Freedom, democracy, and majorly, equality are essential in the conceptualization of the American Society and its Constitution. Women, especially, have been at the forefront of this struggle with the efforts of the early twentieth century ending with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which allowed women to participate in voting. Efforts to change the U.S. Constitution to recognize women’s rights have faced major challenges in the legislation referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment or the ERA. It was first introduced in 1923, recognizing the women’s equality of rights to men under the law stating that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of Sex” (Bodenhamer 109). In 1972, the ERA passed in Congress but still failed to achieve ratification from the various states making it become the focal point of most women’s civil rights movements in the late twentieth century. Despite the progress, the Amendment would make to the progress of women; its failure was facilitated by both men and women conservatives who feared societal changes. In this aspect, this research paper discusses the history behind the Equal Rights Amendments, the controversy behind it, and lastly, introduces some of its major contributions to advancing women’s rights.
History and the Supporters
The ERA was first drafted in 1923 by the founder of the National Woman’s Party and was tabled in Congress in the same year (O’Brien 254). The woman who had previously fought for women’s right to suffrage sought to extend the rights of women with opposition arising from traditionalists and conservatives who fought for the legal protection of women. Proponents of the Amendment argued that it would change more than one thousand state laws that disproportionately discriminated against women, preventing them from some occupations, from attending graduate schools and even controlling their bank accounts (Hamlin par. 9). Instead of fighting these problems separately, the NWP hoped that the ERA would change them simultaneously in one federal Amendment to the Constitution. The original, according to Paul, read, “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place to its jurisdiction” (Hamlin par. 10). The ERA’s motive was to remove sex as a legal classification. Subsequently, the ERA was endorsed by the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1940s with the exemption of women’s protective labor laws.
Since then, politicians, both male and female, have supported the ERA as a way to gain women’s votes, even though there were no developments made to the Amendment. According to Machalow, since its introduction in December 1923, the ERA was reintroduced in Congress from 1923 until 1972, receiving little or no support (2). In the same year, Congress allowed a free-rider version of the ERA to be discussed after its introduction by Representative Martha Griffith with an endorsement from the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the second wave feminists like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem (O’Brien 254; Steinem 1). In a hearing before the senate, Steinem suggests that there is a myth in American society concerning the equal treatment of women (3). She further suggests that trends to prove that there is equal pay for equal work, equal encouragement to succeed, and access to training in the workplace are scarce. This is seen in some industries, such as in food and fashion, where they have been designated as feminine.
Besides this, Steinem points out that women have, for a long time, been brainwashed to believe they are second class citizens from years of violence and aggression (Steinem 3). These, among others, facilitated the exclusion of women’s economic power and education opportunities while giving the perception that the women’s movement is not serious or political in any nature. Women’s rights activist’s perception of the political nature of the 1970s was quite favorable to their cause. The first step came following bipartisan approval in Congress as President Nixon signed the ERA in 1972 (Machalow 6). The States were given a deadline of seven years to ratify the Amendment. By 1973, more than twenty states had ratified starting with Hawaii. The deadline was again extended by thirty-eight months in Congress since only thirty-five of the thirty-eight required States had ratified the ERA. After more than forty years, after its introduction, Indiana was the last State to ratify in 1977 (Machalow 7). Failures to the ERA were illustrated when in Illinois, women chained themselves to the statehouse doors and went on hunger strikes in support of the ratification failed to create any positive response from the State. According to Machalow, a total of nine votes in the States of Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina stood in the way of the ERA (7).
The Opposition
Although the ERA meant progress for all women, it was met with strong opposition, raised primarily by Phyllis Schlafly and her “STOP the ERA” movement (O’Brien 254). She and her supporters argued that the ERA would end the freedoms, privileges, and protections enjoyed by women under the law and could lead to other unintended consequences like unisex public restrooms and affect women’s participation in the military. The movement’s success has been argued to have been because the opponents cast themselves as “courageous heroes striving to stop villainous feminism” on their journey to fulfillment (Miller 279). Unlike their progressive counterparts, opponents of the ERA defended traditional roles in the American society proposing that such roles were determined by their nature to be feminine. Miller suggests, using this view, the woman was destined to be wives and mothers with the domestic life meaning to free them from the confines and dangers of working in male-dominated occupations (279).
As supporters contended that the ERA would raise the status of women, Schlafly, on the other hand, argued that their status was already elevated since they had the least duties and the most freedoms and rights (Miller 286). The privileges arose from three important conditions; that women, unlike men, could have babies making her bear the physical consequences of the sex act; that women since the beginning of Christianity have been made treated with special respect; and lastly, that unlike other nations, the United States offered women relative leisure, respect, safety, and more importantly social standing. According to Machalow, Schlafly’s movement tabled additional issues to the discussion where the ERA would expand abortion rights, co-ed mandate restrooms, legalize same-sex marriages, lead to the compulsory draft of women to the military; and deprive them of financial support from their husbands (8). It is not until recently in 2017, when there have been renewed debates on the ratification with Nevada being the thirty-sixth state to ratify the ERA.
Implications of the ERA on American Society and Influences made to date
Even though the ERA has failed in many instances, the cause of women’s equality has been rather successful. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the achievements gained from supporters of the ERA. According to Hamlin, the addition of the word “sex” into the Amendment alleviated the need for the ERA (par. 28) O’Brien further suggests that this Amendment had been critical in changing workplace culture for the marginalized minority groups including women (352). The Title describes discriminatory practices that are to be avoided based on race, color, religion, nationality, and sex. Like many of the amendments of the 1960s, Title VII facilitated the establishment of a federal body, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose authority was to investigate violations and forcibly prosecute violators of the Amendment (O’Brien 353). Additionally, the ERA has facilitated talks into Title IX, which challenged gender stereotypes in academics and school athletic programs. Title IX means to dismantle structural barriers limiting specific individuals based on their sex and gender.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the fight for women’s equality is a struggle that has been going on for almost a century now. As a result, the context and language used to describe its intention have changed on both sides of the argument. Initially, conservatives and traditionalists projected the idea that the ERA would leave women at the mercies of the law while stripping them of certain special privileges enjoyed. However, the continued discussion on its ratification, coupled with the rise of strong and prominent women in the political scene, illustrates that the ERA will not necessarily lead to the violation of their rights. Therefore, it is the task of current and future generations to ensure ratification happens since women do not have the same equality equated to men in American society.