Constitutional Equal Rights Amendment

[Pacman7331]

Hi there.

I just wanted to share an idea whose time I think has indeed come.

A Constitutional Equal Rights Amendment.

This would be a enormous victory for the MRM, as it would kill a school of vultures with only one pebble.

This would also be supported by the less than well informed feminist masses, and the rest of the "minority" population.

I heard this amendment tried to pass in the 1970s but didn't make it. This I think would help eliminate racism against whites, misandry, injustice in family courts, the matriarchy movement, gynocentrism, feminism, and by indeed in resonance with the true spirit of many great philosophers of the world including Thomas Jefferson.

I think equality under the law is the only position government should take on any class dispute and should otherwise stay out of cultural matters.

The reason I think this did not pass is because the globalist social engineers wanted to coerce inequality in order to divide and conquer, thereby crippling any uprising of rivalry to their power.

Discuss.

[Eviltwin]

One person who worked very hard to defeat the ERA was Phyllis Schlafly who didn't want to lose any of her traditional female perks. She is still a vocal anti-feminist, but she is no MRA. The majority of men were also opposed to it. In fact I was one of the few people I knew who was actually in favor of it. Generally feminists and liberated men were in favor of it, and traditionalists of both sexes were opposed to it. Modern versions of the ERA generally provide for a lot of liberal social engineering to ensure equality of outcome, so I would be very wary of them.

[neoteny]

Modern versions of the ERA generally provide for a lot of liberal social engineering to ensure equality of outcome, so I would be very wary of them.

Yes, as long as positive rights aren't explicitly separated from negative ones, an ERA is fraught with such dangers.

[dr e]

ERA would be a nightmare due to the gynocentrism that runs in the veins of legislators, judiciary and bureaucrats.  It would be enforced but only for minorities and women.  Just look at all of the attempts to cite title iX as sexist due to not helping men in some way.  Rejected.  We are surrounded by lunatics who see the world in the most sexist manner one can imagine and they aim to keep it that way!  LOL

[PaulGuelph]

My feeling is that we can't win the game in the first inning.

The Canadian Constitution is a cautionary tale. It was rewritten in 1982 and explicitly forbids discrimination based on gender or race. Feminists and non-white groups protested that they would have to stop their good work of redressing historical injustice.

So escape clauses were added allowing discrimination, but only against men & boys and also against whites.

Discrimination is now enshrined in our constitution. That would likely be the result in the US as well.

It would be a mistake unless we knew which way it would go. IMO we are not ready for that yet.

[Eviltwin]

Women already have more rights than men do. Men generally surrender their constitutional rights as soon as they become involved with women, and family court judges openly admit that the Constitution has no place in family law. The fact that the police can drag you out of your house and incarcerate you simply on a woman's say-so violates more than one amendment to the Constitution. This is what makes MGTOW such a tempting alternative.

[CaptDMO]

The Canadian Constitution is a cautionary tale. It was rewritten in 1982 and explicitly forbids discrimination based on gender or race. Feminists and non-white groups protested that they would have to stop their good work of redressing historical injustice.

So escape clauses were added allowing discrimination, but only against men & boys and also against whites.

Discrimination is now enshrined in our constitution. That would likely be the result in the US as well.

Too late.
See: Original US Supreem Court citation of Affirmative Action.
Apparently this now means it's OK to discriminate AGAINST unprotected groups of folk by virtue of of "failings" of "oppressed" folk. Somehow this is justified by the obvious Desparate Impact in equality of outcome. Uncommitted women, minority, non-tax payers, and THEIR children,  children hardest hit...

We call it "diversity", except there doesnt seem to be any room for "awareness" of Athletic Straight White Males, of ANY age,  in the National Conversation. Apparently the concept of Democracy has been disgarded as inconvieniant, ironically, most so by those who register as teem "Democrat".

"Democrats" demand special(a la Communism),  UNMERITED consideration for minority stakeholders.
"Liberals" demand more gub'mint intervention.
"Progressives" protest and obstruct economic growth, and desperately cling to disingenuous "interpretations" of the near and distant past.
"Feminists" cite equality , with additional "Justifiable Homicide" considerations, only with the same  "special considerations" for the hysterical (vagina centric or other) that the detested "Chivalry" once assured.

Note: Hysterical does NOT mean "funny", DESPITE ignorant common "usage".