According to her, sex differences in the modern society replicate and dole out the principle of "survival of the fittest" as demonstrated by Darwin. The utility of the book in serving the purpose of feminist thinking is various and it is a well-timed book,as the gender roles on contemporary campus are conflictedandoften contentious. The ultimate value of the book is its message to the students: "What genderandculturewill mean in the future is up to you."(Wood, 1995, p. 310) One of the most corresponding questions the present genderandcultureissue relates to theEqual Rights Amendment(ERA) and the question is if the once unsuccessful proposed amendment to theUS Constitution needs to be passed. It is most significant to ensure the equal rights to men and women in the modern world which gives foremost role to feminist ideas and in particular in America, the leading civilized nation of the day.
The value of passing the Equal Rights Amendment(ERA) would have been far reaching as it sounds the material, pragmatic consequences of how women and men live, work, and interact, apart from being symbolic in nature. That is to say, ERA cannot be considered as a movement just for the sake of some constitutional rights. It had a wider application as it reflected the far-reaching question of cultural dominance in the modern society. "Like the suffrage campaign a century earlier," writes Rhode, "the ERA struggle presented issues not only of constitutional entitlements, but also of cultural dominance. The question was whose vision of women's destiny should prevail and on what terms." (Rhode, 1989, p. 63) Of course, the efforts of the ERA struggle aimed at material, pragmatic consequences in that its supporters wished to determine how women and men live, work, and interact. The ultimate result of such efforts would be that the women can enjoy equality and freedom along with men which will be supported by the constitution. However, the symbolic nature of the amendment suggests the real value of passing the ERA - the cultural question of the issue would be addressed at its best.
It is important to comprehend that the actual intention of the constitutional interference in the form ERA was not to impose any ultimate changes in the existing power structure and a valid question needs to be clearly answered here. If the ERA would not necessitate any real changes, then what is the justification for opposing it Though it was initially presented with the utmost interest, the ERA incited intermittent legislative disputes and disagreement. Public opinion polls suggested that an unyielding bulk of the Americans supported the amendments, though many of them were not aware of its expected consequences. Significantly, this growth in the support for ERA was reasonable as well as ironic considering the governmental actions. In the background of the propagation of state and federal statues, executive orders, and judicial verdicts forbidding sex discrimination, the need for constitutional provision of equal rights of women was limited and so the logic in the opposition of ERA was limited as well. The opposition of E