I recently read an older piece on Salon titled “Save the Males” about the work of Warren Farrell, a former radical feminist who gave up a very lucrative career in feminism when he began to advocate men’s rights as well. According to the article, he drove a Maserati, had a “gorgeous” home in the country and was a NOW endorsed celebrity who wrote articles for the NY Times and made frequent appearances on Donahue while promoting the feminist movement. As soon as Farrell began to show the slightest hint that men deserved a measure of choice and consideration as well, he was cut off from the feminist money train.
Farrell is still a prolific and successful author, but his tumble from the top of the hill demonstrates that financial momentum favoring women’s issues has built up over the last several decades. When it comes to support for men’s rights, there is little money available, which mirrors the situation the common man finds himself in today. Explaining how exactly this happened would take a lot of work, but there are a few indications that it isn’t an entirely natural circumstance; that is, it is not due to lack of interest. I think what happened is that as men, starting with industrialization, were increasingly shoved into a social role that portrayed them only as producers of goods and profit, all other roles, including that of consumer, started to fall away. And finally today we find ourselves legislated into virtual slavery.
Farrell covers this in his books, calling men “success objects” who are valued only for their ability to make money. However, we find that although men in general work and produce more than women, they are not nearly as well represented as consumers, and the pay gap is not as large as it might be considering GDP, especially if productive work is given more weight than service.
Throughout most of history, the productive members of society have been subjugated by an elite class. Farmers were taxed and ruled in feudal times, and slaves were not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor in either the classical world or Antebellum America. During the Age of Industry, workers received a pittance for their strenuous labor while Capitalists raked in enormous profits. So there is plenty of precedent for the situation common American men find themselves in today. In fact, I would argue that it is the norm for the more productive members of society to eventually find themselves economically and politically marginalized. The very fact that they are obliged to produce often denies them the opportunity to follow other pursuits. And when this obligation is enforced by law, as it is for fathers today, any role other than productive unit is a potential crime. This is the definition of slavery, and this, my friends, is where we are right now.
So for those who wonder why advertising and media treat men as if they don’t exist, the answer is quite clear: economically speaking we are marginal actors, and there is no real reason to cultivate us as consumers. When married our wives spend the money, and when divorced our ex-wives spend the money. This isn’t the case for all men, but there are enough men in this situation to render the man in general an unimportant demographic.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Justin // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm
On the more positive, could it also be that men are less susceptible to advertising manipulation? Because we are more independent, and thus make less profitable targets for advertising budgets?
2 Welmer // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I’d like to think so, Justin, but these numbers speak for themselves:
Marketing to Women
I’m currently working on a marketing project for a local gardening business and there is absolutely no question that women are the primary target market. This despite the fact that plenty of men garden as well.
3 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Justin and Welmer, I think both of you guys are right. There’s the company called Asus. They make various computer parts, motherboards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. I build my own computers and my computer is filled with Asus parts because they are targeted to guys like me who want maximum engineering (reliability and performance).
It’s pretty safe to say that Asus’s customers are nearly all male. Asus spends so little on marketing that they might as well not be spending anything on marketing. Instead Asus spends that money on engineering their products and relies on reputation to make sales.
What Asus proves is that advertising is all about getting women to buy crap. When men are your main customers, advertising tends to be minimal at best.
4 whiskey // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:47 am
This is not true Welmer, I’ll have a post up on this soon.
For example, Cook’s Illustrated was 17% male readership 10 years ago, now it’s 50%! Food Network has made similar gains. Easily 50% of the shoppers in the supermarkets are men. Men by themselves I might add. Here in SoCal.
There is a lag. Consumer advertising and spending depends almost entirely on women, and that’s a thin reed, particularly given declining marriage rates, delayed marriage, and divorce.
Men, even if they are divorced, maintain their own households and form a significant portion of consumer spending. As marriage collapses, this only becomes more intense.
There’s lots of competition for women in the advertising world, but year-in-out, the only things that make money are sports, male-oriented TV channels (Discovery, History, Nat Geo) and big budget action-adventure movies. Which often also appeal to women, and young/old (aka “four quadrant”).
Disney, for example, is trying to appeal to boys, because their tween girl market is tapped out with the declining economy. The “New Girl Order” depended on an expanding economy, without baseline production of industrial goods and commodities, all that service stuff is just foam on the sea ready to blow away (as it did in Japan’s “Lost Decade.”)
Of course Disney is employing “the Kid Whisperer” … a clueless woman with La Raza ties who has no idea what boys like. Doomed to failure.
Culture is poised to undergo a massive shift, ala the Thirties with Radio, as the Internet allows content creators to provide streaming content, 24/7, aimed at a broad audience with “four quadrants” without extensive capital requirements for distribution on TV networks or movie studio rollouts for theatrical exhibition. The first movers can gain huge advantages in mindshare and preferences. Already MLB and the NFL are streaming games online for relatively modest payments, allowing people to watch what they want on their computers.
In tough times, corporations cannot afford to write off men as they did in flush times. You’re seeing this already in the Burger King online ad, with the unsubtle suggestion of sex. Every single consumer counts, it’s the difference between success and failure in a down economy for perhaps more than a decade, and no rescue from IPO’s, Venture Capitalists, Hedge Funds, Wall Street, or any other sources of capital other than earnings based on sales.
5 MarkyMark // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Guys,
There are already sites that let you watch sporting events online, and you can do so for free. In fact, I regularly use one for watching NASCAR, F1, etc. Check out Channel Surfing.net, and you’ll see. I much prefer this to regular TV…
MarkyMark
Leave a Comment