What they (the anti-man forces who control various traditional and modern human institutions like science and media) do, is to create extreme expectations on men to be heterosexual, if they're straight, mainstream, regular guys. And since 'heterosexuality' is seen as synonymous with manhood, men have this extreme pressure to oblige. They have no space to say they don't want to date women. Because it means you're not a man and you lose your position in the race for manhood as well as your public following if you're a celebrity.
This pressure that media keeps creating in a yet non-heterosexualized society like India seems extremely contrasting, when many macho male superheroes find it difficult to answer questions about who they're dating and what they like to date. Because they don't date. In fact, it is a serious affront to Indian culture which has no space for dating between unmarried males and females to be asked such a question. Men in most cases just keep quiet or fib.
But, then there are some who run away with it, and exploit this new criteria of manhood being enforced by the media and give it power.
The westernized media needs celebrities to be heterosexual in order to support its heterosexualization agenda.
A similar pressure is being build up on young males through Peer-pressure and through social networking internet channels like Orkut, that ask your sexual orientation as well as whether or not you're interested in dating. Now, with dating being increasingly being enforced as the new proof of manhood for the youth, as part of building up a previously unexisting 'heterosexual' identity, it is impossible for men to live their life according to their natural instincts and needs. I know innumerable common straight males who don't do dating (or are only forced to do it), but they keep on their profile accounts stuff like, "looking for dating women" and sexual orientation 'straight' (which is wrongly defined as being heterosexual).
Dec 13, 2009
Dec 10, 2009
The various levels of diffference between 'Gay' and 'Straight'
Because of the intense politicisation of manhood and men's spaces, and the intense fight between the men's spaces and the anti-man forces that control the larger society, in which the men's spaces have finally lost in the Western society, defeated first by the Judeo/Christian religion and then by Western science -- the difference between 'gay' and 'straight' exists in the society at several levels.
1. On the one extreme end is the invalid definition of the 'gay'-'straight' divide forwarded by the anti-man forces, and validated by (psuedo)-science ... even if authorized by the Western scientific institution ... that represents the formal definition accepted and enforced in the West, that says "Straight" means exclusively heterosexual, which it claims is the vast majority of masculine gendered males, who were erstwhile known as 'men'. And "Gay" means any male who is exclusively into another male.
This formal definition of "Gay" and "Straight" is totally based on the claimed or practices sexuality of males and has no element of 'Gender' in it, at least, at the outset.
2. On the other end is the original difference between 'gay' and 'straight', which existed in every human society of the past, and is still the very basis of the 'gay' and 'straight' divide even in the modern WEst (although this basis is not formally acknowledged) and which is also based on the actual biological differences between "Gay" and "Straight." This definition is totally about "Gender" and has no element of sexuality in it, at least at the outset.
3. In-between these two extreme positions taken by the anti=man forces and the men's spaces respectively -- that represents politicization of manhood and male identity on one hand and the male biology on the other == are numerous other definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' divide that still operate in the society, simultaneously, albeit in different situations and levels of the same society.
(i) Closer to the biological definition of 'straight' and 'gay' is the more medieval distinction of straight and gay, that although hinges basically on 'Gender' and thus doesn't negate the gender angle like the modern West's definition, yet defines Gender not in terms of masculinity and femininity itself, but rather, who does the penetration and who is penetrated. The penetrator is the 'masculine' gender, and thus 'man', while the penetrated is the feminine gender, and thus 'gay' according to this definition.
This definition is still practised in the entire non-Westernized world, although, Western Science is destroying this definition claiming to represent the truth itself.
This definition still exists in the modern Western 'Gay' and 'STraight' spaces as well, and lots of 'straight' males still have sex with other men, but claim only to penetrate and thus retain their straighthood, and lots of 'gays' have sex with straight males but since they get penetrated see the penetrators as straights (as long as the penetrator doesn't acknowledge his interest in men.
(ii) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST: Closer to the modern western definition of 'gay' and 'straight' is the distinction that is widely practised, though not acknowledged as such, by both 'gay' and 'straight' identified males, and is the definition that really rules the roost in the straight spaces, as well as the larger society.
As per this definition, the one who acknowledges his sexual interest in men is 'gay', while the one who doesn't accept this interest, although, he may have sex with males, even exclusively, (as long as he keeps displaying or proving that he actually has a sexual interest in women, and has no sexual interest in men).
Therefore, men never acknowledge their sexual interest in men in WEstern societies, and the trait of liking the male gender is restricted only to the population identified as 'gay' -- i.e. those who acknowledge their sexual interest in men (who're mostly the third genders).
Thus, the formal Western definitions, when enforced upon the male population boils down to this acknowledgement of sexual interest in men, with those who acknowledge it becoming 'gay' and those who don't acknowledge it become 'straight' == thus strengthening the myth that the majority of men are exclusively heterosexual.
(iii) There are also several auxilliary definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' that function within the Westernized 'gay' and 'straight' set ups, characterized by the formal definitions.
E.g.:
(a) The Gay world is divided between the gay 'gays' (denoting the third genders) and the 'straight-acting' gays (that represent the supposedly masculine gendered males).
(b) The Straight world is divided between the 'real men' and the 'lesser men' often derogatorily reffered to as 'gay.' E.g. accusing someone of being gay for not eating meat or for holding another male's hands even as friends. Here too, the real men are used for more masculine males, while 'gay' is used for males who are seen as less masculine or effeminate (as defined by the Western social roles of manhood/ straighthood).
1. On the one extreme end is the invalid definition of the 'gay'-'straight' divide forwarded by the anti-man forces, and validated by (psuedo)-science ... even if authorized by the Western scientific institution ... that represents the formal definition accepted and enforced in the West, that says "Straight" means exclusively heterosexual, which it claims is the vast majority of masculine gendered males, who were erstwhile known as 'men'. And "Gay" means any male who is exclusively into another male.
This formal definition of "Gay" and "Straight" is totally based on the claimed or practices sexuality of males and has no element of 'Gender' in it, at least, at the outset.
2. On the other end is the original difference between 'gay' and 'straight', which existed in every human society of the past, and is still the very basis of the 'gay' and 'straight' divide even in the modern WEst (although this basis is not formally acknowledged) and which is also based on the actual biological differences between "Gay" and "Straight." This definition is totally about "Gender" and has no element of sexuality in it, at least at the outset.
3. In-between these two extreme positions taken by the anti=man forces and the men's spaces respectively -- that represents politicization of manhood and male identity on one hand and the male biology on the other == are numerous other definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' divide that still operate in the society, simultaneously, albeit in different situations and levels of the same society.
(i) Closer to the biological definition of 'straight' and 'gay' is the more medieval distinction of straight and gay, that although hinges basically on 'Gender' and thus doesn't negate the gender angle like the modern West's definition, yet defines Gender not in terms of masculinity and femininity itself, but rather, who does the penetration and who is penetrated. The penetrator is the 'masculine' gender, and thus 'man', while the penetrated is the feminine gender, and thus 'gay' according to this definition.
This definition is still practised in the entire non-Westernized world, although, Western Science is destroying this definition claiming to represent the truth itself.
This definition still exists in the modern Western 'Gay' and 'STraight' spaces as well, and lots of 'straight' males still have sex with other men, but claim only to penetrate and thus retain their straighthood, and lots of 'gays' have sex with straight males but since they get penetrated see the penetrators as straights (as long as the penetrator doesn't acknowledge his interest in men.
(ii) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST: Closer to the modern western definition of 'gay' and 'straight' is the distinction that is widely practised, though not acknowledged as such, by both 'gay' and 'straight' identified males, and is the definition that really rules the roost in the straight spaces, as well as the larger society.
As per this definition, the one who acknowledges his sexual interest in men is 'gay', while the one who doesn't accept this interest, although, he may have sex with males, even exclusively, (as long as he keeps displaying or proving that he actually has a sexual interest in women, and has no sexual interest in men).
Therefore, men never acknowledge their sexual interest in men in WEstern societies, and the trait of liking the male gender is restricted only to the population identified as 'gay' -- i.e. those who acknowledge their sexual interest in men (who're mostly the third genders).
Thus, the formal Western definitions, when enforced upon the male population boils down to this acknowledgement of sexual interest in men, with those who acknowledge it becoming 'gay' and those who don't acknowledge it become 'straight' == thus strengthening the myth that the majority of men are exclusively heterosexual.
(iii) There are also several auxilliary definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' that function within the Westernized 'gay' and 'straight' set ups, characterized by the formal definitions.
E.g.:
(a) The Gay world is divided between the gay 'gays' (denoting the third genders) and the 'straight-acting' gays (that represent the supposedly masculine gendered males).
(b) The Straight world is divided between the 'real men' and the 'lesser men' often derogatorily reffered to as 'gay.' E.g. accusing someone of being gay for not eating meat or for holding another male's hands even as friends. Here too, the real men are used for more masculine males, while 'gay' is used for males who are seen as less masculine or effeminate (as defined by the Western social roles of manhood/ straighthood).
Nov 13, 2009
ARTIFICIALLY "MASCULINIZNG" THE FEMININE TRAIT OF "HETEROSEXUALITY" -- PART OF POLITICS OF MALE GENDER AND SEXUALITY
Before the West invented the concept of "Heterosexuality" few males, if ever cared for relationships with women. The roles of social manhood were still much closer to the natural phenomenon of manhood, except for the fact that "social manhood" was attached to the act of penetrating (whether it was a man or a woman was immaterial) and marriage and reproduction were seen as a compulsory proofs of this capability to 'penetrate.' Therefore, that is what men competed to achieve. Desire was not important, performance was important. So, men thought and behaved very differently from modern western males, back then.
Afterall, its 'social manhood' that men really, really care for, more than anything else in life. And they're willing to change the course of their life wherever "social manhood" lies.
Thus, in the past, only the act of occasional vaginal intercourse was considered manly. Any other intimacy with women -- whether sexual, social or emotional was considered effeminizing (and hence queer), even in the West. There were even derogatory terms for males who were addicted to vagina -- terms that are similar to "faggot," in that they refer to the unmanliness of the male (e.g. "Chutiya" in Hindi).
In any male dominated society, where men's spaces are strong, men have a lot of power to define manhood, except for the fact that they are still compulsorily tied to marriage, penetrative sex and reproduction through the "social manhood" route. But, after bowing down to this social demand -- (and the one that renders the act of being penetrated as unmanly and hence 'third gender' and hence something that liables a man to be isolated and banished into a 'different' zone from 'normal' men) -- men are pretty much free to be themselves and to define "social manhood" in a way that corresponds with their "natural manhood." Therefore, women have little sexual value in macho societies. Most of the sexual value that women have is limited to the formal space, particularly marriage.
However, the Western society, triggered by its Christian past that wanted to see "men having relationships with women" and to be broken from other men, first developed the concept of homosexuality -- in order to isolate the very desire between men, (much like isolating the HIV virus) especially if it was exclusive or prominent or acknoweldged -- and then developed the concept of heterosexuality and thus of heterosexuals. While "homosexuality' was artificially built on the earlier group of 'third genders' that was basically for feminine males who got penetrated, the concept of 'heterosexual' was artificially built upon the erstwhile, proud, "Men" identity -- that made up the mainstream men's spaces.
This gave a totally new dimension to the age old politics of male gender and sexuality and a great filip to the anti-man forces. Suddenly, everything that involved a desire for or a sexual/ social or emotional act with women, no matter how feminine it was in nature, or in past societies, suddenly came into the purview of 'manliness'. Indeed, manliness was now itself defined as 'heterosexuality' and started to be confused with it.
Thus, today, men compete to indulge in things and to acquire or show desires, even when they don't have it -- that involve more and more proximity with women, as signs of supposed manhood -- when these desires and acts are decidedly unmanly (e.g. "licking vaginas" or being "subdued by women" or even "deep kissing" or "hand holding" with women and so on). Indeed, a desire for women is an absolutely must to get a membership of any western(ized) men's space (gay spaces are not men's spaces, they're third gender spaces, devoid of manhood and disempowered). Furthermore, western(ized) men's spaces, controlled by anti-man forces, presume a universal, constant and exclusive male desire for women, and forbid any positive portrayal or display of affectional needs between men ... which must only be allowed by the anti-man forces, in the unmanly 'gay' ghettos.
At the sametime, any desire or sexual act between men (and not necessarily the act of being penetrated) was artificially associated with 'unmanliness" or feminine by the western anti-male politics of manhood; as 'queer' became defined as "desire between men" (homosexuality) itself, and "liking men" became synonymous with being 'unmanly'. And, so men (non-feminine males) don't have the space to acknowledge their desire for men, leave alone form meaningful bonds with other men. If you want to do that, you must leave the men's space and idenitity, leave manhood and power, and agree to join the disempowered and unmanly 'different', marginalized and disempowered, third gender male space by taking on the 'gay'/ 'homosexual' label.
This is what the anti-man forces had always wanted to do, eversince, they were first created by injunctions on men, that gave power to the act of penetrating women for reproduction as a basic criteria for granting 'social manhood', and bonds between men started losing their importance because they don't bring babies (population) to those who rule the society. This is how the politics of male gender and sexuality was started in the first place.
Afterall, its 'social manhood' that men really, really care for, more than anything else in life. And they're willing to change the course of their life wherever "social manhood" lies.
Thus, in the past, only the act of occasional vaginal intercourse was considered manly. Any other intimacy with women -- whether sexual, social or emotional was considered effeminizing (and hence queer), even in the West. There were even derogatory terms for males who were addicted to vagina -- terms that are similar to "faggot," in that they refer to the unmanliness of the male (e.g. "Chutiya" in Hindi).
In any male dominated society, where men's spaces are strong, men have a lot of power to define manhood, except for the fact that they are still compulsorily tied to marriage, penetrative sex and reproduction through the "social manhood" route. But, after bowing down to this social demand -- (and the one that renders the act of being penetrated as unmanly and hence 'third gender' and hence something that liables a man to be isolated and banished into a 'different' zone from 'normal' men) -- men are pretty much free to be themselves and to define "social manhood" in a way that corresponds with their "natural manhood." Therefore, women have little sexual value in macho societies. Most of the sexual value that women have is limited to the formal space, particularly marriage.
However, the Western society, triggered by its Christian past that wanted to see "men having relationships with women" and to be broken from other men, first developed the concept of homosexuality -- in order to isolate the very desire between men, (much like isolating the HIV virus) especially if it was exclusive or prominent or acknoweldged -- and then developed the concept of heterosexuality and thus of heterosexuals. While "homosexuality' was artificially built on the earlier group of 'third genders' that was basically for feminine males who got penetrated, the concept of 'heterosexual' was artificially built upon the erstwhile, proud, "Men" identity -- that made up the mainstream men's spaces.
This gave a totally new dimension to the age old politics of male gender and sexuality and a great filip to the anti-man forces. Suddenly, everything that involved a desire for or a sexual/ social or emotional act with women, no matter how feminine it was in nature, or in past societies, suddenly came into the purview of 'manliness'. Indeed, manliness was now itself defined as 'heterosexuality' and started to be confused with it.
Thus, today, men compete to indulge in things and to acquire or show desires, even when they don't have it -- that involve more and more proximity with women, as signs of supposed manhood -- when these desires and acts are decidedly unmanly (e.g. "licking vaginas" or being "subdued by women" or even "deep kissing" or "hand holding" with women and so on). Indeed, a desire for women is an absolutely must to get a membership of any western(ized) men's space (gay spaces are not men's spaces, they're third gender spaces, devoid of manhood and disempowered). Furthermore, western(ized) men's spaces, controlled by anti-man forces, presume a universal, constant and exclusive male desire for women, and forbid any positive portrayal or display of affectional needs between men ... which must only be allowed by the anti-man forces, in the unmanly 'gay' ghettos.
At the sametime, any desire or sexual act between men (and not necessarily the act of being penetrated) was artificially associated with 'unmanliness" or feminine by the western anti-male politics of manhood; as 'queer' became defined as "desire between men" (homosexuality) itself, and "liking men" became synonymous with being 'unmanly'. And, so men (non-feminine males) don't have the space to acknowledge their desire for men, leave alone form meaningful bonds with other men. If you want to do that, you must leave the men's space and idenitity, leave manhood and power, and agree to join the disempowered and unmanly 'different', marginalized and disempowered, third gender male space by taking on the 'gay'/ 'homosexual' label.
This is what the anti-man forces had always wanted to do, eversince, they were first created by injunctions on men, that gave power to the act of penetrating women for reproduction as a basic criteria for granting 'social manhood', and bonds between men started losing their importance because they don't bring babies (population) to those who rule the society. This is how the politics of male gender and sexuality was started in the first place.
Nov 3, 2009
"Men", "Third Gender" division is an inevitable reality
AS LONG AS MANHOOD IS CHERISHED AMONGST MALES, THE MALE SPECIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO GROUPS -- one for those who want manhood. One for those who just don't fit into manhood.
The entire world (except the modern west) has known these two groups of males as "men" and the "third gender."
There cannot be a human society where this is not applicable.
It's no different in the west. You too have two groups. But the conspiracy against men just misdefines the two gender male groups in terms of sexuality rather than gender.
Also, the break off point for the feminine males is much earlier in the modern west than the rest of the world.
However, slowly, the truth finds its way, and queer heterosexuals are already part of the gay community as the 'T' in LGBT.
The anti man forces allow this because this fits in with their agenda of promoting m-f desire as manly and m-m desire as third gender.
Unfortunately, the masculine gendered males that (want to) acknowledge liking men are not that lucky, as the anti-man forces in the West make sure that they are not given any space in the straight (manhood) space or identity.
The entire world (except the modern west) has known these two groups of males as "men" and the "third gender."
There cannot be a human society where this is not applicable.
It's no different in the west. You too have two groups. But the conspiracy against men just misdefines the two gender male groups in terms of sexuality rather than gender.
Also, the break off point for the feminine males is much earlier in the modern west than the rest of the world.
However, slowly, the truth finds its way, and queer heterosexuals are already part of the gay community as the 'T' in LGBT.
The anti man forces allow this because this fits in with their agenda of promoting m-f desire as manly and m-m desire as third gender.
Unfortunately, the masculine gendered males that (want to) acknowledge liking men are not that lucky, as the anti-man forces in the West make sure that they are not given any space in the straight (manhood) space or identity.
Oct 24, 2009
The making of heterosexuals
The way the western society inculcates a strong hatred for one's own sexuality for men, which is a universal and constant male quality, is by basing one's personal sense of manhood on 'heterosexuality,' rather exclusive heterosexuality, through a complex set of visible and invisible psycho-social mechanisms that condition, train and pressurise males right from their forming years of manhood and sexuality. Once, one's personal sense of manhood is firmly based on being free of sexual need for men, it makes sure that the man would himself, even when no one else is looking, fight till death his own sexuality for men. Condemning those in others is only a way to reinforce this fight, which tends to weaken by those who openly accept it.
The more the desire for men, the greater the need to fight and reinforcements through public condemnations.
... and the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality' (that actually is about a third gender's sexuality for men) and creation of the separate category of 'homosexuals' based on the erstwhile third genders, serves perfectly well to reinforce the lie that desiring men is an unmanly trait. That is what the politics of male gender and sexuality is all about.
And that is what is the essence of conspiracy against men. Deep rooted behind this conspiracy is the age-old greed for more and more population, in order to compete with the other 'tribes' and the fear -- not totally baseless --that if men are allowed to be sexual with other men, few would like to go to women so regularly. And if they start forming committed bonds, it would be impossible to sustain the 'marriage' institution.
What we need to do as a society is to come out of this fear psychosis, because, we don't need all that population anymore, and its time to liberate men from the burden of compulsory procreation in order to prove they're men, because it doesn't prove anything.
As long as men are bound in the heterosexual identity, where manhood is defined as 'heterosexuality' itself, and the third genders keep defining themselves as 'men who like men' this seems impossible to attain.
The more the desire for men, the greater the need to fight and reinforcements through public condemnations.
... and the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality' (that actually is about a third gender's sexuality for men) and creation of the separate category of 'homosexuals' based on the erstwhile third genders, serves perfectly well to reinforce the lie that desiring men is an unmanly trait. That is what the politics of male gender and sexuality is all about.
And that is what is the essence of conspiracy against men. Deep rooted behind this conspiracy is the age-old greed for more and more population, in order to compete with the other 'tribes' and the fear -- not totally baseless --that if men are allowed to be sexual with other men, few would like to go to women so regularly. And if they start forming committed bonds, it would be impossible to sustain the 'marriage' institution.
What we need to do as a society is to come out of this fear psychosis, because, we don't need all that population anymore, and its time to liberate men from the burden of compulsory procreation in order to prove they're men, because it doesn't prove anything.
As long as men are bound in the heterosexual identity, where manhood is defined as 'heterosexuality' itself, and the third genders keep defining themselves as 'men who like men' this seems impossible to attain.
Oct 23, 2009
Sexual identities misrepresent the true sexual needs of men
Sexual identities represented by the concept of 'sexual orientation' or the 'homo-hetero' divide represent only the acknowledged sexual behaviour of males. And men will acknowledge only those sexual behaviours that fall inside the society's purview of manhood, especially taking care to disown sexual behaviours or desires that are distinctly labelled as queer/ effeminate/ third gender, the experiences of 'gay' identitied males notwithstanding.
There are a number of extremely complex pscycho-social mechanisms that are part of a complex, yet invisible politics of male gender and sexuality, that create a wide gap between the deepest sexual desires and needs of males and the final sexual behaviour that is acknowledged socially, again, the experiences of 'gay' identified males (who're actually third gender males, not 'men', the latter being masculine gendered males), notwithstanding.
There are several gaps and steps between the deepest, orignal sexual needs of men and the final sexual behaviour they acknowledge socially, and there is intense, hidden but complex politics, manipulation and oppression of male gender and sexuality at each step. There are the "deepest sexual needs", many parts of which otten lie latent due to social politics, then the sexual needs which find space in the subconscious mind, then there are those that find space to grow in the conscious mind, then tthere are those that find the space to grow in the 'personal' social space, and finally, there is the acknowledged sexual behaviour. Because of the presence of politics of male gender and sexuality, none of these steps may tally with each other. E.g. most men do not even allow the sexual needs that exist at the conscious level to find expression even in there private, personal social behaviour, let alone being acknowledged. Others may give them expression but not acknowledge them.
For Western science, to conveniently assume that the sexual categories defined by the West represent the deepest sexual needs of males, and to study these sexual identities for their biological connections is too simplistic, not to be a part of science's way to contribute the age-old conspiracy against men.
The truth is that these sexual categories suit only the 'gay' identified males, whose deepest sexual thoughts tally with their chosen identities. And it is so for a reason. Because, these identities have been tailor made for them, although, they're a gross misrepresentation of the male gender and sexuality as a whole. It's like groping the tail of the elephant and then defining the entire elephant as a rope.
What is so different about the 'gay' identified males that makes their case special. You will not understand the real difference unless you acknowledge human gender (masculine vs feminine identity) as a real, valid phenomenon. Unfortunately, western society makes it very difficult if not impossible for people, esp. gays, to acknowledge human gender. Gays also have a personal stake in not recognizing gender, since their binary sexual identity depends on the negation of gender and its confusion with sexuality.
Gays are third genders, not men, if we define 'men' as masculine gendered males (not necessarily macho), and 'third genders' as transgendered males. And the truth is that the sexual identities defined by the West have been rooted in politics of gender and sexuality, and there basis is strongly gender rather than sexuality. Thus, the 'homosexual' identity is actually, the original and biological third gender/ transgendered male identity redefined as 'men who like men'. This gender factor is however hidden and westerners are incapable of seeing it due to their cultural disability. But, this is the only reason that some males fit in so nicely in this 'sexual categorization' with hidden gender baggage and others struggle or prefer to hide or suppress their sexual feelings for men, rather than take on the 'gay' identity. For the gays they're just people incapable with dealing with their sexuality. But in reality, they are reacting to the hidden feminine gender attached with the 'homosexual' identity, that is inimical to their masculine gender.
And this is the reason, why, for gays their deepest sexual desires matches their sexual identity, but for straights it often mismatches, in different degrees. To built the scientific theories of human male sexuality, especially of man's sexuality for men, on the basis of the experiences or the biology of 'gay' identified males is a gross abuse of the scientific process and the spirit of science.
Human gender plays such a strong part in the entire social-sexualization of men, and in their final choice of sexual behaviours and even conscious desires, that for science to understand the truth about human sexuality without acknowledging human gender is suicidal for the truth.
The problem is, this is what the western scientific institution really wants. To muddle the truth. But westerners will never accept that. Because, they worship the scientific institution like it were god. Like their ancestors worshipped the Church, and believed everything the church said about god.
There are a number of extremely complex pscycho-social mechanisms that are part of a complex, yet invisible politics of male gender and sexuality, that create a wide gap between the deepest sexual desires and needs of males and the final sexual behaviour that is acknowledged socially, again, the experiences of 'gay' identified males (who're actually third gender males, not 'men', the latter being masculine gendered males), notwithstanding.
There are several gaps and steps between the deepest, orignal sexual needs of men and the final sexual behaviour they acknowledge socially, and there is intense, hidden but complex politics, manipulation and oppression of male gender and sexuality at each step. There are the "deepest sexual needs", many parts of which otten lie latent due to social politics, then the sexual needs which find space in the subconscious mind, then there are those that find space to grow in the conscious mind, then tthere are those that find the space to grow in the 'personal' social space, and finally, there is the acknowledged sexual behaviour. Because of the presence of politics of male gender and sexuality, none of these steps may tally with each other. E.g. most men do not even allow the sexual needs that exist at the conscious level to find expression even in there private, personal social behaviour, let alone being acknowledged. Others may give them expression but not acknowledge them.
For Western science, to conveniently assume that the sexual categories defined by the West represent the deepest sexual needs of males, and to study these sexual identities for their biological connections is too simplistic, not to be a part of science's way to contribute the age-old conspiracy against men.
The truth is that these sexual categories suit only the 'gay' identified males, whose deepest sexual thoughts tally with their chosen identities. And it is so for a reason. Because, these identities have been tailor made for them, although, they're a gross misrepresentation of the male gender and sexuality as a whole. It's like groping the tail of the elephant and then defining the entire elephant as a rope.
What is so different about the 'gay' identified males that makes their case special. You will not understand the real difference unless you acknowledge human gender (masculine vs feminine identity) as a real, valid phenomenon. Unfortunately, western society makes it very difficult if not impossible for people, esp. gays, to acknowledge human gender. Gays also have a personal stake in not recognizing gender, since their binary sexual identity depends on the negation of gender and its confusion with sexuality.
Gays are third genders, not men, if we define 'men' as masculine gendered males (not necessarily macho), and 'third genders' as transgendered males. And the truth is that the sexual identities defined by the West have been rooted in politics of gender and sexuality, and there basis is strongly gender rather than sexuality. Thus, the 'homosexual' identity is actually, the original and biological third gender/ transgendered male identity redefined as 'men who like men'. This gender factor is however hidden and westerners are incapable of seeing it due to their cultural disability. But, this is the only reason that some males fit in so nicely in this 'sexual categorization' with hidden gender baggage and others struggle or prefer to hide or suppress their sexual feelings for men, rather than take on the 'gay' identity. For the gays they're just people incapable with dealing with their sexuality. But in reality, they are reacting to the hidden feminine gender attached with the 'homosexual' identity, that is inimical to their masculine gender.
And this is the reason, why, for gays their deepest sexual desires matches their sexual identity, but for straights it often mismatches, in different degrees. To built the scientific theories of human male sexuality, especially of man's sexuality for men, on the basis of the experiences or the biology of 'gay' identified males is a gross abuse of the scientific process and the spirit of science.
Human gender plays such a strong part in the entire social-sexualization of men, and in their final choice of sexual behaviours and even conscious desires, that for science to understand the truth about human sexuality without acknowledging human gender is suicidal for the truth.
The problem is, this is what the western scientific institution really wants. To muddle the truth. But westerners will never accept that. Because, they worship the scientific institution like it were god. Like their ancestors worshipped the Church, and believed everything the church said about god.
Oct 9, 2009
The oddities of Western manhood
After having fraudulently established Heterosexuality as the new definition of Manhood, the Western society propagates male softeness -- in fact, male servility to women in sexual contexts (the only context in which men are expected to see women) as 'masculine' and 'manly'. This servility is easily carried forward in all interactions of men with women, since, in any case, sexuality is the only context in which manly men are expected to see women in the West.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
Oct 4, 2009
An analysis of the actual differences between 'Straight' and 'gay'
AT THE BROADER, societal level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is not of sexuality, but that of 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys vs the 'third gender' or 'males with a female identity'. And so, even if, one rejects the notion of dividing males on the basis of their sexual attraction, the differences of gender, and hence two different identities will always be there. Those who have been identifying themselves as 'homosexuals' will then just start calling themselves 'third gender', but they will still be different. The 'heterosexual' (sic) third genders will also be merged with this category (who actually are already merged with the gays as the "T" in LGBT).
But within the 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys, at the practical level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' becomes not that of having sexual feelings for men or of acting on them (of course, 100% of this population has a strong sexual need for men which may be suppressed), but that of acknowledging these feelings.
So, straight males give vent to their sexual feelings for men all the time, at least in their youth or when they're in an all-male company, albeit, superficially, without acknowledging these, and it doesn't make them 'gay'. This is why, finding an excuse for vending their attraction for men, is so important for straight males, even if these excuses may be flimsy.
This applies even when a straight male is actually in a 'relationship' with another straight male, where fidelity is expected of each other. But, nothing is ever acknowledged. Everything is done quietly, and it doesn't affect their 'straight' identity.
However, the moment, these feelings, or the secondary feelings or acts that emanates from them -- of jealousy, possessiveness, hurt, cajoling each other, being angry at each other, missing each other, or any of the relationship issues, however slight or intense, are even slightly acknowledged, the straight identity is threatened.
And this is why, within the straight/ normal/ masculine/ mainstream/ majority male population, the difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is extremely superficial.
But within the 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys, at the practical level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' becomes not that of having sexual feelings for men or of acting on them (of course, 100% of this population has a strong sexual need for men which may be suppressed), but that of acknowledging these feelings.
So, straight males give vent to their sexual feelings for men all the time, at least in their youth or when they're in an all-male company, albeit, superficially, without acknowledging these, and it doesn't make them 'gay'. This is why, finding an excuse for vending their attraction for men, is so important for straight males, even if these excuses may be flimsy.
This applies even when a straight male is actually in a 'relationship' with another straight male, where fidelity is expected of each other. But, nothing is ever acknowledged. Everything is done quietly, and it doesn't affect their 'straight' identity.
However, the moment, these feelings, or the secondary feelings or acts that emanates from them -- of jealousy, possessiveness, hurt, cajoling each other, being angry at each other, missing each other, or any of the relationship issues, however slight or intense, are even slightly acknowledged, the straight identity is threatened.
