The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

[Sergey]

Best-selling author and men's rights activist, Warren Farrell, gives an interview about his book, The Myth of Male Power.

A former director of the National Organisation for Women, Warren argues that society has been mislead by the feminist movement into perceiving women as victims of male oppression. He believes that the reverse is true; women have most of the rights and privileges whilst men are treated like 2nd-class citizens.

This interview is 3 hours and 17 minutes in length.

[youtube]http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtGwBsKgKs[/youtube]

WizardKing78 has some other great videos, but I won't post the links here, check for yourself if you're interested.

[Jeremy]

Yeah wow, life is so hard for men.

[Sergey]

Are you ready to speak up, Jeremy?

[jon]

I read this book and in the months that followed got into many arguments with various women that labeled themselves as feminists and who told me they cared deeply about gender equality.

It is a very interesting book but I found it almost impossible to talk about with anyone because as soon as one says something negative about feminists one is often labeled a women hater.

I felt his arguments were pretty convincing but have very mixed feeling about whether or not I am better for having read the book. It definitely opened my eyes to new ideas.

[Jeremy]

Sorry Jon, I'm confused. Is the book criticising radical feminists, who, at least in Australia, represent less than 1% of elected politicians and have no real influence on our society, or is the book about;

Women have most of the rights and privileges whilst men are treated like 2nd-class citizens.

Because it seems to me that those two positions are not the same.


I think discussing "rights and privileges" misses the point. Instead of looking at the legislation, why not look at the real living conditions of women vs men. Women in Western societies work longer hours for less pay. They are far less likely to hold an upper management position or be elected into government. They are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.

If we move beyond liberal Western societies the conditions of women get even worse. Overall on our planet they are far less likely to have any level of education than men. They are far less likely to have a paying job. In many cultures they have no rights to choose their own lives and are expected to be subservient to their husbands or family.

The suggestion that men are treated as "second class citizens" is absolutely bogus. If we're more likely to be in power, more likely to earn more money and more likely to work less hours, in what way can you honestly say that women have a better life than us?

[jon]

Jeremy I would suggest that you read the book. I will attempt to tell you a bit about it but doing so has gotten me into trouble before because the topic really requires both sides to be patient in order to explain the ideas and topics the book discusses. There is a reason why the book is a best seller and if you are interested in this area it is well worth the read.

Please keep in mind that it has been a year since I read it but I felt that the author felt that feminists and their agenda had resulted in convincing us that men are the great oppressors of women and men have it great. I believe the author is arguing not for feminism (keep in mind he toured for several years speaking on the behalf of a national feminist collation) nor is the author advocating masculanism. He wants to encourage equality. I have found presenting the idea to women that feminists are not mainly about equality and are instead about promoting women is a lost cause. Everyone believes it is an equality movement, ie WIKI:

Feminism involves various movements theories and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights and interests.

However the author will explain how the leaders of the movement and what topics feminists tackle focus on promoting only certain issues and not really equality. I have no problem with people promoting women but I do have issues with women that have never in their life been part of a feminist movement and state on their life that feminism is about equality.

Again keep in mind it has been a while since I read the book so I could be a bit off what he says but ... Jeremy he discusses all the points you bring up. I have heard them too. Women are less likely to hold upper management positions. I had one very angry girl tell me that as a feminist she wants to fight to bring the level male and female ceo in north america to a balanced number. That is great goal but that is not really fighting for equality as the author discusses. If one truly cared about equality wouldn't they focus on all jobs instead of the really good ones? One should pick when it comes to being equal, equal means being equal on all fronts. Why is it that the 20 most dangerous jobs (the author discusses them all) are done mostly by men. If you want to promote more female ceos are you as the same time going to promote an equal number of female garbage collectors, soldiers, cops, and firefighters.

The author discusses the idea that people feel women are far more likely to be the victims of violence. This however is not true. The rates of male of on male violence are much much higher than male on female. We tend not to think about male on male violence but we all see it every single day on tv, it is typically called war (so says the author). People in modern North America will rave and rant if a man kills his women (as they should) but seem to stand by as men kill men in bar fights, car wrecks, and war. Men rates of suicide go unreported and the author feels that male suicide rates are likely much higher than women in NA and they are far more likley to be successful. He explains why the lives of men are not as great as we are all told they should be.

The author discusses rates of pay of women and men. He discusses factors in job selection, rates of stress associated with the jobs, travel time to the jobs, death rates related to jobs and why men end up with higher paying jobs due to fulfilling obligations to support wifes and children at the expensive of lower paying jobs that are better for their lives. I probably explained this poorly but it was an issues the author discusses at length.

The author presents arguments as to why men do not have things as well as society tells us we do in North America. I am sure I didn't capture exactly correctly what the author was saying but I am not him and I didn't take hundreds of pages to carefully state my points and to very very carefully present them with statistics and peer review work to back them up as the author has done. His research and his presentation of the stats are very impressive.

I say again if you are actually interested in reading something that might turn what we have all been brought up to believe on its head and consider that the attitudes mosts "enlightened" people believe related to this topic could be wrong then read this book. After you do please feel free to come back and discuss it further.

[Jeremy]

Ok I'll read the book, but I want to make an important point about all views, which I think probably applies to this;

It is very easy to make a convincing case for pretty much anything. Look at the 9/11 Truth Movement and all the conspiracy theories out there. If you want to have an understanding of an issue and a strong position you really need to spend at least as long reading counter arguments as you spend reading the arguments you support. On issues that I care about, like environmentalism and the influence of religion, I own as many books attacking my views as I own supporting them. If you don't actually go out of your way to have your opinions challenged, there's a good chance that you'll end up with irrational and biased opinions.

You bring up two issues which really should be mentioned;

Women are less likely to hold upper management positions. I had one very angry girl tell me that as a feminist she wants to fight to bring the level male and female ceo in north america to a balanced number. That is great goal but that is not really fighting for equality as the author discusses. If one truly cared about equality wouldn't they focus on all jobs instead of the really good ones? One should pick when it comes to being equal, equal means being equal on all fronts. Why is it that the 20 most dangerous jobs (the author discusses them all) are done mostly by men. If you want to promote more female ceos are you as the same time going to promote an equal number of female garbage collectors, soldiers, cops, and firefighters.

This is a ridiculous point. Why would anybody be concerned that their group is accurately represented in shit jobs? Why aren't their lots of men campaigning for equality in prostitution or reception or cleaning? Why don't men campaign for more male hairdressers or nurses? People want equality in the things that they want to do. They want to have an equal opportunity at achieving their goals. I'd hazard a guess and say that the reason there are very few female garbage collectors is because there are very few females who want that job. If the men doing that job decide they want to be nurses instead and feel discriminated against because of their gender, I'm sure they'd get a lot of support. It's not a realistic scenario though is it? How many garbage collectors wish they were nurses?

The author discusses the idea that people feel women are far more likely to be the victims of violence. This however is not true. The rates of male of on male violence are much much higher than male on female. We tend not to think about male on male violence but we all see it every single day on tv, it is typically called war (so says the author). People in modern North America will rave and rant if a man kills his women (as they should) but seem to stand by as men kill men in bar fights, car wrecks, and war. Men rates of suicide go unreported and the author feels that male suicide rates are likely much higher than women in NA and they are far more likley to be successful. He explains why the lives of men are not as great as we are all told they should be.

Actually in many wars the majority of people killed are women and children.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Australia there are two main organisations dealing with suicide and depression. One is general and the other specifically targets men. There is no major group that advertises on TV for female depression (one probably exists, but it's certainly not an issue that ever gets any attention).

Talking about all the ways men die is irrelevant. The "feminists" aren't claiming that we should only care about violence towards women. They're saying that we should try to stop violence towards women. Nobody is stopping "mannists" from creating organisations trying to stop violence towards men - but that hasn't happened because it's not an issue a lot of people care about.

The logic is so faulty.

A is a problem. B is also a problem. Therefore people who are doing stuff about A should do more about B? How does that jump to the conclusion work?

[jon]

Jeremy please keep in mind that the views I expressed above are not mine. I never meant to state which of the opinions the author holds that I do or do not agree with. Actually I would prefer to keep my views on the subject totally my own. I actually dislike discussing the topic as I feel for me it is a lose lose subject.

I could write more to address the points you brought up, the author covers them too, but I will leave it to him in his book to do so.