What Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell actually said about the allegedly positive aspects of incest. (Note: it’s even more repugnant than that sounds.)
So there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the recent talk that old school Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell gave at the University of Toronto. Protesters troubled by Farrell’s repugnant views on incest and date rape, among other things, blocked the entrance to the building holding the talk; police broke up the blockade. You can find various videos of what went down on YouTube. I’m not going to try to sort out all the various claims and counterclaims about what happened.
I personally don’t approve of blocking people from giving talks, even if their ideas are repugnant. But I certainly do approve of holding people responsible for what they say, and Farrell – in addition to being wrong about nearly every aspect of relations between men and women – has said some truly awful things over the years.
Exhibit A: A notorious interview he gave Penthouse magazine in the 1970s in which he discussed a book he was researching about incest, tetatively titled The Last Taboo: The Three Faces of Incest.
Let me put a giant TRIGGER WARNING here for disturbing discussion of incest and child sexual abuse.
In the interview, he argued that incest could be a good thing for everyone involved. Indeed, he waxed poetic about the possible positive effects:
“Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he told interviewer Philip Nobile. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma.”
The book Farrell was working on never appeared, and Farrell would apparently prefer it if what he said in that interview simply vanished into the memory hole, but a radical feminist site called the Liz Library has a copy of the original 1977 magazine in which it appeared, and has put high quality scans of it online. You can find them here.
Here are some of the things Farrell said in that interview. I’ve put the direct quotes from Farrell in bold; the rest is Nobile’s summary of what Farrell told him.
The article summarized the “findings” of Farrell’s (at that time incomplete) incest research, starting with his take on mother-son incest:
Mother-son incest represents 10 percent of the incidence and is 70 percent positive, 20 percent mixed, and 10 percent negative for the son. For the mother it is mostly positive. Farrell points out that boys don’t seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience. “Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
Apparently, in his view, girls feel bad about the abuse not so much because abuse is inherently bad, but because “society” tells them it’s bad; he returns to this theme repeatedly.
Apparently Farrell’s “findings” about father-daughter incest were not quite as cheery:
The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences, Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse — 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. “Either men see these relationships differently,” comments Farrell, “or I am getting selective reporting from women.”
Yea, that’s right. He’s saying that the overwhelming majority of the abusive men he interviewed enjoyed sexually abusing their daughters, but for some baffling reason their daughters generally didn’t enjoy the abuse. And the explanation for this is that perhaps the daughters are lying – er, sorry, “selectively reporting?”
The bit about advertisements seems to suggest that Farrell went out of his way to try to find and interview women who felt positively about being sexually abused, but still was unable to find more than a small percentage who did.
The article continues. (This is Nobile summarzing Farrell, not Farrell’s direct words.)
In a typical traumatic case, an authoritarian father, unhappily married in a sexually repressed household and probably unemployed, drunkenly imposes himself on his young daughter. Genital petting may have started as early as age eight with first intercourse occurring around twelve. Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him.
Let’s just repeat that last sentence for emphasis:
Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him.
The article continues:
If she is unaware of society’s taboo and if the mother does not intervene, she has no reason to suspect the enormity of the aberration. But when she grows up and learns of the taboo, she feels cheapened.
So the incest “taboo” is the main problem, not the abuse itself?
And here is a doozy of a quote from Farrell directly:
“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.”
(Note: I’m relying on the Liz Library’s transcription of this quote; some of the text in their scan of this page is blurry.)
Farrell told Nobile that he was feeling hesitant about publishing his book, because it might encourage exploitation of daughters, but that he felt compelled to continue researching it for two main reasons:
“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a 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.”
“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. …
Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims. “The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. “
According to The Liz Library, Farrell now claims that the bit about “genitally caressing” children is a misquote, and that what he really said was “generally caressing.” You can see the scan of the page here; Penthouse clearly has him saying “genitally.”
But let’s assume that Farrell is telling the truth and Nobile misheard the word. Here’s the quote again, with that one word changed.
First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and generally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.
I’m not sure that’s much better; he’s still talking about “touching, holding, and … caressing” children in a sexual context.
Farrell has not, to my knowledge, challenged any of the other quotes in this interview besides that one. Nor, again to the best of my knowledge, has he forthrightly repudiated the substance of what he said. If he wishes to clarify or challenge any of this I will happily give him space here on this blog to do so.
I should note that in the interview Farrell stopped short of actually advocating incest. But his reasoning here is curious, to say the least:
“I’m not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest intellectually. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don’t believe they can translate this understanding into practice.”
So apparently father-daughter incest – ie, sexual abuse – isn’t a good idea because in a sexist society fathers are likely to do it wrong?
I encourage everyone with the stomach for it to read the entire Penthouse piece, which also discusses the incredibly creepy views of some other incest “researchers” at the time.
I will highlight more of Farrell’s problematic views in future posts.
Posted on November 21, 2012, in facepalm, misogyny, MRA, pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles, sexual abuse, victim blaming, warren farrell and tagged incest, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, sexual abuse, university of toronto, warren farrell. Bookmark the permalink. 461 Comments.
D-:
well I feel sick after reading that
Yes one wonders how history and future commentators will view your words in 42 years DF , as someone whose commentary is puritanical and free of bias I guess you’ll be seen as entirely above reproach.
Despite this obscure piece you choose to highlight as representative of the man, Warren Farrell has published extensively well researched and referenced works that have positively contributed to the discourse around relations between the sexes, and his talk titled “Boys to Men: Transforming the Boys Crisis into our Sons’ Opportunities” had noting to do with incest rape or abuse of children , let alone “defending” those things as the over reacting bigoted students would have you believe. their actions are those of a desperate, ill informed and ignorant group, whose violent obstruction of freedom of expression and association is simply hypocritical.
Brain bleach time: no videos yet, but here’s a picture of Melako, the zebra born on Friday at Werribee Open Range Zoo in Melbourne.
That is beyond disgusting – and accelerating.
Ugh… This makes me seriously ill. :(
No, no. You see, he meant “blah” people.
I’ll just be in the corner, hating the entire universe.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Jesus, Mary, and Oprah, what the fuck? And this turd is who MRAs hold up as some great founder of their movement?
I shouldn’t have read that after dinner, gorge is rising.
I just can’t with this. KathleenB, is there room for one more in that corner?
Oh god, he has children.
Mr. Canning, please STFU, you’re not helping.
“‘But the inference is that all incest is abuse. And that’s not true.” Yeah…I’m sure Elisabeth Fritzl would gladly believe those words. *shakes head*
Whoa Greg Canning. Why should we excuse this mans actions? Unless he’s formally apologized for that article and recanted on it, it is still relevant and he should get criticized for it. Please go away
Canning, the man defends and effectively advocates men having sex with children – their own children, at that. So I don’t actually give a flying fuck for what else he might have done, and I wonder just what your game is that you’re defending a rape apologist.
You’re right, changing the word that he claims was misheard doesn’t actually improve the statement all that much. It’s still saying that not interacting with your children in a sexual way represses the sexuality of the kids.
The whole thing is just so self-serving. Let’s say for the sake of argument that most abusers who are parents very much enjoy abusing their children, and it’s the children who mostly don’t enjoy it and find it traumatic (please insert “well DUH” sentiments here). Why should that lead to a societal reevaluation of the incest taboo? If most of the kids were very unhappy about what was done to them, then it shouldn’t have happened. The fact that the abusers enjoyed it is irrelevant. Why are we supposed to care about them? If people who want to abuse kids feel that not being allowed to do so by society is a repression of their sexuality, well, too bad. There is no right to express your sexuality in a way that hurts the people you’re having sex with, which is why we refer to it as “abuse” and not “sex”.
The fact that so many MRAs do think this guy is a moral and upright person and a great source of philosophical wisdom does explain the whole “abusers lobby” thing. Farrell was quite explicitly advocating on the behalf of abusers and suggesting that if they enjoy abusing people then it’s wrong for society to prevent them from doing so.
Also please nobody tell these guys about the Japanese/Korean concept of skinship, or they’ll turn that into an excuse for abusing kids too.
…I can’t even.
*nukes Earth from orbit*
No, no – you need a nuking device that’s selective. Otherwise you end up nuking all the cute critters as well as the human scum!
You do realize that you said this while your profile picture features a man holding a coffee mug which blatantly displays the phrase “Fuck Their Shit Up”, right?
That doesn’t sound good now.
It’s the only way to be sure.
And the rest of Manboobz comes to realize the source of my distress the other evening.
David, why didn’t you shred this lovely article and point out the singularly victim blamey bullshit conveniently placed so the worlds pedophiles could feel better? This article is rape apologism at its worst, and far too many people aren’t going to see what’s going on.
Yes, three percent of girls report a positive experience, so clearly the only problem with incest is that society is sexist and the other girls are lying.
Also, why does that seventy percent of boys had awesome incest with their mothers smell so very off? I have a hard time believing that boys are just so much more eager to have sex with their parents. No, seriously world, boys and men DON’T always want sex even if you don’t want to believe it.
This guy should be investigated. He thinks fondling your children is normal, just stifled by societal norms? So sickening. I really do feel ill after reading this.
Greg, Farrels book on incest isn’t well researched or referenced because he never had it published.
And just for future reference, I ran that article past my aunt who’s a psychologist. Her reply was that just that article alone raises enough red flags to carpet north america with and that incest has devastating consequences to both genders, but the fallout may be expressed differently.
http://mindbleach.org/g/183.html
In case anyone needs it…
Lovely kits and pups … very necessary.
“Mother-son incest represents 10 percent of the incidence and is 70 percent positive, 20 percent mixed, and 10 percent negative for the son. For the mother it is mostly positive. Farrell points out that boys don’t seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience. “Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
First off, define what you consider positive, mixed and negative. These are weasel words, overly broad and really don’t tell us anything about how the boys actually responded. Also, explain to us how you controlled for the fact that boys are told that getting any kind of sex is good and manly and must be constantly sought after (even if it comes with negative consequences) or be considered immature, effeminate or gay.
Who the fuck gives a shit about how good the sexually abusive parent felt?
“Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
The above paragragh I swear was riffed straight from a feminist writing. Unfortunately, that feminist was writing about slut shaming and why slut shaming has such an enorous impact on girls, particularly in school. And no, the problem with incest isn’t that girls need to be more open about sexuality or that they listen when society says incest is wrong. Incest is wrong. And children of both sexes frequently come to think that somehow the incest is their fault, which is also wrong.
Anyone want me to continue?
I note that Greg Canning is 1: Going for the, “obscure publication” (about the number 2 mens magazine for a couple of decades), and 2: isn’t exactly an unbiased advocate. His avatar photo is a man with a FTSU mug in his hand.
A misogynist supporting an abuse advocate. Colour me surprised.
Pillow: No. I read that interview years ago. It’s why I loathe Farrell.
You know what this site needs? A little floating tag like some advertizers have that when clicked on randomly shows cute fuzzy buddies doing adorable things for sixty seconds. An emergency escape hatch of sorts.
Pecunium, there’s so much blame being shifted in this article its a wonder the north american continent didn’t slide five degrees south. And the worst part is that how he shifts the bame is so prevalently used against older rape victims, or rape victims whose perpetrators weren’t family that I doubt that even the word incest shows just how wrong the article is.
Congratulations Farrell, you’ve just invented fractal filth. What a proud moment that was for you.
Gosh Boobz! good work, exposing this important historical artifact. One wonders why the Femmies didn’t trot it out and wave it around when Farrell was on NOW’s payroll. Oh, and speaking of past behaviors, shall we reminisce about your association with your dear friend Christine Armstrong?
Your desperation is palpable; I almost pity you.
What’s palpable is our visceral disgust, not desperation. But I bet Farrell might be desperate to have us forget that article, since its still haunting him.
But hey, keep standing by the man who says its okay for your husband to fiddle with your daughter because its that time of the month and he needs some relief.
So, driversuz, you think raping your children is okay?
Wow… Driver has committed an actual ad hominem. Farrell said incest is only bad because society tells girls they ought to feel bad, and Driver says, “you were associated with someone I don’t like”.
Who is driver talking about?
Pillow, I have no idea. I googled Christine Armstrong and got nothing. Then I googled her along with the word scandal and got nothing but pages about Lance Armstrong. She seems to have been influential!
@Pecunium: indeed, DS’s desperation is palpable. It seems zie would rather do anything other than confront Farrell’s statements directly. For example:
That would have been a little difficult, considering as how future actions don’t show up on background checks. Farrell’s incest “research,” and this Penthouse article featuring some of his dubious findings, took place several years after his association with the NYC NOW.
Try harder next time, champ, I’m sure we won’t notice any other blatant ass-pulls like that.
Probably this Christine:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/the-lighthouse-a-beacon-of-lies/
I didn’t notice anything on her and David’s “close friendship” but I did find it, uh, funny (for a sense of the word) when Elam called Christine’s blog comments a “fear tactic” right after he posted her fucking phone number. Gee, Elam, what would you call that?
Pillow and Claire – I…think I figured it out?
I googled her name + feminism and found a post from AVfM from back in 2011 doxxing a woman by that name for the “crime” of a) posting on Manboobz a couple of times and b) stating in a comment that she thought that some of Paul Elam’s rape apologism (this post in particular, I think? – http://manboobz.com/2010/11/14/paul-elams-vanishing-post-blaming-and-mocking-rape-victims/) made her think he might actually be a rapist. Which Elam decided was libelous.
So! She posted a couple of comments once about how a guy who wrote, and posted on his website, “But are these women asking to get raped?…They are freaking begging for it. Damn near demanding it. … ” …sounded like a rapist.
Clearly the same as positing that incest is totes fine if we could only get over our silly cultural hangups. (And also clearly a HUGE PART of the Manboobz Movement (TM)).
suz….can’t you ever discuss what’s on topic? For fuck’s sakes nobody cares what you bring to the thread.
Also, what the flaming fuck is wrong with people?!? Fucking kids if wrong. It’s wrong. If somebody has to tell you it’s wrong then you are fucked up.
Luckily, before I read this *thing*, I had eaten almost nothing in anticipation of Thanksgiving. I used to work nut, and some years later I dealt with pathological families legally, but this is the sickest thing I’ve seen since the one about the father who sucked his infant son’s penis to “develop his manhood”.
Clearly, the AVfM crowd has been waiting with bated breath for David to mention Farrell so they could come over and complain how unfair it is to hold Farrell’s pro-incest* views against him… And now that I’ve said that, maybe they’ll post my home phone number, address, and a recent picture of me — you know, because they’re totally NOT a hate movement that tries to terrorize people who disagree with them.
*Anticipating the AVfMers squawking: “Farrell’s not pro-incest, he just thinks the pros and cons of incest are deserving of more study. Teach the controversy!”
[cloudiah gets the dry heaves.]
I’d also point out that a grown man- any grown man- penetrating a little girl is likely to cause her enormous present pain and future damage, possibly extending to sterility or lethal outcomes in childbirth, and this doesn’t have a damned thing to do with societal prejudices (except justify them).
Well, it IS possible for incest to not be inherently bad, if it is between consenting adults. There have been couples who suffered because of the taboo against siblings getting married for eg.
But that doesn’t make the kind of incest he’s talking about not child abuse.
I Googled “Christine Armstrong feminism”, but the only thing that came up was AVfM and there is now way I’m reading that.
It does, however, appear at present that Paul Elam made her up.
Would someone with a stronger stomach than me please summarize what that AVFM link says about Christine whatsername?
Here’s a summary of the Christine Armstrong issue, for those who don’t want to read AVfM.
Paul Elam published an article saying that women who let guys buy them drinks in bars and then don’t sleep with them “are freaking begging” to be raped.
Someone named Christine comments on the earlier version of this blog, saying about Paulie
To people with good reading comprehension skills, “it wouldn’t surprise me if” does not mean “it has been proven in a court of law that.” But, we’re dealing with Paul Elam here so all bets are off.
Paul’s measured, totally not hateful and threatening response?
He “identifies” Christine (without actually providing any proof that he has made the correct identification) by full name, where she lives, provides her email and work phone number, and a current photograph.
hellkell: It’s a big corner. We could probably hook up a TV and watch LOTR or something. But not Game of Thrones, I could not stand the yuck after this article.
Oh and for the record? I think the counter-protestors at Farrell’s U of T talk were doing the work of angels in publicizing Farrell’s problematic/disgusting views BUT the subset of them that (allegedly) tried to prevent people from attending were wrong to do so (if they did so). Shine a light on these assholes; sunlight is the best disinfectant, as my parents always taught me.
Somewhere (AVfM? Not sure…) some MRA commenter talked about the counter-protest at U of T as being violent, but also talked about John the Other being attacked by 30 box cutter-wielding feminists as though that was something that happened — even though there is video evidence that proves that reality was quite a bit different from that. Their disconnect from reality is apparent, and sad.
Christine Armstrong is indeed a real person; I’ve spoken to her, and I exchange emails with her from time to time. She hasn’t posted anything *here* for a while but rest assured Elam hasn’t shut her up or stopped her from working to fight domestic violence.
Also, some MRA named “J” cut and pasted the following rant about the Warren Farrell thing into a comment in the “comments policy” topic, somehow oblivious to the fact that this topic exists. He posted it on a bunch of MR blogs as well. But what the heck, if anyone feels like reading or responding to it, here it is. I’ve only skimmed it.
Yeah, I gave up on that wall’o’text a paragraph in. If anyone with a stronger disposition manages to get all the way through it, could you let me know if it starts to make any more sense further in?
tl;dr. Dude Godwinned himself right out of the gate, added wanking about misandry, and I checked out.
I’m glad to hear that Christine wasn’t intimidated by Paulie’s actions, and is still doing good work. Good way to FPSU (fuck Paulie’s shit up)! :D
I have no words. It’s just all terrible.
More and more of these MRA fuckwits seem to be coming out of Canada lately. WTF? Is it the fluoridated water?
It disgusts me that this Farrell person is getting speaking engagements, and presumably is getting paid for them. And people lacking critical thinking skills are just eating him up.
I have no pictures or videos or sound recordings, but I spent Monday* at Disneyland with my best friend’s daughter (5 years old), and I just want to say that the giggling of a child who is ecstatic about spinning on the tea cups has nearly miraculous healing powers. I would like to extend it to all of you who have read this terribleness. Also, the Dumbo ride seemed to have the same effect. These two things (for me) make up for the crass commercialism of the place.
*The day before Mitt Romney went to Disneyland.
cloudiah, little girls are hilarious and awesome, but in this context may not be the best antidote. You know, like after Meller talks about furry little kitties, cat pictures get a little weird?
AHA! So you admit she’s your dear friend and is also evil incarnate because Reasons!
I can’t believe I read J’s whole rant. It’s exactly what you’d expect from the first paragraph, except that it’s also really pompous and pointlessly pedantic for an Internet rant about how Canada Is Literally Nazis But With Misandry Instead.
I got bored and couldn’t be bothered to read the rest by about the 3rd paragraph, but I have to say, this typo/moment of illiteracy? Fairly epic.
About the only thing I got from that wall of arglebargle was “Canadian Kleptocracy”. Which would be a pretty good band name.
Y’all are funny!
I am not all too shocked by this Farrel guy. The 70s apparently produced a host of fairly popular paedophilia- and incest-apologism, both in the realm of literatur and borderline “science”.
Surely that would explain the thousands of girls that run away every year. It couldn’t possibly be because their choice was putting up with being fucked by their father or destroying their family.
Fuck you you fucking fuck, with razor wire.
I remember the seventies very well. The “sexual revolution” brought out the creepiest creeps that ever creeped. The mens magazines were full of this kind of baby raper bullshit. And the little girls started running away from home in droves.
That rant is surprisingly well written for a paranoid conspiracy theory. He uses real words with their accepted meanings and everything. Pity that all his ‘facts’ are severe distortions or completely made up.
This stuff makes me glad that I was too young to remember most of the 70s. Like Bewilderness said, there were far too many people who interpreted the idea of more freedom for sexual expression to mean that it was OK for adults to want to fuck kids, and repressed for women or girls to ever want to say no to sex. If you happen to run across an argument for why the person should be able to abuse others via sex that’s so blatantly self-serving it makes your jaw drop, it’s usually from the 70s, or from someone who was around then and refuses to accept that society has since moved on a bit.
(Trigger warning: child sexual abuse)
This is going to be quite difficult for me, so I hope you will excuse me if I fail to make sense.
I will be forever thankful that I was never actually touched, but roughly a year ago I found out that some of the things my father did in front of me and made me do were illegal. It was the culmination of several years of discovery and rooting out painful memories (he was emotionally abusive too).
Since that time I’ve had to deal with the fallout of this, the guilt I feel for having been duped, the degradation, the fact that this was all real and all abuse. It’s not been easy. There were several things he used to say in a humorous tone that I thought were just jokes, but now seem to have been calculated to remove my innocence.
I did what I was told, because I had no other choice. I did not consent and there is NO WAY it was an ‘expression of love’. It was insidious, deceitful and done without my understanding what was going on. Children and teenagers might know the facts of life, but they must discover the experiences by themselves, without being forced to by selfish, manipulative adults who want easy gratification. Because that’s what it’s really all about, and to pretend otherwise puts children at risk.
Hey Futrelle, that was “the 70s, the beads, the fluffy pillows, the mood lights”, remember?
“Y’all are funny!”
That’s it?
Trolls these days. No follow-through.