From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:00:42 GMT


Note:  I posted a follow-up to this but it doesn't appear
to have made it to the net.  It is slightly different from
the other post.  If the first one  does show up, I'm sorry
for the duplication.

In article <726644077@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>>As I said, read the article.  They focused on heart *disease*, not
>>heart attacks.  
>
>I hope you realize that men die younger from heart *disease* and
>from heart attacks...
>
>>Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
>>extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  
>
>That was based on the known statistics.

It was based on cases being under-researched and under-reported.

>
>>This is now known to be untrue.  
>
>A new statistic changes that, fast.

No, it's just that it is now being studied.
>
>>Women do not get top priority everywhere.  I have been in a lot
>>of hospitals and have NEVER seen women getting top priority.  
>
>Therefore it NEVER happens...

You bring up one case and expect us to believe that it is
happening everywhere.  It isn't.  For the record, I
think a clinic turning away someone based on gender, age,
ethnic group, whatever, is horrible but it does not justify
discrimination against that group somewhere else.  One case
does not make for standard practices.

>
>>>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.)
[...]
>
>>But
>>the definition of many diseases are still based solely on symptoms
>>shown by men.  
>
>For example?

I'll give you a reverse example.  Breast cancer in men.  By your
arguments, and the philosophy of the medical industry, breast
cancer in men is extremely rare so we don't have to test men for
it or worry about it at all.  After all, mostly women die from
breast cancer so all research, funds, and diagnoses should go
towards women.  One could also say that the rise of breast
cancer in men is recent.

The medical industry has been slow in educating and testing
men for breast cancer.  I think this is every bit as abhorrent
as undertreating women for heart disease.  Think about these two 
cases, Hillel.   Is one more justified than another?  If you 
say yes then you are prejudiced.  If you say no, then you've
taken your first step towards desiring true equality.

>
>>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.  
>
>Testing on women have the following problems:
>1) Women have different levels of hormones because of the monthly
>   cycle, and that complicates the "check just one factor" research.

I guess menstruating women are just out of luck on medicines then.
(SARCASM ALERT)It's so hard to check hormone levels.  I wonder what is done
about fluctuations of testerone in men though.


>
>2) If she gets pregnant, and there are complications because of the
>   drugs, an expensive law suit may result.

And if a man's fertility is damaged then there could be an expensive
lawsuit.
>
>3) If the drug is proved harmful you are exposed to bad publicity
>   by traditionalist and feminists because you treated women
>   like guinea pigs.

So you want the men to remain guinea pigs?  If that isn't part
of the EvilFeministLesbianWitchcraftConspiracy(tm) I don't know
what is.

You get very upset about 'special privledges' accorded to women.
I would think you would be all for drug testing on women "to even
things up."  But perhaps women might benefit from it too much?
>
>>Pacemakers and other chest 
>>implants are sized for men and can cause problems in the smaller chest 
>>cavities of women.  
>
>How many of them are used by men?
>How many of them are used by women?

Like my argument above, not many men get breast cancer so we shouldn't
bother testing them for it or developing treatments for it, right?

Or do you think women should be just out of luck then?  They make 
clothes for people who are not 'average' size.  But then, I guess
it's more important to have clothes that fit than pacemakers.

>
>>>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?  
>
>Cutting the government's power to impose its standards on people.

So everyone should have the right to decide if they want to
keep slaves, right?  That nasty old government also imposes its
standards by saying you can't murder anyone.  The nerve!  Or maybe
you don't mind if someone came and took over your house.  I mean,
not everyone has the same idea of property rights and why should
the government enforce that standard?

>
>>I would much prefer to have true
>>equality (and that means no more so-called priveleges like being the
>>first on a life boat).  
>
>What about your advantage in divorce, for example?

We've discussed this before Hillel.  If you recall I'm against
any advantages such as this.  

Or do you think because a group has an advantage in one area
then they should be discriminated in other areas?  Wouldn't it
be better to have *no* discrimination anywhere?  Or do you want
discrimination against women?

>
>>If women's lives are truly worth more in the minds of most people,
>>then why are women shunned after rape?  
>
>Have you ever even asked yourself how men are treated after rape?

Yes I have and I think it's terrible.  But to use *your* arguements
I could say that men are out of luck because so many more women are
raped rather than men.  I could say it's a "new statistic" and not
care about it being under-reported and under-studied in the past.
I could say that only numbers matter.  

>
>Take a look how a feminist talks about men's fears about rape:

Feminists are not clones, do not walk, talk, dress, and eat alike.
They are not identical.  Not all feminists believe the same things.

>
>#Two bright young Nixon aides who plead guilty to WaterGate offenses
>#and know they face a jail sentences admit they are apprehensive about
>#the possibility of a sexual assault.
>#
>#(The concern of the Nixon men, as a matter of fact, was exaggerated,
>#since federal prisons hold the least violent criminals, those convicted
>#largely of white-collar crimes.
>                --  ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
>
>BTW Tell me Julie, what is your opinion about men who down-play
>suburban women fears about rape?  Just wondering...

The same I feel about women downplaying men's fears.  (And it's not
just women downplaying men's fears.  I knew a guy on campus who
wouldn't call the campus escort service after dark, even though he
didn't like walking alone, because the *male* police officers gave
him a very hard time about it.)  Were you expecting another response?

I'm wondering, everytime you ask me something and say 'I'm wondering'
you seem to expect a different response than the one I give.  You seem
to lump all women who want equality into one category, the 
EvilManHatingChildEatingFeminist(tm).

>
>Another BTW: if she sleeps with him while she is drunk, she can 
>shout "rape" in the morning.  If he sleeps with her while he is 
>drunk, he can't shout "rape" in the morning.  

Anyone who falsly accuses someone is a criminal.  I doubt
women have a monopoly on that.

>Are you sure that you really want to talk about rape when you 
>try to prove that "men are taken more seriously"?

So, how long have you been a women and known how they're treated?

>
>>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?  
>
>This is changing; not fast enough but changing.
>The defense on women's extra right remains the same because it
>is a shared value of most feminists and most traditionalists.

I and other women recognise these "extra rights" for the traps
they are and fight against them.

>How many of your male friends married a virgin?
>How many of your female friends were married virgin?

But how are they viewed by society?

>
>>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.
>
>It has never been my idea to use the government to enforce "nice"
>values.  Affirmative action quotas, special help for women, 
>passing a law by Congress to free a woman who disobeyed a divorce
>judge, etc. were feminists' ideas, not mine.

Equality is a "nice" value?  

For what it's worth, I'm against quotas and am for legislation
and enforcement of gender-blind practices.  There is a big
difference between the two.  

Instead of reading and understanding what I've written here and 
in the past you seem to be reacting blindly to a woman who wants equality.  
Tell me, what do you think 'women's place' in society is?  Instead
of being (justifiably) concerned about discrimination against
men you seem to feel it would all go away if women were to
shut up and stay at home.  That is, the only way to protect
your rights is to take away someone else's.  Correct me if I'm wrong, 
but this is the opinion I get from your posts.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else