ERA opposition - Protecting whom?

Much of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment focused on what women would lose if it did pass. That protection largely focused on the legal responsibilities husbands had toward their wives. The first question that comes to mind for me as a single woman is "How does this help me?"

I can handle some self-sacrifice for the greater good, but that is not what we have here.

We are decades past the failure to ratify ERA, and some progress has been made, but consider the response to Donald Trump's bragging about kissing women and grabbing their privates without waiting for consent:

• His white supremacist supporters said (pardon the vulgarity) "Women don't mind men grabbing pussies; just being pussies."
• Comedian Dave Chappelle said the women not stopping Trump sounds like consent to him, without considering whether there might be any elements of fear or shock at play.
• Paul Ryan said “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified."

That last one sounds better, but it is the crap that enables the first two.

One thing that happens too often is that you will have a guy crudely hitting on a woman, and then when he finds out she is married he will apologize to the husband. The problem is not his boorish behavior and the discomfort it causes, but the lack of respect for previously marked territory.

I submit to you that it is not helpful for women to be property, no matter how fond the owner is of his property.

I went back and read some talks from people speaking against ERA back at the time, and one of the points made was that most women he knew wouldn't want to lower themselves to be equal to men. I'm sure that received a chuckle, and it sounds admiring, but it's patronizing in the most literal sense, because it makes the man the patron of his wife. And he will be benevolent and protect her, but all of that protection depends on his goodness. (It's not particularly respectful of men either.)

In theory, the man will provide for his wife, so she doesn't need equal wages, but very few families can afford to get by on a single income today. Wouldn't it help if her equal work was valued equally?

It goes beyond economics. What if a woman marries an abuser? Laws might allow her to leave and collect alimony, but that's assuming she can get out with her life, and receive support instead of shame, and that he won't quit or work under the table or flee or something to avoid payment. That's a lot of potential pitfalls, all of which have some precedence.

Let's get back to the shame, though, because that is the big catch of being up on the pedestal. They can say as much as they want about how women are naturally better, but do something to make them mad and see how it goes. Suddenly you're "just like a woman", and it is no longer a compliment. When all of your goodness - and the reverence your champion owes you - comes down to you fulfilling his ideas of sweetness and virtue, that sounds like objectification. Not being allowed to be a full person is dehumanization.

And it is a system that is full of ugly things, upholding rape culture and all kinds of abuse, devaluing more than half the population, and keeping it uncomfortable to talk about any of it. ERA opponents were afraid equality would rip apart the traditional family, but wouldn't it be better to have a family where two equals stayed together through mutual affection and respect, rather than lack of options and fear?

If I can't do better than that, I will gladly stay single.