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 ([email protected])
==========
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 [email protected].
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
[email protected]. 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.)
=============================