Per's MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other great moral principles. December, 1996. Important Announcement: Per's MANifesto has a new e-mail address, [email protected]. All subscribers should continue to get Per's MANifesto via e-mail without interruption. The web version of MANifesto is moving to a new address, which is under construction now and should have all the bugs/broken links worked out by the end of February. The new address is http://shell.idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm with a home page at http://shell.idt.net/~per2. Bookmark them so you won't miss an issue. (But please remember that these sites are still being worked on.) In the meantime, MANifesto will continue to be posted at the old address as well, at http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/manifest.htm WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto we call THE LIE OF THE LAND, in which we examine yet again feminism's penchant for statements that aren't entirely fair or true. Of course we can't cover them all -- that would take far more than one newsletter is capable of covering. Besides, you've probably already heard about such anti-male whoppers as "The Super Bowl Battering Hoax" and "The Rule of Thumb Hoax." So in this issue we're going to cover some of the hoaxes and anti-male stereotypes that haven't gotten as much coverage -- including the Snuff Film Hoax. Enjoy. INDEX: I. SNUFFING OUT CREDIBILITY II. NIGHT LYIN' III. ENDING THE GOOD-OLD-BOYS CLUB IV. ANOTHER STORY YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED V. FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE BAD BECAUSE ... COSMOWATCH ========== SNUFFING OUT CREDIBILITY Many feminists and Women's Studies instructors claim that men film and sell "snuff films" -- movies supposedly made by sadists who kidnap, torture, kill and dismember a victim (usually a woman) so they can film the attack and sell copies of it. This scenario fits in well with the picture that many feminists want to paint of men: in between watching football and beating their wives, men are sitting on the couch in a torn T-shirt, beer in hand, watching tapes of an actual sex murder. It makes great anti-male propaganda. However, despite all the claims, there are four major problems: 1) The most notorious examples of snuff films have turned out to be fakes -- often badly done fakes. 2) No law enforcement agency has ever seized an actual snuff film. 3) No feminist who claims that snuff films exists can produce a copy to support the claim. 4) Journalists who undertook extensive, long-term investigations have been unable to find, buy, or witness a snuff film. Now if men really are making, selling and watching snuff films, you'd think that someone *somewhere* would be able to find one. After all, if you have a conspiracy to sell illegal drugs, sooner or later police will seize a shipment of illegal drugs. If no one can find a copy of a genuine snuff film, then you'd think that feminists might admit that they either have exaggerated the problem or have promoted a falsehood that smears the male sex. But think again. Feminists have never discovered one single snuff film. Yet they continue to claim that snuff films not only exist, but are a widespread problem that reveal all those low and depraved traits they just *know* men harbor. Feminists who cling to the snuff-film legend simply do not let facts get in the way of a good anti-male smear. One of them is Catherine MacKinnon, the anti-pornography activist. When confronted with the fact that the FBI has never turned up even one snuff film, MacKinnon implies that their investigations aren't complete or competent. (As if the FBI has some sort of good-old-boys network devoted to protecting the makers of snuff films!) MacKinnon was quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle as saying: "My opinion is completely to the contrary to the FBI's. I know snuff films exist. These so-called official people don't enjoy a lot of trust." The paper asked her to substantiate her claim, but she artfully dodged: "To divulge anything would jeopardize my own investigation." That statement was made in 1994. Since then, MacKinnon's "investigation" has still not turned up a single snuff film. And, to our knowledge, she has not admitted her mistake, either. People who take a good, honest look at feminism are familiar with this process by now. A feminist makes a wildly anti-male claim, but submits no proof to back it up. Yet she states with absolute conviction that she "knows" it is true. This is a distressingly common trait of modern feminism: proof is not required when bashing men, and a lack of proof is no deterrent. Also, these types of claims never seem to cost feminists their credibility. They make an anti-male smear, get away with it, and move on to the next anti-male smear. The news media still coming calling, to quote these "experts." However, when you go to law-enforcement officials, you will find that no commercial snuff films have ever been seized. Here are excerpts from an extensive investigation into the snuff-film myth by San Francisco Chronicle. (See "Do snuff films really exist, or are they merely popular myth?" by Rider McDowell, San Francisco Chronicle, August 7, 1994.) McDowell writes: "Alan Sears, former executive director of the Attorney General's commission on pornography during 1985-86, agrees with the more than two dozen law enforcement agencies I interviewed. 'Our experience was that we could not find any such thing as a commercially produced snuff film,' says Sears. 'Our commission was all-inclusive and exhaustive. If snuff films were available, we'd have found them.' " "This sentiment is echoed by Ken Lanning, a cult expert at the FBI training academy at Quantico, Virginia. 'I've not found one single documented case of a snuff film anywhere in the world. I've been searching for 20 years, talked to hundreds of people. There's plenty of once-removed sightings, but I've never found a credible personality who personally saw one.' " And of the Chronicle's own efforts to find or view a snuff film, the reporter writes: "For six months I have groped ... probing the seedy corners of society's fetishistic netherworld for evidence that snuff films exist. It's been six months of disappointments and fizzling leads, hundreds of phone calls to criminal types and police types, hurried interviews with proprietors of sex shops and S&M parlors, smoky gatherings in underground film clubs, unsolicited applications to join slave societies, purchase discount stun guns and order misogynist films by mail. I've endured watching a myriad of horrible fake snuff films -- some ridiculously fake, the others deemed inauthentic by experts -- with titles such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Man Behind the Sun 731." I've pored over dozens of unsolved murders around the country, searching, always searching. To no avail." Michael F. Knapp, Inspector-Deputy Chief of the FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, wrote to one skeptic to say: "My colleagues who handle investigative matters which could possibly involve 'snuff films' have advised me that to their knowledge, the FBI has never found or confiscated a 'snuff film.' " Perhaps MacKinnon and other feminists want to add The San Francisco Chronicle, the FBI, and all these law-enforcement officials to their list of people who are doing noncredible or suspect research. As for us, we think that MacKinnon's failure to discover even one snuff film is evidence that she is clinging to a myth because it confirms her prejudices about men. Other people outside law enforcement have looked for snuff films, too. Cecil Adams, the skeptic behind the "Straight Dope" column and TV show, had this to say when asked if there are snuff films: "in a word, no." And twenty years ago, the notorious porno mag "Screw" offered $25,000 to anyone who had a copy of a snuff film. No takers. "Snuff has been talked about for 20 years," says Manny Neuhaus, former editor of Screw magazine. "Don't you think they'd have turned one up by now?" At this point you might say that you've heard about snuff films. Let's clear up some questions about them: Question: Aren't there are films showing real deaths available at many video stores? Answer: In fact there are several "Faces of Death" films and imitators. They claim to show actual deaths caused by accidents, warfare, crime, animal attacks, capital punishment, and so on. Thus, by definition, they are not snuff films, which are supposedly made by people who kill someone specifically so they can film it and sell it. "Faces of Death"-type films claim that a photographer was on the scene when a death was caused by someone or something else. But in snuff films, the filmmakers are supposedly is the ones doing the killing. (And many skeptics say that even those video-store movies contain some obviously faked sequences -- for example, camera angles change just like in a movie, during supposedly continuous sequences filmed by one person standing in one spot with a camcorder.) Question: Didn't the Charles Manson "Family" film their murders? Answer: No, but this is the rumor that apparently sparked the myth of snuff films. The San Francisco Chronicle has this to say about the Manson rumor: "According to LAPD Vice Squad Sergeant Don Smith, snuff films got their name during the 1969 investigation of the Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles. 'The media was mistakenly informed that the Manson people had taken home movies of the murders,' says Smith. 