I remember when the ERA was first introduced and people were being scared by propaganda that women would have to use men's bathrooms and be assigned to combat in the military. We've come a long way on bathrooms and the military since then, but we still have a long way to go for women to get meaningful equality. Women are still treated more harshly by many state judicial systems (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee: I'm looking at your records on domestic violence). And as long as states try to control women's reproduction we are as far from equal as it gets.
40
@Louise Barnett : well and aren't we being FORCED into unisex bathrooms? FORCED to let transgender MTFs go into the ladies room? FORCED to pay for transsexual surgery on US military personnel?
It all came about anyways, but the ERA would have put it on greased rails.
3
I was with the thousands of other women in 1978 who marched on Washington for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Some dressed as suffragettes and it was a sight to behold. It was very disheartening when the amendment did not pass. As the saying goes, better late than never. I hope it passes now in my lifetime.
101
@Fonda Vera I was also one of those women in 1978. It was a wonderful march; I kept the ribbon we wore for a very long time as a reminder of our efforts. Disheartening indeed that the amendment didn't pass. We women have made progress in many aspects of life since then, but much remains to be done. I too hope it passes. At least we no longer have to listen to Phyllis Shafley talk about all the "rights and privileges" women will lose.
47
@Susan I too worked on that issue in 1978, and while I never made it to Washington I was active in the organization and march in Edwardsville, IL. Phyllis Shlafly was a local woman in the next town, and the biggest pain in our necks. Her ideas about all the advantages women have come from her experience of marrying well. Not all of us were as lucky, there aren't enough wealthy men to go around.
26
I marched for the ERA in the 70s and 80s and fought against the likes of Phyllis Schlafly and her regressive movement. I learned that often the biggest defenders of patriarchy are the women it favors with some small bit of token power. For those who would dismiss the importance of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, and conclude it is just symbolic, I hope you live to see the day when women generate their own power. The questions of who is nice enough, or electable enough, will be exposed for what they are.
24
Grateful to live to long enough to see this. In 1975, I was an 18 year old UNC freshman. North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin's opposition to gender equality rights was fierce. He said the ERA would be detrimental to women. I attended my first political march to bolster support for the ERA. It was my first taste of political activism. It was a fight we would not win...until now.
20
Under Scalia’s “originialist” interpretation, the 14th amendment was meant to protect the rights of newly freed male slaves, so it doesn’t protect women and other groups.
The ERA should be passed to clear this up.
5
Equal as in mathematically equal? No way, no how.
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate the genius that is Ken Burns? He is an American treasure.
5
Gee, the time for ratification expired 10 years after the amendment was passed by both houses. That would be some 30+ years ago. Who cares?
Yes, the declarations are given by men. Long live Affirmative Action....they will never be equal unless they take it.
Birch Bayh, senator from Indiana became Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, and in that role authored two constitutional amendments: the twenty-fifth—which establishes procedures for an orderly transition of power in the case of the death, disability, or resignation of the President of the United States—and the twenty-sixth, which lowered the voting age to 18 throughout the United States. He is the only non-Founding Father to have authored two constitutional amendments. Bayh also led unsuccessful efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and eliminate the Electoral College.
5
What about the men who have to fill in for her when they're out doing equal things like having a life and not working overtime or out on maternity leave? Will a man be able to sue a company when introduced, a female interviewer gives him a not in a million year look she would give too a guy like him in a singles bar? And when her boss supersedes her lack of judgement and hires the guy can he go to HR and complain when she turns everyone in the department against him? Does he get equal treatment?
But we see women need special treatment. Excuse me an amendment to prove they are equal. We have another example of a great Patriarchy where a female MBA in charge of the pilot training of the 737 Max cut cost and took lives just like a man. (It was in Bloomberg).
Let's here it for the ladies. Sorry, I mean women.
The ERA would forbid gender based affirmative action.
The original FEDERAL Constitution did NOT restrict suffrage to men.
Suffrage in a particular state was to be determined by its state legislature.
Suffrage could have been limited to women.
The 19th amendment said BOTH sexes must have suffrage.
1
The amendment says: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
So men, being a sex (or gender as we style it now), may no longer be denied the right to a legal abortion. Up until now only females have possessed this legal right and discrimination against the other sex will have to end. Men will gain the right to choose paternity at last just as women have in choosing maternity.
I supported the ERA since it was first proposed. I also wrote a series of articles on its ratification and the issue of whether a state can rescind such ratification in our student publication, the University of Miami Hurricane, around 1974. The topic of the expiration of the original seven-year deadline, nor the subsequent extension of that deadline, was then at issue. I did practice law, but I don't pretend to be more than an amateur constitutional scholar.
So, not so fast Mr. Burns! Your story tugs at my heartstrings, but my better judgment still reminds me that the ERA is still fraught with uncertainty. There is no doubt that final determination of ERA - as first proposed and submitted by the Congress for ratification by the state legislatures in 1972 - is headed for the Supreme Court.
A majority of the Court can do the right thing and rule in favor of the ERA. It would appear to be a case of first impression. But the Court still needs either a legal basis and/or the courage to go against its political indebtedness. Another, clearer option is to start over in Congress. The results of the 2020 elections should provide a clue as to that likelihood.
