From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:36:02 GMT

From article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>, by julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas):
> 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"?

The difference is that heart disease rates can change, whereas the planets
are doing what they've always done.  So what Rich is saying is that heart
disease has gone up in women.  I don't know if that is true or not, but the
biggest risk factor is smoking, and that has gone up in women.

[...]
>>
>>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).

These are certainly not exclusive.  They don't like her politics and are more 
worried about it because she's not 'stay-at-home' and says thing such as 'you 
get two of us for the price of one'.  Now, looking at the husband first.  He 
has said the same thing 'two for the price of one', and also has said she's 
invited to cabinet meetings and such.  So, from looking at Bill, it seems 
people are quite legitimate in their fears of Hillary's politics affecting 
Bill's decisions.

> 
>>
>>>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.  

That explains children but not women.

> 
> 
>>
>>>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.

Taking the 'selfish gene' approach the double standard in regards to adultry
is explained quite well.  If the man cheats, as long as he stays with his
wife and continues to support her, her children don't lose much in their 
chances to survive.  If the woman cheats, there is a chance the husband will
spend a lot of resources raising some other mans kids; a big loss in the 
evolutionary game.  This may carry over into such things as pre-marital sex.
[note that I don't necessarily believe the above, but you brought up a 
'selfish gene' arguement so I figured I would also]

SEH