply to the city ... all taxpayers end up paying more because I must go through a minority-owned business .... I believe passing the ERA will lead to more government sponsored extortion. Enjoy paying for your increased taxes over the next 5 years ....

sigh

Why is it that people insist on saying that if the ERA passes it makes women somehow "more equal" than men under the law? Perhaps if the ERA passes then the programs that guarantee a small slice of the pie on gov't contracts go to people other than white men will be ruled discriminatory. Then maybe you won't feel the need to skirt the law to get your contract.

To KitchenMage - Not skirting the law to get the contracts .... I am following the law by paying the gov't induced extortion to a minority business ......... and then passing the higher cost on to the taxpayers .
Do you really think the gov't will take back all minority hiring, business requirements if ERA is passed?
The original Federal Income Tax was started in 1913 to ONLY pay for the debt left over from the war a few years earlier. It was also only assessed to the top 5% of wage earners in the country. It was to be stopped once that debt was re-paid, but the gov't kept finding ways to extend .... Look what we have now...... A tax that never goes away.

Oh cut the crap, you want a world class country someone has to pay for the government. You act as if it would be fine if Washington just stayed in Washington and you were free to massacre the natives unhindered. Oh, yeah, that is what most conservatives want. I forgot. Cheri, great article, and yes it should get another shot. Those that say there is no prejudice against women today need to look at the salary statistics for men and women doing comparable jobs, etc. If it is true no one is being discriminated against, then what's the beef? As for small business, and preference for minorities in government contracts, there should be. Anyone that says it's a level playing field without them, hasn't been paying attention, and is probably NOT a member of a minority (gee, I wonder why they'd hate that rule?)

As someone who was there and marched for the original I am ambivalent about this..

One of the 80's comics had a line... something like "woman today have lots of options, Business, Working Mom, Stay at home homemaker, corporate climber and more.... Men???? it's work or penitentary".

The terrible thing about the ERA movement for many men, even those that agree,... is that it can provide more OPTIONS not available to most men, certainly most straight single men.

And somehow that is fair..

Hmmmmnnnn.

I have no problem with women having equal rights, but does this ammendment hold women to the same physical standards as men?

I am really of two minds on the subject of the ERA. Firstly, I totally agree that a woman doing the SAME job as a man should receive the same pay as the man (adjusting for experience level, of course). Equal pay for "comparable" work is bull.

But, I also think that Feminism has gone too far. The fantasy that any one human can "have it all" is just that -- fantasy. I believe that a child needs both a male and a female in his/her life for more than just conception; we need both role models to become a "complete" human. We also need to reckognize that men and women are "wired" differently, and to build that into our social paradigm. Feminists also need to step back and realize that we women will never advance simply by causing men to retreat.

Chivalry is dead and women killed it.

I liked when a man held a door open, pulled out my chair, or carried heavy things for me. I am one of the physically weaker sex. Now men think that we're equal and should pull our own weight, especially the younger men. I don't want to work like a man. I think there are certain things we just can't do.

When I am on a date, I open doors and pull out chairs and all that good stuff. But at the office, if a women is carrying a crate of stuff, she's on her own. Chivalry is dead at the work place, and rightly so.

In Washington, D.C., women make 98 cents on the dollar to a man, and it's all downhill from there. That's reason enough right away. I grew up in the south and heard women all my life who were brainwashed by a church telling them they were less than men. An insurance company I was once insured with would not cover contraception but did cover Viagra. The ERA has about as much to do with opening doors as it does with putting the toilet seat down. And if the 14th amendment had worked the way it was supposed to, there would have been no need for the civil rights movement or the feminist movement. I don't know what I'm more weary with, women who have been told all their lives that the ERA is bad and that all feminists are extremists, or men, most often straight white ones, insisting that the rest of us really do have access to the benefits they reap every day -- now there's a fantasy for you.

Wow, Candace... good comment. I don't see discrimination where I work and there are a lot of women in high positions with big paychecks. Gender simply doesn't matter in the business world -- unless you are talking about sales, in which case females tend to have an advantage.

