Categories
facepalm misogyny MRA pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles sexual abuse victim blaming warren farrell

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

464 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cloudiah
9 years ago

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.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

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?

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

tl;dr. Dude Godwinned himself right out of the gate, added wanking about misandry, and I checked out.

cloudiah
9 years ago

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)! 😀

katz
9 years ago

I have no words. It’s just all terrible.

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

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.

cloudiah
9 years ago

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.

katz
9 years ago

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?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
9 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

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.

Upon discovering this issue my conscious and lack of knowledge compelled me to research misandry further.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
9 years ago

About the only thing I got from that wall of arglebargle was “Canadian Kleptocracy”. Which would be a pretty good band name.

driversuz
9 years ago

Y’all are funny!

Kakanian
Kakanian
9 years ago

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”.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
9 years ago

“Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”

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.

Kim
Kim
9 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

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.

hermionesotter
9 years ago

(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.

BASTA!
BASTA!
9 years ago

Hey Futrelle, that was “the 70s, the beads, the fluffy pillows, the mood lights”, remember?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
9 years ago

“Y’all are funny!”

That’s it?

Trolls these days. No follow-through.

hermionesotter
9 years ago

PS. For those needing brain bleach, I recommend the music of Hildegard von Bingen. Awesome lady 🙂

BASTA!
BASTA!
9 years ago

“The 70s apparently produced a host of fairly popular paedophilia- and incest-apologism”

Both in real life and as fictional setting of at least one play written in the advanced nineties, might I add.

Greg Canning
9 years ago

titianblue
titianblue
9 years ago

herminonesotter, you made perfect sense – offering virtual hugs if you’d like them.

whataboutthemoonz
9 years ago

About the only thing I got from that wall of arglebargle was “Canadian Kleptocracy”. Which would be a pretty good band name.

Canadian Kleptocracy.

Schrödinger’s Vagina.

My Vagina Sunk Atlantis.

Vile Disgusting Vile.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
9 years ago

Sorry Greg, what are you hoping to achieve with linkdumping a video from THE GUY ADVOCATING/ENDORSING INCEST?

reymohammed
reymohammed
9 years ago

The Seventies started with the anti-war movement and the Second Wave. The latter was co-opted and the former smirched beyond recognition by the end of that decade, and then the Eighties brought the Reagan backlash. And I would add that the idea that a woman has no right to say “no” long predates the concept that she has a right to say “yes”.

Plenty of the girls I went to elementary school with in the Fifties turned ouit to be victims of sexual abuse, frequently incestuous. The way it was justified to them was no different from what freaks like this are saying. The only difference was that in the Seventies, it was- in some circles- “okay” to say this stuff publicly. It was maybe not coincidental, though, that this was the decade it came to be acknowledged that child sexual abuse was not something depraved children were making up about innocent adults.

reymohammed
reymohammed
9 years ago

Greg, what the Hell are you canning? When it causes botulism, you’re doing it wrong.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

For all Greg accomplished with that video dump, he may as well have dropped a picture of himself to end an argument, ala Things Are Bad.

Bingo
Bingo
9 years ago

No.

It’s a nearly 40 year-old article from a not-that-reputable source and Warren Farrell has said he was misquoted. If you’re going to pick each and every word and put the most negative retroactive spin on it. I don’t find it too difficult to understand that a Dad who hugs and kisses his children helps them grow up to be physically (and yes, sexually) confident. I hug and kiss my sons all the time, and tell them they’re beautiful, because they are. What’s your alternative? That fathers should be distant, cold, unemotional and repressed? What a weird strange lot you all are.

I hope now you’ll be taking Germaine Greer to task for her book ‘The Beautiful Boy’, where she leers over images of pre-pubescent and adolescent boys, or Eric Clapton for voicing support for far-right extremists in the 1970s, or Margaret Sanger for speaking at KKK rallies. They were all at least fully cognizant and responsible for what they said, whereas this is a second-hand slur – I mean really, truly – knowing what journalists are like, can you really rely on a reporter for PENTHOUSE magazine in the 1970s as a reliable source? Really? For fuck’s sake.

