Wow. William Farrell hits it right on the mark

[Le Jacquelope]

The Lace Curtain

Why don't we hear of men's issues in the media?
Why aren't there more men's books?

Copyright © 1999 by Dr. Warren Farrell
Excerpt from Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say (NY: Tarcher/Putnam, 1999). From Chapter 8. What a Man Might Say When He Hears, "It's Men In The News, Men in Government, Men at the Top - Where are the Women?"

------
We care about men as human doings, not as human beings. We care about him as an individual like I care about the individual parts of my car – I care about its problems only when it’s causing me problems. Or I care about prevention only when lack of prevention will cause me problems. Even when a man’s problems are affecting his ability to be a protector, we often refer to his problems from the perspective of the problems they create for a woman (he cheated on her; he got drunk and hit her). Which is why the other men who make the front pages are the villains who are causing us problems.

In brief, men’s lives count only to the degree they are heroes who perform for us or save us, or villains who disturb our peace. Women’s lives count more for their own sake…a woman’s pain is every talk show.

We so rarely inquire of a man’s grief, we forget it exists. When Princess Di had her affair, we asked her about her isolation, her depression, her husband’s aloofness; but when Prince Charles had an affair, we accused him of infidelity.... As a result, billions of women worldwide identified with Princess Di. Few men had any male fears with which to identify.
------

Uhm... when does this bullshit double standard end?

 

[Liar]

Uhm... when does this bullshit double standard end?

I'll give you the same answer that I gove those who wonder when there will be as many women as men in power positions everywhere, when a female CEO, senator or Supreme Court judge will be a non-issue, and nobody will say "oh, she only got the job because she's a woman, not because she's most qualified", because that thought will sound absurd:

In a couple of generations.

The mistake people make is to believe that the will and intent towards equality, is equality. We have a zeitgeist of equality right now. We talk about it, we prise it, we hold it up and try to mould our society after it. We start with the things we can affect, revise laws and policy, and keep on bringing it to the table in the public discourse, in order to change the way people think, feel and react. And it's working. It is slowly, very slowly changing the culture. The problem is that the thing you describe has no...well...handles, no laws and policys to start adressing, It's all just...slippery...culture. How the proverbial "we" view gender, subconsciously mostly. So it's tricky to know where to start.

Zeitgeist is fast. Culture is slow. And what you ask about, is culture. Nobody rewrites it over night.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'll give you the same answer that I gove those who wonder when there will be as many women as men in power positions everywhere, when a female CEO, senator or Supreme Court judge will be a non-issue, and nobody will say "oh, she only got the job because she's a woman, not because she's most qualified", because that thought will sound absurd:

In a couple of generations.

The mistake people make is to believe that the will and intent towards equality, is equality. We have a zeitgeist of equality right now. We talk about it, we prise it, we hold it up and try to mould our society after it. We start with the things we can affect, revise laws and policy, and keep on bringing it to the table in the public discourse, in order to change the way people think, feel and react. And it's working. It is slowly, very slowly changing the culture. The problem is that the thing you describe has no...well...handles, no laws and policys to start adressing, It's all just...slippery...culture. How the proverbial "we" view gender, subconsciously mostly. So it's tricky to know where to start.

Zeitgeist is fast. Culture is slow. And what you ask about, is culture. Nobody rewrites it over night.

And I am a cynic.

I see female CEOs, senators and Supreme Court judges being a non-issue in a couple of generations, in the very late years of my lifetime. But I see the same "We care about men as human doings, not as human beings" mentality as being quite permanent.

I'm fully aware of how bad that sounds - but if I were immortal I would put my money where my beliefs are with a bet befitting my confidence.

On a side note, this has made me rethink the evolutionary de-masculinization of men. Now I see it as a Godsend. Especially the declining testosterone levels in some parts of the world, which at some point should also begin to affect men's sex drives. Lower male fertility rates = less expendability.

 

[3113]

When Princess Di had her affair, we asked her about her isolation, her depression, her husband’s aloofness; but when Prince Charles had an affair, we accused him of infidelity....

You're doing quite a card trick using that as a "double standard." Charles was in love with Camilla there loooooong before meeting Diana. But he couldn't marry a divorced woman. So he married Di who--naively and stupidly thought he actually loved her and didn't just want a pretty young wife to bear him that heir and a spare, as required.

Then she caught him having that on-going, never really ended, always been affair with Camilla.

So, yes, with Charles it *was* infidelity. Now it was with Diana as well. She made a promise to stay faithful, she broke it, and so it's infidelity. BUT it wasn't like she was carrying on before they married or right after they married, or before she knew that she was in a loveless marriage with someone who was in love with someone else that he'd had a long time affair with. At that point, yes, we can talk about her isolation, etc.

Why not about Charles' isolation, etc? Well, we can certainly talk about the trap of his princely position that made him marry someone he should not have married. We can talk about the acceptance of the upper class to men having mistresses and Charles' assumption that Di would turn a blind eye to this, then, to his horror, finding out she wouldn't play the game, and making his life hell and embarrassing his family. Double wammy to Charles. But in the end the "inequality" here doesn't wash. It doesn't wash because he was in a position of power. Older, presumably wiser, and giving Diana false hopes and assumptions--he pursued and asked her. She did not pursue and ask him. And he did so while not being completely open and honest with her about the fact that he was in love with someone else and was going to keep seeing them and was going to sate his loneliness and isolation not with her but with this other woman.

So. Equality says, she gets to do the same. No?

Really, Jaq. You disappoint me again. Can't you find a better example of how men don't get a fair shake as compared to women? Like child custody battles (which I'd agree with you have been brutally unfair). Because human history is dominated by men getting to have their cake and eat it, too, while women can't. Men get the wife and mistress--or many wives or wives and concubines. Charles Dickens got to dump his faithful wife of decades, who'd born him something like ten kids, and take up with a young girl a third his age, AND forbid his wife seeing her children, even attending the wedding of one ALL while maintaining his popularity and fame. Should I boo-hoo-hoo over his isolation and loneliness and be happy that he found love at last? You'll forgive me if after thousands of years of this hypocrisy, I can't take this example seriously, or ask in outrage why the poor husband was taken to task for infidelity but not the wife.

In this instance, it was a remarkable example of what is contrary to what usually happens. Which is the husband gets to be unfaithful, scott-free, but the wife is expected to remain faithful. That it didn't work out that way is actually, to me, a sign or remarkable progress--it is not a sign that men are or have ever gotten the short end of the stick. So, survay says http://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/1.gif Thumbs down on this example! Would you care to try again?

 

[DeeZire]

This quote from the article was a red flag for me:

Even when a man’s problems are affecting his ability to be a protector, we often refer to his problems from the perspective of the problems they create for a woman (he cheated on her; he got drunk and hit her).

If this Farrell dude thinks he can justify spousal abuse by blaming it on "problems" faced by the abuser, his agenda is not one of equality. In fact, I'd suggest he's a misogynistic asshole - or perhaps Newt Gingrich in disguise.

I think a more appropriate thread title would have been:

William Farrell hits his wife right in the mouth.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You're doing quite a card trick using that as a "double standard." Charles was in love with Camilla there loooooong before meeting Diana. But he couldn't marry a divorced woman. So he married Di who--naively and stupidly thought he actually loved her and didn't just want a pretty young wife to bear him that heir and a spare, as required.

You know, I am really, truly, overwhelmingly not interested in your arbitrary "It doesn't wash because he was in a position of power" justification. That completely sunk the credibility of your argument. Say hi to the fishies.

Really, Jaq. You disappoint me again. Can't you find a better example of how men don't get a fair shake as compared to women? Like child custody battles (which I'd agree with you have been brutally unfair). Because human history is dominated by men getting to have their cake and eat it, too, while women can't. Men get the wife and mistress--or many wives or wives and concubines. Charles Dickens got to dump his faithful wife of decades, who'd born him something like ten kids, and take up with a young girl a third his age, AND forbid his wife seeing her children, even attending the wedding of one ALL while maintaining his popularity and fame. Should I boo-hoo-hoo over his isolation and loneliness and be happy that he found love at last? You'll forgive me if after thousands of years of this hypocrisy, I can't take this example seriously, or ask in outrage why the poor husband was taken to task for infidelity but not the wife.

And here I thought y'all used to argue that two wrongs don't make a right.

Good job knocking that out of the ball park!

BTW how many men do you personally know who have the power that Charles Dickens had? Oh, wait, the courts today would chew him up and spit him back out. But Charles Dickens lived in the 19th century where women couldn't even vote, which is a totally different time period than now! Different era! Different rules! Does not apply to 2009! Oops. I bet someone's gonna say that's wrong. And that is what they call genius, Lit style.

Now take a guess which era in time I am talking about.


DeeZire - wow, you're so much more on the mark with your criticisms. Yes, he used some bad examples. I was thinking more along the lines of "he lost his job and can't put food on the table". That is the example that I would use.

 

[DeeZire]

DeeZire - wow, you're so much more on the mark with your criticisms. Yes, he used some bad examples. I was thinking more along the lines of "he lost his job and can't put food on the table". That is the example that I would use.

What I object to is the idea that a man's insurmountable problems can be used as an excuse for him to get drunk and hit his wife. This is non-negotiable with me. The fact that this guy could preface his argument with such an example indicates to me he honors a different moral code than I do, which makes anything he says irrelevant, at least to me.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What I object to is the idea that a man's insurmountable problems can be used as an excuse for him to get drunk and hit his wife. This is non-negotiable with me. The fact that this guy could preface his argument with such an example indicates to me he honors a different moral code than I do, which makes anything he says irrelevant, at least to me.

That depends on what his problems are. If his problemn is that he comes home drunk and she attacks him with a frying pan or butcher knife, he does have a right to defend himself.

Outside of that kind of thing, though, I am inclined to agree with you.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

What I object to is the idea that a man's insurmountable problems can be used as an excuse for him to get drunk and hit his wife.

I would object to that, too. A far better example would be him losing his job - a problem which affects far more men in this economy than women.

This is non-negotiable with me. The fact that this guy could preface his argument with such an example indicates to me he honors a different moral code than I do, which makes anything he says irrelevant, at least to me.

It inspires someone else to make the argument with better examples. The examples can be discredited - must be discarded, in fact - but the parent argument remains rock solid.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

That depends on what his problems are. If his problemn is that he comes home drunk and she attacks him with a frying pan or butcher knife, he does have a right to defend himself.

Outside of that kind of thing, though, I am inclined to agree with you.

But if he does defend himself against an unprovoked attack by her frying pan, he's still going to prison.

There is a reason why the law is called "VAWA" and not "VAPA" (W = women, P = people): only violence against women is considered wrong.

 

[Liar]

There is a reason why the law is called "VAWA" and not "VAPA" (W = women, P = people): only violence against women is considered wrong.

I think violence against people is illegal already.

But apparently, lawmakers didn't consider women people.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think violence against people is illegal already.

But apparently, lawmakers didn't consider women people.

Judging by the fact that the law is called the "Violence Against Women Act" it is not too far fetched to assume they consider women above people.

Otherwise they would have labeled it "Violence Against People Act".

Right?


I mean, you wouldn't take a "Violence Against Blacks Act" and infer that it protects whites too...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar
I think violence against people is illegal already.

But apparently, lawmakers didn't consider women people.

Judging by the fact that the law is called the "Violence Against Women Act" it is not too far fetched to assume they consider women above people.

Otherwise they would have labeled it "Violence Against People Act".

Right?


I mean, you wouldn't take a "Violence Against Blacks Act" and infer that it protects whites too...

Battery is illegal just about anywhere. Apparently, battery or violence against a woman is now considered to be a more serious crime than battery against a man. Unless she is pregnant, I don't see why that should be. Generally speaking, laws that make a distinction between men and women tend to favor women.

I'm certainly not saying that violence against women should not be illegal. I'm just saying that violence against women should be neither more nor less illegal than violence against men, and there should be no difference in the penalties meted out.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm certainly not saying that violence against women should not be illegal. I'm just saying that violence against women should be neither more nor less illegal than violence against men, and there should be no difference in the penalties meted out.

What he said. 200%.