machismo

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

I was wondering whether you felt threatened by the SHIFT key.

---

yeah well wonder no more this isfor you to be wondering things out.

Quote:

---

Maybe I'll start a thread on the subject.

---

You could or you could just shift something or someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

inherent or learnt?

I was wondering whether there a feminist equivalent to machismo maybe machisma ?!
I think machismo is learnt and is part of a culture that feels threatened by women. Why? I have no idea.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolte

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.
Put that same men in a war free zone and see him under a new light peaceful imaginative and above all mature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.
Put that same men in a war free zone and see him under a new light peaceful imaginative and above all mature.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

---

How interesting because I was in the know that it was directed at everything.
Well it does vary I guess.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

---

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?
I would because whilst I am not a 'macho' I would not mind surviving hence my attitude.

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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

---

Hi Darcy I am afraid I cannot agree with you about the Romans defeating other non civilised people as you put it.
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.

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.

---

I do not consider hunters to be macho. Again that is fending for yourself.
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]

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?

---

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.

So, based on Cacian and Paulclem's discussion, is Machismo a state resulting from the threatening effects other higher-intellectual people unconsciously create on lower-intellectual ones? Is Machismo being implemented as an attempt 'not to' feel inferior mentally by changing the rules of the game from mentality to physics (or the rule of the jungle: survival of the fittest?) If so, I think that also suggests that Machismo is related to females just as much as it is to males. Or, if we're taking a deeper look into females and males behaviors, maybe Paulclem meant it happens more with males than females?

To some degree, I can understand the relation between Machismo and Suvival of the fittest here, but is this really what Macho people feel and experience? I can't say for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

So, based on Cacian and Paulclem's discussion, is Machismo a state resulting from the threatening effects other higher-intellectual people unconsciously create on lower-intellectual ones? Is Machismo being implemented as an attempt 'not to' feel inferior mentally by changing the rules of the game from mentality to physics (or the rule of the jungle: survival of the fittest?) If so, I think that also suggests that Machismo is related to females just as much as it is to males. Or, if we're taking a deeper look into females and males behaviors, maybe Paulclem meant it happens more with males than females?

To some degree, I can understand the relation between Machismo and Suvival of the fittest here, but is this really what Macho people feel and experience? I can't say for sure.

---

I don't think machismo has anything to do with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest refers to evolutionary adaptability to a specific environment, not an attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

We have civilization because the civilized Romans were strong enough to defeat the more uncivilized peoples and bring civilization to them. We have culture in the first place because ancient hunters, MACHO men, went out and took on mammoths and big cats with spears.

---

Boyish nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babyguile

Boyish nonsense.

---

LOL:lol:

As promised earlier, an interesting definition of machismo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

And survival of the fittest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Interestingly, the definition of Machismo does refer to:

The trait may be seen as the product of runaway evolution, as Frits Staal notes:

The peacock's tail, the enlarged claw of the male fiddler crab and the machismo of members of the human species are all exaggerated features that may cause injury to individuals that display them but attract females.[2]

The type of machismo I've seen has mainly been a male directed one, but the article dos refer to the poit of attracting women, but this is by scaring of male competition.

It's still ridiculous.

This video features the quintessence of machismo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX39J_YyKbs&feature=plcp

The fact that it likely makes many of the men of today squirm is just a sign that us men in the west have gone through a thorough process of sissification. And this coming from a man (me) who cries more than most women.

We have put down manliness AND femininity. We have apotheosized the man-machine. The person who has not flesh and blood but gears and oil. Passion is dead in the popular consciousness. Dead. One of Passion's great expressions is found in rugged manliness. In soldiers, athletes, regular working men who feel in themselves the warrior spirit.

I'm not impressed. Words are wind. He talks as if they are going to war - and you're right, that is the essence of machismo - hyperbolic nonsense.

The claim at the end seems to justify the speech - that they won a football game - but they might just have been the better side.

Our Rugby coach wasn't into speeches - or tactics for that matter. He'd just say "Go out there and **** 'em!" If we didn't, then he'd sulk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

This video features the quintessence of machismo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX39J_YyKbs&feature=plcp

The fact that it likely makes many of the men of today squirm is just a sign that us men in the west have gone through a thorough process of sissification. And this coming from a man (me) who cries more than most women.

We have put down manliness AND femininity. We have apotheosized the man-machine. The person who has not flesh and blood but gears and oil. Passion is dead in the popular consciousness. Dead. One of Passion's great expressions is found in rugged manliness. In soldiers, athletes, regular working men who feel in themselves the warrior spirit.

---

Well it's defiantly a lifeless man whose heart is not stirred by such a speech.

But then again just goes to show the danger of words. Use that speech during a basketball game and your players will leave the locker and go play a passionate game. Give that speech before going over the top to take the russian trenches, and you will have an inspiring casualty list afterwords due to recklessness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm not impressed. Words are wind. He talks as if they are going to war - and you're right, that is the essence of machismo - hyperbolic nonsense.

The claim at the end seems to justify the speech - that they won a football game - but they might just have been the better side.

Our Rugby coach wasn't into speeches - or tactics for that matter. He'd just say "Go out there and **** 'em!" If we didn't, then he'd sulk.

---

Haha interesting.
I would say that the main reason he would sulk was not because you did not manage the win but more likely to do with him feeling inadequate in not managing to impress you with his big words.
The failure here lies upon him for failing to weigh his words against your will to achieve.
Had you achieved winning he would have doubled his ego which you would have to sweat very hard for it.
I guess it is down to one man's voice against another man's do.

Interesting that machismo is often associtated with manlyhood and is placated with words such as warrior and big muscle men.
I tend to believe that there is more to manlyhood then a speart and an attitude that bloat shooting your enemy and destroying your very surrounding.
I think one need to challenge this caveman attitude for there is more to the intellect to be had.
Such a challenge is not for the faint hearted or is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babyguile

Boyish nonsense.

---

I think it rather naive and girlish (in the unicorns and rainbow way) to assume that civilization is not founded upon the bedrock of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I think it rather naive and girlish (in the unicorns and rainbow way) to assume that civilization is not founded upon the bedrock of war.

---

I beg to differ there is no such concept as bedrock to a war but then the word bed and rock is a shifty one.
A bed that rocks hmmm kind of shaky right?
Wars are the bedrock of destroyed civilisation architecture cultures and above all identity.
The more wars the more migrations the more people running away from their own self. No bedrock there.
Derooting your place of birth deroot identities and cultures and confuses one against another.
Moving people around like herds takes away your language your culture and eventully strips you of who you are.
One of the reasons the romans are no longer is because they spread wide and fast and eventually off track a little too far. This contributed to their own downfall. Everywhere to go and nowhere to turn. Lost in translation.
A bit like going around in very big a circle lots o runing but not quite sure how or when to stop so you eventually get a bit lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Well it's defiantly a lifeless man whose heart is not stirred by such a speech.

But then again just goes to show the danger of words. Use that speech during a basketball game and your players will leave the locker and go play a passionate game. Give that speech before going over the top to take the russian trenches, and you will have an inspiring casualty list afterwords due to recklessness.

---

I wasn't stirred. The same cliched crap can be heard in most sub-par "guy" movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I wasn't stirred. The same cliched crap can be heard in most sub-par "guy" movies.

---

Really? I thought that was a very good speech, I guess some guys just don't feel as passionately as others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I beg to differ there is no such concept as bedrock to a war but then the word bed and rock is a shifty one.
A bed that rocks hmmm kind of shaky right?
Wars are the bedrock of destroyed civilisation architecture cultures and above all identity.
The more wars the more migrations the more people running away from their own self. No bedrock there.
Derooting your place of birth deroot identities and cultures and confuses one against another.
Moving people around like herds takes away your language your culture and eventully strips you of who you are.
One of the reasons the romans are no longer is because they spread wide and fast and eventually off track a little too far. This contributed to their own downfall. Everywhere to go and nowhere to turn. Lost in translation.
A bit like going around in very big a circle lots o runing but not quite sure how or when to stop so you eventually get a bit lost.

---

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nYC8xilFBg...ull_retard.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nYC8xilFBg...ull_retard.jpg

---

Take that back and start again.
Try something your own then it might stand a chance of joinning a queue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Really? I thought that was a very good speech, I guess some guys just don't feel as passionately as others.

---

That doesn't follow. Some guys are more impressed with deeds rather than words. That's the problem with machismo - all talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

That doesn't follow. Some guys are more impressed with deeds rather than words. That's the problem with machismo - all talk.

---

That is true as well, but considering this is a lit forum I thought most of us would have been like Darcy and myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

That doesn't follow. Some guys are more impressed with deeds rather than words. That's the problem with machismo - all talk.

---

With all due respect Paulclem and I hope you do not mind me saying this
I think you have given machismo a talk which in my books does not have one.
Machismo is a bit like cacaphony only it is screechy a bit like a manual radio when you are trying to find a station. That screechy noise in middle that is in between those stations is what I would call machismo.
Machismo a mental state and to remove it you will need a prism like a magnut that attaches itself to another and you get some kind of rapture, I call it raption, which then gets rid of it.
That is the only way.

I'm not sure what you mean Cacian. My view of Machismo is like this:

Machismo, or machoism, is a word of Spanish and Portuguese origin that describes prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity

from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

Do you take issue with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

That is true as well, but considering this is a lit forum I thought most of us would have been like Darcy and myself.

---

:lol:

I can assure you I'm not a macho type, though I've met plenty and had a chance to evaluate them a bit.

I don't know if I'm like your two good selves, though I think we'd all get on. I come from a working class environment, but I think that helps me to get on with people.

I once worked as a hod carrier in Birmingham, and I took the time at break to read The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing - which is a situation I found highly amusing. None of the other blokes even mentioned it. I'm not sure they even noticed. A poet I once knew asked me what their reactions were when I told him about it and he was a little incredulous that this seemingly incongruous situation passed without comment or conflict. I did like that apparent incongruity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm not sure what you mean Cacian. My view of Machismo is like this:

Machismo, or machoism, is a word of Spanish and Portuguese origin that describes prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity

from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

Do you take issue with this?

---

This is an interesting interpretation.
Machismo here is being described as an external feature looks and attitude.
I see machismo as internal issue a mental state.
Machismo is I explained before is an inferiority complex a bit or exactly like oedipus complex.
It is engrained which leads one to act and behave in brash and backward way in order to get to the person they see as a threat and then get to themsleves. That is the point.
Their lack of their own understanding or their lack of idendity with others around them makes them behave in a manner that is more often loud and violent.
It is a bit like hitting one's head agaisnt the wall one thinks that if ones hits it externally ones gets to eventually assimilate internally.
The same with a macho they think if they raise their voice or intimidate they may get closer to registering who they are.
It is not the person they are getting at it is to themselves they are trying to get to.
In other words they have no sense of belonging.
It is a bit tricky to explain sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

This is an interesting interpretation.
Machismo here is being described as an external feature looks and attitude.
I see machismo as internal issue a mental state.
Machismo is I explained before is an inferiority complex a bit or exactly like oedipus complex.
It is engrained which leads one to act and behave in brash and backward way in order to get to the person they see as a threat.
Their lack of understanding or their their lack of idendity with others around them makes them behave in a manner which is more often loud and violent.
IT is a bit like hitting one's head agaisnt the wall they think thatif they hit it externally against something they will eventually assimilate internally.
The same with a macho they think if they raise their voice or intimidate they may closer to registering who they are.
It is not the person they are getting at it is to themselves they are trying to get to.
It is a bit tricky to explain sorry haha.:(

---

I don't disagree with your interpretation. I look down on expressions of machismo as unnecessary. I think i was pointing up the external and implying the internal, but I reckon we agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Stick a man in a war-zone and watch the wolf in him bare its fangs and howl.

---

Or send him over to my house, the end is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Stick a man in a war-zone and watch the wolf in him bare its fangs and howl.

---

I'd probably go the **** my pants and cry route.

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/.../muscleman.jpg

I'm always gonna take these guys feelings seriously.....boo hoo!