From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 1992 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Dan Swartzendruber writes
>In article <1h4hg5INNe6u@transfer.stratus.com>,  
lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:
>> Dan Swartzendruber writes
>> >Citations please?  In many cases this is a religious issue.  Oh, I forgot -
>> >these are patriarchal religions, so it's a moot point.
>> No, Dan, in the vast MINORITY of cases is circumcision done for "religious  
>> reasons."  It's still done routinely in many hospitals to boys of many  
>> different religions.  Whether a religion is patriarchal or not
>> is completely irrelevent to this discussion.
>I didn't say (or even imply) that that wasn't the case.  I said "in many
>cases".  Many is an absolute term, not a relative term.  And there *are*
>many such cases each year.  In any event, this is a pretty minor point anyway.

What a minute, you used that as a way to make the following cutting
remark:  "Oh, I forgot--these are patriarchal religions, so it's a moot point."
Most boys born in a hospital receive circumcisions because of
medical tradition and not because of religious tradition.  You said "In
many cases this is a religious issue."  You didn't say "In some cases" or
"In 5% of the cases."  Don't make sweeping statements and then complain
when people point out that they don't match reality.  Very few circumcisions  
have anything to do with religion, and most circumcisions that DO have  
religious significance are done at home when the boy is 8 days old.

>> >Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness? - girls/women
>> 
>> This is patent bull.  Sure, there are some women who do this, but this  
happens  
>> a whole lot more from stereotypic fathers and coaches.  Most people I hung  
out  
>> with in school hated that kind of behavior.
>Well, thank you for validating my personal experiences.  So you are claiming
>that it is totally coincidental that the tough guys all had girlfriends and
>the guys like me that got beat up on didn't?  Despite the fact that these
>girls would treat me (and guys like me) like pond scum?  And yes, most of the
>people I hung out with hated that kind of behavior too.  Of course, we weren't
>the majority either.  Laurie, I really wish you would be more consistent about
>things like this.  A consistent attitude I see from you (and others like you)
>is that anecdotal evidence is only valid if it comes from you (or agrees with
>your position).

Society is changing but it's changing slowly.  Yes, many girls I knew back in  
school hung out with jocks.  What in the world does that have to do with 
"Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness? - girls/women"
It has a whole lot more to do with society's glorification of sports.
While it's related to "toughness" it's a little more complicated than
that.

If you want your position validated, Dan, go to soc.men.  In theory, soc.women  
should be a place for women to receive support and validation.  (Besides, you  
know me---how many dates do you think a fat, opinionated, intelligent, feminist  
teenaged woman had?  Three.)  Besides men hit women all the time in soc.women  
for discussing anecdotal evidence.  Why is a man's anecdotal evidence more  
valid in soc.women than a woman's would be?
 
*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women