Conference turris::womannotes-v1

RE: .0

"[An ERA] that would guarantee men and women basic human rights..."

What benifits does the ERA give men?

What is the "Feminist Majority"???  A new Moral Majority?

"Feminization of power"?  

Such phrases make me wince...

""Of a commitment to the idea that some leaders are born women.""

I like the way that is worded. :-)

Jim.

 I remember and believe that it was the fear of the draft that stopped
ERA from passing.I thought it was going to pass when opponents pushed
back hard on the idea that women would also have to be eligible for the
draft. I personally do not believe that there should be a draft at all
but sense in time of war there often is ,I am curious about how women
feel about being drafted and trained for combat.I personally see this
issue as the major stumbling block to passing the ERA amendment.

               George D.
   

    My men go, I go.  
    
    If it's wrong, we're both wrong together, but my men shouldn't bear
    the brunt of wrongness while I wait safely at home.
    
    --bonnie

    There's a pretty long discussion of this is another note. I don't
    remember which one.
    
    I think to hang the last failure of ERA to pass simply on the draft
    issue is a simplification. Matter of fact, since polls have always
    shown popular support for ERA, I have my suspicions that good ol'
    fashioned lobby-style politiking had a great deal to do with it.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .2
    
    Nobody gets drafted.  Substantial decrease in the number of wars.....
    

    Re. 1 -< what benefits does the ERA give men? >-
    
    I asked my husband this question when I got home, so as to give
    you a male perspective Jim.  He listed as follows -
    
    o "It would benefit me knowing that my wife, daughters, mother,
       sisters, and female friends were protected equally under the
       law.
    
       Look at all we are missing out on if we leave out half the
       population.  Society as a whole would benefit by giving the
       other half equal protection under the law."
    
    
    o "Companies could no longer discriminate against men wanting personal
       leave for parental reasons."  (No longer the case at DEC which
       now has parental leave for bonding with new borns.)
    
    

 RE: 3 I really enjoyed your strait forward reply if they go I go.

 RE: 4 When it was coming down to the wire the draft and military
       argument was repeated in almost every debate.The argument
       was that it would be better to pass a law providing equal
       pay for equal work than to pass the amendment and force ALL
       women into new roles.I still feel that this issue needs to
       be resolved before ERA can win.

 RE: 5 The last time there was a draft there was no war only a police
       action.Perhaps an amendment to permit the draft only after a
       declaration of war would be a good idea.We could very possibly
       end up in a bad situation in central America.    

     It was my personal experience that many people who had supported
     the ERA stopped doing so when this issue was brought to their
     attention.I was(am) a supporter of ERA and I remember well a
     very large number of the people who changed their minds after
     this issue became the focus of debate.I may get flamed for this
     but the majority of people who I new that changed their minds 
     were women.Does anyone know of any current polls on support of
     ERA by men and women?I truly believe that most if not all of my
     male friends support it and less than half of my female friends 
     do.I truly fear that ERA is dead and that there may be a much
     larger than average amount of women in this file who are ahead
     of their time.

                      George D. 
     
      

    RE .0
    
    Parts of this conference were televised on C-SPAN.  The station
    was planning on rebroadcasting some segments.
    

    This may be too much to ask, but does someone have a copy of the
    wording of the amendment? 
    
    I've read and heard much about the ERA, but have yet to see the
    actual wording of it. 
    
    If it's too long, perhaps just type in the main sections? 
    
    
    WW

Note 188.1                     We need ERA NOW.                          1 of 36
ULTRA::GUGEL "Simplicity is Elegance"                13 lines   
5-FEB-1987 13:35
                       -< Complete text of the new ERA >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
Complete Text of the New Equal Rights Amendment

SECTION I:      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 II:     The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
                legislation, the provisions of this article.

SECTION III:    This article shall take effect two years after the date
                of ratification.
    

I feel that the ERA offers little or now protections or benifits for men. The
circumstances where the ERA could most benifit men, such as the Family and
Probate Court are above the law.

I find it odd that the ERA contains no list of problems it proposes to address
(but not limited to).  It seems to me, more likely to be a ignored NO-OP the way
it is.

Jim. 

    its power comes from its simplicity 
    

    I know this doesn't belong in here, but where else would I enter
    it?  Free associating from the comments about war and the draft
    reminded me of a tidbit from the news a day or so ago.  It seems
    that there have been several instances of Iraqi planes that seemed
    to be about to attack U.S. ships in the Gulf, and the explanation
    from the pentagon was that although the ships had tried to warn
    off the planes, "apparently the Iraqi pilots didn't have a very
    good command of English."  I love it.  Well, I something it. 

re: .1

Jim,  please bring up any problems you have with the wording or 
phrasing of the article with Kay Longcope of the Globe.  I just 
typed the article in...I didn't write it or edit it.

I typed it in because I thought there were several thought 
provoking ideas in it.  Apparently I was right.

re: ...ERA not providing men any rights ---  courts above the law 
???

>SECTION I:      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 ERA doesn't specify which sex cannot be descriminated against 
-- as there are only two, I would assume that both sexes are 
equally protected.

I have never heard of a court that was ABOVE the law.  I have 
always believe, although sometimes it's difficult to keep 
believing, that courts UPHOLD the law.  That is their function 
according to the constitution.  (Article III Section 2)

    Jim,
    
    After your loud insistence that we all should simply stop
    discriminating, and that women didn't deserve any special treatment,
    and that we should all just treat each other as we like to be treated,
    I find your questioning the ERA in exceedingly tasteless.
    
    After your minute criticisms of anything that even hinted at special
    treatment of women, for WHATEVER reason, after your persisistent
    insistance that every injustice done to women also applied equally to
    men, after your dogged demands that we all treat men here with the same
    sensitivity we do women, I find your questioning the ERA amazingly
    hypocritical. 
    
    After your pious preaching that we should all simply try to not offend
    each other, no matter WHAT sex, that we should be considerate of each
    other regardless of sex, I find your questioning the ERA absolutely
    incredible. 
    
                      READ THE TEXT. NOTE WHAT IT *SAYS*.
    
    Maybe I should meet you in soapbox, it's clear that trying to deal with
    you here is fruitless.
    
    	"I will have nothing to do with a man who can blow hot and cold
    	with the same breath."
    
    		Aesop [_Fables_, 'The Man and the Satyr']
    
    	-- Charles

I don't follow your logic as to why the ERA should be above questioning.

Jim.

    BRAVO CHARLES!
    

    Well said Brian!
    

 Jim,equal rights for women would be a gain for men and women.Try to
imagine the talented and brilliant women whose potential contributions
to medicine,science,and every other human endeavor was(is?) stifled by 
social restraints.If the ERA was passed it would be anything but ignored.
 Equal rights should be law.It is not that individuals are exactly equal
or even of the same sex.It is that all people are born with certain
inalienable rights because they are equal in nature, requiring certain
things to be able to lead a good life.


                         George D.

    That was spoken so well.  Thank you!

RE: .18

The manner in which the Family and Probate Court is above the Law, is that fact
that Equality, Justice, Fairness have nothing to do with the decisions of the
Court.  The Court's decisions are usually based on 'what's good for the ...'
The facts that men are traditionally *screwed* in such decisions is disregarded.

I wish that the ERA would address this.  I feel that it would take an explict
statement that 'yes, even though the Court has ignored the unconstitutionality/
discrimination of it's past decisions, yes this law *does* apply to the Court.'

I did not say that the ERA should contain the deliberation of itself, but a list
of the circumstance where it is supposed to be applied. 

RE: .20

I see your point that with twice as many people working, the work should be
twice as light...  But I am not assured that this necessarily follows.
Historically then life has become easier, the result has not been an easier
life, but rather increased expectations. 

*Women* are expecting more from men, heaping even more work on men, even
though there are in theory more people working.

The last time I spoke with a woman on the topic of supporting a man who stayed
home, she said, "I would *never* allow someone to take advantage of me like
that!" 

Get the picture?

If men continue to have to labor under the same problems heaped upon them by
society, we may have to see a men's movement, complete with seperatism, towards
the end of the century. 

Jim.

    Can we keep in mind that the Constitution is a political document
    dealing with political structures, while such matters as gender-based
    roles, family structure and rupture, and who works were are social
    issues?
    
    Passing an amendment to the constitution does not guarantee anybody
    jobs or easy admission to a non-traditional career (and this applies
    as much to male nurses as to female engineers).  We still have to
    go out and fight for those one at a time, individually, until the
    weight of individuals forces change.
    
    While political structures arise from and reflect social conditions,
    and the political structure is one aspect of the social climate,
    the two are not identical.

    Most women have fairly equal political rights.  A lot of us voted
    yesterday and there wasn't anything to stop those of us who wanted to
    run from being on the ballot.  If we'd had our $1000, we could have
    been there.  Social factors, not political rights, were why not one of
    25 presidential candidates on the New Hampshire ballot was a woman. 
    
    A political document is of limited use as an instrument of social
    change.  Until the social climate accepts the idea that women are 
    fully equal -- equally responsible as well as equally endowed with 
    rights -- we aren't likely to see a political document state that 
    women are equal.

    An equal rights amendment is a fine goal, but at the moment our
    energy might be better spent trying to change the society that makes
    such an amendment necessary.  
    
    --bonnie

    In this weeks Time Magazine there was a little article in the political
    section that shows just how much we need the ERA.  It seems one of the
    congressman of Arizona visited his sons junior highschool last fall. He
    decided to give them a civics lesson by stating that if they could find
    anything "unfair" with the States constitution he would try to do
    something to change it.  Well low and behold - guess what they found.
    Paraphrased as best as possible "Only male persons are allowed to hold
    positions of govenor, congresman, treasurer etc".  Well they reported
    this to the states congress the day after Govenor Meecham was impeached
    and his lieutenant govenor, a woman, became acting govenor. A big oops.
    They voted immediately on a bill to change it.  If it passes in the
    house as well as the senate, then they will put it on the ballot next
    fall so that the general populus may vote on whether or not to change
    their constitution. The state government wants to change it as soon as
    possible before some one decides to use it politically against the
    current acting govenor. 

    ERA would change this - there would not have to be a vote by the state
    of Arizona to change it - it would be deemed unconstitutional by
    Federal Law. 
    

    re .22
    
    My mother worked to put my father through college.
    
    I supplemented substantially the diet and income of a manfriend
    when we were students.
    
    Despite the fact that I have had three major breakups instigated
    by the other parties, when they finally topped my salary although
    I doubt it's quite so directly related, I've never
    considered that I was being taken advantage of: when it's needed
    I give, when it's not I don't.  I work hard to have the luck to
    be able to pay my own way; but despite the fact that I'm always
    asserting my independence here, I'm not so loudmouthed about my
    advantages in private life.
    
    So ask friends dear for the words you want to hear.  
    But read our notes for those they miss, or at least find somewhere else 
    to p___.

    re: .24 --
    
    That's not how constitutional law works.  A law isn't automatically
    removed from the books when a new amendment is passed or a court ruling
    changes constitutional interpretation.  You frequently have to prove
    that a particular instance of a law is covered by a particular ruling. 
    
    First a woman would have to wish to hold one of those offices, and then
    be denied the office on account of the law.  (No standing otherwise,
    unless class action were allowed.  That's a separate procedure. Then
    you'd have to establish that women as a group were being hurt by the
    law.) 
    
    Then she would have to sue.
    
    Then a court could rule the law unconstitutional.
    
    Generally in a situtation where the constitution or the interpretation
    thereof has changed, attorneys general all over the country will
    review state constitutions and state laws to find out if they are
    in compliance and propose changes to make them compliant before
    they are brought to court, especially in criminal cases.  Otherwise
    they risk having to re-try all cases under that law.  In civil cases,
    except for high-profile decisions, they often don't even find out
    about it until somebody does sue.
    
    I was in a group that was affected when a portion of an obscure
    Montana law was apparently overturned by a Supreme Court decision
    in (1976?? my, how quickly they forget) and we had to go through
    the whole procedure.  The case was finally decided by a Circuit
    Court of Appeals in 1986, almost ten years after I left the state.
    (The law is unconstitutional, by the way.)
    
    It's a mistake to see a constitutional amendment as a panacea.
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s.  Notice also that the ERA *wasn't* needed in this case; the law is
    being repealed without it.    

"An equal rights amendment is a fine goal, but at the moment our energy might be
better spent trying to change the society that makes such an amendment
necessary." .23

Perhaps this is the reason for the lack of support for ERA?

Jim.

    This may be a rathole but - I never said it was automatic!
    I don't know the actual process but discriminatory (especially as
    blatant as this one) laws would eventually be changed in the state
    constitutions, we wouldn't have to wait for the Junior High students
    to finish their civics lessons.

 I am still very interested in knowing the current statistics of
women and men who want the ERA.It has been my experience that more
men I know support the ERA than women.

                      George D.    

    it would be counterproductive for an ammendment like the ERA to
    enumerate the exact situations in which it is to be applied. It none
    are listed, it is subject to interpretation and adaptation to society
    as it changes; if there is an enumeration, the implication is that
    those are the only situations in which to apply the law. That's a bad
    idea -- one of the constitution's strong points is ability to adapt to
    our changing society.

    					-- hs

OK, I'll bite.

Jim,

Who said that there was a lack of support for the ERA?  I would 
have thought that the activity in this file alone would have 
illustrated just how much interest...and support there is for a 
constitutional amendment that would ban discrimination on the 
basis of sex.  (Please read carefully!  It DOES NOT state WHICH 
SEX.)

My husband and I have been married for 14 years.  At no point 
would we have looked at our financial arrangements as having one 
person support the other.  It may surprise you to discover that 
my overriding goal is to be able to bring in at least 90% of what 
our family needs to maintain it's desired lifestyle.  At the 
moment, I bring in about 50%.  My mother has a career, and 
although my grandmother was a homemaker, she also picked tobacco 
and ran a boarding house to bring income into the family.  My 
great-grandmother helped run the family farm and brought up 12 
children when she was widowed in her late 30's -- still running 
the farm.  These are *my* role-models.

All I can say, Jim, is that some of your experiences have skewed 
your vision of the world.  I'm not saying they aren't valid, but 
they certainly are not universal.

When you are busy telling us not to generalize, please be 
careful you don't commit the same sin.

Roxanne

    re. 27 and 29...I thought passage of the ERA would save governments
    [local, state and federal] time and money.  I can see where an
    "automatic" concept might be interpreted.
    
    Judges review cases to determine the legality of the case.  
    If a judge feels that there is evidence for a court hearing, then
    the case is assigned a date.  If the judge feels that there is no
    evidence to support a case hearing, then the case is handled
    accordingly.  The case may be ruled on by the judge or it may be
    dropped by the judge.
    
    Now, if there is an ERA amendement, then words like the ones that
    appeared in the Arizona constitution would have been found in
    contradiction to the federal law and therefore, would have qualified
    for an "automatic" ruling by the judge.
    
    Time and money is saved when the judge can make a "legal decision"
    without the case appearing before the courts.
                         
    
    

RE: .32

I don't know who said that there was a lack of support for ERA, as the note
I was replying to .23 has been deleted...

Your role models sound very good.  Unfortunately they are not universal.
I'm not trying to argue with them.

I have not said that my experiences are universal, but why should I complain
about things which are not my experience, or my experiences which I have no
causes to complain about?

I'm not sure where I've over generalized, but most likely I have as much as
anyone else... 

Jim.