Tony Porter: A Call to Men

Traitorfish

The Tighnahulish Kid
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
33,053
Location
Scotland
Tony Porter gives an insightful speech on the harmful nature of traditional masculinity.


Link to video.

Spoiler :
I grew up in New York City, between Harlem and the Bronx. Growing up as a boy, we was taught that men had to be tough, had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating, no pain, no emotions, with the exception of anger, and definitely no fear. That men are in charge, which means women are not. That men lead, and you should just follow and just do what we say. That men are superior; women are inferior. That men are strong; women are weak. That women are of less value. Property of men. And objects, particularly sexual objects.

I've later come to know that to be the collective socialization of men, better known as The Man Box. [shows graphic of box containing classic masculinity tropes] See, this Man Box has in it all the ingredients of how we define what it means to be a man. Now, I also want to say, without a doubt, there are some wonderful, wonderful, absolutely wonderful things about being a man—while at the same time there's some stuff that's just straight-up twisted. [laughter] And we really need to begin to challenge, look at, and really get in the process of deconstructing, redefining, what we come to know as manhood.

This is my two at home—Kendall and Jade. [shows picture of two children, a girl and a boy] They're 11 and 12; Kendall's 15 months older than Jade, and there was a period of time, you know, when my wife, her name is Tammy, and I, we just got real busy, and whip bim bam boom, Kendall and Jade. [laughter] And when they were about 5 and 6, 4 and 5, you know, Jade could come to me, it didn't matter, come to me crying, you know, it didn't matter what she was crying about, she can get on my knee, she could snot my sleeve up, just cry, cry it out, Daddy got you, that's all that's important.

Now, Kendall, on the other hand, and, like I said, he's only 15 months older than her, he come to me crying, it's like, soon as I would hear him cry, a clock would go off, you know; I would give the boy probably about 30 seconds. Which means by the time he got to me, I was already saying things like, "Why you crying? Hold your head up. Look at me. Explain to me what's wrong. Tell me what's wrong! I can't understand you while you crying!" And out of my own frustration, of my role and responsibility of building him up as a man, to fit into these guidelines and these structures that are defined in this Man Box, I would find myself saying things like, "Just go in your room! Just go on—go on in your room! Sit down, get yourself together, and come back and talk to me when you can talk to me like a"…what? [audience: "Like a man."] Like a man. And he's five. years. old.

And, you know, as I grow in life, I would say to myself, "My god. What's wrong with me? What am I doing? Why would I do this?" And I think back, I think back to my father. [shows picture of his family] There was a time in my life when we had a very troubled experience in our family. My brother Henry, he died tragically when we was teenagers.

We lived in New York City, as I said—we lived in the Bronx, at the time—and the burial was a place called Long Island—it was about two hours outside of the city—and as we were preparing to come back from the burial, you know, the cars stopped at the bathroom, you know, let folks take care of themselves, for the long ride back to the city, and the limousine empties out—my mother, my sisters, my aunties, they all get out, but my father and I stayed in the limousine. And no sooner than the women got out, he burst out crying. He didn't want to cry in front of me, but he knew he wasn't going to make it back to the city, and it was better me than allow himself to express these feelings and emotions in front of the women. And this is a man who, 10 minutes ago, had just put his teenage son in the ground—something I just can't even, I just can't even imagine.

The thing that sticks with me the most is that he was apologizing to me for crying in front of me. And at the same time, he was also giving me props, lifting me up, for not crying.

You know, I come to also look at this as this, this fear that we have as men, this fear that just have us paralyzed, holding us hostage to this Man Box.

I can remember speaking to a 12-year-old boy, a football player, and I asked him, I said, "How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you, you were playing like a girl?" Now, I expected him to say something like, "I'd be sad; I'd be mad; I'd be angry," something like that. No, the boy said to me, the boy said to me, "It would destroy me."

And I said to myself, "God, if it would destroy him to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?" [applause]

It took me back to a time when I was about 12 years old—I grew up in tenement buildings, you know, in the inner city, and at this time, we're living in the Bronx—and in the building next to where I lived, there was a guy named Johnny. He was about 16 years old, and we were all about 12 years old, younger guys, and he was hanging out with all us younger guys, and this guy, he was up to a lot of no good; he was the kind of kid parents have to wonder, "What is this 16 year old boy doing with these 12 year old boys?" And he did spend a lot of time up to no good; he was a troubled kid, you know, his mother had died from a heroin overdose, he was being raised by his grandmother, his father wasn't on the set, his grandmother had two jobs, he was home alone a lot.

Well, I gotta tell you, we young guys, we looked up to this dude, man. He was cool. He was fine—that's what the sisters said; he was fine, right? He was having sex. You know, we all looked up to him.

So one day, I'm out in front of the house doing something, just playing around, doing something, I don't know what. He looks out his window, and he calls me upstairs. He said, "Hey Ant—" (they called me Anthony growing up as a kid) "—hey Anthony, come on upstairs." Johnny call; you go. So I run right upstairs. As he opens the door, he says to me, "Do you want some?" Now I immediately knew what he meant, because for me, growing up at that time, and our relationship with this Man Box, "Do you want some?" meant one of two things: Sex or drugs. And we weren't doing drugs.

Now my box, my card, my Man Box Card was immediately in jeopardy. Two things: One, I never had sex. We don't talk about that, as men; you only tell your dearest, closest friends, sworn to secrecy for life the first time you had sex. For everybody else, we go around like we been having sex since we was two. There ain't no first time. [laughter] The other thing I couldn't tell him is that I didn't want any. You know, that's even worse. We supposed to be always on the prowl; women are objects, especially sexual objects.

So anyway, I couldn't tell him any of that, so, like my mother would say, to make a long story short, I just simply said to Johnny, "Yes." He told me to go in his room. I go in his room; on his bed is a girl from the neighborhood named Sheila. She's 16 years old. She's nude. She is what I know today to be mentally ill, higher functioning at times; at others, we had a whole choice—words, you know, inappropriate names for her… [he drifts off; he looks pained]

Anyway, Johnny had just gotten through having sex with her—well, he actually raped her, but he said he had sex with her, because while Sheila never said "no," she also never said "yes."

So he was offering me the opportunity to do the same, so when I go in the room, I close the door—folks, I'm petrified. I stand with the back to the door, so Johnny can't bust in the room and see that I'm not doing anything, and I stand there long enough that I could have actually done something. So now I'm no longer trying to figure out what I'm gonna do; I'm trying to figure out how I'm gonna get out of this room.

So in my 12 years of wisdom, I zip my pants down, I walk out into the living room, and, lo and behold, while I was in the room with Sheila, Johnny was back at the window calling guys up. So now there's a living room full of guys, like, you know, like the waiting room at the doctor's office. And they ask me, "How was it?" And I said to them it was good. And I zip my pants up in front of them, and I head for the door.

Now, I say this all with remorse, and I was feeling a tremendous amount of remorse at that time, but I was conflicted, because, while I was feeling remorse, I was excited, because I didn't get caught, but I knew I felt bad about what was happening. This fear of getting outside the Man Box totally enveloped me. It was way more important to me, about me and my Man Box Card, than about Sheila, and what was happening to her.

See, collectively, we as men are taught to have less value in women, to view them as property and the objects of men. We see that as an equation that equals violence against women.

[shows a graphic reading: "The Collective Socialization of Men: Less Value + Property + Objectification = Violence Against Women."]

We as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this, this whole collective socialization. We kind of see ourselves as separate, but we're very much a part of it. You see, we have to come to understand that less value, property, and objectification is the foundation, and the violence can't happen without it. So we're very much a part of the solution, as well as the problem. The Centers for Disease Control says that men's violence against women is at epidemic proportions—it is the number one health concern for women in this country and abroad.

So quickly, I'd just like to say, you know, this is the love of my life [shows picture of daughter]—my daughter, Jade. The world I envision for her, how do I want men to be acting and behaving—I need you on board. I need you with me. I need you working with me and me working with you on how we raise our sons and teach them to be men. That it's okay to not be dominating. That it's okay to have feelings and emotions. That it's okay to promote equality. That it's okay to have women that are just friends and that's it. That it's okay to be whole.

That my liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman. [applause]

I remember asking a 9-year-old boy—I asked a 9-year-old boy, "What would life be like for you if you didn't have to adhere to this Man Box?" He said to me, "I would be free."

Thank you, folks. [cheers and applause]

Highlight: "My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman."

Reactions?
 
I don't really care for arguments about what men "should be." Sexual selection mandates that men WILL BE whatever women want. Not what they say they want - what they actually want.

Women, by selecting mates, hold the power to define masculinity.

These airheads applauding as Tony demonizes masculinity by saying we need to break free of "the Man Box" must suffer from an incredible lack of self-knowledge.

Every one of those women should sneak a glance at their SO/BF/husband and ask themselves - does he fit the Man Box or is he "liberated" from it?

NEWS FLASH, women don't want a man who is too open with his emotions, "shows weakness or fear," lacks aggression and dominance, is not "a protector," "acts like a woman," is not heterosexual (:lol:), "acts like gay men," is not mentally or physically strong, is not courageous, and cannot make decisions.

Feminism is valid when it seeks to return women to their role as sexual free agents and mate selectors, as opposed to victims of culturally male-imposed sexual arrangements (encompassing everything from prostitution to arranged marriages).

But this new wave of feminism that says men must change their essential nature to what women say they want is not only insulting, it is doomed to failure because women throughout evolutionary history have disdained to boink those men. This new wave of feminism is poisonous because it breeds men that women will RIGHTLY reject as unmanly. Those men then turn to perversions of masculinity like abuse, porn, and prostitution.

Like I said there is no "should" or "ought" with regard to men's natures, there is only "is." Men are genetically sculpted by women's sexual selection. If any woman has a problem with the essential nature of men she should look in the mirror.

Finally, I also found it really offensive that he took his experience growing up in a Black ghetto and generalized it to all men. Hey Tony, just because your culture is dysfunctional in too many ways to count doesn't mean I get phone calls from my friends asking if I want sloppy seconds on a hooker. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Reactions?
Merely another kind of slavery. The reason men act the way they do (i.e. tough brutish jerks) is because it gets them laid.

The only way to make a characteristic dominant in a species is to breed it into the species; it must have survival value and produce offspring, or the characteristic will disappear. In order to get guys to be nice guys, women have to give sex to nice guys. Nothing else will work.
.....girls like it when you tell them they're pretty, but they also like it when you're kind of a dick to them, so, you know, mix it up a little.....
-- Tucker from Red vs. Blue
 
Men have been coerced and enslaved into this tragedy called masculinity by women
 
That's another example of Western liberastic propaganda, a weapon designed to fatally weaken Russia. CIA and MI6 want our men to be weak sissies, so that they won't be able to defend our Motherland, when the inevitable invasion from the West comes, they propagate homosexuality in Russia to worsen our demographic situation - it's a part of the global corporate plan to genocide Russian people, like the West already did with many cultures - Amerindian, Old Prussian... Genocide is nothing new to the West. :gripe:
 
On-topic, many qualities that are "not good" in men - indecisiveness, weak will - aren't good in anyone. Traditional masculinity package has some stupid stuff, but it also includes many admirable qualities. Few women like brutish jerkasses, but few like effeminate men, either.

People should have Good Qualities, and shouldn't have Bad Qualities.
 
Who the hell is Tony Porter?

Anyway, men shouldn't be bound to traditional masculinity any more than women should be expected to act like traditional ladies. This doesn't mean men should go to an extreme and become totally feminine.

I used to be bothered by certain things that I felt would make me look less masculine, like I wouldn't admit to watching certain TV shows because they're not shows a man would normally watch. Now I just don't care. I'll do what I want to do and if anyone thinks a man shouldn't do that, *** them, I don't care what they think. That's how I think it should be for everyone. It doesn't mean men have to give up everything about masculinity, just choose what you want.

If you're worried a woman won't like you for not being masculine enough, there are lots of women out there. You can find one that will accept you.
 
They probably figure you know where breakfast is served when she gets home.

:lol: :clap:

In order to get guys to be nice guys, women have to give sex to nice guys. Nothing else will work.

Even that will not work, because of Fisherian runaway.

In a species where most females are attracted to X, it actually makes evolutionary sense for a female to be attracted to X even if X does not actually connote increased survival or caregiving ability. That's because, by screwing a male with X, the female will pop out babies, and the male babies will also have X thus increasing their own chance to mate. So basically, the female ensures she will gets lots of grandchildren simply by choosing a mate that other females find attractive.

No amount of stupid lectures can alter men's behavior, or more to the point women's behavior, to overcome evolution.

Why do you think some guys don't just "get the girl," they get ANY girl. Or why once you're dating someone, you get a lot more interest from other people.

This runaway effect is why there are lots of secondary sexual characteristics that are only tangentially related to fitness, like a peacock's tail. Sure, bright colors and plentiful feathers connote a strong health, but the massive tail display developed by Fisherian runaway.
 
I don't really care for arguments about what men "should be." Sexual selection mandates that men WILL BE whatever women want. Not what they say they want - what they actually want.

Women, by selecting mates, hold the power to define masculinity.

These airheads applauding as Tony demonizes masculinity by saying we need to break free of "the Man Box" must suffer from an incredible lack of self-knowledge.

Every one of those women should sneak a glance at their SO/BF/husband and ask themselves - does he fit the Man Box or is he "liberated" from it?

NEWS FLASH, women don't want a man who is too open with his emotions, "shows weakness or fear," lacks aggression and dominance, is not "a protector," "acts like a woman," is not heterosexual (:lol:), "acts like gay men," is not mentally or physically strong, is not courageous, and cannot make decisions.

Feminism is valid when it seeks to return women to their role as sexual free agents and mate selectors, as opposed to victims of culturally male-imposed sexual arrangements (encompassing everything from prostitution to arranged marriages).

But this new wave of feminism that says men must change their essential nature to what women say they want is not only insulting, it is doomed to failure because women throughout evolutionary history have disdained to boink those men. This new wave of feminism is poisonous because it breeds men that women will RIGHTLY reject as unmanly. Those men then turn to perversions of masculinity like abuse, porn, and prostitution.

Like I said there is no "should" or "ought" with regard to men's natures, there is only "is." Men are genetically sculpted by women's sexual selection. If any woman has a problem with the essential nature of men she should look in the mirror.

It's nice to account for the biological principles behind our behaviours, but it's not very good to ignore the influence of thousands of years societal expectations (especially when it's men ruling most of said societies and thus shaping the norms) or the fact that not all behaviour is genetics alone.
 
I used to be bothered by certain things that I felt would make me look less masculine, like I wouldn't admit to watching certain TV shows because they're not shows a man would normally watch. Now I just don't care. I'll do what I want to do and if anyone thinks a man shouldn't do that, *** them, I don't care what they think. That's how I think it should be for everyone. It doesn't mean men have to give up everything about masculinity, just choose what you want.

... Except you're missing the point, because this attitude is way more masculine than worrying about whether or not people care if you watch True Blood. Masculinity isn't about being a meathead douchebag who never does anything women do; it's about being a leader and not caring about the approval of others. What the guy in the OP is attacking is feminized masculinity, but he draws the wrong conclusion: he rejects the masculinity, rather than the feminization.
 
It's nice to account for the biological principles behind our behaviours, but it's not very good to ignore the influence of thousands of years societal expectations (especially when it's men ruling most of said societies and thus shaping the norms) or the fact that not all behaviour is genetics alone.

Thousands of years is nothing. Humans speciated more than 4 million years ago. Socially imposed norms can't undo genetics, and much of sexual behavior is genetic.

Feminists would sure like to argue that traditional masculinity is just an arbitrary cultural norm and that men can be socially engineered to be whatever feminists want them to be, but they're wrong on all counts.
 
BTW a commenter on the video made what I think is the best point ever: He blames Black fathers for raising their sons to be macho thugs, well, a real man would have stopped that girl from being raped.
 
Uh huh. You got any actually...scientific findings to back this up, other than your pontificating?
 
He's attacking a grotesque distortion of what traditional masculinity is; a strawman.
Care to elaborate at all?

Also, no, it is not a "strawman". What you claim is that his perception of traditional masculinity is distorted, while "strawman" refers to the construction of a false opponent who is easy to argue against.

Merely another kind of slavery. The reason men act the way they do (i.e. tough brutish jerks) is because it gets them laid.

The only way to make a characteristic dominant in a species is to breed it into the species; it must have survival value and produce offspring, or the characteristic will disappear. In order to get guys to be nice guys, women have to give sex to nice guys. Nothing else will work.
You really believe that behaviour is something which is so easily attributed to genetics? Why, then, do people behave so differently across different cultures? Are the Germans genetically predisposed to orderliness, the Americans to boisterousness, the Japanese to industriousness? Or do we simply assume that Western culture has somehow distilled innate qualities of each biological sex down to perfect, undistorted absolutes? :huh:

Men have been coerced and enslaved into this tragedy called masculinity by women
Perhaps you could elaborate?

... Except you're missing the point, because this attitude is way more masculine than worrying about whether or not people care if you watch True Blood. Masculinity isn't about being a meathead douchebag who never does anything women do; it's about being a leader and not caring about the approval of others. What the guy in the OP is attacking is feminized masculinity, but he draws the wrong conclusion: he rejects the masculinity, rather than the feminization.
What is "feminised" masculinity, exactly? :huh:

BTW a commenter on the video made what I think is the best point ever: He blames Black fathers for raising their sons to be macho thugs, well, a real man would have stopped that girl from being raped.
"Real men" now? They wouldn't be Scottish, would they? :rolleyes:

Also, I note the apparently rather common assumption that "men" are, if not entirely heterosexual, then defined by heterosexuality, and, apparently, a very traditional heterosexuality in which women (who are also defined by heterosexuality) are all mindless zombies who fall head-over-heels for the biggest jerk in the room. So, sexism and heterosexism, all in one big bundle.

Stay classy, guys.
 
Uh huh. You got any actually...scientific findings to back this up, other than your pontificating?

M.A. Bio in the works, how bout you?

"Real men" now? They wouldn't be Scottish, would they?

A man who was masculine as traditionally defined would have stopped that rape not walked out and pretended it was awesome.

You really believe that behaviour is something which is so easily attributed to genetics? Why, then, do people behave so differently across different cultures? Are the Germans genetically predisposed to orderliness, the Americans to boisterousness, the Japanese to industriousness? Or do we simply assume that Western culture has somehow distilled innate qualities of each biological sex down to perfect, undistorted absolutes?

Sexual behavior has various components: autonomous, unconscious and conscious.

I'll make the comparison to eating. Chewing is conscious behavior. Swallowing is partly an unconscious reflex. Digestion is autonomous.

At each of these levels, behavior is genetically determined to some degree, although far more so at the autonomous level. So it depends what level of sexual attraction and sexual behavior you want to discuss. But things like attractive-face studies have shown considerable uniformity across cultures about what is sexually attractive.

Sure, cultures reconstruct the sexual relation - creating everything from child marriages to foot binding to wet t shirt contests. But this reconstruction of conscious behavior doesn't really dig down and undo the genetically mandated unconscious makeup of sexual attraction.

Also, I note the apparently rather common assumption that "men" are, if not entirely heterosexual, then defined by heterosexuality, and, apparently, a very traditional heterosexuality in which women (who are also defined by heterosexuality) are all mindless zombies who fall head-over-heels for the biggest jerk in the room. So, sexism and heterosexism, all in one big bundle.

Traditional masculinity doesn't mean being a jerk, nor does it mean treating women as mindless playthings or being disrespectful to them. You are falling into the same trap as Tony, conflating macho ghetto thuggery with what it really means to be a man.

Just because women appreciate decisiveness, protectiveness, aggression, honor and courage in their men does not mean those men have to be domineering, controlling, condescending, jealous, macho, bullying jerks.






Now let's turn to the other point you try to make.

Are men defined by heterosexuality? um, yes? duh? Sexual dimorphism is all about signalling "hey! I'm the opposite sex! do me!" Men and women are sexually dimorphic in their appearance and behavior to increase reproductive fitness.

WRT straight men, fitness is absolutely associated with appearing masculine: that is, heterosexual and interested in having sex.

You seem to have this thing where if you pretend a concept is offensive that will keep it from being true. Sorry but masculinity is definitively heterosexual.
 
Thousands of years is nothing. Humans speciated more than 4 million years ago. Socially imposed norms can't undo genetics, and much of sexual behavior is genetic.
Cultural behaviour can be more powerful than innate behaviour. I doubt nature could alter human sex ratios to the extent caused by infant...selection would be a polite term for it.


M.A. Bio in the works, how bout you?

He meant peer-reviewed research articles.
 
Back
Top Bottom