And this is why, within the straight/ normal/ masculine/ mainstream/ majority male population, the difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is extremely superficial.
Sep 1, 2009
Historical evidence of "pressures on men to be heterosexual"
SEX & CHARACTER
by Otto Weinenger
Selected by Kevin Solway
from the 1906 English Edition
excerpts from the section "Women and Mankind" dealing with sexual mores
(complaining about the morals of the early 1900s in Germany/England etc.):
Masculine chastity is laughed at, and the feeling that woman is the evil influence in man’s life is no longer understood, and men are not ashamed of their own lust.
It is now apparent from where this demand for “seeing life,” the Dionysian view of the music-hall, the cult of Goethe in so far as he follows Ovid, and this quite modern “coitus-cult” comes. There is no doubt that the movement is so widespread that very few men have the courage to acknowledge their chastity, preferring to pretend that they are regular Don Juans. Sexual excess is held to be the most desirable characteristic of a man of the world, and sexuality has attained such pre-eminence that a man is doubted unless he can, as it were, show proofs of his prowess. Chastity, on the other hand, is so despised that many a really pure lad attempts to appear blas, rou,. It is even true that those who are modest are ashamed of the feeling; but there is another, the modern form of shame – not the eroticist’s shame, but the shame of the woman who has no lover, who has not received appraisement from the opposite sex. Hence it comes that men make it their business to tell each other what a right and proper pleasure they take in “doing their duty” by the opposite sex. And women are careful to let it be known that only what is “manly” in man can appeal to them: and man takes their measure of his manliness and makes it his own. Man’s qualification as a male have, in fact, become identical with his value with women, in women’s eyes.
But God forbid that it should be so; that would mean that there are no longer any men.
(Submitted by vbk)
by Otto Weinenger
Selected by Kevin Solway
from the 1906 English Edition
excerpts from the section "Women and Mankind" dealing with sexual mores
(complaining about the morals of the early 1900s in Germany/England etc.):
Masculine chastity is laughed at, and the feeling that woman is the evil influence in man’s life is no longer understood, and men are not ashamed of their own lust.
It is now apparent from where this demand for “seeing life,” the Dionysian view of the music-hall, the cult of Goethe in so far as he follows Ovid, and this quite modern “coitus-cult” comes. There is no doubt that the movement is so widespread that very few men have the courage to acknowledge their chastity, preferring to pretend that they are regular Don Juans. Sexual excess is held to be the most desirable characteristic of a man of the world, and sexuality has attained such pre-eminence that a man is doubted unless he can, as it were, show proofs of his prowess. Chastity, on the other hand, is so despised that many a really pure lad attempts to appear blas, rou,. It is even true that those who are modest are ashamed of the feeling; but there is another, the modern form of shame – not the eroticist’s shame, but the shame of the woman who has no lover, who has not received appraisement from the opposite sex. Hence it comes that men make it their business to tell each other what a right and proper pleasure they take in “doing their duty” by the opposite sex. And women are careful to let it be known that only what is “manly” in man can appeal to them: and man takes their measure of his manliness and makes it his own. Man’s qualification as a male have, in fact, become identical with his value with women, in women’s eyes.
But God forbid that it should be so; that would mean that there are no longer any men.
(Submitted by vbk)
The story of man's enslavement
Stage 1: The beginning of human civilization
Marriage, sex, bonding happens only between two men
Reproductive sex with women at the proper time. No marriage, romance or bonding with women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage II: After that, till the times of the ancient Greeks:
Marriage with women enforced on men.
Marriage with men continues and preferred by men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage III: Just before the birth of Christianity:
Marriage between men abolished
Men can only marry women
Sex, bonding and friendship between men continue and preferred by men.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stage IV: Christianity
Sex between men abolished.
Men can only have sex with women, formally. Men also must 'love' and bond with women, but only in marriage.
Men continue to have sex secretly in men's spaces. They continue to have strong platonic bonds formally, and openly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage V: Modern Heterosexualized west
Men's spaces destroyed through heterosexualization. Sex and intimacy between males confined to the stigmatized, third gender 'homosexual' space. 'Sraight' males must constantly prove a repulsion for such intimacy in order to qualify for manhood.
Men must form romantic, emotional and social bonds with women, with or without marriage.
Deep bonds and even friendships between men informally abolished and discouraged too. Now men can have friendships too, only with women. Unless they want to be called 'gays.'
Marriage, sex, bonding happens only between two men
Reproductive sex with women at the proper time. No marriage, romance or bonding with women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage II: After that, till the times of the ancient Greeks:
Marriage with women enforced on men.
Marriage with men continues and preferred by men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage III: Just before the birth of Christianity:
Marriage between men abolished
Men can only marry women
Sex, bonding and friendship between men continue and preferred by men.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stage IV: Christianity
Sex between men abolished.
Men can only have sex with women, formally. Men also must 'love' and bond with women, but only in marriage.
Men continue to have sex secretly in men's spaces. They continue to have strong platonic bonds formally, and openly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage V: Modern Heterosexualized west
Men's spaces destroyed through heterosexualization. Sex and intimacy between males confined to the stigmatized, third gender 'homosexual' space. 'Sraight' males must constantly prove a repulsion for such intimacy in order to qualify for manhood.
Men must form romantic, emotional and social bonds with women, with or without marriage.
Deep bonds and even friendships between men informally abolished and discouraged too. Now men can have friendships too, only with women. Unless they want to be called 'gays.'
Aug 31, 2009
Turkey full circle
Turkey is truly a curious land with an interesting mix of East and West. Straight men hold hands and the custom of the cheek kiss is all the norm while men still do not sit with women on buses if it can be helped. Segregation in mosques remains, women praying in secluded areas usually tucked away from the ‘front’. Entering a mosque requires men to cover at least their legs (and the usual shirt shoes etc) and women their head (amongst seemingly everything else). Prayer time can’t be missed as all cities small and large erupt in blaring words of praise. There is still a barter, and word of mouth commission like system in place. This explains why the prices are never the same and always negotiable. Honking at people to let them oHthemthemfjksfdlksfdlsfdf know they’re coming, or about to run them over, is also as customary as chai and carpet salesmen. There seems to be a big influx of money into the country via tourism. Luckily the turks understand how to treat the tourist always looking to help. Needless to say this does take a while to get used to as there is no such thing as a quiet walk. Foreign investment seems abound especially along the Mediterranean coast where there is no such thing as a cheap ‘anything’. Farming has evolved to use tractors though sheep still run unfenced over the landscape. Amazingly everyone seems to speak English to some degree and those that haven’t learned just jet try their hardest to help in any way possible. People are warm and appear to be used to foreigners. The land is diverse and has lots to offer especially historically. These include Byzantine, Ottoman, Anatolian, Roman, and Greek cultural remnants. The East of the country is mostly unexplored by tourists and still has some Kurdish conflicts which are also felt in the West via the PPK bombings and other unrest. All in all, Turkey has to date been one of the most amazing, ‘funnest’, culturally rich, cheapest, and friendliest countries to visit and I can’t wait to return one day.
