From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:12:21 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1993Jan11.195613.9220@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <726644077@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>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.  

>>That was based on the known statistics.

>It was based on women's heart disease being under-researched and
>under-treated.

Do you think that it was an evil conspiracy, or the medical
establishment is just slow to react to changing conditions?  

>>>This is now known to be untrue.  

>>A new statistic changes that, fast.

>No.  The studies have now just been done.

So the statistic is *new*.

>You hold up one case and seem to feel it happens everywhere.  I
>do feel clinics turning away *any* group of people is wrong but
>I don't think it's as prevelant as you think.  

If there are limited resources, who should get a priority?
Should the criteria be gender-based, age-based or condition-based?

>And tell me,
>if there is one hospital where women get top priority, does
>that justify not getting treatment somewhere else?  

Have you ever heard about a gender-based policy that turns away only women?

>>>>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.)

>>>Yes.  But often slightly different symptoms of the same disease
>>>are not treated or recoginized in women.  Just recently the definition
>>>of AIDS was widened to include diseases that occur in women.  

>>Can you give more examples?

>I'll give you a reverse example.  Breast cancer in men.  It's rare
>but it does happen.  The medical industry had a philosphy similiar
>to yours about women and heart disease.  Since breast cancer kills 
>more women should we be concerned with breast cancer in men?  Should 
>we even bother studying or checking men for it since it's so rare?

If the resources can save more people if they would be invested in other 
areas then there is a rational to invest the resources where they will
save most people.  If the breast cancer in men is rare enough, and the
resources which are needed for research are too large, then it should get
a lower priority.

>I'll tell you something.  The medical industry has been slow to
>start checking men and educating them on this subject.  I think
>this is every bit as abhorrent as neglecting heart disease in
>women.  Think about these two cases Hillel.  If you think one
>is somehow more justified than the other then you are guilty
>of prejudice.  

Do you want to bet which one will be fixed first?

>>How long did it take from the time that AIDS started to be a significant
>>disease between men till its symptoms in men were recognized?

>>How long did it take from the time that AIDS started to be a significant
>>disease between women till its symptoms in women were recognized?

>There may have been more of a lag time between the start of AIDS
>and the definition in men of the symptoms than the defintion of
>symptoms in women.  But you can't compare those statistics.  Defining
>the symptoms in women had more to build on -- the definitions already
>existing for men. 

It was built on that, and then y'all complained because the symptoms on
women were different and the definition was based on symptoms in men...

>>>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.

>Hmm, too hard to take that into account?  

Harder.

The more "random noise" you have in your experiment, the less
significant the results are.

>I guess menstruating 
>women are out of luck then.  What about cycles in men's testerone
>levels?  Won't that affect anything?

The changes in those "cycles" are much smaller than the changes in women.

>>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 or chromozomes are damaged due to complications
>of the drug there may be an expensive law suit.

That has never happen, but the drug companies have *paid* when drugs 
had strange side effects on pregnant women (some effects even pass to
second or third generation).  The safest, from the drug company point
of view, is to write on the bottles "should not be taken by pregnant
women," and save the expensive testing money.

>>3) If the drug is proved harmful you are exposed to bad publicity
>>   by traditionalist and feminists because you treated women
>>   like guinea pigs.

>What about all those men being guinea pigs right now?  

That's OK for the same reason the american public does not want to
see its daughters come back in body-bags, but the same public did
not care that much when the sons came back that way...

>You get upset at "advantages" given to women.  I would
>think you would definitely want them to take part in drug
>testing.  

I would like women to be part of the drug testing, but I don't want
the government to force the drug companies to do so.

>>>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?

>So as long as it's some small number of women it doesn't matter that 
>smaller devices aren't made?  

Did you check the price/benefit analysis and decided that it is a good
investment when the goal is saving as many lives as possible?

>They make clothes for people far outside the 'average' range too.  

That is done by companies that try to make money, not be nice and good.

>>>>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.

>Then we should let people decide for themselves if they want to own
>slaves, right?

I don't like the government and its power, and I prefer to use it as 
little as possible.  I agree that sometimes the government power is 
needed to defend people from powerful corporations/people who behave 
like bullies, but the government itself tend to be the largest bully 
of all (e.g. the draft).

>>>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 horrible.  SARCASM ALERT: But, to use 
>*your* analogy of medicine, I could say that becuase men are raped 
>far less so it doesn't really matter that society doesn't do more 
>for them or take the crime seriously.  

Are the resources which are needed to treat men fairly so expensive?

>I mean after all, how many women are raped and how many men?  

If you include the prisons' rapes (which the state has much more
responsibility for them), then the answer is not that clear.

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

>Feminists are not clones of one another, do not walk, talk,
>and dress alike, and certainly do not think alike.

I quoted the most popular feminist book about rape.
There is a reason why it was sold in millions of copies.

#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 as women who downplay men's fears of rape.  

>I'm wondering why you think I would agree with this.  

I did not try to debate you (Julie), I tried to debate society and the
way it treats men and women.  Men who down play a woman's fear ("this
suburban is pretty safe, your concern is exaggerated") is considered
"bad," but a woman like Brownmiller is considered an *expert* on rape.

>>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.

>I think anyone who falsly accuses someone is a criminal.  

The laws in several states define the above situation as rape *if*
the drunk person is a female.  I'm talking about equality in laws,
not about false accusations.

>But tell me, what's your point?  

The when a man says "I had sex against my will" he is not being
taken seriously.

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

>So you've lived the life of a woman?  You know first hand
>that women are taken as seriously as men?  I wish you would
>tell that to the automechanics I know.

Do you think that a man who says "I had sex against my will" is 
taken as seriously as a woman who says the same?
(This is not a rhetorical question.)

>>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.

>This may be a surprise, but many feminists recogize these
>"extra rights" as the traps they are and fight against them.

Do you really believe that most feminists are willing to
give up women's marriage & divorce advantages?
(This is not a rhetorical question.)

>>>you discard "used" property (shunning after rape and only marrying a
>>>virgin), 

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

>But how are each viewed by society?

Do you know any non-virgin woman who had a problem getting married
because of that?

>>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.

>There is a difference between quotas (which I'm against) and
>legislation and enforcement of gender-blind practices.

Let's pick the example of Dr. Morgan.

She refuses to let the father of her child any access to her, and was
jailed for "contempt of court."  Congress, under heavy feminist pressure,
changed the law so Dr. Morgan, and only Dr. Morgan, would be out of
jail.

You can call it "a gender-blind practice," but I don't have to agree.

Let's pick another example that happen now: the feminist-sponsored bill 
that is pushed in Congress that define violence against women as more 
serious offense than violence against men.

Do you think that this law is gender-blind?

Do you hear the feminist support for this bill?
Have you heard any feminist objection to this bill?

>Tell me, in your opinion, just what is a woman's place in society?

Same as man's place.  No special duties and no special breaks.

>Julie

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond
Xref: sparky soc.men:22090 alt.feminism:6786