Lies save trouble now, but may return in thunder and lightning. – Mason Cooley
For years, Melissa Farley has advanced her misandrist, anti-sex, anti-sex worker agenda with lies, distortions, omissions, out-of-context quotations, bogus studies and false generalizations, violating every ethical standard which is supposed to govern her avowed profession (psychology). Since she long reserved her attacks for a marginalized group nobody in her own country would defend, she grew increasingly bold and began to extend her attacks to those who were not quite so marginalized, with predictable results; she at last has gone too far, and Dr. Calum Bennachie of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective has filed a complaint with the American Psychological Association asking that they revoke Farley’s membership for gross ethical violations. Here’s the full text of the complaint (including its nine attachments) in PDF form, but since it’s quite lengthy (17 pages plus 98 pages of attachments), I figured most of my readers would prefer a synopsis. We’ll start with the introductory letter:
Over the years, Dr Farley has published a number of papers and documents about sex work, making claims that all sex work is a form of violence against women. She has used several of her studies to back this up. In 2008 Dr Farley published the paper What Really Happened in New Zealand after Prostitution was Decriminalized in 2003? [attachment 2] on her website critiquing the Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee. This critique contains several errors of fact that appear to be deliberately designed to mislead people. Many of the false allegations made by Dr Farley in this paper have been repeated by her in her efforts to stigmatise sex workers and keep them criminal. Dr Farley appears to have read the complete report, but has only reported or critiqued those parts that match her ideology. In investigating her comments on this paper further, it was discovered that Dr Farley had completed research in New Zealand in 2003 without seeking ethical approval from the New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPsS). It was also discovered that during the course of this research, she claimed to be able to diagnose sex workers as having post traumatic stress disorder, despite using a flawed questionnaire [attachment 7], and not doing in depth interviews. It is noted that Dr Farley has also completed other studies overseas, and investigations this year indicate that she never sought ethical approval, and sought to deliberately deceive the groups who facilitated the research for her. She has also been cited as an expert witness, yet the testimony given is false or misleading. Finally, the Canadian courts have found Dr Farley to be a less than reliable witness, finding her evidence “to be problematic”. For the reasons in the text below, I believe her work is unethical, unbecoming of a psychologist, and is in breach of at least sections 5.01 and 8.10 of the APA’s Code of Ethics, perhaps more. I believe that because of these breaches, Dr Farley should be removed from the membership of the APA.
Calum Bennachie
Just so we’re all on the same page, here are the relevant sections Dr. Bennachie cites; I think y’all will be able to immediately see how Farley violates them:
5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements
(a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive, or fraudulent concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.
(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for, or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings.
8.10 Reporting Research Results
(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.)
(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.
After the initial letter, Dr. Bennachie explains his points in depth. We already covered Justice Himel’s criticism in my column of July 24th, 2011, so let’s look at Bennachie’s other complaints:
Farley claims that street prostitution increased 400% after decriminalization. In 2003 the streetwalker population in Auckland was estimated to be 360, so according to Farley there should now be 1440; in actuality there are 230. Since Farley read the report, her claim of a 400% increase can only be an outright lie.
Farley claims that the “Law Review Committee was biased and blatantly favored the sex industry”. In actuality, the Committee included a former police commissioner, a Catholic nun, a criminologist and the coordinator of a group doing outreach to streetwalkers; considering that some of these people had spoken against the Prostitution Reform Act when it was being debated in Parliament, the claim that they were biased in favor of sex work is hardly credible.
Farley’s research in New Zealand was conducted without the approval of the New Zealand Psychological Society, and when she first arrived she hired a research assistant named Colleen Winn, who quit the job almost immediately over ethical concerns Farley refused to address. For example, two Māori prostitutes reported that their first sexual experience of any kind was at 9, but Farley misrepresented that as “Māori women enter prostitution as young as 9 years.”
Farley has exploited sex worker rights groups in a number of countries (such as South Africa) where she is not as well-known as she is in North America, recruiting them to assist her “research” by claiming to be an advocate for sex workers and then distorting the data they help her to collect in order to argue for increased criminalization and persecution of sex workers.
Since 1998, Farley has claimed to be able to diagnose sex workers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after the completion of a 15 minute self-administered questionnaire despite the fact that the National Center for PTSD states:
For making a diagnosis of PTSD…structured interviews will generally yield more valid results…[but those] that begin with a single gate-keeping item have poor validity for particular types of traumatic experiences. Also, structured interviews with brief, single-item, closed-ended questions for each PTSD symptom are likely to be no more valid for making a diagnosis than self-report measures…Proper assessment of PTSD is complex, and in a forensic setting, it should include substantial attention to corroboration of self-reports through a records review and collateral information…
Farley’s repeated assertion that “67 percent [of sex workers] meet criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD” is therefore not supportable by her methods.
In 2006, Farley told a Canadian Parliamentary Committee that since the PRA “organized crime had increased dramatically in New Zealand, while trafficking in persons had not declined”; there was no evidence for such a claim in any published study.
Farley deliberately misstates New Zealand law to make it seem “child prostitution” is out of control since decriminalization by claiming that police “have no right of entry into brothels, and have no right to ask for age-identification papers of those in prostitution.” In actuality, police are only forbidden from entering brothels without a warrant (except in certain emergencies), just as they are forbidden from entering any other business place without a warrant practically everywhere else in the free world. Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights states that no individual can be forced to provide information to the police (like American Miranda Rights); however, the police can certainly ask a brothel owner to provide proof of age for the workers, since such proof is required by law.
Farley represented statements that decriminalization had failed to decrease violence as coming from sex workers, when in fact they were unsupported statements made by members of anti-prostitution NGOs.
In attachment 6, Dr. Bennachie identifies and documents a total of 23 errors in Farley’s “critique” of the Prostitution Reform Act report. In his conclusion, he compares Farley’s methods and ethical violations to those of Paul Cameron, the anti-homosexual psychologist who was expelled from the APA in 1983, and asks that Farley be expelled in the same way and for the same reasons, namely gross ethical violations in furtherance of an anti-sex agenda. Here’s hoping the APA listens; though her disciples will only cling to her more, Farley would no longer be able to claim legitimacy to the government entities through which she does her worst damage.
One Year Ago Today
“Heart of Gold” explores the truth about the archetypal “Tart with a Heart.”
Farley comes across as a slightly unhinged prude, on a Victorian Moral Crusade to save people from themselves. Indeed, her agenda seems to have nothing at all to do with sex itself.
This is a site that seems to echo her views:
http://www.antipornography.org/sadomasochism.html
I’m not into S&M, but many women I’ve been with have been. If I had to count the number of women I’ve been with who had pretty shocking rape fantasies, I’d have to sit and consider long and hard and make a pretty big list.
She seems to have a very limited view of human sexuality – and seems at her core to have a strong dislike for heterosexuality in all its forms.
Why is she given any power at all? Who are her supporters?
She has two large groups of supporters: neofeminists, and politicians who recognize that neofeminism gives them excuses to control people.
An anti-pornography feminist lesbian who happens to be into BDSM takes her to task:
http://goingrampant.blogspot.com/2011/04/ten-misunderstandings-about.html
And apparently Farley *is* a lesbian. And given the tone and tenor of what she writes, I’m going to guess that she’s generally opposed to most conventional forms of heterosexuality.
Actually, it’s the only way to make sense of what she writes: She just doesn’t want men and women to have sex with each other.
It’s interesting, but why on Earth would heterosexual women give her any kind of power?
Is it just convenient toleration of a radical nutcase because it gives you more weapons to use in the sexual marketplace?
Just wondering.
