Is machismo a product of an oppressive society?

Question

If so, do you think that "machos" are just a product of Third World Countries"?

"I am a recovering macho, a product of an oppressive society, a society where gender, race and class domination do not exist in isolated compartments, nor are they neatly relegated to uniform categories of repression. They are created in the space where they interact and conflict with each other, a space I will call machismo. The understanding of machismo requires a full consideration of sexism, heterosexism, racism, ethnocentrism and classism. All forms of oppression are identical in their attempt to domesticate the Other. The sexist, who sees women playing a lesser productive role than men, transfers upon the non-elite male Other effeminate characteristics, placing him in a feminine space for "easy mounting."

Excerpt from "Beyond Machismo: A Cuban Case Study

Dr. Miguel De La Torre, (formerly of) Hope College

Whole paper at:

http://www.libertadlatina.org/Latin_America_Machismo_p3.htm

Answer 1

I do not think it is exclusive to 3rd world countries.  I know an American who believes exactly as is described above.  His biggest fear is of being perceived feminine in any way shape or form and at any question or slight threat to his perceived masculinity he becomes very aggressive.  He despises independent women but holds much more hatred for men that he feels are effeminate (effeminate to him means a man who deals with conflict without violence and does not demand  women to be subservient to him)

But based on him, I would think it is true that an oppressive environment contributes to it.  His childhood/adolescent environment was no picnic, he was exposed a lot to gang culture and as much poverty as America allows, minimal education and has struggled his whole life financially and socially.

Answer 2

What about the Aussie bloke,the Kiwi, or the cowboy, machoism is born out of hardship I think. Essential to our evolution and survival so far. If man didn't compete with nature and those around him, we would not be here.

Answer 3

Domination itself is oppressive. That's like saying I want respect but I don't want to give respect.

Answer 4

Nope..

It's a product of biology and survival..  Machismo/masculinity is one of the main reason why the human race continue to exist.

That paper is just another feminist attempt to attack men and masculinity, nothing more.

Answer 5

You people ty to make intellectual and  complicated  the  simple animal stuff that we are. Geesh!

Just be what s*x you are naturally and enjoy it.

How hard is that?

Answer 6

No, it's a product of testosterone.  

Answer 7

Perhaps, but to replace it with another oppressive system isn't better.

Answer 8

I honestly believe the answer is yes and no. Being Macho is a male thing. It can be being the strong one in someones eyes. This can include and exclude: strangers, friends, spouse, and children. This Macho-ism is not necessarily a bad this. Being strong does not mean having big muscles, it means having a strong heart. Caring, loving, and tenderness are all Macho things.

The so-called Macho-Men who parade around with one man-ship, abuse, name calling, spite, and beating people, are in fact called Macho but in reality are cowards. Life for those men is sad, unsatisfied and worthless. They will never know love or appreciate life.

Personally I would prefer to be remembered as a Macho-Man as described in my first paragraph.

Bill

Answer 9

Machismo is the reason humans continue to exist! Lol. And there was me thinking it was s*x. I guess all those biology lessons must've been a feminist conspiracy too.

Yes, 'machos' are more likely to appear under oppression. They are oppressed - in turn they feel the need to oppress others.  

Answer 10

I agree with Mutterhals. Machismo is not about oppression. Its about courage, strength, and leadership!

Answer 11

Of course it is.  I am not, however, denying anything about hormones since culture and biology either work in tandem or not at all.  Nor am I denying that machismo has functioned within the constraints of human society to benefit the survival of certain societies or individual members of societies.  

But the problem is that society itself, at least in the sense that it is used here is a form of oppression.  Society is, after all, basically a set of consensually agreed-upon essentialisms.  Culture can be seen as a method of oppression (including morality, stereotypes, archetypes, etc).  Or it can be seen as a liberating mechanism that removes the oppressiveness of personal responsibility and choice.  

Despite these comments, I generally agree with the comments offered above, though I have met many exceptions - sexists who are just sexists that is, and do not exhibit the other pathologies of which the author wrote.  

Maybe it's time for me to re-post my question about the benefits of an equalist socio-political agenda for men?

Answer 12

Yes, all forms of domination and all hierarchies are inherently oppressive. The existence of domination and hierarchies itself means, by definition, that a society is oppressive, at least to some or most of it's people.

Power hierarchies work by creating believed differences in the perceived value of individuals using physical, spiritual, economic, or emotional differences to divide people. Machiavelli articulated this well. Power exists and perpetuates itself by creating conflict among its dominions. It does not matter if the masses hate the ruling class, so long as the masses do not love each other.

This is why (in our culture) those who are wealthy, white, male, protestants are treated preferentially. By giving more power to those who are similar to the ruling class it reinforces and legitimizes the power of the ruling class. Makes it appear normal, part of the "natural order" of things.

This does not mean that all males are treated better or valued more than all females. Likewise for the other differentiating factors. It simply means that the more closely you emulate the ruling class, the more you are seen as powerful and valuable.

To divide a society of subjects along racial, religious, or economic lines is simply inadequate if you wish to have real control over the masses. The races, people of different faiths, and people of different economic classes can do quite well avoiding each other. The sexes, on the other hand, must live together. If you really want to divide and conquer, you place a wedge between man and woman. You create enmity between them, get them to struggle over the crumbs of power. This means that the family unit is riddled with strife, distrust, trauma, and energy-sapping conflict. Not even the family unit achieves solidarity in this setting. All the better to rule you by.

Lastly, the domination can't be complete without dividing the self from the self. By creating schisms within the psyche of individuals you can completely paralyze them politically. When they come to believe "this part of who I am is bad, and this part is good" then they will spend their energy trying to push down the parts of themselves they have come to see as unacceptable while trying to showcase those parts that are considered acceptable. This means that not even the individual is allowed wholeness.

Divide and conquer.

Divide and conquer.

Love is a subversive act.

Answer 13

No its a product of nature. All male animals show machismo because that aggressiveness ensured survival of his family and allowed the group to thrive. Provide and protect the species from others. Women as find machismo as sexual turn on.

You obviously have nerdy boyfriend and conventially ugly boyfriend.

Answer 14

Yes, macho behavior is a product of patriarchy and oppression. It is an exaggeration, a farce. And it is a means of "acting" dominant, in order to subjugate others.

Good article.