By David Futrelle
I‘ve been rereading Warren Farrell’s Myth of Male Power — basically the MRA bible — and boy does my brain hurt.
If you haven’t had the distinct unpleasure of reading any of Farrell’s books, it’s hard to convey just how frustrating and infuriating his writing style is; it’s rambling and convoluted and weirdly evasive. It’s as if he faintly knows that what he’s saying makes no goddamn sense and is trying to do his best to cover up his leaps of illogic with sheer bafflegab.
Let me present you with some of his finest work in this vein, found in his discussion of sexual harassment.
As you might expect, Farrell is not a big fan of sexual harassment legislation, which he feels is discriminatory against men because how are they supposed to know when they’re sexually harassing someone? And also isn’t it unfair that women still get to dress all sexy at work, I mean, it’s like they want you to sexually harass them or something.
That is, as best as I can discern it, his basic argument. But the more closely you read his writing on the subject the weirder it gets. Let’s take this extended disquisition on the evils of miniskirts.
Many women ask, “What’s the big deal with a miniskirt, perfume, and a little flirting in the workplace?” It would not be a big deal for most men if no one were making a big deal of the man’s response.
In other words, it wouldn’t be a big deal if no one cared about men ogling women in the office and saying sexually suggestive things to them about said miniskirts.
But, he thinks, it sends out the wrong sort of signals to men, who see a woman in a miniskirt and think “there’s a woman who wants to get married and quit work.”
It is a big deal, though, for the woman—if her goal is to be treated seriously at work. Here’s why. Her indirect initiatives signal to the man her tendency to avoid direct responsibility. Indirect initiatives signal to him that he is dealing with a woman who is traditional. And traditionally, indirect initiatives were designed to lead to marriage and the end of her involvement in the workplace.
Yeah, maybe if you live inisde a sitcom from the 1960s
So the miniskirt, perfume, and flirting unconsciously tell the man that this woman wants an end to her involvement in the workplace—or, at least, an end to her involvement by obligation.
Because it’s so common for women to marry and quit their jobs. So common that in fact women make up the majority of those in the workforce.
If you were a boss who had to choose between promoting someone who had the option to work versus someone with the obligation to work (e.g., to support a spouse and three children), whom would you take more seriously?
Most women, miniskirted or not, don’t have the option to not work. Only about a quarter of mothers are stay-at-home housewives these days.
Oh, but he’s not done. If you thought wearing miniskirts was bad, consider lipstick. And/or flowers in the hair.
In almost all cultures throughout human history, women’s indirect initiatives were their way of signaling their desire for men to take direct initiatives.
If she smiles at you, it means she wants your dick pics.
A flirtation was an invitation. In some cultures, lipstick was a woman’s way of signaling her willingness to perform fellatio. In the South Sea islands, a fresh flower in a woman’s hair signaled availability. The purpose of the flower, lipstick, or the miniskirt is to put the signal out strongly enough to stimulate every man’s interest. It is only when she has every man’s interest that she has real choice—the choice of the “best” men.
What is it with these guys and lipstick? No, dude, women wearing lipstick aren’t “signaling” anything other than the fact that they think they look good in lipstick.
Also, I want to know exactly which cultures think lipstick means “she wants to give blowjobs.” Farrell has no footnote for that fun factoid; I’m guessing it was pulled directly from his ass.
Farrell then concludes that when women say “no” to the men attracted to them by miniskirts and lipstick and hair-flowers they really mean “keep going.”
What has been the historical importance of her barriers—her “no, noes”? It was her way of selecting a man who could handle life’s rejections and survive, who cared enough for her to take risks, and who would assume total responsibility should anything go awry.
Apparently the ladies are really into guys who do and say things that would get them accused of sexual harassment if they did or said them to someone else?
In a sense, sexual harassment lawsuits are just the latest version of the female selection process—allowing her to select for men who care enough for her to put their career at risk; who have enough finesse to initiate without becoming a jerk and enough guts to initiate despite a potential lawsuit. During this process, she gets a sense of his trustworthiness, his commitment, his ability to overcome barriers, the way he handles rejection.
I’m pretty sure that most women are far more appreciative of men who handle rejection by not hitting on them any more than they are of those who respond to “no” by escalating their “courtship” behavior.
Sexual initiatives by men toward women below them at work is the most frequent definition of sexual harassment. When it works, it’s called courtship. When it doesn’t work, it’s called harassment.
