Per's MANifesto: A newsletter of news and opinion on
man-bashing, anti-male stereotypes and other progressive moral ideals.
September, 1997.
	WELCOME, READERS. In the movie theaters right now is a
propaganda film called "G.I. Jane," purporting to show that women are
tough as nails and can handle any adversity. Meanwhile, in the real
world, feminists are doing their best to demonstrate that women are
too delicate to stand up to naughty words, or pictures, or even a
certain "Peyton place." And feminists aren't the only ones trying to
pull a fast one with sexual harassment rules today -- men are getting
in on the act. But men and woman alike are being affected by
feminism's neo-Victorian insistence that they be treated like royalty.
So we'll call this issue "Feminism: Doing A Job On Us All."
	(Per's MANifesto is available on the web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm Featuring links to back issues,
Mondo Feminism, and The POW Page.)

INDEX:
I. AN ACCUSATION EQUALS A CONVICTION
II. THE POLITICS OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS
III. BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE A JOB?
IV. PORN TEMPLE PILOTS
V. G.I. JANE NEEDS TO TRAIN
VI.  TAKING A CRACK AT CASHING IN
VII. FIRED FOR A "LACK OF SENSITIVITY"
VIII. MICKEY MOUSE LAWSUIT
==========

AN ACCUSATION EQUALS A CONVICTION
	Joseph Holley was pleased that he had landed a new job,
writing speeches for first lady Hillary Clinton.
	To take the job, he had to break his lease, quit his old job,
pull his kids out of school and move his family to Washington from
Texas.
	Then, in the middle of this, the job offer was revoked. The
White House had learned that Holley had been the defendant in a sexual
discrimination and harassment lawsuit seven years ago.
	Holley's employer at that time, the San Diego Tribune
newspaper, had settled the lawsuit with no admission of wrongdoing.
The suit had been brought by a writer Holley once supervised. He says
the accusations were "absurd" and "fiction." The paper's internal
review showed Holley did nothing wrong and recommended no disciplinary
action against him. 
	But the White House said the job was off. They wouldn't even
give Holley a chance to tell his side of the story.
	His accuser, San Diego journalist Lynne Carrier, is applauding
the decision. Yes, that's right, she's a journalist. 
	What she accused Holley of was allowing a "male locker room"
work environment featuring coarse sexual comments.
	Even if her accusations were true, it brings up the spectacle
of  a feminist journalist explaining to us why the First Amendment no
longer works. Or at least why it doesn't apply to men.
	Feminists like Carrier are demanding Victorian protection from
naughty words. Carrier might demand sensitivity for herself, but the
newspaper described her as having an uncontrolled temper. Sensitivity
seems to be a one-way street.
	Harold W. Fuson Jr., vice president and legal counsel for The
Copley Press Inc., owner of the San Diego Tribune, said: "Frankly, I
think Joe's the victim of a modern form of blacklisting, and I don't
think it's a lot different than the 1950s version."
	It would be interesting to see what would happen if the
standards the White House used against Holley were applied to Bill
Clinton himself. After all, he has had a few accusations of his own.
	(See "White House Rescinds Job Offer to Writer Once Accused in
Bias Suit," by John F. Harris, Washington Post, Monday, September  1,
1997; Page A04.)

==========
THE POLITICS OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS
	Holley's case wasn't the only one to hit the White House
recently.
	The Drudge Report, an internet newsletter of political gossip,
recently claimed that White House aide Sidney Blumenthal "has a
spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up."
	The newsletter quoted an unnamed "influential Republican" as
saying "There are court records of Blumenthal's violence against his
wife." 
	The story turned out to be utterly unfounded -- something
planted for political purposes.
	Matt Drudge, author of the newsletter, retracted the story and
deleted it from his web site on American Online. He also said: "I
apologize if any harm has been done." 
	If?
	Since when do we assume there is no harm in smearing innocent
people?
	It appears that Blumenthal was the target of a politically
motivated smear. Some Republicans had been upset over unverified abuse
accusations leveled against Republican political consultant Don Sipple
in Mother Jones magazine. It appears that someone put out a false
story on Blumenthal as retaliation -- an attempt to switch the
spotlight from a Republican to a Democrat.
	"Someone was trying to get me to go after [the story] and I
probably fell for it a little too hard," Drudge acknowledged. "I can't
prove it. This is a case of using me to broadcast dirty laundry. I
think I've been had."
	This sorry state of affairs shows just how politicized the
entire debate over sexual harassment and abuse has become. Extremist
feminists have created an overheated emotional atmosphere that is ripe
for this sort of abuse. False or trumped-up accusations of harassment
or abuse have become weapons in the political arena, in divorce and
custody cases, and in the chase for fat legal judgments. And it is not
just radical feminists who are making them. Even Republicans can get
in on the act.
	We wonder how far this will go, how much damage will be done,
before society says that false accusations are never acceptable.

