Quote from KellyMac

Why on Earth would we even need the ERA? This is hardly 1923. We have Affirmative Action. Seriously, why is this issue even still alive?

Because of women like... well.. you know....

TMOTS

Quote from KellyMac

Why on Earth would we even need the ERA? This is hardly 1923. We have Affirmative Action. Seriously, why is this issue even still alive?

Maybe the ERA would invalidate affirmative action since affirmative action discriminates against men?

Quote from TERA

Maybe the ERA would invalidate affirmative action since affirmative action discriminates against men?

Yea.. and maybe feminism is about equality for all....

erp.. what's that flapping noise I hear overhead?

TMOTS

Quote from TERA

Maybe the ERA would invalidate affirmative action since affirmative action discriminates against men?

We don't need it. Besides, it would be a case for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Quote from TERA

Maybe the ERA would invalidate affirmative action since affirmative action discriminates against men?

Not likely. There's a lot of caselaw about affirmative action under the equal protection clause at this point. The ERA would actually strengthen the legal underpinnings of affirmative action, as it applies to women, because one of the main goals of ERA's supporters is to overturn caselaw that provides that sex-based distinctions in the law only get an "intermediate" scrutiny under the constitution, as compared with race, which gets a strict scrutiny. The impact on legal decisions is important -- laws that face strict scrutiny are almost always declared unconstitutional unless they relate to national security or affirmative action. Sex-based distinctions in laws are not subject to strict scrutiny because a few of the tests for strict scrutiny are not met: namely the suspect class must be politically impotent, and must constitute a discrete minority -- neither of those applies to women, really.

But with ERA, sex-based distinctions in the law are effectively brought to the level of strict scrutiny -- something that would strengthen significantly the legal position of affirmative action programs as they apply to women. And flipping it around in reverse is unlikely -- men will not be considered to be a "suspect class" for purposes of the law. So in effect, you'd basically be making sex like race for purposes of constitutional analysis, and equating being a woman with being black. That's basically the goal.