muffy@riki.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/01/91)
In article <675716975@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: # Men cannot choose for themselves whether they want to kill people and be # killed in some foreign land. Women cannot choose for themselves whether # they want to stay home and tend victory gardens. So who has the better # deal "for their own good?" In article <MUFFY.91May29145633@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >So, to carry this line of argument further - it is obviously better to >not work (= not be in combat positions) than it is to go out and deal >with the stress of working (= be in combat positions). The issue is that it is better not to work then to work as a slave. Isn't that a matter of individual choice? Some people would choose to survive working as a slave, others would not. If people want to volunteer to be in the military, why shouldn't they all be able to have the same choices and follow the same career paths? Somehow, the feminists who try (and sometimes succeed) to give women more opportunities in the army have very little to say/do/change about the men-only registration for draft. The person I responded to assumed (although it was indicated otherwise in my article) that I was talking about men being drafted. Currently, men are not drafted, and I was discussing the current situation, where women are discriminated against. While I mentioned I was against the draft (and also against it being men-only) at the end of my article, it is a separate issue, and it seems to me that it is not possible to address all issues (or even all related issues) in every posting. There seems to be a tendency in some people to argue by saying "well, if you're so concerned about X, why haven't you said anything about Y?" Even if "Y" is a related issue, it is surely not relevant to the validity of someone's argument for/against X if they do not include an argument about Y. I saw another post on here recently that said that if a person was not speaking out against something than they were implicitly supporting it. It is simply not possible to learn about or speak out about everything, much less *do* something about everything. People choose the issues which are most important to them to work on. They form opinions on other issues, and express them when they feel like it. It really isn't possible to lump all "feminists" together any more than it is possible to get five people to agree on where to go to lunch - something always has to give. There was also a discussion here on defining feminism. If it were possible to do this, it might also be possible to make a list of which issues are feminist and which are not. However, even if such a list were made, not all people who see themselves as feminists would even express an opinion on all the issues, much less take action on all of them, nor should this be a requirement. Finally, no member of a group is personally responsible for the actions (or non-actions) of another member of that group merely because they claim membership in the group. If I personally don't think that "eliminiating sexist language" is a worthwhile way to spend my time, that doesn't mean that all feminists do or should feel that way, nor does it mean that I shouldn't be allowed to be a feminist if I disagree with the majority (or the list of issues) on that point. Muffy