WHO IS LIBELING WHOM?
MORE ON THAT WARREN FARRELL AND "PENTHOUSE" BUSINESS

This lovely little missive was received on Friday by "men-law," an obnoxious, misogynistic men's and fathers' rights mailing list. Headers for the men-law e-mail are at the bottom of this page. The men-law text is in black. My comments are in blue.

Ah, Bob Hirschfeld! What a paragon of virtue! Hirschfeld, formerly an attorney, was disbarred in Arizona in 1998 for twenty-four counts of unethical conduct. The Supreme Court of Arizona cited numerous examples of such conduct, including his use of non-refundable retainer agreements, and abandoning clients without notice to serve his own interests -- leaving them to fend for themselves until he returned. I am talking about someone who had defrauded FATHERS, yet fathers' rights advocates continue to support him. Go figure.

Yup, Hirschfeld is a source that is as pure as yellow snow...

"A" woman? Who is this "Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson?" My name is Trish Wilson. No "Liz" or "Kates" or "Richards" in there anywhere. I have never branded any leader of the fathers' movement as a pedophile, nor have I ever said that the "fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with their children." Quote me where I have written those words, Warren.

Why are you bringing up Kathleen Parker? What does she have to do with "branding leaders of the fathers' movement as pedophiles?"

Who is "she?" You talking about me, or this three-in-one creature? What is that thing? A version of Cerberus, guarding what fathers' rights advocates see as the Feminist Underworld? It reminds be a bit of the holy trinity. Or, as I'm sure many fathers' rights advocates would view it, an UNholy trinity. Misogynists like to declare that all of us alleged "man-haters" are interchangeable.

Please provide valid proof that I have tried to get Kathleen Parker fired. I know whoever wrote this missive won't be able to provide proof because I haven't done any such thing. In fact, I have never contacted Parker for any reason whatsoever. My views of what Parker writes are irrelevant. She has a right to express her views and publish them as she sees fit. I respect and defend that right. I have the right to disagree with her, and to respond accordingly. It's called "freedom of speech." If the person who wrote this diatribe is claiming that I am that three-in-one creature who allegedly tried to get Parker fired, when the truth is that I am one person -- Trish Wilson -- and I have not tried to get her fired, that person is LYING. THAT is the correct definition of libel, Warren.

Ah, we finally get to the truth. This missive isn't at all about Parker or "leaders in the fathers movement." It is about you.

I own a copy of the original 1977 Penthouse issue, which includes "The Last Taboo," Philip Nobile's article in which you were quoted making positive statements about incest. I didn't copy quotes from Internet web pages or engage in idle gossip about the article. I own The Real Thing. The genitally caressing part is in that article. The statement, attributed to you, about "genitally caressing" is as follows:

"... [M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and GENITALLY CARESSING [my emphasis] their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves."

What is not "correct" about that quote, Warren? What are you claiming you actually said? That quote is what was printed in Penthouse. Both the magazine and Nobile, the author of the article, are behind that quote. Did you ever request a retraction or correction? Did you take legal action, such as suing Penthouse and/or Nobile? Do you have valid documentation proving that you've tried to get Penthouse and/or Nobile to rectify an alleged misquote? These are not new questions. I've had information on this business on my website for a very long time, and I've already posed these questions. They've never been answered. If you have done any of the above in response to the Penthouse article, I'd be happy to accept valid documentation from you to prove your claim.

Incidentally, you have been quoted extensively throughout that article regarding the alleged benefits of incest. Why focus only on that one quote? Why not bring up the entire article? But to do so would bring far too much attention to it, wouldn't it? Especially now, when you're on a book tour.

I know that the pro-incest statements that you made for that 1977 Penthouse article have followed you throughout your career. Why weren't those statements a casualty of that "Lace Curtain" you cite so frequently in your new book, "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say?" For those unfamiliar with the term, the "Lace Curtain" is an alleged tendency for most major institutions to interpret gender issues from only a feminist perspective, or from a combination of feminist and female perspectives. This is a men's movement creation. Warren, you cite the "Lace Curtain" as a primary force behind your publishing and media woes. So, why didn't the "Lace Curtain" affect that Penthouse article? Your statements were printed, and that issue was released without a hitch. It's still being talked about over twenty years later. It seems that this one time your views were expressed was the one time you wish the "Lace Curtain" did what you claim it does.

Your book tour won't go smoothly if the Penthouse gremlin keeps surfacing to disrupt your claims of being an "empowerment feminist." When you write that this Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson creature (What the heck IS that??? It's downright Lovecraftian.) is trying to brand "major leaders of the fathers' movement" as pedophiles, you're referring primarily to yourself, aren't you? This missive is really about you feeling threatened that too many people are going to find copies of that Penthouse article, and read it, isn't it? You definitely don't want that to happen. Bad for business.

