 |
|
Warren Farrell, author of THE MYTH OF MALE POWER
and the just-published FATHER AND CHILD REUNION,
is arguably the nation's foremost spokesman for men's
rights, writing from a perspective that upholds compassion
for men and women alike. He has publicly stated that, of
all the men's organizations in the country, NCFM best
represents his perspectives on gender issues, and,
indeed, Warren even serves on NCFM's Board of
Advisors.
Warren has called NCFM to ask for the support of members
and friends of NCFM in the greater New York area tonight
(1/31/01) -- but, actually, it is possible for anyone with
Internet access to participate, so regardless of where you
happen to be, geographically-speaking, PLEASE
CONTINUE READING!
Warren is scheduled to appear as a guest on New York's
popular Alan Colmes Show, 11:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. EST, on
WEVD--1050AM, along with an unnamed "male/female
relations expert" (according to Colmes' own Web site).
Colmes has a track record of hostility towards men's
perspectives on gender issues, and his "male/female
relations expert" is likely to be an anti-male feminist;
together these two people can be expected to try to rip
Warren from limb to limb. Here's where we can help: the
Alan Colmes Show follows an "audience participation"
format, and by calling in our support for Warren, we can
mitigate the attack Warren is likely to receive while letting
other listeners in a significantly large audience know that
Warren is by no means a lone voice in the wilderness.
People outside the greater New York area can participate
in tonight's broadcast through the radio station's Web site.
For instructions on how to do so, click on the following link:
http://www.1050wevd.com/listenlive.html
To get the call-in number, we will have to tune in around
10:00 p.m., and it's possible to call the number a few minutes
before the show actually begins to get placed on "hold" in
a line-up for being heard on the air.
Folks, it takes courage to stick up for ourselves, but we owe
it to ourselves to do so. Here's a golden opportunity not only
to do exactly that, but also to express our appreciation for a
dedicated author who has served as an inspiration for so
many men's rights activists both here in the U.S. and abroad.
Here's hoping I get to hear many of your voices over the radio
tonight!
Peter Allemano, PAllemano@cravath.com
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell was up against a lawyer with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo regarding the treatment of men by the family court. Mostly this program was a lesson in how heard a feminist lawyer uses the rhetorical tactics of competitive feminism. For example, she on the one hand ruled out the validity of Farrell's statistics on child support payments, and ignored the possible bias introduced by the census study that asked divorced mothers their estimate of child support compliance by their husbands, while on the other had, she cited in defense of the greater oppression of women the usual misleading statistics on the discrepency between women's and men's ages, obtained by the dubious statistical procedure of dividing women's earnings by mens earnings, without citing hours worked, educational level, and so on. Feigning ignorance of the statistics of which parent is awarded custody does not alter the facts of the matter.
Let me spell out the rhetorical tactics use here again, since they went by so quickly one might have missed them: denying the validity of Farrell's use of statistics by insisting on examining the facts of each case individually, as if sociological studies have nothing substantivce to contribute to our understanding, and then in a self-contradictory move citing her own statistics when they are convenient (most fathers are deadbeats), thereby abandoning the principle of sticking to the facts of individual cases in isolation from one another, and then again feigning ignorance of statistics (i.e., which parent tends to be awarded custody) when it was convenient to revert to the position that they are irrelevant. Remember: feiging ignorance on a subject that one is supposed to be an expert in is a disgrace, no matter how agressively one dismisses the relevance of those statistics.
Tellingly, the lawyer also failed to acknowlege the notion that both sexes could take the initiative in sexual matters. Her advice to men was pragmatic - if something sounds like a no, then don't. While that is a pragmatic answer, it does not address Farrell's suggestion that both sexes could take the initiative instead of the current situation where men generally have to. Instead, the discussion foundered on the altogether different topic of date rape.
I'll spare you my analysis of the Alan Colmes (the host) undisciplined, all-over-the-intellectual-map style of questioning.
In the sense that it is important to recognize the manipulative, disengenuous rhetorical tactics of competitive feminism, the show was useful. Of course, without my thoughtful and scientifically correct interpretation, the listener might he led astry by sophistry. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell was up against a lawyer with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo regarding the treatment of men by the family court. Mostly this program was a lesson in how a feminist advocate and lawyer uses the rhetorical tactics of competitive feminism. For example, she on the one hand ruled out the validity of Farrell's statistics on child support payments, and ignored the possibility of bias introduced by the census study that queried divorced mothers for their estimate of child support compliance by their former husbands, while on the other had, she cited in defense of the greater oppression of women the usual misleading statistics on the discrepency between women's and men's wages, obtained by the dubious statistical procedure of dividing women's earnings by mens earnings, without citing hours worked, educational level, and so on. Feigning ignorance of the statistics of which parent is awarded custody does not alter the facts of the matter.
Let me spell out the rhetorical tactics use here again, since they went by so quickly on the show one might have missed them: denying the validity of Farrell's use of statistics by insisting on examining the facts of each case individually, as if sociological studies have nothing substantivce to contribute to our understanding, and then in a self-contradictory move citing her own statistics when they are convenient (most fathers are deadbeats, women earn 3/4th of what men earn, etc), thereby abandoning the principle of sticking to the facts of individual cases in isolation from one another, and then again feigning ignorance of statistics (i.e., which parent tends to be awarded custody) when it was convenient to revert to the position that they are irrelevant. Remember: feiging ignorance of relevant statistics in a subject that one is supposed to be an expert in is a sign of something lesst than expertise, no matter how agressively one dismisses the relevance of those statistics.
Tellingly, the lawyer also failed to acknowlege the notion that both sexes could take the initiative in sexual matters. Her advice to men was pragmatic - if something sounds like a no, then don't. While that is a pragmatic answer, it does not address Farrell's suggestion that both sexes could take the initiative instead of the current situation where men generally have to. Instead, the discussion foundered on the altogether different topic of date rape.
I'll spare you my analysis of the Alan Colmes (the host) undisciplined, all-over-the-intellectual-map style of questioning.
In the sense that it is important to recognize the manipulative, disengenuous rhetorical tactics of competitive feminism, the show was useful. Of course, without my thoughtful and scientifically correct interpretation, the listener might he led astry by sophistry. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also have to say that Farrell did not appeat to defend himself well against this lawyer, in the sense that at the very least, he did not expose the rhetorical style of his opponent or else suggest that the discussion ought to take place in the court of reason and not a court of law, although perhaps time constraints prevented him from addressing such matters of style.
I was also struck by the callousness with which the lawyer laughingly dismissed the shorter life expectancy of men in relation to the roles men are expected to assume.
Also, the idea that only men send men to war (not universally true but again the example of Margaret Thatcher was dismissed) was used to suggest that this was something that men impose on themselves and women have no say or interest in the matter, nor do they admit to any benefit from men who served in the armed forces for their country. Old men send young men into war; i.e., it's another gender and we don't give a shit what they do to each other. Imagine if we substituted some race, for emphasis, say some race other than "white", for "gender". If there is anything in this kind of argument to distinguish it from racism and that would serve some constructive social purpose I would be very impressed if someone could bring this to my attention.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
