The Federalist advances a curious argument against the Democrats’ Equal Rights Amendment.
Women, Tabitha Walter says in essence, are right now privileged by law in numerous ways, and “Equal Rights” would take away those privileges.
The argument may actually be sensible, falling under unintended consequences of this atrocity. Women, too, will be sued by men or what passes for men not to “discriminate.”
Wouldn’t it be fun, for example, under the ERA to sexually integrate the prisons?
There is, however, in her article no mention of men at all, and of how their rights both are violated now and will be even more under the ERA.
Consider, for example, the ERA FAQ which says:
Thus, single-sex institutions whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other are already unconstitutional, while single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and, if the courts choose, could remain so under an ERA.
Isn’t that just precious? Feminists want to have their cake and eat it, too. Equality, itself already nonsense, is in addition a sham; the whores in fact seek superiority and domination.