People who are into one kink but want to restrict others (for example, anti-porn BDSM lesbians or anti-prostitution lesbians) lose all credibility in the mind of anyone capable of rational thought; unfortunately, most humans are incapable of rational thought.
Aint that the truth, I was kicked off of a pro-BDSM message board for daring to question ‘The Patriarchy’
Most humans ARE capable of rational thought; they just choose not to do it much.
Agreed; they’re capable, but not willing.
If I had to count the number of women I’ve been with who had pretty shocking rape fantasies,
I’ve always wondered if that isnt more about the baser animal portions of the brain needing fulfilment. We may live in the computer age where most everyone works in an office and guys are forced to vent their more aggressive tendencies thru videogames, but portions of our brains are still running reptile and mamillian animal code.
With guys in the west being raised in a social enviorment being told that their sexuality is wrong and perverted and that sex not initiated and guided by the woman is practically tantimount to rape, I’m wondering if ‘rape’ fantasies, most of which arent really about rape so much a just a lack of control, isnt a backlash against the lack of masculinity in most guys these days
That’s not the point. It’s the *women* who had these fantasies, who wanted to be overrun by the power of a man: who wanted to be, in varying degrees, ravaged.
I’m always game, of course, but I can be sensitive and gentle, too. I like it all ways. I’m male: Deliver it in whatever package you want: I pretty much like sex.
It was women who seemed, to me, to be “deviant”.
In fact, it’s women I hear complaining most about the effects of feminism and neo-feminism. I have to work, men think I’m a loser if I have to work, where are the masculine heroes of the old days, why can’t a man just take care of me, why don’t you understand that my “no” means “Push harder and convince me”, why don’t you just tell me to shut up some of the time and stop kowtowing to all of my demands, because it makes me look down on you and lose respect for you, those European men seem so strong and tough, wow check out those taciturn no-emotion erotic heroes, who wants some blubbering modern feely-touchy guy, etc.
if you listen to what women *actually say*, I’d say there are few women I’ve ever actually known who would be bona-fide feminists. Or men who are bona-fide misogynists. In fact, most people are exactly like all other people from every period in history: They just don’t care.
Almost everyone isn’t a revolutionary.
And when it comes to sex, I think far more is hard-wired into both the male and female – into the human – brain than we like to admit.
I like T&A. I like a certain body shape. it turns me on. it does this if I want it to or not. I want to mate with women. I imagine having sex with them. I’m male. Every male mammal does exactly the same thing.
Females do it, too, they’re just much more selective and more cunning about it. Their sexuality seems filled with contradictions and very intelligently planned amorality.
It’s true, men are dogs. We’re obviously supposed to be this way, because it’s as true here in Korea as it is in Boston or anywhere else.
There’s clearly a basis for all this crap in human sexual programming, something which the Farleys of the world seem hell-bent to deny or reprogram.
Good luck with that.
I meant “Men think I’m a loser if I don’t work” = the man I’m with wants me to work and I wish it was easier, like I didn’t have to work and he could make the money
But I think this is true: The biggest whiners about the losses that have hit traditional values through feminism generally are not men. Men just go along with it; we just want pussy. When you get right down to it, so long as the road ends up in getting laid, we’re pretty much good with anything. We’re easy that way.
But the biggest complainers I’ve encountered are women. it’s endless. The issue: Wanting your cake and eating it, too.
Actually, I feel truly liberated by feminism, even neo-feminism. Marriage is poison, monogamy is sexual slavery and ownership, women should be free to be with anyone whenever they want without consideration of any implications or issues, ie anyone is free to have sex with me if I can convince them to, and —
And women are expected to work, or they’re losers and stupid just like men; women should be equals, so let’s work towards complete equality, therefore any idea of “motherhood” as sacred gets turfed, and fathers have absolutely equal rights or are owed them; alimony is financial rape and is unjustified, it also infantilizes women – you mean you’re not independent? What kind of loser human are you, some useless dependent child-adult? Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? What a disgusting example of sloth and laziness.
