I am aware that some consider such a thing redundant given the equal protection clause, but that didn't stop feminists from pushing for this amendment a few decades ago. They were defeated by traditionalist women's advocates who argued that it wouldn't give women any rights they didn't already have but could put new obligations on women that they didn't want - most noticeably the draft. (Funny thing is that feminists acknowledged this - a tacit admission of legalized misandry if you ask me, but I digress).

It seems reasonable for MRA's to support an amendment that states very clearly that all laws and programs must treat the genders equally. Its actually kind of a head-scratcher to me that I haven't really seen this idea discussed before.

This could have far-reaching consequences depending on the wording, from selective-service, to healthcare spending, to DV shelters.

It also seems like it would force the media to examine our positions and advocacy more critically, rather than just hand-wave us away as wanting to put women back in the kitchen or whatever nonsense headline they've dreamt up this week.

So my questions are 1)Do you see this as a worthy goal? And 2) Do you think it is worth being the most-immediate goal for MRA's?

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I am not asking what do you think is the most important issue, but rather what should be the at the top of the agenda... the number one "action-opportunity", so to speak. So in theory, reducing the empathy-gap could be the most important issue, but some other, more immediate and tangible goal could be at the top of the agenda.

EDIT for another possibility: A simpler, more attainable first goal could be a lawsuit regarding Selective Service. The SCOTUS ruled gender discrimination in this instance to be constitutional on this basis:

In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."

IIRC, however, women are no longer excluded from combat divisions in the military. Would it not seem appropriate to press this issue again? I am not a lawyer, so if I am missing something, please let me know. But that would make a very good (and very headline-worthy) first victory, I think, to render selective service in its current form unconsitutional.

Additional EDIT for clarification: It's been brought to my attention that the ERA in its most recent form contained the Hayden Rider, which stated:

'The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons the female sex'.

Basically, equal protection unless women can benefit somehow. So what I am suggesting is a sort of "ERA reboot": submitting the amendment without such ridiculous language.

Although any criticism regarding the difficulties of trying to "reboot" the ERA are welcome, it's no longer necessary to point out this deal-breaking language.