Then Makow discovered conspiracy theory. These days, he spends much less time denouncing feminism than he does attacking the secret Satanic-Jewish-Illuminati cabal that (allegedly) rules the world. Take a look at his site for a virtual buffet of conspiracy theory kookiness.
Today being Halloween, Makow treats his readers to a lovely piece by Richard Evans entitled "Halloween is Christmas for Satanists," and, yes, he's completely serious about it. Some of the pearls of wisdom found within:
Halloween as we know it was created by interests which we now identify as 'Illuminati' and Satanic. ... American children used to be protected by laws which no longer exist. They were protected by families and normal society. Before television it wasn't so easy for self avowed witches to get inside their heads. The Illuminati recognized Halloween as the opportunity to do that. ...
Halloween [has] graduated from benign harvest celebration into a Sex and Death festival. Sex and Death = Thanateros. Don't tell me that mix of costumes I saw at the grocery store last night dressed either as zombies, or SM sluts, (and I saw two cross dressing males) isn't a merger of sex and death.Despite the fact that he now lives almost entirely in crazyland, Makow still gets some attention from MRAs: here, for example, is the first in a series of YouTube intervews he gave an MRA last year on the evils of feminism. (See here, here, and here for more MRAs citing Makow approvingly.)
Still, I rather doubt there are many MRAs out there who actually agree with Makow that, for example, feminism is part of an evil plan by the Rockefellers to depopulate the world, or that the Satanic cult that secretly rules the world is introducing "Freemasonry ... as the New World Religion."
So where are the MRA critiques of Makow -- or of other MRAs who cite Makow? So far I've only run across a couple of MRA blog posts actually offering a critique of his tinfoil-hat politics. (Apparently, "conspiracy theorists are manginas" who use their "convoluted conspiracy theories to justify [their] manginaism." Meanwhile, our good friend Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech is annoyed that Makow has suggested, with his typical loopy logic, that all porn is gay.)
Are there any more MRA critiques of Makow out there I've missed?
I think that Henry Makow is a paranoid nutcase and a liability to the men's rights movement, and you can feel free to quote me on that.
ReplyDeleteI am from Europe, active as MRA, living in Asia since over 30 years. I never had anything to do with this 'Henry Makow' and I heard the first time about him when reading David's thread.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see by a quick internet-search, his literature is somewhat political, anti-Jewish orientated, what has this to do with the Men's Rights Movement?
He wrote something that 'feminism is an attempt to destabilize society' in his 'theories'.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but for sure feminism costs us all a lot of money, as it is a non-productive hateful movement.
Feminism is not even serving all women, but only certain groups of selected Western females, who are generally in a fairly good financially position.
Please check out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314747/Cherie-Blairs-Mauritius-trip-gaffe-summit-world-poverty.html
Henry Makow is largely ignored. What he seems to do is take known facts like Steinem's working for the CIA and their funding of various feminist publications and fused it with illuminatti conspiracy theory and religious ideology.
ReplyDeleteHes best ignored.
Like Malows nonsense, feminism is based mainly on conspiracy theory, patriarchy. These ideologies always feature an evil one or group/scapegoat, the devil, International Jewery, Patriarchy, Illumanity and so on.
ReplyDeleteFunny how a lone MRA isn't representative of the entire movement, yet MRAs quote every single thing Andrea Dworkin says as if it was taken from some secret feminist bible!
ReplyDelete@OP This is unsurprising honestly. It's rather clear that MRAs are operating with serious cognitive distortions of the world around them.
@Eoghan - (1) Patriarchy is real. Western civilization is based on the Roman culture (not to mention the Greeks, etc.) It literally means "rule by father" from the latin "pater". The family unit, where the father had complete and utter control including being able to murder and beat his children (including adult sons), and slaves (wives were usually under control of their father) was the basis for every other cultural institution such as government. For instance, the rich/high class were called "patricians".
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly, everything, even our very language,contains remnants of these cultures. Do you not think for instance the Catholic Church is a patriarchial institution? The God damn Pope was originally the Romans spiritual leader, pontifex maximus, and often the emperor, pater patriae (father of the fatherland) took on this title!
Here's a decent primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias
Even more, an essay on Roman Women:
http://www.moyak.com/papers/roman-women.html
Women did have some personal freedoms, but they had little chance for individuality or personal choice. They were under the constant supervision of their fathers, male relatives, and husbands, who regularly kissed them on the mouth to find out if they had drunk wine.(41) Drinking wine was strictly forbidden for Roman women and they could be punished by death. In Memorable Deeds and Sayings from the first century AD, Maximus tells of how Egnatius Metellus beat his wife to death for drinking wine.(42) ... Another controlling device that was used against Roman women was the practise of not allowing them to have personal names. Instead, a woman took her father's middle name or nomen and feminized it. From a Roman woman's name, you could tell who her father was and therefore, her position within society.(44) In either case, the women were not permitted to do anything they wanted with their own money, since personal wealth is always equated with power. Of course, there were some exceptions: mothers could spend money on their sons' political careers or education, and one can also read about Cicero's wife, Terentia, who had personal wealth and made land investments on her own. It would seem likely that women with wealth would have more power over their lives, but this would depend upon her father or guardian or husband. Women were expected to have a legal guardian because they were not considered smart enough to act in their own best interests. When Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, was widowed, she refused to marry again and as a result, made her own decisions, but this was very rare. The only real power that most women possessed was over their personal interactions within the circle of their friends and family. Still, women had to know their place, remain modest, be tireless, and both loyal and obedient -- emotionally, physically, and financially to their families. That was what Roman men were looking for.(46)
And consider Roman women actually had more rights than most women in antiquity.
Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt be taken litrally, there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to add here, David if you read up about the Rockefellers and Sanger, the Rockfeller family did fund Sanger and planned parenthood as a eugenics and population control program.
Tec
ReplyDeleteYou have compared apples and oranges. Its true that random comments and conspiracy theorist dont define the mens movement, its also true that the leaders and most influental feminists define feminism. When the mens movement quotes Dworkin and McKinnon etc, they are quoting feminists that are hugely influential in shaping modern feminism, modern feminist attitudes and large areas of law.
"Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt(1) be taken litrally(2), there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked."
ReplyDeleteOh yes, the evil wominz folk made up history and all the written evidence of that time is really false. (See what I mean about comparing MRAs to creationists? Because dinosaur bones don't prove nuttin!) Um, no. For instance, Maximus did not tell that anecdote about a man killing his wife for drinking wine?
What's your theory? Some feminazi wrote it instead and made it look old with a teabag? (So crafty...)
Again, grave cognitive distortions. Patriarchy is real. The evidence exists. You not accepting it doesn't change that.
"Its true that random comments and conspiracy theorist dont(3) define the mens(4) movement, its(5) also true that the leaders and most influental(6) feminists define feminism"
I see, it's only "Truth" if you agree with it. Bullshit. You're a self-entitled moron but that doesn't make you correct. Henry Makov is fair game. As David notes, he's still being interviewed. And what about the lawyer David wrote about who suggested taking up arms? He's posted on Paul's site, no? If you throw out Henry, you've got to throw out Mr. Arms and Paul as well.
Can't do both! (Unless of course, you like every other MRA is a complete and utter hypocrite.)
FYI, it's spelled:
(1) shouldn't
(2) literally
(3) don't
(4) Mens' Movement
(5) it's
(6) influential
Henry Makow WAS once quite influential in the MRM; he is less so today. (As are Dworkin and MacKinnon in feminism.)
ReplyDeleteSo Eoghan, in your mind, who are the influential MRA thinkers I should be discussing instead?
Obviously me.
ReplyDeleteThats a good question David but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with Makow. For fathers rights Glen Sacks is good, Pelle Billing in Sweden seems to be good on gender roles as is Farrel. You will find some academics here http://www.malestudies.org/4-7transcript.pdf
ReplyDeleteThe mr is grass roots, there are many many groups and individuals contributing in their own way, mainly by blogging. It differs from modern feminism, its not an academic discipline, there are no corporations or powerful political interests bank rolling it as is the case with feminism, its still in its infancy.
As for Dworkin and McKinnion not being influential, we seem to be lumbered with their ideas, I think that they are so ingrained in modern feminism that they are invisible, we cant go to work without living under McKinnions oppressive legislation, so influential is it that many smart men wont ride in lifts or be in closed offices alone with a female. She is so influential that women can take companies to the cleaners on very little ground, ask most feminists and they will say that these laws are correct while perhaps at the same time thinking that McKinnion has no influence.
Tec
ReplyDeleteYou need to read up about politicized revisionist history and you shouldn't take politicized revisionist history as being factual, its more fairy tale thats been written to suit certain political agendas than anything else.
What does it take to get added to your enemies list? I belong on it. You already know about my blog.
ReplyDeleteI know Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech has spent some time debunking Makow and the rest of the conspiracy theorists but I'm sure he's tired of them putting their fingers in their ears and going "la la la" to real facts and being accused of being part of the conspiracy.
Makow doesn't get talked about much among MRAs because he is regarded as a joke I think and Makow keeps to himself. He doesn't comment on any other blogs (or if he does it's not under his own name). Other than the reddit your examples of MRAs supporting Makow are all the same guy who is really just a mangina internet tough guy keyboard jockey and not a MRA.
Months ago on The Spearhead there was this conspiracy theorist called globalman who believed in the same feminism was created by the Rockefellers and Illuminati to depopulate the world but most of the MRAs didn't buy into his crap. (I particularly loved how globalman had a secret plan to survive the depopulation and his belief that the Rockefellers wouldn't care if he survived.) He ended up banned from The Spearhead being a problem (and I think other MRA blogs too). If Makow actually posted on other MRA blogs the same thing would happen to him.
Yes, Warren Farrell would be a good one to discuss.....oh, but wait....aren't his degrees and his research grounded in the "soft sciences"? [sideways glance]
ReplyDeleteFeminism was around before Sanger and Rockefeller put the volentary eugenics program inside it, feminists wanted birth control and clean abortions, progressive power wanted a eugenics/population control program and they both got what they wanted when the eugenics program was housed inside feminism. The main lobby group for volentary eugenics or "choice" was fronted by Gloria Stinem who by her own admission is or was a CIA asset. She has talked about CIA funding Ms. Mag.
ReplyDeleteChild care facilities and jobs for middle class women was initially proposed for its eugenic value by a eugenisist call Frederick Osborn, it was thought it would stimulate the growth of the middle classes.
So there is historical element of truth in what Makow says, but most of what he says is nonsense, Makow is regarded as an oddity and generally bad for the MM.
JD Rockefeller...
"He established the Bureau of Social Hygiene in 1913, a major initiative that investigated such social issues as prostitution and venereal disease, as well as studies in police administration and support for birth control clinics and research. In 1924, at the instigation of his wife, he provided crucial funding for Margaret Sanger in her pioneering work on birth control and involvement in population issues.[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr.
Pam, I dont think anyone is saying the soft sciences are inherantly bad, it depends who is doing the research, social research has been used to horrific ends, great tranches of groups have been gassed, and great traches of abuse victims have been hidden while the experiences of others have been exagerated for political and fiancial ends, for example.
ReplyDelete@Eoghan
ReplyDelete"You need to read up about politicized revisionist history and you shouldn't take politicized revisionist history as being factual, its more fairy tale thats been written to suit certain political agendas than anything else."
So actual evidence from the Roman period is "revisionist"? Really? So what, Maximus didn't write about how it was okay to beat a woman to death for drinking wine? Because I can get the actual quotation if you're that stupid, plus several others that prove my point...
Tec, if you heard it in womens studies its likely a politically correct adaptation of history thats intended to frighten, indoctrinate and stir up hate in impressionable young people for political ends.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, ancient greece and rome has little to do with feminist conspiracy theory today, hint - ancient.
Rule of thumb is a good example of feminist revisionist history that many young feminists were deliberatly conned into believing. There is also pseudo goddess history, pusedo matriarchy history, pusedo whchcraft history, pusedo research, conspiracy theories, pusedo egalitarian cultures... and on and on it goes.
ReplyDelete"its likely a politically correct adaptation of history thats intended to frighten, indoctrinate and stir up hate in impressionable young people for political ends."
ReplyDeleteHuh. That sounds a lot like what's on pretty much every MRA site I've ever looked at.
(I will check out Pelle Billing's site though.)
@Eoghan
ReplyDeleteI heard it in Roman History and Civilization studies.
You still haven't proven how actual quotations from physical evidence from the Roman period is "revisionist" in any way.
Basically, your comment amounts to saying this evidence is incorrect or faulty, which it simply isn't.
And given how eerily MRAs sound like Hesiod, discounting it as "ancient" and unrelevant is pretty stupid.
What's next? Let's throw out Sophocles' plays? Burn Caesar's memoirs? Maybe while we're at it, we can just take down the Pantheon, Flavian's stadium, Trajan's Triumph, Hadrian's wall, etc.
Oh, but if we do that I guess we'll have to get rid of Shakespeare and Moliere as well and don't forget the Bible , it's ancient too.
Here's your cake, Eoghan, did you want to eat it too?
ReplyDeleteSo, soft sciences are okay so long as the conclusions support the opinions you already hold.
I, for one, wouldn't say that soft sciences are inherently bad (even though my degree IS in a hard science, so don't go there), and I DO know that social research has been used to horrific ends and am appalled at that.
However, back to Farrell...
Farrell simply regurgitates back to MRAs popular opinions that they already hold regarding the marginalization or invisibility of men in some areas for which women appear to be getting all the attention, and he chooses to further lash out and blame feminists and feminism for the issues that men face rather than come up with or challenge men to come up with constructive ways to effect change in those areas. Just like most MRA blogs I've seen, he's full-tilt with the reactionary blame and juxtapositions to issues that women are trying to deal with and do something about for women, rather than DOING something about men's issues. Or is it that men still expect that women must take care of the DOING part for men and take care of all their needs?
For example, an extremely popular MRM topic (and one that Farrell touches upon) is that men's health issues aren't as important as women's health issues, evidenced by the fact that a lot of funding goes to women's breast cancer prevention and research. Prostate cancer is a men's issue, and they want to see more funding go towards prostate cancer prevention and research, and RIGHTFULLY SO. However, they are blinded to the fact that A HELLUVALOT of attention IS devoted to one particular men's health issue that not every man is currently or will suffer from (just as a lot of attention is devoted to one particular women's health issue, even though there are women who don't currently and may not suffer from it), and it was well-received by men and receives A HELLUVALOT of media attention and advertising. In fact, it probably receives so darn much media attention and advertising that the MRM may have forgotten that it IS a MEN's health issue. That would be erectile dysfunction. Oh my Lord, the research time and money that went into coming up with a solution for that has probably been paid back a thousandfold and then some!! And why the hell should the medical community, shareholders, pharmaceutical companies, etc., who are profiting so greatly from the sales of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis, for example, worry about prostate cancer when they're making A MINT off of drugs to correct erectile dysfunction. They are probably making FAR MORE in return for those drugs than they EVER would get in return for the money that would go into prostate cancer research and prevention, especially since it's pretty much a recreational drug now, far from its intended purpose of correcting the dysfunction for men who do truly need it. Ah yes, if men are going to die from complications arising from prostate cancer, better that they do it with a huge smile on their face and a raging hard on in their pants. And please, don't say that it's the feminists who are spurring on the sales of Viagra, etc., because THEY believe that men are nothing but sex machines such that erectile dysfunction should be so high up on the totem pole of men's health issues, oh no, that whopping bit of "misandry" comes from men, it's MEN who are saying it about themselves by placing such a high importance on it. It's stuff like THAT that the MRM and MRAs should be focusing on and trying to alleviate, rather than ranting about women's breast cancer research. Band together to find a way to get prostate cancer to be taken as seriously as, if not moreso than erectile dysfunction.
Tec, your argument here is irrational, a non sequitur.
