Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!hercules!sparkyfs!usasoc.soc.mil!aero!microsoft.UUCP From: mikegal@microsoft.UUCP (Michael GALOS) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: equal rights? Message-ID: <57553@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 19 Sep 90 03:42:36 GMT References: <9009170909.aa10633@ICS.UCI.EDU> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: mikegal@microsoft.UUCP (Michael GALOS) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 35 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org >In article <653401482@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs (Hillel Gazit) writes: >|When Carter started the registration for draft NOW did not >|complain because only men were registered... >| >|The point is that they want women to be in combat >|*only* if they (the women) want to. > >Hillel is, of course, overlooking the fact that NOW does not, and >never has, represent all feminists, as much as they (or he) would like >that to be true. > >There are all kinds of women hammering in at the door of the military. >You cannot overlook this. You are, of course, overlooking the fact that the question is not whether to allow women into the military (a moot point), but rather, should women be drafted, and further, should women be drafted into combat roles. Comparing a forced induction of men into combat with women volunteering for support roles is much the same as saying that slavery in the pre Civil War South was justified because a lot of whites were interested in doing agricultural work. It ignores all concepts of freedom and equality. Imagine the uproar if our government said that only blacks would be drafted and that being white was an automatic exemption. Imagine if our government said that only women would be assigned to combat positions but men would be exempt from combat duty unless they made that decision themselves. -- ============================================================================== #include ==============================================================================