From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:24:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.020139.3171@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>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:
>>>>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".
>>
>>Well if the first theory was that women were at low risk for heart
>>disease and the current theory, backed up with much more research,
>>is that woman are at risk for heart disease, I would say that 
>>theory #1 is untrue.  To make a comparison that will surely get
>>me flamed:  we know that the planets orbit the sun.  Do we say
>>that the earthcentric solar system model is incorrect or "has changed"?
>
>You are confusing theory and observation I think.  And as far as I am
>aware, there has been no change in planetary dynamics, and *all* theories
>were invented to explain the exact same observations of a fixed system.

Over history there has been substantial change in the solar
system model.

You can make a pretty good, although extremely complicated,
model describing observed planetary motion by assuming the earth is at
the center of the solar system.  This is what early astonomers 
did and were able to explain most of their observations with it.  
Galileo got into lots of trouble with the church when he suggested 
otherwise.  

Now, Galileo came along and added a few data points.  He saw
4 bodies, moons of Jupiter, that revolved around Jupiter and
not the Earth.  Now, some were able to evolve a new theory
with the Sun at the center but many hung on to the old theory
trying to patch it to death (like everything except the earth
going around the sun which itself went around the earth). 

>
>Now our lifespan, exposure to enviornmental and natural hazards, even
>our diets have undergone massive and far reaching changes, so we do not
>have different observations of a static phenomena, but time seperated
>observations of a dynamic and little understood phenomena.

But the problem was that a very small sample of women were studied
and no further studies until very recently were done to verify that 
women were indeed at a lower risk for heart disease.  It is a very
common failing amoung doctors, when treating men and women alike,
to refuse to accept deviations from the "norm."  I once had an
extremely unusual reaction to the retin-a skin cream.  I started
having severe pains in all the joints of my body.  If you look
closer, retin-a contains the drug found in an internal form of
the medicine, accutane.  A rare side effect of that drug is
arthristis-like pain in all joints.  It was my belief I was absorbing
this through my skin and I was unlucky enough to get the side 
effect.  Well, because this had never been noted with the topical
cream, I had doctors flat out tell me it was impossible.  One even
said the body couldn't absorb things through the skin (I guess he
doesn't believe in those nictoine transfer patches).  Another said
the effect was so rare that of course I wouldn't get it.  Well, 1 day 
after stopping the medication my pain had receeded.  Two days later it
was gone and never came back.

My point is that doctors (at least the ones I have gone to) fail to 
recognize cases that deviate from the norm.  That is why women
were having trouble being treated for heart disease.  It "couldn't
happen" or was "so rare you don't need to worry about it."  

>

>And no theory ever has the property of being either true or untrue,
>a theories sole value is in explaining observations of reality. If a
>new theory comes along and does it better, even such time-honored
>theories as Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation will fall by the
>wayside.

But you can discard old theories.  I doubt anyone would consider 
the earth centered solar system model again.  That *was* a 
theory (long ago) that is now known to be untrue.  I feel 
confident in saying that model is completely untrue based on
modern observations.  

> 
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>I have heard, and seen people on the net, express reservations about
>>here because she does have a strong mind and career.  They feel that
>>because of this, she is much more likely to influence her husband.
>
>OK, lets deal with that. Do you feel that Hillory Clinton should,
>ditrctly or indirectly be setting White House policy?

No.  Spouses should not set policy.  But I do object to people bashing
her for being strong willed and strong minded.  I may not like what
happens because of the combination of her being strong willed and
Bill being weak willed, but I'm not going to criticize her for
being strong willed.  I'm not going to say she's terrible for
or being abrasive and bossy just for having opinions. I'm separating her
politics from her right to be an individual and act accordingly.

>
>>They do not seem to feel that a "stay-at-home" type will influence
>>her husband.  Funny, myself I first look at the husband before worrying
>>about whether his wife will influence him.  (Switch the genders and
>>I'd feel the same).
>
>Does your personal observation invalidate concerns about Hillory?
>BTW, I agree about our President elect, and see these as distinct issues.
>And it is my understanding that Roosevelt, who was confined to a 
>wheelchair, and very sick during the end of his administration, was
>not the one in control of the White House. I forget the name of his
>wife, but it seems she was the President in fact.

It was Elanor Roosevelt.

It is difficult in most arguments to separate the concerns people
have with her politics and the concerns with her being an atypical
first lady.  But I have heard people, women included, who hate
her AND her politics.  They make a big distinction about it.  
> 
>>>
>>>>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 do if it's carrying your genetic material.  
>
>Your wife does not carry your genetic material, are we talking about the
>same thing? The divergence seems to be increasing.

Then let's get back to my main point.  The 'women and children first'
is, IMO, indicative of a hold over of property-like view of women.
Yes you have to take care of the children first.  They are not mature
enough to take care of themselves.  But why women as well?  They
are adults and should also be competent.  

I may weaken the "property" comparison somewhat (although in cultures
that sell brides it's hard to come to any other conclusion.  Of course,
the custom of dowery is for the bride's family to pay the husband's
family.  You have to *pay* to get rid of a daughter?  Sounds like
they weren't considered very important).  If the lifeboat argument
doesn't show property it definitely shows an idea that women are
childlike.  They have to be protected from all dangers that the
men will bravely face.  I do not like being protected against 
something, even a sinking ship (I'll take my chances like anyone
else).  You see, if you let yourself be protected from one
thing it's not too hard suddenly be "protected" from scores of
other things.  In Victorian times women's brains were considered
to be too fragile and were thus protected from higher education.

>>Things are changing now and perhaps these things are more common in
>>other cultures.  But attitudes still prevail here.  There
>>is still very much a double standard regarding pre-marital
>>sex.  If there was never a big deal over men marrying non-virgins
>>then why is there still the custom (not in the US though to
>>my knowledge) of having a newly married couple show the bedsheet
>>(and blood stain) to an awaiting crowd the morning after 
>>being married?  
>
>Are you talking about industrial countries like the U.S. or agrarian
>countries? I have been to many weddings, all of my good friends weddings,
>and have lived in perhaps 8 states, and have never heard or seen what
>you describe. Can anyone else verify that this does or does not happen,
>in the here and now.

Note that I did not say it was happening in the US.  It happened,
in an autobiography I read, in the middle part of the century in
a very agrarian area but not in the third world.  It is an old
custom from European peasant villages and is apparently not
completely dead.  

>
>>During wars women are raped by enemy soldiers. They face blame by their 
>>society afterwards.
>
>For example...

Germany.  Many women were ostracized by families after giving birth
to a child that resulted from a rape by a Russian soldier.  The
"comfort" women of Japan.  The Belgian women after being raped
by Germans.  Now society didn't hold up a larger banner denouncing
these women, but many have come forward and told of the suffering
they had with their families.  In addition to being blamed just
for being a rape victim (and that happens here) they also had 
difficulties because they had a child fathered by the enemy.  These
are "little" things that you might not consider a big deal if
you didn't live them.  Things like neighbors not being very
friendly or a 'coldness' from family members.  

> 
>>>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.
>>
>>Huh?  I said I don't believe men are scum.  
>
>No, you said you have recieved mail from women why accuse you of "cozy[ing]
>up to guy" ---because--- you don't think that men are scum. Does this not
>suggest to you that these women (who do not post here) seem to believe
>that it is an *UNDENYABLE FACT* that  men are scum.

Yes some do and some don't.  I'm sure there are men who find
women to be scum.  

>
>>                                                   I have seen some
>>people, who call themselves "feminists", with ideas like this.
>
>And I keep pointing out that prominent feminist posters here keep saying
>that this is not feminism, and that this is at odds with feminist ideals.
>I tend to believe that this attitude is far more prevalant than is claimed,
>although I will make no attempt to prove it. I will also note that none
>of the feminists who post here have really demonstrated that this is a
>rare extremist attitude either. The question is still pretty open.O

The problem is that anyone can call themselves 'feminist' just like
David Duke called himself a Republican.

Why do you insist that women here must 'prove' the ideals of all 
women?  This is like asking a moderate Republican to prove that
all republicans are not David Dukes.  

>
>>I think the word "feminist" is starting to be overused and
>>some of the uses are giving a very bad taint to the whole thing.
>
>Since a feminist is anyone who calls themself a feminist, I do not
>see that you have any more basis for claiming that their attitude
>is not a basis for feminism than for claiming that your attitude is.

I never claimed my attitude was "feminist" and I never claimed it
wasn't.  I said some people have called me that (and implied the
worst sense of the word) and others who call themselves feminists
have felt I was the farthest thing from it.  I never claimed
anything for my attitude except I'm for equality in all forms.
Of course, you may feel this is ranting "feminism".  If so,
I will place in the first category I mentioned.

>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Huh?  I believe I said I was against this.  Sexism is sexism and
>>discrimination is discrimination.  It's all wrong.
>
>My point is that the very way we describe this horrible crime is biased
>and sexist, and it colors our perceptions. It's an enviornmental thing,
>surely you understand. I was not my intention to seem to attribute to
>you a biased sexist attitude, apologies if I seemed to.

Look, women have been discriminated against by men in the past.  If women
now start discriminating against men, then isn't that a "reverse?"  It
doesn't make it any less disgusting and horrible.  

You can play all sort of semantic games.  To me reverse discrimination
is discrimination and putting a 'reverse' on it doesn't make it any less
nasty.  Unfortunately, the term has permeated modern speech.  

>
>>>>                          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.
>>
>>Double and triple HUH?  I said you have two sides, X and Y.
>>Y thinks X gets special treatment if X is equal to Y.  Meanwhile
>>X wants vengence against Y for the past.  Did I make a claim that
>>no woman wants vengence for the past? I believe I said just the opposite.  
>>I agree with you that many women do want vengence (in the form
>>of reverse discrimination) but I would argue with your implying
>>all women want that.  I for one do not.
>
>Please, I was just highlighting, I did not intend to refer to you,
>apologies again if it seems that I was.

This is the trouble about trying to stay in the middle ground.  Both
sides want to take shots at you or use you to get to the other side.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Newsgroups: soc.men