Posturing and Machismo

[ygolo]

I think that swaggering is mostly about pecking order. If a millionaire is in the company of middle-class guys, he's going to swagger a bit and show off his power suit and his fancy car. But if that same millionaire goes and joins a group of billionaires, he's going to dial back his swagger quite a bit (unless he wants to push an image of being the brash young up-and-comer).

I don't believe in pecking orders. Most people, find that I never lead, follow, or get out of the way. I find their frustration with me in this regard quite amusing.

yeah, it's just a phrase... you're over thinking things again

You're not going to convince me of that. Anything can be analyzed. It is what I do. Some people like to ski, some people like to play cards. I like to analyze.

It is that simple. You are over-analyzing my act of over-thinking. The sky is blue. I like to think.

why not strive to find confidence in the real implications (or lack thereof) of what is true instead of trying to alter it? a man doesn't need to deny himself in order to find complacency. in fact, i dont think that one can find true complacency until he or her faces and deals with the truth.

Well said.

FWIW... Grayscale's directness is an example of positive masculinity I'd like to see.

You say that as if you see little of it.

 

[Metamorphosis]

I don't believe in pecking orders. Most people, find that I never lead, follow, or get out of the way. I find their frustration with me in this regard quite amusing.

As in you don't believe they exist? If so, I can't even comprehend that.

 

[heart]

I am curious, Heart. Do you have an animus/anima type insight into this area as well?

This would relate closest to the Emperor card of the Tarot. Archetype of power, energy, action, aggression, drive, libido, competitiveness and masculinity. There are positive manifestations of this and negative ones.

The Emperor in balance competes with only himself, and allows no distractions on the road to self mastery, but masculine energy can get sidetracked into the following areas. It is when he loses touch with his anima, the female side of himself. :

“Which of the two do you most value or prefer - the sword of the scabbard?” The young king Arthur answered “naturally, the sword.” Merlin then replied: “you are unwise for the sword once lost or broken cannot serve you any longer, but the same scabbard can hold a dozen swords.”

We reproduce catastrophe because we ourselves are traumatized – both as a species and individually, beginning at birth. Because we are wounded, we have put up psychic defenses against reality and have become so cut off from direct participation in the multidimensional wilderness in which we are embedded that all we can do is to navigate our way cautiously through a humanly designed day-to-day substitute world of symbols - a world of dollars, minutes, numbers, images and words that are constantly being manipulated to wring the most possible profit from every conceivable circumstance. The body and spirit both rebel

- David Watson
The Pathology of Civilization

 

[ygolo]

As in you don't believe they exist? If so, I can't even comprehend that.

No. I believe they exist. I don't believe in supporting them.

This would relate closest to the Emperor card of the Tarot. Archetype of power, energy, action, aggression, drive, libido, competitiveness and masculinity. There are positive manifestations of this and negative ones.

The Emperor in balance competes with only himself, and allows no distractions on the road to self mastery, but masculine energy can get sidetracked into the following areas. It is when he loses touch with his anima, the female side of himself. :

Interesting heart. This is based on Jung's work? How is it related to the Tarrot?

 

[RDF]

I don't believe in pecking orders.

That doesn't meant that they don't exist.

[Edit: I see you already covered this ground with Metamorphosis.]

Most people, find that I never lead, follow, or get out of the way. I find their frustration with me in this regard quite amusing.

You can stand outside the pecking order system. But that's usually the mark of someone who doesn't have much to do with social groups.

If you want to get comfortable in a group setting, then you honor the conventions of the group and let people know who and what you are. And like it or not, people tend to assign you some kind of place in the pecking order on that basis. And then you accept the treatment that comes with your place in the pecking order, or you challenge the treatment and attempt to move elsewhere on the pecking order.

If you deliberately buck group conventions and refuse to acknowledge pecking order considerations at all, then you'll always be on the outside. Nothing wrong with that. It's your choice. But you have to give up a little autonomy to be in a group; if your autonomy is more important, then you'll probably always have difficulty finding a good fit in a group.

Again--nothing wrong with that. It's just a personal choice.

 

[heart]

Interesting heart. This is based on Jung's work? How is it related to the Tarrot?

There is a lot of archetype symbolism found in the tarot. It is a fascinating subject far aside from the usual ways of looking at the tarot as merely being a fortune telling trick. Joesph Campbell did some work on this as well. Animus/Anima comes out of the ancient times, it was not a new idea that Jung had. The Gnostics, the Alchemists, Rosicrucians and others into the occult always were into this.

 

[ygolo]

If you want to get comfortable in a group setting, then you honor the conventions of the group and let people know who and what you are. And like it or not, people tend to assign you some kind of place in the pecking order on that basis. And then you accept the treatment that comes with your place in the pecking order, or you challenge the treatment and attempt to move elsewhere on the pecking order.

If you deliberately buck group conventions and refuse to acknowledge pecking order considerations at all, then you'll always be on the outside. Nothing wrong with that. It's your choice. But you have to give up a little autonomy to be in a group; if your autonomy is more important, then you'll probably always have difficulty finding a good fit in a group.

Again--nothing wrong with that. It's just a personal choice.

Point noted. Still there are groups that aren't too terribly focused on pecking order. I do fine in these.

I also believe that some amount of questioning of the status-quo is needed to keep people honest. I find very few people do so.

I suppose, in thinking about it, I tend appoint myself this "position" in the pecking order. Just another way of looking at it, I suppose. Still, in my own mind, pecking orders (along with the posturing, etc.) is something I find annoying.

An amusing thought about posturing. I am the Omega male in the group. Pick all three definitions. By instinct, it is a mix of all three for me.

I am usually unassuming and easy-going. But when dealing with the "Alpha" types, I want to not just beat them, but crush them into a bloody pulp (figuratively, of course).

Like I said, it's not rational.

There is a lot of archetype symbolism found in the tarot. It is a fascinating subject far aside from the usual ways of looking at the tarot as merely being a fortune telling trick. Joesph Campbell did some work on this as well. Animus/Anima comes out of the ancient times, it was not a new idea that Jung had. The Gnostics, the Alchemists, Rosicrucians and others into the occult always were into this.

Oh. I can see the fascination. But my own training makes going down these lines very painful for me. I am not able to keep straight what is true and what is speculation.

 

[white]

You say that as if you see little of it.

IRL I see a lot more swagger. And very little clarity. Sometimes guys are brutally honest. But they enjoy the brutality more than the honesty. That takes away the honesty somewhat.

But I was pointing out Gray's post simply as an example since it was there.

FWIW, I think many guys nowadays are confused (same with girls) about masculinity, feminity. What makes a man.

 

[heart]

Oh. I can see the fascination. But my own training makes going down these lines very painful for me. I am not able to keep straight what is true and what is speculation.

Even Jung's work on the Animus/Anima seems like speculative theories.

 

[RDF]

I am usually unassuming and easy-going. But when dealing with the "Alpha" types, I want to not just beat them, but crush them into a bloody pulp (figuratively, of course).

Like I said, it's not rational.

Well, I won't psychoanalyze you. I'm sure we've all seen instances where the posturing of a leader seemed ridiculous; and even more amazing was how the followers seemed to respect and even encourage such behavior on the part of the leader.

As for me, I figure we all choose our roles in the group. I chose my role, and the leader chose his/hers. I usually wouldn't want the leader's role--leaders have to make a lot of sacrifices for the group. So I respect the leader for being willing to play that difficult role (even if they do cut a ridiculous figure at times).

Sometimes I get stuck in leadership roles in the workplace, and that's easier. Rank and seniority lighten the burden in that environment. Under those conditions I can play a convincing Alpha male and even enjoy the role.

But I don't tend to seek out the top role in social settings. Too much work and too little reward. You have to have a big ego to take on all that work in return for nothing more than the respect of the group. (Which may be what many of us instinctively dislike about leaders--the big ego that inevitably goes with that role.)

 

[ygolo]

IRL I see a lot more swagger. And very little clarity. Sometimes guys are brutally honest. But they enjoy the brutality more than the honesty. That takes away the honesty somewhat.

But I was pointing out Gray's post simply as an example since it was there.

FWIW, I think many guys nowadays are confused (same with girls) about masculinity, feminity. What makes a man.

Yes. I am not only confused because of changing norms. But also because I am a foreigner.

Even Jung's work on the Animus/Anima seems like speculative theories.

Agreed. Even Myers-Briggs was too speculative for my tastes. There isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation. It just makes my head spin after a while (It could simply be my cold in this instance, but I've noted it in general).

Feel free to share further. I find it interesting, and I am sure others will too.

I was just saying that integrating it into my own framework of knowledge, is something rather hard for me to do at this point.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I'll also give some starter questions:
1) Do you feel pressure to act macho, or overtly masculine?

Sometimes. More so in these situations:
1. Guys around me are insecure and lacking self-awareness.
2. Guys around me are more "accomplished" career-wise or spiritually or who appear to be intellectual.
3. First dates, pickup scenes, bars.

It fades once I say "fuck it, I'm going to dork out regardless of how I'm received."

2) Are you attracted/repulsed by a macho man?

I'm a straight guy, but I get somewhat uncomfortable. People who don't know how to be silly, who take life all too seriously, make me uneasy. They're usually also very cynical and hypercritical, which means they're probably judging you. They foster self-consciousness which is anathema to peace of mind and happiness. I usually try to avoid them, then make an effort to loosen them up with some humor. If I can't get into the groove, I usually take off (physically, mentally).

 

[FDG]

You've got 50 percent of people that are above the mean in terms of masculinity, and 50 percent of people that are below it. There isn't much to say about this phenomenon given that it can be thought about as being similar to every other perceived quality of human beings - some will have more of it, others less.

Machismo is different, and in my opinion the two distributions don't overlap significantly, if we go about with the definition of machismo you have given. Most people at the highest end of the masculinity distribution tend to be rather calm and somewhat passive, actually. After all, when you have nothing to fear, you don't need to go around making sure things will follow a certain path.

 

[ptgatsby]

Yes. I am not only confused because of changing norms. But also because I am a foreigner.

It's also local. I'd split it into three major categories - Sex Roles, Physical dimorphism and behavioural differences.

You'll find a lot more "tough rugged" in tough rugged areas (protector, strong), just as you'll see more provider roles in places like NY (money, power). That isn't to say that you don't get a crossover (tough NY guys abound, just as money talks in more rugged areas), but the social identity differs significantly. You get a lot more NYers talking about the deals they made (posturing) than tough and rugged.

Likewise, local preferences play a part - for example, having a suntan use to mean money, while having a suntan now means almost the opposite. The guy who is stronger (rather than fit) doesn't fit into the "executive white collar" stuff as much anymore.

And of course, behavioural differences are amplified locally. Some cultures/sub cultures emphasise self reliance, others responsibility, duty and so forth.


Macho behaviour tends to be driven by insecurity over fitting into a role and that bothers me some, although I don't really care overall. But a lot of this has to do with acceptance in a group, fitting into a group/role and self identity... it doesn't have to come with male/female dynamics, it's just an easy one to get caught into. One reason why it is present, however, is because of mate selection. In that sense, a lot of it is evolutionary - blind, that is. Certain traits find mates with this posturing - it works on certain scales/other traits, and so it continues. We just act it out.

 

[heart]

Agreed. Even Myers-Briggs was too speculative for my tastes. There isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation. It just makes my head spin after a while (It could simply be my cold in this instance, but I've noted it in general).

Feel free to share further. I find it interesting, and I am sure others will too.

I was just saying that integrating it into my own framework of knowledge, is something rather hard for me to do at this point.

Well, I certainly never intended to make anyone feel unsettled or intended that anyone need feel they must integrate any of my ramblings into their own frameworks. I run on Fi Ne, speculation is just about as natural as breathing for me.

I was not in a any way supporting tarot cards as fortune telling devices, only meant that the creators of such cards clearly drew upon the common archetypes when they created them.

 

[ygolo]

It fades once I say "fuck it, I'm going to dork out regardless of how I'm received."

I like this quote. I may steal it.

I was not in a any way supporting tarot cards as fortune telling devices, only meant that the creators of such cards clearly drew upon the common archetypes when they created them.

I feel a lot more confortable now. That would be interesting.

Excelent. *Monty Burns fingers*

We now have a couple of people taking up the evolutionary viewpoint (FineLine, pt), FDG saying that extreme masculinity actually leads to calm, not agressiveness, and heart with some symbolism for good measure.

Excelent. *Monty Burns fingers*

 

[Mycroft]

They're usually also very cynical and hypercritical, which means they're probably judging you.

Just so you know, we serious types detest this stereotype.