The Constitution Today: Women
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-17/constitution-today-women
When the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920, it was the first time women's legal rights were specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Women played no role in the document's ratification in 1787. And when former slaves got the right to vote in 1870, it was a severe blow to the women's movement. In later years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in ways that include and protect women. But the battle for an Equal Rights Amendment continues. As part of our ongoing "Constitution Today" series, we delve into how the document addresses women and the role they've played in its history.
Guests
Michael Quinn
President and CEO, American Revolution Center
Marcia Greenberger
founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center.
Barbara Perry
Senior fellow and associate professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center for Public Affairs.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The Constitution has always been an economically discriminatory document. A can do to B with impunity what B is prohibited from doing to A. Our Constitution has always favored the idle wealthy speculator starting with Revolutionary War bonds. In the recent layoff blitz which is lowering wages and benefits rapidly a greater proportion of men than women were dismissed. I think this highlights the economic advantages of hiring women in a nation where they possess fewer and lesser rights. They get the drudgery and exploitation not because their fingers are nimble and their manners refined, but because they are many times the single employed person in their household and are wage slaves without a safety net. Now is the best time to demand an Equal Rights Amendment, with equal pay for equal employments and the abandonment of the assumption that domestic duties and child rearing all come out of a woman's workday. Men live in families too, and I've heard a rumor they may play some obscure biological role in reproduction. Make the Constitution reflect substantive truths.
Bravo Diane, on your voicing of Abigail Adams. Your having to assert this artifact suggests that your guests are far too sentimentalist historicists to provide an impartial presentation of these matters. They seem more privileged than expert. Note their names and make a point of waiting at least one year to host any of them again.
My view is that the aspiration of female equality has always been present, and that a repressive cultural milieu is an inadequate excuse for determining that it has no standing. Slavery and sexism are both always wrong, and are contradictions that threaten our country.
Given the discussion of the use of the term "persons," and the absence of the term "women" in the 19th amendment, I was wondering when women became included as citizens in the United States. The 19th amendment applies to women and minorities only if they were first recognized as citizens.
Can the ratification of the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) Treaty help women in America and around the world?
Although they later contracted the franchise, Brazil originally had far lower income and racial barriers to voting than the US did at its founding.
Re: women in politics: since women are more than 50% of the population, the sex most preventing women from serviing in congress or any other place is other women.
Crab theory: if you catch crabs and throw only one in the bucket, the crab will crawl out and escape. If you put to or more in the bucket, they will keep each other in the bucket--pulling the escapee down. I feel this is the problem of women's or any others freedom: the crabs get them.
An equal rights amendment now? Wow that's rich. Consider the following:
1) Boys are graduating from high school at a rate 7-10% less than girls.
2) Boys are going to college and completing bachelor's degrees at a rate more than 10% less than girls.
3) A woman's organization filed suit against 13 (already strapped) high schools around the country under proposition IX because the mere participation of girls in sports was less than that of boys. Meanwhile the waiting list to play basketball for the boys team is > 100 and the girls team couldn't find enough girls interested to field a JV team. And for some reason girls cheer and pep squads are not considered sports - and therefore don't count.
4) Men in today's work place can easily be (and have been) disciplined or even fired from their job for uttering things heard commonly on prime time TV in the presence of a female co-worker who finds it "offensive" and complains.
5) The majority of positions held in corporate human resources are held by women. HR sets wages and extends hiring offers.
6) The commonly cited statistic of women making 75 cents for every dollar a man makes is an aggregate number of all wages earned by women and all wages earned by men - never accounting for job type, hours, seniority or training required to perform the work.
Women and men of course should have the same opportunities and should be compensated the same for equal work. I fail to see the barriers preventing that from happening. Women and men will never be identical, however. We should stop trying to legislate it. There are and probably always will be inequities on both sides.
There are plenty of remedies under the current laws to address perceived or real injustices.
Could we possibly focus something that's a little more relevant today?
