Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue devoted to examining "SEXUAL POLITICS AS
USUAL." The scandals involving the White House are different primarily
in scale and the amount of publicity. But really they're not that much
different from run-of-the-mill accusations tossed about in the
hinterlands. They all involve unprovable he-said/she-said accusations,
they all reek of ulterior motives, and feminists always chose sides
based on the best payoff for them. So let's take a look at SEXUAL
POLITICS AS USUAL.
MANifesto is available on the web at http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
I. SEXUAL POLITICS AS USUAL
II. PER'S RULE OF FEMINIST SUPPORT
III. ARE MEN MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN WOMEN?
IV. UNDERSTANDING THE MCKINNEY VERDICT
V. DEPTHS OF ABSURDITY
VI. DEPTHS OF DISHONESTY
VII. MORE CHOICES WITHOUT VOICES
VIII. CHECKS AND BALANCES
IX. WILLEY AND THE HAND JIVE
SEXUAL POLITICS AS USUAL
All across the United States there has been an amazing
blossoming of the ability to read minds.
The sex scandals in Washington have revealed the enormous
numbers of Americans who are clairvoyant. Tell them the latest
sexual-harassment accusations and they instantly know which
accusations are true and which are false.
There's something remarkable about this new form of ESP.
People seem to know that accusations against a politician they like
are false, and that accusations against a politician they dislike are
true. And this form of ESP seems to be working equally well on the
left and right, and among supports and detractors of Bill Clinton.
At Per's MANifesto, we wish we had these supernatural powers
of deduction. Alas, we don't, so all we can do is slip back into that
cursed old white-European-patriarchal-male mode of looking at the
We prefer the White House log, for instance, that shows that
Monica Lewinsky returned to the White House 37 times when she was no
longer employed there -- for reasons yet to be satisfactorily
explained. Last issue, we followed the trail showing an awful lot of
perks going to people who might have damaging information about the
president. If there's evidence that people are being paid off to keep
their mouths shut, it's evidence that there is something to keep their
mouths shut about.
If we doubted the president's word in the last issue, let's
give him the benefit of the doubt in this one. Sexual harassment
accusations almost always involve unprovable statements and
he-said/she-said disputes. This one is no different. There has been
much posturing and hanky panky on both sides.
Consider the latest development in the Paula Jones case.
Lawyers for Ms. Jones are now saying that her alleged harassment by
the president so traumatized her that she has developed an aversion to
sex. They have an affidavit from a sexual disorders specialist who
examined Jones on Feb. 13 and said she has a form of "post-traumatic
Jones has never made such a claim in the seven years since her
encounter with Clinton. (Her lawyers say that this claim has always
been lurking in the background as part of the emotional distress
supposedly inflicted on her.)
It should always set off alarm bells whenever an accuser
begins escalating her story long after the fact. We've seen this
pattern before in child custody disputes and bitter divorces. First a
woman makes an initial accusation. This accusation doesn't hurt the
man enough, so next she "remembers" new traumas or develops new
symptoms. Her story keeps changing: the initial episode she accuses
him of keeps getting worse and worse, or maybe she keeps remembering
other, more severe incidents she somehow failed to mention the first
time around. Her story keeps escalating until either the man is
crushed or the woman loses all credibility.
We've always said that such an escalation of accusations is a
warning flag of possible deceit. We're not going to make an exception
for Jones now, no matter what we feel about Clinton.
We can't help noting that Jones' claim of sexual aversion
comes while the Clinton camp is mounting its main defense: namely,
that even if the encounter between Jones and Clinton happened the way
she describes it, her lawsuit should still be thrown out on the
grounds that she hasn't suffered any harm. Jones is counteracting with
some rather new assertions of harm.
Clinton's defense strategy is worth noting. He is saying that
a man can proposition a woman, even crudely, and she is still not
permanently damaged because of it. (What a revelation.)
That's pretty different from the stance feminists took during
the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood scandals. Feminists seemed to
think that any sexual hanky panky deserved immediate and severe
punishment. They didn't seem to need to prove that a woman was harmed.
If the comment or action offended feminists, the man had to be booted
out. After Bob Packwood was accused of kissing and propositioning
women, do you remember feminists saying "Oh, she didn't suffer any
lasting damage"? We don't remember that, either. The standards have
changed in direct relation to the politics involved.
But recent developments again underscore just how political
all sexual harassment allegations are. Clinton's lawyer, Robert
Bennett, recently threatened to dredge up Paula Jones' sex life to
counter her claim of "sexual aversion." He said he was going to submit
to the court a sealed document with evidence to disprove that Jones
has an aversion to sex. That's a thinly veiled threat to expose her
Bennett withdrew this threat after feminist groups reacted
angrily. Clinton's camp decided it could not risk alienating a core
constituency. And that shows just how political the entire process is.
Matters of evidence are based on political considerations, not on how
relevant they are. You do what you can get away with.
This isn't the first time Bennett threatened to use Jones'
sexual history against her. He made a similar move last year, then
scuttled it because of similar outrage by feminists.
Jones' side is making an interesting point about this. The
Violence Against Women Act generally bars the use of a woman's sexual
history against her when she claims she was harassed or abused.
Clinton signed that law, and is willing to violate it to save his own
Laws, after all, are for little people.
And few things in this case are more political than the
actions of White House communications director Ann Lewis, the
strongest defender Clinton has. Yes, she's the same Ann Lewis who came
out so stridently on the side of Anita Hill. Now she's attacking the
credibility of Kathleen Willey, the former White House aide who
accused Clinton of groping her and placing her hand on his crotch.
Lewis is another one of those people who instantly know which
accusations are true or false. Back in 1991, she instantly knew Anita
Hill's accusations were true. Now she instantly knows Willey's are
false. In this, she is like an awful lot of Americans -- except that
her beliefs happen to take the side of the person who signs her
Lewis has been very active in pointing out that Willey kept up
a cordial correspondence with Clinton after the alleged harassment
incident. Lewis says these continued contacts with Clinton create
doubt about Willey's honesty. Why would she stay in contact with him
if he had really treated her so badly?
But the same questions were raised about Anita Hill and her
continued contact with Clarence Thomas. Lewis had no trouble believing
that Hill was more or less forced to stay on Thomas' good side. Back
in 1991, she said: "You don't know what it's like to be a young
working woman, to have this really prestigious and powerful boss you
think you have to stay on the right side of him for the rest of your
working life or he could nix another job. ... If you have trouble
listing to women's voices, please listen to what I said again. I said
she was trying to stay on his right side because her economic career
would be at stake."
Well, Ms. Lewis, you seem to have trouble listening to
Kathleen Willey's voice. We'd ask you to read your own words again,
but we know the outcome -- the same old double-standards feminism has
been practicing for decades. Feminists object to discrimination
against them but demand discrimination against men. Feminists condemn
the stereotyping of women but promote virulent stereotypes of men.
Feminists demand that they be allowed to enter male-only academies,
then set up scores of women-only schools. The type of feminist
hypocrisy Ms. Lewis is practicing is neither new nor rare.
As for Willey herself, there are questions emerging about her
version of events, as well. A friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, released an
affidavit saying Willey asked her to lie to a Newsweek reporter about
the sequence of events in Willey's encounter with Clinton. Willey says
Steele is a tool of the White House.
And so it goes.
As for Clinton, he's probably the one person most obviously
caught lying. For years he has been repeatedly and strongly denying
that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. Remember his long-faced,
injured-innocence look on "60 Minutes" in 1991? But in a deposition he
had to give Jan. 17 in the Paula Jones case, Clinton finally admitted
under oath, after years of claiming otherwise, that he and Flowers
had sex in 1977. He says it happened only once.
And if he had a cigarette after that sex, we suppose he didn't
The Clinton scandal is taking place on the highest levels of
government, but it has a lot in common with sexual harassment
allegations everywhere. That's because they are all essentially
"political," even if it's office politics or the politics of dating.
If a woman likes a man, then it's not an offense. If she doesn't like
him, he should be fired, perhaps even jailed. The whole area is
subjective. The Clinton scandal merely has a bigger audience, with
larger groups of feminists cynically weighing the drawbacks and
payoffs of supporting the accusations against him.
The recent case at Miller Brewing Company was rife with
politics. A woman got a man fired because he pointed to the word
"clitoris" on the page of a dictionary. When the man sued, the jury
agreed with him that he was fired primarily because of office
So we will leave the clairvoyance on the White House scandals
to those who seem to possess that sort of ESP. As for us, there is one
overwhelmingly important message coming out of this scandal: when you
are accused, fight back.
Bob Packwood didn't fight back. He threw himself on the mercy
of feminists, which is a lot like the Titanic throwing itself on the
mercy of the iceberg. Packwood confessed to having a drinking problem
that might have contributed to his behavior, but if he expected mercy
from feminists, he was sorely mistaken. Feminists, who have florid
self-pity for their own problems, are notably without mercy when
attacking men. Some men they've driven to suicide.
Packwood made some clumsy, halfhearted moves to defend
himself. His representatives were going to question the accusers about
their motives and their credibility. But feminists put up a storm of
protest. How dare a man seek due process? How dare a man defend
himself? So Packwood dropped his defenses and played nice.
He was quickly out of office.
Bill Clinton, for all his faults, shows the importance of
fighting for yourself. Feminists would like men to be so overwhelmed
with guilt, and so unsure about defending themselves, that men are
ripe for picking off. Clinton has shown that you can fight back -- in
fact, it's your only option. They will try to break you, if you let
Moreover, the Clinton case has done a lot to clarify what
approach to take. Feminists are going to have a harder time saying
that consensual sex is harassment. They're going to have a harder time
demanding that we believe every accusation they make after they long
ignored the accusations of half a dozen women. Feminists are going to
have a harder time whipping up emotional responses to harassment
accusations after they were so detached and passive in the Clinton
case. They'll have a tougher time convincing us that alleged sexual
harassment is so traumatic it deserves immediate punishment, when
Clinton himself is arguing that the women suffered no real harm.
Moreover, feminists are going to have to contend with men who have
been given an example on a national level that it's all right to
If Clinton is guilty of other things -- obstruction of
justice, suborning perjury -- that's a different matter. But like him
or not, he has shown the nation that a man can fight back.
PER'S RULE OF FEMINIST SUPPORT
Nowhere has "sexual politics as usual" been more apparent than
in the continuing saga of America's Kennedy family.
Though the term "patriarchy" usually comes out of feminists'
mouths sounding like an obscenity, feminists have always admired and
supported this patriarchal family. As they are doing now with Bill
Clinton, feminists always tried very hard to look the other way and
pretend they didn't see the evidence when someone they liked was
accused of mistreating women. In the Kennedy family, that trait goes
back to patriarch Joe Kennedy, a notorious womanizer. "Sunset
Boulevard" star Gloria Swanson claimed he raped her, but the sun never
set on the appeal of the Kennedys, as far as many feminists are
There's no need to go into all the legends about Jack
Kennedy's womanizing. And the shenanigans of his young brother Ted are
More important, feminists stood by Ted Kennedy even after Mary
Jo Kopechne died in his car at Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy, who has
found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, seemed more
concerned about his political career than the life of a woman. But
while feminists were livid that Clarence Thomas supposedly mentioned a
pubic hair on a Coke can, they were astoundingly forgiving toward the
man who left Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick. Remember Per's Rule
of Feminist Support: As long as you treat feminist well, it doesn't
matter how you treat women.
Ted Kennedy has managed to turn this sordid episode around, so
that he is virtually seen as a victim and mentioning his actions is
considered an affront. Victimhood knows no bounds.
There are other episodes in the history of the Kennedys that
probably aren't as well known. There have been tales of wild drinking,
dangerous stunts, drug use.
Consider U.S. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II, eldest son
of Robert and Ethel Kennedy. On Aug. 13, 1973, he rolled a sport
utility vehicle on Cape Cod in an accident that left a female
In 1979 he married a woman named Sheila Rauch. They had twin
sons. He was elected to Congress in 1986. In 1991, he divorced Sheila
and married an aide.
But then he tried to have his first marriage annulled.
This is a curious process in which the Catholic Church
essentially considers that the first marriage never took place. So
even though a woman slept in his bed for 12 years and bore him two
sons, she would be treated as if she were just an illicit mistress.
Joseph Kennedy had wanted to relegate his wife to a traditional gender
role of supportive and submissive wife. But instead of honoring her
for that role, he then wanted to treat her as if she had never been
his wife. And he wanted to take for granted the support of feminists
while doing this.
Sheila Rauch decided not to take the Kennedy treatment
anymore. She wrote a book, "Shattered Faith," saying that Joseph
Kennedy verbally abused her and tried to bully her into a divorce.
In an interview with "Primetime Live" on the U.S. network ABC,
she said: "Joe would tell me that I was a nobody. ... Essentially
that nobody liked me." By the end of the marriage, she "had simply
become afraid of him."
This is the man who, by the way, boasts on his official U.S.
House webpage biography of his programs to protect women.
Along the way there have been other scandals. William Kennedy
Smith was accused and acquitted of rape -- and rightly acquitted, as
far as we're concerned. But we note how many feminists were screaming
for his conviction. That was a remarkable turnabout for them --
seeking punishment for a Kennedy. Why did they do it? Well, it's worth
noting that William Kennedy Smith planned to be a doctor, not a
politician. He had not been shoveling money into feminist causes. That
brings up Per's Rule of Feminist Belief: Your belief in the
accusations against a man are directly related to how much use he can
be to you.
Meanwhile, it looked like Joseph Kennedy would have a good
shot at running for governor of Massachusetts. Then the news broke
that his younger brother, Michael Kennedy, was accused of having a
five-year affair with a girl who baby-sat his children, beginning when
she was 14. For an adult to have sex with someone that age constitutes
statutory rape. Nevertheless, the district attorney dropped the
investigation because the young woman would not cooperate with
investigators. Draw your own conclusions on why a woman would not
testify against the wealthy and powerful Kennedy clan.
But the cumulative effect of Kennedy scandals began taking its
toll. Feminists could only overlook so much, could only turn a blind
eye for so long.
With his popularity waning, Joseph Kennedy has said he's
folding up his political tent: he will not run for governor and not
seek re-election to the House: he's retiring from politics.
After his announcement, another shoe dropped. It was reported
that a nonprofit corporation Joseph Kennedy formed to help poor people
afford to heat their homes has turned into a really profitable
moneymaker for those on the inside. Citizens Energy Corp. has made
millions of dollars for friends and insiders, the Wall Street Journal
says. For example, William E. James, the group's president for several
years, is in a position to reap $18.7 million on shares he bought from
the organization and resold just a year later, for 38 times what he
paid. The group has devoted $30 million to helping the poor in the
past decade, but the employees have pocketed more than that for
Nothing like helping the poor to line your own pockets.
That wraps up our greatly abridged tour of Kennedy scandals --
on how a group of men who were so often suspected of using or abusing
women could maintain the support of so many feminists for so long. Do
feminists really care what happens to women? Or are they willing to
overlook the mistreatment of women so long as feminism gets its palm
greased? (A few issues ago, MANifesto discussed the feminists who kept
quiet about the scourge of lung cancer among women while receiving
huge sums donated by tobacco companies. So this type of behavior is
But here's a footnote. On July 19, Matthew Kennedy, son of
Joseph Kennedy, suffered minor burns from fireworks at the family
compound on Cape Cod. However, fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts.
That is, they are illegal in Massachusetts if your name is not
Kennedy. The state fire marshal declared, for some reason, that he
would not pursue criminal charges.
So, do you know the theme song for Barney the Dinosaur? Then
let's all sing:
"They'd charge you.
