MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues.
June, 1996. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise
distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its
WELCOME, READERS: To a special "War On Women" edition of MANifesto.
Feminists say that anyone who questions their outlook is conducting a "War
On Women." Anyone who questions their accusations is "revictimizing the
victim." Questioning the accuser is such an offense that one woman's
solution was to break the investigator's foot. (See below.)
In this edition of MANifesto, we question feminist claims all over
the place. Apparently that means we're conducting a "War on Women," so
let's get busy.
NEWS AND OPINION
I. WHY WOULD SHE LIE? (OOPS, SHE DID!)
II. THE CALLER FROM LIBELVILLE: YOU'RE ON THE AIR
III. BELIEVE THE CHILDREN
IV. WHO IS THE ABUSER?
V. A CALL TO PROTECT WOMEN
VI. THE NEXT SUSAN SMITH
VII. FIRST AMENDMENT? IN A PIG'S EYE!
VIII. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
IX. JUST IN TIME FOR FATHER'S DAY: DAD BASHING
X. SENATOR BIDEN'S LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
XI. PLANE CRASH HITS WOMEN HARDEST
XII. PLAY EXCITING NEW GAME: MORAL HIGH GROUND
WHY WOULD SHE LIE? (OOPS, SHE DID!)
Maybe you've heard the feminist slogan from the Clarence Thomas
hearings: "Why would she lie?"
This simple slogan implies that if you can't immediately find a
reason that a woman is lying when she makes an accusation, then she must be
telling the truth.
But in Annapolis, Maryland, a female midshipperson who accused a
high-ranking midshipman of sexual assault has been kicked out of the Naval
Academy. The reason: lying.
Midshipman 1st Class Naomi Jackson was caught lying about why she
missed an academy dinner.
Why would she lie? Oops, she did!
In an unrelated incident: Investigators found no evidence to support
sexual harassment accusations made by four women at the Navy's Air Test and
Evaluation Squadron 9 at Point Mugu, Calif. But one of the women was so
enraged at being reinterviewed about her accusations that she broke the
The Navy is taking the incident so seriously that the woman might
actually be charged.
Which brings up the question: is violence the basic way that women try
to settle disputes and control people?
THE CALLER FROM LIBELVILLE: YOU'RE ON THE AIR
Larry King might want to interview his next wife as to why she was
telling lies about a former boyfriend.
King, the CNN talk show host and interviewer, is set to marry Cyndy
Truhan, who once was married to baseball player Steve Garvey.
Truhan has just pleaded guilty to lying to police that she was being
stalked by a former boyfriend. She admits sending weird notes to herself
and defacing her door with an "X." Her most outlandish (and obviously
false) claim was that an attacker had bitten off her ear.
Truhan was charged with six counts of lying to police. But four
charges were dropped. She pleaded guilty to the remaining two, and received
a traditional "woman's sentence" -- therapy, and unsupervised probation.
It is a remarkably light sentence, considering the damage that could
have been done. Accusations of the sort she made could have destroyed a
man's reputation, sent him to prison, gotten him fired, or perhaps made him
a target for vigilante violence by hotheads bent on protecting the
Feminists have a slogan: "Why would she lie?" Maybe she would lie
because, if she succeeds, she can destroy a man she hates -- but if she's
caught, she received a "punishment" so light it's hardly noticeable.
The Washington Post reported the incident in a gossip column in its
Lifestyle section (June 5). When women receive "unwanted sexual advances,"
it is serious news to the Post, often getting front-page coverage. When a
man receives "unwanted character assassination," the Post runs it alongside
idle gossip and humorous tidbits.
As for why it's in the Lifestyle section -- is using the Violence Against
Women Act to smear innocent men now considered a lifestyle choice?
BELIEVE THE CHILDREN
Two years ago, the terror descended on Wenatchee, Washington.
It began when police officer Robert Perez launched an investigation
into a supposed "child sex ring" in the area. There were wild accusations
of gangs of black-clad adults raping and molesting children in church
basements -- swapping their children for sex and lining up to have sex with
Before the panic was over, 28 people were charged, 14 pleaded guilty,
and five were convicted. "One disturbing aspect of the case has been that
virtually everyone who could afford to retain a private attorney was
acquitted or had his or her charges dismissed, while most of those who
relied on public defenders received prison sentences," The Washington Post
And now, one of the central witnesses in the case has recanted. She
is a 13-year-old girl who now says she was never molested. She says she
was coerced into making the accusations by her foster-father -- Officer
The girl, identified in court papers as M.E., says Perez pressured her
and once bruised her during an altercation shortly before she testified at
one trial. "I had to make it all up," she said in another taped interview.
"Bob Perez was there, and he pressured me to say it." She said that Perez
"got some information and told us to use our own words ... First I said it
didn't happen, and ... then he forced me to make up a lie."
Investigators also used the controversial "recovered memory therapy"
to coax testimony from the children. "Recovered memory therapy" is a highly
flawed technique that is coming under increasing skepticism. It is used by
people who "recover" memories of being abducted by flying saucers, or
memories of their previous lives, and even memories of their future lives.
Some experts say it merely creates and reinforces false memories.
But "recovered memory therapy" continues to be supported by leading
feminists. They seem to like its ability to call forth an unending supply
of abuse stories.
Feminists also support the "Believe the Children" movement, which
stresses that molested children will not talk about it, and must be forced
to open up through a barrage of coercive techniques. "Believe the Children"
advocates have an unusual trait -- they never believe the children until the
children give the answers they want to hear. As M.E. put it: "The first
time Bob Perez and (a Child Protective Services social worker) came to talk
to me, I said nothing happened. He said, I know you're lying.'"
From there, the pressure increased.
Some of their tactics seem blatantly coercive. One girl was sent to a
mental institution in Idaho for recovered memory therapy and brought back
and made to sign a statement alleging abuse. After an experience like that,
she probably was willing to sign anything.
What is happening in Wenatchee is not new. The nation has been
through this before, with the Satanic panics -- fears that there were
secretive cult conspiracies dedicated to molesting and brainwashing children
in daycare centers. Today, investigators have learned to drop the
references to Satan worship. Now the preferred term is "child sex ring"
rather than "Satanic ritual abuse."
But the techniques used in Wenatchee and in the Satanic panics are
pretty much the same -- and so are the problems. They involve zealous
child-care workers who won't take no for an answer -- who browbeat,
humiliate and even threaten the children until the children "recover" the
desired memory of abuse. They are the same leading and coercive techniques
that led to the fiasco at the McMartin Preschool. Authorities
have merely learned to drop the Satanic trappings in a bid for credibility.
The Satanic panics and the "child sex ring" witch hunts have deep
roots in feminist conspiracy theories that rape and sexual abuse are
epidemic, ritualized and institutionalized. As far as we know, Gloria
Steinem, Ms. Magazine and other leading feminist lights continue their
support for the Satanic panics and "recovered memory therapy" -- or at least
have not withdrawn their vigorous support. How many innocent lives --
men and women -- will have to be destroyed before they admit they are wrong?
WHO IS THE ABUSER?
A father from Plattsburgh, New York, has won $125,000 in compensatory
damages after a jury found that investigators from the Clinton County child
protective system smeared him and prosecuted him wrongly.
A U.S. District Court jury in Albany, N.Y., decided unanimously in
favor of the man, Reverend Frank Fowler Jr.
County child protective service workers investigated after hearing
that Fowler had slapped his 11-year-old son across the face in March of
1993. Fowler says that caseworker Jo Robinson threatened to skew the
investigation when he wouldn't let her talk to his parishioners.
The record indicates that she did just that.
Robinson initially reported that the boy had no physical injuries.
Several weeks later, she changed her story and claimed that she saw a big
bruise on the boy's face. However, several other witnesses said the boy had
But Fowler was about to learn what happens to people who displease the
He was arrested and prosecuted. The "child protection" workers then
used their arbitrary authority to place his name placed on a registry of
child abusers. Fowler said the scandal caused him to be blacklisted in
Plattsburgh and forced him to move to Syracuse.
Fowler agreed not to pursue punitive damages, contingent on them
taking his name off the state Department of Social Services' registry of
The Associated Press reports that "The jury found that Robinson and a
co-worker, Patricia Layo, caused Fowler to be falsely arrested for assault
and that the pair maliciously prosecuted him."
"The jury also determined that supervisor Stephanie Clark "grossly
disregarded" her duty to oversee the pair and that the agency maintained an
atmosphere in which social workers were allowed to abuse their power."
"Why would she lie?" the feminists ask. And why would all three of
them lie? Well, add "arrogant abuse of power" to the list.
(This story is not getting much attention. Chances are you heard
about it in MANifesto first. And that's odd. When women receive "unwanted
sexual advances," it's front-page, prime-time news. When a man's reputation
is destroyed by malicious false accusations coming from a government agency,
it's just a local story.)
A CALL TO PROTECT WOMEN
It was a nightmarish scene, one that all too many women are familiar
with. A woman was alone in an elevator. A young man got on. He lunged at
her. She screamed.
What actually happened in that elevator on a pleasant day in May is in
dispute. The man said he tripped and bumped the woman, and then grabbed her
when she started to fall.
Not everyone believes his version. And, as feminists say, "Why would
And there were people who won't tolerate violence against women. Not
everyone is going to sit on the sidelines while the war on women rages. Not
everyone is going to tolerate the epidemic of violence against innocent
women who are afraid to walk the streets or even ride the elevators.
Women's advocates might be glad to know that this incident was not
buried in the back sections of the papers. In fact, it made the front page.
There was a stirring call to arms, a resounding cry of "no more."
The activists gathered to take back the night -- with guns and
torches. The woman was white, the young man was black. It was in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, in 1921, and the race riot that followed wiped out the prosperous
black business district known as Greenwood. Scores of people, perhaps even
hundreds, were killed. Greenwood looked like a war zone. More than 1,000
black-owned businesses and homes were burned to the ground. The National
Guard had to be called in. ("The Fire That Seared Into Tulsa's Memory: In
the Ruins of a Riot, A City Learned Tolerance," the Washington Post, May 30,
1996, page A1.)
And in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, the woman declined to
press charges against the man. Today, most people in Tulsa they believe the
young man was telling the truth. But it's difficult to sort out the truth
when emotions run out of control and the front pages are screaming with
scary headlines about violence against women.
That's how it was in Tulsa. That's how it is in our nation today.
Emotions are at a fever pitch again, as partisan groups pump up the
rhetoric and whip up their followers with misleading statistics and broad
stereotypes. The violent reactions today are not as blatant and
concentrated as the riot in Tulsa. It's a quiet riot, spread out across the
country, involving a person's life ruined here, a person's life ended there
-- a teen named Eddie Polec beaten to death in Philadelphia, a young man
named John Baumgardner gunned down in Fairfax, Virginia, and the countless
others who have been fired, bankrupted, disgraced, ostracized, beaten or
maimed because of inaccurate accusations.
In the aftermath of the horrible riot, Tulsa learned tolerance.
Whites learned that they shouldn't judge other people too quickly.
There are some feminists who, hopefully, will learn the same lesson
THE NEXT SUSAN SMITH
A woman in Rowlett, Texas, told police that a man broke into her house
and stabbed her two little boys to death, and then stabbed her in the arm.
The unspeakable cads on the police force apparently did not know about
the feminist dictum that if you question the victim, you only re-traumatize
her. They took part in the "War on Women" by questioning her story. And it
doesn't check out.
The woman, Darlie Routier, told police she was stabbed while in the
living room. The blood evidence indicates she was stabbed in the kitchen.
The one set of bloody footprints found in the home belonged to Routier
herself. Routier claimed that the intruder cut through a window screen to
get into the house. But in the kitchen, investigators found a knife with
metal fragments that matched the cut window screen.
Routier has been jailed, accused of killing her own sons.
The "War on Women" is an interesting phrase. Feminist slap that label
on efforts to reform welfare, or on criticism of feminism, or men who
actually want to get the jobs and promotions they deserve. But when women
kill their children, smoke crack while pregnant, throw newborns into
dumpsters, or leave starving children in excrement-caked apartments while
they go out and party, feminists do not call it a "War on Children."
Instead, they look for ways in which to call the women "victims."
So Darlie Routier might well become the next Susan Smith. Look for
feminist (and the news media) to dig into Routier's past, trying to find
"the man who made her do it." This attitude betrays a central sexist
stereotype: crime is a male thing -- if a woman commits crime, there must be
a man who pushed her to the brink. (It would be interesting to see the
reaction if the news media looked into the past of male criminals and
started pinning the blame on abusive women.)
Blaming it all on men is the natural thing for some people to do.
