Per's MANifesto August 1996

MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues.
July, 1996.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto where we ask: WHAT
ARE MEN GOOD FOR? It's a serious question, and we take a look at how women
and feminists approach this vexing issue. It turns out that men are good
for a lot of thing -- like money, for example. They're also good for
blaming everything on. And now and then they're good for dying in order to
advance your social status on the party circuit. Read on, fellows, and find
out how you can be of service to women.

INDEX: NEWS AND VIEWS
MEN MAKE GOOD TARGETS
MEN ARE GOOD FOR MONEY
DEAD MEN ARE GOOD FOR ALIMONY
MEN ARE GOOD FOR KICKS
LITTLE BOYS ARE BLOODY GOOD
MEN ARE GOOD FOR FOLLOWING ORDERS
MEN CAN BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED
MEN TAKE AWAY SINS
ONE HECK OF A DIVERSITY LEADER
COSMOWATCH
HUMOR:
POW DEMANDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COMBAT
POW GETS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAPER CONSPIRACY

==========
MEN MAKE GOOD TARGETS
in 1974, Terri Gilbert shot and killed her ex-husband.
She claimed she killed him in self defense.
She was never charged. Well, of course we know that domestic
violence is a male thing. Killing them is okay -- "The Burning Bed" and all
that.
But earlier this month, Gilbert shot and killed her current husband.
She claims she mistook him for a burglar.
Terri Gilbert, 49, had filed for divorce in March, on the grounds of
"discord and conflict." Then one Sunday night she went into her basement and
shot her current husband dead. She then called police and told them she had
shot a "burglar."
There also is evidence that Gilbert had another husband in between
these two marriages.
"It looks like there were three husbands, and we know two are dead,"
said Albuquerque, New Mexico, police lieutenant Richard Tarango. "I'd like
to know where the other one is." ==========

MEN ARE GOOD FOR MONEY
Here's some advice given out by Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland
Saffold in a Cincinnati courtroom. Judge Saffold told a female defendant to
dump her boyfriend and find a nice doctor to marry. "You can go sit in the
bus stop, put on a short skirt, cross your legs and pick up 25. Ten of them
will give you their money."
"Men are easy," the judge told defendant Katie Nemeth.
"If you don't pick up the first 10," the judge said, "then all you got
to do is open your legs a little bit and cross them at the bottom and then
they'll stop."
The judge must know what she's talking about. She is married to a
doctor herself.
Nemeth had pleaded guilty to misusing a credit card that had been left
in the store where she works. The judge gave Nemeth a $200 fine.
According to a transcript of the hearing, the judge also told Nemeth
she should break up with her boyfriend because "all of the women in prisons
across these United States of America are there because of a guy."
Apparently she attributes the real blame to the boyfriend because Nemeth's
lawyer claimed that the boyfriend was the one who actually misused the
credit card.
Hmmm. So if the credit card is lost in this woman's store, and somehow
it's given to the boyfriend to misuse -- obviously that's the man misleading
the woman.
Now if the boyfriend had worked in the store where the credit card was
lost, and if he gave it to his girlfriend to misuse -- hmm, that's obviously
the crooked man being the ringleader and leading the innocent little waif
astray.
So men are also good for blaming a woman's offenses on.

