Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
First of all, I thank you parrhesia and Benevolent Heretic for this thread. I think that this thread is also needed because I do agree that feminism has been given a bad name. And I think there also ought to be a place in which women (and men too
) can discuss these issues and work toward a meaning that isn't invented in the media or what pundits would like us to think.

Being a woman, it is particular important to hash out the definition of feminism and continue to revise it as the decades change. Our feminism, for example, is not our mother's feminism--but we feel the growing pains just the same. I think that the meaning of feminism doesn't just concern whether we should work or stay in the home, or whether we should wear a dress or pants. It affects our freedoms as citizens. It affects how others perceive us. And of course, it affects our politics and education.

For myself, I believe that we have to respect each other as women. We also have to respect the choices we make as females. I am lucky to be surrounded in my family by powerful women. These women were graceful, kind and generous. But they were also strong-willed, intelligent and forceful when they dealt with the odds. And because some of them had to make it on their own under the worst of circumstances, they had to pull it together when so many others fell apart.

My mother is one of those women. She likes to be at home, garden and dress to the nines when she goes out. But at the same time, she is politically astute and wise when she weighs matters that give her pause for thought. She is the iron fist in the velvet glove. And she encouraged me and my sister that as young women, the world is ours for the taking if we wanted.

I value her and other powerful women for the efforts they have strived for in the work place, in education and in politics. They gave me great lessons on which to deal with men and how to compete within a society still based on patriarchal ideals.

From her, I also gained the insight that men too can be collaborative in their efforts to help women. For example, my father has never discouraged me and my sister from doing the things we wanted to do. Although I admit he's "hen-pecked", my Dad always told us that in life, we have to work side by side with men. At the same time, if we want to give our all to something, we pitch in. That's the way I've always been. He's taught me about tools, how to fix a car and change a tire. He even gave me my own power drill to keep in my house.

And because of him, I can do my own at-home repairs. But from my mother, I can sew buttons on my clothes and hem my pants, not to mention keep my own garden as well as do the yard. In sum, they both taught me to be self-sufficient and not to be solely dependent on a husband--unless I wanted to be. Their mantra has always been (if you haven't picked it up from my previous posts), "It's your choice. You have the power to make it."

Because of my family, I have taken valuable insights about feminism and what it means. It means being given the chance to do the same things as males do. It defines having your ideas and dreams accepted the same way as men. It also elaborates on the fact that women do not need to be at war with men; they need to work with men. And also at the same time, not to be afraid of speaking up for women's causes and be willing to challenge the stereotypes which subjugate women.

With that being said, women need to acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses. We also need to acknowledge our pioneering efforts and failures. We also need to know and acknowledge the past history that women had made. But most of all, we have to support each other in the movement ahead to fight for future positions to come.

[*gets off of soap-box*]

I look forward to other comments about feminism. And like all other areas that I am interested in, I will continue to think about how I feel about this issue and continue to contribute.




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
How many here think that child custody is awarded equally in divorces? How about division of common property - is it done equitably?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How many here think that child custody is awarded equally in divorces? How about division of common property - is it done equitably?


State laws and personal interest in case. In states that follow Spanish community property law, division of common property is 50-50. How that split is achieved is up to the couple, a judge can only determine if it is equitable. Child custody likewise, unless parent is not able to parent.
A note, women can be liable to pay spousal support. A case close to home--a friend's husband hid earnings and offset earnings on his tax form to where he showed on paper negative balance some years. She could not; consequently she was ordered to pay spousal support to an able bodied man who already could support himself. Plus he got the house and savings meant for child's college. And this was with a lawyer involved! What's the old joke--why is a divorce so expensive? Because it's worth it.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How many here think that child custody is awarded equally in divorces?


I'm sure it's a little different state by state, but here's an insight into the deciding factors of child custody in one state, Michigan.

How Child Custody is Decided



Custody arrangements desired by the parents

Sole possession to mother
Mothers want: 82%
Fathers want: 29%

Sole possession to father
Mothers want: 3%
Fathers want: 33%

Joint possession
Mothers want: 15%
Fathers want: 35%

How is child custody decided?

