Response to Sydney's post on equality

My classmate, Sydney, wrote a great blog post about the state of equality in America. To say the least, equality is not in a very united state. It makes me pause when I realize it's been over 150 years since slavery was abolished and almost 100 years since women's suffrage passed... and we still have many discrimination and race problems in our country today. It makes me pause, and it makes me sad, and it makes me question America's future.

Sydney describes how our government simply cannot keep up with the changing times. The government is a "Rube Goldberg machine" that "cannot keep up with the cultural shifts occurring daily". I agree, given the size and diversity of the American population, the innerworkings of culture are constantly changing. It's rather unsurprising the government can't keep pace, but that doesn't solve the problems. As Sydney points out, many subgroups of our population are discriminated against, and sometimes legally.

A currently relevant example of discrimination is the Select Services and military draft, which do not involve women. She says such policies send a "message that women are less than men; in value, in strength, in American society." I had not thought about it that way, and I'd really never thought of the unisexual draft as discriminatory. My view on gender might differ from the common conceptions. I believe all genders are equal, in a humane and societal way; people of all genders deserve equal representation and right to express themselves. However, genders, specifically the natural bodies of males and females, are not biologically equivalent. On that point, my view is relevant. In many cases, being drafted calls upon your physical faculties, and men are physiologically better equipped for warfare and physical labor. I know not every person drafted does the same job, sees the same facets of war, etc., but the draft was gender exclusive for a reason-- just like our hunter-gatherer ancestors had roles split between the genders. That of course, does not mean social norms and laws aren't subject to change.

How the military draft example can extrapolate to the general population is this: maybe the question of gender restrictions shouldn't be asked by our governing institutions, but rather the people involved. If a woman wants to enlist and join the service, what say does the government have to stop her? Except for the draft laws currently being reconsidered, no say. What say does the government deserve in issues or policies like these? If the outcome were to negatively affect others as a result, then our lawmakers may be the ones to lead. If it causes no damage and is an arbitrary change in culture/society, should people or government decide?

Moving forward, I know everyone will take their stances on issues-- there's no avoiding that. However, we "cannot be fair-weather Americans", as Sydney puts it. I interpret that as 'we must seek to be kind, considerate Americans to our fellow Americans and humans'. So our government must "[try] to keep up with us" and "Future policies will hopefully involve anyone who wishes to have America defend their rights". I agree with Sydney: we must work together towards a government with equal laws and freedoms for everyone.