Equal Rights Amendment?

[BobTheCoward]

Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes, and government assistance schemes shouldn't revolve around that ONE lady who was a professional scam artist in the 1970s who managed to game the system.

The main body of the thing is what's important, there will always be outliers. If you attempt to handle every conceivable situation no matter how obscure or unlikely you will never get the main work done.

Because you making a law to last many lifetimes and affect millions. The probability of outliers occuring is high.

 

[theprestige]

Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes,

I don't have a good answer for the draft question, but the Olympic question actually goes the other way around. We're not trying to figure out trans rights based on arcane Olympic rules. Rather, the Olympics is trying to modify its rules to conform to the growing demand for "trans rights for ordinary people". It would be a lot easier if the Olympics were allowed t say that their athletes aren't ordinary, and should be exempt from the ordinary rules. Easier, except that trans activists would then push for the cancellation of the Olympics as being unfairly discriminatory towards trans athletes.

And maybe that has clues for the answer to the military question? It might be easier for the military to say that soldiers are not ordinary people, and thus the military should be exempt from the ordinary rules. But the constant push from society has been in the opposite direction.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess since I'm only in my forties and wasn't alive for Vietnam I just don't see a "constant push" over the draft which hasn't been done since then.

 

[theprestige]

I guess since I'm only in my forties and wasn't alive for Vietnam I just don't see a "constant push" over the draft which hasn't been done since then.

Yep. And in extremis, if the nation were actually facing an existential threat that required all warm bodies on the front lines, we'd figure out some way around the gendered draft. Probably a strict scrutiny exception, with either a fast-tracked supreme court review or (more likely) all lawsuits about it deferred until after the crisis.

But this is less about the literal draft, than about true reciprocity and gender equality before the law. There is a draft on the books. It is gendered. Gender equality activists have been pushing hard for expansion of women's roles in the military. Sooner or later, this must include the draft. The question isn't "why should women be included in the draft?" It's, "why do gender equality activists shy away from gender equality in the draft, instead of embracing it?"

Abolishing the draft would cut the gordian knot, but would not actually eliminate the underlying conundrum. Since this conundrum is going to cause inconsistencies and injustices across the entire spectrum of gender equality causes, I'm content to keep the draft around for now, as a clear example we can discuss as a template for other areas of gender equality policy.

There are, in my opinion, two kinds of gender equality activists worth listening to: Those who agree that a draft should be gender-neutral; and those that can give a coherent explanation for why women should be entitled to serve in combat roles but should not be included in a draft. Thus, the draft issue acts as a kind of policy debate shibboleth, even if an actual draft is unlikely in this day and age.

 

[d4m10n]

To my great surprise, there is actual legislative movement on this one:

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1192896920773177344

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've always thought the draft laws were blatantly discriminatory against men, and was not impressed at a 1982-ish opinion written by Bill Rehnquist saying it wasn't. At the least I thought women should have to register just like men.

Something weird likely happened as that quote is not in that linked message and I didn't say that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you want to make a textual argument that the 14th Amendment, as written, should be interpreted to include protected classes other than race, have at it, but let's not pretend the suffragettes could have gotten that argument through SCOTUS in the early 20th century.

My point is that constitutional interpretations change and I would rather have it in writing than depend on winning the culture wars to keep women having rights.

Fair enough. It would be clearer, but the judiciary is still going to have to do a fair bit of interpretive work so as to allow for sex-segregated restrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc.

I don't care about preserving sex segregated restrooms and as private organizations sports leagues are not covered by the constitution, any more than having a catholic sports league is banned by the first amendment.

 

[d4m10n]

My point is that constitutional interpretations change and I would rather have it in writing than depend on winning the culture wars to keep women having rights.

We would have to win culture war battles in 38 states in order to get it in writing, in the way that you want.

I don't care about preserving sex segregated restrooms and as private organizations sports leagues are not covered by the constitution...

You are forgetting there are far more student athletes in our state schools than there are in professional private leagues. As of now, federal law governing sex equality has a huge impact on these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Impact_on_American_schools

 

[ponderingturtle]

We would have to win culture war battles in 38 states in order to get it in writing, in the way that you want.



You are forgetting there are far more student athletes in our state schools than there are in professional private leagues. As of now, federal law governing sex equality has a huge impact on these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Impact_on_American_schools

Good get the NCAA out of schools and get them to focus on actually learning things and not giving their students brain damage, while making billions off them and not paying them.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes, and government assistance schemes shouldn't revolve around that ONE lady who was a professional scam artist in the 1970s who managed to game the system.

The main body of the thing is what's important, there will always be outliers. If you attempt to handle every conceivable situation no matter how obscure or unlikely you will never get the main work done.

That is often the point of focusing on the outliers.

 

[Dr. Keith]

There are, in my opinion, two kinds of gender equality activists worth listening to: Those who agree that a draft should be gender-neutral; and those that can give a coherent explanation for why women should be entitled to serve in combat roles but should not be included in a draft. Thus, the draft issue acts as a kind of policy debate shibboleth, even if an actual draft is unlikely in this day and age.

Would the second set really be called "gender equality" activists?

I don't swim in this pond much, but I thought the general consensus among feminist and gender equality activists was that the draft should either be abolished or gender neutral.

 

[theprestige]

Would the second set really be called "gender equality" activists?

Good question. I'd say they're at least worth listening to, for that coherent explanation alone.

I don't swim in this pond much, but I thought the general consensus among feminist and gender equality activists was that the draft should either be abolished or gender neutral.

Abolishing the draft, like ignoring it, isn't actually a gender equality thing. I can understand if some activists would rather just get rid of it, if it means not having to figure out whether it should be gender neutral.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Good question. I'd say they're at least worth listening to, for that coherent explanation alone.

Honest question: has that explanation ever been very coherent? It seems to lack internal logic at its core.

Abolishing the draft, like ignoring it, isn't actually a gender equality thing. I can understand if some activists would rather just get rid of it, if it means not having to figure out whether it should be gender neutral.

True, it is just that the more one looks into the draft, and why we have it, the obvious question is not "why is this gendered?" The obvious question to me is "why is this still a thing?"

After that I think one can get around to "if it is to be a thing, it should not be gendered anymore."

Just because ones primary focus is gender issues does not mean that every problem has to be solved in that framework. Sometimes the problem transcends the obvious gender issues and a more fundamental solution is presented.

 

[theprestige]

Honest question: has that explanation ever been very coherent? It seems to lack internal logic at its core.

Honest answer: I've never heard such an explanation. I included it for completeness, and to be fair to anyone who might have such an argument, and in the hopes that someone might actually present one. Or at least try.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Honest answer: I've never heard such an explanation. I included it for completeness, and to be fair to anyone who might have such an argument, and in the hopes that someone might actually present one. Or at least try.

Admirably complete. I thought you had actually had this conversation and I found it intriguing.

 

[d4m10n]

Good get the NCAA out of schools and get them to focus on actually learning things and not giving their students brain damage, while making billions off them and not paying them.

Do you believe your dismissive attitude towards collegiate athletics is shared in any the SEC and Big 12 states?

If not, that's enough to sink ratification right there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you believe your dismissive attitude towards collegiate athletics is shared in any the SEC and Big 12 states?

If not, that's enough to sink ratification right there.

Yes college should go for the ideal of being a sports team with some education attached. Think we can get the NBA to get all non profit status if we have them have some teaching on the side? We can even finally really choke out the players and get the power fully back into the owners as it should be.

 

[d4m10n]

If you're unconcerned with getting the ERA passed, this strikes me as a good approach to PR.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you're unconcerned with getting the ERA passed, this strikes me as a good approach to PR.

I get it schools should view students not as the future but a resource to be exploited. If only Trump University could have been assocaited with the AFL it would have been a perfect marriage that all Americans can love.

 

[theprestige]

If you're unconcerned with getting the ERA passed, this strikes me as a good approach to PR.

Slow down there. I'm unconcerned with getting the ERA passed. I think it's redundant and a waste of time, but I won't be upset if someone else wants to go to the effort of getting it passed. Because I'm unconcerned.

I'm certainly not interested in doing any PR against it.

What you're referring to is an expression of strenuous concern.