From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:39:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.203602.1309@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>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 don't think it is a case of rates going up causing the change in
theories.  From what I remember of the article, it was more a case
of no research being done and assumptions being made (that
women don't suffer from heart disease).  Now the rate of women's
heart disease may have changed but it was always there and was
previously virtually ignored.  This is why I think it's more accurate
to say the previous theory was 'wrong' instead of 'has changed'.

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

But isn't that a problem with Bill?  If he lets people drastically influence
his opinion then we have more than just Hillary to worry about.

Anyway, no one seems to get too upset (at least I haven't seen it) when a
female politician has an opinionated husband.  They certainly don't 
expect the husband to be a 'stay-at-home' type.

>> 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]

I'm not at all qualified to debate the validity of the selfish
gene theory.  I would just hope that we could, as a society,
get over these things.  

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Newsgroups: soc.men