You may remember the embarrassing spectacle a couple of months back when Warren Farrell asked the readers of A Voice for Men to help him pick out a cover picture for a new ebook version of The Myth of Male Power, the 21-year-old crackpot bestseller that more or less provided the, er, intellectual foundation for today’s Men’s Rights movement.
It wasn’t just embarrassing because AVFM is a noxious hate site that regularly calls women c*nts and whores and helps to organize informal campaigns of harassment directed at individual women. It was also embarrassing because all three of the pictures were sexualized images focusing on specific female body parts. You can guess which three, and you’d be right: tits, ass, and vagina (the latter tastefully covered in a merkin made of moss).
Well, Farrell ended up rejecting all of these images in favor of … a different picture of a woman’s butt. Yep, the screenshot above features the actual cover of the recently released ebook version of The Myth of Male Power. (You can see it in its full sized-glory over on Amazon.)
The implicit message of the cover couldn’t be clearer: men may seem to run the world, but women can control and exploit them through the power of their sexuality. Male power is undercut by … butt power.
Am I reading too much into a cover image? Farrell doesn’t really believe this nonsense, does he?
Well, in the introduction to the ebook, Farrell writes:
In case you’re wondering, “genetic celebrity” is Farrell’s term of art for any attractive woman.
But golly, you say, the fact that a dude feels “powerless” because he can’t have sex with every woman with a nice butt that happens to wander across his field of vision doesn’t actually mean that men are powerless or that male power is a myth. Well, Farrell has an answer to this as well. And by “answer” I mean, well, whatever this is:
Got that? I’m not sure there’s anything there to get; it’s nothing more than hand-waving to distract attention from the nonsensical nature of his previous statements. In case any Men’s Rights activist ever brings Warren Farrell up as an example of a respectable, “academic” MRA, you may wish to point out that almost nothing Farrell writes ever actually makes any fucking sense.
In the book itself, Farrell repeatedly suggested that male power can be undone almost completely by the sexual power of women. In one oft-quoted passage, he wrote about the effect that a “secretary’s miniskirt power, cleavage power and flirtation power” allegedly has on their male bosses. (Myth of Male Power, p. 21)
While that statement has earned a certain notoriety for its sheer ridiculousness, Farrell went further elsewhere in the book, essentially arguing that men are as addicted to female “beauty” as drug addicts are to the drug of their choice — and as helpless.
“Sexually, of course, the sexes aren’t equal,” Farrell wrote. “[M]any men feel ‘under the influence the moment they see a beautiful woman.” (p. 320, emphasis in original.)
This sort of temporary “intoxication,” Farrell argued, leads men into shackling themselves to these temporarily sexy tyrants for the rest of their lives — thus agreeing to support them (he suggested implicitly) even after they get old and ugly. (p. 85.)
In Farrell’s original book, this “argument,” such as it is, was merely one of many that he thought undercut the alleged “myth of male power.” Now, with the butt on the cover, he’s put it front and center. Or, more precisely, rear and center.
Warren Farrell, you’re an ass, man.
Oh, awkward segue here, I just wanted to show off the cover to the new edition of my classic book, The Myth of Human Power.
It will soon be available for one million dollars in cash in unmarked bills, upon delivery of which I will sit down and write it for you. It will probably be pretty short and not very convincing.
So much of the MRM’s alleged agenda involves offloading the burden of parenting and consent onto others. (I do agree that custody laws are often applied unfairly, but considering what shitty attitudes MRAs have towards children, that’s probably for the best in their case). That’s not an equal rights movement, it’s an evasion of responsibility movement.
The myth of male power vs. the math of male power:
Number of women US Presidents: 0
Percentage of current women Senators: 20%
Percentage of current women Representatives: 18%
Percentage of women Fortune 500 CEOs: 4.6%
Percentage of current women Supreme Court Justices: 33%
Likelihood that a news article about a prominent woman will dwell on her looks, clothes, marital status, or children: High
Likelihood that ditto ditto ditto for men: Virtually nil
Women’s sexual allure doesn’t do much to level the playing field here.
Oh, man, not even something I want to spend time contemplating. That man’s mind is a vile cesspit. It does make sense if you take his premise (that men are simply manipulated by women’s derrières into providing for them and making their lives as comfy as possible) they couldn’t possibly want to assist a female for any other purpose (like love, compassion, empathy).
ah, didn’t think it would put me on moderation for changing my primary email address on wordpress. I realized somewhat belatedly that I was using an email with my name in it. Given the types of trolls that wander in here, I thought it best to be a bit more anonymous than that.
Troll is mostly a big bore but that bit gave me a hearty laugh. Next time I see Hillary Clinton I will ask her that. I’m sure that’s exactly what she’ll tell me.
And the affordable housing for single men . . . that’s a new one on me. I’d be curious to hear that’s a gendered priority, as a single woman whose rent keeps going up.
Sooooooo…according to our MGTOW (he wishes!) interlocutor, some women think of themselves as trophies! That’s nice. Now, guess who taught them to think of themselves that way, and why. Come on, d00d, connect the dots…
Not to mention that the wage gap means affordable housing for single women is even more of an issue, if it’s going to be gendered.
Not cute, but brain bleach anyway.
Here’s a delicious counterpoint to the miserable misogynists. Especially for Aussies. Not much about women – just a little about same sex marriage – but a wonderful summation of our current woeful political condition from a man who may not retain his Senate seat in Western Australia.
