From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:56:13 GMT

In article <726644077@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>>As I said, read the article.  They focused on heart *disease*, not
>>heart attacks.  
>
>I hope you realize that men die younger from heart *disease* and
>from heart attacks...
>
>>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.
>
>>This is now known to be untrue.  
>
>A new statistic changes that, fast.

No.  The studies have now just been done.
>
>>Women do not get top priority everywhere.  I have been in a lot
>>of hospitals and have NEVER seen women getting top priority.  
>
>Therefore it NEVER happens...

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.  And tell me,
if there is one hospital where women get top priority, does
that justify not getting treatment somewhere else?  Of course
it doesn't, regardless of which gender it is.  It also doesn't
justify continuing discrimination in other areas.

>
>>>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?

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.  

>
>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. 


>
>>But
>>the definition of many diseases are still based solely on symptoms
>>shown by men.  
>
>For example?

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

>
>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.

>
>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?  If that
isn't part of the EvilFeministLesbianWitchcraftConspiracy
I don't know what is.

You get upset at "advantages" given to women.  I would
think you would definitely want them to take part in drug
testing.  But perhaps it would be of some use to them though.

>
>>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?  They make clothes for people far 
outside the 'average' range too.  But I guess it's more important
to have clothes that fit than have a pacemaker that does.

>

>>>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 would much prefer to have true
>>equality (and that means no more so-called priveleges like being the
>>first on a life boat).  
>
>What about your advantage in divorce, for example?

We've had this discussion before Hillel.  If you recall I'm
against any advantage for women.


>
>>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.  I mean after all, how many 
women are raped and how many men?  Numbers are all that matters isn't it?

>
>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.

>
>#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 really
am.  Do you really feel all women who want equality feel this
way?

Why do I get the feeling you are not reading or understanding
what I have written, now and in the past.  You seem to lump
every women in some category, EvilFeminist(tm) for wanting equality.

>
>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.  (And
are you going to say that a man has *never* falsly accused a
woman of something?)

But tell me, what's your point?  Do you have one or do you want
to tell everyone how horrible women are so you can feel justified
in the areas where they're discriminated against?

>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.

>
>>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?  
>
>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.

>
>>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?

>
>>reverse discrimination.  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.
>
>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.

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

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Xref: sparky soc.men:22495 alt.feminism:7015