Macho vs feminine

[Avniel]

Warning this thread is about macho and feminine traits and how we characterize them.

Ok so I was having a conversation with MK and she said something interesting. She said that feeling like one has the right or wanting to hit someone back that hits you back is a macho attitude, MK I would like to apologize I am paraphrasing here but it's petty to the conversation however I understand and respect if you want your exact words to be used(lazy sorry just got back in town from my sisters Baby shower). As a person that believes that the african people that took part in the diaspora lost most of their identity I do reject the notion of macho and feminine noting them as Eurocentric and rejection of african culture.

My question however is do we typically see feminine as passive and Macho as aggressive?

Is a woman like Madam Tinubu a former slave trader in africa that became aware of the differences between african slavery and slavery in the americas and was banished for her plot to raise up against the british colonial government. Was her plot macho or was the fact that she's a woman make her aggressive position not macho? Is a man like MLK feminine due to his passive resistance or the fact that he ran an organization out of a church that didn't have women leaders or his rumored and or confirmed affairs make him a typical macho man? Was a man like Huey P. Newton an advocate for resistance of oppression with ammunition but he was also a man that stated in a speech:

”whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the *found this term inappropriate* that we might not have to start with."

Do we consider this man to be macho even though he was an advocate for women and homosexual rights.......?

 

[Verve]

I don't think that feminine is passive and masculine is active.

I think you're confusing macho with masculine.

For example the type of feminine archetypes that have always been my favorite are actually very strong and kind at the same time. They aren't afraid to fight for what they believe in.

AbsoluteDestiny - I Enjoy Being a Girl [Multi-fandom fanvid] - YouTube
Macho is more like this Machismo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It means you are aggressively proud of your masculinity.

Where masculinity in general has a more broad definition.

 

[Avniel]

I don't think that feminine is passive and masculine is active.

I think you're confusing macho with masculine.

For example the type of feminine archetypes that have always been my favorite are actually very strong and kind at the same time. They aren't afraid to fight for what they believe in.

AbsoluteDestiny - I Enjoy Being a Girl [Multi-fandom fanvid] - YouTube
Macho is more like this Machismo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It means you are aggressively proud of your masculinity.

Where masculinity in general has a more broad definition.

I was kind of confused by the comment a majority of the women I look up to typically were active in aggressive ways, typically I supported movements that had aggression and violence versus the passive resistence because I don't feel like that is reality. I think those that believe passive objection in response to violent oppression are naive and idealists in a sense. I admire women that were not passive and actually many that were violent. Winnie Mandela is a perfect example of the type of woman I see as respectable and not in a manly sort of way.

Do you think in our society we tend to look at women like Winnie Mandela as masculine and the men that celebrate them as being macho despite the fact she's a woman?

 

[ValleyGal]

I think the words we use to describe things really plays a part. If a man stands up for what he believes, he is "aggressive" about it, but a woman who stands up for what she believes is "outspoken." Maybe part of masculine and feminine is how we stand up for it.

For example, I am Anabaptist, and we are peaceful and passive in resistance - both our men and women alike. But our men are strong, often very hard workers, protectors of home and family, and macho without being aggressive. Our women are outspoken about our faith, but we are not aggressive in pushing it onto others. We tend not to engage in a lot of conflict, so aggression is not part of daily life. But masculine and feminine are very much part of who we are, as we honour the male and female identity that God has given us - and the inherent differences between us. That has nothing to do with role, but has everything to do with male/female, masculine/feminine.

I find aggression overwhelming and even frightening. I feel quite threatened by it, whether it is from a male or female. I equate aggression with intimidation, bullying, power-mongers, but I find masculinity minus aggression very attractive and comforting.

 

[Avniel]

I think the words we use to describe things really plays a part. If a man stands up for what he believes, he is "aggressive" about it, but a woman who stands up for what she believes is "outspoken." Maybe part of masculine and feminine is how we stand up for it.

For example, I am Anabaptist, and we are peaceful and passive in resistance - both our men and women alike. But our men are strong, often very hard workers, protectors of home and family, and macho without being aggressive. Our women are outspoken about our faith, but we are not aggressive in pushing it onto others. We tend not to engage in a lot of conflict, so aggression is not part of daily life. But masculine and feminine are very much part of who we are, as we honour the male and female identity that God has given us - and the inherent differences between us. That has nothing to do with role, but has everything to do with male/female, masculine/feminine.

I find aggression overwhelming and even frightening. I feel quite threatened by it, whether it is from a male or female. I equate aggression with intimidation, bullying, power-mongers, but I find masculinity minus aggression very attractive and comforting.

I certainly do disagree somewhat I find aggression at times the best way to deal with a threat. I learned that when I was robbed if I handled the opposition with aggression from the start of our association I believe the situation would have been very different. What I have found is there are a lot of guys out there that they only respond to negative reenforcement. I find that most guys that come off as super super macho are super super cowardly and are trying to compensate for something within themselves that makes them feel as though they are less then men. The loudest mouth in the room typically is the man that is going to be the first to run even on a street level typically the one that instigates crimes is the first one tell and normally the most flashy out the group. I have always found that aspect interesting funny little sidebar.

I do agree I believe we tend to label behavior negatively when we notice it in men.

See I would not consider the anabaptist men less macho or more macho. I think we live in a society that associates masculinity with aggressive behavior. However it is my opinion that masculinity is more about sacrifice personally that is what I believe. However I will certainly disagree I believe aggression is needed, look at Michael Brown and how the riots after his death has caused police policy changes nation wide. Without riots would these policies have changed? I think in america in particular the presence of violence or a violent tension has always marked change in policies that affect the black community. What is your take on this position?

I agree there are differences however I think a majority of those differences we recognize as true are based in eurocentricism and therefore exclude other cultures ideals on the differences between men and women. I believe we need to reject this ideal and search for a spiritual identity instead. Thoughts on this as well?

 

[DZoolander]

I agreed up until I saw the pic of Sarah Palin - which made me chuckle. lol

 

[seeingeyes]

I think that only men are considered "macho". I've never heard a woman described that way. There are other words for women...

"Macho", to my mind, is not someone who stands up for themselves, or stands up for others (whether in a violent way or otherwise), but someone who uses physical or emotional intimidation as a way to prove themselves.

A man who gets randomly punched on the train who returns the punch is not "macho". A man who punches some random person on the train because he wants to prove his badassery to the world is.

 

[ValleyGal]

I certainly do disagree somewhat I find aggression at times the best way to deal with a threat. I learned that when I was robbed if I handled the opposition with aggression from the start of our association I believe the situation would have been very different. What I have found is there are a lot of guys out there that they only respond to negative reenforcement. I find that most guys that come off as super super macho are super super cowardly and are trying to compensate for something within themselves that makes them feel as though they are less then men. The loudest mouth in the room typically is the man that is going to be the first to run even on a street level typically the one that instigates crimes is the first one tell and normally the most flashy out the group. I have always found that aspect interesting funny little sidebar.

I agree that when there is a threat, sometimes aggression could be one way out of it, but that is using aggression as self defense against an immediate threat. Even I did that when the ex beat me. I kicked back so I could buy myself some time to get to safety. I also believe that men who come off as aggressive are compensating for their own perceived shortcomings. These are men and women who, I believe, are living in a constant state of heightened fight or flight state - a constant perception of threat. And of course, where you live has something to do with that. I live in a predominantly Anabaptist area, so there is peace. But a couple of cities west, there are gang crimes and a lot of tension between races. I would likely be more heightened there than I am here. If you live in Bronx, and there is a high crime rate there, chances are you needed to have an air of aggression just so people would not mess with you.

See I would not consider the anabaptist men less macho or more macho. I think we live in a society that associates masculinity with aggressive behavior. However it is my opinion that masculinity is more about sacrifice personally that is what I believe.

Yes, society might associate masculinity with aggression and that is a mistake. My husband is masculine, but he does not have an aggressive bone in his body. I also believe that Jesus was masculine - he was strong, a carpenter, and he used aggression in the Temple when they were using the Temple as a trade show. But those are also the hands that served and healed and blessed. He knew how to harness his aggression so that it would be used not for selfish purposes but for fighting for God's justice such as in the Temple.

However I will certainly disagree I believe aggression is needed, look at Michael Brown and how the riots after his death has caused police policy changes nation wide. Without riots would these policies have changed? I think in america in particular the presence of violence or a violent tension has always marked change in policies that affect the black community. What is your take on this position?

I do think sometimes change comes as a result of aggression, and this could be a last resort when trying to advocate for change with those who will not listen. I also think politics in the US is very different than it is in Canada - or other countries. In the US, it seems change rarely comes from a passive conversation, but is more likely to happen as a result of protests and riots. In Canada, it is more likely to come as a result of strong advocacy and peaceful talks. I think especially for American black community, they likely feel like they have no voice without violence.

I agree there are differences however I think a majority of those differences we recognize as true are based in eurocentricism and therefore exclude other cultures ideals on the differences between men and women. I believe we need to reject this ideal and search for a spiritual identity instead. Thoughts on this as well?

I think cultural identity is just as important as spiritual identity, and that includes gender identity. I agree that my own gender constructs come from a Eurocentric and Canadian-centric worldview, but I also believe that science is making huge strides in helping us understand men and women stripped of culture. It would be interesting to find out the gender beliefs of a whole variety of countries (cultural), and then compare male and female hormone levels, fMRIs and predetermined masculine and feminine characteristics. It would be interesting because then you could strip culture from gender, and figure out the God-given differences and similarities between men and women.

I also think it can be challenging for people to change cultures. For example, I know one woman who is South African, and she married a Canadian. They have very different ideas of what it means for her to be a woman in Canadian culture. It is important, then, for her to find her gender identity in this cultural context otherwise it could have a significant impact on their marriage and on how she fits into this culture.

I also believe our spiritual identity is important, and should be our primary identity in how we interact with others. For example, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (those who are of the Christian faith), and we should start all of our relationships with others with that premise. That is our primary relationship with them, and our eternal one. From that starting point, we then move into more personal relationships based on affinity and degrees of both necessity and affinity. But the addition of necessity and affinity does not change the foundation of relationship, which is brother and sister in Christ.

 

[JCLover779]

I think that only men are considered "macho". I've never heard a woman described that way. There are other words for women...

"Macho", to my mind, is not someone who stands up for themselves, or stands up for others (whether in a violent way or otherwise), but someone who uses physical or emotional intimidation as a way to prove themselves.

A man who gets randomly punched on the train who returns the punch is not "macho". A man who punches some random person on the train because he wants to prove his badassery to the world is.

I would answer this way. And also about the description of "feminine" above.

The guys I go on bike rides with are masculine, but not macho. They go all out, they are fast and strong, they are always in "racing" mode with each other...but they are very kind, they make sure I am OK, will often ride in front of and behind me to protect me when we are on dangerous roads or a threatening car drives by.

I am out there gutting it out, I push myself (usually too far) and I'm hard on myself. I have to be tough to keep up with those guys, and they know it (I am usually the only female, or one of a few) - but they see me as feminine, and they look out for me.

 

[JCLover779]

She said that feeling like one has the right or wanting to hit someone back that hits you back is a macho attitude,

....

My question however is do we typically see feminine as passive and Macho as aggressive?

Wanting to hit someone *back* is not a macho thing. It's normal, but not always/usually wise.

"Feminine" might be seen as passive, or strong, or many other ways. I don't think this one is as clearly defined - people can have different visions in their mind for this one. Macho vs masculine, OTOH, is a *little* easier to differentiate.

I don't know...maybe if we have an alternate word to go with "feminine"...we can compartmentalize those behaviors better. (One word vs two...lol)

 

[keith99]

I think that only men are considered "macho". I've never heard a woman described that way. There are other words for women...

"Macho", to my mind, is not someone who stands up for themselves, or stands up for others (whether in a violent way or otherwise), but someone who uses physical or emotional intimidation as a way to prove themselves.

A man who gets randomly punched on the train who returns the punch is not "macho". A man who punches some random person on the train because he wants to prove his badassery to the world is.

What do you consider a man who is apt to turn the other cheek if struck, but who is apt to break the arm attached to the hand that strikes a woman?

I want to know because that actually fits the classic definition of Machismo.

 

[RDKirk]

What do you consider a man who is apt to turn the other cheek if struck, but who is apt to break the arm attached to the hand that strikes a woman?

I want to know because that actually fits the classic definition of Machismo.

The definition seeingeyes supplied more corresponds to "macho" or "machismo" as I've understood those terms:

Machismo is the sense of being macho or "manly," the concept associated with "a strong sense of masculine pride...[with] the supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine."

Assertiveness can be expressed by either traditionally "masculine" or traditionally "feminine" ways, as can passivity.

 

[JCLover779]

What do you consider a man who is apt to turn the other cheek if struck, but who is apt to break the arm attached to the hand that strikes a woman?

I want to know because that actually fits the classic definition of Machismo.

I can't speak for her, but I think that is masculine. I'm not looking at dictionary definitions, but at the image that plays in my mind based on the way it's portrayed in society.

 

[mkgal1]

Avniel......is this contrast of macho vs feminine in the general sense....or more to what I'd originally said (which was in the context of a marriage)?

My words were in response to you suggesting that abused men ought to stop the abuse by striking their (smaller) wives (and knocking them out, because that will teach them the men won't be 'pushed around'). You said (paraphrased) that "weak men don't hit back". That's what I called a "macho attitude" and don't consider it "weak" for a man to not "knock out" his wife.

 

[Avniel]

Avniel......is this contrast of macho vs feminine in the general sense....or more to what I'd originally said (which was in the context of a marriage)?

My words were in response to you suggesting that abused men ought to stop the abuse by striking their (smaller) wives (and knocking them out, because that will teach them the men won't be 'pushed around'). You said (paraphrased) that "weak men don't hit back". That's what I called a "macho attitude" and don't consider it "weak" for a man to not "knock out" his wife.

In the marital sense I still support all people using violent force against their oppressors it's a reality. I think it's naive to believe that violent force is not the answer to a violent oppression. Maybe that's why I was confused with what you were saying. I never believe passive resistence is ever the answer to violent oppression I believe that this is a sign is a sign of weakness, the victim should never be passive when in the face of their oppressors........I believe in a victim of oppression has a moral responsibility to aggressively oppose their oppressors.

I have alway viewed MLK approach weak and in sense immoral also illogical due to historical factors. The reality is in a majority of cases often times it take the presences of some violent harm threat of violent harm rarely has their been drastic legally binding change. Violence has always been the answer when the opposition is oppressors and the aggressors are the oppressed. Morally I don't even believe that can be questioned.

I believe there are a great deal of women that are fighters, I believe it's weakness for any person on earth to be fearful of using violent force against a violent oppressor. The women I mostly respect personally and historically have all been women that, what I view as, never had that weakness. They were all women who I believe had all met oppression or I knew would meet oppression violently.

I don't particularly find that macho, because that isn't typically how I see macho. Macho to me has never been if you hit me I will hit you back, that has never been my culture. My homeland or yard as we call it is number 6 in the world in crime, violence because someone used violence against you is expected. Not from men but also women as well it's more so a reality, I think many times Jamaicans are taught that reality even when they are first generation americans. We learn this reality even more as we grow older and those that spend a considerable amount of time over there learn this as well. The typical Jamaican will fight you at there place of work if you violently approach them even the more professional. Coming from that type of culture we all get taught if someone hits you if you don't hit back........I believe we are taught this equally not based on gender. If a woman from a garrison has a female friend or at times a boyfriend that has been killed they typically will be there for the get back. I think that is a mentality of survival and a need to survive an natural instinct for those that struggle to feed themselves properly and resort to eating chicken back and other poverty dishes.

What I was saying is culturally we live in a society where Ray Rice is seen as a bully, a bad guy......however his wife is seen as a victim. However what I saw was a woman that charged a man and got slapped, charged him a second time and got knocked out. Culturally to me what I saw was a fight, if Ray Rice was in the elevator with his own brother it would have been seen as funny or his brother got what he had coming. However if it would have been his father then we would view him as cold and still the bad guy.

What I believe could be considered cultural or a result of violent stimuli committed by women on men and women. I take anyone as a person that could and would potentially kill you. I have friends that really don't know where I live and family members that don't even have my house phone. Not because I don't like them but because I personally know what they are capable of doing. I have a problem with a group of individuals and someone told me "if you have an issue with them it's going past fist, these kids are demons you have to take it all the way." Is it macho because I would rather walk away because I know how far I would have to take that situation so I can make it home?

I've seen people robbed, I've been robbed at gun point, I've seen people shot, I've seen someone get their arm cut off by a machette, I've seen people set up, I've seen someone get stabbed in the neck, I've seen someone get put in a coma, I've seen someone get hit with a baseball bat, I've known a brother that killed his brother and came to america on a visa.

