Per's MANifesto July 1997

Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
July, 1997.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of news that is both tragic and
encouraging. Sometimes it involves clear victories for real people.
Other times it involves, at most, a bit of hope that truth might win
in the end. Throughout this issue run the themes of false accusations,
anti-male propaganda, even the so-called "recovered memory therapy."
So we'll call this issue PATENTLY FALSE. And we deliver this issue to
you with a firm belief that the tide is turning against false
accusations and man-bashing propaganda.

NOTE: There's been a small change in the MANifesto web page address
that hopefully will make the page load faster. It now is
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm (The only difference is that the old
URL had "shell." after the http://) Both the old and the new URL still
call the page up.

INDEX:
I. DID FALSE ACCUSATIONS KILL MICHAEL DORRIS?
II. DAD-BASHING IN 'NON SEQUITUR' COMIC STRIP
III. JUSTICE IN THE "SEINFELD" CASE
IV. ONE-YEAR SENTENCE FOR FALSE ACCUSATION
V. THE GEORGE FRANKLIN CASE
VI. WHAT TO DO ABOUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS?
VII. LADY THUGS
VIII. THE BIGOTRY OF MODERATE FEMINISTS
IX. HERE'S TO A COUPLE OF GUYS
==========

DID FALSE ACCUSATIONS KILL MICHAEL DORRIS?
Novelist Michael Dorris was perhaps best known for his
groundbreaking work on fetal alcohol syndrome -- informing the world
about the damages done to a child when mothers drink while pregnant.
Dorris learned of this tragic condition when he adopted Abel,
a 3-year-old Sioux boy neglected by his alcoholic mother. (It was 1971
and Dorris was one of the first single men to be allowed to adopt a
child. Jimmy Smits later played Dorris in a TV movie based on Abel's
troubles.)
The mother's drinking had caused Abel to suffer permanent
brain damage -- including severe learning and behavioral disabilities
that Michael Dorris wrote about in "The Broken Cord." In time, he
adopted two more Indian children, Sava and Madeline. But sadly, he
realized that they also suffered from the affects of prenatal
drinking.
Dorris struggled to raise these troubled children, and
eventually married aspiring writer Louise Erdrich and had daughters of
his own with her.
But on April 10, 1997, Dorris killed himself, taking a
combination of sleeping pills and vodka, and then placing a plastic
bag over his head, dying of asphyxiation. Shortly afterward, the
newspapers began to report that he had been under investigation for
child sexual abuse. Remarkably, his wife had no comment about the
charges and did not seem very upset by his death. She acknowledged
that she was in the process of divorcing him.
Then his adopted daughter Madeline sued his estate, claiming
sexual abuse since she was a child.
New York magazine had done a scathing story on Dorris that
claimed there was evidence of "very, very serious physical and sexual
abuse" of two of the daughters he had with Erdrich, and that Dorris
fondled and physically abused his adopted son Sava. And then there's
Erdrich's remarkable silence as these tales are being spread about her
late husband.
For most people, it was enough. It seems to make sense -- a
pervert is caught abusing his children and kills himself. Why would he
kill himself if he's innocent?
Few people even wanted to show up for his memorial, which took
place in a nearly deserted room.
Michael Dorris deserves better than that. He told the nation
about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy and made inroads for
single dads.
And there is disturbing evidence that the accusations against
Dorris were false, tragically false.
The New York magazine article is riddled with errors big and
small -- "a mountain of misinformation," as the Washington Post put
it. There also were indications of a possible child custody dispute in
the offing. And the therapist who reported suspicions of child abuse
was also behind a major witch hunt over child abuse allegation in
which all the charges were eventually dropped. Most telling of all,
many of the charges result from so-called "recovered memories."
The accusations against Dorris began at a time when he was
sinking lower into despair and drink because his wife was leaving him,
a time when he was less and less able to defend himself. His wife then
brought in therapist Sandra Hewitt of St. Paul to talk to the
children. Afterward, she contacted Hennepin County authorities to say
she suspected Dorris of abusing the children.
It's not the first set of accusations she's been involved in.
Fourteen years earlier, in Jordan, Minnesota, she was involved in an
investigation of two supposed "sex rings." The investigation led to
dozens of parents being accused of abusing a hundred children. Some of
the children were removed from their homes.
But the case collapsed when the original accuser admitted that
he lied about the "sex rings." And parents and other psychologists
noticed a familiar pattern in these massive allegations. They said
that therapists and investigators brainwashed and coerced the children
into making accusations. It's a pattern familiar to false-accusation
cases from the McMartin Preschool to Wenatchee, Washington and beyond.
In the Jordan, Minnesota case, the charges were dropped and
