HISTORY AND MODERN NECESSITY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
It may be easily forgotten that less than 100 years ago, in 1920, female citizens were not guaranteed the right to vote by the federal government in the United States.[1] Simply put, the early 1900’s were an entirely different time, especially for women. By granting women suffrage, the federal government had established a strong foothold in the right direction, and ensured that women wouldn’t face nearly as much disparity as in the past whenever they did not have a say in their own rights. As the women gained more rights, specifically catered towards their gender roles, many felt that true equality could not be obtained without creating a constitutional amendment, federally insuring what they believed that women had been fighting for through generations of work.
The right to suffrage did not necessarily mean the end of turmoil, however. Many laws were created to separate the sexes into roles based off of tradition and sexual dimorphism, such as the state law in Massachusetts that limited the working hours of women considerably more than what a man could work.[2] With this law used as a specific example, the apartheid laws could be portrayed in a positive light, but the truth is that there was a range of state laws that worked to both suppress and enable women and their path to independence. In 1923, Alice Paul, Chairman of the National Women’s Party announced her plan for an amendment to equate the two genders constitutionally, which would eventually end up as:
SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by 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.[3]
Many feminists disagreed with the passing of such document, known as the Equal Rights Amendment (or ERA), suggesting that it would remove the protective measures taken in favor of women by various state governments. Simply put, many women argued that they did not want the same rights as men if it meant taking on the same civil responsibilities, such as longer working hours and conscription. Seen as a case of cognitive dissonance, the amendment was subject to much controversy, even from other feminists.
The amendment was introduced to both legislative branches in an attempt to secure equality under law. After losing momentum and being drowned out by World War II, the subsequent working class of women created by the lack of men in domestic labor caused an upheaval towards the demand for equal gender rights. Protests upon the legislative branches by ERA-supporting feminists granted a hearing in the Senate. Despite the fact that the bill died, it brought the ERA into the public sphere again. After gaining presidential support by Dwight Eisenhower and passing the Senate in 1950, the Hayden Rider was added onto the ERA, reading:
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.[4]
Used as an attempt to quell that various labor unions that were concerned with the working rights of working-class women, the Hayden Rider, inadvertent or not, led to many concerns by various women’s activists. While some were not satisfied with the implications that the rider was making, as it would create second class citizens by allotting one gender certain privileges that the other could not benefit from. As the goal of many groups was to create true equality instead of a matriarchy or patriarchy, many supporters of the ERA halted their support because they felt as though by putting stipulations against one gender, it was not allowing the two sexes to be precisely equal, the were not genuinely arguing for equality.
After pressure from progressive groups, President Kennedy issued the President’s Commission on the Status of Women to further inspect gender disparity.[5] The Commission’s approach to resolving the issues that it had investigated, instead of edging towards support of an end-all amendment, decided to pass individual bills to solve unique issues. The commission’s efforts helped pass bills such as the Equal Pay Act, which illegalized unequal pay between different sexes in similar conditions, and the Civil Rights Act, which made workplace gender discrimination illegal.[6] It’s worth mentioning that prior to the passage of the Equal Pay Act, the conditions guaranteed in the private and non-federal government were previously only available to federal employees since 1872.[7]The verdict that the commission had reached was the ERA was not needed, and by its practice, showed how much work could be done by addressing issues one at a time instead of all at once with a vaguely worded amendment.[8]
Unsatisfied, many protesters brought attention back to the ERA in 1970. Unlike the previous attempts, House Joint Resolution 208 passed. Provided with congressional support, the ERA gained endorsement by President Richard Nixon. The Amendment was given a time period of 7 years to gain support on at least 38 ratifications. 35 total ratifications were gained, however, four of those were rescinded by the deadline, and the bill was once again dead, even with the deadline extension to 1982.[9]
Since then, activist have not halted their avocation for the bill. Despite the constant push for ratification, many laws and social conditions have changed since the original proposition. In fact, so many changes have been made that 96% of Americans already believe that the Equal Rights Amendment has been passed, which begs the question: if only 4% of Americans are even aware that the ERA did not pass, then are the provisions actually necessary?[10] The sex apartheid legislation of the early 20th century has been repealed or edited heavily, and as it seems, most of the current issues that are considered modern feminist issues are either dealt with by the government to an appropriate extent or not appropriate for the government to intervene with. For instance, many consider high counts of rape and murder as largely female concerns, and often protest and insist that the government takes actions to prevent such crimes, but those actions were already illegal, and largely so. Comparatively, some activists call the federal government to action without considering that the federal government has restrictions, and cannot police personal opinion towards women.
