MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues. April, 1996. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety. INDEX: NEWS AND OPINION I. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT II. RAKED BY CATT'S CLAWS III. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES IV. STALKERS, SEXUAL PREDATORS, AND POWER RANGERS V. THE SCORE IS MEN, 35 MILLION; WOMEN, ZERO VI. MR. DEMOCRAT, THE SEXIST SENATOR VII. AN UNUSUAL CASE JUST OPINION VIII. EXCEPTIONAL FEMINISTS IX. THE RESPONSIBILITY GAP ========== UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT On April 14, feminists gathered in San Francisco to stage a political rally. One goal was to defend and promote anti-male discrimination in the form of affirmative action, set-asides and special breaks. Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland were among the participants who harshly condemned a California initiative to end discrimination based on race and gender in state education, employment and contracting. Another goal was to continue their successful push for gender discrimination in law enforcement -- support for the Violence Against Women Act and other statutes that make violent or harassing acts into special crimes only when men commit them. Oh, by the way, the feminists billed this as a march *against* discrimination. Go figure. ========== RAKED BY CATT'S CLAWS One of the ways that some feminists rewrite history is to portray white women as staunch opponents of racism. White women would have banished racism, so the reasoning goes, except that they were held back by the white male power structure. It's a handy little scenario to bandy about in today's political climate. It makes for some nice novels and movies like "Fried Green Tomatoes." It helps white feminists paint themselves as victims and horn their way into affirmative action programs meant for racial minorities. It helps feminists drive a further wedge into our society as they play the politics of blame and resentment. It's handy. But it just isn't true. The Klan had women's branches -- filled with women who wanted equal rights for themselves, but not for Jews, blacks, Catholics and foreigners. When their men were away at war, Southern women ran the plantations. They did not emancipate their slaves. And now one of the heroines of modern feminism is coming under renewed scrutiny for her undeniably racist beliefs. Carrie Chapman Catt was a crusader for women's suffrage. She founded the League of Women Voters, which today still sponsors political debates at the highest levels of national politics. Catt planned the state-by-state strategy that helped win passage of the woman's suffrage amendment in 1920. If you're a woman, you owe it to Catt that you can vote. At least, if you're a white woman. In pushing for her right to vote, Catt argued that "White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women's suffrage." Her campaign for the vote was filled with assertions that "uneducated immigrants" should not be allowed to vote. She referred to Indians as "savages." Her supporters are trying a familiar tactic: blaming "society" for her shortcomings. Catt was just a product of her times, they say. (How many of these feminists are willing to forgive men who were "products of their times"?) The controversy over Catt's well-documented racism is flaring again after her alma mater, Iowa State University, named a building after her: Carrie Chapman Catt Hall. The NAACP wants the name changed, to disavow racism in all its forms. Catt's racism affirms a few points that skeptics of feminism have already realized. Bigotry and feminism are not mutually exclusive propositions. And bigotry within feminism is nothing new. ========== NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF OVARIES "Women just can't think as well as men." "Women are weak and easily manipulated." "In most couples, it's the man who does the brainwork, and the woman follows." Do these attitudes strike you as sexist? As harmful toward women? Then ask Christina Hays of Oregon. Loyd and Christina Hays are members of the fundamentalist Church of the First Born. The Hays had a son, Tony, who had lymphocytic leukemia, a treatable form of the disease. They decided to treat the boy with prayer rather than seek medical treatment. Tony died. He was 7 years old. Both parents went on trial. A jury in Albany, Oregon, convicted Loyd Hays of criminally negligent homicide for not seeking medical treatment for the boy. Loyd Hays is awaiting sentencing. But Christina Hays was acquitted. Jurors said she was "under the influence of her husband." Both of these parents were responsible for this child -- supposedly. But in the eyes of the law, only the man is being held to that responsibility. Once again a woman has been cleared of wrongdoing because she is not seen as innately responsible as a man. If she did something wrong, there was a man to blame. It is rare -- perhaps nonexistent -- for a man to be acquitted of criminal wrongdoing on the grounds that his wife controlled his thoughts. But Christina Hays joins the list of women acquitted or never charged because of their gender. Add her name to the list of women who have claimed the PMS Defense, post-partum depression, "battered wife syndrome," and other defenses that appeal to the concept of uniquely feminine mental defects or shortcomings. If people had suggested that Christina Hays not be allowed to own property or vote because she was incapable of thinking for herself, they would be vilified as the worst sort of sexists. But Christina Hays failed at something more important -- seeing to the well-being of her child. And her excuse is that she was "under the influence of her husband." "Women just can't think as well as men." "Women are weak and easily manipulated." "In most couples, it's the man who does the brainwork, and the woman follows." Do these attitudes strike you as sexist? Sure. But are they harmful toward women? Not when it's the men who are going to prison. ========== STALKERS, SEXUAL PREDATORS, AND POWER RANGERS Maybe you heard of the case a few months ago about a 9-year-old boy who was being charged under an anti-stalking law because he repeatedly phoned a girl's house. It gets weirder. Now a 12-year-old New Jersey boy is being charged under a "sexual predators" law. His supposed crime: fondling his 8-year-old stepbrother in the bathtub. He might be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The case stems from a batch of laws known collectively as "Megan's Law." The well-intentioned but flawed laws were passed as a quick reaction to the horrible death of 7-year-old Megan Kanka. A convicted sex offender is accused of killing her. The laws were designed to protect children from repeat sexual offenders. But they are being applied to a 12-year-old boy who is described as "neurologically impaired." The circumstances bear looking into. The 12-year-old was accused by his stepmother. She said he fondled her son, the 8-year-old. Step families are often under a lot of stress. Parents feel more protective toward their "flesh and blood" children than to the "baggage" that comes along when they remarry. The possibilities for false or exaggerated charges ought to be considered before passing a lifetime sentence. And the idea of a 12-year-old having to register for the rest of his life as a sexual predator is absolutely absurd. Megan's Law faces legal questions and constitutional challenges because it was slapped together as an emotional reaction with political overtones. Legislatures ought to take the time to write solid, well-reasoned laws. And then they should apply them reasonably. Branding a 12-year-old as a lifetime sexual offender is not an example of either. ========== THE SCORE IS MEN, 35 MILLION; WOMEN, ZERO April marks the month that the 35-millionth young man was compelled to register for the Selective Service (the draft.) Although the draft has officially ended, young men are still required to sign up so that they can be called up quickly when the draft is reinstated. The draft was supposedly suspended after the Viet Nam war. It's interesting to note that modern feminism began flexing its political clout at about the same time. In the intervening years, woman have become the majority on campuses nationwide -- partly by demanding special breaks and supports befitting their status as a "minority." And while they are the majority on campus and are demanding "equality" just about anywhere it looks good to them, they are a minority on the rolls of the Selective Service. Indeed, the score is men, 35 million; women, zero. ========== MR. DEMOCRAT, THE SEXIST SENATOR Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In that position, he is heavily involved in the reelection efforts of Bill Clinton and every congressional Democrat. Dodd has a major voice in shaping Democratic positions. As head of the DNC, Dodd is, in effect, "Mr. Democrat." Recently, he sought to explain why his Democratic party is attracting more female voters than the Republicans. Senator Dodd put it this way: "Women are more inclined to think less of themselves and their own immediate needs and more of their families." That translates, he said, into broader support of a government role in guaranteeing things like education and health care. Senator Dodd is pandering to the divisive gender politics and feminist superiority propaganda that is already is splitting families and tearing us apart. And this isn't just the opinion of one rogue senator. Dodd is now at the center of Democratic campaign strategy. This type of gender stereotyping is coming from the highest level of the Democratic party. If you object to Mr. Democrat telling you that you care less about your family or society, then let him know. Below are his Congressional e-mail address and other addresses where you can snail mail him. If you write him, you might want to stress a couple of points: Senator Dodd, how dare you denigrate all the hardworking husbands, fathers and sons who are supporting wives, children and elderly parents? Many men provide for their families by working long hours backbreaking, stressful or dangerous jobs. How dare you imply that they think only of their own needs? How dare you insult them just to pander to feminists? How dare you imply that men don't care about education and health care when men are paying most of the taxes to support these programs? And why should we embrace your party when you obviously are trying to make political capital by running us down? You can write to Senator Sexist at: Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, phone 