MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues.
March 1996. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise
distribute MANifesto. (If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in
its entirety.)
CONTENTS: NEWS AND OPINION
I. IT'S ALWAYS THE MAN'S FAULT
II. JUSTICE, BLIND AND DEAF: THE MOON CASE
III. KILLED BY A FALSE RAPE CHARGE (NOT, ALAS, A REPRINT)
IV. THIS IS EQUITY?
V. A BLOODY GENDER FEMINIST AT THE WASHINGTON POST
VI. "60 MINUTES" PRISON RAPE SEGMENT
---
JUST OPINION
VII. HEAR HER ROAR
VIII. LET'S DO THE FEMINIST DANCE OF DENIAL
IX. THE "MODERATE" FEMINISTS
X. NORTH KOREANS HOLD ALL THE POWER
==========
IT'S ALWAYS THE MAN'S FAULT
When men do something wrong, blame the men.
And when women do something wrong ... blame the men.
That's a recurrent theme among some feminists. Here are
recent examples.
FIRST, BLAME MEN FOR WHAT WOMEN DO:
On the Usenet, one woman wrote:
>
>>Anytime a woman disrespects a man by using him as
>>a wallet with legs this is a result of our male dominated society
>>socializing them to act this way.
>
Thus it's not her fault that she reduced men to the status of an object.
It was "male dominated society" that's at fault.
And if she didn't have either the moral foundation or the intellectual
faculties to avoid this trap, there is probably a way to shift the blame for
that to men, as well.
> The next post follows a similar pattern:
> [...]
>Attributing
>flaws ... to American women is only half the story without
>attributing the same flaws to American men. In other words, if it is
>true that American women are "materialistic", can that really exist
>without the support of American men, i.e. it would be amusing to
>discover how many American women go out on a first date without the guy
>boring her to death with information about his "boat" and ski trips to
>wherever on the company jet.
>
So, if a man is materialistic and greedy, it's the man's fault. And if
a woman is materialistic it's ... the man's fault!
SECOND: IF ONE MAN DOES SOMETHING WRONG, BLAME ALL MEN:
While feminists will hold men responsible for what women do, some men
will hold all men responsible for the sins of any individual man. For
example:
>[ Author was Abraham Aizenman ]
>[ Posted on 8 Mar 1996 00:27:15 -0500 ]
>
>Today, March 8 is International Women's Day
>If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem
>
>A man who witnesses or knows about male violence or discrimination
>against women and doesn't report it is as guilty as the perpetrator
>of the crime.
>
We wonder what would happen if society asked feminist to live by the
same rules they expect the rest of us to follow. So:
-- If a feminist sees another feminist making anti-male statements and
does nothing to stop it, she is just as guilty as the perpetrator.
-- If a feminist knows that feminist organizations are spreading
false, pseudo-scientific studies and does not to stop it, she is just as
guilty as the people who fomented the original lies.
-- If a feminist knows that false accusations of rape, sexual
harassment and child molestation are made against men and does nothing to
stop the "all men are rapist" hysteria, then she is just as guilty as
someone who makes a false accusation.
And so on.
THIRD: NO MATTER WHAT MEN DO, IT'S WRONG:
CBS News correspondent Rita Braver wrote a Washington Post editorial
criticizing the new Michelle Pfeiffer/Robert Redford film "Up Close and
Personal." Braver slams the movie because it shows an older, experienced
male executive mentoring a younger woman: "It wasn't billed as a horror
movie, but it sure scared the heck out of me. ... It says that women are
dopes who can succeed only if older, wiser men direct their every move.
Not only does (the man tell the woman) what to think and what to say, he
also tells her what to wear. ... The point is that just as the going gets
tough, (the man) arrives on the scene to speak slowly and steadily into
(her) earpiece and leads her through her live shots. (Her) managed
performance results in her becoming a famous network anchorwoman."
(Rita Braver, "Up Close and Misleading," Washington Post, March 14, 1996,
page A27.)
But not to long ago, the Post ran a piece about how women in the legal
profession face hardships because more men *don't* mentor them. So if a man
mentors a woman, it's bad. And if a man doesn't mentor a woman ... it's
bad.
Some people might object that feminism is not monolithic so it is
unfair to compare these two opposite views.
But feminism *is* monolithic in one important manner: bashing men.
No matter *what* men do, it is going to be decried as wrong. No matter what
one individual man does, he is going to be blamed for the sins of other men.
And no matter what women do, feminists are going to find a way to blame
men for it.
==========
JUSTICE, BLIND AND DEAF: THE MOON CASE
The recent trial of football star Warren Moon shows just one of the
outcomes of the belief that "It's always the man's fault."
He was accused of assault in a July 18 fight in which his wife,
Felicia, received scratches and bruises.
Felicia pleaded with prosecutors to drop the charges, testifying that
she had started the fight and several others with her husband. However,
the trial took place in Texas, which is one of more than 40 states that
have eliminated spousal privilege -- the right not to testify against
one's spouse. So Felicia had to testify.
She then told the court that she suffers from episodes of
"explosive rage" and had provoked her husband at least three times by
throwing things at him. She testified that their fights "would be a
result of something being thrown at him. ... I once shattered a glass
cabinet. It would be the result of something I had done to get his
attention. He's just not the kind of person to get excited about
something. It aggravates me."
Neither Felicia Moon nor her husband held him entirely blameless.
Both had damaged their marriage and their children with their disputes, she
said. And Warren Moon said he once punched his wife in the leg after she
hit him with a mop handle and tried to hit him a second time. They told the
jury that neither husband nor wife was blameless, but that Warren Moon was
not the sole person at fault.
She said her husband had been taking the blame to prevent her "dark
secrets" from getting out.
She said she started the July 18 fight by throwing a three-pound
candlestick at her husband, hitting him in the back during an argument over
her $160,000 in credit-card debts. When he tried to calm her down, she
kneed him in the groin.
She received scratches and bruises in the struggle than ensued, but
testified that her husband never hit her. Still, he was the one charged,
and could have faced a year in jail.
Warren Moon was acquitted.
But the prosecutors weren't satisfied with the verdict. They defended
their "no-drop" policy, a policy now in effect in jurisdictions across the
nation. The policy means they will pursue domestic violence charges even
if a spouse does not want them to. But if the Moon case is any indication,
a no-drop policy means the man will automatically be charged whenever there
is evidence or claim of violence -- regardless of who initiated it.
And it means the woman will be presumed to be the victim and will not face
charges.
"I make no apologies for prosecuting," prosecutor Mike Elliott said
Thursday. "I would prosecute this case with these facts 100 times again."
He meant that he would prosecute *Warren* Moon again. But he had a woman
in his courtroom who repeatedly testified under oath that she was physically
abusive. Her statements are on record, a virtual confession of abuse.
And she will never face charges. For women who abuse, the "no-drop"
policy is a "no-starter."
Felicia Moon testified that prosecutors just weren't interested in
hearing about her role in escalating the conflict.
Justice is blind. Seems that it is deaf, too.
---
(Sources: "From Football Star's Wife, A Reluctant, Painful Story,"
The Washington Post, Feb. 21, 1996, page A3; and the Associated Press.)
==========
KILLED BY A FALSE RAPE CHARGE (NOT, ALAS, A REPRINT)
The last issue of MANifesto told of Eddie Polec, a Philadelphia teen
killed after he was falsely accused of a rape that never occurred.
Sadly, that type of false accusation is not unique. In addition to
men and women whose lives are ruined by false accusations of rape or
molestation, there still exists a brand of vigilante justice that doesn't
wait for the courts.
John Baumgardner was executed on Nov. 17, 1994, in a Fairfax, Va.,
shopping mall. His sole "crime" was to be picked at random for a false
accusation of stalking and rape.
It began when Sheron Montrey told her boyfriend, Louis Raia, that a
man named "Tony" had been routinely raping her. She said she had dated him,
and he refused to break it off. He threatened to kill her and her family if
she did not regularly meet him at a Bennigan's restaurant so he could take
her to his car in the parking lot and rape her, she said.
She said she had been meeting with him this way once a week for 18
months, to be raped.
Louis Raia got a .380 semiautomatic pistol and went to the restaurant
with Montrey. She picked out a man she said was "Tony." The protective
boyfriend shot him in the back three times.
They were quickly caught and quickly confessed. He was sentenced to
30 years. She was sentenced to 27. But solving the murder did not end the
mystery of why Montrey picked out Baumgardner.
Afterward, she was unable to describe the face of the man she
supposedly had dated and who had supposedly raped her once a week for a year
and a half. She was wrong about how tall he was. She was wrong about the
beer he drank, the cigarettes he smoked, whether he wore cologne, what kind
of car he drove. She didn't know his last name.
Police and private detectives could find no one who had ever seen them
together, not one bit of evidence that Montrey and Baumgardner had ever met,
much less dated. Her own attorney publicly admits he doubts her tale of
rape and stalking.
So, now, does Louis Raia, the man sentenced to 30 years for pulling
the trigger. Montrey once introduced him to a little boy she said was her
son, and showed pictures of her "daughter." But Montrey has no children.
When men are accused of rape, assault or sexual harassment, some
feminists ask, "Why would she lie?" Thus the inability to immediately
explain her motives is taken as proof her accusations are true.
But if we don't know why Montrey lied, we know that she had a bizarre
history of doing so. It came out in her trial. She had invented numerous
pregnancies and abortions. At age 10, she claimed she was sexually
assaulted by a high-school boy, but she recanted when the facts did not add
up.
Still, there are feminists who fight the very idea that an accusation
might be false. They say that such talk is part of a "backlash," and the
"War on Women." Well perhaps it's time to take a look at the real corpses in
this war, like Eddie Polec and Baumgardner. And to think of Baumgardner's
little boy, a toddler now growing up without a father.
(Source: "Dead Wrong," by John W. Fountain, The Washington Post,
March 24, 1996, page F1.)
==========
THIS IS EQUITY?
A group of women in Congress is pushing the so-called "Women's
Health Equity Act," a package of bills that would funnel more public money
into research on breast and ovarian cancer, osteoporosis and other diseases
that afflict mostly or only women.
Mixed with worthwhile projects such as outlawing female genital
mutilation are others that seek to preserve and extend women's special
privilege of living longer than men. In the name of "equity," Democratic
Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York wants to increase breast cancer
research 70 percent, spending $575 million on it (without, of course, any
similar increase in spending on prostate cancer.)
In the name of "equity" the bill calls for devoting more of our
money to discriminatory programs for women scientists only -- including
programs to help them find mentors. (Remember the old feminist argument
that "what if the person who could find a cure for cancer is a woman?" Well,
what if the person who could find a cure for breast cancer is a man -- and
he's shut out of the program?)
One of the bill's sponsors seems to think that not giving women
special treatment constitutes warfare against women. Or, as she puts it,
"Women's issues have never been under such a serious assault," says
Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York. So if we don't agree
to extend your advantage, that puts you under assault?
Notable in the bill is its emphasis on spending more to treat
osteoporosis. While this disease affects both men and women, it is usually
a disease of aging: you usually have to live a long time to get it. So,
with men dying about seven years before women, what is the way to establish
"equity"? Help save the lives of men? No. Improve the lives women.
Among the other sexists supporting this bill are:
Patricia Schroeder, D-Colorado (but you knew she would be.)
Louise Slaughter, D-New York
Sue Kelly, R-New York
Patsy Mink, D-Hawaii
Lynn Woolsey, D-California
==========
A BLOODY GENDER FEMINIST AT THE WASHINGTON POST
A column on men donating blood to the Red Cross recently gave The
Washington Post a chance to flaunt its gender-feminist sympathies.
Columnist Jennifer Frey noted that men often donate blood as a way of
getting a no-cost AIDS test. If their blood turns up HIV positive, they
are notified.
How does the Red Cross feel about men doing this? They love it. It
has brought in great quantities of donated blood. Red Cross officials told
Frey they fully support the practice and hope she'd publicize it.
So, here we have a case of men doing good for others while doing good
for themselves. What's a feminist to do?
If you're a Post columnist, you'll find a way to bash the entire male
gender, employing sweeping stereotypes in the process. Placing these
comments in a column in the Style section allows you to get away with gender
stereotypes and bashing under the guise of joking -- though that excuse
would not have protected any man who aimed similar hostile stereotypes at
women or other protected groups.
Taking a gender feminist stance, Frey said the blood donations
represent "empirical evidence of a fundamental difference between the
sexes." She offers several possible explanations for this difference. The
first one she suggests is that men are more compassionate, adding that "This
is a scientific inquiry, and we must dispassionately consider all scenarios,
however absurd."
Other possibilities she suggests:
-- Men take this roundabout route to AIDS testing because "Men are
incapable of confronting unpleasantness or conflict." Men, she says, will
stay in an unpleasant relationship rather than go through the conflict of
breaking up. (Which puts her at odds with all her sisters who accuse men of
being unemotionally attached heels who fear commitment and break off at a
moment's notice. Inconsistent? No, there is quite a bit of consistency
-- in bashing men.)
-- "Men have trouble acknowledging error or frailty."
-- "Men are cheaper." (She doesn't tell us who picked up the tab on
her last date.)
-- "Men are self delusional. Wow, we are getting to the heart of it."
If you have no trouble acknowledging the error and frailty of Frey's
thinking, you can write to the Washington Post at the address below. You
might stress several facts: Will the reporter and editors who worked on
this piece also handle feminist issues such as sexual harassment, women's
pay, feminist political candidates, etc.? If so, how can they expect to
have any credibility or journalistic integrity after embracing a batch
of anti-male rhetoric and gender stereotypes? The Post isn't all that open
about printing letters that note its pro-feminist bias, but at least you
will let them know you're watching. Letters must have your signature, home
address, home and business telephones:
Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20071
==========
"60 MINUTES" PRISON RAPE SEGMENT
The TV news magazine "60 Minutes" deserves your support for an
enlightened report it did March 3 on the rape of men in prison. Host Mike
Wallace noted that many people feel that inmates deserve to be raped. Well,
no one deserves to be raped, and that includes men who are in prison for
minor, non-violent offenses, innocent men who were convicted, and men sent
to prison because of false charges of abuse made during custody disputes,
etc. The double punishment of prison rape is unconscionable -- especially
because many victims acquire AIDS this way.
If you wish to praise "60 Minutes" for this segment, write to:
60 Minutes-CBS News
524 West 57th St.
New York, N.Y. 10019
Meantime, you might note that the preview for the latest Dan Aykroyd
movie (I can't remember the title, but it's about basketball fans) has a
joke about prison rape in it. Maybe Aykroyd and the movie studio deserve a
few letters about this. And maybe they *don't* deserve our ticket money.
==========
JUST OPINION:
---
HEAR HER ROAR
You say that you need protection from words.
You say that you need protection from "unwanted sexual
advances."
You say that you need protection from photographs of women in
bikinis.
You say that people who disagree with you are creating "a
hostile working environment" against you.
You say that someone who calls you a name or questions your
views has committed "verbal battering."
You say that the stress of working with people who didn't like
you caused so much trauma that you to need therapy and prescription
drugs.
You say that you have been "raped" by words.
You say that you need "a safe an nourishing environment in which
to grow."
And you say that the only reason people don't like you is that
they're afraid of strong women?
==========
LET'S DO THE FEMINIST DANCE OF DENIAL.
How can some feminists hold onto the moral high ground even
while wallowing in the depths of gender hatred? Easy. Just do the
Feminist Dance of Denial:
Step One: Feminist says that feminists are free of bigotry.
Step Two: Feminist is shown an example of extreme feminist bigotry/hatred/
stereotyping, etc.
Step Three: Feminist says it's just an exception and doesn't count.
Step Four: Feminist is shown lots of examples of feminist hatred.
Step Five: Feminist declares that you must be a sexist for discussing any
flaws in feminism.
Step Six: Go back to Step One.
(If need be, the Dance can be moved to a "safe and nurturing
environment" of other feminists, where facts are not allowed to interfere.)
>
Another version of the Dance:
Step One: Feminist believes that every accusation of rape/sexual assault/
sexual harassment must be true.
Step Two: Feminist is told about an accusation that turned out to be false.
Step Three: Feminist says it's just an exception and doesn't count.
Step Four: Feminist is shown lots of examples of false accusations, some of
which destroyed the lives of those who were falsely accused.
Step Five: Feminist declares that such stories are part of the "backlash" or
the "war against women."
Step Six: Go back to Step One.
==========
THE "MODERATE" FEMINISTS
[Note: Below is a letter that appeared on a newsgroup about feminism. The
writer says that "Only a small minority of ‘radical' feminists exist."
Following the letter is my reply.]
[Begin letter]
>I am pretty new to this group, but there is one thing that it did
>not take me long to notice. Many people here seem to think that all
>feminists are alike. This is categorically untrue. Also, most of the
>people who hold this view seem to think that all feminists are
>anti-male, separatists, lesbians, or some other thing. These
>man-hating, lesbian, or whatever feminists are not all that common.
> In my experience, most feminists like men and care very much about
>how the feminist movement (if there still is such a movement) or how
>feminism affects men. I also know many women who claim to not be
>feminists simply because their image of a feminist is a man-hating
>lesbian. This image is so misleading that it is almost funny.
> There are all kinds of feminists with all kinds of different goals.
>Most true feminists would have similar goals however. Only a small
>minority of "radical" feminists exist. In fact, using the word radical
>to talk about the man-hating lesbian feminists is misleading. Radical
>feminists differ from other feminists in several different areas;
>namely, they disagree with other feminists about the source of sexism
>and they have different methods for eradicating sexism (and their
>methods are not killing off all the men, or becoming lesbians).
>Obviously, some radical feminists do hate men or are lesbians, but so
>there are man-hating, lesbian liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, post
>modern feminists, etc.
> I am sure that the goal of some feminists is to give women more
>rights or to oppress men. Perhaps some feminists are vengeful, but most
>are not. And many women are feminists but do not call themselves
>feminists because of the all the negative stuff associated with the
>word. Anyway, I just wanted to have my say about this, which is what
>the newsgroup is for... so here it is if anyone cares.
