Download Jonathan Leonor

Jonathan Leonor
Gender Communication
01/22/2007
Desrene Vernom
Judgment Call
Passing the ERA wouldn’t be of any value to men, but to women. Women would
have more opportunities in life especially in areas that women were not allowed to be
leaders or hold positions. I don’t think that if the ERA gets passed that there will be
pragmatic consequences in how men and women interact in everyday activity. I don’t a
real big change would happen. The only thing that would change is that women will be
heard more, they will be able to hold high office in the political and industrial world. I
mean women already have a saying since this is America the land of the free.
I think that Schlafly is taking it too extreme about the ERA. How can he be so
sure that femininity will be destroyed? I see the ERA not as a tradition breaker of woman
staying at home to be with their children, or women and men going into the same
bathroom. I see the ERA as an opportunity for women to have more freedom to choose
the career they want as well as to participate in events they weren’t allowed before. Also
as I mentioned before, they will be heard more and their opinions will be respected not
that it wasn’t before; but with the ERA more attention will be shown. Aren’t there
women with leadership position already? Why is Schlafly making such a big deal out of
it? As far as the bathroom argument, that’s just too farfetched. The bathroom segregation
is not because women are lower than men; it is because they both deserve some privacy
and dignity since they have different biological characteristics. Plus, there are countries
that women and men share the same bathroom, thus is more of a cultural act not a social
status one. So the bathroom argument should be thrown out the window and not be used
as an excuse.
I don’t see why they couldn’t give it a try and see that maybe it could a good
change. I mean is America backing up on their constitution that states all men are created
equal. However, I have to admit that the statement can be some what ambiguous. If one
uses the word “men” with the reference to the human race as it was used back in the days
since the beginning of time, then the US is not abiding by the constitution and thus
should pass ERA to agree that all “men” are created equal. If the word “men” is used
with reference to males, then I guess it can be said that the US is not committed to equal
rights for women and men. In a religious stand point, God created Eve from Adam’s ribs
meaning that she was not to be lower or higher than Adam but equal. They were to be
one and together they were to rule the Garden of Eden. Eve was taken from the rib
because the ribs is what surrounds and protects the heart, thus women are to protect the
heart of men as well as men are to trust women with this duty. Since the beginning there
was equality, however God did put man in charge, or to have the rule of the man of the
house. He did that for a reason, and that reason I’m not completely sure of. One thing I’m
sure about is that equality was meant from the beginning. I believe ERA should be
accepted, but if women abuse this right then it should also be taken from them.
Since I’m not a politician and I hate politics, I don’t think I can come up with an
idea of how to campaign for ERA. However, there are some points and ideas that I could
give to be spoken in a campaign. I definitely think that the religious stand point should be
mention. Another idea is the fact that scientists have discovered that the X chromosome
is the one that carries intelligence gene as well as other genes that allow men to be in the
high positions they are today. Also I believe that the constitution should be mentioned as
well thus to let people know where the constitution stands on this argument. Am I right to
say that the statement of all men are created equal is ambiguous? These are some
interesting points I believe could be used in a campaign; but then again I’m not a
politician so they could be bad points. However, it is worth to try to argue them.