From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:50:59 GMT

In article <726215828@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.160559.7791@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>>Take a look at what I said and read the article I read.  The study,
>>reported in Science News, concluded that women died more often and
>>had more complications from heart surgery because they were not 
>>treated as soon as men with similar problems.  
>
>So how comes that men who die from heart attacks die younger?
>
>Can't you see that something "does not fit?"

As I said, read the article.  They focused on heart *disease*, not
heart attacks.  They also focused on cases where both the men and
women had similiar problems.  The study did not find more women 
dying of heart problems, but more dying from cases where degeneration
and risk of death was stopped in men *but not in women*.  This was
due to doctors waiting longer to operate on women.  (As an anectdotal
aside:  my mother has severe mitral valve problems.  She takes a
great deal of medication, has the classic symptoms -- out of 
breath, no strength, etc.  The husband of a friend of hers went
to the doctor, in the same medical group and insurance company,
and found to his total surprise he had a bad mitral valve.  He had
no other symptoms except the 'click' heard by the doctors.  They 
immediately scheduled surgery and inserted a pig valve.  Doesn't
this seem a little odd?) 

Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  This is now 
known to be untrue.  

>
>#Some state officials call it
>#The Titanic model, women and children first.
>
>>>(Note that mothers are seen, but not fathers...)
>
>>This is wrong.  I never said women should get top priority.
>
>And I say that women get top priority, and feminists claim that
>women should get even more on a regular basis. 

Women do not get top priority everywhere.  I have been in a lot
of hospitals and have NEVER seen women getting top priority.  I
think a lot of what you take for granted (such as doctors taking you
seriously) is a sign of being given top priority.  I don't want
to take that away, I just want women to have the same benefits. 

>
>>But neither should men get top priority.
>
>Should not illnesses that kill people younger get a higher priority,
>even of most of those who die younger are men?
>(This is not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in your answer.)

Yes.  But often slightly different symptoms of the same disease
are not treated or recoginized in women.  Just recently the definition
of AIDS was widened to include diseases that occur in women.  But
the definition of many diseases are still based solely on symptoms
shown by men.  Most drug testing is done by male volunteers.  These
drugs may not work as effectively or may be harmful when given to
women but this is not taken into account.  Pacemakers and other chest 
implants are sized for men and can cause problems in the smaller chest 
cavities of women.  

>
>>>(Note also that women have the world records in swimming for the longest
>>>time (more body fat), but the law is "women and children first...")
>
>>I don't agree with this philosophy.  
>
>I'm talking about the world I live in, not the one you would like to have.

Well gosh.  I guess we just sit back and accept the world as it is?  What
do *you* propose to do?  Maybe slam women back down to the ground so
they won't bother you anymore?  I would much prefer to have true
equality (and that means no more so-called priveleges like being the
first on a life boat).  It doesn't seem that that's what you want though.
>
>>Tossing this in here is a red herring.
>
>"The Titanic model" was the definition of CBS to the situation, and
>it is base on the same idea - women's lives worth more.

If women's lives are truly worth more in the minds of most people,
then why are women shunned after rape?  Why are their sex lives dissected
during trial?  Why are men who engage in lots of sex considered
"studly" and looked up to while women who do the same are considered
"sluts" or "whores" and are treated with contempt?  Why do we say 
"Mr and Mrs JOHN Doe?"  Why did I once find a doctor who specialized
in "women and children" -- the two are very different you know.  
Why do many look upon women like Hillary Clinton as horrible because 
she has a strong mind and career?  (I don't like her politically but 
she has every right to be independent and not dumb herself down.) 
Certainly not because they're "worth more."  To me, it seems like the 
collective idea is that women are property (doesn't she have a name?)  
You protect property (like putting them in a life boat first), 
you discard "used" property (shunning after rape and only marrying a
virgin), and you get upset when the property becomes independent.

This is why I dislike the "special" privleges like "first off
the lifeboat" or non-combat positions in the military.  It re-inforces
the idea that women are not "worth more" but are instead property.


Finally, it's really funny in some ways.  I get flames from both
sides.  I get it from the men who think I'm a crazed "feminist" 
(whatever that word means anymore) who hates men and wants to
destroy them  and from women (and men) who think I "cozy up to guys" 
because I don't think men are scum and I worry about the dangers of 
reverse discrimination.  I think this may be an indication that
society can't (and may never) be able to find a balance point.
You bring one side up to where the other is and you have the
first one complaining that the others now get extra special treatment.
Meanwhile, the second side is wanting vengence on the first side
for the past.


Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards