Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 7/7/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Male feminists?
Message-ID: <1360@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Nov-83 14:14:14 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1360
Posted: Fri Nov  4 14:14:14 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 03:44:00 EST
References: <6058@watmath.UUCP> <1288@burdvax.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 23

Association with the goals of gay women's groups is "sordid"?  No thanks.
It is unfortunate that many (including some who might be sympathetic to
the women's movement) are turned off by gays but that's their problem, not
gay people's problem.

Also, what is "the right to raise a family" and how does it fall under the
heading of "women's rights"?  The right *not* to raise a family is more
important; back before the late 1860's blacks had a perfect right to pick
cotton on plantations, but they usually didn't have the right not to do so.
There are a lot of issues that might come under the heading of "the right
to raise a family"; the right not to be beaten up by one's husband, the right
not to have one's children beaten up by one's husband, the right not to get
stuck with all the day-to-day tasks of raising the family, the right to get
maternity leave without prejudice (and the right to have one's husband get
paternity leave, or to have both members of the couple get half-time, or
whatever other arrangement suits the couple best) - *and* the right not to
have one's children taken away because one is gay.  "The right to raise a
family" isn't a very clear description, and I wouldn't class it as being
"important" while the right not to be discriminated against because of
sexual preference is "unimportant".

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,inhp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy