From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:54:46 GMT

From article <1993Jan6.223930.25397@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>, by julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas):
> In article <1993Jan6.203602.1309@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>, by julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas):
>>> In article <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
[...]
>>
>>The difference is that heart disease rates can change, whereas the planets
>>are doing what they've always done.  So what Rich is saying is that heart
>>disease has gone up in women.  I don't know if that is true or not, but the
>>biggest risk factor is smoking, and that has gone up in women.
> 
> I don't think it is a case of rates going up causing the change in
> theories.  From what I remember of the article, it was more a case

Okay, that's fine (as I said, I don't know if they did change) .  You just 
seemed to misunderstand at least what I thought he said, which would be quite
a legitimate point.

[...]
>>These are certainly not exclusive.  They don't like her politics and are more 
>>worried about it because she's not 'stay-at-home' and says thing such as 'you 
>>get two of us for the price of one'.  Now, looking at the husband first.  He 
>>has said the same thing 'two for the price of one', and also has said she's 
>>invited to cabinet meetings and such.  So, from looking at Bill, it seems 
>>people are quite legitimate in their fears of Hillary's politics affecting 
>>Bill's decisions.
>>
> 
> But isn't that a problem with Bill?  If he lets people drastically influence
> his opinion then we have more than just Hillary to worry about.

Well, my main problem with Bill is indeed that he seems wishy-washy.

> 
> Anyway, no one seems to get too upset (at least I haven't seen it) when a
> female politician has an opinionated husband.  They certainly don't 
> expect the husband to be a 'stay-at-home' type.

I haven't seen any real opinionated husbands.  Do you have any examples?
(I can remember Ferraro from the recent election here taking a beating because
of her husband, but that was because of some problems with his finances.)
Most seem to go about their business and are not really into the politics.
If Hillary kept her job as an attorney and didn't keep saying how she wants
to make a difference in the administration there would likely be little
problem with her.

[...]
>>
>>Taking the 'selfish gene' approach the double standard in regards to adultry
>>is explained quite well.  If the man cheats, as long as he stays with his
>>wife and continues to support her, her children don't lose much in their 
>>chances to survive.  If the woman cheats, there is a chance the husband will
>>spend a lot of resources raising some other mans kids; a big loss in the 
>>evolutionary game.  This may carry over into such things as pre-marital sex.
>>[note that I don't necessarily believe the above, but you brought up a 
>>'selfish gene' arguement so I figured I would also]
> 
> I'm not at all qualified to debate the validity of the selfish
> gene theory.  I would just hope that we could, as a society,
> get over these things.  

Although I would agree in theory, sometimes its not so easy.  How long has
the church been preaching about the evils of extra-marital sex?  Doesn't seem
to have made much difference.

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.men