Children Need... THIS?
THE FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT: IN THEIR OWN WORDS
FARRELL LIBELS LIZ, to wit: the ostensible letter of Warren Farrell PUBLISHED BY BOB HIRSCHFELD, J.D. (who is not a lawyer) (anymore) on Steven D. Imparl (who is a lawyer)'s fully moderated men-law listserve.
(liz's comments are interspersed in gray, the email in question is in rrred.)
NOTE: FAMOUS AUTHOR
WARREN FARRELL IS A DIRECTOR OF THE
I want to make you aware that a woman who calls herself variously Liz Kate/Richards/Wilson is doing everything she can to try to brand the major leaders of the fathers' movement as pedophiles ? to say that the fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with their children.
Someone is doing what? Is this a claim that three different individuals are all the same "a" woman? (I'm not surprised. The attitude that one woman is another woman is another woman, and they're all just fungible things is typical of misogynists.)
She has also been the leading force behind trying to get Kathleen Parker fired from her post as a syndicated columnist in 300 newspapers.
This made-up person with three names. Who is "she?" (If the nincompoop who wrote the above words is suggesting that this liz is someone she is not, and did something she did not, well that would be a lie. That would be real libel. Warren, learn the difference.)
And someone was trying to get her fired for that? Oh, come on. (Kathleen's not much different from a lot of women I know and like who are misled by men... then later divorce them when the truth comes out. In fact I had a rather pleasant email exchange with Kathleen just a few days before receiving a copy of this Hirschfeld-Farrell drivel.) By the way, Warren, if you did not write this letter, and it's a fabrication or "misquote," so to speak of Hirschfeld's, do let me know.
(And ?? what's Kathleen Parker have to do with Warren Farrell? Nothing.)
In my case, she is spreading around a misquote about me that appeared in Penthouse in 1977. The misquote had me saying that I felt that the taboo on incest was making parents fearful of hugging, touching, and genitally caressing their children. The hugging and touching part is correct. The genitally caressing part is incorrect.
It's a misquote of what? What do you claim you actually said, Warren? (Feel free to contact me and do tell what you actually claim to have said in response to a question about a "sexual deluge." Anything you say will be put right up here on this website. Can you also can provide me with some kind of evidence, e.g. copies of letters circa 1977 you sent to Philip Nobile or publisher of Penthouse? A legal complaint? Did you sue?)
(Speaking of which... the lawyers for Penthouse (actually General Media) generously offered to supply me with reprints of the article in question to sell from this website. Apparently they were not terribly worried about any misquote. I demurred however, because selling things from a website isn't my bag. I don't pretend to care about issues as a ruse to make money.)
Be that as it may, unless you (or someone else, for that matter) actually can provide me with some kind of evidence to the contrary, I will continue to report truthfully on what Penthousepublished and said you said.
The second-hand claim now, years later, when it's politically expedient to do so (Farrell's marketing another book, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, which has been reviewed, coincidentally, by Trish Wilson) that "the genitally caressing part is incorrect" just doesn't cut it as evidence of anything but self-interest. (And it's such an odd, vague and feeble sort of denial, unconvincing...)
Was that interview taped, Warren? Send me the tape, and be done with this!
I have told this Liz Kate/Richards/Wilson that this was a misquote and that to use this any further was an act of libel. She has been notified about this by attorneys Robert McNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida. She has, though, persisted...
Not true, Warren. YOU have told me absolutely nothing like that. My email address is all over these pages. (This is pathetic.)
So who are you claiming was notified... of... what? May we see a copy? (Sent to who? A three-named woman? I did once receive a gratuitous missive from father's rightster McNeely, Esq., and his then nonlawyer wife to let me know they didn't like my webpages -- no surprise there. But their/her correspondence said nothing at all about any "misquotes," and not much else, frankly, that was particularly intelligent. I still have the email, if anyone is interested.)
... Robert and Cindy McNeely have found some damaging evidence about Liz Kate/Richards/Wilson's background.
Lie. There isn't any "damaging evidence" in MY background, Warren, so I guess you're just into libel, ay?
(Such blather. Who do these purported notification-authority figures think they have "damaging evidence" on? Some woman with three names? Is this a fabrication, Warren? Do tell. Because the insinuation regarding me is... libelous. And the claim itself is idiotic. Wouldn't step one in finding things out about a person be to decide who it is you desire to investigate?)
If you receive correspondence about this, please fax or email this to me immediately (fax: 760.753.2436; email: email@example.com) so that we can build a case against her for the law suit. Please also reach Rob and Cindy McNeely at O: (850) 222-2107; fax: +1 (850) 222-8475; firstname.lastname@example.org; and email@example.com.
And... this would be a case against whom? ("The" lawsuit against the nonexistent three-named woman? Gee. How... vague.)
Now, you wouldn't be trying to give the impression that you have some actual cause of action against me, would you? Because, now, that too would be libelous. (You're on a roll, Warren. Little game aside, you see, both you and the McNeelys know exactly who I am -- and am not -- and so do a lot of other persons.)
So are you planning to sue me? Go for it, Sparky. Tell more lies, make yourself into a complete public asshole. Do it.
In particular, if anyone backs off from sponsorship or cooperation with you/us in any way, please ask them to put their reasons in writing and then send me this evidence so we can cite actual damages in a law suit. I will also discuss this issue with Carey Linde, whose advice I respect.
"You/us" -- would that be referring to Bob Hirschfeld and you? Damages as in losing money? The ostensible "cause" really is just about your making MONEY? Are you saying that the NCFC is actually a commercial enterprise? (Hmmm... Carey Linde? Don't you respect the advice of the McNeelys? Or are you actually not getting any from them?)
If you have any further concerns, please be in touch with me at 760.753.5000.
This letter was in response to someone's -- would that be the addressee's, Bob Hirschfeld's -- bringing up of concerns? What "concerns?" Would that be Mr. Hirshfeld individually or as spokesperson for the NCFC? Money-making concerns? Or is this just about the attempted suppression of political speech? (Love the little dots between the numbers; very chic.)
WARNING. This message is copyrighted 1999 by its author. All rights reserved. Any reproduction of this message outside MEN-LAW without the prior written permission of the author is strictly prohibited and may lead to severe civil and criminal penalties.
What chutzpah, eh? Copyrighting his libel...
-- Talk to your group with your own voice! -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=men-law&m=1
er ... chest-thumping horseshit.
(This Farrell/Hirschfeld letter, which now (@11/7/99) is making the rounds of usenet and various other listserves in an attempt to silence liz's political speech, along with hoots, catcalls, repetition of libel, harassment and heckles from the gang mentality of little-men, is the perfect illustration, by analogy, as to what altogether too many of these father's rightsters are really like: litigious liars and control-freak bullies.)
This is the "good-woman/bad-woman," try-to-set-women-off-against-each-other technique. Professed "concern" for Kathleen Parker. This is diversionary, obfuscatory, and culturally habitual; women who disagree with men are really exhibiting "female jealousy" over who the men love. It's really those other women they're "against." That way, the opinions of women who disagree with the patriarchy can be dismissed as sour grapes. See Warren Farrell's use of this in his new book, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, coincidentally reviewed by Trish Wilson. Parker describes his theory thus in her October 31 Orlando Sun-Sentinel article "Stereotypes in the News Media Hurt Us All" as "women's anger toward men comes from their feeling of rejection as they age and become less attractive." Uh... no, Warren. For a review of Farrell's other book of nonsense, Myth of Male Power, see here. Also notice how Farrell used this same old tired theme insinuating that mothers were "jealous" when fathers had sex with their daughters in Philip Nobile's Penthouse article. Richard Gardner has posited the same sort of thing in his "PAS" writings, so popular with the father's rights set. The ubiquitous claim that feminists are "that way" because they can't get a man, or because they "must have" been hurt by a man (implying they are just rejectees and that's why...) is yet another variation on this same old, same old.
MAIN PAGE | COLLECTIONS
HISTORY LIBRARY | RESEARCH ROOMS
| THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2012
the liz library. All rights
This site is hosted and maintained by argate.net. Send queries to: sarah-at-thelizlibrary.org.