Conference turris::womannotes-v2

	I'm surprised too.  Before =maggie's (?) posting, I didn't know 
	what the ERA was asking for.

	Now that I do, I can't help but say, "that's it?!"  That's what 
	the fuss is about?  I don't understand why it didn't pass.  Can
	someone give us some history, please?

	Carla

Yeah, that was my response too.  "Wow, that's it?  What's the big deal, it's
so *obvious*."  The way people talk about it, you would think that it
specifically prohibits people from discriminating against potential mates
on the basis of sex, or advocates castration!

One argument I have heard is that passing it would require women to be
allowed in combat, since the military is part of the government, and to
do otherwise would constitute denying someone an opportunity based on
sex.

D!

The real problem, as I understand it, was the mandating of unisex bathrooms.

    I'm not going to defend this position, merely reporting one reason
    why one woman was opposed to the ERA.
    
    My mother was opposed to it -- still is, as far as I know --
    because she thinks women in this country have a privileged
    position and she doesn't want to lose her advantages and have to
    support herself.  
    
    She felt that it would ultimately more or less require all women
    to contribute equally to the family income and would cause every
    transaction between men and women to be reduced to a mercenary
    "You got more than I did last week."
    
    She and millions of women like her had never been trained in a
    wage-earning skill.  They had been taught all the rules about
    being a good woman and getting a good man, and they had lived
    their lives according to those rules, and for those who didn't get
    dumped for a younger woman, the system had more or less worked.  I
    think she felt the ERA was reneging on the social contract she had
    bought into, changing the rules under her and leaving her in a
    game she didn't have the skills to play.
    
    As usual, the poor women who are already at the bottom of the heap
    are the ones who would pay -- they don't have the skills to
    compete equally with men.  They still don't.  Thrusting them
    unprotected into nominal equality isn't the solution.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Nancy,
    when...hmmm, I was marching in '77, but I'm sure it started
    long before then.  Dates anyone?
    
    reasons for not passing.  Well, that's anybody's guess.  Fear?
    Power hoarding?  ???
    
    some of the more 'emotional' reasons have been stated here.
    I called them the 'Phyllis Schaffley (sp?)' reasons:
    unisex bathrooms would be the result,
    women would have to go to war
    women would have to work...no more housewives
    children would be raised by daycare
    men would be layed off from their jobs,
    homosexuality would prevail,
    and on and on and on....
    
    some of the more 'legal' issues:
    HOW would it be enforced?
    by whom?  who would pay for it?  
    how much would it cost to enforce...would it be worth it?
    etc.
    
    and in general...'men=all human beings' therefore the
    constitution already guarantees these rights.
    
    any help?.
    
    deb
    

    I think it boiled down to two inter-related reasons. First, as .5
    suggests well, the extreme simplicity of the actual amendment left if
    open to all sorts of interpretations - sometimes wild imaginings -
    about possible consequences. And opposition groups were willing to cite
    all of these as actual threats. This naturally tends to stir up
    uncertainty and anxiety among the uncommitted, let alone the sizable
    group of both men and women already concerned about perceived loss of
    their respective perceived privileges under the older order.
    
    What made this a sufficient impediment (though not by much) was that
    the amendment needed to be approved by two thirds of the state
    legislatures, and they are rarely on the cutting edge of social change.
    They are in fact generally sensitive to voters, and in enough states,
    the antis were a lot more a lot more vocal than the pros (whoever was
    actually in the majority). Amending the Constitution was SUPPOSED to 
    be hard, whether or not one likes the outcome in this case.
    
    	- Bruce

    
    i would suggest, dear friends, that the era is, in fact, one of
    the most iconoclastic ammendments ever proposed. the fact that
    it was not passed *really means* that women are not equal in
    this country and we, as a nation, *want it that way*.
    

 When I heard about the ERA, the reasons I heard that it was not a good idea 
were that there were already laws enacted which guaranteed the same thing (ie
right to not be denied employment, housing, or loans on the basis of gender),
that it would be unconstitutional to differentiate between men and women in
the military or the private sector, and that the constitution was already
written in such a way to include women (presumably by not specifically excluding
them).

 The Doctah

  Based on the facts that:

    o Women in the US still have the vote,

    o Women in the US are a numerical majority,

  I'd have to agree with 937.7 (DECWET::JWHITE).  "...women are not equal
  in this country and we, as a nation, *want it that way*."


  As a microcosm, you have only to look at the platforms adopted by
  recent Republican National Conventions.  They are, IMHO, highly
  opposed to women's rights (certainly, women's rights as espoused
  in this conference), yet they are adopted with assent from signi-
  ficant numbers of women.

                                   Atlant

    I would certainly agree that my mother doesn't want to be equal.
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, wouldn't it be fairer to say that your mum doesn't want what
    she thinks equality means?  
    
    There's absolutely *nothing* in that language that would preclude men
    and women setting up their private relationships in traditional ways,
    she's been buffaloed by the tactics of the arch-conservatives.
    
    						=maggie

    It seems odd that I remember this, being only a year or two older than
    D! and Nancy, but to add to what has been said, I noticed that there
    was a big question about "can equal be separate?"
    
    We had successfully fought for integration based on the fact that in
    many cases, separate was not equal. So, with this "clarification"
    already on the books, there was a fear that equal would be unisex.
    Not just bathrooms, but schools, clubs, and other partly social
    institutions that both sexes felt a need to guard.
    
    ERA is equal, not equivalent. Although we did not pass the amendment,
    we have certainly seen that Title IX has caused a lot of "equality" in
    various areas, especially school sports. Well, if not equality, at
    least improvement. We've seen numerous elite single-sex schools open
    their doors to the other sex, on both sides. (And many people on both
    sides who say that the school lost something in the process.) We've
    seen the fight for opening the doors to "social clubs" where business
    and political decision making was being made. Much of it has been
    successful.
    
    But what was never intended by the ERA, perhaps because we didn't
    realize that it might make a difference, was to legislate the value
    attached to the different roles of men and women, making the ROLES
    equal. Naturally, if this happened, men and women could choose
    whichever was best for them. Housewives and breadwinners would be on
    the same footing, their roles seen as having equal value. 
    
    Again, though, this was not the intent. ERA was an attempt to swing a
    pendulum that had swung left during the war, and then right back after
    the war. That pendulum had let women into the work force, and more
    importantly CONSIDERED THEM VALUABLE. When you taste that, not just the
    money, although its important, but the sense that what you are doing
    has merit as well, it is hard to believe that going back to staying
    home should be the only option. 
    
    Most of us are too young to have worked during WWII. Many of us have
    not seen Rosie the Riviter. The importance of women in maintaining the
    war machine is not something that took up a lot of space in my history
    book. But the fact is, every eligible man was fighting, and someone had
    to keep things running. We did. And in doing so, learned that we could.
    
    And decided that it shouldn't take a war to allow us to participate in
    the work force.
    
    Many of us (even us non-voting young whippersnappers!) who supported
    ERA looked at it as something to primarily affect the work force. To
    allow us to compete on equal footing in all of the areas that created
    economic independence. And financial security. It would also create an
    atmosphere in which we couldn't be coerced into performing "special
    favors" which no man would ever be judged upon.
    
    But we couldn't guarantee that the ERA would not destroy the
    traditional roles of husband and wife as many knew them. We couldn't
    guarantee that the ERA would not "destroy" family life as most of us
    knew it, or that it wouldn't force millions of housewives into absolute
    vulnerability. Because laws can be twisted, and ERA was ripe for it.
    
    I tend to think that it was because we couldn't/didn't prove it, that
    the ERA wasn't passed. And I say "didn't", because many of us wanted to
    be on equal footing so badly, that we didn't consider the changing
    roles to be a net loss. 
    
    Perhaps its because too many people thought that there would be a net
    loss, that ERA did not pass. At this point, as I watch the pendulum
    continue to swing to the right, I don't think we're ready now, either.
    

RE: .8:

>  When I heard about the ERA, the reasons I heard that it was not a good idea 
> were that there were already laws enacted which guaranteed the same thing (ie
> right to not be denied employment, housing, or loans on the basis of gender),

    So, I'm curious: why does that make it "not a good idea"? 

    Because constitutional amendments should be undertaken only when there
    is a clear, pressing need and not for whims of the moment.  In these
    people's minds, if there are already sufficient laws on the books then
    there is no reason to modify the constitution.
    
    Of course, given such amendments as prohibition, I think the logic here
    is a bit flawed.

    The ERA did not pass because most people refused to find out what it
    WAS. They were scared and confused and this was heightened by those
    opposed to ERA for their own reasons.
    
    We've learned, and...
    
    	we will overcome, some day.
    	-- Charles

>    Because constitutional amendments should be undertaken only when there
>    is a clear, pressing need and not for whims of the moment. 

 Exactly. Enacting changes to the constitution is a long and arduous process
for a good reason. It is not meant to be constantly in a state of flux. You
are supposed to change the constitution only when other methods fail. 

>    Of course, given such amendments as prohibition, I think the logic here
>    is a bit flawed.

 The amendment for prohibition is actually a perfect example of why the 
constitution should NOT be changed every time public opinion changes. It should
never have been done in the first place.

 The Doctah

    To those who argue that:
    
     1 - the Constitution already guarantees equal rights because it does
         not specifically deny them
    
     2 - man=[all of humanity] in common usage
    
    [2] is specious at best as the Constitution was not written to
    guarantee all actual _men_ the rights put forth let alone the other
    ~half of humanity.  That took and amendment.
    
    Further, women [that other ~half] and a subset of actual men had to
    get amendments passed in order that they might vote.
    
    Some argue that these voting rights amendments are broad enough in
    amending the Contitution to cover the equal rights front.  But I've
    read them and I find them entirely too narrow to suffice.  They
    specifically confer a right, not rights.
    
    My quest for equality is not a whim.  I doubt that I shall outgrow it.
    
      Ann

.14>    Because constitutional amendments should be undertaken only when there
.14>    is a clear, pressing need and not for whims of the moment.
 
    So equality for women is to be regarded as a whim of the moment?
    I find that scary.  That's just the problem with other laws -- they
    are to easily taken _off_ the books.  If we as a society are going
    to make a real commitment to equality for all, then there is no reason
    *not* to put it in the constitution.

.14>    Of course, given such amendments as prohibition, I think the logic here
.14>    is a bit flawed.

    For some reason, this has the ring (to me) of "Well, we did it *before*
    for frivolous reasons, so what the hell..."  I don't think that it's
    prohibition that exposes a flaw in the logic.  At the time, I'm sure it
    seemed like a "clear, pressing need".   It wasn't until it became 
    effective that the consequences manifested themselves as a worse problem
    than  the original one.  And, sorry, I can't see equality as frivolous.

.14>   if there are already sufficient laws on the books then
.14>   there is no reason to modify the constitution.

    Are there already sufficient laws on the books?  Do napkins laid end 
    to end make a tablecloth?  What if the [political] winds change and a
    couple of those napkins blow away?  Is that still "sufficient"?  Of
    course, this is very fitting with the "equality as whim" theory.  I
    don't think it is, which is why I [still] can't see this "logic" as
    anything more than a smokescreen for the essential truth stated earlier:

	.7>   the fact that it was not passed *really means* that women 
	.7>   are not equal in this country and we, as a nation, *want 
	.7>   it that way*.


	Sharon

    The ERA is not part of the Constitution today because eleven
    men (sic), who campaigned for their various state legislatures
    on a pro-ERA platform, who received and spent pro-ERA donations,
    and who were elected on their pro-ERA platforms, voted against
    the ERA once they were elected.
    
    							Ann B.

	re: 937.19 (Sharon Walker)

	.14>   if there are already sufficient laws on the books then
	.14>   there is no reason to modify the constitution.

	> Are there already sufficient laws on the books?  Do napkins laid end 
	> to end make a tablecloth?  What if the [political] winds change and a
	> couple of those napkins blow away?  Is that still "sufficient"?  

	I really liked that napkins-as-tablecloth analogy, Sharon.

	Doctah (.14), it also sounded to me like you were implying
	that equality was a "whim" of the moment.

							nancy b.

>	I really liked that napkins-as-tablecloth analogy, Sharon.

 Me too! That was a good one.

>	Doctah (.14), it also sounded to me like you were implying
>	that equality was a "whim" of the moment.

 I should have stated that the position I presented was not representative of my
own views re: ERA, simply a parroting of the arguments I heard against passage.
I certainly do not believe equality is a whim of any moment.

 One thing I'd like to say about the ERA. I feel as though I should simply give
it my full support, after all, it sounds reasonable and I agree with the 
sentiments expressed. On the other hand, I am reminded of a circuit analysis
class that I took. Sometimes the effects are not immediately obvious, even when
you have a good feeling that you understand everything that's going on. So I
am somewhat wary of blindly supporting an amendment to the constitution that
may have unforseen implications. I prefer to withold judgement until I hear all
of the arguments from both sides, then weigh the evidence under my value
system. Frankly, I wish it would become an issue again, simply so I could hear
both sides and make a decision. At this time, I prefer to remain neutral, though
leaning towards passage (unless something really bad is implied by the current
_language_ of the proposed amendment). In that case, I would propose altering 
the amendment to provide the protections wanted while preventing the bad parts
from happening.... Is communication taking place here?

 The Doctah

ps- Quite a while ago, I asked what exactly the ERA was supposed to accomplish,
and why it was such a good idea. The question (which was directed to a certain 
noter) was ignored, though I was genuinely interested.

My opinion on the matter is that the Constitution already guarentees equality.

But then again, I'm of the belief that you can't legislate attitudes....that
equality won't come until many men change their attitudes toward women.
Legislation will, in my mind, just cause some men to become defensive and 
they will find more covert ways to discriminate based on sex.

If we change attitudes, we don't have to worry about 'covert operations.'

If attitudes prevail after legislation, do we really want to worry about having
to deal with sneaky ways of descriminating?  Look how devilish some people
are about it now, imagine after legislation.  

Most companies already have rules about descrimination...descrimination lawsuits
are being won all over the country.

What is ERA going to give us that we don't already have?  Most places it's
already mandated........


Confused.

kath

    Doctah, I know what you mean.  But in THIS case...
    
      I suppose I can't understand how saying that people are equal
      regardless of gender could ever have a bad effect.
    
    What's hidden?  What's left unsaid?  How could there be MORE ill
    effects from saying explicitly that "all people are equal" than the
    current situation, which implies that "all people are not equal unless
    there's a state law on that particular topic"?  
    
    Guess I want some real arguments to fight, not straw ones or imaginary
    ones.
    
    Pam
    
    P.S.  Perhaps we should have the relevant passages in the Constitution
    typed in also, to give comparison.  Hypothetical question:  would it be
    OK to say, "Gee, it would probably be OK to give <non-white race> equal
    status under the Constitution (seems like it would be a good idea),
    except maybe there would be a problem I can't see now!  So I prefer not
    to give it my full support until it's proved beyond any doubt that
    there will never be any problems with it!"   1/2 :-)
    
    P.P.S.  I don't think there *IS* a real argument on the other side,
    except fear of losing power, fear of losing protection, and fear of
    change.  Fears are stronger than truth sometimes.

    Re: SWALKER
    
    I'm sure there are lots of other examples of laws which are considered
    good which, if overturned, would not be good for society.  But I don't
    see a rush to amend the consitution because of that possibility. 
    Likewise, if the laws on the books today were in and of themselves
    sufficient to have the same affect as the ERA, then amending the
    consitution to further ensure that would not be of much benefit. 
    
    Those people against the ERA either think its clear that the laws on the
    books today are sufficient and therefore the ERA wasn't/isn't needed to
    fill in the gaps.  Or they plain don't want equality and its trimmings.

    re .23 Having a Constitutional Amendment on the books would 
    at least give a victim of discrimination the chance to 
    elevate the case to the Supreme Court. 
    
    It might also make some unthinking people wake up and take
    notice of the whole issue of gender discrimination. 
    A lot of discrimination against women is probably not
    conscious, or viscious, but merely apathy. ("Never attribute
    to malice what can be explained by stupidity" as the saying
    goes.) Maybe a lot of unthinking, uncaring people would 
    take time to re-examine their stand on the problem. Or even
    *form* one, instead of the business-as-usual mindless mindset 
    that so many have. One may hope.
    
    Dana
    
    PS is 'mindless mindset' an oxymoron ? 

    For further discussion, see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    188 - We need ERA now
    723 - Raising anew the ERA banner
    
    Womannotes-V2
    54 - Why the ERA
    
    -Jody

>      I suppose I can't understand how saying that people are equal
>      regardless of gender could ever have a bad effect.

 I guess the only one I can think of offhand is that women might be forced
to defend the country (perhaps in combat situations) if the draft ever went into
effect again. *I don't know if this is a valid argument or not.* I haven't
heard both sides on this (ERA). When it was a topic of discussion, I was
completely disinterested in politics and current events, eschewing those topics
for really important things like fishing. :-)

 I just want to hear both sides. Personally, I think it sounds like the right
thing to do- I just want to make sure there aren't any "gotchas."

 The Doctah

.25>    I'm sure there are lots of other examples of laws which are considered
.25>    good which, if overturned, would not be good for society.  But I don't
.25>    see a rush to amend the consitution because of that possibility.
 
    So you're equating the ERA with pooper-scooper laws, eh?	:-)
    Seriously, some stuff is just not constitution material.  Basic rights
    *are*, and I think a guarantee of equality belongs in that class.

.25>   Likewise, if the laws on the books today were in and of themselves
.25>   sufficient to have the same affect as the ERA, then amending the
.25>   consitution to further ensure that would not be of much benefit.

    You mean of much benefit *today*.  Fine!  Personally, I have no problem
    with redundant laws.  If Arkansas wants to pass a law guaranteeing free
    speech, that's fine by me, although they're probably wasting their time,
    because the US constitution already guarantees it and if the constitution
    becomes defunct, then so do the laws of Arkansas.  And the amendment 
    process is so lengthy that if there were a realistic possibility that
    the constitution would be amended to repeal that part of the bill of 
    rights, Arkansas would have plenty of time to pass such a law in the
    meantime.  This argument does *not* work the other way around.

    Also - precedent is binding in US courts.  If a ruling is made that a 
    certain law is not binding in case X, it cannot be appealed with the 
    claim that the ruling was "unlawful".  It *can* be appealed as
    "unconstitutional".  I think equality is important enough to merit that
    sort of consideration.

.25>   Or they plain don't want equality and its trimmings.

    I think you've hit it on the nose here -- with the trimmings.  My sense
    of the political climate of the time was that people were confused and
    fearful as to what those trimmings might be.  That's why arguments such
    as the one you presented were so powerful and popular -- they guaranteed 
    the status quo, with all it's [known!] trimmings.

	Sharon	 

re: .11
    
    <    Bonnie, wouldn't it be fairer to say that your mum doesn't
    <    want what she thinks equality means?  
    
    Maggiue, I don't think that's a significant distinction.  You want
    what you think equality means.  It's highly likely that the truth
    lies somewhere in between, but until we get there we don't know
    whether she's closer to right than you are.

<    There's absolutely *nothing* in that language that would preclude men
<    and women setting up their private relationships in traditional ways,
    
    Show me one social revolution where poor women didn't bear the
    brunt of the bad effects of the change, and then I'll agree my
    mother's fear is unreasonable.  I happen to think the benefits far
    outweigh the drawbacks, but I'm not the poor, unskilled woman. 
    She is.  She may not know how to program a VAX, but she knows what
    it means to raise children in poverty and fear for how to live
    when you're too old to work.
    
<    she's been buffaloed by the tactics of the arch-conservatives.
    
    My mother is an intelligent and perceptive woman who is more than
    capable of coming up with these opinions on her own, thank you. 
    If we're going to treat women who oppose the ERA like
    brain-damaged pawns of right-wing men, we'll never convince them
    equality is good for them -- in fact, we'll be convincing them of
    the opposite, that their wishes and needs won't count for anything
    with anybody.
    
    There will be drawbacks to equal rights, most of them unforseen. 
    Equal rights is not a panacea.  We'll have a lot better chance of
    winning the fight if we can honestly say what we'll accomplish and
    what the price will be instead of all this "gee-what's-the-fuss"
    and "your reasons are stupid" stuff.  
    
    --bonnie

    
    One thing that has always bothered me......
    
