Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, published twenty years ago, defined much of the agenda for what’s become the contemporary Men’s Rights movement. If you hear a Men’s Rights activist prattle on about “male disposability”or “death professions” or complain about draft registration (even though the draft itself has been dead for decades), you’ve got Farrell to thank, or blame.
So when Farrell decided to release a new ebook edition of his most famous book, it was perhaps not all that surprising that he decided to turn to the folks at A Voice for Men, probably the most influential Men’s Rights site around, for advice on a picture to use for a new cover.
But what was surprising was the pictures he asked the AVFMers to choose from, three sexually charged, and slightly NSFW, pics highlighting what Farrell evidently sees as the key female challenges to male power: their vaginas, tits and ass.
I’m not speaking metaphorically: one of the pictures shows a nude woman’s pelvic area, her vulva both highlighted and hidden by what is essentially a merkin made of moss; a second picture shows the ass of a young, topless woman in her underpants slaving over a hot stove, and the third shows a famous picture of Marilyn Monroe, also topless.
AVFM’s Paul Elam explained the, er, logic of these images:
Imagine the juxtaposition of the title, “Myth of Male Power” over one of these images. The cover alone will challenge the idea of male power in men and women alike on a gut level.
By “on a gut level” he apparently means “in men’s pants.”
You sort of have to see them to see how utterly tacky they are; here’s the one of the butt, which either Farrell or Elam helpfully captioned “Where’s the power?”
You can find the others on AVFM here; if you don’t want to give them the pageviews, you can find them here.
You couldn’t really ask for better symbols of the essential misogyny of the Men’s Rights movement today — or of its obsession with blaming women (and women’s sexuality in particular) for the restrictions on male power that so chafe the hides of MRAs. Farrell, in the past, generally avoided demonizing female sexuality quite so obviously and directly, but these days he’s apparently been spending too much time amongst the A Voice for Menners.
Farrell’s choices for potential covers also tell us a good deal about him as well; in the past he’s essentially been able to hide his crackpot pseudoscholarship behind a certain veneer or respectability — releasing his books through major publishing houses, touting his PhD — but here he seems to be falling to his natural level, amongst the self-publishers of crappy e-books with stock-photo covers.
While some AVFMers had other suggestions — perhaps a picture of the Wicked Witch? — most seemed to think that the pictures were perfect for his book. Tom Golden — along with most of the voters in the poll — preferred Marilyn and her tits:
Others were more taken with the ass pic. Alek wrote:
And Elam, while voting for the moss-encrusted vulva himself, was apparently also quite, er, affected by dat ass. (Those with especially sensitive stomachs may wish to skip the following quote, as it contains an unsolicited update from his boner.)
So there you have it: Two of the most influential figures in the Men’s Rights movement — indeed, arguably the two most influential figures — actually believe that men are oppressed by women’s butts.
Indeed, Elam is apparently so overwhelmed by the sight of an attractive ass that he considers it a literal threat to his life.
Adding to the creepiness factor here: Farrell is 70 years old, making him literally old enough to be grandfather of the model in her underpants. Elam is in his late 50s.
Now, the weird tackiness of the images Farrell chose for his book cover did not go entirely unnoticed at AVFM. There were critics — including, amazingly, AVFM’s own John Hembling, who was a little baffled by the idea of using a sexualized picture of a woman on the cover of Farrell’s book about men, and asked if Farrell was possibly trolling them.
One MRA blogger, Kevin Wayne, posted a link to his blog, where he excoriated all three choices as “Budweiser Ad rejects” and begged Farrell to try something else:
This is just going to backfire. Don’t we have enough issues of being branded as a bunch of no-necks wanting to take women back to the 1950’s?
Elam, while gentle in his handling of Hembling’s criticism, threw a fit over Wayne’s post, banning him from AVFM and bashing him — on AVFM and on Wayne’s own site — as a do-nothing newcomer to Men’s Rights who was too “borderline retarded” to understand the profound deeper meaning behind Farrell’s T&A pics.
Farrell himself seems to have been a a bit more willing to listen to the critics. Indeed, he’s asked AVFM’s readers to submit some more pictures to choose from. There will be a runoff between the winner of the first AVFM poll (Marilyn and her tits) several of the new pics.
So far there hasn’t exactly been a flood of submissions. They’ve included a painting of Diogenes, a painting of Lilith, a photo of a homeless man, and this:
Yeah, that’ll work great.
The hot-pants one makes me think that I don’t want to cook anything in my underpants. Cooking things generally involves hot liquids, and hot liquids pop, and I don’t want spatter on my bare stomach. Ouch.
This is the same thing that makes me a lousy consumer-of-chain-mail-bikini-girls art. I can’t help but think that the damn stuff chafes so.
Yup. It definitely seems wiser and deeper when Glinda is saying it. But then again, she’s a witch, and has the power to drop houses on shitty people. On purpose, I mean. Dorothy just did it by accident.
RE: auggziliary
really, it looks like she’s just cooking breakfast in her underwear alone in her house.
I interpreted it as, “I am with this woman, and she is cooking breakfast in her underwear FOR ME.” Which, were I straight and had such a relationship with a woman, would make me go, “Aw, thank you! That’s so nice of you!” not “I AM SO ENSLAVED.” My husband cooked breakfast for me once dressed in nothing but a pink frilly apron, and it was adorable!
That’s some Tae Kwan Jiu Bo Crane Style shit right there.
This from the OP. This is what struck me about these images. MRAs view women’s “power” as sexual. But not a woman being in control of her sexuality, but a passive presentation of sexuality that “enslave” the male viewer. But what they don’t see (or refuse to see) is that being a passive object if desire is not real power. And they blame women for their own attraction to women. The woman in the short shorts? She has no power. She has been reduced to a body part; we can’t even see her face. That they attribute so much “power” to her says more about them than about the broader society.
Ally S said it better:
And it’s a false sense of power. It’s the illusion that women (young, thin, white women, that is) have power because they cause boners.
Fiddles-With-His-Boogers also needs to just go have a regular wank. His pompous-ass rage-wanks are TL;DR personified.
“cheesecake” is a term for old-fashioned pinup-type pics. I’m not sure the origin of the term.
RE: Falconer
A friend’s partner apparently has the habit of cooking shirtless in the summer, due to having no AC. He’s gotten so interesting grease burns, apparently.
auggzillary: “Cheesecake” is jut what the pictures are, it’s, um, pictures of women in provocative poses wearing little or no clothing. “Beefcake” is the male equivalent.
But Fidelbogen still makes no sense.
It really does stagger the imagination, does it not? The way these guys think they’re “enslaved” by a powerless woman whose powerlessness IS the “power” she allegedly wields. Only she’s not wielding a thing. She’s performing on command. Guess whose command!
Urban dictionary defines “cheesecake” as a variety of (mostly abusive or at least misogynistic) sex acts, farting on people, things involving weed, and, obviously, the dessert. The only possible candidate I can find is this — “Something that is not true; Bullshit”
Frankly, I think we have another Fidelbogenism on our hands.
And what David said. That one was worded more as a sex act and thus I lumped it with those, but the Dark Lord is probably right.
Whodathunk Elam’s afraid of women, besides, oh…absolutely everyone?
Auggz, I think Mr. Would-be Einstein there is trying to say that feminists will hold those sexualized images against MRAs, and win all arguments on the basis of them. And he’s right…we totally would. And that chaps his wannabe-intellectual ass, the painful understanding that you can’t have your cheesecake AND eat feminists’ lunch, too.
Ow, ow, ow.
I think I would live on salads and cold collations in the summer if I had no AC.
I feel bad for folks if their sexuality is such a burden that inconvenient arousal feels like enslavement. Eesh.
@Argenti: Nope, I’ve heard “cheesecake” used to describe male-gaze artwork for as long as I can remember. Generally it doesn’t involve actual naughty bits, but skirts as close as they can get away with.
Yeah, cheesecake has been used for pin-up art way before this Urban Dictionary “definition.”
Well, speaking as a goddess-worshipping radical woman (alas, not a lesbian though), I’d actually be pissed at the appropriation of our imagery of Mother Earth. The force of my conviction would not be “dissipated” in the slightest. In fact, it would be increased…knowing that some crank was using this just to decorate his wankish tomes.
I am baffled by this assertion that sexuality is somehow… power. Like, societal power. I’m really trying to wrap my brain around this, and I can’t.
So they interpret sexualized images of women as examples of how much more powerful women are then men? Or… they are overpowered by women they find attractive and assume a) all other men feel this way ergo b) men are oppressed?
wtf?
Male power is a myth because wimmins have sexxy butts n’ boobies and menz get googly over sexxy butts n’ boobies so wimmins are moar powerful? I mean is this the argument?? Is this what it all boils down to, really?
Butt pics aside, it’s nice to see Farrell get exactly the fans he deserves.
Ninja’d by David.
As far as the origins of the terms (cause I find word origins interesting), I found this:
http://m.neatorama.com/2013/03/21/The-Origins-of-the-Terms-Cheesecake-and-Beefcake/#!pzhkS
But, y’know, take with a grain of salt.
“Sex acts involving weed?… Do you just… get high before?”
No no, two separate things. E.g. “I got cheesecaked last night” (various sex acts) vs “got any cheesecake? (Weed)”
Though sex while high can be pretty damned good! (Prefer MDMA for that, but weed is easier to get and leaves you far more able to make proper decisions and consent [my MDMA sex was with a standing partner and we both thought it sounded like a great idea, random MDMA hook ups probably aren’t wise])
Really? It’s the MRM.
Also, even if being hot to some folks WAS power… seeing the MRM’s obsession with women getting old, doesn’t that mean all women eventually LOSE that power?
Seriously, the more I poke it, the less sense it makes. It hasn’t hit Roko’s Basilisk levels of NO WHAT yet, but it’s definitely there.