	(See "Blumenthals Get Apology, Plan Lawsuit: Web Site Retracts
Story on Clinton Aide," by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Tuesday,
August 12, 1997; Page A11)

==========
BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE A JOB?
	Patricia "Patti" Tehaney of Oxnard, California, recently lost
her job at a termite control company. She says it's because she posed
as Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month more than twenty years
ago, in May 1976. She says her employer felt that this made her far
too much of a risk for sexual harassment. The company didn't want to
get sued if she ever claimed harassment in connection with her nude
pictures, so she says.
	Her former employer says that Tehaney was fired for other
reasons, but that she violated an agreement to never discuss her
Playboy pictures with anyone at work. The company also says she once
brought to work a copy of her nude centerfold (she says she did so
reluctantly, at the request of her supervisor.)
	Maybe that sounds like a raw deal for Tehaney.  But with all
the lawsuits and claims over sexual harassment, can we really blame
the company for protecting itself?
	The reader who alerted us to this story also included a quote
from Warren Farrell, who said that discrimination for women would
become discrimination against woman. It sounds like that might be
happening to Tehaney. If we are not hyper-vigilant in protecting
women, the result can be a devastating lawsuit. That can only make an
employer think twice when hiring.
	But Tehaney has taken her case -- and her centerfold -- to the
web. A friend put up a web page for Tehaney, at
http://home.earthlink.net/~tehaney/,  in which she pleads for help in
finding work. A lot of people thought the page was a gag, but Wired
magazine checked into it an verified the story, and she's been written
up in the December 19, 1996, Los Angeles Times. (You can see the Wired
article at http://www.wired.com/news/topframe/2205.html.)
	Tehaney's page starts off by saying: "If you remember the 70s,
you may remember my centerfold pictorial in  the May 1976 issue of
Playboy. Or my controversial cover in Nov. 1975. This may all seem
glamorous, but these 70's memories have suddenly become  my 90s
nightmare! If you saw my recent story on NBCs Dateline (1/12) or  the
LA Times on 12/16, you know that all this "glamour" has cost  me my
job and continues to prevent me from finding a new one."
	Tehaney had the page put up so that she could ask for work and
for donations to see her through her job search.
	But right up at the top of the page, so it's one of the first
things you see, there is a reproduction of Tehaney's Playboy
centerfold. She's looking for work and money, and she's showing her
body.
	It seems to us that any prospective employer concerned about
harassment issues would have second thoughts about a woman who is
using a nude picture as part of her job search.
	For one thing, it invites all sorts of jokes about her
"resume" and her "assets." And those jokes are precisely the type of
thing that could get someone sued for harassment.

==========
PORN TEMPLE PILOTS
	If you think that the company that fired Tehaney is being
overly cautious, remember that sexual harassment lawsuits over nude
pictures are a very real concern, and very expensive.
	For example, Continental Airlines is being sued by a female
pilot, Tammy S. Blakey, who says male pilots belittled her and left
pornography around the cockpit.
	The company says her accusations of harassment began only
after she was cited for poor attendance. It's interesting to note when
a harassment accusation is made after an employee's job performance is
criticized.
	Blakey says she was belittled once when she found a 10-inch
doll in the pilot's seat with blonde hair in a ponytail, like hers.
	"I was belittled. That was uncalled for," she says.
	It will be interesting to see how many thousands of dollars
she thinks will soothe the trauma. (And remember, when companies are
hit with large damage awards, they have to find a way to pass the cost
onto the consumer. In the end, the public ends up paying for our
efforts to shield women from life.)
	She also said that pilots left "pornography" around the
cockpit (insert bad pun here) and in flight manuals.
	"It was embarrassing. I knew those guys were looking at it,"
she said.
	Now, we don't support porn. But do people lose their rights to
read what they want as soon as a woman is embarrassed to know they
read it?
	Maybe we can try this tactic the next time a Women's Study
class reads Andrea Dworkin or excerpts from "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto."
(http://www.wps.com/texts/SCUM-manifesto.html) Just go to your
diversity department and tell them to stop the feminists from reading
it because it's embarrassing. "I knew those feminists were looking at
it."
	Hmm. It would certainly be ironic if some of those pilots were
viewing Patti Tehaney's Playboy centerfold.

==========
G.I. JANE NEEDS TO TRAIN
	While the propaganda film "G.I. Jane" purports to show a woman
undergoing the same rigorous military training as men, the Army is
finally planning to narrow the difference in its separate-and-unequal
fitness standards for men and women.
	In the wake of accusations of sexual harassment against women
in the Army, a special Army panel conducted a gender investigation. In
reporting the story, the Washington Post sounded amazed at the
"surprising results" indicating that men feel aggrieved by gender
bias.
	What do you know! Men resent gender bias against them. Why,
who ever would have thought it!
	Mainly, the men are concerned about the far-easier fitness
standards for women. Only half of the men said they thought that women
"pull their load." But nearly all soldiers, including the women, felt
that male soldiers "pull their load."
	Many of the men felt that women received favorable treatment,
and 28 percent of men said "women have an advantage over men when it
comes to having a successful military career." And 30 percent thought
female soldiers get treated better.
	Feminists will probably try to dismiss this as backlash among
men who don't want women in the service. But nearly 70 percent of the
men said they felt women should be allowed to do any job "for which
they can qualify."
	The problem is, the qualifications for women are often
remarkably lower. A 25-year-old man is required to do 40 push-ups and
47 sit-ups in two minutes and run two miles in 16 minutes and 36
seconds. A 25-year-old woman must do 16 push-ups, 45 sit-ups and run
the same distance in 19 minutes and 36 seconds. (The difference in
running ability is notable. Apparently the Army thinks the enemy will
be courteous enough to wait until the women catch up.)
	The standards for women are so low that overweight smokers
could pass with ease, while men often struggled to meet their higher
standards. This is one form of discrimination you didn't hear
feminists complaining about. There is no demand for a "level playing
field" when the field tips so far in women's favor.	
	New rules will require women to do a few more push-ups and
will slightly lower the time for the two-mile run. The number of
sit-ups will stay the same.
	As the Washington Post noted, men found extra burdens being
placed on them when women soldiers got pregnant: "Men complained about
a battalion-level fuel handler who became pregnant and was assigned a
desk duty until she gave birth so her unborn baby would not be exposed
to chemical hazards. There were only a few fuel handlers assigned to
the battalion and because she technically remained on the unit
payroll, the battalion could not request a temporary substitute." The
remaining men had to take up the slack.
	So women's "equal" rights translate into more responsibilities
for men -- as usual.

	(See "Army Moves to Toughen Fitness Standards for Women," by
Dana Priest, Washington Post, Saturday, September 13, 1997; Page A01)

==========
TAKING A CRACK AT CASHING IN
	Jamie Whited is in the money after reaching a settlement with
the University of Tennessee.
	Whited, a female athletic trainer, netted $300,000 in the
settlement. What terrible trauma merited giving this delicate woman
more than a quarter of a million dollars?
	She supposedly was mooned by quarterback Peyton Manning.
	Manning says he was joking around with a male track athlete in
a training room and didn't see Whited. 
	You can't really blame Whited for being so traumatized. What
has society done to prepare women for such an assault on their
delicate sensibilities?
	And how could Whited have even known that an athletic trainer
might one day go into a room and see a bare butt?

==========
FIRED FOR A "LACK OF SENSITIVITY"
	District Judge Alexander MacNichol of Maine has lost his job
because he was accused of not being sensitive enough to women who
claimed they were abused.
	Governor King refused to reappoint MacNichol -- although
reappointment of judges has been almost automatic in Maine. 
	His supporters say MacNichol is a victim of political
correctness.
	"He wasn't a rubber stamp for anybody. He has always been
willing to look at both sides," Henry N. Berry III, a lawyer and
former political adversary, told the Associated Press. "That's what
got him in trouble -- he wasn't politically correct."
	Obviously, looking at both sides in domestic violence
accusations is deadly for your career. Extremist feminists have been
trying for years to make sure the public gets only one side -- the
side that paints men as evil. They've been pretty successful. Most
campaigns depict domestic violence as something only men do.
	What's remarkable about the case is that MacNichol is not
accused of botching any cases or causing harm. He often granted the
restraining orders that women sought. But he is being fired for a
"lack of sensitivity."
	Advocates accused him of "revictimizing" a woman seeking a
protection-from-abuse order. "Revictimizing" is a feminist code-word
meaning "you did not automatically believe our accusations against a
man."
	In this case, MacNichol actually granted the protection order
to the woman he was "revictimizing." But he also ordered the woman to
repay $800 she was accused of stealing from the man and he gave the
man instructions concerning small claims court. To bystanders, it
sounds like MacNichol was trying to use legal channels to defuse the
dispute that brought the man and woman to court in the first place.
	But, to activists, this was "revictimizing" the woman.
	And out he goes.
	That'll teach a judge to listen to both sides of a case.

==========
MICKEY MOUSE LAWSUIT
	Billie Jean Matay, a grandmother and  former Mouseketeer, sued
the Walt Disney Co. for negligence after she was robbed at Disneyland
in August 1995.
	In particular, she says her grandchildren were traumatized
after the robbery because they saw employees taking off their Mickey
Mouse and Lion King costumes.
	Matay had been in her car the parking lot with three
grandchildren, ages 5, 7 and 11, when a robber put a gun to her neck
and demanded her money. After the robbery, employees took her to a
staging area where cast members were changing costumes.
	In court in Santa Ana, California, she often sobbed and cried
uncontrollably on the stand.  She panted and sobbed so much on the
stand that the judge removed the jury from the courtroom. She did
manage a mournful account of how she had taken her grandkids to "share
the happy feeling" at Disneyland. But she said Disneyland was
negligent for allowing the robbery to happen. And she said that her
grandkids were traumatized all over again when they watched employees
get out of their Mickey Mouse and Lion King costumes.
	Lawyers for Disney Co. said the company is not responsible
because a crime takes place.
	Superior Court Judge Richard Luesenbrink agreed with Disney's
request to dismiss the suit. "There's nothing to suggest this incident
could reasonably have been avoided," he ruled.
	What a lack of sensitivity, huh?
	Imagine the legal precedent this sets. Now someone could even
unmask Santa Claus and not spend one day behind bars.

=============================
THE FINE PRINT
MANifesto is a monthly newsletter containing news and opinion for
people interested in gender equality and gender stereotypes.
	Subscribing: To have MANifesto e-mailed to you, message
"subscribe MANifesto" to [email protected]. Send comments, kudos and
castration threats to this address as well.
	What if you subscribed but did not get the latest issue? Our
experience is that the issue "bounces" for a couple of people every
month -- probably because some server between here and there is on the
fritz at the time. If you don't think you received the latest issue,
please e-mail us again saying "subscribe, send latest issue."
	Each month's current issue of Per's MANifesto is on the Web at
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
And the Per's MANifesto Home Page is at
http://idt.net/~per2/index.htm featuring links to back issues.
With a link to The POW Page! -- a collection of favorite satire
featuring Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname and the Propaganda Organization
for Women.
	You also can find Per's MANifesto on the Usenet each month in
the following groups: soc.men, alt.feminism, and alt.mens-rights.
 	(MANifesto is copyright 1997 by Per. Please feel free to copy,
forward, repost, fax and otherwise distribute MANifesto. If you
excerpt any section, please excerpt it in its entirety.)
==========
-----
A giant eunuch Jesus? "Patriotic" human sacrifices? Cosmic patterns
striking a convention of feminists? Gloria Steinem getting down with
Satan? What's it all about? It's about MONDO FEMINISM!
Learn the truth, if you dare. See the MONDO FEMINISM Page at
http://idt.net/~per2/mondofem.htm