~~ mmmm-m-macho.
May. 1st, 2004 08:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSo I was watching this semi-bad anime, E's Otherwise, and was completely charmed and taken in by the stereotypical pretty antagonist boy. I mean, I know I'm easy, but. Shenlong is all blond and pissy and "kill the humans, they -hate- us 'cause we're special" and he pretty much hates the goody-two-shoes but-humans-deserve-to-live-too protagonist, of course, and. Reminding me of someone? Nooooo. Gotta say though, Draco looks great with a braid :D He does! And... of course, in the reviews I've seen, mostly it's like, "Shenlong is such the arrogant asshole" while the minority is all "mmm, hotness". Typical, right. I'm telling you though, this boy can fight. And also, mmm, hotness.
And okay, I'm really curious.... Why is it that people dislike arrogance, anyway? Is it because they're somehow threatened by it? I mean, if someone is full of hot air, and is really a pathetic loser who can't do anything (and is still arrogant), that's one thing. I can see how that's offensive, simply because the person is delusional and pushy about it (so basically, one can say they're mentally disturbed). Maybe there's a drive to give arrogant bastards some real competency just because otherwise, not even their own mother could love them, or something. (Yeah, I'm thinking fanon!Draco, of course.)
But given that their abilities are up to snuff, such arrogance is merely a sort of belligerence, I guess, cockiness mixed with a bad temper. So one figures this person has an anger-management problem but not a competency problem. People who're perpetually angry tend to not have a lot of friends and annoy a lot of people, I guess. So maybe it's just that they wouldn't like -you-, so you don't like them first?
My first impulse is to feel sorry for this person and go "awww, you need a friend", though not to their face of course. To me, it's blissfully easy 'cause I'm unlikely to interact with you whether you're belligerent/arrogant or not, being rather antisocial. So it's all kinda theoretical to me, I suppose, whereas more extroverted people might be more inclined to this sort of social judgement.
Maybe it really is that simple. People don't like other people who act like they're better than them, whether they're correct about that or not. Whereas I personally find it cute simply because I suppose I grew up like that, being told that er... I was 'better', ahahah. Um. *coughs* Basically, I was taught that competency is paramount and an attitude is just something one -has- if one is "just that good". Hmm.
It's hard to really know what I'm talking about entirely, 'cause arrogant people don't talk to you, as a general rule, online or off; well, unless they're flamers. And a lot of them -are- full of hot air (online), so I don't care whether they need a friend or not as soon as I realize their unhappily low intelligence level, myself. (Am -I- being arrogant? Mostly, it's that competency thing again.)
'Course, it could easily be argued that the -truly- competent/intelligent ones wouldn't -need- to be show-offs and wouldn't need to prove anything to anyone. In this way, arrogance is always going to be proclaiming things it can't fully deliver on, just because the person is still measuring themselves against others, rather than having grown past that or something. Unless they just have a very hot temper (which I personally find cute, again 'cause I watch from the outside).
There are other issues often hiding behind what other people see as "arrogance", too. One can be said to be "stubborn" or "headstrong" or maybe "driven" instead, depending on whether all this arrogance is being focused towards a goal or just randomly splurged in all directions. Maybe it comes out as offensive (defensive?) bluster if there's no useful focus to all this machismo and restless energy and power. Since most likely, these guys have no actual people skills (or empathy) to speak of to smooth the way. That's what it comes down to, isn't it, in boys anyway?
Machismo, then. Arrogance mixed with immaturity; completely untempered.
Which traditionally has both pissed off and attracted, at least the female half of the population. People tend to be attracted to power and people who claim it for themselves, even as they're mistrustful, right? That's human nature. Perhaps, it's even more important to -claim- than actually -possess-, in some ways. That is, for instance, in relation to human ties and relationships in particular. What counts is what you can get people to do and how you can get them to react, in the end, rather than what -you- can do alone, at least in some situations. Right?
So I guess one could say, when it comes to me anyway, that I find myself attracted to the strut of machismo itself. While I'd get bored if it was actually empty bluster, the initial burst of attention comes from the character demanding it. This seems natural to me, though apparently other people react confrontationally and resent the same thing I find cute and unthreatening. Does the reaction depend on whether one feels somehow threatened by the macho character? Like if one is part of whatever group they disparage, I guess? I'm not sure.
I mean, macho boys have traditionally had it in for intellectuals & girls, and probably especially intellectual girls, which I am one of. Then again, this would be the dumb segment of the arrogant-boy population, which I would ignore. Heh. So my viewpoint is rather self-defining, but.... This explains why I find Draco/Hermione hard to swallow, if not impossible. I mean, a girl + an intellectual + a Mudblood? His ego, I don't think can withstand, at least not until years of maturing. Or something.
And most definitely, I'd say that Draco is the most macho character in Harry Potter, whatever his actual abilities or motivations, though there are other characters who're just as -arrogant- (but more mature). Ron is definitely a "normal bloke", by contrast, in that he does have an attitude but it's muted by a more obvious sense of insecurity and his consciousness of being overshadowed by Harry and his brothers. Ron sort of internalizes that viewpoint to some degree, while it seems like as soon as Draco sees Potter threatening his macho self-image, he puffs up harder. That "macho" strut remains whether or not there's anything to back it up, in the end.
*sigh*
And as a slasher, there's something particularly delicious about slashing the macho character, it seems to me. It's like their whole being screams against it. One gets the feeling like they'd feel threatened, like they'd see the other boy as a competitor if they were at all comparable in abilities or ambitions. The instinct would be to puff up and protect territory, right. And it's just wonderfully subversive to then twist that and introduce some good old fashioned hormones to confuse everything. Ha. Oh Draco, how I love to torture you with Pottah-luuuuuurve. *evil laughter*
And okay, I'm really curious.... Why is it that people dislike arrogance, anyway? Is it because they're somehow threatened by it? I mean, if someone is full of hot air, and is really a pathetic loser who can't do anything (and is still arrogant), that's one thing. I can see how that's offensive, simply because the person is delusional and pushy about it (so basically, one can say they're mentally disturbed). Maybe there's a drive to give arrogant bastards some real competency just because otherwise, not even their own mother could love them, or something. (Yeah, I'm thinking fanon!Draco, of course.)
But given that their abilities are up to snuff, such arrogance is merely a sort of belligerence, I guess, cockiness mixed with a bad temper. So one figures this person has an anger-management problem but not a competency problem. People who're perpetually angry tend to not have a lot of friends and annoy a lot of people, I guess. So maybe it's just that they wouldn't like -you-, so you don't like them first?
My first impulse is to feel sorry for this person and go "awww, you need a friend", though not to their face of course. To me, it's blissfully easy 'cause I'm unlikely to interact with you whether you're belligerent/arrogant or not, being rather antisocial. So it's all kinda theoretical to me, I suppose, whereas more extroverted people might be more inclined to this sort of social judgement.
Maybe it really is that simple. People don't like other people who act like they're better than them, whether they're correct about that or not. Whereas I personally find it cute simply because I suppose I grew up like that, being told that er... I was 'better', ahahah. Um. *coughs* Basically, I was taught that competency is paramount and an attitude is just something one -has- if one is "just that good". Hmm.
It's hard to really know what I'm talking about entirely, 'cause arrogant people don't talk to you, as a general rule, online or off; well, unless they're flamers. And a lot of them -are- full of hot air (online), so I don't care whether they need a friend or not as soon as I realize their unhappily low intelligence level, myself. (Am -I- being arrogant? Mostly, it's that competency thing again.)
'Course, it could easily be argued that the -truly- competent/intelligent ones wouldn't -need- to be show-offs and wouldn't need to prove anything to anyone. In this way, arrogance is always going to be proclaiming things it can't fully deliver on, just because the person is still measuring themselves against others, rather than having grown past that or something. Unless they just have a very hot temper (which I personally find cute, again 'cause I watch from the outside).
There are other issues often hiding behind what other people see as "arrogance", too. One can be said to be "stubborn" or "headstrong" or maybe "driven" instead, depending on whether all this arrogance is being focused towards a goal or just randomly splurged in all directions. Maybe it comes out as offensive (defensive?) bluster if there's no useful focus to all this machismo and restless energy and power. Since most likely, these guys have no actual people skills (or empathy) to speak of to smooth the way. That's what it comes down to, isn't it, in boys anyway?
Machismo, then. Arrogance mixed with immaturity; completely untempered.
Which traditionally has both pissed off and attracted, at least the female half of the population. People tend to be attracted to power and people who claim it for themselves, even as they're mistrustful, right? That's human nature. Perhaps, it's even more important to -claim- than actually -possess-, in some ways. That is, for instance, in relation to human ties and relationships in particular. What counts is what you can get people to do and how you can get them to react, in the end, rather than what -you- can do alone, at least in some situations. Right?
So I guess one could say, when it comes to me anyway, that I find myself attracted to the strut of machismo itself. While I'd get bored if it was actually empty bluster, the initial burst of attention comes from the character demanding it. This seems natural to me, though apparently other people react confrontationally and resent the same thing I find cute and unthreatening. Does the reaction depend on whether one feels somehow threatened by the macho character? Like if one is part of whatever group they disparage, I guess? I'm not sure.
I mean, macho boys have traditionally had it in for intellectuals & girls, and probably especially intellectual girls, which I am one of. Then again, this would be the dumb segment of the arrogant-boy population, which I would ignore. Heh. So my viewpoint is rather self-defining, but.... This explains why I find Draco/Hermione hard to swallow, if not impossible. I mean, a girl + an intellectual + a Mudblood? His ego, I don't think can withstand, at least not until years of maturing. Or something.
And most definitely, I'd say that Draco is the most macho character in Harry Potter, whatever his actual abilities or motivations, though there are other characters who're just as -arrogant- (but more mature). Ron is definitely a "normal bloke", by contrast, in that he does have an attitude but it's muted by a more obvious sense of insecurity and his consciousness of being overshadowed by Harry and his brothers. Ron sort of internalizes that viewpoint to some degree, while it seems like as soon as Draco sees Potter threatening his macho self-image, he puffs up harder. That "macho" strut remains whether or not there's anything to back it up, in the end.
*sigh*
And as a slasher, there's something particularly delicious about slashing the macho character, it seems to me. It's like their whole being screams against it. One gets the feeling like they'd feel threatened, like they'd see the other boy as a competitor if they were at all comparable in abilities or ambitions. The instinct would be to puff up and protect territory, right. And it's just wonderfully subversive to then twist that and introduce some good old fashioned hormones to confuse everything. Ha. Oh Draco, how I love to torture you with Pottah-luuuuuurve. *evil laughter*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Just focusing on one question
Date: 2004-05-02 10:06 am (UTC)-brodie
Re: Just focusing on one question
Date: 2004-05-02 12:19 pm (UTC)But then, I'm just the sort of person who hears "over-compensating" and wants to psychoanalyze someone and help them :> Or just watch. Watching is generally fun, moreso if the people are over the top, I guess~:)
~reena