Talk:The Myth of Male Power

New version
Hey folks, here's a space to chat about the new version I put up.Sfdalek (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we have an article not written by the author?
All these claims about being "praised" while not linking to anything other than blogs and such.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.153.212 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Warren Farrell - Rape Apologist?
Reading through the book, the chapter on Date Rape... seems to suggest that sex is owed at a date, like it represents contract. I'm considering adding to the controversy section if I can find any articles on this as it's obviously synthesis without them.

“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud… We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.”

Warren Farrell — The Myth Of Male Power, p. 314

Some sources on this:

Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape

Yes Means Yes --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that calling a person in any article a 'rape apologist' may open Wikipedia up to Libelious legal claims which it is not entitled. Sure, if there are reliable sources that may indicate controversies, and with regards to WP:DUE, it may be added. But we have to balance it out and make sure we're not committing libel. Ging287 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, well we could at least do a section on the "Date Rape chapter controversy" without specifically calling it a rape apologist viewpoint. There are lots of articles online that mention it, mostly as it is seen by many as the formation of the male rights movement and it does contain that disturbing chapter --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor, poor
This article is terrible. I had to remove (twice) a bunch of praise apparently plucked from the book jacket and "sourced" to the Amazon page for the book. That's not acceptable. Neither is this enormous and verbose plot summary: all aspects of good article writing are forgotten here, but my edits were reversed; maybe I should just tag-bomb this. To be clear: especially for a book that's still in bookstores, we need reliable sources, and less important than a summary of the book is a reliable chunk of text about the book's importance and reception. If editors are so keen on praising this book because it aligns with their politics, maybe, then they should do the actual work of finding those sources. It's called encyclopedic writing. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Camille Paglia review is here: Challenging the masculine mystique, The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.; Author: 	Paglia, Camille; Date: 	Jul 25, 1993 Start Page: 	WBK1 Camille Paglia reviews "The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex" by Warren Farrell. Just need someone with access to the article, but I seriously doubt that the quote was invented.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be a little wary. We've seen evidence of the men's rights movement attempting to woozle false support with the invented bell hooks quotation --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clatterbaugh quote
The article currently has this quote:

"Kenneth Clatterbaugh, in an overview of literature of the men's movement, comments that "eventually, [Farrell's] arguments reach absurd heights, as when Farrell actually argues against sexual harassment laws and child molestation laws on the grounds that they give even more power (to abuse men) to (women) employees and children".[1]"

An article by Kenneth Clatterbaugh is cited. It states:

"Goldberg's argument has been made at least twice more in other books: both Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex' (1993) and Andrew Kimbrell's 'The Masculine Mystique' (1995) echo the themes found in Goldberg: male power and privilege is a myth; men get all the blame; and men are, if anything worse off than women. Eventually, these arguments reach absurd heights, as when Farrell actually argues against sexual harassment laws and child molestation laws on the grounds that they give even more power (to abuse men) to (women) employees and children (298)."

I don't have the 1993 edition of Farrell's book to review page 298. Does anyone else? I'd be interested to know what Farrell said. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Laurie Dann paragraph
There are some problems with the Laurie Dann paragraph

First the paragraph on Laurie Dann states: "Farrell states that all of her victims were male, that she burned down a Young Men's Jewish Council, burned two boys in a basement, shot her own son, and alleged that she killed an eight-year old rapist; none of these claims are true." There is no source cited that states that none of the claims are true, the source listed is the book itself (which makes the claims, it doesn't say that they're false). A source is needed for the falsehood of all of Farrell's claims. Otherwise, the statement that "none of the claims are true" should be removed.

Second, the paragraph then states: "media figures have repeated Farrell's errors and conclusion." Two sources are provided for this. I cannot find any record of the first (apart from other wiki articles), and the second seems to have been taken down. There is, therefore, no way to confirm the claim that "media figures have repeated Farrell's errors and conclusion" using the sources provided. It should either be removed, or other sources should be added.

Third, the paragraph states "Farrell later issued a correction on his web site." The correction only states that not all of the victims were male, noting that two direct victims and one indirect victim were women. He does not recant his claims that "she burned down a Young Men's Jewish Council, burned two boys in a basement, shot her own son, and alleged that she killed an eight-year old rapist". The citation is therefore misleading. Some clarification should be added to this section.

Finally, the paragraph is listed under "critical responses", however the paragraph does not note a "critical response". The paragraph appears to just be an outright criticism (not coming from a critic of the book, but rather from a wiki contributor). If the paragraph's claims cannot be attributed to a particular critic, the paragraph should (if its claims are shown to be true) be removed from the "critical responses" section and placed into its own section, or (if its claims cannot be reliably sourced) the paragraph should be removed altogether. 199.212.64.42 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I, along with some others, have made some corrections to this paragraph. However, many issues remain.
 * First, while the globe and mail correction notes that she did not have a son, and that she was unsuccessful in her attempts to burn the Jewish Council and the boys in the basement, it does not note any female victims. As such, it is not a source that "none of these claims are true". Perhaps this could be reworded.
 * Second, when it comes to the media repeating Farrell's claims, the paragraph uses the phrase "some media figures" (implying more than one instance). The only source listed is one example of the media repeating his claims. The source doe not mention any other instances of these claims being repeated. As such, more examples should be cited, or the sentence should be changed to reflect the only cited instance.
 * My third point regarding Farrell's correction still stands.
 * My point regarding the suitability of the paragraph being listed under "critical responses" still stands, with some minor revision. The globe and mail article contains information noting the falsehood of some of the claims, and Farrell's correction notes the falsehood of his claim that all victims were male. As such, the paragraph should not be removed. However, it still has significant issues, and has not been attributed to a particular critic. 70.51.93.252 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight to "critical responses" in current form
It seems that in the recent past, large sections of this article were deleted leaving the article in its current state, in which the "critical responses" section is larger than the rest of the article body combined. This needs addressing. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Lacking any specific actionable suggestions, your proposal is indistinguishable from false balance. So no, it doesn't automatically need addressing. The article should summarize sources about the book, and most of that will come from reviews and other critical sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trim the "critical responses" section or add more to the article body. Either way, the "critical responses" section consisting almost solely of negative reviews and being larger than the rest of the article put together is clearly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, especially in light of the recent massive purges of content from this article by other users. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point toward said purges? If they were not based in policy, we can restore them. — Panamitsu (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumably you are capable of viewing article's history yourself. In any case, don't distract from the fact that more than half of the article consists of cherry-picked sources giving negative reviews, many of which come from left-biased media outlets. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you here. I have articles that I am more interested in than this one. — Panamitsu (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:POV means we summarize sources neutrally, it doesn't mean those sources have be neutral. If sources are reliable how negative (or how "left-wing") they are is not, by itself, a valid justification for removing them, nor would being positive be a valid justification for adding less reliable sources for balance. That's what I meant by 'false balance'. To put it another way, artificially padding-out the article just to make the critical content smaller by comparison would most definitely be a violation of WP:DUE. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just noted that the section I edited is currently in dispute. I'm unsure if my edit involves the disputed text or not. So I want to explain my edit. Feel free to revert my change, but please read the below first and explain why you believe my points are not valid Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there was a needless duplication of archived cites to the same webpage, on different dates. I'm not sure this was needed.  One would suffice.
 * Secondly, a cite sourcing where the book (a primary source) makes the claimed error is not what needed here. What is needed is a source that identifies that there were errors.  Citing the book itself isn't going to do that, unless you are indulging in original synthesis and are inviting the reader to follow you in constructing an argument.  So I removed the cite to the primary source, the cite to the correction is ample.
 * Thirdly, citing examples where, the article claims, others have repeated the error is simply original research. The only way this can be included is if there were a third-party reliable source that discusses the proliferation of the errors.