Woman walking across nation to urge passage of Equal Rghts Amendment




Why? All the supposed rights that were supposed to have been secured by the ERA have already been gained through legislation and court order.

When ERA was first proposed, I worried that it would lead to legal abortion and gay marriage. It failed. We’ve still got legal abortion and gay marriage.


“The doctrine of modern Communism, which is often concealed under the most seductive trappings, is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.” - Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism)


I thought the ERA went out with the 1970s:confused:


It passed Congress in 1972, I believe, but failed to gain ratifications of 2/3rd of the States by the deadline in 1982, and so never became law. However, in the meantime, the 14th amendment and other laws were being stretched by the Courts to achieve the same results.


She’s going to accomplish having sore feet, and not much else.


Are women eligible to be drafted if there is a draft?


Yes, when the US Congress authorized consideration of the ERA, they set a limit on the period of time to collect approvals from 38 states. That deadline expired in 1979. So Congress passed an extension, allowing three more years to collect the necessary number of states. When that second deadline expired, Congress choose not to issue another extension. At this point, passing the ERA would require, once again, starting the process from the very beginning:

Quoting from a news article which was originally published in 2000:

*Most activists–most everyone, really–thought the ERA died in 1983. It had been ratified by 35 states but needed 38 to make it into the Constitution. The original ratification deadline had come and gone. So had a three-year extension. And Congress was not inclined to give ERA backers any more time. Even the Supreme Court pronounced the amendment dead.

Now, a few stubborn dreamers are attempting to revive it.*

Fourteen years have gone by since that article was published. The effort doesn’t seem to have gotten much attention, much less make progress.


That is up to Congress. Currently, the law which governs the Selective Service does not require that women register for a draft.


Currently, only men are required to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of reaching their 18th birthday. There is no draft in effect, but registration is still the law.


[quote="Coatimundi] That is up to Congress. Currently, the law which governs the Selective Service does not require that women register for a draft.

Ok, so is registration for the draft included in the ERA? It should be part of the feminist agenda. Equal rights means equal responsibility. They have been insisting on their right to be in the military already, so they have the right. They should have the responsibility as well.

Similarly, alimony should be eliminated as well because women have an equal right to employment and pay. So since they have an equal right, they have an equal responsibility.

There are probably many other changes that should be made.


As the HHS mandate requires full coverage of carcinogens employed for a recreational purpose, my tobacco should be covered as well. :smiley:


I like cigars, I have to agree with you.:smiley:


Are the people on this thread saying women should not make equal wages? Because they don’t yet.

Are people on this thread saying that women should not be protected from sexual harassment in the workplace?

Because that’s what the article says they are walking for, as which is their right.

I’m confused.


Are women not already protected from sexual harassment in workplace? Also I thought they are already protected from pay and wage discrimination.:confused:


I forgot to mention, men should get six months paternity leave when their wives have children. If we are going to insist on equality, lets take it all the way.


The ERA wouldn’t make that happen. Most of the wage disparity is due to different career decisions and not due to discrimination.

Are people on this thread saying that women should not be protected from sexual harassment in the workplace?

Nor would lack of an ERA increase sexual harassment, which is already prohibited by law.

Because that’s what the article says they are walking for, as which is their right.

I’m confused

Sure they have every right to walk. No one is denying that. It just is hard to get too excited about a cause (passing a new ERA) that would not be anything more than symbolic since, as noted above, the goals of the original ERA have already been addressed with other legislation.

And, yes, confusion is appropriate.


On paper they are, yes. Are you a woman? I get the strong feeling that you are not. Because if you were, you would know that the reality is different from what is on paper.

Does that make sense?

Women in the same jobs make now about 75 cents of what men do for the same job duties. So,…yes it is still not equal in reality.


I believe this law was passed in response to employers expecting women to give birth on their feet and go back to work, when labor is obviously a hard piece of physical strain for women, NOT for men, in which case what you propose really doesn’t make any sense, since women do all the physical work in the act of giving birth, which ties in with the recovery times thereof.


No one is saying you have to get excited. But women have the right to get excited about any piece of demonstration if they wish, that focuses on women not getting sexually harrassed and women getting paid the same work for the same jobs that men do.

So I’m a little confused about where the perceived animosity is coming from towards women who should be granted the same rights as regards to pay in the workplace and sexual discrimination. Are you denying that it exists? if so, I suspect you have never had a vagina and so do not know what is really happening and that this all too common and mistaken view is from ill informed, mysoginistic attitudes.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.