MANifesto: An electronic newsletter of news and opinion on gender issues, man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes. September 1996. WELCOME, READERS, to an issue of MANifesto where we take a look at the moral leadership that we can expect from women as they guide us across the bridge to the future and into the 21st Century. For example, there is a move on today to make sure that the position of Secretary General of the United Nations will go to a woman next. (After all, she could hardly be less effective than Boutros Boutros-Ghali.) So it will be interesting to see if the powers that be decide they're going to hire some woman -- any woman -- no matter what. Remember what happened when Bill Clinton decided he absolutely had to have a female Attorney General. What an exciting thought for us all! Just think -- maybe someone in charge of U.N. troops can do for the world what Janet Reno did for Waco, Texas. Feminists have told us that putting women in charge will make for a more peaceful, honest and civilized world. We salute these forward-looking sentiments by taking a gander at the great moral stances taken by women and feminists everywhere. MANifesto is now on the Web, at http://members.gnn.com/peraddress/manifest.htm With a link to The POW Page! -- a collection of favorite satire featuring Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and the Propaganda Organization for Women. INDEX: NEWS AND VIEWS I. DEDICATION: CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN II. A FEMINIST DEFENDS FREE SPEECH . . . WELL, SORT OF III. WOMEN CLEAN UP POLITICS . . . (WELL, AT LEAST THEY CLEAN UP) IV. SO NICELY THEY SETTLE THEIR DISPUTES V. WOMEN ARE MORE ARTISTIC AND SENSITIVE VI. A FEMINIST CONDEMNS MALE-BASHING . . . WELL, SORT OF VII. MOTHERS GIVE YOU THE BUSINESS VIII. NUTRITION LEADER FEEDS US A LINE IX. COSMOWATCH HUMOR: THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF . . . POW SAYS DEAD MEN ARE HEALTHIER ========== DEDICATION: CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN We'd like to dedicate this issue about feminist ethics to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois. 1992 was dubbed the "Year of the Woman," and Moseley-Braun was a big part of it. For one thing, she defeated a man to win her Senate seat. And not just any male senator, but one who actually dared to question Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment. Women were mad. They wanted to oust that male senator and replace him with someone with a bit more sensitivity to the oppressed. When Moseley-Braun won, it was called a major feminist victory, part of the drive to take power out of the hands of corrupt and greedy men and give it to the disenfranchised and downtrodden. So how has Senator Moseley-Braun advanced those principles? Well, she has become a close ally, supporter and apologist for one of the most brutal dictators on Earth. General Sani Abacha rules Nigeria with an iron fist. He executes and tortures dissidents, smashes the free press, oppresses people of color, and loots the nation's wealth for every dime he can extort from it. Just the type of person a moral, forward-looking feminist would want to support. Moseley-Braun won office largely because women were offended over what they saw as harsh treatment for Anita Hill. So Moseley-Braun now chums up to a man who does things a bit tougher than finding hairs on his Coke can. While many nations are calling for international sanctions against Abacha, Moseley-Braun has been speaking out in his defense. She's about the only one to do so, especially in Congress. The State Department was not pleased to learn that Moseley-Braun had made a secret trip to Nigeria on business that she has not quite yet clarified. Those looking for answers to Moseley-Braun's affections for a brutal tyrant might want to take a look at her former fianc�, Kgosie Matthews. He was her campaign manager and also shared a condo with her. He also was a paid agent of the Nigerian government. But if you're a feminist, you might not want to look too hard at Mr. Matthews. Some of Moseley-Braun's staff accused him of sexual harassment. Moseley-Braun ran for office by exploiting the rage and national publicity over the Anita Hill sexual harassment case. Then sexual harassment charges started hitting a bit closer to home. Sort of like a candidate running on a law-and-order platform by day and hanging out with felons and grifters by night. The national rage focused on the Anita Hill case seemed to skip right over the sexual harassment accusations against Matthews. But if feminists were moved to so much anger by the charges Anita Hill made, why did they have so little outrage over the accusations against Matthews? Or, for that matter, the accusations made by Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones? Well, here we can see that stringent feminist morality at work. The rule of thumb: if the accusation involves someone we like, it doesn't count. ========== A