Hugo Schwyzer talks with Warren Farrell about the White House Commission on Boys to Men.
Helping boys become healthy men is a woman’s issue too. That’s a key part of the message of the proposed White House Council on Boys to Men, an initiative currently currently under consideration by the Obama Administration.
Chaired by Warren Farrell, the author of the controversial The Myth of Male Power and many other books on men, women, and relationships, the Council includes 34 authors, practitioners, and educators from across the ideological spectrum. All share Farrell’s concern that “a nationwide crisis of boys and men already exists,” and that that crisis manifests itself in unemployment, fatherlessness, diminishing educational achievement, and poor physical and emotional health.
Articles and books about the “The End of Men” have proliferated in recent years. One of the hottest trends in publishing is explanations of and solutions for the “masculinity crisis.” Some authors (like commission member Christina Hoff Summers) blame feminists for fighting a “war against boys,”others (like Farrell himself) see the problem as more complex and nuanced than that. Though some advocates for traditional masculinity and gender essentialism are on the large board of advisors, the proposal for the Council rejects both feminist-bashing or a simplistic return to 1950s values:
Leadership for the future must both question and honor traditional masculinity. As our history of male-as-sole-breadwinner fades as downsizing and outsourcing burgeon, both sexes will need to be prepared to raise money and raise children. Our daughters have learned to do both; our sons have not.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
The commission proposal is less a clarion call for men’s rights than it is a thoughtful plea to the country to help men and boys make the same transition to modernity that their sisters, wives, and mothers have already made.
To find out more about the Council, I spoke with Warren Farrell for nearly an hour one afternoon in late July.
♦◊♦
Farrell was famously elected three times to the board of directors of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women in the early 1970s. An ardent feminist in his earlier years, he became troubled by the way in which many of his fellow activists ignored the very real struggles of men and boys. Most men, Farrell concluded, don’t have the power that women often imagine they do. And women’s belief that men are more powerful than they are leads to a culture in which men’s pain is often overlooked.
Though Farrell is a darling for many in the Men’s Rights Movement (some even think of him as one of the instigators of the anti-feminist backlash), Warren remains firmly committed to gender equity. This shows in his commitment to progressive politics and to egalitarian values, and it’s at the heart of his work to create this new White House Commission.
When we chatted, Warren was eloquent about the ways in which the “boy crisis” is misunderstood and misrepresented. Not least of those misrepresentations is the idea that focusing on gender-based problems is a zero-sum game. Too many, including both feminists and men’s rights activists, assume that devoting more attention to boys will mean paying less attention to girls. I mentioned Laura Bush’s famous and unfortunate 2005 remark that “it’s time for Americans to sort of shift our gaze to boys and see what we can do to nurture boys.” A shifted gaze implies shifted resources, and that understandably makes those of us who advocate for girls and women concerned that the hard-won gains of recent years will be lost.
To his credit, Farrell adamantly rejects the Laura Bush framework. He sees the proposed White House Commission on Boys to Men as working closely with the extant White House Commission on Women and Girls, established by President Obama in 2009. The difference between the two names, however, catches the eye. Why not call it the White House Commission on Men and Boys? Wouldn’t that be more complementary and consistent?
“‘Women and girls’ as a phrase stimulates a protective instinct,” he said. “Men are biologically programmed to compete to solve women’s problems. But there’s no equivalent in reverse. Women are repulsed by the idea of men asking for help. So when we originally proposed a White House Commission on Men and Boys, women were turned off. But when women, especially mothers, hear the focus on ‘boys to men,’ their protector instinct is catalyzed. Hence the name ‘Boys to Men.’”
Indeed, much of the proposal seems targeted at women, particularly mothers of sons. I ask if this focus on moms is intentional, and Farrell readily concedes it. Many mothers have both sons and daughters, he points out, and are equally concerned with the health and well-being of each. But they’re likely to notice that there are more resources available for their girls than for their boys. Farrell wants to tap into that hunger so many mothers have for tools with which to raise healthy, happy sons. Moms want to help their boys become well-adjusted adults, and they need more resources to help make that happen.
♦◊♦
But it’s not just moms to whom the Council appeals. It’s straight women who bemoan the scarcity of good men. Just as the culture of perfectionism has become insidiously destructive in the lives of so many young girls, the rigid manhood ideal with which our sons are still raised has straitjacketed their potential and limited their humanity. The proposal notes that “we have the opportunity to create more flexible expectations for our sons rather than the pressures of the male role that too frequently lead to emotional distress or suicide.” Farrell is certain that a culture of more flexible expectations will lead to a tremendous payoff: emotionally competent, fully grown-up, self-aware men who can and will be better partners and fathers.
The focus of the proposal’s final paragraph is unmistakable:
(The Council) can provide leadership to help us help our sons row on both sides of the family boat—so our daughters may have equal partners. It can co-ordinate the nation’s best efforts to parent, mentor, and teach each of our sons to discover who he is. It can end the era of boys and men as a national afterthought. It can provide leadership to raise young men our daughters are proud to love.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Leaving aside the heterosexism (what about what lesbians and gay men, and what they want?), it’s clear that Farrell and his colleagues recognize that getting “buy-in” from women is an absolutely critical part of getting the Council established and funded. Men and women, as Warren has often pointed out, may not have strictly complementary roles; as he says, we all need to learn to “row on both sides of the boat.” But we do want each other, and we need to give our boys the tools to become the men of whom mothers can be proud, and to become the happy, resourceful, and flexible partners for whom our daughters long.
The initiative in its entirety can be found on the Council’s website. According to Farrell, the submitted proposal now rests in the White House Office of Public Engagement, where it remains under consideration. Farrell asks for phone calls, letters, and emails to both President Obama and to Congress, urging the Administration to move forward and approve the White House Council on Boys to Men.
—Main image toolmantim/Flickr
—Photo of Warren Farrell courtesy of warrenfarrell.com
Trackback Link…
[…]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[…]…
Most men, Farrell concluded, don’t have the power that women often imagine they do. And women’s belief that men are more powerful than they are leads to a culture in which men’s pain is often overlooked. Very true. I get frustrated being simultaneously that I have a bunch of supposed power and that my pain doesn’t matter. Though Farrell is a darling for many in the Men’s Rights Movement (some even think of him as one of the instigators of the anti-feminist backlash), Warren remains firmly committed to gender equity. You say that like the MRAs are about gender equality.… Read more »
For those readers who haven’t gone to the website and read the full report, I suggest you do. It is a pretty sobering account of the current state of life for many men and boys in America, and the degree to which the government and non-profit sectors have written off concerns of men and boys. I made a private, high-level inquiry to the White House about the status of the proposal a few months ago and was politely informed that this is simply “not a priority” for the Obama Administration. The Administration has acknowledged many of the facts stated in… Read more »
Yes, MRAs and “Father’s Rights groups” that cannot work with women are a no-go for obvious reasons (the idea is to reduce conflict between the sexes not foment it; I think most of the population, except maybe the oldsters in the Tea Party, who are 35% or less of the population, are weary of “men’s rights” types who foment conflict with women rather than doing the work required to be effective in marriage and parenting). But, as I mentioned, there are many men working on these issues who do work well with women. In addition to the ones I mentioned,… Read more »
Methinks Farrell’s real sin was writing “The Myth of Male Power.” Leave it to a feminist to insinuate that men she disagree with have psychological problems.
I know right? But its MRAs/FRAs that need to prove they can work well with others right?
“Yes, MRAs and “Father’s Rights groups” that cannot work with women are a no-go for obvious reasons (the idea is to reduce conflict between the sexes not foment it; I think most of the population, except maybe the oldsters in the Tea Party, who are 35% or less of the population, are weary of “men’s rights” types who foment conflict with women rather than doing the work required to be effective in marriage and parenting). ” If the idea is reduce conflict between the sexes, why is the onus on the men? It is up to the women to do… Read more »
Women’s rights groups (a la the esteemed TGMP commenter Emily) would want to make sure that each appointee passed women’s groups’ litmus tests and that women were significantly if not equally represented on the Council. That would mean no MRAs and no Father’s Rights folks would need apply, which in turn would stir up that hornet’s nest. And frankly I think said hornet’s nest would need to be stirred up. I don’t recall The Council for Women and Girls needing to pass an FRA/MRA litmus test so how presumptous is it for them to think they should have a say… Read more »
Farrell says: “‘Women and girls’ as a phrase stimulates a protective instinct,” he said. “Men are biologically programmed to compete to solve women’s problems. But there’s no equivalent in reverse. Women are repulsed by the idea of men asking for help.” These are grossly inaccurate generalizations. I am a woman and I am repulsed by a man who thinks (a) he can solve my problems (especially when many of those problems are at least partly made by men, such as unplanned pregnancies, in which the man himself has a problem he needs to be focusing on) and/or (b) he is… Read more »
Also Kyle Pruett and Stephan Poulter would be good.
Kimmel is a non-starter. He has made his toxicity quite obvious.
“The sine qua non for me in selecting a mate has been,”
This has nothing to do with your mating behavior and your personal feelings in this are not data. The reference is clearly not to who woman choose to marry and has everything to do with the entire value system of a culture that values femlae over male life, that concerns itself with female suffering to the exclusion of male suffering and is built on male disposaibility.
Who you choose to marry has nothing to do with why this group had to reconfigure its name to get politiical backing.
“the Council includes 34 authors, practitioners, and educators from across the ideological spectrum” Um, not quite. The council draws heavily from folks who focus on education and fatherhood, with a smattering of other interests. No member of the group seems to have a broad background in violence; the vast majority of which is committed by (>80%) and targets men (70%). Nor is there anyone who seems to have a background in economics or employment, despite the fact that many men see their work as central to their sense of self and the fact that approx. 70% of jobs lost during… Read more »
While education and fatherhood are important, they seem to dominate the background of the group that doesn’t bode well for these other issues. I get what you’re saying about not leaving out important factors (and you mention some pretty big ones) but it seems to me that they are of the mind that if things like education and fatherhood are addressed those other things will become easier to resolve. For one with the way men have their worth tied up in their occupation perhaps beefing up the education of men/boys will help with them being more flexible in the job… Read more »
One question: where is the interview? We get Schwyzer’s opinion of Farrell’s proposal, but we do not get to see what Schwyzer asked or how Farrell responded. As for Schwyzer’s take on the proposal, he was rather selective in what he presented. The proposal criticizes how current policies in education have left boys to fend for themselves. It criticizes how society ignores boys and men’s mental health. It criticized how society treats fathers. It criticized how society ignores boys and men’s physical health. It criticized how society treats males workers. Those are issues I think should have been addressed in… Read more »
Jacobtk, I also share your concern. As someone who has read Professor Schwyzer’s blog for about a year now, I easily recognized many of the characterizations as Hugo’s own words, and not something that I have ever read in a piece by Farrell. As a quick example: nowhere in the “Emotional Health” section of the proposal is it suggested that today’s men are not “emotionally competent, fully grown-up.” Instead, the proposal focuses on societal denial of male emotion (he acts out because he’s criminal, not because he’s feeling depressed). Schwyzer, on the otherhand, has often written about “manboys” who have… Read more »
I agree. This piece comes off sounding like Hugo had an interview with Farrell, took some bits and pieces of that interview, then made a post about what was said without showing everything that was said. I’d like ot get my hands on some sort of recording of the internview myself.
Meh. I’d have preferred to have been a fly on the proverbial wall when he talked to Carre Otis, for his forthcoming book, about the filming of “Wild Orchid.” That would have been a titter-fest for the ages, no doubt.
The Council will definitely need the support from women if it has a ghost’s chance to get established in this political/economic climate. It would make a difference if they could count on support from feminist groups but that us just as likely as the Westboro Baptist Church supporting a same sex marriage protest.
They can probably get support from women’s groups if they (a) drop Farrell in lieu of some of the men I mention below in my post, and (b) drop the homosocial element and structure it as a healthy marriage, healthy family, healthy parenting initiative. I share the concern that many men are still “bad dads” and need support on this issue and better role models. The fact that paternity can not be proven may help this issue. In the state where I live there is an initiative to modify family law to hold men to the same abuse/neglect standards that… Read more »
Sorry, made a typo. “paternity can now be proven” was what I meant. Also, I wanted to clarify that under the proposal, the father would be responsible for 50% of the financial cost of the child’s upbringing, which might increase in certain circumstances, such as if he repeatedly fails to meet the abuse/neglect standard and the care and parenting of the child has to be done by the mother at the expense of her job and/or if the child has to be cared for and parented by the taxpayers through foster care and other social programs. The same rules would… Read more »
From the viewpoint of a feminist, your recommendation for council members is analagous to putting Sara Palin and Michele Bachman in charge of the Council on Women and Girls.
From the standpoint of those who are truly interested in equality and the welfare of boys and men, there is no benefit to having Council that would end up merely tearing boys and men down and promote misandristic ideologies and policies.
Women’s groups who feel entitled to exercise some kind of veto over which men participate are probably pretty much uselss in this process anyway. They probably have less than nothing to contribute, and the attitude the sense of ownership of gender discussions is part of the problem, not of the solution. The homosocial elelment is no concern of any woman or of any women’s group. It is not for women to decree what relationships men may have, or the nature of those relationships. Brotherhood is beautiful, and the lack of strong male realtionships and cultural impediments ot the full emotional… Read more »