Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



Let's please not scoot straight up to tedious generic flamewars that we've all heard before.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973457 and marked it off-topic.


Have you ever looked? Here's what NOW's president said about women and selective service registration back in 1981:

by excluding women even from registration, the government held that “every man, regardless of any disability, must register, but that all women, regardless of competency, cannot,” a distinction which created the “myth that all men are more competent than all women.”

That's the biggest (as far as I know) women's interest group and they support women being a part of the draft. Here's some more resources:

http://www.explorethetrades.org/women-in-trades/

http://chicagowomenintrades2.org/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-women-in-trades-04...

Health-care workers experience the most nonfatal workplace violence compared to other professions by a wide margin, with attacks on them accounting for almost 70 percent of all nonfatal workplace assaults causing days away from work in the U.S., according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epidemic-of-viole...


"NOW had previously opposed the draft, and its apparent about-face infuriated its members at the grassroots level, according to Cynthia Enloe, a research professor of political science and women's studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

Enloe, who has written extensively on women and the military, said she was just starting her research at the time, but as she recalls, "The local chapters were really angry. They were full of women activists who disagreed, who saw the draft as something to oppose."

So why the switch? Enloe thinks it had more to do with NOW's then-recent defeat in getting the Equal Rights Amendment passed than it did zeal for military service. The amendment, which pacifist Alice Paul originally penned in 1923, simply states, "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After Congress passed it in 1972, NOW led the unsuccessful fight for its ratification at the state level during the 1970s and early 1980s.

Speaking in defense of the NOW brief back in 1981, Smeal told The New York Times that wherever she lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment, male legislators frequently said to her, "When you women fight in a war, then we'll talk about equal rights." "

https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/feminists-weigh-draf...


So NOW supported women in the draft and actively fought for it legislatively and what? Their motives weren't pure enough? Who cares? It's a women's organization (a huge one) trying to get women into dangerous, dirty jobs.


No, they actively fought the draft for women until it became politically necessary/expedient to change their position.

And of course opposition to the draft for women was the primary reason for the defeat of the ERA.

"Experts agree that Phyllis Schlafly was a key player in the defeat. Political scientist Jane Mansbridge in her history of the ERA argues that the draft issue was the single most powerful argument used by Schlafly and the other opponents to defeat ERA.[93] She concludes, "Many people who followed the struggle over the ERA believed—rightly in my view—that the Amendment would have been ratified by 1975 or 1976 had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly's early and effective effort to organize potential opponents."[94] Legal scholar Joan C. Williams argues, "ERA was defeated when Schlafly turned it into a war among women over gender roles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Opposit...

Oh, and >90% of workplace fatalities are men.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: