|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @12:22PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when some students (3 guys and a girl) filed a lawsuit back East many months back, but I've heard nothing since. These things take time to wind their way through court.
I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong on this as this is a Federal issue, but California has a law that forbids discrimination on the basis of sex (the Unruh Act). I can't help but wonder that this case might have a better opportunity in CA considering that state law.
I also wonder (considering the Unruh act) if a man requests a student loan on a college campus and is denied, because he has not registered for the draft, "Can he sue the State of CA under the Unruh Act?"
OR, "Is the State of CA currently giving student loans to male students who have not registered for the draft?"
It would appear that a young male civil rights tester would really be sticking his neck out to be able to test this issue.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @12:39PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
In California it takes about a year for lawsuits to reach final judgment (trial, settlement, etc.). I imagine the same is true with this lawsuit. And the appeal, if any, can take another year. It sounds like this suit was filed around the beginning of 2003 or late 2002. I imagine trial dates are coming up.
A tester is a good idea for school loans for failure to register. The Unruh Act only applies to business establishments and can't apply to government unless it's a disability issue. But an equal protection case is doable. This current case will be the tester though, since it's been filed long before any new one we do in CA. We've got plenty of other work in CA too.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @01:44PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Exemption from compulsory military service is a traditional female privilege which, of course, cannot be justified to-day. It is certainly a positive development to see young men who question the right of women to hold onto such privilege. Hopefully, we will see more of these traditional privileges being challenged, such as the unjustifiable privilege they enjoy in the criminal court, the family courts, in media portrayal, in the health services etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the case has been dismissed, however they are considering filing a notice of appeal. I've contacted Harvey Schwartz, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, and he's agreed to allow me to conduct an email interview with him. I'll be posting the result of that as soon as we get them in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know why it was dismissed? I'm interested to see what their attorney has to say about the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @04:09PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I wasn't asked but I'm willing to bet the court is just abiding by the 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 which held it is OK to discriminate in mandatory draft registration because women were not allowed in combat anyway so they aren't "similarly situated" with men. Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan dissented to that decision. I wrote a short article about that years ago at http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/issues/00/04.13/ view.angelucci.html
Times have changed and this needs to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in order to be overturned. If they don't appeal it, we'd like to set up a case like that here in CA. If anyone is tracking this case please post the developments here on MANN. It is appreciated.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good guess Marc, and while the lawyer wasn't quite as specific when I spoke to him, he did say that the reason for the dismissal was that the case had already been covered by the Supreme Court 18 years ago, which is pretty close to the time of the case your citing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Marc.
If you do set up a similar case, I'd like to donate some money to NCFM-LA to help with the costs. Let me know, herrickk@onid.orst.edu
Hope all is well with the Farrell campaign...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 06, @12:29AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 which held it is OK to discriminate in mandatory draft registration because women were not allowed in combat anyway so they aren't "similarly situated" with men."
I believe I saw that there were female fighter jet pilots and helocopter pilots who flew combat missions in our most recent Iraqi conflict (not to mention female supply clerks who got captured and killed).
Women are certainly being portrayed as if they are combat vets (i.e. G.I. Jane & Courage Under Fire). Since they seem to be getting more than there share of glory for the miniscule combat duties they are engaged in, maybe they should really be brought up to speed, get registered, drafted, full combat duty, etc.
If women are oppressed, unless they get to do everything a man does, then let's get them up to speed as cannon fodder too. Let them go out there and deal with all those other bad people in the world. Let them use their feminist modus operandi on terrorists and tyrannts, and I'll just stay home and watch T.V.
It's about time the big mouthed feminists in this country stopped blowing hot air, and instead put their money where their mouths are.
Show Me the Money, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mbr
(spamproofed address: mbr at arlsoft dot com)
on Saturday September 06, @12:33PM EST (#14)
(User #821 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
Everyone should read your article in the Bruin. It's excellent!
