About the Equal Rights Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 119
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
I'm sorry, are you referring to Trump's attempt to nullify the 14th?

Or are you just being terminally stupid again?
Click to expand...
Just noting the topic of the thread that no one address but you in the op, Francis
Ended up with the same thread contents as all the others
 
chrissteel said:
Just noting the topic of the thread that no one address but you in the op, Francis
Ended up with the same thread contents as all the others
Click to expand...
It was an odd thing for Biden to do, but those of us non-legal folk who know that a president cannot enact an amendment by fiat brushed it off as some kind of symbolic gesture.

If you were so concerned about the evolution and contents of the thread, why didn't you jump in earlier to interject and offer your opinion(s)? MAGA-adjacent poaster HesNotHere97 dominated the conversation as well, so you can't assert that it was completely one-sided.

Also, I have some questions about your dossier if you have time....
 
All you need to know about my dossier is that my source made it up. But i made you look
I was out of town enjoying myself this weekend, by the way, and by the looks of things around here, i didn't miss much.
I didn't say the thread was one sided, just the same as most here.
 
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top