Customer Reviews
One Piece of the Relationship Puzzle! 
2008-06-13
The Myth of Male Power is written to explore why male and female roles that were previously functional need to be revised. The book is a bit of backlash from the feminist movement. It is a good reference text because it has food for thought by looking at the world from a man's perspective. Also, there are humor cartoons to lighten the tone.
The book needs to be read with discretion since it is one sided at times. It is only one piece of the complex puzzle of male/female relationships. Understanding relationships from the male perspective is worthwhile. Equally important is understanding the female perspective. To round out our understanding of male/female relationships are books that explore paths to celebrating our differences as well as our similarities.
The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Enlighten yourself 2008-05-27
I was myself powered when I read this book. It helped open my eyes about the challenges that I as a male will have to endure due to society. I hope men and women can read this book to see what it has to say and digest the information and have a better understanding about the current state of society. I hope that equality between both men and women can be reached soon as to remove the shackles that we are born with and that radical feminists are limited in their power.
weak and pathetic 
2008-03-10
What's so hilarious about this book is that it is self-proving.
The book claims that American men are weak and pathetic. The fact that anyone would ever buy this book or read it PROVES that far too many American men are weak and pathetic.
What kind of loser reads books that advise you that it's okay to bully your wife, and that try to convince you that men are an oppressed minority group on the verge of extinction?
What's happened to this country? In the past abusive people were just abusive. Now abusive people need an author to HOLD THEIR HAND and tell them that it's somehow OKAY to be abusive?
Sick.
The author is sick. His fans are sick. The nation is sick. America needs therapy.
The myth of male power 2008-02-13
This is an excellent book which should be mandatory reading for all Sociology courses. It should most especially be read by so many of these man-hating feminists who see the world through their own narrow viewpoint. It certainly asks some very pointed questions about the discrimination that goes on in our world against men, and it is well written and researched.
A Counter Balancing Voice 
2007-12-17
I read this book and found that part of me relaxed inside. It acknowledged an undercurrent that I was feeling but was not being validated by the many books about feminism. It seems that others have come since then, many of them written by women who have been concerned with some of the directions feminism has taken. The book shows, legally and economically, how men are sometimes at a disadvantage. It seems that the law, in an effort to protect women, may have went too far in the opposite direction. It seems that sometimes the pendulum has to swing too far in both directions before it finds the balanced middle. I think a book like this has been needed and will have impact. But it comes about during a delicate phase of the feminist cause. I do believe that women deserve equal rights (and men do too). I hope that the book gets taken in the right context and that it does not serve to invalidate all the progress feminism has made and needs to make before the whole planet integrates its ideals. While feminism has been at least partly established in the US, there are other countries where it is obvious that women are not treated as equals or even close. I give the book three stars rather than five because I would have liked more focus on this larger perspective. What seems needed is for both the male and female roles to be redefined from a more egalitarian perspective. This book is detailed enough to highlight areas worth looking it in this regard.
Compelling 2007-12-13
Farrell debunks the myth of male power. He dares to question the image of male-as-oppressor, arguing that this misconception has hindered not only men, but women as well.
Not all women's fault; men do these things to other men and to themselves 2007-09-30
Some author mentioned this book, and as I checked it out it received a whole bunch of positive reviews, so I ordered it, many moons ago. What a disappointment.
First off, the tone of the book isn't very good. He comes off as being more concerned with the perceived harms of feminism than with the plight of men.
He'll make comparisons on how males and females are treatments which seem to pit gender against gender as if fighting each other in a win-lose scenario.
For example, in talking about prostate/testes self-exams and the lack thereof compared to women's breast self-exams, he makes it sound as if the success of breast cancer/breast exam awareness campaigns means that men's health issues are left unaddressed. As if those two issues are fighting each other in a vacuum, to gain a limited amount of resources.
The point should be, that we need more prostate, testicular cancer awareness and to promote self-checkups. Yet, he frames it in a way that would make one think this is the fault of the feminists for only focusing on breast cancer/exams, as if once again they've screwed men over in a vast conspiracy.
He also talks about some problems already known by feminists, but presents them in a way that makes the reader think HE is the first to find discover these problems, and the way he writes about the problems won't really encourage readers to try to change things with feminists, but rather to hate feminists.
The author also mixes slanted opinions with facts as he does not use citations on all fact statements, meaning he must be drawing his own conclusions.
And there are many far better male feminist / men's movements out there that address these issues in a far more constructive way. (Like that show in New Hampshire and that anti-rape anti-violence website... I don't think I'm allowed to mention/advertise their names here)
Warren Farrell also talks about male gender-roles as if they were designed solely to benefit women, and blames feminists apparently because they've broken through many female gender-role barriers, compared to men who still have many more rigid, oppressive gender-roles.
In this regard he seems misguided; he should encourage men to break through their gender-role conditioning, instead of complaining about it to the feminists...
for example, he says one million men get raped every year, mostly in prisons, and he talks about the old dating model where females attract/resist, males pursue/insist, as leading to sexual harassment, date rape charges.
Or, about how the health and lives of adult men in our society have relatively low value so men can be G.I. soldiers, work hazardous jobs.
Or, about how to be masculine is basically to reject and despise all that is weak within your self and others.
But does he try to make men challenge these gender-roles that are deeply ingrained within them? No.
He whines about how women have it better than men, how they're taking over and abusing their power.
Yes, feminism isn't perfect, yes, they've spent most of their time fighting oppressive gender indoctrination affecting women only, and some so-called feminists can be downright misandrous, but come on! He'd rather get men to hate on women than to get them to reflect on themselves, acknowledge their complacency in, and challenge the status quo of misandry, and genuinely try to change things.
I wonder if he's aware of what he is doing. The more men's movements bash feminism in this false dichotomy, the more it distracts people from the real issues of socially constructed gender-based behaviour norms (quite a mouthful), which limit our freedom.
Man Obsoletes Men 2007-06-25
This book being so well researched and laden with factoids ad nauseam makes it a tedious read. Half-way through you're tempted to shout out, "ENOUGH ALREADY, I GET IT!" I understand why Dr. Farrell felt he had to make as strong a case as possible considering the target audience was his former feminist conspirators. Men will find the book enlightening; women will refuse to even try to comprehend this perspective. A man is deemed wrong out of gate trying to use facts, logic and common sense to argue with a woman. I found "The Manipulated Man", under the same premise, much more enjoyable to read. It's as though Dr. Farrell is proving Esther Vilar's views with a follow up tomb of hard data.
Of what use are men today? Most families are fatherless or the father supports the family from a distance. 50% of all sperm bank withdrawals are to single women and lesbian couples who choose their child's characteristics from a list of hunky and well-educated male donators. (Man as "turkey baster") Warfare is no longer army vs. army conducted on a battlefield. (Even a woman can sit in a missile silo and push a button). The Stage I male protected and provided for his woman as the precious giver of life, often risking his own life to do so. The duties and roles of each were clearly understood. The Stage II male has no one to protect or provide for. Man made men unnecessary for women to give life and live life. His purpose has devolved to being the garbage man, the furniture mover, the miner, the fireman, the construction worker, and the mechanic. He is relegated to merely being short-term brawn or technical expertise. The "War" is over. The fat and ugly lesbian feminists of the 70's and 80's have gotten what they want, a society where most men are obsolete and children are raised wihout a masculine influence.
Dr. Farrell offers improbable, at least for several generations to come, solutions for the Stage II couple. Men need to discover their feelings and have the courage to ask for help. (If he wants to be ostracized and cast out as weak). Stage II women should pursue careers in the "death professions" for true equality to be reached. (Men won't allow it because we're wired to protect the female giver of life and women are wired to want to be protected; but with all the perks of Stage I entitlement-inequality defined) Men need to stop viewing women as "sex objects" and women need to stop viewing men as "success objects." Not in my lifetime, nor that of my children's children...and it's the young people having to navigate life through this unbalanced society, I feel pity for.
It's not you, and you're not alone. 2007-06-14
I don't agree that male power is a myth - male power is very real. Just not for the average man, most of the time.
What is a myth is that a man, simply by virtue of being male, is automatically blessed with an edge in modern society. No average man of today feels this way, contrary to the constant barrage of disinformation that tries to make us believe, we should shut up, and suck it down, because we as males allegedly still have the power! Who has really the power here?
Farrell offers a validation to the diffuse feelings that can grow very strong inside a man from everyday experience and observations. No, I'm not insane and it's not me, and I'm not alone. This is such a revelation.
If all women should read this book... 
2007-04-20
...then perhaps all men should read 'A Women's History of the World', now called, I believe, 'Who Cooked the Last Supper...' (for another look at how facts can be cherry-picked, warped to suit any argument, and sweeping generalizations are made from singular statistical data, and correlations are based off presumptive conclusions demonstrating no adequate causation--hmm, only from a woman's point-of-view and a whole lot more unapologetic in tone...I believe Rosalind Miles came from that era of "bitter feminist"--the male-bashing years...
Why I'm even wasting brain-cells on this is beyond me, but what the world didn't need was yet one more book--'The myth of Male power'--(you'd do better to read Joseph Campbell and discover the true beauty of myth and symbolism, and some archetypes of masculinity)--that attempts to present the answer to all men's problems (and women's apparently) rehashed once again by misconstrued statistics, sensationalized news contorted to astound and astonish as opposed to making one think, all fit into a pattern of fallacy so apparent, this could be used as an exemplar for intro to logic texts.
Someone in an earlier review stated how disturbing it is so many readers seem to respond favorably to this work without realizing how simplistic the 'facts' proposed are, taken out of context and construed as 'deep' research. What I find even more disheartening is how easily duped most American readers are into not being able to recognize 'pop'-culture hysteria books when they see them and analyze/critique accordingly.
As a case in point, citing men's suicide rates exceeding women's as they go through adolescence into their 20's and 30's, writing the numbers off as a tirade of 'man-the-victim-of-vicious-masculine-stereotypes-see-how-fragile-we-are-damn-the feminists-who've-made-us-suffer-for-demasculinization". How Sir Warren uses these numbers ignores complex issues of familial, socio-economic, ethnic, racial--along with gender--(and even geography) factors. This statement is not made in negation of a consistently documented trend of higher rates of suicide amongst men over women--all anyone needs to do is go to the CDC website http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm to see that. To say this trend is happening because of feminism's cancerous influence upon the wider arena of modern society however, thus demonstrating the victimization of men, the subsequent hacking-away of the male-coping mechanisms in terms of cognitive and behavioral health demonstrates one of these sweeping generalizations, and a lack of correlation/causation.
As noted from the CDC website, women are three times more likely than men to attempt suicide (though not carry through on it). Thus, the prevalence of suicide ATTEMPTS amongst women v. men (if we're talking victim v. victim here) is higher for women; men happen to carry through with their attempt on the first go as opposed to women. Did the self-destructive tendency come about as poisoned offspring resulting from feminism's damaging influence to masculine development/mental-health/social identity through adolescence? What about the damage feminism has done to women? After all, I'm 3 times more likely to try and kill myself, because I've obviously been conditioned by my XX chromosome to be manipulative and attention-seeking, and in my journey to evolve into a more self-directed and empowered individual I've suffered a crisis in my feminine identity (assertiveness warring against my more natural tendency toward passivity and submission). So, where men I guess blow their heads off 4 times more frequently than women, women are 3 times more likely to slit wrists and call 911. Hmm, I don't know, seems to me masculinity is fairly intact--purpose-driven and determined straight to the finish.
I don't honestly believe the above statement, but can anyone see where this sort of reasoning leads? The broad sweeping blame on one civil rights movement (of which feminism ought to be included) attempting to effect societal progress for a discriminated populace elicits a backlash of accusation, wherein feminism is touted as the reason men have lost their identity, self-confidence, jobs security, social security, effectiveness in combat, desire for combat, now experience role-confusion, etc etc...all in 21st century America.
Has the male ego become so fragile over the last 50 years that it would allow itself to be debased by such clap-trap argumentation and conclusions as to be found in this book? Are men's identities really so fragile in this country, or in the world, that in trying to reclaim the 'masculine-aura', men must segregate themselves and allow themselves to be defined by one more author espousing post-modernist biological determinism obscured by seeming "deep-research" and profound insight into the male psyche?
If anyone is interested in how the world thinking operated in terms of men and women and gender roles in the era prior to "2nd Wave Feminism", [...]
If anyone believes this was a better world, then I invite you to continue looking through rose-colored glasses.
For others, especially Sir Warren Farrell, what is it about feminism that has frightened so many, and disgusted so many others? Not to quote a bumper-sticker, but "feminism is the radical idea that women are people too", doesn't seem to scream femi-nazi.
Indeed, I think one review from "Fire in the Belly" had it right on--if you're looking to reclaim your masculinity, you'd do better to rent a John Wayne movie or watch Gladiator or The 300. Now there are paragons of masculine ethos and heroism--even for women (to enjoy on so many levels).
Ultimately, a purpose driven life isn't defined by gender, nor on self-victimization.
On the other hand, as one of my favorite authors once wrote, "It's only stupid, conventional men who like stupid, conventional women," (ah, G. Bradshaw).
I can only wonder at the kind of history with women a man like Sir Warren Farrell has had since he obviously claims to have the answers as to society's ills with them.
