According to the below article from the Seattle Times, lawmakers are working to reintroduce the ERA, this time known as the "Women's Equality Amendment." Of course Phyllis Schlafly and her minions are already working to get rid of it. Do you think she'll be successful again? Or has America come far enough to allow full equality of the sexes?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003639250_era28.html?syndication=rss
2007-04-02 12:17:37 · 8 answers · asked by Rio Madeira 7 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
I say again, EQUALITY, for those who still believe that all feminists hate men and want all the power for themselves.
2007-04-02 12:30:02 · update #1
I have read Animal Farm, Alexandra, several times. The difference between feminists and the pigs is that feminists haven't actually taken men's rights away. The right to rape their wives, maybe. But we don't have the right to rape our husbands, now do we?
2007-04-02 14:26:10 · update #2
I don't know what you mean, hero. The ERA wouldn't ensure high standards in mate selection for women. We have more important things to think about than that. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to dating, you can be as choosy as you please.
2007-04-02 15:53:24 · update #3
ERA should be ratified and I think it's insulting that it is not, especially due to a woman. America DOES have a long way to go, and this is only one of the steps.
2007-04-02 13:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by Who Knew! 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
This has been a long time coming and at least the anti feminist can stop whining that women won't get chosen for special services as far as the draft. This would base equality across the board, and it would demystify the old laws, that don't serve well in these times with all the changes that have taken place between men and women.
2007-04-02 14:23:17 · answer #2 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Next time some troll on here complains that women aren't demanding to be potentially drafted, please forward them that link. If the ERA was passed, women would have to be drafted.
Another reason the wingnuts don't want this passed is because there would no longer be a case against gay marriage. So as long as people are against that, they will fight against the ERA.
2007-04-02 13:06:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's odd, I thought women already had all the same rights under the constitution that men did?
Exactly which rights are women being denied?
By trying to introduce the ERA, proponents of this legislation are saying that women today are less than men and they need special protections as a class.
That's quite an insult to women from ERA supporters.
2007-04-02 13:25:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
feminists believe it is ok for women to be as shallow as judgemental towards men as trhey want, but think it's wrong for men to do the same. if they support this, what makes you think they wouldn't support any law that is unjust to men? if you don't believe me, read all the feminist responses to me question about women having high standards(especially Baba Yaga's).
2007-04-02 15:44:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If it means TRUE equality (the "bad" along with the "good") then I'm all for it.
2007-04-02 14:16:49 · answer #6 · answered by koreaguy12 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Equality? Who're you kidding? Seems to me that women are "more equal" than men nowadays--the ERA needs to STAY dead!
Read George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
2007-04-02 13:30:16 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 8⤋
i think it`s great
2007-04-02 12:20:08 · answer #8 · answered by Dr Universe 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