NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quicky here. (no, no pun intended)

Many of us have been fighting our whole lives for an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution for women.

Something that says Constitutionally that women have an equal place in all aspects of US society. We don't have one. Some states do. Texas, for one, has an ERA; but many states still see things as "men's work" versus "women's work".

What do you think?

Should we amend the US Constitution? Is it a "state's rights" issue in that we should allow individual states the right to oppress women? Will it take a woman President (Rep or Dem or Ind) to affect change? Do you think women are already equal and should just stfu?

Speak out. Speak out for your sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends.

What do you think?

No ... no poll. Just speak.

It's totally absurd that we don't have one already.

It's totally absurd that we don't have one already.

'sactly!

I'm not so sure. I mean, the 19th amendment taken along with the 14th amendment is plenty enough precedent for the courts to thow out any law or government action that does not treat women as the equals of men. Of course, it couldn't hurt to make it more explicit.

It's totally absurd that we don't have one already.

It's totally absurd that we would. Women are already more equal than men and enjoy status as a protected minority class despite compromising in excess of 50% of the entire population. Why would they want an equal rights amendment that could only lower their status to "equal"? Any attempt to make them constitutionally more equal as was attempted by the Carter administration will fail and create more fuel for the backlash their "so called" supporters in N.O.W. have already caused them.

Timing is everything. This ain't it.

Ok, there are things that would have to change that a lot of people don't realize.


I'll use the US military as an example.


Under the Equal Rights amendment, policies like Female PT standards would have to change.


No longer would women have to do just 17 pushups, 53 situps and run a 2 mile run in somewhere around 18 minutes.


They'd have to do 42 pushups, 53 minutes and run a 2 mile in under 16 minutes.


Right now the difference in the standards is due to that Men have more upperbody strength typically and are better able to run with our straight hips compared to the curved hips of females.

And the constant pounding in Training of running long distances caused several(i think 6 in my Basic Company) females to get stress fractures in their hips at various times. (and that was during the slower runs in Charlie ability group, while i was running in Alpha Plus ability group at a 6 minute mile pace for 4-5 miles)



Women would be eligble for the draft.

Women would not only serve behind the lines, they'd serve in Armor, Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery Units. Also they'd be eligble for Special Forces and Ranger.



Also, wouldn't strip clubs have to allow both male and female dancers at the same time, otherwise it'd be discriminatory under the ERA



Overall though i think the ERA is something long overdue, but i want others to realize that a LOT more than you'd think would be affected by that amendment.

Women are already more equal than men

I'll just let this ridiculous statement stand for itself.

Me, personally, well, I tend to agree that the 14th and the 19th taken together do the job. And I despise redundancy, espescially in something so basic as the constitution. At the same time I also say that people should be employed based on their skills, not by some sort of oddball bias.

I'll just let this ridiculous statement stand for itself.
In previous generations, certainly the statement would be ridiculous. But variou societal changes are occuring, espescially in the younger generations. There are now more young women in college than men, they are succeeding at school where an increasing number of young men fail.

Ok, there are things that would have to change that a lot of people don't realize.


I'll use the US military as an example.


Under the Equal Rights amendment, policies like Female PT standards would have to change.


No longer would women have to do just 17 pushups, 53 situps and run a 2 mile run in somewhere around 18 minutes.


They'd have to do 42 pushups, 53 minutes and run a 2 mile in under 16 minutes.


Right now the difference in the standards is due to that Men have more upperbody strength typically and are better able to run with our straight hips compared to the curved hips of females.

And the constant pounding in Training of running long distances caused several(i think 6 in my Basic Company) females to get stress fractures in their hips at various times. (and that was during the slower runs in Charlie ability group, while i was running in Alpha Plus ability group at a 6 minute mile pace for 4-5 miles)



Women would be eligble for the draft.

Women would not only serve behind the lines, they'd serve in Armor, Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery Units. Also they'd be eligble for Special Forces and Ranger.



Also, wouldn't strip clubs have to allow both male and female dancers at the same time, otherwise it'd be discriminatory under the ERA



Overall though i think the ERA is something long overdue, but i want others to realize that a LOT more than you'd think would be affected by that amendment.
I say most of those things would be good. No need to put women on a pedastal. Of course, they shouldn't make the standards higher just to exclude women. As to the one about strip clubs needing to include men, the ERA would not necessarily concern itself with the actions of privately owned businesses. The idea of the ERA would be to provide equal protection under the law to women.

I say most of those things would be good. No need to put women on a pedastal. Of course, they shouldn't make the standards higher just to exclude women. As to the one about strip clubs needing to include men, the ERA would not necessarily concern itself with the actions of privately owned businesses. The idea of the ERA would be to provide equal protection under the law to women.


The Standards are there to ensure we're capable of doing the JOB. which would be COMBAT. The army shouldn't lower its standards, if women can rise to the standards, thats fine, more power to them. But if they can't, they don't belong.



Thats been my longstanding opinion.


And about the strippers, the owners of the clubs could not discriminate between males and females in their hiring practices. That would be against the law, see what i'm getting at?

The Standards are there to ensure we're capable of doing the JOB. which would be COMBAT. The army shouldn't lower its standards, if women can rise to the standards, thats fine, more power to them. But if they can't, they don't belong.



Thats been my longstanding opinion.


And about the strippers, the owners of the clubs could not discriminate between males and females in their hiring practices. That would be against the law, see what i'm getting at?
I understand that a certain amount of physical prowess is necessary for combat. At the same time, some sexist military leaders might "coincidentally" rise the standards if women were allowed in combat.

On the topic of the strippers, many political philosophies entirely seperate from sexism and feminism maintain that privately owned businesses should be allowed to hire as they see fit. If they don't hire the best candidates, then they suffer the wrath of inefficiency. Like I said in my previous post, the ERA would be about making the government treat women as equals of men. It would not necessarily include restrictions on the hiring practices of privately owned businesses.

I understand that a certain amount of physical prowess is necessary for combat. At the same time, some sexist military leaders might "coincidentally" rise the standards if women were allowed in combat.




The Standards are already there for males. All that would happen is that females had to rise to them. now if they upped the standards than that would be foul.

The Standards are already there for males. All that would happen is that females had to rise to them. now if they upped the standards than that would be foul.
No disagreements on this issue then. Of course, one might argue that the standards might be a little high regardless of sexism. I mean, what if you have a guy that's a little week but he's a awesome shot and he has great composure?

No disagreements on this issue then. Of course, one might argue that the standards might be a little high regardless of sexism. I mean, what if you have a guy that's a little week but he's a awesome shot and he has great composure?


You can be a good shot and still not be able to hack it physically. There is more to being a soldier than just shooting guns. Lots more.

You can be a good shot and still not be able to hack it physically. There is more to being a soldier than just shooting guns. Lots more.
And I presume that there is also quite a bit more involved (especially given modern techological improvements) than physical prowess. I guess I'm saying that perhaps they shouldn't have a hard limit on pushups and things like that. Keep the general standard of 42 pushups, but if someone can only get 40, and she/he is good enough at the other aspects of combat, an exception should be made for her/him.

And I presume that there is also quite a bit more involved (especially given modern techological improvements) than physical prowess. I guess I'm saying that perhaps they shouldn't have a hard limit on pushups and things like that. Keep the general standard of 42 pushups, but if someone can only get 40, and she/he is good enough at the other aspects of combat, an exception should be made for her/him.



where does that end?


And what they teach us, they teach us to fight without the gadgets first(like doing Land nav with a compass and a map instead of GPS plugger) Because like it or not, technology can fail, and sometimes at the most inoppurtune time.

where does that end?


And what they teach us, they teach us to fight without the gadgets first(like doing Land nav with a compass and a map instead of GPS plugger) Because like it or not, technology can fail, and sometimes at the most inoppurtune time.
It will end when you stop making slippery slope fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html). And I'm not suggesting that soldiers shouldn't be required to be as possible sufficient without technology. I'm saying that some potential soldiers that are slightly under the athleticism requirements could be great soldiers because of other aspects of combat in which they excel.

I'll just let this ridiculous statement stand for itself.

What is rediculous is that you have not learned from past special interest and politically motivated scams that seek to divide people by making them unequal in the interest of equality. Women have been badly tricked (most now realize it) by groups pretending to be fighting for their rights.
Before you go around declaring something rediculous, do a bit of homework and find out who the major beneficiaries were and are to these little programs supposedly to make up for all the inequality. You will find, unless you are complety brainwashed it was big business that gained the most, with politicians during the period that temporairly gained some votes.

