Warren Farrell Responds to Lying, Libelous Liz & Asherah
jac...@melbpc.org.au
Dear Lindsay,
Thank you for the forwarded material from Elizabeth Kates (aka Liz,
<l...@gate.net>), Trish Wilson (aka Asherah, <ash...@aol.com>) and
from Martin Dufresne (<mar...@laurentides.net>) that concerned false
claims about me and what I am falsely alleged to have said.
Please respond to them by placing the following on the net:
*******
Dear Elizabeth Kates (aka Liz), Trish Wilson (aka Asherah) and Martin
Dufresne,
Your inquiry on the net has been called to my attention. I am stunned
by your suggestion that I would approve of fathers genitally caressing
daughters, or anything to that effect. I do not approve of any form of
father-daughter sexual contact. And I have not approved of that in the
past. If anyone has quoted me to that effect, she or he has misquoted
me.
Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
contrary as libelous.
Sincerely,
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
**********
Thank you also, Lindsay, for your additional email notices about NOW.
You may post the following where it is relevant:
**********
I am responding to questions concerning my background with NOW in New
York City. I always represent myself as having been on the board of
directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City; I
have never represented myself as being on the national board, because
I wasn't.
The reasons I left the board of NOW are very different from the
reasons I began to part company politically. I left when my ex-wife
became a White House Fellow in 1973-'74 and we moved from New York
City to Washington, DC. I left my positions at NOW in New York City
and at Rutgers University (Newark, NJ), where I was teaching at the
time. I continued to do benefits for NOW until the late '70s or early
'80s, even after I was disagreeing with some of their positions.
My parting company with NOW politically is much more complex. I am
still a member of NOW and still support any portion of the feminist
movement that empowers women. I make that clear in both Why Men Are
The Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power.
I oppose NOW primarily when they express beliefs that suggest men's
propensity for earning more money is a result of male privilege rather
than men's greater obligation in this arena. And I oppose
male-bashing, distorting statistics, or developing one-sided policies
such as a battered woman syndrome without a battered man syndrome and
a Violence Against Women act without a Violence Against Men act, or
the option of joining the armed services without the obligation to
register for the draft. In brief, I oppose honing victimhood as a fine
art and feminism becoming the one-party system of gender politics.
Similarly, I would oppose my supporters being a one-party system of
gender politics.
My parting company with NOW was evolutionary, not sudden. It had many
prongs, most of which I express in Why Men Are The Way They Are and
The Myth of Male Power. However, the beginnings of my parting company
politically were rooted especially in my being appalled that many NOW
chapters around the country were opposing joint custody as the
starting presumption in child custody matters. To me, their opposition
was contradicting a core feminist position of encouraging women to be
involved more in the workplace and encouraging men to be involved more
in the home. Rights and responsibilities always go hand-in-hand, so if
we want to encourage men to have equal responsibilities in the home,
we must give them equal rights to the children. (I would similarly
oppose expecting women to participate in the workplace without giving
them equal rights to workplace opportunities.)
Supporting these positions of equality should never be dependent upon
having children, whether it be for me or for Gloria Steinem, who also
has not had children. As any reader of Why Men Are The Way They Are
would know, I was a stepparent at the time I wrote that book, and for
a second time during the past four years. Children have been an
important part of my life, both as a camp counselor and camp director,
and as a boy whose baby brother grew up during my teen years. Each of
these experiences has offered insights and perspectives, but fighting
for children to have the right to both parents is something we should
all be fighting for, no matter what our background or ideology. To me,
this is not a father's issue, but a children's issue, and feminists
should be among the strongest supporters.
I am aware that personal attacks are a way of getting people to not
read what I have written, or to not believe what they read. Rather
than allow others to censor what we read by side-tracking us, I invite
anyone with an open mind to check out The Myth of Male Power in its
entirety, debate its arguments, and examine its hundreds of sources
personally. This book is meant to deepen our discussion of the issues,
not create a cult of personality.
Sincerely,
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
liz
> Thank you for the forwarded material... that concerned false
> claims about me and what I am falsely alleged to have said.
But was not able to come up with one single instance of a "false claim" in
a lengthy, lengthy letter.
