Alice Paul introduced the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) at the 75th Seneca Fall Convention in 1923. It became known as the “Lucretia Mott Amendment.” In 1943, Paul changed the wording “to better reflect the language in both the 15th and the 19th Amendments.” From then on, it has been known as the “Alice Paul Amendment,” and has been reintroduced to Congress every year since. It was big in the 70s, then quieted down, but has not gone away. 97 years later, the amendment has finally been ratified by 38 states. It’s true! This month, with Virginia’s (late, but appreciated help), the ¾’s majority needed to add an amendment to the Constitution has been met. This doesn’t mean the fight is over. Congress and will probably face many legal battles in the future (Virginia ratifies ERA setting up likely legal battle). It's not over, but we are so close. For more try: “With Virginia Ratification, where does the Equal Rights Amendment go from here?” The Alice Paul Institute has a magnificent website all about the ERA. If you want to know more about the history of the ERA or the legal process of any amendment, it is the perfect resource. It answered all of my questions and calmed all of my doubts. EqualRightsAmendment.org. For instance, I learned that the ERA would not automatically change laws concerning the reproductive rights of women, that will still mostly be up to the states. However, it may affect future decisions, especially ones made by the Supreme Court (to expand reproductive rights, in theory). I’ll just say it: this would not mean women will be added to the draft. First of all, the draft will likely never come into effect again. Secondly, the government has already considered drafting women in past wars, therefore, it is already possible, yet not being done. I think the most important FAQ is: “Would the ERA adversely affect existing benefits and protections that women now receive (e.g., alimony, child custody, Social Security payments, etc.)?” In an opinion piece from The Hill, “Equal Rights Amendment will replace equality with sameness” Inez Stepman claims that the ERA will hurt women. She writes that the amendment will “add nothing to the equality under the law women already enjoy in America” (para. 5), stating that men and women have equal rights on state and federal levels. I think there is evidence that that is not the case, but that’s for another post. More interestingly, she shares her belief that the ERA will make men “interchangeable” with women and that “sameness” will ultimately hurt women. Instead, the ERA will replace this equality under the law with the enforced interchangeability between men and women. While men and women are indeed equal, both common sense and science tell us they are not precisely the same. There are still some situations in which treating men and women precisely alike could harm women or even put them in danger. I agree that it is important to recognize the necessary differences in support men and women should recieve. Unfortunately, women still need protection in this world that men do not (often protections from men). Her example of women-only prisons is a good one; however, some of her possibilities are way off base, things that would simply not be effected solely by this amendment. I believe it is fear-mongering. I mean, “daughters could be forced into a combat draft alongside sons,” really? It leads me to question her objective in the piece. Family law occurs on the state level, for the most part, and are becoming more gender-neutral and beginning to stop making judgments based on stereotypes of men and women already. The ERA will likely not stop this progress. (And that isn’t a bad thing). ERA.org and many supporters of the amendment, claim that it will not hurt women this way, at all. Whatever state and even federal protections exist for women, are vulnerable to being destroyed if not protected by the Constitution. The ERA is necessary to guarantee all women in America equal rights to men. Now, ready to hear the big, scary amendment? “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Sounds good to me.
2 Comments
I was planning to post about how the Equal Rights Amendment was just ratified by Virginia, the 38th state to do so, only 97 years after the amendment was first introduced. This is massive news from both a historical and a women’s rights movement point of view. But then something happened on Saturday that tore away my focus. So, I’ll get back to that next week. Content warning: homophobia. At my writer’s group this Saturday, I was the target of a 60-year-old woman’s homophobic rant. Apparently, she doesn’t hate gay people, BUT she does feel like gays are always shoving it in her face. She pulled out all the cards: “she doesn’t hate gay people, she has gay friends” and that she knew I was gay (who doesn’t) and was still okay with me (thanks?). It got derailed a few times by how, well, young people are all so sensitive these days and don’t know hardship. To prove how much she liked me, she confessed about wanting to set me up with her son (my age, don’t worry). I felt ten kinds of disgust.
I cried. I felt trapped and when she put her hand on my shoulder, I felt like I couldn’t breathe. It sucked at the moment. I mean, it felt like punch after punch in the gut. After having time to step back from it, here's what I want to say: First of all, I don’t care about her. I barely know her and never have to see her again. She has her own stuff to work through or not work through- whatever it is, it isn’t about me. I don’t need an apology nor want a chance to yell back. If I did, if I was snide and rude and gay back, then she would be right. And I would be her new image of (all) gay people. I don’t want to hurt people, especially not just because I can. It can be tempting, but it never helps or heals anyone. In my life, I have been told all sorts of horrible things by children and adults alike for being gay. And female. And having a Latino dad and being proud of it. And for a million other things about me and my life that near-strangers think they get a say in. What made this time different was who else was in the room. The next youngest person was in her 30s-40s (I don’t know, I’m terrible at gauging people’s ages), the other three were 65+. The point is, I was the youngest. I could be their grandchild. To them, I’m a baby. A brilliant writer of a baby, but still a baby. That detail doesn’t really matter, but I think it helps to put the whole ordeal into perspective. What mattered was that while she was yelling at the world, they were worrying about me. One of them confessed that I wasn’t the only person who was uncomfortable by this conversation. She said she was bisexual- I smiled and said, “Yaaas,” on instinct- which she didn’t have to do. It helped me not feel alone. Then, she pulled out a lovely card from her purse with questions for restorative justice from the International Institute for Restorative Practices. One of them stayed quiet. When I checked my email later that evening, I got to read a validating and supportive message from her. It helped me a lot. Everyone has different ways of reaching out. Then there was the woman who’s house we were sitting in. An old German lady who’s life’s story could fill a whole, wonderful library. She always speaks softly, and carefully. Not in a hesitant way, but in a way that tells you that she has thought about what she wants to say. She stayed cool and collected, saying all of the right things. She said that we all make mistakes. She admitted she can say racist things sometimes without realizing it is so. It was the way she was raised. She said that when someone (especially someone of color) calls her out on it, instead of arguing the fact or getting defensive: she takes their word for it. She’s was like, “If they say my words were hurtful, I believe them.” It doesn’t matter that the ranter was hearing none of it. I took every her word and held it close to my heart. She hugged me when I left and it meant so much. The old man in our group held a flashlight over my path to the car. He knew I was thinking of not coming back- obviously- and said he would miss me. He said he loved me. My dear grandfather, Papa John, passed away recently. It’s been hard and I miss him a lot. Today, I called my grandmother. “One of the people who comes is this sweet, old man. He’s quiet and when he talks, it’s always meaningful,” I said, “Just like Papa John. And his laugh? He laughed like Papa John.” The difference between the countless hatred I have tolerated alone in the past and this was who I was surrounded by. I was in a room with one hurtful person and four more people who wanted to protect me and heal my wounds. They made all the difference. Pronouns are how we refer to someone without using their name. Instead of saying, “I love Jessica. Jessica is cool,” someone might say, “I love Jessica. She is cool.” Pronouns are super useful and we use them all the time in English (I don’t think all languages have them). We also use them to refer to a group of people (plural). If there are three people talking, I could point (rude, I know) and ask, “What are they talking about?”
Linguistically: Ask the DictionariesOxford (Read their blog post, “A Brief History of singular ‘they.’”), Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries have all officially added something along the lines of “used to refer to someone of an unspecified gender” and/or “a gender-neutral person” to their definitions of "they.". Dictionary.com even has this handy usage guide about the pronoun. Additionally, the American Psychological Association "endorsed" the use of they as a singular pronoun. Any “grammar nut”* who claims that “they/them” pronouns are not “proper English” don’t actually know what they are talking about. Try suggesting they ask a linguist or English teacher and to confirm my claims. Chances are, the haters won’t because they don’t actually care about the grammar, they only pull out that card when it suits them. I think people only began having an opinion over the use of “they” as a singular pronoun after it started to be openly used by queer people who are gender-nuetral. I’ll never stop begging everyone I meet to read Word by Word by Kory Stamper, a lexicographer who works for Merriam-Webster. For now, I would like to share some of her thoughts because they definitely apply here. One of the biggest themes of her book is that language is fluid and controlled by no one. In her fourth chapter, “Irregardless - On Wrong Words,” Stamper talked about the word "irredgardless" and all of the comotion it caused. Remember that? “Of course ‘irregardless’ wasn’t a real word. ‘It’s a made-up word that was entered into the dictionary through constant use;’” she wrote. That’s how it works. “that’s pretty much how this racket works. “All words are made-up: Do you think we find them fully formed on the ocean floor, or mine for them in some remote part of Wales?” (pg. 65) So, even if you think "they" to refer to one person is a new thing (which it's not), new words are always popping up and other ones fade away. Who says "afeard" instead of "frightened" anymore? (Lexico). * I refuse to call even the most obnoxious people "grammar-nazis." The only people I call Nazis are actual Nazis. If you like the word, don’t worry, you don’t have to look far to find real ones. History of UseI’ve linked information about the history of this from Oxford Dictionary, Dictionary.com above, and, look, here’s another one: “The past, present, and future of the singular ‘they’” from Vox, “The pronoun is Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year. Here’s why.” Here are the main (linguistic) points they all cover:
When It Gets QueerI’ve covered the fact that we all use "they" to refer to individuals in different ways all of the time. One day, someone will probably ask you to always use it when referring to them, specifically. Someone like me.
Using the correct pronouns for people matters. And for the price of just $0.00 you can help someone feel safe and not horrible by doing it! Finally, if you are still worried about the sanctity of the English language, I’d like to leave you with one more Stamper quote. We think of English as a child. We love and nurture it into being, and once it gains gross motor skills, it starts going exactly where we don’t want it to go: it heads right for the goddamned electrical sockets. We dress it in fancy clothes and tell it to behave, and it comes home with its underwear on its head and wearing someone else’s socks. As English grows, it lives its own life, and this is right and healthy, Sometimes English does exactly what we think it should; sometimes it goes places we don’t like and thrives there in spite of all our worrying. We can tell it to clean itself up and act more like Latin; we can throw tantrums and start learning French instead. But we will never really be the boss of it. And that’s why it flourishes.” (pg. 51; end of chapter 3, “It’s - On ‘Grammar’” tl;dr If someone asks you to use they/them pronouns for them: please, try your damn hardest to do so. It’s important. Oh, and, "they" aren’t going anywhere.
Hozier's voice rose goosebumps on my arms. His lyrics sent shivers down my spine. I leaned into this feeling or mood and found other songs that fit this aesthetic I was building.
While searching for a description and a title for the playlist, different words came to mind. Deep and dark. Weird and low. Raspy and heavenly.
|
Who Am I?Hi there! I'm Whit, my pronouns are they/them, and I write a lot.
Learn more about me here :) Click the button to read my poetry. Categories
All
All posts since April 2018 tagged at least once.
Archives
April 2021
Header
Painting by Whit Acrylics on masonite April 20th, 2019 Words are a Quaker saying. George Fox? |