I must admit this article was emotionally wrenching for me to write. The battle I fought for maternity leave thirty years ago was much more lengthy and difficult than I alluded to. I lived in a small Iowa town and took a lot of verbal battering for asking for what a lot of women wanted, but were afraid to step up to the plate and ask for. I was a test case. It was mentally, emotionally and physically exhausting.

I am delighted my daughter gets maternity leave without a battle (men can also get maternity leave). However, when I realized how little we have actually progressed in thirty years I was again disheartened…..case in point, several of the comments posted here.

I sincerely hope that the only gender discrimination my granddaughters experience is what they read about in history books.

Thank you for all your comments…..especially those of you who are supportive.

No offense taken, Candace.

By the way Don H., didn't you tell me several articles ago that you were happily married? Does the "little woman" know you are out dating?

I applaud you men who are strong enough to open a door for a woman and still respect her strength of spirit.

You are incorrect. I am a single man.

If you want to know if discrimination--of all kinds-is alive and well just take a peek at the underwriting guidelines for the vast majority of insurance companies.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, men generally pay more for life insurance and women pay more for group health insurance [in part because of outdated and chauvinstic notions about who will get sick first, who will live longer, who goes to the doctor more often and who is to put it bluntly 'more important' i.e., the breadwinner. The 'breadwinner' has traditionally been white and male and company pricing guidelines and individual underwriters tend to design and price products accordingly. [Never mind that it's mom who more often than not goes home when the teacher calls and says Johnny is sick]

While different states may have different mandates and underwriting requirements and guidelines, income is often used as a rating criteria. It's very interesting to see a comprehensive list of employees broken out by gender, pay level, job title, age, etc. You'd be amazed at how many women with superior educations and superior performance ratings, and exactly the same job description and title actually get paid substantially less -- thousands of dollars less! Where it is prohibited to gather income or other stats, you be amazed at how easy it is to 'eyeball' the demographics of a given company and factor that into underwriting and determining premium. Ratio of males to females is also a consideration. Guess what, companies with a higher percentage or larger pool of high tech or highly educated employees can wind up paying higher premium because the end users are considered more "sophisticated" and more likely to actually use the plan. Long story short, companies don't always make rational decisions.

What takes up a big fat percentage of every household budget whether you pay or your employer pays or you pay and pay and pay because you don't have any health insurance at all. Of the 42 million who have no insurance at all, wonder how many of those are women who are the head of a household with children.

How many of you can walk up to your personnel manager and ask for a summary of paygrades, by gender and job description and get performance ratings and education stats thrown in. Water cooler gossip and the grape vine reveal a lot, but not all. [There are studies of gender and income which show that women are actually worse off than they were decades ago -- I don't recall who did them off the top of my head.]

Don H.

I think you've outdone yourself. I'm one of those women who got hired because "women have a better chance of getting their toes in the door." I did, get my toes in the door, had the most education, sold the most, salvaged accounts, got, awards, blah blah blah. Then I found out quite by accident that the guys [I was the only woman] all got a $1,000 a month more in base salary than I did. Well, I fixed their little red wagons and I didn't have to ruin my career by suing them either. [They wound up having to service all my ratty accounts -- time certainly is money.]

Not all inequities and injustices are resolved off the cuff. The 14th hasn't served eveyone equally -- history shows that. None of us should have to depend on the kindness of strangers and the medieval logic of George Will and others who think the middle of the bus is good enough and we'll all just be on the honor system.

If you believe women are equal human beings deserving of the same rights than why not sign the ERA? What can it hurt to be guaranteed that back room deals won't trump the 14th?

If everyone could be counted on to do the right thing in the first place then we don't need the constitution either. Bring on the wild west -- women can shoot. We'll just pretend we're in Baghdad making it up as we go along.

"If you believe women are equal human beings deserving of the same rights than why not sign the ERA"

It's redundant, as already stated.

As far as the base salary goes, that could have been negotiated and based on experience coming in the door. I don't know. I am sure it all worked itself out in the end.

Cherie,

Great article. I read George Will fairly regularly. It's funny--or maybe not--how he sounds so sane and rational on some subjects and then goes off on a love beads and bell bottomed trouser toot at liberals. Oh my.


Don, the words are what they are. How much context do you need? Do your own research.

"What mature person thinks the Constitution should be cluttered with consciousness-raising pieties or affirmations, on the theory that, by some mysterious causality, the social climate will be improved?"

"Cluttering up the constitution" indeed! So like silly immature women to want to improve the social climate."

I am a woman and I'm all for women's rights. BUT, I have so many friends who complain because their husbands don't put the toilet seat down and who go in and clean up urine when their husbands pee on the floor and don't clean up after themselves. I also have friends who get irritated if a man doesn't open a door for them or if a man expects them to pay for their own meal. I have known women who, when having a boss come onto them whines about sexual harrassment instead of kicking the guy in the nuts. And, I have friends who want to be able to miss work, school, and taking care of the house because "the curse is upon them." I truly don't believe we will ever be equal until women decide to be equal beings with me. We have to know that we have power to take care of ourselves. We have to open doors for men if we get their first, fix our own sinks, fix our own flats. If we give up our power and act like we can't do stuff because we are women, the world will never change. I think we start acting equal, we won't need the ERA. And, I think even if we have the ERA, it won't do a bit of good unless our attitudes change. A woman has to pump her own gas to be equal, not wait for a man to come do it. A woman has to stand up to a man who comes on to her sexually and let him know she's not going to stand for it. If we are going to have an ERA, does that mean we will do away with small business loans just for women? Sure, we should be paid equally, so demand it. Stop waiting for someone else to do it for you.

Then we should also have a special amendment for gay people. And I am sure I could come up with a list if push came to shove. The point being, all people are protected by the 14th amendment and many others such as the Equal Employment Opportunity law, the Equal Pay Act going back to 1963 (way before you got dolled up in love beads and bell-bottom trousers), and on and on. Redundancy.

Don,

And I say it isn't redundant! My situation had absolutely nothing to do with experience coming in the door. It had everthing to do with rank discrimination and it happens every day. I just happened to find out about it, and yes we resolved it, in part because there were in fact pending law suits of all kinds against the company.

Funny how we can tinker with the constitution in skewing checks and balances toward the executive branch, but not to assure the most basic rights of people in general, and women and minorities in particular.

Lauren,

Thanks for pointing out something we seem to easily forget. The old labels just don't fit nice and neatly. We're all having to decide what kind of hybrid we want to be.

Why do people keep hiding behind the 14th Amendment? If it worked so well we wouldn't be asking for an improvement, such as ERA.

Missy, I to have had to deal with wage discrimination. The first job I got out of college was a teaching job (the one mentioned in the article), and I was told when hired that men had a higher base pay because they were the bread winners. Nevermind that the single woman down the hall was raising 3 children by herself because her husband had run off and was not payinng any support. I would call that a bread winner. I was young and dumb, and it was a different time....or so I thought.
Until about 6 years ago when working for a company as the only woman sales person in the force....I was outperforming all the men (the old saying women work twice as hard to get paid half as much isn't far off) and like you when I found out the difference in their base pay and amount as well as other perks I was incensed. No reason other than i was a woman. I walked away and although the boss called and wanted me to come back, trust had been lost. I now work where the pay is transparent. I have no qualms about asking for raises.....however, I still want the ERA.
I still want to know why so many people are afraid of it? If it's so harmless, then pass it. I would be willing to bet that all the men that are spouting about everything being equal have never experienced such discrimination and would be the first to cry foul if they were....demanding the laws be changed!

This is a complex topic which on the surface seems so logical and simple it isn't even funny. In reading through the threads I see the 14th which I agree takes care of this. I am afflicted when it comes with "equal rights" for women...oh, I think we should have them, I don't think we should be discriminated as women, and as women I don't think we should be lambasted if we choose to stay home full time with our children and not work at all. I need to stress that as a survivor of SERIOUS criminal abuse, it is not my choice to be a single parent, and I know my choice to leave a relationship or marriage to avoid being beaten, having my children be beaten and bruised up, or to save my life was my choice, but what type of a freedom is that? To make matters worse, these types of fathers don't pay child support, so it is presumptous to say a single mother makes an actual "choice". What I see as a problem in society today, affecting the future of our country, is little care or concern for the needs of our children in the way of supporting them, emotionally, psychologically (HEALTH CARE, more specifically MENTAL HEALTH CARE) and financially (CHILD SUPPORT). The system is riddled with all kinds of rights to criminals who have a right to be served an order to go to court, criminals who are evading their responsibilities to their offspring by using bogus addresses and working under the table getting paid cash...all kinds of rights and respects there...it even is beginning to seem like a conspiracy. And not enough protection for women and children who are victims of abuse. With the right protection, safehouses, and a streamlined system, court rooms would not be so junked up and I am with Laura...when this country catches up with other countries in terms of needs for children, family values and togetherness, and begins to see the value of our children as our future, it will make more sense to me.

Right now I have a landlord who is NOT American...I am discriminated against on a 24-hour basis, "Why don't you have a husband? Where are their fathers? I need extra money for a security deposit. This is a lot of work for you to do alone. You son needs a role model. How are you going to pay your rent?" This is not to mention other comments such as "There are not many women like you who do all this work nowadays, who hang their clothing on the line, who cook like you do." It is extremely uncomfortable, not to mention that in his culture it is OK to move for a younger girl, and his comments about my daughter being so pretty and looking older than her age are SICK. This is called sexual harassment. But some might argue that because of his cultural background he is entitled to these behaviors, and that is because like I said above there are more rights for criminals than there are for victims of abuse. Has he ABUSED me? Well he's gotten into my face, physically blocked me from using the washing machine, locked me out of my storage areas, fuse box areas, and says this is "his property".

But here is the truth...nobody is going to uphold my rights but me. I have to go through a process in order to due this, as the fourteenth states.

And I agree with Bhumika...too many women are caught up in the consumerism in this country, pounding on the make up, making themselves nearly impossibly irresistable to men who are visual because we ARE wired differently and then cry "victim". And how many husbands are sinking in debt with their wives shopping sprees? I am not meaning to be an arse, but it is true....Americans are wasteful.

The main issues I see are health care and children....childrens' rights to be in a supportive environment...including a financially supportive one, without custodial parents needing to fear retaliation by their predators.

I have worked in the corporate world, and am beginning to see more men get leaves of absence to be home with the child, but let's face it, men don't have breasts that produce milk, women do. Also, if you understand the dynamic between fathers and babies you understand that most men don't generally bond with their children fully until about the age of two, or maybe earlier, around one...but as a natural rule I see fathers bond when the child can communicate more independently and is not so reliant on mother for food and nurturing, well anyway I will shut up now...!

And this is a perfect article...exactly the type I am looking for...to post to my group, Right Fight!

Cheri., Excellent article. Will rhythms with swill. George Will is right out of the cave of Patriarchal Repressive Authoritarianism. He knows no better nor has a better tailor. Great article and love the quote from Emerson. The United States has always been about the evolution of Social & Political Issues. Woman will have Equal Rights when women claim Equal Rights. I'm all for the ERA. Back then and now. Namaste

"What mature person thinks the Constitution should be cluttered with consciousness-raising pieties or affirmations, on the theory that, by some mysterious causality, the social climate will be improved?"

So I assume that people who agree with this, and are therefore opposed to the ERA, are also opposed to cluttering up the Constitution with an anti-gay marriage amendment. Right?

In my universe, mothers and fathers would stay home with their children until they were school age. Those first five years are critical and relagating our children to the stress of separation so mom and dad can chase the American dream is destroying our society.

"we resolved it, in part because there were in fact pending law suits of all kinds against the company"

Clearly, the laws are in place. Why do you not grasp that?

Devin, I would assume that in your universe, you have some incredibly rich person who is going to bankroll this?