Susan Smith said a black man abducted her two sons, and many people accepted
that story and believed her. But they were stunned when it turned out she
had killed the boys herself.
Then there was a national outcry that Smith, a white woman, had tried
to pin the crime on a black man. It created a firestorm of criticism that
her motives smacked of bigotry.
Routier is white and said that a white man killed her boys. Now there
is no national outrage. She didn't smear black people. She just merely
smeared all men.
FIRST AMENDMENT? IN A PIG'S EYE!
Russell Sysack of Cleveland, Ohio, likes to put his opinions up on a
billboard. He makes social or political comments on a 5-by-20-foot color
billboard in front of his sign shop.
But now a lawyer is going after his latest billboard. It makes fun of
women who filed a $25 million lawsuit saying there were peepholes in the
restrooms of a local shopping center. The sign portrays the women as pigs.
Here's the lawyer's argument for banning the billboard:
Attorney Michael Shafran said, "I think that the owner of this property
and business has gone beyond the scope of free speech by referring to the
women as pigs."
NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
Michael D. Chase of Knoxville, Tennessee, is on trial in the death of
his 18-month-old son, Mikey. The boy died of heat stroke after sitting in a
locked car for three hours on a hot August day.
Michael Chase says he did not know his son was in the back seat when
he drove to a business meeting. And his wife, Donna, says she was the one
who strapped the boy into the back seat. She isn't sure she told her
husband that the boy was in the car, which has dark-tinted windows.
Donna Chase is not charged with anything at all.
But Michael Chase faces up to five years in prison if convicted of
criminally negligent homicide.
There is something odd about the way prosecutors are handling the
case, which is being tried in Georgetown, Delaware. Donna Chase insisted
that she would not testify unless she was granted immunity from prosecution.
So prosecutors gave it to her.
But why would she need immunity? People who request it usually fear
that they might face charges without it. If Donna Chase demanded immunity,
wouldn't it indicate she had something to hide? Wouldn't prosecutors think
about charging her? Why give immunity to the person who apparently has
something to hide -- in order to go after a man who says he is innocent?
Could it be that prosecutors made up their minds that the man
automatically has to be the guilty party, and will jump through any hoops to
maintain that view?
And in another court case of interest, former church choir singer Lisa
Whedbee is headed for a year in a Knox County, Tennessee, detention
facility, followed by three years' probation. That's really not a very long
sentence. Her crime? Merely trying to have her husband killed.
Whedbee made some claims about being abused by her husband. But, as
it turned out, she had another reason for wanting him dead: a $1 million
life insurance policy on him, which she stood to collect.
Isn't it remarkable how many "abusive husbands" are kind enough to
have large insurance policies made out to their wives? Or an attractive
estate that she plans to inherit?
Indeed, having a life insurance policy seems to be one of the "warning
signs" that a man will be labeled an abuser -- after he's attacked. Perhaps
we ought to round up all the men who have their lives insured and send them
to therapy, because there's such a strong correlation between having money
that a wife can inherit and being accused of abuse once she tries to bump
Lisa Whedbee talked a lovesick admirer into trying to kill her
husband, Rob Whedbee, as he was sleeping. But Rob Whedbee survived the
attack with minor injuries. He divorced her. Smart move.
Michael Frazier, the man Lisa Whedbee conned into doing her dirty
work, was the choir director at the church where they met. Frazier also was
a reporter who profiled her in an award-winning 1993 Mother's Day story --
painting her as a heroic mom trying to raise a handicapped child.
As her henchman, he got a sentence four times longer than that of Lisa
Whedbee, the mastermind and instigator of the plot.
Michael Frazier still loves her. But now that his potential usefulness
to her is over with, she doesn't return his love. In fact, she just got
married -- to a different man who apparently doesn't believe or doesn't mind
that she tried to have one husband killed.
Michael Frazier serves as an example to all those Sir Galahads out
there who come blindly running to protect frail womanhood: you might think
you're going to get laid, but you end up getting screwed.
JUST IN TIME FOR FATHER'S DAY: DAD BASHING
Just in time for Father's Day, The Washington Post allowed a reporter
to take a story about an Internet project and shape it into an anti-dad
screed titled "Downtrodden Youth Dream of City Without Men." (June 9, 1996,
The story ostensibly was about an Internet project called "Mirage: An
Imaginary City," which would let poor children talk about the dream city
they would like to live in.