children returned to their homes. This is one case where mistakes can
be rectified.
But Michael Dorris is dead. We can't bring him back. But we
can ask, did he deserve this?
One thing interesting about the involvement of the therapist
Hewitt with the Dorris-Erdrich family. Erdrich claims that, as a
therapist, Hewitt "works to reconcile [abusers] with their family
members. If she has an agenda, it's to restore relationships."
But after Hewitt got involved, Michael Dorris never saw the
three girls again.
And after she got involved, investigators sough Dorris' two
surviving adopted children, Sava and Madeline Dorris, who accused
Dorris of physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
Bingo. It looked like investigators had him nailed.
Sure it does. If you only look on the surface.
But these were two children he had adopted -- children who
still suffered the affects of a lesser form of fetal alcohol syndrome
from their mothers drinking while pregnant. As the Washington Post
notes, "It's not clear whether the investigators ever understood the
degree of enmity between these children and their father -- or the
children's historical instability and unreliability." Erdrich had
examined her diary for the last four years, and confirmed a
distressing pathology: "It turned out that as a family we hadn't had a
single period longer than three consecutive days in all that time when
one of our alcohol-impaired children was not in a crisis -- health,
home, school -- that demanded our undivided attention." These included
arrests, suicide attempts, violent behavior, expulsion from schools
and "inappropriate sexual contact." Amid all the chaos and
frustration, Michael Dorris at times hit his children.
These children, deeply troubled, deeply resentful, deeply
angry, lashed out at Michael Dorris, giving authorities what they were
looking for -- accusations of child abuse.
But what motive could they have unless it was true?
Consider Sava Dorris, one of the accusers. He was once jailed
on a charge of assaulting his girlfriend and wrote to his parents:
"The strange fact of it all is, is that I enjoyed doing it. . . . I
have gone crazy."
He demanded money from his parents, who feared him. Michael
Dorris pressed extortion charges, which resulted in two hung juries.
In his defense during these trials, Sava Dorris never brought
up the accusations of sexual abuse against his father he later made.
It's an odd omission.
Then, later, investigators show up and ask Sava Dorris about
abuse accusations that were launched with Hewitt's investigation. Now
Sava is suddenly confirming their suspicions. If Sava had resentments,
they had given him a perfect forum for getting even.
And as for Madeline Dorris' accusations, there is an easier
explanation: so-called "recovered memories." Madeline Dorris is suing
Erdrich and the Dorris estate, which is reputed to be worth more than
$2 million. The basis for this suit: she claims Michael Dorris
sexually abused her regularly, from the time she was five years old
-- and that she absolutely forgot about it. But now she has remembered
because she recovered the suppressed memories.
If you know anything about "recovered memory therapy," you
know it is quackery that allowed many therapists to drain millions in
insurance money to pay for therapy that's never been proven to be
valid. Moreover, "recovered memory therapy" involves many of the
techniques that allow people to recover memories of being abducted by
spaceships, or of living past lives. In other words, the process helps
create false memories. And false memories lead to false accusations.
Madeline Dorris says she recovered these memories six years
ago but she didn't tell anyone until now because she was afraid of her
father. Right. She didn't mention this while he was alive and had a
chance to reply. She told no one of a life history of abuse until she
decided so go after the money in the estate.
Michael Dorris' suicide is not as clearcut as it would seem at
first glance. It's always easy and tempting to believe the
accusations, to believe the simple explanations -- he killed himself
because he was guilty. But there has been a lot of misinformation (the
New York magazine article) and a lot of suspicious accusations. And
there are unanswered questions -- including whether over-eager
prosecutors and activist "therapists" are so bent on getting
accusations that they aren't careful enough in how they get them. This
investigation was, after all, launched by Sandra Hewitt, who was
involved in a case that resulted in hundreds of accusations of abuse
that all were eventually dropped.
And the investigation is notable for what it did not involve
-- interviewing a witness who had close personal knowledge of the
Dorris household. Sandi Campbell, the couple's secretary for six
years, said she would have testified to a lack of tension between
Dorris and his three birth daughters -- the daughters that Hewitt
first focused on when she made her first report of suspected abuse.
"Campbell says she would have been happy to tell this to the child
abuse investigators. She would have said that she never saw Dorris
drunk or violent. She would have described him as an involved, loving
father. But she was never questioned. She cannot understand it. 'How
can you do a complete investigation on a man and not talk to the
person who was in his house every day?' she asks."
We can understand it. Many of these activists don't look for
evidence of innocence -- even when it's readily available. For
example, there were disputes about where the family wanted to live,
and the three daughters wanted to move with Michael Dorris to New
Hampshire. There was even talk of a custody dispute over this. And
Erdrich at one point moved out of the house for a year. Does any of
this suggest the actions of girls who are being sexually abused or a
wife who suspected that her husband was abusing his daughters? Would a
mother move out and stay away if she thought this was happening?
We've heard some feminists who say that false accusations are
constructive and instructive. They help sensitize men to women's
feelings.
We say that *nothing* justifies a false accusation -- and any
feminist who thinks a false accusation is a positive thing is being
astoundingly, even ghoulishly, selfish. If they can feel even
marginally safer, they don't care how many innocent men are ruined.
They can't see -- or don't want to see -- the human carnage of false
accusations.
But if we want to get sensitized to people's feelings, let's
try to understand what Michael Dorris was going through at the end of
his life. He adopted children who turned out to have heart-breaking
troubles and behavioral problems. He struggled to make a life for them
and his family, and found that his family was just another casualty in
the breakup of families everywhere. He had struggled to be a good
father and had made mistakes along the way. Now children who were
unstable were turning on him, resenting him, making accusations. And
his wife was leaving him.
It is a profoundly anti-male outlook to assume that men aren't
emotionally devastated in situations like this -- to assume that
suicide was merely a way of escaping a jail sentence, rather than an
act of despair at losing the people closest to him.
Dorris once wrote: "Once we love, we are permanently in that
love's thrall, caught in its wake, a part of its flow." That's not the
writings of a "control freak." That's the words of a man dependent on
love. "He was addicted to Louise," says a friend, Ruth Coughlin; "It
was an obsession."
In his novel "Cloud Chamber," Michael Dorris wrote of a
husband who learns that his wife has stopped loving him. "I despised
his pliant love," she says, "spread it upon my breakfast toast and
devoured it as he watched." But sometimes, she smiled at him and made
promises, and "he was mine once more, settling for less and less . . .
. I taught my husband to beg, and I despised him for his weakness."
The husband in the novel thinks: "Death struck me as the most
convenient solution . . . My life for some reason was an affront to
her, an insult. My death would be an appropriate apology."
Dorris talked to Campbell by phone late one night: "I come
back to the hotel and realize I don't have my wife, I don't have my
girls, I don't have anything. How can my professional life be so
perfect and my personal life a disaster?"
And when he learned of the accusations against him by his
adopted children Madeline and Sava, he emailed to a friend: "Louise
has clearly done everything she could to impugn me and intends that I
have no contact with my children -- for years. Those are the facts. My
only possibility for a life is to win a vicious trial -- by
demolishing my wife and children. It is worse than I imagined."
He attempted suicide a few hours after writing that. A friend
happened to call and figured out something was wrong, and alerted the
police. This time the suicide attempt was unsuccessful.
Two weeks later, he succeeded in killing himself.
He had run out of hope, he came to believe he would never get
his family back. Those who harbor prejudices against men will always
refuse to look at the pain many men go through when their marriages
and families dissolve. They will continue to treat men as paychecks or
label them as deadbeats, heaping whatever harsh treatment they want on
them. And when someone like Michael Dorris kills himself, they will
figure it's his fault.
Some of those men snap. Some turn violent. Some, like Michael
Dorris, turn the violence against themselves. And when they do,
society often seems blind to the emotional price that men have paid.
For Michael Dorris, hope seemed to come and go. He called a
friend in 1996 saying he had returned home and found flowers on his
bedroom pillow, plus chocolates and his favorite aftershave, gift
wrapped and signed "Love, Louise." He thought she was coming back to
him. Then, he says, he looked under the pillow and found the divorce
papers.
Erdrich says that's "an absolute fabrication."
Michael Dorris met Louise Erdrich at Dartmouth College in
1972, when he was an instructor and she was one of his students.
Established man, aspiring woman. He took interest in her and obviously
helped and encouraged her literary career. But by the time she was
moving to divorce him, her career was well established. About her
decision to leave him: "There's no explanation for why you stop
feeling what you're feeling," she explains.
And now she has her literary career ahead of her -- a career
he nurtured and helped launch. And Louise Erdrich is oddly silent when
it comes to contradicting the accusations against a man who deserved
better than this.

(Source: "SAD STORY: Novelist Michael Dorris couldn't have come up
with a more compelling plot. A famous writer is accused of child
abuse. Kills himself. Then comes the final twist . . ." By David
Streitfeld, The Washington Post, Sunday, July 13, 1997; Page F01)

==========
DAD-BASHING IN 'NON SEQUITUR' COMIC STRIP
Perhaps Michael Dorris died of a broken heart -- losing his
family after a heroic effort to raise children harmed by fetal alcohol
syndrome. But there are still plenty of people who think that bashing
fathers is wise and funny.
And apparently it's even funnier if you do it on Father's Day
-- no matter what pain you might cause.
So add the "Non Sequitur" comic strip by Wiley Miller to the
list of dad-bashers.
Last Fathers Day, Mr. Miller ran a cartoon showing a disc
jockey musing about the day. He says "It's also a day for Dads to
pause and reflect on what it mean to be a father in the nineties."
(pause) "Which should create a diversion long enough for you moms to
track them down and collect the arrears in child support."
Mr. Miller apparently thinks that "father" is synonymous with
"deadbeat." He also seems to enjoy the idea of rubbing the wounds on a
day dedicated to fathers.
In email exchanges, Mr. Miller has tried to defend this
cartoon as "satire." But it's not clear what he supposedly is
satirizing. He's certainly not satirizing anti-father sentiments --
he's engaging in them.
Specifically, he wrote: "Apparently [you fail to] grasp the
nuance of satire. One shouldn't read ANY cartoon literally. It is an
abstract. The cartoon was about deadbeat dads. To say it portrayed all
fathers is moronic, at best. I have done cartoons critical of white
supremacists. Does that mean all white people are bigots? Of course
not. So if you're not a deadbeat, then the cartoon didn't apply to
you, and you should be in full support of it, as it is the deadbeats
who are giving men a bad image. If you are a deadbeat, then do us all
a favor and take yourself out of the gene pool."
We wonder what white supremacists Mr. Miller has criticized.
Are they the ones who advocate eugenics -- taking people out of the
gene pool? The unacceptable group-smear is readily apparent if Miler
had said: "It's time for white people to pause and reflect -- which
should give us time to catch you lynching people." The cartoon does
not aim at just deadbeats. It brings up all fathers, and then reacts
as if they are all deadbeats.
Miller's dad-bashing cartoon is not satire. It is pandering to
political correctness. Great satirists often stand at odds to popular
opinion. They do not have to pander to popular prejudice. They do not
have to pretend there's a "nuance" to bashing groups of people. "Non
Sequitur" is a readily forgettable piece of cultural detritus, one of
those cartoons that feeds on the bottom, sucking up to popular
prejudice in hopes that someone will remember it.
We remember it. We hope you will, too.
If you wish to write to Mr. Miller to object to dad-bashing,
he prints his email address on each comic strip: wileytoon@aol.com. If
you do write him, please, no flames, no abuse. We urge you to drop him
a quick note stating that dad-bashing is not funny. Take a moment and
do it now. These hacks will churn out as much safe, trite dad-bashing
and man-bashing material as they can until someone tells them that
it's not getting them anywhere.
==========

JUSTICE IN THE "SEINFELD" CASE
We told you in the June issue of MANifesto,
http://idt.net/~per2/0697mani.htm, about the lawsuit being brought by
a man who was fired for discussing an episode of "Seinfeld" at work.
Well, terrific news! He won his lawsuit, and perhaps the tide is
turning against trumped-up accusations of "sexual harassment."
Jerold Mackenzie used to work for Miller Brewing Co., a
sponsor of the "Seinfeld" show. One racy episode had the office abuzz
-- the fact that the show centered on the fact that a woman's name
rhymed with "clitoris." Mackenzie discussed the show with a co-worker,
pointing out the word on a page copied from a dictionary. The woman,
Patricia Best, went to several managers complaining that the incident
made her "uncomfortable," and Mackenzie was fired. This despite the
fact that Mackenzie had dropped the matter instantly when she
indicated she wasn't interested in pursuing the conversation.
The company claimed he was fired as the "last straw" after
another accusation was made against him -- four years ago! But
Mackenzie notes that Patricia Best herself had on several occasions
used gutter language to describe male body parts. Then *she* got *him*
fired for pointing out a dictionary word in relation to a topic being
discussed at the office.
Mackenzie sued, and the jury awarded him $26.6 million. Of
that, $18 million was for punitive damages -- to tell the company (and
anyone else thinking of doing the same thing) that this was wrong and
deserving of punishment.
Maybe this will send a message to the corporate world: You
cannot fire men simply because you're afraid of feminists. The jurors
felt that Mackenzie's superiors were merely using the accusation as a
pretext to get rid of him. The jurors agreed that you cannot fire
someone on a trumped-up harassment charge.
Marquette law professor John J. Kirchner said: "The problem is
when the employer uses (sexual harassment accusations) as a subterfuge
for their own agenda, which the jury apparently believed."
"It makes a little more sense that the jury, particularly a
jury with that many women on it, is going to see through the sexual
harassment part," Kirchner said.
One encouraging part of this judgment is that Ms. Best also
was ordered to pay $1.5 million to Mr. Mackenzie.
But we've already seen some feminist columnists who object.
They are trying to portray her as an innocent bystander and claim that
the judgment against her will scare other women away from filing
legitimate complaints. Neither claim stands up. The feminists are not
giving you all the information in this case, which is why you need
sources like Per's MANifesto to tell you what the feminists don't want
you to know.
First off, there was the question of whether Ms. Best was
playing office politics when she made the accusation. And what the
feminists won't tell you is that Ms. Best was known to use vulgar
language for male body parts. And then she claims she was harassed by
a reference to "clitoris!" Come on, are we expected to believe that?
When feminists start painting Ms. Best as a sheltered little victim,
why don't they give you the full story about Ms. Best's
gutter-language references to male anatomy?
Regardless of Ms. Best's motives, if any harassment complaint
is trumped up with the ulterior motive of destroying a rival, then the
accuser should be held liable for damages that result. Mackenzie
suffered real, genuine, severe damage from this accusation -- he lost
his job and was unable to find work because of the cloud hanging over
his head. If the motive was to destroy a rival by making a false or
exaggerate claim, a person should be held liable for her conduct. The
jurors agreed Ms. Best should be -- to the tune of $1.5 million. They
must have felt she was not an innocent bystander in all this. We tend
to trust the jurors with all the facts in front of them rather than
feminists who are telling you only half the truth.
And remember, there were ten women on this jury. Most women
don't think the way that feminists would order them to -- they're more
rational. They felt that Ms. Best was at fault.
As for this award silencing women with legitimate complaints,
that's bunk. Ms. Best was not punished for making a legitimate
complaint. She was found at fault for making a frivolous complaint.
Are feminists saying that men should have no protection against any
bogus complaints? Perhaps feminists would like a license to make any
accusation that destroys any man, without fear of ever being held
accountable for whether it's true or false. If their motive is not to
hurt and destroy as many men as possible, why should feminists object
to holding people responsible for bogus and malicious accusations?
Take, for instance, Deborah Lukovich, president of the
Wisconsin National Organization for Women. She said, "We're missing
the message that that sort of discussion in the workplace is wrong."
No, she's missing the fact that Ms. Best used worse language than Mr.
Mackenzie, and did so with impunity. If this sort of discussion in the
workplace is wrong, why aren't the rules applied to women like Ms.
Best? And if NOW thinks it's wrong, why doesn't it insist that women
also be punished for the same conduct? Apparently, this NOW
apparatchik thinks it's wrong only if men do it and fine if women do
it. That *is* the essence of feminism on a host of issues from
discrimination to stereotyping to domestic violence.
==========

ONE-YEAR SENTENCE FOR FALSE ACCUSATION
The shameful firing of Mr. Mackenzie reminds us of another
recent case. Larry Ellison, chief executive officer of the software
company Oracle Corp., had been falsely accused of harassment by a
female employee. Adelyn Lee was about to be fired as an executive
assistant at Oracle in April of 1993. So she made up a story that she
was being terminated because she refused to have sex with Ellison.
Ms. Lee used her boss's old password to break into the company's email
system the morning after she was fired as an at Oracle in April 1993.
She then forged an email note to try to bolster her false accusation.
In fact, the forged email even helped her win an out-of-court
settlement netting her a nifty $100,000. After all, why take
responsibility for your own shortcomings when smearing a man is so
much more profitable?
But Ms. Lee did not get away with it. Further investigation
turned up her trickery. A jury of eight women and four men convicted
Ms. Lee of perjury, falsifying evidence and breaking into a computer
network.
In May, Ms. Lee was sentenced to a year in jail. (You can read
more about the case by searching the archives of the San Francisco
Chronicle at http://www.sfgate.com/search/)
If there is a down side here, it's that the man who was able
to clear his name is one of the wealthiest businessmen in the country
-- not some low-level male who could be sacrificed by a company
fearing the bad publicity that feminists can inflict. He could afford
the legal expenses of defending himself. In the past, false accusers
got all the resources of the government behind them as the government
became their "hit men." The false accuser didn't have to lay out any
money -- just make a false accusation and launch an attack funded by
the government. Making a false accusation is free -- or it used to be.
But the tide is turning, and false accusations are no longer just
another prerogative of being a feminist.
==========

THE GEORGE FRANKLIN CASE
"Recovered memories" played a part in the accusations against
Michael Dorris that plunged him into suicidal despair. So it's good
news that the quackery known as "recovered memory therapy" is being
increasingly exposed and discredited.
"Recovered memory therapy" is strongly supported by such
feminists as Gloria Steinem and Gloria Allred. They really believe
that a girl could be raped every week from the cradle to college and
just not remember it. They believe that you can subject women to
drugs, hypnosis, and suggestive and leading questions, and the images
that pop up will be "memories." It's not hard to figure out why so
many influential feminists support "recovered memory therapy." It
creates a bottomless well of accusations that can be made against men.
These accusations are limitless because they don't have to be based on
reality or physical evidence. They can be plucked out of thin air
using the same techniques used by people who "channel" ancient
warriors.
The strong faith of so many feminists in "recovered memories"
is a sign of their willingness to believe the worst accusations
against men -- even when those accusations are supported by not one
bit of proof. Feminism's support for "recovered memory therapy" is an
act of anti-male bigotry. It is a shameful act for a movement that
claims to oppose such bigotry.
But now the pivotal case that helped launch the recovered
memory witch hunt has been reversed.
George Franklin, the first person convicted based on
"recovered memories," spent six and a half years in prison on a murder
conviction. The sole evidence against him was the testimony of his
daughter, Eileen Franklin Lipsker. She testified that one day she
looked into her own daughter's eyes and suddenly remembered witnessing
her father murder a little girl in 1969. There was a little girl who
was killed at the time.
Testifying for Eileen Lipsker was the psychologist Lenore
Terr. Terr was busy honing many of the theories of recovered memory
that would lead to more prosecutions, more accusations, more families
destroyed, more people sent to jail. The George Franklin case was the
turning point -- the one that established a precedent for allowing
recovered memories in the courtroom, the case that resulted in the
first conviction. The case even became a made-for-TV movie, one of the
prime venues for spreading the latest psychobabble and anti-male
propaganda.
But Franklin's conviction was overturned amid overwhelming
evidence that Eileen Lipsker lied about how she "recovered" her
memories. In particular, she lied about the fact that hypnosis was
used, and sought to have others support her lie. Also, many of the
details that Eileen Lipsker supplied about the murder scene had been
printed in the papers. What's interesting is that her "memories"
contained the same errors as the papers did. However, the judge did
not let the defense note that Lipsker could have been basing her
accusations on newspapers accounts rather than memory.
There were many other mistakes in this trial. The jurors were
told that Franklin had "confessed" to the crime. How? By remaining
silent one time in the jailhouse when his daughter accused him.
Franklin's conviction was overturned on appeal in 1995 by U.S.
District Judge D. Lowell Jensen. Then prosecutors decided against a
retrial because Eileen Lipsker had become such a discredited witness.
She finally accused her father of committing another murder, but this
time union records show that he was in a meeting at the time of the
slaying.
Now George Franklin is suing his daughter, her psychologists
and prosecutors. He says he wants only $1 from his daughter but is
seeking unspecified damages against county prosecutors and witnesses.
They "trampled on my rights and the truth," he says. "Because
I was prosecuted for a crime that I did not commit, I lost all of
my life savings and spent more than 6 1/2 years in prison."
Franklin's attorney says the suit could be settled if
authorities would just admit that Franklin is innocent.
We think George Franklin is entitled to every penny he can
collect. The accusations and the trial were a farce. His lawsuit sends
a warning to anyone making false accusations based on "recovered
memories." Perhaps the abuse will stop when the recovered memory
forces realize they can't just destroy innocent lives at will. They
are being held accountable.
More and more, we are seeing false accusers held responsible.
They should be. False accusations kill. They ruin people. They tear
families apart, leaving bitter, isolated strangers. They destroy
careers. It's time to tell false accusers that we're revoking their
license to destroy.
==========

WHAT TO DO ABOUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS?
Here is a notice recently posted on the Usenet concerning a
group that helps people defend themselves against false accusations.
It is reprinted here without comment or endorsement, for your
information:

F.R.O.N.T.(Family Rights Organizations National Taskforce)
will convene for its 1st annual conference in Philadelphia August
22-24 at the Airport Hilton. Interested parents and professionals will
learn from top national experts such as Ralph Underwager, Ph.D.,
Robert Fay, M.D., Charles Jamieson, Esq, Pamela Freyd, Ph.D., etc. The
bulk of the seminars will focus on defense strategies for those
wrongly accused of sexual abuse.
There will be further discussions on Megans Law, false memory
syndrome and taint hearings. 12 CLE credits for legal practitioners
have been approved by the PA. State Bar Assn. and the PA. Supreme
Court.
Those who want more information, e.g. written information,
please e-mail me privately. I hope to see you there! Dean Tong
Board Of Directors, FRONT, V-P, DeanTong@aol.com.
http://www.emrkt.com/books/dbmd.html
==========

LADY THUGS
Albert Yeager Jr., 41, a Jeffersonville, Indiana, pizza delivery
man, suffered a pierced spleen and a broken rib when he was attacked
with butcher knives.
Two teenage girls were arrested and charged with the attack.
Then police found laminated cards that said "Lady Thugs Inc." and
listed the nicknames of five girls.
"By definition, it just takes five people to be considered a
gang, and if three of those five commit an illegal act, it is gang
activity," said Jeffersonville Detective Charlie Thompson. Police have
questioned a third girl, 17-year-old Kenicia Carter.
The cards list the nicknames of 15-year-old Shayla Shackleford
and 14-year-old Davonna McDonald. Both are charged with attempted
murder, conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, and criminal gang
activity.
The girls insist they aren't a gang, just friends who hang out
together. But other students tell of being threatened and harassed by
the girls.
"We went to the police and filed a complaint, but nothing was ever
done," Dustin Patterson said. "They just kept telling me to call
back. Maybe if they had done something then there wouldn't even be a
pizza guy."
==========

THE BIGOTRY OF MODERATE FEMINISTS
We don't blame those feminists who to call themselves
"moderate" for trying to distance themselves from the whacko and
extremist feminists. After all, the blatant man-bashers and the
conspiracy loons make feminism look bad.
But perhaps the efforts of so-called moderates to distance
themselves from extremists is more a public-relations ploy than a
genuine rejection of man-bashing. Maybe the "moderates" really aren't
trying to get away from anti-male bigotry -- maybe they're just
practicing damage control so they can exercise a seemingly nicer,
gentler form of anti-male discrimination.
To all "moderate" feminists, we say this: if you want to
discriminate against men, that's not being moderate. That's being a
bigot.
Case in point: a supposed moderate feminist recently posted a
Usenet message that, on the surface, seems to condemn the radical
feminists and espouse a more egalitarian approach. She wrote:

> >I'm really tired and frustrated as seeing only the radical feminists
> >arguing ... in these ngs!!! It's about time
> >some of us who espouse feminism from a more mature and all emcompassing
> >angle got on here & introduced others to a way of thinking that is a
> >non-sexist contemporary alternative. This alternative espouses
> >empowerment for ALL rather than subjugation of the weaker. Lets try
> >using an ideology that embodies a value & action orientation to problem
> >solving, and self empowerment for both males & females.
> >Teddi Wight Light -
.
So we put some questions to her to exam her commitment to
empowerment for everyone. For example, did she support affirmative
action? She said:

>That depends on your definition of affirmative action - I support
>affirmative actions that are going to work toward creating a less gender
>stereotypical & divisive society for ALL. Actions that are non-violent
>& are working toward the recognition of the female experience as unique
>& disparate, but still recognising the dissimilatities in sexual
>preferences & social, cultural & religious backgrounds.
.
The second part of that answer is so much feminist-babble. But
the first part is notable: she supports discrimination against men as
creating " a less gender stereotypical & divisive society for ALL."
(Of course her rationale for affirmative action was steeped in
anti-male stereotypes.)
While trying to distance herself from extremist feminists, she
still advocates anti-male policies and tries to cloak herself as a
moderate. But we, who are the target of her biased and discriminatory
policies, are under no obligation to see someone as "moderate" while
they are advocating discrimination against us.
Specifically, she was asked: "Do you support any kind of
hiring goals for women?"

>Definitely - there are not enough women in leadership positions within
>the workforce.

So she is pretending to be a moderate while advocating quotas
on the grounds there "are not enough women in leadership positions."
She didn't say "end discrimination so women have an equal chance." She
demanded equal results, brought about via anti-male discrimination.
Curiously, she supports hiring goals against men by blaming
women:

> Oddly, what often happens is that those women who do
>make it, do not readily support others to the same levels. Women do
>operate in different ways to achieve their goals - men use a system of
>mentoring, whereas, because there are fewer women in leadership
>positions to do the mentoring for other women, we 'network' more
>readily, than do males. The female support system (in the workforce)
>moves on a relatively horizontal level of networking as opposed to the
>vertical lines of mentoring used by men.

How's that for a feminist. If women don't mentor the same way
men do, then let's make men pay for it by instituting hiring goals for
women!
Most people become leaders because other people respect their
abilities, and because the leaders put in the long work and extra
dedication that creates that respect. Why should society respect
someone who demands to be *given* a leadership position by virtue of
her birth?
She went on to say:

> Recognising that individual personality is linked to gender identity &
>is a reflection of cultural influence in the socialisation of needs,
>desires and psychic life of both males & females - this is where
>feminism can respond to the masculine in a societal context.

Unfortunately, she's responding to the masculine in a societal
context by saying men should be discriminated against. Look behind the
elaborate words. This woman advocates Jane Crow discrimination.
She buttresses this with mumbo-jumbo about "cultural influence
in the socialization of needs." That's feminist-speak for saying that
the patriarchy is to blame whenever women make choices that feminists
don't like -- everything can be traced to "socialization,"
therefore women who play it safe are entitled to special advancement
because the oppressive patriarchy must have socialized them that way.
And because the patriarchy is to blame, anyone who is male should get
into the back of the bus.
Next she was tested on anti-male stereotypes. She was asked if
she believed that women have been killed in the making of pornographic
films. (In the January 1997 issue of Per's MANifesto,
http://idt.net/~per2/0197mani.htm#snuffing, we showed how the "snuff
film" is an urban legend -- but one that is adamantly supported by
anti-male feminists such as Catherine MacKinnon. This is a man-bashing
stereotype that blames men for a crime that doesn't exist.) We weren't
surprised to find that our "moderate" feminist believe this bit of
anti-male propaganda. She said:

>I used to be in a law enforcement service - women have been killed doing
>many, many things including this. So have men. Yes, the "snuff" stuff.

Of course not one law enforcement agency anywhere in the world
has ever seized a snuff film. Still, "moderate" feminists like this
one swear by it.
Then we got to the nitty-gritty. Did she believe that
men have social and historical advantages and that it is fair to level
the playing field for women? This is the core of feminism's anti-male
bigotry. It is the doctrine that justifies Ivy League and upper-class
women getting preferential treatment against men who didn't have half
the advantages of those women. It is the logic that has allowed white
women to become the overwhelming recipients of affirmative action,
edging out poor black males.
And, of course, our "moderate" feminist believed this
wholeheartedly, and advocated more anti-male discrimination to "level
the playing field:"

>All one has to do is a little historical research to know that of course
>men have had an historical & social advantage to females.!!!!! I could
>site any number of issues to support this apart from my own experiences
>as a female in a white male dominated social system.
>Fair to level the playing field - goes without saying - I only wish it
>could happen more quickly, less violently, and without so much anger &
>vilification. Anger is a precurser to change, tho'

She not only supports anti-male discrimination, she wants to
ratchet up the process.
Lastly, she was asked to explain her claim that feminism is
empowering for men.