Actually, if embraced and taken to its logical conclusion, feminism and neo-feminism could be pretty damned amazing for the right kind of man.
The kind of man who is now free to concern himself with *himself* and has *NO OBLIGATIONS* to women as a special category: They’re just convenient sexual partners and nothing else.
This is what modern feminism and neo-feminism preaches, really.
If you swallow the pill properly, it’s not actually a raw deal for men. You need to hold these people to their own beliefs, though, because usually they try to get the best of both worlds (women work but keep alimony; absurd definitions of rape but “sexual agency” – etc.)
Who is it a raw deal for?
Neofeminists can scream at me, but it seems to me that neofeminism seems to give it all to women, but in fact–
It’s a pretty damned raw deal for women, to hear them talk about it.
So I say: Whenever you hear this ideological extremism being bandied about, just make sure you hold them – and *all women* – accountable to the policies they support. All the time.
Any woman who chooses to be a housewife is a loser and a pathetic excuse for a human being. Any woman who values motherhood over personal achievement is a disgusting throwback and a voluntary slave. Any woman who wants a man who is stronger than her is a vomit-inducing self-delusional slave to Men and has to be Educated to be properly Independent and Free of Patriarchy – ie, to be more freely sexually available to whoever she chooses.
(note to men: Use whatever means to acquire sex without obligations; feminists and their ilk are awesome for this very utilitarian purpose, because the argument “But I don’t believe in X traditional value system” goes right to the core of their ideology; learn the language and you can smooth your way to as much free, obligation-less sex as you want).
So women advance to 35, 38, 39, 45, 50 without being married, with men who are just as free to do whatever they want sans obligations of any kind, because that’s freedom.
I guarantee you, the primary long-term victims of neofeminism are not men. If we adapt, actually, this might not be a bad world. Just stay out of the nexus of conflict and you might come out better: It plays into male sexual interests quite effectively.
I’ve always observed that the biggest losers in this equation are women.
As Big Paternalistic Daddy Government takes the place of the men that once protected and guarded women, women become just as oppressed as men. And they wonder why.
Once again, women betray women. As always, moral and philosophical consistency is the purview, on average, of men. And the women who are able to see through the murky ideological waters to the reality on the other side.
Oddly, the two women who have spoken directly about this in the most clarity to me about these issues are from utterly different cultures. And both were once prostitutes.
One is Maggie; her writing is astonishingly consistent and rings like a bell. All of her readers agree. Unlike what I scribble, she’s well-composed and concise.
The other isn’t a writer, it’s a former prostitute who schooled me in pragmatic ideology.
For example, two Māori prostitutes reported that their first sexual experience of any kind was at 9, but Farley misrepresented that as “Māori women enter prostitution as young as 9 years.”
So, what was that first experience? Kissing a boy? Masterbation? Simply having a sexual thought about another person?
The questionnaire appears in the PDF, and was purposefully vague:
One woman might interpret that as meaning masturbation, another as kissing, and another as penetration, but only a lying, unprincipled fanatic could possibly interpret it as “first act of prostitution”.
May the swallows always return to Capistrano… and the pigeons always return to the likes of Farley.
The thing which really REALLY pisses me off, is that Farley is no Kent Hovind she got her degree (as far as I’m aware) from a reputable American university so she knows damn well what PTSD is and how to properly diagnose it. In spite of that she (and her followers) still make the “connection” between consensual adult sexual encounters with what’s experienced by rape survivors, combat veterans and those who’ve had sudden critical ill health.
There is no excuse for this behaviour, I hope the APA make an example of her and hang her out to dry. Hopefully it will make certain journalists more careful on who and what they quote.
Aye, there’s the rub TheDudesAreEmerging, in Farley’s world there is no such thing as consensual adult sexual encounters between heterosexuals- paid or not. It’s all this giant rape continuum.
