Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1998.
WELCOME, READERS, as we peddle you an issue we'll entitle
"LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE." Guess that makes us a *spokes*person.
Hahaha. Ahem.
Anyway, this issue takes a look at that recent report that
claims that men prefer "anorexic" women to overweight ones. More on
the White House scandal: should he be ousted? A report on girl
bullies. And did you know that U.S. law mandates different rights for
people based on the sex of a parent? Read on and enjoy!
MANifesto is available on the web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
INDEX:
LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE
FAT CHANCE
BULLY FOR THEM
GOOD FOR THE GOOSE
IF YOU ARE A FATHER, ARE YOU A PARENT?
==========
LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE
The feminists have a slogan: a woman needs a man like a fish
needs a bicycle.
When women decide they no longer need the man they married and
head for the door, they usually take the kids with them.
That means they're making the decision for the children, too:
children need a father like a fish needs a bicycle.
Well, actually, children need fathers a bit more than that.
Especially boys.
A new study shows that boys who grow up fatherless are twice
as likely to land in jail.
The study tracked 6,000 males aged 14 to 22 from 1979 to 1993.
Boys whose fathers were absent from the home had double the odds of
being incarcerated. That held true even when other factors such as
race, income, parents' education and urban residence were held
constant. In each category, at each level of family income, in each
neighborhood, good or bad, the boys who grew up without fathers were
twice as likely to go to jail.
Fatherlessness was the greatest predictor of a boy having
trouble with the law.
Feminists might ask, "What patriarchal, dads-rights,
female-oppressing backlashers wrote this report?" Well, the study was
done by a couple of "patriarchs" named Cynthia Harper at the
University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton
University. They presented their study to a meeting of the American
Sociological Association on August 21 of this year.
We know that feminists love to blame male problems on
"testosterone" and "male ego." And they've gotten a lot of men out
there to do the same. But those qualities, in the form of a loving
father, involved the prevention rather than the cause of many
problems. The rise in crime among young males is directly tied to the
feminist divorce revolution.
It's no secret that feminists from Simone de Beauvoir to Betty
Friedan to Hillary Rodham Clinton have compared the family to slavery
and prison and declared that the family oppresses women. Feminists
launched an assault on the family. Now that many of the casualties of
that assault are boys and young men, they blame the victims. They seem
to think there must be something the matter with males if they turn
out badly merely because their families were destroyed.
And we know that many feminists are going to blame this
problem on "deadbeat dads" who don't pay child support. But, for
starters, the study showed that child support payments did not seem to
make a difference in a boy's odds of going to jail. Hint to feminists:
stop thinking about money so much and start thinking about humanity.
Feminists are supposed to be so much more sensitive to the plight of
the needy and the powerless. They should start acting that way when it
comes to our children.
But there's something else about "deadbeat dads." The
newspapers rarely admit it, but a lot of men who stop paying child
support have been denied child visitation. They have spiteful ex-wives
who thwart their efforts to have a relationship with their kids, while
the ex-wives still demand money for their purses.
But the next time you hear the phrase "deadbeat dad," reflect
on this. You never heard that term before the feminist divorce
revolution. Deadbeat dads are a product of the feminist era in which
"women need men like a fish needs a bicycle."
So what happens when mom walks out the door on her feminist
crusade of empowerment and starts shacking up with some other guy? The
study found that boys who grow up with a stepfather in the home are at
even higher risk for going to jail. Their odds are about triple that
of boys who live with both natural parents.
We don't blame any women for getting out of a marriage or
relationship with an unfit or abusive partner. But the divorce
explosion over the last several decades has been fueled by a lot of
women who were not in abusive marriages, but marriages that had hit
rough spots, or even marriages that had become boring to them. They
had been told by feminists that virtually everything is "oppression"
of women, and they heard the feminist slogan that they should "have it
all."
That slogan involves some particularly ugly sentiments when
feminists decide to "have it all" no matter who else gets hurt.
Feminists want to be able to instantly end their commitment to
marriage, but they don't want the ex-husband's commitment to them to
end -- ever. They want to break up the home for any reason, including
the most selfish reasons, and then assume that they will automatically
receive monthly payments to continue their lifestyles. They want to
move in with a new boyfriend no matter how that boyfriend treats their
children. They want to deny their children a chance to have a
relationship with their father while demanding the father finance this
whole selfish mess.
They want "to have it all," and they want someone else to foot
the bill.
(Source: "Boys With Absentee Dads Twice as Likely to Be
Jailed: Stepfathers Don't Help, Study Finds," Reuters, The Washington
Post, Friday, August 21, 1998; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-08/21/097l-082198-idx.html)
==========
FAT CHANCE
The latest bit of man-bashing research we've seen is a U.S.
study that purports to show that young men would rather date an
anorexic woman than one who is obese. The impression the study leaves
hanging in the air is that men are shallow, sex-driven beasts whose
interest in women is only skin deep.
But of course you knew that already, right?
The study was reported in the journal "Woman and Health" by
Jeffrey Sobal and co-author Mark Bursztyn. Mr. Sobal is a "nutritional
sociologist" (we're not kidding) at Cornell University. Good old
Cornell. That's the place that once punished four male students for
circulating a list of tasteless jokes, then took no action against
feminists who sent them death threats. Good old Cornell, where freedom
of speech blows in the political wind.
So what's wrong with Mr. Sobal's purported study? The
vagueness of the term "anorexic." It has been tossed around to mean
"thinner than average," or even "wanting to be thinner than average."
We've seen some fairly curvaceous models like Elle Macpherson
described as "anorexic" when clearly they are no such thing.
Yo, researchers. Check the pinups and nude photographs that
men are looking at. Take a gander at all that stuff on the Internet.
Do you see even a single men's magazine or website that features women
who are genuinely anorexic? Maybe you missed it that the overwhelming
majority of men are recoiling in horror at how thin Calista Flockhart
of TV's "Ally McBeal" has become.
Yo, readers. In all the worthless spam you've had land in your
mailbox, have you ever seen one that promised "Hot Anorexic Action"?
How about, "Our Girls Have Thighs Smaller Than Their Kneebones"? Or
even, "Two-Way Anorexic Swinging. Or Maybe It's Three, They're So Thin
It's Easy To Miss One Of 'Em."
We suppose that a smutty anorexic website would be rated III.
Those are Xs that got really thin.
Except for one thing: you don't see smutty anorexic websites.
Or men's magazines.
What you might see, however, are fashion magazines aimed at
women. The models in such magazines usually are far, far thinner that
the average male prefers. And it's the women who are buying these
magazines and supporting the look.
Here is a challenge to every last feminist who claims that
it's men who want "anorexic" women. Send us the URL of any porno
website that advertises its models as anorexic, and we'll print it
next issue. If feminists are correct that virtually 110% of all men
are lusting after anorexic women, the Internet should be awash in
these sites. So name just one. After all, you can't do a web search
for "brussels sprouts" without getting hits for a porn site in
Belgium. So it should be real easy to find anorexia sites -- if
they're out there.
But back to Mr. Sobal's study. This survey was widely reported
in the news media as showing that men didn't want to date someone with
anorexia nervosa or bulimia. Oddly enough, Mr. Sobal found the exact
same thing about women. It was men who got the negative headlines,
though. Curious.
Furthermore, the researchers "said their findings show that
when it comes to dating, looks are still more important than
substantive factors like intelligence and personality -- at least to
young men."
Booooo, men. Such cads!
But we wonder if Mr. Sobal would like to survey women on
whether they would prefer rich men to men of average income. Would
they prefer men who hold lots of power and status, or average guys?
Would they marry a man shorter than them, or one who made less money?
Maybe women define "personality" as "having $10 million."
Remember Anne Nicole Smith -- a Playboy centerfold and
certainly no anorexic. She married an ancient, liver-spotted
millionaire who had to go down the wedding aisle in a wheelchair.
You certainly can't accuse her of being obsessed with looks
when she married a dude who looked like death warmed over. We suppose
she just loved his intelligence and personality.
We'd like to see the news media run the equivalent of Mr.
Sobal's study, examining all the shallow things that women want. But
you know what the odds of that are. Fat chance.
Mr. Sobal also opines: "We are still a weight-obsessed
society." But as we've stated in the January 1998 issue of Per's
MANifesto, the leading cause of death among women in the U.S. is heart
disease, which is directly related to being overweight. Excess weight
contributes to higher cholesterol, higher blood pressure, and other
unhealthful conditions. It's being too heavy that is killing women,
not being too thin.
Kudos to the Reuters news agency when it covered Mr. Sobal's
study. It added something that Mr. Sobal didn't tell you: "... about
55 percent of adult Americans, or 97 million adults, are overweight or
obese, according to government standards issued in June." "Weight
obsessed"? It sounds as though we could stand a little more of it.
If men prefer slimmer women to obese women, they are
preferring women who are healthier and who have a chance to live
longer. Therefore feminists accuse men of starving women to death. If
men preferred heavy women, would feminists shut up? Not a chance.
They'd say we're fattening women to death.
By now you should grasp the first principle of feminism:
whatever men do, it's evil. If they do the opposite, that's evil, too.
Mr. Sobal's survey said men and women both avoid
relationships with someone who has an eating disorder, but men would
rather date a woman with anorexia or bulimia than one who is badly
overweight. "Though eating disorders are stigmatized, obesity is much
more so,'' he says.
Hello, Mr. Sobal. Didn't you notice that being badly
overweight involves an eating disorder? You see, food has calories,
Mr. Sobal, and the body will store extra calories as fat. Eating
extremely excessive amounts of food results in excessive amounts of
fat.
We're always glad to help out a nutritional sociologist.
Especially one from Cornell.
(Source: "Men avoid dating obese women?" Reuters, August 17
1998.)
==========
BULLY FOR THEM
Someone once said that "he who becomes a beast gives up the
pain of being human."
We could add: "she who becomes a feminist does likewise."
As girls leave their "traditional" roles, incidents of
violence, violent crime, and anti-social acts such as bullying also
increase. Feminists have long blamed violent behavior on testosterone:
they have tried to paint it as a male thing. You know: women good, men
bad. But as more and more females take up the stressful roles that men
have always had to bear, they start lashing out in increasing numbers.
Let's take a look at just one aspect of this form of
"progress:" bullying.
A recent study in a British journal reported that bullying by
girls is on the increase while efforts to stop it are lagging.
The study is reported in the British Medical Journal, in an
issue released the last week of September/first week of October. It
"concluded that while bullying intervention strategies introduced in
schools during the past few years have been effective with boys, they
have been less successful with girls who bully. This snapshot study of
900 pupils aged 11 to 17 in two secondary schools found that bullying
by girls was proportionately higher than it was three years ago."
Part of the problem in dealing with girls' bullying is that
boy's bullying tends to be more overt while girls' tends to be more
subtle.
Peter Smith, professor of psychology at Goldsmiths College,
noted that "If a boy bullies, he tends to hit out or take something
from another child so you can see it happening and therefore there's
usually an objective answer; but with girls it's more to do with the
systematic and hurtful spreading of nasty stories and social
exclusion, which is harder to identify and therefore harder to deal
with."
Michelle Elliott of Kidscape, which operates a help line for
young people, "agrees that girls have always bullied in a more covert
and elusive manner but believes that increasingly they are also
becoming physically violent. Kidscape's help line has reported a huge
increase of girl bullying over the last two years ... with the younger
women reporting violence on an alarming scale, such as broken bones,
black eyes and even having their heads shaved."
"But if girls are behaving more like boys, why then aren't
anti-bullying strategies being just as effective with them? Elliott
believes it's because 'we're not adequately addressing the problem
with girls. We assume it's all verbal, so while prevention policies
have been successful in encouraging boys to be more gentle, we haven't
been reaching out to girls in the same way.' "
In other words, we've always assumed that girls' bullying is
somehow nicer, or at least not as much of a problem. And just like in
every other area of life, our tactics with the girls has always been
gentler. We whip boys and wonder why they turn out angry. We counsel
girls and wonder why they turn out better.
In liberating girls from passive roles, experts say the
pendulum has swung too far. Girls "don't seem to be able to find the
balance between being up front and being in-your-face," Eliot says.
We're not surprised at all by that. In movies and popular
entertainment, feminism has put on a low brow and taken the low road.
Torching an ex-boyfriend's car is acceptable if he hurt your feelings
("Waiting to Exhale"). Gunning down men is a form of liberation
("Thelma and Louise"). Revenge is a sacrament ("The First Wives
Club"). Hostility as a basic outlook is promoted, while constraint is
seen as unliberated, oppressive. If you aren't out there smacking
someone around or laying a trap for them, then you just aren't
liberated.
And while feminists celebrate the increase in girls in
cyberspace, keep one thing in mind: it gives them just another way to
bully. The tactics of exclusion and harassment work just as well, or
even better, on the net.
From The Age, Melbourne, Australia: "A survey of 180 students
at a Melbourne girls' school has found that while traditional forms of
indirect bullying such as verbal abuse, name-calling and spreading
rumors are still the most popular forms of harassment, more girls are
turning to technology to bully and 'freeze' out their classmates."
Findings of the survey by psychologists Ms Jenny Ricketts and
Ms Joan Beckwith were presented at the Australian Psychological
Society's conference in Melbourne. "Ms Ricketts said social exclusion
through technology was becoming an increasingly prevalent and worrying
practice in girls' schools. This form of bullying includes making
prank phone calls, sending sarcastic or abusive e-mails or excluding
others from an e-mail network.
"Ms Ricketts said while all forms of bullying were harmful,
social exclusion bullying among girls was of particular concern.
"The survey of year 7 to 12 students found that 86per cent of
girls had experienced some form of bullying at the school. Of these,
13per cent said the bullying had persisted for several months or
more."
While we're on the topic, let us tell you about Municipal
Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani in Long Beach, California.
She was presiding over a sentencing hearing for a convicted
thief, Ronnie Hawkins. Hawkins kept interrupting her. She got tired of
it.
So she ordered the bailiff to activate the remote-control stun
belt wired around Hawkins' waist. Hawkins was not threatening anyone.
He was not trying to escape. He was already shackled and chained. He
just wouldn't be quiet.
So Hawkins was slammed with 50,000 volts of electricity above
his left kidney. The attack lasted for eight seconds.
Stephen Yagman, a lawyer representing Hawkins in a civil
rights suit against Ms. Comparet-Cassani and the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, says: "I think only a depraved or sadistic
person would ever use an instrument of torture like the stun belt for
simply refusing to be quiet."
(Sources: "Deadlier than the male: New research suggests that
bullying by girls is on the increase. So why haven't recent
initiatives worked?" Marina Cantacuzino, The Guardian, Wednesday
October 7, 1998.
http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/10/7/25820.html
"New-age bullies use cyberspace to harass peers," by Carolyn
Jones, The Age, Melbourne, Australia, October 6, 1998
http://www.theage.com.au/daily/981006/news/news15.html
(Source: "Stun Belts Spur Civil Rights Talk," By Minerva
Canto, Associated Press Writer, Thursday, August 6, 1998.)
==========
GOOD FOR THE GOOSE
We all know about the White House sex scandal, so let's get
down to business.
A report on his sexual misconduct says he violated standards
for continuing in his job, and that he "clearly showed poor judgment
and lack of discretion." He has two women on record making sexual
harassment accusations against him. After an investigation, a report
recommended that he be removed from office.
Should he be?
He already has been.
He is John Hicks, former U.S. ambassador to Eritrea and a
career foreign service officer. He was nominated by Bill Clinton.
Hicks' resignation was demanded and received in 1997 after two women
made accusations of sexual harassment. Their accusations remain
unproven, he-said/she-said affairs. But Mr. Hicks is out.
In any other administration, Mr. Hicks might have gotten a
fair chance. He might have been presumed, under the American law he
represents abroad, to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But
not in the administration of William Jefferson Clinton. Mr. Clinton
depends far too much on the support of feminists, who bail him out
time and again when his own zipper problems once more become the
nightly news. Male feminists like Bill Clinton will always sacrifice
other men in order to stay in good with feminists.
We know what feminists and Clinton supporters will say: the
accusations against Clinton are politically motivated. But *every*
sexual harassment accusation is politically motivated. It all depends
on whether the woman likes the man, or the offer. Basic corporate
policy on sexual harassment says that if she feels harassed, then she
was. It's not what you do that causes the crime. It's how she feels.
If she likes you, or if she likes Clinton, it's not harassment.
Feminists will respond that Clinton's case is special because
it involves political enemies. Hey, there are "political" enemies
anytime people are competing for a promotion, a raise, or a job. Women
have made sexual harassment claims in order to eliminate rivals or to
strike first if they were about to be fired for poor performance. The
former happened at Miller Brewing Company and was detailed in the July
1997 MANifesto. The latter happened at Oracle Corp. and was detailed
in the same issue.
All sexual harassment accusations are political. Most of all,
feminism's responses to such accusations are political. If the
accusation is against a political foe, feminists hector us with
accusations that we "tolerate" abuse until the accused is punished. If
the accusation is against a big corporation where feminists can
picture lots of affirmative action and special "diversity" promotions,
they hammer the company. If the accusation is against someone who
kicks a lot of taxpayer money their way, they say: "Harassment? What
harassment?"
Ambassador Hicks was terminated based on only two unproven
accusations, while Clinton is still in office. It goes to show that
what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
As for Clinton, he's always good for the occasional goose.
(Source: "U.S. Envoy to Eritrea Quit After Sex Misconduct
Probe," Associated Press report, the Washington Post, October 31,
1998, page A10.)
==========
IF YOU ARE A FATHER, ARE YOU A PARENT?
Consider this question. You're a dad. Are you a parent?
The question might seem self evident. But when it comes to the
law, it isn't necessarily so.
U.S. law defines parenthood entirely differently for women and
men. If a child is born out of wedlock to an American woman, the child
automatically has U.S. citizenship. If a child is born out of wedlock
to an American man, the child does not have automatic citizenship. In
fact, the child would have to go through several extra steps -- and
complete them before a deadline -- in order to have the same rights as
a child who gets it automatically because of his or her mother.
This fact was highlighted recently by a Supreme Court case
involving Lorelyn Penero Miller. She was born out of wedlock to a
Filipino mother and an American serviceman. Had she been born out of
wedlock to an American service*woman,* citizenship would have been
automatic. The court, in a split opinion, turned down her bid. It let
stand the law that discriminates against children based on the sex of
their parent.
Feminists who say they are striving for "equality" in the
military might want to look into this.
At the root, of course, is the prejudice that children belong
with the mother and that the father is detachable and expendable.
Take a gander at what the Washington Post said about this
case: "The larger question, of course, is the extent to which our
society must be gender-blind even on those subjects -- such as
parenthood -- in which men and women are very different."
All right, Washington Post. Try referring to areas "in which
men and women are very different" in relationship to combat fitness,
the ability and willingness to work, artistic and literary talent, and
so on. Moral of the story: it's always permissible to say that men and
women are different if women benefit from the claim. Anything else is
"sexism."
The Post also goes on: "Does the recognition that motherhood
and fatherhood are not identical necessarily flow from and reinforce
stereotypes, or is it a nod to reality?"
Let's try this another way: "Does the recognition that boys'
and girls' math scores have never been equal flow from stereotypes, or
is it a nod to reality?"
Go ahead and print such a statement, Post. When the feminists
are done with you, we'll lay flowers at the crater where your office
once was.
Feminists launched their movement claiming that they believed
in equality. But as it shakes out, "equality" means that feminists
acquired access to traditional male roles while retaining all
traditional female privileges such as child custody. Feminists get to
enter traditionally male areas and still shut men out of traditionally
female areas. If you think we're exaggerating, take a look down
Florida way.
Robert Young raised his two daughters while his wife worked as
a senior partner in a Miami law firm. Young lead one daughter's
Brownie troop and coached another's soccer team. He stayed at home and
cared for them while his wife, Alice Hector, was out having it all.
Young had worked as an architect in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
But when Hector got the job with a Miami law firm, he gave up his
career and followed her there. Then she decided to leave him after 14
years.
She breaks up the home. And, in usual fashion, she's rewarded
with the kids. The court gave her custody. Fathers and men in general
are expendable.
Except that Young didn't see it that way. He had raised the
kids. He had stayed home. He had given up his job.
So he filed an appeal, and won.
The court decided that, as the primary caregiver, the children
would be better off with him.
We have been in several discussions with feminists who swear
that they believe the primary caregiver ought to get the children.
Problem is, one of their criteria for being named primary caregiver is
the possession of ovaries. No matter what a man does, these feminists
will always find some way to define the woman as the primary
caregiver. This way, they're sticking by their "principles" -- it's
just that their principles shift to suit the moment. One feminist once
claimed that dropping the kids off at daycare qualifies a woman as the
primary caregiver. Come again? Dumping your kids on someone else to
raise makes you a primary caregiver?
But as for Mr. Young, he may have won his appeal, but his wife
still has the kids. She asked for another hearing, and they are with
her while it is pending.
This case made for some interesting bias in the Washington
Post. It said: "The case has advocates of working mothers and
supporters of fathers' rights questioning whether a working mother
must choose between career and children if she wants to maintain
primary custody or whether a father has the same nurturing ability as
a mother."
Dear Post: We bet that this case did NOT have supporters of
fathers' rights questioning whether a father has the same nurturing
ability as a mother. We hope this was just an unintentional slip due
to poor word choice. But if this was a slip, it says something about
the culture of the Post that no one caught it or fixed it. No one
reflected on how fathers would feel about this.
As for the ex-wife, Hector, she's playing victim. Her
husband's case "sets the cause of working women back a generation,"
says Hector. What generation would that be, Ms. Hector? Your mother's
generation did not think it was entitled to work full time and still
have the prerogatives of a full-time parent. That came along with
feminists who insisted that women should "have it all."
It is typical of feminists that they think a woman should be
able to take any traditionally "male" position away from a man while
maintaining any traditionally "female" position for their own. For
feminists, equality is a one-way street. Equality does not apply to
men. Equality, at least in the working definition, means that
feminists get whatever they want.
The kicker is that Hector was the one who filed for divorce.
As we said earlier in this issue, there are many women who assume they
can walk away from a marriage and it's automatic that they take the
kids with them, no matter what.
Guess what a feminist lawyer had to say about this case.
First, just a recap. Man stays home with kids. Woman wants
divorce. Woman assumes she gets custody. Court awards her custody
right off the bat. Man has to go back to court to seek custody. While
the case is pending, the children are with the mother, who still works
full time.
Okay, so what does the feminist lawyer say? That this case is
about bias against women!
We hope you didn't have a mouthful of coffee while reading
that one.
But, says Nancy Chang, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief
supporting Hector: "The court may have been too ready to assume that
the father's contributions outweighed the mother's. It's a form of
gender bias."
Oh sure, Ms. Chang. Courts have been known for assuming that
the father's contributions outweigh the mother's.
On Mars, maybe.
As one of Young's lawyers, Barbara Green, put it: "If a trial
court had done to a stay-at-home wife what they did to Mr. Young, it
would have been reversed in a second without any protest." We agree
with that. What feminists are mad about is that a man just got equal
rights.
Ms. Chang is with a New York group that bills itself as the
Center for Constitutional Rights. Apparently feminists think that
women have a Constitutional right to have it all. Or that she has a
Constitutional right to child custody.
We bet we could shock Ms. Chang to the soul with an amazing
revelation -- something she probably never thought of: namely, that
men have rights under the Constitution, too.
There. We'll leave her alone for a bit to recover from that
bombshell.
(Sources: "Mothers, Fathers, and Citizens," Monday, April 27,
1998; Washington Post, Page A16.)
("In Miami, New Issues Of Custody Case Tests Gender, Caregiver
Roles," By Rachel La Corte, Associated Press, Tuesday, August 18,
1998; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-08/18/053l-081898-idx.html.)
=============================
THE FINE PRINT
Per's MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion
for people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
FEEDBACK: Send comments, kudos and castration threats to
Per2@idt.net.
SUBSCRIBING: To get MANifesto by e-mailed, send an e-mail to
Per2@idt.net with "subscribe MANifesto" in the subject line.
What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of people every
month -- probably because some server between here and there is on the
fritz at the time. If you don't think you received the latest issue,
please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
Each month's current issue of Per's MANifesto is on the web at
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 can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in
soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1998by Per. Please feel free to copy,
forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you
excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety.)
==========
Friday, 22 April 2011
Per's MANifesto October 1997
Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1997.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue where we take a look at some
recent legal events affecting men's rights. The saddest case is that
the state of Virginia seems to believe that men have little right to
defend themselves against rape accusations even when those accusations
leave an awful lot of questions unanswered. So we'll call this issue
WIN SOME, LOSE SOME, though it seems like common sense is losing more
often than not.
Per's MANifesto is available on the web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
INDEX:
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
THE MAN HATERS ROOM
MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
MISSING FIGURES
CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
PANTS SUIT
HUMOR
HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN
==========
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
Former sportscaster Marv Albert pleaded guilty to an assault
and battery charge after a long-time lover accused him of biting her
on the back and forcing her to perform oral sex. Police photographs
showed a couple dozen shallow bite marks on her back, only one of
which caused a minor break in the skin.
Many people are going to assume Albert pleaded guilty because
he was guilty. Human life, and the legal system, are complex arenas,
however, and there is much more to this case than meets the eye.
To understand this case, you have to realized that the defense
was not able to present about 85 percent of the evidence it had
gathered. For instance, the defense had a witness who said that
Albert's accuser enjoyed sexual activity involving biting. Now that is
a fundamentally important revelation in a case involving an accuser
who claimed she was *unwillingly* bitten.
How could such an important piece of evidence be barred?
Because of the so-called "rape shield laws" in the United
States. Every state except Maine has one. (And Maine has some
common-law statutes that do basically the same thing as a "rape shield
law.")
"Rape shield laws" were intended to keep the defense from
smearing a rape accuser over her past sexual conduct. The defense
might bring up a woman's past sexual history in order to paint her as
"loose." Feminists believed that this tactic discouraged women from
making rape claims because they were afraid of being humiliated on the
stand (even though their identities were *always* kept secret.) So
they helped pass the "rape shield laws" preventing the defense from
examining a rape accuser's past conduct.
And that is what happened in the Albert trial, which took
place in the state of Virginia. Ironically, after Albert's accuser
benefitted enormously from Virginia's "rape shield law," she decided
she didn't need the shield anymore, and she revealed her identity
after the trial. She's Vanessa Perhach, a 42-year-old Vienna,
Virginia, woman.
The defense had witnesses available to testify on the highly
suspicious conduct of Perhach. But this evidence could not even be
presented in court. The public has not heard anything close to the
full story about this case.
Among the evidence the defense could not use:
-- That Ms. Perhach willingly engaged in sexual activity that
involved biting. Why was this disallowed under the "rape shield law?"
That law is supposed to say that a woman having consensual sex is
irrelevant to whether she was forced into non-consensual sex. But if
she had willingly engaged in biting on previous occasions, it is
strong evidence that subsequent acts might have been consensual. This
was crucial to the defense, because most people assumed such biting
would be non-consensual. It establishes a possible motive for her:
that she could have engaged in this behavior with Albert in an attempt
to set him up. Other evidence suggests this was so -- but that
evidence also was barred.
-- That Perhach had a pattern of threatening past boyfriends
and seeking retribution against them. (Highly relevant in discussing
an apparent revenge motive against Albert, who was about to marry
another woman.)
-- That Perhach was a chronic liar. (Why was this evidence was
disallowed un the "rape shield law?" Perhaps the judge thought that
telling lies was a sexual activity.)
-- That she was mentally unstable. (If you were accused by a
person who is unstable, you would immediately make sure people knew
about it so they could better judge the accuser. Albert's defense was
not allowed to do this.)
This actually flies in the face of law in non-rape cases,
including murder cases in Virginia. A federal judge recently
overturned the conviction of death-row inmate Tommy David Strickler
because judge found that "undisclosed materials were suppressed by the
prosecution and never disclosed." These materials concerned the
credibility of witnesses against Strickler. And prosecutors are
required to turn over any material that might tend to impeach the
credibility of its witnesses.
What an amazing turnaround that is from the Albert
sexual-assualt trial in the very same state. In Albert's case, even
the *defense* was barred from presenting evidence that would tend to
impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses. All because of the
"rape shield law."
While feminists are now going to start referring to Albert's
accuser as "the victim," it's questionable who the victim is here.
Albert apparently had some kinky sexual desires. But, in effect, the
so-called "rape shield law" put Albert on trial for *his* past sexual
conduct and held him up to ridicule. Remember, the "rape shield law"
was meant to protect women from being humiliated over their past
sexual conduct when those women would, in fact, never be publicly
identified. A man merely *accused* of rape is immediately identified,
and his past sexual history can be paraded so that everyone can see
it. That's was feminists allegedly wanted to prevent with "rape shield
laws." But watch them embrace it now that it's happened to a man.
In particular, it happened because prosecutors were allowed to
present an ambush witness, Patricia Masten, who gave lurid testimony
saying that Albert enjoyed wearing women's garter belts and that
Albert once tried to force her head down toward his groin in a hotel
room. Prosecutors could present Masten as an unannounced witness
because of the antiqued laws of discovery in the state of Virginia.
They didn't have to tell the defense they were bringing her in.
Prosecutors had time to prepare Masten for her testimony but the
defense had to deal with her as soon as the prosecution sprang her on
them.
So what of Masten's motives?
Well, she's hired a lawyer.
A feminist lawyer.
By the name of Gloria Allred.
According to the Associate Press, "Ms. Masten has turned down
offers to tell her story for money since the trial, Ms. Allred said.
But the lawyer was vague about whether Ms. Masten could seek damages
from Albert in a civil suit. 'She's reserving her legal options,' Ms.
Allred said."
If you keep scratching around this case, you keep coming back
to the scent of money.
There is ample evidence that Perhach, the accuser, was
motivated by a desire to shake Albert down for money. Perhach was
caught on tape in a conversation with a cab driver discussing money
and a car in exchange for his testimony against Albert. She claims she
was joking. We're sure she was at least laughing -- all the way to the
bank.
The cab driver has said that Perhach got into his taxi one
night and said: "You're broke, I'm broke, you've got to help me."
Perhach is now taking Albert to civil court, where perhaps we
will see what this case is really about: cashing in.
Perhach had a ten-year relationship with Albert. She was
saving up all sorts of tape recordings of Albert. Why? Then she found
out that Albert was engaged to another woman. So what really happened?
We suspect that Perhach merely played her cards right. If she enjoyed
being bitten during sexual activity and had done it before, it would
be easy enough to arrange such a tryst with Albert. She could later
say the bites were non-consensual.
And thanks to the "rape shield law," nearly all evidence of
duplicity and past behavior was barred from court -- even some
remarkably relevant evidence.
After Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charges, some jurors
said they had not yet seen anything that would cause them to convict
Albert of the more serious forcible sodomy charge (which was dropped
precisely because it was so weak.)
But it's obvious that the prosecutors were willing to continue
smearing Albert over *his* past sexual conduct. Ms. Perhach claimed
that Albert wanted her to find another man to engage in three-way sex
with them. Was this true? Maybe, maybe not. But the defense was
obviously willing to bring up all sorts of accusations that
effectively destroyed the career of a public man. It's no wonder
Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. The prosecution probably
would have kept right on smearing him with innuendo that effectively
destroyed his life. And it was the type of innuendo that never would
have been allowed against the accuser -- thanks to the "rape shield
law."
"Rape shield laws" have only two basic purposes. Ostensibly to
protect an accuser from having her sexual past dragged up through the
trial. But more importantly, "rape shield laws" are intended to make
it easier to convict a man. That is the basic purpose. "Rape shield
laws" deny the defense the right to present evidence.
"Rape shield laws" are seriously flawed. They need to be
overhauled so that the accused can mount a defense. Barring that, the
justice system should immediately stop releasing the names of men
accused of sexual assault. The "rape shield laws" were meant to
protect women whose identities are never revealed. But men's
identities *are* immediately revealed, and all their past history can
be dredged up and thrown out to the public -- precisely what the "rape
shield law" shields *anonymous* women from.
==========
THE MAN HATERS ROOM
Every now and then we see another piece in the news media
about hate groups and extremists on the web. Funny, but they never
seem to include any anti-male hate groups and extremists. Maybe that
means there aren't any?
Or maybe it just means someone isn't looking very hard.
For example, the existence of the "Man Haters" chat room came
to light recently only because it was brought up as part of a rape
accusation case.
A woman had claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by a
man whom we will identify only as Sean. She told police in Pontiac,
Michigan, that he pulled a knife on her and attacked her after they
met on an online chat room.
But the man says that the woman went online and bragged about
making a false accusation. Her forum for doing this: the "Man Haters"
chat room. He says he has a witness that this woman boasted about
inventing the story.
Curiously, prosecutors are opposed to finding out the truth.
They are appealing a ruling that the woman has to turn over her
computer to defense lawyers and reveal her password and online
aliases.
If the prosecutors wanted to get to the truth, why do they
object? Why are they protecting the woman? This is the way the system
works all too often -- law enforcement officials feel obligated to
work only prove a woman's accusation, not to glean the entire truth.
In fact, they're even trying to stand in the way of the truth.
They say they are doing it to protect the women's privacy --
because it's not certain that a search of her computer could be
limited to the relevant files without revealing unrelated personal
information about her.
But we note that this woman's privacy is already being
protected -- the news media is not identifying her.
And we note that the man's privacy is *not* being protected.
The news media has already given out his full name -- as is the habit
simply when a woman brings an unproven accusation.
Her case might go down the tubes. But *his* name has already
been dragged through the mud. And if her claim does prove to be false,
you can be sure that her punishment will fall into two categories:
wrist-slap, or none.
That's quite a major difference from what could have happened
to the man had zealous prosecutors managed to notch their gun-handles
with his conviction and send him to prison. There's not much privacy
-- or safety -- in prison. Why are they more concerned about the
privacy of a woman's computer than the safety of a man's life?
So we say again, why do the new media overlook this kind of
thing when doing stories about hate online? Trying to destroy a man
because you're one of the "Man Haters" is a hate crime. It is an
attack aimed at a person by reason of his gender. Society is going to
have to start prosecuting these attacks as hate crimes. And the news
media are going to have to start looking under the rocks for the
haters of all different stripes.
-----
And in related news, police say a Frederick County, Maryland,
woman falsely claimed she was abducted at gunpoint and raped in a
Pennsylvania field.
The case is notable because the false accuser was actually
named in news coverage: Lisa Lyn Tregoning, 25, of Myersville,
Maryland. Her accusation launched a two-state investigation Sept. 23.
"It causes a lot of concern for everyone because we had to put in a
lot of time and, certainly, people were concerned," said Maryland
State Police Cpl. George Stottlemyer.
Investigators noticed discrepancies in her story of two-state
abduction, and she admitted she lied, police said. They said she and
her husband were having marital difficulties.
Tregoning is getting the usual slap on the wrist: she faces a
misdemeanor charge of making a false criminal report when she goes to
court Dec. 11.
And from Wilmington, North Carolina, comes the shocking story
of Junius Wilson, an elderly deaf man who had been castrated after
being falsely accused of rape.
As the Associated Press reports, Wilson was placed in Cherry
Hospital near Goldsboro in 1925 after being found incompetent to stand
trial on a rape charge. "In 1931, a doctor signed an order for
Wilson's castration, a procedure sanctioned under state law for
'mental defectives and feebleminded inmates' accused of sex crimes.
But Wilson was deaf, not mentally impaired. The charges were dropped
in the 1970s but Wilson remained at the hospital because no relatives
could be found to care for him."
Now Wilson has a tentative settlement with the state. He is to
receive $226,000, medical care, and a home on the grounds of the
mental hospital.
This reminds us of what Gloria Allred said about Marv
Albert. She said:"He shouldn't just walk out of the courthouse with
probation. Some time in custody can be educational for those who
endure it."
We wonder how "educational" it was for Junius Wilson to be
castrated and confined to a mental hospital.
And lastly, Texas Governor George W. Bush is issuing a pardon
for a man who served 12 years in prison on a rape charge before being
cleared.
Modern DNA testing cleared Kevin James Byrd of the charges he
was convicted of in 1985.
A 25-year-old Houston woman told police she was raped while
eight months pregnant, lying in bed, with her 2-year-old child
sleeping beside her. She initially claimed that a white man had raped
her. Four months later she saw Byrd in a grocery store and told police
that he was the attacker. But Byrd is black.
The switch in the race of the supposed attacker didn't keep
Byrd from being convicted solely on the woman's word.
==========
MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
Carla Coelho of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, had met a man on the
internet and wanted to make a good impression.
So she sent him a photograph of herself.
Well, sort of a photograph of herself.
Actually, it was an old photo.
Oh, and she was a few pounds lighter in the picture. Well,
more than a few pounds -- about 40, actually.
The man, Flavio de Oliveira e Silva, sent her pictures, too
-- displaying his wealth, his cattle empire, his Lear jet. Coelho says
it was "love at first link." He even gave her $9,100 after they met,
for travel expenses. They stayed at some of the fanciest resort hotels
in Brazil.
But it turned out that he was a check forger wanted by the
police.
And how is the woman who trimmed 40 pounds off her current
girth taking the news?
"No woman was more loved than I -- nor more deceived," she
says.
==========
THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
Last issue we told you about Joseph Holley, who was denied his
already-accepted White House job because he had been the defendant in
a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit seven years ago. An
investigation cleared him. But an old, unproven accusation was enough
to "convict" Holley in the eyes of the White House.
Now the blacklisting continues.
Hershel Gober has withdrawn his nomination as secretary for
veterans affairs because of four-year-old, unproven accusations of
"sexual misconduct."
Gober denies the accusation that he made an inappropriate
sexual advance to a woman at a Marine Corps event in 1995.
If his nomination had gone into confirmation hearings, Gober
also was expected to face tough questions about possible conflict of
interest charges. But it appears that it was the "sexual misconduct"
accusation that torpedoed him.
==========
MISSING FIGURES
Let's discuss two issues of major concern to men interested in
equal rights: the fact that feminist organizations stereotypes and
demonize men; and the fact that the news media help them do it.
These concerns are usually scoffed at by feminists. (Well, you
didn't expect them to take our concerns seriously.) The feminists
refuse to admit that they stereotype men. And they laugh at the idea
of media bias. "It's all controlled by men," they say.
Well, October was National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
in the United States, and the public was subjected to a barrage of
events designed to make it look as if only men are abusers.
Anyone who truly studies domestic violence knows this isn't
so. In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies
showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence
is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average
violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more
likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as
likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar
motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78). Of every 100
families, 3.8 experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5%
experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus, Gelles,
Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).
Most domestic-violence homicides are attributed to men -- but only
slightly. Men make up about 40 percent of spouses killed in domestic
violence, according to Justice Department figures.
So this is hardly a case of only men being violent, and only
women being the victims.
The crowning touch of this propaganda campaign was a march in
Washington, D.C., on November 22, featuring 1,500 life-sized wooden
figures of women murdered by domestic abusers. That's right *only*
women.
Sure it was a great attention-getting device. You can see the
wooden figures as a tangible representation of a real person. But if
they wanted to present a true picture of domestic violence, they would
need to add another thousand figures -- to get the proper ratio of men
and women killed. There were a thousand missing figures at that rally
-- a thousand missing lives. And amazingly, the news media never
brought that up.
Given that the news media analyze all sorts of political
positions and split hairs over budgets, policy decisions, campaign
donations and all sorts of issues, how could it not simply note that
there is more to domestic violence than this rally presented?
Instead, the rally was given free, uncritical publicity to
spread its false message. And it did so in the nation's capital on the
same ground where men had so recently committed themselves to
admitting their offenses.
And men were not the only ones omitted.
Not represented were women like Teresa Shannon. That's
curious, because her killer was her roommate.
But the roommate was female -- Cindy Boskofsky.
In many ways, the murder fit the scenario of domestic violence
that feminists love to exploit in order to portray men as evil.
Shannon had obtained a no-contact order two weeks before her death.
Boskofsky reportedly offered someone $10,000 to kill Shannon. And a
witness said quoted Boskofsky as saying "If I can't have (Shannon),
nobody will."
If Shannon had been killed by a man, the slaying would have
been held up as evidence of the "patriarchal" beliefs of men who want
to own and control women. Feminists try to claim that domestic
violence is the result of "patriarchal" attitudes. That gives them
purchase to claim that domestic violence is something that only men do
only to women. It gives them a rationale for tracing all violence to
men.
This entire rally, supposedly dedicated to awareness of
"domestic violence," did not mention even one of the following:
Men killed by women. (Pamela Smart, Betty Broderick and the
Scarsdale Diet Doctor Murder must not count as domestic violence.)
Women killed by women. (Shannon doesn't count as domestic
violence.)
Children killed by women. (Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, and
Diane Downs must not count as domestic violence.)
If this rally had portrayed only white people who had been
killed by black people, the bigoted intent would have been perfectly
clear. If they had tried to link being violent with being black, the
racist intent would have been clear. Only a Klan group would do
something like that. But there they were, "respectable" feminists,
doing precisely the same thing with regard to men. And the news media
giving them free publicity for doing it.
Shannon's death -- with the hit-man element, stalking, sexual
jealously, etc., had all the features of a lurid, made-for-TV movie --
*if*the killer had been male. Shannon's death has not gotten a
made-for-TV movie. It has not gotten much attention at all. It did not
even merit a cardboard cutout in the march in Washington over the
weekend.
Judging by the actions of feminists, Shannon's life did not
count for very much -- simply because of the sex of the person who
killed her.
==========
CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
President Clinton issued a proclamation declaring September
28, 1997, as Gold Star Mother's Day, the day to honor women who lost a
child in the military service.
He proclaimed: "For America's Gold Star Mothers -- who have
lost a child in the service of our country --the grief is particularly
acute. The sons and daughters they cherished through the years, whom
they guided and comforted through all the joys and heartaches of
childhood and adolescence, were torn from their lives forever with
cruel and sudden force. These mothers must live the rest of their
lives knowing that the talents and ambitions of their children will
never be fulfilled, that each family gathering or celebration will be
shadowed by the absence of a dearly loved son or daughter."
Clinton's animosity toward fathers is a hallmark of his
administration, stemming from his own childhood experiences that have
given him a stereotyped and hostile view of fathers. So, is he saying
the grief is not particularly acute for fathers? If not, why is there
no mention of fathers anywhere in his proclamation? He certainly has
included women when discussing groups primarily of men. The absolute
lack of any hint that these children also had fathers merely
underscores how disposable and invisible fathers have become -- until
they can be pilloried for doing something wrong.
Clinton goes on: "Yet despite the enormity of their loss,
America's Gold Star Mothers have continued to do what comes naturally
to mothers: to comfort, to nurture, to give of themselves for the
benefit of others."
Again, there isn't a father anywhere in the land who does
this?
Clinton says: "Gold Star Mothers remind us in so many poignant
ways that true love of country often calls for both service and
sacrifice." Correct, Bill. Most of the people paying that sacrifice on
the battlefield have been men.
"For these reasons and more, and in recognition of the special
burden that Gold Star Mothers bear on behalf of all of us, we set
aside this day each year to honor and thank them ..."
And fathers -- you can drop dead.
==========
PANTS SUIT
A man is setting a lawsuit against a Houston, Texas, company
after three female co-workers pulled his pants down.
The man said he mentioned to co-workers at Sterile
Reprocessing Services, Inc., a medical supply company, that he
sometimes did not wear underwear. So they decided to see for
themselves.
"One female supervisor said she thought his co-workers
considered his statements as an invitation for an 'inspection.' "
according to the Associated Press.
"All three women pulled the plaintiff's pants to his knees and
caused him to fall," according to documents filed by his attorney,
Peter Brannan. "While struggling to get away, they dragged him across
the floor by his pants." After that, they would refer to him by a
derogatory name.
Unfortunately, none of the women were targeted in the lawsuit,
which was brought only against the company. Once again an act that
would be seen as a terrible violation of a woman's rights goes
unpunished when the offenders are women.
UPDATE: Tammy S. Blakey, the woman we told you about last
issue, has won $875,000 because she says she was exposed to naughty
pictures at Continental Airlines. The airline was ordered to pay that
amount to Blakey, a pilot who sued for "sexual harassment."
As the Associated Press reported: "Continental got a partial
victory, though, because jurors declined to make the airline pay any
punitive damages. They also decided that the airline had not
retaliated against Blakey or discriminated against her regarding her
pay or assignments, finding only that there was discrimination in the
hostile work environment she faced."
Once again feminism seems to tell us that women are weak,
frail and virginal creatures who must be protected -- or compensated
with big chunks of money.
"I'm not disappointed" that she lost her bid for punitive
damages, Blakey said. "The money wasn't as important as the message."
Really? We wonder which she'd take if she had to choose
between the two.
==========
HUMOR
HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
After the feminist revolution, a couple of men were sentenced
to death for oppressing women. (They had been caught saying that
William Shakespeare was a better writer than Margaret Drabble.)
On the day of their execution, the feminist guard comes to the
door of their cell and says: "I'm supposed to give you each 50 lashes
with a cat-o'-nine-tails, but I'm tired and I'll only give you 25."
The first man claps his hands with joy and says, "This is
wonderful, this is so very nice of you!"
After she is done flogging them, the feminist guard says:
"Prisoners usually get served a last meal of rancid gruel mixed with
bugs. I'm giving you rancid gruel without any bugs."
The first man says "Excellent! That is truly wonderful!"
After they finish the gruel, the feminist guard comes back
and leads them out to the courtyard before a firing squad. She says:
"My orders were not to let you have blindfolds in front of the firing
squad. But I'm going to strip you naked, tear your clothes to shreds,
and give you a scrap of your own clothing to use as a blindfold."
The first man says "This is absolutely wonderful!"
Finally the second man can't stand it any longer and he says,
"What are you praising this feminist for? She's about to have us
killed."
"Keep quiet you fool," the first man whispers, "I'm trying to
encourage the moderates."
==========
GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN
It's time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on
women trying to rise in the world, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname,
president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia
have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the
air," Hyphenated-Lastname says. "This cutting-edge research indicates
that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these
artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held
most high offices of power and controlled the television remote."
"But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal
societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no
distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to
invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent
that, too."
"Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones
and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere
of the patriarchy's efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women
to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes
buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women's
cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the
tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete,
leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf
and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight."
"Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet
except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail."
"Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates.
Obviously, more women are feeling 'down.' Gravity is just another way
in which women's health is being shortchanged."
"This oppression is historical, the product of white, western
men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written
long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input,
the laws of physics would have been kinder, gentler, and more
nurturing, rather than the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men.
Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with
'opposing' reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of
them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is
opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the
backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their
conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there
were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been
equal."