But to Post reporter Molly Moore, it was a chance to bash dads with
stark, blatant stereotypes and hostility that the Post would never have
permitted had the targets been religious or ethnic groups.
Moore reports some highly suspect comments supposedly coming uncoached
from the children. It begins: "For 13-year-old Evelyn Mansilla, the perfect
city would be built deep in a verdant jungle. No men would be allowed, and
women could give birth only through artificial insemination. Without men,
says Evelyn, the city would have no crime, no need for police, no wife
beatings, no child abuse."
Moore also quotes an American photographer, Nancy McGirr, who worked
with the girls as they came up with "the rules of The Women's Paradise'"
which include: "No men can enter the city. ... The only form of reproduction
is by artificial means ... All boys must leave the city once they reach age
16. ... There will be no soldiers or police because they won't be necessary
because there will be no violence." There are plenty of other quotes that
fathers are violent drunkards. "The one who don't have fathers are often
better off than those who do. ... The fathers drink most of the time,
they abuse the kids ..." "If the men stayed with their families, they
wouldn't work anyway ..."
We won't belabor the fact that the Post would never run a story saying
that children dream of a city free of the scourge of one ethnic group or
another whose people commit all the crime and violence and then sit around
lazily drinking all day.
But we'd like to remind folks that the Post is the paper that gave us
Janet Cooke, the woman who won a Pulitzer Prize with a series about a young
heroin addict -- who turned out to be the fictitious product of Cooke's own
Has someone put another fast one over on the Post?
The worst of the man-bashing quotes come from distant,
non-English-speaking places such as Guatemalan slums, making it difficult to
pick up a phone and double-check the sources. When the story quotes sources
in London, for instance, the man-bashing disappears.
The Guatemalan girls are described as ranging from 10 to 13 in age.
These impoverished, uneducated girls are coming up with some remarkably
scientific terms -- artificial insemination -- and applying them to a
knowledge of biology that is quite impressive for pre-pubescent girls.
And there are slants apparent within the story itself. For example,
Moore writes: "Even the boys in the project have few kind words for their
dads. Adelso Ordonez, 13, photographed his teary-eyed baby brother ... He
captioned the picture, My brother crying because my parents are fighting.'"
So Moore took an incident of *both parents* fighting, and then presented it
as if the boy had few kind words for his *dad.*
Altogether, the girls display a mindset that seems awfully close to
some contemporary, urban, white-collar feminist thought, including the
hostility toward sex and the utopian ideal of getting rid of men. Their
schemes are remarkably reminiscent of novels such as "The Gate to Women's
Country" by Sheri S. Tepper (wise women live apart from men after the
nuclear holocaust, practicing eugenics and thinking up final solutions to
the male question), or Charlotte Perkins Gilman's utopian novel
"Herland" about an all-female society, or any of the other feminist plays
and stories that treat men with a "banish or vanish" theme.
Are these novels circulating among little girls of the Guatemalan
slums? Or is it a case of American feminists circulating among the little
girls of the Guatemalan slums?
It would be interesting to find out if Moore or McGirr have read any
of these works. Perhaps that would help answer the question: are these
ideas really springing fully formed from pre-pubescent girls in the ghetto?
Or was there a bit of activist journalism at work?
And if this is not enough father-bashing for you, it certainly wasn't
enough father-bashing for the Fox network. On June 16 it aired "Bad Dads,"
a documentary about what failures and disasters fathers are. It was filmed
behind bars -- well, isn't that how we've come to think of fathers these
days? It featured criminals who were fathers and yet estranged from their
children. Fox seems to think that criminals are the perfect metaphor for
Fox justifies the dad-bashing by saying there is a crisis in
But today, the problem of crack-addicted babies is still going strong,
though it's slipped off the front pages. There still are women who throw
their infants from bridges or dump them in garbage cans, or abuse, desert,
starve, or kill their children. But Fox certainly didn't present a "Bad
Moms" special just before Mother's Day.
That seems to indicate two things:
-- Though some mothers are quite profane, motherhood itself remains
-- That men are being held to higher levels of responsibility. The
"Bad Dads" special brought the message that fathers should clean up their
act. A lack of a "Bad Moms" counterpart indicates that that sentiment is
not being applied to women.
