Questions about the ERA/WEA
The Post ran an guest column today about passing the Equal Rights Amendment/Women's Equality Amendment. I know there are people on my friends list from varying political points of view, so I'd like to take advantage of that to figure this out a little bit better. Obviously, I'm not trying to be confrontational about it, but I do have some disagreements with what I've read and some questions, since this amendment is essentially asking for unintended consequences on purpose. I don't think I need to say that I think this amendment is a bad idea, and I know that some of you are going to disagree.
Economics
The authors open with the wage gap, stating that a full time working woman makes 77% of a comparable working man. This statistic I have serious questions about. This is usually reported as some sort of aggregate data, so cross professional evaluation isn't always clear when this is reported. Does it account for things like Bill Gates, Paul Allen or Warren Buffett who would really skew the data, and are not representative of normal population? How does this number hold up if you just include people who make, say, less than $200k a year? Or what about self-employment jobs where you can essentially (ideally) trade time for money? In cases like this, it is pretty well understood that women prefer "soft" benefits (statistically speaking) over "hard" ones. This might not be insignificant, since this pamphlet says that women own 28% of all US firms. As far as I can tell, that includes publicly traded corporations, which have no distinguishable gender ownership.
This statistic is also one I never understood as an argument for institutional sexism, because ultimately, all businesses are out to make money for their shareholders. If A corporation like GE or Ford or whomever could replace all of their men with women at 3/4 the cost, why wouldn't they?
They also bring up social security, which evidently is problematic because you don't get credit while you are not working taking care of children or aging parents. I can see a complaint while the mother (or father -- a comparable paternity leave might not be a terrible idea) is actually in the hospital or recovering from childbirth, but while at home and not working expecting to get social security credit is kind of a stretch. There is no provision that would prevent you from paying into social security as a self-employed "mom" but expecting money out of the system when you are not contributing is not a compelling argument here. I'm also not sure how the ERA would do anything about that anyway. Also, caring for aging parents seems pretty gender neutral; I don't think men get benefits women don't in this case.
Insurance
The authors also suggest that insurance costs are much higher for almost every kind for women than men. I think we know that for auto insurance this is typically untrue. Health insurance makes sense, because women typically have higher health costs, with more frequent doctor visits required for good health. Higher health insurance cost would make sense in this case. Also, women tend to live longer than men, so a higher life insurance cost would also make sense. If homeowners insurance is higher simply because a women is the owner, then that could be a problem. But they argue that it should be illegal to charge more or less based gender, and I'm not sure that's necessarily a good idea in this case. I think that it is ok that insurance companies can charge a smoker or someone with a chronic health condition more than an otherwise healthy person because they incur more costs to do it.
Title IX
This article considers Title IX an unqualified success. There have, of course, been many good results that came from it, but it is not without its faults. Most of the contentious components are in sports, (although it does make reference to admissions issues, of which I know very little in its context to Title IX -- but university enrollment is now larger for women than men and I don't think that legislation has anything to do with that. Although, it may have then; I doubt that changes to legislation now would depress female enrollment today) some of the disputes about Title IX's effectiveness must certainly stem from your opinion of what the role of athletics is in a university setting. I see it as twofold: advertisement for the institution and a vehicle for students who would otherwise be unable to learn a life skill from a university. Unfortunately, women's athletics does a very poor job of the first, but a rather good one at the second. Men's sports are a bit more balanced, depending on the program. This legislation has also been considered one of the possible root causes of why there are fewer black athletes (by percentage) playing major league baseball than twenty years ago.
While in an academic setting, I'm not really sure that the relative downside is so bad that it should go. Boys not getting wrestling scholarships to Penn State isn't really the end of the world. However, holding it up as a model of how to do business in other arenas seems like it could be dangerous. It takes away control from market forces and puts them into government. Realistically, I don't think there would be too many scholarship women's basketball programs if they weren't mandatory because they aren't cost effective. So long as those athletes get educations, it's not a big loss because they are getting to go to school for free. But there's just not as much demand for female basketball players and the institutional jobs that go along with that as there are for men. Mandating analogous approaches elsewhere may not be as benign.
Military
They only mention it in passing, which is probably smart from a rhetorical point of view. I don't have statistics on this, but I can't imagine the idea of sending women to serious combat is a particularly popular idea. I can't say I think it's a good one, either. It has a lot of implications from morale, effectiveness and propaganda value. Remember about a month and a half ago when the Iranians captured those British Marines and Sailors? Which one of them got the most airplay on Middle Eastern television? The woman, because she was a more valuable target. There is a natural instinct in men to want to protect women, and that can be exploited in combat or torture/POW scenarios, not to mention the impact if the woman is a mother. I think the burden of proof should definitely lie on those who want women in combat situations to show that it's a better idea than what we have now, because there's just a lot to consider here.
Politics
They do point out how small our female representation is in Congress, and that's a real concern. However, this amendment can't fix that, and arguing that it will is intellectually dishonest. There is no legal discrimination in place keeping women out of office.
Education
They also mention that boys only classrooms in public schools are legal. I can't really see why this is inherently bad, unless the places where this happens does so at the exclusion of girls to go to school at all, which I can't say I believe is true. They also don't mention if there are or how they feel about similar girls only arrangements. There are folks who think (sorry about using this construction) that this might be a preferable setting for young people to learn. I don't know that I'd want my son or daughter to study in a single gender classroom, but I don't think it should be illegal either.
Other
This is also a backdoor effort to overturn bans on gay marriage. That doesn't get a lot of attention, either, which is also a rhetorically smart (but a little dishonest) ploy. Personally, I'm still kind of conflicted about how to resolve gay marriage (probably some sort of compromise, but I'm not going to enunciate it now). However, I don't think this is the way to do it. It's obviously very contentious right now. I do think that it should be a legislative issue and not a judicial or Constitutional one. (I think a Constitutional gay marriage ban is a bad idea as well.)
It would also throw decades of family court precedent out the window (although this may not be the worst side effect). Questions of alimony, child support, and custody would all be quite different as a result. Are we ready for that?
I'm not sure how it would impact private organizations, because I'm not a constitutional attorney, but would it put groups like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts at risk? What about summer camps? Or dorm rooms at public universities? Gym locker rooms in middle and high schools -- will you legally be able to separate locker rooms in a public school? It doesn't sound like it.
There are problems that can be addressed -- legislating benefits and protections for new parents, for example. I think the best solution would be to fix those problems individually, rather than try this blanket solution that won't really address all of these anyway, while also creating new ones.
Economics
The authors open with the wage gap, stating that a full time working woman makes 77% of a comparable working man. This statistic I have serious questions about. This is usually reported as some sort of aggregate data, so cross professional evaluation isn't always clear when this is reported. Does it account for things like Bill Gates, Paul Allen or Warren Buffett who would really skew the data, and are not representative of normal population? How does this number hold up if you just include people who make, say, less than $200k a year? Or what about self-employment jobs where you can essentially (ideally) trade time for money? In cases like this, it is pretty well understood that women prefer "soft" benefits (statistically speaking) over "hard" ones. This might not be insignificant, since this pamphlet says that women own 28% of all US firms. As far as I can tell, that includes publicly traded corporations, which have no distinguishable gender ownership.
This statistic is also one I never understood as an argument for institutional sexism, because ultimately, all businesses are out to make money for their shareholders. If A corporation like GE or Ford or whomever could replace all of their men with women at 3/4 the cost, why wouldn't they?
They also bring up social security, which evidently is problematic because you don't get credit while you are not working taking care of children or aging parents. I can see a complaint while the mother (or father -- a comparable paternity leave might not be a terrible idea) is actually in the hospital or recovering from childbirth, but while at home and not working expecting to get social security credit is kind of a stretch. There is no provision that would prevent you from paying into social security as a self-employed "mom" but expecting money out of the system when you are not contributing is not a compelling argument here. I'm also not sure how the ERA would do anything about that anyway. Also, caring for aging parents seems pretty gender neutral; I don't think men get benefits women don't in this case.
Insurance
The authors also suggest that insurance costs are much higher for almost every kind for women than men. I think we know that for auto insurance this is typically untrue. Health insurance makes sense, because women typically have higher health costs, with more frequent doctor visits required for good health. Higher health insurance cost would make sense in this case. Also, women tend to live longer than men, so a higher life insurance cost would also make sense. If homeowners insurance is higher simply because a women is the owner, then that could be a problem. But they argue that it should be illegal to charge more or less based gender, and I'm not sure that's necessarily a good idea in this case. I think that it is ok that insurance companies can charge a smoker or someone with a chronic health condition more than an otherwise healthy person because they incur more costs to do it.
Title IX
This article considers Title IX an unqualified success. There have, of course, been many good results that came from it, but it is not without its faults. Most of the contentious components are in sports, (although it does make reference to admissions issues, of which I know very little in its context to Title IX -- but university enrollment is now larger for women than men and I don't think that legislation has anything to do with that. Although, it may have then; I doubt that changes to legislation now would depress female enrollment today) some of the disputes about Title IX's effectiveness must certainly stem from your opinion of what the role of athletics is in a university setting. I see it as twofold: advertisement for the institution and a vehicle for students who would otherwise be unable to learn a life skill from a university. Unfortunately, women's athletics does a very poor job of the first, but a rather good one at the second. Men's sports are a bit more balanced, depending on the program. This legislation has also been considered one of the possible root causes of why there are fewer black athletes (by percentage) playing major league baseball than twenty years ago.
While in an academic setting, I'm not really sure that the relative downside is so bad that it should go. Boys not getting wrestling scholarships to Penn State isn't really the end of the world. However, holding it up as a model of how to do business in other arenas seems like it could be dangerous. It takes away control from market forces and puts them into government. Realistically, I don't think there would be too many scholarship women's basketball programs if they weren't mandatory because they aren't cost effective. So long as those athletes get educations, it's not a big loss because they are getting to go to school for free. But there's just not as much demand for female basketball players and the institutional jobs that go along with that as there are for men. Mandating analogous approaches elsewhere may not be as benign.
Military
They only mention it in passing, which is probably smart from a rhetorical point of view. I don't have statistics on this, but I can't imagine the idea of sending women to serious combat is a particularly popular idea. I can't say I think it's a good one, either. It has a lot of implications from morale, effectiveness and propaganda value. Remember about a month and a half ago when the Iranians captured those British Marines and Sailors? Which one of them got the most airplay on Middle Eastern television? The woman, because she was a more valuable target. There is a natural instinct in men to want to protect women, and that can be exploited in combat or torture/POW scenarios, not to mention the impact if the woman is a mother. I think the burden of proof should definitely lie on those who want women in combat situations to show that it's a better idea than what we have now, because there's just a lot to consider here.
Politics
They do point out how small our female representation is in Congress, and that's a real concern. However, this amendment can't fix that, and arguing that it will is intellectually dishonest. There is no legal discrimination in place keeping women out of office.
Education
They also mention that boys only classrooms in public schools are legal. I can't really see why this is inherently bad, unless the places where this happens does so at the exclusion of girls to go to school at all, which I can't say I believe is true. They also don't mention if there are or how they feel about similar girls only arrangements. There are folks who think (sorry about using this construction) that this might be a preferable setting for young people to learn. I don't know that I'd want my son or daughter to study in a single gender classroom, but I don't think it should be illegal either.
Other
This is also a backdoor effort to overturn bans on gay marriage. That doesn't get a lot of attention, either, which is also a rhetorically smart (but a little dishonest) ploy. Personally, I'm still kind of conflicted about how to resolve gay marriage (probably some sort of compromise, but I'm not going to enunciate it now). However, I don't think this is the way to do it. It's obviously very contentious right now. I do think that it should be a legislative issue and not a judicial or Constitutional one. (I think a Constitutional gay marriage ban is a bad idea as well.)
It would also throw decades of family court precedent out the window (although this may not be the worst side effect). Questions of alimony, child support, and custody would all be quite different as a result. Are we ready for that?
I'm not sure how it would impact private organizations, because I'm not a constitutional attorney, but would it put groups like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts at risk? What about summer camps? Or dorm rooms at public universities? Gym locker rooms in middle and high schools -- will you legally be able to separate locker rooms in a public school? It doesn't sound like it.
There are problems that can be addressed -- legislating benefits and protections for new parents, for example. I think the best solution would be to fix those problems individually, rather than try this blanket solution that won't really address all of these anyway, while also creating new ones.