Talk:Warren Farrell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Transwiki

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

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)

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)

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)

From my admittedly limited experience on Wikipedia, I've learned that the bar for controversy is extremely high. So, I've corrected the lead sentence until and unless someone can provide some reliable sources. Additionally, if Farrell is controversial enough for it be mentioned in the lead, then the articles for several prominent radical feminists need the same treatment. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it SHOULD be as simple as that. Unfortunately inorder to show why male power is a myth, he needs to answer up to all arguments to the contrary, wich in turn could be summarized in a precise and mathematical way. "Since the majority of society power is in male hands, all men have power". But it wasnt formulated that way. And he adjusts accordingly. And since he was in effect forced to write a whole book to state a simple point, itis a point in itself. A point you are belittling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.36.194 (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

• Masculism

Rsskga (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

A lot of this article (as of this version) is identical to http://www.warrenfarrell.com/pages.php?id=51 Was his official bio copied here, or did he copy the Wikipedia article? If the former, we need to remove the plagiarized content. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As of this writing, no substantial similarities exist between the two articles referenced above.

Rsskga (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

VFW?

What is the VFW? What does it mean that he was selected as his town's selection for New Jersey Boys' State? PrivateSponge (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The Wikipedia guidelines stipulate that "editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This page egregiously violates this guideline in many places, ignoring scholarly criticism of Farrell's books and ideas, and the feminist view of his work.

Of the three mentions of feminist disagreement with Farrell in the page, one is unreferenced and immediately rebutted, one is to work co-authored by Farrell, and the last is to a TV show and referred to as an "attack". This is a "straw man" (perhaps straw woman is more appropriate here!) that gives a misleading picture of feminist and scholarly opinion on Farrell. Most substantially to my knowledge, peer reviewed articles demolish Farrell's selective use of data to make it appear that domestic violence is gender neutral in his book WMATWTA (Dobash et al: "myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence", Social Problems 39, 1:71-91). Farrell failed to counter this very substantial criticism and simply continues with the same line of argument in MOMP. Since then, further work by those authors and others has added yet more nails to the coffin of that claim (see e.g. Equality With a Vengeance by Molly Dragiewicz and references therein). This citation at the very least must be included, with enough details to illustrate the main point clearly.

Susan Faludi's "Backlash: the undeclared war against women" is an influential feminist text. Here Farrell is represented not as a founder of a new strand of the gender equality movement but an enemy of women's liberation. Considering the standing of this book, its omission from the discussion is a clear violation of NPOV. When a citation was needed to claims that critics think Farrell is sexist, it was not good enough simply to remove any trace of the claim. There are plenty of sources that could have been used for a more specific claim along those lines.

Furthermore, the general tone, what is included and what not in terms of quotes, and phrases in the article such as "he had spent five years re-examining everything he thought he knew about the sexes" and so on smack of a pro-Farrell POV. The article should be amended to make it clear why feminists do not think of Farrell as an ally. For instance quotes should be added to illustrate the controversial claims made by Farrell, for example "Is unemployment to a man the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman?" and "Despite the similarity of the unemployment of men and the rape of women..." and so on (MOMP p.172-3). This would help to explain why there is controversy to the reader.

For these reasons the article violates the guidelines in its present state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worsehorse (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I've added a reference to the section in Backlash and removed the NPOV tag. Please note, though, that, yes, Susan Faludi did write a few pages in Backlash that she titled "Warren Farrell: The Liberated Man Recants." It would also be fair to note that Faludi in the same chapter similarly attacked Betty Friedan, generally considered the founder of the feminist movement, as anti-feminist. Please also note that after Faludi spent time interviewing real-life men about their lives, that Faludi herself wrote a book (Stiffed), that was in many respects aligned with Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. And Faludi, like Farrell and Friedan, was subsequently attacked by feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.179.25 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

UPDATE 8/10/10: I removed the third quote cited below and related material as it is presently being used damagingly against Dr. Farrell and he has said that portions of it were mis-transcribed from the original interview; via WP:BLP, any material that is even potentially libelous must be avoided. I made a strategic edit because it makes more sense to have a well-balanced section on the controversy than no section at all.67.94.88.206 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

WP:BLP requires WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. All three wiki policies are met in the paragraph "Incest controversy." WP:BLP states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented. Mr. Farrell' words are reproduced in reliable sources.

The section is entitled "Incest controversy" rather than "1977 Penthouse interview" because the section isn't just about the interview. It also mentions Mr. Farrell's links to Kinsley, his unpublished book and his claims that incest is a problem because "parental authority becomes undermined because the child senses it has leverage over the parent." (Farrell 1993: 298). What all of these things have in common is the subject, incest, rather than the Penthouse interview.

You removed properly sourced and verifiable material on good-faith BLP objections. I restored the material because the content complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

Please start a new section next time. Randygeorge (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL "That three of his eight quotations should involve incest is an offense to Wikipedia and their standards of encyclopedic credibility." LOL. I have stated again and again that wiki is trash and this is proof yet again. This article is not entitled the best of warren farrell. It is entitled warren farrell which means you are obligated to write all the known information not just what you revere him for but if you had any credibility you would know that. The comments the male warren farrell makes about women being raped in Myth are abusive to women and have actually harmed raped victims forcing them to keep silent while their rapists walk free. While you may not care about this I do and so do the women he is accusing of getting themselves raped while he completely and totally absolves the rapist of any and all guilt whatsoever. Having to read about the incest information only confirmed my theory that Farrell is a sexual deviant and has done some of his own damage to women and or children besides his books, but more importantly it made me sick to my stomach to have to listen to a predator talk about other predators as though they were loving enduring fathers. His comments are comments I have heard from well over a dozen sexual predators who as with them all do not believe what they did to their victims was unwanted or forced in any way which Farrell states this outright on several occasions in defense of rapists. His perception of reality is delusional just like sexual predators and he has no actual education to be talking about these things in the first place having a degree in Political Science. If he was correct and had great phylosophies I personally would not care but instead he is making blatent attacks on women behavior, women's rights (he doesnt even know what feminism is even though he claimed to be one), women's sexuality, the very real and highly documented violence women and childrn must endure at the hands of very manly men, and he even demeans good men who are quite capable of wiping their own asses without having to blame a woman for getting shit on their hands and who are also very capable of having casual sex without getting rape charges.

(previous content:)

The article is available in transcription and photocopies of pages. Philip Nobile, “Penthouse,” December, 1977, p. 117, “Incest: The Last Taboo”. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/warren-farrell/warren-farrell5.htm First copied page: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/warren-farrell/warren-farrell2.htm Orisnov (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

GQ

• Sharlet, Jeff. "Are You Man Enough for the Men's Rights Movement?". GQ. No. March 2015. Retrieved April 20, 2015.

This source was used to support the idea that Farrell has been characterized as the Martin Luther King of the men's movement. That's false, the comparison was a rhetorical device to contrast Farrell to Paul Elam. The quote describing his gentle character and truth was also wrong. It described him as a gentle character, which is quite different, and said that Elam considered him to be speaking a gentler truth, not GQ. The article barely mentions Farrell, mostly in a footnote, so I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is under discussion at a 'dispute resolution process' page.

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love for futher information. Hopefully, we can come to some kind of consensus. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

the Wikipedia guidelines stipulate that "editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This page egregiously violates this guideline in many places, ignoring scholarly criticism of Farrell's books and ideas, and the feminist view of his work.

Of the three mentions of feminist disagreement with Farrell in the page, one is unreferenced and immediately rebutted, one is to work co-authored by Farrell, and the last is to a TV show and referred to as an "attack". This is a "straw man" (perhaps straw woman is more appropriate here!) that gives a misleading picture of feminist and scholarly opinion on Farrell. Most substantially to my knowledge, peer reviewed articles demolish Farrell's selective use of data to make it appear that domestic violence is gender neutral in his book WMATWTA (Dobash et al: "myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence", Social Problems 39, 1:71-91). Farrell failed to counter this very substantial criticism and simply continues with the same line of argument in MOMP. Since then, further work by those authors and others has added yet more nails to the coffin of that claim (see e.g. Equality With a Vengeance by Molly Dragiewicz and references therein). This paper in particular must be cited if the article is to represent a balanced viewpoint.

Susan Faludi's "Backlash: the undeclared war against women" is an influential feminist text. Here Farrell is represented not as a founder of a new strand of the gender equality movement but an enemy of women's liberation. Considering the standing of this book, its omission from the discussion is a clear violation of NPOV.

Furthermore, phrases in the article such as "he had spent five years re-examining everything he thought he knew about the sexes" and so on smack of a pro-Farrell POV. The article should be amended to make it clear why feminists do not think of Farrell as an ally. For instance quotes should be added to illustrate the controversial claims made by Farrell, for example "Is unemployment to a man the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman?" and "Despite the similarity of the unemployment of men and the rape of women..." and so on (MOMP p.172-3). This would help to explain why there is controversy to the reader.

For these reasons the article violates the guidelines in its present state in favor of Farrell's own viewpoint and an antifeminist Men's Rights viewpoint in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worsehorse (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree on most counts. The article is portraying Farrell's views as largely uncontroversial, unproblematic and virtually unchallenged. There is no sign of any academic criticism, eventhough it's obvious that this goes against core aspects of modern gender studies. And I can also note that the whole incest-article affair has been neatly purged.

The POV-tag is going back and will stay until these issues are dealt with properly.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken down the flag since I've added criticism from academic feminists, antifeminists, the political right and left, historic and current, have been added, creating a new section called, “Critical Reception.” 50.131.179.25 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading this in May 2014, and this section is totally unbalanced. Nothing but a heaping of praise, with one note of criticism, from Phyllis Schafley! I'm not necessarily siding with his detractors, but he he was actually picketed at the UToronto event where some of the photos here were taken. There are strong criticisms of his work, and that should be described impartially here, as well as any responses to such criticism as Farrell has given.

Looking back at the October 2012 edit, I do see there was a section on feminist criticism of Farrell, however, it was not well written, and poorly sourced and therefore removed. However, the response should have been to put together a better-sourced section on this topic - sources for this shouldn't be too hard to find.

I'm restoring the "unbalanced" tag until these issues are dealt with. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also restoring the tag, apparently taken down by an anonymous editor, because these issues have not been dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Arelatensis (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags are to flag for active discussion, as a way to improve the article. Since there is no active discussion. I'm removing the tag. Darx9url (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the actual wiki says, "The Unbalanced template will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles needing more viewpoints." There is no requirement for "active discussion" anywhere I can see, either on the tag itself or on its wiki page. Because several editors feel that this article does need "more viewpoints", with apparently no contrary opinion expressed here, the tag seems warranted. . Thomas Arelatensis (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The critical comments by feminists in this article are, in fact, quite extensive. The comment that Faludi’s criticism in Backlash is not included is false; it is in the section on The Myth of Male Power. The “Critical Reception” section sources the most-watched criticism of Farrell at the protest at the U of Toronto by feminists, and cites both the book and chapter that is the source of feminist complaints. Critiques of his work from The NYTimes Book Review and conservatives are also included. Many negative innuendos about Farrell are incorporated (“twenty years of adventuresome singlehood” and being a semi-regular contributor to the controversial A Voice for Men). These are selective and biased in a negative direction. Hence I am removing the flag. Unseen remnant (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The flag I removed was added back in but no explanation was given as to why. I am removing the flag again until a proper discussion begins. Unseen remnant (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

February Edits

Here are my complete edits and reasons. Please reinstate my changes...

Eliminated:

Before writing further about men's issues and empowerment, Farrell spent years researching incest, including the ways people who commit incest justify their actions and (controversially) the potentially positive impact on family life. In a 2015 article in Mother Jones magazine, Mariah Blake summed up his findings and quoted him on the topic: "In a 1977 interview with Penthouse, Farrell explained that some saw incest as 'part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.' The magazine also quoted him as saying that 'genitally caressing' children was 'part of a caring, loving expression' that helped them develop healthy sexuality." These ideas threatened his reputation; as Blake reported, "Farrell maintains that he said "generally caressing" and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. "'The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?' he told me. 'I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.'" In the face of reputation-damaging public reaction, Farrell ended up not publishing the book.[16]

Reason:

The only sources, pornography and a radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada.

Eliminated:

Not all responses have been positive, as Mariah Blake notes in Mother Jones, and some readers have taken Farrell's claims to an extreme degree--using them as justification for violence, for example. As Blake notes, "It wasn't until recent controversies drew attention to the men's rights movement that Farrell began to feel his ideas were having a real impact. During an interview on NPR's All Things Considered in September (2014), Farrell suggested that men's rights activists were tackling the very problems that may prompt young men to go on shooting rampages. 'We're all in jeopardy,' he said, 'if we don't pay attention to the cries of pain and isolation and alienation that are happening among our sons.'[60]" The audience for his Twitter feed has found some of his tweets problematically sexist, such as "Does the [new edition of] Myth of Male Power start with a naked woman? See Warren Farrell's 2014 ebook. #mensissues."[61]

Replaced With:

While Farrell’s 2015 TEDx presentation on The Boy Crisis, [2] and his interviews related to his Why Men Earn More [3] have received broadly positive responses, he has also been controversial in both liberal and conservative circles. His support of Clinton in interviews with worldwide media also The Fiscal Times http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/05/10/Hillary-Plays-Woman-Card-More-Men-Are-Being-Dealt-Out; Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/news/men-rights-pioneer-backs-hillary-000000407.html were protested by some men’s rights advocates [4]. Conversely, his statements on media such as NPR catalyzed the objections of some feminists. Farrell reminded feminists of the man-hating of some early feminists, such as Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), and that it didn’t block him from finding feminism’s best intent. He argues that this compassion needs to be applied to men--that “it’s important to understand that anger is often vulnerability’s mask,” [See both http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement, and http://www.ttbook.org/book/men%E2%80%99s-rights-movement-then-and-now] that it is better to hear anger than to allow a volcano of repressed emotions to explode into school shootings.

The 2016-17 release of the documentary, The Red Pill, [FN: http://theredpillmovie.com/ ] depicting feminist producer Cassie Jaye’s journey from her initial intent to do an attack piece on men’s rights activists, to her documenting why men’s issues should also be feminist issues, has had an impact on the popularity of Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. It features The Myth of Male Power as the “red pill” that, once read by feminists, led to many becoming men’s rights activists. [FN: Besides Farrell, Fred Hayward, Harry Crouch, Paul Elam, and Steven Svoboda are featured, each originally feminists who became disillusioned.] The Red Pill also features Farrell as supporting the portions of feminism that expands women’s options, but objecting to the portions that he feels demonize men and undervalue the family and fathers.

Reason:

Re: the eliminated paragraph, there is no evidence of anyone taking Farrell’s claims as a justification for violence. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. A radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia.

The eliminated paragraph only cites Wikipedia’s general page on NPR, which says nothing about the show being referred to. The replacement is the actual quote and a summary of the two NPR shows in which Farrell and NPR dealt with this issue. It is now in the context of both criticism and praise, in Wikipedia tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unseen remnant (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)‎

Making large changes like this make it very difficult to determine good from bad, and the rationale you gave was flawed. Mother Jones is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Labeling it "radical feminist" doesn't change its reliability. Likewise, theredpillmovie.com is not a reliable source for anything other than routine details about The Red Pill (which is not a reliable source, either). There were some neutrality problems with the content you removed, and I have taken some steps to fix these, but your replacements made them worse, not better. The Fiscal Times and Yahoo sources discussed Farrell's political position, but did not substantially indicate any controversy, making this WP:SYNTH. TEDx talks (which are different in scope and prestige from TED Talks) are not typically notable or significant without substantial independent coverage. Citing Youtube clips of talks, interviews, etc. is a form of original research, since articles should be mostly built from WP:SECONDARY sources. The "Captain Nemo" Youtube channel and Male Defender are completely unreliable, and should never be used on Wikipedia for statements of fact or unattributed opinion. "Wikipedia tradition" does not include WP:FALSEBALANCE... I could keep going, but let's deal with these first and then reassess from there. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding material, citations, general cleanup and resolving dispute

I have painstakingly documented Warren Farrell's biography and professional discourse, supporting my edits with citations. In the Myth of Male Power, he endorses the concept of a ‘gender transition movement‘ as an alternative to either a ‘women's movement‘ or ‘men's movement‘. He has maintained this position since the book's publication in 1993, and has continued to promote the notion in every book published since. Additionally, I cannot find a single original, citable source to support use of the term masculinist being applied to him. As such, I have removed references to this non-neutral term.

I hope anyone watching this page will agree that I have enhanced the quality of this article tremendously. I am going to remove the request for cleanup and the neutrality dispute since I don't see any recent, active discussions that will remain unaddressed with the addition of the careful citations I have added.

(previous content:) Warren Farrell (born 1943) is an American masculist author.

Farrell holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Political Science (UCLA; New York University (NYU)). He has taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and at Georgetown University, Rutgers, Brooklyn College, and American University.

With the publication of The Myth of Male Power, Farrell became one of the first masculists. The term is difficult to precisely define, but in his case masculism is a form of celebrating men as no less than women, and rejecting any sexism displayed against men by women. Since the early 1970s, he has been a champion of feminism, serving on the board of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Within a few years, he was asked to leave NOW as his views diverged from those generally held in the organization; most specifically, he was critical of what he saw as female exclusiveness and disregard for men's issues. His early books The Liberated Man and Why Men Are the Way They Are were more in the vein of a type of men's liberation–an approach to men's issues similar to that of feminism to women's issues. These texts were not critical of feminism.

Farrell's critics declare him to be sexist and have an anti-woman attitude (or misogynistic). However, despite his being broadly attacked by many latter-day feminists including Susan Faludi. In answering his critics, Farrell argues that his approach is essentially of equality and humanism.

His approach to gender issues has come to be the cornerstone of masculism. His ideology calls for gender equivalence and, unlike some other masculists, a reduction in traditional gender roles. He has made a critical examination of the power imbalance between the sexes, claiming that in some cases it favors women: "The women's movement had done a wonderful job of freeing women from sex roles, but no one did the same for men".

Farrell was a candidate for governor in the 2003 California recall election. He came ninety-seventh out of 135 candidates.

On May 27, 2005 Farrell appeared on John Stossel's "Give Me A Break" segment of 20/20 to discuss, in his view, why men earn more. In the report he is seen speaking before the Cato Institute. He asked members of the audience to stand if they worked at least two years at a job meeting certain criteria: jobs which exposed them to wind and rain or long hours, for example. It was almost entirely men who stood.

Some claim that the Cato Institute event had been staged to promote Farrell's books and opinions. Nonetheless, the event served to illustrate one of Farrell's key points - that women tend to choose, and are generally encouraged by the popular press to choose, jobs that are socially fulfilling rather than monetarily fulfilling. For instance, men are encouraged to work well-paid, long-hours jobs, whereas women are encouraged to search for jobs that allow them more time with their children or are seen as socially pleasant, involving little physical labour or serious physical unpleasantness. These jobs, across the board, tend to be paid less than the former. In addition, men are more likely to do overtime (and are of course encouraged to do so) than women, so necessarily get paid for more hours worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsskga (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

James Twitchell quotation and reference

The following sentence:

"James Twitchell reported that Farrell wrote an unpublished book advocating incest."

Uses a poor and questionable reference to an unreliable source. The reference only points to a parenthetical claim of Twitchell's claim in "Gossips, gorgons & crones: the fates of the earth" By Jane Caputi (an author who throws around the word "incest" pretty indiscriminately and seems to regard incest as a general trait of fatherhood). Moreover, Twitchell himself "confessed this spring to committing plagiarism was suspended for five years without pay, and opted to retire shortly after the punishment was handed down, university officials confirmed" [1]

I have removed this very poorly referenced and inflammatory statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In his book "Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture" (1987), Twitchell writes that Farrell wrote and unpublished book advocating incest. His book is not available on books.google.com. Jane Caputi's book is available on books.google.com.

I have restored this very accurately referenced and appropriate statement. Randygeorge (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm did you read what I wrote? "Advocating incest" is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary source -- in particular with regards to BLP. Having a "source" is not having a reliable source. Please discuss your changes effectively before reverting the changes discussed on talk pages. Your comment is less than useless--Cybermud (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is James Twitchell's book "Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture." Another source is Jane Caputi's book. Books published by prestigious publishing companies (Columbia University Press and Bear & Company) are reliable sources. Your attempts to suppress negative but relevant information about Farrell is less than useless. Randygeorge (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He manifestly did not advocate incest. He said that incest is not as bad for the victims as is currently understood.

I would still strongly disagree with him, but distorting his views is plainly unacceptable. Just because President Obama has said that single-motherhood is not as bad as commonly thought for children-- would not mean that it's acceptable to write "Obama advocates families get rid of fathers." See the logical fallacy? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You will be reported for editwarring and violating Wikipedia policy for your recent edits on masculism. Now, let me explain how Wikipedia works: We represent what reliable sources tell us. Your opinion on this subject is completely irrelevant. James Twitchell stated that Warren Farrel wrote an unpublished book advocating incest. Whether or not you believe that Warren Farrel did no such thing, is - I repeat - irrelevant. Randygeorge (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of what you are yourself doing? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And, once again, serious claims that reflect stark differences from what other sources say require serious proof.

I would not allow a largely unknown tract by an American right-ring polemicist saying that Obama has secretly told people that he is a secret Muslim to be cited in 'Barack Obama'. We have legitimate WP:BLP concerns.

Incidentally, why did you name your Wikipedia user account after sexual libido? I'm pretty sure that naming your account after slurs, obscenities, and so on is explicitly against Wikipedia policy. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for uncivil and inflammatory behavior.

Comparing James Twitchell to a "right-wing polemicist" and Warren Farrell to president Obama is insulting and completely useless. In general, you should stick to discussing the content of this article and refrain from all kinds of irrelevant comparisons and exaggerated claims.

Warren Farrell is a "fathers' rights activist" and someone who opines on parenting. According to several reliable sources, he wrote a book about incest. Some of those sources simply state that Farrel described cases of "positive incest" and other sources say that Farrell advocated incest. This information is very relevant for someone who gives advice on parenting. James Twitchell's book was a scholarly book about incest published by the Columbia University press. It doesn't get more reliable that that.

As for your removal of a quote by Michael Kimmel, I can say that this is yet another instance of disruptive editing and violation of Wikipedia policy.

If you refuse to restore the reliable sources which you removed, I will request a dispute resolution. Randygeorge (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems you didn't carefully read my comment before I will repeat it in greater detail. Claiming "advocacy of incest" is tantamount to advocating criminality and opens WP up to a libel suit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Twitchell admitted to academic falsehoods and, even in his work, you are citing A FOOTNOTE! Please reference WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP. Please do request a dispute resolution if you'd like to include a footnote as an exceptional source when authored by an admitted plagarist making a controversial claim about a living person. In the meantime I will continue to revert any edit that tries to include it w/o further discussion. Thank you and have a nice day.--Cybermud (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to let you know that you will be reported for wikihounding and vandalism.

Claiming that somebody said something is not tantamount to anything. There is such a thing as freedom of speech. Claiming that somebody did something could be libelous and even then we have the rights to report what reliable sources say. Check the Roman Polanski article if you want to know what I mean. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Your claim that Twitchell is a "plagarist" and has admitted "academic falsehoods" is of no value and libelous. You must be aware of the fact that you have just committed slander and will be reported for that as well. Your threat of edit-warring conforms the impression that you deserve to be banned from Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making idle threats and do report me. Your behavior and edit history speaks for itself -- as does mine. In the meantime there is no consensus amongst editors here to include the changes you are trying to editwar in while shrilly threating other editors with bans. I am not "claiming" Twitchell is a plagiarist he admitted it in the link I posted and stepped down from his position as professor amidst the controversy. Please try reading what others write even when it conflicts with the POV you'd like to promote.--Cybermud (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to look up the difference between slander and libel. Cheers,--Cybermud (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud/Sugar-Baby-Love, please see here [2] for further discussion. Randygeorge (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Advertisement Issue.

Reviewed this and comparable author pages. These pages are written very dispassionately and even-handedly, both including critiques and excluding many accolades that are apparent on his web sites and in other commentary about Farrell. Removing for now. If anyone still have issues with this, please discuss with me here and I'll try and address them. Unseen remnant (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede alone contains multiple WP:PEACOCK words, such as "champion". Similarly, the lede fails to clearly explain who "considers him the father of the men's movement". The addition of a particular quote is unbalanced and cherry-picked, since it assumes that such movements would be based in "blame". These are not inherently unreasonable claims, but they are not handled from a neutral point of view. This is the kind of thing that should be supported and contextualized by reliable, independent sources. A single passing comment from an otherwise obscure interview is WP:PRIMARY, and is not appropriate for the lede, which should summarize his notability, not promote a specific viewpoint he holds. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Over-reliance on primary sources.

This article relies far too heavily on Farrell's own books to describe them; while we can use a few cites from them to describe his views, when describing the content of the books themselves, we need to rely mainly on secondary sources that cover them (without that, we have no way to determine which aspects are important and cannot provide more than the most cursory analysis or discussion.) EDIT: Several other sources in the article are not usable, either. Personal websites, blogs, YouTube videos, and journal with no connection to any accredited university do not pass WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources reviewed. Most are secondary, except when summarizing Dr. Farrell’s books, for which the best source is the book. I've removed the tag for now, but if you have certain references that could be improved, let me know which and I'll try and sort them out. Unseen remnant (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

His own books should be summarized according to independent sources as much as possible. Relying on Wikipedia editors to summarize controversial books is sometimes necessary, but not ideal. The article should reflect his works proportionally to how they are reflected in reliable sources, which a very strong preference for independent sources. As an example, the four secondary sources bundled together for the section on Why Men Earn More should be used for more than just saying it received "considerable praise", which is WP:WEASELy anyway. If these sources don't explain what the book is about, or at least why it's praiseworthy, they're not really usable for something as broad and vague as "considerable praise" and should just be removed. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones Article / Incest Issue / Wording

My searches show that Farrell neither speaks on, nor publishes, anything on incest. The bias behind adding this is apparent in its assertion that Farrell’s motivation to not publish his research was due only to a desire to preserve his reputation. There is no evidence for this being his motivation. It seems to be purely speculative by the Mother Jones author whose attack piece tries to discredit Farrell's critique of some aspects of feminism by associating Farrell with negative things like MRAs and incest and neglecting his continuing support of gender liberation, and his public support of Hillary Clinton. As for the remainder of the paragraph, it is based on assertions from a pornographic magazine (Penthouse). Therefore, I have removed this section. Unseen remnant (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

How are your searches different from WP:OR? The evidence is the source, which is reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. We've already discussed that, haven't we? Just because you don't like Mother Jones doesn't make it unreliable.

In the future, for old comments like this one from 2010, please just start a new section. Piggy-backing off old drama, about a section of the article that's had 8 years of changes in the mean-time, is unlikely to be the best way to discuss how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, I hope you don't mind me moving the conversation down here as you requested. Thanks for letting me know that's how you'd prefer to communicate.

I'm also sorry that I didn't go into more detail here, I was too brief given the past discussions. I'll try and expand. The issue here is that two segments of the incest section are speculative. The words "These ideas threatened his reputation" and "In the face of reputation-damaging public reaction" are inappropriate for Wikipedia. While the author of the Mother Jones article certainly made those claims, the way it's written on Wikipedia suggests that those are facts, when they are the opinion of one writer. If those segments are not removed, they should at least be modified so it's clear they're attributed directly to the Mother Jones author and not a general consensus. One possible rewrite could look like:

"Blake claims that these ideas threatened Farrell's reputation; as he reported, "Farrell maintains that he said "generally caressing" and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. "'The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?' he told me. 'I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.'" Farrell ended up not publishing the research in any form.[19]"

Additionally, the ending sentence "Farrell ended up not publishing the book" is not clear either as what we're really talking about here is research, not a book. It should be changed to something like "Farrell ended up not publishing the research in any form."

I have made no changes to the page and will await your response so we can go forward with a solution that suits Wikipedia's rules.Unseen remnant (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving this to a new section was a good idea, thanks.

I'm not sure what your specific objection to Mother Jones is. This is reporting, not an opinion piece, and I don't understand how this is speculative. I suppose there is some speculation in assuming that advocating the genital caressing of children would damage his career, but... it would damage his career. It's already clear from context that this is derived from the Mother Jones article. It's speculation, but on par with the sky is blue. It's also central to those paragraphs of the source, according to both the MJ reporter and Farrell: People were eager to misinterpret his work, and he did not want to validate that, so he moved on to other things. This does seem like a minor but significant part of his professional history, so it should be mentioned.

The source also says that he abandoned "the book project". This should be explained more clearly, but "book" is the concept being discussed by the source. It is quoting him specifically about this part of his personal history. I don't see anything controversial about stating that he researched and wrote about incest, but chose not to publish it for the reasons explained.

I do think the paragraph, and section, are too long, however. It's based on a single source, but the source is one of the few in the entire section that isn't WP:PRIMARY. The section starts with an arbitrary quote taken from Menweb.org, which isn't otherwise supported as significant, nor is it reliable by itself. This is cherry-picking. We shouldn't decorate articles with quotes, we should summarize reliable, independent sources. This is the larger problem with the article, so completely removing one of comparatively few well-sourced sections is a step in the wrong direction. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No specific objection to Mother Jones. In re-reading the Mother Jones article, I actually don't have a single problem with it. I like the article, in fact. The background is good, it goes into a lot of detail about things (very little of which is mentioned in this Wikipedia page) but it just doesn't say what the section says it says. Farrell has written publicly that this piece contains lies and is selective, but what he believes is objective and not relevant for Wikipedia. What is relevant, however, is the piece itself never even makes the claims that his career was damaged or anything about public relations issues.

Here's the segment from the Mother Jones pieces that we're discussing...

Farrell shifted his intellectual focus again and began work on a book about incest, including case studies. One involved a New York writer who regularly had sex with his 17-year-old daughter and occasional three-way trysts involving his daughter’s friend. In a 1977 interview with Penthouse, Farrell explained that some saw incest as “part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.” The magazine also quoted him as saying that “genitally caressing” children was “part of a caring, loving expression” that helped them develop healthy sexuality.

Farrell maintains that he said “generally caressing” and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. “The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?” he told me. “I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.”

But Farrell chose not to fight the misperception. “That taught me how the research could be misused by anyone looking for a reason to advocate incest,” he says. Instead, he abandoned the book project.

You can't draw from that that "these ideas threatened his reputation" or that he decided not go forward with a book because the chance "of reputation-damaging public reaction". All you can say based on the article is that in the face of possible misinterpretation Farrell decided not to continue with the book project. If Farrell had said, "This will damage my career, let me move on," then that the inclusion would be fine. However, all he was quoted as saying was "I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said." You can't *know*, outside of that quote, why he did anything. To speculate on that is... well, speculating.

Furthermore, you can't say that his idea would "would damage his career." Terrible people write and say terrible things all the time and their career's are helped by those terrible things, so just because there would certainly be a contingent of people who would find it disgusting, regardless, that doesn't mean it would hurt his career. In this case, his discussions seem to be academic and were misunderstood, that or they were not fully thought out from the start, who knows? All we know if from what the article and Farrell said. Whatever the issue, saying something that wasn't published would have "damaged his career" is too far of a stretch. He could have thought, "This book is going to cause too many confusion conversation -- my career will be fine -- but it's not worth the hassle, I could write other things." You just don't know his motivation beyond what he's said.

Relating the use "the book project", this page implies there was a book that was pulled from publication, which was not the case. Whereas the article makes it very clear he stopped working on a project and didn't pull anything. That's really the issue there. But, honestly, this is a small issue compared to the incest quotes, so I'm willing to drop it and put focus elsewhere.

Speaking of other issues, you're right, this Mother Jones piece is one the non-primary sources. Removing this segment would be inappropriate, and I was wrong to do so earlier. It should be amended, not removed, and the article (and other secondary sources) should be used to flesh out the page better. I have intentions to do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unseen remnant (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I have heard no response on you about this, I have gone ahead and made a slight change to the paragraph to remove the two speculative lines in question. It's more or less the same, just without the portion the Mother Jones article doesn't support. Unseen remnant (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unseen remnant, I wonder if you have a conflict of interest with this article. Maybe you are the subject of the article, are related to the subject and/or have another a connection (e.g. work for/with Liz Dowling's public relations company)? The totality of your edits, including the edits regarding ontoplastic surgery, suggest that this may be the case. If so, you should consult the article linked above, including the requirement that you declare your link per WP:DISCLOSESlp1 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Added. Shouldn't change my recent edit, as they're inline with Wikipedia's rules and better reflect the article.Unseen remnant (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the article, I don't understand why the incest stuff is there. It doesn't seem related to the section title: "Integrating men's issues into gender issues". It doesn't help us understand the rest of the article. Based on what it says now, he never published this research. And there was apparently an incident in which he was misquoted as supporting genital massaging by parents, which is highly inflammatory in many cultures (including here in the United States). The article would be better without it. Is this a remnant of a more obviously relevant point that has become obscured over time? If so, what is that more relevant point. Otherwise, lets delete it. 23.246.70.101 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comically slanted article

This article couldn't be more astroturfed by Men's Rights Activists. Where is the rest of the criticism section? EnPassant (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is somebody who is violently picketed when he speaks. I came here seeking to understand WHY that happens. Maybe he is picketed by people for reasons that have no basis in fact. That would hardly be the first time such a thing has happened. Maybe not. But a new reader (like me) should be able to come to this article and get an answer to that. 23.246.70.101 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. I am aware that these comments are quite old but I still think they are relevant. This article is clearly unbalanced considering the controversial nature of Farrell and his work. I would like to suggest adding an NPOV tag to draw in more editors with different perspectives and ultimately help balance and improve this article by adding a section (or multiple sections) on criticisms and including more secondary sources. Schnitzella (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)