From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:01:39 GMT

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.

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.

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

OK, lets deal with that. Do you feel that Hillory Clinton should,
ditrctly or indirectly be setting White House policy?

>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.
 
>>
>>>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.

>                                                  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.  

And now you are relating selfish property rights to altruism. I have
no idea what to make of this. 
 

>>>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?  

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.

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

For example...
 
>>>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.  

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.

>                                                   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

>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.

>>>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.

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



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men