What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Male Power
The Myth of Male Power documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable--disposable in war, disposable at work--and therefore, indirectly, disposable as dads. Universities teach our children that we live in a patriarchal world controlled by men to benefit men at the expense of women. Dr. Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power says “false”: the world has not been controlled by men, but by the need to survive. By redefining power as “control over one’s life” and examining the sacrifices both moms and dads made so their children's lives would be better than theirs, The Myth of Male Power paves the way to love and appreciation between the sexes. Dr. Farrell says failure to understand men hurts everyone. It makes women feel oppressed and angry; it makes men feel unloved and unappreciated. It fuels hate between the sexes at a point in history that would otherwise possess great potential for love between the sexes. It does this by keeping us ignorant of male pain and powerlessness. The Myth of Male Power is a captivating journey around the world, throughout history, biology, the Bible, the law, and everyday life, challenging every currently-held assumption about men, women and the family. It empowers both sexes to ask the questions we need to began a genuine dialogue, such If men are the powerful sex… - Why are they the suicide sex? (Why are we unaware that our grandfathers are 1350 percent more likely to commit suicide than our grandmothers?) - Why did men live one year less than women in 1920 but five years less than women in 2013? - Why are our dads more likely to die earlier of the leading causes of death even as we have seven federal offices of women’s health, and none of men’s health? - Why are our sons still sex expected to pay more for the 5 D’ drinks; dinners; dates; driving expenses; and diamonds (as in “every kiss begins with Kay”)? - Why do myths such as “men earn more money for the same work” persist even though they’ve been disproven? - Why do men receive longer prison sentences for identical crimes? Dr. Warren Farrell is the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City. He started more than 300 men and some 200 women’s groups. He is the developer of a new method of highly-effective couples’ communication, Cinematic Immersion. Dr Farrell has listened to both sexes for about a half century. Unique in his ability to write in a way that articulates men’s feelings, he helps women feel more love for the men in their lives. He helps us - Why feminism freed women to discover alternative senses of purpose to raising children, but nothing has freed men to find an alternative purpose to raising money; - How this void of purpose contributes to a boy crisis; - Why the very process required for men to succeed at work often leads them to fail at love; - Why no one benefits when we feel that God could be a she but not that the devil could also be a she; - What both sexes can do to minimize date rape and domestic violence. Dr. Farrell contends that the historic “battle of the sexes” has become a war in which men put their heads in the sand and hope the bullets will miss. He proposes neither a women's movement blaming men nor a men's movement blaming women, but a gender liberation movement that fosters a transition from rigid roles of our past to more flexible roles for our future.
604 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 1993
317 people are currently reading
4167 people want to read
About the author
Warren Farrell
27 books259 followersWarren Thomas Farrell is an American educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues.
He came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). However, he left NOW and is now recognized as an important figure in the modern men's movement.
His books cover ten fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples’ communication (Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, and Father and Child Reunion); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to men's and women studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.
He came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). However, he left NOW and is now recognized as an important figure in the modern men's movement.
His books cover ten fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples’ communication (Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, and Father and Child Reunion); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to men's and women studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
June 7, 2012
i tried to read this book because I was on a mission to find one MRA that wasn't a total misogynist. Little do they realize feminism fights for many "men's issues" but I digress.
I barely got through the first 2 chapters before pitching it. I threw out a book! That is how awful I thought it was. The examples Warren Farrell uses to demonstrate his point are very very outdated. I know the first edition of this book was in early '90s but many of his examples lack sources and are completely irrelevant to any society not based on tv shows from the 1950s.
I wanted to find one Men Rights Activist that wasn't a total misogynistic loon but alas this guy isn't it. I'll just stick with Michael Kimmel since he makes a much stronger case to explain the failure of masculinity and how patriarchy shackles every ONE.
If I would have read more of it, I could offer up a more detailed review, but I don't even want to bother.
I barely got through the first 2 chapters before pitching it. I threw out a book! That is how awful I thought it was. The examples Warren Farrell uses to demonstrate his point are very very outdated. I know the first edition of this book was in early '90s but many of his examples lack sources and are completely irrelevant to any society not based on tv shows from the 1950s.
I wanted to find one Men Rights Activist that wasn't a total misogynistic loon but alas this guy isn't it. I'll just stick with Michael Kimmel since he makes a much stronger case to explain the failure of masculinity and how patriarchy shackles every ONE.
If I would have read more of it, I could offer up a more detailed review, but I don't even want to bother.
September 4, 2013
So I picked up The Myth of Male Power with one goal in mind. I wanted to hear about the female privileges that have been overlooked by feminists and society.
Now keep in mind, I’m not anti-feminist or anything like that. I’ve been interested somewhat in feminism ever since following a youtuber known as FeministFrequency. While I disagree with her views sometimes, I find them interesting to hear. (Plus, my girlfriend is also a feminist.) But my real concern came when I was on tumblr. There are so many social justice and feminist blogs out there and some of them almost seem to dismiss the concerns of men. Some will say that female privilege and misandry don’t exist. While I do agree that there are certain rights that females lack and that there is a certain amount of sexism against women in society, nobody ever looks at the other side. Sure there were some situations where I wondered if it was better to be a woman. I can recall several times when a female has made a rape joke about me or about men and general saying something like “Watch out, I think she might rape you” or “If you got raped, you’d probably enjoy it.” Yes, males rape females more than the other way around, but that’s led to the trivialization of males getting raped. (Which is mostly done by other males.) Previously, I would’ve never considered anything such as men’s rights before, but I realized that men almost never get any attention like women do.
So reading Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power was something that I was interested in. There were plenty of things that I felt were overlooked by society on a whole. I don’t hear about men’s rights very often and while many people will look down upon this because they believe the universe is somehow rigged in our favor, there were still things that I’ve always wanted to hear about. I’m not just talking about the obvious like the draft and whatnot, but other minor things that males have to face every day. When picking up this book, I had two things I wanted to see: facts and statistics. Warren Farrell does a great job with citing hundreds of different studies done on both genders and tackles several points such as psychology, financials, sex and societal pressures. He examines multiple sides of his issues and proposes a solution at the end of each chapter, often advocating some sort of socialization.
He opens up with talking about the draft for war. While this may seem outdated, even more so because this book is rather old, he does bring up a good point. If it was something which targeted females, it would be sexist. If it were something that targeted any ethnic group, it’d be racist. When it targets men, it’s meant to be empowering. Those phrases such as “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” or “Man up” are ones often used to encourage such behavior, as if it’s our social duty to always be strong protectors. This does put somewhat of an unnecessary stress on men and he brings up millions of examples throughout history not limited to the Vikings, Spartans, Christians and your everyday husband. In several societies, men were taught to become disposable and not fear death. They simply became cogs within the machine.
This relates to how he talks about the man’s role as the provider to the household. While women can choose to have a job or be a stay at home mom, men only have one option it seems. Farrell gives several examples and cases of how this affects men in a negative way. Further down the book, there is a discussion about men’s occupations within the best and worst jobs – different than the lowest-paying jobs. Warren Farrell cites some statistics showing that men did (and probably still do) occupy stressful jobs more often than women do and he later gives a hypothesis as to why this happens. Furthermore, he talks about the stress of unemployment, especially the unemployment of men who were once successful, because they tend to define their self-worth by their income. While men are often seen as being the “strong sex,” he highlights the important and unfair pressures that his has on men’s psychology and health.
A lot of these lead to the early death of men. Men are more likely to commit suicide. The suicide rate for men is six times higher than that of women, if I remember correctly. Farrell talks about the way gender roles affect this – men are pressured to bottle up their emotions and not express them. Men also die on the job a lot more. They hold more dangerous jobs than women such as firefighters, garbage collectors and police officers. The industrialization of men who need to support their wife and child also causes stress, leading to a shorter life span.
In the last third of the book, Warren Farrell describes the government as being a substitute husband for women. This covers more than just financial support after a divorce. It covers several injustices done throughout history done against men and in favor of women. In the first part about murder, he talks a lot about many cases and excuses that women have used to get less punishment for a violent crime such as murdering their husband. It shows how men are often sentenced unfairly to longer periods of time in prison and how much of male behavior was considered to be sexual harassment.
He also brings up dozens of social examples, some of which feel like he is generalizing. One of which that immediately caught my eye was the obligation to pay on dates. Since men are said to make more money, they pay for dates 10 times more often than women. But he brings up a counterpoint. When two women are on a date, does one say “Oh you make more money than I do. You pay for the date”? The examples he gives are extremely varied. Sometimes it’s just “When a man does this, this happens to him. When a woman does this, this happens to her.” Other times he cites many documented cases of injustice (mostly of the legal variety) against men. He also pulls from history, everywhere from Roe vs. Wade, the Vietnam War, the Bible and the Great Depression.
Keep in mind that not everything he says is pure gold. Like I said before, he tends to generalize and sometimes even stray from the point. He brings up very rogue situations sometimes and makes big comparisons. For example, he talks about the stress of unemployment for a man being equivalent to rape of a woman. While he does explain it well, I think it’s a rather inappropriate comparison. He also talks about “football scholarships” being “mutilation scholarships.” Some examples seem almost irrelevant if not completely wrong. One major example was his near-dismissal of the Salem Witch Trials as being a way of controlling women. He obviously needs to read the Malleus Maleficarum. That book is chock-full of misogyny.
Furthermore, I really grew tired of his Stage I and Stage II philosophies. They talk about how men’s and women’s roles have changed throughout time. While I do trust his credibility, they seemed rather irrelevant at times, and I just grew tired of hearing about them.
However, my biggest gripe with this book was the talk of rape. He uses it a lot as a metaphor, but his chapter about The Politics of Rape seems to somewhat border on victim blaming. However, his points do shine through…somewhat. He talks about the misinterpretation of body languages and gives examples of where people were drunk, thinking within the heat of the moment or felt pressured some way to give into sex. He cites a statistic saying that most people have felt pressured into unwanted sexual activity at one point in their lifetimes. This leads to a broader definition of rape. I, for one, can cite certain points in my life where I’ve been pressured to do something or when my partner made a move without asking for consent. I’m unsure how to feel about this chapter, but I know it’s a delicate subject and must be handled carefully.
Finally, one must take this book with a slight grain of salt. Being about 20 years old, many of the facts may seem dated by now. While I can still relate to some of the things he’s saying, I think the example of the draft is one that may be far too old to be considered. He enjoys talking about the Vietnam War quite a lot, and I assume that it’s because it was current during his generation.
Even while disagreeable at some points, The Myth of Male Power is a well-researched and well-documented book. The main idea which I have gotten was that misogyny and seeing the woman as the weaker sex has had negative effects on both genders. Society’s focused care on women has almost neglected men. This book may be a bit outdated, but it’s still an interesting perspective for anybody who wants to take a look at an uncommon issue.
The book, as well as Warren Farrell have been wildly influential in the ever-growing men's rights movement. While the movement is tiny in scope compared to feminism, it's hard to believe that such an unknown book has made such a big difference. Just watch youtuber men's rights activists like manwomanmyth and girlwriteswhat and you'll see just how many of Farrell's ideas play into their talks.
Anyways, if you're not interested in reading it, but still want to know what it's about, you can check out this link to hear some interesting tidbits: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_F...
12/25/12: It's Christmas and I've decided to up this book to a 5 star rating. As I've delved deeper into misandry and the likes, I've realized that so much of what men's rights activists are talking about can be traced back to this book.
Now keep in mind, I’m not anti-feminist or anything like that. I’ve been interested somewhat in feminism ever since following a youtuber known as FeministFrequency. While I disagree with her views sometimes, I find them interesting to hear. (Plus, my girlfriend is also a feminist.) But my real concern came when I was on tumblr. There are so many social justice and feminist blogs out there and some of them almost seem to dismiss the concerns of men. Some will say that female privilege and misandry don’t exist. While I do agree that there are certain rights that females lack and that there is a certain amount of sexism against women in society, nobody ever looks at the other side. Sure there were some situations where I wondered if it was better to be a woman. I can recall several times when a female has made a rape joke about me or about men and general saying something like “Watch out, I think she might rape you” or “If you got raped, you’d probably enjoy it.” Yes, males rape females more than the other way around, but that’s led to the trivialization of males getting raped. (Which is mostly done by other males.) Previously, I would’ve never considered anything such as men’s rights before, but I realized that men almost never get any attention like women do.
So reading Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power was something that I was interested in. There were plenty of things that I felt were overlooked by society on a whole. I don’t hear about men’s rights very often and while many people will look down upon this because they believe the universe is somehow rigged in our favor, there were still things that I’ve always wanted to hear about. I’m not just talking about the obvious like the draft and whatnot, but other minor things that males have to face every day. When picking up this book, I had two things I wanted to see: facts and statistics. Warren Farrell does a great job with citing hundreds of different studies done on both genders and tackles several points such as psychology, financials, sex and societal pressures. He examines multiple sides of his issues and proposes a solution at the end of each chapter, often advocating some sort of socialization.
He opens up with talking about the draft for war. While this may seem outdated, even more so because this book is rather old, he does bring up a good point. If it was something which targeted females, it would be sexist. If it were something that targeted any ethnic group, it’d be racist. When it targets men, it’s meant to be empowering. Those phrases such as “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” or “Man up” are ones often used to encourage such behavior, as if it’s our social duty to always be strong protectors. This does put somewhat of an unnecessary stress on men and he brings up millions of examples throughout history not limited to the Vikings, Spartans, Christians and your everyday husband. In several societies, men were taught to become disposable and not fear death. They simply became cogs within the machine.
This relates to how he talks about the man’s role as the provider to the household. While women can choose to have a job or be a stay at home mom, men only have one option it seems. Farrell gives several examples and cases of how this affects men in a negative way. Further down the book, there is a discussion about men’s occupations within the best and worst jobs – different than the lowest-paying jobs. Warren Farrell cites some statistics showing that men did (and probably still do) occupy stressful jobs more often than women do and he later gives a hypothesis as to why this happens. Furthermore, he talks about the stress of unemployment, especially the unemployment of men who were once successful, because they tend to define their self-worth by their income. While men are often seen as being the “strong sex,” he highlights the important and unfair pressures that his has on men’s psychology and health.
A lot of these lead to the early death of men. Men are more likely to commit suicide. The suicide rate for men is six times higher than that of women, if I remember correctly. Farrell talks about the way gender roles affect this – men are pressured to bottle up their emotions and not express them. Men also die on the job a lot more. They hold more dangerous jobs than women such as firefighters, garbage collectors and police officers. The industrialization of men who need to support their wife and child also causes stress, leading to a shorter life span.
In the last third of the book, Warren Farrell describes the government as being a substitute husband for women. This covers more than just financial support after a divorce. It covers several injustices done throughout history done against men and in favor of women. In the first part about murder, he talks a lot about many cases and excuses that women have used to get less punishment for a violent crime such as murdering their husband. It shows how men are often sentenced unfairly to longer periods of time in prison and how much of male behavior was considered to be sexual harassment.
He also brings up dozens of social examples, some of which feel like he is generalizing. One of which that immediately caught my eye was the obligation to pay on dates. Since men are said to make more money, they pay for dates 10 times more often than women. But he brings up a counterpoint. When two women are on a date, does one say “Oh you make more money than I do. You pay for the date”? The examples he gives are extremely varied. Sometimes it’s just “When a man does this, this happens to him. When a woman does this, this happens to her.” Other times he cites many documented cases of injustice (mostly of the legal variety) against men. He also pulls from history, everywhere from Roe vs. Wade, the Vietnam War, the Bible and the Great Depression.
Keep in mind that not everything he says is pure gold. Like I said before, he tends to generalize and sometimes even stray from the point. He brings up very rogue situations sometimes and makes big comparisons. For example, he talks about the stress of unemployment for a man being equivalent to rape of a woman. While he does explain it well, I think it’s a rather inappropriate comparison. He also talks about “football scholarships” being “mutilation scholarships.” Some examples seem almost irrelevant if not completely wrong. One major example was his near-dismissal of the Salem Witch Trials as being a way of controlling women. He obviously needs to read the Malleus Maleficarum. That book is chock-full of misogyny.
Furthermore, I really grew tired of his Stage I and Stage II philosophies. They talk about how men’s and women’s roles have changed throughout time. While I do trust his credibility, they seemed rather irrelevant at times, and I just grew tired of hearing about them.
However, my biggest gripe with this book was the talk of rape. He uses it a lot as a metaphor, but his chapter about The Politics of Rape seems to somewhat border on victim blaming. However, his points do shine through…somewhat. He talks about the misinterpretation of body languages and gives examples of where people were drunk, thinking within the heat of the moment or felt pressured some way to give into sex. He cites a statistic saying that most people have felt pressured into unwanted sexual activity at one point in their lifetimes. This leads to a broader definition of rape. I, for one, can cite certain points in my life where I’ve been pressured to do something or when my partner made a move without asking for consent. I’m unsure how to feel about this chapter, but I know it’s a delicate subject and must be handled carefully.
Finally, one must take this book with a slight grain of salt. Being about 20 years old, many of the facts may seem dated by now. While I can still relate to some of the things he’s saying, I think the example of the draft is one that may be far too old to be considered. He enjoys talking about the Vietnam War quite a lot, and I assume that it’s because it was current during his generation.
Even while disagreeable at some points, The Myth of Male Power is a well-researched and well-documented book. The main idea which I have gotten was that misogyny and seeing the woman as the weaker sex has had negative effects on both genders. Society’s focused care on women has almost neglected men. This book may be a bit outdated, but it’s still an interesting perspective for anybody who wants to take a look at an uncommon issue.
The book, as well as Warren Farrell have been wildly influential in the ever-growing men's rights movement. While the movement is tiny in scope compared to feminism, it's hard to believe that such an unknown book has made such a big difference. Just watch youtuber men's rights activists like manwomanmyth and girlwriteswhat and you'll see just how many of Farrell's ideas play into their talks.
Anyways, if you're not interested in reading it, but still want to know what it's about, you can check out this link to hear some interesting tidbits: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_F...
12/25/12: It's Christmas and I've decided to up this book to a 5 star rating. As I've delved deeper into misandry and the likes, I've realized that so much of what men's rights activists are talking about can be traced back to this book.
December 1, 2014
Sigh. There are some good points in here about how sexism affects men, but sometimes Farrell gets really whiny. By the end he goes off the deep end, likening state-funded abortions to women killing men so that they can kill their fetuses.
The main problem is the either-or perspective. Sexism affects *either* men *or* women.
This book is more useful if the reader has the intelligence to see it from a both-and perspective. Sexism affects both men and women. Otherwise it's a lame attempt at a Leidenskonkurrenz (suffering competition).
The main problem is the either-or perspective. Sexism affects *either* men *or* women.
This book is more useful if the reader has the intelligence to see it from a both-and perspective. Sexism affects both men and women. Otherwise it's a lame attempt at a Leidenskonkurrenz (suffering competition).
January 31, 2013
This book takes a giant steaming dump on feminism in a gentle and soothing way. A+
August 17, 2012
Extremely interesting book, written by a man who was a former member of the NOW Board of Directors. His disillusionment with the feminist movement is clear because of how it attacked men rather than promoting women. Every man should read this book! See also The War Against Boys.
December 31, 2014
This book challenges the fundamental assumption of feminism--that men have more power than women. To do this, what it actually does is shows the powerlessness underlying the ways that men are traditionally considered powerful. Men have more physical strength, but they're far more likely than women to be victims of violence, murder, and suicide. Men earn more money and hold more positions of authority, but they're also expected to if they hope for women to love them. Women may be the "second sex" but men are the "disposable sex." This book is packed with data to support the arguments, and exposes countless aspects of our culture that are sexist against men that we take for granted.
This book is based on the premise that we're in the adolescent phase of a transition from rigid gender roles, where women are sex objects and men are success objects, where women take care of children and men earn the money, where women are helpless and men protect them with their lives and livelihood, to equitable gender roles, where both men and women are valued for all they have to offer, where both women and men take care of children and earn the money, where both men and women can be safe and nonviolent. He makes a case that the old roles helped society, when we needed to propagate, hunt for food, and protect our territories, so we've evolved these roles, but only recently in human history have they stopped helping us.
This book is a bit out-dated, and some of the data it cites is a little questionable. The author has a habit of stretching the data a bit and drawing tenuous connections between unconnected things in order to make his point. That's the greatest fault of this book and of this author's other books--he's obviously more interested in making a point than in uncovering the truth. But if you look past these faults, this book does make some very important points that should be included in gender issues.
This book is not exactly anti-feminism. It argues that feminism was a necessary first phase of this gender transition movement, but that it's time for men to join in the transition and fight for their own rights. Women can't hear what men don't say, so men need to gain their voice, and eventually demand that feminism include men if it is to truly claim to be a civil rights movement and not a sexist movement. This book makes the argument that in some ways, feminism is hurting its own cause, that men and women must make this transition together, since one sex winning will mean both sexes losing.
Update: I just read this book again. I've found even more wrong with it than I did the first time I read it. He doesn't just stretch the data a bit. He blows things way out of proportion. He hits you with a really great point, and then he starts packing it in hyperbole (unemployment is men's equivalent to rape? High school football is child abuse?). Despite this, I've changed my rating from 4-stars to 5-stars because this book was nonetheless nothing short of a mindfuck for me. As I read this book again, I noticed over and over again the ways its ideas have shaped my own thinking.
This book is based on the premise that we're in the adolescent phase of a transition from rigid gender roles, where women are sex objects and men are success objects, where women take care of children and men earn the money, where women are helpless and men protect them with their lives and livelihood, to equitable gender roles, where both men and women are valued for all they have to offer, where both women and men take care of children and earn the money, where both men and women can be safe and nonviolent. He makes a case that the old roles helped society, when we needed to propagate, hunt for food, and protect our territories, so we've evolved these roles, but only recently in human history have they stopped helping us.
This book is a bit out-dated, and some of the data it cites is a little questionable. The author has a habit of stretching the data a bit and drawing tenuous connections between unconnected things in order to make his point. That's the greatest fault of this book and of this author's other books--he's obviously more interested in making a point than in uncovering the truth. But if you look past these faults, this book does make some very important points that should be included in gender issues.
This book is not exactly anti-feminism. It argues that feminism was a necessary first phase of this gender transition movement, but that it's time for men to join in the transition and fight for their own rights. Women can't hear what men don't say, so men need to gain their voice, and eventually demand that feminism include men if it is to truly claim to be a civil rights movement and not a sexist movement. This book makes the argument that in some ways, feminism is hurting its own cause, that men and women must make this transition together, since one sex winning will mean both sexes losing.
Update: I just read this book again. I've found even more wrong with it than I did the first time I read it. He doesn't just stretch the data a bit. He blows things way out of proportion. He hits you with a really great point, and then he starts packing it in hyperbole (unemployment is men's equivalent to rape? High school football is child abuse?). Despite this, I've changed my rating from 4-stars to 5-stars because this book was nonetheless nothing short of a mindfuck for me. As I read this book again, I noticed over and over again the ways its ideas have shaped my own thinking.
September 9, 2008
I could not stand this book but I had to read it for my book club. The author claims these conclusions but does not support them. Yes, he has a lot of footnotes but the majority are not from reputable sources and he does not expand on the research. He also makes these crazy correlations (comparing the draft to abortions being legal) without a rational reason for doing so which undermines his arguments. This book had the potential to create discussion on the double standard of feminism and although he tries, he weakens his points with his shabby logic.
August 19, 2013
While on the surface this book seems to be written from the perspective of the Men's Rights Activist, it's actually very fair when presenting its ideas. This is third wave feminism - no more blame games or excuses, just reasons men and women need to communicate and treat each other fairly and with respect.
August 22, 2019
This book is important. In this age of male-hating, I like that it gives men a voice. I like that it flips the tables and explains all the bad parts of being a man. I like that it shows how unfair the deal is right now for men.
But it suffers from the same problem as The Feminine Mystique: it forgets about children. Men and women get together, have relationships, marry, work their butts off, sacrifice their bodies, dedicate all of their time, virtually enslave themselves not to their spouse, not to the opposite sex, but to their children, to their family. And it is wonderful. If men and women did not do this, children would cease to be born.
This book talks about stage one men and women who had different roles. Each role was very difficult and required great sacrifices, but that was the only way to survive. Farrell claims that we live in a different world now, a world in which both men and women need to step into stage two. He envisions stage two as men and women being the same. Women need to marry nice guys, not expect guys to support the family, allow the guy to stay home with the kids if he wants to, serve in the armed forces with the guys, never expect men to pay for dinner or open doors or get up at night if they hear a noise....
Men are trying so hard to be more feminine and sensitive and caring, to be all these things they have been told to be, but women keep marrying traditional men. WTF, Farrell says. Didn't the government schooling brainwash you enough? Why aren't women happy to pay for dinner? Why aren't they happy to kill spiders? Why aren't femmy men sexy?!
Gee, maybe biology is a real thing. Maybe gender is a real thing too and not a "social construct."
Men are physically far stronger than women, that is why they get up to check the noise. Ten pounds makes such a difference in a fight that in the MMA, it's an entirely different class. That's why men are in charge of the fighting. Because only an idiot would suggest that the smaller member of the team go scare off the robber. Children do best when breastfed. They breastfeed for twelve hours a day for the first three months and then at least eight times a day for the first year, and to maximize their health they keep breastfeeding for another year or two (or more) after that. If it is the man at home, the woman has to work all day and pump all night. Possible maybe but pumping leads to decreased milk supply, so chances are the woman would fail at it. Even if she succeeded in pumping enough milk, it takes as long to pump as to nurse, so this is an extremely inefficient arrangement.
Specialization benefits both parties. Every economist knows that. And yet today women and men are encouraged to not specialize. They should both learn how to cook, clean, build, repair, fix cars, play sports, sew, excel at a career, take care of children... This is insanity. Instead of being good at half those things, today's men and women will be amateurs at all of them.
Men and women are not and should not be enemies; they are allies. When they work together they can build incredible things - like a person, they can create life.
I don't think Farrell's "stage 2" thing works at all. There is no stage 2. The Feminine Mystique lamented the female role and told women to go be men instead. This book laments the male role and tells men to be women instead. Too bad that Friedan didn't write a book about how awesome women are and how awesome it can be to have the female role. Too bad Farrell's book doesn't talk about how awesome men are and how great it can be to be a man.
It's utter insanity. And then they wonder why the birth rate is so low.
Other notes:
-The majority of TV viewers are women. Thus TV panders to women (making them always the victims and men always the bad guys.)
-Elementary school teachers should be men, especially teachers of boys.
-He goes on an on about the tragedy of male suicide rates, but the majority of men killing themselves are over 75. What if these men over 75 killing themselves are not tragedies? What if they are courageous and rational? The old women are too afraid to go, so they vegetate on for years barely alive... that's the tragedy. Not the men that go when they're done with this crap.
Skip this book and read Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules.
But it suffers from the same problem as The Feminine Mystique: it forgets about children. Men and women get together, have relationships, marry, work their butts off, sacrifice their bodies, dedicate all of their time, virtually enslave themselves not to their spouse, not to the opposite sex, but to their children, to their family. And it is wonderful. If men and women did not do this, children would cease to be born.
This book talks about stage one men and women who had different roles. Each role was very difficult and required great sacrifices, but that was the only way to survive. Farrell claims that we live in a different world now, a world in which both men and women need to step into stage two. He envisions stage two as men and women being the same. Women need to marry nice guys, not expect guys to support the family, allow the guy to stay home with the kids if he wants to, serve in the armed forces with the guys, never expect men to pay for dinner or open doors or get up at night if they hear a noise....
Men are trying so hard to be more feminine and sensitive and caring, to be all these things they have been told to be, but women keep marrying traditional men. WTF, Farrell says. Didn't the government schooling brainwash you enough? Why aren't women happy to pay for dinner? Why aren't they happy to kill spiders? Why aren't femmy men sexy?!
Gee, maybe biology is a real thing. Maybe gender is a real thing too and not a "social construct."
Men are physically far stronger than women, that is why they get up to check the noise. Ten pounds makes such a difference in a fight that in the MMA, it's an entirely different class. That's why men are in charge of the fighting. Because only an idiot would suggest that the smaller member of the team go scare off the robber. Children do best when breastfed. They breastfeed for twelve hours a day for the first three months and then at least eight times a day for the first year, and to maximize their health they keep breastfeeding for another year or two (or more) after that. If it is the man at home, the woman has to work all day and pump all night. Possible maybe but pumping leads to decreased milk supply, so chances are the woman would fail at it. Even if she succeeded in pumping enough milk, it takes as long to pump as to nurse, so this is an extremely inefficient arrangement.
Specialization benefits both parties. Every economist knows that. And yet today women and men are encouraged to not specialize. They should both learn how to cook, clean, build, repair, fix cars, play sports, sew, excel at a career, take care of children... This is insanity. Instead of being good at half those things, today's men and women will be amateurs at all of them.
Men and women are not and should not be enemies; they are allies. When they work together they can build incredible things - like a person, they can create life.
I don't think Farrell's "stage 2" thing works at all. There is no stage 2. The Feminine Mystique lamented the female role and told women to go be men instead. This book laments the male role and tells men to be women instead. Too bad that Friedan didn't write a book about how awesome women are and how awesome it can be to have the female role. Too bad Farrell's book doesn't talk about how awesome men are and how great it can be to be a man.
It's utter insanity. And then they wonder why the birth rate is so low.
Other notes:
-The majority of TV viewers are women. Thus TV panders to women (making them always the victims and men always the bad guys.)
-Elementary school teachers should be men, especially teachers of boys.
-He goes on an on about the tragedy of male suicide rates, but the majority of men killing themselves are over 75. What if these men over 75 killing themselves are not tragedies? What if they are courageous and rational? The old women are too afraid to go, so they vegetate on for years barely alive... that's the tragedy. Not the men that go when they're done with this crap.
Skip this book and read Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules.
June 23, 2015
This books isn't well written, but it's provocative and valuable. As a gay man, I felt like a lot of these issues don't affect me directly. Still, I used to be more of a hardline feminist (Andrea Dworkin was a favorite author!) and have become dissatisfied with that position in recent years. I'm not about to become a men's rights activist, but found this book to be an important corrective to a lot of the reflexive man-shaming that passes as leftist culture.
December 14, 2018
I was very optimistic about this book when I started it, but it just got worse and worse to the point where I found it unbearable. The author lacks any knowledge or awareness of how some issues affect women and as a result makes sweeping generalisations which are based on nothing but his own opinion as he failed to look at the bigger picture. As an editor myself, the structure of this book was completely nonsensical and the writing style awful and forceful. If you have to use bold to highlight your own key passages in a book then you either think your readership is stupid and can't understand what the key points are, or you have written the book so badly that you need to point to the key passages. A one-sided, one-dimensional, and poorly written contribution to the literature on masculinity.
March 11, 2014
There were quite a few scenarios in the book for which I went 'wow.. never thought of it like that'. Dr Farrell's ability to back up his statements by providing actual numbers makes is even more convincing.
Most of the times, books on similar topics stay limited to the US (as most of the authors I've read so far are from the US), but while reading this book, a good number of arguments posed by the author are valid even outside the US.
Highly recommended.
"Women have the right to children but men have to fight for children."
Most of the times, books on similar topics stay limited to the US (as most of the authors I've read so far are from the US), but while reading this book, a good number of arguments posed by the author are valid even outside the US.
Highly recommended.
"Women have the right to children but men have to fight for children."
April 2, 2014
A book that makes you think by reversing the cultural assumptions we hold dear.
Farrell's point is that what we see as male power is actually male slavery. It's a counter-intuitive argument, but a chilling one.
1. Men are socialized to kill and be killed in order to protect women.
2. While women are paid less, this is because they avoid jobs that have many characteristics that are harmful. Something like 24 out of 25 of the worst jobs to work in are male only, and a lot of the underpaid jobs are beneficial due to things like working indoors, avoidance or injury or death, the ability not to be forced to move or travel at the company's will, etc.
3. Men drastically sacrifice in order to provide for women. Men are also undervalued and taught to undervalue themselves.
There's a lot of startling analogies, some exaggerated for effect. But they are strong ones, and you have to consider them. We've been taught to think women are always the oppressed sex, but when you have a culture that conditions men to accept violence, serve in war, and sacrifice their lives in order to protect women and shield them from the necessity of doing so, who really is oppressed? Like working in jobs that pay more; is it really oppression when men simply don't have the choice to househusband or work less without being seen as slackers or deadbeats?
He argues that gender relations due to survival, which he calls Type 1, forced this on us. When the need for survival is gone, we can move into Type 2 mutually beneficial relationships. This is the weakest part of the book, as it feels like wishful thinking.
But the points about male disposability and the way the culture socializes us are damning. So much negative pathology and self-harm due to the need to provide and protect. Why do men haze each other? Because one of the signs of a good protector is how much pain tolerance you have. Why do men tend to make up the bulk of the deaths in all professions, soldiery or not? Is this really male dominance, or is in a twisted way men are actually socialized into believing self-sacrifice to the point of their lives is a sign of power?
Interesting questions. They may not be answered to everyone's liking, but it's quite the paradigm shift and explains so much. Why are men aimless these days? Because the type-1 identity they have is useless due to the fact providing is of less importance and survival is relatively guaranteed.
Farrell's point is that what we see as male power is actually male slavery. It's a counter-intuitive argument, but a chilling one.
1. Men are socialized to kill and be killed in order to protect women.
2. While women are paid less, this is because they avoid jobs that have many characteristics that are harmful. Something like 24 out of 25 of the worst jobs to work in are male only, and a lot of the underpaid jobs are beneficial due to things like working indoors, avoidance or injury or death, the ability not to be forced to move or travel at the company's will, etc.
3. Men drastically sacrifice in order to provide for women. Men are also undervalued and taught to undervalue themselves.
There's a lot of startling analogies, some exaggerated for effect. But they are strong ones, and you have to consider them. We've been taught to think women are always the oppressed sex, but when you have a culture that conditions men to accept violence, serve in war, and sacrifice their lives in order to protect women and shield them from the necessity of doing so, who really is oppressed? Like working in jobs that pay more; is it really oppression when men simply don't have the choice to househusband or work less without being seen as slackers or deadbeats?
He argues that gender relations due to survival, which he calls Type 1, forced this on us. When the need for survival is gone, we can move into Type 2 mutually beneficial relationships. This is the weakest part of the book, as it feels like wishful thinking.
But the points about male disposability and the way the culture socializes us are damning. So much negative pathology and self-harm due to the need to provide and protect. Why do men haze each other? Because one of the signs of a good protector is how much pain tolerance you have. Why do men tend to make up the bulk of the deaths in all professions, soldiery or not? Is this really male dominance, or is in a twisted way men are actually socialized into believing self-sacrifice to the point of their lives is a sign of power?
Interesting questions. They may not be answered to everyone's liking, but it's quite the paradigm shift and explains so much. Why are men aimless these days? Because the type-1 identity they have is useless due to the fact providing is of less importance and survival is relatively guaranteed.
August 20, 2017
I've grown up and worked in an environment where women have had a strong influence. Many years of working with, and for, women in an environment dominated by Affirmative Action and "diversity" programs had strongly sensitized me to women's concerns about the oppression of women by men. But there's another side to the story and Warren Farrell's book tells it well. He doesn't deny the women's side, but shows that, although men and women have not been "equal" in all respects, men have borne many severe burdens of which women have been largely free and by which women have greatly benefited. The book is a little dated, but its insights are still valid today. Whenever I hear again how privileged and powerful men have been at the expense of women, I go back to this book to regain a little of my sense of balance and self-respect. I wish more people would seriously consider this side of things. The main flaw of the book is that, though it is well documented, it could be better organized and more concise in its presentation.
Edit: Here's a link to the introduction of the 21st anniversary (kindle) edition of the book: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Powe...
Edit: Here's a link to the introduction of the 21st anniversary (kindle) edition of the book: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Powe...
January 7, 2024
It took me a couple of days to ponder on this book and really think through what it was saying.
I do think there is something pivotal that is happening to men across the board in America. I don't think Warren has it nailed down correctly. I think it is a combination of the economy and social media stopping regular meaningful interactions. We have no money, and our family structures and friendships are broken. Broke and alone!!
My first problem with the book is a constant comparison to women. You don't need to have a constant comparison to make your point. Present your points, then the statistics surrounding them. This setting of the book does indeed make it appear like men are in some competition with women. Which I don't think it intended to do. Secondly this appears to be very Eurocentric, I must say he tried to bring in other races, but it just didn't fit the narrative. For instance, African American women have rarely had the luxury to be stay at home wives. For the majority of their time in America they also had to work to help the family and I don't mean a little help. Till this day, they are taught, they will have to work as well as their spouse in order to support a household and that flies in the face that men are seen universally as disposable wallets for women. I will start with the things that I whole heartedly agree with and then get into some of the other items that I didn't.
There are certain points he brings up that are extremely valid,
For instance
1.) Male to male rape and the lack of resources for it, as well even though he didn't talk about it often, women to male molestation especially with an age discrepancy. Rape is rape and molestation is molestation both men and women should be equally punished.
2.) The lack of support vets get when they are done with the military is APPALING. Coupled with the fact that a lot of our homeless are male vets and mentally ill. We as a society need to get this together, put simply its unfair.
3.) The lack of socialization that males have with other males
4.) The lack of emoting men do with other men and women.
5.) I do agree that abortions should be a two-person process, if a man decides he wants to keep the child he should be allowed to and the women should pay child support. People in general need to start being more responsible with sex and sexual activities. We live as if sex doesn't have consequences and it most certainly does.
6.) Men being subjected to hazardous conditions on the job. This needs to be corrected. There should definitely be more laws into place protecting a person from workplace injury and death. (That they can truly access) Especially with the rise of technology. Since Warren compared this with women dying in childbirth, we also need to work on that as well. I see no mass movements to prevent women dying in childbirth and due to the death rates, there needs to be more movements on these fronts. Although he said we would have public outcry if women were dying in mass in childbirth like men are dying at work, we don't have that outcry. There is an epidemic of women unnecessarily dying in childbirth that has not had widespread attention. In general American is having a medical system problem but thats another topic.
7.) The conditions of prisons. Ideally a prison and jail should be helping those who, can be helped, be rehabilitated. But statistics show that is not the case. Overcrowding, fighting, the fact that first time offenders come out more hardened than when they went in etc. We need a new model and help in this area.
8.) Women should get the same sentencing for committing the same crime. Wholeheartedly agree.
9.) Men and women should pursue each other equally and initiate sex equally as well as women should pay for dates equally That would take the pressure off of men. For the majority of humanity your family actually initiated contact between the sexes. Men walking up to women to ask for a date has been a new thing in history and if it proves it doesn't work, then it doesn't. We as a society can find a more amicable way of dating.
10.) Men are the biggest victims of violence while it is true men commit more violent crimes, we still need to get a grip on this. The amount of male violence against other men needs to be checked.
Here are some things that I didn't agree with.
The idea that women en mass are falsely accusing men or sexual harassment and rape is common Manosphere hysteria. The truth it most women who are harassed and sexually assaulted never say anything. Don't get me wrong there are some who will lie as with all things, but the numbers are not there to support mass lying by women on men. I also don't believe the other side that try to paint all men as rapist. There are some rapists but that is not the majority of men.
His comments about men getting divorced and having to pay child support and alimony. The truth of the matter is that women are more likely to suffer financially should a divorce occur. If a person is getting child support and alimony, then women shouldn't be the ones on the short end of the stick when this happens. Women are getting the house, the car, the dog, the kids, alimony, child support by all means women should be winning-they are not.
Along this line of thought, comments of women divorcing without so much as a hint before the divorce, that the divorce was coming. That the man was caught off guard and to top it off the women took his kids and "turned them against him". I don't think women are just getting divorced to get the money and turning kids against the other parent. This thinking is very simplistic, most women are hard pressed to divorce especially with kids because they do not want to upset the security that a two parent household brings to their children. So, what really is going on and how can we as a society tackle the problem?
Warren trivialized women "attempted suicide". Women attempt suicide more than men and it fails more often simply because men use more lethal means. Nothing less nothing more. If you take a bottle of pills, you have a higher chance of survival than shooting yourself in the head. He is not the only one who trivializes this though. I have heard other men point out that men are more successful and therefore deserve more recognition for this. When in fact we as a society should be trying to understand why so many people in general are attempting suicide and putting things in place to alleviate others suffering. It shouldn't be a war. There are gender differences for the reason these attempts occur and that should be delved into, to better help the sufferer. But to create a war on who attempts suicide more and who actually dies is childish. We have a problem. Lets fix it.
Equalizing a man losing his job to a woman being raped is egregious.
Our economy needs to be fixed. women are not the reason men can't get jobs your big businesses and their predatory hiring practices, refusal to pay taxes and relocating to other countries for cheaper wages, are dismantling society. It reminds me of when whites would blame blacks for taking their jobs or more recently "immigrants taking all the jobs". No, it's not blacks, immigrants or women it's the unchecked businesses with no moral or ethics running this country.
A good majority of wars are unnecessary and do not serve the needs of women. The idea that men going to war somehow benefits the safety of women when in fact it benefits your government and their agenda before all. Don't get me wrong some wars are beneficial for the society, but a society is not just women. It is also your sons and your grandfathers. Other Men benefit as well and that's only if your country is on the winning side. Women generally were not drafted to war because up until fairly recently wars were fought hand to hand. Men are stronger than women and it would stand to reason I would want the strongest person if I was headed to war. Women helped in other ways by becoming spies etc. We all do what is better suited to our nature in that instance. With more technology though I think you will see an increase. Therefore its not that men are disposable they simply are stronger.
He didn't address why social programs for women emerged in the first place. The fact that women could rarely hold property but would be abandoned by their husbands leaving them single moms with children they could not afford to take care of. As such WIC and all these other programs are in place to help children not women. Because women are normally caregivers in universally every society it makes sense that the programs stand, and men are not the recipients of them. If anything, it should be considered a social program for men to help other men who abandoned their responsibilities. Along with that is the idea that these programs are helping women lead these amazing lives. If that was the case, why is it that women who can get these programs remain on the bottom of society overall. Their children attend the worst schooling, they have the worst healthcare, their standards of living are lowered tremendously, their life span are lowered. They should be winning but, they are not.
There is a women study but no men's study. That is like the argument I hear about African American studies. The majority of what is being taught is touted as being created and distributed by white males. The founding fathers-not the founding mothers. Even in Psychology which I have a degree in. we barely hear of any female psychologist that has helped expand the field. As with art, literature etc. Womens studies like African American studies is a course correction, where women can see the contributions, they have made to society. Again, it should not be a war and everyone's contribution should be acknowledged and appreciated.
Warren argues Men die from diseases at far greater rates than women showing men have harsher/ more stressful lives. Some of this is also men visiting the doctor less often than women. If a condition can be caught early and adherence to the medication is given, then I think men's death rates would improve.
Women have the luxury of being stay at home wives to take care of children or going to work. They have more autonomy in how they live their lives. But men can't be stay at home dads they have to go to a job they hate to support their wives and children. The truth is most women are working as well, one check coming into the home cannot support a family and for a good portion of American history it couldn't, especially if you weren't white. America has not had a linear monetary track. one decade of decadence has led to a decade of depression. Let's not factor in race The black women had to work as well as the immigrant women. As it stands Women still, as they have always taken on the majority of childcare AND with rising lifespans Elderly Care while working. Its tone deaf to assume women have a ton of options with which to maneuver their lives. They don't. The real question is why do men not jump in and help women more with the responsibilities of child and elderly care, if women can and most often do jump in and help with family monetary responsibilities?
The statement that when a man is with a woman, he is to be her protector or unpaid bodyguard. I would like to see the statistics on how many men get into altercations when they are with a woman. It has been my estimation that if anyone is with anyone, they will try to protect each other. I have seen women jump in to help women friends and men jump in to help men friends. The thinking that a friend would be harmed while you sat by is not regular thinking and I question this on a societal level. For instance, if a woman is berating a man and he has a women companion it is customary that his women companion would be the one to step up and have that confrontation. I guess if you are a woman and you hear a loud noise, you would ask a husband or boyfriend to check it out, but that stands to reason that most robbers or home invaders are in fact men, so it would make sense the one would go muscle to muscle so to speak. And.. I am willing to accept that I could be wrong in this issue. I just thought it had more to do with the sexes fighting an even battle more so than men being disposable.
Honestly, I think I am just tired of this gender war in general. The " Special privileges" women have are not to help women but to help children and the future of the society. We all have lives of quiet boredom and desperation. However, I see that something is happening with Males in American and even maybe western society, and I am glad that we are having this conversation.
Somethings to consider:
Would we have been better off separating the sexes? Did our forebears have it correct?
If there are jobs for women and jobs for men, can we then eliminate the other sex stating sexual harassment or the harassment claim has ruined his livelihood.
If we have seperate schools and colleges could we avoid the harrassment and sexual favors debate. At least the opposite sex accusing each other.
Should we bring back standards for dates? What is the point of dating if not to screen for a future mate?
Should we reintroduce chaperons. Were neither sex drank on the first meeting and went for a walk instead of the bar? Where the other was supposed to eat meals with the family so they could get a better gauge on them as a person?. We couldn't accuse the women of a false rape claim and we couldn't accuse the man of rape.
I gave the book three stars because some of the references I saw where sketchy and some of the claims he made are unsupported, as well some false equivalencies were given. Overall, though not a bad read.
I do think there is something pivotal that is happening to men across the board in America. I don't think Warren has it nailed down correctly. I think it is a combination of the economy and social media stopping regular meaningful interactions. We have no money, and our family structures and friendships are broken. Broke and alone!!
My first problem with the book is a constant comparison to women. You don't need to have a constant comparison to make your point. Present your points, then the statistics surrounding them. This setting of the book does indeed make it appear like men are in some competition with women. Which I don't think it intended to do. Secondly this appears to be very Eurocentric, I must say he tried to bring in other races, but it just didn't fit the narrative. For instance, African American women have rarely had the luxury to be stay at home wives. For the majority of their time in America they also had to work to help the family and I don't mean a little help. Till this day, they are taught, they will have to work as well as their spouse in order to support a household and that flies in the face that men are seen universally as disposable wallets for women. I will start with the things that I whole heartedly agree with and then get into some of the other items that I didn't.
There are certain points he brings up that are extremely valid,
For instance
1.) Male to male rape and the lack of resources for it, as well even though he didn't talk about it often, women to male molestation especially with an age discrepancy. Rape is rape and molestation is molestation both men and women should be equally punished.
2.) The lack of support vets get when they are done with the military is APPALING. Coupled with the fact that a lot of our homeless are male vets and mentally ill. We as a society need to get this together, put simply its unfair.
3.) The lack of socialization that males have with other males
4.) The lack of emoting men do with other men and women.
5.) I do agree that abortions should be a two-person process, if a man decides he wants to keep the child he should be allowed to and the women should pay child support. People in general need to start being more responsible with sex and sexual activities. We live as if sex doesn't have consequences and it most certainly does.
6.) Men being subjected to hazardous conditions on the job. This needs to be corrected. There should definitely be more laws into place protecting a person from workplace injury and death. (That they can truly access) Especially with the rise of technology. Since Warren compared this with women dying in childbirth, we also need to work on that as well. I see no mass movements to prevent women dying in childbirth and due to the death rates, there needs to be more movements on these fronts. Although he said we would have public outcry if women were dying in mass in childbirth like men are dying at work, we don't have that outcry. There is an epidemic of women unnecessarily dying in childbirth that has not had widespread attention. In general American is having a medical system problem but thats another topic.
7.) The conditions of prisons. Ideally a prison and jail should be helping those who, can be helped, be rehabilitated. But statistics show that is not the case. Overcrowding, fighting, the fact that first time offenders come out more hardened than when they went in etc. We need a new model and help in this area.
8.) Women should get the same sentencing for committing the same crime. Wholeheartedly agree.
9.) Men and women should pursue each other equally and initiate sex equally as well as women should pay for dates equally That would take the pressure off of men. For the majority of humanity your family actually initiated contact between the sexes. Men walking up to women to ask for a date has been a new thing in history and if it proves it doesn't work, then it doesn't. We as a society can find a more amicable way of dating.
10.) Men are the biggest victims of violence while it is true men commit more violent crimes, we still need to get a grip on this. The amount of male violence against other men needs to be checked.
