A while back, on Laelaps's blog, I had a contretemps with Matt Moneymaker, head of the BFRO.  Although he resolutely refused to read my book--because it was supposedly part of some literary scam--he thought he understood the details of my argument and also could suss out my personality.

I let the issue go then, and don't mean to revivify it now.  Participants at the BFRO forum were convinced he had gotten the better of argument.  I disagree, but otherwise leave it to the reader to decide.

What I've been thinking about recently, though, is the way that his attack supported the thesis of the book.

One argument I made was that Bigfoot was popular among (some) working-class white men because through it ideas about masculinity could be wrestled with--not necessarily solved, but confronted and played with.

So, it's no surprise, then, that Moneymaker would boil the argument down to masculinity.  He suggested that I was homosexual--and, more than that, a gay man who was uncomfortable with his own sexuality and could not be a true man, but let the world hold me back.

I let the comment slide at the time because, in part, I don't want to take offense at being called gay.  I'm not, but I don't want to treat the term as pejorative, which, i think, was part of Moneymaker's intent.  I also let it slide because it seemed to me then--as it does now--that Moneymaker proved the weakness of his own argument by resorting to questions about sexuality--forgetting any attempt to deal with, you know, evidence and logic.

But, I think it is worth noting as a data point which supports the thesis.  Bigfoot, at least as it's been understood over the last half-century or so, often raises questions about the authenticity of masculinity.
 


Comments

t'mara
11/05/2010 19:49

i went to a PA bigfoot meeting recently and could pick out the hunters from the witnesses. the witnesses were normal looking people, a son and his mom, husband and wife...the "researchers" on the other hand were each alone, surly, diffident to those around them but intent on the subject of hunting and killing a bigfoot they wore camo clothes or plaid, leaned back in their seats with arms crossed and stuck out their long legs and big obtrusive boots without concern for those trying to walk past. they had a glowering attitude, very authoritarian, conceited, all ideas or experiences outside their comfort zone (which was apparently small) were met with derision, ridicule. there was no discussion about any spiritual or interdimensional aspects...nothing of that sort was tolerated.
they had an overbearing "fascist-like" control of the meeting. oddly enough and the reason i mention it, was they all shared a distain for matt moneymaker, there was hooting and sniggering when his name was mentioned, but i could not find out the reason for this. i didn't understand, because the bfro is notorious itself for restating witness repots and ignoring
anything they would consider slightly fringe.
but apparently mm has his detractors within the ultra conservative STP (sasquatch thought police.)

i agree completely with you that the search for bigfoot for some men has issues of sexuality (and perhaps their own closeted homosexual tendencies.) odd that's what mm would throw at you...and telling perhaps. do you remember the coleman gaffe of a while back? coleman had described an incident in "The Creature" where a male bigfoot has sex with a female cow. he described the bigfoot as "gay." ?! people tried to explain his mistake but he just didn't seem to get it.

i'm looking forward to reading your book, to see if you comment at all on erik beckjord, henry franzoni's theories, two witness/researchers who have had quite different styles in reacting to paranormal bigfoot, the f&b- paranormal divide, and the current p-g film theories (massacre at bluff creek.) what do you think the deeper meaning of that issue is all about?
have you ever attended a bigfoot conference?
do you continue to follow these issues since the publication of your book?
thanks for an interesting blog, t'mara

Reply
Joshua Buhs link
11/16/2010 14:25

t'mara,

Thank you for sharing your insights.

I agree that there is a divide between many witnesses and hunters. I originally had hoped to do something with the witness reports for the book, but the project ended up taking me in a different direction. I do end up discussing some of Beckjord's theories, but not Franzoni's, as part of a more general discussion about the split in bigfootery between the zoological school and the paranormal school. I'm afraid that I am not very sympathetic toward Beckjord.

My read of the animosity toward Moneymaker from other hunters is that there is this: it is a function of the jealousy that is rampant in the bigfoot community between most hunters. Moneymaker is especially prominent, and therefore especially open to attacks.

Again, thanks for your observations.

Reply
left field
06/29/2011 02:13

It is not jealousy that pushes people to dislike moneymaker its his attitude and smart mouth. He never passes an oportunity to belittle someone who disagrees with him or call them names and curse them. Every forum he has posted on has seen him go on personal attacks of anyone who didn't bow to his word. Moneymaker is a classic school yard bully.

Reply



Leave a Reply