> Please respond to them by placing the following on the net:
>
> Your inquiry on the net has been called to my attention. I am stunned
> by your suggestion that I would approve of fathers genitally caressing
> daughters, or anything to that effect. I do not approve of any form of
> father-daughter sexual contact. And I have not approved of that in the
> past. If anyone has quoted me to that effect, she or he has misquoted
> me.
WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
"...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
themselves."
IF FARRELL DID NOT SAY WHAT IS QUOTED, WHERE IS HIS REFERENCE TO A
LAWSUIT AGAINST PHILIP NOBILE AND _PENTHOUSE_?
At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
"Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says author
Warren Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
From page 118:
" Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among
legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows
for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category.
But he faults _Weekend_ for its skewed perspective. 'It was like
interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. _Weekend_ recorded sexually abused
children speaking about their sexual abuse, but the inference is that all
incest is abuse. And that's not true.' "
On page 126, Farrell is quoted as saying:
" 'When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,' says Farrell,
'the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein
sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the
father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and
approve -- and in one or two cases to join in.' "
> Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
> contrary as libelous.
>
> Sincerely,
> Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
> **********
SO, WARREN, DID YOU SUE _PENTHOUSE_ FOR LIBEL? It's quite a wealthy
organization.
> I am responding to questions concerning my background with NOW in New
> York City. I always represent myself as having been on the board of
> directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City; I
> have never represented myself as being on the national board, because
> I wasn't.
How incredibly odd for a WRITER, that he cannot manage to place a
modifying clause in the location in a sentence where it is supposed to be.
Instead of saying, clearly, that he was a member of the board of a city
chapter of NOW, he is STILL dangling his modifier at the end, where it
implies that the National Organization for Women (which is the name of the
national organization) is located in New York City.
> My parting company with NOW politically is much more complex. I am
> still a member of NOW and still support any portion of the feminist
> movement that empowers women. I make that clear in both Why Men Are
> The Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power.
ANYONE can be a "member" of NOW by sending in his or her twenty-five
bucks.
> I oppose NOW primarily when they express beliefs that suggest men's
> propensity for earning more money is a result of male privilege rather
> than men's greater obligation in this arena. And I oppose
> male-bashing, distorting statistics...
Distorting statistics?
See how Warren Farrell has distorted statistics at:
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell3.htm
> I am aware that personal attacks are a way of getting people to not
> read what I have written, or to not believe what they read. Rather
> than allow others to censor what we read by side-tracking us, I invite
> anyone with an open mind to check out The Myth of Male Power in its
> entirety, debate its arguments, and examine its hundreds of sources
> personally. This book is meant to deepen our discussion of the issues,
> not create a cult of personality.
>
> Sincerely,
> Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
Interested in reading? Get a hold of the December 1977 issue of
_Penthouse_ magazine. And for those without ready access to a web
browser, here's an example of a distorted statistic for you:
from a review of
Myth of Male Power:
****************************
Although I agree with what I think is his basic message - that traditional
sex roles have served none of us very well - the book has quickly
degenerated into an odd sort of logic designed to prove that men have
never had power, they were just tricked into believing they had power by
those deceitful, ungrateful parasites, women. The writing is bad, the
logic faulty. While reading it, I feel as if I am fighting my way through
a fog bank - there's nothing to grab on to, but I can't see anything,
either. Is this the best the men's movement has to offer? I would
appreciate references to something more substantial - this seems on a par
with the Men Who/Women Who self-help silliness.
FWIW, I have tracked down one of his stats which intrigued me. On p. 32
he says that female-headed households have greater net worth than
male-headed households. The citation given is to a table in Statistical
Abstract of the United States; consulting that, I found that the data was
originally published in a Current Population Report called Household
Wealth and Asset Ownership: 1984; the data itself comes from the Survey
of Income and Program Participation, a survey designed in part to augment
information available from the Census of Pop & Housing.
