This page is designated for all media/publications on The Myth of Male Power and/or Warren Farrell himself.


An extensive interview of Warren Farrell,

by J. Steven Svoboda


Click for an Interview with Warren Farrell, by Dr. John Macchietto

Biography of Dr. Warren Farrell From:

NCFC (National Congress for Fathers & Children)

The Purpose of this publication of this bio, is simply to provide correct and current information which NCFC could not provide.



Carlsbad, CA
(760) 753-5000
Member, Board of Directors
National Congress for Fathers & Children
Warren's Web Page: www.Warren
Warren's Email



Dr. Warren Farrell is the author of two award-winning international best-sellers, The Myth of Male Power plus Why Men Are The Way They Are. His first book, The Liberated Man, is still selling well after 20 years. Why Men Are The Way They Are is published in over 50 countries in 8 languages.

Dr. Farrell listens to both sexes. He is the only man in the U.S. to ever have been elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) in New York City; he has also served on the boards of 3 national men's organizations. He is the only person selected to speak at both Governor Wilson's Conference on Men and Governor Wilson's Conference on Women in 1995.

Over a period of twenty-five years, Warren has formed over 600 women's and men's groups and has worked with more than a quarter million men and women from all walks of life. The Chicago Tribune described Warren as "the Gloria Steinem of Men's Liberation."

Dr. Farrell has taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Diego, as well as at Georgetown University, Rutgers, Brooklyn College, American University, and the California School of Professional Psychology. He has taught in political science, psychology, sociology, sexual politics, and public administration.

In 1965, President Johnson chose Warren as one of the nation's outstanding young educators. Warren later served as assistant to the president of New York University and received NYU's highest honor for his Ph.D thesis on changing men's roles and behavior in response to women's roles.

Warren has appeared on Donahue, and repeatedly on the Oprah Winfrey ShowABC World News with Peter Jennings, the Today Show with Barbara Walters, 20/20, Crossfire, and Larry King Live.

Warren has been featured in People and on Real People; in Time and the New York Times; on the CBS Morning News and Good Morning America; on Geraldo and To Tell The Truth. He has written for publications ranging from Psychology Today to the World Book Encyclopedia; from Cosmopolitan to Ms.; from Glamour to journals of sociology and psychology.

Warren currently resides in Carlsbad, a seaside community in San Diego's North Country.

You may find the original source here:

Please visit:


The Myth of Male Power
Why Men Are The Disposable Sex
by Warren Farrell
(Simon & Schuster, 1993) 446 pages.

Found on:

"The weakness of men is the facade of strength;
the strength of women is the facade of weakness."

quoted pg 27 The Myth of Male Power.

"..shatters and rearranges our way of seeing the world that it gives us a kind of ideational vertigo, a dizzying new way of seeing what has always been before us but which we have not been taught to see....there are little bombshells on every page. Our view of men and women throughout history and in our current society will never be the same."
- Howard Halpern, PhD, Past President, American Academy of Psychotherapists.

"Impressive and important. A long overdue rejoinder to women's cry of 'victim' and 'backlash'."
- Nancy Friday, author of Women On Top.

Everyone's path in life is their unique own. Personally, when I went through major life changes in 1992, I found myself on the fringe of New Age ideology learning much of benefit to me, particularly at that point in time. With hindsight, I can see now that New Age ideology tends to look at people's qualities in terms of gender. I accepted this at the time, and it was an interesting conceptual model, but fatally flawed. What this did was reinforce harmful gender stereotyping.

After a year or so of New Age ideas, I had pretty much decided that I was very much attracted to 'feminine' energy, and put off by 'masculine' energy. I found I had more in common with women than men, I stopped watching the news sports reports because it was all men's sports. I even started being put off by characteristics developing in my four year old son! Something wasn't right. There was something I wasn't understanding about the difference between the genders and how these differences manifest themselves. To explain that here is not my aim; you'll have to get The Myth of Male Power for that. It was Warren Farrell's book that put my gender perspective into balance and helped me see gender issues in an enlightened way.

Warren Farrell's stated aim (or one of his aims) in writing his book is the achievement of intimacy between the genders, which comes by understanding. Much of human behaviour can be understood better if we recognise 'primal' traits in each of the genders. Put a bit simply, whether by nature or nurture, men tend to be 'protectors' and women tend to be 'nurturers'. Understanding this trait, which can be seen throughout the sub-human species, we can learn much about the human condition. Farrell is not affirming these primal roles, but claims they are appropriate under certain conditions. We do not live under those conditions today.

