scholarly journals Inscrire l’égalité des sexes dans la Constitution états-unienne : Equal Rights Amendment, promesses et déboires d’une campagne interminée

IdeAs ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Delahaye
Author(s):  
Nancy Woloch

This chapter revisits Adkins and considers the feud over protective laws that arose in the women's movement in the 1920s. The clash between friends and foes of the Equal Rights Amendment—and over the protective laws for women workers that it would surely invalidate—fueled women's politics in the 1920s. Both sides claimed precedent-setting accomplishments. In 1923, the National Woman's Party proposed the historic ERA, which incurred conflict that lasted for decades. The social feminist contingent—larger and more powerful—gained favor briefly among congressional lawmakers, expanded the number and strength of state laws, saw the minimum wage gain a foothold, and promoted protection through the federal Women's Bureau. Neither faction, however, achieved the advances it sought. Instead, a fight between factions underscored competing contentions about single-sex protective laws and their effect on women workers.


2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Baldez ◽  
Lee Epstein ◽  
Andrew D. Martin

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Sherron de Hart

“ERA Won't Go Away!” The words were chanted at rallies and unfurled on banners at countless marches as the deadline—June 30, 1982—approached for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. To include in the Constitution the principle of equality of rights for women, supporters insisted, was an essential of republican government in a democratic society. Congress had shared that perception in 1972, passing a series of measures aimed at strengthening and expanding federal legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sex. Included was a constitutional amendment simply stating that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” Thirty-five of the thirty-eight states necessary for a three-fourths majority needed to amend the Constitution had given their approval.


1974 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-14
Author(s):  
Isabelle A. Hallahan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document