From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:34:38 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

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.

>This is now known to be untrue.  

A new statistic changes that, fast.

>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...

>>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?

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?

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

For example?

>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.

2) If she gets pregnant, and there are complications because of the
   drugs, an expensive law suit may result.

3) If the drug is proved harmful you are exposed to bad publicity
   by traditionalist and feminists because you treated women
   like guinea pigs.

>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?

>>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.

>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?

>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?

Take a look how a feminist talks about men's fears about rape:

#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...

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.
Are you sure that you really want to talk about rape when you
try to prove that "men are taken more seriously"?

>Why are their sex lives dissected during trial?  

A good defense lawyer uses whatever he can, and he can't ask about
their sex lives in most states.  Your literature is a little old...

>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.

>Certainly not because they're "worth more."  To me, it seems like the 
>collective idea is that women are property (doesn't she have a name?)  
>You protect property (like putting them in a life boat first), 

Most people tend to leave their property behind and run from a danger
as fast as they can.  Something is wrong in your theory.

>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?

>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.

>Julie

Hillel                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In my experience, the usual modus operandi is to demand special protection in
as loud a voice as possible.  Then, when special protection is given, turn
the volume up to 11 and complain that it is patronizing.  It's a fun game, and
it works over and over again."  --  Eric Pepke