MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues.
May, 1996. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise
distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its
entirety.
INDEX:
I. ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST
II. LICENSE TO STEREOTYPE
III. WE MEANT "MAN"-DATORY PUNISHMENT!
IV. GLAD SHE CLEARED THAT UP
V. A FEMINIST HAMMER
VI. ALL WOMEN ARE POTENTIAL MUNCHAUSEN CASES?
==========
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST
Here's a rule of thumb for you: the impact feminist statistics have on
society has no correlation to the amount of truth they contain.
That's demonstrated by the fact that the latest feminist study to be
debunked has also been a very influential one.
Sociologist Lenore J. Weitzman published "The Divorce Revolution"
eleven years ago, claiming to find a huge income gap between men and women
after they split up.
In the first year after divorce, women's households suffered a 73
percent drop in their standard of living, while men's households enjoyed a
42 percent rise -- so her study said. That paints a picture of women
plunged into hardship and despair while their happy-go-lucky ex-husbands are
rolling in money. (Time for more social programs!) And it has given
fuel to more than a few anti-male presumptions. ("Marriage must
be sheer hell if so many women are willing to flee into poverty
just to get away from the S.O.B.")
Do the math to realize the enormity of what Weitzman was saying.
Applying her figures to yearly income, a woman in a middle-class,
$40,000-a-year household would drop to $10,800. That's right on
the poverty line if she is taking care of two children.
Weitzman's study had now been proven to be erroneous, by her own
admission. But that should have been evident from the start. Other
researchers were finding income gaps, but not on this scale. Most
researchers agree woman's standard of living drops about 30 percent
after a divorce while it rises only about 10 percent for men.
But it was Weitzman's study that was the big hit. It has been
taken up by the news media, the courts, and women's activists.
It has been used to support the argument that women deserve
a much bigger property settlement because their income supposedly is going
to fall so drastically. One researcher found 24 legal appeals and Supreme
Court cases that cited her figure, as well as 250 law review articles
and 348 social science articles. A search of the Nexis
database of publications found more than 175 newspaper and magazine
stories citing her figures.
And President Bill Clinton, who wants to be more than just a friend
to women, used the statistic in his 1996 budget.
"This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in
recent history," says one expert.
To those trumpeting the study, it didn't seem to matter that
Weitzman's results differed greatly from what other researchers were
finding. It didn't seem to matter that her results even conflicted
with some of her own data! And it didn't seem to matter that she
was refusing to make her data available to other researchers. She made a
spectacular claim that was disputed other people, a claim that she didn't
back up, and still the news media and the courts embraced it as truth.
Now even Weitzman admits her study was wrong.
She says her figures are somehow off because of a weighting error, a
mistake made by an assistant, or other factors.
What forced her admission is that Richard R. Peterson, a New York
sociologist, gained access to Weitzman's data from computer and paper
records archived at Radcliffe College. Ironically, Peterson found that
Weitzman's own data supported the figures that other researchers had been
citing all along. In fact, Weitzman's showed the gap to be a little bit
less than what others were saying: a 27 percent decline in women's
post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men's.
(Weitzman actually reversed the figures. She had claimed women's
standard-of-living levels fell 73 percent, leaving them only 27 percent of
the level they had. Now her own figures show that women's levels
*stay at* 73 percent of that marriage income meaning they drop by
only 27 percent.)
In covering the story, the Associated Press declared: "It was a
jaw-dropping statistic, widely influential in the movement to change
America's divorce and child-support laws."
Maybe the statistic was jaw-dropping. What's truly amazing, though,
is the speed with which the news media uncritically embrace studies like
this. Her results were out of sync with what other researchers were
finding, but her study is the one that made the headlines. It helped
create concepts that now are deemed conventional wisdom, such as the
so-called "feminization of poverty." Such misconceptions live on
even after the material that originally gave rise to them is
debunked.
And even once researchers get their figures straight, there's still
the inherent bias of studying the issue so that women are always cast as the
victims. If women's standards of living decrease after divorce, the other
side of the coin is that their standards of living improve in marriage.
We could turn this whole field of study around to investigate how
women's living standards increase when they marry. However, this would
require us to acknowledge contributions that men make to women's
well-being and quality of life. How unfashionable.
Another facet of the issue is that women are routinely awarded child
custody during divorce. Of course, with some money going to the extra
expense of raising children, their standard of living might take a hit.
The feminist position on "equality" seems to be that they want women to
have custody of the children AND equal standards of living and income
levels: equality when they want it, and traditional gender privileges when
they want it.