Unfortunately, the software which runs this site seems to insist on inserting an unwanted space when a word gets too long, which messes up long URLs. (I know because I just tried to post the correct URL, and when I previewed it, it contained a space in the same place as when Marc posted it.)
So, for those who want to read the article, copy and paste the following URL into your browser, but delete any space character from the URL before you tell your browser to fetch the article:
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/issues/00/04.13/ view.angelucci.html
Mark Rosenthal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Supreme Court ruled that because of the combat restrictions on women then in effect, that women "are simply not similarly situated for the purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.""
Why, oh why, oh why is society so blind to this??!! Why is there absolutely *NO* justification for discrimination when a woman *wants* to do something, yet discrimination against men is frequently justified!!
Society really needs to wake up and smell the toast burning >:(
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @05:43PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Why, oh why, oh why is society so blind to this??!! Why is there absolutely *NO* justification for discrimination when a woman *wants* to do something, yet discrimination against men is frequently justified!!"
Precisely. The pre-feminist society discriminated againt women in some areas and discriminated in favour of women in other areas. All the discrimination against women has been abolished. All the discrimination in favour of women has been retained. The result is a society in which men are second class citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. Feminists have helped expand women's rights while downplaying the idea of equal responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The USA is a "Constitutional Republic" not a "Democracy". I am referring to definitions and discourses put forth in Aritstotle's book, "Politics." According to Aristotle in this book, a "Constitutional Republic" is a good form of government because it promulgates the general welfare of all of it's citizens. He states that a "democracy" (no efficacious laws which protect individuals and groups from oppressive and discriminatory laws), is a bad form of government because if unjustly promulgates the welfare of the "unfortunate" minority at the unjust expense of the citizenry at large. Cleary the military draft and combat duty for males only are democratic in principle rather than republican. If women, therefore, are to have the full rights of citizens (electoral representation), they should share all the obligations of citizenship (including military service) concommitant with equal rights (not preferential rights because they are "unfortunate") with males. It is clear that the preferential rights and lesser responsibilities that women receive over males (including the military draft and combat duty) are unjust and oppressive derevations of those "democratic" principles which the Great Classical Philospher, Aristotle, condemned in his book "Politics."
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a double edged sword for activists. Forcing more women into active duty merely forces more men into the trenches.
The Israelis had terrible problems with chronic yeast infections among women on active duty.
If a female combatant is menstruating do you really want her to chafe around in pants that are soaked in menstrual discharge? Or have her put down her rifle and change her menstrual pad or tampon in a fire fight?
Truly this is a messy issue.
Womenists will always try and rip men off. That is not new to any age in history.
Render unto men things that are male and render unto women the things that are female.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I wish is to stop the nonsense.
I'd like tpo see one college stop the Title IX crap by announcing that from here on out, ALL sports are coed. Compete with the boys, ladies. You can surely do it - every time I turn on the TV I see the gratuitous 90 pound female slapping the snot out of a 250#+ trained martial artist.
Same thing with combat. Let's get an all-female assault unit, put them on the front lines, and watch them school these little boys who have been just playing soldier with the superior feminine.
Let's pony it up. I call. Show your cards, ladies.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, I think coed sports are not a good idea.
I am on the record somewhere as saying that sports should be primarily for boys and girls should be given sports for purely recreational purposes.
The idea that the need for sports is equal in both boys and girls is just popular mythology driven by lobbyists that have much to gain (power prestige or money) from such activity.
Without sports many, even most, boys cannot learn to deal effectively with their testosterone driven reality. Some boys are more cerebral but they are remembered and are genuine exceptions to the rule. Sports will catch the poorly educated the poorly cared for the undernourished the bad tempered, the aggressive boys, the leaders of our major institutions, as the women don’t seem to be up to the task even in a highly pampered environment like Canada.
The simple truth is that without well dsciplined and virtuous boys, women can never be truly free.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
