The issue of equality is one of the priorities in the United States and, therefore, should be protected by legal documents. However, neither the constitution of the country nor its amendments include this consideration as opposed to other governments (“Constitution of the United States”). Such a notable omission should be addressed promptly and efficiently. To justify this need, it is important to draw attention to the theoretical underpinning for the issue as well as the historical experience of the United States. From this perspective, the equality of citizens is related to the situation in the past and the present. It requires particular measures since only in the case of respecting this notion does overall happiness become possible.
The proposed amendment is intended to guarantee equal rights for all Americans regardless of sex. The importance of this initiative is defined by the fact that it was not extended since the first adoption in 1972, whereas this issue remains critical, and the contrary policy is against the concept of democracy (White 34). Moreover, the situation even became more complicated since the inspiration from initial successes in the fight of women for their rights has changed to social inertia (Barnett 144). Hence, the principal theoretical argument relates to the need to protect equality in the context of citizens’ inactivity and its possible negative consequences for the target group. Otherwise, the drawbacks of the neglect of this problem in the past can reappear in the present-day world.
The first circumstance that can result in such an outcome is directly connected to the traditional family model that promotes inequality of men and women. In the past, it became one of the principal motivators for women to start the fight for their place in a male-dominated society (Geng 28). Nevertheless, it does not mean that the situation cannot repeat in the present, and this event would indicate a direct violation of women’s rights. In other words, equality will be full only in the case if this concept is protected by the constitution or its amendments (Geng 28). Otherwise, the lessons from the past will be in vain, and the absence of such a paragraph will lead to further complications in everyday life due to the uneven distribution of opportunities.
This possibility poses another threat to the female population of the United States since it can significantly affect their position at work. As can be seen from the history of the women’s rights movement, their inequality with men in the workplace was another motivation for its leaders (White 34). Moreover, this factor is even more critical than family roles as it can lead to consequences that are more gruesome and undermine the independence of female employees. Such an outcome will deprive them of the chance to realize their full potential, which is one of the fundamental human rights. Therefore, the consideration of this sphere of life adds to the necessity to ratify the amendment.
To sum up, the protection of equality of men and women in the United States is vital for the country’s correspondence to international standards. This need is also complemented by the undesirability of returning to the traditional family model for the female population and the importance of ensuring their independence by providing equal opportunities at work. Thus, the ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment is the key to the prosperity of American society from the economic perspective and the satisfaction of all citizens with governmental support and protection.
References
Barnett, Larry D. “Equal Rights Amendment.” Societal Agents in Law, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019, pp. 143-159.
“Constitution of the United States.” United States Senate, n.d., Web.
Geng, Chunling. “The Influence of Traditional Family Model on the Equal Rights Amendment.” Canadian Social Science, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017, pp. 24-28. Web.
White, Hanna H. “The Equal Rights Amendment in the Twenty-First Century: Ratification Issues and Intersectional Effects.” DttP: Documents to the People, vol. 47, no. 4, 2019, pp. 34-38. Web.