Integral
Integral
9 years ago

I remember reading about Farrell’s views on incest years ago but I didn’t remember the guy’s name. Figures he’d be an MRA. Really, guys? You’re more oppressed than anyone because some portion* of society won’t throw you a parade for raping kids?

*I almost just said “society”, but then I remembered how many people pretty much do throw a parade for child rapists like Roman Polanski. What the hell is wrong with people.

judgybitch
9 years ago

I wonder what the relationship was between the fathers and daughters who didn’t seem to find incest that traumatizing? Other than biological, I mean. Did they live together? I remember reading about a woman who had given up her son for adoption when he was an infant and then had a sexual relationship with him when he was a young man.

Here it is:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-mom-aimee-louise-sword-faces-trial-incest/story?id=8548830

Apparently, feeling a strong sexual attraction for children you have given up for adoption is a thing. I’m certainly not defending incest or sexual abuse of children, but perhaps there IS more nuance to it than we might suspect.

And what about sibling incest? Remember those gay twins that wrote to Dear Prudence? They’re still together.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-mom-aimee-louise-sword-faces-trial-incest/story?id=8548830

It very well be more complicated, as Farrell suggests.

Evito
Evito
9 years ago

Hello everyone. I’m a longtime reader, first time commentor. I was hoping that my Monday email to Mr. Futrelle would be answered before I actually commented openly here, but I am sure he is quite busy and will get to it sooner or later (preferably AFTER he enjoys a nice Thanksgiving).

As a woman who suffered at the hands of an incestuous stepfather from age 10 to 18, I am horrified that anyone could think that ANY sort of incest would be a good thing…and am further disgusted by the idea that the interviewed women who said it was negative are LYING about their feelings.

I am one of the “lucky” ones…I was never forced to have my stepfather’s penis in my vagina or mouth. But anything else that he could do to me sexually was done, and I hated him for it. The forced touching, him crawling into bed with me while my mother worked late, making me shower with him, refusing to let me out of the house to see my friends unless I allowed him to see me naked (and later, touch me)…all of this and more is decidedly, without a doubt, 100% NEGATIVE. There was never anything positive about it. And the worst part? When I tried desperately to convince him that what he was doing was hurtinng me and was wrong…he said it didn’t count as incest because we weren’t blood relatives.

I am 26 next month. It has taken me this long, and the help of a wonderful and amazing man, to finally get to the point where I can have good feelings about sex, my body, and the male body…and even now I still wake up at night paralyzed by bad memories. Even now, I am besieged by horrible remembrances during sex (though thankfully not often). I may have moved out of that house the month after I turned 18, but I am finding it far more difficult to “move out” of my past.

The fact that people like the author above believe that either men or women can actually PROFIT emotionally by being sexually abused shows that he doesn’t care at all about the boys and girls that have gone though this. He only cares about finding victims that will say the words he needs to hear in order to make real his atrocious dreams. And apparently, when they are not found in the numbers he needs, it is perfectly acceptable to claim that these victims are lying due to “societal constraints”.

Such bullshit as I have never heard!

ithiliana
9 years ago

@JB: I’m certainly not defending incest or sexual abuse of children, but perhaps there IS more nuance to it than we might suspect.

I’m not a racist, but….. leads to racist statements.

I’m not a sexist, but……ditto.

I’m certainly not defending incest or sexual abuse of children, but…… right.

Gotcha.

You have now make clear YOUR position, and, news alert, it’s neither “complex” nor nuanced.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
9 years ago

What ithiliana said, as per usual 🙂

I mean what part of

“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.”

makes it look like these were people who grew up completely separately?

reymohammed
reymohammed
9 years ago

Separated brothers and sisters have sometimes unknowingly met and married, and that is a completely different issue from incest within one’s family. There is always a power imbalance, even between an older and younger sibling. Between a parent and child, it is one a child has no power to resist.

Certainly, youngsters can have orgasms inflicted on them by force, and they may become forcibly addicted to the sexual release. They can also be brainwashed into thinking of themselves as a substitute spouse. This does *not* lead to better psychosexual development. It warps it, in many cases irretrievably.

mythago
9 years ago

@judgybitch, what “more nuance” is there which you believe is being missed? I’m very curious, because what you seem to be saying is that if there’s a single case of somebody who had a positive experience with incest, then maybe it’s not so bad.

I mean, I could post a story of a guy who hooked up with an abusive gold-digging shrew and it all worked out in the end and they’re in a thrillingly happy 24/7 femdom relationship, but you know, I’m thinking MRA apologists wouldn’t be going all “dawww, maybe this being exploited by females isn’t universally awful after all.”

The thing that especially weirds me out is that Farrell hasn’t actually repudiated what he said, to my knowledge, ever. “They got one word wrong!” is not the same as “Fuck, it was the 1970s and I was doing some harsh drugs, I can’t believe I said anything that idiotic.”

driversuz
9 years ago

Follow through:
“So, driversuz, you think raping your children is okay?”
Hamsterlation: “Suz points out that this all happened before I was born. Therefore Suz thinks it’s okay to rape children.”

“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.”
Hamsterlation: “I didn’t want to read it so it appears to not exist.”

“Would someone with a stronger stomach than me please summarize what that AVFM link says about Christine whatsername?
Hamsterlation: “If I read AVfM, I might learn something. NOOOOOOOOOOO!”

“…because they’re totally NOT a hate movement that tries to terrorize people who disagree with them.” (And by “terrorize” I mean “commenting on blogs,” ‘cuz being warm and dry and well-fed, I need SOMETHING to be scared of.)

“… rest assured Elam hasn’t shut her up or stopped her from working to fight domestic violence.”
But only anonymously because for her, “fighting domestic violence” actually means “committing violence (by proxy of course, wouldn’t want to break a nail) against men.”
– And she doesn’t want to be held accountable for THAT…

Hey Boobzie! I’m surprised you didn’t ban me for bringing up Ms. Armstrong, considering that you told your sycophant cheerleaders to not discuss her. Almost as if you didn’t want to acknowledge your public association with her.
Gosh, you must be so proud of your little harem of followers; I’ll bet the way they fawn over you makes you feel so manly!

Yeah, “funny” is a pretty good word for it. So is “pathetic.” So is “illogical.”

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Judgybitch is an incest apologist and all around shithead? I am so fucking surprised, except not.

Driversuz, do you have a point?

trix
trix
9 years ago

suz : You do not get to dictate topics. This is not your blog. The world does not revolve around you. Are you really that self-absorbed? DF presented a topic. Commenters have the option to discuss the topic.How fucking hard is it to follow that?

YOUR Hamsterlation: Waaaahhhhh! Booooo-hooooo sniff sniff Mommmmmmyyyyyy! They don’t play how I want them to play!

driversuz
9 years ago

Ladies, it’s really very simple; even you can understand it. Maybe. Your hero Boobzie is trying to discredit Farrell’s current work. He’s doing this by bringing up something appalling that Farrell did in 1977, something which rightly evokes an emotional reaction from you, his dear readers. His hope is that you will all be so outraged by what Farrell said 35 years ago, you will dismiss out-of-hand everything Farrell has learned throughout three+ decades of research since then. He can’t contradict what Farrell is saying TODAY, so he won’t dare to try; all he can do is say, “Look what this guy did a long time ago! He’s a Bad Man!”

Boobzie counts on your inability to separate facts from emotions. They call this “sleight of hand,” and “smoke and mirrors.” It’s an age old tactic used to distract a willing audience – you look at all the shiny objects in the illusionist’s spotlight, and you don’t notice anything else. Are you all really as stupid and gullible as he thinks you are?

trix
trix
9 years ago

Then enlighten us to Farrell’s current work. Tell us why he is your hero.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Dude, if anyone is stupid, it’s you. I’ve read the Farrell piece long before this, and it never stops being disgusting.

Got an explanation for why Farrell has never repudiated this nonsense, or are you going to hand wave that away too?

I’m sorry Farrell is an asshole, but you must be used to having your MRA leaders being complete wastes of carbon by now.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Yes, DS, explain to us why saying that unemployment for men is worse than rape for women, which is a gem Farrell said after the incest thing. Enlighten me, fucknut.

trix
trix
9 years ago

Fuck this and these MRAs. Fuck kiddie fuckers and their fucking lackeys. I’ve got a husband to mourn and wine to drink.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
9 years ago

Yeah I was just going to bring up what Hellkell said. This isn’t the only fuckawful thing Farrell’s said, just the worst thing he’s said – and never recanted.

Please, tell us why we should worship this misogynist douchecanoe.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
9 years ago

*sends trix virtual hugs if they’re wanted*

*prescribes time away from the misogynist sewers of the internet*

ithiliana
9 years ago

@Driverstroll: You will have to work harder to get banned, but I’m sure if you apply yourself, you too can earn that honor.

You might want to check out the Tom Martin stuff posts and comments here though to see what herculean efforts you have to master.

Has Farrell disowned the support from incest from 1977?

If not, why are we supposed to ignore a statement he put into print and never retracted, no matter what else he researched?

Why do you think that book never got published?

What is his recent work doing that’s any different, and why should I give a damn?

A quick look over the publications looks as if he’s the author of many of the talking points of the MRM–many of which have been refuted many times over, here and elsewhere.

Actually, I suspect many of us here could contradict Farrell if a flying fuck were given by any: here is a bibliographic list of his 2 peer-reviewed articles

The Boy Crisis: Our Sons, Our Schools, Our Future.Full Text Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Fall2009, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p178-188, 11p; DOI: 10.3149/thy.0302.178
Subjects: PARENT & child; GENDER identity; WASHINGTON (D.C.); SPEECHES, addresses, etc.; IDENTITY (Psychology) in children; FARRELL, Warren
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder
PDF Full Text (684KB)
2.
Academic Journal
MALE CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING FROM A SOCIOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.Full Text Available
By: Farrell, Warren T.. Sociological Focus, Winter71, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p19-28, 10p
Subjects: CONSCIOUSNESS; SOCIAL power; GROUP relations training; MIDDLE class; SOCIAL classes; SOCIAL status
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder Cited References: (3)
PDF Full Text (478KB)

Here’s info on his five publications that are NOT in peer-reviewed journals:
3
Book
Myth of male power: why men are the disposable sex
Detail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Myth of male power: why men are the disposable sex, 2001, 446p
Subjects: MEN’S studies; MAN-WOMAN relationships; MEN; MEN’S movement; PATRIARCHY; PSYCHOLOGY; SEXISM; WOMEN; SEX role
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder

4.
Book
Liberated man: beyond masculinity: freeing men & their relationships with women
Detail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Liberated man: beyond masculinity: freeing men & their relationships with women, 1993, xxxiv, 350p
Subjects: GROUP relations training; MEN; MEN’S movement; PSYCHOLOGY; SEX role; MASCULINITY; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL movements
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder

5.
Book
Why men are the way they are: the male-female dynamic
Detail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Why men are the way they are: the male-female dynamic, 1988, xxvii, 404p
Subjects: MEDICAL policy; MEN; MEN’S movement; MENTAL health; PREJUDICES; PSYCHOLOGY; SEX discrimination against men; SEXISM; WOMEN; MASCULINITY; PHYSICAL fitness for men; PSYCHOLOGY
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder

6.
Book
Women’s & men’s liberation groups: political power within the system & outside the systemDetail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren T; Jaquette, Jane S. Women in Politics, 1974
Subjects: MEN’S studies; WOMEN in politics
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder

7.
Report
Resocialization of Men’s Attitudes Toward Women’s Role in SocietyDetail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Resocialization of Men’s Attitudes Toward Women’s Role in Society, 1970
Subjects: SEX role
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder

So, how many of these have you read?

See, this isn’t an academic blog, though there are academics on it (there are also men on it, dipshit). It’s for mocking misogyny: see right up there at the top.

And it doesn’t say that it’s only for mocking misogyny in the last 60 days: misogyny doesn’t go stale, you know.

So, if Farrell has learned so much and changed so much, why don’t you fucking pony up the proof?

driversuz
9 years ago

“Then enlighten us to Farrell’s current work. Tell us why he is your hero.”

His current work has been covered quite thoroughly at AVfM and other sites, and he has published real books that you can read without actually *gasp* visiting any scary websites. But you won’t, because Boobzie told you he’s a Bad Man.

How is it “off topic” to quote several comments in this very thread? Your logic intrigues me. And speaking of your logic, how does my criticizing Boobzie’s scare tactics, translate to Farrell being my “hero?” Show your work.