Also, what does that have to do with the ERA?

Don H,

Clearly the discrimination exists. Why do you not grasp that?

Crime will always exist -- what's hard to grasp? That said, I'll revert to my former statement.

KitchenMage....If you know Don, it's hard for him to grasp anything that might help anyone out. Don lists to the right. However, he would open the door for a date but not someone at work. And women, if you are interested, he's not married yet! What a catch.

Whenever I drive past a highway construction site, it's always the men who are doing the heavy labor and the women who are holding the stop/slow signs. Once, I actually saw a female driving a large piece of machinery. But that was the only time I ever saw a woman doing more than holding up a sign. I use to work in a steel factory and there were plenty of jobs there that a woman couldn't physically do. And many that they could physically do, but didn't want to because they'd get dirty or break a nail.

Now in the corporate world, I think a woman can do anything a man can.

Some might think that I'm afraid of straining myself (Michael. M.) because of my earlier post. I've changed my own tires, changed my oil, worked in a steel mill, carried a big air conditioner downstairs from a second floor apartment, and done most things in my life without the help of a man. But, once in a while I would like to be treated like a woman. And now that I'm older and have wrecked my back from years of trying to do the things that men do, I would like for the younger and healthier men to do some of the heavier things at my work place.

BTW, since women want the ERA, does that mean that they should have to register for the draft? Do they also want to be on the front lines of battle in this war instead of in support units?

Just curious if females are willing to accept the negative aspects along with the positive.

I hold the door open for people at work. I never said I didn't. I would do that for anybody, anywhere.

I did say this: "When I am on a date, I open doors and pull out chairs and all that good stuff. But at the office, if a women is carrying a crate of stuff, she's on her own. Chivalry is dead at the work place, and rightly so." But, if she is close to the door I am entering, I will of course hold the door. I am no different from anyone I see at my office building.... don't be a dummy, Cheri.

The thing is, we have these work laws in place. Anybody with a job sees that Equal Opportunity Employer sign that is mandatory. And then there is the Equal Pay act from 1963. I just don't understand how more laws are going to prevent discrimination. I think you have to look at the trend... and the trend is good. The playing field is leveling.

Truth be told, I am a moderate.

No ERA but they try to pass anti flag burning and gay marriage amendments. Ain't America grand?

Don , now I understand you ,no one "loves" you????
Single , now that's hard to understand:-)

Women are already successful, many even more so than men.
Look at Oprah Winfrey, she's a billionaire. She has all sorts of revenue
streams like her book club. And she's a minority too.
If a women is married to a successful man, she shares in his success,
and many have their own careers besides.
Women are given special priviledges that men do not enjoy
like discount on drinks on Ladies Night.
Men shower them with attention and give them expensive gifts.
So, what is the problem here, ladies?

Don H: "When I am on a date, I open doors and pull out chairs and all that good stuff. But at the office, if a women is carrying a crate of stuff, she's on her own. Chivalry is dead at the work place, and rightly so." Doesn't sound like you open doors at work to me....read your own thread.

Don H: I don't appreciate being called a dummy. That is rude to a man or a woman. This is my site and if you are going to be that rude, you can leave.
If you want to continue to comment that's fine, but don't be calling me or anyone else names.

A bunch of straight white men saying the ERA would be redundant and equality under the law exists because of the 14th Amendment is like my saying I'm 5'10'' and the rest of you are 4'11'' and if you think you're having a problem reaching the top shelves it's all in your mind. The world is full of good men who can see this without being threatened by a woman who wants to be treated equally, but it's certainly a disappointment looking for them on this post. Similarly, I'm just thrilled we've been conned into spending so much time arguing about holding doors and pulling out chairs, which have nothing to do with feminism or the ERA and never will. It shows how well every person in power who opposes the amendment, from Phyllis Schlafly to Karl Rove, has brainwashed their faithful into swallowing their talking points whole. Have some more Kool-Aid!