And I loved the comment, not in the speech itself, about “coal-powered heterosexual broadband”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/07/scott-ludlam-has-created-the-exact-speech-gen-y-was-looking-for
Huh. Troll’s trying to dress up self-interest as social justice. Fails in a big freaking way.
kittehserf – while we’re at it, let’s gender the housing too. Women need more space for their scented fucking candles and a dedicated litter room for their eighteen cats.
The MRM agenda boils down to “sex, for men, should never have any red tape or strings attached”. That’s pretty pathetic compared to the lofty ideals of real civil rights movements, which are founded on the notion that all humans have inherent dignity and worth.
@leatapp “..so In no way is a man somehow disenfranchised by being attracted to women.”
No, oh no! That is sooo incorrect. If what you said was true then they wouldn’t be using beautiful woman to sell products. Their would be no such things as gold diggers. Sexual capital is real and it can give you the power to make someone do something despite their own intentions.
Furthermore Warren Farrel did not apologies for child rape he was just shilling for research dollors on a highly provocative subject matter. I don’t intend to go along with the notion that he was going to normalize child rape. The very idea that he would is just ridiculous , immature, reactionary mud sling.
But if you think he was really going to promote pedophilia then I guess that’s your prerogative. Personally I think it’s a big distraction.
That’s a great response to Ludlam’s speech. My boss played it at work after I told him about it – it’s a bit longer than the transcript – and we didn’t want it to stop, either.
Budmin, look up what apologia means. No, Farrell wasn’t apologising for child rape. He was indeed talking to normalise it, suggesting the only reason a girl would be distressed about being – let’s be clear about this – RAPED BY HER FATHER is if someone put the idea into her head.
I don’t give a fuck if he was shilling for dollars. If he was, and was prepared to say such things for money, it still makes him a failure of a human being.
You also haven’t a clue about who actually has the power in commercial settings. It’s not the models, sonny Jim. Being commodified, objectified, does not give one power. Being reduced to an image of what hetero men are presumed to want to fuck is not empowering.
Christ, you are stupid. Wilfully stupid.
You guys, you broke the troll. He’s gone from dumb to babbling incoherence.
BTW, check this out.
What right is it that you think the use of sexy women in advertising is depriving men of, budmin?
Budmin can’t spell “dollar” but he can spell “prerogative?”
Blood flow to the brain?
(I know that in Farrell’s case the answer would be “the right to have sex with her”, I’m just curious to see if buddy is honest enough to admit that himself.)
@kittehserf I know you don’t give a fuck, I don’t give a fuck either. Move the goal post another time, right now we’re talking about men and social dynamics of attraction.
…please? Stay on the topic. I mean hypothetical rape is Intresting and all but that’s not the point of this blog amiright.
It’s time for a troll meltdown, amiright? Someone better make some popcorn, it goes well with entitled manchild tears.
“Y’know, while we’re talking about the myth of male power, can I just mention that we’re coming up fairly soon upon the 100th anniversary of women demanding and getting the vote here in America?
It’s going to be a presidential election year.
…
I think we all know what we have to do.”
Do a barrel roll?
Bud, men’s bodies are used to sell products too.
http://pitchslave.com/wp-content/uploads/10641306-abercrombie-and-fitch.jpg
http://img0.gtsstatic.com/wallpapers/eeefbd2c77b38acbcdeb503b90404a43_large.jpeg
Yes, women are more often objectified, as in actually treated as objects. Again, that’s not proof of power. It’s proof of the prevalence of media that shows the world through the lens of the male gaze.
Disingenuous people who are more interested in money than love come in every conceivable gender and yet, they are hardly a serious problem facing the world today. There is no rampant horde of greedy harpies out to separate you from your money. That’s not a real danger people face. Malaria is a serious problem. Rape and war are serious problems. “Gold diggers”? Not so much.
Bud, you’ve yet to make a coherent point or provide evidence of WF’s assertions being correct.
Women are objectified and commodified and used to sell products and this means women have all the power? And, who, exactly, is the one who is making the money from selling these products? Who’s running the corporations and pulling in the profits made off of women’s bodies?
Women being financially dependent on men means women have all the power?
Prove it. Who holds most of the world’s wealth? Who makes most of the world’s laws? Who can go where they want when they want with who they want wearing what they want, with no fear?
…which would make him an asshole. Why are you defending an asshole?
Gumdrop, it doesn’t matter whether or not you want to believe it. Farrell defended child sexual abuse. He is indeed normalizing child rape.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman!
The only one shifting goalposts is you, budmin.
@kittehserf well have you ever seen one of those hidden camera “what would you do” segments on ABC. Isn’t it a common occurrence that the pretty girl gets the help, the pretty girl gets away with wrong doings ect.
To say that women don’t profit from sexual capital is a lie and you know it. You’re just too proud to admit you said something foolish.
Given you’ve been talking nonsense since the beginning, budmin, and claiming to know what Farrell’s doing/meaning, then it’s hardly moving goalposts to point out that you’re defending a man who defends incest. You’re being judged by the company you keep.
You’re still trying to say that men’s apparently unfulfilled desire for some women, or embarrassment at approaching a woman, or (heaven forfend) rejection by a woman, is somehow equivalent to women’s literal disenfranchisement, to the multiple ways in which society is arranged to benefit men at our expense.
Oh, and that shit about violence being illegitimate? That doesn’t actually stop rapists and abusers. It doesn’t remove the threat of violence from women’s lives. The violence so many men use is a very effective way of threatening women as a class.
It’s bullshit to claim it’s illegitimate anyway, when the courts make it clear time and again that male violence, especially sexual violence, against women will be punished with a slap on the wrist with a wet train ticket.