inherent or learnt?
I was wondering whether there a feminist equivalent to machismo maybe machisma ?!
I think machismo is learnt and is more of a stereotype then cultural it suggests that one might feel threatened by women or men.
Printable View
inherent or learnt?
I was wondering whether there a feminist equivalent to machismo maybe machisma ?!
I think machismo is learnt and is more of a stereotype then cultural it suggests that one might feel threatened by women or men.
I was wondering whether you felt threatened by the SHIFT key.
Maybe I'll start a thread on the subject.
[QUOTE]yeah well wonder no more this isfor you to be wondering things out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Hermes
You could or you could just shift something or someone.Quote:
Maybe I'll start a thread on the subject.
Machismo is mainly directed at other males, though this may be only half realised by the macho male using it. Speaking anecdotally of times when macho men have been around, I found that women were generally scornful of such displays.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
With some of the crap I've heard Right-Wing Feminists say, I'm sure there is.
The "womanly women", the biggest of the breast and the tightest of the rump!
But then, I wouldn't take anything right-wing feminist say to heart. Their just sexists with vaginas.
I nearly spat out my wine :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolte
Inherent. There is a vicious beast inside every man, we in the West just live in a time where there is an overall sustained balance of peace. Stick a man in a war-zone and watch the wolf in him bare its fangs and howl.
Isn't that in self defence? survival of the fittest. Wars are a testimony of evileness because they get the worst out of people women or men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Put that same men in a war free zone and see him under a new light peaceful imaginative and above all mature.
I hope you don't mind me saying Cacian that the term "survival of the fittest" refers to how a species fits into an environment rather than how fit, aggressive, strong and brave they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
This is a misnoma siezed upon by, amongst others, the machismo survivalists, who are really anti-social people who can't rub along with others, who see society as not reflecting the best of our species, but who really miss the point that we work better, and are successful, as communities rather than individuals. They dream of anarchy where they can prove themselves pre-eminant to others, but they are really the people who don't fit in, and who don't match the template of survival.
We have civilization because the civilized Romans were strong enough to defeat the more uncivilized peoples and bring civilization to them. We have civilization now because men and women did their best to defeat Adolf Hitler last century.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
We have culture in the first place because ancient hunters, MACHO men, went out and took on mammoths and big cats with spears. The people who want everyone to be nice and affable and weak are just standing on the shoulders of these past warrior/hunters and then grievously insulting the very people who brought humanity to this state of high culture.
How interesting because I was in the know that it was directed at everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Well it does vary I guess.
[QUOTE]Hi Paulclem sure I can understand your point however are you saying that if you were put in a war zone and instructet to carry a gun would your human instinct do not behave in a macho way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I would because whilst I am not a 'macho' I would not mind surviving hence my attitude.
It is funny but I do not quote machismo alongside survival when outside a war zone. In normal cirucmstances assuming life is normal machismo does not make sense because there is absolutely nothing to fight in order to survive.Quote:
This is a misnoma siezed upon by, amongst others, the machismo survivalists, who are really anti-social people who can't rub along with others, who see society as not reflecting the best of our species, but who really miss the point that we work better, and are successful, as communities rather than individuals. They dream of anarchy where they can prove themselves pre-eminant to others, but they are really the people who don't fit in, and who don't match the template of survival.
I would however think the threat felt by machismos is either intellectual or attitude. Some people feel threatened by other people not because they are a threat to them but that 's because they do not understand or cannot relate to them no matter what they do. It is a mental block and therefore any attempt to address this inadequacy is to behave in abrupt macho way because that is the only way they know. Please do not misunderstand me but machismo here include both genders. There is no difference.
All in all I think machismo is an inferiority complex that finds its root deep into the mental state. It is very hard to shift but can be done. Are you up for the challenge?
Hi Darcy I am afraid I cannot agree with you about the Romans defeating other non civilised people as you put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I believe history needs to be rewritten because there are huge gaps that needs to be filled. Let's not forget that the romans invaded every territory under the sun and massacred indegenous people by the thousands. They forced themselves in univited they saw then went mad because they realised that others were doing better then them so they got angered so they took copied and then they destroyed.
There are many documentaries that prove what I am talking about.
Everything the romans did and left was a copy of what they had seen after they invaded ramshacked killed or enslaved. They are your modern version of copycat I am afraid.
In every city they went to they made sure they took everything from architecture engineering to sciences.
You will disagree with me but that is Ok you are entitled to it in the same way that I am entitled to my version of things.
It is rather insulting to called one lot civilised and another lot not civilised.
The romans were infamous for their corruptions decadence incest animal desicration prostitutions lack of hygiene ( their romans baths were a stincker) gladiators slaves and maddness because lots of them were loopy and they were big on stabbing each other on the back. Juluis Ceasar is the living proof of it. They are not here anymore I wonder why.
Such big ''civilised'' institutions and yet they are not here to prove themselves. I guess they manage to go bust just like the big bang rather speaks for itself.
Actually on second thoughts I can quite happily quote machismo and romans together. It is the perfect match.
I do not consider hunters to be macho. Again that is fending for yourself.Quote:
We have culture in the first place because ancient hunters, MACHO men, went out and took on mammoths and big cats with spears. The people who want everyone to be nice and affable and weak are just standing on the shoulders of these past warrior/hunters and then grievously insulting the very people who brought humanity to this state of high culture.
You must eat to survive and so you have to go and find food hopefully not chasing wild animals but rather make it.
Survival of the fittest refers specifically to evolutionary adaptation and not an individual's attitude as you would have on a battlefield.
On the battlefield toughness and survival and luck are the important factors. Machismo is a social attitude rather than a survival technique.
I'll have to look up a defnition for a more specific definition.
[QUOTE=cacian;1158957]You're right - Machismo makes no sense at all - which is why it is scorned. No sensible person puts on machismo. You do occaisionally get hard cases who are full of it too, but most are poseurs.Quote:
It is funny but I do not quote machismo alongside survival when outside a war zone. In normal cirucmstances assuming life is normal machismo does not make sense because there is absolutely nothing to fight in order to survive.
I would however think the threat felt by machismos is either intellectual or attitude. Some people feel threatened by other people not because they are a threat to them but that 's because they do not understand or cannot relate to them no matter what they do. It is a mental block and therefore any attempt to address this inadequacy is to behave in abrupt macho way because that is the only way they know. Please do not misunderstand me but machismo here include both genders. There is no difference.
All in all I think machismo is an inferiority complex that finds its root deep into the mental state. It is very hard to shift but can be done. Are you up for the challenge?