And there are still many questions to be asked about its implementation. Are women ready to assume not only the privileges given to men, but to carry the same burdons and responsibilities? I hope so. And I can't wait to take my main and only squeeze to dinner - Dutch treat - to celebrate! May I live so long . . .
2
Beginning with the 20th Amendment, Congress has attached a time limit to the ratification of all proposed amendments, including the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of these deadlines were in the language of the amendment itself. However, some of these deadlines, including the ERA, were in the proposing clause of the amendment.
In 1978, Congress extended the ERA’s ratification deadline from March 22, 1979 to June 30, 1982, but that deadline has passed. So, even if Virginia votes to ratify the ERA, it would require a Supreme court decision that overrides previous decisions to become law.
5
This shows the power of the historical moment to inspire good decisions. While it doesn't always, sometimes a sense of history can propel a person to do what is right. When that doesn't seem to be happening, representative government must also incorporate the popular will. That's why I favor more ways for direct democracy to be taken into account nationally. Currently, popular sentiment (from climate change to changing social attitudes) is often out in front of Congressional performance. "We The People" were the first words of the Constitution.
2
Every single conservative who has claimed to be a strict constructionist should acknowledge the ratification of the ERA. Please read Article V. There is no provision for deadlines to be set by anyone or any body. Nor to allow ratifications to be withdrawn. Any claim by a self-styled "strict constructionist" that the ERA has not been ratified is simple hypocrisy. Let me help. Here is Article V in its entirety:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
2
@Joel
What is the significance of "the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight"?
Why did the authors of the Constitution pick that year for that specific qualification?
@HH Focusing on the 1808 bit is a distraction not relevant to the current discussion. A little reading will reveal it embedded compromises to protect, among other things, the importation of slaves. You can read more here https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/article-v/ and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Constitutional_clauses_shielded_from_amendment
Regardless, if someone is a strict constructionist, they will not find mechanisms for rescinding a ratification, nor will they find any mechanism for setting date limits.
1
@Joel : the deadline is IN THE AMENDMENT itself.
If the deadline itself is illegal….the whole Amendment is therefore illegal and cannot be passed.
Does this mean women might be treated as equals, equal in pay, recognition, etc, etc, etc? This sounds like a great change in law, but I doubt anything will change for those who already place women last unless women and supporters become more forceful. Besides, even the men in this country aren’t equal after 250 years. Ask any man of color.
This nation will remain unequal as long as we allow haters, racist and sexists to remain in leadership positions and until our Christian citizens learn how unChristlike we really are. Sad to see them stoking the hatred.
7
It passed and thank goodness. Not because I am naive about what changes it could bring, not because I believe this vote is striking a blow against patriarchy (one need only turn one's head to find mediocre men talking over incredible women), but because slow progress is better than no progress. Yes, it's symbolic. And, what are symbols if not a sign for others to use as a means to connect and interface? These days, I'll take symbolic and run with it...all the way to the White House.
57
It is time! Pass the ERA!
6
Being declared equal and being treated equal are not the same thing. We're a long way from the latter.
4
So far the commenters seem to believe that the ERA will do everything short of curing cancer.
It was an Issue, and People Fought About It. But really, what is the change? Can somebody point to a law that actually discriminates against one sex or the other? The ERA will not address the equal pay issue, such as it is. In fact, since it only applies to the framing of laws, it pretty much won't address any of the Popular Concerns.
And while we're in this area, we note that the same people in favor of ERA are happy to discriminate against voting citizens who happen to be under the age of 21. Put that in you amendment and ratify it.
2
But remember, women, including Black women, were still discriminated against for decades until Civil Rights legislation was passed in the 60’s.
Today is Martin Luther King’s Birthday. Remember Rosa Parks, Amelia Boynton Robinson, and other women who led the way!
6
Finland’s new government is a coalition consisting of five parties, all parties are lead by women.
Four of them are younger than 35 , the fifth is an experienced lady 55 years old ( she would probably be considered to be just a young lass in USA)
Finland is rated happiest country on this planet .... just saying.
Greetings from a grumpy old Swedish man
7
Funny, I always grew up under the impression that men were an inferior species...
I feel promoted!
:-))
3
It’s about time.
2
Oh, brother. Ladies, you are now equal. In fact, you're more than equal, you are superior. My wife is already well aware of that, just confirming it for general consumption.
2
The law is so short and vaguely worded as to be meaningless, or better yet capable of meaning virtually anything to any liberal judge who interprets it, which was no doubt the purpose of the Amendment in the first place.
Women have the same rights today as men, as guaranteed in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the and the right to vote passed 100 years ago.
5
The problem is that no one knows what this Amendment means. Putting such broad interpretive power in the hands of the judiciary may not be a good idea.
If it's only a "feel-good" thought, it doesn't need to be added to the Constitution.
4
@Jonathan Katz and yet men are specifically mentioned. So why not women?
2
Men and women have equal rights, but not the same rights. The right to be pregnant is equal but not the same as the right to fertilize. They both equally require consent, they both equally produce children. But being impregnated and giving birth nine months later is not the same as impregnating someone else.
Transgender women don’t have a right to be pregnant, only cis women and transgender men do.
1
God will be very happy. She may even partially bless America.
Will She be finally given Her dark African supernatural appearance in Christian theological depictions ?
Ending all of the ignorant intemperate insecure misogyny and patriarchy about a male God with no mother nor wife nor daughter?
