Feminism

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti- family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians” claimed Pat Robertson, an obviously extreme conservative with very strong opinions. Unfortunately, he has no proof to back his Idea up because even the commonly used dictionary dis-mantles his argument. Feminism and misandry, or man-hating, are very different but are commonly synonymized and generalized for five main reasons.

This occurs so that men and women who dont want to deal with the real problem of sexism can paint one giant picture of radicalism and be done with the issue. According to Sam Killerman, a writer who travels the country speaking out against oppression of any sort, there are five main reasons why so many people believe that feminists are man haters; one of those being generalization. Due to the fact that some individual feminists hate men, people like to assume that all feminists hate men. But “a portion does not equal the whole, even If that portion Is really loud (killerman).

And that’s the thing; theVre not even that loud! Anti-feminists like to, as Sam would say, “cherry pick” quotes and apply them to the whole to make their argument stronger even though It’s an Inaccurate portrayal of what the whole Is actually like. Most feminists would disagree with the statement that they hate men (Killerman). They stand for what feminism stands for; equality for all, no matter your gender. However, In all fairness, It would be a fallacy to say that misandrists dldnt exist, but Lindy West an American author and newspaper editor argues that the innocent become the guilty through self-fulfilling prophecy.

If people keep pinning feminists against men eventually feminists will start hating men (West). The reason being: that is not the truth and the fact that people keep synonymizing misandry with feminism will of course lead the one being accused to hate the accuser, which in this case Is generalized as mem But the hate would be for the sin, not the sinner; feminists hate the lie, not the liar. Unfortunately, as stated previously anti-feminists cherry pick what will make their argument seem the most correct (Killerman).

Killerman seconds West’s self-fulfilling prophecy with the thought that for 200 years e have been spoon fed that feminists hate men so what else are we to believe. This is the second reason feminism and misandry are constantly synonymized. The first feminist to start advocating for equal rights was in the 1 700s but it “didn’t pick up steam” until the late 1800s and the even then the wants of these women hadn’t changed much. They primarily asked for the right to vote, to own property, and to attend college. These “radical demands” were met with labels such as anti-God, antl- family, and of course, anti-men.

And people thought the women were being ridiculous. However, the saying does go that power corrupts and these men in power at the time would do anything to keep It, including falsely classifying an entire demographic (Killerman). And naturally when someone in power claims something it is believed without any further thought as to why this might be true, so feminists galnea tne tltle 0T man naters ana Trom tnat polnt on people nave always synonymized the two. The third reason Sam gives for this misconception goes back to his first point. The accused hating the accuser is why we said women start to hate men, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the same goes for the men. When they think there entire gender is being labeled as rapists and evil naturally they are going to start hating the people that think this. (Killerman) Men have been told that all feminists label them as said things so they, not wanting to be grouped into such categories start firing their own missiles of distain and disagreement. Speaking of distain that brings us to Killermans fourth reason why man y people think feminists hate men. Even though feminism believes in equal rights for all ,regardless of their anatomy, most feminists tend to focus on only the issues acing the female population (Killerman).

This made the men feel left out and like their issues weren’t as important as women’s which naturally makes them bitter. Allie Rowbottom who has an undergraduate in sexuality and gender studies examines this issue a bit. She counters that argument with the fact that without the feminist movement nothing would have changed for the men either. “Women would still be in the kitchen, and men would still be on the battlefield. (Mudd)” So feminists continue to get a bad name even though they changing things for both genders, Killerman and Rowbottom agree this is a bit contradictory.

Men unfortunately aren’t the only ones who blow things out of proportion when it comes to feminism. The media and especially people in power (specifically men) like to believe “instead of dealing with inequality and giving up a bit of unearned power, it’s far more fruitful to change the conversation and put the oppressed group on the defensive. (Killerman)” They sensationalize and radicalize what feminists are doing and put the people who support the movement on the defensive so they can make the group seem even more radical. And this doesn’t Just happen with feminism; this happens with other major ssues as well.

