In the 1960s and 70s, one of the problems women had with E.R.A. The equal right amendment is parental leave: women got fired or had to leave work when their belly showed, or they told someone that they were pregnant. The woman's job was not held for them, if someone else needed the job they got it. Phyllis Aberdeen is one of the people who agree that women are treated correctly, while Shirley Chisholm, because women do deserve to be treated better than what they are treated today, we deserve a lot better treatment. So, I am going to have to go with being a Pro E.R.A. Although Phyllis Aberdeen claimed that women were more respected as ladies in the home, Shirley Chisholm’s arguments are stronger and more correct because women are treated as …show more content…
All women should be treated with respect and be treated as what they were treated and what they are treated. Phyllis Aberdeen is best known for her successful fight against the ERA. Mattress is completely anti-ERA. She thinks that women have everything that they need, that it is a good thing that women do not have all these rights because there are pros to all the reasons why we do not have all these rights. For example, in paragraph 7 the passage states “Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away what she thought of as privileges that women currently got.” In my mind I think that this is where SASL went wrong because that may have not had taken away all the rights that women had currently gained, maybe just maybe if SASL …show more content…
She thinks that women deserve to be treated better than what they are or what they were treated. In paragraph 4 it states “The argument that this amendment will not solve the problem of sex discrimination is not relevant. If the argument were used against a civil rights bill — as it has been used in the past — the prejudice that lies behind it would be embarrassing.” I think that this statement right here says it all; Chisholm is not incorrect about this in any way at any point in time because no matter how much she argues it, nothing does ever change. Women are so unfairly treated women cannot go certain places guys can or have and do certain things that guys can because it is a so called “guy thing” and they think that they own it all. For instance, in paragraph 5 it says “Women are excluded from some State colleges and universities. In some States, restrictions are placed on a married woman who engages in an independent business. Women may not be chosen for juries. Women even receive heavier criminal penalties than men who commit the same crime.” This is where I think the world has gone wrong in this statement; it is clearly stating that women are left out or better yet kept out from state colleges and universities while mind you guys get to go to these places where education is available for them to gain while females may not. In some places, females even got restrictions if they worked in an independent business