'God made man in his own image. And man returned the favor.' George Bernard Shaw
9
i simply do not understand why many people are against equal rights for women. i realize that many women feel that way. personally i think any politician who votes against equal rights for women should be run out of office as quickly as possible. they obviously are not good persons in my opinion.
6
Virginia, we're ALL LOOKING AT YOU: ಠ_ಠ
And let me add: Phyllis Stewart Schlafly should be revilied as one of the most destructive and hateful women in this country's history, complicit in patriarchal oppression. Just read the Wikipedia article on her.
23
It is going to be a symbolic victory at best, the expiry period has ended, and it is likely with the courts we now have, dominated by white, ultra conservative, religious judges, that it will be invalidated, and if you believe SCOTUS will uphold that the ERA, you have really strong rose colored glasses. First of all, the court will almost assuredly say the amendment time has expired C1983 and congress decides that (and with a GOP majority senate, no way they will rethink it). More importantly, even assuming the court says the deadline didn't matter, that congress didn't have the right (the constitution, FYI, does not set a time period on passing an amendment, and since congress has to initiate the amendment process, the time line is up to them, too. Interesting how the 'strict constructionalist' judges will not apply the 'what the constitution says goes', and since the constitution does not say anything about expiry or who sets it, should be unlimited.....but good luck with that).
Virginia will pass it, and the courts will invalidate the ERA in a NY minute, I would bet good money on that. You would be better off trying to get a constitutional convention and pass it that way, no way with Trump in the white house, the religious droolers now basically controlling our country, to pass an ERA the standard way.
4
Ken Burns is a national treasure.
6
The ERA died March 22, 1979. I have a problem with "historians" like Mr Burns who don't know elemental facts. There is no amendment to ratify. There are no "37" states that ratified, since five rescinded and no valid ratification has occurred since early 1973.
7
From what I’ve observed of the activity or lack thereof of the people in the federal government, female members of Congress left “equal” in the dust years ago...come November, every democratic woman on my ballot gets my vote. If she happens to also be a veteran, she gets all three of them...
3
In 1973 I was an intern in the Nebraska legislature during the bearings to rescind their ratification of the ERA. The gallery was overflowing with anti-ERA women. Many brought young daughter's carrying STOP ERA signs. I sat at a table in the floor of the legislature, subjected to the harangues of anti-ERA women, including Phyllis Schlafley. An elderly nun testified, saying any woman who supported the ERA had no right to ever be a mother. As I had a 7-week old daughter at home, I found her statement especially hurtful. My daughter is how 47. I am thrilled that the ERA might now, finally, take its rightful place in the US Constitution. It is long past due.
166
That women are equal is a no-brainer for any man that grew up around strong, capable women. I was fortunate to have such women raise me because they made me a confident, secure, and stronger man with a sensitivity and compassion that too many of my gender lack. That anyone - particularly any woman - would sincerely believe that women are inherently lesser seems unimaginable in 2020. So without the opposition of women like Phyllis Schlafly, and the regressive conservatives that have stalled the ERA for too long, I am optimistic that my great state will now lead the way toward toward its adoption.
199
@Rick Johnson
Nobody seems to remember the real reason the ERA has continually failed: feminists have said that they will use it to protect abortion if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
4
@Rick Johnson You clearly do not belong to any conservative religious tradition, all of which without exception preach dogma of male supremacy. Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish: all of them. Even Buddhism.
Most people still grow up receiving this type of "education".
20
@Rick Johnson Rick wake up! The deadline passed on June 30th 1982. Its over...more liberal lawlessness in action.
5
Old Era. Women Suffer. No Vote.
Women Age. Women Suffrage. Get Vote.
New Era. New Women. ERA.
No Pass. Time Pass. New Age.
All Women. All Men. Past Time.
Pass ERA. ERA Pass. At Last.
31
Ken....love your videos! But you must have had your eyes too focused on center spot of the camera lens.
Women are not equal to men. Thank God they differ from men, or we'd all be in one of kettles of fish that Laurel and Hardy eschewed, poor male fools that they were.
No, women are different from men. They are equal in their Constitutional rights, as are all human beings. Let's treasure them in their service to all of mankind....who wouldn't even be here if not for them.
Now, if they could only find a way to bring up the males they rear to treat all others equally well, the world would be a better place by far and all women canonized for the saints they can be.
3
@Lake. woebegoner I think you confuse the words equal with same. Also, ideally, two people are raising sons. In a heterosexual relationship that is a father and a mother and as such both parents are responsible for raising said son. We are not saints or in the service of mankind. We are people. I suspect you know this but are hoping to bait someone into an angry rant for fun.
9
@Lake. woebegoner
"They" are equal? Did you assume no one reading is female?
6
About time, I would say
9
Being declared equal and actually being equal are two very different things. You think Mitch McConnell and other conservatives (think Mike Pence) are interested in equality. To them a woman's place was, is, and always will be subservient to men. If women want real equality, they need to make sure that every one of them who can vote does vote. And they also need to make sure that they support every civil rights initiative for minorities as well. Don't waste your time fighting for this and being a closet racist at the same time. Or anti-LGBTQ or anti- Semitic....
7
The one touching story he focuses on is about a man. Touching, but head slapping.
4
Really, this also seems to be about the hold the conservative religious zealots have on society. It would be a statement for liberty.
