Join The Debate!

Women's Equality Amendment

Ashley, you are full of it! This diatribe of yours is just another example of radical, reactionary fear mongering combined with sexism. And to hear it coming from a woman makes it all the more odious. You say that, "The WEA would end the military draft exemption for women, regardless of whether they are single mothers or have recently given birth. It will also lift the restriction on women in ground combat. Sending young women and mothers to die in the place of men is universally recognized as morally repellent, which is why no army in the world has ever experimented with it. But the WEA would place women on the front lines of war, where they can be shot at and taken prisoner by the enemy." Rubbish! I find it hard to believe that the draft exemption would be ended just because of the WEA as you refer to it. And even if it did, I say "It is about damn time". Women have been screaming for equal rights, equal pay for equal work, and other equal treatment for generations. As far as being on the front lines of combat, that is already happening or had you forgotten about Jessica Lynch and her female friend in Iraq? How about our female fighter and bomber pilots that can be shot down now just as easily as any of the males? Lest I forget women are now allowed to serve on aircraft carriers, destroyers and other naval vessels (all capital and/or combat ships) with the exception of submarines. You say that we have already witnessed the ordeal of the few women captured in Iraq who reported being beaten and sexually abused. To whom are you referring? I never read any such report in reference to Jessica Lynch or any other female service member in Iraq nor were there any such reports about the British woman captured recently by the Iranians.

You say, "The WEA would likely lead to gender quotas and affirmative action for women in the military as well as police and fire departments – occupations where most women don't belong." More rubbish! I have worked with some female cops. I used to be a volunteer cop and many of the women cops I know and knew could throw down with almost any male with the possible exception of the likes of some of the largest WWE Superstars. Need I remind you that strength is not everything. When you are a firefighter you work as a team with other firefighters. You don't go it solo! I have read many instances where female cops (try reading the book "Lady Cop") have dealt with criminal situations just as well as their male counterparts. Probably because they don't have the same physical strenght, they used other "strengths".

You imply that the WEA would render unconstitutional the Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts policy of excluding members of the opposite sex? Rubbish, bolderdash and hooey! The Supreme Court has already, to the best of my knowledge, ruled on these issues just as they ruled that the Boy Scouts of America have the right to exclude homosexuals because of their constitutional right of association, Equal Opportunity Laws be damned! The WEA would not do a damn thing to change that because the Boy Scouts are a private organization that does not accept government funds and therefore (according to the latest Supreme Court ruling) can set its own membership rules and criteria.

Grow up and quit spouting arguments designed to stir up fear and paranoia based on your desire to see women retain special protections and priveleges. If I can be required to fight, bleed and die to defend the rights and liberties of this Great Nation and all its people, then why can't a woman who already has, or should have, those same rights? I put on the uniform to defend this nation many years ago and I am proud of that service. Freedom isn't free lady and every American should be required to defend it.

Handy, Good God...

Are you Eminem?? You sound like him.

I've been noticing your post, and your hostility toward women seems a little on the extreme side.

Would you like to hear a man using your particular style of language in reference to your mother, sister, or daughter? If some young punk talked about your daughter the way you tend to talk about all women, wouldn't you feel at least some inclination to punch his lights out?

The thing is, on the point of the WEA, we actually agree. I don't want the thing, either. I don't want the government getting into the business of trying to legislate ideas, and telling people what to think. The government needs to be doing LESS of that, not more. I also don't like the idea of the enshrinement of Collectivism in the form of Affirmative Action. A true meritocracy with open opportunity to apply, rather than a quota-ocracy where Equality of Result is engineered, is what we need. People need the freedom to make their own choices, and then assume RESPONSIBILITY for those choices. But the liberals who are pushing the WEA think that we're too stupid/too weak/too wussy to make sensible decision on our own; we need their almighty help and guidance. THIS is rubbish. "Well, now" is right-on.

But I guess it's true what they say about strange bedfellows, because I doubt I agree with you on anything else. Fine and good. If you want to express yourself as you have, you have that right under the First Amendment.

But I have a right to think you sound like a frat-boy jerk.

women's Rights

Thank you so much for calling the ERA what it is. Young women should not be fooled by the new name. I was against it back in the 70's and I'm still against it.

WEA is NOT the ERA, its far worse

The amendment proposed by NOW is not the old ERA. The WEA proposed by NOW codifies pro-women sexism in the US Constitution. The term "equality" is a lie in the title. If this is the new version of "equal" it deamnad and casts into concrete pro-women sexism. It also guarantees pro-gay rights such as "gay marriage."

I have been unable to determine of the NOW drafted WEA is the one that Congress is currently talking about, but if it is, it is far worse than the old ERA.

