MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues.
April, 1996. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise
distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its
entirety.
INDEX:
NEWS AND OPINION
I. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT
II. RAKED BY CATT'S CLAWS
III. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
IV. STALKERS, SEXUAL PREDATORS, AND POWER RANGERS
V. THE SCORE IS MEN, 35 MILLION; WOMEN, ZERO
VI. MR. DEMOCRAT, THE SEXIST SENATOR
VII. AN UNUSUAL CASE
JUST OPINION
VIII. EXCEPTIONAL FEMINISTS
IX. THE RESPONSIBILITY GAP
==========
UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT
On April 14, feminists gathered in San Francisco to stage a political
rally. One goal was to defend and promote anti-male discrimination in the
form of affirmative action, set-asides and special breaks. Gloria Steinem
and Patricia Ireland were among the participants who harshly condemned a
California initiative to end discrimination based on race and gender in
state education, employment and contracting. Another goal was to continue
their successful push for gender discrimination in law enforcement --
support for the Violence Against Women Act and other statutes that make
violent or harassing acts into special crimes only when men commit them.
Oh, by the way, the feminists billed this as a march *against*
discrimination.
Go figure.
==========
RAKED BY CATT'S CLAWS
One of the ways that some feminists rewrite history is to portray
white women as staunch opponents of racism.
White women would have banished racism, so the reasoning goes, except
that they were held back by the white male power structure.
It's a handy little scenario to bandy about in today's political
climate. It makes for some nice novels and movies like "Fried Green
Tomatoes." It helps white feminists paint themselves as victims and horn
their way into affirmative action programs meant for racial minorities. It
helps feminists drive a further
wedge into our society as they play the politics of blame and resentment.
It's handy. But it just isn't true.
The Klan had women's branches -- filled with women who wanted equal
rights for themselves, but not for Jews, blacks, Catholics and foreigners.
When their men were away at war, Southern women ran the plantations.
They did not emancipate their slaves.
And now one of the heroines of modern feminism is coming under
renewed scrutiny for her undeniably racist beliefs.
Carrie Chapman Catt was a crusader for women's suffrage. She founded
the League of Women Voters, which today still sponsors political debates at
the highest levels of national politics. Catt planned the state-by-state
strategy that helped win passage of the woman's suffrage amendment in 1920.
If you're a woman, you owe it to Catt that you can vote.
At least, if you're a white woman.
In pushing for her right to vote, Catt argued that "White supremacy
will be strengthened, not weakened, by women's suffrage." Her campaign for
the vote was filled with assertions that "uneducated immigrants" should not
be allowed to vote. She referred to Indians as "savages."
Her supporters are trying a familiar tactic: blaming "society" for her
shortcomings. Catt was just a product of her times, they say. (How many of
these feminists are willing to forgive men who were "products of their
times"?)
The controversy over Catt's well-documented racism is flaring again
after her alma mater, Iowa State University, named a building after her:
Carrie Chapman Catt Hall. The NAACP wants the name changed, to disavow
racism in all its forms.
Catt's racism affirms a few points that skeptics of feminism have
already realized. Bigotry and feminism are not mutually exclusive
propositions. And bigotry within feminism is nothing new.
==========
NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
"Women just can't think as well as men." "Women are weak and easily
manipulated." "In most couples, it's the man who does the brainwork, and
the woman follows."
Do these attitudes strike you as sexist? As harmful toward women?
Then ask Christina Hays of Oregon.
Loyd and Christina Hays are members of the fundamentalist Church of
the First Born.
The Hays had a son, Tony, who had lymphocytic leukemia, a treatable
form of the disease.
They decided to treat the boy with prayer rather than seek medical
treatment. Tony died. He was 7 years old.
Both parents went on trial.
A jury in Albany, Oregon, convicted Loyd Hays of criminally negligent
homicide for not seeking medical treatment for the boy. Loyd Hays is
awaiting sentencing.
But Christina Hays was acquitted. Jurors said she was "under the
influence of her husband."
Both of these parents were responsible for this child -- supposedly.
But in the eyes of the law, only the man is being held to that
responsibility.
Once again a woman has been cleared of wrongdoing because she is not
seen as innately responsible as a man. If she did something wrong, there
was a man to blame.
It is rare -- perhaps nonexistent -- for a man to be acquitted of
criminal wrongdoing on the grounds that his wife controlled his thoughts.
But Christina Hays joins the list of women acquitted or never charged
because of their gender. Add her name to the list of women who have claimed
the PMS Defense, post-partum depression, "battered wife syndrome," and other
defenses that appeal to the concept of uniquely feminine mental defects or
shortcomings.
If people had suggested that Christina Hays not be allowed to own
property or vote because she was incapable of thinking for herself, they
would be vilified as the worst sort of sexists. But Christina Hays failed
at something more important -- seeing to the well-being of her child. And
her excuse is that she was "under the influence of her husband."
"Women just can't think as well as men." "Women are weak and easily
manipulated." "In most couples, it's the man who does the brainwork, and
the woman follows."
Do these attitudes strike you as sexist? Sure. But are they harmful
toward women? Not when it's the men who are going to prison.
==========
STALKERS, SEXUAL PREDATORS, AND POWER RANGERS
Maybe you heard of the case a few months ago about a 9-year-old boy
who was being charged under an anti-stalking law because he repeatedly
phoned a girl's house.
It gets weirder.
Now a 12-year-old New Jersey boy is being charged under a "sexual
predators" law. His supposed crime: fondling his 8-year-old stepbrother in
the bathtub. He might be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest
of his life.
The case stems from a batch of laws known collectively as "Megan's
Law." The well-intentioned but flawed laws were passed as a quick reaction
to the horrible death of 7-year-old Megan Kanka. A convicted sex offender is
accused of killing her.
The laws were designed to protect children from repeat sexual
offenders.
But they are being applied to a 12-year-old boy who is described as
"neurologically impaired."
The circumstances bear looking into. The 12-year-old was accused by
his stepmother. She said he fondled her son, the 8-year-old.
Step families are often under a lot of stress. Parents feel more
protective toward their "flesh and blood" children than to the "baggage"
that comes along when they remarry. The possibilities for false or
exaggerated charges ought to be considered before passing a lifetime
sentence.
And the idea of a 12-year-old having to register for the rest of his
life as a sexual predator is absolutely absurd.
Megan's Law faces legal questions and constitutional challenges
because it was slapped together as an emotional reaction with political
overtones. Legislatures ought to take the time to write solid, well-reasoned
laws. And then they should apply them reasonably. Branding a 12-year-old
as a lifetime sexual offender is not an example of either.
==========
THE SCORE IS MEN, 35 MILLION; WOMEN, ZERO
April marks the month that the 35-millionth young man was compelled to
register for the Selective Service (the draft.)
Although the draft has officially ended, young men are still required
to sign up so that they can be called up quickly when the draft is
reinstated.
The draft was supposedly suspended after the Viet Nam war. It's
interesting to note that modern feminism began flexing its political clout
at about the same time. In the intervening years, woman have become the
majority on campuses nationwide -- partly by demanding special breaks and
supports befitting their status as a "minority."
And while they are the majority on campus and are demanding "equality"
just about anywhere it looks good to them, they are a minority on the rolls
of the Selective Service.
Indeed, the score is men, 35 million; women, zero.
==========
MR. DEMOCRAT, THE SEXIST SENATOR
Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the General Chairman of the
Democratic National Committee. In that position, he is heavily involved in
the reelection efforts of Bill Clinton and every congressional Democrat.
Dodd has a major voice in shaping Democratic positions. As head of the DNC,
Dodd is, in effect, "Mr. Democrat."
Recently, he sought to explain why his Democratic party is attracting
more female voters than the Republicans. Senator Dodd put it this way:
"Women are more inclined to think less of themselves and their own
immediate needs and more of their families." That translates, he said, into
broader support of a government role in guaranteeing things like education
and health care.
Senator Dodd is pandering to the divisive gender politics and feminist
superiority propaganda that is already is splitting families and tearing us
apart.
And this isn't just the opinion of one rogue senator. Dodd is now at
the center of Democratic campaign strategy. This type of gender
stereotyping is coming from the highest level of the Democratic party.
If you object to Mr. Democrat telling you that you care less about
your family or society, then let him know. Below are his Congressional
e-mail address and other addresses where you can snail mail him.
If you write him, you might want to stress a couple of points:
Senator Dodd, how dare you denigrate all the hardworking husbands,
fathers and sons who are supporting wives, children and elderly parents?
Many men provide for their families by working long hours backbreaking,
stressful or dangerous jobs. How dare you imply that they think only of
their own needs? How dare you insult them just to pander to feminists? How
dare you imply that men don't care about education and health care when men
are paying most of the taxes to support these programs? And why should we
embrace your party when you obviously are trying to make political capital
by running us down?
You can write to Senator Sexist at:
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St., SE, Washington,
D.C. 20003, phone 202-863-8000.
Or
Offices: U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510, phone 202-224-2823
Or
Putnam Park, 100 Great Meadow Road, Wethersfield, Conn. 06109,
phone 203-240-3470
Or e-mail him right now at:
sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov
Please take the time to at least e-mail him your objections. If they
get enough input now, perhaps they will drop the man-bashing plank from
their platform before the convention.
==========
AN UNUSUAL CASE
Rita Gluzman is accused in the brutal axe murder of her estranged
husband. Of course, it's not the first time a husband or wife has been
charged in a spouse's death.
She's accused of convincing a man to help her carry out her dirty
deeds. Not the first time a woman has done that, either.
And authorities say the motive was money -- that she was afraid of
losing her financial stake in a company during their divorce. Well, it's
hardly the first time a person's life was treated as worth less than a bank
account.
But what makes Rita Gluzman unique is that she is the first woman ever
charged under a federal law against domestic violence. She has been charged
with traveling between states to commit domestic violence.
Many men who are attacked by violent wives or girlfriends seem to have
trouble convincing authorities that charges should be brought -- or that
they are not the instigators of the violence. In the recent case of
football star Warren Moon, Moon's wife testified repeatedly under oath to
the abuse she committed against him. But only the man, Warren Moon, was
charged. Prosecutors said they would charge Warren Moon again if they had
the chance. (They don't, because he was acquitted.) However, they have no
intention of charging his wife, who admitted under oath to repeatedly
striking her husband during episodes of "explosive rage."
But the Gluzman case marks the first time that federal authorities
figured out that women can commit domestic violence. Authorities say Rita
Gluzman and her cousin ambushed her husband, Yakov Gluzman, with two axes
and then cut his body into 65 pieces. The body was stuffed into ten garbage
bags and dumped into the Passaic River in New Jersey. So it is a good sign
that our federal authorities can at last recognize that hacking a man into
five dozen pieces might constitute domestic violence.
==========
EXCEPTIONAL FEMINISTS
During child custody disputes, feminists say that children need to be with
their mothers ...
Except when the mothers want to put the kids in daycare.
Feminists say that discrimination is bad ...
Except when it benefits them.
Feminists say that excluding people because of their gender is bad ...
Except at women's colleges, in girls' and women's sports, on Take Your
Daughter To Work Day ...
Feminists say that gender stereotypes are bad ...
Except that all men really *are* potential rapists.
Feminists advocate equal rights ...
Except for your right to say things they don't like.
Feminists say that diversity is good ...
Except when it means admitting men.
Feminists support affirmative action ...
Except when a white woman gets turned away.
Feminists say they advocate equality for everyone ...
Except you.
==========
On the Internet, one man recently asked why supposedly "moderate"
feminists do not speak out more against the extremists. Citing a collection
of anti-male quotations, he asked one feminist the following question: "If
what you say is true, then where are the voices of these mainstream
feminists, condemning or even arguing with the fringe extremists?"
Came the reply:
"We're busy running businesses, teaching in schools and universities,
raising families, providing services to our communities, etc.; essentially
the same things men are doing. We don't have enough time to devote to
everything that needs our attention in our own lives, much less
participating in political movements. Or, if we choose to spend our time
addressing political issues, perhaps others are addressed. I consider
myself to be either a mainstream feminist or "equalist", if you prefer
(support AA based on economic disadvantage, not gender or race; equal pay;
identical standards applied to men and women in custody and CS decisions,
equal draft registration requirements, etc.), but choose to spend my
"political" time supporting improved educational opportunities for
economically or socially disadvantaged kids (yes, girls _and_ boys)."
From replies like this one and many others, it certainly seems like there is
a "Responsibility Gap" between the genders. It's common to hear feminists
tell men that men are responsible for anything any man anywhere does. Men
are told that they have to stop every anti-women (or anti-feminist) act, and
quash every anti-female comment or they are just as responsible as the
person committing the offense.
Yet when asked, where are the mainstream feminists condemning the
extremist feminists, the answer is "We're busy ..."
When it comes to dissenting against their extremist sisters, some
feminists will always be "busy."
=============================
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. If you
would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, send the message
"subscribe MANifesto" to psmaowens@gnn.com
(If you have sent this message and did not get the latest issue
e-mailed to you, please send it again.)
=============================
No comments:
Post a Comment