Not long ago I asked, “Do Women Want Equality?” Based on the (possibly questionable — see here) results of this exit poll of Michigan voters regarding the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), the answer would appear to be no: MCRI, which banned preferences by state agencies based on race, gender, or ethnicity was opposed, according to the exit poll, by 58% of women voters. (The actual number was probably lower, as suggested in my post immediately below.)
Please go back and read (or, even better, re-read) my post, linked above, asking whether women want equality. It provides a brief discussion of the old schism in American feminism between feminists who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923, because they feared, correctly, that it would ban “protective legislation” for women and their opponents who favored gender-blind equality.
As we’ve seen (here, here, here, here, here, here, and too many other posts to cite right now), a substantial portion of the anti-MCRI rhetoric and advertising was based on the hysterical claim that the passage of MCRI would turn Michigan women into mathematically illiterate, unemployed, battered victims with breast cancer. Equality, it was argued over and over again, would be bad for women.
With that history in mind, let me repeat myself from my earlier post on women and equality:
The operative text of the Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923 and I’m sure supported by all those feminist worthies in Michigan now opposing MCRI, reads:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Now to my question for the fearful feminists arguing that MCRI’s ban on race or gender preferences would be bad for women: Did you oppose the Equal Rights Amendment as well? If not, do you now regret your past support for a Constitutional amendment that would have demanded equal treatment for men and women?
Michigan, in short, has just passed a state-wide Equal Rights Amendment. Too bad the feminists all opposed it.
John, you’re partially wrong, at least in focus.
The feminist establishment all opposed it, and the exit poll number you cited of 58% of women opposing suggests to me strong female support for. Abigail Thernstrom’s WSJ article today quotes a women who voted for it, and why. And the exit polls were “too close to call” in favor of MCRI on election (I believe they were at 51%, but that’s only a recollection – operating on that assumption, the exit polls had a 7% “margin of error” against MCRI due to the intimidation effect of the issue, so adjust that 58% figure down to 51%, and you are in a virtual tie on the female vote — additionally, I believe it to be almost impossible that MCRI could have won with 58% of females voting against it)
Sorry, I just saw your post below.
Last March I happened to write a guest editorial for the Detroit Free Press on the MCRI.
Given the Freep’s overt opposition, I shouldn’t be surprised it didn’t get published.
Despite all the work I (and others) put into it, none of us sussed the ERA angle.
The polls do seem to indicate that whatever the actual percentages, womens’ support for the MCRI was less than men’s. I’m sure one of the reasons was the main line of the “no” groups: programs for women’s health and such would be barred by the MCRI. That’s balderdash, of course, but the comparatively underfunded proponents didn’t have the chance to counter the propaganda fully. Given the torrent of negative material emphasizing this aspect, it’s not surprising that some women were taken in by it.