==========
DEAD MEN ARE GOOD FOR ALIMONY
The first wife of "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry wants to boldly
go where no alimony has gone before: into the future and beyond death.
Eileen Roddenberry wants a cut of the profits from the new spinoff
stories and products that Gene Roddenberry created after their divorce.
We understand the idea of married couples sharing in the property and
assets they acquire during their marriage. We understand how one spouse can
contribute directly or indirectly to the other's success, even if just by
offering support and encouragement. We understand how a spouse can make
sacrifices to help the other's career.
But Eileen Roddenberry thinks she's entitled to the profits from work
her husband did after they split up -- as if a woman is entitled to her
ex-husband's entire future. She wasn't supporting him as he created the new
series and stories. And if those ventures had gone belly up, we doubt she
would have shared in any of the sacrifices -- say, by demanded that her
alimony be cut.
Eileen Roddenberry still gets a lucrative share of the profits from
the original "Star Trek" show. Oddly enough, that means she now gets more
money from "Star Trek" than Gene Roddenberry himself. That's because he's
dead. There's a certain science-fiction-esque sort of logic in hopping back
and forth in time to claim future profits from a dead man.
But her profits might have reached their final frontier: the
California Supreme Court ruled she wasn't entitled to a cut of the profits
from the spinoffs that Roddenberry created after their divorce.
We certainly hope the judge looked at her and, in a decent "Scotty"
voice, told her: "The lady dinnah ha' a leg to stand on."
But we'd settle for a decent Captain Kirk voice telling her: "Why ...
don't ... you ... get ... a ... JOB!" ==========

MEN ARE GOOD FOR KICKS
Convicted rapist Reginald Muldrew -- known in California as "the
Pillowcase Rapist" -- was kicked and beaten nearly to death by a mob of men
in Gary, Indiana, on August 5. The men believed Muldrew had just attacked a
woman. He was caught with her purse. Some of them bashed his head with a
brick.
From a feminist standpoint, this severe beating is puzzling. Feminist
truth-seekers have told us that all men are potential rapists. Why then did
this group of men attack "one of their own," as it were?
There has to be a logical explanation. Feminist truth-seekers have
told us that rape is the normal mode of male sexual expression, that rape is
as institutionalized and acceptable to men as football, that society
tolerates and even advocates sexual violence.
And yet here is a bunch of men in Gary, Indiana, who seemed to have
registered a rather strong objection to an assault on a woman.
What can the possible explanation be, in feminist terms?
Well, maybe they were just upset that he got to the woman first.
==========

LITTLE BOYS ARE BLOODY GOOD
A practicing witch who drives a school bus was convicted of statutory
rape for seducing a 14-year-old boy who testified that she forced him to
lick her blood.
Kerri Lynn Patavino, 28, met the boy when he was a middle-school
student. The boy said she took him out for pizza last year and seduced him.
He tried to break off the relation when she started cutting herself with a
razor during sex and forcing him to lick the blood, he said.
Patavino practices Wicca, an ancient nature religion.
Patavino didn't take it very well when the youngster she called "l.b."
for "little boy" tried to break up with her. Prosecutors say she broke into
the boy's home and stole several items, including a skateboard. Thus she
also was convicted of burglary and larceny. Apparently this backward jury
hasn't been paying attention to modern movies, where it's considered very
"empowering" for women to commit revenge acts like these against former
lovers.
And she also was accused of giving the boy drugs.
Patavino's lawyer, Joseph Mirsky, doesn't see what all the fuss over
statutory rape is all about. "If I was 15, I would have loved it. I
wouldn't complain," he said.
We suppose he probably wouldn't mind drinking his client's blood,
either. But then again, he IS a lawyer.
Patavino claims the boy lied about having sex with her. But we have to
reject that claim out of hand because feminists have told us that rape
victims never lie and that questioning any rape claim makes you part of the
backlash. Certainly we wouldn't want to be part of any backlash.
Besides, the prosecution has the love letters that Patavino wrote to
the boy.
Some are signed in blood.
==========

MEN ARE GOOD FOR FOLLOWING ORDERS
"Attention, men: Here is a list of our demands."
That might as well have been the opening for a recent list that a
feminist posted on the Internet under the title "41 Ways To Tell If Your Man
Is A Feminist."
This remarkable list was essentially a set of instructions spelling
out the conduct the woman expects from a suitable boyfriend. It shows that
some women can submit a list of manipulative, one-sided demands knowing some
men somewhere will jump through the hoops to get into her good graces.
Some parts of the list involve men simply not being jerks ("He always
walks with you. He doesn't get in these moods where you're forced to walk
two or three paces behind him. ... He doesn't refer to your breasts as
hooters.") But mostly it involved the prospective boyfriend agreeing to
support the feminist no matter how radical, self-centered, ideological,
bizarre or funky she gets.
Along the way, she rejects traditional chivalry, at least a little.
("He doesn't open doors for you, but he doesn't let it slam in your face if
you happen to be the second one through the door either.") Here is one of
those awkward situations where whatever you do can be wrong if you don't
read her mind precisely. So you're expected to keep the door open for her.
But when does keeping doors open for her become opening doors for her? If
she's too far away when you hold it open, have you transgressed by appearing
to be opening it for her? Hold it open a bit too long, and you've sinned.
But this feminist is not willing to dispense with chivalry entirely.
The suitable boyfriend is still expected to defend her honor ("He doesn't
let other men put you down or call you names.") He is still expected to
assume his traditional role of protector and guardian. But now he is also
expected to defend feminism as well as the female: ("When his friends ask
him, "What's with your girlfriend? Is she some kind of fucking feminist?",
he nods his head proudly and says, "Yes.") Yet he is expected to attend
feminist rallies where a great deal of anti-male rhetoric could fly, and
he's expected to go there with a woman who makes no similar commitment to
objecting to anti-male hatred. In fact, he is even supposed to joyfully
embrace anti-male groups ("He's got a Riot Grrrls T-Shirt.") And he has to
go to the Women's Day March ... just so long as he "doesn't try to pick up
other women."
He is required to read feminist philosophy. (She is not offering to
read up on or even acknowledge men's issues, father's rights, etc.) And he
is required to swallow the idea that feminists represent all women ("He
reads feminist philosphy every now and then because he's interested in
what's on women's minds nowadays.")
Similarly, he is expected to accept the feminist line that feminism is
whatever a feminist says it is. ("Most men are feminists! Yes, it's true."
... "When you tell him Pamela Anderson Lee is a feminist icon, he says,
"Cool.")
There, there. Good boy.
He's also expected to be accepting when you have an alternate-reality
episode ("He's fascinated by witchcraft. What man isn't?") Well, maybe that
"little boy" referred to above who was forced to drink one Wiccan's blood.
And speaking of alternate reality episodes, this feminist has some
concepts of men that go beyond caricature. She says the good boyfriend
"doesn't shriek like you're going to castrate him every time you pick up a
knife to cut some vegetables."
Have men *really* been shrieking around this woman? If so, then
frankly we can't blame them.
The boyfriend "will admit that there is a 50/50 possibility of a
chance that God is a woman," says the feminist, who is not required to admit
a 50/50 chance that Satan is a woman.
The properly trained boyfriend doesn't expect you to adhere to your
feminist principles when they are no longer to your advantage ("He doesn't
expect you to pay for the entire restaurant bill because you're a
feminist.")
But he is expected to adopt whatever politically correct assault on
the language you are promoting: ("He doesn't call an actor of the feminine
persuasion an actress.")
He is expected to accept the woman "as is." ("When someone criticizes
you for not shaving your legs, he says, "So what? I don't shave mine
either." "He thinks the hair under your arms is "very Parisian.") All this
and more is contained in a list of instructions from a woman who very
obviously has no intention of accepting men just as they are. All
throughout this list, this Riot-Grrl-embracing feminist has given no
indication she feels obligated to be sensitive toward her boyfriend, object
to male-bashing, listen to his concerns, think of his rights, or consider
HIM and equal to HER.
But here is the requirement that most stamps her man as an obedient
lap dog: "He'll go to the store and buy Tampax for you. It makes him proud."
Now, we understand the idea doing things for the person you love. We can
understand picking up feminine hygiene products and so on, out of love and
consideration. But her boyfriend is required to be *proud* of it. What is
she training here -- an equal partner, or mama's li'l helper?
The list has a lot of demands about how he will treat "your gay
girlfriends" and what he will do "When he meets your "dyke" friends." The
frequent emphasis on lesbianism is quite interesting, especially considering
that your man qualifies as a feminist if "He takes you along to the strip
club with him."
Hmmm.
So if you comply with all the demands on this list, what can you
expect? You've got a hairy-legged, hairy-armpitted Riot Grrrl who expects
you to fetch her Tampax while she's off with her lesbian friends practicing
witchcraft.
Yeah, we know. It sounds almost too good to pass up.

==========
MEN CAN BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED
Sandy Hill Pittman got to the top of Mount Everest by way of MTV.
Along the way, the lives of a few men were placed at risk.
But apparently not so that Ms. Pittman would notice them much.
Ms. Pittman is an avid, but amateur, mountaineer. She married and
divorced Bob Pittman, who created MTV. The divorce has left her with enough
money to pursue her dreams, which include being the third woman in history
to scale the highest mountains on all seven continents.
Those dreams also include promoting herself shamelessly on the society
pages and gossip columns. "She's a show-off," one friend told Vanity Fair
magazine. "She is a beautiful California girl, but she has a lot of
chutzpah." ("Blind Ambition," Vanity Fair, August 1996, page 81.)
In one failed effort to scale Everest, Pittman hired four of the
world's top climbers to help her. Though her guides did most of the work,
fixing the ropes for her to follow, she portrayed herself as their equal.
In lectures, she called them her "climbing team." She managed to get a
Vaseline commercial out of the deal, where she got herself referred to as a
"world-class climber." It drew hoots of derision from seasoned
mountaineers.
It's a pattern that's not unique to Pittman. Increasingly we have
seen female soldiers who *accidentally* come under enemy fire being hailed
as heroes who did "equal work" or took "equal risks." Feminists and the
news media love to find female soldiers who participate on the sidelines of
action and then claim that they are "standing alongside the men." And many
corporations today will hire female "show" executives to take prominent
positions on boards or in executive suites -- and to collect the nice
paychecks -- and then quietly hire men to do the real work.
Some women do carry their own weight and contribute equally. But then
there are those like Pittman, who seize on any participation at all and
magnify it into an "equal share."
Pittman signed up with another Everest expedition in May of 1996,
organized by professional Scott Fischer of the Seattle-based Mountain
Madness company. Pittman staged a sendoff party for herself, attended by
such celebs as Bianca Jagger and Calvin Klein, and she promoted the trip
with a Web site featuring her trip diary sent by satellite phone from
Everest. Pittman's publicity-seeking continued at Everest. Instead of
promoting herself as merely an equal on this expedition, she had friend Tom
Brokaw and NBC focus on her, and co-opt all of Fischer's party as the "NBC
Everest Assault" expedition. While the other climbers were resting at camp
in preparation for the climb, she hiked five hours down the mountain to
promote herself before admirers, stopping for a "Today" show interview.
Perhaps she should have rested. She made it to the summit, though
some said a Sherpa guide had to pull her along. Then a surprise storm
struck. It soon turned deadly.
Pittman faltered and fatigued badly on the way down, and had to be
helped. She was disoriented, confused. She was given an injection of
dexamethasone to help her. She got shots of pure oxygen from someone else's
supply.
One of the people who risked his life to help her was Neal Beidleman,
an elite climber from Aspen. He recalls her stumbling around, getting
tangled, making mistakes. He helped her cross a particularly treacherous
stretch. She was begging to rest, but he made her go on. Otherwise, she
would die.
The storm grew worse: whiteout conditions with winds of fifty miles an
hour. Night fell, and the windchill factor reached 100 degrees below
freezing. Pittman huddled with others.
In the morning, only Beidleman could go on. He got to one of the
camps and alerted a Russian guide, Anatoli Boukreev, that Pittman and other
climbers were in danger. Boukreev went out into the deadly storm but
couldn't find them. He went out again and located Pittman and the others.
It took several trips to get them back, at extensive risk to his own life.
Boukreev had to half-drag, half carry Pittman back to camp.
Pittman was one of the survivors. Eight other climbers died on
Everest in that storm. They included Scott Fischer, her guide, who died
trying to help other climbers.
But Pittman had other concerns: her reputation.
She had promoted herself as a world-class mountaineer. But she had
faltered badly, and she would have died if not for the selfless dedication
of several men.
She was "worried about her image, her book," other climbers told
Vanity Fair. "She was worried about damage control."
When Pittman got down from the mountain, she began acting like a
feminist "herstorian" who does not wish to acknowledge the contributions and
sacrifices men have made on her behalf: "There were those who felt that she
tried to keep her distance from Beidleman and Boukreev, the men who had
risked their own necks to save hers. During an NBC interview and a lengthy
background session with Newsweek the day before, Pittman never mentioned
that she had been in serious jeopardy or that she would probably have died
had she not been helped by Beidleman and Boukreev. In a subsequent
telephone conversation, when asked about her apparent lack of appreciation
toward the two gentlemen who had saved her life, Pittman responded tersely:
‘Which two gentlemen is that?'"
"Which two gentlemen is that?" That could well be the battle cry of
feminists who do not wish to acknowledge the men who take risks, and
sometimes bleed, and sometimes die, to protect women like them.
We have seen reactions like Pittman's before. We have seen women who
cannot seem to see the sacrifices of men.
Pittman says there were no heroes, that the guides were just doing
their jobs.
Throughout history, it has been the job of men to protect women, or to
die trying. People like Pittman now take it for granted. The reality of
these men's bravery, dedication, and sacrifice does not seem to enter her
mind. She seems to expect male service and sacrifice as her birthright. It
is men's proper gender role.
And men have played that role well. We have been willing to give up
our lives to protect the womenfolk. We have sent women a message -- our
lives are worth less than yours. And this message has become established as
the natural order of things. It is so well established that there are some
to whom the lives and sacrifices of men are almost too insignificant to
notice.
We know that women are perfectly willing to get into the lifeboats
while men stay on the sinking ship. We have seen societies willing to
sacrifice the lives of its boys to protect its women. We have seen women
take that sacrifice for granted. It is so ingrained that some of them seem
incapable of grasping the entirety of the fact that the lives of men are
being put at risk, or destroyed.
We have seen feminists who don't seem to care if a man is innocent or
guilty, so long as punishing him will further their agenda or "send the
right message." Well, why *should* they care? For centuries we have told
them that our lives are worth less than theirs. We have told them that it
is acceptable to sacrifice men's lives to protect women's safety.
And in that atmosphere, we have seen girls send innocent men to prison
on false rape accusations because they were afraid their boyfriends might
have gotten them pregnant. They are willing to sacrifice a man just to
avoid unpleasantness with their parents. That is the legacy of telling
women that they are the ones who deserve to be protected by sacrificing men.
We have seen women falsely accuse men of rape in order to get sympathy
or attention from their husbands. We have seen feminist women -- who live
an average seven years longer than men -- claim that they are shortchanged
on health care and demand that we spend more money on them. We have seen
feminists gloss over the fact that most victims of violence are men and
demand increased protection for women. We have seen feminists call a man a
"monster" if he hits a woman, and call a woman a "victim" when she kills her
two infant sons. We have seen feminists demand that women be allowed into
the military, and then seen women get pregnant to avoid hazardous duty, so
that men must face the dangers in their place. We have seen feminist make
false accusations of racism against men they accused of sexism -- using
any tactic they can think of to extract their revenge and destroy a man's
career, and at times even his life. We have seen feminist administrators
who feel that it's a beneficial, sensitizing experience when men are falsely
accused of rape or assault.
For these women, it's as if the damage done to men does not even
register in their conscious minds, or their conscience. Society has always
told them that men should be sacrificed to protect them, that men's lives
are less valuable.
And indeed, it's not their fault. It's the men who have established
the rule of "women and children first." Perhaps the women whispered in our
ears, "You cannot let us suffer, you must do something." But we were the
ones who made the rules, who decided our lives were worth less.
And modern feminism springs from that soil. Feminists have cultivated
that soil with generous doses of anti-male stereotypes and hatreds. It has
always been acceptable to sacrifice men. Now it is downright moral to do so
-- because men are evil, men are oppressors, men are violent, and so on.
They have always found it acceptable to sacrifice men to preserve
themselves. Now, as they march toward their feminist paradise, they need
not be concerned with such annoying details as whose dreams, or whose lives,
they are destroying.
As for Pittman, she wants to include her Everest adventure in a book
with the narcissistic title, "Summits of My Soul." Perhaps there she will
find enough room for a footnote to thank the men who risked their lives so
that she could go on enjoying her Kieselstein-Cord jewelry, her Dean &
DeLuca espresso, her shopping sprees at Bergdorf's and her dinners in this
season's fashionable restaurants.
As for the soul she is glorifying -- it is a bit less majestic than
the Himalayas. And the summits of her soul have deep and dark crevasses,
where the lives of men can disappear, without a trace, without a sound.
==========