"They'd charge me.
"They won't charge a Ken-ne-dy ..."
(Sources: ABC "PrimeTime" transcript at
You can read a review of "Shattered Faith" on the Jam Books
web site. But a word of caution: the Jam review makes it sound as if
only men seek annulments and only women suffer, which is not true.
Rep. Joseph Kennedy's bio page:
ARE MEN MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN WOMEN?
Are men more responsible than women?
Ask a feminist that question and you're likely to get a
lecture on sexism, if not a contusion. She will tell you that it's
sexist to assume that men adhere to higher standards of
That is, until the topic turns to crime.
Then most feminists will flip flop -- men are indeed far more
responsible. Feminists have two core beliefs on this issue:
-- If men and women are involved in a crime together, the men
are the most responsible parties, and the women were probably forced
into it by the men.
-- If a woman commits a crime on her own, she is not
responsible for her actions -- she's sick, distraught, oppressed, etc.
Feminists want you to believe that women take an equal part in
every human endeavor in the world *except* crime, and that the only
truly evil crimes are those committed by men.
Sadly enough, there seem to be plenty of people around the
world who agree.
Consider India, which is undergoing a death-penalty debate
similar to the controversy in the United States over the execution of
Karla Faye Tucker in February.
India is the second-most populous nation in the world, behind
only China, with more than 903,000,000 people as of the 1993 census.
And capital punishment is common in India.
So, with a nation with such an enormous population, how many
of the people put to death would you guess were women? A hundred? A
Since independence, India has never executed a woman. Not one.
While the death penalty is common, it is another men-only punishment.
It's part of that male privilege and that superior position that men
enjoy the world over.
India had sentenced a woman, Ram Shree, to be hanged along
with her father and brother on April 6 in Mathura, in Uttar Pradesh
state. They had killed four relatives in a family dispute in 1989.
However, its Supreme Court temporarily halted the execution --
of the woman.
Ram Shree is pleading that she can't be executed because she
is a mother. She has three children -- all born while she was in
prison -- and she says they need her. It sounds to us like she's
cynically using these children as tools in an attempt to save her own
What child ever needs a parent who is a cold-blooded killer?
It is absurd to assume that Ram Shree would be a good role model for
any child. Moreover, when was the last time a man's life was spared on
the grounds that he was a father?
An activist group, the National Commission for Women, has also
filed an appeal against the execution. We wonder -- if the only people
being executed in India are men, where was the National Commission for
Women during those executions? Was it protesting this sexist
discrimination? Did it get involved only when it seemed like a woman
might get equal treatment?
The worldwide protests over the execution of Karla Faye Tucker
were not an aberration. Society holds men far more accountable for
their actions and has trouble applying the same responsibility to
That is borne out by another case in Montgomery County,
Alba Ingrid Scarpelli regularly tied up and tortured
5-year-old Richard Holmes. He is the son of her live-in boyfriend,
Alan Lee Holmes.
Scarpelli, 32, kept the boy tied to a bedpost with a cat
leash. Sometimes she taped his mouth shut. At other times, she
force-fed him hot peppers that have caused permanent damage to his
liver. He cannot run or jump like other children because of damage to
his ankles from being tied up.
Scarpelli was convicted of six charges, including first-degree
assault, child abuse and false imprisonment. Under state sentencing
guidelines, she faced a jail term of 15 to 25 years.
Holmes, by contrast, pleaded guilty to two counts: child abuse
and conspiracy to commit child abuse. He faced a maximum of 15 years.
Here is what the judge decided.
The woman was sentenced to 18 months.
The man was sentenced to 8 years.
As Scarpelli's sentence was read in court, her sister Elaine
Scarpelli shouted "Ingrid, that's a great sentence!"
Presiding over both cases was Montgomery County Circuit Court
Judge DeLawrence Beard. He gave Scarpelli the slap-on-the-wrist
sentence and the stiffer sentence to Holmes. Beard told Holmes he had
a "higher duty" to protect his son. "You are going to receive a
substantially more severe sentence because you were substantially more
culpable," said Beard. "You were in a superior position to intervene
and stop this."
We agree that Holmes had a duty to protect his son. We agree
he ought to be punished. But the case raises troubling questions. Why
is a man's duty to prevent crimes higher than a woman's duty not to
commit them? Why was Holmes in a "superior position" to stop this?
Because he's male? The person in the best position to prevent violence
by Alba Ingrid Scarpelli was Alba Ingrid Scarpelli.
As for Beard's odd comment that the man was more culpable --
that means a woman is less culpable for the very abuse she herself is
committing. So when a woman commits violence or abuse, consider her
less culpable and look around for a man to blame.
Feminists ought to think this over very carefully. Sure they
enjoy the smug, morally superior feeling of always holding men more
responsible. But decisions like this put women on the level of
children -- less capable of knowing right from wrong or controlling
their behavior. If we hold men more responsible and punish them for
the behavior of women, don't be surprised when men feel they must
control the actions of women. Saying that men are always more
responsible is a recipe for patriarchy.
But society has always placed higher standards of
responsibility on men and punished men far more harshly for not
filling their roles. The strongest "traditional gender roles" in force
today are those applying to men. At every turn, feminists seek to free
themselves of responsibility and tighten the responsibilities placed
on men. Feminists want to send men to jail if they don't pay child
support, yet feminists vigorously defend women who drink and take
drugs while pregnant. The man's responsibility to a child is always
greater, even if his rights as a parent are nil.
