Houellebecq: Patriarchy impacts on men who find themselves at the receiving end of the aggression claimed by some as a mascline 'right':

http://blogs.theage.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2007/09/male_rape.html

Feminism isn't detrimental to the family (however defined) but people like Farrell (not a biological father himself btw) and his admirers.

Evidence that feminists are not widely in opposition to men/males/masculinity includes Farrell's acceptance as a member of a small, local feminist chapter in NY (which is not the national centre btw) in the 1970s when feminism might be seen as in its most revolutionary stage. He was later ejected from the feminist movement after his views on incest became know via an interview published in Penthouse. Feminism rejects any exploitation of children.

A sample of his view, "... 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."

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

Of all the information provided to supply names of males that have successfully merged their view with feminist theories, the bit that you choose to extract is that of an undergraduate student who demands that the lecturer read Farrell. A student has opportunity to argue a case in assessments such as essay and exam.

If that student had been a creationist taking undergrad biology, would it be expected that the lecturer read creationist material on demand? No. It is usual for a student to understand the arguments of the theories she or he is challenging. That student had yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the theories he was choosing to challenge with Farrell.

I'm puzzled as to why some men take it as a personal slight when men like Farrell come under criticism. It's not feminists who see all men as the same and who hate all men; it's any of you who can't differentiate yourselves from an amorphous mass you vaguely refer to as "sacred masculinity".

CJ

“You imply that assertive and articulate women like Severin, Pynchme and suzeonline "hate men". There is absolutely no evidence for that view in what they post at OLO - indeed, they have all stated clearly that don't hate men in general.”

We can all mouth the right platitudes about how caring we are or should be, but some attitudes don’t match the rhetoric. One of the less helpful attitudes is that any men who disagrees with any woman simply has a problem with these women being assertive. This attitude displays a reluctance to respond to the substance of other people’s statements. CJ, you are turning into another Fractelle. I’ve explained clearly enough why I disagree with some of the opinions, held by Severin, Suze and Pynchme. Yet, no matter how many counter- arguments I present, you both still prefer to believe that I disagree with these women purely because of their gender.

“you seem like a reasonable kind of guy, albeit with a bit of a chip on your shoulder about women. “

The only chip on my shoulder is in relation to paternalistic attitudes towards women, where they are seen as being weak and needing protection. For example, Suze has a long history of self-righteous grandstanding when any bloke is too harsh and yet, when Severin is out of line, I’m told to lighten up. Severin’s attitude is truly disgraceful. She thinks that any man who asks anything of her is attempting to control her. If the rest of us were so selfish, society would fall apart.

Pynchme

“I'm puzzled as to why some men take it as a personal slight when men like Farrell come under criticism”

There is no mystery, we just weren’t aware of his views about incest.

OK I'll bite.

Pynch, I'm not one of your gender studies students. I couldn't give a toss about this Farell guy. I don't even know who he is. That you think I am or would defend him says a lot about your pre-occupation with him and me.

If you read my first post on the subject, you'd see I also mocked the author mercilessly.

What I do see (thanks to that link) is your homogeneous little gender studies cult environment. The epitome of what I see when I read your gear. It seems I'm not alone, as Jay got the same comedy value out of that link I did.

BTW: Thanks for adding to my entertainment with your analogy. Any author on gender who isn't vetoed by the closed circles of back patting kosher victim feminists is akin to a creationist in the realm of science! Great stuff!

Now, if I may ask from my highly valued and valid Asian-centred low class traditionally-female perspective; have you ever mentioned on OLO any responsibility any woman may hold for any problem with the world that is totally independent of any wrongdoing from a man.

Haha, I've just had a look at more of pynchme's femz sites.

Hey, lets make a list of stories about fatherless children to prove we don't need those men.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fatherless/research-fatherless-children.html

but

BABIES NEED THEIR MOTHERS BESIDE THEM!

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html

'It is a curious fact that in Western societies the practice of mothers, fathers and infants sleeping together came to be thought of as strange, unhealthy and dangerous.'
Maybe a friend of Warrens?

So funny. It looks like the rival sister site for menz that pynchme constantly loves to attribute to all male posters. (If any man disagrees with her feminist doctrine, they must have got those nasty ideas from some Geocities menz site!)

Somehow I thought if she was going to pretend to be 'above' the menz, and somehow put feminism up as more virtuous or scientific or honest than menz rights groups, she wouldn't be advertising doozys like that for our collective ridicule.

The Liz Library of collections of works on why she hates menz groups, and a few plugs for her services. She's the female Divorce Doctor. I wonder if she'll also sell me some steak knives!

More Fatherless Children; actor Tom Cruise!
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fatherless/research-fatherless-children.html

benk, "There is no mystery, we just weren’t aware of his views about incest."

I looked into this some time back following the usual "dismiss all of Farrell's arguments because of what he is reported to have said a long time ago" comments. As far as I could tell Farrell did some "research" into incest basically asking is it as negative as is generally believed.

Farrell made a couple of points back then, the incidence rates of incest was skewed by the classification of per-incest into the figures (sibling and cousin's). From the work he had done at that point not all outcomes were the same for parent child incest. He found that boy/mother incest had a different experience for the child to girl/father incest.

There is dispute over one phrase, my recollection is that Farrell say's he used the word gently, the article says genitally http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.pdf (page six and with an arrow pointed to it). http://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/trishwilson/farrell2.html for one point where Farrell is reported and disputing the wording.

My impression is that Farrell was trying to understand the issue in the face of a general taboo. In the context of other taboo's which were being overturned (gay right's etc) not an entirely unreasonable thing to do. Farrell claims not to approve of incest.

Liz also refers to an Off Our Back interview with Farrell http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm but I've not been able to locate the article to put the excerpt in context.

I think that he thought and said some silly points as a 34 year old (in 1977) with an ego and a name to make and his opponents have milked that ever since to dismiss the good points he makes on other issues.

He makes some really good points about claims of male privilege and power, about gender based pay differences etc but according to the dictate of some none of that should be discussed because of reporting of his views on incest by Penthouse magazine in 1977.

R0bert

Robert

I understand that Farrell has produced some quite worthwhile research and writing since 1977. I with him agree that taboos need to be questioned and that therapists should avoid assuming that someone is damaged by an experience when it is possible (if unlikely) that they are coping better than expected. However, the general tone of his writing was far too positive about what should be seen as a disgraceful betrayal of trust. I found his comments about incest magnifying the beauty of a father/daughter relationship to be quite disturbing. One of the key things that fathers can give daughters is the honesty and unconditional love that these women don't get from guys who are simply trying to get them into bed.