Despite the tenacity of various groups towards the ERA, adopting the ERA could result in negative consequences. For instance, it may be unclear as what would be done about conscription, but it’s possible that the ERA may affect the constitution in a way that includes women into the draft service. The current agenda towards expanding rights regarding pregnancy may be even harder to pass if paternal laws also had to be taken into consideration due to the ERA, should it pass. As the Supremacy Clause overrides state law, any state funded programs that regard specifically women will be forced to change by either losing its funding or being inclusive towards men, which can cause problems due to resource limitations as well as domestic violence.
The bill, as it stands, only accomplishes one thing: total equality towards the sexes, which, as discussed, may have adverse effects. No matter how the bill is advertised, it cannot solve issues regarding females unless if the solution is already found to be available in the privileges of males. Violence against women, even though referred to as a problem that will disappear on various pro-ERA websites, is illegal regardless of gender, and that’s how generally all cases already go. The government cannot read minds to prevent spontaneous acts of violence before they happen, as the government has pretty much exhausted their options by enforcing punishment through fair trials. Briefly glossing over the websites that promise such crimes to lessen due to the ERA, they were generally very vague as to how the passing of the ERA would accomplish such a task.
In closing, the ERA may provide a nice sentiment, however, the inadvertent detriment that it would cause heavily outweighs the small benefits that it would provide. The ERA, while good on paper, has gained support today as it had in the 1920’s, 40’s, 60’s, 80’s, yet it fails to become ratified to a sufficient extent because it is fundamentally flawed. Despite the various socioeconomic conditions of women in the numerous eras, no era has found consensus that the ERA was truly needed. Simply being a bandage on the subject, the ERA will, I suspect, fail to cause much good, especially when compared to focusing on single issues.
END NOTES
[1] "Larger Image," National Archives and Records Administration, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/19th-amendment-l.jpg.
[2] "American Women's History," American Memory. accessed May 13, 2016, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=awh_llmisc&fileName=awh/awh0026/awh0026page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/awhbib:@field(DOCID+@lit(awh0026)).
[3] "ERA Coalition, The ERA Text," Ambrosio-Correll, Kristie, ERA Coalition, Accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.eracoalition.org/eratext.php.
[4] Cynthia Ellen Harrison. On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 31.
[5] "Executive Order 10980 Dated December 14, 1961, in which President John F. Kennedy Establishes the President's Commission on the Status of Women,"National Archives Catolog, accessed May, 13, 2016, https://research.archives.gov/id/300011.
[6] "The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)," U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed May 13, 2016, https://wNww.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm.
[7] "Women's Rights Timeline," Annenberg Classroom, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf
[8] Dawn Keetley and John Pettegrew, Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism. (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1997), 251.
[9] "President Nixon Endorses Equal Rights Amendment for women, Samuel Walker, Today in Civil Liberties History, http://todayinclh.com/?event=president-nixon-endorses-equal-rights-amendment-for-women (Accessed May 13, 2016).
[10] "Wait, Women Don't Have Equal Rights in the United States," Biddle, Tabby, The Huffington Post, last updated January 3rd 2015, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"The Equal Pay Act of 1963." (EPA). Accessed May 13, 2016. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm.
Ambrosio-Correll, Kristie. "ERA Coalition: The ERA Text." ERA Coalition: The ERA Text. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.eracoalition.org/eratext.php.
"American Women's History." American Memory. Accessed May 13, 2016. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=awh_llmisc&fileName=awh/awh0026/awh0026page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/awhbib:@field(DOCID@lit(awh0026)).
"Women Rights Timeline." Annenberg Classroom. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf.
Biddle, Tabby. "Wait, Women Don't Have Equal Rights in the United States?" The Huffington Post. April 11, 2014. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html.
Harrison, Cynthia Ellen. On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Keetley, Dawn, and John Pettegrew. Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1997.
"Executive Order 10980." National Archives Catolog. Accessed May 13, 2016. https://research.archives.gov/id/300011.
"Larger Image." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/19th-amendment-l.jpg.
Walker, Samuel. "President Nixon Endorses Equal Rights Amendment for Women." Today in Civil Liberties History. 2013. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://todayinclh.com/?event=president-nixon-endorses-equal-rights-amendment-for-women.