In the meantime, I will just let your ignorance stand for itself, as it is clear that you have been conditioned not to find the truth, but to parrot popular misconceptions and flat out lies.

And I presume that there is also quite a bit more involved (especially given modern techological improvements) than physical prowess. I guess I'm saying that perhaps they shouldn't have a hard limit on pushups and things like that. Keep the general standard of 42 pushups, but if someone can only get 40, and she/he is good enough at the other aspects of combat, an exception should be made for her/him.

<sigh>

<sigh>
What is so <sigh> about that post?

And I presume that there is also quite a bit more involved (especially given modern techological improvements) than physical prowess. I guess I'm saying that perhaps they shouldn't have a hard limit on pushups and things like that. Keep the general standard of 42 pushups, but if someone can only get 40, and she/he is good enough at the other aspects of combat, an exception should be made for her/him.

Not gonna happen. They see a potentially great soldier, they send along their toughest sargent, and pull him up to standard. Given enough exercise they WILL make 42, and the army will make sure they do. Should be the same for women too. I am up for women's equality, but it is true that there are inequalities elsewhere that are ignored. For example, when a woman and a man have sex, the woman can call rape, and unless the man has proof of consent, then it goes through, due to new legislation. If a man called rape, he'd get laughed out of the office. There are many more examples.

Ok, there are things that would have to change that a lot of people don't realize.

I'll use the US military as an example.

Under the Equal Rights amendment, policies like Female PT standards would have to change.

No longer would women have to do just 17 pushups, 53 situps and run a 2 mile run in somewhere around 18 minutes.

They'd have to do 42 pushups, 53 minutes and run a 2 mile in under 16 minutes.

Right now the difference in the standards is due to that Men have more upperbody strength typically and are better able to run with our straight hips compared to the curved hips of females.

And this is exactly why the rules wouldn't have to change. These tests are testing for a certain level of fitness - not for a need to actually be able to do a certain number of pushups, etc. That level of fitness is met in women with the requirements currently required, and is met in men with the requirements currently required.

And the constant pounding in Training of running long distances caused several(i think 6 in my Basic Company) females to get stress fractures in their hips at various times. (and that was during the slower runs in Charlie ability group, while i was running in Alpha Plus ability group at a 6 minute mile pace for 4-5 miles)

It isn't just women. I know a man who got stress fractures in his legs during basic - and had to lie on his back for about 6 weeks for them to heal. Basic is hard on everyone.

Women would be eligble for the draft.

Women would not only serve behind the lines, they'd serve in Armor, Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery Units. Also they'd be eligble for Special Forces and Ranger.

All of these things should be true anyways.

Also, wouldn't strip clubs have to allow both male and female dancers at the same time, otherwise it'd be discriminatory under the ERA

No. You are looking at specialty niches. Asking this is like saying, "Wouldn't Hollywood be forced to let women play the role of James Bond?" Of course they wouldn't, as that really is a role that necessitates a male.

Overall though i think the ERA is something long overdue, but i want others to realize that a LOT more than you'd think would be affected by that amendment.

Probably, but a lot of what you think would be affected really wouldn't.

I'm still not sure why the 14th and 19th amendments aren't enough, however. Like others have said, having something more explicity might be a good idea, but it may or may not be necessary.

The Standards are there to ensure we're capable of doing the JOB. which would be COMBAT. The army shouldn't lower its standards, if women can rise to the standards, thats fine, more power to them. But if they can't, they don't belong.

The standards used are not directly related to combat - but are general fitness requirements.

Now, if the standards were something that was functionally related to combat, such as, "Must be able to carry X pounds of equipment, through Y terrain, for Z amount of time," then it would make sense to have the exact same standards. But if they are looking for a given level of fitness -which the current standards are - it doesn't make sense to require the exact same numbers. A woman at the same fitness level as a man will have a higher body fat percentage, a lower upper body strength, a higher flexibility, and so on.

Not gonna happen. They see a potentially great soldier, they send along their toughest sargent, and pull him up to standard. Given enough exercise they WILL make 42, and the army will make sure they do. Should be the same for women too. I am up for women's equality, but it is true that there are inequalities elsewhere that are ignored. For example, when a woman and a man have sex, the woman can call rape, and unless the man has proof of consent, then it goes through, due to new legislation. If a man called rape, he'd get laughed out of the office. There are many more examples.
You're probably right about that. For someone close to the edge, enough hard work and training will push her/him over.

