From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:08:25 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <92345.182213U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|>         1. The resumption of draft registration. Remember the argument against
|>            requring women to register : "Do you want your daughters to die in
|>            battle". Ie. Your son's lives aren't as great a loss.

Aren't most of the people who want to allow women in combat women? 
Personally, I find the question "Are people ready to see their daughters
come home in body bags" offensive, as I can only assume that my mother
would be no more (or less) distraught if I were to come home in a body
bag than if my brother were.  I don't _want_ to register for the draft,
but I can't say it would be inappropriate to require both men and women
to do so.

|>         2. Remember the decision allowing female reporters to enter male locker
|>            rooms (men don't have the same right of privacy that women do).|> 

I have gone on record as not approving of allowing _reporters_ in locker
rooms.  Access to players should be allowed in non-lockerroom settings. 
The only people who belong in a locker room are those doing
lockerroom-type things.

|>              Try to find a single woman who finds any of that wrong.

See above.

|>         4.  Guilty until proven innocent if accused of rape (or of any other
|>             crime by a woman). Maybe guilty even if proven innocent.
|> 
|>             In Illinois, the only evidence needed to convict is the testimony
|>             of the plaintiff. 

Actually, the raped woman (or woman who claims to have been raped) is not
a plaintiff.  The state (or city or country) files criminal charges.  For
most crimes where the victim survives, the victim's testimony is often
the most substantial evidence (rape, assault, battery, muggings)

|> 
|>             5.  While women are given preferential treatment in hiring, men
|>                 are still given the full responsibility for supporting their
|>                 families, even as they're given fewer opportunities to do so.
|>                 Why are we obligated to support our spouses? Try to find a
|>                 woman who feels that supporting her family is as much her
|>                 responsibility as her husband's.

Hmm, my husband's wife belives that.  He happens to make more money than
I do (partly because I took a pay cut when we relocated and partly
because I work part-time so I can spend time with our infant son).  (This
is _not_ sexist.  I have a job that could be easily cut to 2/3 time; he
does not--and isn't willing to change jobs to allow it.  I'd certainly
be willing to work full-time next year while he works part-time.)

|> Women may be entertaining company now and again, but as human beings
|> they leave much to be desired. 
|> Don't try to reach them on an
|> ethical level. You probably can't stoop that low.
|> 
|> As usual, responses aren't welcome (ESPECIALLY from women).
|> Flames will bounce.

How in the world can you write 'flames will bounce' after those previous
sentences?  If those aren't flames, what are they?  

Try substituting 'blacks' or 'Jews' for women in the 'entertaining'
sentence--doesn't that sound familiar?   What a bigot.

|>         Politically incorrect and misogynistic without apology,

I happen to know both men and women who are ethical and fair.  A man who
truly believes that all women are incapable of decent behavior because
the women he has known have not behaved well is capable of such gross
generalization, but clearly not very accomplished at logic--and women are
better off that he chooses to be by himself.  

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism