On "The myth of male power"

I recently listened to an interesting recording of a men's rights activist. He talks about many of the misconceptions about men supposedly holding more power than women, and all of the ways in which society has been pushed too far to one side by the women's movement, including numerous examples of double standards both under the law and in other areas and also the lack of value society is currently placing on men in general. He also, and I think importantly, highlights some of the male contribution to society and how unappreciated male qualities have become. Additionally, he mentions the misplaced anger at men that the women's movement has aroused in women.

There are many, many nuggets of wisdom as well, such as, roughly similar to something he said, "Woman's strength is her facade of weakness, while man's weakness is his facade of strength." Although I would stop short of calling them facades.

Here's the recording of Mr Warren Farrell.

However, I think he gets a lot of things very wrong, particularly in his prescriptions for our current problems. He suggests, for example, that the old model of codependence in families is outdated, that men shouldn't be expected to be protectors willing to sacrifice themselves, that society's pleasure at male violence is something primitive that needs to be changed, and that men should be allowed to switch in to the female role just as women currently switch in to the male role. He hopes for a men's movement to sort out some of the gross imbalances currently extant (I agree with that part) and then a sort of transition movement for both sexes, which I vehemently disagree with and oppose.

But while I oppose a movement advocating any string of thought as the one solution, as a libertarian I support everybody discussing these issues and learning and coming to their own solutions that work for them.

As for me, and I think for many men (this is why the gender transition thing isn't going to happen and shouldn't), I don't see anything wrong with self-sacrifice for those I love. And honestly, many of the things he's railing against are plain and simple part of man's nature. I'm a man, I've no desire to be a woman, and I don't want a woman who's a man. For me, the traditions that he views as outdated are those by which I want to live my life. Not because they're traditions, but because I think most of them work for me personally. I find that I desire a relationship wherein both partners bring different kinds of self-sacrifice to the table as they give to each other and their new family. I think this is the foundation for the healthiest type of relationship.

Further, I reject Warren's apparent belief that the differences between men and women have societal influence as their source. I think there are fundamental differences between the sexes in the way that their brains and emotions work, so that the feminine and masculine natures have additional reasons for existence aside from mere evolutionary survival. I find that for me, and for the kind of woman I'll have by my side, I'm at peace and happy when I'm the primarily masculine side of the balance. And I hope that my partner will be not confined but enriched by her role in our family. I don't believe in confining her only to that role, but I do believe in its existence as part of the foundation of her end of our shared sacrifice.

I find that the man's role of tireless work in support of the family, and in willingness to sacrifice everything for their protection, is exactly the one I want to fill. Sacrifice is a virtue when done willingly and lovingly. I resent his argument that this makes me a slave. I WANT to play this role, as for me that is part of the definition of manhood. There are other parts of it as well. I'll be the public face of the family, and I may ask my wife to move our family where I need it to go. But I'll be asking my wife to trust me and follow my lead wherever I may take her. How can I do that without fulfilling the role Warren labels slavery??

How can somebody say that my personal definition is wrong or due only to conditioning? I find that terribly condescending. And I maintain that the idea that masculinity and femininity are constructs is absurd and also condescending. My new wife has a feminine soul right to the core of her being. And some women ooze unexplainable femininity.

I think that many imbalances and problems outlined in the recording only exist because of the particular form feminism has taken in America, and that group's propensity for government rent-seeking. For a contrast, observe the Eastern European form of feminism. They're empowered without demanding the masculine role in the relationship.

For my life, solely about which I can speak, I reject a wholesale redefinition in roles. Not everything needs fixing. In fact, if feminism is a first step in a "fix," maybe we ought to consider unfixing things.