The standards used are not directly related to combat - but are general fitness requirements.

Now, if the standards were something that was functionally related to combat, such as, "Must be able to carry X pounds of equipment, through X terrain, for X amount of time," then it would make sense to have the exact same standards. But if they are looking for a given level of fitness -which the current standards are - it doesn't make sense to require the exact same numbers. A woman at the same fitness level as a man will have a higher body fat percentage, a lower upper body strength, a higher flexibility, and so on.
Off topic (not that I haven't been off topic with most of my posts anyway):
Using the same variable (X) for the weight of the equipment, the type of the terrain, and the duration of the activity suggests that all three have the same value. Like if X=31, then "Must be able to carry 31 pounds of equipment, through 31 terrain, for 31 amount of time." You should definately use different variables, such as y and z for the other values. [/Attack of the Math Grammer Nazis]

Off topic (not that I haven't been off topic with most of my posts anyway):
Using the same variable (X) for the weight of the equipment, the type of the terrain, and the duration of the activity suggests that all three have the same value. Like if X=31, then "Must be able to carry 31 pounds of equipment, through 31 terrain, for 31 amount of time." You should definately use different variables, such as y and z for the other values. [/Attack of the Math Grammer Nazis]

I thought about that actually - I just figured people would get that they are all different variables. =)

I thought about that actually - I just figured people would get that they are all different variables. =)
Of course normal people would understand that the difference in the variables was implied, but mathematicians aren't very big fans of implied ideas. It goes back to the expicitosity or whatever.

No. You are looking at specialty niches. Asking this is like saying, "Wouldn't Hollywood be forced to let women play the role of James Bond?" Of course they wouldn't, as that really is a role that necessitates a male.


Wrong, that role doesn't necessitate a male. Roger Moore played James Bond for years, and did a fine job.

Seriously, I agree with the rest of your post.

I'll use the US military as an example. <snippage>


Surely, though, you concede that women should be allowed the option and not be subjected to the musings of some old men in a room somewhere who makes up these numbers.

I'm still not sure why the 14th and 19th amendments aren't enough, however. Like others have said, having something more explicity might be a good idea, but it may or may not be necessary.

Yes, I've noticed the 14th and 19th being brought up a bit, so I thought I'd address it. Neither the 14th nor the 19th commands equal pay. Neither the 14th nor the 19th commands maternity leave. Neither the 14th or 19th commands the US Military to ensure equal opportunity. While some things may be covered by company policy or State legislation, there's really nothing concrete on a Federal level.

While of absolute essential necessity, the right to vote is the single most important right any citizen of this country, it is by no means the only right.

Women must be brought under the umbrella of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in *all* aspects of US life. That means if a woman wants to hump it through the Army, go SF, combat, and maybe even become a General, she should have the same opportunity as any man. (Sticking with the military theme)

It depends on the definition of the word man in your constitution. The original meaning of the English word man encompassed man kind rather than any individual sex or aspect of man kind.
If you read it in this was does the constitution need much amendement.

In the UK we have national sex and race discrimination laws that although not perfect make it illegal to negativly or positivly discriminate on the grounds of race of sex. In October this legislation will extend to age.

There are some exception to the law, for example those running a home for battered wives can insist on female employees in some posts.

Just a quicky here. (no, no pun intended)

Many of us have been fighting our whole lives for an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution for women.

Something that says Constitutionally that women have an equal place in all aspects of US society. We don't have one. Some states do. Texas, for one, has an ERA; but many states still see things as "men's work" versus "women's work".

What do you think?

Should we amend the US Constitution? Is it a "state's rights" issue in that we should allow individual states the right to oppress women? Will it take a woman President (Rep or Dem or Ind) to affect change? Do you think women are already equal and should just stfu?

Speak out. Speak out for your sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends.

What do you think?

No ... no poll. Just speak.

It should go without saying that all human beings deserve equal treatment, regardless of gender. But, unfortunately, in the "Land of the Free" we still need to say it, because sexism is so thoroughly and disgustingly entrenched in our culture that after more than 200 years women still aren't even allowed basic bodily autonomy. I guess we are going to need to spell it out before people get the message.