It may be easily forgotten that less than 100 years ago, in 1920, female citizens were not guaranteed the right to vote by the federal government in the United States.[1] Simply put, the early 1900’s were an entirely different time, especially for women. By granting women suffrage, the federal government had established a strong foothold in the right direction, and ensured that women wouldn’t face nearly as much disparity as in the past whenever they did not have a say in their own rights. As the women gained more rights, specifically catered towards their gender roles, many felt that true equality could not be obtained without creating a constitutional amendment, federally insuring what they believed that women had been fighting for through generations of work.
The right to suffrage did not necessarily mean the end of turmoil, however. Many laws were created to separate the sexes into roles based off of tradition and sexual dimorphism, such as the state law in Massachusetts that limited the working hours of women considerably more than what a man could work.[2] With this law used as a specific example, the apartheid laws could be portrayed in a positive light, but the truth is that there was a range of state laws that worked to both suppress and enable women and their path to independence. In 1923, Alice Paul, Chairman of the National Women’s Party announced her plan for an amendment to equate the two genders constitutionally, which would eventually end up as:
SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by 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.[3]
Many feminists disagreed with the passing of such document, known as the Equal Rights Amendment (or ERA), suggesting that it would remove the protective measures taken in favor of women by various state governments. Simply put, many women argued that they did not want the same rights as men if it meant taking on the same civil responsibilities, such as longer working hours and conscription. Seen as a case of cognitive dissonance, the amendment was subject to much controversy, even from other feminists.
The amendment was introduced to both legislative branches in an attempt to secure equality under law. After losing momentum and being drowned out by World War II, the subsequent working class of women created by the lack of men in domestic labor caused an upheaval towards the demand for equal gender rights. Protests upon the legislative branches by ERA-supporting feminists granted a hearing in the Senate. Despite the fact that the bill died, it brought the ERA into the public sphere again. After gaining presidential support by Dwight Eisenhower and passing the Senate in 1950, the Hayden Rider was added onto the ERA, reading:
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.[4]
Used as an attempt to quell that various labor unions that were concerned with the working rights of working-class women, the Hayden Rider, inadvertent or not, led to many concerns by various women’s activists. While some were not satisfied with the implications that the rider was making, as it would create second class citizens by allotting one gender certain privileges that the other could not benefit from. As the goal of many groups was to create true equality instead of a matriarchy or patriarchy, many supporters of the ERA halted their support because they felt as though by putting stipulations against one gender, it was not allowing the two sexes to be precisely equal, the were not genuinely arguing for equality.
After pressure from progressive groups, President Kennedy issued the President’s Commission on the Status of Women to further inspect gender disparity.[5] The Commission’s approach to resolving the issues that it had investigated, instead of edging towards support of an end-all amendment, decided to pass individual bills to solve unique issues. The commission’s efforts helped pass bills such as the Equal Pay Act, which illegalized unequal pay between different sexes in similar conditions, and the Civil Rights Act, which made workplace gender discrimination illegal.[6] It’s worth mentioning that prior to the passage of the Equal Pay Act, the conditions guaranteed in the private and non-federal government were previously only available to federal employees since 1872.[7]The verdict that the commission had reached was the ERA was not needed, and by its practice, showed how much work could be done by addressing issues one at a time instead of all at once with a vaguely worded amendment.[8]
Unsatisfied, many protesters brought attention back to the ERA in 1970. Unlike the previous attempts, House Joint Resolution 208 passed. Provided with congressional support, the ERA gained endorsement by President Richard Nixon. The Amendment was given a time period of 7 years to gain support on at least 38 ratifications. 35 total ratifications were gained, however, four of those were rescinded by the deadline, and the bill was once again dead, even with the deadline extension to 1982.[9]
Since then, activist have not halted their avocation for the bill. Despite the constant push for ratification, many laws and social conditions have changed since the original proposition. In fact, so many changes have been made that 96% of Americans already believe that the Equal Rights Amendment has been passed, which begs the question: if only 4% of Americans are even aware that the ERA did not pass, then are the provisions actually necessary?[10] The sex apartheid legislation of the early 20th century has been repealed or edited heavily, and as it seems, most of the current issues that are considered modern feminist issues are either dealt with by the government to an appropriate extent or not appropriate for the government to intervene with. For instance, many consider high counts of rape and murder as largely female concerns, and often protest and insist that the government takes actions to prevent such crimes, but those actions were already illegal, and largely so. Comparatively, some activists call the federal government to action without considering that the federal government has restrictions, and cannot police personal opinion towards women.
Despite the tenacity of various groups towards the ERA, adopting the ERA could result in negative consequences. For instance, it may be unclear as what would be done about conscription, but it’s possible that the ERA may affect the constitution in a way that includes women into the draft service. The current agenda towards expanding rights regarding pregnancy may be even harder to pass if paternal laws also had to be taken into consideration due to the ERA, should it pass. As the Supremacy Clause overrides state law, any state funded programs that regard specifically women will be forced to change by either losing its funding or being inclusive towards men, which can cause problems due to resource limitations as well as domestic violence.
The bill, as it stands, only accomplishes one thing: total equality towards the sexes, which, as discussed, may have adverse effects. No matter how the bill is advertised, it cannot solve issues regarding females unless if the solution is already found to be available in the privileges of males. Violence against women, even though referred to as a problem that will disappear on various pro-ERA websites, is illegal regardless of gender, and that’s how generally all cases already go. The government cannot read minds to prevent spontaneous acts of violence before they happen, as the government has pretty much exhausted their options by enforcing punishment through fair trials. Briefly glossing over the websites that promise such crimes to lessen due to the ERA, they were generally very vague as to how the passing of the ERA would accomplish such a task.
In closing, the ERA may provide a nice sentiment, however, the inadvertent detriment that it would cause heavily outweighs the small benefits that it would provide. The ERA, while good on paper, has gained support today as it had in the 1920’s, 40’s, 60’s, 80’s, yet it fails to become ratified to a sufficient extent because it is fundamentally flawed. Despite the various socioeconomic conditions of women in the numerous eras, no era has found consensus that the ERA was truly needed. Simply being a bandage on the subject, the ERA will, I suspect, fail to cause much good, especially when compared to focusing on single issues.
END NOTES
[1] "Larger Image," National Archives and Records Administration, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/19th-amendment-l.jpg.
[2] "American Women's History," American Memory. accessed May 13, 2016, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=awh_llmisc&fileName=awh/awh0026/awh0026page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/awhbib:@field(DOCID+@lit(awh0026)).
[3] "ERA Coalition, The ERA Text," Ambrosio-Correll, Kristie, ERA Coalition, Accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.eracoalition.org/eratext.php.
[4] Cynthia Ellen Harrison. On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 31.
[5] "Executive Order 10980 Dated December 14, 1961, in which President John F. Kennedy Establishes the President's Commission on the Status of Women,"National Archives Catolog, accessed May, 13, 2016, https://research.archives.gov/id/300011.
[6] "The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)," U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed May 13, 2016, https://wNww.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm.
[7] "Women's Rights Timeline," Annenberg Classroom, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf
[8] Dawn Keetley and John Pettegrew, Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism. (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1997), 251.
[9] "President Nixon Endorses Equal Rights Amendment for women, Samuel Walker, Today in Civil Liberties History, http://todayinclh.com/?event=president-nixon-endorses-equal-rights-amendment-for-women (Accessed May 13, 2016).
[10] "Wait, Women Don't Have Equal Rights in the United States," Biddle, Tabby, The Huffington Post, last updated January 3rd 2015, accessed May 13, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"The Equal Pay Act of 1963." (EPA). Accessed May 13, 2016. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm.
Ambrosio-Correll, Kristie. "ERA Coalition: The ERA Text." ERA Coalition: The ERA Text. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.eracoalition.org/eratext.php.
"American Women's History." American Memory. Accessed May 13, 2016. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=awh_llmisc&fileName=awh/awh0026/awh0026page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/awhbib:@field(DOCID@lit(awh0026)).
"Women Rights Timeline." Annenberg Classroom. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf.
Biddle, Tabby. "Wait, Women Don't Have Equal Rights in the United States?" The Huffington Post. April 11, 2014. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tabby-biddle/wait-women-dont-have-equa_b_6098120.html.
Harrison, Cynthia Ellen. On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Keetley, Dawn, and John Pettegrew. Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1997.
"Executive Order 10980." National Archives Catolog. Accessed May 13, 2016. https://research.archives.gov/id/300011.
"Larger Image." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/19th-amendment-l.jpg.
Walker, Samuel. "President Nixon Endorses Equal Rights Amendment for Women." Today in Civil Liberties History. 2013. Accessed May 13, 2016. http://todayinclh.com/?event=president-nixon-endorses-equal-rights-amendment-for-women.