By David Futrelle
So I’ve been rereading Warren Farrell lately and, as always, it’s been a bit of a surreal experience. The man singlehandedly responsible for many if not most of the bad ideas held by Men’s Rights Activists today is not what you’d call an especially lucid writer. His organization is free-associational, his writing style evasive and cluttered with incoherent metaphors, and it seems like every time I go to check the source of one of his confidently asserted facts it turns out there’s nothing real supporting it.
A while back I wrote about my attempts to find the source of one of his statistics only to discover that it came from a thoroughly unscientific survey a high school teacher friend of his had taken of her students.
A few days ago, checking the source for a claim in his book The Myth of Male Power that men pay for dinners for women ten times more often than women pay for men — and that “the more expensive the restaurant, the more often the man pays” — I discovered from his footnote that his “evidence” for this unequivocally stated “fact” was “based on my own informal discussions with waiters in restaurants around the country in cities where I speak.” In other words, dinnertime chatter reported as scientific fact.
But the weirdest factual failure I’ve yet found in Farrell’s writing comes in a strange section of that same book in which Farrell tries to contrast the supposedly pampered life of the allegedly ungrateful man-hater Jodie Foster against the sufferings of Muhammad Ali, famously prosecuted for refusing to serve in Vietnam.
Farrell starts off with an out-of-context quote from Jodie Foster, which he uses in an attempt to suggest that she is a whiny misandrist insufficiently appreciative of those who served in Vietnam.
Here’s the quote, as Farrell renders it:
Ninety-five percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive . . . women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo.
Looking online for the quote, I found it (in this truncated form) included in various lists highlighting quotes from allegedly “misandrist” and/or “radical” feminists; on one site Foster was identified as “actress [and] homosexual.” But when I tracked down the New York Times Magazine profile of Foster that the quote originally came from, I discovered that she was actually talking about film roles — explaining that she didn’t feel comfortable playing action heroes because it didn’t feel true to her experience as a woman or the experience of women in history.
“I love life-threatening situation movies,” she told the Times.
And in terms of women in history, 95 percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive. So, if I played Wonder Woman all the time I would be betraying where I come from. Women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow things up. They’re not Rambo.
Farrell follows his truncated version of this quote with a paragraph that is so utterly and obviously wrong in its central details that it’s astounding it’s still in the latest edition of his book, republished 21 years after the original. Here it is:
Muhammad Ali’s refusal to participate in what he felt was the criminal nature of the Vietnam War forced him into prison during the height of his career and deprived him of four years that could never be recovered. At the same time Jodie Foster was safe at home, becoming wealthy and famous and cashing in on her sex appeal.
Ok, first off: While it’s appalling that Ali was prosecuted and convicted for his principled refusal to serve in a war he felt was unjust, he didn’t spend four years in prison. He appealed his conviction and remained free on bail until it was overturned by the Supreme Court. It did sideline him from boxing for several years, but not because he was behind bars.
Second of all, Jodie Foster was born in November of 1962. When Ali was convicted, she was four years old; when the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, she was eight. She definitely did not spend those years “cashing in on her sex appeal,” though she did appear in some sit-coms. (And while she grew up into an attractive woman her career has never really been about sex appeal.)
True, she didn’t face the danger of being drafted while Ali was dealing with his conviction, but generally speaking we don’t draft four-year-old boys either. The Vietnam war was still going strong when I was four, and as far as I can remember I never got a draft notice.
Farrell continues on:
What would Jodie Foster have said if a sexist law kept her in prison when she was 24, 25, 26, and 27?
Obviously Farrell’s point is that it’s unfair that young men have been jailed for draft evasion while women have been exempt from the draft. And that’s a good point. I don’t support the draft, but if there is one it should apply to all genders.
But Jodie Foster isn’t a good example of someone who benefited from a draft that applied only to men because, well, she didn’t. She was a kid during the war. The draft was abolished long before she would have been eligible for it, and, oh yeah, the US was at peace when she was in her mid-twenties. No men her age were being drafted, or jailed for refusing to serve, because there was no draft and no war to serve in, unless you count Grenada.
But Farrell continues throwing shade at Foster for no good reason, sniffing that “the Jodie Fosters … think of themselves as morally superior to men who freed them from the dirty work of war.” Never mind that this is not what she actually said or implied in the New York Times Magazine piece he selectively quotes.
He continues on, getting more and more melodramatic:
To many men, it doesn’t feel good to hear the Jodie Fosters ignore men’s victimization, then blame the victim, then claim herself to be the victim—especially a Jodie Foster who grew up in an era in which women had the fantasy of “a room of my own” while their brothers had the reality of “a body bag of my own.”
Again, she was a kid during the war; her literal brother had no “body bag of his own,” as he spent the Vietnam war years … as a child actor, like her.
It saddened men who watched women their age get a head start on their careers while they fought in a war that tore apart their souls, to return from that war to hear a woman call herself the only victim of sexism because she was being asked to make coffee at a job that no law required her to take.
