Neelaj and Dan's discussions of the Women's Center and the male role in feminism reminded me of an article I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other week entitled "Is Feminism Favoritism?" The article consists of an interview with Warren Farrell, author of such books as "Why Men Earn More" and the new "Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?" In the article, Farrell contends that the feminist movement contains a fatal flaw: it leaves men behind. With examples like the lack of female combatants in the military and the relatively short male life expectancy in developed countries, Farrell argues that males, not females, suffer the greatest amount of discrimination in the United States. While I do not think Neelaj and Dan intended to convey this strong of a criticism, I think Farrell brings up some interesting points about the role of men in female empowerment.
Despite his egalitarian intentions, Farrell's examples are almost laughable. His most glaring statistic is that women are 14 percent of the military but only 2 percent of those killed. He actually argues that more women should "share the responsibility of death." His argument seems contradictory: he does not think men should suffer for the cause of feminism, and yet he thinks that more women should die in the military in order to make the sexes equally represented. Additionally, he uses glaring stereotypes in order to prove his point: "when women earn about $100,000 per year, they say, 'I have enough money; I need time-for my family, friends, myself, to travel, and for exercise." I'm sure all of us know women who do not fit this mold-Farrell's reliance on feminine stereotypes is frightening. Still, this article ties in with our discussion on men's role in feminism-should their rights have to decrease in order for women's rights to increase? I don't think so, but I don't think they have anyway. Although I am not a man and cannot speak for their feelings towards feminism, I believe Farrell is going a bit overboard here.
To read the article, go to http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Farrell/2007/11-122007.htm. The extended boat metaphor is the best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, I just read the interview with Warren Farrell and I think that your review of the article was very generous. Farrell’s feelings towards feminism are not a little overboard, but highly offensive. I was initially intrigued by the opening line of the article: does lifting women up mean taking men down. However, I became confused when the author wrote that the two individuals, Warren Farrell and James Sterba, disagree strongly “over which gender suffers the greater discrimination today.” I was not aware that there was a plausible argument in which men suffer greater discrimination from women. As I continued to read the article, Farrell’s arguments grew stranger by the question.
To begin with, if I understood Farrell correctly, I believe he argued that women are like adolescents because women do not understand that with rights come responsibilities. Women have been given the right to vote, however according to Farrell, they have been given no responsibilities to contribute for this right. Farrell based this statement off the fact that women are not drafted into the military and women compose only a small proportion of military deaths. As a woman, I must confess I was highly affronted by being told that I have the maturity of an adolescent because women do not contribute a large percentage of military deaths.
Farrell’s arguments grew in irrationality as the article continued. The question was posed if most of the trials for new drugs in the USA are based on men’s health conditions and metabolism. Farrell responded that over the past 40 years women have been studied more than men, however, prior to that, drug companies tested drugs more on men “for the same reason they tested them more on rats. They tested them most on what they valued least.” Is Farrell, an individual who believes that men suffer from gender discrimination, insinuating that currently women are like lab rats because science tests new drugs on groups that are least valuable?
The final straw for me was reading Farrell defend that date rape policies on college campuses are unfair to men, specifically the policies that contend a woman is incapable of giving consent if she is intoxicated. Farrell argued that if a man signs a contract while he is intoxicated, it is contract law that he should be held responsible. He goes on to ask why we are treating “our daughters like children and treating our sons of the same age like adults” by not holding women accountable for their decisions while intoxicated. I was shocked at how insensitive Farrell could be when discussing date rape despite the long, stigmatized history of female sexuality.
Farrell’s general statement, that men should be re-socialized to challenge traditional male roles is admirable. However, I found the evidence he uses to defend that men are the victims of current gender discrimination to be particularly offensive and insensitive.
I completely agree, this article is more than slightly offensive. While I certainly respect the overall idea of his movement and agree that, if men are left behind in the feminist movement, it completely undermines the inclusiveness and equal rights issue that the feminist movement stands for, I feel as though his specific examples detract from his overall message.
I'm sure he could have used other statistics (or even interpreded the same ones in a less offensive manner) that would have been equally (if not more!) effective in demonstrating his ideas and making his point.
Post a Comment