Murderous madam?
In 1994 I met a woman named Linda who claimed to know who the Green River killer was.
Certain City of Seattle and King County officials, she explained, had set her up as the proprietor of a massage parlor near where the soon-to-be-demolished King Dome now stands in Seattle. The massage parlor, she said, was a front for a prostitution ring, and the Green River killer was a contractor in their employ.
His job, she said, was to kill competition. Literally.
When you're a publisher, you hear a lot of stories that are hard to believe. And even though our pop feminist critics would like to believe we publish anything and everything we can that will attract attention or work against them, our (dare I say it?) pop masculinist critics complain that we're too moderate, too careful and restrained.
Even The Backlash! has its standards.
Although Linda's story was hard to believe, it wasn't entirely incredible. Late in the 1970s several officials within the Pierce County Sheriff's department had been indicted for running a prostitution ring. Pierce county is right next door to King county, and if it could happen in Tacoma, why not Seattle?
So when Linda, who had just moved to eastern Washington, gave me a copy of her manuscript, I made several copies, gave then to several associates for safe keeping, then filed my copy away. Just in case.
Forgot all about it until late 1996 when I saw Linda on TV. She was living near Spokane and had gotten involved in newsworthy activities there. Almost a year later, the first confirmed victim of the Spokane serial killer was found, and then reports began of similarities between the Spokane and Green River murders.
Which got me to thinking about Linda, and I wondered, what if the Green River Killer is a woman?
If you didn't vote, don't complain
On C-Span, Gloria Steinem, who was in Seattle October 28, 1998, to support Senator Patty Murray's reelection bid against Linda Smith's campaign, called this the most important election in her life time. Sounds like they were very serious about fielding the anti male vote on Tuesday. If you didn't vote, don't complain if they prevail.
G.I. Jane pain?
Demi Moore has caught a lot of flak from the men's movement lately. First, for her "man bites dog" portrayal, in Striptease, of a divorced mother who loses custody of her daughter to a lowlife idiot of a man. Don't look now, guys, but although it happens more often to dads than moms, it does happen.
We can stoop to the same level as the pop feminists, who whined when Disclosure portrayed a sexually harassed man who is falsely accused by his harasser (a character Moore portrayed, as it happens). From personal experience I know such things happen, and from the many email and letters I receive (from both women and men), I know women sometimes do lose custody to unworthy ex-husbands.
So let's do better than the pop feminists, acknowledge that sometimes a point can be better made with a role reversal story, and embrace the story for the truth it tells: family court makes children hostage to a legal system that frequently serves no one, and that is not okay. For this, Moore deserves our praise.
Like Striptease, G. I. Jane also drew fire, for man-bashing and then its unrealistic portrayal of Moore's combat ability. (Makes me wonder why no one complains about the believability of Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing up dozens of bad guys, saving his wife, leaping skyscrapers astride a horse, and saving his daughter while piloting a Harrier jet. Am I the only one who believes these stories are fiction and he cannot really do all those things?)
Regardless, yes, G. I. Jane has a bit of gratuitous man-bashing, especially early on. Yes, you can tell Moore lacks the muscle density required to be a Navy SEAL (so do I), and, while I did not appreciate her boob job in Striptease, and her breast implants look even more ludicrous in G. I. Jane, the underlying themes had nothing to do with whether we could really see Moore slicing and dicing along side the guys, but that women deserve the right to try, and men's lives are as valuable as women's.
The biggest complaint I have about this movie is that I didn't produce it. Just as well, I suppose, else I'd have cast someone with less chest and more muscle. Like Cory Everson. My writing partner, Kandis, thinks I have a crush on Cory. I don't, although I do think Jeff is being a bit of a boob - you muscleheads know what I'm talking about. But she'd sure dispell the "unrealistic portrayal" complaints in a hurry.
My recommendation: Too late to see either on the big screen. Get them on video, or catch them on cable.
Cashing in on the crybaby vote
As in years past, Senator Patty Murray, from Washington state, continues to cash in on the cry baby vote, campaigning on a platform of fighting against the patriarchal hegemony on behalf of oppressed women everywhere.
For those of you who don't know, women, who outlive men, spend more money on themselves than men, consume more quality of life healthcare than men, and work fewer compensated and uncompensated hours per week than men, are oppressed by men, and Senator Murray is here to say they're not going to take it anymore. (Although, since she supports more money and more healthcare for women, I'm guessing she's either clueless or lying as to her true agenda.)
Our recommendation: vote for Linda Smith.
But isn't Smith a woman? Yea, so? But don't you advocate "vote male"? Yea, so, are you confusing "male" with "men"? Vote male doesn't mean always vote for men; it means voting with male interests, as well as female interests, in mind. Pop feminists like Senator Murray want you to vote only for female interests. We say that's sexist. We say sexism is not okay. If the pop feminists want to disagree with us, that's their problem and they can wallow in their bigotry all they want; let's just try to assure their sexism doesn't become our problem.
I-200
California voters got rid of Affirmative Action; now, Washington state voters are about to have their chance to do the same with I-200.
The opposition to I-200 say it will reduce women's equal access to education and work, and racial minorities will suffer because they are subject to social discrimination.
But equal opportunity laws are unaffected by I-200, and if social discrimination is justification for affirmative action, then what about the tremendous degree to which women socially discriminate against men?
How many times American woman disdain the "nerdy" guys who hesitantly ask them out? How many American women are guilty of such discrimination? Any serious study would quickly demonstrate what most men already know but are too afraid to tell - female social discrimination against men is rampant in this country.
If social discrimination justifies affirmative action, then perhaps it's time to talk about women making redress to men. Otherwise, maybe we should leave such issues out of politics and focus on the things that are subject to political recourse. Like mandating all good science fiction TV series must air between 8pm and 10pm, so I don't have to stay up too late to watch them.
|