Here are some things that I didn't agree with.
The idea that women en mass are falsely accusing men or sexual harassment and rape is common Manosphere hysteria. The truth it most women who are harassed and sexually assaulted never say anything. Don't get me wrong there are some who will lie as with all things, but the numbers are not there to support mass lying by women on men. I also don't believe the other side that try to paint all men as rapist. There are some rapists but that is not the majority of men.
His comments about men getting divorced and having to pay child support and alimony. The truth of the matter is that women are more likely to suffer financially should a divorce occur. If a person is getting child support and alimony, then women shouldn't be the ones on the short end of the stick when this happens. Women are getting the house, the car, the dog, the kids, alimony, child support by all means women should be winning-they are not.
Along this line of thought, comments of women divorcing without so much as a hint before the divorce, that the divorce was coming. That the man was caught off guard and to top it off the women took his kids and "turned them against him". I don't think women are just getting divorced to get the money and turning kids against the other parent. This thinking is very simplistic, most women are hard pressed to divorce especially with kids because they do not want to upset the security that a two parent household brings to their children. So, what really is going on and how can we as a society tackle the problem?
Warren trivialized women "attempted suicide". Women attempt suicide more than men and it fails more often simply because men use more lethal means. Nothing less nothing more. If you take a bottle of pills, you have a higher chance of survival than shooting yourself in the head. He is not the only one who trivializes this though. I have heard other men point out that men are more successful and therefore deserve more recognition for this. When in fact we as a society should be trying to understand why so many people in general are attempting suicide and putting things in place to alleviate others suffering. It shouldn't be a war. There are gender differences for the reason these attempts occur and that should be delved into, to better help the sufferer. But to create a war on who attempts suicide more and who actually dies is childish. We have a problem. Lets fix it.
Equalizing a man losing his job to a woman being raped is egregious.
Our economy needs to be fixed. women are not the reason men can't get jobs your big businesses and their predatory hiring practices, refusal to pay taxes and relocating to other countries for cheaper wages, are dismantling society. It reminds me of when whites would blame blacks for taking their jobs or more recently "immigrants taking all the jobs". No, it's not blacks, immigrants or women it's the unchecked businesses with no moral or ethics running this country.
A good majority of wars are unnecessary and do not serve the needs of women. The idea that men going to war somehow benefits the safety of women when in fact it benefits your government and their agenda before all. Don't get me wrong some wars are beneficial for the society, but a society is not just women. It is also your sons and your grandfathers. Other Men benefit as well and that's only if your country is on the winning side. Women generally were not drafted to war because up until fairly recently wars were fought hand to hand. Men are stronger than women and it would stand to reason I would want the strongest person if I was headed to war. Women helped in other ways by becoming spies etc. We all do what is better suited to our nature in that instance. With more technology though I think you will see an increase. Therefore its not that men are disposable they simply are stronger.
He didn't address why social programs for women emerged in the first place. The fact that women could rarely hold property but would be abandoned by their husbands leaving them single moms with children they could not afford to take care of. As such WIC and all these other programs are in place to help children not women. Because women are normally caregivers in universally every society it makes sense that the programs stand, and men are not the recipients of them. If anything, it should be considered a social program for men to help other men who abandoned their responsibilities. Along with that is the idea that these programs are helping women lead these amazing lives. If that was the case, why is it that women who can get these programs remain on the bottom of society overall. Their children attend the worst schooling, they have the worst healthcare, their standards of living are lowered tremendously, their life span are lowered. They should be winning but, they are not.
There is a women study but no men's study. That is like the argument I hear about African American studies. The majority of what is being taught is touted as being created and distributed by white males. The founding fathers-not the founding mothers. Even in Psychology which I have a degree in. we barely hear of any female psychologist that has helped expand the field. As with art, literature etc. Womens studies like African American studies is a course correction, where women can see the contributions, they have made to society. Again, it should not be a war and everyone's contribution should be acknowledged and appreciated.
Warren argues Men die from diseases at far greater rates than women showing men have harsher/ more stressful lives. Some of this is also men visiting the doctor less often than women. If a condition can be caught early and adherence to the medication is given, then I think men's death rates would improve.
Women have the luxury of being stay at home wives to take care of children or going to work. They have more autonomy in how they live their lives. But men can't be stay at home dads they have to go to a job they hate to support their wives and children. The truth is most women are working as well, one check coming into the home cannot support a family and for a good portion of American history it couldn't, especially if you weren't white. America has not had a linear monetary track. one decade of decadence has led to a decade of depression. Let's not factor in race The black women had to work as well as the immigrant women. As it stands Women still, as they have always taken on the majority of childcare AND with rising lifespans Elderly Care while working. Its tone deaf to assume women have a ton of options with which to maneuver their lives. They don't. The real question is why do men not jump in and help women more with the responsibilities of child and elderly care, if women can and most often do jump in and help with family monetary responsibilities?
The statement that when a man is with a woman, he is to be her protector or unpaid bodyguard. I would like to see the statistics on how many men get into altercations when they are with a woman. It has been my estimation that if anyone is with anyone, they will try to protect each other. I have seen women jump in to help women friends and men jump in to help men friends. The thinking that a friend would be harmed while you sat by is not regular thinking and I question this on a societal level. For instance, if a woman is berating a man and he has a women companion it is customary that his women companion would be the one to step up and have that confrontation. I guess if you are a woman and you hear a loud noise, you would ask a husband or boyfriend to check it out, but that stands to reason that most robbers or home invaders are in fact men, so it would make sense the one would go muscle to muscle so to speak. And.. I am willing to accept that I could be wrong in this issue. I just thought it had more to do with the sexes fighting an even battle more so than men being disposable.
Honestly, I think I am just tired of this gender war in general. The " Special privileges" women have are not to help women but to help children and the future of the society. We all have lives of quiet boredom and desperation. However, I see that something is happening with Males in American and even maybe western society, and I am glad that we are having this conversation.
Somethings to consider:
Would we have been better off separating the sexes? Did our forebears have it correct?
If there are jobs for women and jobs for men, can we then eliminate the other sex stating sexual harassment or the harassment claim has ruined his livelihood.
If we have seperate schools and colleges could we avoid the harrassment and sexual favors debate. At least the opposite sex accusing each other.
Should we bring back standards for dates? What is the point of dating if not to screen for a future mate?
Should we reintroduce chaperons. Were neither sex drank on the first meeting and went for a walk instead of the bar? Where the other was supposed to eat meals with the family so they could get a better gauge on them as a person?. We couldn't accuse the women of a false rape claim and we couldn't accuse the man of rape.
I gave the book three stars because some of the references I saw where sketchy and some of the claims he made are unsupported, as well some false equivalencies were given. Overall, though not a bad read.
August 25, 2021
Well, that was short-lived. I started listening to this book because I enjoyed a podcast that the author was on and it seemed to be a topic I'd be interested in. The audiobook itself was set up sort of like a podcast with an interviewer and the author responding. I enjoyed that aspect of it. But I couldn't get past the first couple of minutes. There might be some reasonable content in this book... in fact, it's pretty likely, but it seems like the author is making the point about power that men don't have and that often times the feminist movement makes claims about things that women can do, but there is no one making claims about what men can do.
This irritates me to no end for various reasons. If you don't know me, I get irritated when men complain about there not being a changing table in the men's room. I raised twin daughters and changed them just fine in the bathroom with no changing table. I'll admit I'm likely larger and stronger than most of the men complaining about the lack of a changing table, but ffs, just throw a towel on the floor, change your kid and get out. I would never think to whine about it on social media to score internet points.
I also give exactly zero fucks if an older woman asks me if I'm babysitting my kids when my wife is away. There is a whiny contingent that would complain that the older woman doesn't recognize them as the parent and that they're parenting, not babysitting. Who gives a fuck? Take into consideration that the older woman that made the comment came from a completely different place than you did and has completely different values. What is the point of whining about your encounter on the internet? So you can get a bunch of pats on the back and garner extra sympathy? If you have any sense about wanting to change something, start a conversation with the woman about the topic. I guarantee that older woman will not come across your diatribe on the internet and think about how she might have wronged you.
This is the basic problem I have with the book. Where I stopped listening was when the author said "nothing tells men that they have the right to what was a traditional female role." I do the dishes in my house. That's a "woman's job" right? Do I have the right to do the dishes? Who gives a shit, the dishes need to be done.
Likely, this is all my white male privilege talking. Because I don't give any shits about having permission to do something, it's because I've been raised to believe I have all the power? I don't buy it for a second. Do I have privilege? Yes. Do other people? Yes. Do other people that aren't white or male have privilege? If they live in the US, absolutely. Might they have difficulties to overcome? Absolutely. But any victim mentality that you create for yourself makes any difficulty that much greater, stop crying about what you don't have or how things are unfair and fucking fix them.
Man, I'm in a weird mood after listening to 10 minutes of a book.
edit: So incidentally, after receiving a like for this review and reading it again, I revisited my old words and I do not disagree with them. Independently, I actually watched The Red Pill documentary around the same time I reread this review. Mr. Warren Farrell in the documentary. I listened to everything that was said, and I thought it was a really well done documentary. I still agree with my words because I feel they are gender neutral. But that's also because I'm not in the situation that many other people can find themselves in. Sometimes it isn't up to you to fix your problem -- if you're a man falsely accused of rape or given no custody of your kids. If you're a woman in an abusive marriage or passed over for a job you're the most qualified for but didn't get because of your gender. In all of those situations, it's not always something that you can correct on your own.
But you can correct your outlook. You can change how you feel about something. You can persevere and try to get good, quality humans on your side. So the book didn't speak to me. It likely can help other people -- other people that need more help than I do. I'm not changing my personal rating, but I am editing this review after the fact to state that others may gain some real benefit from this book.
This irritates me to no end for various reasons. If you don't know me, I get irritated when men complain about there not being a changing table in the men's room. I raised twin daughters and changed them just fine in the bathroom with no changing table. I'll admit I'm likely larger and stronger than most of the men complaining about the lack of a changing table, but ffs, just throw a towel on the floor, change your kid and get out. I would never think to whine about it on social media to score internet points.
I also give exactly zero fucks if an older woman asks me if I'm babysitting my kids when my wife is away. There is a whiny contingent that would complain that the older woman doesn't recognize them as the parent and that they're parenting, not babysitting. Who gives a fuck? Take into consideration that the older woman that made the comment came from a completely different place than you did and has completely different values. What is the point of whining about your encounter on the internet? So you can get a bunch of pats on the back and garner extra sympathy? If you have any sense about wanting to change something, start a conversation with the woman about the topic. I guarantee that older woman will not come across your diatribe on the internet and think about how she might have wronged you.
This is the basic problem I have with the book. Where I stopped listening was when the author said "nothing tells men that they have the right to what was a traditional female role." I do the dishes in my house. That's a "woman's job" right? Do I have the right to do the dishes? Who gives a shit, the dishes need to be done.
Likely, this is all my white male privilege talking. Because I don't give any shits about having permission to do something, it's because I've been raised to believe I have all the power? I don't buy it for a second. Do I have privilege? Yes. Do other people? Yes. Do other people that aren't white or male have privilege? If they live in the US, absolutely. Might they have difficulties to overcome? Absolutely. But any victim mentality that you create for yourself makes any difficulty that much greater, stop crying about what you don't have or how things are unfair and fucking fix them.
Man, I'm in a weird mood after listening to 10 minutes of a book.
edit: So incidentally, after receiving a like for this review and reading it again, I revisited my old words and I do not disagree with them. Independently, I actually watched The Red Pill documentary around the same time I reread this review. Mr. Warren Farrell in the documentary. I listened to everything that was said, and I thought it was a really well done documentary. I still agree with my words because I feel they are gender neutral. But that's also because I'm not in the situation that many other people can find themselves in. Sometimes it isn't up to you to fix your problem -- if you're a man falsely accused of rape or given no custody of your kids. If you're a woman in an abusive marriage or passed over for a job you're the most qualified for but didn't get because of your gender. In all of those situations, it's not always something that you can correct on your own.
But you can correct your outlook. You can change how you feel about something. You can persevere and try to get good, quality humans on your side. So the book didn't speak to me. It likely can help other people -- other people that need more help than I do. I'm not changing my personal rating, but I am editing this review after the fact to state that others may gain some real benefit from this book.
March 4, 2015
Dated.
Arguments unsupported. And unsupportable.
Avoids the reality of women's lived lives.
Patently ridiculous statements/arguments on nearly every page.
Surely there are are far more up-to-date books on the subject. Perhaps written by a team of one woman and a man...
Arguments unsupported. And unsupportable.
Avoids the reality of women's lived lives.
Patently ridiculous statements/arguments on nearly every page.
Surely there are are far more up-to-date books on the subject. Perhaps written by a team of one woman and a man...
December 12, 2017
An amazing book, so happy to have the special edition!
November 20, 2014
Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power is a difficult book to rate. On the one hand, it is a book with an important message that people in contemporary America really should read. On the other hand, though, it does suffer from some weaknesses in both content and tone that risk detracting the reader from the overall message.
First the bad. Dr. Farrell's book provides numerous statistics to back up his arguments. Overall, this does make Dr. Farrell's arguments more substantive and forceful. However, there are occasions when causality is assumed where only correlation is proven. Also, there are occasions when a particular aspect of an argument relies too heavily on anecdotes rather than statistics, even though the former are sometimes clearly describing cultural outliers rather than typical contemporary American experiences. There are also instances when Dr. Farrell appears to give too much credibility to his sources, the most notable being his decision to rely solely on David Brock's now discredited The Real Anita Hill for his discussion of the Clarence Thomas Senate confirmation hearings. While Farrell's book was written before Brock disavowed his own book, it was updated in 2014 for the Kindle edition, and one can't help but wonder at the lack of so much as a footnote to suggest that the credibility of Brock's book has since been severely compromised.
My other main complaint is in terms of tone. While an even casual reading of the book should leave one with the overall impression that Farrell takes women's issues concerning rape and sexual harassment seriously, he tends to show some poor judgment when attempting to contextualize these issues against what are, admittedly, ham-fisted and sometimes misguidedly draconian attempts to address them. At such moments, Dr. Farrell's book can come across as dismissive of or insufficiently invested in the seriousness of these issues (though, again, in the overall context of the book, it should be clear that this is not, in fact, the case).
All that said, the premise of this book is one to which attention needs to be given. Dr. Farrell argues that, while feminism has made some great, and much-needed strides with regards to empowering women and moving society closer to gender equality, there has not been an accompanying analysis and critique of the price men often have to pay for male privilege. Dr. Farrell convincingly argues that until such issues are addressed, men will continue to be caught up in social roles that are becoming increasingly dysfunctional as society progresses, a situation which is harmful to both men and women, and which will ultimately hamper the achievement of a gender-equal society. Though this book is often seen as one of the ur-texts of the men's movement, largely what Dr. Farrell is arguing for is what he calls a "gender-transition movement," a cultural, social, and legal revolution of not only the roles women play in our society, but the roles men play as well.
I could quibble with some aspects of Dr. Farrell's argument. Most notably, he occasionally acknowledges, but largely ignores the role of class and race by which poorer, marginalized men bear a tremendous and disproportionate share of the costs associated with male power, while a much smaller portion of men reap the most benefits and privileges of this power. But, generally speaking, he presents a strong case for his arguments. And, even though one can go through and cherry-pick anecdotes or statistics that really are not as compelling or convincing as Dr. Farrell claims, the heavy reliance on statistics and the accompanying research, generally result in an argument which is firmly backed-up by the information presented.
In short, this book represents an important message in an imperfect package. This is a book that many will find enlightening, provided they can forgive Dr. Farrell the occasional missteps he makes in the presentation of his case (not to mention the occasional authorial idiosyncrasies, such as Dr. Farrell's issues with male circumcision and American football, neither of which is ever addressed in full, but both of which repeatedly appear in a negative light). A fair reading of this book should leave many, if not wholly convinced with the entirety of his case, at least convinced that this is an issue that is long overdue for public discussion.
First the bad. Dr. Farrell's book provides numerous statistics to back up his arguments. Overall, this does make Dr. Farrell's arguments more substantive and forceful. However, there are occasions when causality is assumed where only correlation is proven. Also, there are occasions when a particular aspect of an argument relies too heavily on anecdotes rather than statistics, even though the former are sometimes clearly describing cultural outliers rather than typical contemporary American experiences. There are also instances when Dr. Farrell appears to give too much credibility to his sources, the most notable being his decision to rely solely on David Brock's now discredited The Real Anita Hill for his discussion of the Clarence Thomas Senate confirmation hearings. While Farrell's book was written before Brock disavowed his own book, it was updated in 2014 for the Kindle edition, and one can't help but wonder at the lack of so much as a footnote to suggest that the credibility of Brock's book has since been severely compromised.
My other main complaint is in terms of tone. While an even casual reading of the book should leave one with the overall impression that Farrell takes women's issues concerning rape and sexual harassment seriously, he tends to show some poor judgment when attempting to contextualize these issues against what are, admittedly, ham-fisted and sometimes misguidedly draconian attempts to address them. At such moments, Dr. Farrell's book can come across as dismissive of or insufficiently invested in the seriousness of these issues (though, again, in the overall context of the book, it should be clear that this is not, in fact, the case).
All that said, the premise of this book is one to which attention needs to be given. Dr. Farrell argues that, while feminism has made some great, and much-needed strides with regards to empowering women and moving society closer to gender equality, there has not been an accompanying analysis and critique of the price men often have to pay for male privilege. Dr. Farrell convincingly argues that until such issues are addressed, men will continue to be caught up in social roles that are becoming increasingly dysfunctional as society progresses, a situation which is harmful to both men and women, and which will ultimately hamper the achievement of a gender-equal society. Though this book is often seen as one of the ur-texts of the men's movement, largely what Dr. Farrell is arguing for is what he calls a "gender-transition movement," a cultural, social, and legal revolution of not only the roles women play in our society, but the roles men play as well.
I could quibble with some aspects of Dr. Farrell's argument. Most notably, he occasionally acknowledges, but largely ignores the role of class and race by which poorer, marginalized men bear a tremendous and disproportionate share of the costs associated with male power, while a much smaller portion of men reap the most benefits and privileges of this power. But, generally speaking, he presents a strong case for his arguments. And, even though one can go through and cherry-pick anecdotes or statistics that really are not as compelling or convincing as Dr. Farrell claims, the heavy reliance on statistics and the accompanying research, generally result in an argument which is firmly backed-up by the information presented.
In short, this book represents an important message in an imperfect package. This is a book that many will find enlightening, provided they can forgive Dr. Farrell the occasional missteps he makes in the presentation of his case (not to mention the occasional authorial idiosyncrasies, such as Dr. Farrell's issues with male circumcision and American football, neither of which is ever addressed in full, but both of which repeatedly appear in a negative light). A fair reading of this book should leave many, if not wholly convinced with the entirety of his case, at least convinced that this is an issue that is long overdue for public discussion.
April 21, 2018
Two stars because the writer tries to be balanced and not to attack women or invent crazy conspiracy theories about a "vaginacracy". But still this is a unscientific book that only works if you don't know that most of the world lives under capitalism and newer heard about socialism. And also the writer don't know nothing about feminist theory, because most of the real men's problems presented in this book are addressed by feminists in the 60-70's. In short this is a mild MRA trash.
April 4, 2010
The feminist paradigm is a bit skewed.
July 3, 2021
Some very thought provoking insights here that I had not considered before - while I did not gel 100% with absolutely everything, I did gain a different perspective on some of my husbands struggles and that was quite valuable.
December 29, 2018
I read about half this book and concluded that he'd written it to try to generate sales after writing books on similar topics. Controversy sells well apparently.
December 3, 2025
Three decades after publication, Warren Farrell’s ‘The Myth of Male Power’ remains both the seminal men’s rights text and the most devastating critique of feminism. Farrell shows that, far from privileged, men are overrepresented among the homeless, victims of violent crime, casualties in warfare, prisoners and suicides.
As Orwell wrote:
For Farrell, men represent the disposable sex. Men’s lives are seen as of less value than those of women.
An example of this is the allocation of places onboard lifeboats on the Titanic, where 80% of men onboard perished vs only 26% of women.
But Farrell only discusses this in his follow-up book. Instead, conscription is his main example of male disposability.
Employed throughout history, as of 2012, over eighty countries continue to practice conscription (The Second Sexism: p27).
Almost always, only men are conscripted. A few make a token gesture towards conscripting women (e.g. Israel) but the terms of service are never equal.
In the US, selective service registration remains obligatory for men. In Vietnam, almost 57,000 American men died—30% of them conscripts—as compared with only 8 women—all volunteers. Farrell describes:
Farrell also compares conscription to slavery:
Farrell also compares conscription to genocide:
Danger: Men at Work
The overrepresentation of men in hazardous occupations (e.g. construction, coalmining, firefighting, logging) is further evidence of male disposability.
In his chapter on ‘The Death Professions’, Farrell shows that, although men are overrepresented in the best-paid positions, they are also overrepresented in the worst jobs. The reason for both disparities is the same—the lengths to which men will go to provide for their wife and family.
Farrell focuses again on the military, describing the Gulf War as “The Males-Per-Gallon War” because it was fought to control oil yet men represented 96% of Americans killed.
But dangerous occupations are not just dangerous—they are also essential.
Men construct the buildings we live in, the sewage and clean water systems we depend on, the coal mines and oil rigs which generate the energy on which we rely and our safety depends on the risks taken by policemen, firefighters and soldiers.
As Fred Reed has commented:
In focusing on the hardships endured by working-class men to provide for their families, Farrell echoes the concerns of early socialists.
Yet the Left has now abandoned working-class men in favor of middle-class feminists, and the ‘ordinary working man’, once the quintessential proletarian, has found himself redefined in leftist demonology as patriarchal, homophobic, racist, wife-beating bigot.
The Worst Jobs?
Farrell shows the most dangerous jobs are mostly male, but his claim that the worst jobs are also male goes too far.
Certainly, refuse-collecting seems unpleasant, as does coalmining. However, to me, care-work seems similarly unpleasant—as does nursing. Yet these are female-dominated jobs.
Yet nurses are widely extolled as ‘caring’.
The same is not said of refuse collectors, or people building and working in sewage plants. Yet these people, mostly men, contribute more to public health than all the nurses in the world combined.
Cleaning public lavatories is another unpleasant job in which both sexes are employed. But the worst cleaning job, cleaning crime scenes, seems to be mostly male.
Prostitution
Perhaps the only dangerous job that is mostly female is street-prostitution.
Prostitution is also Farrell’s favored analogy regarding the sacrifices of male manual laborers. His chapter on the military is titled ‘War Hero or War Slave? The Armed Prostitute’ and he writes:
Actually, prostitution is a well-paid job at which almost any woman can earn a fortune from literally lying flat on her back. But it is not an equal opportunity career.
Moreover, prostitutes do not ‘sell their bodies’. They merely temporarily rent out certain orifices on strict contractual terms. In legal terms, a ‘license’, not a ‘lease’.
Men who die in coalmines, construction sites and battlefields sell their bodies in a far more literal sense.
Pay-Gap, Spending-Gap
Men’s willingness to do dangerous work is among the factors contributing to the pay-gap. Others include willingness to work long hours, for a greater proportion of their lives and relocate or commute (see Why Men Earn More: reviewed here.)
But, if men earn more than women, they are not richer.
Thus, Farrell reports:
He also claims:
Actually, data shows women control about 80% of consumer spending. It has been collected, not by social scientists, but by marketing researchers, who, concerned with the bottom line or liable to find themselves out of a job, cannot afford to falsify their findings.
Violence against Whom?
Another illustration of male disposability is the attention accorded to the issue of ‘violence against women’—though most victims are male.
In later works Farrell focuses exclusively on domestic violence, reviewing the overwhelming evidence that women are responsible for as much domestic violence as men.
But, although men and women are about equally likely to be victimized inside the home, men are much more likely to be the victimized outside the home. Men represent most victims, not only of violent crime, but also of war and Infanticide Acts, which provide a partial defence against murder, but only for women.
However, Farrell cites only one study on discrimination in criminal sentencing.
Recent studies confirm men are sentenced more severely.
Offenders who victimize women are also sentenced more harshly. There is also discrimination during arrest and pretrial release decisions.
