We tend to think about our past experiences when we consider some new possibility. When considering the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, I think about how most women probably do not want do be drafted into the US military.
In college spent time around a woman who was in the US Army. She was attractive and told me she had some problems with sexual harassment from her fellow troops. She also told me one day that she loses control and wants to have sex if a man touches the small of her back. A few days later she asked me to help her zip up her dress, where the zipper was down to the small of her back. I took a long pause and considered. She was a bit buzzed. She was headed out on a date. Looking at the dress, it seemed like she really did need help. I was careful not to touch her back as I zipped her up into the swanky dress, then I quickly excused myself to go hang out with my girlfriend, who found it amusing. My female Army friend was a rare person, adventurous, somewhat cunning, a survivor, and overall, she liked being the military. My impression from hearing some of her experiences, however, was that it would certainly not be a good fit for most women.
How has the female draft worked in other countries? They will tell you it works fine, but recruitment messages do not always align with first hand experience. Several countries, including Israel, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, have implemented military drafts for women, promoting gender equality in military service. Israel has conscripted women since 1948, with many serving in combat roles, while Norway became the first NATO country to mandate female conscription in 2015. Sweden reinstated gender-neutral conscription in 2017, and Denmark plans to extend it to women by 2026. These nations have seen positive outcomes, such as improved military effectiveness and lower attrition rates among female soldiers, although challenges related to societal perceptions and physical demands persist.
The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a contentious issue, with proponents arguing for gender equality and opponents highlighting potential downsides. While the intention behind the ERA is to ensure equality under the law for all sexes, there are several concerns regarding its implications for women.
One significant argument against the ERA is that it could inadvertently eliminate legal protections that currently benefit women. For instance, the amendment may abolish rights related to child support and alimony, replacing them with vague judicial discretion that could undermine financial security for women and children[1]. Additionally, the ERA could subject women to the military draft, a prospect many find troubling given the physical and psychological risks associated with combat roles[1]. Critics contend that these outcomes would not only fail to advance women’s rights but could also regress existing protections.
Moreover, the ERA’s language suggests that laws must treat men and women equally in all respects. This could hinder the ability of governments to enact legislation specifically designed to address gender disparities. The concern is that such a “sex-blind” approach may limit efforts to create programs aimed at advancing women’s opportunities, potentially locking in existing inequalities rather than alleviating them[3][5].
Another critical area of concern involves health and safety standards, particularly in high-risk professions such as space exploration. Female astronauts face unique challenges when it comes to radiation exposure. Research indicates that women are at a higher risk for certain cancers due to their biological makeup, including breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers[2][4]. NASA’s current standards aim to equalize radiation exposure limits between male and female astronauts; however, these standards do not adequately account for women’s increased susceptibility to radiation-induced cancers. As Peggy Whitson, former chief of NASA’s Astronaut Corps, noted, women may only be able to participate in 45 to 50 percent of missions compared to their male counterparts due to current radiation restrictions[2]. Creating equal standards in radiation exposure to give equal opportunities would put woman at greater risk of cancer as astronauts because of the biological reality that women’s bodies are more susceptible to cancer. This is particularly concerning given that missions to Mars could expose astronauts to radiation levels exceeding 1,000 mSv, significantly raising the risk of cancer mortality beyond acceptable thresholds[10].
In conclusion, while the Equal Rights Amendment aims to promote gender equality, its ratification raises significant concerns about potential negative consequences for women’s rights and safety. The implications for existing legal protections, military obligations, and health standards highlight the complexities surrounding this issue. As discussions continue, it is essential to consider whether the ERA will genuinely advance women’s equality or inadvertently create new challenges.
Read More
[1] https://www.mcny.org/lesson-plans/beyond-suffrage-lesson-whats-wrong-equal-rights-debate-dissent-and-discussion
[2] https://www.space.com/22252-women-astronauts-radiation-risk.html
[3] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djclpp/vol16/iss1/2/
[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9267413/
[5] https://policy-perspectives.org/2019/11/21/arguments-for-and-against-the-equal-rights-amendment/
[6] https://www.science.org/content/article/new-nasa-radiation-standards-astronauts-seen-leveling-field-women
[7] https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/kim-forde-mazrui/1086931
[8] https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20211222/new-nasa-radiation-exposure-limit-would-bring-equality-to-female-male-astronauts
[9] https://www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/president
[10] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/30/1027445/nasa-space-radiation-astronaut-missions-women/