Do you support the ERA?

super_common_name · 2020-06-19T01:08:58+00:00

I just watched the tv series "Mrs. America" and it got me thinking about the ERA. In the epilogue, it said that as of a few years ago, 38...

[–]ArthurDent4ever 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pressthebutton 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't why you're saying that the feminist definition of equality is whatever women want. Feminists effectively opposed the Hayden rider, which completely contradicted the text of the amendment and has since been dropped.

The ERA's definition of equality is pretty simple, and doesn't mention "women" at all. It applies to both men and women, so (for example) it would either end the draft for men or start the draft for women. (See below.)

Congress can make laws to enforce that equality, but that isn't giving Congress any more power than it already has to make whatever laws it wants. No matter what, the courts can always check that power with rulings.

ERA

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

[–]MBV-09-C 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MBV-09-C 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminists wrote ~~the ERA and have worked incredibly hard to get it passed~~ and propogated the Duluth model, a set of standards that make it dangerous for men to call the police to this very day.

The largest feminist group in the US routinely fights against equalized parenting laws.

A feminist wrote the "why can't we hate men?" opinion piece in The Washington Post, and got no particular flack from her fellow feminists like you. She's the Director at a fairly prestigious University, publishes her own journal, and carries a lot of prestige among feminists.

I didn't see a feminist, not even one, complain when title IX kangaroo courts stripped men of due process. I don't see feminists fighting to open up women only domestic violence shelters to men that desperately need help.

Go lecture your own. Every time feminists get involved, it turns out worse for men, and you know that.

Feminists assume men have power and fighting us just "balances the scales", but you've been "punching down" on men for decades with no respite and callous disregard for your results.

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't mean to lecture you. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Feminists wrote ~~the ERA and have worked incredibly hard to get it passed~~ and propogated the Duluth model, a set of standards that make it dangerous for men to call the police to this very day.

I don't know why you crossed out the part about the ERA. It's true.

The Duluth model is 40 years old, created when not much was known about interpersonal violence. Since then, the woman who created it has denounced it. The idea of helping people who commit violence is still an incredibly good idea, but the therapy model needs to evolve as understanding evolves. Most feminists now support models that help anyone who commits IPV.

That said, I'm not sure the Duluth model is the root cause of men being afraid to call the police. It sounds like what you mean is that if you call the police, you'll be blamed and arrested instead of the person committing violence against you. I know that happens, and I know police also ignore or laugh at men who are victims. That's horrible, but that existed long before the Duluth model. That's sexism, pure and simple. Mainstream, current feminism doesn't support the idea that men can never be victims or that women can't commit IPV.

The largest feminist group in the US routinely fights against equalized parenting laws.

Which group is this? I don't know about this and I want to educate myself.

A feminist wrote the "why can't we hate men?" opinion piece in The Washington Post, and got no particular flack from her fellow feminists like you. She's the Director at a fairly prestigious University, publishes her own journal, and carries a lot of prestige among feminists.

First, that article received a lot of criticism. From feminists and people who don't call themselves feminists alike. Second, newspapers often publish incendiary opinion articles in order to get views. I hate it, but there we are. The article made a few valid points, but a lot more of it was horrendous. Her conclusion is, imo, ridiculous. The article represented one feminist's opinion, published because it's unusual, not because it's common.

I didn't see a feminist, not even one, complain when title IX kangaroo courts stripped men of due process.

I'm not sure I agree that it stripped men of due process. I feel like students have never really had due process in the same way that a court of law offers. There's a lot about campus policing and enforcing that I have trouble understanding, let alone supporting. There is a real problem with sexual violence on college campuses, but I think the solutions to that is are in their infancy and will be complex. I hear what you're saying about feminists not complaining about invoking Title IX to combat campus sexual violence. You're right. I think it demonstrates the desperation for a solution, though, not a "stance." I do know that feminists are working toward better solutions.

I don't see feminists fighting to open up women only domestic violence shelters to men that desperately need help.

To be honest, I don't see many people at all creating men's shelters. There are a lot of reasons that make it hard to open up existing women's shelters to men — too many reasons to go into here. The shelters are chronically underfunded as it is, and published stats (I think these stats are inaccurate because of the social sanctions men face when they're victimized) say that many more women need these services than men. I know that a man in Canada started a men's shelter but the Canadian gov. wouldn't fund it. I know in Australia, one shelter tried to start an adjunct men's shelter, but it wasn't used and they could no longer afford to run it. The shelters aren't available to all the women who desperately need them, either. There's just not enough money.

The first shelters were founded in an environment where most women didn't work or have any income that didn't depend on their husbands. They couldn't simply go rent a new apartment somewhere. Over time, the concept evolved to include other types of relationships and other economic situations, but it's still about a victim's lack of money. Arguably, more men than women have enough money to find a new place (arguably.) That said, I hope that any shelters that are needed are built. I don't know any feminists who are opposed to men's shelters, but I do know that shelters take a lot of time, initiative, and money to build and run. Like I said, I don't see many people working on that. If you point me to a group, I'd like to learn more.

Go lecture your own. Every time feminists get involved, it turns out worse for men, and you know that.

I don't know that. The ERA was created by feminists and, as you said, it will be good for men. Feminists support a lot of things that make things better for men: two-income families, birth control, sexual activity, the draft, etc. I'm not trying to lecture you. I just feel like we support a lot of the same things.

Feminists assume men have power and fighting us just "balances the scales", but you've been "punching down" on men for decades with no respite and callous disregard for your results.

I think the truth is more nuanced than that. No one simply "has" power. There are so many kinds of power, and a lot of those powers are relative. I might have economic power compared to a friend but not compared to my boss. I think when feminists talk about men having power, they don't mean all men and they don't mean all types of power.

But I'm not sure what you mean by punching down. Some of the things you've mentioned here — alimony, child custody — were worse before feminism. It used to be that only women were paid alimony and they almost always were paid. Same sexism with child custody. Some of the other things you've mentioned simply didn't have any solutions before feminism — for example, IPV.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a callous disregard for men's pain. I think men suffer a lot of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse that is only just beginning to be talked about. I do think that early feminism (1960s and 70s) had zero awareness of that, and focused a lot on male power and very little on male vulnerability. In fact, I think it's only in the past 10-30 years that there has even begun to be awareness of things like that.

I want things to get better. I appreciate the time you took to explain where you're coming from, because I want things to get better for everyone.

[–]duhhhh 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know why you crossed out the part about the ERA.

To highlight an area where feminist advocacy has directly harmed men.

the woman who created it has denounced it.

Yet many feminists still embrace it because it agrees with them. Feminism and feminists have done very little to correct their "whoopsie".

Most feminists now support models that help anyone who commits IPV.

So much so, that when male victims call IPV help lines, they get routed to help for abusers.
I've called R.A.I.N.N., the experience would have been comedic if I hadn't been so broken at the time. No, feminism has not been a good influence on I.P.V., and continues to be a bad one.

It sounds like what you mean is that if you call the police, you'll be blamed and arrested instead of the person committing violence against you.

A man that calls the police for a domestic dispute with a woman is more likely to be arrested than his attacker. The problem with the Duluth model was it's simplicity. Police really like easy answers and they loved yours.

Which group is this?

The National Organization for Women. Do you know of a larger feminist organization?

First, that article received a lot of criticism.

It really didn't, and I looked hard for it. As I recall, the nearest thing to a public rebuttal was in the Atlantic, and was anemic to the point of basically agreeing with her.

I hate it, but there we are.

Are you speaking out against the Julie Bindels and Clementine Fords? If not, why not?

because it's unusual, not because it's common.

demonization of men is extremely common in feminist thought.

I'm not sure I agree that it stripped men of due process.

Then you desperately need to educate yourself. Accusers were believed without evidence, the accused were prevented from defending themselves.

I don't see many people at all creating men's shelters ... There's just not enough money.

Compare and contrast your feelings on this with, let's say, Title IX reforms for collegiate sports. Is access to help more or less important than access to Women's Lacrosse scholorships?

The first shelters

Have your read Erin Pizzey's account of setting one up? It's a good read, I encourage you to look into it.

as you said, it will be good for men

It hasn't been so far. What are you going to do to change the ideology?

two-income families

I'm pretty ambivalent about that one. I'm opposed to gender roles, but real wages are at the lowest point in a long time. Has increasing the work force helped or hurt earnings?

sexual activity

Sex negative feminism is, by far, the dominant position. Particularly anything that creates fear and doubt about men's sexuality.

I think when feminists talk about men having power, they don't mean all men and they don't mean all types of power.

Feminists frequently mean exactly this, and express it as "patriarchy". "Men oppress women for the benefit of men"

Some of the things you've mentioned here — alimony, child custody — were worse before feminism.

These were worse before the feminist "tender years doctrine"? No.

It used to be that only women were paid alimony and they almost always were paid.

It's still that way.

I want things to get better. I appreciate the time you took to explain where you're coming from, because I want things to get better for everyone.

Your post was a litany of reasons why men's issues don't matter. I'm not getting a "let's make things better" vibe.

If you can be a decent human while calling yourself a feminist, I encourage you to do that. But that puts your in the same camp as "decent human while identifying as a skinhead". Your ideology seems to have glaring bare spots, and the product hasn't been good.

I appreciate your calm, many feminists who come here are not.

[–]alclarkey 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think feminists are working toward 30% representation, not 50%. And I know feminists worked to to get dirty/dangerous/physically demanding work. That used to be more reported on in the 1970s when women were first entering those fields. As I've said, feminists think the draft should apply to women as well as men. And feminists worked to be allowed into the military. I don't think they're silent about nursing and teaching, either. One of my male family members is a nurse and he's shared his experiences with me. I know more than a few teachers and the imbalances (mostly in grade schools) are talked about a lot.

I think it's so weird that people here support the ERA as something that really does promote equality, and know that feminists wrote it and have been trying to get it passed for 100 years, but are still saying that feminists don't want equality.

I feel like you've all done a lot of research and worked hard to educate yourselves on this topic. But it also feels like there was one or more events in your lives that sparked all this research. Like some personal experience. I'm curious: what made you start thinking about all this? Like how old were you, and what inspired you to do the research?

[–]alclarkey1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flawless44 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RyansPutter 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DubsPackage 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_common_name[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DubsPackage 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Who gives a shit about the draft, women in the military is just more affirmative action for women, they all become "officers" and sit around at a desk collecting higher pay lodging lawsuits and sexual harassment complaints against men they don't like, US military has been going to the dogs for ages.

Soon it'll be just like corporate america but with live ammo, all the women pushing papers around, complaining about being underpaid and pulling in 6 figures, getting promoted just to fill quotas, "oh noes someone asked me on a date, I have PTSD now, please award me $2 million for my trauma."

And when some woman drives a warship into another oil tanker, guess who pays, the men below decks who get killed or injured.

In the old days, when frontline troops needed R&R you could rotate them to the rear to do office stuff, now you can't rotate nobody, the office staff is all women.

ERA-ShmeeRA, I don't expect feminists or the US govt to do /anything/ that's even remotely positive for men, I would veto anything they told me to sign just based on principle, without even looking at it the feminist agenda is female power and domination over men, they hate us and want us dead.

I won't give them nothing, not even a glass of water.

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know you think we just irrationally hate feminism around here.

Feminism's long term agenda is to empower %1'er men (and the female worker-harems that work in their companies) above %99'er men.

It's not an ideology by women for women, it's an ideology by corporate america for corporate america, in a sense women become a sort of "hall monitor" class to keep the rest of us in line, in return they get paid better than men, and have more perks in society.

Meanwhile the %1er men get to keep being at the top of the pyramid, dictating terms to everybody else.

Every 4 years we get to "vote" in sham elections that mean nothing, where the media makes it sound like Democrats and Republicans are cutting each other's throats, when they're both on the same team with a slightly different flavor of corporatism.

Gradually, women are waking up and siding with us over the %1'ers, they see how their own men at home are being treated by society, they're seeing thru feminism, corporatism and everyday platitudes.

May this conversation become part of your awakening.

[–]super_common_name[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know you think we just irrationally hate feminism around here.

It's hard to describe what I think. I see that the pain is real, but I can't see what sparked it.

Feminism's long term agenda is to empower %1'er men (and the female worker-harems that work in their companies) above %99'er men.

I have not heard of this feminist agenda. I wonder what the strategy is, or why they don't just all become 1%ers on their own so they can choose any man they want.

It's not an ideology by women for women, it's an ideology by corporate america for corporate america, in a sense women become a sort of "hall monitor" class to keep the rest of us in line, in return they get paid better than men, and have more perks in society.

I'm not so sure "paid better" figures in any part of this scheme.

Meanwhile the %1er men get to keep being at the top of the pyramid, dictating terms to everybody else.

Every 4 years we get to "vote" in sham elections that mean nothing, where the media makes it sound like Democrats and Republicans are cutting each other's throats, when they're both on the same team with a slightly different flavor of corporatism.

Gradually, women are waking up and siding with us over the %1'ers,

US women have a tradition of working for the poor for over 100 years. The vast majority of women have always sided with you on the 1%ers.

they see how their own men at home are being treated by society, they're seeing thru feminism, corporatism and everyday platitudes.

That's a lot. I don't know how corporatism got mixed in with feminism or everyday platitudes. I agree that women see how society treats men, and many women work to change that.

May this conversation become part of your awakening.

And part of yours.

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have not heard of this feminist agenda. I wonder what the strategy >is, or why they don't just all become 1%ers on their own so they can >choose any man they want.

Because feminism is corporate astroturf and the women participating in that are useful tools.

I'm not so sure "paid better" figures in any part of this scheme.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/women-are-struggling-to-find-men-who-make-as-much-money-as-they-do/

US women have a tradition of working for the poor for over 100 years. >The vast majority of women have always sided with you on the 1%ers.

That's why we differentiate between "feminists" and "women." We want women on our side.

I don't know how corporatism got mixed in with feminism

From your perspective, "feminism" is just a bunch of women talking to each other, it has "fem" in the name, you think "oh this must be the women's place."

Feminism on an institutional level = corporatism, same as Pepsi becoming the official soft drink of BLM, or Taco Bell supporting Dreamers, sooner or later it all goes on the side of a billboard or NASCAR, it all becomes part of the same institutional structure.

Title	Do you support the ERA?
Author	super_common_name
Upvotes	12
Comments	40
Date	June 19, 2020 1:08 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hbr49s/do_you_support_the_era/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/do-you-support-the-era.849517 https://theredarchive.com/post/849517

Comments