In 1993, Dr. Warren Farrell released a bombshell of book called the Myth of Male Power. In the book, he details so much that compromises that modern MRA movement – issues related to suicide, false accusation of rape/sexual harassment and general issues of male disposability and a society that kneejerk blames men for the problems of society, while giving a hall pass to the women of society.
1993 was a very different time in American history. Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 was marred by the ugly Anita Hill situation – a woman claiming she was sexually harassed at work by Thomas; it was racially charged because both Thomas and Hill are black. Further, 1993 was the year of Lorena Bobbitt chopping off her husband’s penis – the mood of women in the country was “Hell, yeah!” because she alleged he abused her. Andrea Dworkin was roaming the campuses, giving her radical feminist screeds to approving audiences. Clearly, this is or was a peak of feminism; third wave feminism is usually claimed to have began in this tumultuously gendered times. This was either not the time or the exact time to drop a book like Myth of Male Power.
It must be said that the response was not all uniformly negative. TIME and Forbes wrote positive reviews; many authors and public intellectuals like Camille Pagilla, David Horowitz and Nathaniel Branden wrote or espoused positive reviews of the book. Clearly, the response was not delineated along mainstream ideological lines in America – the real enemy was, predictably, the feminist lobby.
A picture of Warren Farrell:
![[Image: event_156137152.jpeg]](http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/3/0/0/event_156137152.jpeg)
Now, a little background on Farrell. His relationship with feminism began as a feminist in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. He is the only man ever elected to NOW’s Board of Directors for New York City (something that gets brought up way too much). He was very much the self-flagellating feminist man. He would give speeches, to the roaring endorsement of women, about what men need to change about themselves, how men really were the instigators and perpetuators of the problems women faced in society. In sum, he told women to see critiques of men as “insight” and critiques of women as “sexism.”
At some point, he saw the light. He realized all he was voicing was the perspectives of women. His speeches started changing and the approval from women dried up quicker than lesbian’s vagina with a dude. He decided it was time to do the research and figure out men’s perspectives. As a feminist, he went on one hell of journey that culminated in this book - the Myth of Male Power.
The book itself is a good read – especially if you are not familiar with the research and statistics that back up many boilerplate claims of MRA’s. Let’s review death and suicide as an example. In 1920, women lived one year longer than men; in 1990, women lived seven years longer. That is an increase of 600%. Further, Farrell argues correctly if the gap was reversed, feminists would make the argument that the death gap would be a sign of who had the power in society. Farrell then ominously brings race in: Females – White, 79; Black, 74. Males – White, 72; Black, 65. Take that as you will.
Suicide rates are skewed, as well. They start out similar, but at 15-19 the boy’s rate is four times as high; at 20-24 it balloons to six times as high. Once old age is reach, the male suicide rate exceeds the female by 1,350%. He then brings up the fact that TIME ran an article noting that the primary victims of violence are the vulnerable – ethnic minorities, the poor, the abandoned and the mentally ill. Farrell then stated that 84% of the victims of these crimes were male. Yet, TIME put only one picture on the cover - that of a woman. Who only make up 16% of the victims.
There is much good research on issues related to men. A run-down of the entire book would be long, tedious and beyond the scope of what I want to focus on. What I want to discuss – and critique – is his view that “Stage II” relationships are what is needed; in other words, that true equality between men and women is what will heal the gender divide in this country.
Farrell correctly points out that for most of human history “Stage I” relationships are what prevailed, especially amongst the lower classes. He notes these relationships are primarily motivated by need –sheer survival, economic need, etc. He notes that these relationships have gender roles, children are obligatory and these relationships were expected to last a lifetime. He makes the interesting observation that “Stage I” relationships treat women as property and “men-as-less-than-property,” as the man was expected to die before the female, and property would pass to the widow and his heirs.
He notes that sometime around World War II, “Stage I” relationships began to transition, in fits and starts, into “Stage II” relationships. He theorizes that once the transition to “Stage II” relationships is complete, then issues related to gender will dissolve. These “Stage II” relationships are a pure hybrid role for men and women, based on liberal autonomy theory. People will get together, live together, and leave other as they see fit. Both men and women will work and contribute fiscally and domestically. Child-rearing will be voluntary and done equally by both. He makes a good suggestion that both sexes will contribute to their own and each other’s well being – i.e. women will learn to handle their own emotions. That singular point sounds good in theory – but what about the practice of the whole?
In sum: Yeah, right. A quick review of the upcoming generation reveals a brood of entitled, narcissistic, self-absorbed women; women who can’t even hold a damn conversation without checking their iPhones. Hell, the whole approach of game in America is specifically tailored to overcome and deal with the psychology of not just women biologically, but the specific culture American women are brought up in. It isn’t pretty – I know I am preaching to the choir.
It is the idealized, pie-in-the-sky view of gender relations in which Farrell’s solutions fail. He has an ivory tower view of women and men. He does claim to have helped men with their relations with women, but it seems to be a “Build a Better Beta” situation. He does help these men deal with low self-esteem and personal issues. Yet, it seems he builds them up to what women want or need them to be. He does claim he does it to help men as men – I truly believe he does believe that – but, still, the end goal is a monogamous relationship with a woman. In his final line in the book he elucidates that women need to stop being sex objects, men need to stop being success objects – and both become love objects.
For the lack of a better expression – that’s fucking stupid. He seems to think that human sexuality is fluid and men and women can be remade in ways that they can and will fill the same roles in a relationship. His book can make you feel that this sort of utopia can be achieved if we can transcend our biology – even he doesn’t state it as such in so many words. I am not a blank-slatist and I don't believe men or women can be remade to be "equals” in sense that sexuality can transcend biological reality. We may end up with our sexual equals, but beyond that?
Really though, what incentive do women have to change, anyway? They get an incentive when they hit the wall and turn 30 and have roughly 10% of their eggs left. However, that doesn’t take away women’s experiences with all manner of sexy males in their teens and 20’s. They are never happy with settling for a beta, even a successful one. Now, it is true there are men who learn game in a marriage and successfully transform their relationships. I don’t have numbers on it, but how often do you think the transformation is?
In a closely related point, he never addresses hypergamy. I remember reading an anecdote about a study of romance novels from the 60’s to the 2000’s. The study noted that the men got taller, richer, more muscular and more dominant over the course of the years. I believe, maybe errantly, that the study concluded the patriarchy still exists because “gendered standards of male sexual attractiveness still persist and are getting worse.” No, women’s perception of their attractiveness is increasing, so they falsely assume they can attract and keep that sort of alpha male. Hypergamy is getting worse, not better.
Now, it is predictable and entirely excusable he doesn’t discuss these points. Whether he knew or considered them is irrelevant, as he had a bigger tackle to hurdle – opening up the discussion about what feminism got wrong about issues between men and women. Feminism was so off-base on these issues and so female-centric, it needed to be blown up – which he does a masterful job of. His analysis and statistics he brings to bear are exemplary and, at the time, groundbreaking.
Even if, as I believe, he still is feeding female interests in “Building a Better Beta,” his work is very important and still pisses feminists off.
Male Feminist Michael Flood
Michael Flood criticized the book in 2009, saying that he agrees with Farrell that male voices need to be heard, he disagrees because such discussion of male voices must complement feminism, not attack it. Well, no shit Sherlock, if male voices contradict feminist theory or emotions, then feminism must adapt. Feminism isn’t lock-step doctrine that is inherently right; what does he approach it as, the Bible? In Flood’s world, male voices must bow down to feminist theory and women’s experiences. All this will do is signal to men to remain silent about their experiences and what they think, thus locking out male voices.
Regardless, Farrell's conclusions that rectifying feminism and women in the way mainstream MRA’s want is a woefully misguided approach. It ignores real, substantive psychological issues in America, specifically ones that women pick up reading Cosmo, watching MTV and cruising feminist websites like Jezebel and the Frisky. It ignores the biological reality of women – namely, hypergamy. I could also list very relevant issues like women racking up 100 G’s of student loans for some worthless bachelors degree; I could talk about MGTOW. His idealized, equalist approach will never come to fruition.
He had some serious balls dropping a book in the early 90’s professing compassion and understanding for issues relating to men; his debunking of feminist theory is solid gold. Regrettably, conclusions about how to solve issues between men and women were blue-pill, but what else could he have done? It was far, far more important to raise consciousness about that. And my hat is off to him.