    The older generations (>50 yrs old) seem to have more than their
    fair share of power in this country.  They have the top management
    spots in corporations, they have the money, and most of all, they have
    the time to spend on working political causes (many are retired and
    don't have to worry about bring up kids or working two jobs to afford
    a house, etc).
    
    These generations were brought up with the "traditional" roles of
    male and female and many of the women never had to juggle children
    and a career.  They seem very unwilling to change the status quo, and
    spend lots of time and effort to keep things the way they are, or
    worse, return to the "good old times".
    
    When these generations are gone, and the new "older" generation 
    consists of those who have dealt with the problems and concerns
    of women in the workforce, will it be easier to enact legislation
    on women's issues?
    
    Also, do you think that religion helped squash the ERA?
    
    Lisa

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    in re .31 Mike
    
    How would you word it better?
    
    How is it too easy to misinterpret?
    
    How would you present it better?
    
    and how is the tag line about government legislation to enforce
    any different from anyother ammendment? That is as far as I recall
    pretty much SOP. If the goverment doesn't have the power to pass
    legislation to enforce an ammendment then the ammendment is useless.
    We don't go to court for violations of the constitution but for
    violations of laws based on the constitution.
    
    Bonnie

In response to the general observation that "What could be objectionable in
these few simple sentences", I would observe that the real meaning of any
language in the Constitution does not reside only in the few sentences that
may actually be in the Constitution, but also in the thousands of pages of
case law -- judicial decisions and interpretations -- that build up around 
that language over the decades.  There probably is much language in the
Constitution whose "meaning" today would be astonishing to its authors.

Thus, when considering revisions to the Constitution, one is justified in
being *extremely* cautious in considering not only what the proposed changes
"obviously" mean to any sensible person, but also what they *might be*
interpreted to mean.

I suspect that there are many of us who subscribe absolutely to the principle
that

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

but who do *not* approve of the idea of legislation to mandate sexual
equality in private interactions.  For us, the provision that 

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

is very troubling.  To be sure, this appears to refer to legislation to
prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights by the United States or any 
state, but given the first clause, why should any further legislation be
necessary?  History strongly suggests that in short order, this clause
would be held to justify all sorts of legislation that had much more to 
do with people's private lives than with the actions of the government.

	-Neil

    Before reading these notes, I'd never heard the argument that the ERA's
    too vague and open to misinterpretation.  Personally, I think it is
    hard to word something that is so self-evident in a vague way (!).  MEN
    AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL AND SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY LEGALLY!  
    
    1. I am curious -- how could it be misinterpreted?  (My big
       assumption is that it could only be misinterpreted in an *willful*
       attempt to subvert its intention.  Why and how could that happen
       deliberately?)  In what ways could it be misinterpreted wrong
       accidentally?  
    
    2. Any concrete suggestions for improving the wording?  
    
    
    I do hear and believe Bonnie's comments about her mother's reasons for
    feeling that the ERA would hurt her rather than help her.  BUT I must
    say that I speak from a white middle-class educated background.  It's
    mostly women (such as my mother) who are financially better off who
    have the option to stay at home.  Staying at home means that you are
    dependent on protection of your "right" to be dependent.  Staying at
    home often means you don't have qualifications for jobs to support
    yourself.  So, paradoxically, women who are supposedly more advantaged
    may have more to lose by gaining legal equality.  
    
    It is my understanding that poor women have ALWAYS worked.  What are
    ways in which poor women can lose by getting legal rights to equality? 
    What would change for them?
    
    Pam

    re: .32 "do you think that religion helped squash the ERA"
    
    Absolutely!  I have seen many fundamentalist preachers who insist
    that women should be in the home and wear dresses.  These same
    people certainly insist that women are different and must be
    treated different.   Many not so far right religious personalities
    also effected what influence they could.
    
    re: .34 "Congress shall have the right ..."  I thought all amendments
    had that paragraph.  I don't have a constitution at my desk to check
    though.
    
    I interpreted that as accomplishing two things:  One is to set
    penalties for non-compliance.  I have often seen towns pass ordinances
    and then a year later establish a penalty for violation of the
    ordinance -- I don't know why they don't get it right the first time.
    
    The second has to do with this "unisex bathroom" business.   I never
    understood that anyway.  I thought that having male and female separate
    but equal br's was good enough to comply with the amendment and that
    congress could say so (enact legislation).  But all the anti-ERA people
    hollered and screamed so loud that it couldn't be discussed.  (Some years
    ago I was upset to find that the Boston Common had a women's but no
    men's.   I figured the ERA could force them to build a men's.)
    
    ed

    in re .34 Neil
    
    I'll ask you the same question I asked Mike Z. Why would you pass
    an ammendment and then not give Congress the right to legislate
    to put the ammendment into law. Don't all the other ammendments
    have such a provision? Would not an ammendment without such provisions
    be meaningless?
    
    Bonnie

    re .38, Brian-
    
    I can see most of what you suggest as being affected by the ERA, but
    not this:
    
    >  o  Husbands would have an equal say in the decision by their wives
    >	  to use contraceptives or to obtain an abortion.  (Presently, this
    >	  may vary on a state by state basis.  It is unclear as to whether
    >	  the reasoning would extend to the case of an unmarried woman
    >	  needing the permission of a fetus's father to abort.)

    Can you tell me why you think so?  I can't get there from here.
    
    DougO

    re: .38: I believe the NH resident's tax is obsolete.  At least I haven't paid
    it in a few years and noone's hassled me.
    
    ed

Ed:

> re: .38: I believe the NH resident's tax is obsolete.  At least I
> haven't paid it in a few years and noone's hassled me.
    
  The change that occurred was that the legislature allowed local
  government to elimnate the resident's tax (n�e "Poll Tax", aka
  "Head Tax") if they so desired.  For most local governments, the
  $10 wasn't worth the pain of collecting it, so it went the way
  of the Tea Tax.

  But I'm not sure it's gone everywhere.  And yes, a husband is
  responsible for a wife's tax, and couldn't do things like register
  a car without both taxes having been paid.  But if the wife
  went to register the cars, then hubby's tax status didn't matter.

                                   Atlant

More possible effects of the ERA:

  o Preferential treatment for women regarding child-bearing and
    child-rearing leave would be illegal.  Now, if this were a
    sane country, that would mean that "maternity leave" would
    become "parenting leave" and fathers would gain access to
    all the same benefits that mothers now enjoy.  But I'd bet
    businesses would simply respond by cutting *WAY* back on
    maternity leaves and then declare equally worthless paternity
    leaves.

  o Even though it sounds like a red herring, I can't see how
    we'd avoid Unisex facilities.  So long as the courts believe
    that "separate" = "defacto unequal", then "separate"  is out
    the window.  How long has it been since you've seen a bath-
    room in the US marked "colored" or "whites"?  Is separating
    the genders really all that much different than separating
    the races?  (I'm not making any value judgement here on the
    merits of Unisex bathrooms.)

  o Even though someone jumped on Brian Hedrick, it's clear to me
    that in the currently-superheated environment surrounding *ALL*
    the issues of reproductive rights, that the ERA would get very
    deeply entangled in all of these discussions.

  o And we'd certainly open the battlefront for a whole new area
    of Church-vs-State discussions, especially in the area of
    single-sex parochial schools, including how they accept
    government aid.

                                   Atlant

    I'm still curious:  Does anyone have better wording in mind?  How could
    the ERA be more specific?  Do you agree it needs to be?
    
    Regarding preferential treatment of women for maternity leave, I think
    there could be a legitimate argument for allowing it to continue, since
    it is a physical condition.  You don't get pregnancy leave because
    you're a woman (I've never gotten it, for example (!)), but because you
    are pregnant.  If things change so that men can also become pregnant,
    carry a fetus for 9 months, go through childbirth, recover, and nurse
    their infant, I think they would successfully be able to petition for
    the same rights due a woman who has gone through those physical changes
    and events.  Otherwise I don't think the changes would come to pass.  
    
    Regarding unisex facilities, I have two comments:
    1) There are differences in male/female facilities (urinals), so it
       could be argued that there is a physical difference requiring
       different facilities.  Also, there are public decency codes...  
       So separating the sexes is different from separating the races.
    2) I know all people don't feel this way, but I personally don't see
       much problem for the most part with unisex bathrooms.  When 
       I was at college, our bathrooms in the dorms were effectively
       unisex on the weekends -- I've taken showers one stall away
       from a guy taking a shower, brushed my teeth one sink away,
       and sat on the toilet one stall away.  
    
       In other cases, I can see it being a problem.  For instance,
       I'm in a train station at 12:00 at night.  Do I go to the unisex
       public john or do I wait for a safer place?  What loonies could be
       hiding out there?  (On reflection, they could hide out anyway...)
    
       Also, IMAGINE how mall bathrooms could become teen hangouts.  Ugh!
    
    Interesting observations, all!
    Do people think the potential problems are UNSOLVEABLE?
    
    Pam

> Regarding preferential treatment of women for maternity leave, I think
> there could be a legitimate argument for allowing it to continue, since
> it is a physical condition.  You don't get pregnancy leave because
> you're a woman (I've never gotten it, for example (!)), but because you
> are pregnant.  If things change so that men can also become pregnant,
> carry a fetus for 9 months, go through childbirth, recover, and nurse
> their infant, I think they would successfully be able to petition for
> the same rights due a woman who has gone through those physical changes
> and events.  Otherwise I don't think the changes would come to pass.  
    
  That sounds like a straw person.  The physical disability resulting
  from pregnancy normally doesn't exist over the entire scope of a
  pregnancy leave, and certainly not over the scope of a "child-rear-
  ing leave".  So there's no reason why a male care-giver shouldn't
  also be accorded the non-disability portions of the leave.

                                   Atlant

    re .43, Atlant,
    
    I only asked a question, I didn't "jump on" Brian.  I simply don't see
    where one's right to decide one's control of one's reproductive system
    will be forcibly shared with one's husband by the ERA!  I can't get
    there from here!  If its so obvious to *you* too, Atlant, please,
    enlighten me.
    
    DougO

    What is wrong with "jumping on" an entry that is wrong? I saw no
    personal attack on Brian. His entry had considerable misinformation in
    it, and poorly thought out conclusions, and other's entries have as
    well. Thus there is, in general, no "presumption" in most courts that
    women should have child custody. Brian's "information" about alimony is
    at least a decade out of date, and apparently that on the New Hampshire
    tax is as well. And so on. So many of these "changes" that the ERA
    supposedly would make are, in fact, impossible.
    