SENATOR BIDEN'S LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has been a great friend of
feminists. He was a major force in getting the "Violence Against Women Act"
passed. He supports feminist causes and hobnobs with feminist leaders. He
even had hair plugs, so that he could be more of a friend to women.
Biden supports affirmative action and other social engineering to
"level the playing field" for women and make everything nice and fair. So
Joe Biden is a real fair-minded guy, right?
If you want to find out just how fair he is, ask the thousands of
people who just tried to compete for a job opening against Joseph R. "Beau"
Biden III, the senator's son.
About 4,000 people applied for entry-level positions last year at the
Justice Department. These positions are prestige jobs for young lawyers --
hotly sought out as a ticket to power and inside contacts. Out of those
4,000 applicants, only 163 were hired. And one of them was the senator's
Pop and Junior both say that the younger Biden was qualified for the
position. (Such whiny white males -- since when did being qualified for a
job mean that you should get it?) But if the younger Biden is "qualified,"
it's worth noting that when got his law degree in 1994 from Syracuse
University, he had a grade point average of 2.69 -- not even good enough to
put him in the top 25 percent of his class.
So if he can't make the top 25 percent of one graduating class, how
did he suddenly shoot to the top 4 percent of 4,000 job applicants from
across the nation?
Surely it was just a coincidence? What kind of strings could Biden
possibly have pulled? Well, let's see. Senator Biden is on the Senate
Judiciary Committee. In fact, he used to be its chairman. And the
Judiciary Committee oversees the Justice Department, where the senator's son
just got that prestigius job.
And one of the projects the younger Biden will be working on is the
Violence Against Women Act -- one of Senator Biden's sacred cows.
But this sort of thing is not a habit with Senator Biden, is it?
Well, let's take a look at the Government Printing Office. The chief
lobbyist for the GPO, getting a nice $78,000 a year paycheck, is a man named
Francis W. "Frank" Biden. He's the senator's younger brother.
We are proud of Senator Biden for showing us how liberal ethics are
put into action -- "do as I say, not as I do." Senator Biden had demanded
that we "level the playing field." Everyone out there who feels that
affirmative action is unfair will just have to shut up about it and take
their lumps. Meanwhile, there is some affirmative action in getting people
named Biden -- a woefully underrepresented minority -- onto Capitol Hill.
Senator Biden indeed levels the playing field.
Just think of all those other applicants who get leveled when someone
named "Biden" came along.
PLANE CRASH HITS WOMEN HARDEST
Headline: Plane Crash Hits Women Hardest, POW study finds
Byline: The Per Broadcasting System
The crash of the ValuJet flight in the Florida Everglades hit women
hardest, says a new study just released by the Propaganda Organization for
POW President Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname said there were both men
and women aboard the ValuJet flight when it crashed. "But in every
situation, women are hardest hit. Obviously that rule applies to plane
crashes as well."
"In virtually every income and social level, women are at a
to men," Hyphenated-Lastname said. "Naturally, this also applies to death.
Ever since childhood, boys were encouraged to play war games, or cops and
robbers and other games in which the players pretend to be shot and killed.
Therefore, boys grow up with valuable training and experience in dying that
puts women at a disadvantage. Society imposes this limit on girls and women.
Like the sneaker commercial says about girls: 'If you want to empower me,
teach me how to die.'"
Hyphenated-Lastname explained other ways in which her organization
reached its findings: "We know that violence against women is always wrong.
And the flip-side of that coin is that violence against men is sometimes
great. Now, this was a very violent plane crash. So obviously all the
violence against women was wrong, but some of the violence against the men
was justified or tolerable. To these men we say, 'stop whining.' "
"We know that the men on the plane just sat there while this terrible
violence happened to women. How is it, in our day and age, that these men
could just sit by and do nothing while women died? Because of their lack of
action, those men are partly to blame for the deaths of those women -- as
are men everywhere."
"It seems likely that some of the men on that plane were not willing
to give up their lives. This is part of the backlash against women. We see
the same thing when men do not want to be fired, demoted, passed over for
promotion or discriminated against in order to assure equality. These men
do not want to give up their privileges. We assume that some men on that
plane did not want to give up the privilege of life, either. But obviously,
if they died, then a woman might get their jobs. They might claim that they
'only want to go on living.' The real reason is they just want to hold women
"However, it is a matter of controversy as to whether any men on the
plane actually died," Hyphenated-Lastname said. "We know that death is the
ultimate form of victimhood, and we also know that only women are victims.
Therefore it's debatable whether any of the men on the plane actually died,
or whether they merely underwent a radical deconstruction of their
"We studied the plane crash using the same methods we employ to study
and identify domestic violence, discrimination and sexism,"
Hyphenated-Lastname said. "All those studies show that only women are
victims. So obviously there were no male victims on the plane that crashed."
"Our study defined death thusly: It's death if it happens to women,
and it's not death if it happens to men. This is, after all, the same way we
define discrimination and sexism."
PLAY EXCITING NEW GAME: MORAL HIGH GROUND
"Race to the Moral Highground" is an exciting new board game that pits
the good people (known as Feminists) against the rest of the oppressive,
immoral, barbaric world (known as men.)
The board: The game is play on a "level playing field," which consists of
throwing the men down a well in leg irons so the Feminists will have an
equal chance. The path is circular and closed off to the outside world, to
mirror the types of logic used in Women's Studies courses.
How it's played: Feminists advance to the moral high ground by saying and
doing things that would be considered terribly sexist and bigoted coming
Rolling the dice: Feminists get to use the same scientific methodology
they use in their studies of wages, violence, etc. In other words, they get
to keep rolling the dice until they get the results they want.
The Squares: Players roll the dice and land on squares that contain
benefits for Feminists and penalties for men (who are also known as
-- I Care Only About My Own Group Square. If you're the Feminist, land on
this square and declare that you're interested only in the rights, health,
safety and comfort of women. This will advance you three spaces toward the
moral high ground. If you're the Backlasher, declare that you're interested
only in the rights, health, safety and comfort of men. Get penalized three
squares as a sexist.
-- Past Injustices Square. Past injustices happened only to women. Even
wealthy Ivy League Feminists who land on this square get a special promotion
to make up for past injustices. Advance three squares toward the moral high
ground. Backlashers have to give the Feminist their next turn, in order to
make up for past injustices.
-- The Commit Sexual Harassment Square. On this square, only men are
penalized. How do you like my Fabio calendar, stud muffin?
(However, Democratic presidents get to put off any punishment until
the game is over.)
-- Domestic Violence Square. If you're name is Warren Moon, you will be
arrested for hurting your wife's knee by ramming it with your groin.
-- Stereotype Square. Feminist landing here can declare that all men are
potential rapists, all men are wealthy and privileged, that men commit all
the crime and spouse abuse. Then advance three squares for "educating the
public" and "serving as the conscience of society." Backlashers who make any
statement that starts with "all women are ..." must go directly to the
Diversity Committee. Do not pass the First Amendment. Do not collect freedom
of speech. (But take heart. The Diversity Committee may decide that you're
entitled to free speech -- if they like the speech.)
-- Affirmative Action Square. Everyone gets penalized if they refer to
Affirmative Action as "preferences," "quotas" or "discrimination." Remember,
it's discrimination only if it happens to women.
-- Victimhood Square. If you're a woman who kills a man, you're a victim.
Advance two squares. If you're a man who kills a woman, you're a man who
kills a woman. Any questions?
-- Male Feminist Square. Advance one square if you can read statements
like "all men are potential rapists who commit all the crime and all the
spouse abuse" and still claim that you've never seen any examples of
-- VMI Square. If you're a man who belongs to any organization that
has only male members, get penalized for belonging to a sexist good ol' boys
club. If you're a woman, you get to lead a delegation from the 80-plus
women-only colleges in the United States as they protest at The Virginia
Institute. Advance toward the moral high ground.
-- Recovered Memory Square. Recover "repressed memories" of any damn
thing you want! If you think you were abused, then you were abused!
Congratulations: you now are a victim with no obligation to forgive anyone
for any offense, no matter how specious. Advance three squares toward the
moral high ground.
-- Believe The Children Square. Social workers will browbeat and threaten
the kids until they say Satan force-fed them mustard-covered 'Smores. Just
keep rolling the dice until you come up with the accusation you want.
Ending the Game: You can actually repeat this procedure forever. God
knows they're doing it now.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
(If you have sent this message and did not get the latest issue
e-mailed to you,
please send it again and be patient as we perfect our mass-mailing skills.)