TIL that the Equal Rights Amendment was opposed by a woman because it might lose women certain "protections" (draft registry exemption, alimony, etc.)

DavidByron2 · 2015-08-26T16:57:08+00:00

As I've said many times, most opposition to feminism has historically come from other women's groups who disagree about how best to privilege women over men. Men in authority jump to satisfy the desires of women, but they sometimes get a bit confused over which group of women they should pander to.

Women opposed women's right to vote. When most women eventually agreed with it, the male legislature jumped to do it.
Women opposed equal pay for women (ie they supported barring women from some professions) because it meant they got less money through their husbands pay cheque.
The interesting story over Indian women-only trains that has caused major protests recently came about because some women were opposing women-only trains as it personally inconvenienced them.

And yes of course famously it was a woman who led the defeat of the ERA by telling women it would disadvantage them.

Targren · 2015-08-26T16:46:41+00:00

Don't worry! They solved that with the Hayden Rider

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

To their credit, the National Women's Party actually withdrew support for it after that(1958).

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2015-08-26T16:41:59+00:00

They also wanted special labor protections and of course equal treatment would do away with affirmative action and other programs to help women over men.

Feminists have long since realized that equality is a step down for western women. They want to be able to use the slogan of gender equality because that sounds noble but the last thing they want is actual equality.

rg57 · 2015-08-27T04:56:24+00:00

Pay close attention to how the Equality Act 2015 (and 2016 and 2017 ...) is addressed by women.

It's promoted as equality for people regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity (basically for LGBT people), and it is that.

But it ALSO calls for gender desegregation, and equal funding by gender.

I expect feminists and women generally will oppose it, in its current form, even though this will cost them their pet gays.

Jakedubbleya · 2015-08-27T05:24:21+00:00

It was opposed by a lot more than one.

PurpleViolettron · 2015-08-26T21:12:05+00:00

The ERA would make those special privileges illegal.

But it's also just plain redundant and it pisses me off and I shall defer to the following West Wing scene to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ

McFeely_Smackup · 2015-08-26T21:38:52+00:00

It's almost like people don't like to support eliminating their position of privilege, even if you call it something else.

Niko_Choski · 2015-08-27T09:38:04+00:00

If the women involved in the community truly supported equality they would vote against their special privileges. They would go against their superrights. But no-one wants to do that. No-one wants to be in for a draft. No-one wants to lose alimony. No-one wants to lose that special little privilege princess title that the laws as they stand provide for them.

CraftyDrac · 2015-08-26T21:41:34+00:00

So....isn't this a great action opportunity? help pass ERA

inc0gn3gr0 · 2015-08-27T03:22:43+00:00

Many anti-feminist during this time period actually recognized while 2nd class under the law. Which really hurt women who were unmarried or lesbians. On the other hand the majority of women were granted certain social powers.

Luckily for women, today, they have been granted both equal treatment and rights under the law. Yet they are capable of retaining all of their special privileges built in an unfair society.

It is really why I tend to lean towards MRA positions. While some I think are rather short sighted or induced by rage. I feel that this article points to the core of the issue.

Victimhood is chic for a protected class. While for individuals such as myself, it can result in me dead on the streets.

NotRoosterTeeth · 2015-08-27T01:09:35+00:00

Just post it to TIL and get autobanned like me a few months ago. They support "equality" but ban any MRA post, support, even sticky Feminist posts.

RedPresident · 2015-08-27T06:35:59+00:00

Article title: "Why Women’s Equality Still Isn’t Protected by the Constitution"

I have to wonder... what do they think the 14th Amendment means by "all persons" and "equal protection" ?

emperorhirohito · 2015-08-26T19:09:46+00:00

And then they got the exemptions anyway.....Equality!

nc863id · 2015-08-27T00:47:29+00:00

Phyllis Schlafly is pretty widely regarded as a lunatic.

dewarsmaduro · 2015-08-26T22:29:08+00:00

It would appear they had nothing to concern themselves about. They do/will continue to maintain both, their protections as well as the now well established More Than Equal Rights.

Nulono · 2015-08-27T14:22:35+00:00

Which woman?

Lobstermansunion · 2015-08-27T11:21:28+00:00

Yes, absolutely. FEMINISM IS NOT THE ULTIMATE ENEMY OF MEN. UNENLIGHTENED WOMEN (and their toady male enablers) ARE. Some second-wave feminists genuinely desired equality and WOMEN defeated them. Since then Feminists have learned their lesson and are now full-on supremacists because THAT IS WHAT MOST WOMEN WANT.

Modern feminism is a construction of female desire. If feminism goes by the wayside in the future, women will simply come up with some new nonsense theory to obtain the supremacism they want.

BigHarryDeal · 2015-08-26T23:27:08+00:00

Well, 95 years later I guess we can say those fears were unfounded.

Jubguy3 · 2015-08-27T02:30:22+00:00

I've said it before and I've said it again - the majority of feminists are egalitarian. I don't see why everyone here acts like feminists who support men are far and few between.

A vocal group of people who don't represent the masses of people is not what you should be basing your opinion of feminists on. It's like basing MRA's off of redpill. Most of you have good intentions and as a feminist it would be shallow of me to assume that. There's a big difference, right?

Its like that for feminism. Feminism isn't encompassing of man-hate, but feminists who are radicalized or man haters may and frequently identify as feminist. The issue here is that there is a distinction here between the two, just like redpill and MRA.

Agressive, disrespectful sexual strategy has nothing to do with an egalitarian movement. Agressive man hating has nothing to do with feminists. Many feminists are men, too.

You're going to lose support of the feminist community (which is arguably much larger at this point) if a distinction is not made between radicalized third wave feminists and the majority of normal feminists. Support from the feminist community is probably the most valuable thing that MRA's could ask for.

I still support many aspects of MensRights, but I know people who don't because really it is turning in to a discussion about how feminists are this or feminists are that, not what MensRights is as an independent movement. Act carefully.

Title	TIL that the Equal Rights Amendment was opposed by a woman because it might lose women certain "protections" (draft registry exemption, alimony, etc.)
Author	jb_trp
Upvotes	1095
Comments	107
Date	August 26, 2015 4:27 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ihf6y/til_that_the_equal_rights_amendment_was_opposed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/til-that-the-equal-rights-amendment-was-opposed-by.972535 https://theredarchive.com/post/972535

Comments