Honest Question Re MRA Support of the ERA:

HilscherFarms · 2013-06-21T09:36:41+00:00

Feminist theory is inherently misandrist because it starts with the conclusion that women are oppressed and subjugated by men, and then works to support this conclusion.

Feminism is always bad because of that, but not 'all evil all the time.' Bad people could theoretically do good things, we just don't see feminism working for equality very often.

You're speaking in absolutes, which should have raised some red flags in your mind that you were building a strawman.

DavidByron · 2013-06-21T16:47:25+00:00

Look I'm as anti-feminist as they come but it's ridiculous to say they never do anything good. In fact back in the day NOW supported a law suit to make the draft include women. I don't think Carter did.

And I think feminists had a hand in getting baby changing units into men's bathrooms too.

But the ERA thing is not something I would include in such a list of "good girl feminist" stuff.

Back in the day the Mens movement supported ERA, just as it does today, but Congress refused to hear any representatives of the men's movement in support when they heard from feminists. Although worded neutrally the ERA was always largely understood to be a for women only thing. This was the whole point of contention with Schlafly. Her strategy was to publicly challenge that female-only view of the ERA to scare women into opposing the ERA on the grounds it would wipe out female advantages.

Feminist response was split on this with many just saying that Schlafly was wrong and that the ERA wouldn't demand that female privileges be wiped out. But some still agreed with her about some issues like the draft.

The Men's movement took the view that even if the ERA was clearly being framed in terms of women-only that it's wording was so clear that it would benefit men in the long run.

So there you have it. There was a lot of disagreement over just how "equal" the ERA would have been in practise. To put this in perspective NOW no longer supports the ERA (except for PR purposes) and have a new amendment called the CEA (Constitutional Equality Amendment) that is much longer and basically says "yes, we only mean this to benefit women and not take away their privileges".

So the question is this: did feminists back ERA because they really wanted to lose their privileges over men and really wanted equality, or did they back it because in the context of the day they knew it would only be used to benefit women over men, much as the gender neutral Title IX has only been used to benefit women over men?

ETA: Here's a history of the ERA page. Can you see anything on there that even hints of rights for men? And although this is presented as some big battle (just as all feminist "victories" are) the fact is Congress passed it with both parties huge support and Nixon immediately said he would support it.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/history.htm

Haven't been able to find an account of the speeches made in Congress about the ERA. The point is the law is not what it says but how it is interpreted. Congress refused to hear any men's groups in support of ERA because they wanted it to be women-only, enforced as women-only, and adjudicated as women-only despite the text. That happens safely with laws all the time (again Title IX is the most obvious example) but with constitutional amendments I'd say that's more of a gamble.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-06-21T22:11:41+00:00

The ERA is a USA issue, this forum is international, and as such it is not a general MRM issue. However the behemoth of the Feminist lobby groups in the USA, eg NOW and LEAF, have done absolutely nothing about pushing for the ERA. Considering they can get the fuck they want this is odd on the face of it.

The official Feminist position is for the ERA, but they know if it passes that Selective Service and the Draft for women will be instantaneous and every political tactic they indulge in will become useless. The Feminist movement does not want the ERA. The ERA is beneficial to the MRM in the USA, and is the Death Nell of the Feminist movement and they know it.

Mytecacc · 2013-06-21T10:03:19+00:00

The lack of an era is why american men can be fucked so badly. If there is an era in place, the mens movement can launch a substantial rollback of feminist there.

The idea of luming feminism all in together is because its impossible to tackle when people are going NAFALT and using a no true feminism fallacy all the time.

Feminism these days is generally callous, anti male and is legislating against men. Just look at your own consistent experience with feminists or go to any feminist area and start talking about mens issues.

kevinwayne · 2013-06-21T17:14:45+00:00

[permanently deleted]

kevinwayne · 2013-06-21T18:54:49+00:00

Feminists don't support the ERA. I don't know where you got this misinformation from from.

Feminists want things to be equal, EXCEPT where they benefit women.

AnnArchist · 2013-06-25T03:31:03+00:00

Definitely support the ERA (and the repeal of Title 9 or at least equal enforcement- football should be considered co-ed. Cheerleading is a sport. Wrestling should be considered co-ed as well )

kevinwayne · 2013-06-21T14:38:36+00:00

Should we not revise that and admit there is after all, such a thing as "Good" Feminism?

It does not logically follow that feminism must be good because some people who identify as feminists do good things.

This is a formal fallacy of an undistributed middle.

You lose. Good day sir.

Nomenimion · 2013-06-21T10:11:45+00:00

The ERA would have resulted in more unfair treatment for men.

Title	Honest Question Re MRA Support of the ERA:
Author	kevinwayne
Upvotes	2
Comments	38
Date	June 21, 2013 8:25 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gs8x8/honest_question_re_mra_support_of_the_era/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/honest-question-re-mra-support-of-the-era.1170565 https://theredarchive.com/post/1170565

Comments