Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site iheds.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!iheds!kmw
From: kmw@iheds.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Question on discrimination re the US - (nf)
Message-ID: <302@iheds.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 12:41:55 EST
Article-I.D.: iheds.302
Posted: Fri Nov 18 12:41:55 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 23:35:04 EST
References: <701@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 26

To the question: Should women be allowed in combat?
 
I would say yes.  Both women and men should be tested for the actual
(vs arbitrary) requirements of the job, and qualified people should
be assigned positions regardless of sex. This is a general
statement about all jobs.
 
I admit I would not be happly to be drafted, or to end up in combat.
But lots of men feel the same way, and I don't see why I should be given
special privilages.
 
(Hmmm, maybe I should qualify that and say I shouldn't be given any special
privileges regarding responsibilities as long as I have equal rights -
which I don't.  In fact, not too long ago a Regan administration
spokesperson said that legislation was being designed to register female
health care personel for the draft.  It would, as the male registration
now in place does, require additional legislation to actually draft them.
The American Nurses Association issued a statement saying they could not
possibly support such a move without an ERA.  After some public furor
over this, the spokesperson issued another statement that her earlier
statement was "premature" and that such legislation was not being considered.)
 
	-K. Wilber  (ihnp4!iheds!kmw)
-- 
K. M. Wilber
iheds!kmw or mvuxt!kw