==========
LICENSE TO STEREOTYPE
The Weitzman study shows how successful feminists have been in
getting the news media and others to spread their message. Now they're
seeking a truly wacky way of spreading their partisan message, and
they want it as public policy paid for with public money.
Feminists and their allies are urging that all marriage
certificates carry a warning label telling starry-eyed couples about
domestic violence and the laws used to punish it. The latest
politician to pander to this sentiment is New Jersey state senator John
Adler. (Why yes, he is a Democrat. How did you guess?)
Feminists have managed to portray domestic violence as something that
men do to women. Studies show that domestic violence is about equally male
and female. (See following item.) But feminists have been pretty successful
in promoting the popular image as that of a brutish man and a female victim.
So any warning label on marriage certificates might come across more as a
warning that says, "Watch out, girlfriend, men are liable to beat the tar
out of you."
If feminists ever succeed in putting these labels on marriage
certificates, it would say something about the interesting times we live in.
On their anniversaries, loving couples could look through their wedding
albums and reminisce about the moonlight, the candlelight, the music, and
the domestic violence warning on their marriage certificate. That, at
least, seems to fit in well with the views of some people that marriage is a
social hazard worthy of a warning label, like cigarettes or toxic waste.
But really, why stop there? If marriage brings with it the potential
for domestic violence, then birth carries with it the potential for
committing all sorts of sin. So why not mark the birth certificates of all
boys with the warning: "Caution, potential rapist"? This might help keep
the attendants in the hospital nurseries safe from all those potential
berserkers in the cribs.
Or better yet, perhaps we could start putting warning labels on
feminism: Caution, extreme doses can cause intolerance, bigotry,
self-righteousness, close-mindedness and a belief that you are always the
innocent victim.
==========
WE MEANT "MAN"-DATORY PUNISHMENT!
And if you still cling to that feminist propaganda about domestic
violence being a male thing, take a look at what happens when mandatory
arrest laws are enacted.
Columnist John Leo reports that "under mandatory arrest laws, a large
number of women are now being arrested after domestic battles. In Los
Angeles, arrests of women in such cases have almost quadrupled in eight
years. In Wisconsin, the number of abusive men referred by the courts for
counseling has doubled since 1989, while the number of abusive women
referred for counseling increased 12-fold." ("Things that go bump in the
home," by John Leo, U.S. News & World Report magazine, May 13, 1996, page
25.)
Leo cites a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times on the new wave
of women arrested for domestic violence: "You could sense that the reporter
was grappling with a baffling question: How is it that laws intended to
protect women are producing so many arrests of women themselves? Luckily,
he was able to come up with three explanations: a backlash against women,
spiteful action by police officers who resent mandatory arrest laws, and
outright male trickery."
Outright male trickery, as in false reports of abuse, he says. Hmm.
Now according to some feminists, just questioning a woman's accusation that
she was raped, harassed, or assaulted is an act of backlash -- part of the
"War on Women." So now the L.A. Times is accusing some men of making false
accusations of abuse.
So maybe the L.A. Times is now engaged in the "War on Men"? Or is
staffed by a bunch of backlashers?
The disbelief of the L.A. Times when confronted with abusive women is
part of the denial that women are equal to men -- in negative ways. Leo has
advice for those in this state of denial:
"Follow the work of the National Family Violence Survey. The original
1975 survey showed rather high rates of female-on-male domestic violence,
but these were fitted to the paradigm and explained as understandable
reactions to male violence. But the second survey in 1985 clearly showed
equality in turning to violence: In both low-level assaults and severe
assaults, only the wife was violent in a quarter of the cases, only the
husband in another quarter, both in half of the cases. These findings came
from self-reports."
So what's behind the arrests of women when mandatory arrest laws are
in place? A conspiracy? A backlash? A War on Women?
No. It's just that some women are violent.
As they say in scientific circles: Well, duh.
==========
GLAD SHE CLEARED THAT UP
Here are some comments a feminist bigotrix recently posted on the
Internet. Note her response when it was suggested to her that her comments
seemed bigoted:
"Men oppressed women's freedom for centuries to bolster their
position.
That's very revealed. ... You are probably some white man worried about
loosing your position to (ohmygod) a woman or a black or other minority. You
would most likely be comfortable with a slave and a woman who does only
domestic things and speaks to you only when spoken to. You will loose big
time. You men deserve everything you get."
"Look barn boy it's not our fault that we are genetically superior to
you. When women saturate the medical professions I'm sure they will study
your manly maladies to the extent that women's were studied by men -probably
more so."
"THANK GOODNESS for womens movements across the globe that
socialize girls to respect themselves for exactly what they are intellegent
caring sensitive and naturally graceful and beautiful not like fumbling
men."
"Why don't you look at what men have done to women all in the name of
mythical patriarchal religion and penile protection."
"Clue yourself in. Men have oppressed women by socialization since
befor time was recorded."
(It was pointed out that in any other place except Women's Studies courses,
it is difficult to know what happened "since before time was recorded." And
when it was suggested to her that her comments showed bigotry, she replied:)
"I am not a femnazi who wants to put men below women. I am in full
knowledge of the way we were meant to live in harmony and that means mutal
respect between the genders. If it lacks I will oppose the violators-men or
women."
Well. Glad she cleared that up.
====
(Editors note: This woman's comments were posted from a university's
computer system. She apparently is another one of those oppressed and
downtrodden women attending college.)
(It would be interesting to see what would have happened it male
students made these sort of remarks using a university computer system.
They might well face sanctions for violating a campus speech code. But not
this woman, or the countless others like her who send out similar anti-male
comments and propaganda. Apparently the First Amendment now has clauses for
first- and second-class citizens.)
==========
A FEMINIST HAMMER
Recently a young woman with the Internet name of Dkitten27 wrote about
an unfortunate tool-time experience: "I recently went to a local hardware
store to buy a hammer. Let me tell you that I am small in stature: 5' 100
lbs. and I am also blonde (no I'm not always dingy). Let me also tell you
that I work in the parts depatment of a major motor vehicle company. I know
my stuff (even though I am a girl) I also work just as hard as any male in
my division. ... This "gentleman" at the hardware store tried to sell me a
"woman's hammer". eedless to say I was a little upset - especially after
seeing the tool. Pretty white with pink flowers on the handle looked more
like a push pin hammer."
This woman's traumatic experience obviously calls for a major
response. In the next few days, some or all of the following events should
take place:
-- The American Association of University Women will issue a major
study finding that young girls being offered inappropriate hardware is a
major cause of self-esteem problems, and proposes a $600 million program to
fix the problem. However, courageous members of Congress, determined not to
be cowed by the feminist lobby, give them only $300 million.
-- Susan Faludi's new book reveals that offering inappropriate
hardware is part of the War on Women.
-- Andrea Dworkin declares that all fathers rape their daughters with
screwdrivers and ball peen hammers as a ritualistic way of shaming them into
subservience.
-- The EEOC writes up a report and then investigates the store. It
states that offering inappropriate or unwelcome hardware is a form of sexual
harassment. All male employees are sent to re-education camps, where they
are broken of the habit of referring to "male" and "female" connectors and
instead call them "oppressor" and "victim" connectors.
-- Feminists take over the store completely. They are appalled to find
there are no programs to ensure equality, such special programs for bringing
daughters to work, special mentoring program for women only, special
sensitivity-training courses for men only, special speech codes to protect
women only, special quotas for women only, special safe and nurturing coffee
rooms for women only, and all other things that assure equal treatment. They
set up special Women's Studies shop classes to study "the women's way of
woodworking," in which they learn how to build furniture that leans to the
left. One main point made in these classes is that the current masculine
culture of hardware is hard, brutal and destructive and so naturally
alienates women's more nurturing nature. Women have not felt welcome in
woodworking, they say, because of the unrelenting phalocentric paradigm that
informs the parameters -- or whatever. So they demand that the entire field
be made more female-friendly.
-- To accomplish that goal and get more women into the field, the
feminists require the store to start selling hardware more in tune with
women's nurturing and ecologically sensitive nature. The store unveils the
first line of feminist-approved products: a hammer. It is pretty and white,
with pink flowers on the handle, looking more like a push pin hammer.
==========
ALL WOMEN ARE POTENTIAL MUNCHAUSEN PATIENTS?
To most people, Kathy Bush seemed a loving and courageous mother.
The Florida woman's daughter, Jennifer, suffered mysterious illnesses that
doctors couldn't quite pin down. Announcing that Jennifer's medical bills
exceeded $3 million, Kathy Bush entered the national debate on health-care
costs. Her plight was cited by the White House as an example of
out-of-control medical expenses, and she appeared with Hillary Clinton.
Kathy Bush seemed to devote her life to helping her child. But now
Kathy Bush is charged with abusing that child. A Florida circuit court
judge put the 8-year-old girl in protective custody. Prosecutors say Kathy
Bush was deliberately making Jennifer sick. They say the girl had nearly 40
unneeded surgeries and was hospitalized 200 times for conditions that were
caused by the mother. One of the things they accuse the mother of: putting
excrement in her daughter's surgical tubes.
