Our Macho Society

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Hmmm, yes and no. Most macho men would probably look at the Edison and Einsteins of the world as "lesser men" with their focus on "book learning". Most of what you cite was a combination of intellectual curiosity and profit seeking (the latter can be seen as masculine).

In the end, it's all about context. I don't see myself as macho at all, but I see the value in many masculine traits such as grit, authority, physical labour and the like.

In other words, not all Type A personalities are physically aggressive, nor is ambition tied to "manliness". I see more value in being Bill Gates than a four-star general, especially in the modern age.

[natalie469]

I just love a man with chest hair and don't understanding a man who mans-scapes

[Kevroqs]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Are you kidding? Have you seen what passes for "males" these days, especially in our urban areas? Our bun-sporting, romper wearing, menstruating, safe space snowflake metro-sexuals are anything but excessively masculine. Our urban males in particular are becoming so feminized

That's mostly in places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland where you'll find guys like that. Go to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Texas and you'll find more of a macho culture.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

I'm reminded at this point of a story I heard as a child, a bit of family lore.

A man, widely admired and thought to be a fine person, told his sons that they would receive a whipping for two things, related to fighting. One was to start a fight. The other was to lose a fight someone else had started.

Okay. All concerns about the ethics of corporal punishment aside...really? A small boy has some bigger, older boy pick a fight and beat him up, and then gets punished for it at home? I was utterly appalled.

Yep, cat, typical macho mindset: Start with the assumption that physical (or at least personal) strength, power, forcefulness and fighting ability are the main yardsticks with which to measure a male's worthiness of escaping disrespect, then build your whole judgement of the male in that basis - and these days increasingly, females as well. In effect, they're treating any other (positive) trait a person can have as either a boring but necessary part of being respect-worthy or treating those positive traits as a consolation prize for losers. That kind of mentality might be appropriate for chimps and timber wolves but not for a well-functioning self-aware human being.

That father is simply contradicting himself. Presuming the father doesn't take kindly to his kid backing down from a bully (a safe assumption), he then punishes the son for losing the fight? So what is it? Should he avoid getting beat up by fleeing? Or should he fight knowing he is gonna lose and he gets punished for it? Sounds like the father hasn't grown up much since high school, and that at best - not to mention in dire need of critical thinking skills training.

Originally Posted by ambient

I am honestly not worried about whether men are too masculine or feminine. Men are doing just fine. about the same as they always were. There is no shortage of macho behavior out there today; Human nature does not change so much. These is always a mean behavioral set and then some distribution or variation around that mean.

The big question is whether or not certain segments of men can be tolerant of the fact that this distribution exists. People who wring their hands about guys not being masculine enough tend to just be intolerant creeps who want everyone to fit their specific stereotype. That seems to unfortunately be precisely part of the "macho" mindset

Good one, ambient. That reminds me of how I was forced to outgrow homophobia back in the 90s (and "difference-phobia", so to speak, in general). If I can't trust traditional definitions of respect-worthy and disrespect-worthy person when it comes to LGBT, "goths", and freethinking bohemians, etc. - then what other groups of people are mainstream society disparaging based on kneejerk distaste as opposed to the rational thought process? Unmanly men, perhaps (and the emotionally sensitive, or timid, or "stupid", or a whole catalogue of other traits)?

Originally Posted by Natural510

In other words, not all Type A personalities are physically aggressive, nor is ambition tied to "manliness". I see more value in being Bill Gates than a four-star general, especially in the modern age.

Which is a huge part of the reason bashing the unmanly is not just morally wrong, but practically wrongheaded. All the physical power in the world could not teach humans to increase crop yields, organize more efficient governments, discover better metal alloys, build machines, and as said, computers. These macho types cling to this so-called fundamental fact of human nature "asskicking and winning status contests above all", and in doing so miss the broader picture about how post-Stone Age societies truly prosper. Cultures that insist on heeding those earlier primitive instincts inevitably destroy their human resource potential. Our reptilian brainstem is simply not equipped to live in stable, secure, wealthy environments.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Yep, cat, typical macho mindset: Start with the assumption that physical (or at least personal) strength, power, forcefulness and fighting ability are the main yardsticks with which to measure a male's worthiness of escaping disrespect, then build your whole judgement of the male in that basis - and these days increasingly, females as well. In effect, they're treating any other (positive) trait a person can have as either a boring but necessary part of being respect-worthy or treating those positive traits as a consolation prize for losers. That kind of mentality might be appropriate for chimps and timber wolves but not for a well-functioning self-aware human being.

That father is simply contradicting himself. Presuming the father doesn't take kindly to his kid backing down from a bully (a safe assumption), he then punishes the son for losing the fight? So what is it? Should he avoid getting beat up by fleeing? Or should he fight knowing he is gonna lose and he gets punished for it? Sounds like the father hasn't grown up much since high school, and that at best - not to mention in dire need of critical thinking skills training.

The man and his sons are long gone now. I suspect such training was pretty common in his day. If we have progressed since then, I consider that a good thing.