202-863-8000. Or Offices: U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510, phone 202-224-2823 Or Putnam Park, 100 Great Meadow Road, Wethersfield, Conn. 06109, phone 203-240-3470 Or e-mail him right now at: [email protected] Please take the time to at least e-mail him your objections. If they get enough input now, perhaps they will drop the man-bashing plank from their platform before the convention. ========== AN UNUSUAL CASE Rita Gluzman is accused in the brutal axe murder of her estranged husband. Of course, it's not the first time a husband or wife has been charged in a spouse's death. She's accused of convincing a man to help her carry out her dirty deeds. Not the first time a woman has done that, either. And authorities say the motive was money -- that she was afraid of losing her financial stake in a company during their divorce. Well, it's hardly the first time a person's life was treated as worth less than a bank account. But what makes Rita Gluzman unique is that she is the first woman ever charged under a federal law against domestic violence. She has been charged with traveling between states to commit domestic violence. Many men who are attacked by violent wives or girlfriends seem to have trouble convincing authorities that charges should be brought -- or that they are not the instigators of the violence. In the recent case of football star Warren Moon, Moon's wife testified repeatedly under oath to the abuse she committed against him. But only the man, Warren Moon, was charged. Prosecutors said they would charge Warren Moon again if they had the chance. (They don't, because he was acquitted.) However, they have no intention of charging his wife, who admitted under oath to repeatedly striking her husband during episodes of "explosive rage." But the Gluzman case marks the first time that federal authorities figured out that women can commit domestic violence. Authorities say Rita Gluzman and her cousin ambushed her husband, Yakov Gluzman, with two axes and then cut his body into 65 pieces. The body was stuffed into ten garbage bags and dumped into the Passaic River in New Jersey. So it is a good sign that our federal authorities can at last recognize that hacking a man into five dozen pieces might constitute domestic violence. ========== EXCEPTIONAL FEMINISTS During child custody disputes, feminists say that children need to be with their mothers ... Except when the mothers want to put the kids in daycare. Feminists say that discrimination is bad ... Except when it benefits them. Feminists say that excluding people because of their gender is bad ... Except at women's colleges, in girls' and women's sports, on Take Your Daughter To Work Day ... Feminists say that gender stereotypes are bad ... Except that all men really *are* potential rapists. Feminists advocate equal rights ... Except for your right to say things they don't like. Feminists say that diversity is good ... Except when it means admitting men. Feminists support affirmative action ... Except when a white woman gets turned away. Feminists say they advocate equality for everyone ... Except you. ========== On the Internet, one man recently asked why supposedly "moderate" feminists do not speak out more against the extremists. Citing a collection of anti-male quotations, he asked one feminist the following question: "If what you say is true, then where are the voices of these mainstream feminists, condemning or even arguing with the fringe extremists?" Came the reply: "We're busy running businesses, teaching in schools and universities, raising families, providing services to our communities, etc.; essentially the same things men are doing. We don't have enough time to devote to everything that needs our attention in our own lives, much less participating in political movements. Or, if we choose to spend our time addressing political issues, perhaps others are addressed. I consider myself to be either a mainstream feminist or "equalist", if you prefer (support AA based on economic disadvantage, not gender or race; equal pay; identical standards applied to men and women in custody and CS decisions, equal draft registration requirements, etc.), but choose to spend my "political" time supporting improved educational opportunities for economically or socially disadvantaged kids (yes, girls _and_ boys)." From replies like this one and many others, it certainly seems like there is a "Responsibility Gap" between the genders. It's common to hear feminists tell men that men are responsible for anything any man anywhere does. Men are told that they have to stop every anti-women (or anti-feminist) act, and quash every anti-female comment or they are just as responsible as the person committing the offense. Yet when asked, where are the mainstream feminists condemning the extremist feminists, the answer is "We're busy ..." When it comes to dissenting against their extremist sisters, some feminists will always be "busy." ============================= MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. If you would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, send the message "subscribe MANifesto" to [email protected] (If you have sent this message and did not get the latest issue e-mailed to you, please send it again.) =============================