Gotta love the women who have made long, lucrative careers for themselves by telling other women to stay home and accept their secondary social status. Not to mention that, in Schlafly-land, women would know their place (the home) and wouldn’t have access to traditionally male spheres — like, say, the op/ed pages of the Los Angeles Times. If only she actually lived by the headline of her piece: “Equal rights’ for women: wrong then, wrong now.”
Her opposition to the ERA seems to be based around the arguments that a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing gender equality will (1) allow women to engage in military combat, and be drafted if men are; (2) “abolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife;” and (3) abolish gender-based distinctions in marriage, divorce and alimony.
Unfortunately for Phyllis, more than 30 years have passed, and the state of the union is not quite what it was in 1972. No-fault divorce laws are used in almost every state, so gender distinctions in divorce are already largely gone. Now that women are working in record numbers, the presumption that the husband should support is wife is also quickly dying out (and thank God for that). And, despite a technical ban on women in combat, female soldiers are just as involved in this war as their male counterparts.
This amendment would basically put gender in the same legal category as race. Gender-differentiated laws would require strict scrutiny, just like racially-differentiated laws currently do. The current model of strict scrutiny is pretty inadequate, but it’s better than the heightened scrutiny that gender gets.
It does stun me that in 2007, we’re still arguing about whether or not gender equality is a good thing.
In the words of Ms. Crabapple, “Ha!”
Less flippantly, I don’t really know what the different kinds of scrutiny are and how they apply here, and the wiki article wasn’t especially helpful. If there’s a brief explanation, I’d be grateful hearing it.
Quick! Somebody call Margaret Atwood!
Here’s an article on strict scrutiny, one on intermediate review, and one on rational basis.
Essentially, race gets strict scrutiny because discrimination based on race was prohibited by amendments to the Constitution (same with religion), gender-based discrimination gets intermediate scrutiny because it is prohibited by federal law (with reservations) and other types of discrimination (such as on the basis of sexual orientation) gets rational basis because you don’t have a clear statutory or Constitutional basis for fighting it.
I said in my earlier post that Schlafly was smart enough to know even back in the 70s that the ERA could also be applied to discrimination on the basis of the sex of one’s chosen partners because it banned discrimination based on sex, not discrimination against women.
Frankly, she might get farther in her efforts to kill the ERA in these days of no-fault divorce, rare alimony awards and women effectively in combat if she concentrated on Teh Gheys.
Yeah, I’m really not following those wiki articles. Strict scrutiny means teh government will look more closely or be more strict in enforcing equality, or that there’s a higher burden (I don’t know if that’s actually a term) to meet to prove discrimination?
Basically, there are three steps to proving that a government policy does not not discriminate. Level one is the rational basis test, where you essentially have to show that the discrimination is okay because there’s some rational basis in the law for it, such as well, homos are icky.
Then there’s intermediate review, which is the “exceedingly persuasive” standard. Meaning, sex-based discrimination is okay if it’s exceedingly persuasive, such as those icky women have infections every month and don’t hunt giraffe so can’t be in combat.
And strict scrutiny is basically the “Are you out of your fucking mind?” standard.
Also, if we’re talking about rational basis, the government is almost always going to win, i.e., the law will be upheld. (There are literally only a couple of cases where they haven’t.)
With strict scrutiny, the government is almost always going to lose, i.e., the law will be upheld.
Intermediate scrutiny is technically in between, but the way it’s been interpreted, it tends more towards strict than rational basis. Ginsburg is big on that.
Schlafly built her career fighting the ERA, and the one drawback to having the ERA re-emerge (something I of course support wholeheartedly) is that it allows ol’ Phyllis to saddle up again. She and her Eagle Forum friends have been pushed aside by a newer generation of anti-feminist women (the IWF types, etcetera). She must be over the moon to be able to claim a small and temporary share of the limelight again.
I wore a pro-ERA button to school around 1974. I was seven. I was teased. An early experience of trying to be a pro-feminist.
There must be something terribly wrong with me — I look at her three objections, and think “so”? Honestly, if we are going to be FAIR, women should be drafted if men are. Not all of them are going to pass the physical, but not all men do, either. Those that barely pass it will end up where the military usually sticks the folks that barely pass muster — as supply sergeants and other support folk. Where they will face combat *anyway* since we seem to have redefined the way wars are fought. Again.
I’m just glad the bloody thing is back on the table. It’s about damned time! (Even if we DO have to listen to Phyllis shoot her mouth off. I’m not sure she ever really shut up, to be honest.) Remind me *again* how it ended up with a time limit the first time around? ‘Cause I seem to remember that no other Constitutional Amendment has ever had one… I could be wrong.
Most amendments that have been proposed since the turn of the 20th century have had deadlines imposed either within the text of the amendment itself or in the text of the joint resolution proposing the amendment. Specifically, amendments 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 all had deadlines of seven years placed on them in some form. This Wikipedia article has the information.
The ERA was also not the only proposed amendment to fail because it was not ratified in time. The DC Voting Rights Amendment also expired without being ratified in 1985.
Is that really why you think we don’t put women in combat roles (at least intentionally)? Because we want to oppress them?
Schlafly would likely rather see a family lose everything and live on the street than have their mother work to provide for them. Pro-family?
Well, when it turns out that we have absolutely no problem with them being in combat, being injured in combat, being killed in combat, etc. etc. etc., but we do have a problem with giving them combat pay and combat-specific honors, what would your conclusion as to our societal motivations be? Some sort of fundamental respect for women that runs so very deep that it moves people to ignore and short-change them?
It would be nice just to have 5 seconds to tell Shlafley “If it’s sooo great, why don’t you go back in the kitchen?”
Yeah, I hear the draft brought up a lot. In fact it was one of the first things my older brother asked me when I started talking about equal rights. I hesistated in my answer, not because (as he’d assumed) that I thought only men should be subject to the draft, but because I don’t think ANYONE should have to sign up for the draft – because no one should be forced to fight a war they don’t believe in.
After pausing to sort it out (and ignoring his smug expression) I replied “I don’t think anyone should be drafted, but as long as men have to sign up, then women should too. It’s only fair.”
That’s what Newt Gingrich said.
As for the draft: they can’t even get a draft put in place for men these days, and the Army is beginning to break.
Strict scrutiny means that the law has to be “narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state goal” according to my Con. law professor. In otherwords, there has to be a really, really, really good reason for our rights and freedoms to be curtailed.
The analogy I was given in class is that you wouldn’t leave class for a reasonable reason (such as you had a friend call) but you would leave if you had a compelling reason (such as your wife just went into labor). The former the teacher would chew you out, the later s/he wouldnt’.
randomliberal:
Thanks for the info on ratification deadlines. I’d read somewhere that the ERA was the first/only, and it’s interesting to find that to be false. Hopefully we can get the thing through this time. It is in fact embarrassing that we are debating the issue at this point in history. And that there are people arguing *against* it — female people. Are we quite sure we aren’t living in the Twilight Zone?
Much agreed on the whole “nobody should be drafted because they shouldn’t be forced to fight in a war they don’t believe in” notion. I do think that if anyone should be eligible for the draft, then *everyone* should be. (Come to think of it, all adults up to a certain age should be, perhaps 65? They still need radio ops, file clerks, and whatnot, and age doesn’t usually preclude someone from paperwork, etc.) I suspect that notion might change the minds of some folks who don’t flinch at seeing young men shipped off to war, but would be horrified at the thought of their precious daughters facing the same.
I suspect Ms. Schlafly has a problem with women voting, too. Or at least considering their vote themselves and not just voting the way Darling Husband tells them to. *head smack!* I also suspect she keeps that very carefully to herself.
I marched for the ERA in DC in the late 70s, along with my mother and sister. I remember Phyllis’s saying that the people who marched were either communists, lesbians, or government employees. Mom got to be the communist.
The fundamental problem with her argument about “the presumption that the husband should support the wife” is that there’s no legal standard for that. If your husband doesn’t support you, there isn’t a thing you can do about it! Or at least that’s what I remember from law school.
*grin* Humor appreciated. My ma probably would have been the same.
Ooooh, does that mean if we march again, we get to pick? :) I wonder what her categories will be now… I *have* worked for the government (University of MN employees technically work for the state) and my generally liberal mindset seems to be hovering near “communist” in the current political climate.* The only thing I can’t legitimately claim is lesbian, and I have to admit, I’m open minded enough to be persuaded, at least on a part-time basis.**
Any plans anywhere to march on DC again? If not, how about we find Ms. Schlafly and march on her? *blinks innocently* What?!??
* This is not to say I AM a communist — my personal belief is that it’s a perfectly legitimate form of government/society that can’t exist past a certain number of people. It’s simply not practical on a large scale. It’s just that I’m far enough left that, in the US today, people look at me funny and sometimes mutter things.
** Bi-curious, I think it’s generally called. Haven’t had the opportunity to test it yet. Wouldn’t be insulted by being called a lesbian, though. That just shows that the caller has run out of legitimate criticisms. *evil grin*
The idea that women should not be equal is proposterous. Obviously not many would agree with Schlafly when so many ppl worked to get women equal rights. Im not saying that women ARE treated equally, because as I’ve observed in my women’s studies class, there are still plenty of ways we are lacking to be treated equal. But I have to agree with the fact that since so much time has passed, women aren’t relying on their “husbend” to support them and this shouldn’t be one of her main focus’s as to why we shouldnt be treated equal! And as far as the draft goes, if men are going to be drafted, then women should have to be as well. However, I think the draft should just be abolished altogether, but thats a different topic for a different day.
I also agree with the “Quick! Someone call Margaret Atwood!” We just finished reading her book in my women’s studies class and I found it to be very powerful. It would def be one Schlafly would agree with and be interested in reading.
she’s a bit old to be Serena Joy. how old -is- she, anyway?
You do realize that if the ERA gets ratified, the MRAs are waiting in the wings to start lawsuits as well. The ERA is gender neutral in it’s wording so it can be used by men against women-only or women-advantage situations.
Do you think Phyllis would please make my x-husband support me? How about my current one? As far as I know, if he quits his job today, the 13th Amendment prevents the government from forcing him to go get another one to support me. That one is just a hoot. As for the draft, I think the draft would do many Americans of both genders a world of good, and put an effective end to stupid wars. Let’s all do two years, shall we, just like in Israel, and then see how well the warmongers do in the next election. Instead of the Equal Rights amendment lets call it the Amendment to Honor the Women War Dead. How anyone can be against this while women are dying for their country in Iraq I don’t understand.
Phyllis Schafly was born in 1924 according to Wikipedia. That makes her 83.
Schlafly opposes the ERA not only because she is pro-family but because the ERA doesn’t effectively do many of the things we all like to think it would.
And if anyone had even made a cursory attempt at looking at Schlafly herself, and not just her controversial ideas, maybe they would realize that:
1. Schlafly doesn’t have a problem with women working. She wrote 20 books while raising her 6 children (who turned out fine, btw, if you’re looking to jab her there). She didn’t just stay in the kitchen, but she didn’t stay out of the kitchen either.
2. Schlafly doesn’t have a “tiny lady-brain.” With three degrees, including a law degree she began at age 51, Schlafly is probably your intellectual superior.
3. Schlafly isn’t in favor of “keeping women in their place.” Schlafly is in favor of understanding that men and women are different, and that legislation won’t change that. She endorses women who go out and make things happen. Which is exactly what she is doing. The mis-informed insults you throw at her only help her case.