ReplyDeletePam
ReplyDeleteThats standard reasoning for a feminist, womens proplems are all the fault of men, and mens problems are all the fault of men. It may be inconcieveable to you that a movement (feminism) that considers men and women to be political/class enemies and goes about winning this faux war through polmics and slanting the system in favour of women could be causing problems for men but its an illogical conculsion, given the facts.
As for Farrell, as he says himself, all he does is ask the same questions of men as he did with women when with NOW. Im wary of him as he reads like a marxist primer.
"Band together to find a way to get prostate cancer taken seriously".
What do you think the mens movement does if not band together to bring these issues to light. Thats what the mens movement does. Its about gender equality in many different sphears, healthcare included. Its fucked up that it has to be like that but thats the way feminism has set things up with its gender war, polmics and misandry.
@Eoghan
ReplyDelete"Tec, your argument here is irrational, a non sequitur. "
It's spelled "non sequitur", and you clearly don't know what it means. I would stick to english considering how many problems you already have with it before you take on latin. You said: "Like Malows nonsense, feminism is based mainly on conspiracy theory, patriarchy"
I point out that the Romans were patriarchs. Hell, the emperor was called pater patriae - "father of the fatherland", which incidently is related to our current term, patriot. Then you said:
"Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt be taken litrally, there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked."
You then, to disprove my point, give a pathetic straw man argument about Rule of Thumb, which, true to being a straw argument, doesn't disprove my original point, only seems to be related. How is that related to the Romans and their patriarchial institution? Please explain.
You then say, "And anyway, ancient greece and rome has little to do with feminist conspiracy theory today, hint - ancient. "
Well, if it hasn't anything to do with today, what the fuck is the Pope???? His title comes from pontifex maximus, the high Roman priest.
You still haven't effectively proven how actual sources from the Roman period, written by Romans, are somehow "revisionist". You apparently don't understand that concept either.
So in other words, Eoghan, prove how Romans were not patriarchs otherwise take back your previous statement that patriarchy is a conspiracy theory. Good luck with that.
Tec
ReplyDeleteAny society that doesn't have reliable birth control and the technology to sustain a surplus of female friendly jobs and a nanny state is going to be mainly male lead and women are going to be dependent on men, thats an inevitable outcome.
The conspiracy theories, political fear mongering, scapegoating, pseudo history and propaganda that feminism has built up around patriarchy is where the inaccuracy is found, its faux. Ideology designed by the manipulative the manipulate the gullible, its like a religion.
Feminist pseudo history also taught young impressionable young people ..
"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. … The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."
Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology —the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors".
http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965
Like as you say, the bible, feminist pseudo history shouldn't be taken literally. Your reverting back to something that Maximus probably didnt say 1000s of years ago to maintain a shaky position today is the feminist equivalent of a Christian quoting verses of genesis in an argument about evolution.
@Eoghan
ReplyDeleteSo your argument is as follows:
A myth about Romulus and Remus are obvy just that a myth...
and therefore, despite being actual sources from a written period in Roman history, we should ignore them as "false" as well? That's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.
"Your reverting back to something that Maximus probably didnt say 1000s of years ago"
The whole point is Maximus did say that. We have the source text.
Why don't you try, I don't know, reading instead of making stupid false assumptions and posting straw arguments that make no sense?
Eoghan, why don't you try reading this, and then get back to us:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Creation-Patriarchy-Women-History/dp/0195051858
Christians have their sacred text as do feminists.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you know what a straw man argument is Tec. Most of what you say here is fallacy based. The notion that events reported by womens studies which is a largely a faux academic discipline containing political indoctrination and ideology in the style of the old soviet education system, in ancient rome are somehow relevant today.
Even if Maximus did say that, and someone bothered to write it down you have the original script as you say.. its irrelevant today.
And your story is most likely like rule of thumb and the romulus and remus story, invented and presented as truth to the gullible to fuel a political movement.
@Eoghan
ReplyDeleteThey are not reported by women's studies. They are source texts!
Eoghan, you're a fucking moron if you simply can't understand that. What's next? Dinosaur bones are made up? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing - dismissing ages old evidence as not real because it doesn't fit with your world view.
And I've already pointed out how dimissing the Romulus and Remus myth isn't disputing actual source texts. Again, straw argument. You appear to be refuting what I'm saying by talking about something similar, but in no way actually refuting it. Straw argument.
Dispute actual source texts. Or shut the fuck up about stuff you don't know what you're talking about...
Farrell just keeps stirring the pot without offering any viable solutions, feeding off men's "righteous anger" and laughing all the way to the bank! He's found a 'niche market' that he can exploit for his own profit, much like the producers of Viagra, etc. The concern is no longer with helping men, it's profiting off the vanities and insecurities of men under the guise of "helping".
ReplyDeleteNo, it seems to be inconceivable to you that societies that have been mainly male led, slanting the system to favour men in order to sustain that lead position, could have caused problems for women. That's NOT to say that women are totally blameless, as many chose to capitulate and support systems that caused them problems (mainly just in order to survive). What men refuse to acknowledge is how these male led systems also did harm to THEM, especially those on the lower rungs of the hierarchical ladder, because they enjoy the privileges that were bestowed upon them...it's a tradeoff, but one designed by men, not women.
Sure men band together on MRM and MRA boards/blogs and discuss prostate cancer to bring these issue to light, but always in an adversarial manner comparing and contrasting to funding for women's health issues, such as breast cancer. Next thing you know, the comments devolve further into general women-hating and the actual topic has been lost. Anger appears to be more easily expressed by men than pleas for help.
But that doesn't mean that ALL of men's health issues are ignored or invisible because men are not important, just that the men's health issues that ARE taking precedence are garnering such huge profits for the big pharmaceuticals that they don't require extra funding or activities such as charity runs, blue (red, green, purple...) ribbon campaigns, etc. Instead of taking on breast cancer research as the pet whipping boy for the lack of funding for prostate cancer research, why doesn't the MRM take on the big pharmaceuticals that spend part of their profits on advertising to fund the Viagra, Levitra and Cialis wars instead of using that money towards developing a cure or preventative for prostate cancer? Discuss a letter writing campaign to the American or Canadian or whatever country's Cancer Society to ask what you can do to promote awareness of prostate cancer and what types of charitable activities can be done and then organize and join in those activities. For example, women will wear pink shoes and pink ribbons to sell same to raise money for breast cancer research, will men agree to, say, wear blue shoes and blue ribbons to sell same to raise money for prostate cancer research or would they deride each other for doing so?
Pam
ReplyDeleteMale lead societies were inevitable, it wasn't that it was slanted that way deliberately, its reliable birth control, technology and the nanny state that makes things more equal and historically it was, and still is men at the bottom of society, a woman at home was better off than a man in mine, (as we discussed, women fought the previous attempt at equality because the conditions were so bad) besides that should have little to do with feminism slanting the system in favour of women today, most people (mrm/real feminists) agree that equal opportunity is more favorable than coerced supremacy of one group over another and systemic bias.
As for the pink shoes and ribbons that women wear, "non profits" and charities make a fortune out of women, they will donate just 1% or whatever it is to research or whatever the cause might be, the real bias in healthcare funding is in the system, not in the "non profits" that make a fortune out of women wearing pink shoes and so on.
And mens rights groups do look at areas like healthcare research, you seem to be stuck on the idea that mens rights bloggers are incorrect because they are not working on a cause that you deem correct, something to do with viagra and prostate cancer... which makes little sense to me. The mens rights bloggers are doing what bloggers do, blogging from a mens rights perspective and telling people about the systemic biases, raising awareness, sharing information, making it known that feminism is lying about men. Were it not for the internet, most of us would have no idea about these systemic biases and legal inequalities. You may feel that challenging these biases and polemics and their source has no merit and feel that wearing coloured shoes and ribbons is where activism is at, but I disagree with you there.
David - from the review section
"Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal - "Using admittedly sparse prehistorical evidence..." I wont be reading that, it sounds like a political fiction.
Back to farrell, was he alright when he was doing the same work with women or was he always a bad person?
ReplyDelete