    Others seem simply imaginary. Unisex bathrooms? Nonsense. It would be
    illegal to pass a law saying that men could use women's restrooms, but
    not the reverse, but it is fantasy to think that "separate but equal"
    would apply. Likewise, what would be the effect on pregnancy benefits?
    Nobody gets 9 months anticipatory leave now, or (in almost any US
    company) paid child-rearing leave. Take Digital - medical leave is
    limited to the period of medical disability, which is not sex based
    (except as pregnancy happens to be). Child care leave is unpaid, and
    available equally to fathers and mothers. What would change.
    
    I could go on (abortion, OSHA, etc.), but won't. I certainly don't mean
    that all concerns are invalid, or that there aren't areas of real
    uncertainty. But a lot of those cited recently have been based on
    misinformation, or presented without any real thought. Let's try to be
    a bit more accurate.
    
    	- Bruce

    
    oh dear, all these 'straw persons'...like DougO I just don't see
    how one can get from 'here to there' rationally.  Not to say it
    would NEVER be, because certainly the current interpretations of
    the constitution might not be what one would have expected 200 years
    ago.  But really, we're talking about rights...not forcing equal
    'choices' on everyone.  The right to freedom of speech doesn't imply
    just because you stand on your soapbox and preach gov't overthrow 
    that I have to as well.  Just that YOU have the RIGHT to CHOOSE 
    to speak up, just as i can choose to be silent.
    
    So, how would things really change?
    
    I agree, that if the era were passed, and the draft re-instated
    then women would be drafted...but isn't that all the more reason
    for us to work AGAINST any more conscription?
    
    as for divorce/custody, etc, I just don't know what would change.
    I mean I don't have a 'right' to the kids, or alimony any more
    than my husband would.  Society precendents may be set to prefer
    giving the kids to the mother, but she has no right to them, so
    i don't see the ERA as effecting this area at all.  As for what
    is current, I don't know...in my family i;'ve seen the mother get
    the kids, and the father get them.  I've seen BOTH women and men
    have to pay child support, and i've not seen ANYONE get alimony...
    so, seems fair to me.
    
    And we all use unisex bathrooms...i mean airplanes don't have 
    men and women toilets.  Its the 'communal' ones that might
    be a problem given the location, time of day, etc, as someone
    mentioned....but then I don't use womenrooms in subway stations..
    
    So, how should we reword the ammendment to give a better 'feeling'
    for all concerned?  how should we suggest legislation be enacted,
    to restrict the further 'govt in the bedroom' syndrome???
    
    still curious,
    deb
    

RE: .32   Lisa,

How wrong you are in your generalization!  I wonder what kind of community you
live in where the things you said *could* be true economically.

<    The older generations (>50 yrs old) seem to have more than their
<    fair share of power in this country.  They have the top management
<    spots in corporations, they have the money, and most of all, they have
<    the time to spend on working political causes.

(Are you talking about *women*?  My responses assume you are!)

I am 51 years old and:
	-  I have been employed most of my adult life. (Married, 2 kids)
	-  Of my personal female acquaintances over 50, I know only ONE
	   who does not work outside the home, and I believe she keeps books
	   for her husband's business.  
	-  They, like I am, are strapped for money for their kids'
           college tuitions and are strapped for time and energy
           between their jobs, their kids, and their aging (often ill)
           parents!
        -  In the early 70's I led women's consciousness-raising seminars.
        -  I was coordinator for North Bristol County for the Mass. State
           ERA campaign.
    
<    When these generations are gone, and the new "older" generation 
<    consists of those who have dealt with the problems and concerns
<    of women in the workforce, will it be easier to enact legislation
<    on women's issues?
    
	Lisa, it's ironic that you should ask this, when so many of us
	"older" women wonder when the new "younger" generation will wake
	up to the *need* for an ERA to protect our rights and further equality!

	Keep up the fight, whatever your age,
	Nancy

    
    
From:	CVG::THOMPSON "Alfred Salem, NH 285-3290" 11-JAN-1990 12:53:04.58
To:	WMOIS::B_REINKE
CC:	 
Subj:	This may be of interest to people in the ERA discussion in WOMANNOTES

	Feel free to post this information if you feel it would
	contribute to the discussion.
 
		Regards,
			Alfred
 
          <<< SIMVAX::$1$DUS1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARM_ISSUES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< FIREARMS MANAGEMENT TOPICS >-
================================================================================
Note 83.49       The Right To Bear Arms & And U.S. Constitution         49 of 49
CVG::THOMPSON "My friends call me Alfred"            16 lines  11-JAN-1990 12:36
                    -< On-line copies of the Constitution >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	RE: .46 The word "people" occurs 9 times in the Constitution
	including amendments. For a limited time, copies of the Constitution
	with a start of an index (more when I get time), is available on
	the net at: CVG::CRT_PICTURES:CONSTITUTION.*
 
	Several formats are available: 
 
CONSTITUTION.DECW$BOOK    ! For use with the DECwindows BOOKREADER - must have
			  ! a current release of BOOKREADER
CONSTITUTION.LN03         ! LN03 format
CONSTITUTION.PS           ! Postscript for LN03R or LPS40
CONSTITUTION.TXT          ! ASCII text  
 
	Send mail if you have any problems with it.
 
			Alfred

    re .38, .51, Brian:
    
>       o  Husbands would have an equal say in the decision by their wives
>	  to use contraceptives or to obtain an abortion.  (Presently, this
>	  may vary on a state by state basis.  It is unclear as to whether
>	  the reasoning would extend to the case of an unmarried woman
>	  needing the permission of a fetus's father to abort.)

    
    But Brian, how can this possibly be enforced?  What happens
    when a woman goes to the pharmacy to buy a can of foam?  Or some
    jelly or cream for her diaphragm?
    
    Clerk:  "I can't let you buy that unless you either give me
    1) proof that you are single, or 2) a written note from your
    husband."
    
    How can one prove their singlehood?  I can see how one can prove
    they are married with a marriage license, but is there anything
    like that for proving singlehood?  I don't know of any.
    
    Of course, if I want the contraceptive and can't prove I'm
    single, and I *really* don't want to get pregnant, I can commit
    forgery.  Yes, that's a felony, but it seems like *many* women
    would commit this felony in order to avoid pregnancy, if they
    want to avoid pregnancy that badly.
    

 >I interpret this arrangement as being essentially similar to sole
>	  custody, except that the non-custodial parent has a legal right
>	  to drag the custodial parent into court for her child rearing
>	  practices.  With sole custody, the non-custodial parents has no
>	  standing in such a matter.

I thought the same thing when my husband was fighting for joint custody
(his children live 150 miles away!).  But we learned otherwise - it gives
him the right to consent to medical treatment without their mother's
consent.  Once we showed up to get the kids out of school early and the
school had to look up their records to see if he had custody or joint
custody - if not, the mother had to leave a note!  It gives him the right
to decide on funeral arrangements should one die, etc.... - basically all
of the rights of the parent with posession (wording in Texas law) except
that his posession periods are less!

Even with sole custody, the non-custodial parent can (and SHOULD if necessary)
drag the custodial parent into court for child rearing practices!

 Ellen, my understanding is that a woman could not become pregnant and carry the
child to term without her husband's consent (in re to what Brian said). At 
least, that part was supported by his quotes of the RSAs. I can't see how it
would be possible for a husband to prevent his wife from using contraceptives
or obtaining an abortion (since neither would be creating a liability for the
husband.)

 The Doctah

	Assuming he took the proper percautions himself and there
	was a failure in his form of contraception.

	Lets get real folks.  It is not just women who have the
	ability to use contraception devices.

	A woman can not force a man to make her pregnant against
	his wishes unless either he really does not care and 
	uses no form of protection or the one he uses fails.  If
	the man acts responsibly and there is a pregnancy that he
	does not wish then he has a point to argue.  If he has
	not acted responsibly and there is a pregnancy, then he
	has the problem not the woman if she decides to bear the
	child.

	_peggy

>I tried to stay out of this one.

 The potential for an uncontrollable chain reaction is very high in this
subject.

    1) In re: .51 and .55 -
     The suggestion that a husband who impregnates his wife (whatever their
    respective skills and luck with contraception) has had her create a
    liability for him without his consent strikes me as quite far fetched,
    regardless of the laws where this happened. The troubling moral issues
    surrounding abortions where there are differential desires regarding
    children in such cases are very real; but they are not created or
    resolved by the ERA. The case where a wife may be impregnated by
    someone ELSE (and how that might be legitimately and accurately
    established, if at all) is also troubling, but that case also seems
    quite independent of the ERA.
    
    In re: .52 (I think) -
    A marriage license would only prove that you got a marriage license
    (and perhaps some blood tests). A marriage certificate could
    establish that you had gotten married. A divorce decree could establish
    that you had gotten divorced. I can't think of anything that would
    prove whether you are currently single or married (except a birth
    certificate showing that you are younger than the lowest age to get
    legally married in any state). Thank goodness this is almost never a
    problem for any of us.
    
    	- Bruce

Warning: Emotional, non-rational response follows.

	The ERA is obviously right, anyone who thinks otherwise is a
	chowder head. ALL of the arguments I've heard against it are either
	specious, self serving, diningenuous, or just plain stupid.

	Most americans are frightened of the equality of women. Some mediocre
	men are frightened that they might lose their positions, and some
	mediocre women are frightened of being judged on their own merits. There
	are some well meaning but deluded people who don't understand what ERA
	stands for, and there are many unscrupulous people willing to play
	on those fears.

	Argghh. Fighting the miasma of lies, fears, and misconceptions that
	surrounds this issue is like trying to dip water with a fork. I was
	tired, angry, and frustrated when ERA failed, and reading about it
	now just makes me more tired, angry, and frustrated. I should learn.

	I might address each of the arguments raised so far, and try to rebut
	them point by point, but there would be another 20 specious arguments
	raised that would "need" to be rebutted.

	It doesn't matter, the truth is self evident. If it isn't evident to
	you, then there will always be SOME pretext available.

	ERA was defeated, but...

