Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Steve,
    
    Great topic.  Would you mind if I posted your base note in Womennotes? 
    I think the contrast in the discussions might prove enlighting.  This
    certainly ws the case for the "White Ribbon" note.
    
    Thanks,
    Greg (mostly RON)
    

    but no fair peeking!!!
    
    				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				

No, I don't mind, though I really don't think the question is appropriate
there.  But if you think it is, feel free.

				Steve

    I suppose that restriction on women in combat would be removed. Fewer
    men would die. More women would die. With luck, we would be less
    disposed toward war and total fatalities would fall (let's acknowledge
    that sometimes U.S. participation in war hasn't been fully voluntary --
    what anniversary is happening in three days?).
    
    It might be illegal to use gender as a basis for insurance charges. Men
    would pay far less for auto insurance during their early years, and
    pay less for life insurance, but would receive less from annuities.
    
    The ERA could imply that gender-based affirmative action is illegal.
    Does anyone know? At the present, men would benefit from the end of
    affirmative action, if you define men's advantage in access to good
    paying jobs an benefit. Some of us who want to be home-makers would
    see NO benefit in the end of affirmative action for women.
    
    This might be "family law", Steve, but it's not divorce and child
    custody, so I'll mention it anyway. The ERA would almost certainly
    require symetric treatment of the genders with respect to new child
    related benefits, e.g. parental leave, child care subsidies, etc. This
    would be a big win for men, IMO.
    
    - Hoyt 

    Family law has or had been changed in the 70's. But because of its
    interp by judges we are still at square #1.

    fyi....
    
		The Equal Rights Amendment
			complete text


Section 1.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.

Section 3.
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
    

    just an ancillary observation.

    Nobody can be against such a simple law on its face.
    Of course equal rights should not be denied anybody because of sex!

    It's the (real or apparent) implications of the law that cause so much
    problem.

    It's the (real or apparent) implications of the law that break an awful
    lot of deeply ingrained traditions, and strike at the very heart of
    some strongly held societal values.
    relationships.

    I am wondering whether 
    
    'right' is somehow getting mixed up with 'responsibility'
    
    As an example, it has always been my view (one that I believe is the
    dominant view in our culture) that men have had a societal
    responsibility to be available to serve in the armed forces.
    
    I would consider the more or less corresponding societal responsibility
    for women to be that of bearing our children, and being the primary
    nurturer/caregiver through the early years (also a view that I believe
    is the dominant view in our culture) 
    
    Just as women MUST have the _right_ to participate in the armed forces
    (albeit not in all capacities currently but that is changing),
    so too MUST men have the _right_ to be the primary nurturer/caretaker in a
    family, albeit not the birth person.
    
    I'm not absolutely sure the analogy works or the argument is symmetric
    so don't go too hard against that.
    
    However, on the matter of rights vs responsibilities is there something
    there worth thinking about?

    I'm not finding the word "responsibility" especially illuminating. You
    cite men in the military and women at home as dominant in our society,
    and I think you're correct. The ERA is about dominant patterns, i.e.
    the traditional way, i.e. the way where gender determines our role,
    i.e. the dominant sexism of our society... should not be lawful. The
    "responsibility" part of it is that we allow ourselves to be assigned
    these roles because we've been taught that it is the good/honorable/etc
    thing to do. "Helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, brave, loyal,
    generous, responsible, etc." (I was never much of a scout!). So the
    _responsible_ thing for me to do is to heed my nation's call and get my
    legs blown off by a land mine, for example.

    If in a court of law, when your accuser is/has preference of gender.
    And is hidden from the viewers, unlike the accused. Says to me that
    there isn't going to be much of any chance to see fairness. Hence,
    another hollow jesture of justice for men as the burden more.

    <The ERA is about dominant patterns, i.e. the traditional way, i.e. the
    <way where gender determines our role, i.e. the dominant sexism of our
    <society... should not be lawful.
    
    I realize that many people feel that absence of the ERA allows the
    "dominant sexism of our society to prevail"
    Before agreeing with that, I would need several examples of dominant
    sexism and how they would be specifically changed by adoption of the
    ERA.
    They would also serve as good examples of how mens lives would be
    changed by adoption of the ERA.

    Well, to use one example that has been mentioned several times
    in this conference...

    In family court, the dominant sexism in our society allows the
    placement of children with the mother in most divorce cases,
    according to what I've heard in here.

    Now, I do not know if this bias is codified in law or if it is
    the result of a traditionally minded judiciary, but would not the
    ERA force the courts to consider parental rights based solely on
    merit rather than preconceived notions about gender?

    /Greg

    <now I do not know if this bias is codified in law>
    
    nor do i, i think it isn't
    I think it's a 'reflection of the community" rather than a
    codification.
    My sense is that many 'judicial preceedings' are based on unwritten
    common law/precedent/stare decisis/<whatever> in the English tradition.
    The French experience starting with the Napoleanic Code,as well as the
    Roman & Judaic experiences are much different of course. 
    I wonder whether that history makes the issue more complicated for us
    than the typical continental experience?

    re .12
    
    I have found that most of the gender bias in "faimily law" is in the
    judiciary.  Judges who cling to the "sugar and spice and evertying
    nice" dogma and lawyers who will not do anything that may aggervate
    the judge ( after all they have to go before the judge again ).  Laws
    state that the child should go to "whoever is the best for the child,
    but in civil law there is a lot left to "the disgression of the
    court".  Judges are very reluctant to give custody of anyone who
    *may* be a wife or child abuser, and we all know who that is. 
    *Accusation* of physical or sexual abuse has become the trump card in
    "family law".
    
    That that is not in the court is in the "human services" "child
    support" (note quotes) collection.  State legislatures and now the 
    fedral government are going hot and heavy to collect from the 
    "deadbeat dads" and track "parental kidnappers" whereas next to nothing 
    is done to protect the rights of the *children* and the "non-custodial" 
    parent to maintain any kind of relationship.  One affects the tax 
    coffers and welfare roles whereas the other is no skin off their nose.  
    
    This is the main reason that I have been a big supporter of ERA for
    quite some time.
    
    fred();

The thing about a constiutional amendment is that it gives you the basis
for challenging any judicial decision, not just a law.  So you could challenge
a custody award you felt to be due to sexual bias as unconstitutional, should
the ERA pass.  At the moment, you have no grounds whatsoever except in states
which have passed their own version of the ERA (some have).

The ERA would certainly force a lot of re-thinking of "traditionally held
beliefs".  I think that would be for the better, though it would be 
uncomfortable for many.  The biggest problem is that the artificial
distinctions made between men and women have been around for so long, many
people think that they're "natural".  (Such as "women are better nurturers
than men.")  I see the ERA fostering an increase in the quality of life for
both men and women in the US, as the artificial barriers are lowered.

				Steve

    <so you could challenge a custody award you felt to be due to sexual
    <bias
    
    Are you saying that community practices that get institutionalized as
    preferential consideration to mothers, would definitely be
    unconstitutional according to the (putative) ERA?
    
    

    The legal landscape of the 50s (Brown vs Board of Education?), & 60s
    and 70s was painted by very different muralists than now occupy the
    supreme court.

    And the most litigious society in the world, would become that much
    more so.

    Your remarks about litigation, Herb, suggest to me that the ERA could
    intensify the conflict between men-as-a-group and women-as-a-group, as
    it raises with new legal clout issues like affirmative action, family
    law, etc

    could intensify the conflict
    
    yup
    
    even if it ends up NOT giving new legal clut to things like affirmative
    action, family law etc

    
    
    I honestly fail to see how it would change family law in any manner.
    
    The laws are not written in the text that mother shall get custody
    vs father shall get custody.  Rather it is the judges interpretation
    and family experiences that define who gets custody.  
    
    I think the only thing that will change family law is when the judges
    themselves who are making the decisions were once victims of divorce.
    For it is just these people who will be the best ones to really know
    the results of their decisions on the lives of the children who
    will be affected because they lived through it.

    Would rape shield laws become Unconstitutional?

    What are "rape shield laws"?

    They are laws that prevent the name of the rape victum from being
    published in the paper or on TV.  The point is that the accused
    (assuming it is a man) is usually named as there is no shield law for
    him.
    
    Steve

    thnx
    
    
    			herb

    Not only was is it used in the William Kennedy Smith Vs whats her name,
    it was used in the 'Big Dan Rape Case'. It goes agianst the
    constutional posture of being able to face your accused. But it seems
    that again, only one side really bennies from it. And thats not the
    mens side....

    I've been trying to worry around in my head whether protection for kids
    who are accusing sexual abuse is an appropriate analogy. And if so
    which part is the protection analogy
    
    		the sexual_abuse part
    		the protection_of_a_minor part
    
    
    i _think_ the anonymity of such kids is protected.
    
    Also wondering whether the protection has evolved from the cultural
    perspective that women 'and' kids need protection, as in "abandon ship,
    women and children first"
    

    But there is no children here. Its two adults. In both cases, one man,
    one woman. Unless the woman, whats her name, is a mother? Hence
    protection for her for the child. But I have seen whats_her_name in
    some other publications with alittle more than just a smile on. 

    ....funny.... everyone knows, now, William Kennedy Smith. But who is
    whats_her_name?

In the Smith case, he absolutely is able to face his accuser, and he certainly
knows her name.  I'm not sure there really are shield laws for adult rape;
there are various local ordinances against press disclosure of alleged rape
victim's names, and indeed a Florida tabloid was charged with violating
that state's laws.  But I'm not aware of anything more widespread than that.

It's just been a "gentlemen's agreement" amongst the media that they would
not reveal the name or picture of alleged rape victims.  But this agreement
has been violated many times; I know the name of the Smith case alleged victim 
from reading it in the New York Times, and I think they even printed her picture,
though I am less sure of that.

The only "shield laws" I am aware of deal with the press being able to protect
their sources, and this itself is fragile.

I don't see the ERA entering into this unless a male alleged victim was not
afforded the same protections as a female in the same situation.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    	To take the guess work out of all of this. Why not tell us what is
    gonna do for us. As in what really is to it besides what its not.

Re: .32

"Billy" isn't the alleged victim.

Re: .33

I've already said quite a bit about what I think the ERA will do for men.

				Steve

    The ERA would really put sexual identities on the agenda. It's an
    important historical fact, that the U.S. Constitution has been amended
    to outlaw slavery, or extend the franchise to women, and so on. The ERA
    as part of the foundation of our nation's laws would say "Gender roles
    are very important and inequality is unlawful, dammit!"
    
    A benefit for men might be a greater awareness of male gender roles,
    esp. their negative aspects. The ERA would be a great achievement for
    feminism, but it might serve men to great benefit by getting us
    enthused about menism.

 I'm damm sure I don't know what the ERA will do for men and I think
the reason is simply because it cannot be described
in valid terms, that is every definition turns to tree hugging around
woman being treated not as an "equals to men", call it rights if you want
but the only rights we have are those that we assert.
 But as "equal rights" go, one cannot wrap women's rights around the same 
tattered flag pole as the rights of other minorities because the way women 
have been historically treated is in not the same as other minorities. In 
many cases women have been treated better! Call it reverse discrimination 
type activities, such as family law, or even put on a pedestal by many 
cultures within this country.
 Therefore whether its there or not is moot because it will merely become
a small stick for women's causes and further damage the gap between the
sexes. For example women will, still maintain the "nurturing mommy trek"
role, this is not something they can just opt out of, therefore the sex 
bias in divorce cases will only be worded different. "women are more 
nurturing" will be become "having carried this baby for nine months the 
or three weeks of maternity leave an now child has a closer bond to this 
woman".
 Alas ,women on the other hand will fair far worse as the welfare systems 
are always looking to blame their financial mismanagements on a large 
groups ( currently deadbeat dads), will now have a new group to attack.
They will find other losses as well in the job market and any other
area domineered by men. As in the way many industries use the same tactics
with blacks and other minorities to oppress, that are just that much
harder to see, deal with or fight in law. 
 If you don't understand my point just look at the minorities within any 
major city and see if the civil rights fought so hard for in blood are
giving these people even so much as a single toe hold of freedom from
despair and hopelessness. I think not.....




