A generic ERA would consistently be interpreted as applying only for the benefit of women.
To address discrimination against fathers, there would need to be something very specific, ensuring the rights of fathers.
I support that.
That may have been how male judges interpreted it, but the actual law would have barred any difference in the law between men and women. That was why it wasn't passed.
To address discrimination against fathers, there would need to be something very specific, ensuring the rights of fathers. I support that.
Such a law would never be passed. Whether you're talking about enforcing equality under the ERA or special laws that prevent discrimination against men, you're faced with the same set of problems. Getting men to fight for those laws, and getting male judges and male police officers to enforce them.
Men shell out billions a year on prostitution in the US alone, and next to nothing in support of the MRAs who are fighting a largely unfunded and unsupported fight for their rights. Until men decide that their equal rights and justice for their sons are more important that the services provided by hookers, nothing will change.