>Factoid: Farrell was never on the board of National NOW -- just the NYC NOW
as I understand. Please cite the glowing endorsements or tell us where we can
find them. Then show us exactly which feminists said wonderful things about
Farrell's "research" on positive incest.
At the time Farrell was involved in NOW, the vast majority of NOW's
leadership was from New York. This would include Steinem, DeCrow et al.
Mainly from Brooklyn. And if you read what *I* said, I didn't specifically
state they endorsed anything on "positive incest." I am not even sure that
Farrell was endorsing that either from what I have read, just commenting on
> ********* ********** **********
> So here's the sum total of the Farrell-defender arguments (remember, if you
> don't have the facts on your side, your best bet is to attack the character
> of your opponent):
Hmmmmmmmmm yes! is that why the personal attacks on Farrell, Ceci,
Lamb, and so many more?
> 1) Claim loudly and righteously that anyone who reads the Penthouse article
> and thinks that Farrell was enthusiastic about researching "positive
> incest" is a man-hating lesbian who is doing this for purely
Please reference the post where *I* said that!
> 2) Make sweeping statements about the mentality, motives, or love of truth
> of the opponent: it doesn't matter if you are factually wrong, just keep up
> the attack -- some mud might stick.
Kind of smacks of familiarity, you mean like you are doing to Farrell?
> 3) Cite non-existent articles or interviews as "proof" that Farrell said
> "gentle" instead of "genital" -- as if this would make all the
> in the world -- and must be accepted on your say-so. Refuse to substantiate
> your claims huffily: you are no lackey researcher!
Nonexistent? Seems other people recall the same things Eileen. And have
> 4) Hope that if we (Farrell defenders) ignore the rest of the article's
> content and context, maybe no one will bring it up.
Go for the Gold Eileen. It is your ONE source, you have little other
> 5) Deny, deny, deny and attack: this hopefully will anger and exhaust the
> opponent and if you can keep it up long enough, you may never really have
> to grapple with the uncomfortable facts.
Hey Eileen, I have never been a big Farrell proponent. Frankly Warren
always struck me as way too limp wristed with his positions. Too touchie
feelie... But then whatever real facts you can get to show me that the man
SUPPORTS incest I would welcome. I just don't see the Penthouse article as
accomplishing that for you. Have something else? Again I remind you that AT
THE TIME of those statements Farrell was a NOW type. He had ZERO to do with
any father's rights group.
Eileen let me burst your bubble here. Lots of men in the father's
movement fall all gaga over anybody with a Ph.D. who says something they
like. As I could point out the mindless drones in the fathers movement who
soil themselves at almost anything Laura Schlessinger says or does. That's
because so many of the people leading the hundreds of little splinter dads
groups are intellectual flea weights. They are desperate men grabbing onto
anything that doesn't hit them, like a dog that has been beaten senseless for
a long time. Any hand that appears to be kind a puppy will lick, whether it
is or isn't.
> 6) Find noble reasons for why Farrell might have done this work (even if he
> himself has never described it in this way) and give him the benefit of the
> doubt -- the sort of benefit of the doubt break that you would never in
> your life extend to anyone who treats, researches, interviews, or supports
> victims of child sexual abuse.
Why must ANY work have "noble reasons?" Why must *I* define
you remain a classic dunce. Are you aware of my relationship with Dr. Gene
Abel? How about Dr. Anna Salter? I support the people who aren't hysterical
about it. And ***IF*** Eileen, you were not so complete strident, you might
have known that I was very active in creating child protection laws in the
country. I worked long and hard to help create them in Utah (not an EASY
PLACE) in the 70's with the Utah legislature and Governor Scott Matheson. The
things that you do NOT know Eileen, could build a monument like the
Washington model that would scrape the moon in orbit!
> 7) Drench all of this in emotional slobbert that has nothing to do with the
> facts -- and flail away like the little kid who throws such a tantrum so
> the bad person will just go away and leave them alone already!
Speak for yourself Eileen. You gals have been TRYING to make this bs
stick ever since Farrell DARED to challenge feminist orthodoxy. As you folks
do with ANYONE who says things you don't approve of. Eileen if you want to
know how a "Dark Ages" could have happened, go to the nearest mirror and
STARE at yourself. Because it is people like you and your comrades who did
it. The people a thousand years ago invoked the name of God to stop learning.
And the world plunged into darkness for almost 700 years. YOU would do the
same! Just as some other people would stop genetic research.
Eileen - the human race has really not evolved very much from the days
when frightened people cowered in their caves. Afraid to venture out at
night because of the animals and other spooky things. Many people are certain
there are monsters in outer space, hollywood makes billions scaring morons
with their space operas because there are so many half-wits who BELIEVE that
everything is scary. Which is why so many people went berserk at the Rind
paper. And why you are so hysterical about Farrell. I look at Farrell's work
and YAWN because it isn't the best scholarship I have ever read. To YOU, it
is akin to the sky falling. You run in panic mode attacking the man as a
"PEDOPHILE." One merely needs look at the language you use, to see how
emotionally laden it is. Then you accuse others of the precise thing YOU do!
And dear, I admit giving you a little sarcasm in return because you, Liz,
Trish et al are so bloody amusing. Amusing and dangerous at the same time.
Just like the SA was in 1932.
stephen finley wrote:
> > Kind of smacks of familiarity, you mean like you
are doing to
> Ken's right in this case, Eileen. Looking back over some of Liz Kates's
> stuff, I was reminded how easy it is to do this mud-sticking thing by
> throwing around exaggerated versions of the truth, by going just a
> half-step beyond what the provable truth is (e.g., by "positive," Farrell
> was asserting that incest is good, not describing how the subjects reported
> it), by tossing around allegations of how this person and NAMBLA and Satan
> and whoever are "associated" or "connected" or
"involved" or whatever,
> making it just difficult enough to prove literal defamation, because of the
> wording, that it's not worth going after someone. That's something that
> people on both sides of this mess do too often, as far as I'm
> concerned--connected all feminists with rabid false accusers, making
> sweeping generalizations about the "list opinion" or a "list full of
> pedophiles and pedophile-supporters" or "social workers are all
As to Ms. Kates, she studied well every propaganda technique know to
humanity, she loves the "half-truth" and uses it frequently. She loves to
quote WAY out of context. And she embraces personal vilification as her main
weapon. Let me just say that Liz conveniently left off ALL of her
participation in the debate she has between us where she quotes me. When "the
Lizzard" as her nickname went was debated, by her hated "Frsters" on the
Washburn law list, she SCREAMED to have everyone who disagreed with her
silenced. And indeed they were, one by one. One might look at Liz' website
and see the VENOM run down their monitors for several people on this list,
including our host.
> > Eileen let me burst your bubble here. Lots of men
in the father's
> movement fall all gaga over anybody with a Ph.D. who says something they
> like. As I could point out the mindless drones in the fathers movement
> who soil themselves at almost anything Laura Schlessinger says or does.
> That's because so many of the people leading the hundreds of little
> splinter dads
> groups are intellectual flea weights. They are desperate men grabbing onto
> anything that doesn't hit them, like a dog that has been beaten senseless
> for a long time. Any hand that appears to be kind a puppy will lick,
> whether it is or isn't.
> Ken, I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of the
> a good reason why I haven't gotten involved in that stuff at all. There's
> a strong antirationalist streak there that I really can't stand, one that
> mirrors the same kind of thing on the false-accuser side.
Of course there is Steve. The situation feeds on itself. Liz Kates and
Trish Wilson are absolutely hysterical of the father's rights juggernaut they
see threatening them. Their own stupidity and lack of knowledge make their
over reaction quite laughable. If they saw the inside of the father's
movement, they might realize that its petty infighting for ownership of the
"Hill" and petty little penis sizing contests continue to insure that it will
remain ineffectual into the next millennia. It is the blind leading the
blind. Emotional cripples trying to get others to share their misery. And
organizationally they continue to make the same incredible blunders
repeatedly. All attempts at forming a true national organization have been
doomed from the start because they continue to model on the previous failed
structures. Long ago I suggested that FOR ONCE they do TWO things to make a
1. Use a SUCCESSFUL model for an organizational structure, such as many
groups like the Jaycees, the Kiwanis etc have.
2. That they realize that they are all "damaged goods" and too emotional to
run a group effectively, to seek outside help, such as from SCORE (Service
Corps of Retired Executives) who could help build a corporation that works.
Sadly the LITTLE BOYS see those ideas as a threat. So the father's
movement remains a collection of 75 or 80 little fiefdoms that really have
nothing worth listening to to say other than bitching about women and the
legal system. Which is why, while I sympathize with the problems, I have so
little to do with them any more. Too many extreme answers, and too much
anger. The drift in the direction of hooking up with the "Militia" movement,
I have found extremely disturbing to say the least. Lots of what I see I have
to repudiate because I don't want to be associated with it. So I get heat
from both sides.