From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:32:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>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.  

I think it might me more accurate to say 'this has changed' than to
say "This is now known to be untrue".

[...---...]
 
>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 

I think you have this turned around, everyone I know who has reservations
about Hillary Clinton have reservarions -because- of her politics, not
because "she has a strong mind and career". And she is now a very important 
-nonelected- official. Had she run for President, do you really think
that she would have lost -because- she is a women?

>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?)  

Interesingly enough, in many contexts, women treat men as property.

>You protect property (like putting them in a life boat first), 

Do you protect property at the cost of your own life? This argument
is getting a bit absurd, IMHO.

>you discard "used" property (shunning after rape and only marrying a
>virgin), and you get upset when the property becomes independent.

Yes, of course, no man has ever married a non-virgin, and the standard
procedure after rape is divorce. And men get upset when they get discarded
by women (who often keep all the property and a great deal of their income) 
just as women would get upset in similar circumstances. I've seen it happen.

In general, your property argument needs some work.
  
>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 

Is the PC viewpoint that "men are scum"? Things like this make me
doubt the claim that is often made here that feminism is for everyone.

>reverse discrimination.  

A term which shows the inherent bias in the battle 'against' sexism.
Some sexism is OK, even necessary, but it must be politically correct
sexism.

>                          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.

Here is another oft made claim, that women (and feminists) are -NOT-
in any way-shape-or-form seeking revenge for the past.
 
>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else


Rich

payner@netcom.com