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 where we can proclaim that the
mainstream news media is actually catching up to Per's MANifesto.
That's right, all those "radical" and "extremist" facts you've been
reading in MANifesto are finally being acknowledged by such liberal
sources as the New York Times. Maybe feminism's deathlock on the news
media is finally slipping. We hope so. At least there are some people
in the mainstream media who seem at long last willing to admit that
society has some biases against men and in favor of women. In fact,
they now notice that women can get away with murder. That's why we'll
call this issue "NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES."
(Note: There will be no December issue -- Per's MANifesto is
taking a holiday break. It will return in January with a special issue
on feminism and women's health -- it promises to be an excellent,
information-packed issue with lots of material you can use to refute
feminists' claims that they are somehow being "shortchanged" on health
or discriminated against because of physical standards.)
Until then, we wish all good men and women of the world the
happiest of holidays and a wonderful New Year!
MANifesto is available on the web at
I. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
II. THE RIGHT TO SNIFF GLUE
III. WRIST SLAP FOR A RAPIST
IV. MEANWHILE, BACK AT RESPONSIBILITY ...
VI. FLINN FLAM, PART TWO
V. THE NEW YORK TIMES PLAYS CATCHUP
VII. EQUALITY IN THE GUTTER
VIII. MORE CHOICES WITHOUT VOICES
IX. MORE MORAL LESSONS
X. POW DEMANDS SEPTUPLET EQUALITY
NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES
Matthew Eappen was eight months old when he was violently
shaken and slammed down with the force equal to being tossed out a
second story window. He died of internal injuries and a skull
Louise Woodward was a British nanny -- or au pair -- who
admitted that she shook and roughly treated a child she resented as
Woodward spent less time in jail than little Matthew Eappen
spent on this earth. Her case points up once again the amazing
prejudice in favor of women -- both in our courts and in society in
Baby killers are usually considered the lowest of the low. In
prisons, the inmates convicted of molesting or killing infants often
are brutalized by the other inmates. In our neighborhoods and
workplaces, just a whiff of this charge is usually enough to cast a
permanent stigma on the accused.
Unless, it would appear, you are a woman.
Let's be frank. We believe Louise Woodward is guilty. The
amazing thing about this case is not that she got away with it. There
are men and women who *do* beat the system. This case is remarkable
mostly for showing how huge segments of society cannot believe that a
woman can be guilty.
Murder cases come and go. Few attract the sort of supporters
-- "fans" might be a better word -- who stood in crowds in Europe and
the United States, waving signs, cheering and weeping for Louise
Woodward. They shrieked, they hugged, they cried. They opened
champagne. These people did not care about the evidence. They formed
an emotional reaction -- and an emotional attachment -- along some
very ugly lines. On one side was Matthew Eappen -- mixed-race and
male. On the other, Woodward -- white and female.
Right away, let's dispose of some of the smoke that Woodward's
legal defense team blew across this case. They put some hired gun on
the stand who claimed (while being paid to do so) that Matthew
suffered some earlier injury that might have somehow "reopened" when
Woodward shook him. But after the trial, a group of fifty independent
doctors came out and said that the defense's claims just didn't make
sense. The way the defense described an old head wound "reopening"
just doesn't happen.
This made no difference to Woodward's public. They had seized
on a paid-for piece of testimony and treated it as irrefutable proof.
They didn't want to hear any more. There minds were made up.
At Per's MANifesto, we have a phrase for this sort of
emotional, damn-the-evidence outlook. It's called "not guilty by
reason of ovaries."
There were other factors at work beside the prejudice in favor
of females -- especially one who kills a male. For one thing, Woodward
had been brought to the United States by a quasi-governmental
organization that arranges such trips as a cultural exchange. EF Au
Pair and its affiliated organization, EF Education, realized just how
bad it could be for them if Woodward was convicted. That would open
them to being sued by Matthew's parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen, for
being negligent in bringing her to the United States.
So EF Education pumped $750,000 into Woodward's defense. That
type of money buys and awful lot of justice.
But money wasn't the only factor, or even the most important
factor. Given the same physical evidence, and the same defense
testimony, we think that any man would have landed in prison for
several decades to life. And there would have been no wrought-up
crowds weeping for him and demanding "justice."
The defense's own tactics indicate how much they were relying
on pro-female bias.
Key to this case was that Woodward's defense team wanted the
jury to have only the option of acquitting her or convicting her of
murder. The defense did not want jurors to have the option of
convicting her of a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.
Experts agree that the defense thought the jurors would refuse
to convict her of murder, leaving acquittal as their only option.
Right away we can see the bias at work. This strategy was
based on the assumption that jurors would refuse to believe the worst
about Woodward, a young, white female. They would refuse to think of
her as evil, as causing the death of an infant. Or they would think
she was responsible but could not bear the thought of punishing her so
harshly. So they would let her go.
But the jurors said they knew that, one way or another,
premeditated or not, Woodward had caused the baby's death. They were
left with only two choices that didn't quite fit exactly right. They
could acquit, or convict her of murder. Maybe her actions didn't fit
all the technicalities of murder, but she had snuffed out a human
life. They couldn't just let her go. So, on October 30, they convicted
her rather than see he go scot free.
That set up the defense's appeal to have the conviction thrown
out. The defense argued that Woodward was not guilty of malice (in the
legal sense), so she could not be convicted of murder.
Middlesex Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel listened to
their appeal, and agreed. He reduced her conviction to involuntary
At Per's MANifesto, we suppose there might be some legal and
technical merit to that decision. The true miscarriage of justice was
Judge Zobel then set Woodward free by reducing her sentence to
the 279 days she had already spent behind bars. Zobel said he wanted
a "compassionate conclusion" to the case.
We don't think Woodward brought a very compassionate
conclusion to Matthew Eappen's life.
After reducing the charge to involuntary manslaughter, Zobel
then blatantly ignored state sentencing guidelines that call for a
three to five year prison term. He let Woodward off with a fraction of
And this is where the case gets truly bizarre.
It was Zobel himself who brought all this about.
Judge Zobel could have turned down the defense's request that
Woodward face only a murder charge. Zobel could have had her face the
involuntary manslaughter charge as well. But he did not.
And that is very curious.
We know why the defense wanted Woodward to face only a murder
charge -- they believed it would lead to an acquittal.
Why, then, did *Judge Zobel* want Woodward to face only a
Zobel's decision in effect says that the only charge Woodward
should have faced is the one that he, himself, would not let her face.
As prosecutors put it, the judge ultimately "determined that the only
guilty verdict which did not constitute a miscarriage of justice was
the one he refused to allow the jury to consider."
"If this judge could arrive at this result upon these facts,"
the prosecutors said, "then every trial judge would have the power to
nullify the law, silence the people's elected voice, and dispense with
the jury system altogether."
Was the system working all along in the favor of a female? Was
there a bias against harshly punishing a woman accused of bashing the
life out of a male?
Prosecutors are taking the unusual step of appealing Zobel's
decision, asking that Woodward be sent back to prison. Perhaps there
can still be justice in this case.
(See "Prosecutors File Appeal Urging Court to Return British Au Pair
to Prison," by Pamela Ferdinand, Wednesday, November 26, 1997; Page
A03, The Washington Post)
THE RIGHT TO SNIFF GLUE
In Winnipeg, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that the
courts cannot stop a pregnant woman from sniffing glue and solvents,
despite the harm it will do to the unborn child.
The woman has three children. Two were born suffering the
affects of her glue-sniffing, and all three are in the care of child
Child welfare workers had tried to force the 22-year-old woman
into a drug treatment program. But the court sided with the mother and
her right to damage her child and create a burden the rest of society
will have to bear.
"The mother's right to sniff solvents may not seem of much
importance, but I do not see how a court can select which conduct
harmful to an unborn child should be restrained and which should
not," wrote Justice Kerr Twaddle.
Her lawyer, Dave Phillips, said "I think she'll be very
relieved that her ordeal is over."
Of course, the damage to the children will never be over.
But the response of some feminists to this case has been
typical: stressing a woman's "rights" over the health of a helpless
baby. As one feminist commented on this case: "Women have the SAME
RIGHTS that men have in making choices over what goes into and out of
their bodies. If women are taking an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE, they can be
incarcerated the SAME way men are incarcerated, and for the same
That might be true as far as it goes. But when she's pregnant,
she's responsible for another human life. Feminists who would throw
men into prison for cutting off the flow of child support will turn
around and defend women who cut off the flow of oxygen.
("Court can't stop pregnant woman from sniffing glue," Sept.
12, 1996, Scott Edmonds, Canadian Press
And in another case, a baby was born with a pellet lodged in
his brain after his mother shot herself in the stomach in an attempt
to kill the child.
The child, Johnathan Drummond, was in good condition in an
Ottawa hospital after doctors removed the pellet from his brain, but
doctors were not sure what the long-term health effects would be.
The mother, Brenda Drummond, was charged with attempted murder
for trying to kill the boy in her womb. But her lawyer says the
charges should be thrown out on the grounds that life doesn't begin
Maybe it's comparing legal apples and oranges, but we know of
men in the United States who have been sent to prison for killing a
fetus. Such cases involve men who either deliberately injured a
pregnant woman, or who were involved in automobile crashes in which a
pregnant woman lost her fetus.
Apparently the sentiment is "you can kill it as long as it's
("Baby born with pellet in brain released from hospital," July 24,
1996, Canadian Press)
WRIST SLAP FOR A RAPIST
Next up in our miscarriage-of-justice sweepstakes: convicted
child rapist Mary Kay LeTourneau. She's the Washington state school
teacher who seduced one of her students, a 13-year-old boy, and got
pregnant and delivered the child's child. For using her status as a
teacher to have sex with a student, LeTourneau got off with a
slap-on-the-wrist sentence of six months.
As the Associated Press reported, the "justice" system isn't
so forgiven when men are convicted of similar charges: "Last year, a
junior high school teacher was sentenced to nearly four years in
prison for having sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was convicted of
third-degree rape of a child, third-degree child molestation and
communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. In 1995, a former
middle school hall monitor was sentenced to three years for
third-degree child rape -- having sex with a 14-year-old girl."
The LeTourneau wrist-slap has angered some child advocates.
"The facts are that as a teacher, she used one of her students
to satisfy her sexual desires. You just don't do that," said Patrick
Gogerty, executive director of Childhaven, a Seattle agency for
neglected and abused children. "Are there rules governing this? I
don't think it should include a slap on the wrist. It should be more
MEANWHILE, BACK AT RESPONSIBILITY ...
Meanwhile, also in Washington state, James E. Winkler is
facing jail time on a charge of raping his wife.
Not forcible rape. Winkler is 20, and he had sex with his
girlfriend four days before she turned 16, the age of consent in
Then they got married in March.
But Skagit County prosecutors charged Winkler with
third-degree child rape, a felony. He pleaded guilty to a reduced
misdemeanor charge. His wife, Amanda, spent several hours jailed in
juvenile hall for refusing to testify against him.
Sentencing is set for Dec. 12. Chief Deputy Prosecutor David
Wall wants Winkler to spend a year in the county jail.
And speaking of men spending time behind bars: Two men who
served 11 years for a rape they did not commit have been freed because
of DNA evidence that was not allowed at their original trial.
A Cook County, Illinois judge vacated the convictions of
Donald Reynolds and Billy Wardell. The judge ordered new trials, but
prosecutors say they are dropping the charges.
They were convicted of raping a University of Chicago woman in
May of 1986. Reynolds asked for DNA testing, but the judge rejected
the request, saying the procedure had not gained wide acceptance.
Reynolds was able to have the test done recently, and the results
cleared both men.
Both were serving 55-year sentences and would not have been
eligible for parole until 2013.
FLINN FLAM, PART II
Kelly Flinn doesn't know how to quit when she's ahead.
Flinn is the former Air Force B-52 bomber pilot who got
special treatment when she faced court-martial for disobeying orders.
Flinn tried -- very successfully -- to paint herself as a female
victim of male double standards. She claimed that she had a love
affair and was punished for it because she's a woman. She cried
"victim" so loudly and effectively that she was allowed to leave the
Air Force with a general discharge for offenses that men have spent
time in military prisons for.
In the May issue of Per's MANifesto,
http://idt.net/~per2/0597mani.htm, we exposed a lot of the holes in
Flinn's story. But now Flinn is back with the same old story in a new
book, and it looks like the news media are finally catching on to the
facts that we pointed out all the way back in May.
In her new book, "Proud To Be," she continues to play the
victim even while admitting to the offenses she committed. She admits
to a drunken one-night stand with an enlisted man. That's a blatant
violation of the rules against fraternization. Then she starts an
affair with Marc Zigo, who is married to an enlisted woman. When it's
found out, she lies to her superiors about it and disobeys direct
order to break off the affair. She signs an order agreeing to cease
all contact with Zigo, even though she was actually living with him.
Fraternization, adultery, disobeying a direct order, lying to
superiors -- it all adds up. Flinn was flying airplanes with nuclear
weapons. When someone is piloting a cargo of death capable of starting
World War III, obeying orders should not be considered an option.
But this time, while Flinn is rehashing her old story, the
military isn't sitting still. The Air Force refrained from comment
while Flinn was facing court-martial, so as to not prejudice the
trial. But this time, all bets are off. The Air Force says it has no
reason to keep quiet while Flinn continues to distort the truth.
And that seems to have a lot of people in the news media
There were an awful lot of them who seemed to be cheerleaders
for Flinn, who were willing to uncritically report her version that
she was a poor, innocent, love-struck woman being beaten up by a macho
military that lets men get away with the same thing.
A lot of the news stories functioned almost like press
releases for Flinn. They promoted the line that Flinn was being
punished for an affair. She wasn't. She had been warned to break off
the affair, and if she had done so, she could have gotten away with
it. Instead, she lied and disobeyed orders, and *that's* what she was
being punished for. But so many papers carried the "punished for a
love affair" line that enormous public pressure was applied, and Flinn
got special treatment for committing offenses that have sent men to
As USA Today says, "Media critiques have found that early news
stories emphasized Flinn as a pioneering female aviator and the Air
Force as propagator of a macho military double standard. 'Much of the
reporting from the Flinn battlefield came up short,' Tony Capaccio
wrote in the October American Journalism Review."
Part of that was due to the fact that Flinn seemed much more
media-savvy than the Air Force. Robert Lichter of a media watchdog
group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said "The generals
showed they're better at dropping bombs than spinning news."
Granted. But somebody in the news business had to let
themselves be spun. It's supposed to be their job to get the facts and
report them. Instead, they seemed remarkably willing to passively pass
along Flinn's version of being a victim of the male-dominated
At Per's MANifesto, we wish we could claim to have some
secret, well-connected source for all the facts we revealed. But we
don't. We just gave a hard look at the plain facts that were coming
out despite all of Flinn's spin control. The news media had all these
facts, too. It's just that they buried them at the bottom of their
stories or glossed over them. The facts were always there. You just
had to look at them.
And now the news media seem to have a bit of incentive to
finally look. That's because the Air Force isn't restrained by
considerations over Flinn's court-martial anymore, and it's shooting
down her story left and right.
That leaves a lot of news organizations backtracking. Lichter
says, "If journalists are convinced they have been snookered, they
will get their backs up."
But look. How could so many professionals be so snookered for
so long? Those people work at this full time, with far more resources
than Per's MANifesto has. And yet this newsletter was able to bring
you the facts that the mainstream media are just now acknowledging.
Maybe this was not a case of them being "snookered" so much as
being willing accomplices who now have to cover their tracks.
As for Flinn, she's still saying she was victimized "All
because I loved the wrong man," one with a perfect "soccer player's
body." "I could drop weapons of mass destruction," she writes. "But I
had no knowledge of the workings of the human heart."
When men can't control their sexual urges, they don't get away
with blaming it on their heart. It's usually another part of the
anatomy that takes the blame.
When men hop into bed like this despite the risks and
consequences, feminist will often say "He's thinking with his crotch."
Flinn was thinking with *her* crotch, then trying to claim to be swept
away by love. But keep in mind, she was taking the husband of another
woman. That's not precisely a very loving thing to do.
For someone who had "no knowledge of the workings of the human
heart," Flinn certainly managed to manipulate an entire nation and
most of the news media. And now she's out with a book to cash in on it
We think Flinn is more than aware of the workings of the human
And to her it must sound like a cash register.
(See: "Flinn's story may not fly on book tour," By Andrea Stone, USA
THE NEW YORK TIMES PLAYS CATCHUP
Men's rights activists are used to being called extremists.
Per's MANifesto Newsletter gets its share of abuse from feminists who
want to shout it down with personal insults and innuendo. (See our
letters page at http://idt.net/~per2/letters.htm.)
But many of the ideas that were accused of being "radical" or
"misogynistic" when men first spoke them are increasingly working
their way into the mainstream.
The recent cases involving Louise Woodward and Mary Kay
LeTourneau are getting people to talk about a basic fact that men's
rights advocates have always noted: the justice system contains biases
Writing about the Woodward case, the New York Times* says: "It
is safe to say, after all, that the nation would not have become all
that wrapped up in the case of a baby who died at the hands of, say,
his mother's boyfriend. There's just something about a woman behind
bars that sets people off. ... It also raised the question of whether
men and women are treated equally by the criminal justice system. The
answer seems to be no, with many explanations, depending in part on
the political stripe of who is explaining."
"There's a tendency to believe in female innocence," said
Cathy Young, a researcher at the Cato Institute and vice president
of the conservative Women's Freedom Network, who argues that
offenders who are women are treated more leniently than men.
"Feminists haven't paid attention when gender bias goes in the
But while the Times makes a positive step in examining the
issue, it still falls into the old trap of looking at convictions and
prison populations to judge how often men commit crimes compare to
women. The Times says: "The bare data make clear that women don't get
into serious trouble as commonly as men; they make up 8 percent of
Federal and 5 percent of state prisoners, according to the Justice
Department. Even as criminals, they are much less violent than men;
they account for just one of seven arrests for violent crimes."
Sorry, Times, but that bare data does *not* make clear that
women don't get into serious trouble as commonly as men. What it makes
clear is that they don't get *punished* for it as harshly as men do.
Remember the Louise Woodwards of this world when you're counting
prison population. Woodward got away with only 279 days in prison when
the sentencing guidelines for the more *lenient* conviction still
called for three to five years. Some of those men you're counting are
in prison on a charge for which the women would not have been arrested
or convicted, or would have been given a lighter sentence. Calculate
up all the Louise Woodwards who get lighter sentences, balance that
against men getting longer sentences, and *then* we'll talk about
prison populations. Prison populations do not reflect who is doing
crime. It only reflects who is doing time.
The Times also says: "One widely cited study of Pennsylvania
courts, for example, found that men were 11 percent more likely than
women to be imprisoned for the same crimes, even after adjusting for
the greater number of prior offenses by men. The researchers said
judges viewed female defendants "as less 'dangerous,' as less
culpable than their male co-defendants and as having more
responsibilities and ties to the community."
It's interesting that feminism has let this attitude ride. If
a man and a woman run a business, feminists want the woman credited
with doing equal work. But if that business is robbing banks,
feminists insist that the man was the brains behind the operation.
And finally, the Times falls back on the old stereotype that
violence is a male thing. "As for the tiny number of violent female
criminals, the data cannot tell much; these women are by definition
anomalous." Excuse us, Times, but violent *male* criminals are
anomalous, too. Most men are not violent criminals. And in domestic
violence cases, about half of it is committed by women, despite
feminism's best efforts to paint it as a male thing. Violent women are
not so rare. It's the *coverage* of violent women that's anomalous.
Why is it so anomalous? Well, a lot of the violence that women
do is covert. Take the case of a Tacoma, Washington woman who was
caught on a hidden video camera cutting off the air supply of her
hospitalized daughter. Andrea I. Guzman pleaded guilty to
first-degree assault and was sentenced to nearly 10 years in prison.
If hospital officials had not become suspicious and hidden the camera,
she might have gotten away with it. And in Virginia, Fairfax County
police have charged Elvia Garcia with killing her 11-day-old baby boy,
with an overdose of a prescription painkiller. These covert assaults
are the types of crimes that are harder to detect. When they are
detected, the woman goes into a system blatantly biased in her favor,
seeing her as less dangerous and less culpable.
* (See "Sometimes, the Punishment Fits the Gender," The New York
Times, November 16, 1997, by Laura Mansnerus.)
EQUALITY IN THE GUTTER
Teri Taylor of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, is bringing a
lawsuit over separate men's and women's bowling leagues.
Good for her, you say. Break down the gender barriers that
keep women out. You go, girl!
Well, actually she's not suing to be able to play in the men's
leagues. She's suing to stay *out* of the men's leagues.
Taylor has a 217-pin average, about 30 pins better than her
nearest competitors in the women's league. Other women got tired of
losing to her, knowing they had little chance for the prize money if
Taylor was bowling. So they started dropping out and refusing to bowl
That was bad for business at the bowling alleys. So Universal
Lanes in Warren, Michigan, told her she had to compete in a men's
So Taylor is suing to avoid having to bowl against men. In a
lawsuit before Macomb County Circuit Judge George Steeh, she says she
is being denied full enjoyment of a public facility because of her
sex. And that would be sexual inequality, of course.
Equality, you see, is whatever a woman says it is. If she
wanted into the men's league, she'd sue to get there. If she wants to
stay out, she'll sue for that, too.
Taylor wants $10,000 for her embarrassment at the situation.
We'd say her lawsuit is proof she's beyond embarrassment.
(See "Bowler sues to stay in league of her own," by Kevin Lynch, The
Detroit News, Friday, October 10, 1997
MORE CHOICES WITHOUT VOICES
A teenager has been charged with dumping her newborn son in a
toilet in a bus terminal in Atlantic City, New Jersey, while she was
there on a gambling junket in July. She is sixteen years old.
Fortunately the full-term baby -- a boy -- was pulled out of the
toilet alive and taken to a hospital.
A more famous case in New Jersey, of course, involves
18-year-old Melissa Drexler, of Ocean County, N.J. She gave birth at
her prom, stuffed the helpless baby into a trash bin, and went back to
the dance. Also, a teenage mother is accused of giving birth on the
New Jersey shore, then stuffing the baby in a gym bag and taking it
back to her home in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where it was found
three days later.
And a Voorhees, New Jersey teenager is charged with aggravated
manslaughter of her newborn son. An autopsy showed that the 7-pound
boy was born alive and died of unattended delivery and asphyxiation.
What's going on in New Jersey? It could, of course, be a
series of coincidences that some horrible baby-dumping has occurred
there recently. After all, this sort of callous disposal of helpless
children has taken place in other states.
But it's worth noting that New Jersey Governor Christine Todd
Whitman recently vetoed a state bill that would have outlawed partial
birth abortions. That's the procedure in which a viable baby is
partially deliver with just it's head left in the birth canal so the
doctor can suck out its brains with a tube and then the corpse fully
withdrawn. Leaving the head inside the birth canal for this procedure
gives them a fig leaf of legal protection to claim that the operation
is an abortion.
When Governor Whitman vetoed the bill to outlaw this
procedure, she sent the message that whatever a woman wants to do is
just a matter of her "privacy." If you can kill a helpless infant
merely because his or her head is still in the birth canal, why stop
there? Why mess with that window-dressing technicality of where the
infant's head is? When we've reduced human life to mere matters of
"choice" and "privacy," when we've cut corners on our ethics so that
you can suck a baby's brains out because its head is still inside a
woman's body, then why even bother drawing the line with dumping
babies in garbage cans? In one sense, the woman who are doing this are
merely guilty of doing it in the wrong place. Do it in an operating
room under the guise of "partial birth abortion," and you're within
the law and get all sorts of hugs and support from feminists. The
result is still the same -- a helpless child killed because she or he
was inconvenient for someone. If we tell girls and women that killing
their babies is okay, why do we act surprised when they do it
MORE MORAL LESSONS
You've probably had to sit through some feminist lectures
about how women should be running everything because they are morally
So here, from the front lines of moral superiority, some
In Peoria, Illinois, an 11-year-old girl demonstrated how she
choked the life out of her 2-month-old half brother because she was
tired of having to care for him. Using a doll, she grabbed it by the
neck and twisted. "I just twisted his neck around. I heard a tearing
sound, then he stopped breathing." A judge convicted the girl of
first-degree murder. She could be sent to a youth home or held in
prison until she turns 21.
In Chicago, a woman who set up a fund-raising drive for an
abused girl has collected something like $300,000, but she has turned
over only $1,000 to the girl's family. Beverly Reed, described as a
community organizer, started collecting money for the family of a
nine-year-old girl, who became known as "Girl X" after she was
horribly assaulted and maimed in a housing project. Reed says the
money is still in the bank and she's concerned about giving the family
more money because it might affect their welfare status. Meanwhile,
she admits paying herself $20,000 in "administrative costs."
"Chicago newspapers carried reports that Reed had been
convicted of possession of a controlled substance in 1988 and forgery
in 1990. State officials said Reed failed to list any such convictions
on the charitable trust papers."
(The Washington Post, Wednesday, November 26, 1997; Page A06,
And in Albany, New York, Hazel Dukes pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor larceny charge. Dukes, former president of New York City's
Off-Track Betting Corp., took more than $13,000 from a
leukemia-stricken woman who had asked Dukes to help her while she was
sick. Prosecutors say Dukes spent the money on dry cleaning, flowers,
gifts, and donations to political campaigns.
The Internet is full of ads and scams these days offering to
introduce lonely men to attractive foreign women. Take a lesson from
five Dutch men who responded to newspaper personal ads by women who
said they wanted to marry Dutch men. Their long-distance romances grew
warmer, and the women began asking for money, which the men sent. Each
of the men arranged to bring the women to the Netherlands to marry
them. But when they went to Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to welcome
their brides, they realized they had been stood up. The men noticed
each other and compared stories, realizing that each of them
apparently was waiting for the same woman. They were in fact all
victims of one con artist who runs her scam out of Bangkok.
We know that some feminists are going to say that it's
"woman-bashing" to note stories like these. But feminist books and
magazines are full of stories about men behaving badly. If it's
bashing to note stories like these, then feminists are far ahead of us
in bashing men. Moreover, when feminists cite the crimes committed by
men, that often leads them to claim some sort of moral superiority.
That's not equality -- that's bigotry.
So we present stories like these in the hopes of puncturing
feminism's smug balloon. We believe that men and women truly are equal
-- not just in their talents and abilities, but in their capacity to
do wrong. Men and women are never going to be equal so long as
feminists push a sacred-cow image of women as superior.
Certainly, women have all the skills necessary to run con
games. In fact, the very existence of extreme feminism proves that.
POW DEMANDS SEPTUPLET EQUALITY
The Propaganda Organization for Women
(http://idt.net/~per2/powpage.htm) is calling on all people of
conscience to boycott the Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines
for its blatantly sexist treatment of the septuplets born there.
In calling for the boycott, POW President Colleen
Hyphenated-Lastname noted that of the seven children, four were boys
and only three were girls.
"There is only one explanation for the difference in numbers.
"This fact is obvious if you look at all other fields that
feminists have studied. If there aren't as many women working on road
crews or construction sites, the only possible explanation is
discrimination. The only time there is equality is when women
"The fact that females did not have equality in the septuplets
can only mean two things. First, that men are to blame. And two, I am
therefore entitled to compensation. And I will not rest until justice
"Some people will claim that this ratio was simply determined
by biology. Nonsense. We reject biological determinism. All
differences between girls and boys are due only to socialization.
Obviously someone got to these kids pretty early."
"Was it the mother? As feminists, we feel ashamed that some
Stepford Wife who wants to have children could buy into all the
anti-female attitudes of the patriarchy and produce septuplets in
which the females are accorded second-class status. Though society has
come a long way in treating women equally, it still has a long way to
go. We have finally instituted hiring goals, and yet we are helpless
to enforce birthing goals. If they had been in place, we would have
required females to be represented equally among the septuplets, and
prevented this miscarriage of justice."
"Of course, seven is an odd number, so it's difficult to make
septuplets equally boys and girls. We would have settled for one of
the males being named Dennis Rodman. Barring that, there are other
ways to enforce quotas. If there had been six girls and one male, we
would have considered that equal. Another alternative would have been
an abortion to "choice" out one of the male fetuses and ensure
equality for women."
"After all, affirmative action is about sacrificing innocent
males for the sake of feminism. Why are we drawing the line now?"
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
Subscribing: To have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message
"subscribe MANifesto" to Per2@idt.net. Send comments, kudos and
castration threats to this address as well.
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 also 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.)
"At the heart of women's problems ... is
the nuclear family..." -- Carolyn Heilbrun (1979)
(For more on man-bashing, see Per's MANifesto Newsletter,