MEN TAKE AWAY SIN
Women: Have you ever done something bad -- something petty or
mean-spirited?
Well, fret no more. Feminism introduces a new product that wipes out
guilt instantly. It's called "men."
Just add a dash of "men" and your responsibility vanishes -- just like
magic! "Men" remove the toughest culpability, wipe out the most stubborn
accountability, and even get rid of moral liability.
How much would you pay for this service? Wait, don't answer yet! You
also get the ability to blame men for any female infraction throughout all
history.
Now how much would you pay? Well, put away your credit card, because
the ability to blame men is absolutely free!
And to show you how well it works, we're giving you a free sample
right here! Just watch "men," with the amazing miracle ingredient
"responsibility," take away the sins of sexist women -- according to these
comments recently posted on the Internet.
(The topic was feminists who engage in man-bashing behavior.):
>T-shirts and
>numerous other products ridiculing, dehumanising and attacking women
>are also commonplace ... Yes, some women have sadly gone for *emulating*
>men's habit of such tastless and hateful things.
> [...]
>Yes, I agree that many women have bought into stooping as low as men
>had been in the past [...]
> However, these new products are competing with woman-bashing
>ones. Not all women find them funny, and more and more women are
>commenting about the tastelessness (admittedly, with accurate comments
>like, "Let's not be like some sleazy men here, ok? This is dumb and
>sexist." INdeed, many men had set the standard, and some women are
>simply joining in lowering theirs.) ...
>That women now are making jokes about men in the comedy circle is
>definitely a response, in return to something men started.