When this point is understood, we can look at the societies of our parents and grandparents in a different light. With a bit more understanding and less judgementalism. What modern or even past feminists may have called sexism or chauvinism may have been better described as chivalry or a desire to protect females, however misguided or unnecessary.

In page after page, chapter after chapter, Warren Farrell reveals mind-boggling facts that show that, contrary to the claims of the 'victim-feminists', women get preferential treatment in many areas of society, and that, as the title of the book indicates, men's power is a myth. Example: statistically, men make up far larger numbers of prison inmates. Is this because men are innately more criminal? Or is it because (1) women are considered less as suspects in crimes? or (2) women suspects do not usually receive the same degree of interrogation as male suspects? or (3) courts are far less likely to convict a defendant found guilty if that person's gender is female? or (4) a woman's prison sentence is likely to be significantly shorter than a male's for a comparable crime? or (5) when women have a male 'partner in crime', the male invariably takes the rap?

If men are the powerful sex, why do they make up 6 out of 7 suicides? Why do we accept that men, and men only, being sent in vast numbers to die in war? Why are 9 in 10 workplace deaths males? Why does breast cancer research receive over six times the funding that prostate cancer research does? Why do women live longer?

The book spends considerable energy showing how women have gained power by assuming a role of victim, hence the quote at the head of the page and on the homepage. Women can often get their way by adopting a role of learned-helplessness. My only criticism (for want of a less harsh word) of the book is that in it's attempt to show the multifarious ways in which men are victims, perhaps it's going a bit in the way of the way of victim feminists: the 'poor me' syndrome. I'm not suggesting Warren Farrell is perpetuating another victim mythology. It's more likely that in his attempt to be thorough, he sometimes gave more examples of men's misfortunes than were necessary. I sometimes found myself skimming through the examples after I'd read three or four under a given topic.

As an individual who fervently supports the concept of gender equality, I absolutely recommend this book as essential reading. It is the best of several books that I have read on the subject of gender equality, and has changed my whole outlook on a subject that has subtle ramifications throughout all aspects of society. The new understandings that one can gain from this book can certainly improve one's understanding of both genders. The book is well written in easy language, with extensive bibliography and index. Also recommended reading on this subject, Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers. Similar subject, but from a feminist's perspective.


Other books by Warren Farrell include: The Liberated Man (1974) and Why Men Are the Way They Are (1986).

Warren Farrell taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California, and also taught psychology, sociology, and political science at Georgetown, Rutgers and Brooklyn College. He has had a background with the National Organisation of Women and has been on the boards of three American men's organisations. He has formed more than 600 men's and women's groups.


From COPS (Coalition of Parent Support)

Dr. Warren Farrell is the author of many books, including two award-winning international best-sellers, Why Men Are The Way They Are plus The Myth of Male Power. His most recent books are Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, which was a selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and Father and Child Reunion about how fathers can be successful at both work and home. His latest book, just published this year, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It, helps both employers and employees understand what makes a company want to increase an employee’s pay. His books are published in over 50 countries, and in 10 languages.

Why Men Earn More
Father and Child Reunion
The Myth of Male Power
Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say
Why Men Are The Way They Are
The Liberated Man

Three Judicial Biases About Moms, Dads and Children
by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

I am in the process of planning a teleseminar that has evolved from a combination of my research for Father and Child Reunion and my expert witness work on custody issues.

When I do expert witness work, I confront three biases from most judges that I was also surprised to see proven invalid when I did the research for Father and Child Reunion. The first bias is the stability bias; the second is the mother bias; and the third is the 'If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work' bias. All of these biases apply to post-divorce parenting.

The Stability Bias.
Judges understandably reason that amid the instability of divorce, children are best stabilized by staying in the home they are accustomed to with the parent who has been the primary parent. I call this "geographical stability". The research shows that geographical stability does not create psychological stability. For children of divorce, geographical stability is "one parent stability"; this article explains why "one parent stability" is psychologically destabilizing. For example...

Studies show that after divorce the children who do best psychologically have about an equal amount of exposure to both mom and dad--especially if both parents live near each other, and there is no bad-mouthing. The psychological stability of two-parents equally involved leads to the children also doing better academically and socially, and being healthier physically.

Why does two parent stability trump geographical stability? No one can be 100% sure, but a blend of research and observation offer clues. Three quick assertions in quasi-headline form...

First, the job of a child growing up is to discover who it is. Who is it? It is half mom and half dad. It is not the better parent. It is both parents. Warts and all. So we are not talking here about fathers' rights, mothers' rights or even the child's right to both parents. We are talking about a new paradigm: the child's right to both halves of itself.

Second, children with minimal exposure to one parent seem to feel abandoned, often psychologically rudderless.

Third, dads and moms, like Republicans and Democrats, provide checks and balances. Moms tend to overstress protection; dads may overstress risk-taking. There has to be a balance of power for the child to absorb a balance of both parents' values. One parent dominating tends to leave the child with a stereotyped and biased perspective of the values of the minority parent, and ultimately a lack of appreciation for that part of itself.

The Mother Bias.
Most judges do believe children do best with both parents, but if they must live with one, mom is given the edge. In fact, the new research I report in Father and Child Reunion very clearly shows that children brought up by dad are more likely to do better psychologically, physically, academically and socially than those brought up by mom.

I will explain in the teleseminar not only some of the twenty-five measures that create this counterintuitive conclusion, but also what dads do unconsciously that so often works to the benefit of the child. At the same time, I will also explain why it would be erroneous to conclude that men make better dads than women do moms (e.g., dads usually have more income).

The "If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work" Bias.
Conflict-- especially bad-mouthing-- hurts all parenting arrangements. The more the conflict, though, the more important it is for the child to see both parents about equally, because conflict leaves the child vulnerable to feeling that the parent it does not see has abandoned it-- does not love her or him. The less the child sees a parent the easier it is to form a negative and caricatured stereotype of the unseen parent. This leads to the child feeling negative about that half of her or himself.

Finally, a system that says, "If the couple can't get along in court how are they going to get along enough to share the children?" creates an incentive for the mom to initiate conflict. Why the mom? The Mom Bias teaches mom that if she can erase the joint custody option, she is more likely than dad to be given custody of the children. This awareness creates an incentive for a mom who wants full custody to not co-operate with the dad.

The three biases in combination lead to many options after divorce not being considered. The teleseminar and Father and Child Reunion explore some of those options.

My experience thus far is that virtually all judges are focused on doing what is best for the children, as are most moms and dads; that the above responses to these biases address the issues that prevent judges from giving more priority to securing both parents' equal involvement; that once judges know this, their rulings are much more likely to incorporate this prioritization.

For more information on the teleseminar, email Eric Hornak

Bio of Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Dr. Warren Farrell began his research on gender issues in the ‘60s. His first book, The Liberated Man, was published in 1974. It was from the women’s perspective and the feminist perspective. By the ‘80s, he began noticing that men were feeling misrepresented, and his award-winning national best-seller, Why Men Are The Way They Are, was written to answer women’s questions about men in a way that rings true for men. The New York Post calls it "the most important book ever written about love, sex, and intimacy."

By the ‘90s, Dr. Farrell felt the misunderstandings about men had deepened and become dangerous to the survival of families and love. He confronted the misunderstandings head-on with the award-winning The Myth of Male Power, a book the The Library Journal ranked as “better than Robert Bly’s Iron John or any of Betty Freidan’s works.” (His books are published in over 50 countries in 13 languages.)

By the turn of the century Dr. Farrell wanted to provide the sexes with the tools to communicate-- in particular to hear personal criticism from a loved one, especially when given badly. That was the take-off point for Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, a selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club. By 2001 Dr. Farrell completed research he had been working on for 13 years on the conditions under which children of divorce are most likely to be raised successfully. That book, Father and Child Reunion, has renewed the commitment of many dads to be with their children, and its research has helped judges understand the importance of dads.

Warren’s most recent book is Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It. It documents why the pay gap is not about discrimination but about 25 differences between men and women’s work-life decisions.

Warren has appeared on over 1000 TV and radio shows, and been interviewed frequently by Oprah and Barbara, and by Larry King and the late Peter Jennings. He has been featured repeatedly on 20/20 and in The New York Times, in People and Parade, on CBS Sunday Morning and NBC Nightly News, in Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, and on the Today Show, the Tomorrow Show, and even To Tell The Truth. He's never appeared on Desperate Housewives.

Warren Farrell’s understanding of both sexes is symbolized by his being, on the one hand, on the boards of four national men’s organizations, and on the other hand, being the only man in the US to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Similarly, he has started over 600 men's and women's groups, and over 200,000 women and men have attended his workshops worldwide. He is the only person chosen to speak at both of former California Governor Wilson’s 1995 conferences – his Conference on Men and his Conference on Women.

President Johnson chose Dr. Warren Farrell as one of the outstanding young educators in the United States. (The man's been around for awhile!) He has taught political science, psychology, women’s studies and sociology, and most recently taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego. Dr. Farrell has been chosen by the International Biographic Centre of London as one of the World’s 2000 Outstanding Scholars of the 20th Century and, in quite a different take, chosen by The Financial Times as one of the worlds top 100 Thought Leaders.

MenStuff Column

March 2005

How I Began the Discovery thatMen Earn Less than Women for the Same Work

I promised that in April I would answer the question, “If male bosses are to blame for discrimination, why are women who own their own businesses earning only 49% of their male counterparts—that is, why are women netting less when they are their own bosses than when they have male bosses?”

As I explored businesses owned by women versus men, I discovered that nowhere is the male-female difference in priorities clearer than in the difference between these businesses. I discovered how running one’s own business tended either to follow what I came to call “the high-pay formula” in exchange for lifestyle trade-offs, or follow “the low-pay formula” in exchange for lifestyle payoffs.

I began to scout around. I discovered that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found as long ago as the early 1980s that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles were the same, their responsibilities the same, and their responsibilities were of equal size—for example, both regional buyers for Nordstrom’s, not one a local and one a regional buyer. But although this was published in the official publication of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I had never read of the study in a single paper or heard of it in the media.

To my surprise (in those years of my innocence), once gender equality was found, the gender comparison was not only ignored but never updated.

At the same time, a longitudinal survey found that when women and men started at the same time as engineers; worked in the same work settings; with equal professional experience, training, family status, and absences; the female engineers received the same pay. It too was neither publicized nor updated. I began to see that we study what gets funded, and what gets funded depends a lot on what’s likely to be found.

“Is it possible,” I asked, “that men and women have different work goals and treat work differently?” If so, would pinpointing these differences be more helpful to women than assuming male bosses didn’t value them?

As I freed my mind to consider alternative perspectives, I vaguely recalled a statistic in Jessie Bernard’s The Future of Marriage, one of the favorite books among the early feminists. I had half-registered this statistic at the time, but probably discarded it from full consideration because it created too much cognitive dissonance with my assumptions of discrimination against women. I pulled it off the shelf for a second read.

Yes, there it was, in an appendix: Census Bureau figures show that even during the 1950s, (which Alex studies in ancient history class!) there was less than a 2% pay gap between never married women and men, and never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106% of what their never-married white male counterparts made.

I thought about these findings in relation to affirmative action. Obviously, this was prior to affirmative action. In fact, this pay equality had occurred even prior to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. And prior to the current feminist movement.

I was sure this example, though, was an aberration. I began checking. Of course, almost all studies showed men earned more, but as soon as I checked on unmarried women who had worked every year since leaving school, I found that they too earned slightly more than their male counterparts—and that was as far back as 1966. And in 1969, even as I was claiming discrimination against female professors while doing my doctorate at NYU, nationwide, female professors who had never been married and never published earned 145% of their counterpart male colleagues. This is not a typo: The women earned 45% more than the men.

A feminist colleague objected with a half-smile, “Never-married women are winners; never-married men are losers.” She clarified, “I mean never-married men are not as educated, are less likely to work hard. That’s why women don’t marry them. Never-married women can take care of themselves, so they don’t get married.”

I checked. Sure enough, never-married women were more educated. So, I decided to check out the latest data among educated men and women who worked full-time. The results? The men earn only 85% of what the women earn; or put another way, the women earn 117% of what the men earn.

If all these findings had a common theme, it was, “It’s marriage and children, stupid!” Well, with each chapter of Why Men Earn More, we’ll see more about how our paycheck is influenced by our family role, and how we can use this information to tailor our family’s need for our income versus our time.

When I shared these findings with some of my colleagues, the response (aside from having fewer colleagues!) from a couple of them was, “Not so fast... it’s really the part-time women who are subject to discrimination.” Maybe. So I checked that out, too.

To get 2004 data on part-time workers required obtaining unpublished Census Bureau data. I was surprised at what it revealed: a part-time working woman makes $1.10 for every dollar made by her male counterpart. (Men and women who work part-time both average 20 hours a week.)

Now that we have a sense that the world is not about discriminating against women to benefit men, I will give us in our May column something we can all use to help our daughters, mothers, wives or female partners earn more: my “11 top tips on How Women Can Earn More,” as culled from Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap-- and What Women Can Do About It.

The Author
The Book
Warren's Other Books
Contact Warren