Per's MANifesto January 1997

Per's MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
December, 1996.
Important Announcement:
Per's MANifesto has a new e-mail address, per2@mail.idt.net.
All subscribers should continue to get Per's MANifesto via e-mail
without interruption.
The web version of MANifesto is moving to a new address, which
is under construction now and should have all the bugs/broken links
worked out by the end of February. The new address is
http://shell.idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
with a home page at
http://shell.idt.net/~per2. Bookmark them so you won't miss an issue.
(But please remember that these sites are still being worked on.)
In the meantime, MANifesto will continue to be posted at the
old address as well, at
http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/manifest.htm

WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto we call THE LIE OF THE
LAND, in which we examine yet again feminism's penchant for statements
that aren't entirely fair or true.
Of course we can't cover them all -- that would take far more
than one newsletter is capable of covering. Besides, you've probably
already heard about such anti-male whoppers as "The Super Bowl
Battering Hoax" and "The Rule of Thumb Hoax." So in this issue we're
going to cover some of the hoaxes and anti-male stereotypes that
haven't gotten as much coverage -- including the Snuff Film Hoax.
Enjoy.

INDEX:
I. SNUFFING OUT CREDIBILITY
II. NIGHT LYIN'
III. ENDING THE GOOD-OLD-BOYS CLUB
IV. ANOTHER STORY YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED
V. FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE BAD BECAUSE ...
COSMOWATCH

==========
SNUFFING OUT CREDIBILITY
Many feminists and Women's Studies instructors claim that men
film and sell "snuff films" -- movies supposedly made by sadists who
kidnap, torture, kill and dismember a victim (usually a woman) so they
can film the attack and sell copies of it.
This scenario fits in well with the picture that many
feminists want to paint of men: in between watching football and
beating their wives, men are sitting on the couch in a torn T-shirt,
beer in hand, watching tapes of an actual sex murder.
It makes great anti-male propaganda. However, despite all the
claims, there are four major problems:
1) The most notorious examples of snuff films have turned out
to be fakes -- often badly done fakes.
2) No law enforcement agency has ever seized an actual snuff
film.
3) No feminist who claims that snuff films exists can produce
a copy to support the claim.
4) Journalists who undertook extensive, long-term
investigations have been unable to find, buy, or witness a snuff film.
Now if men really are making, selling and watching snuff
films, you'd think that someone *somewhere* would be able to find one.
After all, if you have a conspiracy to sell illegal drugs, sooner or
later police will seize a shipment of illegal drugs. If no one can
find a copy of a genuine snuff film, then you'd think that feminists
might admit that they either have exaggerated the problem or have
promoted a falsehood that smears the male sex.
But think again. Feminists have never discovered one single
snuff film. Yet they continue to claim that snuff films not only
exist, but are a widespread problem that reveal all those low and
depraved traits they just *know* men harbor. Feminists who cling to
the snuff-film legend simply do not let facts get in the way of a good
anti-male smear.
One of them is Catherine MacKinnon, the anti-pornography
activist. When confronted with the fact that the FBI has never turned
up even one snuff film, MacKinnon implies that their investigations
aren't complete or competent. (As if the FBI has some sort of
good-old-boys network devoted to protecting the makers of snuff
films!) MacKinnon was quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle as saying:
"My opinion is completely to the contrary to the FBI's. I know snuff
films exist. These so-called official people don't enjoy a lot of
trust." The paper asked her to substantiate her claim, but she
artfully dodged: "To divulge anything would jeopardize my own
investigation."
That statement was made in 1994. Since then, MacKinnon's
"investigation" has still not turned up a single snuff film. And, to
our knowledge, she has not admitted her mistake, either.
People who take a good, honest look at feminism are familiar
with this process by now. A feminist makes a wildly anti-male claim,
but submits no proof to back it up. Yet she states with absolute
conviction that she "knows" it is true.
This is a distressingly common trait of modern feminism: proof
is not required when bashing men, and a lack of proof is no deterrent.
Also, these types of claims never seem to cost feminists their
credibility. They make an anti-male smear, get away with it, and move
on to the next anti-male smear. The news media still coming calling,
to quote these "experts."
However, when you go to law-enforcement officials, you will
find that no commercial snuff films have ever been seized.
