Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
WELCOME, READERS, as we peddle you an issue we'll entitle
"LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE." Guess that makes us a *spokes*person.
Anyway, this issue takes a look at that recent report that
claims that men prefer "anorexic" women to overweight ones. More on
the White House scandal: should he be ousted? A report on girl
bullies. And did you know that U.S. law mandates different rights for
people based on the sex of a parent? Read on and enjoy!
MANifesto is available on the web at
LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE
BULLY FOR THEM
GOOD FOR THE GOOSE
IF YOU ARE A FATHER, ARE YOU A PARENT?
LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE
The feminists have a slogan: a woman needs a man like a fish
needs a bicycle.
When women decide they no longer need the man they married and
head for the door, they usually take the kids with them.
That means they're making the decision for the children, too:
children need a father like a fish needs a bicycle.
Well, actually, children need fathers a bit more than that.
A new study shows that boys who grow up fatherless are twice
as likely to land in jail.
The study tracked 6,000 males aged 14 to 22 from 1979 to 1993.
Boys whose fathers were absent from the home had double the odds of
being incarcerated. That held true even when other factors such as
race, income, parents' education and urban residence were held
constant. In each category, at each level of family income, in each
neighborhood, good or bad, the boys who grew up without fathers were
twice as likely to go to jail.
Fatherlessness was the greatest predictor of a boy having
trouble with the law.
Feminists might ask, "What patriarchal, dads-rights,
female-oppressing backlashers wrote this report?" Well, the study was
done by a couple of "patriarchs" named Cynthia Harper at the
University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton
University. They presented their study to a meeting of the American
Sociological Association on August 21 of this year.
We know that feminists love to blame male problems on
"testosterone" and "male ego." And they've gotten a lot of men out
there to do the same. But those qualities, in the form of a loving
father, involved the prevention rather than the cause of many
problems. The rise in crime among young males is directly tied to the
feminist divorce revolution.
It's no secret that feminists from Simone de Beauvoir to Betty
Friedan to Hillary Rodham Clinton have compared the family to slavery
and prison and declared that the family oppresses women. Feminists
launched an assault on the family. Now that many of the casualties of
that assault are boys and young men, they blame the victims. They seem
to think there must be something the matter with males if they turn
out badly merely because their families were destroyed.
And we know that many feminists are going to blame this
problem on "deadbeat dads" who don't pay child support. But, for
starters, the study showed that child support payments did not seem to
make a difference in a boy's odds of going to jail. Hint to feminists:
stop thinking about money so much and start thinking about humanity.
Feminists are supposed to be so much more sensitive to the plight of
the needy and the powerless. They should start acting that way when it
comes to our children.
But there's something else about "deadbeat dads." The
newspapers rarely admit it, but a lot of men who stop paying child
support have been denied child visitation. They have spiteful ex-wives
who thwart their efforts to have a relationship with their kids, while
the ex-wives still demand money for their purses.
But the next time you hear the phrase "deadbeat dad," reflect
on this. You never heard that term before the feminist divorce
revolution. Deadbeat dads are a product of the feminist era in which
"women need men like a fish needs a bicycle."
So what happens when mom walks out the door on her feminist
crusade of empowerment and starts shacking up with some other guy? The
study found that boys who grow up with a stepfather in the home are at
even higher risk for going to jail. Their odds are about triple that
of boys who live with both natural parents.
We don't blame any women for getting out of a marriage or
relationship with an unfit or abusive partner. But the divorce
explosion over the last several decades has been fueled by a lot of
women who were not in abusive marriages, but marriages that had hit
rough spots, or even marriages that had become boring to them. They
had been told by feminists that virtually everything is "oppression"
of women, and they heard the feminist slogan that they should "have it
That slogan involves some particularly ugly sentiments when
feminists decide to "have it all" no matter who else gets hurt.
