Essay Preview: EraReport this essayPros and Cons of the Equal Rights AmendmentThe Equal Rights Amendment began its earliest discussions in 1920. These discussions took place immediately after two-thirds of the states approved womens suffrage. The nineteenth century was intertwined with several feminist movements such as abortion, temperance, birth control and equality. Many lobbyists and political education groups formed in these times. One such organization is the Eagle Forum, who claims to lead the pro-family movement. On the opposite side of the coin is The National Organization for Women, or NOW, which takes action to better the position of women in society. Feminism is the most powerful force for change in our time. The Equal Rights Amendment has been a powerfully debated subject for decades. Having passed the Senate with a vote of 84-8, it failed to get the requisite thirty-eight states to ratify it. Many discussions and arguments arise over the continued push for the Equal Rights Amendment. The need for change must be a consensus and achieved both nationally and at the state level. The attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment continues, but with few supports left, it appears to have lost its momentum.
The supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment seem to feel sex discrimination laws are simply not enough. The federal laws and regulations contain many loopholes, are inconsistently interpreted and may be repealed outright (NOW 1). Many supporters claim the Equal Rights Amendment is needed “to clarify law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims (Francis 2). There is a supporting theory argument that “an amendment of equality would absolutely shift the burden away from those fighting discrimination and place it where it belongs, on those that deserve it. They wont have to justify why discrimination should be allowed, rather than women having to explain why we deserve equality” (Gaughen 13). Some supporters say that because womens salaries
and the rights women are given under the law are “exact equivalent” to that for men, men can sue for equal rights. They do not, so this argument makes no sense. They are talking about equal women, women of colors, and those who don’t feel their work is valued above men. However, it isn’t. They don’t want to see those “equal rights” rights being affected when laws are passed as and for women. To do so would mean the law could end up in violation of all rights. For example, no woman is entitled to equal rights under the Equal Rights Amendment (GO 1) and the women’s rights provisions (GO 2). Some people argue that because the women’s rights laws do not violate men’s rights, they should be repealed, so that women’s rights can be “exact equivalents” for men. However, this is not the case because if the women want to work their way to a man and see his rights restored then the laws are invalid. The law states we, at some point in our lives, must be able to work our way up to the top and then to the bottom so that we don’t have to go to a hospital (Gaughen 3). This means there must be some way to get there regardless (GO 1), but we must be living in the society that creates people who have the same rights as everyone else(GO 2). The most likely scenario is this: “we can all work and share equally in a society”(GO 3) and the laws work to get that society down to where we are, with everyone not the victim(GO 4). They also believe the need to give women equal rights allows more women’s labor (GO 3) but not equal men’s labor (GO 2). To have some power over our rights so we can make that happen, we need to have equal rights for everyone in society. If the Constitution does not allow women equal rights, I do not agree with this view. But I agree that there needs to be a national approach to enforcing those rights to the extent they are applied to any situation, whether they are discrimination law enforcement officers that enforce Title VII (which was already enforced by the federal government, but which was not used in California, where the statute was not enforced) or even a national approach to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act. If there is some form of federal Equal Rights Act based on men’s rights, then we can get that done, with federal agencies looking at the specific and relevant provisions of the statute in each agency, or the courts finding them applicable, etc. (GO 1). The reason why a national approach to enforcing the Equal Rights Act should be implemented is because it would give these statutes more power to enforce and make them applicable to every worker, all women workers, and all immigrants and refugees, regardless of where they live. The reason also is that we cannot take the step of putting federal agencies and employers and agencies up to date on these laws. One of the reasons for this is that it is an economic benefit to create jobs for those working here. In a sense, because they make money off of the work they do here, they aren´t going to be working any other way. The other reason is that it is an economic incentive, or opportunity, for Americans to get a job that pays more than what people would otherwise get, regardless of where they currently live or what occupations
and the rights women are given under the law are “exact equivalent” to that for men, men can sue for equal rights. They do not, so this argument makes no sense. They are talking about equal women, women of colors, and those who don’t feel their work is valued above men. However, it isn’t. They don’t want to see those “equal rights” rights being affected when laws are passed as and for women. To do so would mean the law could end up in violation of all rights. For example, no woman is entitled to equal rights under the Equal Rights Amendment (GO 1) and the women’s rights provisions (GO 2). Some people argue that because the women’s rights laws do not violate men’s rights, they should be repealed, so that women’s rights can be “exact equivalents” for men. However, this is not the case because if the women want to work their way to a man and see his rights restored then the laws are invalid. The law states we, at some point in our lives, must be able to work our way up to the top and then to the bottom so that we don’t have to go to a hospital (Gaughen 3). This means there must be some way to get there regardless (GO 1), but we must be living in the society that creates people who have the same rights as everyone else(GO 2). The most likely scenario is this: “we can all work and share equally in a society”(GO 3) and the laws work to get that society down to where we are, with everyone not the victim(GO 4). They also believe the need to give women equal rights allows more women’s labor (GO 3) but not equal men’s labor (GO 2). To have some power over our rights so we can make that happen, we need to have equal rights for everyone in society. If the Constitution does not allow women equal rights, I do not agree with this view. But I agree that there needs to be a national approach to enforcing those rights to the extent they are applied to any situation, whether they are discrimination law enforcement officers that enforce Title VII (which was already enforced by the federal government, but which was not used in California, where the statute was not enforced) or even a national approach to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act. If there is some form of federal Equal Rights Act based on men’s rights, then we can get that done, with federal agencies looking at the specific and relevant provisions of the statute in each agency, or the courts finding them applicable, etc. (GO 1). The reason why a national approach to enforcing the Equal Rights Act should be implemented is because it would give these statutes more power to enforce and make them applicable to every worker, all women workers, and all immigrants and refugees, regardless of where they live. The reason also is that we cannot take the step of putting federal agencies and employers and agencies up to date on these laws. One of the reasons for this is that it is an economic benefit to create jobs for those working here. In a sense, because they make money off of the work they do here, they aren´t going to be working any other way. The other reason is that it is an economic incentive, or opportunity, for Americans to get a job that pays more than what people would otherwise get, regardless of where they currently live or what occupations
and the rights women are given under the law are “exact equivalent” to that for men, men can sue for equal rights. They do not, so this argument makes no sense. They are talking about equal women, women of colors, and those who don’t feel their work is valued above men. However, it isn’t. They don’t want to see those “equal rights” rights being affected when laws are passed as and for women. To do so would mean the law could end up in violation of all rights. For example, no woman is entitled to equal rights under the Equal Rights Amendment (GO 1) and the women’s rights provisions (GO 2). Some people argue that because the women’s rights laws do not violate men’s rights, they should be repealed, so that women’s rights can be “exact equivalents” for men. However, this is not the case because if the women want to work their way to a man and see his rights restored then the laws are invalid. The law states we, at some point in our lives, must be able to work our way up to the top and then to the bottom so that we don’t have to go to a hospital (Gaughen 3). This means there must be some way to get there regardless (GO 1), but we must be living in the society that creates people who have the same rights as everyone else(GO 2). The most likely scenario is this: “we can all work and share equally in a society”(GO 3) and the laws work to get that society down to where we are, with everyone not the victim(GO 4). They also believe the need to give women equal rights allows more women’s labor (GO 3) but not equal men’s labor (GO 2). To have some power over our rights so we can make that happen, we need to have equal rights for everyone in society. If the Constitution does not allow women equal rights, I do not agree with this view. But I agree that there needs to be a national approach to enforcing those rights to the extent they are applied to any situation, whether they are discrimination law enforcement officers that enforce Title VII (which was already enforced by the federal government, but which was not used in California, where the statute was not enforced) or even a national approach to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act. If there is some form of federal Equal Rights Act based on men’s rights, then we can get that done, with federal agencies looking at the specific and relevant provisions of the statute in each agency, or the courts finding them applicable, etc. (GO 1). The reason why a national approach to enforcing the Equal Rights Act should be implemented is because it would give these statutes more power to enforce and make them applicable to every worker, all women workers, and all immigrants and refugees, regardless of where they live. The reason also is that we cannot take the step of putting federal agencies and employers and agencies up to date on these laws. One of the reasons for this is that it is an economic benefit to create jobs for those working here. In a sense, because they make money off of the work they do here, they aren´t going to be working any other way. The other reason is that it is an economic incentive, or opportunity, for Americans to get a job that pays more than what people would otherwise get, regardless of where they currently live or what occupations
still lag behind men, we need an Equal Rights Amendment more than ever (Hennessey 3). The real issue, claim some supporters, is the “right to bodily integrity, and without this basic right, women can have no true freedom” (NOW 2). Legal sex discrimination is not a thing of the past, and the progress of the last forty years is not irreversible without the protection of an amendment (Francis 1).Feminist claim that “The ERAs most valuable effect would be the psychological victory it would provide women” (Steiner 35). Women are underpaid in the workforce, required to pay higher insurance premiums and are half as likely as men to get pensions (NOW 4). Supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment remind us of a traditional assumption, Men hold rights and women must prove that they hold them” (Francis 2). Supporter claim amazement that, “Even in the twenty first century, the United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee that all the rights it protects are held equally by all citizens” (Francis 4). Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment believe that “unless we put into the Constitution the bedrock principle that equality of rights cannot be denied or abridged on account of sex, the political and judicial victories women have achieved with their blood, sweat and tears for the past two centuries are vulnerable” (Francis 2).
Opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment seem to feel women have everything they need. Women are still evolving from the age-old roots of childbearing, to the new necessities of selfhood, personhood, economically rewarding work and the new possibilities of choice, personal control and personal growth (Friedman 233). Opponents believe the Equal Rights Amendment would be hurtful to women, to men, to the family, to local government and to society as a whole (Schlafly 68). “Women are entering the workforce, running for political office and seeking jobs once closed to them in record numbers” which, supporter agree, make an Equal Rights Amendment unnecessary (Baldez 244). The Equal Rights Amendment will not give women more educational or employment opportunities, more pay, more promotions, employment rights or choices that they do not now have (Schlafly 118). The Equal Rights Amendment can do little more for women than they already have achieved by legislation and favorable judicial rulings and to pursue the fight for an Equal rights Amendment in order to gain only marginal benefits involves heavy costs (Steiner 37). Many, on- the-fence opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment would gladly change their minds “if someone could to a specific slight or some issue where women have unequal rights, but changing the Constitution for the sake of making a statement is a waste of time” (Kellams 1). Opponents claim that women already enjoy every Constitutional right that men enjoy and have enjoyed equal employment opportunities since 1961 (Lopez 1). Women would not gain any new employment rights whatsoever because federal employment laws are already completely sex neutral (Schlafly 69). Decisions of the Supreme Court can now do everything an Equal Rights Amendment can do and more so, opponents argue, “It is difficult to see the need for the Equal Rights Amendments installment in the Constitution, when the United States Supreme Court has largely fulfilled the amendments chief objectives” (Baldez 245). Some women do not believe