	-- Charles

    
    
    I was a young adult when the ERA was first proposed and (endlessly)
    debated. 
    
    Many of the arguments against the ammendment was that it was too
    vague. Then folks proceeded to come up with a vast assortment of
    possible (negative) interpretations.  Unisex bathrooms was a big
    argument against the proposed ammendment, even though no where in
    the ammendment is it stated that men and women would have to share
    bathrooms should the ammendment pass.
    
    But that's not my reason for finally replying to the base note.
    One of the biggest reasons the ERA was defeated was that it became
    a hot "women's lib" issue.  Women fighting women over the issue of
    women's rights and women's place in society.
    
    Yet, read closely, no where in the ammendment is the word "woman"
    mentioned.  The issue was entirely equality regardless of sex
    (gender).  
    
    In my opinion, the greatest reason for the defeat of the ERA WAS
    that it was treated as an issue specifically related to women.  I
    see that nothing much has changed in the past 20 years.
    
    

    "The constitution means what the supreme court says it means." I'm
    afraid that I can't remember who said that, but it's clearly true.

    Since the  ERA  would  have  the  same wording as the civil rights
    amendments,  it  might  have the same meaning, but since the court
    decides what it wants to decide and then searches for arguments to
    support  that case, I'm not too worried. Assuming the civil rights
    precedents  are  followed, an ERA would certainly require wowen in
    combat roles in the military, women would be subject to a draft if
    men  are.  It  would  almost  certainly  require  unisex bathrooms
    (seperate  but  equal  has  been  unconstitutional  for  almost 40
    years).  It  would  probably  require  states  to allow homosexual
    marriages (in the best named case of all time, Loving v. Virginia,
    the  court ruled that Virginia could not prohibit a black man from
    marrying  a  white woman.) Some people would object to all or some
    of these effects. I don't think that the court would rule this way
    anytime  soon.  The  current  court  certainly wouldn't make these
    rulings,  and  it  would  be  amusing  to see how they twisted the
    constitution to avoid them.

    One also  runs  into  places where we all agree that men and women
    should  be  treated  differently.  My health insurance schedules a
    checkup  for  me  every 3(?) years, but schedules a pap smear (and
    minor  checkup)  every year for women my age. Urinals in a woman's
    bathroom  wouldn't  be  terribly  useful. These distinctions makes
    sense.  

    Essentially, we want men and women to be treated identically where
    it  makes  sense to do so, but not in cases where real differences
    require different treatment. The problem is that this society does
    not  agree  on  what  differences require different treatment, and
    asking  the court to decide what the society can't agree on merely
    substitutes  the  judgement  of  "nine old people" for a political
    judgement.

    I like  the  ERA  as  a  statement of policy, but I have my doubts
    about its effectiveness as an instrument of change.

--David

Charles:

  The following is offered as friendly advice.  Please do not take it
  as though it were condescension or written in an offensive manner.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    When debating people, do not call them "chowderheads".  In fact,
    do not charactererize their opinions at all.  Rather, offer
    dispassionate facts that refute their opinions.

    Whether or not you believe all of those reasons offered against
    the ERA to be the biggest load of bulls**t that you ever heard,
    that doesn't change the facts that:

      o These arguments and more were offered up by folks at the
        time as arguments against the ERA,

      o They were apparently offered up sincerely by at least
        some of their adherents, and

      o They swayed at least a few percent of the voters and
        state legislators.


    You'll not help your cause by calling any of your opponents names.
    That was precisely one of the points that was trying to be made in
    some parts of the "Mysogyny" note.

                                   Atlant

                      <<< Note 937.59 by CSC32::WOLBACH >>>
    
> Unisex bathrooms was a big argument against the proposed ammend-
> ment, even though no where in the ammendment is it stated that
> men and women would have to share bathrooms should the ammendment
> pass. 

  But that's the point of several replies here.  Neither does the
  amendment say anywhere that there "won't" be Unisex bathrooms (or
  any other hobgoblin that one cares to raise).  The amendment, means
  precisely whatever a *CURRENT* Supreme Court says it means.  (Look
  back to how Robert Bork's "original intent" theories were viewed!
  Sooner or later, these sorts of things cut both ways.)

  I'll say it again.  Once you see women united behind an ERA, then,
  like any idea whose time has come, it will be irresistable.  You
  won't *NEED* one single man's help, although I'm sure you'll find
  many men *WILLING* to help.

                                   Atlant

    re .61

    Besides, calling such people "chowderheads" gives chowder a bad name.

 
    This is to all those who have stated what the ERA would "almost
    certainly" mean.   I'm going to quote from 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.

    Now, I see nothing mandating unisex bathrooms here, civil rights
    precedents considered and all.  However, it does mean that if a man 
    were brought to court for using a women's bathroom, he would probably
    win the case.  And any woman who wanted to spearhead a movement to put
    urinals in women's bathrooms would have some legal backing.

    And any man wanting his right to a yearly pap smear upheld would probably
    get his way.  And no man's _right_ to give birth could be legally denied
    (which still does not mean he'd be able to give birth, however.)

	So what?  How many men really want pap smears anyway?

    Why	scrap equal *rights*  because of a few biological differences?  
    Is there really any middle ground here?  Should there be?

	Sharon


    [Snide comment alert: no one who's been around the bathrooms at a 
    theater or sports event during intermission could argue that men's
    and women's bathrooms are "separate but equal".  The lines at the
    women's rooms are usually *much* longer.]
    
	

       <<< Note 937.64 by COBWEB::SWALKER "Sharon Walker, BASIC/SCAN" >>>

> Now, I see nothing mandating unisex bathrooms here, civil rights
> precedents considered and all.  However, it does mean that if a man 
> were brought to court for using a women's bathroom, he would probably
> win the case.  ...


  Q.E.D..  Apparently, even you believe it.

                                   Atlant

.60>  Q.E.D..  Apparently, even you believe it.


    No, I don't.  That is not a mandate.  I doubt that we have the
    legislation to enforce the separation of the sexes in public
    bathrooms today.  (If you can point to a specific statute proving
    me wrong, I'd be interested in knowing.)  Gender segregated bathrooms
    are there by convention.  And the ERA does not address convention per
    se, it addresses rights.  Admitting that you cannot legally prevent
    one man from using the "wrong" bathroom does not mandate that all
    men *must* use them.

    Actually, I've seen men in women's bathrooms before (usually with
    their young daughters).  I did not ask if they'd ever been prosecuted
    for it.

        Sharon

    I'm afraid  that  I'm  getting tired of arguments of the form "But
    the  ERA  doesn't  (explicitly)  say  ..."  The  constitution is a
    relatively  short, at times terse, document whose legal meaning is
    not obvious on a quick reading, and certainly exceeds the explicit
    text.

    Race segregated  clubs  are  unconstitutional,  as are restrictive
    covenants that prohibit selling a house to blacks, even though the
    words club and housing are not in the constitution. There are lots
    of    "conventions"    that    the   supreme   court   has   ruled
    unconstitutional.

    Please, before  making  arguments  about what effect the ERA would
    have,  read some constitutional cases about racial discrimination.
    At  a minimum, read Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
    In  it you will find a lot of discussion that as almost nothing to
    do  with  the  plain  language of the constitution, and seems more
    like  a  sociological  than a legal argument. Look at the parts of
    the  constitution  that are referred to in that decision and think
    about  why the ERA might lead to uni-sex bathrooms. (Personally, I
    think  that the court will dance neatly around that precedent, but
    it will be an interesting dance to watch.)

--David

	 RE: unisex bathrooms.

	 So what?  Doesn't bother me!  What's the big deal?


	 RE:  long lines at women's bathrooms.

	 Then saunter into the men's bathroom.  Most men don't mind,
	 and you'll find that you'll get to go much quicker!!

	 :-)

	 But then again, I would be perfectly happy if they outlawed
	 clothes, so......  ;-)


	 kat

>	 RE:  long lines at women's bathrooms.
>
>	 Then saunter into the men's bathroom.  Most men don't mind,
>	 and you'll find that you'll get to go much quicker!!
>
>	 :-)
    
    That's just what my girlfriend and I did this weekend up at
    Bretton Woods touring center!  I was so *pissed* (pun intended :-) )
    that a few *selfish* women would take so damn long on the crapper when
    they *knew* darn well that there was a line 20 deep just outside the
    door (and only 2 toilets in the women's room).  I can't believe anybody
    can take so long unless they're getting *sick* or something.  I mean,
    spending time on a toilet is not *my* most favorite way to pass the
    time, especially at Bretton Woods when the snow is good (it was this
    weekend :-) )
    
    The men were *much* faster.  Such as I hate generalizations, in
    my experience, men are *always* faster about doing their business,
    even given the unequal amount of hassle to take a pee.
    
    Pat and I were in and outta there in under a minute.  At least *we*
    weren't so damn selfish.
    
    They should prioritize women's bathroom lines to a "shortest job first"
    algorithm rather than a "first come-first served" algorithm.  :-)
    
    I am also upset that Bretton Woods can't *at the very least!!* install
    some porta potties outside the touring center.  They're not very
    expensive.  And if they have to raise the price a buck or two, then
    it'd be worth it.
    
    I always have this little retaliation fantasy whenever I find
    inadequate bathroom facilities - like when they won't let you use an
    "employees-only" facility even though you're buying lots of $$ worth
    of stuff, or like when there aren't enough stalls (like at Bretton
    Woods).  I just want to piss all over the institution's front steps,
    to *prove* that the situation is unacceptable!!  But I've never had
    the chutzpah to do this.  And I'm afraid I might offend too many
    people.  Maybe when I'm a little old lady....
    
    ^^^
    What a tirade - probably belongs in HOT BUTTONS, rather than here.

    

        If the ERA had passed there WOULD have been court cases
        to decide issues like:
        
        	is "veterans preference" now unconstitutional?
        		(too few women vets)
        	is m/f affirmative action now unconstitutional?
        		(it is sex based discrimination)
        	is m/f affirmative action now mandatory?
        		(by comparison to race based rulings)
        	is the Hyde amendment unconstitutional?
        	is separate-but-equal now unconstitutional for
        		m/f? (as they are for race)
        	can m/m and f/f marriages continue to be denied
        		legal status?
        
        The people deciding these issues would not have been
        elected officials, they would have been judges with life
        tenure, no accountability to anyone, and a history of
        prior rulings that you can judge for yourself.  And there
        will always be a large number of Americans who don't want
        that to happen.
        
        Dan

    re .51, Brian-
    
    I'm still at a loss to understand the wording you used in .38, (which 
    I first questioned in .39).  Let me explain what I think I'm hearing,
    and see if I can show you what puzzles me.
    
    From .51, 1- parental liability; check.  2- no liabilities for X can be
    incurred by Y, unless X and Y have a legally recognized relationship
    that allows it (spousal, agenthood, etc).  check.  3- Pregnancy brought
    to term creates a liability, allowable.  check.  4- The ERA would
    modify the exception in point 2.  huh?
    
    Now, I know I took liberties with your point 2; but thats *really* the
    way I understand why spouses can create liabilities for each other;
    that is something they both agreed to when they entered the institution
    of marriage, whether they understood their spouse could run them into
    debt or not.  It isn't gender-specific, that spousal liability thing.
    Its part of being married.  Or why would I hear so many divorced people
    warning each other to make sure all the credit cards are canceled?
    
    That's why I don't see the ERA changing the liability-incurrence part
    of the institution of marriage; and that's why I'm still mystified that
    you would suggest that the ERA would cause this:
    
    .38> o  Husbands would have an equal say in the decision by their wives
	 to use contraceptives or to obtain an abortion. 
    
    Can you see why I'm still in the dark about how the ERA relates to
    this assertion?  I think you're really asserting that the ERA would
    fundamentally change the institution of marriage, even in its
    gender-free aspects, and I "can't get there from here" either.
    
    DougO

    RE: .58   Thank you, Charles Haynes
    
    I can't tell whether those who are trotting out all the tired old 
    arguments against ERA really believe them or whether you are 
    repeating them to confuse, entertain, or ridicule.  It would be 
    easier to be sure if the statements were personal "I intend to 
    file a case", not "there would be cases".
    
    Many of the responses here are missing the point.  The ERA is 
    about who will share the boardrooms, not about who will share the 
    bathrooms or the bedrooms.
    
    The ERA is about the fact that the majority of men of average 
    competence will then face competition with women of average 
    competence.  Sometimes a man will lose a job opportunity or 
    promotion to a woman who is no more qualified than he, only about 
    the same.  Occasionally the winner will be slightly less qualified 
    and will win because she went to the same school or has the same 
    hobbies as the boss, or because she is taller and more imposing.  
    It happens now between men, but usually men expect a woman who 
    wins to be obviously better.  That isn't equality.  Equal 
    opportunity means equal access for the mediocre, not just a door 
    opened for superstars and overachievers.
    
    The ERA is about equal funding for equipment, uniforms, and busses 
    for girls' sports in school as for boys'.  ERA would probably mean 
    that the USA would have more women winning in the Olympics because 
    they had programs in grade school and high school.  I think it is 
    not a coincidence that a young woman from a small town in 
    Massachusetts, which has the ERA in the state constitution, just 
    set a world track record. 
    
    Digital US already has equal (unpaid) Parental Leave "to provide 
    employees time off for bonding with their children".  It is 
    available to adoptive parents and biological parents.  Probably, 
    social expectations and economics cause most men to forego 
    parental leave. The medical pregnancy leave is under short-term 
    disability and is available to those who are medically unable to 
    work due to pregnancy and its results, including childbirth.  To 
    date, all who have qualified have been women.  
    
    For those who want to go on talking about toilets:  since 
    Massachusetts passed the ERA amendment to the state constitution, 
    women and men have gone on using separate toilets in public 
    buildings and shared toilets in their homes.  Women and men who 
    have grievances have chosen to spend their time and money going to 
    court on other issues.  (Why, she wonders, do excretory functions 
    spring so quickly to some minds when equal rights are mentioned??)
    
    Pat

    re: .72 (Pat White)
    
    Beautifully said, Pat!
    
    dave
    

re: .72 (Pat White)
    
  (Speaking, I suppose, as one of those who are trotting...)

  Those who are trotting out all the old tired arguments are doing
  so because these are the arguments we will all face yet again if
  and when a national ERA is again proposed.  And if the answers
  to these arguments are not clear and concise, then the ERA will
  fail again.

  Because, like it or not, there's *LOTS* of conservatism in the
  state legislatures.  Where do you suppose most of the anti-
  abortion legislation originates?

  Get real.

  If you're not already experienced in local politics, go watch.
  The same folks who trotted out the arguments in the past are
  still there, waiting to trot them out again.  Come up to NH,
  and I'll introduce you to your enemy.  Up there, we're still
  arguing whether Kindergarten, excuse me, "Kindeegarten" is
  just a "communist plot to provide free babysitting to welfare
  moms and other women libbers."  I kid you not.  And these
  folks have plenty of other opinions as well, on issues that
  are probably very dear to both of us, and a number of major
  media outlets that air their opinions.

  Even in Mass, I seem to remember a certain prelate who's got
  some definite opinions,and doesn't hesitate to tell his minions
  to get the word out to the sinners.  Does anyone know what the
  good Cardinal's opinions will be on a new ERA?

  Consider all of this noting to be a sort of warm-up round.

                                   Atlant

    Two things.

    First, "separate but equal".  For many long years, the courts accepted
    this doctrine in the segregation of facilities along racial lines.
    The Supreme Court struck this down because a) it was found that the
    facilities were *not* equal; those for the Causasians were generally
    of higher quality and frequently of much higher quality and b) it had
    been determined that, conceptually, separation implied a superiority/
    inferiority split, *which was found to be psychologically damaging to
    those found inferior*.

    Now, I do not see either criterion actually being met in terms of sexual
    segregation.
    
    Second, unisex toilets.  Imagine this, if you will:

    It's late at night, and you're in a dubious-looking public transportation
    building.  You have to go to the bathroom, so you look for the unisex
    toilet glyph.  There it is, next to the waiting area: the familiar
    block with rows of doors along each long side, and a door at each end.
    You skip the end door marked, as usual, with the handicapped and bigsink
    symbols; you'd just as soon leave it for those who need them.  The next
    door has no light shining through the peephole.  (This is all you could
    hope to see; the peephole faces out.)  You skip that one, too.  The next
    door has light gleaming from the peephole, and under the door, too.  But
    the slot under the handle is marked "IN USE" (in several languages),
    so you continue on.  The next door looks good: light and "EMPTY".

    Briskly, you swing the door open.  As required by law and practicality,
    the door opens outward.  From outside, you examine your potential
    facility:  Door, hinged, wall segment, corner, wall (solid, no holes
    like one you saw a few days ago) with spool of toilet paper (enough),
    corner, solid wall with toilet securely anchored and even clean looking
    on the left and tiny washbasin on the right, corner, solid wall with
    paper towel dispenser (with paper towels!) above and a waste disposal
    chute underneath it, next to a stainless steel "mirror" bolted on,
    corner, wall segment with doorway.  There's barely room for a cat to
    swing a rat.
    
    You enter your temporary microcastle, close and lock the door with the
    deadbolt.  Wow!  There is even a hook on the door hinge for you to
    hang your coat on.  You do what you came for.  After washing up in
    the @#$%^ water-conserving excuse for a sink, you check your appearance
    in the mirror, noticing that almost no one has shown enough determination
    to actually carve something into its surface.  Mostly it's felttip markers,
    and a few stickers.

    Before you leave, you look through the peephole.  Hmmm.  Someone is
    rather close to your door.  Briefly, you wish this setup included an
    emergency phone.  You've seen them.  You have to press a small,
    recessed plate with your finger until a sensor records your print,
    then a panel slides aside to reveal a mouthpiece and speaker hardwired
    to 911.  (You were told that the plate would take thumb, toe, and even
    noseprints, which you considered a bit odd until you thought about the
    problem a bit.)  You look again.  The someone has moved away into the
    waiting area.  Brisk once again, you exit, relieved in more ways than one.

    And you thought you didn't like unisex toilets.

    							Ann B.

    Having participated in Program Politics in NH during high school,
    I found out one reason why the NH legislature is very conservative.
    
    I believe that the legislature pays some measely amount of money,
    like $400, for several months of work.
    
    The only people who could really afford to do that are the retired.
    (Or wealthy, but it seems that the rich have better things to do
    with their time)
    
    In general, from what I've seen in NH, the older generation doesn't
    really want things to change that much at all.  But I really don't
    want to have to believe that everywhere is like NH.  Most older
    (read 25+) NH'ites have been life long residents, their parents
    life long residents, etc.  They like life really quiet with nothing
    "weird" going on.  
    
    Those who are "weird" have usually moved far away by age 25.
    
    ERA will never pass in NH.  
    
    Lisa

Lisa:

> ERA will never pass in NH.  

  I'm not quite that sure about it, but something like that *IS*
  the point I'm trying to make.  NH (and its state legislature)
  actually isn't that much different than a lot of states (and
  their state legislatures).  *THAT'S* where the change has to
  occur.  People talking here in the conference doesn't amount
  to a hill of beans.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Slight change of direction:

  Election day, I spent a lot of my time at the Ward 5 polling
  place in Nashua.  I listened to a lot of Republicans making
  a lot of smart-aleck remarks about a lot of values that I
  hold rather dearly.  But I could dismiss most of them along
  the lines you proposed:

> In general, from what I've seen in NH, the older generation doesn't
> really want things to change that much at all.  But I really don't
> want to have to believe that everywhere is like NH.  Most older
> (read 25+) NH'ites have been life long residents, their parents
> life long residents, etc.  They like life really quiet with nothing
> "weird" going on.  

  But the one Republican that troubles me to this day is the
  woman who was running for state rep from Ward 5.  She's *NOT*
  an old fart.  She's young mom.  She and her hub are both computer
  folk and they both work full time.  She was all concerned that
  day about what they were going to do with the kid next week
  when both she and hub had managed to schedule themselves to be
  out of town at their respective customers.

  And yet, she's an absolute, doctrinaire Republican, opposing all
  those same things that the rest of the NH Republicans opppose.
  I wanted to scream out at her: "Look at *YOUR* life!  Contrast
  that against *YOUR* political stand!"  But I didn't.  (She lost
  her race, by the way, and the Democratic candidate retained
  his seat.)

  That's the sort of woman who stands between you and the ERA.
  And I bet she can be found in every state of the Union.

                                   Atlant

    In defense of the people who've been repeating arguments used by the
    ERA opposition, I (for one) actually ASKED for specific examples in
    .35.  My thoughts were that if we can see what people are afraid of and
    see what line of attack they use, we can come up with strong
    counter-arguments here.  Sort of a practice run.
    
    Also, by seeing all the arguments lined up, we might be able to see a
    pattern.  Parts of the pattern are obvious (some men in control want to
    stay in control; some women don't want a change of responsibilities),
    but there might be other aspects that are subtler.
    
    I'd like to continue to see samples of anti-ERA arguments, just so we
    can analyze what the problem was before and whether we can propose it
    anew in a more effective way.  Objections to the ERA are hard for me to
    understand, because to me it's so blazingly obvious that it is the
    "right thing" to do.  I'd like to try to come to understand the
    opposition's viewpoint so that their objections make sense to me. 
    
    People usually manage to convince themselves that they are being
    rational and correct, even if they're not.  I'd like to know what
    reasons the ERA opposition uses as rational and correct arguments. 
    Only by understanding their position can I argue against it.  If I 
    argue successfully against their rational and correct arguments, I can
    make it obvious that the only remaining objection is irrational.
    
    So can we continue hearing about the straw men arguments??!  It's been
    helping me, at least.
    Pam

    re:.78:  A comment on the NH Legislature for those who did not know.
    
    It has the second highest percentage of female members of all
    legislative bodies in the world.  (I think it's over 1/3.) India's
    Parliament has a higher percentage.  A few years ago (I don't know
    about now) the NH Senate was one of the few legislative bodies in
    the world headed by a woman.
    
    Those women may be the wrong generation to pass an ERA but there
    does seem to be some hope there.
    
    ed

    Yes, and in the last legislator's poll I saw, three quarters of
    those women are against the ERA and against abortion.
    
    I don't think they can all be dismissed as extremist idiots,
    either.  
    
    --bonnie

	

	re: 937.77 (Lisa Gassaway)

	>    ERA will never pass in NH.  
    
	But if the Berlin Wall can be torn down...

							nancy b.

Most of the things people fear most, from drafting women to homosexual
marriages, could happen *WITHOUT* the ERA.  Some, like the draft if Congress
ever reinstates it, *would* probably result.  Others, like same-sex
marriages, probably would not.  Yet the opponents were successful in playing on
people's fears.  (BTW, It seems to me that we are much closer to implementing
some of those "feared" things today than we were when the ERA was defeated!)  

re: .38, Brian,

<<       o  Women would be subject to the draft.  (Presently, women are not
<<	  subject to the draft or to registration for the draft.)

There is nothing in the Constitution to exempt women from the draft now!
Congress could choose to do so even without the ERA.  However, there is no
draft at all, for men *or* women, at the present time. 

<<       o  Women in the armed forces would be subject to being assigned to
<<	  combat duty.  (Presently, women are not subject to being assigned
<<	  to combat duty.)

Same response as above.  Congress has the power to do it.

<<       o  OSHA rules regulating work environments and content would become
<<	  the same for men and women.  (Presently, men may be required to,
<<	  for example, lift substantially larger loads than women may be
<<	  required to lift, and so forth.)

The regulations *should* be the same.  The person, male or
female, who is capable of lifting X pounds should be able to get the job that
requires lifting that amount.  Meanwhile, women can currently be barred
from working with lead or can be forced to be sterilized in order to get
such a job.  If the rules were equal, industry would have a much stronger
motivation for making the workplace safe for *all* people, both women and men.

<<       o  Women would no longer be the preferred parent for children's
<<	  custody in divorces.  (Presently, all states have a presumption
<<	  that the mother will be the custodial parent, unless she can be
<<	  proven unfit.)

I doubt that women are still preferred, but I am not following your detailed
legal debates on this -- others can do that.  In any case, many of us feel that
there should be no *automatically preferred* parent for custody.  The parent
best suited in the particular situation should be the one selected.

<<       o  Women would no longer be the usual recipient of support alimony
<<	  (as opposed to asset settlement payments) in divorces where
<<	  alimony is awarded.  (Presently, all states award alimony on the
<<	  basis of current income, rather than, for example, on the basis
<<	  of potential income, or emotional infirmity.)  (The entire
<<	  concept of support alimony would likely go away;  this would have
<<	  a negative impact on divorcees who have been away from the work
<<	  force for some time, or who had never entered the work force.) 

Some experts believe the concept would be modified rather than eliminated.  The
spouse who *needs* the support -- whether wife or husband -- would be able to
get it from the more affluent spouse.  In fact, I believe I have read of cases
where the *husband* received alimony!

<<       o  Marriage would no longer be heterosexual only.  (Presently, all
<<	  states specify that a marriage requires one man and one woman,
<<	  and there is some federal legislation on the subject as well.)

    This is probably the biggest scare tactic used by opponents of the ERA,
    but it simply *does not follow* that the ERA would mandate same-sex
    marriages!!! (The analogy used by someone else of black-white
    heterosexual marriage does not apply.)  States could pass laws
    permitting same-sex marriages now, if they wanted to do so.  What the
    ERA would do is ensure that if two *men* were allowed to marry each
    other, then two *women* would also be allowed to marry each other! 

<<       o  Husbands would have an equal say in the decision by their wives
<<	  to use contraceptives or to obtain an abortion.  (Presently, this
<<	  may vary on a state by state basis.  It is unclear as to whether
<<	  the reasoning would extend to the case of an unmarried woman
<<	  needing the permission of a fetus's father to abort.)

This is being debated by others here.  Before the Webster case we were able to
talk about the Constitutional right to privacy, but that right itself seems to
be in question these days!

<<       o  Unisex bathrooms would become more popular.  (Presently, most
<<	  localities prohibit public bathrooms [those accessible to the
<<	  general public, such as ones provided by restaurants] from being
<<	  unisex.)

This one seems to depend on whether or not we actually have a Constitutional
right to privacy.  Unisex bathrooms already exist.  *LACK OF ERA DOES NOT
PREVENT THEIR INCREASING POPULARITY!*  And again, if we have a right to
privacy, the ERA would not require that all bathrooms be unisex.  (Aren't
they quite common in Europe?) 

RE: .43, Schmidt,

<<  o Even though someone jumped on Brian Hedrick, it's clear to me
<<    that in the currently-superheated environment surrounding *ALL*
<<    the issues of reproductive rights, that the ERA would get very
<<    deeply entangled in all of these discussions.

So?  We are fighting those issues everywhere else anyway!

<<  o And we'd certainly open the battlefront for a whole new area
<<    of Church-vs-State discussions, especially in the area of
<<  single-sex parochial schools, including how they accept
<<  government aid.

Darn it, I can't remember what the argument against this one was!! :^{  It's
been more than 15 years since I memorized the party line!

Nancy

    The argument  that  X  (say,  women  getting drafted) could happen
    without  the  ERA, also means that Y (say, equal opportunities for
    job  advancement) can *also* happen without the ERA. The ERA would
    force  some  changes, for example drafting both sexes equally, and
    might  force  others  (homosexual  marriages and unisex bathrooms,
    which,  while  they  both  follow  from civil rights precedents, I
    think unlikely.)

    To paraphrase nancy: Most of the things people want most [from the
    ERA],  from  equal  pay  to  equal sports in schools, could happen
    *WITHOUT* the ERA.

(minor rathole:  Virginia's  anti-miscegenation  law allowed blacks to
marry   blacks   and   whites   to   marry   whites.   It   was  found
unconstitutional.  From a strictly logical point of view, it's hard to
see how this argument wouldn't lead to homosexual marriage. The *only*
distinction  is  that  the  first  requires people from the same class
(race)  and the second requires people from different classes (sexes).
It  would  seem  (again, following strictly logic) that if a woman can
marry  a  man,  a  man  should  have the same right. Despite the clear
precedents,  I  don't beleive that the supreme court will require this
anytime soon, even if the ERA passes.)

    I'm of  divided  mind  about different workplace rules for men and
    women.  There are diseases which occur much more frequently in one
    sex  than  the  other,  and  one  can argue that recognizing those
    differences  is  good.  (Economic efficency and all that.) Perhaps
    one would argue that a job requirement is to not be succeptible to
    some  particular  disease  that  is  prevalent  in  the particular
    workplace.  I  also see the argument that jobs should be available
    equally.


    I don't  think that this society has reached agreement on what sex
    differences  should  be  recognized,  and which shouldn't. Men and
    women do differ in some ways, and the society must recognize that.
    The question is what differences should be recognized (it would be
    silly  to  screen  men  for  breast  cancer  or women for prostate
    cancer),  and  which should not (men and women seem equally suited
    for sitting in front of a keyboard.)

--David

Nancy:

> RE: .43, Schmidt,
>
> <<  o Even though someone jumped on Brian Hedrick, it's clear to me
> <<    that in the currently-superheated environment surrounding *ALL*
> <<    the issues of reproductive rights, that the ERA would get very
> <<    deeply entangled in all of these discussions.
>
> So?  We are fighting those issues everywhere else anyway!

  So?  So nothing. :-).  I only wrote the comment to warn everyone that
  I believe it will be impossible to have a calm, rational, dispassionate
  discussion of the ERA while we battle in the streets over all of the
  issues of reproductive rights (including abortion, contraception, ad-
  vances in aiding less fertile couples, public dissemination of infor-
  mation, funding sources, the human genome project, etc., etc....)

  That's not to say that we shouldn't go ahead and continue the battle
  for an ERA (which is why I said "So?  So nothing.")  We should!  But
  we should go ahead knowing that there may be blood, sweat, tears and
  holy water spilled during the argument, and that you'd better be ready.

                                   Atlant
                   (Who, honest, has already been showered
                    with holy water by the zealots.  But
                      whatever effect they were hoping
                        for didn't happen, I guess.)

    I am a little puzzled as to why passing of the ERA would allow men
    to have a say in a female's use of contraception or in having an
    abortion.  I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the ERA mandates
    that men and women have equal opportunity/rights as far as tings
    they could be discriminated against  (jobs, divorce, custody of
    children, etc)
                   --I did not think it said that
    a man would now have an equal right to what a female did with her
    body/self or a woman would have a right to what a man did with his
    body/self.  
    
