Democrats are once again pushing to ratify the equal rights amendment. is this a good idea or a bad idea?

[SolitarySolace]

www.msn.com/.../ar-AA17aOpO?ocid=sapphireappshare

Bad idea

Good idea

[NamerOfStars]

Good or bad for WHO? That's the question- or it would be, if it had a prayer in hell of actually passing. This is grandstanding, nothing else. Consider, for a moment, what ACTUAL full legal equality between the sexes would mean:

-Abortion is made fully illegal, since men have no right to opt out parenthood.

-Female genital mutilation is made legal, since banning male genital mutilation is seen as infringing on religious rights.

-Women now to have to register for battle thralldom, and have their lives declared public property.

-Women gain the right to be topless in public.

There's more, but if THIS passed, the only people who'd profit would be the Feminists, who'd have women's loyalty for the next three hundred years, and the Republicans, because few women would EVER vote Democrat again.

But that's not what's being proposed; it never has been. When this was tried back in 1958, they slipped in the Hayden rider, which said "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." It's been added to every subsequent attempt to pass the ERA as well. I don't think I need to explain why THAT would tank the project in every single attempt.

[Yanifah]

You cannot equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation.

A circumcised penis still functions as intended and can feel pleasure. It's remains a legal option, but isn't compulsory (excluding those bound by religious rights.) It usually happens shortly after birth, so the male has no memory of the event.

Female genital mutilation disfigures a young girl. She endures her labia and clitoris being cut off and the wound sewn shut, leaving one small opening for bodily functions. (There should be two.) As a result, intercourse is excruciating and she is incapable of feeling any pleasure. Often times, natural childbirth is impossible and leads to death from loss of blood.

The rest of your parallels, I don't object to. Fair is fair.

[NamerOfStars]

@Yanifah I can absolutely equate it, because it's the same damn idea: mutilating the genitals of an unconsenting child. Given that there are four recognized levels of female genital mutilation, and the vast majority of those performed are nothing more than a ritualized pinprick, it's hardly fair to compare THAT with a permanent loss of more nerve endings than the entire clitoris has. For that matter, NO routine FGM removes the entirety of the clitoris, since the majority of it is internal; you'd need serious surgery for that.

More to the point, however, slicing off a finger does not become acceptable simply because it would be far worse to slice off the whole hand. Both practices are abhorrent, and both should be banned. Don't let your lust for victimhood harm the innocent.

[Yanifah]

ALL of the clitoris is external. You're grossly misinformed on many counts. Crack a book next time you're mourning your foreskin.

[exitseven]

like everything else the democrats do , they pass some legislature that has a name that is just the opposite of what it really does. Think "The Affordable Healthcare Act" it made everyone's premiums go up , or the "Inflation Reduction Act" ot caused more inflation by printing more money.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Exterminatore]

Anything the Dems want to do is probably godless and wicked, not to mention absurd and not good for America.

[OddBeMe]

Wha? Of course we don’t want equal rights! That’s ludicrous!