Burroughs 1

In the United States today the issue of gender equality has become an
incredibly hot button issue. Just mentioning the topic in public is typically a social
faux-pas that is likely to incite mean words, shouting, and moral condemnation. Its
time the people of this nation sat down and had a mature discussion about this
incredibly important issue like adults. Specifically, the equal rights amendment
(ERA) has been argued over for some time, with proponents claiming that the equal
protection of rights under the law based on sex, is not already guaranteed in the
constitution. Opponents argue that men and women are already treated equally
under the law, making the equal rights amendment unnecessary. In order to clarify
this argument two viewpoints will be explained as objectively as possible.
Advocates of the ERA argue that the ERA is necessary and should be ratified.
They point out that the constitution does not already contain language that protects
the rights of all citizens regardless of sex. They argue that the ERA is still relevant
and that without it, the rights of all citizens are not secure. The opponents of the
ERA claim that the amendment is unnecessary at best. At its worst, opponents
claim the ERA would actually hurt women instead of protecting them. Opponents
often use examples of what unexpected consequences they think would occur
should the amendment be ratified.
With advocates claiming that women need the ERA and opponents pointing
out its flaws and potential drawbacks, the fulcrum of the debate is this; Is the ERA
needed to protect womens rights? The answer to this question is yes, as the
evidence presented below will show, the ERA would be beneficial to women. The
ERA should be ratified and made part of the constitution, as the evidence presented
will demonstrate.
One great reason to ratify the ERA is that it would lead to better treatment of
women under the law, as K. Sujata points out in her article, the ERA "will set a norm
for equal pay and provide a basis for litigation and legislation to extend the same
pay entitlements to men and women (Sujata) This protection may already be given
by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but an amendment to the constitution would
strengthen the legal protection of equal pay. Another point is made by Sujata in her
article, she states that Working to add the ERA to our Constitution will also help
focus our country on eliminating the scourge of violence against women (Sujata).
Opponents will argue otherwise, as Schlafly points out in her article that The
amendment would require women to be drafted into military combat any time men
were conscripted, abolish the presumption that the husband should support his
wife (Schlafly). In response to her first point; yes it would require women to be
drafted, in the unlikely event that the draft is ever re-instated. This is unlikely as we
already have a huge army made up of volunteers. Beyond that the ERA isnt meant
to make womens lives easier. With equal rights come equal obligation, and
currently, women enjoy exemption from the obligation of defending the nation in
times of war. Second, in regards to the idea that it would abolish the presumption
that a man should support his wife Ok? This is far from a problem, if anything it
would challenge any lingering doubt that women are perfectly capable of taking
care of themselves.

Burroughs 2
Another key point in this issue is that the opponents of the ERA make
nonsense claims and slippery-slope fallacies about the hidden agenda and
unforeseen consequences of the ERA. Opponents will argue that the ERA will take
away Social Security benefits for wives and widows (Schlafly). She goes on to say
that the ERA will lead to taxpayer funding of abortions and they acceptance of the
gay rights agenda. None of these statements are true, except perhaps the
legalization of gay rights. Look at the wording of the ERA taken from the Alice Paul
institute project website written and maintained by Roberta W. Francis Equality of
rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
state on account of sex. (Francis). There it is, nowhere in the language of the
amendment are the words abortion, social security, or gay rights mentioned. Also,
as another proponent points out in her submission to the LA times The ERA harbors
no potential to subject women to military conscription (even assuming Congress
were to reinstate the draft), deprive women of Social Security benefits or abolish the
"presumption" that a husband should support his wife for her (Schlafly) to vilify
women's equality based on fictitious disasters is an insult to your (the LA Times)
readers' intelligence. (Daugherty). If it did lead to the legalization of gay rights,
which has already been done without the help of the ERA, this was never a hidden
agenda. The opponents of the ERA are using scare tactics based on falsehoods.
Apparently this needs to be said, another reason to ratify the ERA is that men
and women should be treated equally. Research has been done in the past which
suggested that men and women are different in more ways than there role in
reproduction, but this idea is now being challenged. In their article, Daniel and Jason
Freeman have this to say There is some preliminary research to indicate that
biological factors may play a part, but at present the evidence which we review in
our book The Stressed Sex is far stronger for the influence of life events. Modern
research seems to indicate that gender is something we learn from our
environment. The idea that men and women are fundamentally different is a selffulfilling prophecy. Schlafly argues in her article that men and women are different
and equal (equal meaning identical) treatment is improper, but in light of more
recent research this position is unfounded. Furthermore, Daugherty raises the point
that the protections afforded to women are really benevolent sexism, she argues
from her personal experience in the workplace that We were "protected" against
having to lift anything heavier than 25 pounds (the calculators in the office where I
worked weighed exactly 24 pounds), and we were "protected" against earning
overtime pay (we weren't allowed to work longer than an eight-hour
day).(Daugherty).
The ERA has been argued over for nearly a century. It was originally
introduced to congress in 1923 under the title Lucretia Mott Amendment the
original wording of which was "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout
the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. The amendment was
introduced in every session of Congress until it passed in reworded form in 1972
(Francis). Opponents will argue that this is evidence that the ERA is not wanted by
the American people. This is far from the truth. The ERA was defeated by scare
tactics, misinformation, and political misconduct. For example Illinois changed its
rules to require a three-fifths majority to ratify an amendment, thereby ensuring

