No book has had more influence over the Men’s Rights movement than Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. Published in 1993, in the heyday of the early 90s antifeminist backlash, it set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement as it’s developed over the last two decades. He’s the one who came up with the notions of “male disposability” and the “death professions.” He’s the one who got MRAs fixated on the issue of draft registration.
Indeed, so pervasive has his influence been that if you see an MRA making a dumb argument anywhere on the Internet, the chances are probably more than 50-50 that it originated in the pages of Farrell’s book. Despite its age, and its eccentricity, The Myth of Male Power is still the first book recommended to MRA newbies in the sidebar of the Men’s Rights subreddit, the most active MRA hangout online.
It’s a book that deserves a lot more attention than I have been giving it on this blog. Sure, I’ve written about Farrell’s strange and creepy notions about incest, as set forth in a notorious interview in Penthouse in the 1970s, and about his recent attempts to explain away these views. But I haven’t devoted any blog posts to his most influential work. I intend to rectify that now, with a series of posts on some of Farrell’s chief arguments and assertions.
I will start with several posts on Farrell’s views on rape, which has been the subject of much controversy of late. This part will deal with his general statements on rape and sexuality; another will explore in more detail his views on date rape (did he really describe it as “exciting?”); and still another will look at the vast assortment of things he has inappropriately compared to rape.
Pinning down what Farrell “really believes” about rape – and indeed, about almost anything– is difficult. Farrell’s arguments, such as they are, are slippery and evasive. Instead of setting forth a clear argument about rape, Farrell instead provides us with a series of jumbled metaphors and strange comparisons. Instead of trying to summarize them – many of them defy summary — let’s just go through them one by one.
Farrell supporters will likely suggest that these quotes are taken “out of context,” to which I can only say: Check his book to see for yourself. None of his troubling quotes are any less troubling, or for that matter any clearer, in context, and many don’t have much of a context. Farrell writes in a rambling, free-associational style, and many of the “arguments” he makes in the following quotes seem to come from out of the blue, and are never developed further (though some, as you will see, are referenced again in later quotes).
Page numbers given are from the 1993 hardcover edition of The Myth of Male Power.
All that out of the way, let’s jump right in:
Near the start of his book , Farrell sets the tone for what will come by suggesting that men suffer as much sexual trauma from women’s mixed signals as women do from rape:
Feminism has taught women to sue men for sexual harassment or date rape when men initiate with the wrong person or with the wrong timing; no one has taught men to sue women for sexual trauma for saying “yes,” then “no,” then “yes.” … Men [are] still expected to initiate, but now, if they [do] it badly, they could go to jail. (p. 16)
Here, he elaborates on the notion that rape is a matter of bad timing, of “tak[ing] risks too quickly.”
In the past, both sexes were anxious about sex and pregnancy. Now the pill minimizes her anxiety and condoms increase his. Now the pimple faced boy must still risk rejection while also overcoming his own fear of herpes and AIDS and reassuring her there is nothing to fear. He must still do the sexual risk-taking, but now he can be put in jail if he takes risks too quickly or be called a wimp if he doesn’t take them quickly enough . (p. 168)
Here, Farrell falls back on the old “rape is misunderstanding” canard, and somehow manages to compare sexual activity –- from kissing up to and including rape — to eating a bag of potato chips.
It is also possible for a woman to go back to a man’s room, tell him she doesn’t want to have intercourse, mean it, start kissing, have intercourse, and then wish she hadn’t in the morning. How? Kissing is like eating potato chips. Before we know it, we’ve gone further than we said we would. (p. 311)
Here, he seems to seriously suggest that juries could do a better job judging rape cases if they were sexually aroused.
The problem with every judgment of sexual behavior is that it is made by people who aren’t being stimulated as they are making the judgment. A jury that sees a woman in a sterile courtroom, asks her what she wanted, and then assumes that anything else she did was the responsibility of the man is insulting not only the woman but the power of sex. (p. 312)
And then he returns to the potato chip metaphor.
A man being sued after a woman has more sex than intended is like Lay’s being sued after someone has more potato chips than intended. In brief, date rape can be a crime, a misunderstanding, or buyer’s remorse. (p. 312)
Farrell repeatedly tries to absolve men of sexual wrongdoing by suggesting that they are literally intoxicated by female beauty.
Sexually, of course, the sexes aren’t equal. It is exactly a woman’s greater sexual power that often makes a man so fearful of being rejected by her that he buys himself drinks to reduce his fear. In essence, her sexual power often leads to him drinking; his sexual power rarely leads to her drinking. If anything is evidence of her power over him, it is his being expected to spend his money to buy her drinks without her reciprocating. …
It is men – far more than women – whose mental capacities are diminished when they are “under the influence” of a beautiful woman. (p. 320)
But Farrell thinks it’s “sexist” – against men – to put men in jail for “selling sex” to intoxicated women:
As long as society tells men to be the salespersons of sex, it is sexist for society to put only men in jail if they sell well. We don’t put other salespersons in jail for buying clients drinks and successfully transforming a “no” into a “maybe” into a “yes.” If the client makes a choice to drink too much and the “yes” turns out to be a bad decision, it is the client who gets fired, not the salesperson. (p. 321)
We’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of Warren Farrell’s equally daft and disturbing views on sex and rape. Stay tuned.
Of course you do. Your dudely privilege is acting up again.
Tamen never did say what the point of citing that study in this conversation was. I wonder why*.
* I do not wonder why
Right, because the definition of rape as “sexual conduct towards a person without that person’s consent” is, like, totally overbroad. So, you think consent shouldn’t be required? Fine, what’s YOUR definition of rape?
Comments such as you’ve made are also used to argue that it’s not rape if perpetrated by an acquaintance, or a white man, or a person who doesn’t fit the popular stereotype of a rapist, or if the victim isn’t a virgin, or if she isn’t grievously injured.
I love it how this man matter-of-factly erases women who aren’t conventionally attractive, as well as little girls and older women, from existence, yet claims he doesn’t enjoy the privilege to determine who is or isn’t a woman. “Sexual power”, my foot.
“Of course you do. Your dudely privilege is acting up again.”
Dudely privilege doesn’t exist. This is feminist exaggeration.
And the wage gap?
Okay, you know, PEMRA, this is your make-or-break moment. Give us a definition of rape, advocated for by prominent feminists (note: citations WILL be fucking needed, and if you have to mangle the context, we’ll crush you without mercy, here) that you consider to be ‘ultra-expanded’ to the point that it hurts actual victims.
This post is easier to read
Straw man. I didn’t say that I don’t like to see statistics highlighting the prevalence of male rape victims – otherwise I would said “studies that highlight male victimization” instead of “that study.” My view is the exact opposite.
What I dislike is seeing that study cited over and over again to show that rape is not a gendered crime.
Look at this other CDC study (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf), which focused on sexual orientation. It had a larger sample size than the one in the survey you cite.
Since the estimates for gay men and bisexual men aren’t provided, let’s look at the figures for heterosexual victims.
Since 4.3% of straight men in the sample reported being made to penetrate, the lifetime incidence is about 5%. For straight women it’s 17.4%. That means that straight women are three times more likely than straight men to be raped in their lifetime.
And that’s just for straight women. Bisexual women are about nine times more likely to be raped than straight men.
I have more, too. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey (http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf) reports that trans* women are three times more likely to be sexually assaulted than trans* men.
Who do you think is more at risk?
(that question’s for Pemmy and his “what male privilege” question)
(and so’s the one about AvfM and terrorism, dude)
@freemage, the feminist definition of rape isn’t decreed by one individual. However I often see the sentiment that any form of drunken copulation is rape, which is insulting to actual rape victims. Yes, if you were raped while drunk, you were raped. If you have sex while drunk, you had sex. I don’t see why this is so hard to grasp. Your decisions while drunk are still your decisions, this is why we persecute drunken drivers.
And then of course there are the Second Wave feminists who said that all sex was rape. That was only like 25 years ago.
We persecute drunk drivers? Well, that doesn’t seem very nice.
(BTW socky, your tells are showing.)
Have you actually read anything by second wave feminists?
Because, despite what cherry-picked quotes may tell you, people like Andrea Dworkin never actually said that all sex is rape in the literal sense.
….first part, about drunk sex? UNTRUE, and we just had about a dozen posts right here explaining why that’s untrue. GREAT READING COMPREHENSION.
….second part, about Zombie Dworkin–UNTRUE. But since it takes an actual level of serious reading comprehension to understand that, and you can’t understand simple sentences like ‘not all drunk sex is rape,’ I guess I’ll give you a pass on complex themes and stuff.
Pemmy, I asked you a question about AVFM and terrorism in the other thread.
Not this fucking analogy again.
You do know what some victims are too drunk to consent even if they aren’t passed out, right?
[quote=serrana]Derick, I don’t watch tv and I only watch maybe 2 movies a year. So why does this matter to me?[/quote]
Glad you asked. Neither do I. But the thing is, 300 Million other people do! Just because you and I and our friends do not watch TV….does not mean the rest of the world does the same
Just because we close our eyes and imagine the danger isn’t there, does not mean that the danger isn’t there….it is still there!
Here is my elucidation regarding the Media :
When a Person is watching a TV show, a Movie (For the sake of argument, we will assume that the person is unsuspecting, oblivious to the manner in which he shall be manipulated) 2 distinct parts of his Brain are in Motion.
1) Conscious Mind – The one that the people are aware of. The one that they can control
2) Subconscious Mind – The one that they are NOT aware of. The one that they do not control.
The conscious mind has discretion. It has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, reality from illusion
The Subconscious mind does not. The subconscious mind, takes it ‘As it is’. Whatever is fed into it, goes in exactly the manner in which it was depicted.
Now let’s take an example of a common situation on Modern TV :
A husband and wife have a disagreement, for whatever reason. The moment the wife gets angry, she gives the Husband the “don’t you dare” condescending look. Cut to the next scene……the Husband is sleeping on the couch. In his own house!
When this particular occurrence is depicted, the Husband quietly obeys the Wife…and has absolutely no qualms about it. He offers no resistance
In the Conscious Mind of the unsuspecting viewer, He laughs it off, forgets about it, and moves on. What he is NOT AWARE OF, is that the same thing was intentionally fed to the Subconscious Mind in ‘As it is’ state.
The Subconscious Mind lapped it all up!
Days pass, the same incident is portrayed repeatedly, (One of the most important aspects of Mass Indoctrination is – Repetition ) to the point that is becomes commonplace and pervasive. It is now ready, it is now ‘Accepted’
Now, when faced with a similar situation, what do you think an 18 year old boy, that grew up under this kind of indoctrination, who is 35 and married now, would do ?
Anyone?
His conscious mind will now ‘Instinctively’ resort to his subconscious mind (Well, technically Preconscious, but I am using subconscious for the sake of keeping it compendious) which will in turn give him the answer that it is OK for him to obey his wife, and consequently shun his natural instinct, and replace it with the newer, “Socially accepted” norm, and go sleep on the couch- In his own house!
And apparently, no one has any problem with it. Audience laughs it off, everyone is happy
Why? It is because of the prowess of ‘Mass Indoctrination’ (If anyone has any doubt, look at North Korea, the epitome of Brainwashing) Since the 1970s, American Media has subtly and meticulously Indoctrinated; Brainwashed the audience, both Male and Female, in regard to Feminism, pertaining to Feminist Propaganda and Denigration of Men, which, unfortunately, is nothing short of Brilliant. Precisely because it is so Subtle. So brilliant in fact, that people now consider it NORMAL! They are dumbfounded when someone tells them otherwise!
This was JUST ONE illustration to clarify things. There are numerous, many, many more examples of subtle Indoctrination that one can notice, comprehend and eventually provide. If you put just a little effort into it, you’ll see exactly what I am talking about, of course, you would have to watch it with a Neutral Point of view, and not a Feminist one. Try it yourself !
Also @Everyone
I am not Pell
Your decisions while drunk are still your decisions, this is why we persecute drunken drivers.
holy shit this analogy is incredibly offensive for so many reasons.
Derick, dude, the conversation has moved on. You can build your goofy indoctrination narrative on your own blog.
Where is that in-depth analysis of Reservoir Dogs Pell?
PEMRA,
Fuck you. Don’t you ever try to say one rape is more traumatic than another. You have no fucking clue. It is amazingly to difficult to rape a person. So difficult, in fact, that most times you actually have to try to do it. And for the times you don’t? Simple: if in doubt, ask. If still in doubt, stop.
Catwoman, if you’re still reading, please pay extra attention to PEMRA’s comments: THAT’s why people are annoyed that you seem to think feminists are saying all drunk sex is rape. We’re not, but misogynists like to pretend we are, and they do that to make consent seem complicated, and attitudes like that are why so many rape victims find it so hard to get justice and support.
And Tamen, not including being made to penetrate as rape wouldn’t only affect men. It would also affect women who were made to finger or made to use an object. As others have already pointed out, there other forced or coerced activities that could affect women and men that weren’t included as rape either. Also, many transwomen have penises, don’t they? And many transmen don’t. Excluding being made to penetrate, and other activities from the definition of rape makes it a narrow one, but not anti-male like you think it is.
Also, wondering when Derick/Pell is going to come back to inform us of reality?
Oh! Ninja’d.
Aaliyah:
I’ll just point out that the study you refers to here is what CDC calls a special report based on the exact same dataset as the NISVS 2010 Report – they just broke down the numbers by sexual orientation. So it had the exact same sample size.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/index.html
@Derick, shall we call you Chris, then? How about Jane? Or Monty? Or Marvin?
@Aaliyah
@Fade
Professional cyclists, like Tour De France participants, also shave their leg hair, but for aesthetic reasons. It does not reduce wind shear like it does drag in the water.
@Aaliyah
Because of when I am able to actually read and catch up with comments, I worry I am triggering you. If you talk about something that is painful, and I bring it up after you have been able to distract yourself, I am so sorry. If you want me to stop commenting on your posts, please tell me. I try to read everything from the last three posts before I comment, so I should catch it.
Have you considered trimming your body hair? I have much shorter leg hair than my beloved. He has used a hair trimmer on occasion for his body hair. I would suggest trying a few different guards, depending on the area. He just used the same guard all over, so some parts were itchy. Then went all over with a different guard another time.
I don’t shave my legs, but I use the trimmer around my ankles so the hairs don’t get tugged by socks. And those really long tube socks ripping out and rubbing your shin hairs could make a good excuse for why your legs are sparcer. This, of course, probably wouldn’t work for entirely shorn shins.
I know everything I suggest is incremental, which I know hurts in it’s own way.
But it’s how I have to do all tasks, planning ahead little pieces. I do not have experience directly with trans* issues.
—updated comment
I saw that you plan to shave. Good for you! But I’ll leave the above stuff in case you need it down the line. If you have a lot of body hair, I would still suggest running a hair trimmer with no (or the lowest / smallest) guard, over it or it will clog the razor super fast.