Per's MANifesto October 1997

Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1997.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue where we take a look at some
recent legal events affecting men's rights. The saddest case is that
the state of Virginia seems to believe that men have little right to
defend themselves against rape accusations even when those accusations
leave an awful lot of questions unanswered. So we'll call this issue
WIN SOME, LOSE SOME, though it seems like common sense is losing more
often than not.

Per's MANifesto is available on the web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
INDEX:
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
THE MAN HATERS ROOM
MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
MISSING FIGURES
CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
PANTS SUIT
HUMOR
HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN

==========
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
Former sportscaster Marv Albert pleaded guilty to an assault
and battery charge after a long-time lover accused him of biting her
on the back and forcing her to perform oral sex. Police photographs
showed a couple dozen shallow bite marks on her back, only one of
which caused a minor break in the skin.
Many people are going to assume Albert pleaded guilty because
he was guilty. Human life, and the legal system, are complex arenas,
however, and there is much more to this case than meets the eye.
To understand this case, you have to realized that the defense
was not able to present about 85 percent of the evidence it had
gathered. For instance, the defense had a witness who said that
Albert's accuser enjoyed sexual activity involving biting. Now that is
a fundamentally important revelation in a case involving an accuser
who claimed she was *unwillingly* bitten.
How could such an important piece of evidence be barred?
Because of the so-called "rape shield laws" in the United
States. Every state except Maine has one. (And Maine has some
common-law statutes that do basically the same thing as a "rape shield
law.")
"Rape shield laws" were intended to keep the defense from
smearing a rape accuser over her past sexual conduct. The defense
might bring up a woman's past sexual history in order to paint her as
"loose." Feminists believed that this tactic discouraged women from
making rape claims because they were afraid of being humiliated on the
stand (even though their identities were *always* kept secret.) So
they helped pass the "rape shield laws" preventing the defense from
examining a rape accuser's past conduct.
And that is what happened in the Albert trial, which took
place in the state of Virginia. Ironically, after Albert's accuser
benefitted enormously from Virginia's "rape shield law," she decided
she didn't need the shield anymore, and she revealed her identity
after the trial. She's Vanessa Perhach, a 42-year-old Vienna,
Virginia, woman.
The defense had witnesses available to testify on the highly
suspicious conduct of Perhach. But this evidence could not even be
presented in court. The public has not heard anything close to the
full story about this case.
Among the evidence the defense could not use:
-- That Ms. Perhach willingly engaged in sexual activity that
involved biting. Why was this disallowed under the "rape shield law?"
That law is supposed to say that a woman having consensual sex is
irrelevant to whether she was forced into non-consensual sex. But if
she had willingly engaged in biting on previous occasions, it is
strong evidence that subsequent acts might have been consensual. This
was crucial to the defense, because most people assumed such biting
would be non-consensual. It establishes a possible motive for her:
that she could have engaged in this behavior with Albert in an attempt
to set him up. Other evidence suggests this was so -- but that
evidence also was barred.
-- That Perhach had a pattern of threatening past boyfriends
and seeking retribution against them. (Highly relevant in discussing
an apparent revenge motive against Albert, who was about to marry
another woman.)
-- That Perhach was a chronic liar. (Why was this evidence was
disallowed un the "rape shield law?" Perhaps the judge thought that
telling lies was a sexual activity.)
-- That she was mentally unstable. (If you were accused by a
person who is unstable, you would immediately make sure people knew
about it so they could better judge the accuser. Albert's defense was
not allowed to do this.)
This actually flies in the face of law in non-rape cases,
including murder cases in Virginia. A federal judge recently
overturned the conviction of death-row inmate Tommy David Strickler
because judge found that "undisclosed materials were suppressed by the
prosecution and never disclosed." These materials concerned the
credibility of witnesses against Strickler. And prosecutors are
required to turn over any material that might tend to impeach the
credibility of its witnesses.