(Source: "Re: FREE "MEN SUCK" T-SHIRTS ON THE WEB!!" thread,
posted on alt.feminsm and other Usenet groups.)

See how it works? If feminists are petty and sexist, the answer is to
tell them not to be like men! The answer is to trace every offense back to
men. (Of course, you can bet the feminist who said this would be quite
upset if someone said that when women engage in the major religions, fine
arts or the sciences, they are only imitating men's good examples. Heck
that would be sexist, wouldn't it? And we all know that feminists oppose
sexism.)
==========

ONE HECK OF A DIVERSITY LEADER
Ruth Pierce, a senior Social Security Administration official, got up
in front of a conference in June and told the following joke: A fisherman
meets a mermaid, and he asks the mermaid to make him "five times smarter."
So the mermaid turns him into a woman.
The joke got a big laugh from women in the audience. Honest.
(Perhaps these particular women could have used the ministrations of the
mermaid themselves.)
Well, that's typical, run-of-the-mill sexism -- nothing you haven't
heard if you listen to women in the workplace for very long.
But Ruth Pierce is the top diversity official in the Social Security
Administration.
That's right. She's a political appointee in charge of promoting
diversity and making sure this governmental workplace is free of sexism.
And the conference where she told the joke was a diversity conference.
(Source: "A Conference, a Joke, A New Look at Sexism," The Washington
Post, July 27, 1996, Page One.)
That the top diversity official could blithely tell an anti-male joke
during a diversity conference -- and find the joke welcome, and still be
kept in power by the administration -- points up what a lot of men are
finding out about feminism and "diversity." "Diversity" has become a code
word for a anti-male attitudes, actions and policies. It is a doctrine
promoted by people who have no intention of practicing "diversity"
themselves. "Diversity" means "you have to tolerate me, but I don't have to
tolerate you." "Diversity" means "bigotry against me is illegal, but
bigotry against you is official policy."
As Orwell noted, if you want to create a bureaucracy to hide the
truth, you can call it The Ministry Of Truth. And if you want to create a
program of sexism, bigotry, and intolerance, you can call it "Diversity."
==========

