Grex Femme Conference

View Responses

Grex Femme Item 13: The ERA, should it be ratified?
Entered by omni on Tue Feb 15 06:13:53 UTC 1994:

 I was reading in the Detroit News, specifically in George Will's 
column that "The days of the ERA are past" and that it would be 
better if the ERA was abandoned, rather than ratified.

    I was appalled at this comment, because from what I am reading,
Parity in women's pay is still an issue and there are still a lot of
items that remain unresolved.

 Do you support the ERA and should it be ratified?

12 responses total.

#1 of 12 by popcorn on Tue Feb 15 15:01:00 1994:

This response has been erased.

#2 of 12 by young on Fri Feb 18 00:28:45 1994:

Yeah, not much for me to do but to agree.  Just why did Mr. Will think it
should be abandoned?

#3 of 12 by omni on Fri Feb 18 08:28:45 1994:

Because of the fact that it's been 22 yrs and the limit on amendments is
usually 3-7 yrs.

#4 of 12 by contaxes on Tue Mar 1 07:14:15 1994:

To question in #0, no and no, but not because I don't want to see parity in
women's pay.

I didn't read George Will's column, but there are many who argue, including
me, that matters like this cannot be achieved by legislation and attempts to
do so only bring harm.  I believe Will has also argued that minimum wage laws
are detrimental to the poor, by keeping them out of jobs they would otherwise
get.  Milton Friedman said it best (paraphrased) "We economists may not know
much, but we sure know how to create a shortage and how to create a surplus.
For a shortage, legislate a price lower than the market will support, and for
a surplus, legislate a price higher than the market will pay."

Any more than that requires an entire article, but the key is that meaningful
change only comes through changing the market, which is people, is all of us.
It can be done, but you have to measure the time span of the results in decades

#5 of 12 by popcorn on Wed Mar 9 15:30:00 1994:

This response has been erased.

#6 of 12 by contaxes on Mon Mar 28 05:05:55 1994:

Valerie, I may have shot from the hip there, and I do not have the wording in
front of me either, but every discussion that I can recall about the ERA seems
to focus on the pay issue, including that by omni in this item.

Also, in many cases pay is legislated, and saying that men and women should be
equal under the law does affect pay.  Of course, one could say that those laws
regarding to pay are what is wrong.  I would be all for the ERA as you have
described it.

#7 of 12 by popcorn on Mon Mar 28 11:45:53 1994:

This response has been erased.

#8 of 12 by gracel on Tue Mar 29 02:55:22 1994:

Actual wording, no.  The sense, as I recall it (with help from the
Encyclopaedia Britannica 1976 yearbook), was:
I. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
... on account of sex.
II. Congress shall have the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation.

#9 of 12 by aaron on Sat Apr 2 16:14:13 1994:

Well, let's see what my sources say....

  Section 1:  Women shall have full access to mens' restrooms, jobs, military
              combat positions, paychecks, and private clubs.

  Section 2:  November 12 shall be declared Lorena Bobbitt day....

  Oops...  I seem to have the Phyllis Schafley version.  One sec...

Here it is:

  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.  The amendment shall take effect two years after the date of
              ratification.

I dunno, guys...  That sounds pretty radical.

#10 of 12 by remmers on Sun Apr 3 03:05:10 1994:

Hmm, why Section 2?  It would seem logical to me that enforcement
would be a matter for the courts.  e.g. a law believed to violate
the amendment would be challenged in court.  What sort of supporting
legislation would be likely to ensue from Congress if the
amendment is ratified?

#11 of 12 by aaron on Sun Apr 3 03:34:32 1994:

Have you read your Constitution lately?

Civil rights legislation, perhaps, creating a civil cause of action for
violations of the Amendment.  Similar to the 1964 civil rights act, which
you presumably believe was unecessary(?!).

#12 of 12 by brighn on Tue Jul 19 15:43:55 1994:

I must say, I've been misinformed!  If #9 is really the ERA (and I have no
reason to doubt that it is), I support it wholeheartedly.  At the risk of
starting an argument, it would help men in certain arenas as much as it would
women in others (the lion's share of them).

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.