Huh. Maybe men shouldn’t be hitting on women they supervise in the first place. (Or vice versa)
Anyway, enough of that. Does anyone want to hear his defense of dirty jokes at work?
Although both sexes have their own styles of humor, we often heard during the Thomas-Hill confrontation that dirty jokes were the way male bosses exert their power over women. Hardly. Men share dirty jokes with peers, buddies, and with anyone with whom they feel comfortable. A dirty joke is often a male boss’s unconscious way of getting his staff to not take him so seriously and therefore not be intimidated; his way of creating an atmosphere of easier feedback, of getting his staff to bond. Men get confused when women say they feel left out when they’re not included, then sue when they are included!
Ah women, those mysterious creatures who for some strange reason don’t want to “bond” with their boss over some joke about a man from Nantucket.
Farrell, for better or worse, is the intellectual godfather of the Men’s Rights movement; his ideas have basically defined the ideology of the movement for nearly three decades. No wonder the Men’s Rights movement is so fucked up.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Ah, Warren “Rape As Buyer’s Remorse” Farrell…. I wondered when he would be featured again on this website. I haven’t heard of him in a while.
Is there a new edition or something? Anyway, take frequent breaks.
“It would not be a big deal that I burned down the bank if no one were making a big deal about arson.”
Well, a lot of MRAs do sound like their “research” is watching 60s sitcoms, so maybe Warren does.
This seems to be part of a recurring manosphere theme, complaining that women are too indirect but also wanting women to be submissive at the same time. It’s a no win situation.
It also sounds reminiscent of the “rainbow party” moral panic of the early 2000s.
Maybe Farrell took a break from the 60s sitcoms and watched some porn instead.
This can’t be right. Because MRA attempts at humor are not funny at all, but I know men who are funny.
@Airis Damon
IIRC he also compared rape of women to unemployment for men, apparently ignoring that men can be raped and women can be unemployed.
@Naglfar
Great. As if he wasn’t horrible enough. That was almost as bad as another reprobate moment during a certain interview for Penthouse Magazine regarding incest.
Charming fellow in person, or so I’ve heard, but his perspectives regarding human relationships are utter radioactive garbage.
@Airis Damon
Yep, here are the quotes about how unemployment is like rape. He also manages to claim registering for a non-active draft is like rape, with a heaping dose of homophobia added. And apparently thinks rape laws are like speed limits.
As for the Penthouse thing, I recall that one as well. He’s got a weird history, seeing as at one point he was a feminist (or at least pretended to be), and was elected to the board of N.O.W. 3 times. Even then he had some very MRAish tendencies like hosting a “role reversal date” where women have 150 chances of rejection, which he claimed men face.
That in and of itself can often be a red flag, as a lot of abusers are able to publicly present themselves as charming to throw off suspicion. He seems to fit the mold on that one.
This man really needs to chill with his lipstick fetish
What is this, low grade regurgitation of Desmond Morris?
IIRC, Morris wrote in one of his books that a hibiscus flower signaled available OR taken status depending on whether it was on the right or left ear. I don’t know how accurate this is, and I also wouldn’t remember which way it was supposed to be.
This like saying “people in Africa…” Which island/island chain is he referring to?
Be fair. Sometimes MRA research is watching Sex and the City. Or more likely, reading other men’s complaints about it.
@Naglfar I learned about his past before. I believe I first learned about him from Liz’s Library. That’s where I also learned about his Penthouse interview. I even wrote about him on Medium, because I saw others, including women, trying to emulate him.
I do not go to Liz’s Library any more. The transphobia hit me too hard. It was sudden, to me, but probably not for her, the author. The author is a family lawyer. She has personally dealt with Farrell himself, Father’s Rights Activists, and MRAs. Her knowledge is impressive.
The transphobia is, again, terrible. And so I cannot go back there.
So, a flower in their hair means availability?!
I think it’s creepy because the only people I ever saw putting fresh flowers in their hair were little girls, and I guess they probably did it because it was cute. Well…
@happy_cat
Nope! Little tarts, every one.
Actually that reminds me of a book I read in the dim past, which did make the argument that child prostitution in bygone eras was only seen as an evil because of Christian morality foisted on the lumpenproletariat (this word was used) by the disgusting Christian bourgeoisie, and that everyone would have been better off if Christianity had just not polluted the West because then child sex wouldn’t be tainted by taboo and child prostitutes would be better off. I disagreed with this book on every possible level.
@WWTH
The island of PIDOOMA?
I’d guess the latter, most of them sound like they’ve never seen it. I haven’t seen it either, but at least I don’t base my world view around what I think it is.
@Big Titty Demon
That book sounds quite creepy. While Christian morality can have some very real negative effects (persecution of LGBT people, subjugation of women, etc), I would say that child sex is something which should definitely be avoided for obvious reasons.
Wearing a tie in the office signals that you’re available to provide blow jobs and make coffee, because peacocks have feathers and something something Pacific islands.
If you carry a briefcase, you must signal your manhood to your employer by diving from a wooden tower with vines attached to your ankles.
In Fiji, certain customs are tabu so DO NOT TOUCH WOMEN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
Gosh, I wonder why Office Anthropology isn’t actually a thing?
@Buttercup Q Skullpants
The 3rd floor copy machine is cursed, avoid it. To achieve increased alertness, use the coffee machine. If the computer crashes, contact IT for their rituals.
I have an anthropologist friend who actually does study the cultures of different companies.
As always, a misogynist is the worst misandrist. What makes him so confident that sexual harassment always and only swings in the male->female direction? In a world where nobody has recourse from sexual harassment charges, what is a man who is being harassed supposed to do? What secret signals is that man sending that invited the harassment?
@Moon_Custafer – Cool! But does your friend overlay ancient tribal rituals onto office culture in order to justify their pre-existing notions about rape? It’s not real anthropology otherwise./s
@Naglfar – Always leave one slice of pizza from the lunch meeting to attract prosperity and appease the gods.
(Prosperity looks like ants, by the way.)
Or, women in the South Seas put flowers in their hair because they want to be promoted to middle management positions. That makes about as much sense as claiming lipstick is an invitation to harassment.
Actually office anthropology is a thing. Most office studies are lean more to sociology, but there are studies of office culture by anthropologists.
@PoM
Oh, but don’t you know it’s never a man’s fault? It must be those evil women trying to invite harassment from men by harassing them! /s
When my husband and I went to Hawaii once, we took a class that involved making flower crowns thing that the hotel offered and i thought it be fun. The teacher there told me that you do put a flower on one side of your hair to show you are single and a flower on the other side to show your taken ( not sure if that means married or just like in a relationship).
But i doubt any native Hawaiian person would take a look at me and be like “oh she got the flower on the single side of her hair. I’m going to go grope her and make sexual harassing comments” because I put it on like that
It was a lot of fun. I also learned how to weave a basket and we went on a hike to a water fall.
You know i also don’t like wearing my wedding ring on the finger you are suppose to wear it on. And if someone came up to bother me because of that it’s still their fault.
It did in the late sixties/early seventies … 😛
Dude really needs to update his EULA.
Has he been living in a 60s sitcom for the last thirty years? Because this sounds like it.
I, too, would like to hear the details of this lipstick thing. Maybe there was something like the handkerchief code, where the colour of your lipstick communicated what you wanted to do. It’s not like people choose those to complement their skin tone or anything.
@Policy of Madness
I presume this isn’t supposed to be an issue, since it’s only sexual harassment if it’s done by someone you don’t find sexually attractive, and men find all women sexually attractive, since attractive women are the only women that exist. /s
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
When you have decked out your new office space, order copious amounts of cake to be shared with the neighbouring tribes so that they look kindly at your territorial conquest.
(I once worked in a project where we had to move the whole operation to a new building, inconveniencing those who already worked there. The amount of cake at our housewarming party was epic for a project that only had some 10 workers.)
@Masse_mysteria
As obviously made up as Farrell’s thing is, I do think a lipstick code could maybe be used in BDSM and sex spaces. Since AFAIK the hanky code has mostly been used by men, maybe this could be an equivalent for women/femmes. Obviously this would only apply in those spaces and not in the office, but I see how it could potentially work. Though one of the aspects of the hanky code is that one can wear a handkerchief on one side to show being a top/dom and on the other side to indicate being a bottom/sub, but it looks odd if you only wear lipstick on one side. And wearing multiple colors of lipstick at once is hard if not impossible.
Once again, I find myself wondering if this man has ever met a woman, or only just watched a lot of late-night TV/movies.
O/T: It appears some incels are calling each other out for being creepy assholes. Granted, he does still use ableist slurs and cares more about perception, but it’s a step.