October 29th, 2008 | Category: Michael, Travel, Turkey | One comment
October 29th, 2008 | Category: Michael, Travel, Turkey | One comment
Aug 19, 2009
Michael Panzeca: The Quest for Manhood
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - From Walden by Henry David Thoreau
A Friday. A moonless night. A dome of stars above. A light wind blows off the lake through the pines. A gathering of men is about to begin.
I'm late leaving my cabin. I walk briskly toward a dark building in the middle of the clearing. The other men are inside the building. I can hear them.
They're drumming.
The sound is loud, primal, frightening. I peek cautiously through the archway. Candles flicker from the middle of the floor. Fifty men are sitting, in a circle, around the candles.
Drumming.
Some of these men, these strangers drumming in front of other strangers, look as disconcerted as I know I must. Yet some look ecstatic. I find a place on the floor and try to pick up the beat. I lack a drum, but I have a tambourine, and I slap it across my thigh with false gusto.
A large, burly man - he must be 50 - howls at the ceiling like a Hollywood version of an Apache. Stands. Starts dancing. Hops around by himself, pounding his drum, grunting, whooping, screaming. A wild man in Rockports. He puts down his drum. Hugs the man to his right.
It cost $200 to be here, yet I want to run from the room.
I don't run, of course. I'm here to write about what happens during the next three days. Gatherings such as this, sponsored by the Orlando Men's Council, are taking place all over the country. Under the direction of psychotherapists and experts in American Indian rituals, men get together in the woods, commune with nature, beat drums, share their deepest feelings, dance with abandon, meditate, hug each other, read poetry, even purify themselves by sitting in 150-degree sweat lodges. What they are supposed to get out of this, I have read, is a spiritual reawakening and a new sense of what it means to be a man.
Participating in the shared emotion of such a gathering, for me, is a frightening prospect.
I was raised like most men. Be strong. Be the best athlete. Get the best grades. Whatever you do, don't cry. Feelings? Hell, real men hide them. Even as my father lay dying, we talked about baseball and fishing instead of our fierce love for each other. We kept secret our deepest emotions. As men do.
This is just one of my sorrows. Other sorrows are harder to articulate because they lurk in the subconscious. But I'll tell you what I think I think: In some regards, men have been as damaged as women by the way society has conditioned us.
The sorrow of women is that they have been devalued into sex objects and treated as second-class citizens. But during the last two decades women have taken action. They have faced their pain, shown righteous anger and are stronger for it. Men, meanwhile, have been socialized for centuries to be the great providers, to be stoic, to be soldiers, to kick ass. We've been conditioned to dominate women and our children, the workplace, other countries and the natural world. In the name of profit we are willing to poison the air and the water our grandchildren need for survival. Disconnected from nature, we have lost our ancient sense of wonder.
The modern work world has similarly taken us away from our families, as Robert Bly points out in his book about masculinity's mythic dimensions, Iron John. Our children are strangers to many of us. We work late, and on weekends, and seldom see them. Some of us, divorced, see our kids even less. Many of us never knew our own dads.
Bly has been talking to men, and writing poetry about men's lives, for more than a decade. But it was about two years ago that he shoved the men's movement into the mainstream. Public television's Bill Moyers filmed a Bly-led men's gathering in Texas that was seen by millions of viewers. Iron John, the book that followed, has been on the best-seller list for 43 weeks. Sam Keen's Fire in the Belly - on Being a Man also has outsold the usual diet books and celebrity biographies. Men's groups are meeting all over the country. Florida has a half dozen, including one in St. Petersburg.
Men clearly want to know more about being a man.
So what is a man? Hell, most of us don't know. A man has to do what a man has to do, we have heard, but we don't know what and why that is. And if we do, for the most part we're incapable of talking about it, much less changing our ways. That's our sorrow and our confusion.
Men have shorter lifespans than women. We are four times more likely to take our own lives. We are three times more likely to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. More men than women are homeless. More men than women are in prison.
"I think we're at the end of an era," says Michael Panzeca, one of three South Florida therapists running this gathering. "Men have achieved as much success as we can with progress and technology. We've got jobs, and cars, and wives and kids. We've got VCRs and stereos. Yet we're empty inside."
So we drum. Who are these men?
The guy on my left has a large drum. He is the dominant drummer. We play his beat, which is loud, slow, primal. The guy on my right has a large drum, too. His beat is slightly faster, and gradually we all join him. It's not a competition. It's a stream that has met a boulder and changed course. After 10 minutes, I feel like a molecule in that stream, carried along for an exhilarating ride.
Panzeca, 29, introduces himself and his assistants, Mark Purcell, 30, and Joe Milisitz, 36. I'm a beginner when it comes to psychotherapy, which may be true of most men, who try to handle their own problems, but I'll say this: These guys don't look like Freud. They wear jeans and T-shirts. They wear their hair in pony tails. They wear fedoras and earrings. Milisitz, with his Jersey accent, sounds like Bruce Springsteen. Purcell, of American Indian ancestry, writes poetry. Panzeca, stalking the room like a caged wolf, shares his background: He's a former alcoholic and drug addict who went sober nine years ago in prison and studied psychology.
He tells us to introduce ourselves, one at a time, and looks at me. I give my first name, where I was born, where I grew up, and where I live now. Most of the men follow my boring example. But halfway through the introductions, halfway around the room, the atmosphere changes.
"I'm from nowhere," says an angry looking man named Roman.
The guy behind him, a man with long blond hair, says: "I'm from the void."
