Tony Porter: A Call to Men

[Tacitusitis]

Also, yeah, the "porn" bit threw me off too. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest it was an ill-chosen shorthand for a cultural of sexual objectification, which at least makes a bit more sense in context.

I am going to go ahead and not give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the porn bit is of a piece with the rest of his presentation. "Pictures of nude women = rape" is kind of a thread in Dworkin-MacKinnon feminism.

Tony has bought into their agenda of collective guilt for men (men are "collectively responsible" for all abuse, men must "acknowledge their privilege"). Contrition and repentance are what the feminists require from us, for crimes we haven't committed.

Or as I would say if we were having a less classy discussion, this schmuck is whiiiiiiiipped.

man-hating straw feminist

Yes because there are no man-hating feminists, except for those man-hating feminists I mentioned.

Catharine MacKinnon
Andrea Dworkin
Mary Daly
bell hooks (who I actually saw at a lecture - she was insufferable, she tried to argue that Western medicine was a "point of view")

kind of the leaders of modern feminism

 

[Ayatollah So]

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

While you were sleeping, there's been a revolution. Almost no one wants to maximize his or her number of grandchildren any more. (The way to do that would be to crank out as many babies as possible and keep them desperately poor - not a very popular strategy.)

The workers (intelligent organisms) have seized control of the means of production (sex). Memes rule; genes drool. We have things like condoms now, for instance. Viva La Revolución!

 

[Tacitusitis]

While you were sleeping, there's been a revolution. Almost no one wants to maximize his or her number of grandchildren any more. (The way to do that would be to crank out as many babies as possible and keep them desperately poor - not a very popular strategy.)

Wrong. Humans are not insects. Like most mammals we are K-strategists. Parental investment in fewer offspring results in more reproductive success.

As child mortality goes down and the level of socialization and parental investment needed to produce a reproductively successful child goes up, it makes sense that parents would invest in fewer, more successful children. In other words parents are still seeking to maximize reproductive success.

We have things like condoms now, for instance. Viva La Revolución!

As if men and women did not seek to control reproduction before 1910. You do realize abortion is as old as civilization right?

 

[civ_king]

While you were sleeping, there's been a revolution. Almost no one wants to maximize his or her number of grandchildren any more. (The way to do that would be to crank out as many babies as possible and keep them desperately poor - not a very popular strategy.)

The workers (intelligent organisms) have seized control of the means of production (sex). Memes rule; genes drool. We have things like condoms now, for instance. Viva La Revolución!

I'm planning to get rich and have as many kids as future wife would allow, ideally making at least $25,000/person in the family

 

[Lord of Elves]

bell hooks (who I actually saw at a lecture - she was insufferable, she tried to argue that Western medicine was a "point of view")

But don't you see! Spirit healing and herbal remedial practices are just as if not more effective; the pharmaceutical companies just don't want you to know!

 

[civ_king]

How about bacteriophage treatments?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Parental investment in fewer offspring results in more reproductive success.

Wrong. That's yester-centuries' news. In modern societies, there is essentially no risk of your children dying before reproductive age on account of your not giving them lots of resources. You can simply give them up for adoption, for instance.

As child mortality goes down and the level of socialization and parental investment needed to produce a reproductively successful child goes up, it makes sense that parents would invest in fewer, more successful children.

Reality check! Waiter, can I get the reality check, please? Which children are more reproductively successful in the USA, those raised in rich households or those raised in poor ones? Those raised in small families, or in large ones?

As if men and women did not seek to control reproduction before 1910. You do realize abortion is as old as civilization right?

Memes have been giving genes a run for the money for a very long time. Before civilization, even. But recently, the pace has accelerated beyond earlier imagination.

I'm planning to get rich and have as many kids as future wife would allow, ideally making at least $25,000/person in the family

Wife? Singular?

 

[civ_king]

Wrong. That's yester-centuries' news. In modern societies, there is essentially no risk of your children dying before reproductive age on account of your not giving them lots of resources. You can simply give them up for adoption, for instance.



Reality check! Waiter, can I get the reality check, please? Which children are more reproductively successful in the USA, those raised in rich households or those raised in poor ones? Those raised in small families, or in large ones?



Memes have been giving genes a run for the money for a very long time. Before civilization, even. But recently, the pace has accelerated beyond earlier imagination.



Wife? Singular?

What could possibly be wrong with only wanting one wife? "Till Death Do Us Part"

 

[Tacitusitis]

But don't you see! Spirit healing and herbal remedial practices are just as if not more effective; the pharmaceutical companies just don't want you to know!

She also tried to argue that we should not try to lift people out of poverty because middle class success is "a value system imposed on the black poor by the white rich." She said poverty had its own intrinsic ethical value.

Someone brought up all the poor people who couldn't get out of New Orleans earlier that year, and I thought she was going to have an apoplexy onstage.

How about bacteriophage treatments?

They're western medicine... because biology can explain how and why it works.

Just as dog breeding is genetics even if breeders until recently didn't understand the mechanism of heredity.

 

[civ_king]

She also tried to argue that we should not try to lift people out of poverty because middle class success is "a value system imposed on the black poor by the white rich." She said poverty had its own intrinsic ethical value.

Someone brought up all the poor people who couldn't get out of New Orleans earlier that year, and I thought she was going to have an apoplexy onstage.



They're western medicine... because biology can explain how and why it works.

Just as dog breeding is genetics even if breeders until recently didn't understand the mechanism of heredity.

But it doesn't remotely fit in our set up for medicine approval

 

[Haseri]

What could possibly be wrong with only wanting one wife? "Till Death Do Us Part"

More wives = more kids.

 

[Masada]

So basically, all I've gotten out of this is that men are biologically programmed to be bastards, which makes it alright and that anyone who says otherwise is pushing an eval feminist agenda and failing that, it must just be black father's who teach their sons to be violent rapist Negroes. All this we should accept on the basis of a bio degree and no citations... Right, well I suppose I'm now also going to believe that Jews are involved in a multi-century conspiracy to destroy true Aryans. That makes sense! Right?

 

[ParkCungHee]

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

The exact same amount of evidence and research.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Right, well I suppose I'm now also going to believe that Jews are involved in a multi-century conspiracy to destroy true Aryans. That makes sense! Right?

You have a degree in economics. If you say it, it must be true.

 

[Quackers]

So OP says that beheavior is "traditional masculinity".

What is modern masculinity?

 

[ParkCungHee]

What is modern masculinity?

Something we have to make up our minds about.

 

[Quackers]

So we put down the only other type of masculinity in favor of a yet undefined new masculinity - how do we know if it will just be worse?

 

[ParkCungHee]

We don't. But it's going to change whether we want it or not. That's why we have to try and make up our minds that it should be something better.

 

[galdre]

didn't see this thread before - what Porter said is true. Glad to see someone saying what he did

 

[Cheetah]

The idiot referred to in the OP doesn't get it.

What he experiences was not traditional masculinity. It was femininized masculinity as someone here called it, or as it is more often named: hypermasculinity. Black parents are of course no worse (or better) parents than others, but in the US they were/are generally of the lower socioeconomic status. Those are the families that are hit first when we as a society allows or adopts insane policies, and "white trash" families are just as badly hit. The "black family" - or more correctly: the poor family - broke up, and boys grew up without fathers who could give them a real masculine role model. In fact many had only adult women to learn from or look up to. Thus, they compensate for their lack of knowledge about traditional masculinity and instead evolved a perverted hyper-masculine behaviour. Thus you get the thugs and the little gangstas and all the other problems that all behave in ways that Porter experienced. Hyper-masculinity is destructive in every way imaginable. It is not even self-sustainable, and will collapse when it is not supported by the rest of society.

Women are as women are of course. They choose the masculine men, even if that masculinity is the destructive, hyper-masculine type, and so compounds the problem, as other men, desiring sex, will seek to emulate or adopt the hyper-masculinity as it it s the only masculinity they perceive.

Traditional masculinity is great. It upholds laws, distribute justice, and concerns itself with fairness among all members of the society. It may be very possible that the standards of a masculine society may be unfair in some way, and even cruel, but it will be a society that must necessarily be perceived by the majority of people as working. And while traditional masculinity is fully able to destroy, to kill, to inflict pain, to enslave and to subjugate, it is also great at creating, nurturing, healing, building and liberating. Traditional masculinity made civilization!

Hyper-masculinity is destructive and can only be upheld as long as it is supported by the fruits of traditional masculinity. Denying real masculinity in the stride for greater absolute equality between the sexes is only going to further weaken civilisation, and hyper-masculinity will continue to flourish.