Psychologists say Kathy Bush is a prime example of "Munchausen's
Syndrome by Proxy."
It's a bizarre name for a bizarre behavior that is seen almost
exclusively in women.
There really are two sets of syndromes: "Munchausen's Syndrome," and
"Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy."
A person with "Munchausen's Syndrome" will pretend to suffer an
illness or trauma in order to gain attention and sympathy. Some will
pretend to have cancer: they will shave their heads and go on starvation
diets to mimic the effects of the disease and its treatment. Others claim
to have been raped or abused. Some complain of vague illnesses and have
unneeded surgeries. They are quite believable, and have conned people into
giving them money and enormous amounts of emotional support for conditions
that never existed.
And in "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" a person uses a proxy -- a
substitute victim to undergo the traumatic therapy. This almost always
involves a mother making a child sick so the mother can appear to be a
courageous, devoted parent and reap the sympathy accorded to someone
enduring such a tragedy.
Munchausen's Syndrome seems quite at home in our modern age when
victimhood is sainthood and victimhood status has special power. For
Munchausen patients, the key to empowerment is victimhood. They use that
status to manipulate other people, to get attention, to evade
responsibilities, to get money, to get sympathy, to change and control
relationships, and to order the world so that they are the person who must
be helped. If it has some points in common with feminism, then it is
interesting to note that nearly all Munchausen and Munchausen by Proxy
patients are women.
Rape is a primarily male form of abuse, while Munchausen by Proxy is
primarily female. But while rape is classified as violence, Munchausen by
Proxy -- because it occurs in women -- is classified as a psychiatric
illness. But Munchausen by Proxy involves repeated physical abuse against
helpless victims. These children are poisoned, strangled, starved, drugged
or exposed to filth and germs so they will develop the symptoms the mothers
can pass off as a mysterious illness. Dr. Robert Hales, chairman of
psychiatry, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, estimates
about 8.5 percent of the children who become "proxies" die.
But because the abusers are women, it is an "illness."
It would be interesting to see what feminists would do with Munchausen
by Proxy if it were a primarily male thing.
First, they would make sure it is not viewed as an illness. They
would say that it is a form of control -- that it involves "typical" male
patterns of exerting dominance.
Feminists would launch anti-Munchausen campaigns that would serve as
powerful sources of propaganda. Horror stories and emotional reactions
would be valued more than facts. Novels and made-for-TV movies would
portray Munchausen men as evil rather than sick. As the emotional level
escalates, it would become an offense to question any aspect of a Munchausen
accusation. Even entertaining a doubt that an accused man might be innocent
would be considered backlash. It would be "pro-abuse."
Through a selective campaign similar to what they have done with
domestic violence, feminists would succeed in convincing the public that
virtually all the victims are female. Munchausen by Proxy would become part
of the War on Women.
Sooner or later, an Andrea Dworkin type would state that Munchausen by
Proxy is the basic way that fathers control their children. And eventually
feminists would start saying that all men are potential Munchausen abusers.
Just as some feminists now say that all marriages are a form of rape, some
of them would say that all fatherhood is a form of Munchausen abuse.
Women's Studies programs would teach courses in Munchausen by Proxy
as a metaphor for the patriarchy.
Lastly, they would develop a cadre of guilt-ridden men who are ashamed
to be male because of the terrible things done by male Munchausen patients.
These men would have to feel intense guilt and responsibility toward any
offense committed by any Munchausen man.
But Munchausen by Proxy is mostly a female disease. So forget any
efforts to try to generalize any Munchausen abuses to all women. That would
be sexism -- if it's done to women.
That still leaves the question of why Munchausen by Proxy is seen as a
psychiatric condition just because it occurs primarily in women. Behavior
that would be seen as the workings of a criminal mind in men is seen as the
workings of a sick mind in women.
But take Kathy Bush. She is facing criminal abuse charges. But the
fact that her actions fall into a category classified as a "psychiatric
illness," there's always the chance she'll get a mild sentence, or be
sentenced to psychiatric care, or even acquitted.
So which is she: criminal, or sick victim? It might be worth noting
all of her actions. While saying she was swamped with her child's medical
bills, she collected donations from sympathetic people. Prosecutors say she
spent a lot of that money on gifts and trips. In fact, she had a swimming
pool put in at her home.
If this were a condition present mostly in men, just replace the label
"psychiatric patient" with "con artist."
=============================
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. If you
would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, send the message
"subscribe MANifesto" to psmaowens@gnn.com
(If you have sent this message and did not get the latest issue
e-mailed to you, please send it again.)
=============================
No comments:
Post a Comment