Farrell says that women who are heads of households have a net worth that
is 141 percent of the net worth of men who are heads of households. He
then goes on to explain that net worth is assets minus liabilities, and
that female heads of households have higher net worths than male heads of
households "because although male heads of households have higher gross
incomes and assets, they have much higher spending obligations. They are
much more likely to support wives (or ex-wives) than wives are to support
them and thus their income is divided among themselves, a wife, and
children...." (p. 33)
However, the Census table (both in the original report & the Stat Ab)
gives THREE categories for type of household: married-couple households
(median net worth $50,116), female householders (med. net worth $13,855)
and male householders (med. net worth $9,883). The commentary on this is
interesting enough that I'm going to include it here:
"The net worth holdings of married-couple, female-, and male-maintained
households by age of the householder are shown in table I. Married-couple
households were the largest category of households and, overall, had the
largest median net worth holdings. Female-maintained households had a
median net worth that was approximately one-fourth that of married-couple
households, while male-maintained households had the lowest net worth,
approximately one-fifth that of married-couple households. Married-couple
households had a median monthly income of $2,220, while male- and
female-maintained households had median monthly incomes of $1,300 and
$870, respectively.
"The fact that male-maintained households had higher incomes but lower net
worth is explained by differing age distributions. Only about one-sixth
of the male group was 65 years old or over, compared with one-third of the
female group. Because net worth increased with age, the result is a
relatively high level of net worth for the female group. When net worth
levels are compared within age groups, households maintained by a female
less than 35 or 35-54 years of age had lower net worth totals than their
male counterparts. (For the 55-64 and 65 and over age groups, the
differences were not statistically significant.) The group with the
lowest net worth ($1,290) was made up of female householders under 35
years of age.
"To examine whether the difference in net worth was the result of higher
home equity for elderly households, median net worth was calculated
excluding home equity. In general, the same conclusions held. Households
maintained by a male less than 55 years of age tended to have higher net
worth as compared with female householders the same age. (For
householders 55 years of age and over the differences were not
statistically significant.)" (CPR P70-7 p. 6)
There is a more recent version of this available, giving data for 1988 and
1991 (CPR P70-34; also called Household Wealth and Asset Ownership). The
overall picture is similar, though female-maintained households had a
statistically higher med. net worth than males in the 55-64 age category
($39,591 vs. $30,857; excluding home equity, it's $6,048 vs. $5,860).
Unfortunately neither report looks at the size of the household (one
person living alone counts as a household) or at the presence of children.
I chose this statistic to investigate partly because it struck me as
interesting and curious but also because I am a government documents
reference librarian and work with Census data extensively. I am most
distressed to discover Farrell's distortion and misrepresentation of
clearly presented data; it makes me question the validity of his other
stats. I am about to read the section on death rates & will be checking
up on him in Vital Statistics of the United States.
-- Cynthia Teague
liz
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.gate.net/~liz/
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
liz
Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
"...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
themselves."
At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
"Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says author
Warren Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
From page 118:
" Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among
legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows
for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category.
But he faults _Weekend_ for its skewed perspective. 'It was like
interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. _Weekend_ recorded sexually abused
children speaking about their sexual abuse, but the inference is that all
incest is abuse. And that's not true.' "
On page 126, Farrell is quoted as saying:
" 'When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,' says Farrell,
'the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein
sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the
father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and
approve -- and in one or two cases to join in.' "
> > Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
> > contrary as libelous.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
***********
"The Pig Page" -- The Father's Rights Movement: In Their Own Words
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
Religion as Sexual Paraphilia? Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers"
interpreted with pro-pedophilia comments he's made in another publication
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm
Warren Farrell (father's rights icon) on "family sex," "positive
incest" and "genitally caressing children."
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
Child Abuse Articles and Information that Cut Through the Slop
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/009.htm
The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda with
Politically Correct Jockstraps. A response to Wade Horn's "The Importance
of Being Father"
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/014.htm
Richard A. Gardner (PAS theorist): a self-made man
http://www.gate.net/~liz/012.htm
liz
> WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
> Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
>
> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
> genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
> loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
> themselves."