Stereotypes exist for everyone no matter your skin color, gender, or sexuality. And unfortunately the people who have the power to change these things would rather sensationalize them than actually solve them. (Killerman) And according to a study on media sensationalism, unless people are educated on the issue they will never really know that there is a problem in the way our news is fed to us. (Reisenwitz) In conclusion, the fact that feminism is constantly synonymized with misandry is a horrible misconception. They are not the same thing, even the dictionary agrees.

The five main reasons this occurs is because of generalization, it’s all people have ever been told, because men hate to be generalized, because men become angry that their issues take a back seat, and because the issues are sensationalized making the supporters seem radical. The only way to change this vicious stereotype is to change the way we think. We need to start holding our powerful people accountable for the things they say and start weeding the truth from the lies. Only then can we work together to create a world where what gender you are or claim to be doesn’t effect the benefits you receive.

Sexism In Football Since time began, feminists worldwide have demanded equal rights and yes, they’ve probably said just about everything there is to say about sexism. We all dream of the day when women and men are treated with the same amount of respect, attention and understanding. But will this day ever come? Sexism should be non-existent and football is no exception. Sexism can begin in the simplest of places; a primary school for example. Picture this, a group of boys are playing a football match in the school playground, one of the girls in the class decides to join the game.

The boys are aware of her presence, but decide to ignore this fact and continue the match around her. She approaches the boys at the end of the match and asks: “Why didn’t you pass the ball to me? ” In reply, one of the young Ronaldo-wannabes says: “Because you’re a girl. Girls can’t play football. ” What they don’t know is that, in many years to come, she will become England’s best female footballer, representing both Arsenal Ladies and the England National Team. Professional football clearly has a huge effect on society. Even as a fan of football, a woman can still be a target of sexism.

The misconception that females watch the game solely for the ‘hot guys’, is present in the minds of most men. Although this isn’t necessarily true for all women, the generalization is that all women think like this and it is both offensive and inconsiderate. It is clear to all football fans that it is pointless to support a club because of a good-looking or specifically skilful player; you have to love and believe in the whole team. It’s obvious that a woman can love a team as much as any man can, she’s capable of cheering and spurring her team on with the same amount of passion that any man could.

Football is a game that is meant to unite. Bring people together, no matter of their background or way of life. The beautiful game. So surely women should be respected and be as much of a part of the game as anyone else. Sexism at this level is fairly controllable. But it’s when it begins to affect people’s lives that it is unacceptable. Take for example, the ridiculous incident involving Sian Massey, the professional, fully qualified referee. The day when she assisted at the Liverpool vs Wolverhampton match.

After making a correct offside call, she was wrongly criticised by commentators Andy Gray and Richard Keys; who mentioned that she didn’t know the offside rule, due to the fact that she’s a woman. Yet the male referee in the Germany vs England match last year didn’t know what constitutes a goal? I don’t think anyone based it on the fact that he was a man. Atrocious. But conflict also occurs off the pitch, with supporting roles, such as physiotherapists under attack. Sexism extends right to the top of the profession, as Sir Alex Ferguson proved in 1994, when a female physiotherapist applied for a job at Manchester United.

She received a ‘hurtful and insulting’ letter in reply that was completely and utterly out of touch with modern day thinking. He even had the audacity to say that his players didn’t like the thought of women being involved in football. Surely, if a woman has the same training and experience as a man, she should have equal opportunity? 17 years on we’d all like to think that this was a one-off incident and that women do have a role on and off the pitch, but for this to happen the whole ‘laddish’ football culture needs to change. Money is a constantly debated subject in the world of football; from player’s wages to transfer fees.

