Earlier this month, educator Tony Porter made a presentation at the TEDWomen conference and told his audience, “Without a doubt there are some wonderful, wonderful, absolutely wonderful things about being a man. But at the same time, there’s some stuff that’s straight-up twisted.”
He was talking about the Man Box: The way boys and men are socialized into certain behaviors that are ultimately harmful to themselves and to women. Things like not showing weakness or fear, not being compared to a woman and viewing women as property or objects.
Porter talks about some mistakes he made and learned from as he raised his own son, as well as a horrible story from his childhood about being pressured to have sex with a mentally-challenged teenaged girl.
Porter said, “My liberation of a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.”
South Carolina seceded from the Union 150 years ago this week. The Civil War began soon after that.
This past Monday night, folks at the Secession Gala in Charleston danced, drank and denied that the Civil War was about slavery. They claim it was about tariffs and states rights.
That’s wrong, of course. If you’re not sure, take a look at documents from some of the states as they seceded.
South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states … have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”
Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. … There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”
Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”
(By the way, the Disunion blog on the NYTimes.com chronicles and analyzes the events of the Civil War as they happened 150 years ago. It’s fantastic!)
A couple of weeks ago on “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore took on the folks who celebrate secession and think saying slavery caused the Civil War is politically correct. No, “It’s correct correct.”
There’s nothing wrong with an adult having good cry. Sometimes you have to let it out. Maybe you’re at a wedding or a funeral. Maybe you’re watching a touching movie.
Or maybe your party just won the majority in a house of Congress.
When the Republicans won the House of Representatives, I said that not only was it fitting that Rep. John Boehner cried after an election season that was swept up with manning up, but he has every right to do it.
In last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” interview, though, the incoming House Speaker did more than just cry. He whimpered uncontrollably.. twice!
Last Thursday, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington responded to a question posed to two other executives about whether the HuffPo or the Wall Street Journal would be bigger in five years.
I mentally braced myself last night as I began watching the premiere of the U.S. version of “Top Gear.” Not only is the original UK version is one of my favorite shows on television, but it’s one of the most-watched shows on the planet with an estimated 350 million viewers. So, there’s a high bar for the American version to reach.
“Top Gear” is described as “a car show,” but it’s much more than that. It’s about travel, competition, ingenuity, all wrapped in a lot of wit and humor. There’s a lot of crashing and blowing stuff up, too.
What most intrigued me about the new show is when I heard “Top Gear” USA co-host Adam Ferrara say it’s “a glimpse into the male mind.” Sure, this could be a good way to brand “Top Gear” in the U.S. It gets framed as a man’s show. A place where “us guys” can be Men. (Cue the grunting and chest-pounding.) But the show in the UK doesn’t try to be hyper-masculine like some other shows geared toward men in the U.S. (“Ice Road Truckers,” “Deadliest Catch”). Women make up 40% of Top Gear’s audience in Britain. Ferrara’s statement could be a nod toward the often self-deprecating sense of humor found on the show. Perhaps not coincidentally, Andy Wilman, the executive producer of “Top Gear” in the UK told “60 Minutes” something similar about the show: “It’s a journey into the male mind, which, I believe, is a really, potentially, very funny place. ‘Cause, let’s face it, nothing happens there.”
“Top Gear” USA wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be, but it was great either. There needs to be more personality from and better interaction between hosts Ferrara, Rutledge Wood and Tanner Foust. They didn’t seem comfortable with each other yet. The interview with Buzz Aldrin in the “Big Star, Small Car” segment was as horrible as that segment’s name. They should also have more fun with The Stig, the show’s racing driver, like they do in the UK, and include more basic info on the cars being profiled (0-60, horsepower, engine size, etc.). The Lamborghini segment at the end, though, captured a lot of what makes Top Gear great: cars, competition, good cinematography, story-telling and camaraderie between the hosts.
As far as insight into what goes on in the male mind, I’m going to give the show time. Top Gear in Britain is more than cars or the personalities of its hosts Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May. It’s their knowledge of cars, the world in which they travel and their way of explaining their adventures to the audience in a smart, funny and colorful way. If “Top Gear” USA adds some American-flavored irony and wit to the speed, competition and explosions, they’d have a show worthy of it’s British brother and paint a better picture of what’s going in the American male mind.
