Hacker News Reader

Comment by electronvolt | Hacker News Reader

What about dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and attempting to reinforce/reinstate "traditional gender roles" isn't about putting the breaks on the advancement of women in society?

The issue wasn't just abortion: abortion was, perhaps, a catalyst or a trigger issue, but it also had implications on the rhetoric surrounding the passing of anti-discrimination laws, domestic violence laws, etc.

View on HN

The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. That should be the end of government involvement. Discrimination is already illegal. Domestic violence is already illegal. Being opposed to absurd DV legislation that requires arresting men who seek help when they are being abused is not being anti-women.

> The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal as, e.g., discrimination based on race -- particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny.

Correcting this has been expressly cited by ERA backers as a key motivation for the ERA. As a woman, you are not, under existing law, guaranteed to be legally equal to a man even to the extent that a Black person is guaranteed to be legally equal to a White person.

This is seriously the level of discourse here? Just flagrant outright lying?

I'm curious how you are reading particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny.

It seems to be a plain description of how the supreme court rules on things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based...

Or maybe you think it is some sort of misdirection to bring it up in the context of this thread?

This part: "Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal"

I was asking you understood the part I quoted, not what part you took issue with.

And I am telling you that is not the part I said is a lie.

You clipped that in the middle and left a statement that doesn't make any sense. "...as illegal" can't be true, false, or even meaningful without the comparison that comes after. And with that comparison -- the comparison to forms of discrimination (such as racial) that are permitted only when the standard of strict scrutiny are meet, it's a simple statement of the fact of well-established constitutional case law. And is one of the motivations for the ERA, whose advocates argue that it is necessary to subject sex discrimination to the same degree of scrutiny.

Next time read a whole sentence before accusing someone of lying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com