Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Equal Rights Amendment

  1. #1

    Default Equal Rights Amendment

    In the U.S. people have been trying to get the equal rights amendment passed for nearly 100 years. It hasn't gotten ratification from enough states for it to pass primarily due to the fact that most people don't feel the law should make men and women equal as far as military obligations go.

    The amendment states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".

    As it is written I have to agree with the opposition. How do you feel about this amendment?

  2. #2

    Default

    What military obligations? That is a total straw man argument. We have an all volunteer army. Eventually we need to pass the amendment but right now it is not high on women's organizations priorities. We have regressed and are having to fight rear guard actions like birth control.

  3. #3
    acorn

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    In the U.S. people have been trying to get the equal rights amendment passed for nearly 100 years. It hasn't gotten ratification from enough states for it to pass primarily due to the fact that most people don't feel the law should make men and women equal as far as military obligations go.

    The amendment states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".

    As it is written I have to agree with the opposition. How do you feel about this amendment?
    Don't know what exactly you are quoting and from where. Context is all important to see what is being said.

    Side note: During the second war Russian women served on the front. As often as not they had the pleasure of being raped before being shot - in line with their male peers. In this example: What equality should we have looked for here, the males might have insisted on being raped too?

    Seriously: Discrimination is not the domain of sexism alone. I served long enough with an undisclosed hearing impairment before being caught. I'm sure you would have some sympathy for the long suffering loud mouthed Sargent with a foul tongue, no?

    What's the story on links, have any?

  4. #4

    Default

    The Equal Rights Amendment is not the only proposed civil rights amendment that has been "on the table" in congress for some time. - There is also the Employment Non-Discrimination Act originally proposed by the GBLT many years ago.

    My personal thoughts are as follows: - The phrase "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." does not describe what it means by the word "sex". - I would replace that word with the phrase, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of gender, gender identification, or adult sexual preference.".

    I would also abridge the statement "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." to include, "(comma), prohibiting any discrimination or harassment, by reason of gender, gender identification, or adult sexual preference."

    The text preamble must clarify that Abuse, Rape, or child molestation are excluded from the term "adult sexual preference", as well as any other non-consentual or harmful acts,.
    Last edited by kikee; 12-Jan-2015 at 21:40.

  5. #5

    Default

    I always have an issue with this. It's more about women's rights than combat readiness. In the military, combat readiness should always take priority. I have a problem with modern feminism in developed countries as it is. Equal rights is important, not women's rights.

    Personally, I don't believe women should serve in direct combat units. In all the countries that allow female combat units, they start off saying "standards won't drop" but then they say "it should be more equal... why aren't more women getting through?" Then they lower the physical standards. Already, in the Australian army, women have to complete lesser fitness tests to enter the army.

    Male requirement: 15 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score

    Female requirement: 8 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score

    Since they started the road to female combat units based on equal rights they've begun talking about lowering the infantry carry load. Even transport drivers in combat situations have different standards. A male truck driver in combat has to change a tyre by himself, a female is allowed to do it with another person. This takes one person away from combat. One less person to shoot at the enemy. In a section (fireteam for the US) this is a huge amount of fire power being taken from a fight. My brother know's only one woman in his battalion who could change the truck tyre by herself and she struggled and took a minute longer than the slowest male truck driver.

    http://sistersinarms.ca/history/wome...pros-and-cons/

    From this article my main issue is the "tradition" one. Men are instinctively more likely to put their lives on the line to protect a woman than a man. If my brother put his life on the line to protect a woman when he wouldn't have done the same for a man, and died, I would have been... angry. If my brother and a women were injured and someone went to save her instead of him due to her sex, I would have been... angry. This is my main reason for hating the idea of women in combat roles... Yes. Hating. It has nothing to do with the woman and all to do with the increased risk to male soldiers due to their natural protective instinct.

    I have no issue with women serving in dangerous situations. I'm a volunteer fire fighter and our brigade voted a woman as the most promising new fire fighter in our brigade last year. Physically, she is able to do all the same jobs including drag a 100kg "body" while wearing a 12kg breathing apparatus and her level 2 gear. But in fire fighting it is very rare for you to have to put your life on the line for another fire fighter. As dangerous as it is perceived, it is very rare for an individual fire fighter to be in danger where they need help. Usually it's a whole vehicle when a bush fire turns on them... burn overs. The loads aren't as heavy either. The heaviest we have to lift is 20kg at shoulder height in road crash rescue. If you're dragging a 100kg body, you aren't really carrying 100kg.

    On gender identity,

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-2...ntment/5279684

    My brother is an Afghan vet and they all have the hugest respect for this woman. The army got banned from a pub for fighting with the air force who mouthed off about this woman in front of them. It was something along the lines of, "You know the army's shit because you have queer officers.. like that cross dresser." WACK! The army hates the army more than the air force hates the army. The issue was giving one of the only officers they respect shit. (Aussie officers are despised by the general soldier... at least in my brothers battalion) The general who stood by her when she was transitioning is now chief of our army and she is his assistant. Not for equality but because they've been best mates forever and, like my brother said, she's fucking good at her job.

  6. #6

    Default

    All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law already. Last I checked, women are citizens. Its up to the courts to figure out where equal protection hasn't happened yet.

    Amendments to the Constitution are serious business. Don't dilute the Constitution with trendy frippery. Someone mentioned birth control... that's an issue for doctors, theologians and zipper manufacturers to sort out. It has nothing to do with the constitution.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Aidy View Post
    I always have an issue with this. It's more about women's rights than combat readiness. In the military, combat readiness should always take priority. I have a problem with modern feminism in developed countries as it is. Equal rights is important, not women's rights.
    i agree with you that Equal Rights, not Women's Rights or GBLT Rights should be the focus of the amendment, as both modern feminists and the GBLT might also agree. - So i feel that both ERA and ENDA may be merged by a simple stoke of the pen, and be passed into law forthwith. - Dr Martin Luther King did not expand the Anti-Slavery Act into the Civil Rights Act by advocating that exploited African Americans should receive preference, He argued that ALL Citizens are entitled to equal rights and protections from discrimination and harassment by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin. - The whole of society agreed, because the whole of society stood to benefit. - We are now upon the age of Human Rights, and i feel that we ALL should assert them, men, women, straights, and gays.

    With regard to Your comments about "military readiness" . . . . i worked 21+ years at Defense HQ . . . Women are better pilots and better "Weapons System Managers", as well as fully competent soldiers, and we have moved far, far away from "hand-to-hand combat situations. . . . In addition to a "protective instinct" towards women and children, the concern amongst "the brass" has more to do with the ability to protect female combat units, because we would lose our leverage with terrorists in the court of public opinion, if they were taken as hostages or POWs.

  8. #8

    Default

    Dunno about the US, but here in Canada exeptions are made in the face of bona fide requirements. You have a right to not be discriminated against based on say, disability, however you still can't become a firefighter if you are say, a paraplegic. Equality and pragmatism frequently butt heads, and the military seems to be one of many such battlegrounds.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'll bow to your greater experience Kikee. My brother was only in four years in and his ideas was from the point of view of infantry private/specialist and how it would impact him and his friends. He would of course discount your opinion if you were an officer .. unless you were a UK officer. He had huge respect for them. He also stated that women were much better on communications due to their more natural ability to follow multiple conversations and that their voice was clearer to soldiers when it was really loud, ie, in combat or just driving around in their carrier. This is also true in the fire brigade with 95% of our 000 (911) operators being women. When I stepped into the department's communications room for a tour, I could see why. I couldn't have done that job. You have to hold up to four conversations at once.

    Women also make better surgeons and mechanics. Their hands are generally steadier and can get into smaller places.

    Another issue I have, in Australia at least, is the exemptions idea. A company and such can apply for an exemption to the discrimination act in order to diversify their workforce. In short, you can discriminate if you get a letter to do so.

    Certain things I agree with. Once again the fire brigade... They have a special pathway for Aboriginals (Australian natives) to go into the fire brigade. They get mentoring, physical training and help with learning the skills needed to pass the selection course. This is fine. Less than 10 of our 1000 career firefighters are Aboriginal and that needs to change. Seeing Aboriginals in the health department, emergency services, police force and military give many Aboriginals a sense of pride in their people. It is also very useful if you are dealing with a hostile Aboriginal crowd to have one of their tribe on board. Hehe. When I was out bush we had to put out a car fire and the idiots who lit it were hitting our truck with beer bottles and shit. Nothing dangerous, they wouldn't have hurt us because, in general, they were good people, but it was annoying. So our only Aboriginal volunteer fire fighter got bloody pissed off and embarrassed at his family, since most of them were his cousins. So he got out, put the pump up to twelve bar and hosed the lot of them down. The two police that we had to deal with the 60 strong crowd looked the other way since it was family.

    But the place exemptions ARE often bad is with "women's" rights. There is only one example of an exemption of the discrimination act being allowed so that men can get a job over women, and that is in direct combat roles for the military. In all other areas, including areas of great need, it gets denied. Less than 1% of Australia's early chilhood teacher's are men and less than 10% of it's primary school teachers are male. It is a well known fact that many boys don't experience a regular man in their lives until they are in high school due to family separation, a badly biased court system (I won't get into that one!) and the lack of men in education. When the education department tried to give male only scholarships into these two areas they were stopped since it was discrimination for men to receive scholarships that weren't available to women. They were denied an exemption. However, the same department has Women in Leadership. A course designed to give women free courses (in house and university) to help women become deputies and principals. 40-50% of primary schools have a woman as a principal... but this discrimination exemption was granted because more than 50% of principals were men and our country is 51% women. So many men in admin is not a true reflection of our society. The government also, in the early 2000s, allowed for women only engineering scholarships due to a shortage of women in the industry... around 20% were women. My union also has a women's forum to discuss the right's of female teacher's but they won't grant funding to a men's forum, except a little chat room on their web page. By forum I mean whole day off work to discuss it and get paid to do so by your department.

    BUT! I do agree with exemptions for women only gyms and other such services. Women are self-conscious about their bodies as it is and women only gyms allow women who aren't magazine style attractive to stay healthy.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    The amendment states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".
    What rights are being violated that we even need anything like this?

Similar Threads

  1. view on gay marriage amendment
    By codsk8er1 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2012, 22:04
  2. enjoyment/shame in equal measure?
    By beeeblebum in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2011, 09:45
  3. Video Games Protected By First Amendment
    By Jewbacca in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 29-Jun-2011, 10:07
  4. US's fifth amendment: How far does it go?
    By Grutzvalt in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-Nov-2010, 02:55
  5. We're all equal, right?
    By d4l in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-Sep-2010, 04:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.