>Feminism 'operates'on a continuum, as you know. When we have two genders
>- male & female - who are complimentary, how could the betterment of
>one, WITHOUT THE SUBJUGATION OF THE OTHER not benefit both?! Feminism
>encourages healthy personal autonomy and relationship competence for ALL
>persons, favours the concept of egalitarian relationships, recognises
>the internal psychological dynamics of the self as well as, the
>socio-cultural issues of the wider environment. By removing the
>stereotypical role expectations of society we enable both Males &
>Females to redefine new & appropriate career, relationship & personal
>directions and expectations.
>Teddi Wight Light:

Of course, Ms. "Light's" theories are fraught with gender
stereotypes -- all of them bashing men and all of them used to justify
special rights and special breaks for feminists. Her argument amounts
to: I am subjugated unless I can discriminate against you. So, to live
without subjugation, men should have fewer rights and protections from
discrimination.
Take a look. This is a "moderate" feminist who speaks out
against the radical feminists. She distances herself from the
extremists. But her philosophy is still anti-male and advocates
discrimination against men.
We say it again: if someone wants to discriminate against us,
we have no reason to call them a moderate.

Along similar lines, another feminist recently wrote:

"I once worked for Mountain Bell....my boss asked me why I
always thought there was a conspiracy against women......
I slapped a copy of the company paper on his desk which
showed the company hierarchy, and said, when you can show
me this paper with half women's faces on it, we'll talk.
Equal opportunity, btw, is STILL the law of the land, and
I, for one, will do what I can to make sure women get it."

So until she gets equal results in every field, she is certain
there is a conspiracy against women. Never mind that women in college
are over-represented in the arts and humanities. If women chose the
career paths that are less likely to lead to the top, it's still
called evidence of a conspiracy against them. And men will have to pay
the price -- bearing discrimination until this feminist gets her equal
result.
These two feminists cited above might pretend to be for
"equality." But more and more I'm seeing a new wave of feminists who
are not at all ashamed to drop their pretense of fair, ethical
behavior. They disdain any idea of equality that does not benefit
them, engage in anti-male stereotypes, admit they are interested only
in rights for their own group (while demanding we support their
rights) and often openly admit their interest in revenge. For example,
the following feminist made this latter admission recently.

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:52:55 -0400, Jean Coyle
<jeancoyle@earthlink.net> wrote:
>what's wrong with revenge ? Didn't guys raise the concept to a fine
>art form ? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all ;-D
>Jean

There you have it. The "moderates" advocate anti-male
discrimination and hold anti-male beliefs, while the other one does
not even pretend to be moderate.
What's the difference between the extremist feminist and the
moderate feminist? Maybe it's just that the extremist is a bit more
honest.
==========

HERE'S TO A COUPLE OF GUYS
Darrell Colson was leaving an Indianapolis apartment complex
on July 15 when a woman by the swimming pool yelled that another woman
was drowning. "I just jumped in and did what anybody else should do,"
says Colson. He swam down to 20-year-old Orian Williams, who was about
8 feet under water. Colson pulled her to the surface and got her to
the side of the pool, where a woman helped pull Ms. Williams out.
Pretty impressive. Oh, did we tell you that Darrell Colson is
paralyzed from the waist down?
He's a former tree-trimmer injured in a fall from a tree. He
was in a wheelchair, which he rolled to the side of the pool so he
could dive in. Since his accident, he's been swimming for therapy.
As for why the woman who first saw the drowning victim didn't
dive in herself -- well, we suspect the evil patriarchy wouldn't let
her. Probably sent her a warning note beforehand not to try anything.
And next, we invite you to raise a glass to Mr. Chicken of
Jackson, Michigan. Last December, the rooster was rescued nearly
frozen, and he lost his feet. But he was adopted by a veterinarian,
Tim England, who had a physical therapist fit him with artificial
legs. It made Mr. Chicken a celebrity featured in Newsweek and
newspapers from South Africa to Hawaii.
Sad to say, Mr. Chicken is no longer with us. He died with his
boots on -- or at least his artificial legs. He was, alas, mauled to
death while protecting the hens in his pen from some predator,
probably a raccoon.
"Something chewed him up real good," England said. "The other
chickens were OK, though. He was very protective of them."
Mr. Chicken was given a headstone and a proper burial -- with
his artificial legs on.
You're a good man, Mr. Chicken.

=============================
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.)
==========