KEN PANGBORN COMPLAINS:
Date: 31 Jul 1998 09:58:49 GMT
From: PangK <pa...@aol.com>
To: liz <l...@gate.net>
Subject: Re: Warren Farrell Responds to Lying, Libelous Liz & Asherah
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
Liz somebody just HAS to respond to your distortions. The CORRECT word
in your rant is NOT r"GENITALLY" caressing their children, but
"GENTALLY" perhaps a TYPO in what yiou rfead, and you are PRECISELY
the type to exploit such a typo straight into hell against the HATED
male!
The word used was GENITALLY. The word "gently" is spelled as I just wrote
it. There was no "typo" of three wrong letters. Learn how to spell.
From page 158:
"Since neither victim nor benefactor needs Farrell's confirmation, why
does he gamble with bringin on a sexual deluge? 'First, because millions
of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally
caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving
expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book
should at least begin the exploration."
From page 158, highlighted large text set out in the middle of the page by
the _Penthouse_ :
"Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says
Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
(There's no question about what _Penthouse_ intended to write as Warren
Farrell's quote, or the interpretation of its meaning.)
Russ Evenhouse
>
> WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
> Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
>
> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
> genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
> loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
> themselves."
>
>
> "Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says author
> Warren Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
>
> From page 118:
>
> " Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among
> legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows
> for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category.
> But he faults _Weekend_ for its skewed perspective. 'It was like
> interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. _Weekend_ recorded sexually abused
> children speaking about their sexual abuse, but the inference is that all
> incest is abuse. And that's not true.' "
>
> On page 126, Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> " 'When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,' says Farrell,
> 'the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein
> sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the
> father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and
> approve -- and in one or two cases to join in.' "
>
> > > Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
> > > contrary as libelous.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
>
>
> "The Pig Page" -- The Father's Rights Movement: In Their Own Words
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
>
> Religion as Sexual Paraphilia? Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers"
> interpreted with pro-pedophilia comments he's made in another publication
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm
>
> Warren Farrell (father's rights icon) on "family sex," "positive
> incest" and "genitally caressing children."
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
>
> Child Abuse Articles and Information that Cut Through the Slop
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/009.htm
>
> The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda with
> Politically Correct Jockstraps. A response to Wade Horn's "The Importance
> of Being Father"
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/014.htm
>
> Richard A. Gardner (PAS theorist): a self-made man
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/012.htm
>
>
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What point are you attempting to make here?
Russ Evenhouse
jac...@melbpc.org.au
Misandrist feminists have never been known for their logic or
truthfulness. Their hatred of men blinds them to hearing the truth.
The path is now open for libel actions. Thanks Liz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear from the body of Liz's work that she hates men as a class
of human beings and views them as little more than a backdrop and
source of income for feminists on which to live their lives.
Elizabeth Kates is a misandrist (male-hating) feminist who aligns
herself with the likes of Martin Dufresne ("any man who is separated
and wants to see his children despite the ex's objections is ipso
facto an abuser and a batterer and all batterers - and all it takes is
an allegation - should be jailed as the first part of any treatment
program [or is that pogram?!]) and actively works with Trish Wilson
(aka Asherah) in seeking to limit men's rights to that of providing
money and support systems for feminists/women to rule.
Liz is Pompano Beach attorney Elizabeth Kates
Her listing in the Florida Bar shows her as:
Elizabeth J. Kates
4411 N.W. 10th St.
Pompano Beach, FL 33066-1531
Phone: (954)979-8783
I suggest those who are offended by her false allegations and attacks
on men write her or the bar and protest her web site's attack on men.
As an officer of the Court, it is obvious how she must act towards men
trying to stay involved in their kids lives.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Complaints may be filed with the Florida Bar:
Elizabeth Tarbert, Ethics Counsel
THE FLORIDA BAR LEGAL DIVISION
The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2300 - (850) 561-5839
-----------------------------------------------------
l...@gate.net
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.gate.net/~liz/
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:54:43 -0400, liz <l...@gate.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, liz wrote:
>
>> WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
>> Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
>>
>> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>>
>> "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
>> genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
>> loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
>> themselves."
