No "Stop ERA" Movement?

[MAC161]

I recently read an article in the Nation discussing Phyllis Schlafly as depicted in the series Mrs. America, which included a passing mention of foreign policy being her first choice of causes ("anti-feminism was a fallback"). What if, due to some change or other, she had continued to pursue that first choice, to the point of gaining a government post (ambassador, undersecretary, etc.; I'm not certain what positions she would've been able to get from such an old boy's club) or an influential policy think-tank role? Would there have been no "Stop ERA" movement, or at least one that lacked the drive and influence it had in OTL, thus allowing ERA to be passed?

 

[Hendryk]

I'd like to know what people think what changes a successful ERA would have made down the line.

 

[analternatelinktothepast]

I'm not exactly sure but at the very least I think it would enshrine things like the various Civil Rights Acts and Title IX into the constitution, resulting in them being unable to be repealed/not renewed? I mean we're almost 100% not going to see a full reversion of civil rights to 1950s levels, thank god, but even then, this would provide protection so that can't happen in the first place?

Just my 2c

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

I'd like to know what people think what changes a successful ERA would have made down the line.

A lot stronger equal-pay and equal-hire cases from the get-go, for one. Might herald in a more comprehensive acceptance of women in combat service.

It would in the long term create a whole constitutional untangling (does alimony violate the ERA? What about most state' child support regimes? Then there's the whole bathroom bill saga.)