Did you see the U.S. version of “Top Gear?” What do you think?
Eastwood’s endurance is the endurance of saints, and what he embodies more than anything is the definitive virtue for American men both then and now: restraint. He rides the line between his own terrible desires and the world as it is with the grace we all aspire to.
Marche breaks down Eastwood’s supposed macho image. He calls macho, “a preening pose assumed by men who aren’t sure they’re men and who compensate by needing more, having more, showing more.” Eastwood, Marche says, “has always been about needing and having and showing less.”
This simplicity and restraint, according to Marche, has not only allowed Eastwood to live to 80 years old, but to thrive at an age when most people think about retiring.
Eastwood’s endurance is one of the rare phenomena that make me genuinely hopeful about men. It’s not just that he proves that you can be awesome when you’re eighty. He proves that it’s possible to be open-minded and creative and daring and still hold on to the old virtues.
When I hear terms like “old virtues,” it’s often yearning to recapturing a sense of masculinity that was lost: A nostalgia for the 1950′s, pre- Civil, Women’s and Gay Rights definition of white masculinity. Marche isn’t talking about that. These virtues are restraint and simplicity. If the undoing of the modern man is partially due to boys who can’t focus and “sit still in kindergarten,” then these virtues could turn that around. Walk away from your Internet addiction of choice, turn off the flatscreen and gaming system, and focus on something productive.
Muscles and gadgets may not be mandatory in whatever new masculinity ideal will be imagined, but endurance and restraint surely will be.
The night before the election, Anderson Cooper remarked on one of the big trends of the 2010 Election season: “‘Man up’ is sweeping the country.”
He was talking about a clip in which Sarah Palin responds to unnamed Republican sources who reportedly don’t want her to run for president. She said they should “man up” and come forward so she could debate with them.
If a politician is going to criticize an opponent for not being strong enough or having certain skills, just say that. Man Up implies a candidate is not a “real” man because he’s weak, ineffectual and impotent. The slur is an attempt to undermine and insult him on the basis of what society thinks an ideal man is. It’s the male equivalent of what got California Governor-elect Jerry Brown in trouble when someone in his campaign called Meg Whitman a “whore.”
Man Up hurts women, too. It assumes masculinity is a qualification to hold public office. Equating “manly” with strength, productivity and integrity demeans women by excluding them from those characteristics. It doesn’t allow femininity to be powerful. That further marginalizes women in politics, which is something that the U.S. needs to improve.
In light of the testosterone litmus tests this year, it’s worth noting that presumptive House Speaker John Boehner cried on Election night. He wept when he spoke about spending his “whole life chasing the American dream.”
There absolutely nothing wrong with a man crying in public. In fact, it was actually fitting he did. In an election season when terms like ‘man up” and “unmanly” were thrown at candidates, the head of the winning party wept. Politics clearly isn’t immune from American masculinity’s soul-searching and attempts to figure itself out.
Boehner’s tears won’t stop the Man Up trend. It’s an easy soundbite to throw at a candidate. I do hope, though, that the next candidate who’s told to “man up” can call out the remark’s inherent sexism. If they win, they should feel free to rejoice and cry in victory.
There’s a saying that people use to explain things they can’t. ‘God moves in mysterious ways.’ Now, my religious practicing went the same way as my piano practice when I was twelve, but I’ve always understood this phrase to mean that we can’t always explain why God causes things to happen. Because it’s God. That’s part of the whole divinity thing.
So when you have political candidates such as Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell, all claiming that God called them to run or it was a part of His “plan,” what does it mean when they keep losing? There’s a couple of ways this can go.
To begin with, maybe it’s a personal thing where He wants them to grow, to learn from their experiences on the campaign trail. Maybe He wants them to learn a little humility in defeat. After all, the meek are going to inherit the Earth.
Comments (0) 
Men, Women
| 
Man Box, Raising Boys, TED, TEDWomen, Tony Porter 
Themocracy