Burroughs 3
that their repeated simple majority votes in favor of the ERA did not count.
(Francis). Opponents also distracted the people by making it seem like a states
rights issue, suggesting that the ERA was a federal power grab. This falsehood
turns the attention of the people away from the fulcrum of this debate. Furthermore,
the ERA is not dead. In 2007 Federal and state lawmakers launched a drive to
revive the Equal Rights Amendment (3/07). Even back in 2014, lawmakers were
still fighting to revive the ERA, as explained in an article by Nicole Gaudiano More
than three decades later, advocates are working to advance the amendment's
cause at the grass-roots level as some in Congress work to either repeal the
amendment's deadline or start over (Gaudiano).
Finally, the ERA is needed to ensure the protection of womens rights. The
only right guaranteed by the amendments to the constitution to both women and
men is the right to vote. Even if the ERA doesnt target inequality in any specific
way, it strengthens the legal precedent that the rights of individuals cannot be
infringed upon on the basis of sex. The opponents of the ERA point out that the
amendment wouldnt actually solve a specific problem, this is a bad argument. The
ERA is a preventative measure, not a response to any one incarnation of inequality.
Others point out that the ERA has become moot through the passage of time and
other legislature that protects women, sometimes referencing the 14 th amendment
as one proponent says in an article Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly
stated that the 14th Amendment was never intended to protect women. It was only
intended to protect race. To this day aside from the right to vote, there have been
no amendments to ensure the rights of women in the constitution.
In conclusion with advocates claiming that women need the ERA and
opponents pointing out its flaws and potential drawbacks, the answer to the
fulcrum of the debate; Is the ERA needed to protect womens rights is answered.
Advocates of the ERA argue that the ERA is necessary and should be ratified. They
point out that the constitution does not already contain language that protects the
rights of all citizens regardless of sex. They argue that the ERA is still relevant and
that without it, the rights of all citizens are not secure. The opponents of the ERA
defeated this necessary amendment by inciting fear and proliferating ignorance and
as one proponent said in his writing It's a blot on our history that so many
Americans women as well as men, Democrats as well as Republicans fell for
the scare tactics about mandatory unisex public bathrooms, females forced into
combat roles, housewives dispatched into poverty and shame, and other
unintended consequences of gender equality. (Zorn). In face of the evidence, it is
clear that the ERA is necessary and would be beneficial to the legal standing of
women in America. One US senator, Heather Steans is fighting to revive the
amendment she says I think this is some unfinished business, an opportunity to
right a historic wrong."(Byrne). The ERA should be ratified and made part of the
constitution.

Burroughs 4

Works Cited

Francis, Roberta W. "Home." ERA:. Alice Paul Institute, n.d. Web. 01 Dec.
2015.
Freeman, Daniel, and Jason Freeman. "Let's Talk about the Gender Differences
That Really Matter in Mental Health." The Gaurdian. N.p., 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 22
Nov. 2015.
Grufferman, Barbara Hannah. "Will America Kill the Equal Rights
Amendment?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 July 2011. Web. 01
Dec. 2015.
Bureau, Nicole Gaudiano, Gannett Washington. "Fight to Ratify Equal Rights
Amendment Draws New Interest." USA Today. Gannett, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 01 Dec.
2015.

Burroughs 5
Daugherty, Margaret. "Wrong about Women's Rights." Los Angeles Times. Los
Angeles Times, 14 Apr. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2015
"Equal Rights Amendment in the Works." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles
Times, 28 Mar. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Zorn, Eric. "It's Never Too Late for Illinois to OK the ERA." Chicago Tribune.
The Chicago Tribune, 21 May 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Byrne, John. "Illinois Legislator Wants State to Revisit Equal Rights
Amendment." Tribunedigital-chicagotribune. The Chicago Tribune, 19 May 2014.
Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Sujata, K. "ERA? Not Merely Symbolic." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Apr. 2015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
RHETORIC WATCH : Witch Hunting." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 27
Aug. 1992. Web. 01 Dec. 2015