What an amazing turnaround that is from the Albert
sexual-assualt trial in the very same state. In Albert's case, even
the *defense* was barred from presenting evidence that would tend to
impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses. All because of the
"rape shield law."
While feminists are now going to start referring to Albert's
accuser as "the victim," it's questionable who the victim is here.
Albert apparently had some kinky sexual desires. But, in effect, the
so-called "rape shield law" put Albert on trial for *his* past sexual
conduct and held him up to ridicule. Remember, the "rape shield law"
was meant to protect women from being humiliated over their past
sexual conduct when those women would, in fact, never be publicly
identified. A man merely *accused* of rape is immediately identified,
and his past sexual history can be paraded so that everyone can see
it. That's was feminists allegedly wanted to prevent with "rape shield
laws." But watch them embrace it now that it's happened to a man.
In particular, it happened because prosecutors were allowed to
present an ambush witness, Patricia Masten, who gave lurid testimony
saying that Albert enjoyed wearing women's garter belts and that
Albert once tried to force her head down toward his groin in a hotel
room. Prosecutors could present Masten as an unannounced witness
because of the antiqued laws of discovery in the state of Virginia.
They didn't have to tell the defense they were bringing her in.
Prosecutors had time to prepare Masten for her testimony but the
defense had to deal with her as soon as the prosecution sprang her on
them.
So what of Masten's motives?
Well, she's hired a lawyer.
A feminist lawyer.
By the name of Gloria Allred.
According to the Associate Press, "Ms. Masten has turned down
offers to tell her story for money since the trial, Ms. Allred said.
But the lawyer was vague about whether Ms. Masten could seek damages
from Albert in a civil suit. 'She's reserving her legal options,' Ms.
Allred said."
If you keep scratching around this case, you keep coming back
to the scent of money.
There is ample evidence that Perhach, the accuser, was
motivated by a desire to shake Albert down for money. Perhach was
caught on tape in a conversation with a cab driver discussing money
and a car in exchange for his testimony against Albert. She claims she
was joking. We're sure she was at least laughing -- all the way to the
bank.
The cab driver has said that Perhach got into his taxi one
night and said: "You're broke, I'm broke, you've got to help me."
Perhach is now taking Albert to civil court, where perhaps we
will see what this case is really about: cashing in.
Perhach had a ten-year relationship with Albert. She was
saving up all sorts of tape recordings of Albert. Why? Then she found
out that Albert was engaged to another woman. So what really happened?
We suspect that Perhach merely played her cards right. If she enjoyed
being bitten during sexual activity and had done it before, it would
be easy enough to arrange such a tryst with Albert. She could later
say the bites were non-consensual.
And thanks to the "rape shield law," nearly all evidence of
duplicity and past behavior was barred from court -- even some
remarkably relevant evidence.
After Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charges, some jurors
said they had not yet seen anything that would cause them to convict
Albert of the more serious forcible sodomy charge (which was dropped
precisely because it was so weak.)
But it's obvious that the prosecutors were willing to continue
smearing Albert over *his* past sexual conduct. Ms. Perhach claimed
that Albert wanted her to find another man to engage in three-way sex
with them. Was this true? Maybe, maybe not. But the defense was
obviously willing to bring up all sorts of accusations that
effectively destroyed the career of a public man. It's no wonder
Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. The prosecution probably
would have kept right on smearing him with innuendo that effectively
destroyed his life. And it was the type of innuendo that never would
have been allowed against the accuser -- thanks to the "rape shield
law."
"Rape shield laws" have only two basic purposes. Ostensibly to
protect an accuser from having her sexual past dragged up through the
trial. But more importantly, "rape shield laws" are intended to make
it easier to convict a man. That is the basic purpose. "Rape shield
laws" deny the defense the right to present evidence.
"Rape shield laws" are seriously flawed. They need to be
overhauled so that the accused can mount a defense. Barring that, the
justice system should immediately stop releasing the names of men
accused of sexual assault. The "rape shield laws" were meant to
protect women whose identities are never revealed. But men's
identities *are* immediately revealed, and all their past history can
be dredged up and thrown out to the public -- precisely what the "rape
shield law" shields *anonymous* women from.
==========