It wouldn't look good for anyone to show up at book readings brandishing that Penthouse issue for all to see, and reading directly from it, would it? You coming out now, over twenty years AFTER that article was published, and saying that "it isn't true" just doesn't wash. Since you're promoting your new book, it's probably best to keep this business under wraps, isn't it? Don't let word get out that you have made pro-incest statements to a skin mag back in 1977. By the way, Warren, that is NOT the same as saying that you (or anyone else, for that matter) are a pedophile. I have NEVER said that you are a pedophile. I've never labeled anyone in the fathers' movement in that manner. For anyone to insinuate that I have is libelous.

I have NEVER been contacted by Robert NcNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida. You've never told me anything. I saw a vague letter on Usenet a few years ago which was purported to have come from you. It was forewarded by a men's rights activist. I was named, but you have never contacted me directly. Who is this "she" who has allegedly "persisted?" Is it that three-in-one creature? WHO is that? What kind of "damaging evidence" have the McNeely's found? I'd like to see copies of this "damaging evidence." Against whom was it found? What kind of a wild goose chase are you on here?

COME ON WARREN, OUT WITH IT!! ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME REGARDING THAT "PENTHOUSE" ARTICLE, PURPORTEDLY MADE BY YOU YET FOREWARDED BY MEN'S MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS, HAVE BEEN MAKING THE ROUNDS FOR YEARS. CITE SOMETHING VALID THAT PROVES YOUR POSITION. ALL OF THESE POORLY-VEILED THREATS ARE MEANINGLESS.

This is a very serious matter, to make the claims being made here, yet never having directly contacting me about them. It's also very serious in that none of it is true. Did you make up this statement, or have the McNeely's actually contacted you with "evidence?" Frankly, this claim is skating into libel territory -- real libel, not this vague nonsense you've written.

What "case?" And against whom? This isn't the first time you've threatened a lawsuit in connection with that Penthouse article that just won't crawl into the woods and die. Is this "case" against me? Against this "Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson" chimaera? What "correspondence?" Do you mean gossip you receive from fathers' rights advocates? Do you believe everything those people send you via e-mail? I hope not, but judging from what I've read in your new book, that is obviously not the case.

It's not a good idea to take what they claim at face value, Warren. What they don't say rightly damages the credibility of those who write in support of the fathers' rights movement. Contrary to your book title, plenty of women ARE hearing what men in the men's and fathers' rights movements DON'T say. A telling example of "what they don't say" is the "National Cry for Children" rally. Brad Ingram is the rally's founder and organizer. Contrary to the scads of press releases he has written, he isn't someone who just wants to be a good dad. Ingram is a convicted wife-beater, an alcoholic with two DUI's, and a deadbeat who hasn't paid child support since 1997. The aforementioned Kathleen Parker just wrote an article about that rally for USA Today. She's about to get a nasty wake-up call when she finds out the truth about certain people's personal backgrounds.

It's called "credibility," Warren. Or, in the case of claims made by many fathers' rights activists, the lack of it.

Why would anyone back off if what you claim here is right? What are you doing here? Allowing people who want to gang up on those who have spoken out about that Penthouse article a means of providing their opinion as evidence without giving those who speak out a chance to confront their accusers?

"You/us?" Does the "you" refer to disbarred attorney Hirschfeld? Who is the "us?" You and Hirschfeld? The fathers' movement and Hirschfeld? You and NCFC? Are any and/or all of you planning to make money from this latest "law suit?"

Carey Linde? Where did this person come from? And is Linde an attorney? You don't outright state here exactly who Linde is. What happened to the McNeely's? You don't respect their advice anymore? Are you even in contact with them? Just what kind of little game is this, anyway?

You've obviously written this missive in response to someone who had contacted you about ... what? You are very vague throughout the whole thing. Who contacted you? Since Hirschfeld placed this missive on men-law, did he contact you? Was he representing himself, or was he representing NCFC? Are these "concerns" related to this Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson creature who allegedly tried to get Kathleen Parker fired from her job? Or are they about that Penthouse article? Is money involved? This missive is very vague, Warren. It seems to me that the primary purpose of it isn't really to set things straight, but to keep this Penthouse business under wraps.

Word of advice, Warren: Don't accept what you are told at face value, especially when it comes to claims made in this missive.

A copyright on a libel threat? Some people will do ANYTHING to prevent other opinions from getting airplay, won't they?

Is this so that Women Can't Hear What Men DO Say on men-law because they'd rightly be outraged by the misogynistic content of that mailing list?