From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:09:27 GMT

dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.055229.27451@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>Why is it that when a disaster occurs the news usually reports it something
>>like this?  'And ten were killed by the bomb, including two women and a 
>>ten month old baby.'  Now its obvious that mentioning the baby is to heighten
>>the sense of tragedy.  What do you think the reason is for mentioning the
>>women separately?

>Those who have total faith in the belief that society values women's
>lives less than men's will interpret this as either (a) a minor and
>insignificant exception, or (b) gloating.

>-- 
>David Canzi

Hmmm, from hillyard's point (and I can't think of any counter-examples off the
top of my head...though I'd love to hear any) it seems society *does* value
women's lives *more* than men's--unless it is fairly equal and we merely
communicate it improperly.

The problem is (since this is soc.women) that it seems society values women's
*opinions* and/or *feelings* less than men's.  (ya think?)

As one semi-related "example"...
To pick up on the draft-registration thread from other responses on this topic
(I don't think I saw the original)...  The military (at least the Navy, unless
there has been a change in the last couple of years) does not allow women in
combat roles, period.  (For instance, a woman in the US Navy can be an officer,
and could fly jets--I think--but could not fly a combat equiped fighter...)
Well, it would seem the Navy values women's lives more than men's...except that
their (the Navy's) *reasons* for not allowing women in combat roles has more to
do with the idea that they will be unable to *kill* the enemy and would thus
endanger the *normal* (male) soldiers/sailors/pilots/whatever....which is a
devauling of first a woman's ability and perhaps of women's lives (? not sure
about that one, but they do seem to worry about their all-male component ?).

There was a response earlier that suggested that if the draft (in event of war)
were 50-50 that the women would fill up the non-combat roles and put more men
at risk (sorry for not including it).  Is it just me or is there an awful lot
of sexism in that scenario?  (both ways!)  First, giving women preference for
non-combat roles or giving men preference for combat is "sexist" because
whatever your motivations, the assignment is not equal and is not based on
individual merrit but on the blanket assumption that women would be "bad" in
combat.  Second, the objection of putting "more men at risk" (sorry if the
quote isn't exact) is sexist because it ignores the women's risks altogether.
(it probably wasn't meant that way, though).  Before you misunderstand me and
write off a response let me attempt to clarify:  I don't think that women's
risks are any more important than men's risks, nor do I think that the fact
that more men are at risk than women are (in the scenario) is a "good" thing.
What I object to is the objection itself...that drafting equally is "bad"
because it would "put more men at risk", rather than point out that even if
women are drafted, they may not be allowed in combat roles, so the situation
would still be unequal.    (^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ substitute: be more
likely to be placed in non-combat roles,  if you prefer)
I may have misinterpreted your point (since "more men" *could* mean "more ...
than women")--in which case I appologise--but the rest of the post seems to
fit more with the interpretation I assumed above.


To summarize my position on the draft-registration (which wasn't stated above,
but I don't want it misunderstood from my arguments)...
I don't like the registration, but I like it being male-only even less.  I
think that a peacetime draft (which we *don't* have) (or a wartime one for that
matter) is wrong.  But given that we have a registration, and even assuming it
were for all people in that age group, the military should get rid of it's
tired old idea that women and combat don't mix.  (hey, I probably wouldn't mix
well with combat, and there are probably women who would!)  If that happened,
we would be on our way towards equality (which *is* what most feminists really
want) in the draft/registration/military.  8-)