About the Equal Rights Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 115
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
This question may have already been asked. At this point, what are the actual benefits of passing the ERA, given that we already have so many laws and requirements in place as it relates to sex?
 
ZenMode said:
This question may have already been asked. At this point, what are the actual benefits of passing the ERA, given that we already have so many laws and requirements in place as it relates to sex?
Click to expand...
It lets us get rid of so many of those laws and onerous regulations and fills in any lacunae left by that hodgepodge by clarifying that women are real people ,too and simplifying the legal system. Sounds like a win to me.
 
ZenMode said:
This question may have already been asked. At this point, what are the actual benefits of passing the ERA, given that we already have so many laws and requirements in place as it relates to sex?
Click to expand...
1. Those laws could go away. Like abortion rights, for instance. Or pregnancy discrimination laws, which are being chipped away at. Or Title IX guidance as to sexual assault, which keeps yo-yoing in interpretation: The Obama/Biden standard is too susceptible to abuse and contains no procedural safeguards to protect men unjustly accused, but the Trump standard makes compliance with the policy trivial and thus grossly insufficient to protect women. The constitutional amendment would set parameters for what that guidance must entail, and the courts would be involved in enforcing it.

2. Are you aware that the soon-to-be secretary of defense has specifically championed discrimination against women in the military? I'm not going to argue about that, because there's nothing you can say that would change the analysis. What he proposes is, in fact, legally discrimination under every standard of discrimination I know of. The defense of Hegseth's policies (should they arise) would be that they are justified discrimination. And that's where the ERA would come in, to considerably raise the bar for that justification.

3. When the ERA was first proposed and almost passed, there was no such thing as intermediate scrutiny of gender-based classifications, IIRC. So the government could discriminate against women more or less freely. In the 70s and 80s, the Court began to apply this intermediate standard, which is less than strict scrutiny but still suffices to protect some interests in equality.

There is no guarantee that intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications survives this Court. And then we'd be back in the "government can do what it wants."

4. The ERA would affect a large number of regulations that you aren't aware of. I saw a chart on that a long time ago, sometime around law school. I wasn't aware of many of them, because as it turns out the US is so large and complex that we have more necessary regulations than anyone can know of (unless, perhaps, they are expert in regulatory law or politics). I don't remember most of them and the chart is out of date by now, surely.

The point is, there's more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
 
superrific said:
1. Those laws could go away. Like abortion rights, for instance. Or pregnancy discrimination laws, which are being chipped away at. Or Title IX guidance as to sexual assault, which keeps yo-yoing in interpretation: The Obama/Biden standard is too susceptible to abuse and contains no procedural safeguards to protect men unjustly accused, but the Trump standard makes compliance with the policy trivial and thus grossly insufficient to protect women. The constitutional amendment would set parameters for what that guidance must entail, and the courts would be involved in enforcing it.

2. Are you aware that the soon-to-be secretary of defense has specifically championed discrimination against women in the military? I'm not going to argue about that, because there's nothing you can say that would change the analysis. What he proposes is, in fact, legally discrimination under every standard of discrimination I know of. The defense of Hegseth's policies (should they arise) would be that they are justified discrimination. And that's where the ERA would come in, to considerably raise the bar for that justification.

3. When the ERA was first proposed and almost passed, there was no such thing as intermediate scrutiny of gender-based classifications, IIRC. So the government could discriminate against women more or less freely. In the 70s and 80s, the Court began to apply this intermediate standard, which is less than strict scrutiny but still suffices to protect some interests in equality.

There is no guarantee that intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications survives this Court. And then we'd be back in the "government can do what it wants."

4. The ERA would affect a large number of regulations that you aren't aware of. I saw a chart on that a long time ago, sometime around law school. I wasn't aware of many of them, because as it turns out the US is so large and complex that we have more necessary regulations than anyone can know of (unless, perhaps, they are expert in regulatory law or politics). I don't remember most of them and the chart is out of date by now, surely.

The point is, there's more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with the ERA. It sounds like the US is behind the rest of the civilized world in having some kind of official, national declaration of women's equality.

Yes I'm aware that Hegseth plans to return the previous physical requirements to the military and I fully support it, just as I do maintaining previous physical requirements for police officers and firemen.