8
Why is this not front page news? And leave it to our national treasure Ken Burns to inform us of what could be an historic accomplishment for true, long-awaited equality of the sexes. Next up, a woman president. She is right there before our eyes on the debate stage barely 24 hours ago.
9
Three steps forwards, two and nine-tenths back. We haven't come a long way, baby. Women are paid less, less likely to get promotions, are unequal in most major religious faiths, in the way their health is treated by health insurers, and so on. We don't have one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in the White house, but we do have one who disparages women based on their appearance and other insulting metrics. Women of color get a double whammy. There are plenty of men and complicit women who consider gender in the ballot box. There are plenty of men and women who use their faith to justify how to think and act about their mothers and sisters. Should be now hope that the Virginia Legislature will do the right thing, even if only symbolic?
108
et.a.nyc, should we how hope? Yes, at long last after almost 5 decades yes.
13
@et.al.nyc : So what's the alternative -- for the world to be as it was in 1973? In 1873?
As a 50-something women who, at 14, blithely assumed that The World Would Be Much Better when I was an adult, I'm often frustrated and sometimes rageful -- there are days when I briefly imagine what it would be like to beat certain men with a baseball bat (which I don't own, and I'm not a threat to anyone).
And then I think about how much worse the world was for women, people of color, LQBTQ people, even 30 years ago, and I'm relieved that we've made some progress.
Yes, we have a long way to go -- and, yes, we need to be cautious about letting lots of naysayers scoff that people (from all disenfranchised groups) already have equality. But we also have to be mindful of the progress that has been made.
If nothing else, diminishing that progress shows disrespect to the people who fought, or even died, to make a less-awful world.
4
Oh, goody. We women will be declared equal to men here in the U.S. of A. if the 19th Amendment is finally ratified. And then, soon thereafter, we'll be back to where we belong when the 20th becomes the second Amendment to repeal one that was a big mistake.
@Rea Tarr
The 19th Amendment passed decades ago; its the amendment that gave women the Constitutional right to vote. This was clearly addressed in Ken Burns’ video, embedded in the article.
The 20th Amendment already exists; it moved the beginning/ending dates for the terms of the president and Vice President.
4
@Donna M Nieckula
Thanks. I knew I'd blundered, but didn't bother to add the correction. Same snark applies, though.
@Rea Tarr why do you believe treating women equally under the law is a mistake?
1
It's wrong to give people false hope when there is no hope. It's wrong to try to change or re-write the rules when your side doesn't win. There's such a thing as fair play in politics. If you're going to extend the deadline to pass an amendment then logically you have to give states the right to rescind that ratification. The ERA had wide, bipartisan support (including that of both major political parties, both houses of Congress, Pres. Nixon, Ford & Carter). The deadline was 1979. Congress voted to extend it til 1982. Not one state voted for it during this time, five states rescinded their ratification. So it doesn't matter what Virginia does. If those reversals are upheld as valid & by law they are, then the number of states to have ratified would drop from 38 to 33 — an insurmountable hurdle in the quest for 38. We have stop gaming the system. That's what the other side does. I thought we were supposed to be better. Are we? Progressives really are their own worst enemies. They do irreparable damage to the Democratic party by pushing a dead issue. If this precedent was ever allowed to stand then down the road the GOP will use it to pass a constitutional amendment everyone would hate. Your side lost. Have the grace to admit defeat. Move on. The ERA advocates can always start from scratch & try to get the 38 states they need for approval. What's wrong with that? Nothing. If you had confidence in your position you would be endorsing this move. Clearly the votes aren't there.
30
@RBW ERA supporters have tried to fight for another extension in the courts but they always lose. In 1982 The Supreme Court declared these controversies surrounding the equal rights amendment moot on the grounds that the ERA had not received the required number of ratifications (38), so that "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here." On December 16, 2019, the states of Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota sued to prevent further ratifying of the Equal Rights Amendment. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall stated, “The people had seven years to consider the ERA, and they rejected it. To sneak it into the Constitution through this illegal process would undermine the very basis for our constitutional order." Fighting for passage of ERA is pointless and will accomplish nothing. The deadline passed....in 1979. The extension has been declared unconstitutional. Even if you get the required 38 states the amendment will be buried in litigation. If it is brought before SCOTUS which is more conservative today, it will be declared null and void. It has to be...our laws are bound by precedent. There's no reason for SCOTUS to overrule the lower court. Why wage a symbolic campaign that diverts energy from securing effective legislation for discrimination? There is no rational argument for proceeding in this fashion. Especially when there are more important issues that need to be addressed.
7
@bill brown
Your tally of those states which have currently ratified the ERA is incorrect, there are now 38 which have ratified and 4 which have ratified but later rescinded it. Those states where it was rescinded include Kentucky, Idaho, Tennessee and Nebraska. There is hope as the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the extension of the deadline lies with Congress. You seem uninformed or bent on spreading misinformation.
29
@Bill Brown What is interesting though, the same states arguing the time limit has passed are also the same ones calling for Convention of States, and that states that previously called for one cannot rescind their call because there is no Constituional Mechanism for revoking.
Similar principle but with differing bias clouds the argument.
10
Four states have rescinded their votes and it had a seven year deadline (I guess 1979). Seems like a dead issue to be revived to make the Republicans shoot it down so they look even more anti-women than they already do.
