International Brotherhood of Men

In 1921 the text was
Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

1972 text

ARTICLE —

"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.

"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

@Darth_aurelius can you tell difference between the two and why the first one did not pass and the second passed

rever wrote: 13 Jul 2025, 14:12 In 1921 the text was
Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

1972 text

ARTICLE —

"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.

"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

@Darth_aurelius can you tell difference between the two and why the first one did not pass and the second passed

Are you studying pre-law or political science and/or is this part of some homework assignment that you have been given for academic coursework? If so, I do not want to usurp your own prerogative to discover the answer to these questions for yourself as I know I have already addressed several previous inquiries you've made regarding the operation of constitutional law.

My short answer is that the opposition to the ratification of this amendment mostly centers around the supposition that it will hasten the process of undermining the principle that women and men have separate and unique gender-based identities rooted in biological and scientific fact. It will likewise precipitate a new social convention whereby the roles of women and men shall be entirely fluid and easily transcended (e.g., women can do anything a man can do without limitation).

Also, in my personal opinion, this sort of amendment is rendered redundant and superfluous by the existence of the 14th amendment.

No was just reading the book Anatomy of Female Power. That's where I became interested in this