Here are excerpts from an extensive investigation into the
snuff-film myth by San Francisco Chronicle. (See "Do snuff films
really exist, or are they merely popular myth?" by Rider McDowell, San
Francisco Chronicle, August 7, 1994.)
McDowell writes: "Alan Sears, former executive director of the
Attorney General's commission on pornography during 1985-86, agrees
with the more than two dozen law enforcement agencies I interviewed.
'Our experience was that we could not find any such thing as a
commercially produced snuff film,' says Sears. 'Our commission was
all-inclusive and exhaustive. If snuff films were available, we'd have
found them.' "
"This sentiment is echoed by Ken Lanning, a cult expert at the
FBI training academy at Quantico, Virginia. 'I've not found one single
documented case of a snuff film anywhere in the world. I've been
searching for 20 years, talked to hundreds of people. There's plenty
of once-removed sightings, but I've never found a credible personality
who personally saw one.' "
And of the Chronicle's own efforts to find or view a snuff
film, the reporter writes: "For six months I have groped ... probing
the seedy corners of society's fetishistic netherworld for evidence
that snuff films exist. It's been six months of disappointments and
fizzling leads, hundreds of phone calls to criminal types and police
types, hurried interviews with proprietors of sex shops and S&M
parlors, smoky gatherings in underground film clubs, unsolicited
applications to join slave societies, purchase discount stun guns and
order misogynist films by mail. I've endured watching a myriad of
horrible fake snuff films -- some ridiculously fake, the others deemed
inauthentic by experts -- with titles such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and
"Man Behind the Sun 731." I've pored over dozens of unsolved murders
around the country, searching, always searching. To no avail."
Michael F. Knapp, Inspector-Deputy Chief of the FBI's
Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, wrote to one skeptic to
say: "My colleagues who handle investigative matters which could
possibly involve 'snuff films' have advised me that to their
knowledge, the FBI has never found or confiscated a 'snuff film.' "
Perhaps MacKinnon and other feminists want to add The San
Francisco Chronicle, the FBI, and all these law-enforcement officials
to their list of people who are doing noncredible or suspect research.
As for us, we think that MacKinnon's failure to discover even one
snuff film is evidence that she is clinging to a myth because it
confirms her prejudices about men.
Other people outside law enforcement have looked for snuff
films, too. Cecil Adams, the skeptic behind the "Straight Dope" column
and TV show, had this to say when asked if there are snuff films: "in
a word, no." And twenty years ago, the notorious porno mag "Screw"
offered $25,000 to anyone who had a copy of a snuff film. No takers.
"Snuff has been talked about for 20 years," says Manny Neuhaus, former
editor of Screw magazine. "Don't you think they'd have turned one up
by now?"
At this point you might say that you've heard about snuff
films. Let's clear up some questions about them:
Question: Aren't there are films showing real deaths available
at many video stores?
Answer: In fact there are several "Faces of Death" films and
imitators. They claim to show actual deaths caused by accidents,
warfare, crime, animal attacks, capital punishment, and so on. Thus,
by definition, they are not snuff films, which are supposedly made by
people who kill someone specifically so they can film it and sell it.
"Faces of Death"-type films claim that a photographer was on the scene
when a death was caused by someone or something else. But in snuff
films, the filmmakers are supposedly is the ones doing the killing.
(And many skeptics say that even those video-store movies contain some
obviously faked sequences -- for example, camera angles change just
like in a movie, during supposedly continuous sequences filmed by one
person standing in one spot with a camcorder.)
Question: Didn't the Charles Manson "Family" film their
murders?
Answer: No, but this is the rumor that apparently sparked the
myth of snuff films. The San Francisco Chronicle has this to say about
the Manson rumor: "According to LAPD Vice Squad Sergeant Don Smith,
snuff films got their name during the 1969 investigation of the
Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles. 'The media was mistakenly
informed that the Manson people had taken home movies of the murders,'
says Smith. 'The press coined the term "snuff films," and it stuck.' "
Question: But wasn't there a film back in the 1970s, called
"Snuff" or "Snuff in New York City"?
Answer: It was a poorly done fake, says the Chronicle. "Snuff"
was one of the earliest snuff-film hoaxes, perpetrated by Alan
Shackelton, whom the Chronicle describes as a soft-porn maker and
B-movie producer. He "purchased a low-grade exploitation horror film,"
called "Slaughter," that had been shot in South America. Shackelton
shot 15 minutes of new film that supposedly showed an actress being
murdered. It must not have been very convincing: the paper describes
it as "a celebration of hokey latex and stage blood."
Shackelton booked the film into a Times Square "grind house,"
in 1975 and promoted it with publicity-seeking "disclaimers" warning
away the faint of heart. He even hired "protesters" to picket the
film, ensuring even more publicity. Although the film is "almost
laughably phony," it helped further the snuff-film legend.
Question: What about "Vampira" and the film that actor Charlie
Sheen reportedly saw?
Answer: There was 16mm sex loop called "Vampira," supposedly
showing a girl having her intestines cut out. Coroners took one look
and noticed that the intestines were from a cow.
In the late 1980s, a Japanese film called "Guinea Pig"
attracted attention. The Chronicle says that its viewers included the
Charlie Sheen, who thought it showed real scenes of torture. He
contacted the FBI, and agents were convinced enough to investigate.
But the producers of the film then released "Guinea Pig Two: The
Making of Guinea Pig One," revealing the tricks that went into making
the realistic scenes. The FBI dropped the case.
Question: Isn't it possible that snuff films exist among a
very small group of people and sell for hundreds of thousands of
dollars, so that average people would never be aware of them?
Answer: This is a favorite refrain among those who just can't
let go of the snuff-film legend. Just about anything is "possible,"
but to say it is true requires proof.
And *IF* such films existed in extremely secretive, limited
circles, then feminists would not be justified in trying to paint it
as a widespread problem in which large numbers of male oppressors are
getting their jollies watching the deaths of large numbers of female
victims. As with their statistics on anorexia, feminists like to find
a huge number of female deaths where there aren't any. It tells you a
lot about feminist logic that they think there could be sort of
snuff-film "industry" that has managed to churn out a number of widely
available films for 20 or 30 years while completely avoiding detection
and never leaving a trace.
Question: Hollywood films like "Hardcore" and "52 Pickup" have
alluded to snuff films. Maybe Hollywood insiders know something.
Answer: Hollywood is about sensationalism, not reality. If any
amateur investigators in such movies manage to breeze right in to a
movie theater, plop down and catch a snuff film, then they have
succeeded where legions of law-enforcement officials, feminists, and
reporters have failed.
In the real world, if any theater showed a snuff film, police
could seize it as evidence in a murder investigation. (Depending on
local statutes, it might be a criminal offense to simply possess such
a film, even for private viewing.) The theater owners could find
themselves tied up in an expensive legal or criminal case. What
theater could make a profit by showing casual, walk-in customers a
film that could be immediately seized and cost them enormous legal
expenses?
Question: But isn't it true that some serial killers have
filmed their victims?
Answer: This apparently has happened, though the tapes came to
light when police seized them from the property of the killer himself.
Such films were *not* seized while being sold on some supposed black
market or being shown in theaters. Let's distinguish between some
sicko videotaping his crime and a supposedly flourishing industry
selling, distributing, and showing such films. The first is possible.
The second is a myth.
For example, police in southern California arrested an
Anaheim furniture upholsterer after he tried to lure women into the
desert. The women were police decoys, and in the desert, police found
a stash of saws, axes, pliers, and a camera. He served time for this
and, when he got out, he met two women at a party. Their bodies were
later found, and the man was sentenced to life in prison for their
murders. An accomplice claims that the murders were filmed, but no
films were ever found.
Such monsters as this do exist. But one tactic of feminism is
to tar all men with the same brush, and in this case the snuff-film
myth is the way they do it. They could say the killer is a depraved
and monstrous individual, and they would be right. But instead, they
try to pin that monstrosity on all men through the myth of snuff
films. Instead of saying there is one sick individual carrying out his
twisted schemes, they try to make all of us men into a cheering
section for the monster. Feminist rhetoric on snuff films is all about
blaming as many men as possible by claiming that legions of women are
dying for the entertainment of men. It validates feminist's feelings
of victimhood, and the only flaw in the argument is that it is based
on myth -- which does not seem to be a deterrent to feminists.
Feminists cherish the myth that men support some
conspiratorial, underground a market for snuff films even though --
after years of determined effort -- they and their supporters have
never found this underground trade they "know" exists.