My mentality towards violence is very different, I don't believe one can be oppressed violently and have self respect while resisting passively. I don't care if it's man or a woman, it's goes way past just married life I believe that about life in general. From political all the way to daily living, if approached with violence in this day and age the best thing you can do is put down the threat the quickest you can once violence is used.


This to me is not macho but a part of life not as a man but a human being. Culturally violence has been a part of my community for both genders. I have said it before I think america kind of glorifies and romantizes violence. There is this notion of a fair fight and putting up the "dukes" while solving differences and shaking each others hand. That's not the reality if I get in a fight and someone I know is around it's not going to be fair. If I am by myself it's not going to be fair. A fight has two people a winner and a looser there is no such thing as two people fighting and respecting each other. When you hit someone or pursue that type of conflict you are pursuing a situation in which you declare your wish for that person's death by your hand.

So when I say in a marital situation if a man has a wife that hits him he should hit her back. I don't just mean a man that get's hit but a woman also the subject was just geared towards men that were abused.

I still don't find that position to be macho I think men that have that view typically are seen as macho. Huey P. Newton shared the same view but he supported gay rights and women's rights as oppressed people. He met violence with violence however he wasn't macho. Nonetheless when a man says if anyone hits me including a woman I will hit them back is considered to be "macho" is what I don't believe is accurate. You would have to understand that culture to understand if that is macho or not.

 

[Avniel]

I agree that when there is a threat, sometimes aggression could be one way out of it, but that is using aggression as self defense against an immediate threat. Even I did that when the ex beat me. I kicked back so I could buy myself some time to get to safety. I also believe that men who come off as aggressive are compensating for their own perceived shortcomings. These are men and women who, I believe, are living in a constant state of heightened fight or flight state - a constant perception of threat. And of course, where you live has something to do with that. I live in a predominantly Anabaptist area, so there is peace. But a couple of cities west, there are gang crimes and a lot of tension between races. I would likely be more heightened there than I am here. If you live in Bronx, and there is a high crime rate there, chances are you needed to have an air of aggression just so people would not mess with you.



Yes, society might associate masculinity with aggression and that is a mistake. My husband is masculine, but he does not have an aggressive bone in his body. I also believe that Jesus was masculine - he was strong, a carpenter, and he used aggression in the Temple when they were using the Temple as a trade show. But those are also the hands that served and healed and blessed. He knew how to harness his aggression so that it would be used not for selfish purposes but for fighting for God's justice such as in the Temple.



I do think sometimes change comes as a result of aggression, and this could be a last resort when trying to advocate for change with those who will not listen. I also think politics in the US is very different than it is in Canada - or other countries. In the US, it seems change rarely comes from a passive conversation, but is more likely to happen as a result of protests and riots. In Canada, it is more likely to come as a result of strong advocacy and peaceful talks. I think especially for American black community, they likely feel like they have no voice without violence.



I think cultural identity is just as important as spiritual identity, and that includes gender identity. I agree that my own gender constructs come from a Eurocentric and Canadian-centric worldview, but I also believe that science is making huge strides in helping us understand men and women stripped of culture. It would be interesting to find out the gender beliefs of a whole variety of countries (cultural), and then compare male and female hormone levels, fMRIs and predetermined masculine and feminine characteristics. It would be interesting because then you could strip culture from gender, and figure out the God-given differences and similarities between men and women.

I also think it can be challenging for people to change cultures. For example, I know one woman who is South African, and she married a Canadian. They have very different ideas of what it means for her to be a woman in Canadian culture. It is important, then, for her to find her gender identity in this cultural context otherwise it could have a significant impact on their marriage and on how she fits into this culture.

I also believe our spiritual identity is important, and should be our primary identity in how we interact with others. For example, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (those who are of the Christian faith), and we should start all of our relationships with others with that premise. That is our primary relationship with them, and our eternal one. From that starting point, we then move into more personal relationships based on affinity and degrees of both necessity and affinity. But the addition of necessity and affinity does not change the foundation of relationship, which is brother and sister in Christ.

No I actually moved out the bronx, I'm in Washington Heights however I am from the bronx and the area I grew up in had 13 shootings in the summer and we are talking a small jamaican neighborhood. Not to mention growing up in a Jamaican area with people from a high violence culture and actually going to a high crime country. It changes your perspective on violence, and how you process a physical threat. I think once you realize the depth of human destruction and hatred it can change how you relate to people. I disagree however I think those that are on that heightened alert might not be compensating for anything. Their "hyper" aggression or quick response to aggression with aggression could actually be nothing more then a defensive mechanism that has lead to their survivial in the past. If you saw a friend get shot over an argument about basketball it's going to change your perspective on how you talk about basketball. It's a better safe then sorry mentality there is saying "caught sleeping" there are places where you have to always be on guard. You go to those places to often your guard is always going to be up it's not a bad thing it just means you have to watch the circles you are around and the people you associate with because there are certain games you don't play with people.

Like when my daughter was threatened my first response was I'm going to get you before you get me and mine. I was angry after I realized the threat was empty. My intial response wasn't one of compensation more of one of prevention out of love for my daughter. My second reaction was to analysis the situation and find out who was behind the threat. Part of my culture is not calling the police, it's a lack of trust for the police all my issues and fears are handled typically within the community and sorted out in court.

You don't need to have an air of aggression you have to be cool laid back and the minute any aggression takes place you have to meet it with extreme prejudice.


I think Jesus shows the perfect example of what is proper aggression. I was at my sister's baby shower this weekend in NC, my sister is married now to a white gentleman. During the shower games where the name the baby one person said nappy and one person said noose back to back. I was offended, I was angry I wanted to tell them off but I just shut my mouth in amazement. For me the only time I think aggression should be used is when violence is used.


I agree with a lot of what you said regarding identity.

 

[seeingeyes]

What do you consider a man who is apt to turn the other cheek if struck, but who is apt to break the arm attached to the hand that strikes a woman?

I want to know because that actually fits the classic definition of Machismo.

Urban Dictionary has this:

Machismo

1. Having an unusually high or exaggerated sense of masculinity. Including an attitude that aggression, strength, sexual prowess, power and control is the measure of someone's manliness. Also, a machismo man feels having these traits entitles him to respect and obedience from men and women around him.

2. The belief in the right to dominate and control, including, but not limited to, control over women.

Dictionary.com has this:

[mah-cheez-moh, -chiz-, muh-]

noun 1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.

2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate: The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo.

These both seem in line with my understanding of "macho". Which definition did you mean?

 

[DZoolander]

Hahaha urban dictionary as a resource

 

[RDKirk]

No I actually moved out the bronx, I'm in Washington Heights however I am from the bronx and the area I grew up in had 13 shootings in the summer and we are talking a small jamaican neighborhood. Not to mention growing up in a Jamaican area with people from a high violence culture and actually going to a high crime country. It changes your perspective on violence, and how you process a physical threat. I think once you realize the depth of human destruction and hatred it can change how you relate to people. I disagree however I think those that are on that heightened alert might not be compensating for anything. Their "hyper" aggression or quick response to aggression with aggression could actually be nothing more then a defensive mechanism that has lead to their survivial in the past. If you saw a friend get shot over an argument about basketball it's going to change your perspective on how you talk about basketball. It's a better safe then sorry mentality there is saying "caught sleeping" there are places where you have to always be on guard. You go to those places to often your guard is always going to be up it's not a bad thing it just means you have to watch the circles you are around and the people you associate with because there are certain games you don't play with people.

No, that's an "honor code" mentality brought up from the South. Southern whites in the backwoods and sticks do the same thing. Wealthy southerners were once the same way ("Suh, you have sullied mah honah, and ah demand satisfaction!")

 

[RDKirk]

I have alway viewed MLK approach weak and in sense immoral also illogical due to historical factors. The reality is in a majority of cases often times it take the presences of some violent harm threat of violent harm rarely has their been drastic legally binding change. Violence has always been the answer when the opposition is oppressors and the aggressors are the oppressed. Morally I don't even believe that can be questioned.

No, MLK's approach worked--brilliantly--specifically because of historical factors. He was dealing with a local society that could be violent but withiin a larger society that would shun violence once shown how ugly it could be. To some extent, the revelation of the evils of Naziism helped (especially with regard to getting Jews involved).

He knew he was dealing with a society that could still feel shame (which would not have been the case with Nazi Germany).

Attempting to meet the violence of Southern police with civilian violence would not have worked at all. That would have allied the federal government with the state governments and the national media with the local media.