berke@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/26/85)
Yes, it's too bad the ERA didn't pass. But it didn't. Our society remains one in which women are legally inferior to men. Add to this the constant depiction of violence against women as valid social or sexual intercourse and it becomes apparent that we have institutional and personal subjection of women. What is wrong with changing that? Hasn't anybody else male noticed all these examples from, say a.i., of the John hit Mary variety? If you are not aware of the physical, social, and economic persecution of women in this society you are not looking, and chances are, you are male. Regarding a previous posting, I believe there are laws against child porn. There is little reason for laws against the degredation of men since men, in general, do the degredation, and are not in fact victims of any degredation but their own. Peter Berke
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (12/02/85)
> > Yes, it's too bad the ERA didn't pass. But it didn't. Our society remains > one in which women are legally inferior to men. Add to this the constant > depiction of violence against women as valid social or sexual intercourse > and it becomes apparent that we have institutional and personal subjection of > women. What is wrong with changing that? > > Hasn't anybody else male noticed all these examples from, say a.i., of the > John hit Mary variety? If you are not aware of the physical, social, and > economic persecution of women in this society you are not looking, and chances > are, you are male. > > Peter Berke Peter Berke, you are making several bad assumptions. First, ERA would not significantly affect the rights of women. There are already many laws on the books, both federal and state, that give women enforced equality with men. There is really nothing to be gained by a new Constitutional Amendment. Secondly, I do not see a continual depiction of violence against women. I guess that in your eyes I must be a male. However, the national crime statistics bear me out. Most crimes are committed by men. There is no clear majority for either female or male victims. Finally, economic persecution is on the decline. Our society has placed women at a different position than men for sure. But this position is changing. I see women becoming more involved politically and in business. Four of my last seven bosses have been female. I can understand that some people, like yourself, have deep emotions about pornography. But in attacking pornography, you should stick to that issue; and not draw in your subjective predelictions on other issues. Mark Reina
dawn@prism.UUCP (12/03/85)
/* Written 6:17 pm Nov 25, 1985 by berke@ucla-cs in prism:net.legal */
/* ---------- "pornography, women, ERA" ---------- */
...Regarding a previous posting, I believe there are laws against child porn.
There is little reason for laws against the degredation of men since men, in
general, do the degredation, and are not in fact victims of any degredation
but their own...
Peter Berke
/* End of text from prism:net.legal */
I think that if were are going to pass laws against pornography,
we should recognize that men, women, and children are ALL to
varying degrees degraded by pornography. The law(s) -- if we
must have them -- should protect all these people. Who degrades
whom is not the issue.
The wording of the pornography law that was posted in this group
was, in my opinion, sexist. We shouldn't be writing sexist laws
that favor *either* gender.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Stockbridge Hall {cca, datacube, ihnp4, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}...
Mirror Systems, Inc. ...mirror!prism!dawn
"Knowing is not enough: We must apply. Willing is not enough: We must do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (12/04/85)
> There is little reason for laws against the degredation of men since men, in > general, do the degredation, and are not in fact victims of any degredation but > their own. You mean that if a man beats me up, it's my own fault because I'm a man? I guess blaming the victim is OK if the victim is male. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "A flash in front of my eyes ... I blink ... open my eyes to ... discover I am a dog in a pickup truck full of garbage ... no one but me sees the lid blow off the can ... it's 14 miles to the dump ... this is ... at last ... heaven."
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (12/06/85)
> > Peter Berke, you are making several bad assumptions. First, ERA would not > significantly affect the rights of women. There are already many laws on the > books, both federal and state, that give women enforced equality with men. > There is really nothing to be gained by a new Constitutional Amendment. > > Mark Reina WRONG! A bit of constitutional theory: The U.S. Supreme Court (and by it authority so do all lower state and federal courts) uses a number of different approaches or formulas to determine whether or not a given state law or regulation is "constitutional". The specific test is based on which article or amendment to the constitution is alleged to be violated by the state act in question. For instance, if someone alleges that a state law prohibiting the sale of liquor to minors violates the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment, the court uses a "rational relation" test: is there a rational relationship between the act and its effect of singling out minors for discrimination? This puts a very small burden on the state to show that, yes, there's a good reason for doing this. If, on the other hand, a state law prohibits sale of liquor to blacks, jews or natives of Venezuala, the court uses a different test, as these are all "protected classes" under the 14th amendment (unlike minors, who are not a "protected class"). Under the 14th amendment, the court uses a "strict scrutiny test", different not in kind but degree. A state needs a damn good reason to discriminate solely on the basis of race, creed or national origin. For example, lets say California passes a law that bars Haitians from health care jobs because they have a high incidence of AIDS. The courts would look on this with suspicion, as the effect of the law is to discriminate against a protected class. Contrast this with a state law forbidding sale of liquor to minors. The state need only demonstrate statistically that selling liquor to minors poses a health threat (drunk driving, mindless young people, etc.). Discriminating against Haitians is different, and probably would not hold up. Despite that law's good intentions or statistical validity, the fact that it discriminates against a particular nationality would violate the 14th amendment. Under the "rational relation" test it would probably be alright, but because it discriminates against a "protected class", it would fail. What does this have to do with the ERA? Well, despite all those wonderful laws on the books, women are not a "protected class" when it comes to discrimination suits. If you are a woman working for a company which receives no federal grants or contracts, you are not protected by Federal law from job discrimination (although most states provide some sort of protection). The point is that when the whistle blows, women do not receive the same level of protection from discrimination as do those classes protected by the 14th amendment. Instead, their only protection comes from the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment, which is not nearly as strong as the 14th. The ERA's sole purpose is to give women the "protected class" status which the 14th amendment now affords to racial and religious groups. It has nothing to do with destroying the sanctity of families, unisex toilets or putting women into combat (The supreme court has already said that even with an ERA, congress and the military would still have discretion in deciding whether or not to allow women into combat roles). And those statutes and regs can be repealed, or sloppily enforced, as the current administration has demonstrated. I still don't understand why so many of my fellow WASP's have such a problem with the ERA. It takes nothing away from us, anymore than does the 14th amendment. Maybe neo-nazis don't like the 14th amendment, but it shouldn't bother anyone else. Ditto the ERA.
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (12/09/85)
> > > > Peter Berke, you are making several bad assumptions. First, ERA would not > > significantly affect the rights of women. There are already many laws on the > > books, both federal and state, that give women enforced equality with men. > > There is really nothing to be gained by a new Constitutional Amendment. > > > > Mark Reina > > WRONG! I assume that this is from Peter Berke again. It is nice that you think I am wrong. However, your next 60 lines of text do not specifically attack my statement. Constitutional theory is nice. But there already many laws, both federal and state, that guarantee equality. Unless you are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. I am a lawyer. I already understand that "nine old men" can change their minds at any time. I understand the two tier test for deterimining the constitutionality of state laws. "Rational relation and Strict Scrutiny." Typically, laws seemingly centered on race or religion must pass Strict Scrutiny. While all other laws must pass the Rational Relations test. Mark Reina > > A bit of constitutional theory: The U.S. Supreme Court (and by it authority > so do all lower state and federal courts) uses a number of different > approaches or formulas to determine whether or not a given state law or > regulation is "constitutional". The specific test is based on which article > or amendment to the constitution is alleged to be violated by the state act > in question. For instance, if someone alleges that a state law prohibiting > the sale of liquor to minors violates the equal protection clause of the 5th > amendment, the court uses a "rational relation" test: is there a rational > relationship between the act and its effect of singling out minors for > discrimination? This puts a very small burden on the state to show that, > yes, there's a good reason for doing this. If, on the other hand, a state > law prohibits sale of liquor to blacks, jews or natives of Venezuala, the > court uses a different test, as these are all "protected classes" under the > 14th amendment (unlike minors, who are not a "protected class"). Under the > 14th amendment, the court uses a "strict scrutiny test", different not in > kind but degree. A state needs a damn good reason to discriminate solely on > the basis of race, creed or national origin. For example, lets say > California passes a law that bars Haitians from health care jobs because > they have a high incidence of AIDS. The courts would look on this with > suspicion, as the effect of the law is to discriminate against a protected > class. Contrast this with a state law forbidding sale of liquor to minors. > The state need only demonstrate statistically that selling liquor to minors > poses a health threat (drunk driving, mindless young people, etc.). > Discriminating against Haitians is different, and probably would not hold > up. Despite that law's good intentions or statistical validity, the fact > that it discriminates against a particular nationality would violate the > 14th amendment. Under the "rational relation" test it would probably be > alright, but because it discriminates against a "protected class", it > would fail. > > What does this have to do with the ERA? Well, despite all those wonderful > laws on the books, women are not a "protected class" when it comes to > discrimination suits. If you are a woman working for a company which > receives no federal grants or contracts, you are not protected by Federal > law from job discrimination (although most states provide some sort of > protection). The point is that when the whistle blows, women do not receive > the same level of protection from discrimination as do those classes > protected by the 14th amendment. Instead, their only protection comes from > the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment, which is not nearly as > strong as the 14th. > > The ERA's sole purpose is to give women the "protected class" status which > the 14th amendment now affords to racial and religious groups. It has > nothing to do with destroying the sanctity of families, unisex toilets or > putting women into combat (The supreme court has already said that even with > an ERA, congress and the military would still have discretion in deciding > whether or not to allow women into combat roles). And those statutes and > regs can be repealed, or sloppily enforced, as the current administration > has demonstrated. > > I still don't understand why so many of my fellow WASP's have such a problem > with the ERA. It takes nothing away from us, anymore than does the 14th > amendment. Maybe neo-nazis don't like the 14th amendment, but it shouldn't > bother anyone else. Ditto the ERA. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
garry@lasspvax.UUCP (Garry Wiegand) (12/10/85)
In a recent article mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) wrote: >... First, ERA would not >significantly affect the rights of women. There are already many laws on the >books, both federal and state, that give women enforced equality with men. >There is really nothing to be gained by a new Constitutional Amendment. >... During the debate over the original U.S. Constitution, a number of Federalists tried to explain that there would be "nothing to be gained" by a "Bill of Rights". Fortunately, they were ignored.
mikei@hammer.UUCP (Michael IsBell) (12/12/85)
> ... Unless you > are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. I am a > lawyer. ... > > Mark Reina Although I agree with your original posting and also with your assertion in this most recent article that Mr. Berke did not address your arguments, I do not believe it takes a lawyer to understand or discuss constitutional theory. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, mikei -- Michael IsBell ..!tektronix!tekecs!mikei MS 61-215 Tektronix, Inc. Wilsonville Industrial Park P.O. Box 1000 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 685-2990
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (12/12/85)
> > I assume that this is from Peter Berke again. WRONG AGAIN, ASSUMPTION BREATH! > It is nice that you think > I am wrong. However, your next 60 lines of text do not specifically > attack my statement. Constitutional theory is nice. But there already > many laws, both federal and state, that guarantee equality. Unless you > are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. Ahem... yes, I am a lawyer. > I am a > lawyer. I already understand that "nine old men" can change their minds > at any time. I understand the two tier test for deterimining the > constitutionality of state laws. "Rational relation and Strict Scrutiny." > Typically, laws seemingly centered on race or religion must pass Strict > Scrutiny. While all other laws must pass the Rational Relations test. > > Mark Reina Ok, so you passed con law. My point is that a reactionary administration can reverse the effect of all those laws an awful lot faster than nine old men.. er... eight old men and a woman can change their minds. The two-tier test has been around a lot longer than any state or federal anti-sex discrimination statutes, regs, or executive orders. Congress isn't limited by concepts like stare decisis. Joel Gilman Computer X, Inc. Seattle
jacobson@fluke.UUCP (David Jacobson) (12/13/85)
> I assume that this is from Peter Berke again. It is nice that you think > I am wrong. However, your next 60 lines of text do not specifically > attack my statement. Constitutional theory is nice. But there already > many laws, both federal and state, that guarantee equality. Unless you ^^^^^^^^^^ > are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. I am a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > lawyer. > Mark Reina Why not? Do you think only lawyers are capable of understanding it? A number of professions (law, medicine, and nuclear power come to mind) have tried to sell the public on the idea that people outside of their particular profession are incapable of understanding what is going on. I think this attitude is both very paternalistic and does society a disservice. The basis of democracy is that the general public be informed. Your statement encourges (demands?) a "Leave it to the experts" attitude. -- David Jacobson ...ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (12/13/85)
> > I assume that this is from Peter Berke again. It is nice that you think > > I am wrong. However, your next 60 lines of text do not specifically > > attack my statement. Constitutional theory is nice. But there already > > many laws, both federal and state, that guarantee equality. Unless you > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. I am a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > lawyer. > > Mark Reina > > Why not? Do you think only lawyers are capable of understanding > it? A number of professions (law, medicine, and nuclear power > come to mind) have tried to sell the public on the idea that > people outside of their particular profession are incapable of > understanding what is going on. I think this attitude is both > very paternalistic and does society a disservice. The basis of > democracy is that the general public be informed. Your statement > encourges (demands?) a "Leave it to the experts" attitude. > > -- David Jacobson ...ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson I regret that Mr. Jacobson and Mikei have taken offense to my words. I certainly did not mean that everyone else (other than lawyers) is so stupid that they could not understand Constitutional Law. As an ex-programmer, I have great respect for the people in the computer industry. Let me re-phrase my previous thoughts. "Please do not use Constitutional Law to seemingly attack my arguments unless it is really on point." Mark Reina
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/19/85)
> ... Unless you > are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory. I am a > lawyer. ... > > Mark Reina As John O'Sullivan wrote in a column recently, this attitude amounts to professional arrogance of almost medical proportions. Come on. Nobody should try to discuss sports who's not a jock. Nobody should discuss religion except us clergy types. Nobody should discuss war except West Point grads. Ad nauseum... -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal