How do you feel about the continuing lack of legal equality between men and women?

Question

It may surprise you to learn that there is no country in the world which has exactly legal rights between men and women. The US never passed the ERA, and there is inequality in the pensions systems for men and women in the UK.

So how do you feel about this? Can we really judge the effectiveness of equality if we don't even have it yet? And do you think this shows the ongoing need for feminism in the west, and why or why not? :-)

Answer 1

It's not something I ever think about. I figure that I am in charge of making my life what I want it to be. So if the gov is treating someone else differently than me I don't really worry about it. What two people in life really get the same treatment anyway?

Answer 2

Wouldn't a better question be "in what ways are women not legally equal to men"

I can't really think of any legal matters in which men and women are not equal (at least not any the benefit men)

Answer 3

Wouldn't it be great if we could all look at it from both the woman's and the men's point of view?  We both need rights.    

Answer 4

Im a guy and think it stinks, but you know had the era passed Then h**l I would have to pay a lawyer full time to keep me from being sued by every woman I smile at.

that is what was so messed up about that amendment.

Answer 5

don't care about the UK thats their problem

Answer 6

I don't think that the measure of equality under the law between the genders should be whether or not the ERA passed.  Rather, it should be whether or not the United States has made any laws which specifically discriminate against one gender or the other.  That is the only thing the ERA would protect against.  Could somebody please point me to that particular law which specifically discriminates against women?

Eleanor:  That is indeed an inequity.  However, the ERA would not cover that.  The Armed Services operate under their own set of laws by Executive Authority.  Many things are illegal under military law that have no bearing on the civilian population.  It is also illegal to tell your commanding officer that you are g*y in the military.

Eleanor:  I'm beginning to enjoy debating with you.  That was one of criticisms leveled at the ERA.  However it has very little basis in legal fact.  Sort of like the argument "if we legalize g*y marriage, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed."  Although the argument was a powerful deterrent and quite pervasive, it is not very well thought out.  Also, I would argue that the ERA has been routinely defeated by the nature of politicians.  They don't want to touch anything which seems remotely contentious so they used committees to prevent a vote on the issue.

Answer 7

It is frustrating that there are still lawmakers who don't believe in equal civil rights for all human beings.

But, who is to blame?   The lawmakers or those persons of voting age who elected them?

Answer 8

Eleanor, the ERA has been reintroduced into congress here in the United States.  Of course, an election year during a war with an unpopular president means it likely may be a while before it is again sent to the states to ratify...and it will be...and times have changed since it was last sent out to be ratified.

There are few cooler heads here on Gender Studies, so the responses you get are a microcosm of the worst of the worst of the bigotry that has made it a mandate that equal rights for all be guaranteed by our respective governments.

In this forum there is little actual discussion, but instead personalization and character assasination based on only one issue...feminism.

There are some good people here too, men and women, who are legitimately interested in acheiving equal rights for ALL people.

Sorry Ryan...I do not care to be normal and rhetoric bores me.

HUGS TO THE TIGER!!!!

Answer 9

In terms of feelings, I find it frustrating and perplexing here in the U.S.  I find it discouraging after all these decades.  The ERA came so close to passing a generation ago, and I'd have thought we'd have progressed farther by the 80s or 90s.  Instead, the ERA has become an idea even women don't endorse.  I never thought I'd live to see the days women would be against feminism, but so many are. I couldn't have imagined feminists being equated with n***s, but "feminazi" has been popular right-wing jargon for some time.

I just don't get it, but yes, I think all this shows the ongoing need for feminism.

And re. your comment about military conscription, my imperfect memory of the ERA debate was that more people were swayed by the fear that unisex bathrooms would be mandated.  It was extremely silly, but it was what people were talking about at the time.

Answer 10

Seeing as how men and women would not have been paying into those pensions equally for many years, why would that surprise you ? Garbage in, garbage out...  Edit: Probably the usual poorly thought out response to an imbalance, if women are being overpaid in pensions, it's probably where they counteract a perceived imbalance by overcompensating... I'm Canadian. Honeslty, I wouldn't know squat about UK pensions.

What legal rights do you feel women still need in regards to equality ?

I find whatever differences there are these days regarding equality are negligible (for the US, UK, other similar countries regarding equal rights). The people who feel the need to constantly complain about them, are merely attempting to blame someone else for their problems rather then ever accept responsibility like a mature adult.

Answer 11

Cloudcity, I am appalled at your lack of concern about CANADIAN women...Your quote, "I'm Canadian. Honestly, I wouldn't know squat about UK pensions.", not only hints that you don't care about women in other countries who may be experiencing inequalities, you don't feel that you are in any way shape or form, experiencing inequalities in Canada. As a fellow Canadian, I've got some info for ya, sista girl ;)

This is taken from the government of CANADA site, FFS

"How do income security policies (particularly, Employment Insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan) put mothers at risk of poverty by being insensitive to the uniqueness of their lives and by ignoring the ways in which work and family onditions over the life course influence susceptibility to poverty?

...Indeed, recent analyses suggest that compared to men, women have disproportionately been negatively affected by changes in Employment Insurance policy. Specifically, between 1989 and 1999, the proportion of unemployed women who received Unemployment/Employment

Insurance declined by 54 percent. Although, the proportion of unemployed men who received benefits also declined during this time, the reduction was by only 45 percent. Further, women who are of typical childbearing ages (25 to 44) are at highest risk of not receiving EI coverage. Whereas, 52 to 53 percent of unemployed men in these age groups receive

Employment Insurance, only 36 to 39 percent of unemployed women of similar ages do so (Canadian Labour Congress 2000). In terms of maternity benefits, this Employment Insurance policy also reinforces systemic gender inequality because financial independence is eroded with the birth of each child. Onthe one hand, given women’s already low income, receiving just over half of one’s earnings while on leave increases the likelihood that mothers will quickly move back into the labour force. On the other hand, the ability to move back into the labour force depends on the availability of affordable, quality child care, access to which is not readily available. Many women thus experience a double bind: they can’t afford to go back to work and they can’t afford not to go back to work. In both instances, mother’s choices are constrained by structured inequities, reinforced by policies that are ignorant of their particular needs. The consequences are not uniformly felt by all mothers, but they are quite acutely felt by all mothers in low-income families, especially when these mothers are single.

Recent analyses suggest that maternity benefit policy changes, particularly the increase in the minimum number of hours required to work (from 300 to 700), have led to fewer women having access to benefits. Maternity and parental benefits have and continue to favour fulltime workers. Hence, only about half of the total number of births in Canada are subject to maternity benefit claims, and the less money mothers make the less likely they are to make a

claim (Canadian Labour Congress 2000)."

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/066...

I'd love to see my fellow Canadians GIVING A d**n, instead of sitting back and choosing to believe that everyone lives as privelged of a life as they do. Not everyone lives as comfortably as a middle class white person, as you seem to be.

Answer 12

There is a lack of legal equality between men and women as there are many sexist laws and acts out there that favor women but discriminated against men.  For example, the VAWA law..

Answer 13

"There are some good people here too, men and women, who are legitimately interested in achieving equal rights for ALL people."-Mystery Lover

Fake tears and over dramatic sentiments only fool the weak. There are equal rights. Look at the civil rights acts of the late 1950's, the 1960's, and 1991. Look at the 14th amendment and 19th amendments. Normal people aren't obsessed with beating a dead horse.

Answer 14

Which legal rights?  

Domestic disturbances usually always have the concequence of the man being thrown in jail, his worldly possessions taken away, and the loss of visits to his childreen.

That doesn't sound like equality, but pure abuse towards men in the legal system.

Answer 15

Feminism is pushing for oppressive and totalitarian laws for men, we need feminism like we need the Taliban.

Feminism seems to be contributing inequality in law.

I believe in rewards based on merit, there is equal opportunity now, nobody if forcing women to buy products instead of investing in their pensions.