Ha, Kent Hovind. I wonder what he’s up to now…
Ah yeah, I forgot that Melissa lives in a fantasy land where reality has a Patriarchal bias! 🙂
Kent’s probably writing in prison a big book glossing over his dishonesty and about how the evil scientists framed him etc….all I can say is, thank God for youtube!
I thought Kent Hovind was a prank when I first heard about him. Some protracted skit from SNL or The Onion. Then I was like, “Ohh…he’s serious. Wow.”
And on that note, I translated (roughly – I’m sure it reads like a 15 year-old’s wanton mangled text) some of Maggie’s stuff into Korean for her. I don’t get together with her and her fiance much, given that they’re about to get married.
But she’s fascinated by these ideas. If I can get around to it, I think it would be of some value to have Maggie’s work generally translated.
I’ve spent a lot of personal time here collecting resources for a possible documentary on sex work in Korea and attempts to regularize it, given that it’s so profoundly pervasive here and almost all men visit a prostitute at some time, and up to 13% of the female population is somehow involved in the sex trade.
This country is bristling with research opportunities. Sex is a powerful theme here, riddled with hypocrisies and torturous realities and hidden truths.
The other target is China. I go there in a month.
But all this material – I wish it was available in Korean. It would be expensive to translate; my pathetic attempts are crude, at best. A good translation could make Maggie an overnight star in this country.
You’d be surprised how much power is had by dainty 21-35 year-old “sex workers” who seem to know their country’s movers and shakers and have solid opinions on everything.
My ex has nuanced opinions on Lee Myun-Bak that are worthy of the best editorial writers. Not that she cares.
G,
So this is where you hang now, huh?
Let’s see you a little more at home base. 😉
Here’s hoping the APA listens; though her disciples will only cling to her more
Oh, Melissa Farley would love to become a martyr. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, she’s totally ” running for ‘Jesus’ “.
I have post-traumatic stress disorder and it’s VERY upsetting to read how Farley was “diagnosing” people. Disgusting and wrong! My diagnosis came from a wonderful psychologist who didn’t operate Farley’s way at ALL (thank God!). The others who gave me the same diagnosis didn’t do it Farley’s way either. This is something that’s very important to expose because there’s still way too many who believe lies about PTSD that have been around for years. Farley wasn’t helping the situation. The more times this information is put out online and off the better. Thanks for posting it!
It’s good to see a Professional who sincerely gives a good goddamn about the reputation of his profession. I hope the man succeeds. Not that that would stop Farley; she and her True Believers will interpret the censure as another manifestation of The Patriarchy, and suffer on nobly.
*spit*
In my wide reading I have run into these ‘all sex is violence against women” nut from time to time. At base they want to indict whoever designed humans; God, Goddess, or Whatever, and I am reminded of a conversation from an old Fantasy novel (the name of which escapes me)
“So, basically, he wants to argue with the Gods.”
“That’s right, and there’s a word for people who do that.”
“There is? What?”
“Char.”
From a historical novel about the Victorian Era.
“But English women still have babies, don’t they?”
“Yes, but most of them feel that the good Lord could have made it a less vulgar proceeding.”
I don’t think what Maggie calls “neofeminism” is going anywhere w/o a world war that extends its killing to American soil. So short of what is rather hopefully called limited nuclear exchange any serious removal of feminists from their extraordinary power is laughably unlikely.
Too fat a tumor; too deep a cancer. Not gonna get cut out w/o something sharp stuck in deep.
What was it Travis was musing about in the cab?
FINALLY!
Re the 400% increase, I believe that was the figure used by opponents of law reform before the law was ever brought in (as in, “if this law comes in there will be a 400% increase”). Didn’t happen but I suppose they reckoned that was no reason to waste a perfectly good fake statistic.
I’m always amazed when female lawheads make such arguments; I can only assume that they’re so divorced from their own femininity that they actually believe that arbitrary laws stop most women from doing what they need to do. 🙁
Since many members of the APA rely on fraud to make a living, I would be surprised if Farley is removed.
