Talk:Warren Farrell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] Transwiki

Please move the quotations to wikiquote.100110100 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation of edit

The section on incest has been removed; it is reproduced in full below. Dr. Farrell has written six books; none of them deal with incest. He has produced more than a hundred articles; none of them involved the topic. You will find nothing about it in his other biographies.

I had already removed the third quotation from the section. It has been contended that the quotation was a misprint, and the quotation itself continues to be used in a libelous manner; under Wikipedia policy, it must be removed immediately.

That three of his eight quotations should involve incest is an offense to Wikipedia and their standards of encyclopedic credibility. Unless the quotation section is to be radically expanded, the topic should not even be mentioned in this article, as it gives a wildly unbalanced view of his ethos and career.

(previous content:)

[edit] Incest: The Last Taboo, Penthouse Magazine, December 1977

"Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt."

"In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women's feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter's lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don't want to write the book."

". . . because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

It is only a couple decades later, when confronted with them, that Farrel claims he quotation was a "misprint" and that he really said any number of other things. He never tried to take the magazine to task and the all involved (aside from Farrel) maintain it is exactly what he said. But if he threatened or his word trumps all and that is policy here, I understand. However I do not see why the other quotes were deleted. On the basis that is gives an "unbalanced view of his career" requires there is a view of his career held on Wiki, which is POV.NeoApsara 07:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Myth of Male Power and the asymmetry of Conditional Probabilities

I read (or at least browsed) Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power some years ago but really the mathematical point at issue can be stated in a single paragraph -- it is that conditional probabilities are not symmetric. In this case, the relevant observation is that If you hold a position of some power in our society then there is a (say) 90 percent or better probability that you are male, but (reversing the relation) if you are male (and this is all we know) then the probability of you holding a position of some power is (say) less than 1/100 (or much less, depending on your definition of "some power"). The same mathematical point in even more dramatic form: If you can run a mile in less than four minutes then (currently) it is 100 percent certain that you are male -- the woman's world record for the mile is currently something like 4:12 -- but if you are male the probability that you can run a mile in less than four minutes is something less than one in a hundred thousand -- probably about one in a million for Canada and the U.S.. But no one has to write a book titled On the Myth of Extremely Fit Men Comprising the Majority of Men. 137.82.188.68 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you have written here, but I don't understand your point. Can you clarify it? 71.39.78.68 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that Farrell took a whole book to argue a (valid, in my opinion) thesis whose logical essence can be expressed in a single paragraph. It concisely explains why the statement "Most positions of power are held by men" is not remotely equivalent to "Most men hold positions of power." Isn't this of some interest -- condensing a book to one paragraph? 137.82.188.68 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not talking about the mathematical nature of it. By condensing a cultural matter to a merely mathematical proof, you are belittling his point. Any thesis can be condensed to a single paragraph, even a sentence. A work is extrapolated from a thesis. You make a claim and then go on to prove it. I have not read the book in question, but I assume he also discusses the cultural ramifications of this idea. In any case, the Talk Page is meant for relevant discussion of the article, not this. I know, pot and kettle. -- Harshael (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
He is, actually. Formulating the thesis in a mathemathical way is simply stating it precisely, it has nothing to do with 'belittling his point'.80.128.127.92 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV, commentary, unsourced statements

Much of the article reads as if it were written by a person who holds a certain opinion/belief of Farrell to people who already hold that same opinion/belief of Farrell. In other words, its POV. I'm about to make some changes.NeoApsara (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Content I removed and why-

He is known for stirring controversy with his proposal that use of the "woman as victim" role in much of mainstream feminism has essentially stifled debate. POV and uncited

Within a few years, he was asked to leave NOW for his opinions that contrast with those of the form of feminism propounded at the time. Uncited and POV

His basic tenet is that men and women are equal and have equal responsibilities as well as equal rights. However, his critics have nonetheless labelled him as "anti-women". Redundant; this is already stated in different words a few paragraphs above it.


His pioneering approach to sex issues has come to be the cornerstone of masculism. His ideology calls for gender equivalence and, unlike some who've been referred to as masculists, a reduction in traditional gender roles. He has made a critical examination of the power imbalance between the sexes. Redundant, POV, and reads like a fan page.


Whilst it was later discovered that the event was staged to promote Farrell's books and opinions, the fact remains that, as Farrell notes, women tend to choose more psychically fulfilling jobs rather than monetarily fulfilling; these roles, across the board, being paid less than the more pleasant. In addition, men are more likely to do overtime than women so necessarily get paid for more hours worked. POV, uncited. It should be stated in the context of what Farrell argues in his books/speeches otherwise it is original research. NeoApsara (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


"He is known for stirring controversy with his proposal that use of the "woman as victim" role in much of mainstream feminism has essentially stifled debate. POV and uncited"
"Within a few years, he was asked to leave NOW for his opinions that contrast with those of the form of feminism propounded at the time. Uncited and POV"

Please, how are these POV? And anyway, you should put the "citation needed" tags, to request inline references, not remove them. This is not a political sandbox, where people can remove anything they don't agree with. --Zslevi (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the article looks the way it does

I am the author of much of this article, inasmuch as when I first found this article (October 2007) it was littered with unfounded, emotive language against Farrel- saying that he was anti-women, that he was sexist, that he was a cheat, that he advocated pedophilia, on and on . . . as an example, I modified the original phase written in-

Within a few years, he was asked to leave NOW for his sexist opinions

to

Within a few years, he was asked to leave NOW for his opinions that contrast with those of the form of feminism propounded at the time.

which indeed is uncited, but is it POV to suggest his views were out of kilter with the views of NOW at the time?

Some paragraphs I authored that seem fairly noncomittal, eg "he has been accused of being anti-women by his detractors" originally (Oct 07) simply stated "His views are anti-women".


I essentially have no real issues if these statements are declared POV, my source is what he said in his book "Women Don't Hear what Men Don't Say". I am aware I was essentially fighting a rearguard action to clean up what had become a pit of vitriol. I am, as yet, unaware how to quote source material from his book? Any special rules?

I do ask why the hyperlinks (eg, to masculinism) have disappeared?

{Edit- the hyperlinks are back, thank you}

Lincoln muadib (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)lincoln_muadibLincoln muadib (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln muadib (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to Help for citation conventions and other "how to" information. Also, you only need to sign your comments once. ;) -- Harshael (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superiority of women to men as being controversial

"Warren Farrell (b. 1943) is an American writer controversial because of his views that women are not superior to men"

Doesn't this suggest that he wouldn't be controversial if his view was that women were superior to men ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.25.165 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well look at several of the current books that claim women are better than men. Popular yes, but controversial no. DSArmageddon (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What books? Kyle Barbour 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of that first line, and that basically hits the nail on the head. It's part of his books to point out that the acceptance of the view that Women=Angel, Men=Beast is inherently damging.Lincoln muadib (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I'll bite. I don't know a single person, male or female, feminist or otherwise, who thinks that women are better than men. I'd like to see a citation that assertions of equality are, in fact, controversial. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence I'm deleting it until someone can back it up. (By the way, I'm renaming this section so that it's more descriptive, hope that's O.K.) Kyle Barbour 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:Lincoln muadib has a valid point, and it does accurately capture Farrell's point of view in a sentence, but it is provocative (Farrell's detractors would not express their objections in that way), and needs to be spelled out before a lot of people understand it at all. I also think it would have been more courteous, and more in line with typical Wikipedia practice, to put a dated tag on the statement, rather than to delete it. In any case, I'd recommend that anyone interested in recapturing the point and restoring it to the article, put something together on this talk page first, and give objectors a chance to work it over. It will also have to be referenced so it is not viewed as original research. Bertport (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the unpacking of the statement is already underway in the later pararagraph, "Farrell's critics declare him to be sexist .... Farrell argues that his approach is essentially of equality and humanism." and the succeeding paragraph. Bertport (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. You're right, I should've made the sentence less fragmented (sorry, will do better next time), but I disagree with you on the tagging bit. Anyone's welcome to reinstate what they want, so long as it's factual and cited, but in the meantime it's more important to have a clean article. I'm pretty sure that that philosophy (for living people) is Wikipedia practice (see WP:BOLD and WP:V#Burden of evidence, esp. Jimbo's comment at the bottom there - I don't like to trundle out policy, but it came up. They do say that tagging is a good idea, but that's for non-biographies). I also apologize for my brusqueness, it's not how I like to be here (scout's honor!), and I'm sorry if I've caused any offense. It's always important to be courteous, I didn't do that well here, and I apologize. Kyle Barbour 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. It's just that, if you make an edit, then someone reverts it and refers you to the talk page where a discussion on the passage is already underway, and you just repeat your edit instead of engaging in the discussion, then you're being more than bold. I interpret WP:BOLD as encouraging people to jump in and make good faith edits, not to simply re-assert an edit that someone has disputed. And the WP:V#Burden of evidence is particularly about quickly deleting unsourced negative (as in libelous) material on living people (see WP:BLP). Warren Farrell is alive, but the passage was sympathetic to his work, not hostile. In any case, once I took the time to refresh my memory of the content of the rest of the article, I came to agree with your desire to remove the passage. Again, no offense taken, no harm done. Carry on, dude. Bertport (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)