The recent
reincarnation of the Equal Rights Amendment was a good idea—until its backers
decided to change the name. The ERA has been reintroduced into both the House
and the Senate, and has over 200 congressional co-sponsors. Representative
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution,
civil rights, and civil liberties, says the bill "is going to be one of the
items at the top of the agenda."
Unfortunately, the
bill’s sponsors have changed the ERA’s name to the “Women’s Equality Amendment.”
There’s a major problem with that, because when considering injustices based on
gender, today men and fathers can lay claim to many of them. It’s very much an
open question what effect, if any, the ERA/WEA would have. However, if we’re
going to have a national discussion on gender inequities—and it appears that we
are—the problems faced by men need to be part of that discussion.
The most unequal
and unfair treatment meted out to either gender is the mistreatment of men and
fathers by family courts and by the domestic violence system. After a divorce or
separation dads are often pushed to the margins of their children’s lives, even
though in most cases they’ve never been found culpable of any wrongdoing, and
did not seek to dissolve their marriages. Family courts often deprive men of
shared custody and generally allow them only a few days a month to spend with
their children.
While the
government has created a vast, $5 billion a year bureaucracy dedicated to
enforcing child support orders, there is almost no governmental effort made to
enforce fathers' visitation rights. When fathers are prevented from seeing their
children in violation of court orders--as studies show is common--they must hire
an attorney and go to court, and even then the orders aren’t enforced without
repeated, expensive litigation.
Women’s advocates
once did good work bringing the problem of domestic violence to public
attention. Yet today’s DV policies are so extreme that they are victimizing many
innocent men.
Over the past
decade and a half there has been an explosion in DV restraining orders, as new
laws and services have made the orders easier to obtain. According to the
Justice Department, two million restraining orders are issued each year in the
United States, most of them based on DV
allegations.
When a restraining
order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can be jailed if he
tries to contact his own children, even though he has never been afforded the
opportunity to defend himself. The subsequent hearings to determine whether the
orders will be made permanent are often conducted in an assembly line fashion
with little due process. These orders often do not even involve an allegation of
violence—often the "abuse" needed to get a restraining order can be "spoken" or
"written,” and thus almost impossible to refute in court.
During the 1990s, many states and law enforcement
agencies adopted mandatory/presumptive arrest policies which virtually require
officers to make arrests when responding to domestic violence calls. At the same
time, many District Attorneys have instituted “no drop” prosecution
policies. These have led to large numbers of arrests and prosecutions in cases
where it is very questionable whether the men actually committed any abuse. In
addition, the “predominant aggressor” laws passed by nearly two dozen states
encourage officers to arrest men and only men in domestic disputes.
The Violence
Against Women Act, first passed in 1994, has provided the DV establishment with
over $5 billion in funding. Yet male victims of domestic violence are excluded
from most services, even though decades of research confirm that men comprise a
significant minority of domestic violence victims.
The intent of the
ERA during its heyday in the 1970s was to eliminate sex discrimination, and at
that time sex discrimination was a significant problem for women. Now gender
bias and discrimination—in practice, if not in the law—cut both ways. The Equal
Rights Amendment, because it seeks to end any bias or discrimination
based on sex, is appropriate. The “Women’s Equality Amendment,” which ignores
many of the worst gender-based injustices, is not.