Commentary
With barriers to gender equity falling, it's time to ratify the ERA
by Shannon DruryShannon Drury, former president of Minnesota NOW, is a writer, at-home parent and community activist. She writes a regular column for the Minnesota Women's Press, blogs at www.theradicalhousewife.com and is a source in MPR News' Public Insight Network.
Last week, leaders of the U.S. military announced the end of the ban on women serving in combat roles in our nation's armed forces.
The loud BAM! you heard as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta delivered this announcement was neither an official 21-gun salute, nor the thumping of thousands of women's helmets as they celebrated the opportunity to be recognized for work they have already done in Iraq and are doing in Afghanistan. It was the sound of yet another barrier falling in the long path to ratify an Equal Rights Amendment.
A brief ERA primer: The original amendment was written by Alice Paul, the toughest of the activists now known as American feminism's First Wave. Paul's street protests would be called Occupy Women's Suffrage today, but the passage of the 19th Amendment didn't satisfy her. She penned a companion amendment that read: "Equality of rights under the law not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
This Equal Rights Amendment gained little traction during Paul's day, but in American feminism's Second Wave, it was given new life. With bipartisan support, the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. First Ladies Pat Nixon, Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter all lobbied for it. Passage seemed inevitable until Phyllis Schlafly stepped into the fray.
Schlafly, whose Eagle Forum organization bills itself as "leaders of the pro-family movement since 1972," portrayed the Equal Rights Amendment as a tool of radical feminists bent on dismantling every aspect of American life. Her tactics were incredibly effective, and the ERA fell three states short of its ratification deadline in 1982.
How did she do it? By preying on the public's fear of the following bugaboos:
Unisex bathrooms. If you are a parent of small children, you know that these already exist: Called "family bathrooms," they recognize that children and parents do not always socialize in public in neatly matched gender pairs. Even restaurants as shockingly outre as Noodles & Company have done away with gendered stick people on their single restroom doors, allowing anyone who requires a toilet to use one. Radical.
Same-sex marriages. Currently, nine states have legalized same-sex marriage. California's marriage law's still in limbo, pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if you feel that same-sex marriage is an affront to your religious beliefs, you must admit that Massachusetts hasn't exactly fallen into the Atlantic since it was legalized there in 2003. In fact, the formerly cursed Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 and 2007. (Note to Gov. Mark Dayton and the Minnesota Legislature: The Twins haven't won a Series since 1991. Hint, hint.)
Women in combat. Panetta's announcement is a formal recognition of what has been going on for years now: Women are already on the front lines, albeit unofficially in "support" roles. Women's presence in combat situations is a necessary reality in a military strained to the limit by a decade spent fighting two long wars. What these women haven't had until now is the recognition, leadership advancement, and benefits that officially recognized combat experience confers. Women, especially military women, are a lot tougher than Schlafly ever imagined.
Husbands not supporting their wives financially. Yes, they really worried about this.
America in 2013 looks a lot different from America in 1972 — and would be nearly unrecognizable to Alice Paul — but the need for gender equality in our nation's guiding document remains constant. Let's take this fresh opportunity to right a historic wrong and restart the ratification process for the ERA.
Comments (7)
Wait, so unisex bathrooms are a good thing, but the public is afraid of them, but now they're everywhere, but they have nothing to do with the ERA, but someone once said they did. Maybe that whole rabbit trail needs its own article; I found its placement within this one very odd and unenlightening.
Forgive me, I genuinely want to know more about the ERA, but while the headline whet my appetite, the article didn't deliver. If you want to fuel enthusiasm for the amendment, why not devote more space to the problems now being experienced that the amendment would solve instead of trying to re-pick the fights of 1972?
But that's just Shannon's point: the main fears that put the brakes on the passage of the ERA in the 70's have been realized - to no calamity. The public WAS afraid of unisex bathrooms when they had never used them - now, no big deal. Look on the ERA Facebook page for ongoing discussions and a lot of material. There are also good websites. But please sign up to ask our President to speak out in favor of the ERA - as did Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, supportive as CA governor, pulled his support on running for President, in the belief that the 14th Amendment covered equal treatment of women. If it did, wouldn't they have been able to vote from 1868 when it was passed?
You're missing the point, especially on unisex bathrooms.
They've have been around for decades, when a business doesn't have room for two. You lock the door, no sharing, big deal. Schlafly's concern was when men and woman are using the SAME bathroom at the SAME time. Which IS happening at a growing number of college campuses.
Homosexual marriages. The numbers are growing.
Women in combat. Thanks, Leon P.
Husbands not supporting wives. It's happening.
Seems the things Schlafly was worried about are occurring without the ERA. So what do we need the ERA for?