'The press coined the term "snuff films," and it stuck.' " Question: But wasn't there a film back in the 1970s, called "Snuff" or "Snuff in New York City"? Answer: It was a poorly done fake, says the Chronicle. "Snuff" was one of the earliest snuff-film hoaxes, perpetrated by Alan Shackelton, whom the Chronicle describes as a soft-porn maker and B-movie producer. He "purchased a low-grade exploitation horror film," called "Slaughter," that had been shot in South America. Shackelton shot 15 minutes of new film that supposedly showed an actress being murdered. It must not have been very convincing: the paper describes it as "a celebration of hokey latex and stage blood." Shackelton booked the film into a Times Square "grind house," in 1975 and promoted it with publicity-seeking "disclaimers" warning away the faint of heart. He even hired "protesters" to picket the film, ensuring even more publicity. Although the film is "almost laughably phony," it helped further the snuff-film legend. Question: What about "Vampira" and the film that actor Charlie Sheen reportedly saw? Answer: There was 16mm sex loop called "Vampira," supposedly showing a girl having her intestines cut out. Coroners took one look and noticed that the intestines were from a cow. In the late 1980s, a Japanese film called "Guinea Pig" attracted attention. The Chronicle says that its viewers included the Charlie Sheen, who thought it showed real scenes of torture. He contacted the FBI, and agents were convinced enough to investigate. But the producers of the film then released "Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One," revealing the tricks that went into making the realistic scenes. The FBI dropped the case. Question: Isn't it possible that snuff films exist among a very small group of people and sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so that average people would never be aware of them? Answer: This is a favorite refrain among those who just can't let go of the snuff-film legend. Just about anything is "possible," but to say it is true requires proof. And *IF* such films existed in extremely secretive, limited circles, then feminists would not be justified in trying to paint it as a widespread problem in which large numbers of male oppressors are getting their jollies watching the deaths of large numbers of female victims. As with their statistics on anorexia, feminists like to find a huge number of female deaths where there aren't any. It tells you a lot about feminist logic that they think there could be sort of snuff-film "industry" that has managed to churn out a number of widely available films for 20 or 30 years while completely avoiding detection and never leaving a trace. Question: Hollywood films like "Hardcore" and "52 Pickup" have alluded to snuff films. Maybe Hollywood insiders know something. Answer: Hollywood is about sensationalism, not reality. If any amateur investigators in such movies manage to breeze right in to a movie theater, plop down and catch a snuff film, then they have succeeded where legions of law-enforcement officials, feminists, and reporters have failed. In the real world, if any theater showed a snuff film, police could seize it as evidence in a murder investigation. (Depending on local statutes, it might be a criminal offense to simply possess such a film, even for private viewing.) The theater owners could find themselves tied up in an expensive legal or criminal case. What theater could make a profit by showing casual, walk-in customers a film that could be immediately seized and cost them enormous legal expenses? Question: But isn't it true that some serial killers have filmed their victims? Answer: This apparently has happened, though the tapes came to light when police seized them from the property of the killer himself. Such films were *not* seized while being sold on some supposed black market or being shown in theaters. Let's distinguish between some sicko videotaping his crime and a supposedly flourishing industry selling, distributing, and showing such films. The first is possible. The second is a myth. For example, police in southern California arrested an Anaheim furniture upholsterer after he tried to lure women into the desert. The women were police decoys, and in the desert, police found a stash of saws, axes, pliers, and a camera. He served time for this and, when he got out, he met two women at a party. Their bodies were later found, and the man was sentenced to life in prison for their murders. An accomplice claims that the murders were filmed, but no films were ever found. Such monsters as this do exist. But one tactic of feminism is to tar all men with the same brush, and in this case the snuff-film myth is the way they do it. They could say the killer is a depraved and monstrous individual, and they would be right. But instead, they try to pin that monstrosity on all men through the myth of snuff films. Instead of saying there is one sick individual carrying out his twisted schemes, they try to make all of us men into a cheering section for the monster. Feminist rhetoric on snuff films is all about blaming as many men as possible by claiming that legions of women are dying for the entertainment of men. It validates feminist's feelings of victimhood, and the only flaw in the argument is that it is based on myth -- which does not seem to be a deterrent to feminists. Feminists cherish the myth that men support some conspiratorial, underground a market for snuff films even though -- after years of determined effort -- they and their supporters have never found this underground trade they "know" exists. One of those people who "know" is Andrew Vachss, whom the Chronicle describes as an attorney who represents children "and a best-selling author of thrillers." "Just because you haven't seen any on network news doesn't mean they're not out there.," Vachss argues. "When someone steals a Rembrandt, it doesn't show up in a gallery. We know that the Shah of Iran kept videotapes of (the Iranian secret police) Savak torturing people to death. We also know that Idi Amin collected video equipment and routinely witnessed executions. You can draw your own conclusions. ... Serial killers have been documenting their murders for years," says Vachss. "Do you think it hasn't occurred to one of these people to film a murder, and don't you think that it's possible one of these films is being circulated?" Vachss displays an attitude that has infected much of academia, feminism, and the politically correct world today. This line of thinking holds that if something is possible, then it's probable, and if it's probable, then it's true. Proof is not required. These people just *know.* Some feminists like MacKinnon use the snuff-film myth to try to drum up support for their anti-pornography efforts. They run into problems when they try to convince people that photographing a nude woman constitutes assault or exploitation, and there are always freedom-of-speech issues that feminists cannot easily circumvent. But the snuff-film myth gives them a lightning-rod for drawing support. Lots of people are ambivalent about nude centerfolds, but the idea of women being tortured and murdered is very alarming. Feminists often have trouble trying to fire people up with moral outrage over the fact that women are being photographed nude for the pleasure of men -- so they up the ante and claim that women are being tortured and killed. It's a handy way for feminists to smear even the glossy, airbrushed Playboy centerfold and claim that all such photographs ultimately are merely the first step on the road that leads to snuff films. When you get into a discussion with an anti-porn feminist, eventually she might declare that women are being tortured and murdered for the enjoyment of men. Ask her to provide her sources, and she won't be able to. But the lack of evidence probably won't change her mind, either. And this goes right back to some of the top leaders of feminism, who support such myths. When they can't get results by arguing that a well-paid centerfold model is being "exploited," they inject the snuff-film myth, feeling that the end justifies such dishonest means. For feminists, there are only two possible downsides to the snuff-film myth. One is that it isn't true, and the other is that casts an undeserved blanket smear on the entire male sex. Of course, for many feminists, these are not reasons enough to refrain. ---------- Sources and acknowledgements. Opinions expressed above are those of Per's MANifesto. Much of the source material is available at the Alt.Folklore.Urban home page. For additional information and the complete text of the San Francisco Chronicle article, Visit the AFU & Urban Legend Archive at http://www.urbanlegends.com/ and click on "Classic" and then "Snuff Films, or go to that section directly, at: http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/snuff.films/ (The full text of the FBI letter from Michael F. Knapp is available at:) http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/snuff.films/snuff_films_fbi.html ========== NIGHT LYIN' When critics of feminism say that news coverage is sometimes biased, we get a familiar response. Feminists jeer, "Oh, I suppose that feminists own the news media now. I suppose feminists give them orders." No, the bias isn't due to feminists owning the media. They just borrow it now and then. Feminism is a major political force. It has well-organized members -- lawyers who threaten to sue, columnist who threaten to embarrass, protesters who threaten to picket. And perhaps most of all, it has woman -- the ones who control a major portion of household expenditures. The ones who control the purse strings. The ones that advertisers and the news media don't want to piss off. The news media know darn well that feminists can do them damage. But men's groups? They're still don't have anything near the clout. The news media can ignore men's rights and pander to feminists, and it's good for the bottom line. And it's not just the small papers or two-bit local news anchors who do it. At times, it's even a respected journalist like Ted Koppel. On Nov. 14, Koppel's "Nightline" presented a report entitled, "A Child's World," covering the (supposed) problem that child witnesses are losing credibility in our courts. After all the false, coerced testimony from children on supposed "satanic cults" in day-care centers, it would seem like a positive move. After innocent people have been freed from jails -- sent there on admittedly false testimony -- it seems like we ought to be questioning some of the leading, distorting and manipulative techniques used to get false testimony from children. And, seeing how this is "Nightline," a respected show, you'd hope that Koppel would give the issue a fair hearing. But Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist who specialized in rights -- even for unpopular groups -- was amazed at how biased Koppel's show was. (See "'Nightline' Caught off Balance," November 30 1996; Page A19, The Washington Post.) Hentoff writes: "Erin Hayes, Koppel's reporter that night, made a point of saying that Ralph Underwager, a guest who testifies for the defense, is paid well for each day in court. She neglected to add that expert witnesses for the prosecution in these cases are also paid well. I don't recall this kind of crudely prejudicial reporting on "Nightline" before." Koppel said the idea for the program was brought to him by Civia Tamarkin, who has served on the advisory board of an organization called Believe the Children. (This is the group that never believes the children when they say they *haven't* been abused or molested. Their tactics have been behind a number of false accusation cases that eventually were overturned. These tactics include leading and coercive interviews with children, duping them, hounding them and even threatening them until they repeat back the accusations that Believe The Children counselors want.) Nevertheless, Tamarkin insisted to Koppel that she was "neutral" on the issue of child testimony. A Believe The Children board member, and she's neutral? What's more, Koppel said, "We have found her to be a useful, objective and reliable source." Absolutely amazing. The woman is an activist with an agenda. And Koppel finds her "objective and reliable." As Hentoff wrote: "Tamarkin has indeed devoted a lot of attention to child sex abuse, along with an abiding conviction of most defendants' guilt. For instance, she has praised the prosecution in the North Carolina Little Rascals day care case. Those prosecutors were definitively discredited in a PBS "Frontline" documentary series by Ofra Bikel. They were also reprimanded by the higher courts. "For a long time, I interviewed prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Little Rascals prosecutions and read trial transcripts. It was clear that the child witnesses had been persistently manipulated by therapists and prosecutors who had abandoned the very idea of due process. "Tamarkin also believes that the bizarrely unjust McMartin day-care prosecution in California should have resulted in convictions. The prosecutors there have also been utterly discredited. To use Tamarkin as an expert on child sex abuses cases is like having David Bonior shape an "objective" look at Newt Gingrich." Okay, are we willing to admit there might be some bias in this "Nightline" report? "Nightline's" bias extended to their efforts to discredit Cornell University psychiatrist Stephen Ceci, a respected authority who has done experiments on the credibility of children's testimony. Ceci told Hentoff that the interview "Nightline" conducted with him was done in an unusually aggressive, confrontational and sometimes hostile manner. "I felt I had been in a 10-round prizefight and lost." "These people from 'Nightline,' " Ceci says, "had their agenda going in, and they used what they chose from the interviews to support that agenda. It was sad, because on this issue, both people's freedom is at stake and also children's safety. This could have been a truly balanced illuminating program." "I was shocked," Helene Hembrooke, a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell, told Hentoff after observing the interview. "We were sure it would be a balanced piece. After all, it was 'Nightine,' it was Ted Koppel." We are not shocked. After all, it's feminism. ========== ENDING THE GOOD-OLD-BOYS CLUB One of the claims you hear feminists make is that getting more of their members into positions of power will clean up government. So let's look at some women who got government jobs and a really cleaning up. There's Janet Reno. So what if she presided over the mass-immolation of a cult in Waco, sniper attacks in Idaho, and a few hysteria-driven prosecutions based on questionable child testimony? Small stuff. Then she started committing some real offenses: she extended the Whitewater investigations of independent counsel Kenneth Starr. President Clinton made it clear that he wasn't pleased. With the same subtlety with which he refused to rule out pardons for his Whitewater cronies, Clinton also was eloquently silent about saying whether he would reappoint Reno during the president's second term. The timing was notable. Critics of Clinton were seeking an independent counsel to look into all the funny money floating into Democrat campaigns chests -- some of it from non-citizens, and thousands of it from people who had taken oaths of poverty! Reno played right along. She said an independent counsel was not needed because any offenses apparently were done by low-level officials. (So Al Gore, holding the money bag at fundraisers, must be a low level official.) And Reno said no one had found any tangible evidence of wrongdoing. Apparently the woman in charge of the Justice Department hasn't heard names like the Lippo Group or John Huang. So Reno finally said that she'd only agree to a vague "task force" that would look into the mess someday, and make some sort of general report -- in the sweet by and by. And Clinton gave her her job back. This is how feminists put an end to the good-old-boy network. They put a good old girl in there. And speaking of good old girls, there's Deedee. Deedee Corradini is the first woman mayor of Salt Lake City. She's female. She's a Democrat. She's one step away from sainthood, right? Well, actually it looks to us like she's one step ahead of the law. Her troubles haven't gotten the national publicity of another Utah woman, Enid "I don't know nothing" Waldholtz. But Corradini has admitted to soliciting personal "gifts" from some of the most powerful and influential people in the state -- including people who do business with the city. Corradini was trying to pay off debts from a failed business venture. As mayor, she started taking in "gifts" from businesses that lease space from the city, from union officials who have interests in city labor contracts, from people who want public recognition, who lease facilities from the city, or have other reasons for trying to stay on the good side of the mayor. In one case, she called a businessman on his car phone as he was coming to bring her a $5,000 check. Her reason for calling: she wanted him to up it to $6,000. When he got to her office, Mayor Corradini was waiting at the curb for the money. Now that's public service. In these days of feminism, some things never change. Women still expect a lot of nice gifts. Corradini insists, however, that all the gifts are from friends -- even though she's not sure she knew all these "friends" before she took over the powers of the mayor's office. The city has a law that prohibits public officials from taking anything worth more than $50 that "tends to influence" them in their decision-making. One businessman who leases airport space with the city gave Corradini and her husband $40,000 worth of stock. For some reason, no charges have been brought against her. She has exceeded the $50 limit somewhat. She admits to taking more than $200,000 in "gifts." Yes, it's true what feminists say: women in government certainly will clean up. (See "Salt Lake City Ponders Mayor's Acceptance of a Little Help From 'Friends' " in the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1996, page A3.) And while we're on the topic of feminism's own myths, let's look at the myth that women are much more peaceful than men. True, women are on average shorter and less strong than men. For some reason, the fact that they're more likely to lose a fair fight with a man has somehow earned women the reputation of being more peaceful. In fact, women just take out their aggression on the ones who are smaller than them -- namely, children. What would be called "domestic violence" when done by a man is called "discipline" when done by a woman. While smaller women might be more reluctant to risk *committing* violence, they are perfectly capable of *ordering* violence. Give women leaders an army of men, and they will bring about invasions, plundering, colonialism and nationalism just as well as any man. They truly are equal. Which brings us to Madeleine Albright, who used to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Colin Powell had to deal with Ms. Albright when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now, he was the professional soldier, and she was the civilian. But he says he nearly had "an aneurysm" when hearing Albright's warlike policies. She once said to him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Not to worry. Albright is no longer our U.N. ambassador. No sir. Now she's our secretary of state. Bill Clinton must have listened to all the rhetoric about how women in government will be oh so much more peaceful. Sleep well. ========== ANOTHER STORY YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED Here at Per's MANifesto, we take pride in bringing you stories that just *somehow* slip past the national news media. Stories that would have been a big thing -- if the accused has been a man. And especially if the accused had been a sports figure. For instance, consider the different attention paid to Michael Irvin and Ryan Thompson. Irvin, the Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, was accused by a woman who said that he and another man raped her, threatened to kill her, and videotaped the attack. The police talked to the press about the accusations before they even moved to arrest anybody. The news media flashed the story on page one. And then the woman's ex-husband said she had a history of making similar false accusations. Irvin has every right to be mad. Yes, he has been convicted of cocaine possession. But that's a separate story. Since when does a police department start holding press conferences before any charges have been filed? Irvin has every right to be mad. Yes, he has previously been convicted of cocaine possession. But that's a separate story. Since when does a police department start holding press conferences before any charges have been filed? The false accuser -- a stripper named Nina Shahravan, 23 -- is going to be charged with filing a false police report. That's a good start. But the penalty for false accusation is still laughably trivial. The absolute maximum Shahravan person can face is six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. Watch her plea-bargain that down, then cash in on her new notoriety. And the ludicrous part of this is that the charge is filing a false police report, a misdemeanor. When she accused Irvin, it was a front-page story. When her story was shown to be false, it wasn't played up quite as much. And now here's a story the papers didn't play up at all. Cleveland Indian outfielder Ryan Thompson was stalked by his estranged wife. As he was in his car during a Thanksgiving visit with family in Maryland, Melody Blackstone-Thompson allegedly found him and rammed her car into his. After her car ran off the road, Thompson drove off an notified police. Blackstone-Thompson was charged with second-degree assault and released on personal recognizance. No word on whether she had been coming from a viewing of "The First Wives Club." ========== FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE BAD BECAUSE ... The brief last issue of Per's MANifesto forwarded to you a Washington Post article on companies overreacting to sexual harassment accusations. "In Combating Sexual Harassment, Companies Sometimes Overreact," By Kirstin Downey Grimsley, Monday, December 23 1996; Page A01.) This article was part of a series on sexual harassment at work. (It was the *last* segment of the series.) While the Post should be commended just for admitting that false or exaggerated complaints are made, there is still work to be done. For one thing, the concept of false or exaggerated accusations was dealt with in a separate article. These issues should be part of the *main* coverage whenever sexual harassment accusations are raised. Accusations that are false or motivated by personal animosity or dishonesty are a part of the entire issue. No coverage of sexual harassment is complete without considering that some accusations are false. Unfortunately, the news media often seem bent on presenting incomplete coverage. Any article that treats all accusations as true is a biased article. Speaking of bias, some of it did creep into this Post article, particularly in the way it was worded. It said "Many accused harassers take to the courts to try to avenge themselves ..." Why are these people described as trying to "avenge themselves"? It makes them sound like bloodthirsty avengers, rather than people who have been wronged. Then there was this strikingly bizarre statement by a feminist lawyer. "There's a dichotomy in our economy," said employment attorney Rita Risser, a principal in Fair Measures, a workplace training and advisory firm in Santa Cruz, Calif. "Some organizations will tolerate gross harassment -- rape, stalking, attempted murder -- and won't do anything, but other organizations will fire someone for doing something minor ..." This is a feminist with a law degree, working to enforce sexual harassment laws -- and she seems to think there are companies that tolerate " rape, stalking, attempted murder." We particularly enjoyed the reply that Michael S. posted to this: "Oh, yeah, it's really awful about all those organizations that tolerate rape and attempted murder. I hate them. Lets see, there's... Um, no. Well, what about... Er... Well, there's prisons. But the victims there are men, so that doesn't count." Well said. And we've just got to reprint that stunning example of feminist logic that closed the article. It quoted Susan Webb, "president of Seattle-based Pacific Resource Development Group, a pioneer in the field of sexual harassment prevention training and an expert witness on the topic for the past decade." "If you under-react and punish people too lightly, it shows you don't care," she said. "If you overreact, a lot of women will be impacted, too." So if you under-react, it's bad because it hurts women. And if you overreact and fire a man on little or no grounds, it is also bad -- because it hurts women! Thanks for that lesson in equality. ========== COSMOWATCH Cosmopolitan is a leading women's magazine. Its articles and attitudes run counter to feminist claims that women are oppressed by "the beauty trap," that women are less lustful, unfaithful and materialistic than men, that women are just somehow nicer. Cosmo far outsells Ms. Magazine. And the "Cosmo girl" knows darn well she can get what she wants by selling her sexuality or playing hardball at the office. So what attitudes are women buying when they pick up Cosmo? Here's some items from the January, 1997, issue: -- A list (page 124) about "What's Sexy in a Man." Some of the things that are sexy: "Cash in his wallet, preferably in big bills (we can't believe we're saying this, but money *is* a turn-on)" "Big shoulders and a muscular chest," "Power (even if he's ugly)," "Flat tummy," "Leg muscles and a small, tight butt." -- An ad that shows an expensive Oneida fork that was destroyed in a garbage disposal. The ad says "Replacing it is almost as easy as blaming someone else." -- On page 168 is a pandering propaganda piece, written by a man and titled "How Different Are Men and Women?" This fellow's point can be summed up thusly: A) There are no differences between men and women, and B) The differences, which don't exist, don't count anyway. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Scheer was out to sell an article to Cosmo and wasn't about to stop at groveling. He says: "Recently, we celebrated only the second female to become a Fortune 500 CEO -- merely 498 to go!" As they say today, "You go, Robert." Mr. Scheer maintains that "Men and women are exactly the same in every modernly relevant respect except one -- the mechanics of procreation and all that this immutable biological distinction portends for daily behavior. All else is sufficiently the same between the genders as to render efforts to focus on the differences largely a waste of time." So Mr. Scheer is one of those obedient fellows who will cheer for women replacing *all* men as Fortune 500 CEOs, and still claim he is interested in equality. And this is a familiar sort of equality, in which all fault for women's behavior can be placed on *men.* Hence his assertion that "The occupational barriers between men and women turn out to be far more a matter of prejudice than of reason." It's all men's fault, you see. Never mind that women overwhelmingly seek out safe jobs. So any difference in pay and accomplishment has to be traced back to men -- even if it stems from the behavior of women. Mr. Scheer is quite eager to dismiss as irrelevant any evidence that doesn't support his theory on the innate sameness of men and women: "I have abandoned the attempt to read meaning into the flimsy neurological evidence available as to gender differences," he writes. "Why am I supposed to be excited over the news that men are better at orienting three-dimensional objects in space?" Frankly, Robert, we don't gave if you get excited. In fact, we'd prefer that you didn't. But if you hadn't "abandoned" the pursuit of knowledge and insight, you might be forced to admit that a greater ability to orient three-dimensional objects in space is just the sort of skill you need to build a house, be a draftsman, shoot and arrow, design an engine, wire a home, or lay out the course of a road or a canal. In other words, some of the "occupational barriers" you so glibly dismiss as "a matter of prejudice" are actually rooted in real abilities -- with real differences between the sexes. Robert goes on: "The scientific evidence on sexual differences is actually quite paltry," he claims, "and represents the triumph of machinery over common sense. Suddenly we had the ability to do MRI scans of the human brain and discovered that women, when processing language, tend to use both sides of the brain while men use only one. What significance this has is anyone's guess," he says dismissively. What significance, Robert? You acknowledge there is a fundamental, brain-level difference in the processing of language and can't see how that might affect how people think? Or how they write novels? "There is also the testosterone that exists in men's brains in larger quantities," Robert gushes on the way to dismissing reality once again. "But what exactly the hormone does there is more the source of giggles than of serious thought." Mr. Scheer, try trading in your giggles for some serious thought. He also notes that men have "a larger frontal lobe, which is said to be crucial to reasoning." How to dismiss this one? Robert tells us that the size difference goes away after age 50. Which is a round-about way of admitting that it exists for roughly the initial three-fourths of a man's life. It is very odd that Mr. Scheer is so determined to insist there are no differences between men and women when he keeps citing so many of them: the finer motor skills of girls, differences in navigating and using maps, differences in reflexes, hormones, brain size, and so on. But he can see hope for us. He says the differences between men and women will "start fading any millennium now as manifestations of masculinity and femininity continue to blur into one androgynous sex. Perhaps we'll even become hermaphroditic." Um, Robert *after you.* We hope that letting you go first is not considered sexist. ============================= ============================= THE FINE PRINT MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes. Subscribing: If you would like to have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message "subscribe MANifesto" to [email protected]. You also can send your comments, questions, suggestions, and castration threats to this address. What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of subscribers every month -- perhaps because some server between here and there is on the fritz at the time, or possibly because your mailbox is full. If you don't think you received the latest issue, please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue." You can find MANifesto on the Usenet each month in the following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights. (MANifesto is copyright 1996 by Per. Please feel free to copy, forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety.) =============================