That's not discrimination against women any more than it's discrimination against fat people, people missing limbs or some other condition that prevents them from meeting physical requirements for a job.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm fine with the ERA. It sounds like the US is behind the rest of the civilized world in having some kind of official, national declaration of women's equality.

Yes I'm aware that Hegseth plans to return the previous physical requirements to the military and I fully support it, just as I do maintaining previous physical requirements for police officers and firemen.

That's not discrimination against women any more than it's discrimination against fat people, people missing limbs or some other condition that prevents them from meeting physical requirements for a job.
Click to expand...
I am going to say this briefly, and only once, and I'm not going to argue with you about it:

Non-discrimination implies that standards are set and evaluated according to need, effectiveness and accessibility. If the Army put in a rule saying "all infantry troops must be at least 6'1"", that would be discriminatory. It would be giving men a leg up for no good reason (only for bad ones). Now, maybe there would be a rule requiring everyone to be at least 5' (I am making this up as an illustration), and that could probably stand. While it discriminates against women, it does so only mildly (as most women are taller than 5'), and one imagines why that might be important for combat and supplies.

So to support the "physical requirements" is discriminatory unless you are also going to examine the requirements to see if they are actually useful and important.
 
superrific said:
I am going to say this briefly, and only once, and I'm not going to argue with you about it:

Non-discrimination implies that standards are set and evaluated according to need, effectiveness and accessibility. If the Army put in a rule saying "all infantry troops must be at least 6'1"", that would be discriminatory. It would be giving men a leg up for no good reason (only for bad ones). Now, maybe there would be a rule requiring everyone to be at least 5' (I am making this up as an illustration), and that could probably stand. While it discriminates against women, it does so only mildly (as most women are taller than 5'), and one imagines why that might be important for combat and supplies.

So to support the "physical requirements" is discriminatory unless you are also going to examine the requirements to see if they are actually useful and important.
Click to expand...
The details of why Hegseth, and many others, don't support women in specific combat roles is detailed in the hearing. Among them is being able to carry a 100lb backpack, lift artillery shells that weigh upwards of 100 lbs, etc. I don't remember everything that was mentioned, but it's not dissimilar to firemen.

So, in those specific combat roles, why would you purposely insert people who can't carry 100lb pack, lift the required artillery shells, handle specific large weapons, etc?
 
ZenMode said:
The details of why Hegseth, and many others, don't support women in specific combat roles is detailed in the hearing. Among them is being able to carry a 100lb backpack, lift artillery shells that weigh upwards of 100 lbs, etc. I don't remember everything that was mentioned, but it's not dissimilar to firemen.

So, in those specific combat roles, why would you purposely insert people who can't carry 100lb pack, lift the required artillery shells, handle specific large weapons, etc?
Click to expand...
The question is: how necessary is the 100lb pack? Is that actually required of troops, or is it just a number that someone came up with. It sounds like the latter.

Like I said, you have to evaluate whether the standards are necessary. If they are not, then adherence to them is discrimination if the effect is discriminatory. Imagine if firefighters were **required** to speak Spanish as a qualification for the job. That would be discriminatory (unless perhaps in a community where many people only speak Spanish), and the fact that it's phrased as a "generally applicable standard" doesn't change that.

I don't know if 100lb packs are required or not. I have no insight into the day-to-day activities of infantry. It does seem likely, though, that if the military has been doing just fine (and it has been), we don't need a drunken abusive second-string talk show host to turn back the clock fifty years.
 
superrific said:
The question is: how necessary is the 100lb pack? Is that actually required of troops, or is it just a number that someone came up with. It sounds like the latter.

Like I said, you have to evaluate whether the standards are necessary. If they are not, then adherence to them is discrimination if the effect is discriminatory. Imagine if firefighters were **required** to speak Spanish as a qualification for the job. That would be discriminatory (unless perhaps in a community where many people only speak Spanish), and the fact that it's phrased as a "generally applicable standard" doesn't change that.

I don't know if 100lb packs are required or not. I have no insight into the day-to-day activities of infantry. It does seem likely, though, that if the military has been doing just fine (and it has been), we don't need a drunken abusive second-string talk show host to turn back the clock fifty years.
Click to expand...
"It sounds like the latter."

It seems unlikely that the military or state/local governments would arbitrarily put requirements into place.

Do you agree that those who can't meet necessary physical requirements for a specific role, male or female, shouldn't be permitted in those roles?
 