Huh, and did any of these men have similar feelings about those “men their age [who got] a head start on their careers while they fought in a war that tore apart their souls?” Because Warren Farrell, born in 1943, was one of those non-serving, head-starty men. Unlike Foster, he was old enough to serve — but spent the late sixties and early seventies “getting a head start” on an academic career by going to grad school.
Which is fine, but if you were the right age to serve and you didn’t, you probably shouldn’t devote several pages of your book to yelling at Jodie Foster because she wasn’t fighting in Vietnam or sitting in prison for opposing it at the age of four — or for not serving in some hypothetical war that didn’t exist when she was old enough.
I, too was born in 1962. It’s a weird demo to be in, because it’s supposed to be the tail end of the Boomer generation, but we can’t really relate to the Viet Nam protestors and Woodstock attendees and people in “our” cohort who remember where they were when JFK was shot.
Why Creepy Warren Farrell decided to pick on Jodi Foster is a mystery. Does he blame her for John Hinkley Jr.’s attempted assassination of Reagan too? Does he have a secret crush on her like Hinkley did/does?
So why didn’t you oppose Hitler, eh Warren? That you were a baby at the time is no excuse, especially if you were going to scorn Jodie Foster for not serving in Vietnam when she was 4.
But seriously, his complaints about men having to pay for meals shows how little he understands what he’s talking about. There are things that suck about society for men. Even things that suck more for men than women. But those things aren’t a result of feminism, but the same patriarchy that feminism is opposing. Men having to pay for a meal more often is a result of men getting the breadwinner role and women being forced to be housewives and discouraged from having careers that would allow them to pay for the meal. Women aren’t serving in combat roles because of a belief that they’re too physically and emotionally fragile to do so (never mind that there are instances of competent female soldiers throughout history and to this very day). Men are less likely than women to get child custody because raising the child is seen as the woman’s role, and alimony goes back to the man being the breadwinner. Male victims of abuse are scorned and ridiculed because the man is expected to be the boss and woman are believed to be weak. If you really want to make society better for your fellow men, Warren, you should be a feminist. There’s a reason Gloria Steinem said “Every time we liberate a woman, we liberate a man.”
It’s telling that all Warren Farrell has to work with is “whataboutism.” Very telling indeed.
The misogynist culture that reads Farrell’s drivel is unswayed by facts. A study of restaurant wait staff (umm, make that “waiters… I’m betting he didn’t poll any women) that returns the answers they want to believe is infinitely more scientific than one that doesn’t, no matter how either study was conducted and controlled.
Conservatives NEVER use evidence, simply because accurately collected evidence NEVER SUPPORTS THEIR CONCLUSIONS.
What a delight he must be at parties.
http://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/farrrrpn.png
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/files/2017/01/paul_header.jpg
is it just me, or do these two look frighteningly similar…???
“A room of my own.”
What does that say about me that my first reaction was to wonder why he was making a Virginia Woolf reference?
Do you think this douchebag just got Jodi Foster mixed up with Jane Fonda? I mean he is still terrible but why didnt he go after the more obvious woman, who actually protested the war and was rich and privileged? I mean that was my first thought. He missed the obvious woman target. Not that his argument would work with Fonda, it seems he missed the obvious conservative bugbear.
Not that his waitstaff survey deserves much examination, but I’m also wondering how many of these couples actually have separate bank accounts they’re paying from. My father will usually ‘pick up the check’, or my husband will, but in both cases, the money is coming from a joint checking account that both partners pay into.
It’s customary for the man to pay, yes, not because of feminism, but in the case of a partnered couple he normally pays with community money.
why doesn’t mr farrell criticize the imperialism of the united states which made the vietnam draft possible? oh, it’s because it doesn’t fit into his agenda which seeks to make feminism the evil that has ruined men’s lives.
so many of the problems that mras decry as ‘misandry’, are actually caused by capitalism. they talk how feminism doesn’t care about homeless men when in actuality it’s capitalism that is causing them to be homeless. there are more empty houses than homeless people in the us. mras talk about how men are seen as ‘disposable’ because of the draft and how ‘99% of solider fatalities’ are male while ignoring that fact that this is all because of america’s desire to conquer the world. cassie jaye touted this statistic as the height of male oppression in her documentary, but conveniently ignored civilian deaths. idk, maybe she just doesn’t see non americans as human
@ Vicky P
Does anybody else find Virginia Woolf a bit scary?
@ Alan
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?
You think the army doesn’t draft four-year-olds? Check out this documentary!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNgiWU9LY7A
(Actually, Munro is a academy award winning cartoon satirizing the draft by famous comic book artist Jules Feiffer. But, yes, it’s about the army drafting a four-year-old, so I HAD to post a link to it in this thread, didn’t I?)
“That no law required her to take”. That particular piece of doggerel dogma is a bane unto my good nature.
“My boss said that to keep my job I had to cut my hand off with an axe.”
“Well, quit that job and find another one!”
“It turns out that many of these jobs consider forced hand-cutting-off-with-axe to be an important part of the culture.”
“The market will decide for that.”
“My refusal to take a job in which I have to cut my hand off with an axe is causing me to have no money and unemployment will pay for either food or rent but not both.”
“THEN GET A JOB, MOOCHER.”
Tophergraceless, I was wondering that too, but then he presumably would have mentioned her, you know, going to Hanoi rather than using a truncated quote to make Foster look bad. I seriously can’t figure out what was going on there.
I mean, at first I thought maybe he meant “what if this had happened to her at the same stage in her life” but then he makes repeated references to her living the good life while young men were dying in Vietnam.
Did he write this while on a drunken bender? Why didn’t an editor fix it or remove it? Why did no one bring this up to him in the 21 years between the book’s publication and the new edition? Or maybe they were just so worn out dealing with the rest of the bullshit that was in the book.
Cheerful Warthog: “That no law required her to take”.
And that bit came shortly after he talked about the severe medical problems Ali endured as a result of his boxing career — one could just as easily say, well no one forced him to be a boxer. Or you could say, too bad coal miners die, Warren, but no one forced them to take their jobs either.
Which is cruel and callous, but it’s the same exact logic he uses on that hypothetical woman. In his mind, when men have complaints about their jobs, it’s a huge deal, but when women talk about systematic discrimination and/or sexual harassment, it’s just whining.
1) Is Warren Farrell talking about Taxi Driver, made in 1976 — after the war in Vietnam was over?
2) Is Warren Farrell outing himself as a pedophile?
3) Has Warren Farrell ever heard of women’s peace organizations? Another Mother for Peace? Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (founded in 1915)? Global Network of Women Peacebuilders? Code Pink? Women in Black? And on and on.
Jodie Foster details how ‘uncomfortable’ it was playing a prostitute aged 12 in Taxi Driver
“Scorsese would say something like ‘unzip his fly’ and just start laughing”
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jodie-foster-details-how-uncomfortable-it-was-playing-a-prostitute-aged-12-in-taxi-driver-a7040016.html
More calls for a general strike and massive protests:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Probably, I bet he just didn’t bother actually doing the math.
I’ve never seen Taxi Driver. Because even the descriptions of Jodie Foster as a 12 year old “prostitute” is too squick inducing for me.
I also never read Lolita for similar reasons. Although I did watch both movie adaptations. I don’t think I can be in Humbert’s head space even knowing he’s meant to be unsympathetic and an unreliable narrator.
Farrell’s “logic” has two massive holes in it.
First, when he says “men”, he clearly means “men in specific situations”. But he never explains or even acknowledges this.
For instance, he’ll say something like “Male soldiers fight and die to protect women and children”. This is perfectly true…but they’re protecting them from other men. What does Farrell think the enemy soldiers, generals and politicians are? Pterodactyls? For the vast bulk of human history, every individual involved in the decision to go to war was a man.
Same goes for violent crime. “Policemen risk their lives to protect women and children from violent criminals!” Perfectly true. Also true; the vast majority of violent criminals are men. I’m starting to see a pattern here.
Secondly, he (and his followers) complain about women not undertaking dangerous work, especially in the military. They don’t acknowledge that, for most of Western history, women were specifically excluded from these roles. They’ll complain that there were no all-women squadrons wiped out during WWII, without a trace of irony, and honestly think that fact supports their sense of grievance.
So, dickcheeses…every known war in the history of the Western world has been started by men, and controlled by men. Women weren’t allowed to play, so you don’t get to blame them for not playing. You suck.
@Katherine the Adequate:
A term that’s arisen to denote us awkward cultural notch babies is “Generation Jones”, covering about 1955-1965; apparently our distinguishing trait is a restless unfulfillable longing–hence the term, as in “jonesing” and “keeping up with the Joneses.”
Here’s an essay underscoring one of the fundamental differences between early and later boomers: http://leftfielder.org/2008/05/27/how-obama-dodged-the-draft/ (Spoiler: by the devious ruse of having come of age after it ended.)
Adding to which, there were all-women squadrons in WWII. The Night Witches, for one.
The first Soviet Union state funeral of World War II was for one Marina Raskova. What happened to her? KIA when her bomber crashed.
Of course, even when women did fight in a war, it seems to almost always have been men who started it.
This article starts out seemingly unrelated to our topics here, but ultimately suggests the need for an intersectional progressive movement that addresses economic injustice, social injustice, and climate change all at once with an end to creating some sort of eco-socialism.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/climate-change-is-proving-worse-than-we-imagined-so-why-arent-we-confronting-its-root-cause/
The obvious existing candidate movement that would have to expand its scope the least would seem to be intersectional feminism, which makes this relevant here.
I regularly read everydaysexism, and there are many instances of wait staff looking to the man to pay when in a opp sex couple or family group, and even some instances of wait staff SHAMING men who are not paying. So wait staff are not exactly the unbiased non sexist observers.
Warren Farrell’s book The Myth of Male Power is full of errors. Check out the section on crimes committed by women and especially his account of the Laurie Dann rampage. He says that Dann singled out boys, when girls were wounded, too.