But the difference in the wages of male and female footballers is ridiculous. To give you a rough idea of the extent, Lionel Messi, the best male player in the world, earns roughly ? 35million a year, whereas Marta Vieria da Silva, the best female player in the world, earns roughly ? 255,000 a year. Both these people play the same game, both represent their country and they were both recently voted as the best players in the world; the only difference is their sex. So why does Messi get paid 100 times more than Marta? There are many campaigns running all over the country to promote women’s football.

Recently, 2011 X Factor finalists, Belle Amie, visited a local girl’s football match in Birmingham. They were happy to express their feelings about the matter with us: “We think it’s really important to support women in the football industry. As a predominantly male game it’s important to remind people that women can play the sport at a high level too. ” This sort of promotion will help to develop everyone’s understanding that women have a key part to play in the beautiful game and that there is no reason why football should still be a male-dominated game.

Sexism is the belief that rights and roles in ones society should be governed by ones sex. Historically, sexism has been male-driven and accompanied by a belief in the inferiority of women. The new opportunities becoming available to women and men through the feminist movement will be beneficial to both. Men can become happier and more fulfilled human beings by challenging the old-fashioned rules of masculinity that embody the assumption of male superiority. Traditional masculinity includes many positive characteristics in which men take pride and find strength, but it also contains qualities that have limited and harmed hem.

I strongly support the continuing struggle of women for full equality. I oppose such injustices to women as economic and legal discrimination, rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and many others. Women and men can and do work together as allies to change the injustices that have so often made them see one another as enemies. One of the strongest and deepest anxieties of many American men is their fear of homosexuality. This homophobia contributes directly to the many injustices experienced by gay, lesbian and bisexual persons, and is a debilitating restriction for many heterosexual men.

We should call for an nd to all forms of discrimination based on sexual-affectional orientation, and for the creation of a gay affirmative society. The enduring injustice of racism, which like sexism has long divided humankind into unequal and isolated groups, is of particular concern to me. Racism touches all of us and remains a primary source of inequality and oppression in our society. I also acknowledge that many people are oppressed today because of their class, age, religion, and physical condition. I believe that such injustices are vitally connected to sexism, with its fundamental premise of unequal distribution of power.

The family is a repressive and ideological construction that perpetuates patriarchy. Discuss. Families could be described as one of the most basic forms of social organisation. Look almost anywhere in the world and you will find some form of family unit. This has happened arguably through reproduction, humans have drives and sexual needs which result in the creation of a new life, which to begin with, is completely helpless and dependant for a long period of time. The family is almost universal; the only exception to this would be communes.

Functionalists agree that the family is a primary social organisation and that it does serve the purpose of integrating further generations into society with cultural values and norms. Functionalists believe that the family carry out the role of socialisation, which is the backbone of most societies. This leads to an efficient economy and social order. Functionalists say that the family satisfies the basic physical and emotional needs of humans. Murdock (1949) claimed that the family performs four basic functions in all societies; sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic.

He believed that no other institution matches the efficiency of the nuclear family and therefore contributes to its universality. Talcott Parsons argued that primary socialisation of children and the stabilization of the adult personalities were common to the family in all societies, not just American. There are criticisms of the functionalists view on the family. Functionalism ignores alternative family structures, and ignores functional alternatives to the family. Further to this Marxist, Feminists, and Post Modern Sociologists do not accept that the family performs particular functions on its own in isolation of other institutions.

Marxists say that the family is a major prop for the capitalist economy. They believe that women reproduce future generations of workers alongside providing unpaid domestic labour. Women are very much seen as servants to capitalism. Traditionally they stay at home and encourage children to study and enter employment. Further to this families are the central units of consumption in modern societies. We buy houses, cars, material possessions, and holidays. Zaretsky (1976) argues that in modern capitalist society the family creates the illusion that the private life of the family can be separated from other aspects of life like economy.

