Re: 'Face' cultures (Re: Frankfurt School)


"Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d0oTf.15019$S25.7109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi, see in. I'm snipping a lot .
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ijMQf.10293$S25.7970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well, I wouldn't call it 'bull***' generally. Honor translates to
reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job,
income,
mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care
about
honor.

Well, a society that sees an individual tied up with all that other
extraneous stuff is imo - DUMB. If people have to worry 24/7 about
reputation - then where is freedom? The people in that society would be
ruled by fear. That's my point, it's why I call it bull***.

When people care about honor/ face/ reputation, it doesn't necessarily mean
they are 24/7 worried about it. It doesn't even mean they give up all their
freedom for it - yet they probably give up things which pose a threat to
their idea of a good reputation. It's just about priorities.

PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying
to
everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.

PC may have been an invention of good intentions - rules to provide
RESPECT
in human communication. But more and more it has overrun its aims, and
turned into tyranny, yes.

It has become a vehicle by which non-Europeans TRASH Europeans - and
that's
OK.

Europe has always been a battlefield of concepts - particularly Germany,
since it's placed in the heart of Europe and almost every migration movement
leaves its marks. We did a lot of bullying in the past, and today we are -
well, a little more reluctant. We can no longer expect other people to
consider us as superior in any way, so we have to deal with *THEIR* concepts
of social rules. PC is some kind of backlash of our arrogance in the past.
Me must try to find a new equilibrium.

Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender
relationships
are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
development, not First world vs Third world societies.

You sure about that? Seems to me that the most modern First World
countries
have the most gender equality. The most backward crapholes of countries
in
what we call Third World do not. Their values are mideval.

What I meant is that Third World countries are not all the same when it
comes to women's rights. And my question is, "Why are some Third World
countries more macho dominated than others?"

This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of
choice,
and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like
in
Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of
who will
be the father of their babies.

Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them.
Think
again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.

Yes, but like I said above - it didn't happen everywhere to the same
degree.

Yes it did at one time. Only very recently do women in First World
countries have equality. Maybe you don't realize how RECENT this First
World mentality is. VERY recent. Women didn't even have the right to
vote
in the USA until relatively recently!

I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and Europe and
America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was not
EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. It
may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or Ecuador, but I
guess you would admit that they are comparably better off there.

There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior,
and
there must be something which supports female influence.

Sure - a reason to select in favor of bullyish, brutish people instead of
intelligence and peaceful natures. Some of the men of these brutish
cultures have measurably more testosterone than other men - see website
and
posts of James Michael Howard for ALL you could want to know about
testosterone. What supported female influence in First World countries
was - heh, that same old Cultural Marxism that we also have much to rail
against. It's really something very recent.

Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with the
question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher testosterone
levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
Maybe there is a mechanism which works like a one way ticket in one
direction. Maybe it is a mechanism we can MANIPULATE. That would be the
handle to reverse undesirable trends.

It's difficult to talk about certain GROUPS of humans without a little
stereotypizing.

Well, the stereotypes are even used by comedians and people in those
grouops
recognize THEMSELVES very easily - and they think it's funny. The
stereotypes are based on real experiences people have had.

Exactly my point. Stereotypes may be dead wrond for an INDIVIDUAL, but
groupwise they contain some truth. I guess many people squirm about it
because this truth is sometimes a bit embarrassing.

A Japanese might also start a fight - very much in public. You have
some
odd ideas about the Japanese!

Just from what I see. My hometown is a tourist place with lots of
Americans,
Japanese, Spaniards and Italians. In all these many years living here I
NEVER observed a single act of aggression of a Japanese.

TOURISTS. They are not an objective sample. I can remember at least 3
times a Japanese male got out of his car and was ready to start a physical
fight with me for merely beeping my horn at him (cuz he was taking TOO
LONG
at a toll booth). They were Japanese, they were cursing in what clearly
sounded like Japanese LOL. They didn't continue to the point of fighting
me - maybe noticed I was a girl and I guess backed off - I say that cuz
they
looked up at me, seemed surprised, and then backed off. LOL. On the
other
hand, maybe they figured I might have a gun because I did not flinch a bit
when they did this - I just watched them kinda expressionless. I can
remember Vietnamese people going ape *** over a small, TINY dent a friend
made in their car while parking - they got out, FURIOUS, stood there
pointing and screaming, "you make HORE in caa, you make HORE in caa"
LMAO.
It was the FUNNIEST thing I ever saw. The FIERCE looks on their faces,
PHEW. Meanwhile, my friend, a real nordic type of NW European guy, stood
there like a stoical statue waiting for them to calm down, with his wallet
and insurance papers out. LMAO. It was HILARIOUS to see this. It's
funny
even now, 30 years later. My dentist's wife (both are Chinese Americans)
divorced him because she said he had a violent temper - and she had no
qualms about letting EVERYONE know the details about all of it. So there
goes the whole "they don't show it" idea. I wouldn't tend to show anger
or
get into a miff if I was vacationing as a tourist either, you know. It's
just that it's a strange place, not my home turf, and I'd just NOT behave
that way on strange turf.

Agreed, tourists act differently than people on their home turf. But I can
compare the behavior of tourists among each others. I can definitely say
that there *IS* a difference based on nationalities.

The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all
negative.
Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the
USA.

I see it as thoroughly negative - it led to the rise in Frankfurt
School
power, alienation from family stuff, the REaction to the disaster and
now
the rise in fundie thinking - all banded together fundies, too with
CLOUT.
It led to the set in stone duming down of education, the draconian
tyranny
known as PC, and really stupid kids and teens that can't even think and
have
NO CONCEPTION of individualism. ***, they get their roles from TV sit
com crap and start to act like that.

But it led to female emancipation and greater racial equality on the
other
side. So it wasn't all bad. :-)

It led to greater female emancipation (and lack of a positive birth rate -
which is NOT so good for a population) and well, it didn't lead to racial
equality - it led to ANTI EUROPEAN racism to the point of "it's OK to
destroy European cultures."

That is probably different in the USA. In Germany we don't have to deal with
a lot of Anti European racism and the 60ies movement definitely increased
gender and racial tolerance.


.

Quantcast