    If a man would have an equal say in what a woman did  (ie
    contraceptives) and so forth, where do you draw the line between
    that and having someone have equal rights to what a person wears,
    says, does ("I say you shouldn't drink that--it's not good for you.")
    
    Or would this impact only where children were involved?  
    
    "I want to have children."
    
    "I don't."
    
    "Well, I have a right to dictate what happens here as much as you.
     I say we have children.  Don't take that pill."
    
    "I have a right to dictate what happens here too.  I don't want
    to get pregnant.  Put on the condom."
    
    And so forth....
    
    I personally believe that men and women should have equal rights,
    but not to what the other does with theirselves, or their bodies.
    If he wants to get a vascetomy, that's up to him.  If she wants
    to get a tubal, that's up to her.  If he wants to wear a stupid
    hat, fine.  If she wants to wear nothing but black leather and fishnet,
    okie.  I know, of course, that the "who gets to make the ultimate
    decision on abortion" issue IS in the courts, but I feel that's
    a separate issue than the ERA.  Or at least that is what I understood
    it to be. 
    
    Any of the more legislatively-minded care to enlighten me?  :)
    
    ---kim

RE: .86

    I've never  seen  any argument that sounds even remotely plausible
    about  the  ERA  effecting  contraceptive  use  at  all.  The only
    possible  ruling  I  could  see is that if a state said that a man
    couldn't  have  a vasectomy without his wife's consent, they would
    probably  have  to say that a woman couldn't have a tubal ligation
    without  her  husband's  consent.  NB: I don't see any requirement
    stemming from the ERA if a state doesn't wish to have this sort of
    legislation.  

    I also  don't see how the ERA affects the abortion debate, (Please
    don't  start  that  debate  here.)  despite  claims  that it does.
    Perhaps someone will explain that clami.

--David

   

    As a courtesy, I should let you all know that Brian and I took my
    inability to 'get there from here' offline, and our discussion has not
    yet concluded.  He didn't drop the issue we opened in .39 and a few
    subsequent replies.
    
    DougO

David:

> I also  don't see how the ERA affects the abortion debate, (Please
> don't  start  that  debate  here.)  despite  claims  that it does.
> Perhaps someone will explain that clami.

  I think the rationale is as follows:

    o Under an ERA, laws would assume that both parents have equal
      rights and responsibilities for a child.  A preference towards
      mothers or towards fathers would probably be illegal.

    o If we then accept the premise� that, at some time during its
      development but prior to its birth, the fetus becomes "human",
      then that human is, in fact, a child with two parents.

    o These parents share equally in the rights and respnsibilities
      around this child.

    o The fact that one of those parents also contains and provides
      all life support for the child does not diminish the rights
      and responsibilities of the other parent towards that child.

                                   Atlant


� That's clearly the part of this that belongs in another note.

I'm going to stay out of the abortion argument here... but I would think
the points described in -1 would make pro-lifers wildly pro-ERA.  And, I 
don't see that happening (my apologies to those who fit into the above 
category).  

Now as far as the point from -1 listed below:
                             <<< Note 937.89 by PROXY::SCHMIDT "Thinking globally, acting locally!" >>>

>  I think the rationale is as follows:
>
>    o Under an ERA, laws would assume that both parents have equal
>      rights and responsibilities for a child.  A preference towards
>      mothers or towards fathers would probably be illegal.


This is, as I see it, false.   (It's like the argument that if a man's
bathroom has urinals, a woman's bathroom must too... biology makes that
a moot point, don't you think?)  

There is no way a woman can say, ok, I've nursed half the time, now
it's your turn.  ERA says you have to, you know!   I believe the courts
would modify the above statement to say a preference towards the mother 
or towards the father is illegal except where biology creates physical 
impossibility, (some strict guideline, maybe 'beyond any reasonable doubt'
I'm not up on my legalese, but there are degrees of surety).  Where
physical impossibility would include such things as requiring both sexes to 
nurse, bear a child, etc. etc.

Tamar

    Well, research has shown that males CAN carry children to term.  Of
    course, the fertilization (probably impregnation is more accurate) and
    the delivery are both surgical procedures.
    
    And, of course, although breast-feeding was the original technique used
    for nursing, not only are there are (sometimes better) alternatives,
    sometimes nursing is an impossibility (either for the mother, or
    sometimes for the child in the case of allergies).
    
    I think I see your (.90) point.  Lets say, I HOPE I see your point. 
    The point I see is that biological differences make some tenets of the
    ERA subject to interpretation (I like the one on urinals - I would tend
    to think that the actual implementation would be to have ONE bathroom
    for both sexes with NO urinals for either - seperate but equal was
    heavily frowned upon during integration).
    
    But I don't think for an INSTANT that (other than some biological
    nuances that would RARELY have an impact) it can be said that someone
    has an edge on parenthood because of sex (where PARENTHOOD means the
    role of RAISING a child, versus the role of BEARING a child).
    
    The tendency in the courts today is to grant parenthood to the mother,
    which is rooted in the same prejudice that prevents women from getting
    equal pay (barefoot and pregnant syndrome).  My hope is that, in light
    of ERA and progression toward the equality it seeks, that parents would
    be judged and custody awarded to the most fit, regardless of sex (and
    to neither, if appropriate).
    
    Jim
    

>    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.

    
    Excuse me for interupting, but could someone please point out where
    is says that as a result of this ammendment everyone shall now live
    in a Uni-sex manner, as it seems so many of these replys are trying
    to imply?  What pray-tell has equal rights under tha law have to
    do with this unisex bathrooms?
    
    Gail 

         <<< Note 937.92 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
                        -< You never read .75, right? >-
    
    Guilty as charged.  I suppose that there might need to be some
    rethinking to make unisex toilets feasible.
    
    But I also agree with .93, there are fatter fish to fry than toilets.
    I meant the comment as an incidental.  I wasn't attempting to steer the
    conversation from the central issue.
    
    Sorry.
    
    Jim
    

> What pray-tell has equal rights under tha law have to
>    do with this unisex bathrooms?

 My guess is that restaurants, shopping centers, and other public places would 
be able to have only one bathroom for both sexes, and there wouldn't be anything
we could do about it legally.

 The Doctah

    But in point of fact, in states with their own ER law, the courts have
    determined that unisex bathrooms are NOT required...what is required,
    for example, is that either the couch is removed from women's bathrooms
    or one is installed in men's, because the couch has been determined
    to be a non-essential feature.
    
    Trust me.  It happened in both Minnesota and Texas to my certain
    knowledge.
    
    						=maggie

>    But in point of fact, in states with their own ER law, the courts have
>    determined that unisex bathrooms are NOT required.

 Well, I can't see why they would be _required_. I can see that they could be
_allowed_ (with no legal recourse).

 The Doctah

Whenever the subject of toilets arises, I find myself wondering what would
be _so_ terrible about one facility for both men and women. A certain amount
of refitting would be called for, but men and women have both used every
toilet in every home in which I've ever lived [and probably ever visited] so
I think we've proved that common fixtures can serve both sexes.

I don't particularly _want_ omni-sex toilets, but it's a small price to pay
if they're holding equal _rights_ hostage.

  Ann 

    <--(.97)
    
    Yeah, actually that was brought up in Minnesota and the courts
    determined that "public decency" laws requiring separate facilities
    were still enforceable.
    
    BUT there would be nothing to prevent the laws being revoked...but as
    was also pointed out at the time, there never *had* been anything to
    prevent that outcome, had people wanted unixex bathrooms.
    
    						=maggie

We've survived unisex bathrooms on airplanes for 40 years without significant
problems, so what's the big deal?

About 8 years ago, I visited a customer at a university in Sweden and
discovered how they handled "unisex bathrooms."  Along the corridor
were a series of doors with locking handles (and a red/green "occupied"
signal).  You entered and locked the door behind you.  You then had
a perfectly normal looking toilet and handbasin, just like at home.

Similar apparatus can be found on most streets in Paris.

Martin.

    If unisex restrooms were constructed in a manner similar to that
    of airplane lavs, I can't see that it would be much of a problem.
    But the way public restrooms are currently designed, I'd be
    concerned for women's safety if the restrooms were unisex. I'd
    be willing to bet that incidents of rape would go up.
    
    --- jerry

    I was at a resturant last weekend where the two restrooms were labelled
    "Either" and "Or".  It was in Cambridge, naturally.
    
    			- Bruce

"             <<< Note 937.102 by RDVAX::COLLIER "Bruce Collier" >>>
                                  -< unisex >-

    I was at a resturant last weekend where the two restrooms were labelled
    "Either" and "Or".  It was in Cambridge, naturally.
    
    			- Bruce	"

If it was anywhere near Tech Square, maybe they should have been labelled
'And' and 'Or'.  Of course, then it would be obvious which gender each was
meant for, which might defeat the purpose..

    Can someone from the Seattle area confirm this?  I'd read that public
    restrooms there are all ready defacto unisex - because the "ladies"
    rooms are for anyone who is dressed like a lady (did i put that
    delicately enough?), same-same for the "men's" rooms.  The point:
    Has Seattle's rape rate shown a dramatic increase?
    
   

    Some public buildings right here in stodgy BOSTON have unisex restrooms
    - a few years ago when you still had to go there for ham radio exams
    and before the office moved to some other building, the FCC office in
    Boston was in the old Customs House building.  Paul drove me and my
    co-worker Andy there to take my Extra and Andy's Tech, General, and
    Advanced exams - so I finished a long time before he did, and Paul was
    waiting for both of us (so we could hit a dimsum place for lunch before
    returning to DEC).  The floor of Customs House that included the FCC
    exam room had one small unisex bathroom.  There was a magnetic sign on
    the door, which you could set the right way when you went in.
    
    Actually, plenty of small restaurants and other small businesses have
    only one restroom.
    
    Now, what public restrooms have to do with the Equal Rights Amendment
    is beyond me - and always has been!
    
    /Charlotte
     

    
    re:.104
    i have never heard of anything like this. 
    
    as for the rape rate in seattle, it is, like most crimes, fairly
    high. there may, however, be some truth to the explanations that
    seattle's crime rates usually include the 'rougher' city of
    tacoma and that seattlites are *extremely* good about reporting
    any incidents.