From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:06:18 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.231725.20294@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <michael.726528708@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>> In <1993Jan8.085654.6101@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>>From article <michael.726478187@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>>> In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>>> 
>[...]
>> 
>>>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), but I personally am not 
>>>constructing much.
>> 
>> Getting defensive?  I didn't even say you constructed anything.  I said
>> someone did.  However, defensiveness aside, the whole point is stretching
>> it, so I ask you again...  Don't you think you are stretching things?
>> (Don't worry, I won't laugh this time...  I'm too bored).

>As above; not too far fetched.  Perhaps if you read what I write you would
>get less bored.

Oh my, now he claims to be aware of what I read and what I don't read.
I think we are *REALLY* stretching it now. :)

>>>Assuming a good four years are you?  I don't think I'm as optimistic as you.
>> 
>> No, I make no assumptions about the next four years in terms of how good
>> a job the president will do.  I am however making an assumption that the
>> presidents wife will not have any bad affect on matters and that maybe a
>> few people will notice that fears in that reguard were the subject of
>> pure paranoia.

>Hillary has already been presented as someone who will have a hand in the 
>administration, and therefore is going to share in whatever blame or credit 
>is given; not somehow judged on different criteria.  As, for example, Babara
>Bush was, who had her own projects and wasn't perceived as having a hand in
>policy (whether she did or not).

Ah, but perception and reality are often far and away a different thing.
Oh, but then after reading many of your posts, I haven't seen anything
to suggest that you have understood this concept. :)

>>>By the way, why is Hillary viewed as this 'strong' women?  She seems to
>>>have ridden her husband into political office just as every other First
>>>Lady has (and unlike many others in this 'year of the woman').
>> 
>> Its because she has a degree and her own opinions.

>You mean like Quayle's wife?

If Quayle's wife has a degree and her own opinions, then yes...  exactly.

But then even if the democrats would stoop so low as the republicans did
to try to bring that issue up (which I wouldn't find hard to believe
considering the tactics politicians employ), it wouldn't be necessary.
Quayle has never been considered anything but a joke and is not a threat.

And even if he had been considered a threat, he's only the VP.  He's
only and advisor and his wife (at best) is an advisor to an advisor.

Personally I never thought that Quayle was as bad as people made him out
to be.  Oh, I'll admit he had a rare talent for faux pas.  But I've never
seen anything by which I could really judge the man's ability.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism