4 ms·

Yes, all government programs that exclusively benefit women would become illegal. And, all government programs that exclusively benefit men would also become il

Yes, all government programs that exclusively benefit women would become illegal. And, all government programs that exclusively benefit men would also become illegal. These are not unintended consequences; equality for all sexes is the explicit purpose of the amendment. I also just want to note that most of the programs you mention actually wouldn't be affected. WIC provides food money to single fathers in an equal fashion to the food money given to single mothers. Similarly, FMLA provides equal leave for both mothers and fathers. Family courts have already moved past special treatment of women; they now operate in a best interests of the child doctrine.

gliese1337 7y ago
> Family courts have already moved past special treatment of women; they now operate in a best interests of the child doctrine. That is incredibly naive. I personally know fathers who have been screwed over by a court system that is biased towards the female gender over all other considerations, to the point that it will grant sole custody of children to an ex-wife with multiple severe mental illnesses living with known-abusive grandparents who have been reported to CPS by their neighbors and which refuses to even enforce visitation rights for the father (who, y'know, actually has a job, and actually pays more attention to his kid than just shoving her in front of a TV all day when he is allowed to see her). And all because "of course the child should be with her mother".
gliese1337 7y ago
> These are not unintended consequences OK, perhaps you personally have thought of all of those consequences and you actually want them. And you don't care about gender-based discrimination, only biological sex. But here's another potential side-effect: The concept of "separate but equal" has already been thoroughly shot down with regard to racial discrimination. If the ERA were passed, I guarantee you will see legal challenges to "separate but equal" treatment of the sexes. Taking that to its logical extreme, that means the ERA could be reasonably interpreted to mean that it is illegal to have, e.g., separate men's and women's locker rooms in public schools. And just imagine how many parents would be up in arms over their daughters being forced to share a locker room with teenage boys.
- belorn 7y ago
  The issue of gendered locker rooms and bathrooms can be reduced to an economical problem of building personal unisex booths. It is a bit more expensive, through compared to the budget of building a whole school it is a very minor increase in construction costs. So the issue is an 0.(many zeros)1% increase in taxes to address that particular issue.

gliese1337 7y ago

> Family courts have already moved past special treatment of women; they now operate in a best interests of the child doctrine. That is incredibly naive. I personally know fathers who have been screwed over by a court system that is biased towards the female gender over all other considerations, to the point that it will grant sole custody of children to an ex-wife with multiple severe mental illnesses living with known-abusive grandparents who have been reported to CPS by their neighbors and which refuses to even enforce visitation rights for the father (who, y'know, actually has a job, and actually pays more attention to his kid than just shoving her in front of a TV all day when he is allowed to see her). And all because "of course the child should be with her mother".

gliese1337 7y ago

> These are not unintended consequences OK, perhaps you personally have thought of all of those consequences and you actually want them. And you don't care about gender-based discrimination, only biological sex. But here's another potential side-effect: The concept of "separate but equal" has already been thoroughly shot down with regard to racial discrimination. If the ERA were passed, I guarantee you will see legal challenges to "separate but equal" treatment of the sexes. Taking that to its logical extreme, that means the ERA could be reasonably interpreted to mean that it is illegal to have, e.g., separate men's and women's locker rooms in public schools. And just imagine how many parents would be up in arms over their daughters being forced to share a locker room with teenage boys.

belorn 7y ago
The issue of gendered locker rooms and bathrooms can be reduced to an economical problem of building personal unisex booths. It is a bit more expensive, through compared to the budget of building a whole school it is a very minor increase in construction costs. So the issue is an 0.(many zeros)1% increase in taxes to address that particular issue.