>Kelly Evans wrote: "It is not so much what I think or believe, but what I
>don't do. I don't
>advocate equal rights for women. Why? Mostly because it is something I'm
>still trying to work out for myself. I have questions about the "for
>women" part, which despite the word "equal" seems to imply special
>treatment.
Women in the US are still fighting for EQUAL treatment - e.g., the right to
attend the SAME schools as men (e.g., Virginia Military Academy), the right
to have the SAME jobs as men (e.g., fighter pilot in the military), the
right to get the same pay and benefits for IDENTICAL work (academic jobs), etc.
> How about equal rights for all people regardless of age, race,
>gender and sexual orientation? Also, where is the imbalance? And who says
>it is out of balance in the first place? Is this a way to keep women down
>by implying that somehow we are inferior just based on our gender and we
>have to fight for what is ours? What exactly are the rights we don't have?
>The Canadian constitution ensures equal rights by law.
The US Constitution does not!!! The Equal Rights Amendant for women never
was passed by enough States at the same time to be adopted into law.
>And what is equal anyway? Is it the same? Is it a matter of respect? I
>teach a nursing class, which is predominately female (about 95%), yet I
>don't see anyone advocating 50:50 ratio for nurses even when nurses are
>desparately needed here. No discussions on how to get more males into the
>program at all. Why not?
There should be more males in nursing. Few males go into nursing because it
is viewed as a women's profession in which they are, thus, grossly
underpaid, under-respected, and overworked given their education and
skills. In the US men become doctors instead because of the much higher pay
and respect. In countries in which most doctors are women (e.g., Russia,
China), the pay is low!
>I do believe that there are biological and psychological differences
>between men and women, and that these differences are a good thing.
Yes, there are differences. If men could become pregnant, abortions would
be readily available on demand in the US and birth control methods would be
covered by health insurance. Instead, Viagra is covered and 84% of counties
in the US don't even have a single abortion provider! With W. as president
(whose first act was to eliminate funding for international agencies that
mostly provide birth control information), Tommy Thompson as Secretary of
HHS (whose workfare program has lead to more single mothers in jail with
their kids in foster care), and Ashcroft as US Attorney General, we are in
for some scary times ahead in the US.
Janet Mertz
