Schlafly's agitation against the ERA was one of the most ridiculous, mendacious disinformation campaigns in the history of American politics.
She and her minions went around saying that if it passed, single-gender bathrooms would be outlawed. No, I'm not kidding. This transgender-bathroom bugaboo shit has a long and dishonorable political history.
She also made a big deal about women being drafted, and amazingly, this had traction even after the draft ended in 1974.
Yet another proof that if you lie long, loudly and often enough, enough people will believe you.
Interesting post, Robyn. I appreciate the history review, because despite having lived through pretty much all of the late-1900s ERA history, so much has gone down since then I'd kind of lost the thread of what happened.
Doubt very much, of course, that Trump would sign it if it somehow came to his desk, but interesting none-the-less.
God would rather they'd leave him out of it, to be honest. Buddha is shaking his head, patting God on the back, saying, "dude, you never should've gone for the "diety" thing, it's really backfired on you!"
That's actually a relief. I'm not ashamed to admit to viewing a bit of pr0n every now and again. However, my regular interwebbing is pretty much limited to a half-dozen non-pr0n sites or so, and maybe three of them have Disqus. I'm still curious what is behind the recent uptick of hijacked profiles spamming me in delightfully broken English.
Actually if the ERA managed to get ratified and added to the constitution, based on my understanding of the amendment process, I don't think it would matter if Trump signed it or not. I don't think that the president has to sign constitutional amendments for them to become law. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Either way, the passage of the ERA, especially at this point, would be a really good thing.
Actually of all her arguments, the one about the possibility of women being drafted makes the most sense, however even that is unconvincing. There's no good reason to think that women can't handle themselves in combat, and so there's no good reason to think they shouldn't be included in the draft if there is one. Besides, if there's another Vietnam type war, that's super unpopular and the government brings back the draft and women are drafted along with men, it will only increase opposition to the war.
The only reason someone might be afraid of women being included in the draft is either, one, they're a women and they don't want to fight in the war, or two they don't want they're daughter to be sent off to fight.
They would have to ratify another amendment to repeal the ERA assuming it passes and becomes part of the constitution. It would have to be like it was with 18th amendment which established prohibition, being repealed by the twenty first amendment which ended prohibition. Thankfully that would not be easy for them to do, and I doubt that a single state would ratify the whatever amendment they come up with to repeal the ERA.
Oh, how I would love the palpable irony of that. And then hearing my Trump family members having to choke that out. Oh, would be worth it. So worth it. Fun fact: Texas has had an ERA in its state constitution since 1972. Yes, really. Really. https://ballotpedia.org/Tex...
For Trump it's a subtle message. For him. He's got pardons for everyone, ifyaknowwhatimean.
Schlafly's agitation against the ERA was one of the most ridiculous, mendacious disinformation campaigns in the history of American politics.
She and her minions went around saying that if it passed, single-gender bathrooms would be outlawed. No, I'm not kidding. This transgender-bathroom bugaboo shit has a long and dishonorable political history.
She also made a big deal about women being drafted, and amazingly, this had traction even after the draft ended in 1974.
Yet another proof that if you lie long, loudly and often enough, enough people will believe you.
Interesting post, Robyn. I appreciate the history review, because despite having lived through pretty much all of the late-1900s ERA history, so much has gone down since then I'd kind of lost the thread of what happened.
Doubt very much, of course, that Trump would sign it if it somehow came to his desk, but interesting none-the-less.
Not just nutjob men (though, indeed, #NotAllMen). I think this is a pretty common fear, albeit a subconcious one most of the time.
God would rather they'd leave him out of it, to be honest. Buddha is shaking his head, patting God on the back, saying, "dude, you never should've gone for the "diety" thing, it's really backfired on you!"
Less. Definitely less.
I've been getting followed by variations on that profile for the last week or two.
That's actually a relief. I'm not ashamed to admit to viewing a bit of pr0n every now and again. However, my regular interwebbing is pretty much limited to a half-dozen non-pr0n sites or so, and maybe three of them have Disqus. I'm still curious what is behind the recent uptick of hijacked profiles spamming me in delightfully broken English.
Actually if the ERA managed to get ratified and added to the constitution, based on my understanding of the amendment process, I don't think it would matter if Trump signed it or not. I don't think that the president has to sign constitutional amendments for them to become law. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Either way, the passage of the ERA, especially at this point, would be a really good thing.
Actually of all her arguments, the one about the possibility of women being drafted makes the most sense, however even that is unconvincing. There's no good reason to think that women can't handle themselves in combat, and so there's no good reason to think they shouldn't be included in the draft if there is one. Besides, if there's another Vietnam type war, that's super unpopular and the government brings back the draft and women are drafted along with men, it will only increase opposition to the war.
The only reason someone might be afraid of women being included in the draft is either, one, they're a women and they don't want to fight in the war, or two they don't want they're daughter to be sent off to fight.
Seems legit
Or a random paragraph in a sovcit’s 84 page brief in the case they’re representing themselves in.
They would have to ratify another amendment to repeal the ERA assuming it passes and becomes part of the constitution. It would have to be like it was with 18th amendment which established prohibition, being repealed by the twenty first amendment which ended prohibition. Thankfully that would not be easy for them to do, and I doubt that a single state would ratify the whatever amendment they come up with to repeal the ERA.
They pretty much already claim that they are the party of women, in spite of Trump and the religious right.
To them being anti choice on abortion, and refusing to allow transwomen in the women's restroom is "pro woman"
Oh, how I would love the palpable irony of that. And then hearing my Trump family members having to choke that out. Oh, would be worth it. So worth it. Fun fact: Texas has had an ERA in its state constitution since 1972. Yes, really. Really. https://ballotpedia.org/Tex...
If it passed, would it even matter if he signed it or not? I don't think constitutional amendments work like regular laws in that regard.