American History

The Equal Rights Amendment continues to be an interesting source of debate because of its underlying implications to social and cultural concepts of gender. First introduced to Congress in 1923, support for the amendment has shifted from for and against it which ultimately its failure to be ratified by its deadline in 1982. However, there is still a continuing effort for ERA to be ratified which is being spearheaded by New York Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat (Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, 4). The motivation is to ensure the constitutional protection of womens rights and to simply leave it to the discretion of individual states or prevailing social norms. There is no denying the value of the ideals behind the amendment and even its strongest opponents recognize the need for legislation to support social equality more strongly.

However opposition to the ERA point out the actual provisions of the ERA can give rise to further inequality or the circumvention of other statutes of protection in industries, military enlistment, divorce settlements as well as reproductive rights (Ruether, 190). Critics suggests that many of the rights that the ERA seeks to confer to women are already afforded to them thus making it redundant or worse, create the means by which women can be marginalized. The argument is that the ERA seems to have only in mind white-collar female workers and will put blue-collar workers at a disadvantage because it will negate the protective labor laws for women particularly in industries. Pro-life supporters have also seen the ERA to support pro-abortion movements, thus the amendment has had received limited support from conservatives. Moreover, because the ERA has the potential to remove any distinction between genders, it will also circumvent provisions that are designed to protect or seen to give preference to women such as exclusion from required military enlistment or favor in alimony and custodial cases. In essence, the ERA will not be sensitive to the social conventions that usually are considered limiting to womens ability to represent or empower themselves (Baldez et al, 277-280).

Considering these criticisms, some would argue then that the motivation of extending greater protection to women thought the ERA will not be realized, worse it is insensitive to the concerns of most women. However, there is also denying that without a constitutional foundation, whatever concessions that women have gained can be reversed or voided. As pointed out by Rep. Maloney, In the past several decades, women have made extraordinary strides toward achieving equality  but this progress is not irreversible.

Without the ERA, women have often been denied the ability to seek justice when they have experienced discrimination (Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, 5). Either side has valid arguments, the real challenge is how these opposing views which both are concerned with protecting not only the welfare of women but society as a whole can be equally recognized and valued. In conclusion, regardless which side of the debate one is on, there is a need to remember that the objective is to not only ensure that women are not victimized by their gender but to create a society that recognizes the unique contributions of either gender brings into society.