Recent data confirm Farrell’s claims on rape. Even the Department of Justice has admitted, once prison rape is included, there are more rapes of males than females in the US as a whole.
Re false allegations, Farrell relies on an obscure US Airforce study by Mcdowell. A more rigorous study was published the year after his book and found that at least 40-50% of rape allegations are false.
For Farrell, false allegations are themselves a form of rape:
Actually, the psychological trauma and stigma of being falsely accused of rape surely far outstrips that of rape itself.
Certainly, suicide is more common among men accused of rape than among rape victims.
Government as a Substitute Husband
Traditionally women looked to husbands to provide for them. Now this role is increasingly usurped by the state—what Farrell calls “Government as a Substitute Husband”.
The burden is shifted from the husband to the taxpayer—but it remains primarily on men:
If a woman lies about using contraception, then, Farrell explains, in some states:
One of Farrell's key concepts is his distinction between what he calls Stage I and Stage II relationships.
According to Farrell, until recently all relationships were necessarily Stage I—i.e. survival-based. Men were responsible for earning and women on childcare because this was necessary to survive.
The idea that traditional gender roles worked to the benefit of all reflects what sociologists call functionalism.
Sociologists generally reject functionalism for conflict theory which recognizes individual and group interests differ and institutions tend to reflect the interests of the powerful.
Feminism is a conflict theory that views the sexual division of labor as designed for the benefit of men. My view is the opposite. The sexual division of labour works to the advantage of women, with the most dangerous/arduous jobs reserved for men.
Stage II: Utopian Idealism
Recent rising affluence and technologies like birth control have, for Farrell, freed women to move into to what he terms Stage II, where a focus on survival gives way to concern for fulfilment and happiness. Feminism is, for Farrell, an expression of this change.
But men have yet to make this move. Whereas women's dissatisfaction with their traditional role was celebrated as ‘feminism’, men’s disillusionment with their traditional role is ridiculed as a ‘midlife crisis’. Yet Farrell contends:
Yet Farrell’s Stage II is hopelessly utopian.
Farrell sees his work as the unfinished business of feminism. By demanding equal rights for men, he is taking the feminist rhetoric of equality to its logical conclusion. Thus, he talks of “cherishing feminism's baby” and the need, not for a men’s movement, but rather a “gender transition movement” (p6; p10).
Yet the Men's Rights Movement represents, not so much the logical conclusion of feminism, as its reductio ad absurdum. The innate origin of sex differences means that equality of the sexes will remain a chimera.
Men meanwhile will remain slaves to their sexual desire and hence to women.
In his Introduction and opening chapter, Farrell contends that society is “both male and female-dominated, both patriarchal and matriarchal”, that “both sexes made themselves ‘slaves’ to the other sex in different ways” but “neither sex can accurately be called oppressed” (p9; p30).
Yet the remainder of his book shows that the ways in which women purport to be oppressed are illusory, whereas male disadvantage is all too real.
For example, men are overrepresented among both corporate CEOs and the homeless.
But, whereas the CEO usually has a wife or ex-wife, and often a daughter or two, to share in his wealth (typically without having performed any of the hard work to achieve this wealth), the homeless man is almost invariably single.
As Orwell wrote:
“One can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male” (Down and Out in Paris and London).A remnant of his former incarnation as a writer of relationship guides for women, Farrell’s writing style may alienate male readers—as may his suggestion that boys competing in sports like boxing and American football is a form of child abuse.
For Farrell, men represent the disposable sex. Men’s lives are seen as of less value than those of women.
An example of this is the allocation of places onboard lifeboats on the Titanic, where 80% of men onboard perished vs only 26% of women.
But Farrell only discusses this in his follow-up book. Instead, conscription is his main example of male disposability.
Employed throughout history, as of 2012, over eighty countries continue to practice conscription (The Second Sexism: p27).
Almost always, only men are conscripted. A few make a token gesture towards conscripting women (e.g. Israel) but the terms of service are never equal.
In the US, selective service registration remains obligatory for men. In Vietnam, almost 57,000 American men died—30% of them conscripts—as compared with only 8 women—all volunteers. Farrell describes:
“Male only draft registration and combat requirements… as the two most unconstitutional laws in America. They are a breach of America's most inalienable right: the right to life… the greatest possible violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law” (p118)In Rostker v Goldberg, the draft was ruled constitutional because its purpose was to mobilize combat troops but women were excluded from combat. But this ignored that the combat-exclusion was itself unconstitutional. Besides, the combat exemption has now been lifted.
Farrell also compares conscription to slavery:
“During the Civil War, the government passed a Conscription Act, allowing… for an all-male slave trade… In essence, white male slaves fought to free black slaves” (p58)Slavery entails two elements, that work be both:
1) Involuntary; &Conscription is involuntary but not always unpaid—but Article 2 paragraph 2a of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention explicitly excluded conscription from its prohibition on slavery.
2) Unpaid
Farrell also compares conscription to genocide:
“If any other group were singled out to register for the draft based merely on its characteristics at birth—be that group blacks, Jews, women, or gays—we would immediately recognize it as genocide, but when men are singled out based on their sex at birth, men call it power?” (p18)But the neologism ‘gendercide’, coined by feminists but re-appropriated for men by Adam Jones is perhaps better.
Danger: Men at Work
The overrepresentation of men in hazardous occupations (e.g. construction, coalmining, firefighting, logging) is further evidence of male disposability.
In his chapter on ‘The Death Professions’, Farrell shows that, although men are overrepresented in the best-paid positions, they are also overrepresented in the worst jobs. The reason for both disparities is the same—the lengths to which men will go to provide for their wife and family.
Farrell focuses again on the military, describing the Gulf War as “The Males-Per-Gallon War” because it was fought to control oil yet men represented 96% of Americans killed.
But dangerous occupations are not just dangerous—they are also essential.
Men construct the buildings we live in, the sewage and clean water systems we depend on, the coal mines and oil rigs which generate the energy on which we rely and our safety depends on the risks taken by policemen, firefighters and soldiers.
As Fred Reed has commented:
“Without men, civilization would last until the oil needed changing”Yet Farrell observes:
“In one decade women... gained more protection against offensive jokes in the workplace than men had in centuries against being killed in the workplace” (p259)Women are often described as a ‘civilizing’ influence on men, but Farrell turns this on its head:
“By taking care of the killing for women it could be said that men civilized women”As Orwell wrote:
“Men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them”If I am quoting Orwell a lot in this review, this reflects something likely unsettling both to Farrell’s critics and some of his supporters—the decidedly socialist ring to much of Farrell’s book.
In focusing on the hardships endured by working-class men to provide for their families, Farrell echoes the concerns of early socialists.
Yet the Left has now abandoned working-class men in favor of middle-class feminists, and the ‘ordinary working man’, once the quintessential proletarian, has found himself redefined in leftist demonology as patriarchal, homophobic, racist, wife-beating bigot.
The Worst Jobs?
Farrell shows the most dangerous jobs are mostly male, but his claim that the worst jobs are also male goes too far.
Certainly, refuse-collecting seems unpleasant, as does coalmining. However, to me, care-work seems similarly unpleasant—as does nursing. Yet these are female-dominated jobs.
Yet nurses are widely extolled as ‘caring’.
The same is not said of refuse collectors, or people building and working in sewage plants. Yet these people, mostly men, contribute more to public health than all the nurses in the world combined.
Cleaning public lavatories is another unpleasant job in which both sexes are employed. But the worst cleaning job, cleaning crime scenes, seems to be mostly male.
Prostitution
Perhaps the only dangerous job that is mostly female is street-prostitution.
Prostitution is also Farrell’s favored analogy regarding the sacrifices of male manual laborers. His chapter on the military is titled ‘War Hero or War Slave? The Armed Prostitute’ and he writes:
“Most men unconsciously experience themselves as prostitutes every day—the miner, the firefighter, the construction worker, the logger, the meatpacker—these men are prostitutes in the direct sense: they sacrifice their bodies for money and for their families” (p209)The analogy is emotive, but misleading.
“Each man, whether in a coal mine near home or in a trench 'over there', expects his body to be used. Male prostitution is a given; freedom for it a luxury” (p102)
Actually, prostitution is a well-paid job at which almost any woman can earn a fortune from literally lying flat on her back. But it is not an equal opportunity career.
Moreover, prostitutes do not ‘sell their bodies’. They merely temporarily rent out certain orifices on strict contractual terms. In legal terms, a ‘license’, not a ‘lease’.
Men who die in coalmines, construction sites and battlefields sell their bodies in a far more literal sense.
Pay-Gap, Spending-Gap
Men’s willingness to do dangerous work is among the factors contributing to the pay-gap. Others include willingness to work long hours, for a greater proportion of their lives and relocate or commute (see Why Men Earn More: reviewed here.)
But, if men earn more than women, they are not richer.
“The key to wealth is not in what someone earns; it is what is spent on ourselves at our discretion - or what is spent on us, at our hint” (p23)The entire process of human courtship is predicated on the redistribution of wealth from men to women—from the social expectation that the man pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation to financially support his ex-wife for anything up to several decades after he has belatedly rid himself of her.
Thus, Farrell reports:
“Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category” (p23)But for once Farrell’s data is lacking. He reports:
“A study of large shopping malls... found that seven times as much floor space is devoted to women’s personal items as men’s” (p23)But his associated endnote cites only his own “rough measurement of approximate floor space” and an unpublished thesis (p338).
He also claims:
“In restaurants, men pay for women about ten times as frequently as women pay for men—the more expensive the restaurant, the more often the man pays” (p23)But in his endnote, he admits this an anecdotal estimate (p338).
Actually, data shows women control about 80% of consumer spending. It has been collected, not by social scientists, but by marketing researchers, who, concerned with the bottom line or liable to find themselves out of a job, cannot afford to falsify their findings.
Violence against Whom?
Another illustration of male disposability is the attention accorded to the issue of ‘violence against women’—though most victims are male.
In later works Farrell focuses exclusively on domestic violence, reviewing the overwhelming evidence that women are responsible for as much domestic violence as men.
But, although men and women are about equally likely to be victimized inside the home, men are much more likely to be the victimized outside the home. Men represent most victims, not only of violent crime, but also of war and Infanticide Acts, which provide a partial defence against murder, but only for women.
However, Farrell cites only one study on discrimination in criminal sentencing.
Recent studies confirm men are sentenced more severely.
Offenders who victimize women are also sentenced more harshly. There is also discrimination during arrest and pretrial release decisions.
Recent data confirm Farrell’s claims on rape. Even the Department of Justice has admitted, once prison rape is included, there are more rapes of males than females in the US as a whole.
Re false allegations, Farrell relies on an obscure US Airforce study by Mcdowell. A more rigorous study was published the year after his book and found that at least 40-50% of rape allegations are false.
For Farrell, false allegations are themselves a form of rape:
“When a man says he has been falsely accused of rape, he is also telling us he has been raped. He is being accused of being one of life's most despicable persons” (p289)Farrell also claims:
“A man feels raped by a woman who says she is on birth control at night and says she feels pregnant in the morning… This rape of him imprisons him for a lifetime… [and] is sanctioned by law” (p302)Again, the analogy is emotive but misleading.
Actually, the psychological trauma and stigma of being falsely accused of rape surely far outstrips that of rape itself.
Certainly, suicide is more common among men accused of rape than among rape victims.
Government as a Substitute Husband
Traditionally women looked to husbands to provide for them. Now this role is increasingly usurped by the state—what Farrell calls “Government as a Substitute Husband”.
The burden is shifted from the husband to the taxpayer—but it remains primarily on men:
“Men as a group pay twice what women pay into Social Security but women receive over 150 percent of what men receive in total retirement benefits from Social Security” (p315)As Martin van Creveld puts it:
“On the face of it, a husband, a charitable institution and a modern welfare state are entirely different. In fact… all are designed partly—and some would say primarily—to transfer resources from men… to women” (The Privileged Sex: p137)The only change is that, now, the voluntary aspect, along with any control over the uses to which the money is put, is gone.
“Since most tax money is paid by men, her ‘right to choose’ is the choice to obligate mostly men to pay for her choice” (p315)Likewise, fathers are forced to pay maintenance for their children even when denied custody of, sometimes access to, the children—not to mention any say in the decision to have children in the first place.
If a woman lies about using contraception, then, Farrell explains, in some states:
“She has the right to raise the child without his knowing he even has a child and then to sue him for retroactive child support even 10 to 20 years later” (p25)Stage I: Functionalism & Conflict Theory
One of Farrell's key concepts is his distinction between what he calls Stage I and Stage II relationships.
According to Farrell, until recently all relationships were necessarily Stage I—i.e. survival-based. Men were responsible for earning and women on childcare because this was necessary to survive.
The idea that traditional gender roles worked to the benefit of all reflects what sociologists call functionalism.
Sociologists generally reject functionalism for conflict theory which recognizes individual and group interests differ and institutions tend to reflect the interests of the powerful.
Feminism is a conflict theory that views the sexual division of labor as designed for the benefit of men. My view is the opposite. The sexual division of labour works to the advantage of women, with the most dangerous/arduous jobs reserved for men.
Stage II: Utopian Idealism
Recent rising affluence and technologies like birth control have, for Farrell, freed women to move into to what he terms Stage II, where a focus on survival gives way to concern for fulfilment and happiness. Feminism is, for Farrell, an expression of this change.
But men have yet to make this move. Whereas women's dissatisfaction with their traditional role was celebrated as ‘feminism’, men’s disillusionment with their traditional role is ridiculed as a ‘midlife crisis’. Yet Farrell contends:
“Women's liberation and the male midlife crisis were the same search—for personal fulfilment, common values, mutual respect, love” (p33)Farrell sees his mission as to guide both sexes into this Brave New World.
Yet Farrell’s Stage II is hopelessly utopian.
Farrell sees his work as the unfinished business of feminism. By demanding equal rights for men, he is taking the feminist rhetoric of equality to its logical conclusion. Thus, he talks of “cherishing feminism's baby” and the need, not for a men’s movement, but rather a “gender transition movement” (p6; p10).
Yet the Men's Rights Movement represents, not so much the logical conclusion of feminism, as its reductio ad absurdum. The innate origin of sex differences means that equality of the sexes will remain a chimera.
Men meanwhile will remain slaves to their sexual desire and hence to women.
In his Introduction and opening chapter, Farrell contends that society is “both male and female-dominated, both patriarchal and matriarchal”, that “both sexes made themselves ‘slaves’ to the other sex in different ways” but “neither sex can accurately be called oppressed” (p9; p30).
Yet the remainder of his book shows that the ways in which women purport to be oppressed are illusory, whereas male disadvantage is all too real.
For example, men are overrepresented among both corporate CEOs and the homeless.
But, whereas the CEO usually has a wife or ex-wife, and often a daughter or two, to share in his wealth (typically without having performed any of the hard work to achieve this wealth), the homeless man is almost invariably single.
July 8, 2017
This is probably one of the most important, eye-opening books I've ever read. I watched the documentary "The Red Pill" and was pretty interested in a lot of the information that was brought up so I decided to dig a little deeper and read this book. I honestly never really expected to even finish it because I haven't been that interested in gender issues in the past, but I couldn't put this book down. It took me a long time to finish it because every page was stuffed with so many new ideas that I needed to mull over and really take time to think about.
I feel as though I still haven't even fully "digested" this book. I find myself thinking about it constantly and noticing the points it raises all around me in every day life. I know the title of the book is probably off-putting to many people, especially women, but I strongly recommend that everyone read this book. It shows that the gender issues in society today are not as one-sided as you have been lead to believe. That neither sex chose the gender roles they were forced into and therefore both genders face issues of inequality as we've moved out of these traditional roles and into a modern society where they are no longer necessary. Much of the book is spent pointing out how the system is often unfair to men, but that is only to lead to the author's larger purpose of explaining how both sexes need to remedy these issues and come together to achieve true equality. To quote the author, "when one sex wins, both sexes lose."
I feel as though I still haven't even fully "digested" this book. I find myself thinking about it constantly and noticing the points it raises all around me in every day life. I know the title of the book is probably off-putting to many people, especially women, but I strongly recommend that everyone read this book. It shows that the gender issues in society today are not as one-sided as you have been lead to believe. That neither sex chose the gender roles they were forced into and therefore both genders face issues of inequality as we've moved out of these traditional roles and into a modern society where they are no longer necessary. Much of the book is spent pointing out how the system is often unfair to men, but that is only to lead to the author's larger purpose of explaining how both sexes need to remedy these issues and come together to achieve true equality. To quote the author, "when one sex wins, both sexes lose."
Read
July 11, 2021I'd give this negative stars if I could. Not that Farrell doesn't have valid points. Both sexes should register for selective service or we should get rid of it. A society which is more accepting of men staying home with the kids and women asking men out is definitely healthier. But ...
Farrell rants about how the government could call all those draft-registered men up, send the ones who resist to jail and there they'd probably be raped. Ergo, a males only draft is rape!
He insists sexual harassment can destroy companies and men's careers, never considering that this might be just punishment (he also suffers from the delusion that companies never tolerate a known harasser). It isn't because women look so sexy at work, it just triggers men to hit on them! And no means yes — even a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a test to see if you're man enough to fight for her. His comments about date rape fall into the same vein (women get to sue for date rape but men can't sue if a woman commits "date fraud" by changing her mind about sex).
Farrell also insists in focusing on "genetic celebrities," AKA good-looking women, and how easy it is for them and how much men would love it if the women would ask them out. He ignores that most women, like most men, are not stunningly good-looking and feel every bit as vulnerable as a man does (if she asks him out, will he think she's desperate? Will he think she's a slut?).
I could go on, but I don't have the space.
Farrell rants about how the government could call all those draft-registered men up, send the ones who resist to jail and there they'd probably be raped. Ergo, a males only draft is rape!
He insists sexual harassment can destroy companies and men's careers, never considering that this might be just punishment (he also suffers from the delusion that companies never tolerate a known harasser). It isn't because women look so sexy at work, it just triggers men to hit on them! And no means yes — even a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a test to see if you're man enough to fight for her. His comments about date rape fall into the same vein (women get to sue for date rape but men can't sue if a woman commits "date fraud" by changing her mind about sex).
Farrell also insists in focusing on "genetic celebrities," AKA good-looking women, and how easy it is for them and how much men would love it if the women would ask them out. He ignores that most women, like most men, are not stunningly good-looking and feel every bit as vulnerable as a man does (if she asks him out, will he think she's desperate? Will he think she's a slut?).
I could go on, but I don't have the space.
May 18, 2017
An eye-opening read. Farrell points out several areas in which contemporary feminists can improve society. The book discusses males' higher suicide rates, lower life spans, higher work-related deaths, and much more, while women received lighter sentences in comparison to their male counterparts (for equivalent crimes), an astronomically higher occurrence of child custody, and are generally treated like children with respect to the law and sexuality. He even discusses a few court cases that were thrown out due to 'PMS clauses', wherein female criminals were discharged simply for their time of the month.
In short, we have a lot to work on as a society, and it starts by taking men's rights seriously.
In short, we have a lot to work on as a society, and it starts by taking men's rights seriously.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 24, 2013
Necessary and provocative analysis offering loads of interesting statistical evidence to back up theoretical considerations of disposability, spending obligation gaps, stage one functional paradigms et al
April 21, 2017
I suppose it my own fault that I was curious about reading this book in the first place. I saw this book on my roommate's bookshelf and was a bit puzzled as to what was meant by its curious and enigmatic title. Was the book making some sort of feminist critique of male power and dominance as is common in these days? Not really. This book was certainly a critique of marriage law and godly morality, but it was written from the point of view of showing men as the victims of changed sexual politics, left with no options while women have replaced them with government as a substitute husband and with various means of abortion and birth control and child support and so on to gain control over children and the pocketbook of their estranged partners. Certainly dealing with questions of divorce are far from unusual in my own reading and writing [1]. What was it about this book that simply left me unable to finish it, an extremely rare fate among books that I pick up and read on a regular basis. I finish hundreds of books a year--why could I not finish this one?
As it happens, the reason why I was unable to finish this particular book was because it made me feel intensely angry whenever I picked it up. This is not a good reaction to a book. Fairly frequently I read books that I am frustrated or irritated with, but this book mate my blood boil. Considering that I read most of my books in the break room at work or in public in restaurants, it was simply not safe for me to pick up this book. Even reading a single chapter of fifteen or twenty pages was enough to make me feel an intense rage that I found it difficult and unpleasant to control. So rather than read the book little by little and feel angry while doing so, I thought it would be best to set the book aside and just note that its contents were simply not something I could deal with. Perhaps you will be able to read it without feeling upset about it. Perhaps you will be bored by it or mildly irritated, but it really struck a nerve with me, and as a result this was one book that I was not willing to read because that sort of rage is not a place where I like to be under any circumstances, and especially not reading a book.
For those who are curious about the book's contents, this book is more than 350 pages and contains four parts. The first part looks at the myth of male power by asking the question if such power is really a myth and then giving a phony and pseudoscientific division of marriage development from stage I to stage II. The second part of the book looks at the "glass cellars" of the so-called disposable sex, and about the lack of choice men have had as dominant figures in the death professions, why women live longer, and why men commit suicide more. The third part looks at government as a substitute husband in looking at how the system protects women unjustly, how women have more defenses against murder than men do, and the politics of sex, rape, and welfare/child support. After this the fourth part of the book gives a conclusion and notes and bibliography. From this listing it is perhaps possible to see how this book may be pretty infuriating to many readers, regardless of what extent, if any, the reader agrees with what the author has to say.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
As it happens, the reason why I was unable to finish this particular book was because it made me feel intensely angry whenever I picked it up. This is not a good reaction to a book. Fairly frequently I read books that I am frustrated or irritated with, but this book mate my blood boil. Considering that I read most of my books in the break room at work or in public in restaurants, it was simply not safe for me to pick up this book. Even reading a single chapter of fifteen or twenty pages was enough to make me feel an intense rage that I found it difficult and unpleasant to control. So rather than read the book little by little and feel angry while doing so, I thought it would be best to set the book aside and just note that its contents were simply not something I could deal with. Perhaps you will be able to read it without feeling upset about it. Perhaps you will be bored by it or mildly irritated, but it really struck a nerve with me, and as a result this was one book that I was not willing to read because that sort of rage is not a place where I like to be under any circumstances, and especially not reading a book.
For those who are curious about the book's contents, this book is more than 350 pages and contains four parts. The first part looks at the myth of male power by asking the question if such power is really a myth and then giving a phony and pseudoscientific division of marriage development from stage I to stage II. The second part of the book looks at the "glass cellars" of the so-called disposable sex, and about the lack of choice men have had as dominant figures in the death professions, why women live longer, and why men commit suicide more. The third part looks at government as a substitute husband in looking at how the system protects women unjustly, how women have more defenses against murder than men do, and the politics of sex, rape, and welfare/child support. After this the fourth part of the book gives a conclusion and notes and bibliography. From this listing it is perhaps possible to see how this book may be pretty infuriating to many readers, regardless of what extent, if any, the reader agrees with what the author has to say.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
October 12, 2021
The challenge of The Myth of Male Power, then, is to care enough about men to spend as much of the next quarter century helping men become Stage II men as we did the last quarter century helping women become Stage II women; to move toward equality of obligation for the death professions and combat roles, not just the “pick-and-choose liberation” of female opportunity when desired; to cease expecting men to earn more money than a woman before they are “eligible” and then calling the expectation “power,” “patriarchy,” “dominance,” or “sexism” rather than “pressure” and “obligation”; to develop affirmative action-type outreach programs for men until men and women have the same life expectancy; to give men special outlets and special incentives to express their feelings and perspectives until men commit suicide no more frequently than women; to confront our monetary incentives to keep men disposable rather than pay, for example, what it would cost to have a house built half by female construction workers; to monitor media sexism that defines relationship issues disproportionately from the female perspective in books, magazines, newspapers, talk shows, and sit-coms; to care as much about battered husbands as battered wives; to acknowledge the working dad as much as we acknowledge the working mom; to give fathers as much right to their children as we do mothers; to not stop merely with caring as much about saving males as saving whales, but to stop only when we care as much about saving males as saving females; to go beyond woman as sex objects and men as success objects to both sexes as objects of love
Warren Farrell
Warren Farrell
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews