Per's MANifesto Newsletter, March 1997
Per's MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of Per's MANifesto where we take a look
at STUPID LAW TRICKS. Is it true that lords of old once had the right
to sleep with a bride on her wedding night? Is community service the
proper punishment for cold-blooded murder? When is a child who is not
your child -- your child? If you need any more evidence that the law
is an ass, take a look legalistic look at the "patriarchal" justice
system that supposedly is biased in favor of men.
MANifesto is now on the Web, at
I. NOT TONIGHT, DEAR, I HAVE AN URBAN LEGEND
II. STUPID LAWYER TRICK
III. KILL A KID, HIT THE LECTURE CIRCUIT
IV. WHEN IS A CHILD WHO IS NOT YOUR CHILD YOUR CHILD
V. TAKING CARE OF A MAN
VI. REACH OUT AND STALK SOMEONE
VII. CHILDREN NEED ABUSERS?
VIII. JUSTICE HAS VERY POOR AMES
IX. COURT ORDERS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
X. CAN I HAVE MY BLOOD MONEY BACK, PLEASE
HUMOR: POW CONDEMNS GOOD FRIDAY
NOT TONIGHT, DEAR, I HAVE AN URBAN LEGEND
In the January issue of Per's MANifesto, we dissected the myth
of snuff films. We hope that article gave you lots of information you
could use to shoot down another one of feminism's cherished anti-male
So we're at it again, this time chasing down the idea that
medieval lords once had the "right of the first night" to sleep with
brides on their wedding nights.
Was it true that laws gave lords such a horrible power over
hapless female victims? Or is it one of those urban legends that gets
repeated because it sounds so titillating?
Well, here's the info you'll need the next time a feminist
starts preaching about her victimhood by citing the "right of the
We found that the subject had been discussed by Cecil Adams,
the noted skeptic and author of "The Straight Dope" column. His
December 20, 1996, column debunks the idea.
"The right of the first night," Cecil says, is "also known as
the jus primae noctis (law of the first night), the droit du seigneur
(the lord's right), etc." Mention of it has been made in several works
of fiction, which proves nothing other than that authors found it to
be a titillating plot device.
If it was a widespread practice, then surely it would be
mentioned in the history books. And if it was the law, then surely it
would be in the law books. So where is it?
Cecil found the historical record to be unconvincingly thin.
He cites records by the 16th-century chronicler Boece, who wrote that
a Scottish king, Evenus III, decreed that "the lord of the ground sal
have the maidinhead of all virginis dwelling on the same." This,
according to Boece, went on for hundreds of years until one Saint
Margaret abolished it. Trouble is, there was no King Evenus, and Boece
includes material that is clearly mythological. Plus he wrote this
down long after the supposed events. Who knows what his sources were.
Myth is not history, Women's Studies courses not withstanding.
"If you believe the popular tales," says Cecil,
"the droit du seigneur prevailed throughout much of Europe for
centuries. Yet detailed examinations of the available records by
reputable historians have found 'no evidence of its existence in law
books, charters, decretals, trials, or glossaries,' one scholar notes.
No woman ever commented on the practice, unfavorably or otherwise, and
no account ever identifies any female victim by name."
Cecil noted -- and we agree -- that men in power have often
used that power to cajole, entice, or coerce women into sex. So why
would they need to create such a law? And why would they decide to get
their jollies on the one night that would move the greatest number of
people to maximum rage?
It's interesting that feminists put so much faith in the
existence of droit du seigneur when it drastically contradicts one of
the pillars of feminist belief. That's the belief that men treated
their women like property and set up society so that each man
jealously and even violently guarded access to his woman. It's hard to
reconcile that view of men with the idea that they'd let some rich old
geezer waltz into their bedrooms on their honeymoon night.
Men joke about this supposed right of the first night as some
sort of locker-room humor. But feminists trot it out because it
confirms (and promotes) all their worst prejudices about men. Why
would they cling to such a belief in the absolute lack of any
historical record? The next time one of them does try to pass off this
old myth, you'll have the facts you need to rebut her. In the battle
of feminism vs. truth, turn to Per's MANifesto for facts like these.
(You can browse Cecil's columns at http://www.straightdope.com/)
STUPID LAWYER TRICK
During much of his 18-year marriage, Joseph Stropnicky was a
stay-at-home husband. He took care of their two children, the
Stropnicky had even worked to support himself and his wife
while she went through medical school.
Then his marriage broke up. At the time, he was working only
part time, making a tenth of the salary of his ex-wife, a
So Joseph wanted a lawyer who was an expert in getting fair
deals for the stay-at-home spouse.
He went to Judith Nathanson, who has handled many such cases
But she refused to take him as a client. He says she told him
point blank that she didn't want to represent a man.
Nathanson defended this by saying that she had spent years
building a practice that specialized in representing women in family
and probate court. She said that it would undermine her "credibility"
with the courts -- and women clients -- if she ever represented a man.
Men? Well, there goes the neighborhood.
Stropnicky filed a complaint against her. Her defense is
astounding -- and very revealing. She said she couldn't adequately
defend a client whom she didn't feel a "personal commitment" to, and
that she felt such a commitment only toward women in divorce cases.
This is her defense! It amounts to an admission that she was
biased against men. It's as if she expected society to understand and
embrace her bigotry, to find that her bigotry was actually an excuse!
If you've dealt with feminists, you find that a number of them
see absolutely nothing wrong in being bigoted against men. No one has
taken them to task about it. Their feminist sisters overlook it, their
bosses don't send them to "sensitivity training" because of it, our
newspapers don't editorialize against it, companies don't get sued
because of it.
Stropnicky took his complaint to the Massachusetts Commission
Against Discrimination. It found that Nathanson broke the law by
refusing service to him. She has been ordered to pay him $5,000 in
KILL A KID, HIT THE LECTURE CIRCUIT
Tracy Ribitch, 19, admitted to causing the death of her
The baby was found with gauze stuffed in its mouth.
Paramedics found the baby stuffed into a bag.
Ribitch pleaded guilty to the crime.
How much jail time do you think she got?
Would ten years be too short for killing a defenseless infant?
How about five years?
How about one?
The answer, though, is none of the above.
Ribitch will never spend a day in jail for snuffing out a
She was sentenced to probation. And she will have to go around
lecturing teens about safe sex.
Ribitch got a male judge who just didn't think it would do any
good to send her to prison. As extenuating circumstances, Judge George
Steeh Sr. of Macomb County, Michigan, blamed Ribitch's boyfriend for
not being more involved with her while she was pregnant.
Okay, now how many of you could see this happening if the
boyfriend killed the child? Do you think he'd get away scot free on
the grounds that his girlfriend wasn't more involved? Or would men in
this society be expected to act responsibly, and to bear the
consequences of their actions?
The most bizarre part of this sentence is that Ribitch has
been ordered to perform 2,000 hours of community service lecturing
teenagers about safe sex.
Kill a kid, hit the lecture circuit.
What the hell kind of lesson is anyone going to learn
listening to this killer? That you can get away with murder? That if
you cry enough in the courtroom, a male judge figures your victim
doesn't deserve any rights?
Already there's one feminist arguing that this killer should
not be sent to prison because she is not "a threat to society."
Translation: "This woman doesn't seem like a threat to me. Round up
any man I even vaguely suspect of abuse and lock him away, but don't
worry about women who kill children, because they aren't any threat to
Well, pardon our outrage, but this woman is a threat to
society. By her example, she shows that you can get away with murder.
We wonder how many girls and women sitting in the audience listening
to her will take note of how easy it is to get rid of an unwanted
child. We wonder how many girls and women will realize that they can
kill and get away with it.
And when they find themselves faced with that unwanted child,
what's to stop these women from thinking "What have I got to lose?"
WHEN IS A CHILD WHO IS NOT YOUR CHILD YOUR CHILD?
In the last item, we saw how a male is partly responsible when
a woman kills if the man simply does nothing.
Now we'll see how a man is responsible when a woman cheats on
him during marriage.
Question: When is a child who is not your child -- your child?
When you're a man who is ordered to pay child support for a
child who is not yours.
Gerald Allan Miscovich divorced his wife in 1992. He suspected
that the boy born during their marriage was really not his son. He got
a DNA test that proved it.
He has been ordered to pay child support anyway.
For a child that is not his. For a child conceived because a
woman was sneaking around during marriage.
It must have been a feminist judge who handed down this
decision, right? After all, feminists will cite the number of males in
any given organization to "prove" that the organization is biased in
favor of men.
But the judge in this case is male. Judge Vincent A. Cirillo
of the state Superior Court in Philadelphia, said that when a wife has
an extramarital affair, "a child born to her enjoys the presumption of
legitimacy absent clear and convincing proof of the husband's
inability to procreate or lack of access to his wife at the time of
And his presumption continues even when DNA shows it's not
Feminists will say that this is really about the "best
interests of the child," not about who is responsible. But more and
more that argument is a shield to protect the irresponsibility of
If this was about the best interest of the child, then why not
seek support from the biological father? Well, then maybe the woman
would have to let the man know he has a child. And then maybe she
would have to share custody. Maybe she would actually (horrors) have
to let the child have a father! Maybe she feels that a child needs a
father like a fish needs a bicycle.
But the way the current arrangement works, the woman gets
custody of her own child and support from a man who has no
relationship with the child. She has the best of both worlds -- rights
This child was conceived because this woman was screwing
around on her husband. The government -- that grand Sugar Daddy --
then decides that she should be protected from her own actions. She
should be free of responsibility. And since *she* is free of
responsibility, the government has to go find a man to act
This is the justice system that feminists claim is "biased"
TAKING CARE OF A MAN
At Per's MANifesto, we take pride in giving you the stories
that just somehow don't make it onto the front pages. For instance,
here's one out of St.Cloud, Florida: A bearded figure stalks and kills
an ex lover with four bullets to the chest. This was after an
aggravated stalking charge and a warning for trespassing.
With all the ingredients for igniting a national outrage, why
didn't this man's crime become a nationally publicized story?
Well, maybe because the killer wasn't a man.
She was Cheryl Vivier, who dressed like a man, including a
fake beard, and tracked down ex-boyfriend George Long in January,
killing him and then herself.
Just a week before her rampage, Vivier was charged with
aggravated stalking, and four months earlier she had given a
trespassing warning to stay away from Long's property.
Funny how these stories don't get national attention when a
woman is doing it. Where is the outrage, the finger-pointing, the
guilt-mongering that accompanies such stories when a man is the
culprit? Why aren't women now being lectured that they should never
joke about violence against men, that they are just as guilty if they
indulge in anti-male attitudes? Where is the anger at the justice
system for not restraining this woman?
"If it was a woman being stalked, it wouldn't have gotten this
far," said Long's niece, Kina Rewis. "They think men can take care of
themselves, but not when it's a psychotic woman involved."
REACH OUT AND STALK SOMEONE
Well, maybe the law couldn't stop Cheryl Vivier from killing
George Long. But the law in Middleville, Michigan, wasn't going to let
a male culprit get away with it.
Never mind that the male in question is ten years old.
A charge of stalking was brought in a juvenile petition filed
in Barry County Probate Court in November after the parents of a girl
said he left an "obscene" message on their answering machine.
Aren't telephones wonderful? If you can't be there to stalk
someone in person, now you can reach out and stalk someone via the
The boy's parents said the tape was fake.
And jurors took less than two hours to acquit the lad of the
Doesn't that strike fear into your hearts that this male has
gone free? Why, right this minute he could be calling some defenseless
tobacco shop to ask them if they have Prince Albert in a can.
CHILDREN NEED ABUSERS?
Geoto Rivera, 22, shook her four-year-old child to death.
She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the killing
of her child, Alize, a year ago.
Now the Philadelphia woman is asking the judge for leniency.
Her reasoning: she wants to be let out of prison so she can
care for her newborn.
That doesn't sound like such a swell deal for the newborn.
We wonder if carjackers ask for leniency on the grounds that
there are cars that need taking care of.
JUSTICE HAS VERY POOR AMES
Four students were recently charged with taking part in an
unauthorized campus rally at Iowa State University in Ames.
Three of them have been barred from holding campus office.
They are male.
The fourth received only a written reprimand. She is female.
University officials say the stricter punishments for the men
ISU Dean of Students Kathlene MacKay said the punishment of
Thomas was different because of different evidence. "There's a
standard, absolutely strict protocol by which we handle the evidence.
That doesn't mean each outcome is going to be the same," MacKay said.
But they were all found guilty. Different standards of
evidence might account for different verdicts. But why do identical
verdicts result in different punishments?
COURT ORDERS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Question: Our justice system is supposed to prevent domestic
Answer: Not in Minden, Nevada.
There, District Judge Dave Gamble orders that domestic
violence be carried out in his courtroom.
Oh, but don't worry. It's not a woman being hit, so it doesn't
Instead, the judge ordered a woman to hit her child.
The boy had been previously charged with stealing candy and a
compact disc player, and throwing rocks through windows. But the
offense that brought him to Gamble's courtroom was an accusation of
using foul language and making obscene gestures to a schoolyard
Gamble ordered the mother to spank the boy in court. Then he
made the boy get up in front of the press and spectators and describe
how it felt to be spanked in public.
The boy said he felt embarrassed.
The real embarrassment, though, is Judge Gamble.
Why did he think that the best, most therapeutic treatment for
a boy like this is to be struck and humiliated? Would he order a
similar punishment for a girl who made obscene gestures?
Some people think that violence teaches a valuable lesson,
that smacking people around is the best way to instill morality,
honesty, and thoughtfulness.
So maybe we should try it on the judge.
CAN I HAVE MY BLOOD MONEY BACK, PLEASE
Maybe you heard this joke after the O.J. Simpson trial.
Question: What did Simpson say after he was acquitted? Answer: "Can I
have my hat and gloves back, please?"
Well, reality just outstripped fiction again.
Angela Petrole was recently charged with attempted murder,
accused of giving a hit man $1,000 to kill a witness against her son.
She was acquitted.
So then asked for the money back.
Petrole's defense argued that her son had arranged for her to
give the money to a supposed hit man, who was supposed to rub out a
witness in her son's trial on a separate attempted murder charge. But
the "hit man" turned out to be an undercover agent, and Ms. Petrole
was arrested and charged with attempted murder.
At her trial in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, she claimed she
really didn't know that the money was for a hit man. She thought she
was merely paying to have the witness "roughed up" a little.
The jury declared her innocent.
And then she asked for her money back.
(Due to this issue's longer-than-usual length, we had to bump
Cosmowatch. It will return next issue.)
POW CONDEMNS GOOD FRIDAY
All right-thinking people must reject the Eurocentric view of
history promoted with the concept of "Good Friday," says the
Propaganda Organization for Women.
"The fact is, all Fridays are equally valid," says Colleen
Hyphenated-Lastname, president of POW. "However, so-called Western
'civilization' has attempted to promote one Friday as supreme above
all others. We find it curious, therefore, that this supposedly "Good
Friday" just happens to coincide with a major holiday in the European
patriarchal religion. Coincidence? We think not.
"If you look at other cultures," says Ms. Hyphenated-Lastname,
"you realize that many of them also have holidays associated with
Fridays. Declaring the European holiday to be the one "Good Friday"
thus demeans and denigrates all other cultural Fridays and relegates
them to second-class status. We will not stand for this, and we will
begin our fight against it as soon as the weekend is over."
"We uphold the diversity of all Fridays, not just the one
Friday valued by the phalocentric religion of dead white European
males," says Ms. Hyphenated-Lastname. "However, we do feel that there
is room for a feminist reinterpretation of "Good Friday." Our research
has shown that it seems to have something to do with a man being
executed. Therefore it doesn't look like the holiday is entirely bad."
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. Send your
subscription requests, comments, kudos, and castration threats to
What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of people every
month -- probably because some server between here and there is on the
fritz at the time. If you don't think you received the latest issue,
please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
MANifesto is now on the Web. Each month the current issue is
and the Per's MANifesto Home Page is at
You can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in the
following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1997 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.)
Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes? Read
Per's MANifesto, a monthly newsletter on anti-male attitudes
and related topics. An informative package of news and humor.