The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are amazingly gender neutral. You won't find "man" or "men" anywhere, and only three references to "male" in the 14th Amendment. Everybody can vote, and work where they want. We even have lesbians in Congress. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal sports, and more women in college than men. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal pay, and female CEO's just as greedy and criminal as the males.So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got presidents who legislate by edict, and judges who legislative by fiat, making all manner of gender-neutral "laws." So what do we need the ERA for?
Just what "historic wrong" needs to be righted?
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
We do absolutely need to rid ourselves of the sexist ways our government forces us to live under, and render our government gender neutral.
With gender equality at last, we will no longer have a country in which females are always given preference over males.
No more giving SBA loans to women by gender preference over males.
No more giving females the children, the house, the cars, the everything, in divorces, automatically, just because they are of a favored gender.
No more giving females preferential treatment in employment, grad schools, or any other thing under the sun.
No more pretending that only men are abusers, and women are just sweet little angels, when in fact the females do way more than half of the abusing in this country.
Yes, we need to get some of that gender equality on us.
Do a snip snip on our government. Take away the hammer they like to beat us over the head with.
I am sure Ms. Drury will be spending all her time on achieving governmental equality for men.
Just think of all the money the taxpayer will save once we no longer need the legion of female workers employed by governments at all levels once gender equality is the law of the land. No longer a need for all those workers, working hard to create an uneven playing field. Time we go for real equality. The female side has received illegal preference for too long.
It has always been an insult to the rational mind that females get off with lighter sentences in court.
A man can rob a bank, and he will get 20 years to life.
A woman can rob a bank, and get time served.
And when a man and a woman rob a bank together, he will get the maximum sentence and the "little lady" will get off with probation.
Disgusting.
Time for men and women to get equal treeatment under the law.
And this women in combat thing. What a fake. It's just so that women can get a "check-mark" on their resume next to the combat question, so that they can advance in the ranks. More female Generals is the objective.
And, we will see a cornucopia of one-foray wonders, just to get that check-mark.
Disgusting.
When will we treat females the same as males, instead of like incompetents who need a Government crutch to get anywhere?
Trieb, without the sarcastic putdowns of the need to codify American females' rights to full personhood and self-determination we do not enjoy, your comment snipped below, is so typical of what legislators say in the 9 states now ERA-active that I can only hope I am addressing someone not so unjust as you sound.
AS I work my 18 hrs a day, 7days a week for You, too, For FREE, for the PAST 13 years for JUST 3 MORE STATES TO VOTE FOR ERA, I want to warmly invite you to our 300 000-member (lotsa' males too)--www.2PassERA.org.
The BASIC point of the ERA is to make the eons-long Sex Discrimination of male and female alike A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION! Like we got rid of slavery.
US Women average 77% of male wage for Same Job not Equal $. Drop the errors in your diatribe below. You'll be more credible.
NONETHELESS, I WORK HARD for FREE for YOUR rights, too.
The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are amazingly gender neutral. You won't find "man" or "men" anywhere, and only three references to "male" in the 14th Amendment. Everybody can vote, and work where they want. We even have lesbians in Congress. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal sports, and more women in college than men. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal pay, and female CEO's just as greedy and criminal as the males.So what do we need the ERA for?
Just what "historic wrong" needs to be righted?
Posted by Phil Trieb from Gary, SD | January 29, 2013 2:51 PM
Trieb, without the sarcastic putdowns of the need to codify American females' rights to full personhood and self-determination we do not enjoy, your comment snipped below, is so typical of what legislators say in the 9 states now ERA-active that I can only hope I am addressing someone not so unjust as you sound.
AS I work my 18 hrs a day, 7days a week for You, too, For FREE, for the PAST 13 years for JUST 3 MORE STATES TO VOTE FOR ERA, I want to warmly invite you to our 300 000-member (lotsa' males too)--www.2PassERA.org.
The BASIC point of the ERA is to make the eons-long Sex Discrimination of male and female alike A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION! Like we got rid of slavery.
US Women average 77% of male wage for Same Job not Equal $. Drop the errors in your diatribe below. You'll be more credible.
NONETHELESS, I WORK HARD for FREE for YOUR rights, too.
The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are amazingly gender neutral. You won't find "man" or "men" anywhere, and only three references to "male" in the 14th Amendment. Everybody can vote, and work where they want. We even have lesbians in Congress. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal sports, and more women in college than men. So what do we need the ERA for?
We've got equal pay, and female CEO's just as greedy and criminal as the males.So what do we need the ERA for?
Just what "historic wrong" needs to be righted?
Posted by Phil Trieb from Gary, SD | January 29, 2013 2:51 PM
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