THE MAN HATERS ROOM
Every now and then we see another piece in the news media
about hate groups and extremists on the web. Funny, but they never
seem to include any anti-male hate groups and extremists. Maybe that
means there aren't any?
Or maybe it just means someone isn't looking very hard.
For example, the existence of the "Man Haters" chat room came
to light recently only because it was brought up as part of a rape
accusation case.
A woman had claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by a
man whom we will identify only as Sean. She told police in Pontiac,
Michigan, that he pulled a knife on her and attacked her after they
met on an online chat room.
But the man says that the woman went online and bragged about
making a false accusation. Her forum for doing this: the "Man Haters"
chat room. He says he has a witness that this woman boasted about
inventing the story.
Curiously, prosecutors are opposed to finding out the truth.
They are appealing a ruling that the woman has to turn over her
computer to defense lawyers and reveal her password and online
aliases.
If the prosecutors wanted to get to the truth, why do they
object? Why are they protecting the woman? This is the way the system
works all too often -- law enforcement officials feel obligated to
work only prove a woman's accusation, not to glean the entire truth.
In fact, they're even trying to stand in the way of the truth.
They say they are doing it to protect the women's privacy --
because it's not certain that a search of her computer could be
limited to the relevant files without revealing unrelated personal
information about her.
But we note that this woman's privacy is already being
protected -- the news media is not identifying her.
And we note that the man's privacy is *not* being protected.
The news media has already given out his full name -- as is the habit
simply when a woman brings an unproven accusation.
Her case might go down the tubes. But *his* name has already
been dragged through the mud. And if her claim does prove to be false,
you can be sure that her punishment will fall into two categories:
wrist-slap, or none.
That's quite a major difference from what could have happened
to the man had zealous prosecutors managed to notch their gun-handles
with his conviction and send him to prison. There's not much privacy
-- or safety -- in prison. Why are they more concerned about the
privacy of a woman's computer than the safety of a man's life?
So we say again, why do the new media overlook this kind of
thing when doing stories about hate online? Trying to destroy a man
because you're one of the "Man Haters" is a hate crime. It is an
attack aimed at a person by reason of his gender. Society is going to
have to start prosecuting these attacks as hate crimes. And the news
media are going to have to start looking under the rocks for the
haters of all different stripes.
-----
And in related news, police say a Frederick County, Maryland,
woman falsely claimed she was abducted at gunpoint and raped in a
Pennsylvania field.
The case is notable because the false accuser was actually
named in news coverage: Lisa Lyn Tregoning, 25, of Myersville,
Maryland. Her accusation launched a two-state investigation Sept. 23.
"It causes a lot of concern for everyone because we had to put in a
lot of time and, certainly, people were concerned," said Maryland
State Police Cpl. George Stottlemyer.
Investigators noticed discrepancies in her story of two-state
abduction, and she admitted she lied, police said. They said she and
her husband were having marital difficulties.
Tregoning is getting the usual slap on the wrist: she faces a
misdemeanor charge of making a false criminal report when she goes to
court Dec. 11.
And from Wilmington, North Carolina, comes the shocking story
of Junius Wilson, an elderly deaf man who had been castrated after
being falsely accused of rape.
As the Associated Press reports, Wilson was placed in Cherry
Hospital near Goldsboro in 1925 after being found incompetent to stand
trial on a rape charge. "In 1931, a doctor signed an order for
Wilson's castration, a procedure sanctioned under state law for
'mental defectives and feebleminded inmates' accused of sex crimes.
But Wilson was deaf, not mentally impaired. The charges were dropped
in the 1970s but Wilson remained at the hospital because no relatives
could be found to care for him."
Now Wilson has a tentative settlement with the state. He is to
receive $226,000, medical care, and a home on the grounds of the
mental hospital.
This reminds us of what Gloria Allred said about Marv
Albert. She said:"He shouldn't just walk out of the courthouse with
probation. Some time in custody can be educational for those who
endure it."
We wonder how "educational" it was for Junius Wilson to be
castrated and confined to a mental hospital.
And lastly, Texas Governor George W. Bush is issuing a pardon
for a man who served 12 years in prison on a rape charge before being
cleared.
Modern DNA testing cleared Kevin James Byrd of the charges he
was convicted of in 1985.
A 25-year-old Houston woman told police she was raped while
eight months pregnant, lying in bed, with her 2-year-old child
sleeping beside her. She initially claimed that a white man had raped
her. Four months later she saw Byrd in a grocery store and told police
that he was the attacker. But Byrd is black.
The switch in the race of the supposed attacker didn't keep
Byrd from being convicted solely on the woman's word.
==========

MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
Carla Coelho of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, had met a man on the
internet and wanted to make a good impression.
So she sent him a photograph of herself.
Well, sort of a photograph of herself.
Actually, it was an old photo.
Oh, and she was a few pounds lighter in the picture. Well,
more than a few pounds -- about 40, actually.
The man, Flavio de Oliveira e Silva, sent her pictures, too
-- displaying his wealth, his cattle empire, his Lear jet. Coelho says
it was "love at first link." He even gave her $9,100 after they met,
for travel expenses. They stayed at some of the fanciest resort hotels
in Brazil.
But it turned out that he was a check forger wanted by the
police.
And how is the woman who trimmed 40 pounds off her current
girth taking the news?
"No woman was more loved than I -- nor more deceived," she
says.
==========

THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
Last issue we told you about Joseph Holley, who was denied his
already-accepted White House job because he had been the defendant in
a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit seven years ago. An
investigation cleared him. But an old, unproven accusation was enough
to "convict" Holley in the eyes of the White House.
Now the blacklisting continues.
Hershel Gober has withdrawn his nomination as secretary for
veterans affairs because of four-year-old, unproven accusations of
"sexual misconduct."
Gober denies the accusation that he made an inappropriate
sexual advance to a woman at a Marine Corps event in 1995.
If his nomination had gone into confirmation hearings, Gober
also was expected to face tough questions about possible conflict of
interest charges. But it appears that it was the "sexual misconduct"
accusation that torpedoed him.
==========

MISSING FIGURES
Let's discuss two issues of major concern to men interested in
equal rights: the fact that feminist organizations stereotypes and
demonize men; and the fact that the news media help them do it.
These concerns are usually scoffed at by feminists. (Well, you
didn't expect them to take our concerns seriously.) The feminists
refuse to admit that they stereotype men. And they laugh at the idea
of media bias. "It's all controlled by men," they say.
Well, October was National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
in the United States, and the public was subjected to a barrage of
events designed to make it look as if only men are abusers.
Anyone who truly studies domestic violence knows this isn't
so. In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies
showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence
is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average
violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more
likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as
likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar
motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78). Of every 100
families, 3.8 experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5%
experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus, Gelles,
Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).
Most domestic-violence homicides are attributed to men -- but only
slightly. Men make up about 40 percent of spouses killed in domestic
violence, according to Justice Department figures.
So this is hardly a case of only men being violent, and only
women being the victims.
The crowning touch of this propaganda campaign was a march in
Washington, D.C., on November 22, featuring 1,500 life-sized wooden
figures of women murdered by domestic abusers. That's right *only*
women.
Sure it was a great attention-getting device. You can see the
wooden figures as a tangible representation of a real person. But if
they wanted to present a true picture of domestic violence, they would
need to add another thousand figures -- to get the proper ratio of men
and women killed. There were a thousand missing figures at that rally
-- a thousand missing lives. And amazingly, the news media never
brought that up.
Given that the news media analyze all sorts of political
positions and split hairs over budgets, policy decisions, campaign
donations and all sorts of issues, how could it not simply note that
there is more to domestic violence than this rally presented?
Instead, the rally was given free, uncritical publicity to
spread its false message. And it did so in the nation's capital on the
same ground where men had so recently committed themselves to
admitting their offenses.
And men were not the only ones omitted.
Not represented were women like Teresa Shannon. That's
curious, because her killer was her roommate.
But the roommate was female -- Cindy Boskofsky.
In many ways, the murder fit the scenario of domestic violence
that feminists love to exploit in order to portray men as evil.
Shannon had obtained a no-contact order two weeks before her death.
Boskofsky reportedly offered someone $10,000 to kill Shannon. And a
witness said quoted Boskofsky as saying "If I can't have (Shannon),
nobody will."
If Shannon had been killed by a man, the slaying would have
been held up as evidence of the "patriarchal" beliefs of men who want
to own and control women. Feminists try to claim that domestic
violence is the result of "patriarchal" attitudes. That gives them
purchase to claim that domestic violence is something that only men do
only to women. It gives them a rationale for tracing all violence to
men.
This entire rally, supposedly dedicated to awareness of
"domestic violence," did not mention even one of the following:
Men killed by women. (Pamela Smart, Betty Broderick and the
Scarsdale Diet Doctor Murder must not count as domestic violence.)
Women killed by women. (Shannon doesn't count as domestic
violence.)
Children killed by women. (Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, and
Diane Downs must not count as domestic violence.)
If this rally had portrayed only white people who had been
killed by black people, the bigoted intent would have been perfectly
clear. If they had tried to link being violent with being black, the
racist intent would have been clear. Only a Klan group would do
something like that. But there they were, "respectable" feminists,
doing precisely the same thing with regard to men. And the news media
giving them free publicity for doing it.
Shannon's death -- with the hit-man element, stalking, sexual
jealously, etc., had all the features of a lurid, made-for-TV movie --
*if*the killer had been male. Shannon's death has not gotten a
made-for-TV movie. It has not gotten much attention at all. It did not
even merit a cardboard cutout in the march in Washington over the
weekend.
Judging by the actions of feminists, Shannon's life did not
count for very much -- simply because of the sex of the person who
killed her.
==========

CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
President Clinton issued a proclamation declaring September
28, 1997, as Gold Star Mother's Day, the day to honor women who lost a
child in the military service.
He proclaimed: "For America's Gold Star Mothers -- who have
lost a child in the service of our country --the grief is particularly
acute. The sons and daughters they cherished through the years, whom
they guided and comforted through all the joys and heartaches of
childhood and adolescence, were torn from their lives forever with
cruel and sudden force. These mothers must live the rest of their
lives knowing that the talents and ambitions of their children will
never be fulfilled, that each family gathering or celebration will be
shadowed by the absence of a dearly loved son or daughter."
Clinton's animosity toward fathers is a hallmark of his
administration, stemming from his own childhood experiences that have
given him a stereotyped and hostile view of fathers. So, is he saying
the grief is not particularly acute for fathers? If not, why is there
no mention of fathers anywhere in his proclamation? He certainly has
included women when discussing groups primarily of men. The absolute
lack of any hint that these children also had fathers merely
underscores how disposable and invisible fathers have become -- until
they can be pilloried for doing something wrong.
Clinton goes on: "Yet despite the enormity of their loss,
America's Gold Star Mothers have continued to do what comes naturally
to mothers: to comfort, to nurture, to give of themselves for the
benefit of others."
Again, there isn't a father anywhere in the land who does
this?
Clinton says: "Gold Star Mothers remind us in so many poignant
ways that true love of country often calls for both service and
sacrifice." Correct, Bill. Most of the people paying that sacrifice on
the battlefield have been men.
"For these reasons and more, and in recognition of the special
burden that Gold Star Mothers bear on behalf of all of us, we set
aside this day each year to honor and thank them ..."
And fathers -- you can drop dead.
==========