And that's another troubling aspect of this case: society
treats fathers only in terms of responsibilities and not rights. There
ought to be a balance between the two. But at present, fathers'
responsibilities are taken for granted while their rights are ignored.
Fathers are expected to be "on call," fulfilling their commitments
every minute of the day right up until a mother or a court official
arbitrarily decides to take away a man's children for the rest of his
life. Mothers have the rights in such cases -- yet if they abuse,
neglect, or murder the children, they will be held less responsible.
Something is not right.
But as for being right, we hope Richard, now 6, will be able
to recover from the abuse he suffered at the hands of this woman. He
is living with a foster family and talks of having children of his own
someday. "But he says he'll love his children even if they make
(Sources: "Woman Gets 18 Months for Child Abuse: Sentence Too
Light for Crime, Montgomery Prosecutors Say" By Katherine Shaver,
Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, February 12, 1998; Page B01
(Father Gets 8 Years in Montgomery Abuse Case
By Amy Klein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, February 28,
1998; Page B01.)
UNDERSTANDING THE McKINNEY VERDICT
Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney, once the top enlisted man in the
Army, is leaving the service after six women accused him of sexual
harassment. A military jury acquitted him on all 18 charges of sexual
misconduct he faced. However, he was convicted of obstruction of
justice -- he was tape-recorded trying to persuade one of his accusers
to change her story.
Feminists will have a field day misrepresenting this case.
They will say that it proves there is a good-old-boy network in the
military that "tolerates" sexual harassment, and so on. They will say
that this verdict "sends a bad message."
The fact is, feminists would prefer that nearly every man who
is accused be convicted -- to "send the right message." And as for the
good-old-boy network, there were women on this jury.
But once we take a closer look at the charges against
McKinney, we see how odd and unusual this entire trial was. An
informative editorial in USA Today on March 18 provided some
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically
outlaw sexual harassment. Instead, inappropriate behavior, such as
unwanted touching or indecent language, must be prosecuted under
statutes that are a poor fit, leaving military prosecutors to leap
herculean legal hurdles. McKinney, for instance, was criminally
charged with assault and battery for allegedly touching a woman on the
arm and trying to pull her toward him. He also faced a possible prison
term for allegedly asking a woman to meet him at his hotel for drinks
on more than one occasion. Small wonder the jury had trouble finding
him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' "
In the civilian world, the type of offenses McKinney was
accused of would have to be dealt with in civil rather than criminal
court. That is, a woman who alleged that a man committed such acts
would have to bring a lawsuit. The police would not come and clap the
accused in handcuffs and set him up for a criminal trial. That's
because these supposed offenses are not the type of criminal activity
or felonies that get folks sent to prison.
In McKinney's case, the military didn't have laws to deal with
the accusations against him. So it decided to treat the charges
against him like felonies -- things that could get him sent to prison,
even if in the civilian world the most that could result was a
No wonder the charges didn't stick. If a town doesn't have a
law against littering, would it charge litterbugs with felonious
Beyond the actual verdict, this case raises some interesting
issues. Feminists who want women in the military say that women can
perform just like men. But we wonder if any man would be bringing
criminal charges against a woman for repeatedly asking him out for a
drink. This is not a minor issue. Soldiers are expected to defend our
society and our freedoms against attack by a violent enemy that will
be using weapons far more vicious than a pick-up line. If a woman is
so devastated by the types of things McKinney was accused of, is she
really ready for the hell of combat?
There was also the racial angle. McKinney is black, and all
his accusers are white. In the similar scandal at the Aberdeen Proving
Ground in Maryland, all 12 black drill instructors accused of forcing
female subordinates to have sex are black. Most of the accusers are
white. Five of the putative accusers say Army agents pressured and
coerced them into agreeing to the charges.
We are still feeling the fallout of the Air Force's so-called
Tailhook scandal. Air Force officials whose job supposedly involves
defending our freedoms showed us just how quickly they would collapse
and retreat in the face of a feminist assault. Ever since then,
military officials have lived in terror, not of Scud missiles or
anthrax, but of upsetting the feminist lobby. Innocent men have had
their careers ruined by innuendo, and unqualified female pilots have
been promoted ahead of men for propaganda purposes -- with deadly
results. The hotline that the Army set up to accept sexual harassment
allegations has been quietly disconnected amid admissions that it was
being used to smear men anonymously.
But things might be changing. The Army is now investigating
The Associated Press, citing an article in the Baltimore Sun,
said the Army is investigation claims that its investigators coerced
the witnesses and targeted only black men.
Acting Army Secretary Robert M. Walker has ordered the Army's
inspector general to investigate. Walker wants to know if the
investigation used "inappropriate techniques and procedures, knowingly
pursued racially motivated allegations and were themselves racially
biased while investigating allegations of sex offenses." The NAACP is
asking for an outside investigation.
Feminists behind the current sexual-harassment hysteria always
claim to be such friends and allies of black people. Curious, then,
how everyone accused was black.
Moral of the story: Feminists should stick to attack white
males -- the group it's still okay to demonize.
Or maybe it's time for white men to start fighting back the
way that black men have never been afraid to do.
DEPTHS OF ABSURDITY
Feminists seem to have some men well-trained. It seems there
is no accusation so bizarre, and no accuser so loony, that some man
won't try to take action.
Consider Corporal Bob Doige of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. He relentlessly pursued sexual allegations against three men
despite evidence the accusers were unreliable or mentally unstable.
Some of the accusations arose from "recovered memory therapy," a
feministic pseudo-science that has been shown to produce false
Among Doige's victims, as reported by Rick Ouston of the
Mike Kliman, a vice-principal at John Diefenbaker elementary
school, spent five years defending himself against absurd charges
based on "recovered memories." The woman who supposedly "recovered"
these memories was shown to suffer a psychiatric disorder. Kliman was
put through a preliminary hearing, a criminal trial and two appeals
before he was finally cleared.
Eric Erickson, a high-school English teacher suspended in 1988
when a female student accused him of rape. Trouble was, "the accuser
had audio and visual hallucinations, and was diagnosed as psychotic
and heavily drugged. Doige also pressed ahead despite physical
evidence that indicated the assault could not have happened."
Kevin O'Farrell, another teacher investigated in 1992 on
accusations from his daughter "that he -- and 50 other people --
belonged to a Satanic cult that abused children. The woman, later
treated for psychosis, also claimed her mother assaulted her, and that
long-suppressed memories had only recently surfaced. ...
O'Farrell's other children denied any abuse and a subsequent
investigation by now-retired RCMP Chief Superintendent Mike Clegg
found the allegations 'bizarre and unbelievable.' "
All three men were exonerated, though they say their ordeals
have had lasting consequences. Erickson was so soured by his
experience that he has left the teaching profession. And Doige told
other teachers who knew O'Farrell about the warped accusations against
him. The stigma of the accusation still stalks him.
Clegg wrote O'Farrell a letter of apology in 1994. "All the
other allegations made by her are so bizarre and incomprehensible that
one has to question Corporal Doige's objectivity and mind set
concerning you, a teacher who is being accused."
In a libel case brought by Erickson, Justice Bruce McColl
"criticized Doige for asking leading questions of a complainant who
was mentally disturbed. ... frequently her answers were a response to
questions which in and of themselves suggested the answer," McColl
An RCMP probe found that Doige took "a very biased position"
in the investigation. Yes, men can be biased against other men. It's
not only possible, it's one of the planks that feminism is built on.
Doige has taken early retirement. Canada is a little safer for
Doige says his belief in Satanic mumbo-jumbo, and his trust in
the truth of hallucinating women, is based on his knowledge of
recovered memory therapy. That's the tipoff right there.
So-called recovered memory therapy is largely based on the
works of two feminists, Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, who have struck it
rich with their "The Courage to Heal" books. The original book has
sold 750,000 copies and produced all sorts of lucrative spinoffs:
workbooks, seminars, etc.
Believers in recovered memory therapy have a circular logic.
Everything they see is a symptom of some "repressed" and forgotten
sexual abuse. The symptom proves the abuse -- and absolutely
everything is a symptom. Feel anxious and tense? Forget things?
Dislike small rooms? Surprise -- you're a "survivor" of sexual abuse.
Now all you need is for a kind, caring therapist to dredge up all
those nasty memories -- at the cost of thousands of dollars.
You *are* insured, right? One of the amazing things about
recovered memories is that they are found most often in people with
lots of money or plenty of insurance coverage.
Therapy commonly involves drugging patients, hypnotizing them,
leading them through highly suggestive "guided imagery" sessions,
putting them in cult-like isolation away from family and friends, and
doing all manner of things that are known to contaminate memories,
implant false or suggestive ideas, and break down a person's
resistance to suggestion.
Bass is not a psychotherapist and has no academic background
in the field. She started out as a teacher of feminist fiction.
Bass and other "recovered memory" stalwarts are known for
their disdain for proof, evidence, and logic. As Bass said, "If we
waited for science, we can forget the whole thing."
Well, they didn't wait for science, so we should forget their
whole thing. Except we can't. While the cash continues to pour into
Bass' "Courage to Heal" coffers, innocent men and women continue to
have their lives destroyed by false accusations.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the leading experts on false
memory, testified as an expert witness for Kliman. But Doige's mind
was closed. All he would say about her is "she's a nut."
So Doige believed women who had hallucinations. He believed
women who told him of wild satanic bacchanals that no one else
witnessed. He believed women whose stories were contradicted by
physical evidence. Yet when he's confronted with credible, valid
scientific research, his response is "she's a nut."
Most of all, he believed some of the wildest propaganda ever
put out by feminists.
When feminists call, there still are plenty of obedient little
men like Doige who have The Courage to Heel.
(Source: "Three discredited sex cases linked"
Meanwhile, in Australia, the Upper House MP Mrs. Franca Arena
has a story to tell that makes Mr. Doige look like Sherlock Holmes.
Mrs. Arena says an informant has told her about a conspiracy in which
babies are being bred in a Melbourne castle as fodder for a Satanic
cult. The informant supposedly witnessed a certain "Judge B" hack
another judge to death with an axe in order to succeed him as a
leading world satanist. And people have been crucified at the castle
and their body parts used in satanic ritual abuse. And she's saying
there's a conspiracy of high-ranking pedophiles to cover it all up.
Have we buried the needle on the goofometer yet?
But Mrs. Arena admitted in March 5 testimony to the Upper
House Privileges Committee that she never checked the allegations
before making them public. "I am not a policeman," she said.
She also admitted that she was "not telling the truth" when
she told reporters several times last year she would name politicians
and judges as pedophiles. "I was trying to scare people off," she
Of her supposed informant, she says: "Maybe she has
exaggerated, but there might be also a basis of truth to what she
said." She describes her informant as "a very credible witness."
Another allegation she never bothered checking before she made
it was the accusation that a certain Mr. D. was filmed having sex with
boys at a Sydney hotel. During her testimony, she was told that it
could be proved that the man was not at the hotel.
"What can I say?" Mrs. Arena answered.
Said committee member Mr. Richard Jones: "You could say you
got it wrong."
(Source: "Arena admits never intending to name names,"
by David Humphries, The Sydney Morning Herald, March 19, 1998.
DEPTHS OF DISHONESTY
After all the dirty tricks we've seen feminists pull, we
shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all the Super Bowl hoaxes, the
faked research, the pseudo-science, the "rule of thumb" myths, the
false accusations, and the blatant stereotypes, we shouldn't be
But sometimes feminists pull off something that is slimy even
by their standards. Such a deal was done recently at New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation of Binghamton.
It concerns men who had been hired for full-time jobs, but on
a temporary basis. The men who wanted permanent jobs were put on a
waiting list. When permanent jobs opened up, they were supposed to get
first chance at them. They worked faithfully at their temporary jobs,
And permanent jobs did open up. But that's when the dirty
On Sept. 3, 1993, five men were laid off -- for one day. They
were re-hired the next day, but this sleight-of-hand had caused them
to lose seniority.
So the permanent jobs went to women from the office. They were
all temporary clerical workers, all women, and none with any
experience in the jobs they were getting. Men who had been doing those
jobs for three years or more were denied the jobs -- because they
supposedly lacked "seniority."
There is something fundamentally dishonest about feminism's
claim that discriminating against men somehow constitutes "equality."
When feminists are that cynical about honesty, it's no wonder they
stoop to dirty tricks like the one pulled against these men at New
York State Electric and Gas. Feminists claim that they just want a
"level playing field." But what they actually do is find ways to cheat
men out of what they've earned -- in the interest of "equality."
Shame on New York State Electric and Gas Corp. for such a
dishonest move. If this is a public utility, maybe someone ought to
pull some plugs.
This is nothing but a disguised, off-the-books form of
affirmative action. Maybe feminists are practicing covert affirmative
action because society is becoming increasingly aware that anti-male
discrimination is wrong, and that it is discrimination no matter what
nice label you slap on it. People are beginning to see through decades
of feminist misrepresentation and half-truths about the "glass
ceiling." They are seeing that what feminists want isn't equality,
it's advantage -- no matter how dirty they play to get it, no matter
how many innocent people they cheat.
Enough people have seen this in California that they voted to
end discrimination in state contracting. The good news: earlier this
month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made its final ruling in
the Proposition 209 case -- overturning contract preferences. Then
Governor Pete Wilson signed an executive order terminating
discrimination in the awarding of contracts.
The Proposition 209 debate showed feminists at their dirtiest.
They tried to claim that ordinary folks who didn't want to be
discriminated against were a bunch of demonic backlashers and
Klansmen. Perhaps the strategy backfired. People got a good look at
the dishonesty and hatred coming from the feminist camp, and voted
overwhelmingly for Proposition 209 in 1996.
Proposition 209 says state and local governments cannot
"discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any
individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin." No wonder feminists hate it. It doesn't allow them
to discriminate anymore.
And another encouraging note: the decision reached beyond
California. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court let Proposition 209
But the essential dishonesty among feminists has never been
resolved. They still wish to paint people as being evil simply because
those people don't want to be discriminated against.
If feminists honestly wanted to compete for jobs fairly, they
would understand why people don't want to be discriminated against.
Feminists themselves don't want to be discriminated against. But they
sure want to do it to others. And they claim that that position is
Take the recent case at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Veteran journalist Lawrence "Bud" Withers was passed over for a sports
columnist job because of affirmative action policies that called for
hiring a woman, Laura Vecsey.
Withers is suing. We hope he wins.
The newspaper's editor and publisher, J.D. Alexander, admits
that Vecsey's female voice and the "fact that she is female" were
factors in the decision to hire her. Alexander also said the paper was
trying to promote "diversity."
You know what diversity means. It means that discrimination
against men is always right and discrimination against women is always
wrong. Oddly enough, there never seems to be any need for diversity
once women make up the top management or the majority of workers in
Alexander's statements are "direct evidence that raises an
inference of discriminatory motive" sufficient to let Withers take his
case to trial, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0
Personally, we think sports coverage is one of the worst
places to be practicing "affirmative action," because there is no
affirmative action on the playing field. Once the color barrier in
sports fell, minority athletes excelled -- on their own merits. No one
added extra yards to their running or extra hits to their stats. They
earned it every step of the way.
Meanwhile, covering the people who do the real work are
columnists who got there not because of what they can do but who they
MORE CHOICES WITHOUT VOICES
In Houston, Evonne Rodriguez was acquitted of capital murder
after allegedly strangling her 4-month-old son with rosary beads. She
got off by claiming an insanity defense.