COSMOWATCH
Here's a look at some of the wisdom from the September 1996 issue of
Cosmopolitan magazine:
Articles:
I Left My Husband For Another Woman
Why *Should* You Stop Flirting? Sensuous gestures let a man know
you're interested.
My Sizzling, *Real-Life* Version of 9 œ Weeks: One woman's erotic
adventure with a dangerously addictive man.
Bigger is Better? The Controversial Cosmetic Surgery for HIM.
It's Okay To ... (This is a list of things Cosmo says it's okay to
think or do. A sample:
It's okay to:
Sleep with several different men.
Carry your diaphragm in your purse on a first date ... just in case.
Describe his lovemaking, including penis size, to your best friend.
Want a rich husband.
Cartoons:
A woman tells her date, "If you really loved me, you'd be better
looking."
(page 134)
Before going up to her apartment, a woman warns her date she can
physically hurt him.

Also, here are some items being cited in an ad campaign for the new women's
magazine Marie Claire. Hoping to lure subscribers, the ads throw out
tantalizing bits like these:
-- Ballbusters: Success Secrets of Pushy Women
-- Cheating. Is it natural? Wicked? A temporary tonic for boredom?
-- Clothes to lust after. The concept is *so Marie Claire.* Winning
with clothes that make you feel happy. Comfortable. Reveling. In your own
glorious skin.
-- Raging Adultery Hormones.
-- Adultery: Yes? No? Maybe.

=============================
HUMOR
=============================

POW DEMANDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COMBAT
By the Per Broadcasting System
The world needs to establish new combat rules that will make warfare a
more safe and nurturing environment for women soldiers, says Ms. Colleen
Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Women can kill just as well as men," says Hyphenated-Lastname. "We
know this from all our clients who claim the ‘battered woman's defense.'
But the patriarchy has set up certain roadblocks to discourage women from
combat. Chief among these roadblocks is the fact that women who go into
combat risk getting killed. The patriarchy knows this is a major deterrent
to women advancing to positions of power in the military. Well, it is time
to remove this ‘Kevlar ceiling.'"
"We demand the creation of a new "Gender Convention" that replaces the
old, male-drafted "Geneva Convention." It will extend the "Violence Against
Women Act" to apply to combat, because violence against women is always
wrong. Just because a female soldier is trying to kill you, that doesn't
give you the right to shoot back. Violence against women is never
justified, and we must bring all male abusers to swift and uncompromising
justice."
"Our records show that nearly one-hundred and twenty-five percent of
all female soldiers says that they feel that warfare constitutes a hostile
working environment. Obviously, women soldiers will never achieve true
equality until they feel safe and accepted on the battlefield."
"Thus we demand the creating of new Nuremberg Trials to bring to
justice all enemy soldiers who have hung up centerfolds in their trenches or
called out ‘Hey
baby, wanna date?' from the foxholes."
"We hope to further the cause of women in warfare in just the same
manner as we do in the construction trades, fire departments, and police
forces. Instead of demanding that women perform the same as men, we demand
that the standards be lowered."
"In order to achieve equality in the military, we have required that
women soldiers and even VMI cadets not have to meet the same physical
requirements as men. We now want foreign nations to comply with our lowered
standards. For example, women in the military are not required to run as
quickly as men. If our female troops are running late, all enemy troops on
a battlefield will be required to wait until the women get there."
"Also, female combat pilots like the late Lt. Kara Hultgreen do not
have to meet the same standards as men (as noted in the August edition of
American Spectator magazine.) So if female pilots do not hit as many
targets as male pilots, we are demanding that the enemy blow up some of
their own targets until equality is achieved."
"We also support the concept of ‘executive pilots.' These would be
women who sit up front in the plane to take all the credit and receive the
higher rank and pay while a man sits behind them and does the actual work.
This arrangement has worked well for some of the top women executives in our
country."
"American advertisers and the news media have shown enormous support
for these demands. For example, shoe-maker Nike is unveiling a new line of
combat boots just for women. We would like to show you an excerpt from the
Nike commercial."
(Cue television monitor. TV screen shoes images of strong, confident
women gracefully jumping trenches and bayonetting men. Voiceover says:)
"If you let me fight ... I will gain confidence, and rank.
"If you let me fight ... I will be less likely to stay in an abusive,
target-rich environment.
"If you let me fight ... I can collect scads of data on violence
against women.
"If you let me advance in the military without doing my fair share ...
I can gain all sorts of power and send lots of men to die defending my
rights.
"If you let me fight ...."

==========

POW GETS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAPER CONSPIRACY

DEAR READERS: For a while now I've been doing parodies of a fictional
feminist group called the Propaganda Organization for Women (POW). But some
readers have claimed that my lampoons are too wild and unbelievable. They
say I should discuss real feminist beliefs instead of making them up.
Problem is, some real feminist beliefs are wilder than anything I
could ever make up.
Case in point: Here is an honest to goodness, genuine, real feminist
conspiracy theory about ... diapers! A feminist looked into the practice of
selling different diapers for boys and girls, and she found a conspiracy.
(Of course, if you look into diapers, you're liable to find a load of this
sort of stuff.)
Anyway, here is this genuine, real feminist conspiracy, presented
without further ado-do.

[One feminist wrote:]
>>Recently, being about to face the prospect in a few months of having to
>>buy diapers, I went out to see where the diaper industry had gotten with
>>this issue. Now, they offer diapers which work "for either boys or
>>girls", as though they are offering some new technological innovation! I
>>sometimes have cynical moments when I wonder if the whole thing was just
>>a marketing ploy [...]

[Another feminist replied:]
>Your cynicism is 100% on the mark. [...] I honestly think the boy/girl
>diapers was both a conscious sexist attempt to perpetuate stereotpyes in
>the designs on the diapers, *and* a desire to increase shelf space alloted
>to a diaper comapany. The introduction of the "works for boys and girls"
>diapers were just greed, though, not any social engineering. More shelf
>space.
>Don't call me paranoid; I've read way too much social psychology to
>not know what I'm talking about. Feminism is a movement to change the
>way people think, and to think that those currently in power (and
>mostly male) would not fight back with known methods of shaping
>culture is foolish. [...] No, it isn't cycnicism, it is realism, and an
>awareness that feminism is a cultural thing -- and to succeed we *need* to
>change the culture. To expect that those in power would fight it is not
>paranoia, it is a challenge! :-)
(Source: The soc.feminism newsgroup, Sexism and mass marketing. Get
*conscious*! Re: McDonalds Happy Meals Sexist?!)

There you have it, folks. Diapers are a patriarchal conspiracy. As for me, I
say we should salute those dedicated diaper executives. They have gone above
and beyond the call of doody.

==========
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, message "subscribe MANifesto" to
PerAddress@gnn.com. You also can send your comments, questions,
suggestions, and castration threats to this address.
(If you subscribed but did not get the latest issue, please send the
message again and be patient as we perfect our mass-mailing skills.)
You can find MANifesto on the Usenet each month in the following
groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1996 by Per. Please feel free to copy,
forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any
section, please excerpt it in its entirety.)
=============================