PANTS SUIT
A man is setting a lawsuit against a Houston, Texas, company
after three female co-workers pulled his pants down.
The man said he mentioned to co-workers at Sterile
Reprocessing Services, Inc., a medical supply company, that he
sometimes did not wear underwear. So they decided to see for
themselves.
"One female supervisor said she thought his co-workers
considered his statements as an invitation for an 'inspection.' "
according to the Associated Press.
"All three women pulled the plaintiff's pants to his knees and
caused him to fall," according to documents filed by his attorney,
Peter Brannan. "While struggling to get away, they dragged him across
the floor by his pants." After that, they would refer to him by a
derogatory name.
Unfortunately, none of the women were targeted in the lawsuit,
which was brought only against the company. Once again an act that
would be seen as a terrible violation of a woman's rights goes
unpunished when the offenders are women.
UPDATE: Tammy S. Blakey, the woman we told you about last
issue, has won $875,000 because she says she was exposed to naughty
pictures at Continental Airlines. The airline was ordered to pay that
amount to Blakey, a pilot who sued for "sexual harassment."
As the Associated Press reported: "Continental got a partial
victory, though, because jurors declined to make the airline pay any
punitive damages. They also decided that the airline had not
retaliated against Blakey or discriminated against her regarding her
pay or assignments, finding only that there was discrimination in the
hostile work environment she faced."
Once again feminism seems to tell us that women are weak,
frail and virginal creatures who must be protected -- or compensated
with big chunks of money.
"I'm not disappointed" that she lost her bid for punitive
damages, Blakey said. "The money wasn't as important as the message."
Really? We wonder which she'd take if she had to choose
between the two.
==========
HUMOR

HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
After the feminist revolution, a couple of men were sentenced
to death for oppressing women. (They had been caught saying that
William Shakespeare was a better writer than Margaret Drabble.)
On the day of their execution, the feminist guard comes to the
door of their cell and says: "I'm supposed to give you each 50 lashes
with a cat-o'-nine-tails, but I'm tired and I'll only give you 25."
The first man claps his hands with joy and says, "This is
wonderful, this is so very nice of you!"
After she is done flogging them, the feminist guard says:
"Prisoners usually get served a last meal of rancid gruel mixed with
bugs. I'm giving you rancid gruel without any bugs."
The first man says "Excellent! That is truly wonderful!"
After they finish the gruel, the feminist guard comes back
and leads them out to the courtyard before a firing squad. She says:
"My orders were not to let you have blindfolds in front of the firing
squad. But I'm going to strip you naked, tear your clothes to shreds,
and give you a scrap of your own clothing to use as a blindfold."
The first man says "This is absolutely wonderful!"
Finally the second man can't stand it any longer and he says,
"What are you praising this feminist for? She's about to have us
killed."
"Keep quiet you fool," the first man whispers, "I'm trying to
encourage the moderates."
==========

GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN
It's time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on
women trying to rise in the world, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname,
president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia
have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the
air," Hyphenated-Lastname says. "This cutting-edge research indicates
that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these
artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held
most high offices of power and controlled the television remote."
"But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal
societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no
distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to
invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent
that, too."
"Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones
and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere
of the patriarchy's efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women
to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes
buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women's
cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the
tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete,
leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf
and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight."
"Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet
except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail."
"Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates.
Obviously, more women are feeling 'down.' Gravity is just another way
in which women's health is being shortchanged."
"This oppression is historical, the product of white, western
men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written
long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input,
the laws of physics would have been kinder, gentler, and more
nurturing, rather than the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men.
Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with
'opposing' reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of
them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is
opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the
backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their
conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there
were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been
equal."
"We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would
have us believe that gravity really represents the 'natural' order of
things," says Hyphenated-Lastname. "It will require spending money on
programs to elevate girls' self esteem so that they are not held down
by artificial concepts of patriarchy."
"This will cost a lot of money," says Hyphenated-Lastname.
"But I'm up for that."
--
(special thanks to the folks on soc.men.)
=============================

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
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
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
for Women.
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.)
==========
---
Affirmative action is a system of justice in which someone who
resembles the criminal is required to compensate someone
who resembles the victim.
Read Per's MANifesto Newsletter,
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm