GenderGappers 1997: 31 - 40

Gendergappers 31 - LIFT AND SEPARATE

Just like the ad for a certain bra, we have noted that
the media appears hell-bent to define gender differ-
ences and exploit them to the detriment of women.
Differences, real or contrived, support separation
while lifting one gender above the other. No, we are
not saying that females and males are identical. We
are saying that they are more similar than different
and that the differences are mainly culturally induced
with the exception of primary and secondary sexual
characteristics.

We have all seen a young boy cuddle, rock and play
gently with a doll just as we have seen a young girl
throw the same doll on the floor and jump up and down
on it. But have we all noted what the adult reaction
is? What our own, involuntary, unthoughtful response
is? Do we note that the boy is made to feel bad
(unmanly?) for his joy in nurturing and that the girl
is made to feel bad (unladylike) for her anger?

Women columnists and media mavens appear to be doubling
their efforts to define women as not only opposite men
but inferior to men by asserting that cultural condi-
tioning is truth absolute. Recently, one of them
claimed that (except for a few [obviously deviate]
individuals) women melted at the sight of a baby and
rush to pick it up, while men mostly ignore them.
However, she went on to say, the men were protective
toward the baby. Duh! Like, the women weren't?

Actually, both men and women react to babies with
smiles and interest whether the babies are human or
animal, but most men have been trained not to show it.
In addition, most men have NOT been trained to hold or
care for an infant as they have probably been disci-
plined for their interest in dolls when they were chil-
dren. Also, while it is true that many women are
extremely maternal, there are just as many who are not,
but seldom will they react that way. Our culture
punishes a woman who acts "culturally abnormal" just as
it punishes a man who acts "culturally abnormal".

By stressing this cultural training as a `difference'
between the genders, we deprive males of the joys and
safeguards of warmth and emotions. By training males
to be emotionless; to equate strength with violence and
tender it society's approval, we put ourselves and our
children at risk. Perhaps, in the past, it was neces-
sary to prepare the physically stronger gender to fight
wars and to kill and maim the enemy (including old
people, women and children) dispassionately. Now, as
our military is made up of both women and men, this
sort of training is indefensible.

It would make much better sense for the survival of our
species to allow an individual to develop strengths and
abilities without tying them to gender. To paraphrase
Martin Luther King, we dream of the day when each
individual is judged, not on their gender, but on their
abilites and the content of their character.

We all know that the planet we live on is getting
overcrowded and we should be praising those who do not
add to the population. We don't. We harass and ha-
rangue couples who are childless by choice. This is
especially noted in the rhetoric of the
religious/political groups. They insist that if a
woman works in a job outside of the home she should not
have children but loudly condemn any woman who chooses
to remain childless. This is the same kind of Catch 22
they use regarding a woman's reproductive freedom.
They claim they want to end abortion, while at the same
time they do everything possible to prevent women from
obtaining birth control materials.

Some ladies will tell you, smiling a truly vacant,
Stepfordwife smile, that they do not want equality or
human rights because women who act "correctly" are put
on a pedestal by men, and they like being treated as
*special*. Since this type of *uplifting* of "worthy"
females is touted by our media, it is an effective
manner of separating us from each other. Divide and
conquer, lift and separate, it's all the same game and
it's one that Gendergappers are aware of.

Being aware is a first step but there is much more to
be done. Pedestals are great underneath statues of
horses and their riders. It lifts them high enough off
the ground so the pigeons can't miss. We Gendergapper
women, on the other hand, have been shat on long enough
to know it from Shinola.
#

Gendergappers 32 - HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO _US_

August 26th really is our birthday, that is, for women
who are citizens of one of the lesser, gender-equal
nations of the world. It was on this day, 77 years ago
that women were reborn as members of the human race, IF
we believe we were originally created as such. Reborn
because, even though man's science, history and most
religions hardly even mention that we exist, biology
has confirmed that we did. Whatever niche was assigned
to us, they had to trot us out whenever men needed
something to begat against -- or into!

Of course, you will also find us leading man astray
with apples, turning into pillars of salt and, more
recently, stealing welfare money from the RIGHT
stuffed-shirts. Our rebirth came when we finally got a
voice in our government. We were allowed to vote
(August 26, 1920). Get that! *ALLOWED!!!" Pity there
are no survivors to bear witness to our Mother's and
Grandmother's struggles and sacrifice. More pity that
we still must struggle and sacrifice to maintain our
human rights.

We must continue to struggle, not only against man's
culture, but against women who either want to turn back
the clock or who refuse to take responsibility for
themselves.

In July of 1848, 5 very brave women drafted a Declara-
tion of Sentiments a.k.a. The Woman's Declaration of
Independence. Shortly thereafter, over 300 women met
in Seneca Falls, NY. They adopted the Declaration and
it's 12 resolutions. You all learned in school about
the Bill of Rights? Well this was the *Bill of Human
Rights*! Betcha most of us didn't hear about this
until we took a woman's studies course in college.

Those radical resolutions stated that to improve wom-
en's ***LIVES***, Women should share the human rights
afforded to men: Women should own property; control
their wages; obtain a divorce; exercise free speech;
have equal access to education; equal opportunities in
business and the professions; and A VOICE IN THE LAWS
WHICH GOVERN THEIR LIVES.

Strip those rights you were born with, that are listed
in the paragraph above, from yourself. Pretend for a
moment that you lived back in those days. Do you feel
like a slave? Do you know what a slave is? Do you
know what a woman is?

Since the mid-1800's, there have been great changes in
women's lives -- a highpoint being 1920 when women were
enfranchised. But change comes slowly. We know that
only _very important_ changes can occur overnight.
Take this, quite recent example of a rapid change in
family values that happened in another country:

A journalist had done a story on gender roles in
Kuwait several years before the Gulf War, and she
noted then that women customarily walked about 10
feet behind their husbands. She returned to
Kuwait recently and observed that the men now
walked several yards behind their wives. She
approached one of the women for an explanation.

"This is marvelous," said the journalist. "What
enabled women here to achieve this reversal of
roles?"

Replied the Kuwaiti woman: "Land mines."


We know from our own lives that women's lives are
better than they were. We should know that the United
States Congress is 89% male; women do sit on about 60%
of Fortune 1000 boards, but membership is mostly male
still; 95% of corporate offices are held by men and we
should actively be doing something about it. Why?
Because we have to constantly fight the efforts of both
male and female religious/political groups who are out
to restrict our hard won rights.

Rights not just limited to the ones the Women of Seneca
fought so valiantly for but for the progress we have
made since then by increasing our numbers in the pro-
fessions, in universities, in woman-owned businesses,
and especially in reproductive freedom. We have to
fight a culture that allows the batterer/rapist/child-
molester off with little or no punishment; a society
that blames poor women for its problems; a country that
devalues its womenfolk by sexual intimidation and
discrimination, and forces them into either low paying
dead-end jobs or to work for 70% or less than a com-
parable male wage.

Our forces are sorely divided in this struggle. For so
long, so many women have turned to men in power to get
power for themselves and to solve their problems.
These women actively oppose human rights for self de-
fined women. We must learn to claim power as our right
and raise our collective voices independent of the
control of men.

Yes, after countless centuries, women have won back human
rights by law. Now we must regain the integrity we
were created with.
#

Gendergappers 33 -

THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS - OUR OWN IGNORANCE.

If you want to get a real idea of what concerns some of
your fellow creatures, listen to your "local" talk-
radio, aka, hate-radio. They have two opposing views
that they believe implicitly: one is that nothing in
the media is the truth and the other is that everything
in the media, that puts their political opponents in
the wrong, is true no matter what the source is -- or
how unsubstantial the claim.

These constant-callers with their constant-complaints
hate all who do not share their narrow minded `values'
-- they live in a world of fear, believing that the
rest of the world is out to destroy their way of life,
the way of life that god has decreed. Between gnash-
ing your teeth in frustration and exhausting bouts of
hilarity, you'll glean that the major theme of the
HateHeads is: "The way our government is spending
taxpayer's money."

Actually, you'll soon learn that their definition of
taxpayers money is their money. The implication is
that everyone who does not believe as they do are
liberals (that's a dirty word to them). Liberals do
not pay taxes, they loaf and collect welfare etc.
Hateheads don't like the way our government spends *their*
"hard-earned dollars" on a variety of things.

Although they may approve of education, they do not
approve of the educators who, in their words, "spend
their hard earned dollars teaching kids how to have sex",
and encouraging them to deviate by introducing information
on alternate life styles and sexual preferences." It
isn't long until you realize that their so-called
`values' are grounded in intolerance -- and much of
this is directed against women and especially against
*self-defining* women such as our Secretary of State, our
First Lady or our Attorney General. Smart women in positions
of power are an anathema to them, and to the male hosts
of hate-radio who respond to and encourage the hate-filled
callers.

They want the government to step in and prevent women
from choosing to have an abortion, yet they get in-
censed at the money given by government to Planned
Parenthood to provide birth control information and
material that can prevent the need for abortion.

They really get pissed off about welfaremothers -- this
is just one nasty word (welfarefathers do not exist for
them). They foam at the mouth that these women, and
other women who have chosen to live without a husband,
have the nerve to refer to themselves and their
children as FAMILY! I kid you not, they actually get
shrill if anyone suggests that anything other than
daddy, mommy and kids is a family.

It is interesting that with all their complaints, they
do not even mention all the taxpayer's money that is
spent attempting to rehabilitate male drunks or dopes-
ters or the money spent on the overwhelmingly male,
overcrowded prisons. Not a murmur about the money spent
on sports equipment (as long as it isn't taken away
from males and given to females as per Title IX).
Listen to them. These are the people who vote. These
are the people who want to maintain a large majority in
Congress These are the people who want to elect a
president who will follow the direction of the
religious/political extreamists who are not just anti
choice but also anti-women.

If they even notice the sexual harassment of women by
police, that is common in most jails, they do not pro-
test. Their indignation does not even extend to the
horror going on in those warehouses for the elderly,
the nursing homes which deliver bed-space and neglect
for profit. No surprise here -- the majority of the
inmates are women.

It is difficult to get accurate figures on the number
of sexual assaults that are made on women in hospitals
or nursing homes but it is known that complaints are
frequently made -- and usually ignored. Imagine your-
self as very old and infirm. You cannot fend
for yourself any longer. You are unable to walk unaid-
ed. An attendant or another patient comes into your
room and rapes you, threatening you so you dare not
scream. You complain and it does no good. It is all
put down to women making things up to get attention; or
to the muddled thinking of old women.

You know, from growing up in our culture, that women's
complaints are not taken seriously by the medical
profession, so it will not be hard to imagine the
scenario above. What may be difficult to believe is
how very common this situation is. If an employee of
the health facility or nursing home happens to come in
on a rape and reports it to the management, the usual
method is to JUST HUSH IT UP. In no way do they want
us to know what they allow to happen. These are good,
family-values-businesses-for-profit -- don't want any
bad press now, do we?

Now that the watchword is downsizing, this sort of
horror is bound to become more commonplace and we are
the ones mostly at risk and we are the ones that are
not considered worth of societies' protection. Just
consider how frequently women are sexually molested in
jails and the only response, when it is discovered, is
a rumor that some officer has left the force. Compare
this to the public fanfare (still going on) that at-
tended the report of one man who was sexually assaulted
in N.Y.

While most of us will never be incarcerated in one of
these repulsive jails, the chances are good that we
will find ourselves placed in a nursing home where boys
are allowed to be boys and women, whatever their age or
condition, are considered by our culture to be objects
that may be used and abused.
#


Gendergappers 34 - DIANA! A WOMAN'S WOMAN

Our language has words and phrases that hold different
meanings depending on whether they apply to a female or
a male. One of these is the word, `common'. When ap-
plied to a male, as in, a common man, it means "ordi-
nary". We speak of how things may affect the common,
the ordinary, man.

However, when a woman is called common, it means "vul-
gar". One hears the degrading tone in the spoken word:
"Oh, she's so common", referring to her dress, her
language or her activities.

A "man's man" is the ultimate male fantasy. He is
strong, tall, rugged, in charge, invincible and larger
than life etc. etc. While we have all heard and under-
stand what a man's man is, there *has been* no such
term as a woman's woman, but we think that there should
be.

Perhaps the main reason it took so long for us to iden-
tify with our own gender is that we have not built any
tradition. Women have so long been defined by men that
the major accolade for a woman would be that she is a
`man's woman'. We are allowed, even encouraged, to be
sexy and decorative but our accomplishments, even as
homemaker, are devalued. We are given a choice of only
two roles in life: that of perfect wife/mother - or whore!

Well wake up, Mr. Charlie! We women and "the times, they
are a changing".

We believe that Diana Frances Spencer was a Woman's
Woman. She resonated across the generations, the
genders and our social strata. She especially resonat-
ed and reflected, at least a part of, all women's
lives. We all were promised the storybook "happy ever
after" when "someday our prince would come". We all
were shown how little our culture values us, while
claiming family values. We all got the message early
on that our youth and beauty were accepted -- and ephemeral.
So, along with Diana, many of us woke up to the deception
of the princely kiss and, like her, we swam against the
tide in our search for our own woman-identity.

Far from following one of our culture's prescribed roles
assigned to womankind, Diana, Princess of Wales, used the
few short years she was given to DEFINE HERSELF. Her
efforts on behalf of the young and the sick, as well as
her fight against land mines is legend. The small minded,
talking-heads of the media, angry at all the heartfelt
attention given to a *mere woman*, are punishing her and us
by claiming that "she lived a life of contradictions".

*Don't * we * all?*

Diana was a destroyer of the myths that have long ensnared
and restricted women, such as: gender-role-assignment for life;
the dumb blonde; the useless parasite; poor little rich girl;
the decorative possession, among many others.

She embodied the line from Kipling's poem, _IF_:
"...Or walk with Kings -- nor lose the common touch, ..."

She was a WOMAN, who set a whole monarchy on its ear
with love; and raised the social conscience of a world.
#


Gendergappers 35 - REINVENTING THE DAMN WHEEL - AGAIN!

Every time our women's movement makes a few gains, all
the hegemony sycophants come out of the woodwork to
insist that now we are there; that now, we have at-
tained equality. Now we can stop acting like males and
be sweet and feminine as is our true nature. Many of
the authors of this excrement are women who get fi-
nanced by vested interests. They are widely published,
make appearances on television and are featured in the
print media. These women represent and protect the
male establishment, the ones with the vested interest
in keeping women's wages low and their influence in
politics even lower.

The result is that too many women who hear this crap,
coming from women, think it is true. It is only those
of us that know better who continue to be vocal. For
our pains, we are called shrill bitches who are just
trying to make trouble.

It hurts because we know that it isn't true. We know
that we must stand fast and the reason we do is that we
know full well, as George Santayana wrote: "Those that
do not remember the past are destined to repeat it."
We know that this has all happened before. We under-
stand that our *recent* movement did not stand alone
but was constructed on the backs of women who came
before us.

Read the following quotation and note how current it
sounds. Then take a guess at who it's about and when
it was made:

"She dealt not only with the vote, but with most
of the same issues confronting modern
women--domestic violence, the frustration of being
single, the value of female friendship, the vic-
timization of prostitutes, the battle for equal
pay. She also published a newspaper edited by and
for women, cautioned workers to beware of sexual
harassment, and railed against the use of tobacco.

"(Unmarried), She was one of the first in the
nation to call for the legal rights of married
women.

"Childless, she approved of a young colleague who
adopted a baby without benefit of marriage.

"Politically a nonperson, she was arrested ... for
daring to vote.

"Accused of anarchy for upsetting the relations
between women and men, she thought of herself as a
homebody ..."

Such a life of contradictions! The woman the above was
written about is, of course, Susan B. Anthony, doing her
thing in the 1800's -- over a hundred years ago.
(Excerpted from _Failure Is Impossible_ by Lynn Sherr)

Sounds pretty much like today but we do have the
vote and the right to hold office and own property. We
Gendergappers are exceptions, but many, many women do
not take advantage of what these women of the last
Century did for us and sadly -- they do not care. This
is most egregious, but what is just as harmful are
those women, featured by the media, who are impeding
the efforts of those of us still struggling for our
human rights, because we know from the past that there
is much more to do. We know how easily our few gains
may be overturned if we do not remain vigilant and
committed.

A hundred years ago, after the Woman's Bill of Rights
(listed in a previous issue) and after the
19th amendment was ratified, came the same sort of ob-
structionist action by some women that we have today.
"It's all over and women have won. We have gained
equality etc." they claimed, and every day women's
efforts were undermined by derogatory statements made
by women against women. Statements that roundly de-
nounced those who still clung to the fight knowing that
they had only just made a start in a long battle.

History tells us that because of this, the movement stumbled
and faltered just when it was gaining some momentum, so
we in this century had much to overcome before
we could add to the progress that was formerly made ... and lost.

We see the same thing happening again as many women are
forgetting the sacrifices of the past, the warnings of
the present and the future threats to our daughter's
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We must meet
these threats head on and defeat them, for, in the words
of Susan B., "failure is impossible."


Gendergappers 36 - SCRAP THAT _NON-TRADITIONAL LABEL_

Women were severely limited, at the beginning of this
Century, as to the jobs they could apply for. These
were mostly service positions such as nursing, teach-
ing, secretarial or servant. Few women were college
educated both because it was thought that women were
not capable of higher learning and because it would be
a waste of money to prepare a woman for a job that she
would not be allowed to hold.

Toward the middle of this Century, there was a gradual
change, and with the advent of Title IX, women started
to attend college en masse, and to enter into job posi-
tions that were called, "non-traditional." Just to
name a few: medicine, law, business, engineering and
agriculture (other than Home Ec).

Women have filled these positions and they have ex-
celled in them, proving over and over that not only are
women educatable, but that they are capable of doing
the work of this world that was formerly believed could
only be done by men. Despite this, there has not been
a concomitant equality in pay for service. Women still
are paid less for doing the same job as a man except
*mechanic*!

You may have seen the statistics. A recent report from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that women's
wages had dropped another 2% lower that men's (27% less
now). A recent national survey showed that while
women are concerned with child care, the strongest
issue for them is *equal pay*. Wage discrimination has
been ILLEGAL since 1963 but is still rampant. This de-
spite the fact that 41% of working women provide sole
support for their families.

Recently, many women's organizations have banded to-
gether for change, forming _Working Women Working To-
gether Network_, with equal pay a priority. More info
on what they are about may be found by calling toll
free: 888 971-9797.

One other report just released where women are NOT
discriminated against shows that women are getting
AID's at a rate higher than men. In fact, while the
incident of new AID infections for other populations
are going down, it is increasing in women -- that's
heterosexual women, by the way.

While this and similar efforts are going on, we note
that most women's groups are still referring to certain
jobs as NON-TRADITIONAL. Indeed, a recent web site has
been established by some women's groups to sign up
mentors for women interested in *non-traditional* jobs.

Just when are we going to wake up and call professional
jobs "traditional"? Why do we form groups and WWW
pages asking women to sign up as "role models" for
"non-traditional" jobs? Don't we just buy into the
fallacy that certain careers, i.e., any that pay more
than minimum wage, are always going to be either out of
the reach of women or that women still are not quali-
fied?

What does that say about what women's roles are
supposed to be? If we continue calling for female role
models in "non-traditional" jobs, the message is
being sent that we, also, BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ENTITLED
TO ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF JOBS AND CAREERS. We should
be offering role models for all types of jobs & ca-
reers, period! We should NOT reinforce the impression
of low self value in ourselves and our culture, by
perpetuating this cultural myth.
#


Gendergappers 37 - PREVIOUS BAD ACTS

We find the current trial result of a well-known
sportscaster to be a lesson in our culture's duplicity
relating to the criminal sexual activities of men. We
are told that our laws have become fairer because now a
woman's past history is not admissible evidence in a
trial, when for years previous, a woman who brought
charges against a man was penalized and vilified. Her
complete sexual and personal history was open to public
gaze.

Now our laws are said to protect her privacy by prohib-
iting any "previous bad acts" to be admissible as
evidence in a trial, and her identity may not revealed.
In actual fact, the media may, and often does, dig into
a woman's past and really the only thing that results
from the law is that the victim's name is not published
in the paper. This may be a moot point since so much
may be written and published about a person that her
identity becomes apparent. Following the plea bargin,
Vanessa Perhach, the victim, pleaded for her privacy.
Asking the press to leave her alone, she gave a short
interview saying that justice had been done but she
hoped Marv would not have to serve time.

We all know how differently the media treats any
celebrity and how protective it may be of sports figures:
the murderer, O.J. Simpson or the rapist, ear biting Mike
Tyson for example. Now, we have a sportscaster
accused of rape and sexual battering and the initial
reaction of the press was to publish massive amounts of
news stories telling what a great guy Marv is and how
he just would not do such a thing and the woman must be
just making it up to get money out of him. As one
media maven so delicately put it: "The bitch set him
up."

Although Marv's accuser's name was not mentioned in the
media, this did not stop the condemnation of her and we
submit that among the readers and watchers of the media
are always the jury.

In Marv's case, the prior pollution of the jury does
not matter. The trial suddenly stopped and Marv copped
a plea after a woman stepped forward as a witness and
testified concerning her experiences with Marv's sexual
brutality. Really quite a shocker for the defense who
had things going their way the day before. It had
concentrated on maligning the woman who was the victim
and who had brought the charges.

During the short trial, the media showed all the enjoy-
ment of a pig in mud as they revealed all the juicy
tidbits coming out of the courtroom. Now, in the
aftermath, there is a return of sympathy toward Marv.
We hear great sorrow expressed that he has lost his
"career" over these "charges" that were never proven,
and his attorney, Roy Black, hit every spot in the media
that he could, to push that point home. This in spite
of the fact that when the judge was ruling on the plea,
he directly asked Marv if he were pleading guilty
just to stop the trial or because he really was guilty.

Now as the media bemoans the end of Marv's career and
suggests a come-back for him in the future, we ask,
where's the lesson in all of this? We see two signifi-
cant areas. As more and more women have come forth to
accuse their tormenters of sexual battering, there is
often a consistent pattern showing that many women
take a lot of abuse before they take steps to stop it.
Many times the final straw is an escalation of the
abuse by the man. Love bites are a tad different from
deep, flesh tearing bites.

There is also an interesting footnote to all of this.
Despite all that was revealed, despite Marv's confes-
sion of guilt, many in the media now declare that the
woman who made the charges is the guilty party and call
the other woman who confirmed her testimony, a liar.
It proclaims what our culture teaches -- it's always
the woman's fault.

We insist that whether it be in the Garden of Eden or in
a hotel room today, a man's sexual behavior comes from
within himself and he should start taking responsibility
for it and stop always blaming women. Marv had a long
history of deviate sexual behavior and the women were victims
not instigators of cruel and punitive sex.

Patricia Masden, who had nothing to gain but notoriety
and disparagement by the media, stood up in open court
and SUPPORTED ANOTHER WOMAN. This is the most signifi-
cant image for women to take from this incident. It
just does not happen that often because we have been so
well trained to support only men and tear down our own
gender. We salute her.
#


Gendergappers 38 - "...'CAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO."

Now we all know that genders are characterized as
either feminine or masculine but have you ever heard of
a *masculist*? Is there any such thing as *masculism*.
What about *pre, or post- masculism*? Once again we have
an example that our culture has one `significant' gender.
It is the standard, so it neither requires nor needs modifiers.

Over the weekend, this gender again met in large num-
bers in our capitol, embraced and cosseted by our
media. Women were not invited nor were they allowed to
participate. Exclusion of women is what this men's
group is all about. Hardly ever a discouraging word is
said against them, even though there are those of au-
thority and experience, who are highly critical of the
Promise Keepers - and for good reason.

Oh, the media does show us a small bunch of scruffy
women protesting with signs, but this is only to deni-
grate and dismiss the opposition to the PK's. My-Oh-
My, why should any woman, any person, object to men
getting together to take responsibility, to become
better husbands, better fathers and better citizens?
Why should anyone object when the wives of these men
are quite pleased to submit to men since "...the bible
tells them so ..."

If that were the PK's agenda, the answer would be that
no one should object, but that is not the _"Political-
Kop's" agenda. This movement declares that men are
the superior gender and that the inferior gender,
women, should be ruled by them. They further insist
that this is not just their idea, it is Gods! God has
written all this and they are just obeying the will of
God and that women should do likewise.

Let's look at a couple of other *will of Gods*. One
going on right now in Afghanistan is a doozy. A cadre
of the `superior gender' are beating up and killing any
person in the country that does not or will not obey
God's (Allah's) will as `they' define it. Men must
wear long beards and attend prayers at set times, they
cannot play sports in shorts, but must be fully
clothed. Women, on the other hand, may not appear in
public at all unless necessary and even then, must be
completely covered from head to toe. Their fathers or
husbands have complete control over them. They are not
allowed to hold jobs or attend university. Young
female children are not allowed to attend school.
Females are not allowed in hospitals and any infraction
of the rules set up by these Muslim, _"Political Kops"_,
may result in sever beatings, even unto death.

Not too many years ago, right here in the good old U.S.
of America, a similar will of God was enforced. This
particular defining of God's word, the bible, declared
that the black race was inferior to the white race and
that the blacks should be kept as slaves. There were
penalties if anyone even attempted to even teach a
person of the black race to read and write! Even after
the Civil war, many still called forth the _Will of
God_ to defend how they cruelly mistreated a whole
race. Did you see the films recently shown on TV news
depicting the black children who were the first to be
integrated into the white, Little Rock, Arkansas
schools? Did you cringe along with us as you saw that
woman following a young black girl -- a woman whose
face was contorted with hatred -- a woman who was "just
doing God's will!"

Even now, this race hatred, believed to be supported by
the bible, is alive and well in such organizations as
the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazis and many of the
militia groups.

History has taught us what happens when one race exerts
superiority over another, so why can't we see the danger
when one gender is once again encouraged to demand sub-
mission of the other and to enforce this submission
with violence? What effect will that have on a culture
which is already permissive toward rape and other forms
of violence against women? The self-defined woman knows
because she is free. The ancient memories of the cruel
subjugation of our Fore-Mothers runs deep and strong in
our genes.

If you think, "it can't happen here," remember that IT
ALREADY HAS. What makes the PK's so dangerous is its
hidden agenda, especially its affiliation with a polit-
ical party, to change our Constitution, which now defends
us with a mandated separation between church and state.
What makes it a stealth-terrorist movement is that
many women are not yet aware of the danger and are
supporting this political\religious cult.

We hold that a person's religion should be protected as
should her right to practice it. When a mob attempts
to inflict its religious beliefs on everyone, it is
morally wrong. When it excludes women because it
considers them inferiors, it is mortally dangerous.
#


Gendergappers 39 - LAWS OF GRAVITY REPEALED?

While we know how the cartoons on TV have for years
shown characters like the Crazy Coyote and Roadrunner
defying the laws of gravity, this phenomenon is appear-
ing in more and more programs involving real people as
actors.

If you have watched _Deep Space 9_ lately, you may have
been *struck* by the Borg construckion, 7. Now, most
of her mechanical additions, that the Borg attached to
her, have been eliminated, but her biological boobs
just defy description, to say nothing of gravity.
Whether she is standing up or laying down, these two
projectiles from 7's chest must certainly be seen
to rival the existing "Seven" Wonders of the World!

Equally awe-striking was the remarkable change in
Scully's superstructure. You may know her as an F.B.I.
agent looking after the _X-Files_, with her loyal
sidekick, Mulder. She exhibited a fairly average
female form until she was presented to us on a hospital
bed in a deep coma. For several installments, as she
hovered between life and death in a coma, her person-
hood was overwhelmed by the towering twin pinnacles
extruding from her chest as she lay supine on the bed.
To our utter surprise, when she finally was shown,
again supine, but out of the coma and on the way to
full recovery, the bullet-breasts had vanished, re-
placed by two normal looking mounds. Remarkable!

Now one might excuse the far-in-our-future representa-
tion of 7, as some sort of super bra construct or
breastwork enhancement that might exist in the future,
but how does one change Scully's modern-day pliable
tissue? How do we explain an organ (composed of soft
gland cells, soft capillaries and soft fat cells, long
shown to us in former installments of the show, to be
easily contained in a B or certainly a C-cup) dramatic-
ally turned into towering parallel masses that defy gravity?

Until these chest events, we noted above, we do not
recall paying particular attention to this part of
women's anatomy seen on television or in movies.
Now, we are seeing these monstrosities everywhere
in media presentations.

Understand that we are not writing derogatory words
here about those of us who are naturally "well
endowed" and obeying the law of gravity. Our reference
is only directed to the magical TV force that seems
to invade the soft tissue of the breast so that it
becomes the focus of the character - especially when
the character is laying down.

Both Scully and 7, disappear as human beings, and each
become instead a pair of breasts with a body attached.
Maybe this is the point, er, points.

Along the same line, we were directed by a couple of
sources to eyeball the skirt length of just about every
"working woman" shown all over the tube. Now if we
weren't already convinced that women in our culture are
seen as objects, it would be hard to disagree when one
compares the clothing of your average real-time woman
with her television counterpart. We gotta admit that
few women have told us that they get any real pleasure
or kick out of these representations of women on tele-
vision and in the movies, so we assume that this is
not done for women's benefit.

Nature has provided the organ system we called breasts
for the nourishment of mammalian young. But we have
found no proof that science has enhanced this function
by making them solid structures.

So we have to conclude that the purpose here is to make
women's breasts more noticeable. This is perplexing
since it is illegal for a woman to appear in public without
having her breasts covered. She would be arrested for
"indecent exposure". This means that our society has
decreed by law that women's breasts are indecent. Not
men's breasts, only women's breasts, since we have
often seen men appear in public bare breasted and the
law finds nothing wrong with this.

We know that, in some societies, women's breasts are not
considered obscene and we know that in our own society
there exist nudist colonies where men and women manage
to see each other buck nekkid without exploding in
unrestrainable sexual frenzy.

As the song goes, "A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing
paradox..." Augment them, lift and separate them,
inflate them or solidify them, but for gosh sakes
don't let these indecent organs be seen.
#
Twanda@vbi.champlain.edu

We'd like to note with great happiness and pride, that
a Vermont ***woman***, Jody Williams, won the Nobel Peace
Prize. We'd also like to note our great pleasure in her
`fashion statement' as she responded to the media and the
world from her home following the announcement by the
Nobel Committee -- casual top, jeans and barefoot.
**********************

Maybe the reason that so many people love the cat is
that she is the only example that you can breathe in
the presence of man without becoming his slave - and
maybe that is why, so many people hate her.
- Heinrich Saas
**********************

Gendergappers articles may be forwarded if you wish,
and translated into other languages.

Gendergappers 40 - "EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW ..." unless --

If you haven't been paying attention to the Senate, you
may have missed the news reporting that august body
once again passed a bill that would limit women's
access to their doctor's recommended treatment. De-
spite the fact that President Clinton had warned Sena-
tors that he would veto any bill that did not include
inclusion of women's health in it, the Senate passed
the same anti-woman's human rights bill.

This bill, relating to a seldom used late term abortion
procedure, was vetoed by the President and now the
Majority Leader, Republican Trent Lot, is actively
seeking the votes to override the President's veto. He
is helped in this endeavor by a vigorous letter, fax
and telegram campaign by the irreligious right and the
unchristian coalition membership, augmented by the
promise keeper's political cadre. Meanwhile, the lead-
ers of these groups are demanding _quid pro quo_ from
Senators that received campaign financing from them.

Well who cares? It's just one procedure, so how does
that concern me? It matters very little to most people
that some women will suffer. We hear the media tell us
over and over, "Hey, those women can always get a
Caesarean. They don't have to resort to THAT particu-
lar abortion technique!" So, many of us will just sit
on our hands and sigh, "Que', sara, sara", (whatever
will be will be) instead of writing to shore up our
Senators by ***reminding them of the importance of the
Gendergapper's vote.***

Couple of things to consider or sing along with. One
is very important as it has to do with the eroding of
hard-won women's human rights. If this bill is over-
ridden, it means that you as a female would be prohib-
ited from the same access to medical treatment that
males have. At present, there are no laws that prevent
either a female or a male from deciding on any treat-
ment or procedure that they and their doctor may decide
is appropriate. Anti-choice political mavens are
adamant that this would be only the first step and that
their final goal is the outlawing of ALL kinds of birth
control -- except ones that they refer to as "natural"!
Anyone out there still believe that the word, "NO" is
an effective birth control method or even a word that
is heard, understood and respected?

Another thing to consider are the many errors that have
been, and are aired by the media for the anti-choice
groups. One thing we hear is how terrible this proce-
dure is because the brains of the fetus are sucked out
before the fetus may be delivered through the birth
canal. So, we are told, it is better to deliver the
intact fetus by Caesarean section (that's when a woman's
abdomen and uterus is cut open).

Sounds great but it ignores the fact that in such
cases, the brains of the fetus are sucked out EVEN WHEN
A CAESAREAN SECTION PROCEDURE IS EMPLOYED. Otherwise,
the uterus would have to be cut through most of its
length to deliver this accident of nature.

Well, we want choice, right? So it is our choice to
either ignore this situation or do something about it.
If we lose the right to chose, with our health profes-
sional, a treatment that is best for us, we can look
back to today and consider how easily we could have
written a letter, sent a fax or made a phone call.

Or, we could just let it go and depend on some women's
groups to bring a suit (after a few women have died)
which might get to the Supremes in a few years. At
that time, the constitutionality of this flagrant
discriminatory practice could be argued.

But who will be appointing members to the Supremes in a
few years? A president pledged to support the edicts
of the unchristian coalition? Already, both political
parties are gearing up for elections in '98 and '00.
You can be sure that from now on all the hate radio
denizens and their callers will be hard at work urging
the abolition of a woman's choice. A constitutionally
protected human right can be wiped out in a flash if we
allow a political/religious cult to dictate medical
treatment ONLY FOR WOMEN, while allowing men and their
doctors to make medical decisions WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
RESTRICTIONS.
#