>
> KEN PANGBORN COMPLAINS:
> Date: 31 Jul 1998 09:58:49 GMT
> From: PangK <pa...@aol.com>
> To: liz <l...@gate.net>
> Subject: Re: Warren Farrell Responds to Lying, Libelous Liz & Asherah
> Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>
> Liz somebody just HAS to respond to your distortions. The CORRECT word
> in your rant is NOT r"GENITALLY" caressing their children, but
> "GENTALLY" perhaps a TYPO in what yiou rfead, and you are PRECISELY
> the type to exploit such a typo straight into hell against the HATED
> male!
>
>The word used was GENITALLY. The word "gently" is spelled as I just wrote
>it. There was no "typo" of three wrong letters. Learn how to spell.
>
>From page 158:
>
>"Since neither victim nor benefactor needs Farrell's confirmation, why
>does he gamble with bringin on a sexual deluge? 'First, because millions
>of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally
>caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving
>expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
>themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book
>should at least begin the exploration."
>
>From page 158, highlighted large text set out in the middle of the page by
>the _Penthouse_ :
>
>"Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says
>Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
>
>
>(There's no question about what _Penthouse_ intended to write as Warren
>Farrell's quote, or the interpretation of its meaning.)
>
>
Paul A Laird
terrible Warren Farrell. Yes, he said those words; but not in the context
given. Hell, Pat Ireland says men are the greatest group of people in the
US. From her 1997 speech to the national covention of NOW:"Men are . . the
finest group of humans . . . who ever graced the political and commercial
agencies of this great country." Paul Laird
liz <l...@gate.net> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.93.980731...@navajo.gate.net>...
> WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
> Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
>
> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding,
and
> genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a
caring,
> loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
> themselves."
>
> ***********
>
>
> "The Pig Page" -- The Father's Rights Movement: In Their Own Words
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
>
> Religion as Sexual Paraphilia? Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers"
> interpreted with pro-pedophilia comments he's made in another publication
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm
>
> Warren Farrell (father's rights icon) on "family sex," "positive
> incest" and "genitally caressing children."
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
>
> Child Abuse Articles and Information that Cut Through the Slop
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/009.htm
>
> The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda
with
> Politically Correct Jockstraps. A response to Wade Horn's "The
Importance
> of Being Father"
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/014.htm
>
> Richard A. Gardner (PAS theorist): a self-made man
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/012.htm
>
Bob
Paul A Laird wrote in message <01bdbcfa$37a136c0$5000410c@default>...
>Yes, again we have liz(ard) taking words out of context to prove how
>terrible Warren Farrell. Yes, he said those words; but not in the context
>given. Hell, Pat Ireland says men are the greatest group of people in the
>US. From her 1997 speech to the national covention of NOW:"Men are . . the
>finest group of humans . . . who ever graced the political and commercial
>agencies of this great country." Paul Laird
The accuracy of a Penthouse quote can be given the same confidence
as any Hollywood type tabloid.
The Ennead
>
> Yes, again we have liz(ard) taking words out of context to prove how
> terrible Warren Farrell. Yes, he said those words; but not in the
> context given.
Could you please provide the correct context, so that we may judge for
ourselves?
Thanks,
--Ampersand
Dave Platt
<l...@gate.net> wrote:
> WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in_ Penthouse_, December 1977, "Incest: The
> Last Taboo" by Philip Nobile, page 117.
>
> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and
> genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring,
> loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
> themselves."
>
> At page 158, Warren Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> "Maybe this [incest] needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't," says author
> Warren Farrell. "My book should at least begin the exploration."
>
> From page 118:
>
> " Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among
> legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows
> for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category.
> But he faults _Weekend_ for its skewed perspective. 'It was like
> interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. _Weekend_ recorded sexually abused
> children speaking about their sexual abuse, but the inference is that all
> incest is abuse. And that's not true.' "
>
> On page 126, Farrell is quoted as saying:
>
> " 'When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,' says Farrell,
> 'the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein
> sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the
> father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and
> approve -- and in one or two cases to join in.' "
In 1977, I believe Farrell was a member of NOW. So, if we take what he
says from 20 years ago as his current opinions, that means he's still a
"feminist." So you should have no quarrel with him.
>
> > > Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
> > > contrary as libelous.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
>
> ***********
>
>
> "The Pig Page" -- The Father's Rights Movement: In Their Own Words
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
>
> Religion as Sexual Paraphilia? Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers"
> interpreted with pro-pedophilia comments he's made in another publication
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm
>
> Warren Farrell (father's rights icon) on "family sex," "positive
> incest" and "genitally caressing children."
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
>
> Child Abuse Articles and Information that Cut Through the Slop
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/009.htm
>
> The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda with
> Politically Correct Jockstraps. A response to Wade Horn's "The Importance
> of Being Father"
>
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/014.htm
>
> Richard A. Gardner (PAS theorist): a self-made man
>
Liz, what is your problem with fathers?
Evil...@somewhere.com
>In 1977, I believe Farrell was a member of NOW. So, if we take what he
>says from 20 years ago as his current opinions, that means he's still a
>"feminist." So you should have no quarrel with him.
Since Farrell was a feminist when he allegedly made those statements,
it is obvious that feminists have been promoting incest.
Skippy
averti
>
> Evil...@somewhere.com wrote:
There's a NEED to promote F/F incest? Most of the non-molestational
female intra-family sexual relationships I ever knew about, you
would have had to install elaborate security equipment to
de-promote it.
It just may be that there are more young women who view a little
sport and experimental sex around the ole homestead as no Big
Deal, just a phase...?
>
> --
>
> If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no
> woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
--
...when I walk into a bar, all the girls from near and far,
go 'He's the Gangster of Love.'
Richard Bennett
>Coalition of Parental Support
>
> http://members.aol.com/asherah/cops.html
to find out about COPS, check out www.copss.org.
I sent the following message to ab...@AOL.com regarding Ms.
Antonucci's antics:
Dear AOL,
This is to bring to your attention the fact that a customer of yours
is using AOL to violate copyrights and to libel me and an organization
to which I belong. The customer in question is one Patricia
Antonucci, sometimes known by the pseudonym "Trish Wilson."
The page in question is at members.aol.com/asherah/cops.html.
Some of the libelous remarks are:
1. "Mike Neligh, founder and member of COPS" Mr. Neligh has
never been associated with the Coalition of Parent Support, and is
apparently associated with a "Coalition of Parents" which pursues an
entirely different agenda.
2. "COPS disseminates incorrect information on alimony". COPS
has never disseminated incorrect information, most certainly not any
figures attributed to COPS by Ms. Antonucci.
3. email, Subject: Re: Stu in Jail?. Publishing the entire contents
of this email, without any commentary, analysis, or exposition
violates the federal copyright law.
4. "Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night, ending
California's longstanding practice of awarding lifetime alimony in
marriages lasting 8-10 years or more. ... Divorced, dependent
spouses, like the rest of us, now have to work for living, although
they will continue to receive alimony for "a reasonable time,
generally half the term of the marriage." ... The femaroids fought
this measure tooth and nail, resorting to dirty tricks at every step
of the process. ... But this year we drew the line on domestic
violence legislation by killing a bill granting custody to victims
automatically, we ended welfare as we used to know it, and we ended
lifetime alimony. In doing all these things, we've drawn considerable
ire from hategroups such as NOW and the AAUW..."
In this passage, which Ms. Antonucci attributes to me, elisions have
been made to substantially alter the meaning of the original writing.
This violates federal "Fair Use" guidelines, and amounts to libel as
well as copyright violation.
It is my wish that this offending page be removed from America On-
Lines web server.
I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
Richard Bennett
liz
Warren Farrell (father's rights icon) on "family sex," "positive
incest" and "genitally caressing children."
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
"The Pig Page" -- The Father's Rights Movement: In Their Own Words
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
Religion as Sexual Paraphilia? Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers"
interpreted with pro-pedophilia comments he's made in another publication
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm
Child Abuse Articles and Information that Cut Through the Slop
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/009.htm
The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda with
Politically Correct Jockstraps. A response to Wade Horn's "The Importance
of Being Father"
http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/014.htm
Richard A. Gardner (PAS theorist): a self-made man
http://www.gate.net/~liz/012.htm
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
>
> For those who have missed the URLs:
> >
>
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/
> http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||<
Liz supports the continued destruction of the right of fathers to have
access to their own flesh and blood.