Thoughts about "Equality Rights Amendment"?

jimmi-jones · 2020-01-16T03:39:00+00:00

So the genital integrity rights afforded to female infants and children can now be extended to male infants and children?

Namapint · 2020-01-16T05:30:50+00:00

If the ERA is passed with the Hayden Rider included, it is absolutely NOT an “Equal Rights Amendment.” If it is to be passed, the Hayden Rider should be removed.

blueorange22_ · 2020-01-16T13:54:59+00:00

My guess is it will be used in a very one sided manner and discrimination against men will be ignored, as usual.

SporkTornado · 2020-01-16T04:08:17+00:00

(e.g. Men could sue family law courts over bias in child custody)

Nope the Hayden amendment means biases in favour of women would be excluded.

On January 25, near the close of the debate, Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.) offered his amendment. Following instructions from the Women's Bureau, Hayden proposed that a new section be added to the ERA: "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions conferred by law upon persons of the female sex."

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft367nb2ts&chunk.id=d0e791&toc.depth=100&brand=ucpress

wowthissucks101 · 2020-01-16T03:48:13+00:00

Just tonight I got 'robbed' by a female, in a situation where if it was male, I could've very easily sorted things out. Instead, I felt deprived of the ability to protect and reclaim my posessions as doing so would've put a female in greater danger than the 'danger' they posed to me: this feels like a demonstration of a circumstance where their criminal rights trump my legal rights.

The above statement includes something as simple as reaching into a girl's pocket to get my stolen money back. The state of society/law made me feel like ANY physical remedy = I'm the bad guy.

jeff_the_nurse · 2020-01-16T13:22:49+00:00

I mean, if it’s a part of the constitution, it needs to apply to us as well. Feminists might not like it, but that’s the case.

JestyerAverageJoe · 2020-01-16T14:31:24+00:00

Looking forward to an end to women's scholarships, a ban on male genital mutilation, and a draft of 18 year old women into infantry the next time there's a major global conflict.

genkernels · 2020-01-16T09:00:32+00:00

Only if the Hayden rider isn't passed with it, which it seems like it wouldn't be, but the US process for passing amendments is convoluted. Here's the history. This is a victory for the 3-state proposal, but I think the fresh-start folks might win in the end.

KngpinOfColonProduce · 2020-01-16T05:57:24+00:00

The one positive that would definitely occur, eventually, picture of skeleton waiting would be a female-inclusive draft.

But I've lost a lot of trust in the courts, and I can't see many other positives actually coming, like suing courts over bias.

Dontdoabandonedrealm · 2020-01-16T08:55:24+00:00

Not surprising this is happening after Bloomberg bought the state with his billionaire money.

PhatKiwi · 2020-01-16T04:26:17+00:00

This will ruin female sports. There will be men's sports, and "men with boobs" sports.

SocialAssassin4Hire · 2020-01-16T17:54:28+00:00

If a woman has the right to kill the baby, a man should have the right to abandon it. Can we please pass Chappelle Law?

2020-01-16T20:29:43+00:00

I assume the problem isn't in law, but in the bias' of those presiding over such. We'll see more men and men's groups get held to a literal interpretation of the amendment, while more women and women's groups will essentially be able to ignore it.

RedditAdminsHateCons · 2020-01-17T02:02:46+00:00

It should be noted that Congress has to get the ball rolling, and that they explicitly added a sunset clause for their resolution (first 1979, then 1982) and that several states revoked their ratification for this ammendment. That means that it's likely that only 30 states have legally ratified this ammendment. There will be court battles, but as the judiciary has no constitutional place in the establishment of Ammendments, it's likely they will defer to congress and the states themselves, who do. That's the way the court has always tended to rule.

One of the reasons Pelosi's threat to withhold impeachment articles didn't go anywhere was a ruling called 'Nixon v. US' (not to be confused with the 'US v. Nixon' decision in the 70s), where the Supreme Court rules unanimously that not only did the Senate have the plenary right to try impeachments under any and all circumstances, including before the House even technically passed articles of impeachment, but that the court system had absolutely no right to interfere with how they decided to try impeachments whatsoever.

It's likely that the Supreme Court would rule similarly, with perhaps 2-3 dissenters (Obama's picks, who are extremely partisan, and Ginsberg, who is an extreme gender partisan) in this case. The states can almost certainly revoke before ratification, and the congress can almost certainly put a timer on their passage.

ThePigmanAgain · 2020-01-17T09:34:02+00:00

Feminists are happy about it, that tells me that there is a devil in the details. It's probably been rigged in some way that makes it favorable to women.

Vindaloo-brication · 2020-01-16T03:40:21+00:00

This definitely does not look good.

SocialAssassin4Hire · 2020-01-16T17:56:41+00:00

This is why MGTOW keeps growing stevev916

stevev916 · 2020-01-17T00:34:16+00:00

Why wasn't i born in the 30s where both women amd men knew their place...

Title	Thoughts about "Equality Rights Amendment"?
Author	stevev916
Upvotes	26
Comments	40
Date	January 16, 2020 3:30 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/epdk8b/thoughts_about_equality_rights_amendment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thoughts-about-equality-rights-amendment.860957 https://theredarchive.com/post/860957

Comments