"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." (equalrightsamendment.org)
Sounds like a shoo-in, right? Unfortunately, it was anything but. Not only did the ERA never pass, but several states that had initially ratified the amendment actually rescinded their approval. The ERA has been introduced to every Congress since 1982 but has yet to be passed.
What does this say about equality?
One of the reasons that legislators gave for not ratifying the ERA was the fear of women being forced into combat if they were declared equal to men. Another reason was that the fear that the ERA would lead to the collapse of the family unit, rampant abortions, and the legalization of homosexual unions. Now, in 2015, abortions and same-sex marriages are legal, but ERA has still not been put into place. Susan Moller Okin might attribute the inequality to justice within the family unit. In many households, the woman and man do not earn an equal amount of wages nor do an equal amount of housework or childcare. Okin believed that justice within the family would have to proceed justice in politics. However, I think that it is unlikely that either will bring out the other. Individuals might see the ERA as just words on the page and not make any move to improve justice and/or equality in their own homes. Alternatively, if justice in the family unit becomes more commonplace, Congress might claim that the ERA is not needed anymore because equality has been established without it.
I think that both the ERA and justice within the family/household are necessary if women are to truly be equal to men in this country.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that many congresspersons used the destruction of the family unit as a reason to oppose the ERA since Okin is also looking for the destruction (or at least the radical altering) of the traditional family. Do you think these congresspersons understood (and still understand) what is at stake here?
In some ways, I see the opposite of what we discussed in class to be under debate here. Could it be that the broad spectrum of political science and theory ought to be incorporated into the structure of the family? Would such an event like the ratification of the ERA have any effect at all on the culture of the family in the United States? The concept and enabling of something as revolutionary (yet obvious to many) as the ERA would definitely be a step in the right direction, though the "concerns" of the legislators over the possible ramifications regarding changes in the household should be challenged in legitimacy as well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShould we seek the equality within family through external force, such as political policies? I feel strong inconsistent when we discussed this in class. Because personally, whether consciously or not, I always feel like family is independent of society and politics, despite the fact that family is the most significant unit of our society. Family should retain certain extent of privacy and exclusivity. However, if anyone only will mind their own business, the inequality will never change, right?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that neither ERA, nor justice within a family can bring out the other. Justice within a family is a matter of personal choice. ERA will be an important step towards social equality. It can set the base of a rather different perception of the woman in the sense that once a woman becomes equal to man in the government, she will become more independent. However, we cannot expect that the granting of more political rights to women will lead to justice in the family.
ReplyDelete