 
 

    
    
    re .4 
    I don't think that Insurance rates would be affected at all since I
    don't believe that insurance companies have to follow any "equal
    rights" laws at all. They base everything on (BOGUS) statistics that
    say that women are involved in fewer accidents than men, and that
    women drive slower than men (BOGUS)....
    so don't look for ERA to make any changes around the discriminations
    practiced by (THOSE CRIMINAL) insurance companies.
    
    cat

    Insurance companies base their rates on actuarial tables, not on their
    general impressions (based on personal experiences) about men and women
    drivers.

    However, if pressed, I'm sure Insurance companies would be more than
    delighted to raise women's policy rates to match those of men (if we
    twisted their arms long enough.)  

    	Insurance companies are only interested in getting the statistics
    right so they have a competitive advantage.
    
    	If I know that male black schoolteachers living in Colorado have a
    particular statistical risk, and I can exclude any higher risk
    categories from that insurance policy, then I can offer the best market
    rate to that group, get all the customers that fall into that group,
    and make a lot of money.
    
    	Whether you *can* make the distinction is important. It may be
    statistically provable that Republicans have a lower accident rate than
    Democrats, but if you try to use this then (on insurance application
    forms) everyone is a Republican. It may be statistically provable that
    blacks have a lower accident rate than whites, but I suspect that a
    U.S. insurance company might have problems if they tried to use that
    statistical information. It is fairly difficult to lie about
    your sex and it is not illegal currently to use that information. There
    is also the problem that if you use too many factors it becomes
    unmanageable - confusing your salesmen with too many options in the
    catalogue.
    
    	Insurance companies will use any statistical variation that they
    can to make a better profit. If they are no longer permitted to use sex
    as a factor in their calculations it will just mean that those
    companies that are currently using that statistical difference to gain
    a competitive advantage will have to look for something else.
    
    	If you look at my present insurance, the factors include
    1) Over 25 (positive point)
    2) Living on C�te d'Azur (negative point - highest risk area in France)
    3) Car is French manufacture (positive point - probably means lower
    repair costs)
    4) Diesel engine (positive point - poor acceleration means it doesn't
    appeal to joy-riders)
    
    If it doesn't happen to include my sex, race, political affiliation and
    collar size in shirts that just means the insurance company doesn't
    think it can make a profit by including those factors.

    
    do they really steal French cars? isn't that rather like 
    stealing say, a Skoda or a Trabant?

    	No, it is not quite the same thing.
    
    	If you are talking about technology in manufacture, then France
    ranks second in the use of robots (after Japan, but before U.S.). If
    you are talking about value for money, then in the past 30 years I have
    bought a number of cars, but only three new ones. All three of the new
    ones have been French. I can assure you that I didn't choose for
    nationalistic reasons (I am British). Also I am quite capable of
    reading technical specifications, consumer reports, price lists, and
    forming my own opinion on a test drive, and since I can't stand
    television I am probably not significantly swayed by most of the
    advertising.
    
    	Not that this has anything to do with the main topic, but then your
    comment didn't either.
    
    	Actually, the most stolen cars here in percentage come from a small
    Italian company. Over 50% of those imported into France have been
    stolen, some of them several times. In terms of numbers it is probably
    the Volkswagen Golf (Rabbit in the U.S.) convertible. With the open
    top, good acceleration, and a top speed of about 120 m.p.h. it appeals
    to joy riders.

    .34 Steve,
    
    	Why not list them. Make it centerally located. 
    
    
    George

    .34 Steve,
    
    	Billy will be a victum if he is aquitted. So will Ted Kennedy if
    Billy is aquitted. Both are victums of the media, and the courts wish
    to air their laundry, and not the laundry of whats-her-face. What is
    the game of being able to view the accused? Why is she being shielded?
    Another fair blow to equal justice?
    
    	Ms. Hill is making money right now as she lectures to the lands of
    this country. She is making money from her attack of Mr. C. Tomas. 
    
    There are many other women who make their claim to fame and
    fortune. We see them bare all in mags like Playboy, Penthouse, and
    such. Its quite a game. I am shure we will see
    whats-her-name/whats-her-face there too. Bare it in the smut they wish
    to stamp out. I am confused? Why would a woman womans movement want to
    stop out smut like Playboy? Where they get their political revenge,
    they get to make money off the men they set up? How about the latest
    lady of fortune? She had sex with the man who was married to the
    daughter of LBJ? Oh, yes, you can see whats_her_face on page 57 of the
    January edition of Playboy too. Get a life.... 