Bob

I'm all for it!

If it means next time a rude woman honks at me in traffic I can treat her just like I would a man.

Sorry; gotta go practice my karate chop.

Just kidding; there would be no 'equal rights'

Feminist don't want 'equal rights' that is just newspeak for 'restricting the rights of men.'

Reduce the men to drones that is what is all about.

A little miscalculation; the wuss boys raised under Femi-nazism will be gobbled up by the sexist boys raised under Islam.

In twenty five years is back to the drawing board for polito-Lesbians

Equal Rights for Women

Someone said something very true -- women are equal to men, but not the same as men. It would be pretty stupid to have an amendment that does what you say it does (though I can also see some dissenters that say that it does not do what you say it does), but something of the sort is necessary to combat gender discrimination, which is something that, sadly, actually exists. However, there's a subtlety you're missing. It's fine to exclude women from particular jobs in firefighting because they don't have the physical strength to perform them, but it isn't OK to deny them that opportunity because they're women. They're equal, remember. If you're a woman and you have the skills and characteristics required for a given task, you should not be denied that task because you're a woman.

You mention single or recent mothers getting less protection -- that should not be the case, since a recent mother is not protected because she is a woman but because she is breastfeeding. It should be clear that a single father should have the same protections as a single mother, though.

Women being captured and tortured in the front lines? No problem. If men have the opportunity to do it, so should women, and they should be drafted the same. If they don't have the physical characteristics to serve in a particular capacity -- as a front-line foot soldier, say -- then they shouldn't serve in that capacity because of that, not because they're women. Do you see what I'm talking about?

But I'm being very normative here; the text of the considered amendment may not encourage these things, I don't know. It is, however, necessary that women are guaranteed fair treatment Constitutionally. FAIR treatment, not SAME treatment. And affirmative action is inherently unfair and should be unconstitutional.

For Handy--wrong tense

The rodents are currently RUNNING the world!

I believe Laura is right

I'd have to say I agree that the seemingly bland and inoffensive language of the "new" proposal is, as Laura Hollis says, likely to be deliberate. They really want the battle to be fought in the courts over the interpretation of a vague statute. As anyone with eyes and a memory will agree, most of the liberal "progress" over the last 40 years has been achieved in the courts, rather than the legislature. The regal pronouncements of our enlightened masters, in other words, rather than the voice of the people. (That's one of the drawbacks of a democratic republic, don't ya know: Sometimes the people just don't know what's good for them.)

Drac, Myrmidons, et al

For the myrmidonic horde of feminists:

Anecdotal experiences WRT women & the military:
-Freedom of speech doesn’t exist in the MILITARY: privately criticize the “double standards” applied to FEMALE personnel in front of the wrong person & you career will end that day
- While in country in HAITI I had to evacuate “98 lbs wet” FEMALE O-1 right out of OCS out of harm’s way because I thought she was going to be snatched & assaulted by the natives. Her presence compromised the mission.
-At the Academy, underclass females routinely engaged in affairs w/ upperclass “ALPHA” males- nothing ever happened to them.
-When one of the female underclassman under my purvey was warned repeatedly to stop harassing a male underclassman to point where she physically assaulted him- the gutless Administration refused to press charges and court-martial said female. Why? Because the military, like society, doesn’t hold women accountable for their actions, e.g., US Naval Academy-educated USN CAPT Lisa Nowak
-I graduated w/ a BS in Electrical Engineering - 95% of all EEs in my class were MEN (Big Surprise)
-I dated a USNR nurse who told that married USNR enlisted females in her unit routinely had affairs w/ their male counterparts during drill weekends. One female in particular had committed paternity fraud on two separate occasions. It was an open secret and no one did anything about it.
-I had an academy classmate who committed adultery with an E-8 and then attempted to commit paternity fraud on her husband. What eventually happened? Nothing: Academy-educated women don’t exploit their authority & engage in group relations w/ subordinates. She later divorced her husband (got the house, kids etc. after making unsubstantiated “domestic violence” charges.) CAPT Nowak is hardly the exception to the rule.
-At my current reserve unit, an EMAIL has been promulgated by all the militant females and their chivalrous male enablers: The obituary of recent outstanding West Point graduate killed in Irag by an IED. Why? Because she was a minority female and the implication is that her life is more valuable than the lives of her minimally-franchised white male classmates.

Feminism verses reality:
“First Wave” Feminism was ostensibly sold as “equality of opportunity.” When that didn’t produce enough engineers & scientist to suit the feminists, “Second wave” Feminism became all about allowing upper-middle class women the luxury of “equality in outcome” (e.g., Affirmative Action, quotas, Title IX set asides and other forms of Fascism) in the world of men while retaining their domestic power-base. Gender is course a social construct when it applies to the traditional world of men, but women should have the privilege of maintaining their traditional “matriarchal” power monopoly because they have an innate “nurturing” nature endemic to a uniquely “esoteric” female insight into reality in general. “Third wave” feminism is all about “female-chauvinism” in the guise of gender neo-marxism:
+ “pregnancy should be seen as a super ability” that should be compensated/subsidized by society rather than a disability,
+ “comparable worth”: Nurses (female dominated profession) should be paid the same as Engineers (male dominated profession) , etc.
But, speaking as member of the “disposable” gender, I’m all in favor of an ERA (“Equal Responsibility Amendment”) which should contain the following items:

(a) Women are legally held accountable for their actions (e.g., CAPT Nowak, Mary Winkler, Andrea Yates, Debra LaFave, etc.) like their male counterparts;
(b) Current paternal court system is overhauled to be gender-neutral WRT divorce, alimony, child custody & child support
(c) The law mandates automatic paternity tests for all children born in the U.S. (NOW will fight this tooth & nail)
(d) Women accept the consequences of engaging relations w/ men with whom they really don’t want to have children rather than using abortion as de facto birth control (apparently 20% of U.S. children conceived are currently aborted- pretty pathetic behavior on the part of the “morally superior” gender);
(d) Women are prosecuted for committing the most despicable form of domestic abuse: PATERNITY FRAUD (we will need to build more prisons because this will apply to at least 10% of the female population)
(d) The U.S. government spends as much $ financing male specific disease research as it does female specific research (e.g., prostrate vice breast cancer research) which includes the average life-span disparity (men on average lived longer that women prior to the 20th century)
(d) Women comprise 50% of mining, construction & other work-related deaths (not likely since the lives of women are more valuable than men), e.g., “poor” women should be taken off the welfare rolls IOT be given the opportunity to die along side poor men since gender is a social construct;
(e) Women work 50% of all overtime;
(f) Women pay 59% of all income taxes (59 cents on every dollar collected by the federal government goes to pay for entitlements that almost solely benefit WOMEN)
(g) Men are accorded the opportunity to stay at home to raise their children without being subjected to the usual misandrist “shaming language”, nor losing their home & children
(h) The Social Security Retirement age for women should be extended to 72 IOT compensate for their artificially enhanced life spans;
(i) “Chivalry” (i.e., Pro-female sexism) will be treated as a felony; and
(h) Women do 50% of all standard dirty/analytically-challenging male domestic chores: e.g., replace/re-wire dishwasher, move 8 tons of river rock around the pool area, repair sprinkler piping, inspect crawl space, rip out & replace crawl space door, administer home WLAN, etc.

Feminists, like children, see rights without the associated responsibilities. They see a “Patriarchy” w/o acknowledging the power of the traditional domestic “matriarchy.” They see the female as “Goddess” but not likewise as the “Devil.” They talk ad nauseum about the “glass ceiling” w/o acknowledging the men tied to the “glass cellar”, e.g., men still dominate the 20 most dangerous, low-paying professions & suffer 95% of all workplace-related deaths & injuries. There are pathetic, petulant, pedantic women-children & if they aren’t careful, the ADULTS with get tired of doing all the heavy lifting and allow the Bogymen to come in and put all of the women of this country in Burkas.

Ladies, don’t bother to consider the merits of anything I have stated. Merely brand me a “woman hater” & start to attack my manhood. Let the “invalidation games” begin…

Adult acknowledgement

Demosthenes, many of your points are valid -- particularly the illustration of the "sympathy" that female criminals like Andrea Yates get. To be an adult means to acknowledge that one is responsible for the choices one makes.

True merit is not derived from sex or gender; it is derived from individual accomplishment. Honor, integrity, creativity, and imagination are not and have never been exclusively the property of one sex or the other. I used to believe this was the basic tenet of feminism; accordingly, since I support this tenet strongly, I called myself a feminist. BUT I WAS WRONG.

Contemporary feminists have made their "ideology" about 1) getting something for nothing; 2) institutionalizing Groupthink and Collectivism in the form of affirmative action; 3)presenting promiscuity as "empowering; and 5) embracing the illusion of Victimhood -- the idea that one's actions are the fault of "the Man" rather than oneself. I can't get on board with this program. I'm getting off.

However, I will state once again that no one will put me in a Burka UNTIL I AM DEAD. Kill me. That's the only way you'll ever get me into one of those things.

In the meantime, perhaps we should focus more on those individual women and men whom we know, admire, and respect, as opposed to the big BogeyMAN or BogeyWOMAN who is Oppressing Us. Look at the State, the Media, or Society, and we will drift toward Groupthink and bitterness. Look at individuals, and we'll have a saner, far less embittered perspective. After all, the failure of contemporary feminism is its unwillingness to perceive people as individuals and its insistence on a kind of monolithic Gender Group Identity. In opposing it, let us not make the same mistake.

Why can'a a woman...

be more like a man? So queries 'enry 'iggins.
"Let me count the ways...some are more obvious than other, but who cares?" -- apologies to Browning.

This, from one who endured all the b.s. of the "radical feminists" in the 60's and 70's and almost believed it...and found herself a very frustrated young mother / college graduate who was really angry because I "wasn't doing anything worthwhile" by staying at home and raising two boys.

Here's what I learned by being a stay at home mom. I had more freedom, independence, and flexibility in my life that I have now. Today, my agenda is set by someone else, I have to suffer through annual performance reviews to satisfy a bunch of pain-in-the a** corporate rules and regs, hobbies and interests have taken a back burner, office relationships don't qualify as "family", and week-ends are "catch-up" time. Well, that never happens.

While I have a bit more maturity and experience enabling me to de-construct these issues and to determine just how intrusive they actually are in my life, my point is that women (and everyone, for that matter)needs to carefully consider the cost of what they pray for.

As I used to tell my sons, "The grass may look greener on the other side of the fence and you may want to jump into it. It's your choice to do that, or not. However, remember that when you land in that green grass, you may land in that which makes it greener. That's usually very messy and smelly. On the other hand, you may make a good jump and all will be fine. But, it's your choice...and know that you may or may not have someone handy to clean it up for you."

Their Father would remind them that choices are powerful things. The lesson went something like this: Any one choice you make, while opening some doors, can permanently close other doors leading to paths you may well want to explore at a different time. Once the door is shut, it's very unlikely that it will open again. Think of cost of your choice and decide if you're willing to pay that cost.

Thus, to the ladies who want to jump over the fence to embrace the cause du jour, understand that what you're actually doing is negotiating yourself from a position of superiority in so many areas of life to one of equality. You sure you want to pay the cost? It's not always "all about you and what you want".

Don't try the argument that you're wanting to pave the way for other women. I'm old enough and smart enough to not buy that red herring. It's been around for more than 30 years. It's starting to stink.

And while it's your choice to strive for the "goodies", I'm really weary of hearing your whining and watching as you try be "more like a man".

Ring the wedding bells

Like the Employee Free Choice Act, the Women's Equality Amendment hides a Pandora's box of potential mischief behind an innoucuous label.

I've also been around the block with what was once called the Equal Rights Amendment; I, too, wanted no part of it then and want no part of it now.

It was amply demonstrated the first time around that existing laws covered all the bases, and that women had nothing to gain and a lot to lose if the amendment should be ratified.

Then it hit me: the reason this dead horse is being kicked is that the only thing that women are still not allowed to do is marry each other. And that's what this whole charade is all about.

Tom (3:46 PM), get a clue

Nobody is treated as an individual in military recruiting. Military recruiting requires acquiring large numbers of prospects who have the greatest statistical likelihood of meeting the minimum requirements. This means they're excluding everyone over and under a certain height or weight, regardless of whether that person might make an outstanding aide or cook. That's what it takes to staff a military.

I remember a debate between ACLU types and Wm F Buckley and some military types, four members on each panel, and both panels had generals on them. The debate spanned two weeks, and was about women in the military. In the first week, this question of individual skill vs. mass recruiting requirements came up, and got kicked around thoroughly. By the time the 2nd week rolled around, all eight participants -- including Ira Glass, then President of the ACLU -- agreed that the large-scale recruiting requirements of the military made individual considerations (like, "you're the one woman out of 10 who would actually pass the physical exam") impossible. All eight.

It's just a fact. Deal with it.

WEA Comment

I notice one erroneous comment in your article. You state that women will be drafted if it passes. The reality is today, and was THEN, that women are and WERE NOT exempt from the draft, should one be enacted. It was a societal norm that women could not serve in combat roles, excluding medical women, that is. Military Nurses died in Vietman, Korea and during WW2.
Since women today make up about 15% of the Military, the point has become moot. If I were you, i would be more afraid of the present proposed policy that pregnant women and new mothers are not excused from being deployed to Iraq or Afganistan. Women in Iraq today, while supposedly prohibited from combat zomes, are routinely placed on patrols, at checkpoints, driving in convoys, etc, and are being killed and maimed. The clock is rarely turnd back.
By your picture, I would assume you were a very young child in the 1970s. i am an old lady, who served in a military that was very restrictive for women, well before your time.