He believed that the family cannot provide for the psychological and personal needs of individuals. It cushions the effects of capitalism on individuals while perpetuating the system. However this cannot compensate for the general alienation and lack of fulfilment produced by capitalism. Modern Marxist accounts of the family emphasise not only its structural features, but also its function in socialising children into the ideology of society. Marxists believe that this is simply a way of continuing the narrow standards of capitalism.

Where functionalists like Murdock and Parsons see this socialisation process in the family as a healthy adjustment to the surrounding social relationships, the Marxist tends to see it as the manipulation of the child’s personality to ensure that it remains in line with the social and economic system. The family is both the institutional and psychological model for social organisation associated with an unequal distribution of wealth and power and the domination of one section of society by another. Marxism offers an explanation for the exploitation of women by men.

This is that the family affords opportunities for men to compensate for their real lack of power in capitalist society by exercising domination over their households and their female partners. The role of the male in the family disguises the exploitative nature of the economic system as a whole. Marxists recognise the exploitation of women in marriage and family life but emphasises the relationship between capitalism and the family rather than the family’s effect on women. Feminism stresses the exploitation of women as a key feature of family life. Feminism has had the most influence on the study of the family since the 1960’s.

They are highly critical of the family and emphasize the harmful effects of family life upon women. It is argued that through the production of labour power the family produces and rears cheap labour at minimal costs to capitalists, as well as acting as an emotional support, absorbing frustrations of working in the capitalist system, therefore reducing the revolutionary potential. Radical feminists describe the family as an economic system characterised by the domination and exploitation of women by men. It typically features a male head of household who has ultimate control of family resources and is the final decision-maker.

Women assume by far the greater responsibility for household tasks as unpaid labourers, provide sexual services for the head of household and bear and rear his children. In addition, they assume the overwhelming share of tasks like caring for old and disabled family members. The contributions made by women to family life are thus far greater than those made by men. Even where the woman happens to be the ‘breadwinner’ she bears a disproportionate burden of housekeeping and is responsible for providing emotional support to the male head of the family.

There is a good deal of common ground among feminists, though the ideology is characterised by disagreement, but most feminists agree that sexual inequality is not simply natural, it is also highly political. Female oppression operates in all walks of life, including conditioning in the family, the result of stereotyping. So the traditional divide between ‘public man’ and ‘private woman’ is unacceptable. Gender is a significant social aspect, like class, race or religion. It is caused by patriarchy, the dominance of men over women in a relationship of power.

The dominance of men in the family symbolises male supremacy in all other institutions. Sex and gender should not be confused. Biologically, only women can be mothers, but they don’t have to accept the responsibilities of motherhood – nurturing, educating and raising children by devoting themselves to home and family. Sex refers to unavoidable biological differences; gender, on the other hand, is a cultural term and refers to the different roles that society gives to men and women. The overall goal of feminism is the overthrow of patriarchy and the ending of sexist oppression.

Liberal feminists place the emphasis upon legal and political equality for women. They have pursued an equal rights agenda, and generally in a very pragmatic way. They want women to be able to compete on equal terms with men in every area of public life; there is no question of women being superior or entitled to favourable treatment. Hence the stress is on female emancipation, equal rights and opportunities. Socialist feminists argue that these equal rights mean little unless women also enjoy social equality. This means that they address issues such as the ownership of property, the differences in pay and mployment opportunities for men and women, and the distinction between wages labour and unwaged labour for women. So ‘difference’ is linked to patriarchy, seeing it as a manifestation of oppression and subordination. Radical feminists believe ‘the personal is the political’. They are primarily concerned with equality in family and personal life. Equality must therefore operate with respect to childcare and other domestic responsibilities, as well as with respect to control of one’s own body, and individual sexual expression and fulfilment.

The stress is more on difference than on equality – the very idea of equality is misguided since it implies that women would then be ‘male identified’ in that they define their goals in terms of what men are or what men have. Women should instead recognise and celebrate the distinctive features of the female sex; the stress is on women’s liberation. Clearly, if feminists wish to make permanent long-term changes with respect to the position of women in this society they face the challenge of creating new values with respect to gender and passing these values on to their children.

But it is not so clear what the values are that feminists would wish to pass on to their children. An easy answer would be to say general ideas of gender equality. But the deeper we probe, the more complex this issue becomes. What are the specific values that feminists wish to pass on to their children about the structure of the family? Are feminists willing to say that the enemy is patriarchy? And if so, what exactly does this mean, both as a theoretical and a practical matter? The word “family” covers such a broad spectrum of different things, and is victim to cultural relativity.

I would say that the nuclear family was definitely an ideological construction. Ann Oakley (1982) said that the conventional family is nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parent hood of one or more children. I think Oakley’s idea of the family is very ideological. Leach (1967) called this the “cereal packet” image of the family. Advertisers cling mercilessly to family imagery for selling all kinds of products. The constant use of women in adverts for cleaning products is a good example of repression.

Adverts often show fathers coming home from work to a beautiful wife, immaculate home, well behaved children, and a hearty meal on the table. I think this view is archaic in many senses, but also rings very true in millions of households today. Some women aspire to this dream; we all know that life isn’t quite like the adverts, the problem being that we don’t find that out till afterwards! The family is to some extent a repressive and ideological construction, but as long as there is male dominance in other social institutions, this will continue. I would say that the family isn’t as repressive today as it once was.

In most modern societies, women can have children and have a career, although this is still somewhat of a blurry area with negative stigma. Further to this there has been a sharp rise in the number of single parent families, which are predominantly headed by women. I do believe the family is ideological; it can’t always be as clear cut because people face different personal circumstances. Households will continue to be male dominated for hundreds of years to come, men are seen as more economically valuable than women, and this can be seen in salary differences.

Until the world and media extinguish the onslaught of family propaganda through the media, our children, and perhaps even our children’s children will grow up with the notion of a patriarchal society. References 1. Sociology Themes & Perspectives (seventh edition) Haralambos & Holborn 2. www. sociology. org. uk 3. Psychology- The Science of mind and behaviour Richard Gross 4. www. wikipedia. co. uk 5. Class Notes 6. http://www. educationforum. co. uk/sociology_2/FamilyDiversitycauses. htm

In this Essay I will examine relationship between Civil Rights Movement and how the feminist agenda of second wave feminism. Furthermore, I will explain how women shaped the Civil Rights Movement, and also how they redefined their own feminism because of the ways in which they interacted with the movement. In 1952, the separate but equal laws were once again challenged in the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The case was based on the segregation of educational facilities. The NAACP changed their focus from integrating higher educational facilities to integrated grade schools.

After the change, the NAACP stepped in on this case and argued that segregated educational facilities were unequal, degrading to black students, and violated the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee for equal protection. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were inherently unequal and did violate the fourteenth amendment. The decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson had finally been overturned and public schools were to be integrated. Brown vs. the Board of Education was a victory for the blacks, however southern whites reacted to the court’s decision with extreme racism.

There were two major reasons for the civil rights movement one was Impact of WWII and Brown vs. Board of Education. Females played great role in Civil rights movement. One sit-in involved Anne Moody the author of Coming of Age in Mississippi. During this sit-in, whites at the lunch counter attacked Anne Moody and other activist, but they didn’t give up until they were escorted out by the police. This is what happened on the evening of December l, 1955: Parks took the bus because she was feeling particularly tired after a long day at work.

She was sitting in the middle section, glad to be off her feet at last, when a white man boarded the bus and demanded that her row be cleared because the white section was full. The others in the row obediently moved to the back of the bus, but Parks just didn’t feel like standing for the rest of the journey, and she quietly refused to move. At this, the white bus driver threatened to call the police unless Parks gave her up her seat, but she refused to give up her seat and bus driver called the police and they arrested her. So this respectable, middle-aged woman was taken to the police station, where she was fingerprinted and jailed.