One of those people who "know" is Andrew Vachss, whom the
Chronicle describes as an attorney who represents children "and a
best-selling author of thrillers."
"Just because you haven't seen any on network news doesn't
mean they're not out there.," Vachss argues. "When someone steals a
Rembrandt, it doesn't show up in a gallery. We know that the Shah of
Iran kept videotapes of (the Iranian secret police) Savak torturing
people to death. We also know that Idi Amin collected video equipment
and routinely witnessed executions. You can draw your own conclusions.
... Serial killers have been documenting their murders for years,"
says Vachss. "Do you think it hasn't occurred to one of these people
to film a murder, and don't you think that it's possible one of these
films is being circulated?"
Vachss displays an attitude that has infected much of
academia, feminism, and the politically correct world today. This line
of thinking holds that if something is possible, then it's probable,
and if it's probable, then it's true. Proof is not required. These
people just *know.*
Some feminists like MacKinnon use the snuff-film myth to try
to drum up support for their anti-pornography efforts. They run into
problems when they try to convince people that photographing a nude
woman constitutes assault or exploitation, and there are always
freedom-of-speech issues that feminists cannot easily circumvent. But
the snuff-film myth gives them a lightning-rod for drawing support.
Lots of people are ambivalent about nude centerfolds, but the idea of
women being tortured and murdered is very alarming. Feminists often
have trouble trying to fire people up with moral outrage over the fact
that women are being photographed nude for the pleasure of men -- so
they up the ante and claim that women are being tortured and killed.
It's a handy way for feminists to smear even the glossy, airbrushed
Playboy centerfold and claim that all such photographs ultimately are
merely the first step on the road that leads to snuff films. When you
get into a discussion with an anti-porn feminist, eventually she might
declare that women are being tortured and murdered for the enjoyment
of men. Ask her to provide her sources, and she won't be able to.
But the lack of evidence probably won't change her mind,
either.
And this goes right back to some of the top leaders of
feminism, who support such myths. When they can't get results by
arguing that a well-paid centerfold model is being "exploited," they
inject the snuff-film myth, feeling that the end justifies such
dishonest means. For feminists, there are only two possible downsides
to the snuff-film myth. One is that it isn't true, and the other is
that casts an undeserved blanket smear on the entire male sex.
Of course, for many feminists, these are not reasons enough to
refrain.

----------
Sources and acknowledgements. Opinions expressed above are
those of Per's MANifesto. Much of the source material is available at
the Alt.Folklore.Urban home page. For additional information and the
complete text of the San Francisco Chronicle article, Visit the AFU &
Urban Legend Archive at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/ and click on "Classic" and then "Snuff
Films, or go to that section directly, at:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/snuff.films/
(The full text of the FBI letter from Michael F. Knapp is
available at:)
http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/snuff.films/snuff_films_fbi.html
==========

NIGHT LYIN'
When critics of feminism say that news coverage is sometimes
biased, we get a familiar response. Feminists jeer, "Oh, I suppose
that feminists own the news media now. I suppose feminists give them
orders."
No, the bias isn't due to feminists owning the media.
They just borrow it now and then.
Feminism is a major political force. It has well-organized
members -- lawyers who threaten to sue, columnist who threaten to
embarrass, protesters who threaten to picket. And perhaps most of all,
it has woman -- the ones who control a major portion of household
expenditures. The ones who control the purse strings. The ones that
advertisers and the news media don't want to piss off.
The news media know darn well that feminists can do them
damage. But men's groups? They're still don't have anything near the
clout.
The news media can ignore men's rights and pander to
feminists, and it's good for the bottom line.
And it's not just the small papers or two-bit local news
anchors who do it.
At times, it's even a respected journalist like Ted Koppel.
On Nov. 14, Koppel's "Nightline" presented a report entitled,
"A Child's World," covering the (supposed) problem that child
witnesses are losing credibility in our courts.
After all the false, coerced testimony from children on
supposed "satanic cults" in day-care centers, it would seem like a
positive move. After innocent people have been freed from jails --
sent there on admittedly false testimony -- it seems like we ought to
be questioning some of the leading, distorting and manipulative
techniques used to get false testimony from children.
And, seeing how this is "Nightline," a respected show, you'd
hope that Koppel would give the issue a fair hearing.
But Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist who specialized in
rights -- even for unpopular groups -- was amazed at how biased
Koppel's show was. (See "'Nightline' Caught off Balance," November 30
1996; Page A19, The Washington Post.)
Hentoff writes: "Erin Hayes, Koppel's reporter that night,
made a point of saying that Ralph Underwager, a guest who testifies
for the defense, is paid well for each day in court. She neglected to
add that expert witnesses for the prosecution in these cases are also
paid well. I don't recall this kind of crudely prejudicial reporting
on "Nightline" before."
Koppel said the idea for the program was brought to him by
Civia Tamarkin, who has served on the advisory board of an
organization called Believe the Children. (This is the group that
never believes the children when they say they *haven't* been abused
or molested. Their tactics have been behind a number of false
accusation cases that eventually were overturned. These tactics
include leading and coercive interviews with children, duping them,
hounding them and even threatening them until they repeat back the
accusations that Believe The Children counselors want.)
Nevertheless, Tamarkin insisted to Koppel that she was
"neutral" on the issue of child testimony. A Believe The Children
board member, and she's neutral?
What's more, Koppel said, "We have found her to be a useful,
objective and reliable source."
Absolutely amazing. The woman is an activist with an agenda.
And Koppel finds her "objective and reliable."
As Hentoff wrote: "Tamarkin has indeed devoted a lot of
attention to child sex abuse, along with an abiding conviction of most
defendants' guilt. For instance, she has praised the prosecution in
the North Carolina Little Rascals day care case. Those prosecutors
were definitively discredited in a PBS "Frontline" documentary series
by Ofra Bikel. They were also reprimanded by the higher courts.
"For a long time, I interviewed prosecutors and defense
lawyers in the Little Rascals prosecutions and read trial transcripts.
It was clear that the child witnesses had been persistently
manipulated by therapists and prosecutors who had abandoned the very
idea of due process.
"Tamarkin also believes that the bizarrely unjust McMartin
day-care prosecution in California should have resulted in
convictions. The prosecutors there have also been utterly discredited.
To use Tamarkin as an expert on child sex abuses cases is like having
David Bonior shape an "objective" look at Newt Gingrich."
Okay, are we willing to admit there might be some bias in this
"Nightline" report?
"Nightline's" bias extended to their efforts to discredit
Cornell University psychiatrist Stephen Ceci, a respected authority
who has done experiments on the credibility of children's testimony.
Ceci told Hentoff that the interview "Nightline" conducted with him
was done in an unusually aggressive, confrontational and sometimes
hostile manner. "I felt I had been in a 10-round prizefight and lost."

"These people from 'Nightline,' " Ceci says, "had their agenda
going in, and they used what they chose from the interviews to support
that agenda. It was sad, because on this issue, both people's freedom
is at stake and also children's safety. This could have been a truly
balanced illuminating program."
"I was shocked," Helene Hembrooke, a postdoctoral researcher
at Cornell, told Hentoff after observing the interview. "We were sure
it would be a balanced piece. After all, it was 'Nightine,' it was Ted
Koppel."
We are not shocked.
After all, it's feminism.
==========

ENDING THE GOOD-OLD-BOYS CLUB
One of the claims you hear feminists make is that getting more
of their members into positions of power will clean up government.
So let's look at some women who got government jobs and a
really cleaning up.
There's Janet Reno. So what if she presided over the
mass-immolation of a cult in Waco, sniper attacks in Idaho, and a few
hysteria-driven prosecutions based on questionable child testimony?
Small stuff. Then she started committing some real offenses: she
extended the Whitewater investigations of independent counsel Kenneth
Starr.
President Clinton made it clear that he wasn't pleased. With
the same subtlety with which he refused to rule out pardons for his
Whitewater cronies, Clinton also was eloquently silent about saying
whether he would reappoint Reno during the president's second term.
The timing was notable. Critics of Clinton were seeking an
independent counsel to look into all the funny money floating into
Democrat campaigns chests -- some of it from non-citizens, and
thousands of it from people who had taken oaths of poverty!
Reno played right along. She said an independent counsel was
not needed because any offenses apparently were done by low-level
officials. (So Al Gore, holding the money bag at fundraisers, must be
a low level official.) And Reno said no one had found any tangible
evidence of wrongdoing. Apparently the woman in charge of the Justice
Department hasn't heard names like the Lippo Group or John Huang.
So Reno finally said that she'd only agree to a vague "task
force" that would look into the mess someday, and make some sort of
general report -- in the sweet by and by.
And Clinton gave her her job back.
This is how feminists put an end to the good-old-boy network.
They put a good old girl in there.
And speaking of good old girls, there's Deedee.
Deedee Corradini is the first woman mayor of Salt Lake City.
She's female. She's a Democrat. She's one step away from
sainthood, right?
Well, actually it looks to us like she's one step ahead of the
law.
Her troubles haven't gotten the national publicity of another
Utah woman, Enid "I don't know nothing" Waldholtz. But Corradini has
admitted to soliciting personal "gifts" from some of the most powerful
and influential people in the state -- including people who do
business with the city.
Corradini was trying to pay off debts from a failed business
venture. As mayor, she started taking in "gifts" from businesses that
lease space from the city, from union officials who have interests in
city labor contracts, from people who want public recognition, who
lease facilities from the city, or have other reasons for trying to
stay on the good side of the mayor.
In one case, she called a businessman on his car phone as he
was coming to bring her a $5,000 check. Her reason for calling: she
wanted him to up it to $6,000. When he got to her office, Mayor
Corradini was waiting at the curb for the money.
Now that's public service.
In these days of feminism, some things never change. Women
still expect a lot of nice gifts. Corradini insists, however, that all
the gifts are from friends -- even though she's not sure she knew all
these "friends" before she took over the powers of the mayor's office.
The city has a law that prohibits public officials from taking
anything worth more than $50 that "tends to influence" them in their
decision-making. One businessman who leases airport space with the
city gave Corradini and her husband $40,000 worth of stock.
For some reason, no charges have been brought against her.
She has exceeded the $50 limit somewhat.
She admits to taking more than $200,000 in "gifts."
Yes, it's true what feminists say: women in government
certainly will clean up.
(See "Salt Lake City Ponders Mayor's Acceptance of a Little
Help From 'Friends' " in the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1996, page A3.)
And while we're on the topic of feminism's own myths, let's
look at the myth that women are much more peaceful than men. True,
women are on average shorter and less strong than men. For some
reason, the fact that they're more likely to lose a fair fight with a
man has somehow earned women the reputation of being more peaceful. In
fact, women just take out their aggression on the ones who are smaller
than them -- namely, children. What would be called "domestic
violence" when done by a man is called "discipline" when done by a
woman.
While smaller women might be more reluctant to risk
*committing* violence, they are perfectly capable of *ordering*
violence. Give women leaders an army of men, and they will bring about
invasions, plundering, colonialism and nationalism just as well as any
man. They truly are equal.
Which brings us to Madeleine Albright, who used to be the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations.
Colin Powell had to deal with Ms. Albright when he was
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now, he was the professional
soldier, and she was the civilian. But he says he nearly had "an
aneurysm" when hearing Albright's warlike policies. She once said to
him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always
talking about if we can't use it?"
Not to worry. Albright is no longer our U.N. ambassador.
No sir. Now she's our secretary of state.
Bill Clinton must have listened to all the rhetoric about how
women in government will be oh so much more peaceful.
Sleep well.

==========
ANOTHER STORY YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED
Here at Per's MANifesto, we take pride in bringing you stories
that just *somehow* slip past the national news media. Stories that
would have been a big thing -- if the accused has been a man.
And especially if the accused had been a sports figure.
For instance, consider the different attention paid to Michael
Irvin and Ryan Thompson.
Irvin, the Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, was accused by a
woman who said that he and another man raped her, threatened to kill
her, and videotaped the attack. The police talked to the press about
the accusations before they even moved to arrest anybody. The news
media flashed the story on page one.
And then the woman's ex-husband said she had a history of
making similar false accusations.
Irvin has every right to be mad. Yes, he has been convicted of
cocaine possession. But that's a separate story. Since when does a
police department start holding press conferences before any charges
have been filed?
Irvin has every right to be mad. Yes, he has previously been convicted
of cocaine possession. But that's a separate story. Since when does a
police department start holding press conferences before any charges
have been filed?
The false accuser -- a stripper named Nina Shahravan, 23 -- is
going to be charged with filing a false police report. That's a good
start. But the penalty for false accusation is still laughably
trivial. The absolute maximum Shahravan person can face is six months
in jail and a $2,000 fine. Watch her plea-bargain that down, then cash
in on her new notoriety. And the ludicrous part of this is that the
charge is filing a false police report, a misdemeanor.
When she accused Irvin, it was a front-page story. When her
story was shown to be false, it wasn't played up quite as much. And
now here's a story the papers didn't play up at all.
Cleveland Indian outfielder Ryan Thompson was stalked by his
estranged wife. As he was in his car during a Thanksgiving visit with
family in Maryland, Melody Blackstone-Thompson allegedly found him and
rammed her car into his.
After her car ran off the road, Thompson drove off an notified
police. Blackstone-Thompson was charged with second-degree assault and
released on personal recognizance.
No word on whether she had been coming from a viewing of "The
First Wives Club."
==========

FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE BAD BECAUSE ...
The brief last issue of Per's MANifesto forwarded to you a
Washington Post article on companies overreacting to sexual harassment
accusations. "In Combating Sexual Harassment, Companies Sometimes
Overreact," By Kirstin Downey Grimsley, Monday, December 23 1996; Page
A01.)
This article was part of a series on sexual harassment at
work. (It was the *last* segment of the series.)
While the Post should be commended just for admitting that
false or exaggerated complaints are made, there is still work to be
done.
For one thing, the concept of false or exaggerated accusations
was dealt with in a separate article. These issues should be part of
the *main* coverage whenever sexual harassment accusations are raised.
Accusations that are false or motivated by personal animosity or
dishonesty are a part of the entire issue. No coverage of sexual
harassment is complete without considering that some accusations are
false. Unfortunately, the news media often seem bent on presenting
incomplete coverage.
Any article that treats all accusations as true is a biased
article.
Speaking of bias, some of it did creep into this Post article,
particularly in the way it was worded. It said "Many accused harassers
take to the courts to try to avenge themselves ..." Why are these
people described as trying to "avenge themselves"? It makes them
sound like bloodthirsty avengers, rather than people who have been
wronged.
Then there was this strikingly bizarre statement by a feminist
lawyer. "There's a dichotomy in our economy," said employment attorney
Rita Risser, a principal in Fair Measures, a workplace training and
advisory firm in Santa Cruz, Calif. "Some organizations will tolerate
gross harassment -- rape, stalking, attempted murder -- and won't do
anything, but other organizations will fire someone for doing
something minor ..."
This is a feminist with a law degree, working to enforce
sexual harassment laws -- and she seems to think there are companies
that tolerate " rape, stalking, attempted murder."
We particularly enjoyed the reply that Michael S. posted to
this: "Oh, yeah, it's really awful about all those organizations that
tolerate rape and attempted murder. I hate them. Lets see,
there's... Um, no. Well, what about... Er... Well, there's prisons.
But the victims there are men, so that doesn't count."
Well said.
And we've just got to reprint that stunning example of
feminist logic that closed the article. It quoted Susan Webb,
"president of Seattle-based Pacific Resource Development Group, a
pioneer in the field of sexual harassment prevention training and an
expert witness on the topic for the past decade."
"If you under-react and punish people too lightly, it shows
you don't care," she said. "If you overreact, a lot of women will be
impacted, too."
So if you under-react, it's bad because it hurts women. And if
you overreact and fire a man on little or no grounds, it is also bad
-- because it hurts women!
Thanks for that lesson in equality.
==========

COSMOWATCH
Cosmopolitan is a leading women's magazine. Its articles and
attitudes run counter to feminist claims that women are oppressed by
"the beauty trap," that women are less lustful, unfaithful and
materialistic than men, that women are just somehow nicer. Cosmo far
outsells Ms. Magazine. And the "Cosmo girl" knows darn well she can
get what she wants by selling her sexuality or playing hardball at the
office. So what attitudes are women buying when they pick up Cosmo?
Here's some items from the January, 1997, issue:
-- A list (page 124) about "What's Sexy in a Man." Some of the
things that are sexy: "Cash in his wallet, preferably in big bills (we
can't believe we're saying this, but money *is* a turn-on)" "Big
shoulders and a muscular chest," "Power (even if he's ugly)," "Flat
tummy," "Leg muscles and a small, tight butt."
-- An ad that shows an expensive Oneida fork that was
destroyed in a garbage disposal. The ad says "Replacing it is almost
as easy as blaming someone else."
-- On page 168 is a pandering propaganda piece, written by a
man and titled "How Different Are Men and Women?" This fellow's point
can be summed up thusly:
A) There are no differences between men and women, and
B) The differences, which don't exist, don't count anyway.
It's pretty obvious that Mr. Scheer was out to sell an article
to Cosmo and wasn't about to stop at groveling. He says: "Recently, we
celebrated only the second female to become a Fortune 500 CEO --
merely 498 to go!"
As they say today, "You go, Robert."
Mr. Scheer maintains that "Men and women are exactly the same
in every modernly relevant respect except one -- the mechanics of
procreation and all that this immutable biological distinction
portends for daily behavior. All else is sufficiently the same between
the genders as to render efforts to focus on the differences largely a
waste of time."
So Mr. Scheer is one of those obedient fellows who will cheer
for women replacing *all* men as Fortune 500 CEOs, and still claim he
is interested in equality. And this is a familiar sort of equality, in
which all fault for women's behavior can be placed on *men.* Hence his
assertion that "The occupational barriers between men and women turn
out to be far more a matter of prejudice than of reason." It's all
men's fault, you see. Never mind that women overwhelmingly seek out
safe jobs. So any difference in pay and accomplishment has to be
traced back to men -- even if it stems from the behavior of women.
Mr. Scheer is quite eager to dismiss as irrelevant any
evidence that doesn't support his theory on the innate sameness of men
and women: "I have abandoned the attempt to read meaning into the
flimsy neurological evidence available as to gender differences," he
writes. "Why am I supposed to be excited over the news that men are
better at orienting three-dimensional objects in space?"
Frankly, Robert, we don't gave if you get excited. In fact,
we'd prefer that you didn't.
But if you hadn't "abandoned" the pursuit of knowledge and
insight, you might be forced to admit that a greater ability to orient
three-dimensional objects in space is just the sort of skill you need
to build a house, be a draftsman, shoot and arrow, design an engine,
wire a home, or lay out the course of a road or a canal. In other
words, some of the "occupational barriers" you so glibly dismiss as "a
matter of prejudice" are actually rooted in real abilities -- with
real differences between the sexes.
Robert goes on: "The scientific evidence on sexual differences
is actually quite paltry," he claims, "and represents the triumph of
machinery over common sense. Suddenly we had the ability to do MRI
scans of the human brain and discovered that women, when processing
language, tend to use both sides of the brain while men use only one.
What significance this has is anyone's guess," he says dismissively.
What significance, Robert? You acknowledge there is a
fundamental, brain-level difference in the processing of language and
can't see how that might affect how people think? Or how they write
novels? "There is also the testosterone that exists in men's brains in
larger quantities," Robert gushes on the way to dismissing reality
once again. "But what exactly the hormone does there is more the
source of giggles than of serious thought."
Mr. Scheer, try trading in your giggles for some serious
thought.
He also notes that men have "a larger frontal lobe, which is
said to be crucial to reasoning." How to dismiss this one? Robert
tells us that the size difference goes away after age 50. Which is a
round-about way of admitting that it exists for roughly the initial
three-fourths of a man's life.
It is very odd that Mr. Scheer is so determined to insist
there are no differences between men and women when he keeps citing so
many of them: the finer motor skills of girls, differences in
navigating and using maps, differences in reflexes, hormones, brain
size, and so on.
But he can see hope for us. He says the differences between
men and women will "start fading any millennium now as manifestations
of masculinity and femininity continue to blur into one androgynous
sex. Perhaps we'll even become hermaphroditic."
Um, Robert *after you.*
We hope that letting you go first is not considered sexist.

=============================
=============================
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
Subscribing:
If you would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message
"subscribe MANifesto" to per2@mail.idt.net. You also can send your
comments, questions, suggestions, and castration threats to this
address.
What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of subscribers
every month -- perhaps because some server between here and there is
on the fritz at the time, or possibly because your mailbox is full. If
you don't think you received the latest issue, please e-mail us again
saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
You can find MANifesto on the Usenet each month in the
following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1996 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.)
=============================