Clever strategy by the Ds but, the Rs don't have to shoot it down.
Place your bets.
1
@Mike Bishop : FIVE states have rescinded AND the Amendment clearly says "this Amendment EXPIRES in 1983".
Frankly I think 10 years is plenty to ratify. However, the Constitution says nothing on this -- no time deadline, and no law PREVENTING a time deadline.
While I'm fine with an ERA the idea that Virginia ratifying will make it law is so blantantly false that I wonder want the real agenda is here. This was a dead issue in 1983, and after that 5 states reversed their votes. So the proponents will want the high court to selectively rule the deadline was not valid and any attempt to withdraw is also no valid? That would quite a reach even for the liberal wing of the court. So is this about after the rejection claiming that the court is biased against women and screaming misogyny? And then blaming it all on Trump?
6
@Todd At least two states reversed their approval during the 10 years making at least those reversals air tight
1
The goal of the most recent "waves" of feminism is not equality but female supremacy.
The passage of the ERA will doubtless lead to a whole new jurisprudence in which feminists claim "but of course women and men are differently situated so the law should treat women better than men in this case."
If the ERA is ever adopted as an amendment to the US Constitution, supremacy feminists will come to love and will seek to resurrect Plessy v. Ferguson.
1
@Frank no legitimate feminist organization (and there are many) fighting for the rights of women say this. I'm sure you can find some women on the internet saying this, but they do not represent the movement as a whole or its goals. Plessey v. Ferguson? Hyperbole much?
8
And just as this is happening the whole idea of being female is being deconstructed from a biological reality to a perceptual one. What happens to woman’s rights when being a woman is a state of mind not an embodied reality?
What confusing times we find ourselves in.
2
@phil What happens is that guys say they are girls and win the Olympics
There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding discrimination against left-handed people, brown-eyed people, short people, thin people, etc. And, curiously, no clamor for any such proposal. Because government should be free to act on such factors when those factors make a difference (say, when selecting soldiers, etc.)
So, how would adding this language to the Constitution actually change the law? Answer: it wouldn’t. Perhaps it might have when it was first proposed – in 1923 – but, although leftists never seem grasp this fact – things have changed.
Women are not victims. By almost any metric, they’re doing substantially better than men.
But us-vs-them leftists require villains and victims, and it’s always 1619.
3
@Michael (and Frank and Phil)
Thanks, boys. I'm sure women in America appreciate your oh-so-accurate take on the ERA and the status of women in our society today.
14
@Michael
Actually, that isn't true, and your logic fails for a very specific reason. The constitution actually never calls out discrimination against anyone, and in fact in its original form discriminated heavily against women and native americans, neither of them could vote until the 20th century.
Anti discrimination law is based on court decisions (that generally use the constitution to support it) and congressional action. Before the civil rights act of 1964, it was perfectly legal to discriminate based on religion, ethnic origin, sex and race, congress passed that law and despite the attempts of conservatives to argue it was illegal (the old freedom of public association), the courts argued it was legal, that congress had that authority, and more importantly that the legislation did not violate the constitution (I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the current GOP, dominated by the south, didn't try to totally get Title IV and other legislation invalidated and the current cluck court agreeing, the GOP has been trying to bring back 'the good old days' a long time).
As far as there being no law discriminating against brown eyed people, thin people, fat people, left handed people, that isn't entirely true, in many states if someone could prove that,it would fall under the harassing workplace laws, that discriminating based on factors that have nothing to do with peformance of the job is illegal.
3
The Civil Rights Act(s) of 1964 and 1965 have been destroyed by the aspirations of vile and greedy Republican politicians. They have manipulated the reckless emotional impulses of a society gone astray. Given the surrounding issues for passage of the ERA, I fear that this too may be just one more pyrrhic victory for Democrats.
2
Unbelievable that so many states have not ratified the ERA! Too many old, white men are clinging to power, afraid that others might get some. They should grow up.
It's time for NC, my adopted state, to ratify the ERA, whether or not Virginia does.
13
In the 1970s I watched as those working to pass the ERA ran the dumbest campaign imaginable. I remember asking people if they thought the amendment was a good idea and being told “Well I haven’t actually read the whole thing, but it sounds like a bad deal.” All proponents needed to do was print the amendment’s first article and show people what the ERA actually said and they would have won! I hope those trying to pass the ERA this time are smart enough to print the amendment’s text in its entirety in their ads. This time they shouldn’t let conservatives imply there’s some sub clause in there that’ll force women to sit on toilets next to men.
2
More accurate would be that men may finally be declared equal, and not be the only sex compelled by law to register for the draft.
3
I am the father of a young girl.
Women do not need to be declared “equal” - they ARE equal and I am teaching her, precisely, that.
1
@Full Name (required)
You might be, and blessings on you for doing that, but sadly a lot of people don't. the fact that the #metoo movement happened tells you that equality isn't there yet (while no law can force someone to treat women as equals,the ERA would make it so penalties against sexual harrassers were no longer swept under the table, whether it was college football teams, Hollywood studios, Managers sexually harassing female employees, you name it, the ERA would help guarantee equal protection under the law).
I also wonder if you realize that as equal as you feel your daughter to be, that she will run into a world with a lot of people who believe she isn't and act on it. How would you feel if your daughter in high school was sexually assaulted by boys in school and the school and law enforcement laughed it off (Steubenville, OH anyone?). How would you feel if you found out your daughter, who had gotten a great education, who had done really well, was routinely denied promotion because she was a woman, and that the courts, thanks to conservative judges, have made it almost impossible to prove that?
6
@Full Name (required) your daughter is not equal by law. It really does not matter what you teach her if the law does not recognize her as equal. Your daughter is not covered by the Constitution which provides that men have inalienable rights. Women do not have those rights. You take for granted that you own your body. Self autonomy. Women do not have self autonomy. That’s one of those inalienable rights denied to us.
1
I'm so used to hearing the words of Ken Burns in the voice of Peter Coyote, or in this case Sally Kellerman.
1
Well, that is great news for men, as I find most women think they are the far superior gender...
Wait. This is still a thing? Virginia is just now going to decide if the women-folk are equal to men? I blush for them.
2
WOW!
I thought women were already equal to men. I am a woman and have never felt slighted because of a man or by any man. It is women who have sometimes been the ones who have not treated other women fairly. This has occurred to me in the working world from time to time. I have never felt disrespected by men but by women on more than one occasion.
5
@KMW I'm so happy that you have had such a wonderful life. I and many, many other women I know have not been treated fairly in the workplace, making less money for the same job as a man, just for one example. Let's ratify the ERA so that everyone can have the same experience you have had.
20
@KMW
Tell that to the scores of women who have come forward with the #metoo movement, including the US women's gymnastic team, where the institution ignored what Nasser was doing, as well as Michigan state (and even more shockingly, run by women), where they deliberately ignored it. If Nasser had sexually attacked male athletes, they would have had him in jail faster than you could say jack spratt, but because the victims were women, they ignored it. (Before someone points to the Penn State mess, children are inherently not treated as equals, and as a result their victimizers get away with it, applies to male or female children).
The ERA could become the basis for a lot of change. Research into health matters that affect women will not be underfunded as it often is today, the ERA would require that their be reviews of federal funding for research to make sure that grants are given out fairly, based on merit, not on whether someone is a women or a man (and yes, folks, it has been shown pretty conclusively that female researchers have a lot more problems getting funded, when the quality of their research and reputations were equal to a man applying).
You happen to live in a place where women's rights have been taken serious, you perhaps work in a working environment where women are valued, but don't assume your experience is everyones, just talk to women who have worked on Wall Street about that.
10
@KMW You are just not old enough. At close to 80, I have lived with so much discrimination all my life. As a library clerk at 19, I signed up for a different clerical position that paid more. My job required a H.S. diploma. The job I wanted only required completion of 8th grade. I was told, "No, that's a man's job. After all, a man has a family to support." I had a baby, and no husband, so I also had a "family" to support. (No stigma, I had changed my name and told everyone I was divorced). After I finished college and became a teacher, at pitiful wages, the LAUSD advertised a job of "Painter" for double what I made as a teacher. It also only required an 8th grade education. I, of course, was rejected. "That's a man's job!" Teaching for next to nothing was an educated woman's job!
7
One more thing I may get to see while I am still alive. Thanks for showing this poignant story, Mr. Burns.
14
Ken Burns, you've done it again. Found one of the most human pieces in the historical data. Beautiful. Thank you!
14
It looks like this is finally going to happen, and I doubt even the GOP would be foolish enough to throw up a roadblock to extending the deadline in an election year.
The 19th Amendment story is indeed very touching and, really, amazing. It is what we all have come to expect from Ken Burns, of course. I am currently making my leisurely way through his spectacular documentaries about Jazz and Baseball. When my Mexican wife heard "West End Blues" for the first time, after a thorough explanation of its construction and significance, she was transfixed. (I had already been transfixed a thousand times.) That is storytelling. You can stream both of them. Hey, it's pitchers and catchers soon, so get with it!
Let us Americans ask ourselves this: What would we NOT know about our blessed and beloved country without Ken Burns? I shudder to think.
10
It is totally insane that it has taken this long for the ERA to finally become law. Every new law brings with it unintended consequences but that is no reason to stand still as a nation.
The Constitution should affirm what is a simple and basic concept "Equal rights for men and women"
Sure new law suits will flourish - and lawyers will get richer - What else is new.
18
@ralph F
I'm trying to think of what ghastly "unintended consequences" an Amendment giving equal rights to women might be. Worrying, too, about all those lawsuits. Maybe we should just forget the whole thing.
@Rea Tarr
Can you have a battered woman's shelter if its unconstitutional to discriminate based on sex?
3
@ralph F : it expired.
Also, several states rescinded their approval.
As it stands, it cannot be made into law because of these two things.
1
Anyone here really thought this through? The amendment guarantees no discrimination based on sex. Which means men can sue too.
Why can't a man join the woman's HS basketball team?
If we have another draft, its for everyone this time.
We have different requirements for civil service testing (fire fighters/ police), that's discrimination based on sex no?
What does family court look like when you no longer default to custody and child support from dad to mom? Divorce?
I don't think any reasonable person thinks women and men should be fundamentally treated differently. But, if you put into the the constitution, that there can be no discrimination based on sex, you're looking at a whole slew of unintended consequences.
Everyone cheering this on should take some time to think through what this practically means once enacted.
10
@Chris And your point is? Why shouldn't men suit women who may abuse them? (Yes it does happen, though not as often as the other way around.) why shouldn't the draft be for everyone (its that way in many countries around the world.) Your comment re "family court" is confusing, isnt Divorce generally the point in family court? And why shouldn't men have as much rights as women re: custody? Child support and spousal maintenance?
I get your point about the Womans BB team, and would extend it to bathrooms as well, but common sense needs to be taken into account.
20
@Chris "Why can't a man join the woman's HS basketball team?"
Because a man isn't in high school to begin with.
"If we have another draft, its for everyone this time."
I'm 100% certain nobody would have a problem with that except righties.
"We have different requirements for civil service testing (fire fighters/ police), that's discrimination based on sex no?"
Requirements are already the same for these jobs.
I think *you* need to spend more time thinking this through.
14
@M.A.A
Great, semantics to win a point! So why can't a man join the WNBA or the LPGA? Better? Maybe you can address the substance now?
They are not. The physical testing is different (at least at the FDNY).
Thinking through is what I'm proposing here. Do you think that passing and amendment that you cant discriminate on sex means that everyone gets paid the same? Cause practically speaking, I don't how you're making that leap.
What about battered women's shelters?
Maybe *you* are such a hurry to label people that *you* haven't actually thought about this?
2
If I am not mistaken, there was a deadline for ratification, and that deadline has passed. So the whole hoopla about ratifying an Amendment is cute, but pointless and somewhat insulting.
Women have the same legal rights as men, are equal to men and do not need the US and Constitutional Amendment to become more equal. Ratify, have a 70s theme party and let's move onto something with substance.
7
@Agnieszka Gill: You are indeed mistaken. There is no provision in the U. S. Constitution for any deadline to be imposed on the ratification of amendments, and therefore it has no legal basis.
Moreover, the 27th Amendment took 202 years, 7 months and 12 days to ratify, providing a Constitutional precedent that the time needed for an Amendment to be ratified is totally irrelevant.
If you honestly believe that women have the same rights as men you would not oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, as in your view it would not change anything. However, you oppose it because you do know that men and women are not equal under the law.
Having three daughters, I know that it is imperative they are explicitly and Constitutiionally provided the same rights as all other Americans.
Moreover, men do not have the same legal rights as women in some areas of law and precedent, either.
As a divorced father, I stood no chance to gain custody of my children despite the testimony of neighbers, friends, and teachers that I was the primary and preferred caretaker of my children.
The judge waxed eloquently that children need to be with their mother, completely ignoring what was in the children's best interest.
I can assure you that men need an Equal Rights Amendment every bit as much as women do.
55
@Agnieszka Gill Saying civil rights is not something of substance is unsettling to say the least, as women still make only 70-80% of what men do on average. Whether or not this deadline has passed, this is an important issue even if you don't feel it is. Also, saying that they "do not need the US and Constitutional Amendment to become more equal" is just wrong. It would be a pretty grim country if we did not have the changes that we have struggled to establish throughout our nation's history.
33
@Thomas C.
Well - no - he is exactly right.
There is acknowledged legal uncertainty about the consequences of Virginia's potential ratification - due to the expired deadlines and the five states' purported revocations.
So -stay tuned - and honestly the Grey Lady should have broached these obstacles.
4
13 states have still not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
We wonder why people in warmer climes tend to debase women, but I am delighted to see Virginia has turned the corner on enlightenment. I am glad Ken Burns takes on important issues, although his videos seem a bit repetitious to me.
20
@eclectico
You mentioned warmer climates as a similarity in States that have not passed the ERA; I'm sure there are plenty of other similarities in these States however a nice climate is coincidental. Most of the states owned and operated by the Christian Evangelical or Morman community in the case of Utah and AZ. The Evangelicals believe that woman must be subservient to men in all aspects and are generally the same sad States with a group of male legislators trying to legislate woman's reproductive lives.
I also wonder why the Evangelicals believe women should be subservient to all men. As you mention, that attitude seems to debase women.
If the ERA is passed into Federal law, it would be interesting to see that law challenged in court by these same States. I believe that these States might feel that the ERA directly conflicts with Evangelical religious teachings and that their 'freedom from religion' advanced by the ERA would be undermined.
25
@Laurie
" I believe that these States might feel that the ERA directly conflicts with Evangelical religious teachings.. "
States do not have minds, or feelings. Their citizens do. My personal feeling is that "Evangelical Christianity" is a contradiction in terms. Many self-proclaimed Evangelicals no longer worship Christ; they have abandoned him to worship a foul-mouthed idiot in Washington. As a librarian in a legitimate Christian denomination (Methodism) I have read a lot of their nonsense about how the world is coming to an end and how "God" sent Trump ( not Jesus) to protect them through the chaos that they think is coming.
Also, I don't understand how the ERA could be challenged in court as unconstitutional. Once an amendment is passed, it is IN the Constitution and has the same status as the First Amendment.
3
@Laurie Yet another reason to keep religion out of public life. It has no place ...it promotes discord and bias and even terror ..often to its own. End religion in public life and we'll ALL have a better life.
7
This is what happens when republicans are pushed aside and progressives are elected. Virginia is showing the way forward.
84
@Al M Moderates too.
4
@Al M What way are they showing? That laws, court precedents, common sense, all must fall by the wayside on the goal of forming a progressive utopia? I'm fine with the ERA but trying to bring back from the dead something that has been moot for 36 year because you support the goal involves too much disregard for the rules which govern us all.
3
@Todd Are you saying that "common sense" supports the defeating of the ERA? Unjust laws and precedents are meant to fall by the wayside! Where would this country if Plessy vs. Ferguson had not been overturned?!
1
This from a guy who devoted only two hours of documentary film to telling the story of women's rights and more than eighteen hours chronicling the history of baseball.
I like baseball, but Ken Burns is putting out too little too late.
23
@LJ That’s simply because yet another longer piece on women’s rights would be even more boring than baseball - if that were even possible.
1
@T Smith
Please share that thought with your mother, sister, wife, and daughter.
6
@SheWhoWatches I have and, both physicians, agree with me. They made it on their own and think this matter has long outlived being interesting or necessary.
As much as it will be good news when virginia approves, the stumbling block of other state recissions and the passage of time will likely prove the downfall of the amendment. One way or the other, it will be in court for a long time to come and given the conservative court appointments, the outcome is in doubt.
10
@tom Have faith! The women and their allies will prevail this time around. It took 202 years to ratify the 27th Amendment. There is precedence that once a state ratifies that it cannot later rescind.
Every stumbling block thrown at women this time around will not stand. It is our moment..... and the ERA will be enshrined in the US Constitution at long last.
45
@Valerie
The Trump Supreme Court will ultimately block adoption of this amendment on the grounds that too much time has passed since it was presented for consideration by the various states.
3
@Valerie June 30th 1982 was the deadline. The court will dismiss. Its been over for 38-years.
4
Congratulations to the people of Virginia! By flipping their legislature, important state and national progressive goals, such as the ERA, will now get long overdue attention and, hopefully, passage.
Let’s continue the Blue Wave by flipping South Carolina next. Show your support by visiting www.flipsouthcarolina.com and contributing what you can. Every dollar helps!
53
The ERA if added to the constitution just codifies what's already law at the federal and state levels.
If anything, the ERA would more benefit men than women. We routinely see systemic bias in favor of women. Examples include universities and business creating women only support groups, scholarships, mentorships, and promotion practices.
I worked for a large telecommunications company. In my division, the leader was a woman who routinely demanded women be advanced into leadership positions. So in my group, all the 5 male vice-presidents were pushed out and replaced exclusively with women - only one of whom had actual experience for the position. No men were considered for the positions. The argument in favor of this no experience required practice was that work experience is secondary to organization politics.
In 18 months the group failed spectacularly and was disbanded after failing to deliver on any promises and losing over 2 billion dollars.
13
@Matt
Thank you for your comment about an unusual and infrequent event which you are reporting as it was big news than an ordinary occurrence. In your situation a bunch of white men were upstaged by a woman no less and you feel discriminated against. That discrimination feeling is something women face all the time, so now you understand what we face. How many times do women face the all male VPs ? (except HR is generally seen as a 'woman' task)
Your story also goes to show the world that in the unusual event of a woman guiding a company, a women can lead a company down a rat-hole just as well as men lead companies down rat-holes every day.
Consider that the ERA is allowing for equal rights to for women to guide a company, win or lose.
6
Your anecdote is not data. The idea that men are systematically discriminated against is laughable.
7
@Marta
Black men, Hispanic men and Native American men may feel differently.
Great short film.
Please do more, Mr. Burns. How about one on the Electoral College, how and why it came into being and what its current effects are? How about another on the primary and caucus systems and how they've evolved, for better and for worse.
In any event, thanks for your work, so much of which has helped educate our citizenry in meaningful ways.
92
Ken Burns is right. The process is very slow. It was even last night when Sanders recognized that a woman can beat Trump in 2020. The laws are essential, but what gives women equal rights is the culture and change of mentality.
Fortunately, we have many extraordinary women leading the way, changing minds with accomplishments and, hopefully, we will have a Madam President soon.
41
@Aurace Rengifo A woman received the most votes in the 2016 presidential election so I guess the culture and mentality already has gone a long way towards change.
11
Wonderful film Mr. Burns.
However even if three states pass approval of the ERA now, the deadline is long since passed. Does anyone believe it could be extended under current circumstances?
Sadly, this is but one more example of how dysfunctional our political system can be. It seems obvious that women should be equal but apparently this is not the case.
21
@cynicalskeptic Yeah, Amendments should not be given unlimited time to collect states' votes, which I believe was the case with one previously (can't remember which one). I'd like to suggest a new Amendment: Any Amendment that goes on for 10 years needs a brand new vote from all the states, no extensions beyond those 10 years allowed. This would allow for the vote to truly represent the current states' political demographics. What's happening with the ERA being held over for decades without a new vote is absolutely ridiculous.
10
@Independent Observer: "Unlimited time" was the case with EVERY constitutional amendment ever, not just one.
You see, there is no provision in the our Constitution which allows for a time limit, so if you would like to see one, you will have to get another constitutional amendment passed to do so.
Don't worry, you have plenty of time, as legally there will be no deadline allowed regarding its passage.
4
@Thomas C. : the Amendment was WRITTEN with a very specific deadline.
You are right that no deadline is REQUIRED, but THIS Amendment DID have a deadline.
2