From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:31:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.085654.6101@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <michael.726478187@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>> In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>> 
>>>As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
>>>States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
>>>custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
>>>the net.
>> 
>> Fascinating.  Now someone is assuming that Clinton's wife will give
>> Clinton advice.  The advice won't be taken, and then marital problems
>> will ensue.  My aren't we constructing a whole future scenario.  Lets
>> get real here.  Don't you think you are stretching things just a little?
>> *laugh*
>Lets look at the order again.  
>Hillary: I want to make a difference. (I don't think I'm assuming anything 
>about Hillary giving advice.)
>Somebody else:  I don't see any difference between Hillary and any other 
>cabinet member.  
>My response:  the difference is Bill can't get rid of Hillary if he doesn't 
>like what she's doing.  
>Someone else:  he can get rid of her by divorce.  
>My response:  not something I find appealing.

>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), but I personally am not 
>constructing much.

Getting defensive?  I didn't even say you constructed anything.  I said
someone did.  However, defensiveness aside, the whole point is stretching
it, so I ask you again...  Don't you think you are stretching things?
(Don't worry, I won't laugh this time...  I'm too bored).

>[...]
>> 
>> Who knows.  Maybe this presidential term will go a ways towards calming
>> some of the paranoic fears some men seem to have out there about strong
>> women.
>> 

>Assuming a good four years are you?  I don't think I'm as optimistic as you.

No, I make no assumptions about the next four years in terms of how good
a job the president will do.  I am however making an assumption that the
presidents wife will not have any bad affect on matters and that maybe a
few people will notice that fears in that reguard were the subject of
pure paranoia.

As far as how good a president Clinton will be, I have plenty of worries.
He is not in my opinion a good president.  However he's light years
ahead of the other two candidates.  As many said, he was the lesser of
three evils.  And who knows, maybe he'll turn out to be a good
president and surprise me.  I'd like to see that happen very much.

>By the way, why is Hillary viewed as this 'strong' women?  She seems to
>have ridden her husband into political office just as every other First
>Lady has (and unlike many others in this 'year of the woman').

Its because she has a degree and her own opinions.  Seems like anytime
a woman does this, it starts a panic amongst a lot of men.  I don't
*really* think the republican leaders were scared of her.  I think they
just took advantage of the opportunity to create paranoia as it could
only help their cause.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22422 alt.feminism:6951