tberan@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Tom Beran) (08/30/90)
today they released women and children, the men remained - seems acceptable
if they released the men (only) two things would have happened:
1 - the men would have stayed, they would not abandon thier families
2 - any men that did leave would be ridiculed on the morning news (probably
by faith d. or some other perfectly manicured female)
dire situtations tend to remove most of the social vails (like equality).
equality (for women) still means (and most men will tell you this):
1. if it benifits me, treat me as an equal.
2. if it doesn't benifit me, don't treat me as equal - treat be better
3. if I'm not equal, but it benifits me - you're obviously discriminating.vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) (08/31/90)
In article <3781@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, tberan@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Tom Beran) writes: > > today they released women and children, the men remained - seems acceptable > if they released the men (only) two things would have happened: > 1 - the men would have stayed, they would not abandon thier families > 2 - any men that did leave would be ridiculed on the morning news (probably > by faith d. or some other perfectly manicured female) > > dire situtations tend to remove most of the social vails (like equality). > equality (for women) still means (and most men will tell you this): > 1. if it benifits me, treat me as an equal. > 2. if it doesn't benifit me, don't treat me as equal - treat be better > 3. if I'm not equal, but it benifits me - you're obviously discriminating. I recently saw an interview on public t.v. with a woman who had left with her son and left her husband behind. She said the reason she left was so her (4 year old) son could get out, the decision was a diffucult one and was one her husband supported. A friend of theirs who has no children decided to stay with her husband. Letting men only go is not a fair comparison - letting men and children go and not women would be the equivalent. In this situation I would encourage my husband and daughter to go and would applaud any man who left with his children. Anyway, how could you possibly know what would happen if men only were let go. Seems to me it would depend on the family in question. And in a situation like this I wouldn't worry what the outside world thought but would do what was best for my family. Or were you just trying to stir up controversy? Vicki -- Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 |
levine@csd4.csd.uwm.EDU (Leonard P Levine) (09/01/90)
From article <3781@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, by tberan@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Tom Beran): > > today they released women and children, the men remained - seems acceptable > if they released the men (only) two things would have happened: > [...] I have been a man for some time now and I suspect we will see the following: Several women who may well be able to leave Iraq will not, because to submit her name for an exit permit will jeapordize her spouse/loved one. + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (09/13/90)
I did not mean to criticize the women who are leaving Kuwait so much as the media and society at large for perpetuating the image of women as dependent creatures equivalent to children and men as somehow less valuable. Also, it is silly for us to say "well if it were me, I'd do such and such," because we're sitting safe over here at our workstations and it isn't us...but nonetheless, *theoretically*, if it were me and there were no children to rescue, I wouldn't go in to the embassy for an exit visa at the price of turning my male partner in. -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
leue@tc.fluke.COM (Judy Leue) (09/13/90)
In article <9009071358.AA23492@hela.iti.org> dhw@hela.iti.ORG ("David H. West") writes: >In article <141699@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: >>A brave and enlightened family trapped over there could send the >>father home with the children and leave the woman behind to capitalize >>on the fact that both sides seem to think it is worse to hold a >>woman hostage than a man. >A father would likely be deterred from taking this option by the >knowledge that, on his arrival home, he would be regarded by the >vast majority of the population with contempt. I think that this >is fairly indisputable, however much one might prefer otherwise. I must agree with David on this point. And as it is a "society" judgement upon arrival of home, it is also a "society" judgement to hold men. It is difficult to understand and even more difficult to except these cultural differences. It seems that the less progressive the culture the greater the tendencies to revert to the "caveman" attitude. That is for the survival of the tribe you need to preserve all the women and only minimum men. And since the men have the physical advantage (generally) the women should care for the little tribesmen (babies). From observation: Men seem to desire to protect women and children much as women will protect their children to the death. This is a generalized statement but will hold its own. And I believe this is more instinctive than cultural. 3rd generation feminist, Judy
) (09/15/90)
In article <3781@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> tberan@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Tom Beran) writes: >dire situtations tend to remove most of the social veils (like equality). Remember that it's the Iraqi government that's deciding who stays and who goes, not the US. Iraq has a far more patriarchal culture than ours, and I don't think the Iraqis even try to create an appearance of equality between men and women in the same way we do. To the Iraqi government, it probably seems perfectly logical to free the women along with the children, since they might see it as a lower blow to hold women and kids hostages, they might believe women would be less capable of dealing with the stress of being held hostage, or they might believe it crueler to separate the women from their children. I for one am happy that some of the hostages are out, and don't care what gender the freed hostages are. I'd be much happier to see them *all* freed, but at this point we should take what we can get. >equality (for women) still means (and most men will tell you this): >1. if it benefits me, treat me as an equal. >2. if it doesn't benefit me, don't treat me as equal - treat me better >3. if I'm not equal, but it benefits me - you're obviously discriminating. At the risk of giving in to baiting, let me ask you this: Why, then, do people want women allowed in combat? -Leslie -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Leslie Devlin carioca@[ucscb/ucscf].UCSC.EDU foodity@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us - How many UCSC students does it take to screw in a light bulb? - Only one, but it takes six years -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) (09/15/90)
In article <141699@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: >A brave and enlightened family trapped over there could send the >father home with the children and leave the woman behind to capitalize >on the fact that both sides seem to think it is worse to hold a >woman hostage than a man. "could"? When you are talking about the Iraqis *releasing* people that *they* choose to release, the 'enlightened family' above isn't making the choices. The release of women and children in Iraq is _not_ a reflection of American Feminism's failure, of Andrea Dworkin's double standard at work, or anything else. It's a reflection of the beliefs and policies of the IRAQIS who are currently holding the cards over the hostages. Nobody *asked* the children "Do you want your freedom, but only if we keep daddy?" Geez. Adrienne Regard
sulak@ge-dab.ge.com (John Sulak) (09/15/90)
In article <9009062313.aa07955@ICS.UCI.EDU>, tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) writes: > While I agree that this is a senseless and barbaric practice to > consider men's lives more expendable than women's please note that in > this case, we hardly have a situation where the women in Iraq/Kuwait > demanded that they be let free and the hell with the men. It is the > Iraqi government that is being backward and beknighted in their > attitudes. If my memory serves me correctly, the Iraqi government was simply responding to President Bush's complaint that the Iraqis were "even holding women and children" to paraphrase the President. Remember, President Bush invaded Panama because the Panamanian troops made an American woman feel uncomfortable as she and other soldiers stormed a barricade near Noreiga's residence. [Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Iraqi government one bit and the thought of nuclear weapons in their hands scares me. I did like Iraqi clever name for its foreign "guests": "Human Shield" because they shield Iraqi government troops and citizens from US attack and in response to the US's "Desert Shield" to shield the Saudi desert.] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ "How do I explain to clients that society believes buying a rock (of ^ ^ cocaine) is three or four times as bad as raping a woman?" ^ ^ Robert Jakovitch, Broward [FL] Assistant Public Defender ^ ^ [from AP story 12 July 1990] ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Standard Disclaimer: These may not be my opinions, my employer's opinions, a devil's advocate's opinions, or anyone else's opinions. Are they opinions? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (09/15/90)
In article <6543@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >At the risk of giving in to baiting, let me ask you this: Why, then, >do people want women allowed in combat? 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.
tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) (09/17/90)
In article <653401482@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs (Hillel Gazit) writes: |In article <6543@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: |>At the risk of giving in to baiting, let me ask you this: Why, then, |>do people want women allowed in combat? | |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. --Cindy -- Solo asi' he de irme? | Nada de mi fama aqui' en la tierra? Como las flores que perecieron? | Al menos flores, al menos cantos! Nada quedara' en mi nombre? | -- cantos de Heuxotzingo __________________________tittle@ics.uci.edu____________________________
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (09/18/90)
In article <653401482@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <6543@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (fOoDFoOdfOoDiTYfooD!) writes: >>At the risk of giving in to baiting, let me ask you this: Why, then, >>do people want women allowed in combat? > >When Carter started the registration for draft NOW did not >complain because only men were registered... Wrong. I remember when Carter reinstated the draft. I was sitting next to my friend, the president of the local N.O.W. chapter, when we heard the news on TV. She *immediately* got up and started making phone calls, we were on the picket lines the next morning protesting, and she had anti-draft activists on her feminist radio show the day after that. I believe that the "official" feminist position is that there should be no draft for women *or* men. [That should be the "'official' NOW position" -- there is no "official feminist position." --CLT] -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) (09/18/90)
In article <815@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Ed Falk writes: >I remember when Carter reinstated the draft. I was sitting next to my >friend, the president of the local N.O.W. chapter, when we heard the >news on TV... Carter did not reinstate the draft. The draft has yet to be reinstated. Local NOW chapter presidents aside, what was/is NOW's position on women in combat. Specifically, if we draft, should we draft women? If so, should drafted women be assigned combat duty? If not, should volunteer women be assigned combat duty? I am more interested in NOW and other organizations views on these issues than those of individuals (which is not meant to discourage individuals :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (09/18/90)
#When Carter started the registration for draft NOW did not #complain because only men were registered... In article <815@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> (Ed Falk) writes: >Wrong. >I remember when Carter reinstated the draft. I was sitting next to my >friend, the president of the local N.O.W. chapter, when we heard the >news on TV. She *immediately* got up and started making phone calls, >we were on the picket lines the next morning protesting, and she had >anti-draft activists on her feminist radio show the day after that. >I believe that the "official" feminist position is that there should >be no draft for women *or* men. In that time Carter was a weak president that wanted to be re-elected. He had pushed the feminist agenda for a long time, and was in good terms with NOW. His problem was to get conservatives' votes. Carter had changed his mind under pressure, and some pressure could change his mind in this case as well. A pressure from NOW by saying something like "we will not support you in the election if you will not stop the registration" could work. I think that the national leadership of NOW did not take this step because: 1) Carter was their "good guy". They had no intention to hurt his chances just because he put men in a bad position. 2) They could succeed and then *women* would have to be registered for draft. 3) They were very busy in the Equal Right Amendment battle, and believed that men-only registration has no importance, compared to the ERA. > -ed falk, sun microsystems Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Were we the ones who called the shots, there would be no institutional discrimination against us." -- Clay Bond
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (09/18/90)
In article <9009170909.aa10633@ICS.UCI.EDU> (Cindy Tittle) writes: >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. Look Cindy, the actions which are done in the name of an idea represent that idea, in reality. It is true for Christianity, Communism, and any other ideology you can think about. It is also true for feminism. For some reason, almost every *action* of feminism is linked, this way or another, to NOW or its leadership. If you don't like these actions you are free to do something else, and try to offset that action.
mikegal@microsoft.UUCP (Michael GALOS) (09/19/90)
>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 <disclaim.std> ==============================================================================
MXD118@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Mike Dahmus) (09/19/90)
In article <9009170909.aa10633@ICS.UCI.EDU>, tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) says: >There are all kinds of women hammering in at the door of the military. >You cannot overlook this. While it is certainly true that there are women fighting for the *right* to combat, I have *never* seen nor heard of a woman arguing for the *responsibility* of combat (i.e. that women should be drafted if men are). There's a *big* difference! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Dahmus MXD118 at PSUVM / DAHMUS at ENDOR.CS.PSU.EDU
ps@celit.fps.com (Patricia Shanahan) (09/26/90)
In article <24326@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> llama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) writes: >Local NOW chapter presidents aside, what was/is NOW's position on >women in combat. Specifically, if we draft, should we draft women? >If so, should drafted women be assigned combat duty? What is want to know is, if we decide to re-institute slavery, should we enslave women, or just men? (My answer to both questions is that I am so strongly opposed both to slavery in general, and to the specialized form of slavery called "a draft" that I am not prepared to discuss who should be enslaved or drafted). -- Patricia Shanahan ps@fps.com uucp : ucsd!celerity!ps phone: (619) 271-9940
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) (09/27/90)
I would disagree with Mr. Gazit's statement that every act of feminism is linked to NOW. Each individual has their own definition of feminism and acts accordingly. What the nation sees may be NOW, or the hierarchy of Christianity, but some people do take people as individuals and try not to associate what someone is with what another group says they are. If I say I live in a house full of animal rights activists/vegitarians/ ecologists/anti-gun advocates, does that mean I am one too? Each person who calls themselves an X lives under the house of X. But the house of X does not have to have all the same values as the person. Andrea Gansley-Ortiz