She was allowed to make one phone call. She called a NAACP lawyer, who arranged for her to be released on bail. Word of Parks’s arrest spread quickly, and the Women’s Political Council decided to protest her treatment by organizing a boycott of the buses. Women designed bus boycott. Jo Ann Robinson who was College Professor who talked to her friend who was attorney to help Mrs. Parks and also he helped to spread the news of bus boycott. The boycott was set for December 5, the day of Parks’s trial, but Martin Luther King, Jr. nd other prominent members of Montgomery’s black community realized that here was a chance to take a firm stand on segregation.

As a result, the Montgomery Improvement Association was formed to organize a boycott that would continue until the bus segregation laws were changed. Leaflets were distributed telling people not to ride the buses, and other forms of transport were laid on. The boycott lasted 382 days, causing the Bus Company to lose a vast amount of money. Everyone played and tried their best to keep up with the boycott. They walked to work etc.

One day this old lady who looked very tired and this white men saw her and offered her to ride in his car, she responded “my feets is tired, but my soul is rested” Meanwhile, Parks was fined for failing to obey a city ordinance, but on the advice of her lawyers she refused to pay the fine so that they could challenge the segregation law in court. The following year, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled the Montgomery segregation law illegal, and the boycott was at last called off. Yet Parks had started far more than a bus boycott. Other cities followed Montgomery’s example and were protesting their segregation laws.

Also they did other acts such as The March on Washington, Martin Luther King’s speech. Mean reason they had many organiztion which were orgainized very well such as NAACP, SNCC, and also their success was because Non violent direct confrontation. They knew the consequences breaking the rules but they desire and wants were much more stronger. Second wave of feminism they want a right too This protest begin in 1950 and died in 1984. They want to have equal pay, higher education, and want to end the discrimination. Second Wave feminism had two branches, Liberal Feminists and Radical Feminists also Working class women played great role too.

Liberal Feminist’s objectives were for equality within the existing social structure and also equality with men. However, Radical Feminists objectives were to breakdown of the system of power that sustains mail advantage in every sphere of life, including economics, politics, the family, religion, law, education, science, and medicine, as well as in the interactions of everyday life. Also Radical women are not defined as white, middle class agenda rather social class and ethnicity/race define the issues facing women also.

The relationship between the Civil Rights Movement and the feminist agenda of Second wave feminism those women played great role in both. They both of these want to have equal rights, at work, school, and also end the discrimination. Civil Rights Movement and Second Wave of Feminism struggled greatly but they had great success. In conclusion, I would say that Civil Rights Movement and Second Wave of Feminism struggled a lot but after all it was worth it. They had many similarities and women played great roles organizing meetings and interaction with other women that brought unity and that lead them into success.

The Equal Rights Amendment was a proposal written in 1921 by Alice Paul, who was the founder of the National Woman’s Party. It was designed mainly to invalidate many state and federal laws that she felt discriminated against women; its central underlying principle was that sex should not determine the legal rights of American men or women. This proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution stated that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and also that “the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1923, soon after women in the United States had been given the right to vote. The U. S. Senate finally approved it 49 years later, in March 1972. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification within seven years but, despite a deadline extension to June 1982, was not ratified by the required majority votes from 38 states. It would have become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.

Even though the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its approval by the Senate, escalating intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations brought the ratification to a standstill. The main objections to the ERA were based on fears that women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children.

Among the opponents to the ERA, was a woman by the name of Phyllis Schlafly, a St. Louisan known for her opposition to the women’s liberation movement. She earned a law degree from Washington University and earned a master’s degree in political science from Harvard University. She worked as a researcher for several Congressmen in Washington, D. C. , and ran unsuccessfully for Congress herself in 1952 and 1970. She was largely opposed to the ERA as she believed that the amendment would require women to serve in combat, and because it would also take away legal rights of wives and would negatively influence family life.

Schlafly also argued that the amendment would lead to unisex restrooms and the depravation of rights for women to not take a job, to keep her baby, and to be supported by her husband. She became a leading opponent of the ERA through her lobbying organizations such as Stop ERA and Eagle Forum, and by testifying against the ERA before 30 state legislatures. Advocates of the ERA, led primarily by the National Organization for Women (NOW), held that the issue was primarily economic.

The position of NOW was that many state and federal laws amounted to sexual discrimination which perpetuated a climate of economic dependence among women and that laws determining child support and job opportunities should be designed for the individual rather than for one sex. Many advocates of the ERA thought that the failure to adopt the proposal as an amendment would cause women to lose many gains and would give a negative attitude to courts and legislators regarding feminist issues. Alice Paul, who I mentioned earlier as a proponent for the ERA, was a national leader of women’s suffrage movement, and founded National Woman’s Party.

Public and equal justice for women was the basic entirety of her political goal. She was also involved with the militant wing of the English suffrage movement. She founded what was later to become the National Woman’s Party, which incorporated methods that originated in England to the struggle to pass the suffrage amendment. During WWI, she picketed the White House to protest against a government that she said, promised to make the world safe for democracy while denying half of its citizens the right to vote. Alice and others who were involved in this protest were arrested and imprisoned.

She was very proud of the success of her efforts in getting the Nineteenth Amendment ratified in 1920, granting women the right to vote. But for her the ability to vote was not enough to guarantee women’s equal rights and she decided to concentrate her efforts for the ERA. Introduced in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment finally passed Congress in 1972 but there it stopped as it failed to win ratification. Although it failed to become ratified by congress, currently since 1985 the ERA has been reintroduced into each session of Congress and held in Committee.

Wait, people won’t believe she tried killing herself, what if I say she fell off her commode and blame someone else. I picked Miss Jenkins up from the floor and laid her on the couch, I put some clothes on her because she enjoyed sleeping half-naked. I took the beer she had opened and grabbed the half-empty bottle of sleeping pills and placed them on the table right next to Miss Jenkins. I grabbed Buffy’s rhinestone leash and headed out with my precious Lhasa apso dog. As soon as I was walking out of the building, I saw the doorman and remembered I had to tell im about Miss Jenkins. “Doorman. I need you to run upstairs to my apartment and call a doctor. ” “Why? What’s the matter? ” he said. “Miss Jenkins fell off her commode and is in serious pain. She needs a doctor right away. ” “Okay I’ll call a doctor and I’ll tell him to check up on her. ” “Fine, I will be back in a few, I need to walk my dog. And do not steal anything from my apartment. ” I said. While walking with Buffy, I couldn’t help but to be happy, things will get better between the two of us. We’ll be happy again, and all the fighting will stop. I was so happy, I ended the walk with Buffy short, to go make sure the doorman had called the doctor.

As I walked towards the building I noticed he wasn’t in the front where he usually stands. He must be upstairs with the doctor now. As soon as I walked into my apartment, I saw another person leaning over Miss Jenkins. I assumed I was being robbed by the doorman and this stranger, I’ve never seen before. I quickly questioned the stranger what was he doing here. He didn’t look like a doctor, he seemed too young to be a doctor. The doorman reassured me he was a neighbor of mine and was also a doctor. I questioned if he was a doctor like he says, why isn’t he helping her? I saw him reach over Miss Jenkins and hurt Buffy, I began to scream, you bastard! You bastard! Hurting a poor, innocent dog! ” I started kicking him, he hurt my baby. I heard a loud knock on the door, I began screaming again for robbed me, you robbed me! ” Whoever was knocking on the door, told us to stand clear of the door, they were coming through. “Shit, Cops! ” screamed the doorman “So? ” said the doctor “I’m carrying! ” “Aha, I knew it! ” I said as I was opening the door to see a fireman with his ax upraised. He was trying to hack down my door.