FEMINIST DEFENDS FREE SPEECH ... WELL, SORT OF There were a lot of people who strongly condemned the Republicans because pro-abortion speakers were not given time to state their views during the GOP national convention. One of them was outspoken feminist Bella Abzug. (See, we can be charitable. We referred to her only as "outspoken.") Ms. Abzug accused the convention of "muzzling some of their guys who didn't agree with them about abortion." Well, let syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff tell you what happened next: "A reporter for the New York Post asked her what she thought of her own party's refusal to allow Robert Casey, governor of Pennsylvania from 1987 to 1995, to speak at her convention. After all, Al Gore had promised on ABC-TV: "We don't have a gag rule the way the other party does." "So what?" said Abzug, the tribune of free speech, about the gagging of Casey. "It's not required to have someone speak who has a position in contrast to the majority of the party." Casey is pro-life, so he had to be silenced." Abzug defended free speech -- for her views only. She did not extend those rights to others. That's sort of like defending "equality for women." ----- (Source: "The Democrats' Tiny Tent: The Siberian exile of a former governor with one of the party's most effective records," By Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A15.) ========== WOMEN CLEAN UP POLITICS ... (WELL, AT LEAST THEY CLEAN UP) Benazir Bhutto -- seeking another term as prime minister of Pakistan -- ran on an anti-corruption campaign. Since winning in 1993, she hasn't done much toward cleaning up the government. But a luxurious estate she reportedly bought in England indicates that at least she *is* cleaning up. Pakistan has long had a reputation for corrupt governmental and business practices. In a recent survey, business executives ranked Pakistan as the second most corrupt, behind Nigeria. But on the campaign trail, Bhutto said, "I will not compromise on political corruption of any member of the ruling coalition." But Bhutto has appointed several cabinet members who have been accused of financial crimes. When Bhutto was out of power, she accused the Saifullah family of being a "plunderer" of the nation's wealth. But when she came back to power, she appointed a powerful member of the family to her cabinet. "Then last month, her government exempted a cement company co-owned by the Saifullah family from $400 million in excise taxes, disregarding the objections of the national tax collection agency." Her critics say it's a pattern of Bhutto treating her allies to some lucrative business deals. Obviously there's some partisan sniping going on here, with charges being hurled by people whose hands aren't particularly clean either. But there certainly have been an unusual number of shady associates for someone who ran so loudly on an anti-corruption platform. For example, there's Mohammad Nawaz Khokhar, who used to be a fierce critic of Bhutto. He has been arrested on charges of fraud, embezzlement and official corruption. But he was released from jail, and a day later he switched his allegiance to Bhutto's party and was named science and technology minister. The charges against him then were dropped. Then there's Munawwer Hussain Manj, arrested on charges of being a major trafficker of hashish and heroin. He was named to a parliamentary committee that oversees anti-drug operations. When Pakistan recently permitted private ownership of TV and FM radio stations, it granted a national TV monopoly and favorable FM deals, without bids and without announcements they were available. They went -- free of fees -- to someone who was an important aide to Bhutto and a high school classmate of her husband. But, according to Britain's Sunday Express paper, she's not sitting out the deals herself. The paper reported that Bhutto and her husband had bought a $3.9 million mansion in the English countryside near London -- a 335-acre estate with a private landing strip and indoor swimming pool. Loads of antiques, carved furniture and other household items were reportedly shipped from Bhutto's private seaside residence in Karachi to London. Bhutto denies that she bought the estate. So what's going on with Pakistan's economy in the meantime? Bhutto's latest budget calls for a $1 billion tax increase, and the International Monetary Fund is pressing her to impose even greater fiscal austerity. Bhutto probably isn't any more corrupt than any of her predecessors. But -- contrary to feminist dogma -- she isn't any more honest, either. She is truly equal to men. (Source: "Beleaguered Benazir Bhutto: Corruption Charges Grow Sharper Against Premier Reelected Vowing to Rid Pakistan's Politics of Graft" By Kenneth J. Cooper and Kamran Khan, Washington Post Foreign Service, Monday, August 19 1996; Page A10, The Washington Post.) ========== WOMEN ARE MORE ARTISTIC AND SENSITIVE We've been told that women are more sensitive, more moral, more artistic. That's when we remember a sensitive, moral art project that took place at the University of Maryland in 1993. Students in the "Contemporary Issues in Feminist Art" class took the names of men at random from a campus phone book. They then put up posters listing these men by name under the heading that said: "Notice: These Men are Potential Rapists." Well, we might not know art, but we know what we *don't* like. And that includes smearing the names of innocent people, fomenting stereotypes, and engaging in hatemongering and fearmongering. However, the art must have been more to the taste of University of Maryland officials. The students were not called to account for their smear. On today's campus, some forms of hate speech are entirely acceptable. The "potential rapists" lists also shows how divided feminism is over stereotypes and man-bashing. Some feminists condemn the list -- of course, not strongly enough to require the university to respond. (Feminists had more important things to devote their energies to. When four male students at Cornell used campus computers to *privately* circulate a list of offensive jokes, feminists demanded the men be punished. They were.) Other feminists are far more ambivalent about the UM "potential rapists" list. Some criticize it as "bad for feminism." They skip over the matter of smearing innocent men, then focus on how the issue might be bad for *women!* And some feminists ardently support the "potential rapists" list and the sentiments behind it. In fact, while searching for the background on the "potential rapists" list, we inadvertently set off a long-running Usenet discussion featuring one feminist who absolutely and unequivocally defends the list. The feminist said: "The girls did good... the quality of their effort is not measured by its common reception, but by its truth and its endurance. ... The fact is women have reason to fear males any place and at any time. ... The women who posted that list of potential rapists were making a valid statement." Then this feminist, who uses a male name on the Internet, went into a sort of free-association word-salad of images apparently about rape: "as for what the art was illustrative of; any male can be a rapist, a friend, a father, a thug in any guise... walk down a street not knowing who, open the door not knowing who, lay in a hospital bed unconscious, no matter where, when, and by anyone male..." Many people objected to this feminist's views, trying to get the feminist to acknowledge a problem with smearing innocent men, or to acknowledge that a similar list would be unacceptable if it said that all Arabs are potential terrorists, all Hispanics are potential illegal aliens, all blacks are potential drug dealers, and so on. The feminist rejected such arguments as "irrelevant." The feminist also dismissed moral objections to the list. When someone replied, "The question is whether it is an effective statement or ethical statement," the feminist blithely replied: "effective or ethical are matters for another discussion." So you can smear innocent men, and the ethics of it are for "another discussion." The feminist saw nothing wrong with taking the fact that some men rape and then labeling all men "potential rapists." "If you disagree, do try to present something other than 'because some of a set are does not mean that all of that set are.'" In other words, the feminist doesn't care if it is an invalid stereotype. One person replied that because some marbles are blue does not mean that all marbles are blue. That makes sense to us. But not to the feminist, who adamantly rejected the argument. Trying to take the discussion to a higher level of prevention, one man suggested that we "work on methods of identifying assailants before they assault." To this, another feminist replied that it's no problem to identify assailants: "Easy, young men, especially jocks, especially drinking jocks." Oh, so identifying potential rapists is easy -- just identify "young men." So, let's also work on methods for identifying potential stereotypers: Easy. Feminists. Especially self-righteous feminists. ========== A FEMINIST CONDEMNS MALE-BASHING . . . WELL, SORT OF Feminists say they would make better politicians because they are more moral than men, and not as bigoted. Of course, last issues we told you about the diversity director at the Social Security Administration who led off a diversity seminar with a man-bashing joke, so that sort of blows that idea all to hell. But that was then, this is now. So we'd like to show you how one feminist recently condemned man-bashing -- sort of. It started with a Usenet posting called "male-bashing continues: How do you react?" One man asked other men for their reactions: "I'm going very tired of the continuous male-bashing that goes on in our society. Everyone is so nice and supportive of females, and if you say one uncomplimentary thing about them everyone thinks you're a �pig,' yet men are continually ridiculed, told how worthless they are, laughed at, etc. "I'm very curious how other men feel about this. ... Do you notice it? Do you ignore it? Do you think it's funny? Does it hurt you? Does it make you feel less worthy than women?" So a feminist responded to him. Watch how she proceeds to do the following: Step 1) Make some pro forma comments that bashing men is not good. Step 2) Establish women's perpetual victimhood. Step 3) Blame men for male-bashing, rather than admitting that some women can aspire to bigotry entirely on their own. Step 4) Reverse her initial condemnation of man-bashing by concluding that bashing men is a good thing because it teaches them how it feels. Here's what the feminist said: "Denigrating any one group of people because they are representative of that group is almost always a form of bigotry, even when it is done in the name of humor." (Step One accomplished. Pro forma condemnation of bashing is made -- and in just one sentence. (Note how she didn't actual say that bashing MEN is bad, just that bashing "any one group ...") (The feminist will now ignore the poster's concerns about male-bashing and commence Step Two:) "When I was a little girl my mother took my sister and I to a town by the sea called Cape May, New Jersey. One day we were shopping and I saw some post cards depicting girls in itty bitty bikinis; next to them was some post cards of older women who were very heavy; they too were wearing bathing suits, but the message on those cards was loud and clear. If you're a young woman you have something worth while, but as you age you are valueless; I didn't see the same type of cards depicting older men." (Step Two complete, with a bit of animosity thrown in: "I didn't see the same type of cards depicting older men." Ever notice how many feminists just can't sit still when a man mentions being a target in modern gender warfare? The feminist has to jump in and establish her place as the real victim.) (Now, begin Step Three of blaming men for male-bashing.) "Yes, putting men down may be a form of bigotry and it may also be a form of comic relief to women who have felt subjugated and put down as a gender for centuries ..." (Here at Per's MANifesto, we bet those women who felt that way for *centuries* sure didn't look good in bathing suits, either. But let her continue:) "I mean, "Why buy the COW if you can get the milk for free", and "God gave women sex organs so that men would talk to them". There is no easy answer to your question because if female bashing is wrong and goes unanswered one has to question the value of male bashing as another form of retort." (Note the language "if female bashing is wrong" then maybe male-bashing is appropriate.) "I don't believe that two wrongs make a right (triteness lives) but I do believe that once in a while, one has to "fight fire with fire"; " (So two wrongs *do* make a right if a feminist does it. Now prepare for Step Four, in which a feminist declares the benefits of bashing men.) "if nothing else, the men who feel bashed now know what it feels like to be disparaged. If you really believe that the male gender is suffering the slings and arrows of "male bashing" in some vacuum, think again." There you have it: from saying that "Denigrating any one group of people ... is almost always a form of bigotry" to defending man-bashing as a "form of retort" to "fight fire with fire" and let men "know what it feels like." We certainly are glad for moral feminists like this. They engage in gender stereotypes, bashing and hatred -- but only for moral, upstanding reasons. ========== SO NICELY THEY SETTLE THEIR DISPUTES Feminists say that women make better leaders because they are by nature more cooperative and nurturing, less aggressive and combative. Women will settle their disputes nicely, so the feminists say. So it's interesting to look at a recent dustup in New York state between a couple of high-ranking women in the GOP, as reported June 5 in the New York Daily News: "Open warfare erupted between Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey Ross and (Governor George) Pataki administration yesterday as both sides traded accusations of betrayal and deceit. "Escalating an embarrassing Republican feud, McCaughey Ross used a radio talk show to accuse unnamed Pataki aides of �McCarthyism' for allegedly targeting her with a series of political shots. "�This is the strategy that Joe McCarthy used to discredit his political adversaries.' McCaughey Ross said on WABC's �Lionel' show, blaming the Pataki administration for leaking allegations that she abused her state police detail and mounting other attacks. "�He would leak anonymous rumors that they had done something wrong but never actually provide any concrete charges ... and never give the accused person an opportunity to prove his innocence. It's un-American,' she said. "The Pataki administration fired back even as she spoke. State Parks Commissioner Bernadette Castro called the radio show and angrily accused McCaughey Ross of �slandering' the administration. "�You're not loyal to the governor,' Castro charged, as she and McCaughey interrupted each other with accusations. �You're not loyal to the Republican Party.' "... The extraordinary public sniping created new embarrassment for the Pataki administration ..." Well! We're certainly glad no men were involved here. Otherwise it might have gotten nasty. ========== MOTHERS GIVE YOU THE BUSINESS A feminist recently told us that fathers perpetuate violence by passing it on to their sons. Never mind that our prisons are full of men who grew up without fathers. Never mind that street gangs are full of young men who don't have a father at home. Never mind that growing up without a father is, for boys, linked to higher rates of crime, violence, school dropouts and drug use. According to the feminist, it's fathers who perpetuate the violence. No wonder, then, that so many feminists are trying to make sure these brutal,primitive beasts known as "men" don't have anything to do with their children. You couldn't get away with trying to promote a similar stereotype about mothers. Motherhood is sacred. Be careful if you try to take a crack at Mother. And be careful if you take crack *from* Mother. That's the lesson to be learned from the story of Rayful Edmond III, who became one of the biggest cocaine distributors in the United States. And he couldn't have done it without mom. Edmond got his start in drug dealing by holding money for his mother, Constance "Bootsie" Perry, as she sold illegal pills on the streets of Washington, D.C. Later, his father also gave him additional training in the drug business. But now he has been sentenced to prison for life. And at the Lewisburg, Pa., federal penitentiary he met Dixon Dario Trujillo-Blanco and his brother, Osvaldo. The three men are now are accused of running a drug ring from the prison. They hit it off very well because they have something in common: they all got involved in crime and the drug trade because of dear old mom. Authorities say Rayful Edmond's mother played more of a supporting role in his rise to drug kingpin. Not so for the Trujillo-Blanco brothers. Their mother was a hands-on businesswoman, known for her violence and her deep involvement in the drug business. The Trujillo-Blanco brothers were introduced to the drug trade by their own mother, Griselda Blanco, who became known at the "Godmother of Cocaine" for her connections with the notorious and violent Medellin cocaine cartel. Griselda Blanco was a self-made woman, starting out small, as a pickpocket, and working her way up. The Washington Post says: "Blanco, who allegedly killed two of her four husbands, turned to her top financial adviser and her favorite hit man to instruct her sons on the distribution and killing ends of her business, (says) Richard Smitten, who wrote a book on Blanco called �The Godmother.'" "Bob Palombo, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent who investigated the Blanco organization, said in an interview last week that Griselda Blanco was responsible for much of the drug-related violence in South Florida during the 1980s. She is credited with perfecting the motorcycle assassination, a popular tactic among South Florida's "cocaine cowboys." And she once had a part interest in a Colombian factory that manufactured girdles and bras with compartments to hide cocaine." They say that behind every successful man is a woman. Obviously these women knew how to get their sons cracking. ---- (Source: "For Jailed Kingpins, A Cocaine Kinship: Feds Say Friendship Begot Partnership For D.C. Dealer, Colombian Brothers, by Toni Locy, The Washington Post, Monday, August 19 1996; Page A01) ========== NUTRITION LEADER FEEDS US A LINE Ellen Haas hasn't reached the same pinnacles of success as Benazir Bhutto. Haas is merely Undersecretary for the Department of Labor. But even from a relatively lesser post, a woman can start thinking big. She can become a mover and shaker. Well, it appears Haas is *moving* a lot of government money to her friends -- and *shaking* us down in the process. For the second time in less than half a year, the watchdog General Accounting Office has accused Haas of violating ethics regulations and federal procurement laws and engaging in "a pattern of poor management." Maybe we should call this "poor womanagement." Don't want to use sexist language. Despite two such GAO rulings in five months, Haas merely says that "mistakes" were made and refuses to step down. Her political allies say the accusations are motivated by politics. We buy that. People usually don't turn in allies. A politically motivated charged has to be looked at carefully, but it's not necessarily unfounded. And GAO investigators have shown evidence indicating that Haas steers government contracts to cronies and political allies. For example: According to The Washington Post, "the GAO said Haas violated federal ethics standards by allowing Susan Shreve, a close friend of 15 years, to receive a $25,000 contract from USDA to write a children's book on nutrition." Haas personally reviewed the book. The author has been paid $11,250 and planned to sell the government 25,000 copies for $50,000. But another official stopped the lucrative deal after noting that the department could have free access to the book after a year and print the book itself. The GAO also cited Haas for careless management of a $173,000 contract that mushroomed into a $2.3 million contract, and also for committing nearly half a million dollars so the department could use two cartoon characters from "The Lion King." Maybe Haas could star in her own movie. Call it "The Good Old Girls Club." ----- (Reference: "�Team Nutrition' Leader Again Dines on Crow: Agriculture Official Admits Contract �Mistakes'" By Bill McAllister, The Washington Post, Thursday, September 19 1996; Page A29.) ========== 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 October issue: Articles: -- Men *Love* Mysterious Women -- Seven Ways to Become One. -- What Women Can Learn From Men at Work: Strategies *they* use can earn titles, money, perks for *you!* -- Keep *Your* Job -- Even if Nobody *Else* Does -- In Hollywood, Even Friends Are Professional: These hangers-on have perfected the art of cozying up! -- The Glam (Sexy Too!) World of Political Volunteers: Want to meet some *good* men? Mingle with Hollywood's Hottest? It's *possible* if you join ... -- Getting Out of a Psychologically Abusive Relationship. (Among the "abuse" topics it covers are being in a relation with someone who criticizes, withholds love, wants you to change, or wants more. If this is abuse, then the number of abused men just skyrocketed. The article recommends: "don't trust your lover too much," and says that "the most important question in any relationship (is) �How does this man make me feel?'") -- He Might Sit Up and Notice if You ... (This is a list of ways to get a man's attention. They include:) ... Shine a flashlight in his eyes whenever he stops listening. ... Tell him you have a crush on the doorman. ... Take lessons at a pistol-firing range. ... Shave your pubic hair or have it waxed into the shape of a heart. ... Call him the wrong name while making love. ... Read aloud from an article on penile implants. ... Run over his favorite guitar. ... Ask for a divorce. Cartoon: Two women in a bar. One says: "His work keeps him away from home most of the time. I like that in a husband." ========== HUMOR Per's MANifesto newsletter announces: THE HONEST FEMINIST CONTEST Diogenes took his lamp and went looking for an honest man. Now it's the feminists' turn. We're picking up our flashlight and going in search of an honest feminist. And believe me, we're bringing extra batteries. In keeping with the theme of this month's MANifesto, we're looking for this high moral character that feminists say they bring to public life. 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. In other words, she's so honest she won't try to claim that discrimination is equality.* We're looking for a feminist who will admit that she doesn't call for equality when it's to her disadvantage. If the courts are biased in her favor in a child custody dispute, she'll admit that she's not going to demand equality and a level playing field. We're looking for a feminist so honest that she'll admit that protecting only female workers from offensive language is a special protection and not equality. We're looking for a feminist who will admit that it's censorship to censor offensive speech. 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'll admit that women living an average of seven years longer than men does NOT mean that women's health is being "shortchanged." We're looking for a feminist who will admit that the feminist rallying cry of "all men are potential rapists" is an anti-male stereotype. She won't try to play semantics or abstract word games in order to ignore the hate message those words can convey. We're looking for a feminist who will admit that feminism bears responsibility for the innocent lives that have been 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. And we're looking for feminists who will admit that movies portraying men as scum and justifying just about any female revenge against them are man-bashing movies. So we're calling on all MANifesto readers. Pick up your flashlights and go looking for an honest feminist. If you find one, nominate her for the Per's MANifesto Honest Feminist Contest. The grand prize for the best entry is ... taa-daaa ... well, there ain't one. At least we're honest. And the deadline is ... well, there ain't one, either. We figure you'll need lots of time. Message your entries to [email protected] with the subject line "Honest Feminist Contest." And one good thing about looking for an honest feminist. It's not likely to take up much bandwidth. (*The fine print: It doesn't count if she basically admits a point and then fudges it all to heck. In other words, she can't admit it's discrimination to deny a man a job because he's a man and then fudge it all over the place by claim this discrimination brings about equality. Fudging is not honest. No points for fudging.) ========== YOU MIGHT BE A MALE FEMINIST IF ... ... you've ever gone to a "Take Back The Night" march with a condom in your wallet. ... you're willing to sacrifice jobs, safety, security, rights, promotions and pay raises -- of any other man except you. ... you've ever told her that "all men are potential rapists" hoping that she'll be afraid to date anyone but you. ... you've posted anonymously: "submissive male seeks strong woman for instruction in discipline ..." ... you hope your ability to quote chapter and verse from "The Beauty Trap" will impress the really hot babes. ... you hope that your staunch support for Affirmative Action and hiring quotas means that they'll never be applied against YOU. ... you set up a "safe and nurturing environment," a support group, or a retreat to shelter "strong women." ... you think that violence is always wrong -- and you'll shoot any man who disagrees. ` ... you think at embracing and preaching anti-male stereotypes means you'll be exempt from them. ... you believe that a man yelling at a woman constitutes domestic violence, while a woman stabbing a man is a firm stand against domestic violence. And here are some from "mew." ... you think that the woman who fired you can't be sexist because women have no power in today's society. ... you admonish your children to "look before you leap" but you feel guilty for leaving the toilet seat up. ... you set out the trash for the garbagemen before going to work to meet with a chairperson. ... you've ever referred to _yourself_ as "draftsperson", "chairperson", etc. ... you think of your newborn son as a potential rapist. ... you think it's normal genetics that so many first-born children bear no resemblance to their fathers. ... you agree with the widow next door that women's health issues are underfunded. And Aric contributes these: ... you think it unfair that women have to pay more for clothes, especially since they live longer so they have to buy more. ... you feel women should band together to "take back the net" starting with the elimination of male-oppressive sexual jargon like "hard drive" and "motherboard". ... being vilified for things that you never ever did seems natural and right to you. Got any of your own? E-mail them with the subject line "You Might Be A Male Feminist If ..." to [email protected]. If we get more, we'll run them in future issues. ========== POW SAYS DEAD MEN ARE HEALTHIER Dead men are healthier than most women, says a new study released by the Propaganda Organization for Women (POW). "We've long known that women are being shortchanged on health care," says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of POW. "Now this report proves it." "Statistics show that women live about seven years longer than men," she said. "Thus women live long enough to suffer a variety of ailments that men never have to suffer. Consider the scourge of osteoporosis -- the brittle-bone disease that occurs in older people. Most victims of this disease are women. That's because they live long enough to get it. Men don't live as long as women, so they don't suffer as much osteoporosis. Obviously, if fewer men are suffering from this insidious and debilitating disease, then men are healthier than women." "Also, we have found that many widows have a tough time getting by on the pensions of their late husbands. These widows cannot always afford the finest health care. This causes them to suffer from a variety of ailments their late husbands are not forced to endure." "Some people ask us -- �what should be done about men dying earlier than women?' We say that obviously it means we have to put more money into improving the health of women. After all, it doesn't make any sense to spend our scarce health-care dollars on dead people." "Some backlashers point out that men have higher rates of depression, alcoholism and drug abuse. �Isn't that a health issue?' they say. We don't think so. After all, many of the men who have alcoholism or addictions will go on to commit suicide. Once you're dead, obviously you aren't suffering from a disease anymore." "Meanwhile there are all these living women who suffer from depression. It is our job to help the living." "Also, suicide is a personal choice. This is one area in which feminists will defend a man's right to choose." "We also found that dead men are healthier in one other key area. In strict, laboratory conditions, we scanned the brain waves of a random sampling of dead men. For a control group, we then scanned the brain waves of a random sampling of members of our feminist group." "The dead men scored higher in every respect." ============================= 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.) =============================