If the horror of unisex public restrooms is the patriarchy's shills' strongest argument against equal rights, then maybe it's time for the Equal Rights Amendment.
Really, it's past time, but it's being given another shot.
But the bathrooms! Oh no! After all, it's not like we have unisex bathrooms in our houses!
Oh, wait …
Aren't public restrooms more an issue for local building codes anyway? Besides, if the only drawback to not having equal rights is the right, nay, the privilege of waiting in a women-only line to use a women-only bathroom, then I'll take equal rights. And until I get them, I'll use the men's room if the line for the ladies' is really long.
The bathroom argument, which I've heard before, is pretty old. It seems that the main argument against equality nowadays is that the ERA would require equal rights for everybody and that would be bad because everyone knows that some people are more equal than others. (Lest that be taken out of context, I'd like to say that I was being sarcastic and I do, in fact, believe that no one is more equal than anyone else.)
I expect that's why the ERA is being recast as the "Women's Equality Amendment," neatly cutting out all the people who are being discriminated against on the basis of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Should equality be doled out piecemeal? No. Will I take what I can get? Yes.
247 words | March 28, 2007 12:23 PM | Because I said