Feminists want to be able to instantly end their commitment to
marriage, but they don't want the ex-husband's commitment to them to
end -- ever. They want to break up the home for any reason, including
the most selfish reasons, and then assume that they will automatically
receive monthly payments to continue their lifestyles. They want to
move in with a new boyfriend no matter how that boyfriend treats their
children. They want to deny their children a chance to have a
relationship with their father while demanding the father finance this
whole selfish mess.
They want "to have it all," and they want someone else to foot
(Source: "Boys With Absentee Dads Twice as Likely to Be
Jailed: Stepfathers Don't Help, Study Finds," Reuters, The Washington
Post, Friday, August 21, 1998; Page A03
The latest bit of man-bashing research we've seen is a U.S.
study that purports to show that young men would rather date an
anorexic woman than one who is obese. The impression the study leaves
hanging in the air is that men are shallow, sex-driven beasts whose
interest in women is only skin deep.
But of course you knew that already, right?
The study was reported in the journal "Woman and Health" by
Jeffrey Sobal and co-author Mark Bursztyn. Mr. Sobal is a "nutritional
sociologist" (we're not kidding) at Cornell University. Good old
Cornell. That's the place that once punished four male students for
circulating a list of tasteless jokes, then took no action against
feminists who sent them death threats. Good old Cornell, where freedom
of speech blows in the political wind.
So what's wrong with Mr. Sobal's purported study? The
vagueness of the term "anorexic." It has been tossed around to mean
"thinner than average," or even "wanting to be thinner than average."
We've seen some fairly curvaceous models like Elle Macpherson
described as "anorexic" when clearly they are no such thing.
Yo, researchers. Check the pinups and nude photographs that
men are looking at. Take a gander at all that stuff on the Internet.
Do you see even a single men's magazine or website that features women
who are genuinely anorexic? Maybe you missed it that the overwhelming
majority of men are recoiling in horror at how thin Calista Flockhart
of TV's "Ally McBeal" has become.
Yo, readers. In all the worthless spam you've had land in your
mailbox, have you ever seen one that promised "Hot Anorexic Action"?
How about, "Our Girls Have Thighs Smaller Than Their Kneebones"? Or
even, "Two-Way Anorexic Swinging. Or Maybe It's Three, They're So Thin
It's Easy To Miss One Of 'Em."
We suppose that a smutty anorexic website would be rated III.
Those are Xs that got really thin.
Except for one thing: you don't see smutty anorexic websites.
Or men's magazines.
What you might see, however, are fashion magazines aimed at
women. The models in such magazines usually are far, far thinner that
the average male prefers. And it's the women who are buying these
magazines and supporting the look.
Here is a challenge to every last feminist who claims that
it's men who want "anorexic" women. Send us the URL of any porno
website that advertises its models as anorexic, and we'll print it
next issue. If feminists are correct that virtually 110% of all men
are lusting after anorexic women, the Internet should be awash in
these sites. So name just one. After all, you can't do a web search
for "brussels sprouts" without getting hits for a porn site in
Belgium. So it should be real easy to find anorexia sites -- if
they're out there.
But back to Mr. Sobal's study. This survey was widely reported
in the news media as showing that men didn't want to date someone with
anorexia nervosa or bulimia. Oddly enough, Mr. Sobal found the exact
same thing about women. It was men who got the negative headlines,
Furthermore, the researchers "said their findings show that
when it comes to dating, looks are still more important than
substantive factors like intelligence and personality -- at least to
Booooo, men. Such cads!
But we wonder if Mr. Sobal would like to survey women on
whether they would prefer rich men to men of average income. Would
they prefer men who hold lots of power and status, or average guys?
Would they marry a man shorter than them, or one who made less money?
Maybe women define "personality" as "having $10 million."
Remember Anne Nicole Smith -- a Playboy centerfold and
certainly no anorexic. She married an ancient, liver-spotted
millionaire who had to go down the wedding aisle in a wheelchair.
You certainly can't accuse her of being obsessed with looks
when she married a dude who looked like death warmed over. We suppose
she just loved his intelligence and personality.
We'd like to see the news media run the equivalent of Mr.
Sobal's study, examining all the shallow things that women want. But
you know what the odds of that are. Fat chance.
Mr. Sobal also opines: "We are still a weight-obsessed
society." But as we've stated in the January 1998 issue of Per's
MANifesto, the leading cause of death among women in the U.S. is heart
disease, which is directly related to being overweight. Excess weight
contributes to higher cholesterol, higher blood pressure, and other
unhealthful conditions. It's being too heavy that is killing women,
not being too thin.
Kudos to the Reuters news agency when it covered Mr. Sobal's
study. It added something that Mr. Sobal didn't tell you: "... about
55 percent of adult Americans, or 97 million adults, are overweight or
obese, according to government standards issued in June." "Weight
obsessed"? It sounds as though we could stand a little more of it.
If men prefer slimmer women to obese women, they are
preferring women who are healthier and who have a chance to live
longer. Therefore feminists accuse men of starving women to death. If
men preferred heavy women, would feminists shut up? Not a chance.
They'd say we're fattening women to death.
By now you should grasp the first principle of feminism:
whatever men do, it's evil. If they do the opposite, that's evil, too.
Mr. Sobal's survey said men and women both avoid
relationships with someone who has an eating disorder, but men would
rather date a woman with anorexia or bulimia than one who is badly
overweight. "Though eating disorders are stigmatized, obesity is much
more so,'' he says.
Hello, Mr. Sobal. Didn't you notice that being badly
overweight involves an eating disorder? You see, food has calories,
Mr. Sobal, and the body will store extra calories as fat. Eating
extremely excessive amounts of food results in excessive amounts of
We're always glad to help out a nutritional sociologist.
Especially one from Cornell.
(Source: "Men avoid dating obese women?" Reuters, August 17
BULLY FOR THEM
Someone once said that "he who becomes a beast gives up the
pain of being human."
We could add: "she who becomes a feminist does likewise."
As girls leave their "traditional" roles, incidents of
violence, violent crime, and anti-social acts such as bullying also
increase. Feminists have long blamed violent behavior on testosterone:
they have tried to paint it as a male thing. You know: women good, men
bad. But as more and more females take up the stressful roles that men
have always had to bear, they start lashing out in increasing numbers.
Let's take a look at just one aspect of this form of
A recent study in a British journal reported that bullying by
girls is on the increase while efforts to stop it are lagging.
The study is reported in the British Medical Journal, in an
issue released the last week of September/first week of October. It
"concluded that while bullying intervention strategies introduced in
schools during the past few years have been effective with boys, they
have been less successful with girls who bully. This snapshot study of
900 pupils aged 11 to 17 in two secondary schools found that bullying
by girls was proportionately higher than it was three years ago."
Part of the problem in dealing with girls' bullying is that
boy's bullying tends to be more overt while girls' tends to be more
Peter Smith, professor of psychology at Goldsmiths College,
noted that "If a boy bullies, he tends to hit out or take something
from another child so you can see it happening and therefore there's
usually an objective answer; but with girls it's more to do with the
systematic and hurtful spreading of nasty stories and social
exclusion, which is harder to identify and therefore harder to deal
Michelle Elliott of Kidscape, which operates a help line for
young people, "agrees that girls have always bullied in a more covert
and elusive manner but believes that increasingly they are also
becoming physically violent. Kidscape's help line has reported a huge
increase of girl bullying over the last two years ... with the younger
women reporting violence on an alarming scale, such as broken bones,
black eyes and even having their heads shaved."
"But if girls are behaving more like boys, why then aren't
anti-bullying strategies being just as effective with them? Elliott
believes it's because 'we're not adequately addressing the problem
with girls. We assume it's all verbal, so while prevention policies
have been successful in encouraging boys to be more gentle, we haven't
been reaching out to girls in the same way.' "
In other words, we've always assumed that girls' bullying is
somehow nicer, or at least not as much of a problem. And just like in
every other area of life, our tactics with the girls has always been
gentler. We whip boys and wonder why they turn out angry. We counsel
girls and wonder why they turn out better.
In liberating girls from passive roles, experts say the
pendulum has swung too far. Girls "don't seem to be able to find the
balance between being up front and being in-your-face," Eliot says.
We're not surprised at all by that. In movies and popular
entertainment, feminism has put on a low brow and taken the low road.
Torching an ex-boyfriend's car is acceptable if he hurt your feelings
("Waiting to Exhale"). Gunning down men is a form of liberation
("Thelma and Louise"). Revenge is a sacrament ("The First Wives
Club"). Hostility as a basic outlook is promoted, while constraint is
seen as unliberated, oppressive. If you aren't out there smacking
someone around or laying a trap for them, then you just aren't
And while feminists celebrate the increase in girls in
cyberspace, keep one thing in mind: it gives them just another way to
bully. The tactics of exclusion and harassment work just as well, or
even better, on the net.
From The Age, Melbourne, Australia: "A survey of 180 students
at a Melbourne girls' school has found that while traditional forms of
indirect bullying such as verbal abuse, name-calling and spreading
rumors are still the most popular forms of harassment, more girls are
turning to technology to bully and 'freeze' out their classmates."
Findings of the survey by psychologists Ms Jenny Ricketts and
Ms Joan Beckwith were presented at the Australian Psychological
Society's conference in Melbourne. "Ms Ricketts said social exclusion
through technology was becoming an increasingly prevalent and worrying
practice in girls' schools. This form of bullying includes making
prank phone calls, sending sarcastic or abusive e-mails or excluding
others from an e-mail network.
"Ms Ricketts said while all forms of bullying were harmful,
social exclusion bullying among girls was of particular concern.
"The survey of year 7 to 12 students found that 86per cent of
girls had experienced some form of bullying at the school. Of these,
13per cent said the bullying had persisted for several months or
While we're on the topic, let us tell you about Municipal
Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani in Long Beach, California.
She was presiding over a sentencing hearing for a convicted
thief, Ronnie Hawkins. Hawkins kept interrupting her. She got tired of
So she ordered the bailiff to activate the remote-control stun
belt wired around Hawkins' waist. Hawkins was not threatening anyone.
He was not trying to escape. He was already shackled and chained. He
just wouldn't be quiet.
So Hawkins was slammed with 50,000 volts of electricity above
his left kidney. The attack lasted for eight seconds.
Stephen Yagman, a lawyer representing Hawkins in a civil
rights suit against Ms. Comparet-Cassani and the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, says: "I think only a depraved or sadistic
person would ever use an instrument of torture like the stun belt for
simply refusing to be quiet."
(Sources: "Deadlier than the male: New research suggests that
bullying by girls is on the increase. So why haven't recent
initiatives worked?" Marina Cantacuzino, The Guardian, Wednesday
October 7, 1998.
"New-age bullies use cyberspace to harass peers," by Carolyn
Jones, The Age, Melbourne, Australia, October 6, 1998
(Source: "Stun Belts Spur Civil Rights Talk," By Minerva
Canto, Associated Press Writer, Thursday, August 6, 1998.)
GOOD FOR THE GOOSE
We all know about the White House sex scandal, so let's get
down to business.
A report on his sexual misconduct says he violated standards
for continuing in his job, and that he "clearly showed poor judgment
and lack of discretion." He has two women on record making sexual
harassment accusations against him. After an investigation, a report
recommended that he be removed from office.
Should he be?
He already has been.
He is John Hicks, former U.S. ambassador to Eritrea and a
career foreign service officer. He was nominated by Bill Clinton.
Hicks' resignation was demanded and received in 1997 after two women
made accusations of sexual harassment. Their accusations remain
unproven, he-said/she-said affairs. But Mr. Hicks is out.
In any other administration, Mr. Hicks might have gotten a
fair chance. He might have been presumed, under the American law he
represents abroad, to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But
not in the administration of William Jefferson Clinton. Mr. Clinton
depends far too much on the support of feminists, who bail him out
time and again when his own zipper problems once more become the
nightly news. Male feminists like Bill Clinton will always sacrifice
other men in order to stay in good with feminists.
We know what feminists and Clinton supporters will say: the
accusations against Clinton are politically motivated. But *every*
sexual harassment accusation is politically motivated. It all depends
on whether the woman likes the man, or the offer. Basic corporate
policy on sexual harassment says that if she feels harassed, then she
was. It's not what you do that causes the crime. It's how she feels.
If she likes you, or if she likes Clinton, it's not harassment.
Feminists will respond that Clinton's case is special because
it involves political enemies. Hey, there are "political" enemies
anytime people are competing for a promotion, a raise, or a job. Women
have made sexual harassment claims in order to eliminate rivals or to
strike first if they were about to be fired for poor performance. The
former happened at Miller Brewing Company and was detailed in the July
1997 MANifesto. The latter happened at Oracle Corp. and was detailed
in the same issue.
All sexual harassment accusations are political. Most of all,
feminism's responses to such accusations are political. If the
accusation is against a political foe, feminists hector us with
accusations that we "tolerate" abuse until the accused is punished. If
the accusation is against a big corporation where feminists can
picture lots of affirmative action and special "diversity" promotions,
they hammer the company. If the accusation is against someone who
kicks a lot of taxpayer money their way, they say: "Harassment? What
Ambassador Hicks was terminated based on only two unproven
accusations, while Clinton is still in office. It goes to show that
what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
As for Clinton, he's always good for the occasional goose.
(Source: "U.S. Envoy to Eritrea Quit After Sex Misconduct
Probe," Associated Press report, the Washington Post, October 31,
1998, page A10.)
IF YOU ARE A FATHER, ARE YOU A PARENT?
Consider this question. You're a dad. Are you a parent?
The question might seem self evident. But when it comes to the
law, it isn't necessarily so.
U.S. law defines parenthood entirely differently for women and
men. If a child is born out of wedlock to an American woman, the child
automatically has U.S. citizenship. If a child is born out of wedlock
to an American man, the child does not have automatic citizenship. In
fact, the child would have to go through several extra steps -- and
complete them before a deadline -- in order to have the same rights as
a child who gets it automatically because of his or her mother.
This fact was highlighted recently by a Supreme Court case
involving Lorelyn Penero Miller. She was born out of wedlock to a
Filipino mother and an American serviceman. Had she been born out of
wedlock to an American service*woman,* citizenship would have been
automatic. The court, in a split opinion, turned down her bid. It let
stand the law that discriminates against children based on the sex of
Feminists who say they are striving for "equality" in the
military might want to look into this.
At the root, of course, is the prejudice that children belong
with the mother and that the father is detachable and expendable.
Take a gander at what the Washington Post said about this
case: "The larger question, of course, is the extent to which our
society must be gender-blind even on those subjects -- such as
parenthood -- in which men and women are very different."
All right, Washington Post. Try referring to areas "in which
men and women are very different" in relationship to combat fitness,
the ability and willingness to work, artistic and literary talent, and
so on. Moral of the story: it's always permissible to say that men and
women are different if women benefit from the claim. Anything else is
The Post also goes on: "Does the recognition that motherhood
and fatherhood are not identical necessarily flow from and reinforce
stereotypes, or is it a nod to reality?"
Let's try this another way: "Does the recognition that boys'
and girls' math scores have never been equal flow from stereotypes, or
is it a nod to reality?"
Go ahead and print such a statement, Post. When the feminists
are done with you, we'll lay flowers at the crater where your office
Feminists launched their movement claiming that they believed
in equality. But as it shakes out, "equality" means that feminists
acquired access to traditional male roles while retaining all
traditional female privileges such as child custody. Feminists get to
enter traditionally male areas and still shut men out of traditionally
female areas. If you think we're exaggerating, take a look down
Robert Young raised his two daughters while his wife worked as
a senior partner in a Miami law firm. Young lead one daughter's
Brownie troop and coached another's soccer team. He stayed at home and
cared for them while his wife, Alice Hector, was out having it all.
Young had worked as an architect in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
But when Hector got the job with a Miami law firm, he gave up his
career and followed her there. Then she decided to leave him after 14
She breaks up the home. And, in usual fashion, she's rewarded
with the kids. The court gave her custody. Fathers and men in general
Except that Young didn't see it that way. He had raised the
kids. He had stayed home. He had given up his job.
So he filed an appeal, and won.
The court decided that, as the primary caregiver, the children
would be better off with him.
We have been in several discussions with feminists who swear
that they believe the primary caregiver ought to get the children.
Problem is, one of their criteria for being named primary caregiver is
the possession of ovaries. No matter what a man does, these feminists
will always find some way to define the woman as the primary
caregiver. This way, they're sticking by their "principles" -- it's
just that their principles shift to suit the moment. One feminist once
claimed that dropping the kids off at daycare qualifies a woman as the
primary caregiver. Come again? Dumping your kids on someone else to
raise makes you a primary caregiver?
But as for Mr. Young, he may have won his appeal, but his wife
still has the kids. She asked for another hearing, and they are with
her while it is pending.
This case made for some interesting bias in the Washington
Post. It said: "The case has advocates of working mothers and
supporters of fathers' rights questioning whether a working mother
must choose between career and children if she wants to maintain
primary custody or whether a father has the same nurturing ability as
Dear Post: We bet that this case did NOT have supporters of
fathers' rights questioning whether a father has the same nurturing
ability as a mother. We hope this was just an unintentional slip due
to poor word choice. But if this was a slip, it says something about
the culture of the Post that no one caught it or fixed it. No one
reflected on how fathers would feel about this.
As for the ex-wife, Hector, she's playing victim. Her
husband's case "sets the cause of working women back a generation,"
says Hector. What generation would that be, Ms. Hector? Your mother's
generation did not think it was entitled to work full time and still
have the prerogatives of a full-time parent. That came along with
feminists who insisted that women should "have it all."
It is typical of feminists that they think a woman should be
able to take any traditionally "male" position away from a man while
maintaining any traditionally "female" position for their own. For
feminists, equality is a one-way street. Equality does not apply to
men. Equality, at least in the working definition, means that
feminists get whatever they want.
The kicker is that Hector was the one who filed for divorce.
As we said earlier in this issue, there are many women who assume they
can walk away from a marriage and it's automatic that they take the
kids with them, no matter what.
Guess what a feminist lawyer had to say about this case.
First, just a recap. Man stays home with kids. Woman wants
divorce. Woman assumes she gets custody. Court awards her custody
right off the bat. Man has to go back to court to seek custody. While
the case is pending, the children are with the mother, who still works
Okay, so what does the feminist lawyer say? That this case is
about bias against women!
We hope you didn't have a mouthful of coffee while reading
But, says Nancy Chang, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief
supporting Hector: "The court may have been too ready to assume that
the father's contributions outweighed the mother's. It's a form of
Oh sure, Ms. Chang. Courts have been known for assuming that
the father's contributions outweigh the mother's.
On Mars, maybe.
As one of Young's lawyers, Barbara Green, put it: "If a trial
court had done to a stay-at-home wife what they did to Mr. Young, it
would have been reversed in a second without any protest." We agree
with that. What feminists are mad about is that a man just got equal
Ms. Chang is with a New York group that bills itself as the
Center for Constitutional Rights. Apparently feminists think that
women have a Constitutional right to have it all. Or that she has a
Constitutional right to child custody.
We bet we could shock Ms. Chang to the soul with an amazing
revelation -- something she probably never thought of: namely, that
men have rights under the Constitution, too.
There. We'll leave her alone for a bit to recover from that
(Sources: "Mothers, Fathers, and Citizens," Monday, April 27,
1998; Washington Post, Page A16.)
("In Miami, New Issues Of Custody Case Tests Gender, Caregiver
Roles," By Rachel La Corte, Associated Press, Tuesday, August 18,
1998; Page A08
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.)