51% agreed on their own
29% settled without third party involvement
11% decided during mediation
5% resolved differences after a custody evaluation
4% went to trial (of the 4% that initiated litigation, only 1.5% actually completed it)


Again, the term "equally" needs to be investigated a little deeper than the final numbers. This Michigan data shows that while 82% of Mothers want full custody, only 33% of Fathers want full custody themselves. And it's important to note that over half of divorcing couples make the custody decision on their own and another 29% make the decision without 3rd party involvement. That's 80% deciding without lawyers. Only 4% went to trial. So regardless how the numbers come down in the end, the parents themselves decide in the vast majority of cases.

But of the few that go to trial in the US, about 72% is awarded to the Mother and 10% is awarded to the father and 15% awarded Joint Custody.
Source

And this decision is based on the Best Interest of the Minor Child. Some of the factors used to determine that decision are:



Love, affection, other emotional ties
Capacity to give love, affection, guidance
Capacity of parties to provide for the child
Stability of environment
Permanence of family unit
Moral fitness
Mental and physical health
Home, school, and community record
Reasonable preference of the child
Facilitation of relationship with other parent
Domestic Violence



Originally posted by jsobecky
How about division of common property - is it done equitably?


Property Division in Florida



* Community property. In Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington,Wisconsin and Puerto Rico, all property of a married person is classified as either community property (owned equally by both spouses) or the separate property of one spouse. At divorce, community property is generally divided equally between the spouses, while each spouse keeps his or her separate property.

* Equitable distribution. Assets and earnings accumulated during marriage are divided equitably (fairly). In practice, often two-thirds of the assets go to the higher wage earner and one-third to the other spouse. Equitable distribution principles are followed everywhere except the community property states listed above.


I can't personally speak to the child custody issue as I haven't been through a divorce with children, but I can tell you that when I divorced, I took nothing but my personal possessions.

In any divorce I've ever witnessed, 'who gets what' is pretty much hashed out by the couple. Depending on the state in which the divorce takes place, the wages earned during the marriage, the presence of children and several other factors contribute to the decisions about equitable distribution.

So, what do I think? I think the child custody usually ends up as an agreement between the parents and nobody's business but theirs. Is the remaining 4% awarded 50/50? No. But there are plenty of factors and reasons for that.

Do the kids always end up in the best place? No.
Is the divorce always equitable? No.
Do good people sometimes get ripped off in divorce? Yes.

For these reasons, divorce, especially with children, is something to be avoided if possible. And marriage is not to be entered into lightly. Divorce sucks, no matter how you slice it. But for the most part, the kids end up in the best place, mostly agreed to by the parents, and the property is divided equitably.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I am a total 'feminist', and have been for > 30 years.

I am not crazy about the term or formal organization of 'feminists'. That is a label, and like most labels, tends to separate people rather than bring them together.

Given that, I do not agree with the premise that feminism has been hijacked by 'feminazis' or other 'extremists'. Rather, I am of the opinion that the feminism movement - which, sadly, is necessary - has been successfully labelled as 'extremist' by the reactionary political wing. The people who profit from a patriarchal power structure, and want to see it continued.

Granted, there are individuals who 'hate men' (I've known a few personally). There are individuals who hate pretty much anything. These individuals do not, I believe, represent the real 'feminist' movement.

Parrhesia, I have to disagree with your statement:



It's because men are not oppressed.


Men are oppressed (at least in the US, the only place of which I can speak). It is just that the oppression takes different forms than the oppression women suffer. To wit:

It is men who are (in general) expected to fight and die in wars. Men are frequently forced to take part in wars.

If a man should choose to be a homemaker, that man is looked upon as 'less'.

Men that choose lives of peace, or do not get all frothy over sports are considered odd.

And so on. Please do not take this as a diminution of the oppression women suffer in this country. Just a disagreement that men are not oppressed.

Interesting discussion regarding the UPS weight issue... physical strength is the one area where men have an 'advantage' over women. In general, men posses more raw physical strength than women. It is nothing that makes men 'better' or women 'inferior', it is just the way it is biologically. And for most of human history, there were significant survival advantages, in everything from hunting to fighting. Much the same way that women's biological 'advantage' of being able to nurture and bring forth the next generation has significant survival advantages. So, given a task where raw physical strength is a determining factor, I guess I can see an argument for higher pay for those that have a higher degree of said strength. Note that this would work both ways...

However, in EVERY other way, I do not believe there is a significant difference that can be justified to be generalized. Intelligence, morality, emotional strength, creativity, abstract thought, deviousness, whatever. All of that stuff is training and individual talent, not a gender characteristic.

I see the feminism movement as analogous to the affirmative action movement. It should not be necessary. If people were truly honorable and honest, it would not be. However, people are not always honorable and honest. Yes, sometimes these movements are abused. They are, however, largely movements for social progress rather than continued social inertia.

Great thread, you guys!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I've always hated the term feminism. I mean, if someone started a movement called manism, they wouldn't get out the gate without falling under the weight of protest.


There's a good reason why a movement called manism wouldn't make it out of the gate...

It's because men are not oppressed.
It's because men are celebrated each day via normative factors in society.

We should probably qualify this with "in their own society, male members of the dominant culture are not oppressed." In other words, Blacks in Sierra Leone would not be oppressed nor Spanish-speaking men in Mexico, but those of minority races in any area MAY be discriminated against, whether male or female.

Typically, the treatment of the women will be worse than the treatment of the men.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
In fact, let me add one more element to this discussion:

How many of you have noticed the ads on ATS? The one for the dating service that shows the woman already naked and in bed, smiling in a welcoming manner at you over her shoulder?

The "she's going to fall into bed (and in a very submissive pose, ready for anal or vaginal penetration) for you" one?

Or the ad on the righthand side of the page (I have no idea what it's about, but I see large breasts dangling at me and I just want to roll my eyes.)

These aren't very healthy images for women OR men -- the "hi there! I'm here to be YOUR toy" picture suggests that every woman MUST mate with any man who desires her (and no being picky or avoiding creeps or jerks who might not do what you like) and every man deserves only a woman that looks like the airbrushed and photoshopped woman -- and personality and intelligence and integrity don't count for a thing. She could be psycho and manipulative, but hey she's beautiful so you deserve her.

So shallow.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Byrd, is that an issue with society, or the fact that its an advertisement on the internet, and it's using the market tactics of how to influence the demographics on the internet to try theyre "product." The demographic majority on the internet are usually using it to look up porn, or are just plainly social outcasts, "geeks" etc. Usually, for all those dating and hooking up isn't theyre strong point. To display people sexually is a marketing tool to get that demographic to dial up, thinking theyre score easily.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
There's a good reason why a movement called manism wouldn't make it out of the gate...

It's because men are not oppressed.
It's because men are celebrated each day via normative factors in society.


Men aren't oppressed? I wouldn't say that men aren't oppressed. Granted its not by a big looming force, but the feel of old world more's and social molds are still there ,even for me. Do not discount that.

For example, men can be in a medical field, but are looked down upon, and in many cases, noteven taken seriously, if they are a nurse.

Male Artists,seamsters, fashion designers, and hairstylists are all looked down upon, and instantly labelled gay, and in some cases, meet hostility.

Some boys are forced into sports because society deems it to be important to male growth. Parents are usually solely driven by this, and force the child to do it, even if they do not want to.

Men are still oppressed, its a double sided coin.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
My experience is quite limited, however whilst traveling around in guatemala ive had an encounter with some femenists from sweden. The people that formed my group which mostly consisted of males, were always cracking jokes because of the fact they were femenists.. and genneraly had a total lack of respect for these wemen.. and i happened to be theyre next target when i stuck up for equality..
interesting world.. anyways my point is.. i think a majority of men (from my limited experience) seem to be pretty sexist.. and sadly.. i dont see much change coming. What exactly are your methods of trying to bring equality into place?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by klawsraught]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
All I have to say about this thread is

So Dark The Con Of Man

(hint: read the da vinci code)



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by klawsraught
My experience is quite limited, however whilst traveling around in guatemala ive had an encounter with some femenists from sweden. The people that formed my group which mostly consisted of males, was always cracking jokes because of the fact they were femenists.. and genneraly had a total lack of respect for these wemen.. and i happened to be theyre next target when i stuck up for equality..
interesting world.. anyways my point is.. i think a majority of men (from my limited experience) seem to be pretty sexist.. and sadly.. i dont see much change coming. What exactly are your methods of trying to bring equality into place?


So because of a small group of people, the majority of men are sexist?


Kindof a skewered view, dont you think?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
All that i said was from my limited view/experience, nothing more. But other such incidents have occured quite frequently.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Regarding advertisements: The way I feel about this is that sex sells and as long as men are 'buying', there will be women who are willing to display themselves for the money they make from it. It's a form of prostitution, really, selling their sexual 'wares', whether physical or visual, for money. And, as I have said, I have no problem with prostitution, if it's what the woman (or man) wants to do.

I don't get offended by the ads, I just ignore them, as I do most ads on here or on TV, in magazines or in public. They serve a purpose. And when you think about ads, everyone used in ads is 'used'. The children, the dog, the nice old couple, the handsome gardener... they're all used to appeal to our senses. And half naked women are no different to me. I do think that in the US, we're entirely too uptight about nakedness and sex.

Regarding men being oppressed (and this may not be a popular opinion): The way I feel about this is that men are oppressed by their own standards. When we look at who is doing the oppressing of men and women, I think we'll find that men are applying the pressure for men to be 'MEN' and women to be 'women'.

I personally think women should serve equally with men in the military, but who has made the rules that they don't? Men. Who puts pressure on the sons to compete in sports? Men. Who calls the male artists and dancers 'wimps' or 'girls'? Men. Who makes the laws? Men. And who breaks them? Men.

Jail Population chart:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Now, my purpose here is NOT to come down on men. As I have made clear, I adore men, especially one in particular. My purpose is to say that while men AND women are oppressed in different ways, my opinion is that it is men in both cases who by and large are doing the oppressing.

There was a men's movement for a while, but the more dominant male society seems to have pretty much shamed them out of pursuing it and I think that's sad.

Until men and women feel truly equal, men will continue to apply the pressure to both sexes to remain unequal.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Regarding men being oppressed (and this may not be a popular opinion): The way I feel about this is that men are oppressed by their own standards. When we look at who is doing the oppressing of men and women, I think we'll find that men are applying the pressure for men to be 'MEN' and women to be 'women'.


I would say its a cultural fault, not "Male" or "female." Thats what I dont like about feminists, you say your about equality, yet you polarize everything to "men" and "women." You know, "Men" make the rules, "Men" are the abuses, "Men" are the ones oppressing people. Its a cultural thing, it comes from beliefs and old culture. Thats not gender specific, theres many things that go into it. And you dont think women are equally applying pressure for social constraints, then your just being ignorant. Women look for ideal male figures to date or even socialize. Most women wont date geeks or unathletic males. Do you not think this is part of a social constraint? Isn't this in its own right, a form of oppression, given from women? If some men are given no attention by the other gender, and any attention they get is ridicule of theyre actions that are unmanly, how alienated or oppressed doesthe male become?

It works both ways.


I personally think women should serve equally with men in the military, but who has made the rules that they don't? Men.


Women dont serve equally in the military? They arent in the armed forces right now? It isnt acknowledged that women are the best snipers and the best pilots in our armed services? Are you just making up facts to fit with your feminist philosphies? I think you are.



Who puts pressure on the sons to compete in sports? Men.


Guess you haven't heard of Soccer moms? Women can be just as aggressive about sports in theyre children then men, in many cases, even more.


Who calls the male artists and dancers 'wimps' or 'girls'? Men.


Really? So all those girls that tease artists and dancers and such, and call them gay, and ignore them, and ridicule them, I guess they have a pair of testicles and they just arent telling anybody? Come on.


Who makes the laws? Men. And who breaks them? Men.


pure bigoted ignorance. There are absolutely NO women in any position of the judical system? Theres no female justices, or judges, or senators, or congresspeoples? And only men break the law? Theres no female murders or thieves, or rapists, or domestic assualts, or drunk drivers?


So, to correct your falsified statement. Who makes the laws? Men AND WOMEN. And who Breaks them? men AND WOMEN.

I dont see how a feminist can shoot forequality of all people, if you keep on being ignorant and pointing fingers at men for everything bad in this world.

[edit on 4-29-2006 by WolfofWar]

[edit on 4-29-2006 by WolfofWar]

[edit on 4-29-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
So Dark The Con Of Man


I wish you had more to say but you've said a mouthful!


I honestly think the key to equality of the sexes is for all of us to discover and embrace our masculine and feminine sides, without embarassment, without guilt, without feeling threatened and without the wieght of the negative social implications of a 'woman of strength' and a 'man of sensitivity'.

I can honestly say that one of the more important aspects of my long-term relationship is the willingness we both have to embrace the wholeness of our individual selves.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
For example, men can be in a medical field, but are looked down upon, and in many cases, noteven taken seriously, if they are a nurse.

Male Artists,seamsters, fashion designers, and hairstylists are all looked down upon, and instantly labelled gay, and in some cases, meet hostility.

This is not "oppression", it's just peer dynamics. A man who is a nurse is not being held down (oppressed) by the females or by society. Male nurses get paid equally with female nurses. Male hairdressers get paid as much as female hairdressers. So some ignorant male chuckles when he hears that a man is a nurse? There is no oppression there, only ignorance.

Men have the world at their fingertips, particularly white males. They can get anything they want in this world because is has been controlled and designed by rich white males. The idea that women aren't disadvantaged in society is completely fraudulent. In fact, if you look at the one, uniting and driving force behind male society, it has at its core one single goal: Enslavement and ownership of females.

Look at religions where women are property. Then look at non-religious societies where women are held in a different way, through domesticity and househeld slavery. Women are KEPT as babymakers and love givers, in MOST marriages across the globe. Just because these women didn't ever consider that they could be free (and remain married) or have their own interests or pursuits (maybe they want to housewives, but ALL of them do not want this) doesn't mean they WOULD NOT want that if they could choose.

The real trick to controlling a woman is to get her pregnant right away. If we can ignore the issue of teenage pregnancies we can ensure that women are shackled to their wombs. Get 'em knocked up early for good control results. Then they've got a whole 'nother human to care for. It ain't hard to control a woman when you force a baby into her womb. She's immobilized by it. And when I say 'force a baby', I am of course referring to the strong current of propaganda which says to a girl-child that her primary value is in making babies and pleasing men. Is it a shock when that girl child chooses not to become a firefighter or programmer?

Step back and take a look at "school" and you'll see that school is not a place for learning real information, but is instead a place for gender roles and societal obedience to be learned. The education of children is the root of the gender issue. Little girls in kindergarten are directed to the dolls and "cooking toys". ...Boys can choose any toy they like, EVEN the dolls and cooking toys. Sure they may be teased if that's their choice, but they will not be attacked, insulted, and harrassed as a girl child will be if she acts too far outside her gender role.

Hell, if she lives outside America or the Western world, she might just get killed, so dangerous is the idea of women gaining more power. Dangerous to ALL males worldwide, I might add. Especially to those males who use children for personal pleasure. They are afraid of that same girl child they rape, because if not traumatized and harmed, she might become a voice for freedom and peace. Rape is used on the victim in many cases, and not intended exclusively for the gratification of the raper.

Also ask yourself why Viagra and Cialis are so widely promoted? Do you think all the erections produced by those drugs are going to be welcomed by all the wombs they encounter? I say no. The last thing the world needs is more hard penises, IMO. I think these drugs are catalysts for greater use of the penis as a weapon, frankly. These drugs will enable more rape. Rape is a huge epidemic globally. Children are often the victims of rapes in HIV areas because raping them is "safer" than raping an adult female. All your feeble arguments fall to the ground in the face of this truth. Until rape is no more, men must look collectively into their hearts each day.

You will never see a drug for female physical pleasure advertised on TV. ...Try to imagine a commercial for an amazing vibrating pleasure-device marketed toward a female demographic. Can you do it? I didn't think so. That's my point. However the term "Erections lasting over six hours..." is acceptable marketing talk (even though they slip it in there as a disclaimer).

Violence against women is global policy #1.


[edit on 29-4-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Well I have read this thread top to bottom and unfortunatly must say a few things that will more than likley have the mods after my bottom.

1.) Anytime a male disagress with a "Feminist" view, they get ganged up on, this is a common attack by feminists to belittle and "make small" that specific man.

2.) Most feminists that speak out at campuses etc. Do seem to think that men are the enemy.

3.) More and more females these days are going into postions of power and abusing them.

4.) There are some groups of women that claim to be feminists that are attacking property that they beleive are male symbols aka sabatoge of am expensive care owned by a man.

So in closing, woman now adays do have equal rights, your allowed to do it all just like a man, so the time for male bashing and hate is over, bury the hatchet and lets just be "Human" insted of Male and Female.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Also ask yourself why Viagra and Cialis are so widely promoted? Do you think all the erections produced by those drugs are going to be welcomed by all the wombs they encounter? I say no. The last thing the world needs is more hard penises, IMO. I think these drugs are catalysts for greater use of the penis as a weapon, frankly. These drugs will enable more rape. Rape is a huge epidemic globally. Children are often the victims of rapes in HIV areas because raping them is "safer" than raping an adult female. All your feeble arguments fall to the ground in the face of this truth. Until rape is no more, men must look collectively into their hearts each day.


[edit on 29-4-2006 by smallpeeps]


this is crazy!

this is absolutely unbelievable!

what the hell are you talking about?

it's obvious you have something against men, and whatever it is, it is statements like that that make gender equality an impossibility.

how is a man supposed to feel equal, or to respect women, if THAT is the kind of rhetoric we find ourselves faced with every day?

EDIT:

you know what, i'm not done yet.

some posts in this thread have REALLY pissed me off.

this whole thing about how men want women for nothing more than sex, your constant blathering on about how all we want is to "penetrate" you, this whole obsession you have with the idea that men are sex-crazed perverts, is VASTLY insulting to me.

i DEMAND an apology for these blanket accusations of rape, these demeaning comments about how my gender is nothing more than a sexual assault machine on legs.

i have NEVER shown ANYTHING but the UTMOST respect to any woman with whom i was sexually involved to ANY degree, and i will NOT sit here and listen to you bigots flaming the male gender like this.

you think you're helping something with these snide little comments? you really think every man in the world is a rape waiting to happen, every erect penis a weapon to be wielded with malicious intent?

you're flattering yourselves.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by The Parallelogram]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Do women serve in the military? Undeniably.

Are they combat pilots? Again, undeniably. Very good ones in at least some cases.

Are they treated equally in the military? No. Seems to be a bit vague what the law actually says on this (at least given my slow dial-up search capability/patience
), but:



Beginning in 1942, separate military services for women were established, but women did not gain professional military status until 1948 when President Truman signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act which limited their number to 2 percent of the total military. In 1991, the restriction of women from flying combat aircraft was repealed, but the 1948 law still bans women from serving on naval combat vessels (Minerva Spring 1994).



On October 1, 1994, the Defense Department issued a policy that rescinded the so-called "risk rule" that gauges the specialties to which women can be assigned. The policy was backed strongly by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and was the extension of the changes made in April 1993 that opened most aviation specialties, including attack helicopters, to women (Army, March 1994). The policy emphasized that no job will be closed to women just because it is dangerous, but fails to open direct offensive ground combat jobs to women (Army, March 1994). Even today, though, the official policy of the Army and Marine Corps excludes women from combat which precludes 12 percent of skilled positions and 39 percent of the total positions (GAO Report, July 1996).


Source for above quotes

(Emphases mine)

As regards social movement toward women being treated with equal respect and honor as are men, it is clear that some progress has been made. However, as with societal treatment of black, gay, etc people, there is still plenty of progress yet to be made.





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join