Equal Rights Amendment

[chonsigirl]

One needed amendment to the Constitution has not yet been approved, the Equal Rights Amendment, that would guarantee equality of rights for men and women under the laws of the United States. Some would argue that this already exists, and there is no reason for it to be codified as an amendment. I do not believe this, because the only right guaranteed to women under the Constitution is the right to vote. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause has been applied since 1971 to sex discrimination cases, but not consistently to protect against female discrimination. An ERA amendment would provide a clearer signpost for future judicial decisions dealing with gender issues that would provide guidance in interpretation at a federal level of state and local laws regarding gender issues.



http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The ERA: A Brief Introduction

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

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

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



These simple words comprise the entire text of The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), affirming the equal application of the U.S. Constitution to both females and males. The ERA was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. She and the NWP considered the ERA to be the next necessary step after the 19th Amendment (Woman Suffrage) in guaranteeing "equal justice under law" to all citizens. The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.In the 108th Congress (2003 - 2004), the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced as S.J. Res. 11 (Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA, chief sponsor) and H.J. Res. 37 (Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY, chief sponsor). These bills impose no deadline on the ratification process in their proposing clauses. The ERA Task Force of the National Council of Women's Organizations supports these bills and urges groups and individuals to advocate for more co-sponsors and passage.

[Accountable]

I can't believe everybody let this sit here for over 3 hours without response 1. Cowards :p



I don't buy it. Where are women's rights being circumvented today? "All men are created Equal" is accepted in today's society as meaning "all mankind." I believe to separate out women is wrong. Haven't we been striving for over a generation for inclusion?



granted, I am saying this from a white man's point of view, but that's still who you need to convince. so convince me.

[chonsigirl]

Oh AC, you noticed it, and suggested it!



"All men are created equal" is an interesting comment. Women do not always have equal rights in many areas, and an amendment would bring protection under the Constitution.

One example of unequality:

Differences in the average wages earned between males and females.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "... The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668. The real median earnings of the comparable group of women declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. ... The last time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998 and 1999."

http://www.radford.edu/~gstudies/source ... #backslide

Interesting stats at the bottom of this page, with the appropriate links to the Census.

[Accountable]

chonsigirl wrote: Oh AC, you noticed it, and suggested it!





"All men are created equal" is an interesting comment. Women do not always have equal rights in many areas, and an amendment would bring protection under the Constitution.



One example of unequality:



Differences in the average wages earned between males and females.



"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "... The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668. The real median earnings of the comparable group of women declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. ... The last time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998 and 1999."

http://www.radford.edu/~gstudies/source ... #backslide



Interesting stats at the bottom of this page, with the appropriate links to the Census.
I rather expected more response in support, so I waited for it.



Is there a theory as to why the decline? Citing any wage statistic including all women vs all men is irrelevant. Try citing single childless professional women vs. single childless professional men and you might have something. Women choose (God love freedom of choice) to drop out of the workforce to bear children and caretake them until they can send them to school. Some women, of course, prefer to pay someone else to be the parent. Men prefer traditional parental roles :yh_eyebro leaving them free to climb the money ladder unencumbered.

[Accountable]

This is from your source.



The familiar relationship between female and male earnings is illustrated in Figure 5, where it is clear that women at every percentile level of their earnings distribution earn less than men at the same percentile level. But these comparisons do not control for other differences ” differences in age, education, and occupation. In other words, do women of comparable experience (as measured by age and education) earn the same as men in the same occupation? If differences do exist, they are not necessarily due to discrimination in hiring or promotion, though that may well be a contributing factor. [my emphasis added] Other underlying processes, such as free choice, geographic location, educational opportunities, industrial growth, culture, marriage and employment practices, gender based preferences, the presence of unions, work history and experience, and many other factors may contribute to differences in remuneration.

[chonsigirl]

From Census 2000 Special Report

“Overall, median earnings for men were higher than those for women. In 1999, the median earnings of women age 16 and over who worked full-time, year-round were $27,200, about $10,000 less than the median earnings of their male counterparts. ($37,100)” page 12 of Census 2000 Special Report

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf

This is for the total workforce, I am still looking for the special case example you looked for AC.

[Accountable]

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


It just occurred to me that what a private entity pays its employees has nothing to do with the United States or any State. What laws in place deny or abridge women's rights?

[wormwood]

chonsigirl:

I might be mistaken but aren't the wage differences because of the manditory leave of abscence female employees get for being pregnant? Males do not get the same break when becoming fathers. How much good does your executive V.P. do you when she's at home dropping babies every nine months? I know this is not the case for all women, nor am I suggesting that in any way, but it is a factor that an employer must consider. I don't know what say the government would have, if it was based on a reliability issue.

You do raise an interesting point though, I think you are right about making a constitutional amendment to make women more equal. That change would be to make it so women have to register for the draft at 18 just like men do. This is obviously a biased policy against women and should be ammended immediately.

And on a social level, I say no more WNBA, either you're good enough to play in the regular NBA or you don't need to play proffessionally. Why the seperate men's and womens events in the olympics? We're all equal right, why not just the best human beings on earth?

[Accountable]

wormwood wrote: [...]I might be mistaken but aren't the wage differences because of the manditory leave of abscence female employees get for being pregnant? Males do not get the same break when becoming fathers.[...]
Actually, the law allows fathers the same leave, if they want it. Of course, the question is how many actually take it?

[Accountable]

Accountable wrote: It just occurred to me that what a private entity pays its employees has nothing to do with the United States or any State. What laws in place deny or abridge women's rights?
Welllllll?????

[chonsigirl]

Accountable wrote: Actually, the law allows fathers the same leave, if they want it. Of course, the question is how many actually take it?
Maternity leave is granted to fathers as well as mothers, it varies according to the workplace. I know of 2 father on maternity currently from the public schools, they get 6 weeks. They usually space it so the mom stays home the first 6 weeks, then the father the second 6 weeks. Then the baby is 3 months old before alternative day care is looked for.

Link to an article from USA Today about comparative rate of maternity, US v. other nations. I will look for male ratios of maternity leave, and how many choose this option.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace ... life_x.htm

Article also brings up the point that feminist movements in the US usually do not address this issue, focusing on equal rights issues instead. Which is a valid point to bring up.

[wormwood]

Ok my mistake about maternity leave. I am not sure what the justification could be, as that was the excuse I was given. Maybe it has something to do with beautiful women making all of the male employees worthless :wah:

So no one is down for the uni-sex olympics?

[Bothwell]

How is taking amternity leave used as a justification for pay differentials.

If you are a doctor for example you should be paid as that and not because of your sex.

I don't know about the USA but here in the UK there are endless surveys that show up inequality time after time. Surely the job has a rate and that's it, whoever you are doing the job you get the rate.

It is interesting regarding the Equal rights legislation, I know over here some years ago one of the political parties tried to introduce women only shortlists and it was rejected mainly by the women cadidates because they felt that they wanted to earn the positions by right rather than by turn

[Accountable]

Yer late Floppy. (does that sentence still make you sweat? :sneaky: )

[Accountable]

Bothwell wrote: How is taking amternity leave used as a justification for pay differentials.

If you are a doctor for example you should be paid as that and not because of your sex.

I don't know about the USA but here in the UK there are endless surveys that show up inequality time after time. Surely the job has a rate and that's it, whoever you are doing the job you get the rate.



It is interesting regarding the Equal rights legislation, I know over here some years ago one of the political parties tried to introduce women only shortlists and it was rejected mainly by the women cadidates because they felt that they wanted to earn the positions by right rather than by turn
The primary reason cited is that women drop out of the workforce, usually for family reasons, then re-enter years later. One can't just pick up where one left off; there's catching up to do. While she was out, no matter how justified the reason, technology, terminology, and/or methods changed. Meanwhile, the male counterpart was there being productive for the company and earning raises & bonuses.



Another reason is cultural (I'm pulling this stuff from my foggy memory of grad school so I don't have the resources in my hand). Women tend not to be as aggressive in asking for raises as men. Women are still today raised to be far more concious of social norms and not rocking the boat. A woman who brags about her job accomplishments generally lose favor among the other women. Thankfully, there are women who care less about what others think of them than what they think of themselves. The numbers grow as more role models come forth. Give it time, the progress will continue exponentially.



The people spoiling for a fight use a broad statistic including all women as one group. If this group were stratefied, I think you'd find things far more equal than the activists want to admit.

[Accountable]

So it seems the problem is not necessarily sexism, it's secrecy. A handsome man gets paid more than I - er - than a less attractive man, as well. I could get behind making people's pay schedules public knowledge among company employees. It would actually raise morale, knowing for sure that you're being paid fairly.



For cying out loud, what I paid for my home is open to the public whether I like it or not, why not my income?

[gmc]

Just to a slightly different slight on things. In the UK there have been several cases taken to the european courts over equal pay and equal pension rights. The first was over pension rights, part time workers were excluded from the pension scheme but since most are female it was deemed to be discriminatory against women, part toime workers won rights back to the early nineties.

There have also been cases brought to get equal pay for doing the same job, which were also won. The result is chaos as some were being paid way over the odds, in some cases thousands of pounds, for doing the same job as a woman on the same grade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4199144.stm

The dispute centres on the council's plans to implement the nationwide pay restructuring scheme, aimed at bringing salaries into line with equal pay legislation.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4175086.stm

Most of the councils involved are labour councils, as in the party that is suppoised to look after the interests of workers, unless it seems they are women and not cronies of th council bosses. It also begs the quetion as to why the unions turned a blind eye to such blatantly unfair practices.

[Accountable]

Again, publicising the pay scales would take care of that problem. Painful at first, but in the long run very beneficial.



I really disagree with paying part-time workers pensions equal to full-timers. That's equal pay for unequal work.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Again, publicising the pay scales would take care of that problem. Painful at first, but in the long run very beneficial.

I really disagree with paying part-time workers pensions equal to full-timers. That's equal pay for unequal work


The pay scales were known, that was the reason for the case, pay scales were blatantly ignored and rises given indiscriminately. The pensions are not equal but pro-rata based on the number of years service and salary, part timers won't get the same as a full-timer, the point is they were barred from membership of the scheme illegally.

[wormwood]

What about companies owned by women? Do they have this same practice of paying women less?

Also, sexism seems to work in womens favor sometimes, I have to say. If I applied for an office job for some big male executive, and some beautiful woman was applying for the same position, who do you think would get it? For me to be paid more, I have to first get a job, which seems like it favors the asthetically pleasing. Men, given the opportunity, will surround themselves with beautiful women, rather than qualified apllicants.

Also, look at our society, if you looked up court cases in the south, you would find (especially pre 1970) that women were not held accountable for crimes like murdering their husbands, or other violent acts. It was all written off as "horomones" or "hysteria", and they were sentenced to a few months in a mental institution.

In court case over child custody, the mother is almost always given precidence over the father, regaurdless of who the better parent might actually be.

If a man pays for a woman's rent he is taking care of her, if a woman pays a man's rent he is a low-life that is just using women.

If a woman hits me in public, I am supposed to "be a man" and take it, if I turned and hit her back, I would be considered a brute and thrown in jail.

These are just a few societal examples of the difference. I am not saying by any means that this list is a justification for a pay differential, but I am merely demonstrating that different treatment of the sexes is ingrained in our culture, and it is not ALWAYS against women.

Another reason I found for the pay difference was that men traditionally are the "head of the household" so they get increased pay to provide for their family. I don't know how true that is, some old man that sells insurance told me that

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: The pay scales were known, that was the reason for the case, pay scales were blatantly ignored and rises given indiscriminately. The pensions are not equal but pro-rata based on the number of years service and salary, part timers won't get the same as a full-timer, the point is they were barred from membership of the scheme illegally.
I posted a response to this, but I see it's not here. I must not have hit submit.



I can definitely support a balanced program such as you describe.

[Adam Zapple]

This thread is full of innuendo and short on facts. Speaking of, short men make less than tall men.

[Accountable]

Adam Zapple wrote: This thread is full of innuendo and short on facts. Speaking of, short men make less than tall men.
You're short, aren't you? :yh_think