Backwards progress on women's rights shows need for Equal Rights Amendment
Just over 100 years ago the United States ratified the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. It was a victory that took decades of protest and agitation and, according to the national archives, “few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.” Of course, this did not include all women and it took another several decades for women of color to achieve full enfranchisement. But, it was still a major milestone in the women’s rights movement, which then aimed its sights on another step towards gender equality: the Equal Rights Amendment.
Originally proposed 100 years ago in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment sought legal protection against many of the obstacles that kept women as second-class citizens. By the 1970s when it was introduced in Congress, the language was simple: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The opposition to the ERA, led famously by Phyllis Schlafly, was swift, fierce, and ultimately quite successful in preventing the required 38 states from ratifying the ERA. This years-long campaign was dramatized in the series “Mrs. America” which came out in 2020 and is available on streaming services Amazon Prime and Hulu.
While the ERA has not been adopted as a constitutional amendment, many of the aims of the ERA have been realized through other interpretations of law. But, even these gains remain tenuous as was demonstrated last year when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal right of women to abortion. The consequences of this have effectively reimposed second-class status for women across the country.
For anyone paying attention, the last year has seen a steady stream of horror stories women have had to endure because of conservative states legislating what medical procedures women - and only women - may or may not have. A group of women are now suing the state of Texas due to horrific complications they endured caused entirely by laws passed by the Texas legislature. At the same time, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is hearing a case that could block access nationwide to a drug commonly used for medication abortions. As a man, I’m struggling to come up with an example of my bodily autonomy being up for debate.
When it comes to the continued effort for women’s equality, abortion is obviously not the only issue. Just last month, The Washington Post described data from a recent CDC survey as, “nothing short of a crisis in American girlhood.” The Post continues, “The findings have ramifications for a generation of young women who have endured an extraordinary level of sadness and sexual violence — and present uncharted territory for the health advocates, teachers, counselors and parents who are trying to help them.”
It is perhaps a cruel irony that women and girls continue to bear the brunt of pervasive sexual violence while losing autonomy over their bodies. In January when Minnesota lawmakers passed the PRO-act, State Senator Lindsey Port tweeted, “As a woman in politics, I’m no stranger to people sending me their unsavory opinions. I’ve gotten more rape threats, disgusting comments about my family, and people threatening my very existence in the last week than the last 10 years combined. All from ‘pro-life’ people.” How many men in positions of power do you think face rape threats? It is more likely any rape threats would be aimed at the women close to him, versus the man himself.
Despite the many gains for women, it is clear the ERA is still necessary to help ensure that at least in the eyes of the law, women are equal citizens. Currently, two versions of an ERA are moving through committees in the Minnesota legislature. Advocates hope that both chambers will pass the bill and put it on a ballot for Minnesota voters in 2024.
Passage of the ERA in Minnesota would certainly be a welcome step, but beyond that our society and culture will need to address the generalized misogyny that is, unfortunately, normal in the socialization of boys and men. The fact is if our society is going realize women as equal citizens and address the crisis of sexualized violence towards women, men are going to have to accept a version of masculinity that doesn’t rely on superiority, implicit or explicit.
Times Writers Group member Malik Stewart is a higher education professional and St. Cloud resident. He writes about local and national issues from a multicultural perspective. His column is published the third Sunday of the month.
This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: Backwards progress shows need for Equal Rights Amendment
