Equal Rights Admendment

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Should we have an ERA? I can see how it would be good and how it could be bad.

The females are pushing it so I assume it will just be a hammer against men.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

A jackhammer more like.

There is nothing good in the law for men.

NOTHING

[OldBillParticipant]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Should we have an ERA?

If it were equally applied, yes. However, it won’t be and you only need look at Title IX for an example.

Title IX’s language is just as innocuous and neutral as the ERA language you posted, but Title IX has been twisted out of all recognition.

Within a decade, Title IX’s well-meant and innocent mandate of equitable funding became nothing more than a legal excuse for institutionalized female privilege. Two decades after that sees Title IX being used as the legal basis for denying men their constitutional rights.

The backlash has begun; the Brown University ruling is the latest and strongest example of that. However, the pendulum still needs to swing quite a distance to even being approaching anything remotely fair.

Having more men sue colleges and universities for sex discrimination under umbrella of Title IX will help matters. Using your enemy’s own weapons against her is always a good tactic.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 11]

An Equal Rights Amendment for a group that is already superior before the law. I agree with OldBill and ILA It will be a legal jackhammer furthering the repression of men.

Are they dragging that fetid corpse out again? I hated it back in the 70s as a boy. I remember the propaganda storm to try to get it passed.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

The push for rights, without having the demands of said “rights” go along with them, produces a state where someone gets advantages they can then use against others.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Anonymous 42]

Equal Lethal Rights Amendment

ILiveAgain wrote:

There is nothing good in the law for men.

NOTHING

I live in a place where the law (by law) is in deed condemned, there’s nothing in the law for good and honest men, NOTHING!

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Should we have an ERA? I can see how it would be good and how it could be bad.

Not THAT ERA.

Notice where it talks about equal “rights” and NOT equal RESPONSIBILITIES?

As written this will not make women equally subject to the draft, nor will it be interpreted to grant men an equal “right to choose”. it will just be used as a justification for giving women more unequal unearned goodies.

[Anonymous 42]

sidecar wrote:

it will just be used as a justification for giving women more unequal unearned goodies.

They gotta get the goodies somewhere, sure as hell not here!

[RoyDalParticipant]

OldBill is right.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

There was an equal rights amendment back in the 70s but women killed it because it would have required them to register for the draft.

[Executor MaxwellParticipant 591]

Wow seems I’ll be lashing against the grain today.

I’m in support of it.

The reason it failed in the first place is that half the feminist movement all of a sudden came to the conclusion that they had a lot more to loose than gain if this passed.
Your seeing an upsurge of support because the new batch of fems are so uneducated and deluded about the true state of affairs that they don’t understand the implications of it and how it would play out.

That why some old senator wanted to propose a new one that was phrased VAWA style “Women’s Equality Amendment”. In stead of the neutral language. But the 3 state strategy is in the way as it’s much closer to being done.

The old guard feminists don’t like the thing but they can’t make a direct campaign against equality these days so easily. Especially after the non-stop demands that people accept that “Feminism is for equality”. HAH! No rational individual really believe that but they are trapped by the insistence and the young cult members are too fully indoctrinated in the repetition to understand.

Because that would involve accepting that the MRAs are right.

[HitmanParticipant]

Executor Maxwell wrote:

Executor Maxwell

Participant
407
Wow seems I’ll be lashing against the grain today.

I’m in support of it.

that kind of thinking is why you are the Executor.
love that !
keep kicking the walls inside my mind until it’s opened all the way !
thank you sir, may we have another ? !!!!!!!!

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

The ERA was sailing through Congress and the Senate in 1972. Thirty out of the necessary 38 states ratified the ERA. The only thing that stopped it is that it would grant women’s rights to men and when women realized that they dropped the ERA. Maybe it would help men more than women, if men got smart about things.

The women who spearheaded the anti-ERA was named Phyllis Schlafly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

Opposition to an Equal Rights Amendment[edit]

Symbol used on signs and buttons of ERA opponents
Schlafly became an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the “STOP ERA” campaign. STOP is an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.” Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security and the exemption from Selective Service registration.[27]

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Equal rights by definition can only come with equal responsibilitys. I do not believe that women want that.

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[JollyMisanthropeParticipant 3356]

The SJW’s will never come up with an adequate explanation of what they believe equality means. Even if they tried it would be based on hypocrisy.

Equal opportunity is all that’s necessary, and that’s pretty much in place.

Rights don’t exist without some type of force behind them, and when laws are in place these so called “rights” become privileges that can be taken from you.

The Children of Doom... Doom's Children. They told my lord the way to the Mountain of Power. They told him to throw down his sword and return to the Earth... Ha! Time enough for the Earth in the grave.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

True rights are secured and maintained through the exercise of personality responsibility.

Rights without responsibility are called privileges. Women can have all the privileges men are willing to give them, but they can not have rights unless they earn them.

From time to time, Tom Leykis would call himself America’s Greatest Feminist and I love that idea. Women want equality? Let’s give it to them… 100%

Me on a “date”… “Before we order, I have to tell you… I’m a feminist. I believe that women are equal to men in all areas of life. Socially, politically, economically. So we’ll be going Dutch.”

[Author]

Posts