> Jenny
>
>
[End letter, begin response:]
Jenny.
Many feminists say that the "extremist" feminists are just a small
group that no one takes seriously. However, I'd like to offer a couple of
contrasting points:
Point 1.) So-called extremist feminists have a great deal of power and
influence and a great many admirers. There is a man-bashing book called "Men
Are Not Cost Effective," which stereotypes all men as violent criminals and
proposes -- in deadly earnest -- to put a special tax on just men. This book
just entered its second printing. *Someone* is buying all those books. These
so-called extremists appeal to more than just a small group.
I remember the comments from a person who witnessed the reaction
when Andrea Dworkin came to campus. Other supposedly moderate feminist
speakers had drawn small audiences and lukewarm responses. For Dworkin, the
women were packed into the aisles, along the back walls and out the door,
and they cheered wildly for this anti-male extremist. It seems that some of
the extreme feminists are far more popular than the supposed mainstream.
You can read the book "Professing Feminism," about Women's Studies
courses. Often the extremists shout down and intimidate all contrasting
viewpoints. Extremist feminists hold students' grades hostage until they
conform to the proper dogma.
It is said that "extremists" are few and on the fringe. In fact they
are in positions of power and influence on campuses and elsewhere.
Point 2.) Even the moderate feminists are pretty extreme. Just because
there is an extreme Ku Klux Klan, that doesn't mean everyone else on the
political right is a moderate. A step down from the Klan extremists you
still have ultra-conservatives. But, according to conventional wisdom, a
step down from extremist feminists you have the "moderates."
But anyone who is blatantly vocal about wanting to
discriminate against me deserves the title of sexist as far as I am
concerned. Anyone who openly advocated discrimination against black people
today probably wouldn't be called a moderate. Pro-discrimination feminists,
however, seem to get away with it.
Gloria Steinem has been a big supporter of "recovered memory therapy"
and the belief that Satanists are invading our day-care centers. To further
these quack conspiracy theories, Steinem made allies with some of the
looniest fringe groups on the right. Steinem contributed money and public
support to a group that claims it was the U.S. government (not militia
groups) that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Steinem even
helped finance a dig into the supposed "tunnels" under the McMartin
Preschool. (Both facts and more about Steinem are documented in the book
"Satan's Silence," which is written by a feminist, Debbie Nathan.) Now,
embracing loony conspiracy theories and consorting with extremist groups
would cause most other political figures to be label extreme.
The label of "moderate" can be stretched pretty far. I'm sure the
female personnel directors who blatantly refused to give me information on
job openings because I am a man could don their moderate mufti. I'm sure
the women in my workplace who refer to men as "apes" and "cavemen" would
pass muster as moderates, because that type of gender slur isn't taken
seriously unless it comes from a man.
But frankly, I wouldn't call anyone a moderate if they advocate gender
discrimination. Would you?
==========
NORTH KOREANS HOLD ALL THE POWER
Feminists say that "men hold all the power" or "men hold most of the
power." They point out that most Congress members, business owners and media
executives are male. Then they extrapolate this into an illogical
conclusion: if you are male, you belong to the class that holds all the
power. That concept is used to demand quotas, special breaks and special
rights for women, on the grounds that *any* woman is automatically at a
disadvantage against any male -- even if the facts suggest otherwise. Thus
privileged, upper-class and upper-middle-class women whose families often
paid their way through Ivy League schools are demanding that they get an
"even playing field" against lower-class and lower-middle-class men who did
not have the advantages those feminists had.
Let's use their logic and look at North Korea. Notice something about
the leaders. They're all North Koreans.
That means that in North Korea, North Koreans must hold all the power.
The average North Korean might be barely scraping by -- but they are
North Korean. That means they hold all the power. They are responsible for
everything his government ever did, as part of this class.
All the leaders of China are Chinese. So therefore, Chinese hold all
the power. Let's not bother looking at individual people or facts. Let's not
bother asking whether the average Chinese citizen has rights. Let's just use
generalizations: Chinese hold all the power, therefore any Chinese person
holds all the power.
How about Russia? Some of the rulers there are not ethnically Russian,
but most of them are. So "Russians hold most of the power." There are Jews
in Russia. And because they are Russian, let's conclude that they hold all
the power.
If this makes sense to you, congratulations: you'll have no problem
with the rest of gender feminist philosophy.
============
=============================
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. If you
would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, send the message
"subscribe MANifesto" to psmaowens@gnn.com
(If you have sent this message and did not get the latest issue
e-mailed to you, please send it again and be patient as we perfect our
mass-mailing skills.)
=============================
No comments:
Post a Comment