"We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would
have us believe that gravity really represents the 'natural' order of
things," says Hyphenated-Lastname. "It will require spending money on
programs to elevate girls' self esteem so that they are not held down
by artificial concepts of patriarchy."
"This will cost a lot of money," says Hyphenated-Lastname.
"But I'm up for that."
--
(special thanks to the folks on soc.men.)
=============================
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
Subscribing: To have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message
"subscribe MANifesto" to Per2@idt.net. Send comments, kudos and
castration threats to this address as well.
What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of people every
month -- probably because some server between here and there is on the
fritz at the time. If you don't think you received the latest issue,
please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
Each month's current issue of Per's MANifesto is on the Web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
And the Per's MANifesto Home Page is at
http://idt.net/~per2/index.htm featuring links to back issues.
With a link to The POW Page! -- a collection of favorite satire
featuring Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and the Propaganda Organization
for Women.
You also can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in
the following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1997 by Per. Please feel free to copy,
forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you
excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety.)
==========
---
Affirmative action is a system of justice in which someone who
resembles the criminal is required to compensate someone
who resembles the victim.
Read Per's MANifesto Newsletter,
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1997.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue where we take a look at some
recent legal events affecting men's rights. The saddest case is that
the state of Virginia seems to believe that men have little right to
defend themselves against rape accusations even when those accusations
leave an awful lot of questions unanswered. So we'll call this issue
WIN SOME, LOSE SOME, though it seems like common sense is losing more
often than not.
Per's MANifesto is available on the web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
INDEX:
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
THE MAN HATERS ROOM
MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
MISSING FIGURES
CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
PANTS SUIT
HUMOR
HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN
==========
MARV ALBERT: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
Former sportscaster Marv Albert pleaded guilty to an assault
and battery charge after a long-time lover accused him of biting her
on the back and forcing her to perform oral sex. Police photographs
showed a couple dozen shallow bite marks on her back, only one of
which caused a minor break in the skin.
Many people are going to assume Albert pleaded guilty because
he was guilty. Human life, and the legal system, are complex arenas,
however, and there is much more to this case than meets the eye.
To understand this case, you have to realized that the defense
was not able to present about 85 percent of the evidence it had
gathered. For instance, the defense had a witness who said that
Albert's accuser enjoyed sexual activity involving biting. Now that is
a fundamentally important revelation in a case involving an accuser
who claimed she was *unwillingly* bitten.
How could such an important piece of evidence be barred?
Because of the so-called "rape shield laws" in the United
States. Every state except Maine has one. (And Maine has some
common-law statutes that do basically the same thing as a "rape shield
law.")
"Rape shield laws" were intended to keep the defense from
smearing a rape accuser over her past sexual conduct. The defense
might bring up a woman's past sexual history in order to paint her as
"loose." Feminists believed that this tactic discouraged women from
making rape claims because they were afraid of being humiliated on the
stand (even though their identities were *always* kept secret.) So
they helped pass the "rape shield laws" preventing the defense from
examining a rape accuser's past conduct.
And that is what happened in the Albert trial, which took
place in the state of Virginia. Ironically, after Albert's accuser
benefitted enormously from Virginia's "rape shield law," she decided
she didn't need the shield anymore, and she revealed her identity
after the trial. She's Vanessa Perhach, a 42-year-old Vienna,
Virginia, woman.
The defense had witnesses available to testify on the highly
suspicious conduct of Perhach. But this evidence could not even be
presented in court. The public has not heard anything close to the
full story about this case.
Among the evidence the defense could not use:
-- That Ms. Perhach willingly engaged in sexual activity that
involved biting. Why was this disallowed under the "rape shield law?"
That law is supposed to say that a woman having consensual sex is
irrelevant to whether she was forced into non-consensual sex. But if
she had willingly engaged in biting on previous occasions, it is
strong evidence that subsequent acts might have been consensual. This
was crucial to the defense, because most people assumed such biting
would be non-consensual. It establishes a possible motive for her:
that she could have engaged in this behavior with Albert in an attempt
to set him up. Other evidence suggests this was so -- but that
evidence also was barred.
-- That Perhach had a pattern of threatening past boyfriends
and seeking retribution against them. (Highly relevant in discussing
an apparent revenge motive against Albert, who was about to marry
another woman.)
-- That Perhach was a chronic liar. (Why was this evidence was
disallowed un the "rape shield law?" Perhaps the judge thought that
telling lies was a sexual activity.)
-- That she was mentally unstable. (If you were accused by a
person who is unstable, you would immediately make sure people knew
about it so they could better judge the accuser. Albert's defense was
not allowed to do this.)
This actually flies in the face of law in non-rape cases,
including murder cases in Virginia. A federal judge recently
overturned the conviction of death-row inmate Tommy David Strickler
because judge found that "undisclosed materials were suppressed by the
prosecution and never disclosed." These materials concerned the
credibility of witnesses against Strickler. And prosecutors are
required to turn over any material that might tend to impeach the
credibility of its witnesses.
What an amazing turnaround that is from the Albert
sexual-assualt trial in the very same state. In Albert's case, even
the *defense* was barred from presenting evidence that would tend to
impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses. All because of the
"rape shield law."
While feminists are now going to start referring to Albert's
accuser as "the victim," it's questionable who the victim is here.
Albert apparently had some kinky sexual desires. But, in effect, the
so-called "rape shield law" put Albert on trial for *his* past sexual
conduct and held him up to ridicule. Remember, the "rape shield law"
was meant to protect women from being humiliated over their past
sexual conduct when those women would, in fact, never be publicly
identified. A man merely *accused* of rape is immediately identified,
and his past sexual history can be paraded so that everyone can see
it. That's was feminists allegedly wanted to prevent with "rape shield
laws." But watch them embrace it now that it's happened to a man.
In particular, it happened because prosecutors were allowed to
present an ambush witness, Patricia Masten, who gave lurid testimony
saying that Albert enjoyed wearing women's garter belts and that
Albert once tried to force her head down toward his groin in a hotel
room. Prosecutors could present Masten as an unannounced witness
because of the antiqued laws of discovery in the state of Virginia.
They didn't have to tell the defense they were bringing her in.
Prosecutors had time to prepare Masten for her testimony but the
defense had to deal with her as soon as the prosecution sprang her on
them.
So what of Masten's motives?
Well, she's hired a lawyer.
A feminist lawyer.
By the name of Gloria Allred.
According to the Associate Press, "Ms. Masten has turned down
offers to tell her story for money since the trial, Ms. Allred said.
But the lawyer was vague about whether Ms. Masten could seek damages
from Albert in a civil suit. 'She's reserving her legal options,' Ms.
Allred said."
If you keep scratching around this case, you keep coming back
to the scent of money.
There is ample evidence that Perhach, the accuser, was
motivated by a desire to shake Albert down for money. Perhach was
caught on tape in a conversation with a cab driver discussing money
and a car in exchange for his testimony against Albert. She claims she
was joking. We're sure she was at least laughing -- all the way to the
bank.
The cab driver has said that Perhach got into his taxi one
night and said: "You're broke, I'm broke, you've got to help me."
Perhach is now taking Albert to civil court, where perhaps we
will see what this case is really about: cashing in.
Perhach had a ten-year relationship with Albert. She was
saving up all sorts of tape recordings of Albert. Why? Then she found
out that Albert was engaged to another woman. So what really happened?
We suspect that Perhach merely played her cards right. If she enjoyed
being bitten during sexual activity and had done it before, it would
be easy enough to arrange such a tryst with Albert. She could later
say the bites were non-consensual.
And thanks to the "rape shield law," nearly all evidence of
duplicity and past behavior was barred from court -- even some
remarkably relevant evidence.
After Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charges, some jurors
said they had not yet seen anything that would cause them to convict
Albert of the more serious forcible sodomy charge (which was dropped
precisely because it was so weak.)
But it's obvious that the prosecutors were willing to continue
smearing Albert over *his* past sexual conduct. Ms. Perhach claimed
that Albert wanted her to find another man to engage in three-way sex
with them. Was this true? Maybe, maybe not. But the defense was
obviously willing to bring up all sorts of accusations that
effectively destroyed the career of a public man. It's no wonder
Albert pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. The prosecution probably
would have kept right on smearing him with innuendo that effectively
destroyed his life. And it was the type of innuendo that never would
have been allowed against the accuser -- thanks to the "rape shield
law."
"Rape shield laws" have only two basic purposes. Ostensibly to
protect an accuser from having her sexual past dragged up through the
trial. But more importantly, "rape shield laws" are intended to make
it easier to convict a man. That is the basic purpose. "Rape shield
laws" deny the defense the right to present evidence.
"Rape shield laws" are seriously flawed. They need to be
overhauled so that the accused can mount a defense. Barring that, the
justice system should immediately stop releasing the names of men
accused of sexual assault. The "rape shield laws" were meant to
protect women whose identities are never revealed. But men's
identities *are* immediately revealed, and all their past history can
be dredged up and thrown out to the public -- precisely what the "rape
shield law" shields *anonymous* women from.
==========
THE MAN HATERS ROOM
Every now and then we see another piece in the news media
about hate groups and extremists on the web. Funny, but they never
seem to include any anti-male hate groups and extremists. Maybe that
means there aren't any?
Or maybe it just means someone isn't looking very hard.
For example, the existence of the "Man Haters" chat room came
to light recently only because it was brought up as part of a rape
accusation case.
A woman had claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by a
man whom we will identify only as Sean. She told police in Pontiac,
Michigan, that he pulled a knife on her and attacked her after they
met on an online chat room.
But the man says that the woman went online and bragged about
making a false accusation. Her forum for doing this: the "Man Haters"
chat room. He says he has a witness that this woman boasted about
inventing the story.
Curiously, prosecutors are opposed to finding out the truth.
They are appealing a ruling that the woman has to turn over her
computer to defense lawyers and reveal her password and online
aliases.
If the prosecutors wanted to get to the truth, why do they
object? Why are they protecting the woman? This is the way the system
works all too often -- law enforcement officials feel obligated to
work only prove a woman's accusation, not to glean the entire truth.
In fact, they're even trying to stand in the way of the truth.
They say they are doing it to protect the women's privacy --
because it's not certain that a search of her computer could be
limited to the relevant files without revealing unrelated personal
information about her.
But we note that this woman's privacy is already being
protected -- the news media is not identifying her.
And we note that the man's privacy is *not* being protected.
The news media has already given out his full name -- as is the habit
simply when a woman brings an unproven accusation.
Her case might go down the tubes. But *his* name has already
been dragged through the mud. And if her claim does prove to be false,
you can be sure that her punishment will fall into two categories:
wrist-slap, or none.
That's quite a major difference from what could have happened
to the man had zealous prosecutors managed to notch their gun-handles
with his conviction and send him to prison. There's not much privacy
-- or safety -- in prison. Why are they more concerned about the
privacy of a woman's computer than the safety of a man's life?
So we say again, why do the new media overlook this kind of
thing when doing stories about hate online? Trying to destroy a man
because you're one of the "Man Haters" is a hate crime. It is an
attack aimed at a person by reason of his gender. Society is going to
have to start prosecuting these attacks as hate crimes. And the news
media are going to have to start looking under the rocks for the
haters of all different stripes.
-----
And in related news, police say a Frederick County, Maryland,
woman falsely claimed she was abducted at gunpoint and raped in a
Pennsylvania field.
The case is notable because the false accuser was actually
named in news coverage: Lisa Lyn Tregoning, 25, of Myersville,
Maryland. Her accusation launched a two-state investigation Sept. 23.
"It causes a lot of concern for everyone because we had to put in a
lot of time and, certainly, people were concerned," said Maryland
State Police Cpl. George Stottlemyer.
Investigators noticed discrepancies in her story of two-state
abduction, and she admitted she lied, police said. They said she and
her husband were having marital difficulties.
Tregoning is getting the usual slap on the wrist: she faces a
misdemeanor charge of making a false criminal report when she goes to
court Dec. 11.
And from Wilmington, North Carolina, comes the shocking story
of Junius Wilson, an elderly deaf man who had been castrated after
being falsely accused of rape.
As the Associated Press reports, Wilson was placed in Cherry
Hospital near Goldsboro in 1925 after being found incompetent to stand
trial on a rape charge. "In 1931, a doctor signed an order for
Wilson's castration, a procedure sanctioned under state law for
'mental defectives and feebleminded inmates' accused of sex crimes.
But Wilson was deaf, not mentally impaired. The charges were dropped
in the 1970s but Wilson remained at the hospital because no relatives
could be found to care for him."
Now Wilson has a tentative settlement with the state. He is to
receive $226,000, medical care, and a home on the grounds of the
mental hospital.
This reminds us of what Gloria Allred said about Marv
Albert. She said:"He shouldn't just walk out of the courthouse with
probation. Some time in custody can be educational for those who
endure it."
We wonder how "educational" it was for Junius Wilson to be
castrated and confined to a mental hospital.
And lastly, Texas Governor George W. Bush is issuing a pardon
for a man who served 12 years in prison on a rape charge before being
cleared.
Modern DNA testing cleared Kevin James Byrd of the charges he
was convicted of in 1985.
A 25-year-old Houston woman told police she was raped while
eight months pregnant, lying in bed, with her 2-year-old child
sleeping beside her. She initially claimed that a white man had raped
her. Four months later she saw Byrd in a grocery store and told police
that he was the attacker. But Byrd is black.
The switch in the race of the supposed attacker didn't keep
Byrd from being convicted solely on the woman's word.
==========
MEN ARE SUCH LIARS
Carla Coelho of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, had met a man on the
internet and wanted to make a good impression.
So she sent him a photograph of herself.
Well, sort of a photograph of herself.
Actually, it was an old photo.
Oh, and she was a few pounds lighter in the picture. Well,
more than a few pounds -- about 40, actually.
The man, Flavio de Oliveira e Silva, sent her pictures, too
-- displaying his wealth, his cattle empire, his Lear jet. Coelho says
it was "love at first link." He even gave her $9,100 after they met,
for travel expenses. They stayed at some of the fanciest resort hotels
in Brazil.
But it turned out that he was a check forger wanted by the
police.
And how is the woman who trimmed 40 pounds off her current
girth taking the news?
"No woman was more loved than I -- nor more deceived," she
says.
==========
THE BLACKLISTING CONTINUES
Last issue we told you about Joseph Holley, who was denied his
already-accepted White House job because he had been the defendant in
a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit seven years ago. An
investigation cleared him. But an old, unproven accusation was enough
to "convict" Holley in the eyes of the White House.
Now the blacklisting continues.
Hershel Gober has withdrawn his nomination as secretary for
veterans affairs because of four-year-old, unproven accusations of
"sexual misconduct."
Gober denies the accusation that he made an inappropriate
sexual advance to a woman at a Marine Corps event in 1995.
If his nomination had gone into confirmation hearings, Gober
also was expected to face tough questions about possible conflict of
interest charges. But it appears that it was the "sexual misconduct"
accusation that torpedoed him.
==========
MISSING FIGURES
Let's discuss two issues of major concern to men interested in
equal rights: the fact that feminist organizations stereotypes and
demonize men; and the fact that the news media help them do it.
These concerns are usually scoffed at by feminists. (Well, you
didn't expect them to take our concerns seriously.) The feminists
refuse to admit that they stereotype men. And they laugh at the idea
of media bias. "It's all controlled by men," they say.
Well, October was National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
in the United States, and the public was subjected to a barrage of
events designed to make it look as if only men are abusers.
Anyone who truly studies domestic violence knows this isn't
so. In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies
showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence
is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average
violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more
likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as
likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar
motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78). Of every 100
families, 3.8 experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5%
experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus, Gelles,
Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).
Most domestic-violence homicides are attributed to men -- but only
slightly. Men make up about 40 percent of spouses killed in domestic
violence, according to Justice Department figures.
So this is hardly a case of only men being violent, and only
women being the victims.
The crowning touch of this propaganda campaign was a march in
Washington, D.C., on November 22, featuring 1,500 life-sized wooden
figures of women murdered by domestic abusers. That's right *only*
women.
Sure it was a great attention-getting device. You can see the
wooden figures as a tangible representation of a real person. But if
they wanted to present a true picture of domestic violence, they would
need to add another thousand figures -- to get the proper ratio of men
and women killed. There were a thousand missing figures at that rally
-- a thousand missing lives. And amazingly, the news media never
brought that up.
Given that the news media analyze all sorts of political
positions and split hairs over budgets, policy decisions, campaign
donations and all sorts of issues, how could it not simply note that
there is more to domestic violence than this rally presented?
Instead, the rally was given free, uncritical publicity to
spread its false message. And it did so in the nation's capital on the
same ground where men had so recently committed themselves to
admitting their offenses.
And men were not the only ones omitted.
Not represented were women like Teresa Shannon. That's
curious, because her killer was her roommate.
But the roommate was female -- Cindy Boskofsky.
In many ways, the murder fit the scenario of domestic violence
that feminists love to exploit in order to portray men as evil.
Shannon had obtained a no-contact order two weeks before her death.
Boskofsky reportedly offered someone $10,000 to kill Shannon. And a
witness said quoted Boskofsky as saying "If I can't have (Shannon),
nobody will."
If Shannon had been killed by a man, the slaying would have
been held up as evidence of the "patriarchal" beliefs of men who want
to own and control women. Feminists try to claim that domestic
violence is the result of "patriarchal" attitudes. That gives them
purchase to claim that domestic violence is something that only men do
only to women. It gives them a rationale for tracing all violence to
men.
This entire rally, supposedly dedicated to awareness of
"domestic violence," did not mention even one of the following:
Men killed by women. (Pamela Smart, Betty Broderick and the
Scarsdale Diet Doctor Murder must not count as domestic violence.)
Women killed by women. (Shannon doesn't count as domestic
violence.)
Children killed by women. (Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, and
Diane Downs must not count as domestic violence.)
If this rally had portrayed only white people who had been
killed by black people, the bigoted intent would have been perfectly
clear. If they had tried to link being violent with being black, the
racist intent would have been clear. Only a Klan group would do
something like that. But there they were, "respectable" feminists,
doing precisely the same thing with regard to men. And the news media
giving them free publicity for doing it.
Shannon's death -- with the hit-man element, stalking, sexual
jealously, etc., had all the features of a lurid, made-for-TV movie --
*if*the killer had been male. Shannon's death has not gotten a
made-for-TV movie. It has not gotten much attention at all. It did not
even merit a cardboard cutout in the march in Washington over the
weekend.
Judging by the actions of feminists, Shannon's life did not
count for very much -- simply because of the sex of the person who
killed her.
==========
CLINTON TO FATHERS: DROP DEAD
President Clinton issued a proclamation declaring September
28, 1997, as Gold Star Mother's Day, the day to honor women who lost a
child in the military service.
He proclaimed: "For America's Gold Star Mothers -- who have
lost a child in the service of our country --the grief is particularly
acute. The sons and daughters they cherished through the years, whom
they guided and comforted through all the joys and heartaches of
childhood and adolescence, were torn from their lives forever with
cruel and sudden force. These mothers must live the rest of their
lives knowing that the talents and ambitions of their children will
never be fulfilled, that each family gathering or celebration will be
shadowed by the absence of a dearly loved son or daughter."
Clinton's animosity toward fathers is a hallmark of his
administration, stemming from his own childhood experiences that have
given him a stereotyped and hostile view of fathers. So, is he saying
the grief is not particularly acute for fathers? If not, why is there
no mention of fathers anywhere in his proclamation? He certainly has
included women when discussing groups primarily of men. The absolute
lack of any hint that these children also had fathers merely
underscores how disposable and invisible fathers have become -- until
they can be pilloried for doing something wrong.
Clinton goes on: "Yet despite the enormity of their loss,
America's Gold Star Mothers have continued to do what comes naturally
to mothers: to comfort, to nurture, to give of themselves for the
benefit of others."
Again, there isn't a father anywhere in the land who does
this?
Clinton says: "Gold Star Mothers remind us in so many poignant
ways that true love of country often calls for both service and
sacrifice." Correct, Bill. Most of the people paying that sacrifice on
the battlefield have been men.
"For these reasons and more, and in recognition of the special
burden that Gold Star Mothers bear on behalf of all of us, we set
aside this day each year to honor and thank them ..."
And fathers -- you can drop dead.
==========
PANTS SUIT
A man is setting a lawsuit against a Houston, Texas, company
after three female co-workers pulled his pants down.
The man said he mentioned to co-workers at Sterile
Reprocessing Services, Inc., a medical supply company, that he
sometimes did not wear underwear. So they decided to see for
themselves.
"One female supervisor said she thought his co-workers
considered his statements as an invitation for an 'inspection.' "
according to the Associated Press.
"All three women pulled the plaintiff's pants to his knees and
caused him to fall," according to documents filed by his attorney,
Peter Brannan. "While struggling to get away, they dragged him across
the floor by his pants." After that, they would refer to him by a
derogatory name.
Unfortunately, none of the women were targeted in the lawsuit,
which was brought only against the company. Once again an act that
would be seen as a terrible violation of a woman's rights goes
unpunished when the offenders are women.
UPDATE: Tammy S. Blakey, the woman we told you about last
issue, has won $875,000 because she says she was exposed to naughty
pictures at Continental Airlines. The airline was ordered to pay that
amount to Blakey, a pilot who sued for "sexual harassment."
As the Associated Press reported: "Continental got a partial
victory, though, because jurors declined to make the airline pay any
punitive damages. They also decided that the airline had not
retaliated against Blakey or discriminated against her regarding her
pay or assignments, finding only that there was discrimination in the
hostile work environment she faced."
Once again feminism seems to tell us that women are weak,
frail and virginal creatures who must be protected -- or compensated
with big chunks of money.
"I'm not disappointed" that she lost her bid for punitive
damages, Blakey said. "The money wasn't as important as the message."
Really? We wonder which she'd take if she had to choose
between the two.
==========
HUMOR
HOW TO DEAL WITH FEMINISTS
After the feminist revolution, a couple of men were sentenced
to death for oppressing women. (They had been caught saying that
William Shakespeare was a better writer than Margaret Drabble.)
On the day of their execution, the feminist guard comes to the
door of their cell and says: "I'm supposed to give you each 50 lashes
with a cat-o'-nine-tails, but I'm tired and I'll only give you 25."
The first man claps his hands with joy and says, "This is
wonderful, this is so very nice of you!"
After she is done flogging them, the feminist guard says:
"Prisoners usually get served a last meal of rancid gruel mixed with
bugs. I'm giving you rancid gruel without any bugs."
The first man says "Excellent! That is truly wonderful!"
After they finish the gruel, the feminist guard comes back
and leads them out to the courtyard before a firing squad. She says:
"My orders were not to let you have blindfolds in front of the firing
squad. But I'm going to strip you naked, tear your clothes to shreds,
and give you a scrap of your own clothing to use as a blindfold."
The first man says "This is absolutely wonderful!"
Finally the second man can't stand it any longer and he says,
"What are you praising this feminist for? She's about to have us
killed."
"Keep quiet you fool," the first man whispers, "I'm trying to
encourage the moderates."
==========
GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN
It's time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on
women trying to rise in the world, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname,
president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia
have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the
air," Hyphenated-Lastname says. "This cutting-edge research indicates
that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these
artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held
most high offices of power and controlled the television remote."
"But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal
societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no
distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to
invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent
that, too."
"Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones
and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere
of the patriarchy's efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women
to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes
buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women's
cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the
tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete,
leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf
and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight."
"Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet
except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail."
"Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates.
Obviously, more women are feeling 'down.' Gravity is just another way
in which women's health is being shortchanged."
"This oppression is historical, the product of white, western
men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written
long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input,
the laws of physics would have been kinder, gentler, and more
nurturing, rather than the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men.
Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with
'opposing' reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of
them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is
opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the
backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their
conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there
were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been
equal."
"We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would
have us believe that gravity really represents the 'natural' order of
things," says Hyphenated-Lastname. "It will require spending money on
programs to elevate girls' self esteem so that they are not held down
by artificial concepts of patriarchy."
"This will cost a lot of money," says Hyphenated-Lastname.
"But I'm up for that."
--
(special thanks to the folks on soc.men.)
=============================
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
Subscribing: To have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message
"subscribe MANifesto" to Per2@idt.net. Send comments, kudos and
castration threats to this address as well.
What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of people every
month -- probably because some server between here and there is on the
fritz at the time. If you don't think you received the latest issue,
please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
Each month's current issue of Per's MANifesto is on the Web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
And the Per's MANifesto Home Page is at
http://idt.net/~per2/index.htm featuring links to back issues.
With a link to The POW Page! -- a collection of favorite satire
featuring Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and the Propaganda Organization
for Women.
You also can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in
the following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
(MANifesto is copyright 1997 by Per. Please feel free to copy,
forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you
excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety.)
==========
---
Affirmative action is a system of justice in which someone who
resembles the criminal is required to compensate someone
who resembles the victim.
Read Per's MANifesto Newsletter,
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Per's MANifesto October 1996
Per's MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1996.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto where we take a look at the
problem of being "Male And Presumed Guilty."
First, we're pleased to tell you that MANifesto is now available on
the web, and this site also offers a few back issues. (More will be
archived as we go along.)
See http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/manifest.htm
Also available:
The POW Page, featuring some of our most popular satires on feminist
extremism. Read up on Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and her Propaganda
Organization for Women at http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/powpage.htm
And a brand new page, Mondo Feminism, News From the Weird Side. Heard
of the sports fans who raped a doll? A giant eunuch Jesus? Gloria Steinem
getting down with Satan? Check out
http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/mondofem.htm
In this issues, we examine several court cases where men apparently
are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Sometimes the injustice can be
rectified, sometimes not. But all of these cases involve men who went before
our supposedly blind system of justice and found themselves "male and
presumed guilty."
INDEX:
I. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART I
II. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART II
III. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART III
IV. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART IV
V. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART V
VI. THE JUSTICE AND JOHNATHAN
VII. WHERE ARE THESE STRONG WOMEN?
VIII. COSMOWATCH
HUMOR
IX. THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST -- CONTINUED
X. YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF ...
XI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CHESS
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART I
Troy Lynn Webb, 29, spent seven years in jail. He was sentenced to
serve 47 years.
But the state of Virginia pardoned and released Mr. Webb earlier this
month after admitting that he was wrongfully convicted of rape.
Mr. Webb and his family family had contacted The Innocence Project, an
organization that helps with DNA testing for people wrongfully imprisoned.
The test cleared him as a suspect.
Mr. Webb's case is worth noting for several reasons. One, his victim
identified him as the attacker. And serology tests available at the time of
his trial could not rule him out.
But "genetic fingerprint" tests are more conclusive and sophisticated.
They showed that victims can make mistakes, and even misidentify and
innocent man. Governor George Allen said Mr. Webb would not have been
convicted if the tests had been available during his trial.
Seven years is a long time for an innocent person to spend in jail.
But the consequences could have been worse. In today's overheated,
emotionally charged atmosphere, California has passed a law calling for the
chemical or even physical castration of child molesters. This law way
originally sponsored by feminists who admit that their aim is to have the
law applied to men convicted of rape as well.
The Associated Press reports that the California law "was drawn up by Susan
Carpenter-McMillan, executive director of the Pasadena-based Women's
Coalition. The women originally wanted the bill to apply to all rapists but
settled for the more narrow bill as a good first step. 'If this doesn't
pass, we'll bring it back again and again and again,' Carpenter-McMillan
said. 'We're not talking about cutting off their testicles. Maybe someday,
but not now.' "
We are glad that Mr. Webb, an innocent man, has been freed. It is bad
enough that he lost seven years of his life -- seven years the state cannot
give back. It should be a lesson to us that mistakes can be made. And it
should sound a cautionary note against barbaric forms of vengeance that
cannot be reversed.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART II
In a similar case, Wayne Dumond of Arkansas was convicted of raping a
woman in 1984. That woman also identified him as the attacker. And now, DNA
tests on the sperm found in her pants indicates he is innocent, and Governor
Mike Huckabee says he intends to commute the sentence.
But another, far more barbaric sentence has already been carried out.
While Dumond was awaiting trial, two masked men broke into his home and
castrated him.
Then a St. Francis County sheriff preserved the severed testicles in
formaldehyde and put them on display on his desk.
Dumond won a $110,000 lawsuit over this Medieval display. The guilty
sheriff later was sent to jail on an unrelated racketeering charge.
Based on the DNA evidence, a parole board recommended that Dumond be
released from prison.
That was in 1990.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART III
Jon Feeney of Missouri is on trial. The official charge is that he
murdered his family.
But the more you read about the case, the more it looks like he is on
trial because he is a man.
Feeney says he was 90 miles away from his home in Springfield,
attending a teachers' conference at the Lake of the Ozarks the night his
wife, son, and daughter were killed. The assistant prosecutor admits that no
witness puts Feeney in Springfield on the night of the slayings. No physical
evidence has been presented linking him to the crime scene.
Prosecutors admit it is a weak case. We wonder if a woman would be put
on trial, or even fall under suspicion, in similar circumstances. But the
attitude seems to be that Feeney is a man, dammit, so he has to be guilty.
Consider how they went about indicting him.
Central to the indictment was the testimony of a convenience-store
clerk named Ron Gann. Mr. Gann said that he sold gasoline to a man he
thought resembled Feeney early on the morning of the slayings. He also said
he remembered Feeney's red Mustang convertible.
That's slim, indeed. And his story was riddled with inconsistencies
when he told various versions in depositions, interviews and testimony. But
never mind, it was good enough for the state. They put Feeney on trial.
They're asking for the death penalty.
However, a defense attorney discovered something interesting.
Time sheets show that Gann, the convenience-store clerk, was not even
working at the time he "remembers" seeing Mr. Feeney.
The state's case was not very good to begin with. Now it has gotten
weaker. But rather than drop the charges, the state is going ahead with the
trial.
And they're still seeking the death penalty.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART IV
David M. Nevers, who contributes to the soc.men discussion group, saw
for himself a "Male and Presumed Guilty" attitude in the court system. His
wife had attacked him, sending him to the emergency room four times. Yet in
court after one of the attacks, the judge assumed that David was the
attacker. Here is the story in his own words:
--
My ex-wife stood before the criminal court judge, charged with
Domestic Battery (after my third trip to the emergency room). The judge, a
woman, was listening to the Asst. State's Attorney, another woman,
explaining to the judge what the Complaint was all about. The State's
Attorney kept referring to me as "the Defendant." Why? Because I was a
man, and it was a Domestic Violence case. All domestic violence is
committed by men, right?
The judge began to read me the riot act about my superior strength, my
size, etc. I had to interrupt at that point and tell these two women (Judge
and State's Attorney) that had already indicted and convicted me based on my
gender, that I was there as the VICTIM, not "the Defendant." I was the one
sent to the hospital, the one they were supposed to be protecting.
When the judge found out it was a woman charged with a violent crime,
her demeanor changed. There were no lectures, no warnings, just a
business-like disposition of the case.
Oh, and when the court was routinely handing out Protection Orders to
any woman who asked for one, my request was denied. The judge said I "look
like I can take care of myself."
By the way, my ex pled guilty to the charge in exchange for probation
and no jail time. While on probation, she broke my nose. The judge denied
the request for revocation of her probation.
(But David's problems with the courts were far from over. Though his
wife had not spent any time in jail, David found himself there in a dispute
over splitting up their property. He continues:)
For those of you who don't know my story, I was divorced last year in
DuPage County, IL. The presiding judge, Robert Byrne, said that my ex-wife's
domestic violence (I was in the ER four times) was not a "relevant factor"
in child custody cases, and awarded sole custody to her.
During the divorce I was stitched up when she kicked me through a
glass storm door, then I got second degree burns when she slammed an oven
door or my arm and held it shut. Ten days later, she threw me down a flight
of stairs. This time, after the ER doctor insisted, the police arrested her,
and she pled guilty to battery. Later, after Judge Byrne made his
remarkable finding of sole custody to the abuser, she broke my nose with a
picture frame she wanted (but didn't get) in the settlement. The police
refused to press charges.
I was ordered out of the house in 10 days, and she was awarded 60% of
the equity. Nice reward for criminal conduct, eh? She is supposed to pay me
my share of the equity, but she wants a deed turned over BEFORE she does so.
The "new" judge on our divorce case today said I willfully violated
the court order by not signing over the deed to the house (even without her
payment to me).
When I continued to refuse to sign it, the sheriff took me into
custody. I was frisked, my belt, tie, and personal belongings removed from
my pockets. I was handcuffed, and led down to the DuPage County criminal
lockup.
Originally, the judge said I was to be booked and then brought back to
court in an inmate uniform, to continue the other issues up before the
court.
At 3:30pm (two hours after my "arrest") the judge sent word down that he
was "going home for the day" and unless and until I signed the deed I could
rot in jail.
(Note: As a civil "violator" I was not entitled to the usual criminal
procedural things. I could not speak to my attorney, get out on bail, get
a speedy trial, etc. About all I was allowed was the right to make a
collect call. Oh, and they did agree to give me a cup of hot tea after 4
hours in the lockup. The concept is that jail is used as civil coercion to
force a course of action, as opposed to jail used as a punishment for a
previous (criminal) action.)
I signed it at 4:30pm, with the notation - UNDER DURESS - next to my
signature.
The only criminal in this case has yet to see the inside of a jail
cell. My ex wife has pled guilty to battery, and been convicted twice of
criminal contempt of court, and she remains free, with sole custody of my
children, and now, the deed to my home.
--- David M. Nevers (dmnevers@ix.netcom.com)
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART V
Charlie Minor was no Boy Scout. He succeeded in the often-sleazy world
of record promoters -- a world of fast women, cocaine, connections, and
maybe some special favors for the radio personalities who play your client's
music.
Charlie Minor was good at it. Janet Jackson, Sting, Bryan Adams and
Amy Grant are among the stars who credit him with helping them gain big
hits.
Charlie had a lot of money. And he attracted a lot of women.
But on March 19, 1995, a jilted former lover shot him to death, with nine
soft-point bullets.
The killer, Suzette McClure, is a thirty-year-old stripper.
And McClure's defense team makes no secret that they plan to put the
murder victim on trial, painting her as a naive waif and men in general as
the real culprits. They are going to make McClure into a female O.J.
Simpson, playing the gender card instead of the race card.
The defense is going to try to convince the jury that McClure is an
unsophisticated California Valley Girl who somehow got caught up in the fast
lane. They will try to paint her as a good girl misled by men. The defense
calls McClure "a good girl pushed beyond her limits ... She is Catholic ...
and not used to people who lie all the time." The defense is going to come
down to the argument that Charlie Minor's murder was his own fault, that he
got what he deserved
We hope the jury sees through this portrait of a sweet, innocent
little killer.
Long before she met Charlie Minor, Suzette McClure had taken up
stripping, because the money was good. It helped support her L.A. lifestyle
of beaches, parties, and hanging around with celebrities and music
executives.
The defense will try to make it look as though she somehow got
accidentally pulled into the fast lane, that she was a pious, trusting soul
who unsuspectingly wound up with a player like Charlie Minor. But if McClure
was so unsophisticated and pious, she could have found an unsophisticated,
pious man. She didn't. She hung out in strip clubs and dated men with the
money, the juice. Charlie Minor didn't turn McClure into a stripper. She
already was one.
When he dumped her, she got a gun. The defense will tell you it was
heartbreak. So what was her heart broken over? Losing a lover? or losing the
hot cars, luxurious oceanfront house, fast life and big money that went with
him?
Nancy Kaser Boyd, a Los Angeles psychologist who is helping the
defense, says: "Women kill because their self-esteem has been destroyed. The
real culprits here are the men who run the record industry."
Real culprits? We thought that killing people made you a "real
culprit."
If this sort of defense works, then what's to stop anyone from using
it? Why not say that men kill because their self-esteem is destroyed, and
that women are the "real culprits"? Do we want to go down this road? Because
if we do, then let's go down it equally.
The Suzette McClure trial should be watched closely. What the defense
is trying to pull off is the argument that men who are killed deserve it,
that women who kill really are driven to it.
(McClure's case gets a sympathetic write-up in the November 1996 issue
of the women's magazine Cosmopolitan.)
==========
THE JUSTICE AND JOHNATHAN
Lorraine Miller is a judge. She handles criminal cases for New York's
state Supreme Court.
So it probably would be a good idea if a person entrusted with that
sort of power did not go around harassing and smearing people
But Justice Miller had her own ideas of justice.
The state recently punished her for carrying out a campaign against a
former lover. It found that she had sent "anonymous, harassing and
offensive'' mailings against a man who broke off a relationship with her.
The man, S. Barrett Hickman, broke off with Miller in 1992 when he met
another woman, whom he later married. Hickman told the New York Post that
Miller stalked him, even following him to South Africa once. He says she
also canceled his credit cards. A commission investigating the judge say she
got confidential divorce records on Mr. Hickman's wife and sent the
information to neighbors and friends of the couple, and to the newspapers
and businesses.
What punishment do you think a male judge would have gotten for this.
Removal from the bench? Disbarment.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct decided merely to "censure"
Justice Miller.
Justice Lorraine Miller's punishment was, essentially, a scolding.
Well, at least she got some punishment. In today's movies ("The First
Wives Club," "Waiting to Exhale," etc.) this type of behavior isn't
condemned -- it's glorified. But don't worry. Those movies never give
anybody any ideas, do they?
Justice Miller's case makes an interesting contrast to the punishment
meted out to Johnathan Prevette. Johnathan is the six-year-old boy who made
national headlines when he was suspended from first grade in Lexington,
North Carolina, because he kissed a girl on the cheek.
A boy kisses a girl and gets suspended. A judge harasses a man and
merely gets a lecture. In a way, little Johnathan should feel honored. He is
being held far more responsible for his actions than is an adult judge!
In our justice system, it's a bigger offense to kiss someone than to
harass them.
Or maybe it's just a bigger crime to be male.
==========
WHERE ARE THESE STRONG WOMEN?
In a recent discussion, a feminist said that people who disagree with
feminists just can't handle "strong women."
Well, where are these strong women?
Are they the ones who demand federal protection from jokes?
Are they the ones who demand "a safe and nurturing environment"?
These strong women we are afraid of -- are they the ones who demand
separate schools for girls so they won't have to compete with boys, and
separate, fully funded female sports leagues where they don't have to
compete against men?
These strong women we are so afraid of -- are they the ones who say
they are "abused" if their husbands ignore them, walk out of the room
silently, or comment on their weight? Are they the ones who say they are
being "raped" if men are admitted to their women-only colleges? Are they the
ones who accuse a reporter of "battering" them when he questions their
statistics?
Are these the strong women we keep hearing about?
These strong women that cause us to tremble so -- are they the ones
who demand federal protection from unwanted sexual advances?
I have heard of strong women. Clara Barton was a strong woman. Once,
when she was out on a battlefield, a bullet passed through her sleeve and
killed the man she was treating. Clara Barton was a strong woman. She was
not cowering behind a locked door with the "Take Back The Night" crowd,
wailing that she can't walk across a well-patrolled campus for fear of being
raped. Clara Barton was out in the world, doing. And she helped men.
Mother Theresa is a strong woman. Instead of looking at the boardrooms
and demanding a quota seat, she looked at the slums and asked how she could
help. Instead of looking at the wealthiest one percent and saying "I can
have it all," she looked at those less fortunate and said they deserve
better. She is out in the world helping women ... and men.
They are strong women. Why in the world should we be afraid of them?
But they are not the "strong women" to which you refer. The strong women you
say we fear are the women who cannot compete unless they have special
programs, special rights, special classes, special privileges and special
protections.
These privileged and protected women are the strong women we are
supposedly afraid of.
The "strong women" of feminism have to blame men for all of their own
failings, shortcomings. They have to trace all their own crime and
immorality back to a man they can blame. These strong women of feminism have
to blame men for the fact that throughout history women have sought safety
and security rather than the uncertainties of the uncharted land -- that
they have sought out men who would provide them with wealth rather than
risking the hard, dangerous labor that creates such wealth.
Where are strong women? They're certainly not the ones hiding behind
feminism.
==========
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 November 1996
issue:
-- The Cosmo Great Body Guide
-- "The Secret Voyeur in All of Us: If visual cues turn you on, go
ahead and peek."
-- "Do You Remember When You Last Made Love?" This article on page 112
makes an interesting comparison to an article on page 86 of the same issue:
"My Husband is a Sex Addict." So if the Cosmo Girl isn't getting enough sex,
it's serious. But if the husband wants more, he's a "sex maniac."
-- "Fashion: The New Ski Chic."
-- "The Simply Sexy Black Dress"
-- A sympathetic look at Suzette McClure, a woman who killed a man who
jilted her. (See "Male and Presumed Guilty, Part V," above. Read all about
a supposedly naive young waif being dragged down by powerful men. Then turn
to page 260 and read all about how glamorous it is to date rich, corrupt
men, with an excerpt from the novel "The Last Don": "He's super rich, a
Godfather-to-be, and powerless over his love for luminous move star Athena
Aquitane."
==========
THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST -- CONTINUED
Last issue, we invited people to send us nominations for the Honest
Feminist Contest.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit it is gender
discrimination when a man is denied a job because he is a man. She won't try
to claim that discrimination is equality.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that she never calls for
equality when it's to her disadvantage.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that censoring only the
offensive speech of men is not the equality they claim to support.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that feminism bears
responsibility for tearing families apart by saying fathers are unnecessary
except for a monthly check and by poisoning children against their dads.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit feminism bears
responsibility for the innocent lives destroyed by fads, pseudo-science and
hysteria promoted by feminism. She'll admit that feminism has destroyed
innocent people by promoting hysteria over "Satanic cults" in day care
centers, in promoting the false accusations arising from the so-called
"Recovered Memory Therapy," in trumped-up rape charges based on the idea
that it's "date rape" if a woman regrets having sex after the fact, and so
on.
Like Diogenes taking up his lamp to look for an honest man, we've
picked up our flashlight and gone searching for an honest feminist -- and
believe me, we brought extra batteries.
The nominations for Honest Feminists have not exactly been rolling in.
Big surprise there, eh?
The big news is that we actual had a winner -- sort of. We got a
feminist who didn't fudge all that much. But before we present The Winnah,
we're going to sift through all the runners up, because they're so much more
fun. And believe me, none of the runners up was awarded "Miss Congeniality."
The nominations for Honest Feminist were going pretty slow until we
finally got serious nomination. But it was for a woman who has long since
left the feminist discussion groups.
Hmm. So the one honest feminist left the feminist discussion groups?
Tell you something, don't it?
Also nominated was the person who goes by the name of Guerrilla Grrrl.
Ms. Grrl posted under the subject line of "We Will Crush You!" Her message
was "Yes, Feminism will crush you, bozos! Ha hah ah ah !"
Well, that certainly was honest.
In fact, it's so honest that we suspect that the folks down at the
Womyn's Center are mighty upset with dear Ms. Grrrl for being far too
direct. We suspect that Ms. Grrrl is now getting a crash course in
FeministSpeak, where she will learn to say "diversity" instead of "quotas,"
"heteropatriarchy" instead of "those bastards" and "the best interest of the
child" instead of "screw fathers."
We are confident that, with the proper training, Ms. Grrrl will become
like most feminists, and soon begin telling us that discrimination is
equality, that bias is fairness, and that punishing only men is equal
protection under the law.
Then there was the feminist who spoke in regard to false or skewed
feminist statistics. She said:
"Let's look at it in the scheme of things; we live in a country that's
run by a president who has lied, several members of congress who have lied,
and both political parties which have lied, lied, lied; are you really
that upset over a few faulty statistics? Get a grip!"
Hey, why should we be upset about a few "faulty" statistics, eh? Just
because they held send innocent people to jail, tear families apart,
stereotype men, fuel the hysteria over "Satanic cults" in day-care centers
and generally reinforce the concept of "Male and Presumed Guilty" -- other
than that, what harm can come of them?
While waiting like the Maytag Repairman for the Honest Feminist
nominations to roll in, we happened to go looking for the full text of a
statement once made by Robin Morgan, who had been editor of Ms. Magazine.
The quote, as it turned out, was this. Morgan said "man-hating is an
honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to
class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan's man-hating quote led us to all sorts of feminists who
bombed out in the Honest Feminist category. After we put out a Usenet
request for the full Morgan quote, a feminist named Kay sarcastically
responded: "Hey, you out there, do my research for me! ... My, but the
bigots are lazy today."
So when you research feminist bigotry -- that makes you a bigot! But
Kay, don't you think Ms. Morgan's quote shows a bit of bigotry? And Kay,
remember, Morgan also said the following: "I haven't the faintest notion
what possible revolutionary role white heterosexual men could fulfill, since
they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then,
I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do a
bout all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing
for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I
really do."
"Possibly not exist"?
So Kay, do you see any bigotry in those comments?
(Well, dear reader, get ready for Kay's answer. It once again buries
the needle on the feminist hypocrisy meter.)
Asked if there is any bigotry in Morgan's words, Kay replies:
"No, Robin Morgan's words strike me as angry. Look at the stuff posted on
this newsgroup; really read it. Then read Morgan's words again. How mild
her tone is compared to the rest. She's only angry at people who try to hurt
and oppress her. Men can take themselves out of that category if
they want to do so. Or they can make excuses for themselves."
So a feminist's tone is "mild" even when she talks about men ceasing
to exist. According to Kay, it's bigotry to research feminist prejudice, but
not bigotry when a feminist says man-hating is valid.
Not content with mere double-standards, Kay actually invents fanciful
interpretations of Morgan's words. "She's only angry at people who try to
hurt and oppress her." Readers, did you see any such qualification in
Morgan's quote?
Kay says "Men can take themselves out of that category if they want to
do so. Or they can make excuses for themselves."
We are certainly glad the *targets* of bigotry can always remove
themselves from the bigots' scorn and thus avoid any Final Solutions. Now
why don't all those other groups that draw a bigot's wrath just wise up and
realize they can take themselves "out of that category"?
So you can see why looking for an Honest Feminist is such a chore.
We've got a feminist here who can't even admit that hating men is a form of
bigotry. How can we expect fairness and integrity from feminists who will
not acknowledge that hating men is a form of bigotry?
Several feminists tried to convince us that Ms. Morgan's statements
about man-hating were not about man-hating. One of the most interesting
examples came from someone who used a fake email address. (Hmm -- not off to
a good start on honesty issues.) Referring to Ms. Morgan's "possibly not
exist" comment about men, this feminist said:
"Dear Per, you err or mislead. She did not say she wished men ceased
to exist. Those were YOUR words. As you quoted, she said, "Possibly not
exist" and this refered only a select group of men ("white heterosexual
men") in a specific role ("revolutionary role"), that such a class of men,
representing, "embod[ing], "reactionary-vested-interest-power" would cease
to exist, and you quoted it as a question and now pretend it was a
statement. Even in her question she did not refer to all men. YOU are either
misreading the quote you chose or you are misrepresenting it. I suspect the
latter."
Yep. And Hitler thought other groups could help rebuild Germany by
possibly not existing, too. (And they wonder where the phrase "feminazis"
comes from.) But to set the record straight, you can refer back to the quote
and see that Ms. Morgan aim these sentiments specifically at "men in
general."
Then she says:
"Where did anyone advocate "man-hating" except for you? Certain men,
certain classes, certain behaviors... only you came up with "man-hating"
that I have seen here."
If this were a web page, you could just link right back to the
man-hating quote that these feminists don't want to acknowledge. And you
would see that Morgan said "man-hating is an honorable and viable political
act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that
is oppressing them."
And besides, we're modest. We have to admit that it's not a case that
"only you came up with man-hating." No-sirree, we couldn't have done it
without feminists like Robin Morgan.
But the feminist we were conversing with then went on to say:
"I did not claim Ms. Morgan wished for men to cease to exist ... She
didn't "wish" anything, let alone that."
What Ms. Morgan said, of course, was: "But then, I have great
difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this.
In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for
generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really
do." The person doing the wishing here is the feminist. She wishes we
wouldn't notice the really anti-male biases held by some leading feminist.
And then the feminist went on to say: "only the rarest and most
extremes of feminism advocate "man-hating."
We guess that makes the editor of Ms. Magazine "rare."
Unfortunately, feminists of this stripe are not rare. That's what
makes the Honest Feminist Contest such a labor -- but it's a labor of love.
Here's our open invitation: If you encounter an honest feminist, take
a moment until the shock wears off, and then nominate her for MANifesto's
Honest Feminist Contest, via e-mail to PerAddress@gnn.com.
And here's what we'll do.
We'll gather the names of all the honest feminists into one list and
send them out to every point on the Usenet.
And it still won't be Spam.
It would just be baloney.
==========
YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF ...
... you think that self-improvement for men means striving to be more like
women.
(thanks to Derek H.)
==========
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CHESS
Do we need affirmative action to help boys play chess?
I think so, at least if we look at what feminists say about television
and movies.
Feminists say there aren't enough positive role models for girls in
today's entertainment. This contributes to girls' lower self-esteem and
sends them negative messages that girls are helpless -- so the feminists
say. Girls don't learn to drive trucks or fly spaceships because the movies
don't show them doing it, feminists say. And they want to bridge this gap by
demanding more positive depictions of girls and women -- even when they have
to invent them out of whole cloth.
Well, I've been looking at the game of chess, and I've realized how
biased it is against boys. Chess contains so many negative messages for
boys, so many bad examples, that it is amazing any boy can still function
after being exposed to this game.
First off, the strongest character is the Queen, and the weakest
characters are men. The weakest, least valuable chess *men* are called
"pawns." It sets a terrible example that we value these male figures so
little and that we consider them so disposable.
Two other male figures are the "Knight" and the "Bishop." They mirror
society's attempt to trap men in rigid and repressive roles. The Knight is
trapped by chivalry -- the spirit of sacrificing himself for others. He can
only move in an "L" shaped pattern. This suggests that, despite his forced
commitment to chivalry, he really just wants to get the L out of there.
The Bishop is trapped by a patriarchal religion that demands he be
"too good for his own good," as feminists are wont to say. Plus, he has to
wear a funny hat.
Of course the "Rook" is not much better. What kind of positive role
model is dedicated to cheating?
Then there is the Queen. The most powerful figure on the board is
female. It is obvious to us that most of the self-esteem problems suffered
by males in chess classes is due to the lack of a strong male figure. To fix
this will require exactly $600,000 of federal funding for seed money to
establish a new bureaucracy that I can direct, so that I can move up to
Volvo-and-Gucci territory ... I mean, so that society can correct this
shameful, disgraceful shame.
And just look at the higher mobility of the Queen. Obviously she is
not tied down anywhere and is capable of leaving any of the males behind.
Moreover, the Queen is capable of going off in virtually any direction
without warning -- sort of like feminist logic.
And the worst part of chess is the pathetic male figure of the "King."
The King hides behind other characters and always flees from danger. The
example of this timid, fearful male figure instills in boys a sense of
"learned helplessness."
And you know what that means ...
It means my seed money will have to go up by another $100,000 or so.
=============================
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, message "subscribe MANifesto" to
PerAddress@gnn.com. You also can send your comments, questions,
suggestions, and castration threats to this address.
(If you subscribed but did not get the latest issue, please send the
message again and be patient as we perfect our mass-mailing skills.)
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.)
=============================
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles.
October, 1996.
WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto where we take a look at the
problem of being "Male And Presumed Guilty."
First, we're pleased to tell you that MANifesto is now available on
the web, and this site also offers a few back issues. (More will be
archived as we go along.)
See http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/manifest.htm
Also available:
The POW Page, featuring some of our most popular satires on feminist
extremism. Read up on Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and her Propaganda
Organization for Women at http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/powpage.htm
And a brand new page, Mondo Feminism, News From the Weird Side. Heard
of the sports fans who raped a doll? A giant eunuch Jesus? Gloria Steinem
getting down with Satan? Check out
http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/mondofem.htm
In this issues, we examine several court cases where men apparently
are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Sometimes the injustice can be
rectified, sometimes not. But all of these cases involve men who went before
our supposedly blind system of justice and found themselves "male and
presumed guilty."
INDEX:
I. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART I
II. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART II
III. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART III
IV. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART IV
V. MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART V
VI. THE JUSTICE AND JOHNATHAN
VII. WHERE ARE THESE STRONG WOMEN?
VIII. COSMOWATCH
HUMOR
IX. THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST -- CONTINUED
X. YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF ...
XI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CHESS
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART I
Troy Lynn Webb, 29, spent seven years in jail. He was sentenced to
serve 47 years.
But the state of Virginia pardoned and released Mr. Webb earlier this
month after admitting that he was wrongfully convicted of rape.
Mr. Webb and his family family had contacted The Innocence Project, an
organization that helps with DNA testing for people wrongfully imprisoned.
The test cleared him as a suspect.
Mr. Webb's case is worth noting for several reasons. One, his victim
identified him as the attacker. And serology tests available at the time of
his trial could not rule him out.
But "genetic fingerprint" tests are more conclusive and sophisticated.
They showed that victims can make mistakes, and even misidentify and
innocent man. Governor George Allen said Mr. Webb would not have been
convicted if the tests had been available during his trial.
Seven years is a long time for an innocent person to spend in jail.
But the consequences could have been worse. In today's overheated,
emotionally charged atmosphere, California has passed a law calling for the
chemical or even physical castration of child molesters. This law way
originally sponsored by feminists who admit that their aim is to have the
law applied to men convicted of rape as well.
The Associated Press reports that the California law "was drawn up by Susan
Carpenter-McMillan, executive director of the Pasadena-based Women's
Coalition. The women originally wanted the bill to apply to all rapists but
settled for the more narrow bill as a good first step. 'If this doesn't
pass, we'll bring it back again and again and again,' Carpenter-McMillan
said. 'We're not talking about cutting off their testicles. Maybe someday,
but not now.' "
We are glad that Mr. Webb, an innocent man, has been freed. It is bad
enough that he lost seven years of his life -- seven years the state cannot
give back. It should be a lesson to us that mistakes can be made. And it
should sound a cautionary note against barbaric forms of vengeance that
cannot be reversed.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART II
In a similar case, Wayne Dumond of Arkansas was convicted of raping a
woman in 1984. That woman also identified him as the attacker. And now, DNA
tests on the sperm found in her pants indicates he is innocent, and Governor
Mike Huckabee says he intends to commute the sentence.
But another, far more barbaric sentence has already been carried out.
While Dumond was awaiting trial, two masked men broke into his home and
castrated him.
Then a St. Francis County sheriff preserved the severed testicles in
formaldehyde and put them on display on his desk.
Dumond won a $110,000 lawsuit over this Medieval display. The guilty
sheriff later was sent to jail on an unrelated racketeering charge.
Based on the DNA evidence, a parole board recommended that Dumond be
released from prison.
That was in 1990.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART III
Jon Feeney of Missouri is on trial. The official charge is that he
murdered his family.
But the more you read about the case, the more it looks like he is on
trial because he is a man.
Feeney says he was 90 miles away from his home in Springfield,
attending a teachers' conference at the Lake of the Ozarks the night his
wife, son, and daughter were killed. The assistant prosecutor admits that no
witness puts Feeney in Springfield on the night of the slayings. No physical
evidence has been presented linking him to the crime scene.
Prosecutors admit it is a weak case. We wonder if a woman would be put
on trial, or even fall under suspicion, in similar circumstances. But the
attitude seems to be that Feeney is a man, dammit, so he has to be guilty.
Consider how they went about indicting him.
Central to the indictment was the testimony of a convenience-store
clerk named Ron Gann. Mr. Gann said that he sold gasoline to a man he
thought resembled Feeney early on the morning of the slayings. He also said
he remembered Feeney's red Mustang convertible.
That's slim, indeed. And his story was riddled with inconsistencies
when he told various versions in depositions, interviews and testimony. But
never mind, it was good enough for the state. They put Feeney on trial.
They're asking for the death penalty.
However, a defense attorney discovered something interesting.
Time sheets show that Gann, the convenience-store clerk, was not even
working at the time he "remembers" seeing Mr. Feeney.
The state's case was not very good to begin with. Now it has gotten
weaker. But rather than drop the charges, the state is going ahead with the
trial.
And they're still seeking the death penalty.
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART IV
David M. Nevers, who contributes to the soc.men discussion group, saw
for himself a "Male and Presumed Guilty" attitude in the court system. His
wife had attacked him, sending him to the emergency room four times. Yet in
court after one of the attacks, the judge assumed that David was the
attacker. Here is the story in his own words:
--
My ex-wife stood before the criminal court judge, charged with
Domestic Battery (after my third trip to the emergency room). The judge, a
woman, was listening to the Asst. State's Attorney, another woman,
explaining to the judge what the Complaint was all about. The State's
Attorney kept referring to me as "the Defendant." Why? Because I was a
man, and it was a Domestic Violence case. All domestic violence is
committed by men, right?
The judge began to read me the riot act about my superior strength, my
size, etc. I had to interrupt at that point and tell these two women (Judge
and State's Attorney) that had already indicted and convicted me based on my
gender, that I was there as the VICTIM, not "the Defendant." I was the one
sent to the hospital, the one they were supposed to be protecting.
When the judge found out it was a woman charged with a violent crime,
her demeanor changed. There were no lectures, no warnings, just a
business-like disposition of the case.
Oh, and when the court was routinely handing out Protection Orders to
any woman who asked for one, my request was denied. The judge said I "look
like I can take care of myself."
By the way, my ex pled guilty to the charge in exchange for probation
and no jail time. While on probation, she broke my nose. The judge denied
the request for revocation of her probation.
(But David's problems with the courts were far from over. Though his
wife had not spent any time in jail, David found himself there in a dispute
over splitting up their property. He continues:)
For those of you who don't know my story, I was divorced last year in
DuPage County, IL. The presiding judge, Robert Byrne, said that my ex-wife's
domestic violence (I was in the ER four times) was not a "relevant factor"
in child custody cases, and awarded sole custody to her.
During the divorce I was stitched up when she kicked me through a
glass storm door, then I got second degree burns when she slammed an oven
door or my arm and held it shut. Ten days later, she threw me down a flight
of stairs. This time, after the ER doctor insisted, the police arrested her,
and she pled guilty to battery. Later, after Judge Byrne made his
remarkable finding of sole custody to the abuser, she broke my nose with a
picture frame she wanted (but didn't get) in the settlement. The police
refused to press charges.
I was ordered out of the house in 10 days, and she was awarded 60% of
the equity. Nice reward for criminal conduct, eh? She is supposed to pay me
my share of the equity, but she wants a deed turned over BEFORE she does so.
The "new" judge on our divorce case today said I willfully violated
the court order by not signing over the deed to the house (even without her
payment to me).
When I continued to refuse to sign it, the sheriff took me into
custody. I was frisked, my belt, tie, and personal belongings removed from
my pockets. I was handcuffed, and led down to the DuPage County criminal
lockup.
Originally, the judge said I was to be booked and then brought back to
court in an inmate uniform, to continue the other issues up before the
court.
At 3:30pm (two hours after my "arrest") the judge sent word down that he
was "going home for the day" and unless and until I signed the deed I could
rot in jail.
(Note: As a civil "violator" I was not entitled to the usual criminal
procedural things. I could not speak to my attorney, get out on bail, get
a speedy trial, etc. About all I was allowed was the right to make a
collect call. Oh, and they did agree to give me a cup of hot tea after 4
hours in the lockup. The concept is that jail is used as civil coercion to
force a course of action, as opposed to jail used as a punishment for a
previous (criminal) action.)
I signed it at 4:30pm, with the notation - UNDER DURESS - next to my
signature.
The only criminal in this case has yet to see the inside of a jail
cell. My ex wife has pled guilty to battery, and been convicted twice of
criminal contempt of court, and she remains free, with sole custody of my
children, and now, the deed to my home.
--- David M. Nevers (dmnevers@ix.netcom.com)
==========
MALE AND PRESUMED GUILTY, PART V
Charlie Minor was no Boy Scout. He succeeded in the often-sleazy world
of record promoters -- a world of fast women, cocaine, connections, and
maybe some special favors for the radio personalities who play your client's
music.
Charlie Minor was good at it. Janet Jackson, Sting, Bryan Adams and
Amy Grant are among the stars who credit him with helping them gain big
hits.
Charlie had a lot of money. And he attracted a lot of women.
But on March 19, 1995, a jilted former lover shot him to death, with nine
soft-point bullets.
The killer, Suzette McClure, is a thirty-year-old stripper.
And McClure's defense team makes no secret that they plan to put the
murder victim on trial, painting her as a naive waif and men in general as
the real culprits. They are going to make McClure into a female O.J.
Simpson, playing the gender card instead of the race card.
The defense is going to try to convince the jury that McClure is an
unsophisticated California Valley Girl who somehow got caught up in the fast
lane. They will try to paint her as a good girl misled by men. The defense
calls McClure "a good girl pushed beyond her limits ... She is Catholic ...
and not used to people who lie all the time." The defense is going to come
down to the argument that Charlie Minor's murder was his own fault, that he
got what he deserved
We hope the jury sees through this portrait of a sweet, innocent
little killer.
Long before she met Charlie Minor, Suzette McClure had taken up
stripping, because the money was good. It helped support her L.A. lifestyle
of beaches, parties, and hanging around with celebrities and music
executives.
The defense will try to make it look as though she somehow got
accidentally pulled into the fast lane, that she was a pious, trusting soul
who unsuspectingly wound up with a player like Charlie Minor. But if McClure
was so unsophisticated and pious, she could have found an unsophisticated,
pious man. She didn't. She hung out in strip clubs and dated men with the
money, the juice. Charlie Minor didn't turn McClure into a stripper. She
already was one.
When he dumped her, she got a gun. The defense will tell you it was
heartbreak. So what was her heart broken over? Losing a lover? or losing the
hot cars, luxurious oceanfront house, fast life and big money that went with
him?
Nancy Kaser Boyd, a Los Angeles psychologist who is helping the
defense, says: "Women kill because their self-esteem has been destroyed. The
real culprits here are the men who run the record industry."
Real culprits? We thought that killing people made you a "real
culprit."
If this sort of defense works, then what's to stop anyone from using
it? Why not say that men kill because their self-esteem is destroyed, and
that women are the "real culprits"? Do we want to go down this road? Because
if we do, then let's go down it equally.
The Suzette McClure trial should be watched closely. What the defense
is trying to pull off is the argument that men who are killed deserve it,
that women who kill really are driven to it.
(McClure's case gets a sympathetic write-up in the November 1996 issue
of the women's magazine Cosmopolitan.)
==========
THE JUSTICE AND JOHNATHAN
Lorraine Miller is a judge. She handles criminal cases for New York's
state Supreme Court.
So it probably would be a good idea if a person entrusted with that
sort of power did not go around harassing and smearing people
But Justice Miller had her own ideas of justice.
The state recently punished her for carrying out a campaign against a
former lover. It found that she had sent "anonymous, harassing and
offensive'' mailings against a man who broke off a relationship with her.
The man, S. Barrett Hickman, broke off with Miller in 1992 when he met
another woman, whom he later married. Hickman told the New York Post that
Miller stalked him, even following him to South Africa once. He says she
also canceled his credit cards. A commission investigating the judge say she
got confidential divorce records on Mr. Hickman's wife and sent the
information to neighbors and friends of the couple, and to the newspapers
and businesses.
What punishment do you think a male judge would have gotten for this.
Removal from the bench? Disbarment.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct decided merely to "censure"
Justice Miller.
Justice Lorraine Miller's punishment was, essentially, a scolding.
Well, at least she got some punishment. In today's movies ("The First
Wives Club," "Waiting to Exhale," etc.) this type of behavior isn't
condemned -- it's glorified. But don't worry. Those movies never give
anybody any ideas, do they?
Justice Miller's case makes an interesting contrast to the punishment
meted out to Johnathan Prevette. Johnathan is the six-year-old boy who made
national headlines when he was suspended from first grade in Lexington,
North Carolina, because he kissed a girl on the cheek.
A boy kisses a girl and gets suspended. A judge harasses a man and
merely gets a lecture. In a way, little Johnathan should feel honored. He is
being held far more responsible for his actions than is an adult judge!
In our justice system, it's a bigger offense to kiss someone than to
harass them.
Or maybe it's just a bigger crime to be male.
==========
WHERE ARE THESE STRONG WOMEN?
In a recent discussion, a feminist said that people who disagree with
feminists just can't handle "strong women."
Well, where are these strong women?
Are they the ones who demand federal protection from jokes?
Are they the ones who demand "a safe and nurturing environment"?
These strong women we are afraid of -- are they the ones who demand
separate schools for girls so they won't have to compete with boys, and
separate, fully funded female sports leagues where they don't have to
compete against men?
These strong women we are so afraid of -- are they the ones who say
they are "abused" if their husbands ignore them, walk out of the room
silently, or comment on their weight? Are they the ones who say they are
being "raped" if men are admitted to their women-only colleges? Are they the
ones who accuse a reporter of "battering" them when he questions their
statistics?
Are these the strong women we keep hearing about?
These strong women that cause us to tremble so -- are they the ones
who demand federal protection from unwanted sexual advances?
I have heard of strong women. Clara Barton was a strong woman. Once,
when she was out on a battlefield, a bullet passed through her sleeve and
killed the man she was treating. Clara Barton was a strong woman. She was
not cowering behind a locked door with the "Take Back The Night" crowd,
wailing that she can't walk across a well-patrolled campus for fear of being
raped. Clara Barton was out in the world, doing. And she helped men.
Mother Theresa is a strong woman. Instead of looking at the boardrooms
and demanding a quota seat, she looked at the slums and asked how she could
help. Instead of looking at the wealthiest one percent and saying "I can
have it all," she looked at those less fortunate and said they deserve
better. She is out in the world helping women ... and men.
They are strong women. Why in the world should we be afraid of them?
But they are not the "strong women" to which you refer. The strong women you
say we fear are the women who cannot compete unless they have special
programs, special rights, special classes, special privileges and special
protections.
These privileged and protected women are the strong women we are
supposedly afraid of.
The "strong women" of feminism have to blame men for all of their own
failings, shortcomings. They have to trace all their own crime and
immorality back to a man they can blame. These strong women of feminism have
to blame men for the fact that throughout history women have sought safety
and security rather than the uncertainties of the uncharted land -- that
they have sought out men who would provide them with wealth rather than
risking the hard, dangerous labor that creates such wealth.
Where are strong women? They're certainly not the ones hiding behind
feminism.
==========
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 November 1996
issue:
-- The Cosmo Great Body Guide
-- "The Secret Voyeur in All of Us: If visual cues turn you on, go
ahead and peek."
-- "Do You Remember When You Last Made Love?" This article on page 112
makes an interesting comparison to an article on page 86 of the same issue:
"My Husband is a Sex Addict." So if the Cosmo Girl isn't getting enough sex,
it's serious. But if the husband wants more, he's a "sex maniac."
-- "Fashion: The New Ski Chic."
-- "The Simply Sexy Black Dress"
-- A sympathetic look at Suzette McClure, a woman who killed a man who
jilted her. (See "Male and Presumed Guilty, Part V," above. Read all about
a supposedly naive young waif being dragged down by powerful men. Then turn
to page 260 and read all about how glamorous it is to date rich, corrupt
men, with an excerpt from the novel "The Last Don": "He's super rich, a
Godfather-to-be, and powerless over his love for luminous move star Athena
Aquitane."
==========
THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST -- CONTINUED
Last issue, we invited people to send us nominations for the Honest
Feminist Contest.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit it is gender
discrimination when a man is denied a job because he is a man. She won't try
to claim that discrimination is equality.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that she never calls for
equality when it's to her disadvantage.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that censoring only the
offensive speech of men is not the equality they claim to support.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit that feminism bears
responsibility for tearing families apart by saying fathers are unnecessary
except for a monthly check and by poisoning children against their dads.
We're looking for a feminist who will admit feminism bears
responsibility for the innocent lives destroyed by fads, pseudo-science and
hysteria promoted by feminism. She'll admit that feminism has destroyed
innocent people by promoting hysteria over "Satanic cults" in day care
centers, in promoting the false accusations arising from the so-called
"Recovered Memory Therapy," in trumped-up rape charges based on the idea
that it's "date rape" if a woman regrets having sex after the fact, and so
on.
Like Diogenes taking up his lamp to look for an honest man, we've
picked up our flashlight and gone searching for an honest feminist -- and
believe me, we brought extra batteries.
The nominations for Honest Feminists have not exactly been rolling in.
Big surprise there, eh?
The big news is that we actual had a winner -- sort of. We got a
feminist who didn't fudge all that much. But before we present The Winnah,
we're going to sift through all the runners up, because they're so much more
fun. And believe me, none of the runners up was awarded "Miss Congeniality."
The nominations for Honest Feminist were going pretty slow until we
finally got serious nomination. But it was for a woman who has long since
left the feminist discussion groups.
Hmm. So the one honest feminist left the feminist discussion groups?
Tell you something, don't it?
Also nominated was the person who goes by the name of Guerrilla Grrrl.
Ms. Grrl posted under the subject line of "We Will Crush You!" Her message
was "Yes, Feminism will crush you, bozos! Ha hah ah ah !"
Well, that certainly was honest.
In fact, it's so honest that we suspect that the folks down at the
Womyn's Center are mighty upset with dear Ms. Grrrl for being far too
direct. We suspect that Ms. Grrrl is now getting a crash course in
FeministSpeak, where she will learn to say "diversity" instead of "quotas,"
"heteropatriarchy" instead of "those bastards" and "the best interest of the
child" instead of "screw fathers."
We are confident that, with the proper training, Ms. Grrrl will become
like most feminists, and soon begin telling us that discrimination is
equality, that bias is fairness, and that punishing only men is equal
protection under the law.
Then there was the feminist who spoke in regard to false or skewed
feminist statistics. She said:
"Let's look at it in the scheme of things; we live in a country that's
run by a president who has lied, several members of congress who have lied,
and both political parties which have lied, lied, lied; are you really
that upset over a few faulty statistics? Get a grip!"
Hey, why should we be upset about a few "faulty" statistics, eh? Just
because they held send innocent people to jail, tear families apart,
stereotype men, fuel the hysteria over "Satanic cults" in day-care centers
and generally reinforce the concept of "Male and Presumed Guilty" -- other
than that, what harm can come of them?
While waiting like the Maytag Repairman for the Honest Feminist
nominations to roll in, we happened to go looking for the full text of a
statement once made by Robin Morgan, who had been editor of Ms. Magazine.
The quote, as it turned out, was this. Morgan said "man-hating is an
honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to
class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan's man-hating quote led us to all sorts of feminists who
bombed out in the Honest Feminist category. After we put out a Usenet
request for the full Morgan quote, a feminist named Kay sarcastically
responded: "Hey, you out there, do my research for me! ... My, but the
bigots are lazy today."
So when you research feminist bigotry -- that makes you a bigot! But
Kay, don't you think Ms. Morgan's quote shows a bit of bigotry? And Kay,
remember, Morgan also said the following: "I haven't the faintest notion
what possible revolutionary role white heterosexual men could fulfill, since
they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then,
I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do a
bout all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing
for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I
really do."
"Possibly not exist"?
So Kay, do you see any bigotry in those comments?
(Well, dear reader, get ready for Kay's answer. It once again buries
the needle on the feminist hypocrisy meter.)
Asked if there is any bigotry in Morgan's words, Kay replies:
"No, Robin Morgan's words strike me as angry. Look at the stuff posted on
this newsgroup; really read it. Then read Morgan's words again. How mild
her tone is compared to the rest. She's only angry at people who try to hurt
and oppress her. Men can take themselves out of that category if
they want to do so. Or they can make excuses for themselves."
So a feminist's tone is "mild" even when she talks about men ceasing
to exist. According to Kay, it's bigotry to research feminist prejudice, but
not bigotry when a feminist says man-hating is valid.
Not content with mere double-standards, Kay actually invents fanciful
interpretations of Morgan's words. "She's only angry at people who try to
hurt and oppress her." Readers, did you see any such qualification in
Morgan's quote?
Kay says "Men can take themselves out of that category if they want to
do so. Or they can make excuses for themselves."
We are certainly glad the *targets* of bigotry can always remove
themselves from the bigots' scorn and thus avoid any Final Solutions. Now
why don't all those other groups that draw a bigot's wrath just wise up and
realize they can take themselves "out of that category"?
So you can see why looking for an Honest Feminist is such a chore.
We've got a feminist here who can't even admit that hating men is a form of
bigotry. How can we expect fairness and integrity from feminists who will
not acknowledge that hating men is a form of bigotry?
Several feminists tried to convince us that Ms. Morgan's statements
about man-hating were not about man-hating. One of the most interesting
examples came from someone who used a fake email address. (Hmm -- not off to
a good start on honesty issues.) Referring to Ms. Morgan's "possibly not
exist" comment about men, this feminist said:
"Dear Per, you err or mislead. She did not say she wished men ceased
to exist. Those were YOUR words. As you quoted, she said, "Possibly not
exist" and this refered only a select group of men ("white heterosexual
men") in a specific role ("revolutionary role"), that such a class of men,
representing, "embod[ing], "reactionary-vested-interest-power" would cease
to exist, and you quoted it as a question and now pretend it was a
statement. Even in her question she did not refer to all men. YOU are either
misreading the quote you chose or you are misrepresenting it. I suspect the
latter."
Yep. And Hitler thought other groups could help rebuild Germany by
possibly not existing, too. (And they wonder where the phrase "feminazis"
comes from.) But to set the record straight, you can refer back to the quote
and see that Ms. Morgan aim these sentiments specifically at "men in
general."
Then she says:
"Where did anyone advocate "man-hating" except for you? Certain men,
certain classes, certain behaviors... only you came up with "man-hating"
that I have seen here."
If this were a web page, you could just link right back to the
man-hating quote that these feminists don't want to acknowledge. And you
would see that Morgan said "man-hating is an honorable and viable political
act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that
is oppressing them."
And besides, we're modest. We have to admit that it's not a case that
"only you came up with man-hating." No-sirree, we couldn't have done it
without feminists like Robin Morgan.
But the feminist we were conversing with then went on to say:
"I did not claim Ms. Morgan wished for men to cease to exist ... She
didn't "wish" anything, let alone that."
What Ms. Morgan said, of course, was: "But then, I have great
difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this.
In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for
generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really
do." The person doing the wishing here is the feminist. She wishes we
wouldn't notice the really anti-male biases held by some leading feminist.
And then the feminist went on to say: "only the rarest and most
extremes of feminism advocate "man-hating."
We guess that makes the editor of Ms. Magazine "rare."
Unfortunately, feminists of this stripe are not rare. That's what
makes the Honest Feminist Contest such a labor -- but it's a labor of love.
Here's our open invitation: If you encounter an honest feminist, take
a moment until the shock wears off, and then nominate her for MANifesto's
Honest Feminist Contest, via e-mail to PerAddress@gnn.com.
And here's what we'll do.
We'll gather the names of all the honest feminists into one list and
send them out to every point on the Usenet.
And it still won't be Spam.
It would just be baloney.
==========
YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF ...
... you think that self-improvement for men means striving to be more like
women.
(thanks to Derek H.)
==========
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CHESS
Do we need affirmative action to help boys play chess?
I think so, at least if we look at what feminists say about television
and movies.
Feminists say there aren't enough positive role models for girls in
today's entertainment. This contributes to girls' lower self-esteem and
sends them negative messages that girls are helpless -- so the feminists
say. Girls don't learn to drive trucks or fly spaceships because the movies
don't show them doing it, feminists say. And they want to bridge this gap by
demanding more positive depictions of girls and women -- even when they have
to invent them out of whole cloth.
Well, I've been looking at the game of chess, and I've realized how
biased it is against boys. Chess contains so many negative messages for
boys, so many bad examples, that it is amazing any boy can still function
after being exposed to this game.
First off, the strongest character is the Queen, and the weakest
characters are men. The weakest, least valuable chess *men* are called
"pawns." It sets a terrible example that we value these male figures so
little and that we consider them so disposable.
Two other male figures are the "Knight" and the "Bishop." They mirror
society's attempt to trap men in rigid and repressive roles. The Knight is
trapped by chivalry -- the spirit of sacrificing himself for others. He can
only move in an "L" shaped pattern. This suggests that, despite his forced
commitment to chivalry, he really just wants to get the L out of there.
The Bishop is trapped by a patriarchal religion that demands he be
"too good for his own good," as feminists are wont to say. Plus, he has to
wear a funny hat.
Of course the "Rook" is not much better. What kind of positive role
model is dedicated to cheating?
Then there is the Queen. The most powerful figure on the board is
female. It is obvious to us that most of the self-esteem problems suffered
by males in chess classes is due to the lack of a strong male figure. To fix
this will require exactly $600,000 of federal funding for seed money to
establish a new bureaucracy that I can direct, so that I can move up to
Volvo-and-Gucci territory ... I mean, so that society can correct this
shameful, disgraceful shame.
And just look at the higher mobility of the Queen. Obviously she is
not tied down anywhere and is capable of leaving any of the males behind.
Moreover, the Queen is capable of going off in virtually any direction
without warning -- sort of like feminist logic.
And the worst part of chess is the pathetic male figure of the "King."
The King hides behind other characters and always flees from danger. The
example of this timid, fearful male figure instills in boys a sense of
"learned helplessness."
And you know what that means ...
It means my seed money will have to go up by another $100,000 or so.
=============================
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, message "subscribe MANifesto" to
PerAddress@gnn.com. You also can send your comments, questions,
suggestions, and castration threats to this address.
(If you subscribed but did not get the latest issue, please send the
message again and be patient as we perfect our mass-mailing skills.)
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.)
=============================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)