Look at the APA’s 2007 Report on the “Sexualization” of Girls, as if you are born asexual and there is a proper age at which you should “become” sexualized!
Check out my video interview on YouTube about how breast shame is actively instilled in children:
If the video link doesn’t work, go to YouTube and search the keywords “breast shame.”
I had trouble playing it even after that. This may not be your fault or even YouTube’s, though. My browser has been acting weird.
I don’t think this is the first attempt to report Farley see
http://www.parliament.nz/enNZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/1/d/f/47HansS_20030611_00001073-Beyer-Georgina-Prostitution-Reform-Bill.htm
The relevant quote is “Finally, it is the opinion of Ms Winn that this study (Farley’s) “was not ethical, and the impact has done harm to those women and men who took part in it. It is for that reason that I am writing to the psychologists board of registration in California to lay a formal complaint regarding Melissa. I also believe that Melissa has committed an act of intentional misrepresentation of fact.” I wonder what happened to that complaint. ?
Dr. Bennachie mentions and quotes Winn’s complaint in the full document. I suspect that was just treated as an individual gripe, whereas this is a full, formal submission from a professional of equal standing.
Melissa Farley might be, like Andrea Dworkin, a fake “lesbian” who does not actually have sex with women.
This article quotes a Dworkin’s longtime friend saying, “In 30-plus years of knowing her, I’ve never heard of a single romance with a woman—not one.” Dworkin claimed her relationship with her husband was platonic and that both were gay, and the article quotes her husband stating that he had male partners, but when asked if he had a sexual relationship with Dworkin, replying “We were very close.”, which implies that the answer is yes.
Not that I think Melissa Farley has sex with men. Dworkin gave herself away by writing what the article calls “too many smoldering descriptions of heterosexual sex to count”, but Melissa Farley gives no indication of any interest in ANY kind of sex.
I suspect Melissa Farley is a totally sexually repressed celibate.
Actually, I suspect she’s not lesbian at all. I suspect she’s asexual.
About 10-15% of the human population is functionally asexual. Oh, they get pleasure from sex, but if they never have it, that’s also fine. They have little to no sexual drive and no great interest in physical affection of the romantic kind.
While there are wild differences in sexual interest, with some men and women randy as all get out and some not much at all, there are some people who seem to be uninterested in sex on a fundamental level.
A lot of these people are far from repressed; they’re just not interested.
Many tend to have almost puritanical views of sex, because they can afford to. They don’t care if their views impede sexuality: they effectively have none.
I’ve known both men and women like this. A lot of moralists and victorian-style conservatives are often these “asexual” people, who have no trouble advocating for repressive and destructive anti-sex legislation – because they either find sex uninteresting and irrelevant and therefore easy to dispense with, or they find it actually repugnant.
I suspect Farley is one of these. She gives every indication of it.
Why such people are allowed to comment on other peoples’ sexuality is beyond me.
I don’t know whether Melissa Farley is sexually repressed with a buried libido, or asexual with no libido. All I know is, Melissa Farley doesn’t have sex, and hasn’t had sex in decades, if ever. I’ve seen her on film, and she gives off a totally sexless, nun-like aura, so either she’s asexual and never had a libido in the first place, or she used to have a libido but she repressed it until it died.
I vote for the latter; judging by the smell, she never bothered to clear it away after it died and just left it to rot inside the walls. 🙁
Maggie, it’s interesting that you agree with my first hunch that Melissa Farley used to have a libido. I understand that some people are just born without libidos, but I don’t get that vibe about Farley. The vibe I get about Farley is that she repressed her libido as a reaction to some form of sexual violation.
Not all anti-prostitution, anti-porn feminists seem sexless; Gloria Steinem doesn’t.
Gloria was so much more sex-positive in her early years of activism before the Puritan Parade of feminism started molding her.
Hooray!
That is all.