In "the good old days," European men could legally beat their wives.
In the "good old days" in America, as ordered by the Constitution, women were properties, had to obey their husbands, could not own properties, and all scientific discoveries they made had to be credited to a man.
As time progressed, many men bemoaned the loss of the "good old days" when rules or some "troublemakers (constitutional amendment)" came and “messed things up.” For example, the European introduced the Rule of Thumb, wherein the man could no longer beat his wife with a 2 by 4. He had to use a stick no thicker than his thumb for him to legally beat her. Then came some "hysterical" American women (Stanton, Hutchinson, Paul, et al) demanding the right to vote and to own properties. They prevailed/won and the laws were changed to make their demands possible.
Later, the American women had the nerves to demand equal rights as men. "How dare they demand equal pay?" They sought to use the Constitution to get their way.
"The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. In 1978, Congress voted to extend the original March 1979 deadline to June 30, 1982. However, no additional states voted yes before that date, and the ERA fell three states short of ratification."
Men won as the majority of states did not change the Constitution. In part, men were helped by a woman named Schlafly who voted NO.
THAT WAS 40 YEARS AGO.
In NY, there is an initiative on the ballot to determine if the state's constitution is to be amended. Such initiative must occur every 20 years. The last constitutional convention was 50 years ago, but no change was made. The last time change was made to the state's constitution was nearly 80 years ago. Times, things, and population have changed drastically since that time.
Many powerful unions are voting NO to amendment (whose interest are they protecting?). Some groups are voting YES to shore up the constitution given the occupant of the White House.
Given what I wrote earlier, do you want a NYS constitution like the laws of the Medes and Persian (that changeth not) and last determined by people long dead to determine your future?