Speaker to Animals wrote: I already showed you a total fruitcake behaving aggressively and you completely ignored the question of whether that thing was "masculine"
The dude (?) was attempting to express masculinity, he(?) simply has no idea how. Likely because the society around him (?) no longer nurtures its healthy growth.
Uh.. no..
You said masculinity is aggression. That creature was certainly quite aggressive. According to your assessment of masculinity, it is definitely a masculine homo sapiens.
But we all know it for sure as shit is as far away from masculinity as one can get.
Speaker to Animals wrote: I already showed you a total fruitcake behaving aggressively and you completely ignored the question of whether that thing was "masculine"
The dude (?) was attempting to express masculinity, he(?) simply has no idea how. Likely because the society around him (?) no longer nurtures its healthy growth.
Uh.. no..
You said masculinity is aggression. That creature was certainly quite aggressive. According to your assessment of masculinity, it is definitely a masculine homo sapiens.
But we all know it for sure as shit is as far away from masculinity as one can get.
Talking about contradictions..
The fact that he sucks at it doesn't change the fact that's what he was attempting.
In the same way that soldiers disobeying orders and reckless charging out to get slaughtered against orders is a masculine behavior , even though it is incompetent.
The guy in the video lacked strength, a masculine trait, and he employed aggression improperly and without restraint, thus behaving dishonorably. Were he justified in his attack I would give him points for courage.
JohnDonne wrote:The guy in the video lacked strength, a masculine trait, and he employed aggression improperly and without restraint, thus behaving dishonorably. Were he justified in his attack I would give him points for courage.
JohnDonne wrote:The guy in the video lacked strength, a masculine trait, and he employed aggression improperly and without restraint, thus behaving dishonorably. Were he justified in his attack I would give him points for courage.
I agree that he sucked.
Did the maxim gun make the Zulu's less masculine?
If your strength is derived from outside of yourself I would say it isn’t really your strength and thus does not increase your individual masculinity.
JohnDonne wrote:The guy in the video lacked strength, a masculine trait, and he employed aggression improperly and without restraint, thus behaving dishonorably. Were he justified in his attack I would give him points for courage.
I agree that he sucked.
Did the maxim gun make the Zulu's less masculine?
If your strength is derived from outside of yourself I would say it isn’t really your strength and thus does not increase your individual masculinity.
i think you answered whether the technology made the British more masculine, not whether or not the zulus lost masculinity.
If your strength is derived from outside of yourself I would say it isn’t really your strength and thus does not increase your individual masculinity.
i think you answered whether the technology made the British more masculine, not whether or not the zulus lost masculinity.
Pedantic. Sure. But I think still relevant.
If the British don’t gain masculinity in acquiring guns how could the Zulu lose it from them, even if there was a case to be made that masculinity was a zero sum game, which it’s not?
It just happens that we judge masculinity by relative standards, we can only compare. And it could well be the zulus are more oriented towards the feminine, would have to look at both cultures rather than just one aspect to make a judgment.
nmoore63 wrote:Masculinity certainly isn’t a zero sum game.
But the Zulu military competency was certainly decreased by the technology. So it depends on how you define masculinity.
I would say that the zulus did not lose competence, after all, they remained the same in their skills and technology, rather the British gained competence over them through technological advances and superior firepower. But whether that is a competence that can be tied to a sub trait deemed an essence of masculinity is the question. I would certainly agree that holding a gun gives one the advantage, but I would argue it is not necessarily an extension of personal strength but rather could be a replacement for it, so it gives no indication either way of masculinity. Personal strength is about a spiritual will, a restraint, a control, of which physical prowess is merely the associated emblem.
The Zulus had guns, the British defeated the Zulus by mass and logistics, after the initial engagements caught the British off guard, they simply sent a bigger army and overwhelmed them.
