Scandal taints fathers' rights group — Debate

Preceding Message (message #2)

From: "Louise" <malenfant@powersurfr.com>
To: "David Shackleton" <editor@everyman.org>
Subject: Re: <no subject>
Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2001, 6:27 PM

---

Message #3

Reply

From: David Shackleton
To: Louise
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: <no subject>

Louise,

Thank you for your email expressing your concerns.  Your concerns seem to be that:

1. The opinions of Ferrel and others on child sexuality are troubling and unsupported by most parents,
2. That leaders in our movement (myself included, presumably, although you don't say specifically) support these ideas demonstrates the incompetence of our movement and is the reason for its lack of social credibility and success.

Well, you may be right about 1.  However, we both live in a country which holds the notion of free opinion and free speech as an important value, and I certainly hold it as a fundamental principle.  The notion that people should be hounded out of an organization or a movement on account of holding opinions that trouble others is a very dangerous idea, in my opinion, and I reject it totally.  Frankly, our whole movement is very politically incorrect: we feel that the way that society is dealiing with families in family court is inapprpriate DESPITE the fact that some in society see our opinions as wrong and troubling.  

I reject the whole NOTION of political correctness, which is a way of stifling free speech, free dialogue and free debate.  And so I encourage you to support your ideas and Ferrel to support his, and I trust that in the dialogue we will get to the bottom of who is right.  I note that only you and Donna are calling for the ejection of Ferrel from a democratic organization: he is not calling for your removal on account of you holding ideas that he disagrees with.  It is clear to me who in this argument is acting in a totalitarian fashion, and who is not.

Regarding item 2, I see it as quite implausible.  Frankly, the question of our movement's leaders' opinions about childhood sex has rarely been raised in our movement's literature, and rarely been highlighted by the media.  In fact, this is the first time I am aware of it becoming a major issue.  The idea that this could be the reason why we have failed to get significant social change or media attention is stretching the truth, at the very least.

Louise, I urge you to direct your considerable energy toward supporting principles of equality, freedom, due process, free speech and free association that are the healthy foundation on which we can mount our attacks on false allegations, family court bias, etc.  If we resort to the kind of guilt-by-association or moral panic that we are familiar with from our feminist opponents, we lose our only real claim to moral integrity.  Once we make a God of public perception, or hold one set of opinions as righteous and others as unrighteous, we have already lost the battle and slipped into the camp of those who think that something is right because it FEELS right to them.  This is the source of what John Fekete called moral panic in his book of that name.

I appreciate the important and dedicated work that you have done and continue to do in our movement.  I urge you to adopt a less righteous and more conciliatory attitude in your dealings with others in our movement.  Frankly, when we start shooting at each other, especially in public forums like media, THAT does far mor harm to our public credibility than the opinions held by some members on childhood sexuality.  I think that you made an error in taking your concerns about Ferrel to Donna Laframboise.

Thank you again for your work on behalf of families, and for sending your ideas to me. I have taken them seriously, and responded to them carefully.   I hope that you feel that a dialogue on these questions is satisfying.  I am convinced that healthy social change happens through dialogue, both within a movement and between a movement and the wider society.  On the other hand, there are many unhealthy ways to pursue social change, including coercion, threats, intimidation, shaming, etc.  One goal I hold is to encourage our movement to use only healthy approaches to our pursuit of social change, both in our interactions with each other, and in our interactions with the wider society.  The key to these healthy approaches is respect: do we respect those whose minds we seek to change?  Let me ask you specifically: do you respect Ferrel, and especially his right to his opinions that are different from yours?  If you do, then you have the foundation for a useful dialogue, where he will be willing to listen to you.  However, people's minds usually close swiftly when they detect disrespect.  One form of disrespect is when we have already "convicted" someone in our own mind, when we are sure that their opinions are illegitimate and wrong and shameful.  I work hard to remove such disrespect from my own mind, and I see doing this work as one of the keys to successful leadership.

Regards,

David Shackleton, Editor and Publisher
Everyman: A Men's Journal
PO Box 4617, Station E, Ottawa, ON  K1S 5H8, CANADA
http://www.everyman.org
"The World Changes When We Do"

_________________

Louise Malenfant's Response (message #4) to the letter shown above