The Constitutional Amendment to Put Pants on Girls

The lower house of Congress has passed, by a nearly unanimous vote, an “Equal Rights” for women amendment to the Constitution. Regardless of its ultimate fate, the idea seems likely to prevail. New York State, for instance, and New York City, have laws to provide for equal access of women to employment, to bars etc. The principle involved raises questions similar to those raised by the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which attempted to do the same sort of thing for Negroes.

With respect to women, in many states there are still laws which I should be delighted to see abolished (though not necessarily by means of constitutional amendment). These laws discriminate between the sexes for reasons, and on occasions, which are, or have become, irrelevant to the matter at hand. Some laws deny women rights granted to men (largely in employment). Other laws (or legal practices) grant women rights denied men. For instance, not just divorced mothers but also divorced women can get alimony, whereas men, even fathers, seldom can. Wives are entitled to financial support; husbands are not. Historical circumstances which led to such laws have changed. There is no reason on the other hand to discriminate against women to “protect” them. Yet, in many states laws forbid employment of women at night, or in certain occupations, or places. This simply makes it harder for women to get jobs which, regardless of the legislators’ judgment, they may want to take. Why can’t women— unlike children—be the best judges of what work to do? (Even children should be allowed to work except in dangerous jobs.)

EH

About the Author

Ernest van den Haag

Featured Tags

Manage following

Equal Rights Amendment

The lower house of Congress has passed, by a nearly unanimous vote, an “Equal Rights” for women amendment to the Constitution. Regardless of its ultimate fate, the idea seems likely to prevail. New York State, for instance, and New York City, have laws to provide for equal access of women to employment, to bars etc. The principle involved raises questions similar to those raised by the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which attempted to do the same sort of thing for Negroes.

With respect to women, in many states there are still laws which I should be delighted to see abolished (though not necessarily by means of constitutional amendment). These laws discriminate between the sexes for reasons, and on occasions, which are, or have become, irrelevant to the matter at hand. Some laws deny women rights granted to men (largely in employment). Other laws (or legal practices) grant women rights denied men. For instance, not just divorced mothers but also divorced women can get alimony, whereas men, even fathers, seldom can. Wives are entitled to financial support; husbands are not. Historical circumstances which led to such laws have changed. There is no reason on the other hand to discriminate against women to “protect” them. Yet, in many states laws forbid employment of women at night, or in certain occupations, or places. This simply makes it harder for women to get jobs which, regardless of the legislators’ judgment, they may want to take. Why can’t women— unlike children—be the best judges of what work to do? (Even children should be allowed to work except in dangerous jobs.)