ZenMode said:
"It sounds like the latter."

It seems unlikely that the military or state/local governments would arbitrarily put requirements into place.

Do you agree that those who can't meet necessary physical requirements for a specific role, male or female, shouldn't be permitted in those roles?
Click to expand...
1. It happens all the time. It's not that people necessarily think that they are being arbitrary. It's more that they didn't think about it. Case in point:

2. Is it really the case that military necessity and the round number 100 just happen to coincide? The round number is what makes me think it's a pseudo-requirement. Let's think about it. Infantry have to operate in all sorts of different environments, in all sorts of climates and weather, with varying degrees of support, etc. So there's probably not a single number that one could apply. People probably seized on the number 100 because it was round and seemingly big enough to cover all circumstances. But if it's too large, then it could be discriminatory.

I have no idea if 100 lbs is too much or if it was an arbitrary number or any of that. The point is that following standards is not laudable (or acceptable) if the standards themselves are discriminatory. Do you trust a drunk second-tier talk show host to make that determination? Do you even trust him to comprehend the issue?
 
superrific said:
1. It happens all the time. It's not that people necessarily think that they are being arbitrary. It's more that they didn't think about it. Case in point:

2. Is it really the case that military necessity and the round number 100 just happen to coincide? The round number is what makes me think it's a pseudo-requirement. Let's think about it. Infantry have to operate in all sorts of different environments, in all sorts of climates and weather, with varying degrees of support, etc. So there's probably not a single number that one could apply. People probably seized on the number 100 because it was round and seemingly big enough to cover all circumstances. But if it's too large, then it could be discriminatory.

I have no idea if 100 lbs is too much or if it was an arbitrary number or any of that. The point is that following standards is not laudable (or acceptable) if the standards themselves are discriminatory. Do you trust a drunk second-tier talk show host to make that determination? Do you even trust him to comprehend the issue?
Click to expand...
Ok, well maybe have an open mind, if you don't know the details of the situation, before demonizing Hegseth as discriminatory.
 
ZenMode said:
Ok, well maybe have an open mind, if you don't know the details of the situation, before demonizing Hegseth as discriminatory.
Click to expand...
I'm not demonizing him at all. I'm going by what is in the public record, about what he said at his confirmation hearings, and the positions of his boss. I don't have time in my life to give people like Pete Hegseth a close inspection. There is nothing redeeming about that man.
 
superrific said:
I'm not demonizing him at all. I'm going by what is in the public record, about what he said at his confirmation hearings, and the positions of his boss. I don't have time in my life to give people like Pete Hegseth a close inspection. There is nothing redeeming about that man.
Click to expand...
This was part of your first:

"Are you aware that the soon-to-be secretary of defense has specifically championed discrimination against women in the military?"

His position, while it is more likely to apply to females, is not discriminatory against them specifically. The military has physical requirements for any number of positions, up to an including even being accepted into the military In the first place.
 
ZenMode said:
His position, while it is more likely to apply to females, is not discriminatory against them specifically. The military has physical requirements for any number of positions, up to an including even being accepted into the military In the first place.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don't have time for the bullshit. That man has said way more than enough for me to assess his viewpoint. He is a misogynistic, sycophantic asswipe. He's not special. He's just a Fox News weirdo dude who happened to have been nominated about seven levels above his competence level.

If a person wants to receive the benefit of the doubt, the first requirement is that the person tells the truth. Seeing as how Pete lied his ass off during his confirmation hearing ("anonymous smears"), he's not going to get it. Second, the person has to have demonstrated a capacity for reasonableness, which also Pete has clearly failed to do. So if it turns out that he doesn't try to unlawfully discriminate, that will be great. I will be pleasantly surprised.

It's basically like on this board: if a person doesn't want others to think they are unintelligent, uninformed, and unethical, the best way of doing that is to avoid acting unintelligently, uninformedly, or unethically. Pete Hegseth doesn't pass the test.
 
superrific said:
Like I said, I don't have time for the bullshit. That man has said way more than enough for me to assess his viewpoint. He is a misogynistic, sycophantic asswipe. He's not special. He's just a Fox News weirdo dude who happened to have been nominated about seven levels above his competence level.

If a person wants to receive the benefit of the doubt, the first requirement is that the person tells the truth. Seeing as how Pete lied his ass off during his confirmation hearing ("anonymous smears"), he's not going to get it. Second, the person has to have demonstrated a capacity for reasonableness, which also Pete has clearly failed to do. So if it turns out that he doesn't try to unlawfully discriminate, that will be great. I will be pleasantly surprised.

It's basically like on this board: if a person doesn't want others to think they are unintelligent, uninformed, and unethical, the best way of doing that is to avoid acting unintelligently, uninformedly, or unethically. Pete Hegseth doesn't pass the test.
Click to expand...
I don't know what bullshit you're talking about. You may not like Hegseth, But that doesn't make the weight requirements of certain military combat positions any different. I would hope that we would want people in those positions who are able perform them correctly.
 
Last edited:
Just as a point of interest when it comes to the 100 pound thing.

A standard combat loadout tends to weigh in at around 43 pounds on its own — combat loadout in this case meaning flak jacket, Kevlar helmet, rifle and the standard gear you wear rather than pack.Apr 20, 2020

There are special cases where it can be more. Unlike with firemen and paramedics who are certain to have to carry extreme loads, the 15% that are combat infantry may never have to carry more than about 68 lbs.
 
Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan routinely carry between 60 and 100 pounds of gear including body armor, weapons and batteries.

The heavy loads shouldered over months of duty contribute to the chronic pain suffered by soldiers like Spc. Joseph Chroniger, who deployed to Iraq in 2007.

Twenty-five years old, he has debilitating pain from a form of degenerative arthritis and bone spurs. "I mean my neck hurts every day. Every day," he says. "You can't concentrate on anything but that because it hurts that bad."

Like many soldiers and Marines, Chroniger shouldered 70 to 80 pounds of gear daily.

.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
Like I said, I don't have time for the bullshit. That man has said way more than enough for me to assess his viewpoint. He is a misogynistic, sycophantic asswipe. He's not special. He's just a Fox News weirdo dude who happened to have been nominated about seven levels above his competence level.

If a person wants to receive the benefit of the doubt, the first requirement is that the person tells the truth. Seeing as how Pete lied his ass off during his confirmation hearing ("anonymous smears"), he's not going to get it. Second, the person has to have demonstrated a capacity for reasonableness, which also Pete has clearly failed to do. So if it turns out that he doesn't try to unlawfully discriminate, that will be great. I will be pleasantly surprised.

It's basically like on this board: if a person doesn't want others to think they are unintelligent, uninformed, and unethical, the best way of doing that is to avoid acting unintelligently, uninformedly, or unethically. Pete Hegseth doesn't pass the test.
Click to expand...
I know this is only tangentially related to a fox newsman, but I was looking through an old thread and the google news feed hoping for an update on your story, and I couldn't find anything.

Can you give us an update on the Trump supporters riding around in their trucks with shotguns that closed your kid's school and necessitated a police presence? Maybe you can link the article you found in the local news. To remind you, here is the email you mentioned that the school sent:

"School emailed to say the men have been arrested. It appears to have been only the one truck roaming around everywhere, though school says there might be another so there will police stationed there the rest of the week."

Nevermind, going through the thread, I see you changed that even though you earlier mentioned there was a news article that no one else has seen and an email from the school. Easy mistake to make. The real story is a bully that actually attended the school that caused a trans kid to commit suicide. Whatever happened with that? I couldn't find anything in the news and the mention of the lying fox news commentator who was acting unintelligently, uninformedly, or unethically jogged my memory a little bit.
 
Last edited:

Why the 155 mm round is so critical to the war in Ukraine​

.............

WHAT IS THE 155 MM?​

Essentially, the 155 mm round is a very big bullet, made up of four parts: the detonating fuse, projectile, propellant and primer.

Each round is about 2 feet (60 centimeters) long, weighs about 100 pounds (45 kilograms), and is 155 mm, or 6.1 inches, in diameter. They are used in howitzer systems, which are towed large guns that are identified by the range of the angle of fire that their barrels can be set to.

apnews.com

Why the 155 mm round is so critical to the war in Ukraine

The 155 mm howitzer round is one of the most requested artillery rounds of the Ukraine war. Already the U.S. has shipped more than 1.5 million rounds to Ukraine, but is seeking more. One reason it is so commonly used is the size and weight of the munition, which have been refined to give it the...
apnews.com apnews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top