    Re .36 - alleging that minorities in major cities indicate that the
             civil rights movement didn't accomplish anything.
    
    The inner city is so sad, in part, because the blacks who made it moved
    to the suburbs. They found opportunities, thanks to their talents and
    the civil rights movement. They turned those opportunities into a
    better place to raise their children, in communities newly receptive to
    their arrival because of the civil rights movement. Perversely, this
    has worsened the situation for those left behind, as the role models
    and sources of capital have left town.

    	I think the reason for showing a rapee's picture, is that she is
    considered a victim not an accusor. Rape is the rare crime that a man
    is guilty until proven innocent and the word of another is enough to
    cause condemnation and scorn for a hideous crime that he may or may not
    have committed. 
    	I'm a believer that an accusor should have to face the same that
    the accused is required to face. 
    	A close friend of mine spent their entire life savings to pay for
    legal services over a two year period to keep their 18 year old son
    from the clutches of the law. He was accused of rape of a 16 year old
    girl. She had gone to a concert, thumbed a ride, he picked her up with
    a friend of hers. Gave the other girl a ride to her door. She was
    smoking dope and told him to pull over and she'd "pay" him for the
    ride. When he ejaculated in her she panicked and screamed. He couldn't
    calm her down and he panicked and drove off.....with most of her
    clothes in the car. Two years later she admitted to what had really
    happened and he was exhonerated. The problem is that he still has a
    criminal record of being accused of rape, even though the charges were
    dropped and his parents, hard working hourly employed, are out $50,000
    for his defense. He can't even sue her for false accusation or slander
    because she was a minor and her mother and father were divorced and
    they have nothing that can cover the expenses.
    	It's always said that the exposure of the women in rape cases makes
    them afraid to come forward because they are seemingly placed on trial.
    What the system is based on is that no one is guilty until proven so,
    thus the burden of proof should be on the accusor. The problem again
    arises that the woman should not be on trial for her past, her dress,
    her activity. Rape is not sexual in and of itself, it is a power act.
    It is an act of dominance over a victim.
    	
    Ken

    
      When I first read the wording of the ERA amendment, the first 
    thought that came to mind was....
    
     " What's all the fuss about?....Nothing threatening there....simple
    straight-forward, fair amendment..."
    
     I think there's a copy of it somewhere in Womennotes...
    
    Jack
    p/s....no time to read all the replies...so sorry if this was 
    posibly mentioned already....
    

    .40
    I would rather steal a late model Vega than something like that!:) That
    is if there are any Vega's around.....:)

    in re .47
    
    Not in the current (v4) issue.
    
    BJ

    MENNOTES
    692.6

    This is probably off-topic, but what the heck.
    
    You must have observed the phenomenon at the symphony intermission or
    the football game halftime where the line to the men's room has a guy
    or three, and the line to the women's room has about forty women
    waiting patiently. This raises the interesting question of whether
    "equal" is defined as "equal number of porcelain facilities" or as
    "equal waiting time." If the latter is required, then equality calls
    for a toilet affirmative action program in which bathroom facilities are
    shifted from male use to female use until waiting times are the same. A
    member of some state legislature, a male from Tennessee I believe,
    actually proposed such a program a few years ago.
    
    I'm not sure what impact the ERA would have on this (sometimes) urgent
    issue.
    
    - Hoyt
    
    - Hoyt

    Probably havta go to uni-sex latrines with bowls only and heavy fines
    for leaving the lid down if you go standing up, if you get my drift.
    
    					:^)  - Vick

In womannotes-v4, the ERA is entered in the introductory policy string,
in note 1.9.

DougO

    .45
    
    Another guilty till proven innocent is child abuse. Either sexually or
    physically. Many divorces start off with that to get an upper hand in
    the games. Once you have been branished with that mark, even though
    your not guilty of such heinous crimes, it is held upon you by opposing
    councle till you take it to you grave with. You can only imagine the
    pain it causes to see your children with supervised visitation, that
    is if your lucky to see them ever again.