I am writing in reply to your listener who was concerned that we have so few women in the House and Senate. Some countries even mandate that certain percentages of such office-holders should be women.
Why would we need such a government mandate when we have so many smart, organized, dedicated and caring women who have EVERY RIGHT to run for any office they want. Where are they? I never see them on the ballot in Virginia where I live.
Let them get out there and run for office.
I completely agree with 'Elemento P' on all of your points. We should have laws written in a way that allows for equal rights for both sexes rather than favoring the rights of just one!
Diane, what's your opinion of this short video that just came out? It's made by women and it speaks about the hypocrisy of feminism: The Story of Feminism as told by WOMEN
Elemento P, that's very good, advanced feminism is not! humanities high point, it CAN be a strong corner and that should be quantified more articulately, however I personally witnessed OLDER THAN [me!] GIRLS in grade school [high school] who were 1-1/2 [18 months+-] years older than me and "claimed" to be smarter, now there were "guys" of that same age difference, who might indeed have been more dangerous in a physical way, but the ACADEMICS HOGGING of "smartest" thing MUST BE STOPPED! for the sake of YOUNG MEN who do not! mature as fast -but better! than GIRLS. "guys" who are younger than the older women in the same grade should be given an ESTEEMED FLUNK so they are on a level playing field
Women mature faster/sooner than Men, that is well known.
However if you are a grade school student -say 10 - 15 years old and your FEMALE class mate is over one year older than a MALE, and this overgrown-girl is claiming to be SMARTER! when infact they are merely average for their age... that is A CRIME! I think that it not only conspires against GOOD MEN/boys innocent youth, but it is closely related to "predatory behavior" WITCH we know is very bad indeed.
the Question is if you see this [and it should be accessible{safe} quantified automated leagal info =think about chinese OLYMPIC athletes who are "out of bounds!! age wise" and concider the lives of EXCEPTIONAL yet DISCOURAGED! youth[men..."boys"]
the question is... how do you SOLVE this omni-present SERIOUS INEQUALITY / crime!
You must hold the boy back if he is TOO YOUNG, or possibly you could bump the girl up [my own sister {7&1/2 years younger than me} skipped 6th grade,] but can you force them into their academic-AGE ideal???
this is an "urgent" normative quantification that will have profound bennefits and opptimism effects. Please help me solve this blunt case of cheating and make America stronger, and better!
Diane R can you relate? this is the present & future suddenly...
AndGaniaburst
intoafitoflaughter.Suddenlyheturnedtotheprinceandasked:"Why
are you looking at me like that?"
Iamsurprisedtoseeyoulaughinthatwaylikeachild.Youcameto
makefriendswithmeagainjustnowandyousaid'Iwillkissyour
handifyoulike'justasachildwouldhavesaidit.Andthenallatonce
youaretalkingofthismadproject—oftheseseventy-fivethousand
roubles! It all seems so absurd and impossible.
Wellwhat conclusion have you reached?
Thatyouarerushingmadlyintotheundertakingandthatyouwould
dowelltothinkitoveragain.ItismorethanpossiblethatVarvara
Ardalionovna is right.
Ah christian louboutin fernando!nowyoubegintomoralize kids authentic tall uggs clearance!IknowthatIamonlyachildvery
wellrepliedGaniaimpatiently.Thatisprovedbymyhavingthiscon-
versationwithyou.ItisnotformoneyonlyprincethatIamrushingin-
tothisaffairhecontinued,hardlymasterofhiswords real jordan shoes,socloselyhad
121
hisvanitybeentouched.IfIreckonedonthatIshouldcertainlybede-
ceivedforIamstilltooweakinmindandcharacter.Iamobeyingapas-
sionanimpulseperhapsbecauseIhavebutoneaimonethatovermas-
tersallelse.YouimaginethatonceIaminpossessionoftheseseventy-
fivethousandroublesIshallrushtobuyacarriage…NoIshallgoon
wearingtheoldovercoatIhavewornforthreeyearsandIshallgiveup
yilai:
ugg boots clearance