The Myth of Male Power

Around the time he published his most recent and to date most radical book, "The Myth of Male Power," Warren Farrell released these audiocassettes of the same title. Farrell's own recommendation of these tapes as the second step in educating the uninitiated about men's issues (the tapes of "Why Men Are the Way They Are" being the first step) is very well-taken. Information and philosophy are presented engagingly, accessibly, with little fluff or fanfare. Indeed, given Farrell's measured, reasonable voice and carefully presented, step-by-step documentation of his positions, the listener could be forgiven for momentarily failing to notice just how radical a vision of men's position these tapes present. It is only by reference to the current, twisted state of gender politics that one can even understand why Farrell's common-sense, compassionate, incisive approach is seen by some as so "dangerous."
The truth is that these tapes ARE dangerous. They imperil the listener's ability ever again to believe many of the whoppers masquerading as received truths about the "patriarchy," the alleged lower moral fiber of men relative to women, men's supposedly greater power, and many other myths. Farrell reminds us that neither gender wins unless both sexes win.
The tapes take the form of a dialog between the author and a male interviewer who leaves no feminist stone unturned in his scrutiny of Farrell's position. A former three-time New York City National Organization of Women board member, Farrell has no difficulty acknowledging the areas where women truly have been oppressed. But he also is not afraid to demolish some of the favored shibboleths about women's suffering. For example, when experience, job requirements, and attractiveness of jobs are taken into account, women do NOT earn less than men. With the exception of rape, the more violent a crime, the more likely a MAN is to be the victim. Female heads of households have on average 141% the level of assets owned by male heads of households. Women also control most spending. Men are not inherently violent and will curb their natural protective instincts where three basic needs--adequate food, adequate water, and safety from attack---are met. Male violence, Farrell shows, is a response to powerLESSNESS, not power.
Farrell is not afraid of even the most potentially controversial issues. A detailed comparison between the position of men and blacks supports his provocative position that in many ways men are treated as slaves today. (We work longer hours, die sooner, and lose our children.) Nor is he afraid to say the emperor of feminist hypocrisy has no clothes. He notes that many women (and men) complain about men's killing while living in the countries and on the property obtained as a result of this killing.
Farrell addresses some topics that are rarely discussed. He notes the invisibility of men in less valued professions such as the highly hazardous and socially invaluable garbage collector job. He notes that a glass cellar keeps an overwhelming percentage of men in 24 of the 25 worst overall jobs. If we had the same percentage of safety inspections per capital each year as Japan, we would save the lives of 6,000 men and 400 women each year.
Farrell speaks carefully and is quick to crack a joke or poke gentle fun at himself, men, or women. But he is deadly serious about the importance of transforming the current highly polarized gender-based identity politics into a thankfulness for men's unique contributions and a compassion for their struggles to complement our concern for and appreciation of women.
Why the interviewer wonders, are we so slow to learn these facts? Because, Farrell answers, our instincts do not lead us to learn about male vulnerability, even where it exceeds women's. Female victims attract men, but male victims repel everyone. So we protest disproportionate capital punishment of blacks relative to whites but not the stunningly more disproportionate capital punishment of men relative to women. We protest corporal punishment of black boys but not of boys. Astoundingly, we learn that the greatest single predictor of the level of punishment for the same crime is the perpetrator's sex.
Farrell decires the seven legal defenses available only to women such as the "battered women's syndrome" and bemoans the unconstitutional special treatment of rape in criminal law. He notes the ten glass cellars of male existence, including suicide, prison, homelessness, the death professions, earlier death from all fifteen leading causes of death, greater vulnerability to death from accidents, circumcision, corporal punishment, capital punishment, and the draft.
Surpisingly, Farrell manages to retain some optimism about the future of relationships between men and women. For the first time in history, he says, what it takes for men and women to survive parallels what it takes for us to love effectively. Farrell closes these remarkable tapes with a moving plea that we some day reach a place where we can abandon men's rights and feminism and can all work together on a gender transition movement to expand the potential for all of us regardless of gender. Don't miss these superb cassettes. And be sure your mother, partner, and/or daughter don't miss them either. Our future may depend on it.

This book is well-researched and well-documented. It challenges many assumptions that people have. There are many real-life examples of many real people. Warren points out in the book that in American history, male immigrants earned passage to America as indentured servants. These men assumed slavelike status for seven years or more in order to bring their families and themselves to America. Yet these men were often denied the benefits of the wife's cooking, cleaning, and companionship for many years. As Warren points out, males are often asked to perform without having the resources to perform. In the middle of the Great Depression, men were 650% more likely to commit suicide than women. Unemployed men commit suicide at the twice the rate of men who are employed. There is no significant difference in the rate of suicide among women whether or not the woman is employed. Not having all have the economic resources to provide for the family was a primary reason for the higher male suicide rate. A man having more than one wife was a system by which the rich man, by having more than one wife, prevented a woman from being stuck with a poor man. Therefore, it was the poor man who was deprived of love. Warren says that in Muslim countries, the purdah keeps the female beauty hidden. This prevented the average man from even looking at the average woman until he made promises to provide and protect her and her children for life. This resulted in almost all women, not just the pretty ones, to be protected by someone. I highly recommend that people please read this book. Thank you. At the present time, there is no Kindle version of this book. I wish there was a Kindle version of this book available to people.

I first read this book in 2006 while going through a difficult divorce. A woman I had met at that time knew the author and suggested the book to me. This book helped me heal in many ways and move on with my life with a better understanding of myself and why I had felt certain ways. When I logged onto the the store site, as I often do, I read the 1 star reviews to first understand why someone doesn't like something. I was surprised at some of the hateful close-minded and uninformed comments. I also noticed that 5 star ratings run almost 10 to 1 advantage over 1 star ratings.

My suggestion to you which worked great for me: Ask your significant other to read and discuss this book with you. I did so with the woman that suggested it to me and we have been together ever since - happier than ever!

Farrell's basic thesis is that men protect women, and no one protects men, who are regarded as expendable. Take healthcare, for instance. In spite of claims by feminists that female healthcare is neglected in comparison with male healthcare, since 1920 the male-female life-span *gap* has increased 600 percent to the present seven years by which female life span exceeds that of males.
Suicide as an expression of powerlessness: "As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate increases 25,000 percent." (0.1 suicides per 100,000 boys under the age of nine to 25.8 suicides per 100.000 boys [men] between ages 20-24. That's six times as high as the rate for women ages 20-24.)
And Farrell notes that the advantages men enjoy, i.e., better pay on jobs, are actually a benefit for women, in that while men may earn fat salaries, women spend them (men often don't have the leisure). And while high-status male- dominated occupations, e.g., surgeon, investment banker, are associated with stress-related illnesses, low-status male-dominated occupations, e.g., construction worker, coal miner, garbage-truck driver, are associated with higher rates of injury and death. In other words, women may earn less, but their occupations are safer.
Farrell also enumerates the dis-Viagrifing risks men run when they have sexual relations with women: (1) If pregnancy results, the woman can tell the man or not--her option, (2) If pregnant, the woman can keep the fetus or abort--her option, (3) If the woman gives birth, she can extract 18 years of child-support payments from the guy or not--her option. I wouldn't necessarily argue that this should be otherwise, but clearly there's a big difference in power here.
This pretty much conforms to my view: men are expendable, not designed for the long-haul, designed to fight, breed, and die, their function served. Women, on the other hand, are designed to perpetuate the culture, educate the young, etc., and have to last longer. It's a little ! worrisome to note, however, that the programming of our genes has been greatly assisted in recent years by extra-genetic attacks on men.
Not that I'm complaining, I hasten to add. We guys are tough; we can take it.

In 1963, an anthropologist named Jules Henry wrote "Culture Against Man," which, in the words of fellow anthropologist Ashley Montagu, was "one of the most telling and creative examinations of American culture and values written in this century." In this book, where "man" was used in a generic sense (to refer to both men and women), Henry described "a culture torn by conflicting values, a national character made ambiguous by a people leading isolated, fragmented lives. ... [T]his society, so vigorously engaged in surviving physically, may also be dying emotionally."
I have often wished that someone should write a sequel to Henry's book, and only recently discovered that psychologist Warren Farrell had written just such a book in 1993 (now available in a 2001 edition with an updated introduction). Entitled "The Myth of Male Power," Farrell's book shows how, in an effort to achieve equal opportunity for women, extreme feminism has torn apart major parts of our culture and created a situation in which men and women are placed in confusing and conflicting roles that lead to dangerous and often deadly consequences for the men.
In example after example, Farrell shows that men, who were once believed to have a preponderance of power in our society, are now very much at risk. Of the firefighters who are killed on the job, 99 percent are men. A similar situation exists with police officers and soldiers (99.99% of the names on the Vietnam Memorial are of men). There are three times as many homeless men living on the streets by themselves as there are homeless children, adolescents and women combined. Women are significantly more likely to attend college than men, and to obtain a degree. Also, women now live seven years longer than men (whereas in 1920, the life expectancy for men was a year longer than for women)--men die earlier than women from all fifteen of the leading causes of death!
Unlike many authors (who state a problem but offer no solutions), Farrell concludes his book with specific proposals for ending the "gender wars" and taking steps to improve the lots of men and women alike. His book is both comprehensive and readable, and I commend it to anyone who wants to obtain a balanced view of what has created the current state of conflict between men and women in our society, and what can be done to make things right.

Warren has opened my eyes and expanded my vision. As a businesswomen who frequently speaks on women's leadership, I am now able to present with greater insight the complexities for both genders. I now see hope and promise for more equality, understanding and communication founded on reality, not myths. My lectures and my perspectives have changed because of this book. I highly recommend it for men and women who want to know the truth and find new solutions for working and leading together.

This book may have some factual distortions but then so would a book written by a woman about gender issues from a purely female perspective. The majority of what this book says however is true,disturbing and even down right scary and disheartening,for men anyway. Its important to note when Mr.Ferrell was on the board at N.O.W. and giving all his attention and support to women he was popular,but then he realized he was neglecting the mens perspective and became more involved in mens issues,as a result,he was cast out by women and most of his books on mens issues have been subsequently censored by women. I urge all men concerned with the future of men and any women with any compassion for men to read this book.

In his brilliant dissection of what he calls 'The Myth of Male Power', Warren Farrell produces what remains, twenty years after first publication, both the seminal men's rights manifesto and the most effective demolition of the central tenets of feminism.

The assumption that men represent a privileged class as compared to women is not only central to feminism but also almost universally accepted throughout the mainstream media, popular and academic discourse and across the political spectrum. In his pioneering 'masculist' masterpiece, Farrell systematically demolishes this assumption.

Farrell shows that, far from privileged, men are overrepresented among the homeless, the victims of violent crime, conscripts, casualties in warfare, the prison population and suicides.

As George Orwell wrote, "one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male".

Writing Style

A remnant of his former incarnation as a writer of relationship guides marketed at female audiences, Farrell's 'touchy-feely' writing style may alienate many male readers (as may his suggestion that expecting boys to compete in sports like boxing and American football is a form of child abuse).

In the current work, he adapted this writing style somewhat to attract a more male readership, alternating self-help-style sound-bites with statistics, the latter often highlighted in bold-type and separate from the main body of the text. The result is not entirely stylistically successful.

Nevertheless, Farrell coins countless quotable aphorisms (e.g. "From a woman's perspective, a man's home is his castle; from a man's perspective, a woman's home is his mortgage") and never comes across as bitter or angry.

The Disposable Sex

For Farrell, men represent, not a privileged class, but rather 'The Disposable Sex' (see also The Disposable Male). By this, he means the men's lives are regarded as of less value than those of women.

One illustration of this is the allocation of places on board lifeboats the sinking of the Titanic, where 80% of men on board perished versus only 26% of women. Curiously Farrell does not discuss the sinking of the Titanic in 'The Myth of Male Power', reserving this for his follow-up book, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say.

Conscription

Instead, Farrell's quintessential exemplar of male disposability is conscription, or 'the draft (i.e. compulsory enlistment for military service).

According the Encyclopaedia Britannica, conscription has "existed at least since the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom (27th century BC)". By the end of World War One, every major combatant nation made conscription universal for young men.

As of 2012, over eighty countries continue to practice conscription (Benatar, The Second Sexism: p27), ranging from the ostensibly liberal democratic (e.g. Switzerland), to the oppressive and purportedly patriarchal (e.g. Iran, the Taliban).

In the vast majority, only men are conscripted. A few make a token gesture towards egalitarianism.

For example, Israel conscripts both sexes. However, men are obliged to serve three years, women only two and, in practice, Farrell writes "the average Israeli man serves thirteen years before his eligibility ends... women less than two", because only 50% of women are called to serve compared to 90% of men, mothers cannot be forced to serve beyond their two years and Israeli men are required to serve two months per year even after their three years is complete.

Is Conscription Constitutional?

In the US, selective service registration is obligatory only for men and, in Vietnam, almost 57,000 American men died (30% of them conscripts) as compared with only eight women (all volunteers).

Farrell therefore describes "male only draft registration and combat requirements" as "the two most unconstitutional laws in America" and "the greatest possible violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law" because "they are a breach of America's most inalienable right: the right to life".

In Rostker v Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court declared male-only selective service registration constitutional, the Court ruling that, "since women are excluded from combat" and "the purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops", making them register served no purpose.

However, this argument ignored the fact that women's combat exemption was itself contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the recent lifting of the combat exemption renders this argument obsolete (see Hollander 2013).

Slavery?

As it involves forced labour, Farrell compares conscription to slavery, writing of how "during the [American] Civil War, the government passed a Conscription Act, allowing... for an all-male slave trade", such that, "in essence, white male slaves fought to free black slaves".

He continues:

"Blacks were forced, via slavery, to risk their lives in cotton fields so that whites might benefit economically while blacks died prematurely. Men were forced, via the draft, to risk their lives on battlefields so that everyone else might benefit economically while men died prematurely. Both slaves and men died to make the world safe for freedom-someone else's."

Strictly speaking, definitions of slavery usually entail two components, namely that work be both:
1) Involuntary; and
2) Unpaid.

Conscription is involuntary. However, whether it is paid, and whether wages are merely nominal, has varied over time and place.

Nevertheless, the analogy is sufficiently powerful that the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, prohibiting slavery, explicitly excluded conscription from its prohibition (Article 2 paragraph 2a).

Genocide?

Farrell also compares male-only conscription to genocide, writing:

"How is it that 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?"

The analogy is again powerful. However, perhaps the neologism "Gender-cide", coined by feminists, but later 're-appropriated' for men by Adam Jones (2000), is better.

Danger: Men at Work

For Farrell, the overrepresentation of men in hazardous occupations (e.g. construction, coalmining, firefighting, logging) is a further illustration of 'male disposability'

In his fourth chapter, 'The Death Professions', Farrell shows that, although men are overrepresented in the best-paid positions, they are also over-represented in the worst jobs. Paradoxically, the reason for both these disparities is the same - namely, the lengths to which men are willing to go to earn money to provide for their wife and children (not to mention attract a wife/girlfriend in the first place).

He focuses particularly on military careers, describing the Gulf War as "The Males-Per-Gallon War" because it was fought to control oil yet men represented 96% of Americans killed with men who served being three times as likely to be killed. (He extends this analysis to the Iraq war in 'Why Men Earn More'.)

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 and man 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 servicemen.

As Fred Reed observes, "Without men, civilisation would last until the oil needed changing".

Whereas women are often described as a 'civilizing' influence on men, Farrell turns this claim on its head, arguing that "by taking care of the killing for women it could be said that men civilized women".

As Orwell observed, "men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them".

Socialism and Men's Rights

If it appears I am quoting Orwell excessively in this review, this reflects something perhaps unsettling both to Farrell's critics and some of his supporters - namely the decidedly socialist ring to much of 'The Myth of Male Power'.

In focussing on the hardships endured by ordinary working-class men to provide for their families, Farrell echoes the concerns of early socialists like Orwell (himself an anti-feminist).

This shouldn't surprise us. Farrell's intention is not to defend privilege, but to question who is privileged and oppressed in the first place.

When feminist-sponsored 'comparative worth' programmes dictate that librarians be paid more than refuse collectors because the former have better academic qualifications, this is anything but socialist.

Yet now the Left has largely abandoned the constituency of working-class men in favour of middle-class feminists, and the 'ordinary working man', once the quintessential proletarian, has found himself redefined as patriarchal wife-beating homophobe and bigot. So much for socialism.

Low-Status Occupations

Farrell convincingly contends that the most dangerous occupations are overwhelmingly male. However, his claim that the worst jobs are invariably overwhelmingly male goes too far.

Certainly, refuse collection seems unpleasant, as does coalmining. However, (in my wholly subjective opinion) care-work seems similarly unpleasant - as does nursing. Yet these are female-dominated occupations.

However, these careers may be 'rewarding' in that they involve helping others. Moreover, although not well-remunerated in pecuniary terms, nurses are widely extolled as 'caring'.

The same is not true of refuse collectors, or people building and working in sewage plants. Yet these occupations (overwhelmingly male), surely contribute more to public health than all the nurses and care-workers in the country combined.

Cleaning public lavatories is another unpleasant, low-status occupation in which both sexes are employed. However, perhaps the worst cleaning job - cleaning crime scenes - seems to be male-dominated.

Prostitution

Perhaps the only dangerous career that is predominantly female is street-prostitution. Even this, I suspect, is not as dangerous as many mainly male occupations, both criminal and lawful.

Prostitution is also Farrell's favoured analogy regarding the sacrifices of male manual labourers. His chapter on the armed services is entitled '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" and "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".

The analogy is emotive. However, in choosing prostitution as his exemplar of an exploitative occupation, Farrell is taking feminist falsehoods at face-value.

Actually, surveys suggest the majority of prostitutes, including streetwalkers, "are content with their work" (Love for Sale: p381) and few, if any, are forced into prostitution against their will (see Davies 2009; Sharma 2005; McAleer 2003).

Prostitution is an extremely well-remunerated career at which any woman, irrespective of her qualifications, can earn a fortune from literally lying flat on her back. However, homosexual male prostitution apart, it is not an 'equal opportunity occupation'.

Moreover, contrary to cliché, prostitutes do not 'sell their bodies'. They merely rent out certain orifices for a very brief duration and on strict contractual terms (in legal terms, a 'licence' rather than a 'lease').

Men who die in coalmines, construction sites and battlefields sell their bodies in a far more literal and tragic sense.

From Pay-Gaps to Spending-Gaps

Men's willingness to work in dangerous and unpleasant conditions is, Farrell observes, one of factors contributing to the gender pay-gap. Others include greater willingness to work long hours, for a greater proportion of their lives and relocate or commute. Farrell discusses these in greater detail in Why Men Earn More.

However, Farrell recognises that, although men earn more than women, this does not make them richer. Rather, "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" (i.e. "Spending Power").

Indeed, the entire process of human courtship is predicated on the redistribution of wealth from men to women - from the social expectation for the man to pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation that he continue to financially support his ex-wife for anything up to several decades after he has belatedly rid himself of her.

Accordingly, Farrell reports, "Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category".

Unfortunately, the data he cites to support this claim is inadequate.

He reports, "a study of large shopping malls... found that seven rimes as much floor space is devoted to women's personal items as men's". However, the associated endnote cites only his own "rough measurement of approximate floor space" and an unpublished dissertation.

As Farrell acknowledges in another endnote in his follow-up book, "the survey is informal, by eye only, and subject to much improvement" ('Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say' Chapter Five, endnote 78). Moreover, it represents only an indirect measure of spending power, based on the assumption that "if women's or men's departments were not creating enough profit per foot, they would be forced to give way to general departments or those of the other sex" (Chapter One, endnote 16).

Similarly, he 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". However, in his endnotes, Farrell acknowledges, "this is based on my own informal discussions with waiters in restaurants around the country in cities where I speak" (Chapter One, endnote 20) i.e. mere anecdotal estimate.

Actually, abundant data confirms women's disproportionate control of consumer spending. It has been collected, not by feminist social scientists, but by researchers in the marketing industry, who, concerned with the bottom-line of maximising profits, cannot afford to ideologically doctor their findings.

A review of marketing research confirming women's disproportionate control of consumer spending, albeit focussed on the UK, is provided by David Thomas in Not Guilty: The Case in Defence of Modern Man (pp80-84) - a work published the same year as 'The Myth of Male Power' addressing similar themes.

Violence against Whom?

Another illustration of 'male disposability' is the disproportionate attention accorded to the issue of 'violence against women' - even though males represent the vast majority of victims of violence.

In later works ('Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Way' and 'Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?') Farrell focuses almost exclusively on domestic violence, reviewing the overwhelming evidence that women perpetrate acts of violence against male partners as often as men do against women (see Fiebert 2012).

However, although men and women are about equally likely to be the victims of domestic violence, men are vastly more likely to be the victimized outside the home. Men are the predominant victims, not only of violent crime, but also of war (War and Gender: p400) and even genocide (Jones 2000).

Yet, Farrell observes, "both conservatives and liberals passively accept phrases like 'innocent women and children'" and "when foreign hostages are captured and only women and children are released, neither ideology protests the sexism".

Even relief operations focus on rescuing and evacuating women (Carpenter 2003).

As Farrell writes, "We don't call male-killing 'sexism', we call it 'glory'"

Criminal Injustice

Farrell devotes two chapters to discrimination in the criminal justice system, documenting twelve 'female-only defences'.

Interestingly, one of these, what Farrell calls the 'depressed mother defence', actually has statutory force in the UK, under the Infanticide Acts, which explicitly apply only to women (in practice, infantical mothers are treated more leniently still: Wilczynski and Morris 1993).

Unfortunately, Farrell cites only a single study on gender disparities in sentences imposed by the courts (Zingraff and Thomson 1984).

Subsequent studies have confirmed that women are more leniently sentenced (Hedderman & Hough 1994; Spohn and Beichner 2000; Mustard 2001; Rodriguez et al 2006; Curry et al 2004; Jeffries et al 2003; Blackwell et al 2008; Embry and Lyons 2012) and less likely to be sentenced to death (Streib 2001; 2002; 2006).

The most recent and rigorous study (Starr 2012) found that, after controlling for prior criminal history and offence severity, convicted women are only half as likely to be sentenced to incarceration as men convicted of similar offences, and receive, on average, 60% shorter sentences than men convicted of the same offences.

Offenders are also sentenced more severely where their victims are female (Williams & Holcomb 2004; Curry 2010; Curry et al 2004).

There is also evidence of discrimination at other stages of the criminal justice process (Demuth & Steffensmeier 2004; Stolzenberg & D'Alessio 2004; Rowe 2008; Freiburger & Hilinski 2010).

Harassment

Chapter thirteen addresses the topic of sexual harassment. As Farrell observes, alluding once again to the overrepresentation of males in 'The Death Professions', "in one decade women... gained more protection against offensive jokes in the workplace than men had in centuries against being killed in the workplace".

Farrell observes that women exploit their sexuality to receive advantages in the workplace (e.g. flirting with the boss) at least as often as bosses use threats of dismissal to extort sexual favours. Male employees are the primary victims, because they lack the opportunity to trade sexual favours for promotions.

It can be even argued that women who wear sexually-provocative clothing are themselves engaging in a form of sexual harassment of male colleagues.

Farrell also notes that 'hazing' and initiation rituals may be essential to build trust and morale, especially in hazardous occupations. Yet harassment became an issue only when women began to enter these occupations and receive similar treatment.

Recent Rape Research

To balance the feminist extension of concept of 'date rape' to include any sexual experience a woman regrets the next morning, Farrell introduces concepts such as 'date robbery' and 'date fraud' - i.e. the situation where a man is expected to pay for a date but receives nothing in return.

Recent data confirm many Farrell's claims regarding rape. Firstly, evidence has confirmed the prevalence of male-rape in the US prison system, with even Department of Justice data and mainstream media outlets reporting more men than women raped in the US as a whole (Daily Mail 2013).

The prevalence of false allegations has also been confirmed. Whereas Farrell relies heavily on a single study in an obscure publication (McDowell 1985), the most rigorous study of false rape allegations was published the year after 'The Myth of Male Power' by Eugene Kanin (Kanin 1994).

Whereas other studies rely ultimately on subjective assessments of the creditability of individual complaints, Kanin found that that 41% of women making rape allegations in one mid-western city themselves ultimately admitted their allegations were false. On two university campuses, rates of admittedly false allegations were 50%.

Since many false-accusers probably never admit their allegations were false, this provides a conservative estimate of the lowest plausible rate of false allegations.

False Allegations as 'Rape'

Farrell describes false allegations themselves as representing a form of rape, writing: "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."

However, only the accuser is treated by the authorities as a 'victim' - even though, before a trial is complete, it has yet to be determined who the real victim is. Moreover, prosecution of women who make false allegations is rare and, when convicted, they typically receive noncustodial sentences.

He 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... [and] this rape of him imprisons him for a lifetime... [and] is sanctioned by law."

Again, Farrell's analogy is emotive but misleading. In using rape as his metaphor for the most horrible form of victimization a person can undergo, he is taking feminist Ms.-Information at face value.

Actually, the psychological trauma of being falsely accused of rape surely far outstrips that of rape itself. A man who is accused of rape has his reputation ruined. A shadow of suspicion hangs over him for the rest of his life, even if he is eventually acquitted, exonerated or never even charged. Many such men lose their families, friends, job, are forced to relocate or even driven to suicide.

In contrast, rape, though an unpleasant experience, it is quickly over with. Moxon reports, "even if depression does occur following rape, it lasts on average only two to four months" (The Woman Racket: p191).

From then on, the victim is the subject of sympathy not stigma and, for many feminists, identifying as a 'rape survivor' is a badge of honour. This is presumably why false allegations are so prevalent in the first place.

(The situation is very different for male-rape in the prison system, where the victim himself faces stigma as a 'punk', and is then repeatedly targeted thereafter.)

"Government as a Substitute Husband"

Traditionally women looked to husbands to protect and provide for them. However, with the rise of the welfare state, this role is increasingly usurped by government, resulting in what Farrell calls "Government as a Substitute Husband".

The burden on men is not reduced. On the contrary, government is funded by the taxpayer and, since they earn more money, men pay most of the taxes.

Farrell reports, "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", not least by retiring earlier and living longer.

The principle is elaborated by Martin Van Creveld in The Privileged Sex (p137):

"On the face of it, a husband, a charitable institution and a modern welfare state are entirely different. In fact... the principle is the same. All are designed partly - and some would say primarily - to transfer resources from men... to women".

The only change is that, now, the voluntary element, along with any discretion men might retain over the uses to which their money is put, disappears completely.

All men pay taxes to subsidise the lifestyles of single mothers - "since most tax money is paid by men," Farrell explains, "her 'right to choose' is the choice to obligate mostly men to pay for her choice".

Likewise, fathers are forced to pay maintenance to the mothers of their children even while denied custody of, sometimes even access to, the children in question - not to mention any say in the decision to have children in the first place.

If a woman lies about using contraception, Farrell, explains, "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".

Stage I: Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory

One of Farrell's key concepts with which I remain unconvinced 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 'breadwinning' and women for 'homemaking', because this was the only way to ensure survival.

The assumption that traditional gender roles were demanded by the necessity of survival and worked to the mutual benefit of everyone reflects what is referred to in sociology as a 'Functionalist Theory'.

Most modern sociologists reject 'Functionalism' in favour of 'Conflict Theory', which recognises that individual and group interests conflict and that social arrangements disproportionately reflect the interests of the powerful rather than of society as a whole.

Feminism is a 'Conflict Theory' in that it views the traditional sexual division of labour as designed for the benefit of men. My own view is the opposite. The traditional division of labour works to the advantage of women, with the most dangerous and arduous jobs reserved for men.

Stage II: Utopianism and the 'Gender Transition Movement'

In contrast, recent rising affluence and man-made technologies such as 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.

For Farrell, however, men have yet to make the transition to Stage II. Whereas women's dissatisfaction with their role as housewives was celebrated as 'feminism', men's disillusionment with their role as breadwinners 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". Farrell sees his mission as to guide both sexes into this Brave New World.

For me, however, Farrell's Stage II seems 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 sexual egalitarianism to its logical conclusion. Thus, he talks in his Introduction of "cherishing feminism's baby" and the need, not for a Men's Movement, but rather a "Gender Transition Movement".

In truth, however, the Men's Rights Movement represents, not so much the logical conclusion of feminism, as its reductio ad absurdum. The innate biological basis of sex differences mean that equality of the sexes will always remain a utopian aspiration - at least in the absence of the wholesale eugenic reengineering of human nature itself.

Men meanwhile will always remain slaves to their sexual desire and thus to women.

Oppressed or Privileged?

In his preface, Farrell contends that society is "both patriarchal and matriarchal, both male and female dominated", that "both sexes made themselves slaves to the other sex in different ways" and "neither sex can accurately be called oppressed".

However, the remainder of his book shows why this is not the case.

The ways in which women purport to be oppressed are illusionary. However, the disadvantage of men 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 very often a daughter or two, who share in his wealth and privilege without having performed any of the hard work to achieve this privilege, the homeless man is, in contrast, almost invariably single.
_________

References

Carpenter RC (2003) ''Women and Children First': Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans 1991-95'International Organization 57(4):661-694

Daily Mail, (2013) 'More Men Are Raped Than Women In The US Than Women, Figures On Prison Assaults Reveal' (8th October)

Davies, N (2009) 'Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution' Guardian 20 October

Demuth & Steffensmeier (2004) 'Impact of Gender and Race-Ethnicity in the Pretrial Release Process' Social Problems 51(2):222-242

Curry (2010) The conditional effects of victim and offender ethnicity and victim gender on sentences for non-capital cases. Punishment & Society 12(4):438-462

Curry et al (2004) 'Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes', Crime & Delinquency, 50(3):319-343.

Embry & Lyons (2012) 'Sex-Based Sentencing: Sentencing Discrepancies Between Male and Female Sex Offenders'. Feminist Criminology 7(2):146-162

Fiebert MS (2012) References Examining Assaults By Women On Their Spouses Or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography (available online; an earlier version published in Sexuality and Culture (2010) 14 (1), 49-91)

Freiburger & Hilinski (2010) 'The Impact of Race, Gender, and Age on the Pretrial Decision' Criminal justice review 35(3):318-334

Hedderman & Hough (1994) 'Does the Criminal Justice System Treat Men and Women Differently' Home Office, UK.

Hollander RD (2013) The Draft: Men Only? New Male Studies 2:3 32-41

Jeffries et al (2003) Pathways to Sex-Based Differentiation in Criminal Court Sentencing Criminology 41(2):329-354;

Jones A (2000) 'Gendercide and Genocide' Journal of Genocide Research 2:2:185-211.

Kanin (1994) "False Rape Allegations" Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1):81.

McAleer P 2003 'Happy Hookers of Eastern Europe' Spectator April 5

McDowell 'False Allegations' Forensic Science Digest, V. 11, no. 4, Dec. 1985, p. 64

Mustard (2001) 'Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the US Federal Courts Social Science Research Network' XLIV:285-314.

Rodriguez et al (2006) 'Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?' Social Science Quarterly 87(2):318

Rowe, (2008). 'Gender Bias in the Enforcement of Traffic Laws: Evidence based on a new empirical test' American Law & Economics Association Annual Meeting Paper 3

Sharma (2005) 'Anti-Trafficking Rhetoric and the Making of a Global Apartheid' NSWA Journal 17(3):88-111

Spohn & Beichner (2000) 'Is Preferential Treatment of Female Offenders a Thing of the Past? A Multisite Study of Gender, Race, and Imprisonment', Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, 149-184

Starr, (2012) Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases (August 29, 2012). University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018

Stolzenberg and Dalessio 2004 Sex differences in the likelihood of arrest Journal of Criminal Justice 32(5):443-454

Streib (1997) 'America's aversion to executing women', Ohio Northern University Women's Law Journal, 1:1-8

Streib (2001) 'Sentencing Women to Death' Criminal Justice Magazine 16(1)

Streib (2002) Gendering the Death Penalty: Countering Sex Bias in a Masculine Sanctuary, Ohio State Law Journal 63:433

Streib (2006) Rare and Inconsistent: The Death Penalty for Women, Fordham Urban Law Journal
References

Wilczynski, A. and Morris, A. (1993), 'Parents Who Kill their children', Criminal Law Review, 31-6

Williams & Holcomb (2004) The Interactive Effects of Victim Race and Gender on Death Sentence Disparity Findings Homicide Studies, 8(4):350-376

Zingraff & Thomson (1984) 'Differential Sentencing of Women and Men in the USA' International Journal of Sociology of Law 12(4):401-413

People need to read this book before they criticize the men's right movement or even to utter the phrase "patriarchy." Most of the gender equality education done in K-12 and colleges is based on the women's and feminist's perspective. It is only fair to re-examine traditional gender roles from both female's and male's points of view.

Plenty of interesting information in this revision and lots of updates. I do like the idea that it's not us against them (male vs female) but a joint effort for both to advance. But just like school, girls are more advanced than the guys and we need to catch up. Unfortunately we're not getting the necessary support to do so and are falling far far behind.

Dr. Farrell did make updates throughout the book but you could see where the updates hadn't been done. The best (worst) example is the Conclusion. He states that the past 25 years shows that men are falling behind but with the "new" men's movement and men going out into the woods to beat on drums to try and reach Stage II, we should see men catching up over the next 25 years. But 30 years past 1993, you basically see the men's movement as stillborn. There are certainly places where you can get men's rights information (the Manosphere) but the sites seem to be mostly ranty us against them (females and government) sites vs thoughtful working towards Stage II sites. As a result, the sites are generally ridiculed by women and aren't stopping additional laws being passed to benefit women over men.

Another interesting symptom are all the "where are the men" articles and posts by women because younger men are seeing no benefit to pursuing and committing to a woman when everything is stacked against them. A quote from a different book, Men on Strike by Helen Smith, PhD is appropriate:

Young men are not going to whine about their predicament. They are not going to organize workshops or support groups. (Thank Goodness.) Teenage boys are the one group of Americans who do not like to gather in circles and talk about grievances and misgivings. So what will they do? My guess is that vast numbers will just stop trying and withdraw. It would not be an organized strike - it would just happen. It is happening -- Christina Hoff Sommers

The book would have earned the last star had he updated the Conclusion chapter. Still it's a good book and worth a read or reread if you read the 1993 edition.

Quite simply what Warren Farrell is saying here is that, effectively speaking, men are slaves, have been slaves, and will continue to be slaves to feminine interests until they are disposed of (i.e., until they drop dead). He begins with the fact that our culture programs men to die to protect the interests of women (literally in wars and in high-risk jobs, and in dying younger than women) and ends with the fact that the rules of sexual politics allow women to pursue their interests unimpeded while men risk ending up in jail for sexual harassment or rape for pursuing theirs. He shows that a double standard of expectation exists throughout the society, a double standard that consistently protects women and puts men in harm's way. He demonstrates that this situation exists because women have cleverly hoodwinked men into doing their bidding while all the while crying that they are the ones being discriminated against.

Quite frankly, in reading this, one is led to believe that men are "the disposable sex" because women really are superior.

But wait. There is hope. What men really need to do is discard the macho notion they makes them put women on pedestals as innocent creatures who desperately need protection. Talk about being sold a bill of goods! Men need to realize that in the modern social and political environment they have no advantage over women. On the contrary. Their superior size and aggressiveness amounts to less than nothing. Because women are socially and politically more sophisticated than men, men are actually at a disadvantage and need to put more energy into protecting their right to life, liberty, health, love and happiness than women do. Men haven't, and that's why we have a smaller portion of the real goodies of life, goodies we have exchanged for a macho scroll or the tin badge of being The Protector and the One Who Takes the Risks. We need to realize that in order to survive in a post-war world, we need to work a lot harder than we have been working. We need to understand that male superiority really is an illusion, a kind of sly of hand women have put over on men to keep us subjugated. What this book is saying is that women have the real power and men are just self-deluded figureheads.

Thus spake Warren Farrell. Well, his book is a fine example to the contrary, proving (I hope) that men are not about to take all this lying down. Lot's daughters got us drunk and raped us? I don't think so.

I've always assumed that the sexes are equal. The real truth, though, is that the sexes may not be equal at all. It really depends on the environment. If women really are superior to men in terms of social and political skills, skills that are now, with the imminent death of the war system, very much in the ascendency, then men are in trouble. We need to use our brains instead of our brawn. In particular we need to realize that women are masters of manipulation because during the long millennia of the tribal wars, when physical strength held sway, they had to be to get their way. The savannah is long gone, and in the glass and concrete jungle that is our home, subtle manipulation counts for a lot more than physical force.

I missed this book when it came out in 1993. From the title, The Myth of Male Power, I thought it was another feminist put down of men, and I didn't feel like reading another one. I should have read the subtitle, Why Men Are the Disposable Sex. Now I just feel exhausted thinking about all the people who ought to read this refreshing polemic.

--Dennis Littrell, author of "Understanding Evolution and Ourselves"

The Myth of Male Power goes farther than the feminist literature I've read by powerfully combining extensive, rational research (a "male" approach) with plenty of doses of fine feeling level (a "female" approach). This book nearly made me cry in places, with the cut and dried layout of how hard it must be to be a man in this world. In other words, there's more heart in this book than the works of our founding mothers'.
The statistics of life expectancy alone should shock every son's mother. I urge women everywhere to throw off the shackles of their feminist-based education and realize that according to the numbers, the men they love - their husbands, fathers, and sons - are going to die.
It's not an us-against-them proposition; we're in this together. And although Farrel's position in the book is to make us really think about what it's really like to be a man, I believe his end goal is to help us realize just that.
...

This book touchs on gender thought, in a way that has not been done before. Farrell, brings out the clandestine truths about mens lives. Not beatting up on any group, but rather in a loveing way trys to bring to full circle, an honest examination of gender. For many men, this book should be a liberation, a rebirth in pride and strenght in who they are.

This text should be required reading for all males of college age and for the mothers of male children. Warren's unique gift is the ability to articulate the male perspective.
As one who has read works by femminists N. Wolf and S.Faludi as well as works by R. Bly and J. Gray, I can honestly say, nobody else comes close to Warren's ability to deliver profound insights that are as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel.

First, let me begin by saying that I am physically female--but emotionally gender-flexible. I already knew a little bit about the sorts of emotional standards men face because I had taught myself at a young age to function according to an old-fashioned model of masculinity that taught that "men don't cry," and that to "take it like a man" meant that a man had to tough out all of his own problems while perpetually being available to support, and provide for, others.
Thus, I had a rough idea when I read this of some of what I was about to read--but I had no idea before it of the extent of the legal favoritism so often shown to women in our society at the expense of authentic justice and impartiality. The Myth of Male Power opened my eyes--and it is a book I will recommend to all my friends--female and male alike.
Anne-Sophie Swetchine once said: "It is an illusion that only weakness needs our support. Strength needs it far more." The Myth of Male Power shows vivid examples of just that. Love and peace, Brigit Sunflame, a wo/man who cares

Farrells book is a facinating book that dispells many of the lies of radical feminism, with meticulous footnotes to back up his claims. This is the book that's been pulled from library shelves and banned by the Matriarchal educational and medial establishment. Finally, somebody tells our side of the story.

Warren Farrell has certainly compiled a lot of good documentary evidence that shows how in many ways women are treated better than men in the USA. This book is especially recommended for people who imagine that because men hold most of the positions of secular authority, woman are being abused at the expense of men's desires. The way I see it, men tend to hold the positions associated with intellectual prestige, while women hold the prestige of physical attraction. This causes women to be treated as queens more often than men are treated as kings. One area of criticism I have is where he discusses sexual morality. Although Mr. Farrell doesn't say that sex outside of marriage is sinful, the readers can see how this sort of behavior is very problematic for men. Perhaps this is the main reason religious organizations with only male pastors are much more strongly against sexual sins (e.g. homosexuality, fornication, abortion) as compared to the religious groups that allow women to be pastors. This book is especially recommended for people who are interested in the subject of women's ordaination.

I earlier read books that are on relationships between men and women. These books are almost always biased towards men (we call this "insight"). If a book is biased towards women, we call it "sexism".
The Myth of Male Power is a book that deals with men's issues such als early life expectance, male victims and the fact that many women live on men's cost (i.e. spending obligation in restaurants). It finally becomes clear what the exact male problems are and not it's time that men will realize that it's not only easy-going to be a man. However, well-thinking men already know of this problems.
This book is much better than books that deals with men-women issues (relationships etc.), because they emphasize the fact that "men don't listen" or "men are thinking simplistic". It explains a lot of male issues in more detail, including statistics (even with sources, because of the male-bashing culture many people are skeptical if they read that men are the victim, just to name something). This book is not only a must read for men, also women can learn that it isn't that "bad" to be a woman.
Now it's time for a book that explains what women really want (a user guide for men) or a book that critically looks at women, written by a man.

Warren Farrell does an excellent job in highlighting legitimate men's issues such as: domestic violence against men, Men's health ( it is MEN'S health that is underfunded ), Female chauvinism (belief that women are morally superior to men, as opposed to male chauvinism which is the belief that women are too irrational to fend for themselves), negative male stereotypes and violence againsst men in the media, the neglect paid to attrocities inflicted on non-combatant males (non-combatant men are civilians and deserve the same protection as women!) ...etc.
Farrell also exposes feminist duplicity on many issues such as making excuses for violent behavior (there is no excuse for violence against WOMEN but feminists come up with tones of excuses for violence committed BY women against men), the draft, and sexism and discrimination. Also worth reading is Farrell's debunking of the notion that war is all men's fault and that women are more peace loving. Although most combatants in war are male most WOMEN have supported the causes that thier countries were fighting for and encouraged the men to fight and shamed those that did not.
Where Farrell's book loses points however is that it advocates too much gender conformity. Farrell claims that traditional roles for Men and Women are destined to bring tham psychological harm and therefore must be socialized away from them. Thier is much evidence to refute those claims. That being said i believe that Men and Women have the right to be Feminine or Masculine and to seek partners with either one of those characteristics if they choose. Thier is nothing wrong with a man paying for a date... as long as the woman does something special to deserve it (like being sweet, gentle...etc). Farrell risks alienating many people who may be somewhat more conservative than him from the Men's movement.
Another weakness of the book is it's focus on trivial issues such as male circumcision, paying for dates...etc. and the comparison between a raped woman and a terminated man are ludicrous. Men's activists should stick to important issues.
Finally Warren Farrell is too soft on feminism. He claims that feminism started out as a benevolent movement of women who just want equality. If that were true then there would be no need for a men's movement as someone who really believes in "equality" would give equal consideration to issues where men are at a disadvantage. To date this simply has not happened. With honorable but few exceptions feminists tend to pound thier fists for women's issues but fence sit when it comes to men's issues. Thus they cannot claim to beleive in equality, the feminist movement represents selfish identity politics. Which is why in the 1960's they claimed that women were being oppressed because they had to make coffee a jobs no law required them to take while men were being drafted against thier will and sent to vietnam.
Buy the book read it, and absorb the material on the real important stuff, but ignore the rest.

The Myth of Male Power is the most important, ground-breaking book out there about men. It's carefully researched and a superb read. Whether you're male or female, you'll have a different perspective about men after reading this valuable work. Don't miss it!

Should be read by every man, and women, to understand and benefit from the knowledge of our cultural upbringing and how it invisibly impacts our lives and how we act. It is freeing to understand the "why and how" of sexual stereotypes that we don't even know impact us daily. I am a CEO coach and have given this to clients who have said it was one of the best things I did for them, as it helped their marriage and took away personal stress for them. A must read for true personal growth and understanding of our cultural bias. Warren Farrell is way ahead of society on male-female roles, relationships and how to improve and understand them. His book "Father and Child Reunion" is the bible for divorce and getting children to florish, not perish, after divorce.

An absolute must read. Along with "Who Stole Feminism", another amazing book by yet another self-proclaimed feminist, Christina Hoff-Sommers. Don't take my word for it, just go to the Feminist-Apologists queuing up and marshalled in to giving this priceless book the ubiquitous ONE STAR on the store.. Read all of their dire reviews, feel the feminist hate ooze from their combined pores, note the bile of misandry.....then buy this book and understand why their types are in fear of the expose of Feminism = Fairness = Equality.

I frequently lend this book to my male friends and colleagues and their reaction is always one of amazement and often, anger.
Yes, this book presents some hard truths for women and feminists , but for most men, it articulates that which you were probably aware of but unable to put your finger on.
For me, it pulls together all the main areas where men are discriminated against, and contrary to the negative female reviews of this book, proves it with hard facts. It is illuminating to note that the criticisms in the other reviews refer to "unsubtantiated assertions" and focus on the comparison between rape and male unemployment. So let's ignore the sociological leaps of logic that people claim plague Farrell's work and work solely with facts.
If you look at the cold hard facts this book presents, you will find that FACT - as a man, you will die 5-7 years earlier than a woman FACT - Mens Health is grossly underfunded compared to womens FACT - You will die from all major diseases in greater numbers than women FACT - You account for 95% of all workplace fatalities FACT - when all relevant factors are taken into consideration, women do not earn up to 50 cents per hour less than you, they earn the same FACT- You are 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty in the USA than a woman for the same crime FACT - You are five times more likely to commit suicide than a female FACT-You are more likely to be homeless FACT - You make up 99% of the workforce of the so called "Death professions" i.e. dangerous jobs such as firefighting, oil drilling, lumberjacks etc.
These facts are cited and referenced. There are many many more examples. He examines the Gulf War where feminists claimed female soldiers were sharing "equality of risk". Therefore they should qualify for the extra "danger money" that being on active duty in a conflict zone attracts. They got it. However, strangely, 27 men died for every US woman in the Gulf war, but there are only 9 men for every woman in the US army. Strange isn't it???
The problem that feminist have with this book seems to be that any focus on men's problems detracts from womens. This book captures the fact that life is not easy for men either. Farrell suggests for example that you consider the person who drives your garbage truck, unblocks your sewer, climbs the electricity pylons, builds the skyscrapers and brushes the streets. They're 99% men and he asks that the next time you hear about women doing low paid and menial jobs, you should think about the men who are doing the low paid and dangerous jobs.
Life is not necessarily easy for either gender, but the attempts to dicredit and smear Farrell, his book and legitimate male problems are sickening. But on a positive note, I'm gratified that we're having this effect. It's raising men's awareness and building a movement that is beginning to challenge female sexist attitudes that are also pervasive. e.g. children belong to the mother. Feminists don't like it and the fact that even reviewers on this site are scrambling madly with frantic, petty and hostile attempts to keep their myths in place show that it's beginning to work. The truth will out!!

First introduced to Mr. Farrell's books at the age of 18 I responded with righteous indignation, "just a man making excuses" for his behavior and discarded the book. Now age 35 I have read every book he has written. His writings changed my relationship with myself (as a man), every man in my life (father, brothers grandfathers, friends and strangers) and woman in my life. I consider my vocabulary inadequate to accurately articulate the quality and integrity of Mr. Ferrell's thoughts and conclusions. Although many of Warren Farrell's ideas are contrary to common thinking --- 100 percent of his conclusions are consistent with my experience as a growing man. Purchase this book for yourself and all others that you love.

First introduced to Mr. Farrell's books at the age of 18 I responded with righteous indignation, "just a man making excuses" for his behavior and discarded the book. Now age 35 I have read every book he has written. His writings changed my relationship with myself (as a man), every man in my life (father, brothers grandfathers, friends and strangers) and woman in my life. I consider my vocabulary inadequate to accurately articulate the quality and integrity of Mr. Ferrell's thoughts and conclusions. Although many of Warren Farrell's ideas are contrary to common thinking --- 100 percent of his conclusions are consistent with my experience as a growing man. Purchase this book for yourself and all others that you love.

First time I see someone shows the real situation in the world in an objective way, based on million of facts. A MUST to read. Especially men should read and learn from. It changed my view to many things

Men have been recieving negative reputation for decades and face claims that they have it all in our society. Society believes that men have everything handed to them on a silver platter and want for nothing.
This book does a great job of revealing the truth. To summarize, since the begining of humanity, males and females have *both* had their roles in society and *both* genders had to follow a plan in order for the race to merely SURVIVE. In the age we are in, pure survival itself is not as important in everyday life. So, women have taken the steps to break free of their previous "roles" as women and demanded that society allow them to do what they *want* to do, not what they *have* to do.
Unfortunately, the same is not true for men. While women have found liberation, men are still forced into their old "survival" roles of provider and protector at the expense of freedom. Men are still expected to be "men", while women are free to pursue the goals that they want to.

Watch out for female chauvinists disguised as feminists. I certainly realize what our society puts women through, but any woman-feminist or otherwise-who can't accept that the price of male privilege has been quite high throughout history is flat out blind. I don't see feminists clamoring for the right to sign up with selective service, nor for the privilege of having their genitals surgically altered within hours of birth. They have no idea what it feels like to be male, and many don't care to learn either. Women complain that men don't discuss their feelings, but the minute a man speaks about them he's accused of being weak, homosexual, or of trying to hold women down. But don't take my word for it, just check the other reviews.
Sure, there may be some inaccuracies in this book, and the comparison between an unemployed man and a raped woman is tactless to say the least. However, the underlying message is still quite valid. Perhaps Farrell is inconsiderate of women when making his arguments, but let's get real here; feminists have often been tactless and inconsiderate of men when phrasing their arguments for the last 35 years. Need proof: In a review of `The Beauty Myth' by Naomi Wolf (5/12/81, SF Chronicle), Marcia Millman comments of breast augmentation, "it's difficult to imagine men mutilating themselves to conform to some image of desirability." Excuse me, has she ever heard of circumcision? In 1981, the male circumcision rate was nearing ninety percent. I'd say it's highly inconsiderate and quite arrogant for Ms. Millman to suggest that a woman who elects a surgical procedure is being oppressed by society, while an infant male who has one forced upon him is not.
I recommend that all men read this book. Should you come across any women who disrespect its message, view them in the same light as they would view a man who disrespects the message of feminism-as chauvinists.

Yes this book is old, but the statistics are still very accurate. If you plan to read on gender studies then this is a must read, at least just so you can have a different view the issues. Even if you don't agree with the message of the book it will start discussions on the issues at hand. When people sit down to actually talk about issues, that is when things get resolved.

As a lawyer practicing exclusivly in family law I find The Myth of Male Power to be exactly what the doctor ordered for my male client's getting smashed by the legal system that is so biased against their interests, their spirit and their dreams. Every single man and woman I have referred the book to have found it profound.

This is a bit different from the usual book review. This is a review of two books which are remarkably complementary. One is The Myth of Male Power and the other is What Men Know that Women Don't by Rich Zubaty.

If you have never had a marital or other long-term committed relationship blow up in your face, then I would suggest that you start with Farrell's book. It is a scholarly and insightful examination of where marriage has been, where it is going and how it is currently being abused as we transition from the pattern of the past (Stage I) to that of the future (Stage II). By the time you reach the end of the book, I'm sure that you will agree that we need to get to Stage II as soon as possible as a culture and as mature individuals who care about one another and about our children.

Zubaty's book should be read as the follow-on that feelingly describes the injustice, pain, anger, despair and hatred that all too often erupts from a typical modern marriage that is neither Stage I nor Stage II, but instead, is a mishmash of aspects of each. If nothing else, it is a vivid statement as to why only damned fools should get into anything other than a Stage II relationship and why we as a culture need to transition our mores and legal system to encourage the development of Stage II relationships and discourage Stage 1.5 time bombs. Secondarily, Zubaty's book is valuable because it is told from a perspective that is seldom heard these days, that of a male.

For the walking wounded who have "survived" the dissolution of what was probably a Stage 1.5 relationship, start with Zubaty's book. For men, and a few women, it will validate what you experienced and what you are feeling. For women, and a few men, it will demonstrate what happens on the other side of the detonation of a Stage 1.5 relationship.

Farrell's book is the ideal follow-on for the "survivors" who have read Zubaty's book. It gives a well-researched understanding of most likely why the disaster happened and points toward what a more successful relationship ought to look like the next time around.

Two decades ago Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power rocked the world of gender politics by questioning everything we ever thought about what power means, and what it actually means to be a man.

By examining the lives of men with compassion and casting aside a half century of blind ideological programming, Farrell takes us into the heart of the masculine experience with credibility and authority.

He teaches us that rather than being about power and control, men's lives are often about pain and loss. He shows us a world of male disposability, where men are viewed in utilitarian terms, in work, in war and often in their own families. And he shows with often uncomfortable clarity how we prepare our boys for such a disposable existence.

If you have ever loved a son, father, brother, husband or boyfriend, you owe it to yourself to read this book. And if you are man who has ever questioned whether what you learned growing up is leading you to a healthy and happy life, do the same.

Warren Farrell is a modern day prophet and this book is pure gold.

I've spent the last few months educating myself on how disadvantaged males can be in our society. So, I decided to this would be a great step in my journey.

On that note, I learned a lot about how men are expected to be protectors, even if it means devaluing their lives. I also learned about the responsibilities men must endure or risk being called failures. On the plus side, I gained more appreciation for miners because, one of the author's friends explained that they dig metals that are used in computers and glasses. Of course, that's not to say that I wouldn't appreciate any other worker in a hazardous job.

In addition, the author made many good points. He also proposed solutions throughout the whole book.

On the other hand, I questioned it once. For instance, when would feminism ever favor equal opportunities for both sexes when the movement was just created to help women? Why else would femin be in the name? (That's coming from a former feminist who's learned a little about the history).

Furthermore, I thought the writing style could be improved. There were many moments of unnecessary repetition throughout the whole book. There was even a case of murder where the ending could've been inferred. Also, I wondered if I was supposed to find this serious several times.

All that considered, this turned out to be a harder read than I expected.

I allowed the author to give his best argument on why men are in fact oppressed. He had a few good points... but just a few. Ultimately, I wasn't sold. Men have issues to deal with, to be sure, however this book's attempt to debunk feminism was naive at best.

I have studied American and German literature, work as an author and as a kind of proof-reader for a German publishing-house. Farell's book is the best book I've read in the last ten years. There is nothing more to say.

The Myth of Male Power, by author and gender-reconciliation champion, Dr. Warren Farrell, is truly a landmark work. Over the course of the next century it will come to be seen for what it is: a bold and inexorable challenge to American society to rethink from its deepest foundations the present and past attitudes and approaches towards gender equality - an approach that has been dominated by victim feminism. The Myth of Male Power confronts the politically correct myths that undermine true equality and gender reconciliation. Given the current climate of politically correct misandry and the feminist hegemony of gender discourse, it takes tremendous courage to challenge the orthodoxy and establishment. Both Dr. Farrell and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, deserve the highest kudos for their willingness to face the fire on this one.
One thing that makes The Myth of Male Power so fair-minded and authentic is that it affirms the legitimate concerns of women. Because of this, no female reader need fear that it is simply the flip side of feminism (ie: an ideology that preaches that society is actually not male-dominated and patriarchal, but female dominated and matriarchal, and that all problems are due to women with men its primary victims). This is important because it helps fair-minded men and women to see that Dr. Farrell is not seeking to replace feminism with masculism, or engage in "backlash". Indeed it demonstrates his absolute and unwavering commitment to real gender equality and fairness. At the same time, Dr. Farrell does not limit the discussion of gender to women's issues.
The Myth of Male Power explains how almost all societies in general (but American society in particular) are both matriarchal and patriarchal, how men's and women's roles provide unique benefits and limitations on each gender. Both men and women may be seen to be privileged and disadvantaged, each in different ways. Of course, the focus of the book, as the title suggests, is on the male role. This is done not to slight women's issues, but rather to supplement the ever-growing body of literature and research on gender issues which tends to frame the problems from an essentially female perspective.
Well researched, meticulously documented, and richly footnoted, The Myth of Male Power is sure to appeal to the intelligent reader, as well as to scholars who require the references to verify for themselves that no foul play is underfoot. Using a multi-modal approach, Dr. Farrell combines hard statistics, charts, and data tables, with cartoons, humor, and the moving personal anecdotes of individual men and women.
Despite its fair-minded and rigorously documented approach, it does take courage to read the book. Male readers will no longer be able to console themselves (if ever they did) with the myth that they have all the power and privilege in society. Female readers may feel threatened by the challenge to claim their power and its attendant requirement of authenticity and personal responsibility, rather than continuing to hide behind the apron strings of victim feminism.
Despite the strengths of The Myth of Male Power there will always be detractors to Dr. Warren Farrell's work. Why? There are reasons that the current climate of feminist misandry exists. A lot of men have a deep psychological investment in the code of chivalry - protecting women against all threats (real or imagined). Such men may misconstrue Dr. Farrell's challenge as an attack on women. (This is ironic given Farrell's understanding of women's issues, and credentials as the only man ever to have been elected three times to the board of directors of N.O.W. in New York city.) Similarly, a lot of women have a deep psychological investment in feminism and its cozy reassurance that women are always victims, never needing to feel responsible for any of the problems in their lives. Such men and women may find that the challenge of The Myth of Male Power is a threat to them and they may object vociferously. Fortunately, however, such voices are beginning to face some opposition. In my own years of experience as a leader in the movement for men's rights and the establishment of real gender equality, I have seen that men and women alike are now beginning to see through the feminist myths of male power and privilege. Many people are beginning to tire of hearing that women are victims and men oppressors. While this is a good start, the process of correcting society's anti-male biases is in its infancy. Dr. Farrell's book will be seen to have played a crucial role in helping us move towards real equality, and mutual love and respect between the sexes.
After reading this book, some readers (both men and women) may feel inspired to help take action to head off American society's headlong flight towards misandry, masculophobia, and the destruction of fatherhood and the American family. Such readers may consider joining or making a donation to gender-egalitarian organizations that work towards addressing the sex-discrimination faced by men and boys in our society (thus harming everyone, including women). For such readers, the National Coalition of Free Men (on whose Board of Advisors Dr. Farrell sits) offers a unique spring-board for social activism. NCFM is unique in that it is a generalist men's rights organization, not focussing only on one specific men's issue (such as father's rights, men's health, domestic violence, etc.), and because NCFM, founded in 1977, is a grassroots organizations with chapters, membership, and group meetings across the country. To learn more about the National Coalition of Free Men, please visit our website. For readers interested solely in Fathers' Rights, the National Congress for Fathers and Children is an excellent organization. Although women are welcome in these organizations, female readers may prefer organizations aimed primarily at women, like the Women's Freedom Network. The Myth of Male Power includes an appendix listing many other outstanding organizations committed to true gender equality and fairness.
With best wishes for a good read!
Pradeep Ramanathan, Executive Vice-President, National Coalition of Free Men

The National Organization of Women approached Warren Farrell to form "women's and men's groups" in the late 1960's. He served four years on NOW's Board of Directors, from 1971 to 1974.

This book is the result of his reflections on a frequently repeated myth of the feminist movement, namely the ubiquitous and over-arching "Patriarchy". It helped to start The Men's Movement, which is so reviled today by radical feminists.

Like today's Men's Rights and Issues Advocates, Farrell realized the paranoid nature of the belief in a male operated cabal, similar in nature to Ian Fleming's SPECTER or communism's "capitalist, imperialist bourgeoisie"; secretly working day and night to systematically oppress females of every station in life.

This book articulates and supports Farrell's subsequent reflections on the issue. Men are introduced for the first time as "the disposable sex"; expected to risk their lives on the battlefield ... and in many cases, on the job. [Germany has since established a national holiday in late January, honoring those killed at work.] Would this Patriarchy allow men to be stereotyped as rapists, child molesters and deadbeat dads? Would it allow them to have legal rights taken away from them, if it existed?

The Myth of Male Power is well worth the read. Enjoy!

I admit, I was one of those self-flagellating males in my youth. I was a gay male who thought it was "cool" and enlightened to say how "oppressive" men are and how women are being kept down by The Patriarchy...

But this book opened my eyes! I realised that I am a man too! The very men I was b*tching about were my brothers!

Farrell exposes all the myths and stereotypes that feminists have been spewing about Men since the 70s...the pendulum has swung too far!

Love the men in your life! Men rock! Men do so much good for the world! Men invented the wheel, cured smallpox and created internet!

I am proud to be a male because of this book and so should you be!

When the culture of a patriarchal society transitions into post-feminism, there will be the inevitable conflict of incompatible ideologies. Being perfectly comfortable with tradition and having better things to do, it went unnoticed by the vast majority when a very well organized, financed, outspoken and opinionated minority successfully altered the laws, and hence society, to conform to their pathologically radical, hostile and intolerant agenda. Since most folks weren't paying attention, it comes as no surprise that values and impulses developed over eons for purely practical reasons, were retained. Many values successful in, and essential to a traditional patriarchal structure are rendered pragmatically obsolete in a post-feminist society. Unfortunately, most men retain these traditionally masculine values to their tremendous liability.

Chauvinism is often presented as an offensive affront, as fundamentally insulting. Chauvinism however was a positive product of evolution. Women are weaker then men, and are essential to reproduction, therefore they must be protected. They must be protected from going down to the river all by themselves because they might be eaten by alligators. They must be protected from straying too far into the Serengeti, because they might be abducted by the neighboring tribe of bushmen. Contrary to central feminist doctrine, chauvinism is not a construct of society designed to oppress women. It is a product of evolution, biologically hard-wired into the collective subconscious to ensure our survival. That is exactly the reason why it is so difficult to overcome. But overcome it we must, for our own well being in this brave, new feminist world we live in, and Farrell does an exemplary job explaining why, and how. The society that has been created is an abomination of nature, in that many elements of it are counter to our natural impulses. Society as it exists today is a socially-anxious, neurotic depressive with self-destructive tendencies. The impulse to protect women has manifested itself in ways that are against common sense, that are egregious to the true spirit of the law, and are themselves patronizing, condescending and offensive to feminism. Why is there such a tremendous disparity between the sexes in prison sentencing for the same crime? Why are divorce judgments so lopsided? Why aren't false rape claim statistics publicized, and when made and proven false, why do they go unpunished? In order to thrive and survive it is essential to understand the world, and our place in it. To pragmatically accept reality as it is, and not live in some fantasy delusion of how we wish it were.

Gentlemen, the world we live in today is very much unlike that of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It is belligerently hostile to our traditional masculine virtues. The attribute most important to our survival as a species has been the ability to adapt. In order to survive, Men of the Western world must adapt to the world they live in before they can flex their muscles and make the world adapt to them.

This is an excellent book which should be mandatory reading for all Sociology courses. It should most especially be read by so many of these man-hating feminists who see the world through their own narrow viewpoint. It certainly asks some very pointed questions about the discrimination that goes on in our world against men, and it is well written and researched.

Farrell makes a few valid points, but overall, The Myth of Male Power is excessively repetitive and simplistic, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous (e.g. I hardly consider men's "having" to pay for dinner for women an example of male persecution). For a more nuanced, self-aware analysis of masculinity, I would recommend anything by Michael Kimmell, Kenneth Clatterbaugh, and/or Michael Kauffman.

"Date fraud" is Warren Farrellese for "she asked for it." Basically, he and every other loser who buy into this old sexism with a new coat of friend zone paint slapped on it think that if they pay for dinner, you better pay up.

Farrell's scarily-vile viewpoint ought to be in the news because he's a good, old-fashioned rape apologist, up to the naked female hind end on the cover. You know why men aren't powerful, ladies? Because women have all the you know what! Yeah, it's never been funny, and with the Duggar case making the headlines with its horrifying victim-blaming, the time has come to point out how these guys all believe the same thing, and that is: ladies, you're asking for it.

The Duggars and Farrell even use the same term the same way: defrauding, or in Farrell's case, the loathsome "date fraud", which is his attempt to make paying for a sexless dare the equivalent of actual rape.

What's clear is that Farrell's luckless dater can't STAND women and is restlessly checking his watch and drumming his fingers on the table, waiting for the check and the sex he paid for. Conversation? Getting to know someone? Nope, none of that matters. None of that is worth anything. Farrell's dater wants sex.

"Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape." (p. 314)

Yeah. How horrible a person do you have to be, how utterly indifferent to womens' humanity can you be, that you can compare not getting sex do getting violently penetrated?

"If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying."

Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his. (P 314)

......so with Farrell, it's all or nothing. This is loathsome, this belief that sex is everything and smaller intimacies and not just worthless, they're promises women make and then back out of.

He makes some good points in this book, however he was WRONG when he said married women tend to vote Republican. Back in the 1930s-60, single mothers and divorced women were RARE. More women were married than single in those days, and from FDR to Kennedy, Democrats had the majority. Even Ike would be considered left wing by todays standards.
Now we have more single women, far more single and divorced mothers, and America tends to go more and more right wing. So he's dead wrong on this one.

BOOK QUOTE: The Government as Substitute Husband did for women what labor unions still have not accomplished for men. And men accomplished for men. And men pay dues for labor unions; the taxpayer pays the dues for feminism. Feminism and government soon become taxpayer-supported women's unions.

RESPONSE: Forgetting that women pay taxes too? Forgetting that women earn a lot on their own anyway? That single mothers work, and not a few are single because of widowhood(no respect for those husbands by calling their widows names)?

Calling the government a substitute husband? I've heard "substitute parent", which is valid as parents are like referees for kids. But "substitute husband" is a huge overreach. Plus it underplays how much single mothers earn themselves (don't forget widows). That entire chapter sounds as if the author was heavily influenced by some guy's bitter divorce. If he was an employee, you wouldn't trust him for an unbiased report. Maybe Farrell should have tried punditry.

You'd think one serious economist or researcher would take Farrell's claims about the pay gap seriously. But no one does; his scholarship has a horrid reputation. No wonder. I actually studied and worked in Occupational Health. Any lack of industrial protections for men were due more to OSHA being a special whipping boy during the Reagan administration, the only government organization which shrunk during that era. Nothing to do with Just to keep it positive, trial lawyers seem an adequate threat for industries to prioritize safety.

If you ever wondered what Narcissistic Personality Disorder looks like in action, here it is in a book. Projection, reframing, dodging the issues, avoiding responsibility, gaslighting- everything Narcissists do in order to preserve their charcter-disordered pathology at all costs. In this case, the chosen target is women, which is typical for male NPDs, but a narcissist will blame anything that they've convinced themselves is the reaon for their failings at life and general unhappiness. In fact, I DO recommend this book, for anyone who needs a concrete example of how this disorder appears when it finds a public audience.