From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:52:35 GMT

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"?

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

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.
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).

>
>>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.  Some researchers 
believe that's the underlying cause of altruism, i.e. the 'selfish
gene.'  Obviously, no one makes a conscious decision about this
but you have to explain altruism somehow.  It shows up in many
animals.  


>
>>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.

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?  During wars women are raped by enemy soldiers.  
They face blame by their society afterwards.

>  
>>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.

Huh?  I said I don't believe men are scum.  I have seen some
people, who call themselves "feminists", with ideas like this.
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.

>
>>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.
>
>>                          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.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Xref: sparky soc.men:22505 alt.feminism:7021 talk.abortion:55083