Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 17

= April 17 =

How do machismo people bullies deal with their boss?
One of the fundamentals of everyday machismo is that the person who lives by that creed believes in being dominant. Yet even machismo people can have bosses. How do they relate to their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-machismo person would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance?

I'd prefer answers based on research or personal experience rather than on imagination or movies please. Thanks. 92.15.8.229 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The word 'machismo' suggests that men are dominant, not that you, as an individual, are dominant. I suppose that some of those men would have a strong time accepting a female boss. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring mainly to men, even though I ommitted to specify gender. I do not think Quest09's take is true, but let us not get sidetracked please. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Domonance involves control, in this context but machismo involves an exagerated show of masculinity. Not quite the same thing, although one sometimes involves the other.Phalcor (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A reminder - I'm specificaly asking how machismo people deal with their bosses, not about machismo in general. Thanks. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem for answering your question is that 'machismo' is badly defined. Do you need a certain appearance? Is it enough to discriminate woman? Do you have to put up fight with people who crossed your path? I suppose lots of wife-beaters don't have any meaningful problem with their males bosses. Quest09 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try the first definition here (parts 1 and 2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machismo or what it says in the machismo article about the English meaning of the word. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I live in a notably machismo culture in Central America for several years and I see no employee/employer problems cause by the machismo attitude. If anything it seems to foster a sort of male comaradary. A common bond base on presumed superiority over, and to, the exclusion of women.190.56.17.69 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the aspect of machismo I mean is that of the bully. Rephrasing the question, how do bullies deal with their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-bully would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance? The particular people I once encountered were aggressive bullies to men but charming to women. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Previously (190 56 17 69) My experiences tell me that if a man is a bully with men then he is a bully. period. and he will in all likelyhood be a bully with any woman once his charm has acheived it's goal, eventually.Phalcor (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again I didn't fully answer your question. If a man wants to keep his job he will usually submit but I think not be more submissive than non bullies. behaviour patterns in the work place are usually well established. he knows what he has to do to keep his job. If not he looses it, which I've seen happen more than once.Phalcor (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullies are often bullied themselves. At school age it can take the form of a kid who is bullied by his parents and/or teachers and/or siblings and then takes it out on other kids.  As adults, being bullied by the boss may then result in that person taking it out on his wife and kids, and thus continue the cycle.  In the military (or quasi-military organizations, like the police), the higher ranks often bully the lower ranks, on down to new recruits, who must go outside the military to vent their frustrations, say by picking fights in bars. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is just a stereotype or cliched story. I've never experienced or observed that myself. I expect there is some research about that somewhere. 92.15.12.17 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, keywords searches for 'machismo'/'macho' and 'employer'/'workplace' in the journal databases I have access to yielded nothing particularly relevant. A small number of articles came up with each combination of terms, but they were mainly talking about women entering traditionally male-dominated fields, especially those fields with a physical labor focus (construction, the armed forces, &c.).  I didn't read each article in depth, but none seemed to directly address your specific question.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullies become subservient to bigger bullies further up the hierarchy.Hotclaws (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be some split developing in macho (such as "macho management") and machismo having different meanings. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading in Man's Search for Meaning (or perhaps in If This Is a Man), a memoir about being in a concentration camp, that the author says that the bullies such as the ex-convict kapos would be very friendly with each other, as they thought they could be useful to themselves. Mutual pleasantness between bullies is something I've noticed myself. I'm still trying to unpick and understand the motives and mode of reasoning for the working-class macho I have ocassionally encountered in an otherwise middle-class life. I think its to do with being hypersensitive to even the slightest suggestion of a loss of dominance in the eyes of others. They try to maintain an iron-will, and go to great lengths to change the (lip-service of) facts to fit their minds but never the converse. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Official brochure for UK May 2011 referendrum
The government is/was supposed to be putting an official brochure through everyboy's letterbox regarding the upcoming referendrum regarding AV. But I have not received one. Where could I download it please? I have tried looking for it without success. Note that it is only the official government brochure that I am interested in, not other brochures about AV. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * choose your country and hit download. Nanonic (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient language
I know that French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese came from Latin and Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sinhala, Divehi, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese, and Oriya came from Sanskrit. What about Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam?-Which ancient did they come from? What about Kurdish, Pashto, Tajik, Pashai, Nuristani, Baloch, Persian, Lur, Gilaki, and Mazandarani?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about English, German, Danish, Icelandic, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz?-Which language did they come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions in order: Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Iranian, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Turkic. Incidentally, it isn't strictly accurate to say that the Romance languages came from Latin, the refined and elite language of Cicero and other classical writers.  Instead, those languages are descended from Vulgar Latin, the spoken language of the common people, which differed in some ways from its elite, literary counterpart.  Likewise, the Indo-Aryan languages are not directly descended from the literary and religious language that we know as Sanskrit.  Instead, they are descended from Proto-Indo-Aryan, of which Vedic Sanskrit was one variety.  That ancestor language was spoken about 3,500 years ago.  The modern vernacular languages evolved alongside Sanskrit, which did not reach its classic form until more than 1,000 years later, around the time of Pāṇini. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To quibble: "Romance is descended from Latin" is not as false as "Bengali etc are descended from Sanskrit"; both Vulgar and Classical Latin are descended from something that was already called Latin, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Tamfang, but not exactly textbook or dictionary Latin, which are based on the classical standard. Marco polo (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

World War One memoirs
What other non-fiction memoirs of experiences in WW1 are there apart from those of Robert Graves, Good-Bye to All That; Edmund Blunden, Undertones Of War; and Siegfried Sassoon, semi-fictional Memoirs of an Infantry Officer? Is there a list anywhere of all the WW1 memoirs? I believe many were published. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a list of WW1 memoirs at World War I in literature. --Antiquary (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I believe there were many more than that published, but most of those not by literary authors have been forgotten. There is a long list, each evaluated and reviewed, in the book "War Books" published in about 1930 by someone who's name I forget. But unfortunately it is not available to preview on Google books. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

nature film or something else
Back in 1979, when I was in second grade, I took a field trip with my class to the Lawrence Hall of Science. In one portion, there was this place which looked like a small cinema. On the movie screen, there was this film. It featured a man who lived with his dogs inside a cabin somewhere in the woods. From time to time, the man would go canoeing on the river. Whenever the man was relaxing at his cabin, sometimes his dogs would make a little mischief. He'd say, "I told you to quit rocking that chair!" Does anyone know what type of film I'm trying to describe?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's lots of film of a man (Richard Proenneke) who hand-built a cabin in Alaska and lived there for many years. I recall a canoe. I don't recall him having dogs, but he may have. Could this be it? StuRat (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. The film you're talking about was released in 2004. The one I saw with my class was shown at the Lawrence Hall of Science in 1979.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2004 movie consists mainly of home movies he made himself, starting in 1968. Those may have been made available to Lawrence Hall of Science before they were included in the film. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's any help, I remember reading a paperback about an American man who lived in isolation on the banks of a river somewhere. I think it was around the 1960s. 92.24.176.164 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be the book by the same guy I mentioned above. (One Man's Wilderness: An Alaskan Odyssey came out in 1973.) StuRat (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the paperback guy was not in Alaska. 92.28.248.131 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how the Lawrence Hall of Science could've obtained the home movies. What does a paperback have to do with the film I'm trying to figure out?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh. Because the person in the paperback and the film could be the same. 92.28.248.131 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Proennecke film. No dogs or rocking chairs, as I recall. That's right. He was off his rocker to live alone like that. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I must be referring to another film, right?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)