Crazy? Like a fox. She first made up a story about the boy
being abducted. Apparently she was sane enough to try to mislead
But she eventually confessed. However, she was acquitted,
partly on the idea that she suffered from post-partum depression. She
is sentenced to treatment.
There was a bit more justice in Medina, Ohio, where a former
cheerleader was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in her baby's
death and sentenced to eight years. Audrey Iacona was accused of
suffocating the premature, 3.8-pound boy and stuffing him in garbage
bags -- the swaddling clothes of the feminist movement.
This case reminds us somewhat of the British nanny case
involving Louise Woodward. Just as with the Woodward case, there were
those who could not accept that a young woman might kill, and there
were those who were angry that she'd be punished even if she did.
Defense lawyer Richard Marco said "She is a girl who is not a
danger to society." This is the typical response when women kill
children: they're only killing children, so they're not a danger to
the rest of us. We suppose you could argue that a lot of men who beat
their wives are also not a danger to society at large, but we doubt
many feminists would let them take a pass.
Meanwhile, at the Walt Disney World amusement park in Orlando,
Florida, a newborn girl was found abandoned in a toilet, apparently
left to die. The mother was identified as a 43-year-old tourist who
has returned to the Philippines, where she won't have to face U.S.
charges of attempted murder and child abuse.
The good news is the little girl is doing fine and there is a
foster family interested in adopting her.
A cleaning woman at St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville,
Virginia, recently discovered a newborn baby, dead, on the concrete
floor of a garbage room on campus. Emergency crews called to the scene
then made a second shocking discovery: the body of a second newborn,
dead, behind a door.
"There is a lot of disappointment and dismay here that a
couple of young lives didn't have a better chance," Lawrenceville
Police Chief Douglas Pond said.
Remember, chief: to feminists, they're not lives -- they're
("Mother of Dead Infants Sought: Police Question Students at
Va. College Where Babies Were Found," By Eric L. Wee, Washington Post
Staff Writer, Wednesday, February 18, 1998; Page B04
HUMOR: CHECKS AND BALANCES
In Nicaragua, a young woman has created a national scandal by
accusing her step-father of molesting and sexually abusing her from
the time she was 11 years old until adulthood.
Her name is Zoilamerica Narvaez Murillo.
You might have heard of her step-father. He is Daniel Ortega.
Yes, the same Daniel Ortega who led the Sandinista National
Liberation Front. The same Daniel Ortega who became the darling of
ultraliberals who believe that "Marxist" and "far left" are synonyms
for "moral" and "ethically pure." Narvaez said that much of the abuse
went on while Ortega was president.
(See "Stepdaughter Accuses Ortega of Abusing Her," the
Washington Post, March 14, 1998, pg. A17.
If her story is true, it is indeed tragic. But there are
lessons to be learned.
For one thing, it demonstrates the differences between
totalitarian regimes and a democracy like the good old U.S. of A.
Unlike the Sandinista government, a democracy has a system of
checks and balances. One part of the government keeps track of another
part, making sure the other does not abuse its power.
That's part of what makes America great. In America, we have a
system of checks and balances on the president's ability to harass,
abuse, fondle and grope women. All such actions must be cleared with
the feminist branch before they can proceed.
With checks and balances come safeguards. In America, if
feminists do not approve of the way a senator kisses women, he can be
removed from office.
In America, vigilant and dedicated feminists are alert to make
sure that only good and correct sexual harassment is permitted.
Harassment by politicians who have not met feminist approval will be
dealt with harshly.
Is this a great country, or what?
So remember the political rule of checks and balances: send
feminists the checks, and make sure they balance.
WILLEY AND THE HAND JIVE
(Sung to the tune of "Willie and the Hand Jive," of course.)
I know a cat named Kathleen Willey.
Got a story 'bout the president, it's a dilly.
Asked Bill Clinton to lend a hand.
He did a lot more than she had planned.
Times are tough, and she starts to sob:
"I need your help for a steady job.
"The White House staff is what I'd like to join."
So he put her hand right on his groin.
Do that crazy hand jive.
Mama, mama, look at Ed Bradley
Talking 'bout hand jive on TV.
"60 Minutes" is the thing to watch
For all your news on the executive crotch.
Do that crazy hand jive.
Spin doctor and lawyer and White House chief
Hardly can hide their disbelief.
But all the prez's men have a job to do,
To beat up any woman who dares say "boo."
After Paula and Monica and Gennifer,
The feminists say they still aren't sure.
"We wait and see and just keep still,
"Unlike we did with Anita Hill."
Do that crazy hand jive.
Say Ms. Hillary, where are you?
Does he make you do that hand jive too?
Maybe you're off spending all your time
Watching the way cattle futures climb.
Do that crazy hand jive.
THE FINE PRINT
Per's MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion
for people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
FEEDBACK: Send comments, kudos and castration threats to
SUBSCRIBING: To get MANifesto by e-mailed, send an e-mail to
Per2@idt.net with "subscribe MANifesto" in the subject line.
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."
Each month's current issue of Per's MANifesto is on the web at
And the Per's MANifesto Home Page is at
http://idt.net/~per2/index.htm featuring links to back issues.
With a link to The POW Page! -- a collection of favorite satire
featuring Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and the Propaganda Organization
You can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in
soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1998by 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.