Thanks for you comments Kris. After all these years, I still don't understand why straight white men are so afraid to put in the Constitution, in writing that we are equal in the eyes of the law with them. If they are so convinced that we have equal rights now, and they are living with it, then why not put it in the Constitution? Obviously they have concerns if they want to keep it out. It's very easy to say "you have equal rights' when you are not the one dealing with the discrimination. If you are going to talk the talk, then don't be afraid to walk the walk and allow the ERA.

Cheri, great article. I agree with you 100%.

Kris M., I notice a pattern in your posts. You refer to 'straight white men'.
I for one am sick to death of everyone bashing white men.
This is the reverse racism that is like a poison in our society.
White men are to blame for everything, all the atrocities, all the evils in the world.
Well let me educate you, Kris M., there are a lot more men in the world
who aren't white and who are doing evil.

If they had their way, they would tell you how to think, what religion to practice and who to marry.

You wouldn't ever go out into public without a man by your side.

I won't even go into what non-white men in other countries do to women who they feel have disrespected them.

So enjoy your freedom, stop blaming white males for everything and thank God you don't live in one of those other countries.

You are right Brian S., however, up until recently, our government has consisted of white men. That has changed, thankfully, but since our country was founded, white men ran the government. Therein lies the blaming of white men, I think.
And you are right in your assesment about treatment of women in other countries. Women in many countries are treated terribly. I am grateful every day that I live here, however, that does not stop me from wanting to solidify my rights. I am not obligated to feel shame or remorse because I live in a wonderful country.

This administration would like very much to be able to tell us who to marry and what religion to practice.

Wow! I left for a day and I come back and there is a ton of conversation here. Very cool. This is a subject that should be talked about and dealt with. It's been shelved for far too long. Kant said that it is always dangerous for progression when a society believes it has reached its pinnacle, because then they stop trying. I believe this is what happened with the ERA. Where would humanity be if we had thought we reached that pinnacle 1000 years ago? Exactly the same place today we were 1000 years ago.

How can we know that giving women equal rights is a bad thing unless we try it? If society collapses or we digress as a result of it then we know for sure it is a bad thing and we can revert back to the old way. But until then there is no reason to believe giving women equal rights would be a bad thing, and thus, for the sake of humanities progression we are obligated to try it.

Listen up, Brian S.: news flash. I live with a straight white male. We've been together 10 years. My father is a straight white male. So are about 30 other relatives of mine and God only knows how many friends and teachers, coworkers, and professors. Any education I need from any of them is provided; from your post I can say with absolute certainty that there is nothing you could possibly teach me that would be either useful or new. If it's worked in the past for you to attempt to bully somebody into backing down from their beliefs, perhaps you'd better stick to haranguing those people. As for this "reverse racism," well, the idea that pointing out a flaw in a government dominated by -- wait for it -- straight white males is any kind of racism tells me all about you that I'll ever need to know. Perhaps it'll be helpful, in future, to substitute your own name if I criticize another "straight white male." You'll work out jjust fine as a representative of the problem.

Kris M. I agree with you. Do not waste time being frustrated with people who are scared of women, change, or justice. Reason posits that giving women equal rights is the best thing for humanity and progression. Those that want to believe it isn't or those that are too brainwashed and stubborn to color outside the lines are not worth talking to or trying to explaining life to.

Well, Kris M., what would you call affirmative action but a form of
preferential treatment? You get preferential treatment in hiring
just because you're a woman. And you complain that you don't
have 'rights'.

bravo, cheri, for this excellent essay. we've come far, but still have so much more to go. my cousin had a baby in germany, while she was married to a german guy. i could NOT believe the benefits she got - and three YEARS paid leave. wow!! that's a great way to treat a new mom. i think that 3 months is inhumane. who wants to leave their tiny baby so soon?

Take your blinders off Brian, we DON'T get preferentail treatment because we are women! And we don't get equal pay. It's just empty words. Employers have all kinds of ways of getting around affirmative action, and until we have legal backing, we have no recourse.
It sure sounds good on paper, but in reality, it gives us no support.
Why are you so afraid of the ERA? How does it threaten you? If you are secure in who you are, it should be of no threat whatsoever. Are you afraid that after 200 years women might actually have some power? That's how long it's taken for us, as a country to get a women in political power in our government. I don't know about you, but I don't have 200 years to wait.
And if we pass ERA, you can't complain that we get preferential treatment, because then we will be on a level playing field. We both have legal recourse if we feel misaligned.
I like you Brian and your comments, but on this topic I must respectfully disagree.

Cheri, the world isn't fair, get used to it. I'm reminded of it every day
when I see companies bring in H1B Visa workers who I have to compete
with for the same technology jobs.

I also compete with younger workers as well. And the only special
preference I might have when it comes to hiring is that I'm a Veteran.

I don't have anything against women, really. I just hate people that
whine, complain about everything being unfair and expect the government
to fix it. That's the victim mentality.

Instead of whining, do something, take action, get empowered.

I'm not whining nor complaining, just stating facts. And I am empowered....I wrote this article. Actually, it sounds to me like you are the one whining.

I have two daughters. I agree with this article in its entirety.

Thanks, Joe.

Cheri, I think the central point of your article is quite valid, that most of the laws and policies on the books were written by men, many who are misinformed or biased against women issues. There are a lot of laws that need to be modified to reflect a more enlightened era about women (if we do indeed live in a more enlightened era).

You are right, Mario, thanks for "getting' it!

Brian, nice try. If you think women get preferential treatment in hiring for any job that's not at Hooters, you've never worked anywhere. Which would go a long way toward explaining your antiquated attitude toward anyone's rights except your own. "Democrats think the glass is half full; Republicans think the glass is theirs."

I'm not a Republican, Kris M. I'm an Independent Progressive.

It would be interesting if you could site any studies that prove women do not get
preferential treatment in any hiring decisions whatsoever, except, as you indicated, 'Hooters'.

It's easy to give an opinion, a lot harder to back it up with proof.

I just read a good article in today's Strib about the gender pay gap.

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1105420.html

What you think of the author's opinion, do you agree or disagree?

BTW, the author is a woman.

Brian there are plenty of studies that proove what Kris M. is saying, and they are not hard to find. I however am not going to do your homework, I have enough of my own homework to do at University. I get the feeling you don't want to look for fear of what you might find. I guess the cognitive dissonance theory was correct - it is simply safer to not change your beliefs (at least for those who are happy not to proress).

Sean, did you read what was in the link? Forget about studies, the woman who wrote it acknowledged that she wanted to get into a line of work that would offer her more freedom, and therefore, was willing to accept a lower wage for that freedom!

It's not all about money, but that's what this is about, isn't it? I think I'm a pretty open-minded person, if you can give evidence based on the preponderance of the facts, I might change my mind. But all I get is opinions and rhetoric. Useless!

Now I remember what I was going to say here! On April 3, Don H. said "When I am on a date, I open doors and pull out chairs and all that good stuff. But at the office, if a women is carrying a crate of stuff, she's on her own...." And on April 4th, Cheri misinterpreted him by saying about Don H.: "However, he would open the door for a date but not someone at work." Don H., on the same (calendar) date was quick to set the record straight by repeated his quote and explaining that he would open the door at work for a woman.

I am still a little concerned that Don H. might not help a female co-worker carry a crate and that he told Cheri not to be a dummy. Oh, I know we shouldn't really be talking about opening doors and carrying crates (good point, Kris M.), but we often look for a person's true feelings and intentions in the details of what they say and how they say it. In my mind, Don H. does not seem truly concerned about whether women have equality and points out that he feels the ERA would be redundant because of the existence of the 14th Amendment.

However, at http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm I see:

"Why do we need the ERA if we have the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny (strict scrutiny) that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA."

Personally, I feel some things are worth being redundant about. I did vote for the ERA and hope to again soon.

Excellent comments, Bruce. Thanks!

Some things are worth being redundant about, Bruce?

Then why don't we pass Voting Rights laws again?

Or, why don't we pass Affirmative Action again?

Being redundant is just that, redundant!