I feel the need to pick up my notebook, my shield against raw emotion. Instead, I wait for a pause and add a personal detail: I'm a reporter. The organizers know, but the participants don't, and they should if I'm going to write about them. Nobody objects. When I tell them I am also a participant in this adventure, some of them, men who have done gatherings before, yell out.
"Ho!"
It's a Native American expression. It means "I agree." There will be a lot of hoing this weekend.
So who are these men? Most of us could be your neighbor. Most of us are well-groomed. All of us are white. I'd say our average age i between 35 and 45, in our mid-life crisis primes. Most of us, I'll learn throughout the weekend, are professionals. At least five participants are psychotherapists themselves. There is one medical doctor and one psychiatrist. There are several stock brokers and real estate salesmen. There are men who work with their hands.
Several men have physical handicaps. One man is unnaturally small. One is blind. One has a lazy eye. One has twisted legs and limps. But most of our problems, our sorrows, our hopes, are hidden in our hearts. And the purpose of the weekend is to help get them out and become better men - for ourselves, our women, our children, our planet.
Panzeca tells us to pick out a walking stick from the corner. He says the sticks will represent our male power. The newspaper reporter in me listens cynically. The man in me listens with an open mind.
Panzeca invites any man 50 or older to stand. He says the older men will serve this weekend as our elders, our mentors, our initiators into manhood. Why not? He sends them into the woods to build a campfire. He next invites us to share our fears. The room explodes with so much emotion I almost jump.
"I fear being insignificant!"
"I fear responsibility!"
"I fear my father!"
"I fear women!"
"I fear death!"
"I fear fear!" Returning to Mother Earth
Saturday. Dawn. A stiff breeze.
I'm exhausted from a sleepless night. I couldn't get the drumming out of my ahead, and my fears about today out of my heart. Today's schedule includes something called "ceremony of the wounds," a "power dance" and a "sweat lodge."
We're going to be using a lot of rituals to help us overcome our inbred white man's reluctance to talk and to feel. Some are Native American in origin; some are staples in psychotherapy. All will be new to me.
"A lot of psychotherapy with men is about their lack of being grounded," says Mark Purcell, who has practiced psychotherapy in Fort Lauderdale for six years, as we drink coffee at breakfast. "They don't connect with people, especially with other men. What we do at these gatherings is help them get grounded."
A drum is grounded in the earth. It's made from wood and animal skin. Beating it is primal. The raw ingredients of a sweat lodge ceremony are earth, air, water and fire. "A lot of what happens here is about nature," says Purcell, of Creek and Cherokee ancestry. So-called primitive men once drew upon Mother Earth for material and spiritual sustenance. They honored the Earth. Modern men fear it and exploit it. On this weekend, we will return to roots that some of us have forgotten.
We will hear much about "Wild Men" and "Warriors." These terms are sprinkled through Bly's Iron John. As Bly sees it, the wild man part of a man's personality is the spontaneous part, the funny part, the vulgar part, the sexual part, the passionate part, the part that feels comfortable in nature. A man needs some wild man in him to be whole. But the wild man part of personality, if taken to extremes, is also dangerous. It can be self destructive and violent, a drug addict or an alcoholic, a game of Russian roulette.
"Jack Kerouac's mistake was trying to become the wild man," Bly says. "He ended up vomiting his liver."
Some men fear even the good qualities of their wild man, or had it beaten or socialized out of them when they were boys, and they are passive, predictable, soft adults. They're sensitive, all right, but they lack energy. Their warrior is undeveloped.
The warrior is the competent part of a man, the part that gets things done, the determined part, the part that makes decisions. The warrior in a man loves himself and his family. The warrior in a man has the courage of his convictions. The warrior is willing to defend both his physical and emotional boundaries.
A warrior has another important component: the so-called nurturing side. This is the ability to teach. To listen. To feel empathy. To be interested in another man's soul. To be so secure in manhood that he can touch another man. Into the woods
Michael Panzeca sends us into the woods. Our mission is to confront our demons, the things that have wounded the wild man and the warrior in us, things that we are afraid even to think about, much less discuss with a stranger. Panzeca has even given us rags to represent our wounds. We tie them where we hurt.
I walk through the palmettos and look for a place to confront - what? I'm unsure. I squat at a fallen pine. In the distance I hear a shriek. Someone else yells, "No! No! No!" This is heavy stuff. Somebody curses with all his might. I look through dead branches across a field and see a man writhing in the sand. I hear someone battering a tree with his walking stick and condemning a father who is not there, who was never there. I think of events of my own childhood.
Tears fill my eyes. Their stories
We return to the fire. Some men are sobbing. Others are taking deep breaths and looking around with wild eyes. I sit on a bale of hay and finger my notebook and try to control my emotions. I'm afraid of letting go.
Panzeca tells us to separate into small groups and to talk, if we want to, about what happened in the woods. Joe Milisitz, the therapist we all call Joey, will lead my group.
So.
What are things that have kept some of us from realizing our potential as men?
One man says he never had a relationship with his dad. He loved his dad, wanted to learn from his dad, but his dad seemed to be dead inside. His dad never had a moment for his son. His dad loved television more than his own flesh and blood.
He stands among us and sobs. That may seem shameful to some of you reading this, a grown man weeping about an absent dad after so many years. But it is among the bravest, most moving things I've ever heard.
The rest of us stand and embrace him. We take the role of his father. "I love you just the way you are," Joey, the therapist, says gently. Someone says, "I'm turning off the television, Andy. Let's talk."
What else?
One man says he was raped by his father. He says he hates to be touched by men. He even hates when a man stands behind him. Sobbing, he asks for help. We stand behind him and embrace him. We honor his pain by sharing his tears.
One man, choking with emotion, says he has never been able to tell anybody, until now, just how angry he is with his domineering mother, who made him feel inadequate when he was a boy. Another man says he was regularly disciplined by his mother - with enemas.
One man was abused by a teacher. Another, by a nurse. One man weeps because he can have nothing but sexual relationships with women. He says he feels only emptiness. Another man calls his wife "that bitch." He's so tired of trying to make her happy.
Back at the fire, we pick up our drums and our percussion instruments. We beat them. We chant. We howl. Then, at Michael Panzeca's invitation, we leap, one by one, into the campfire circle and dance our pain away. We jump, we beat our sticks against the ground in rage, we swing them over our heads in triumph.
The power dance feels as natural as brushing my teeth. In the sweat lodge
Saturday night. Breezeless. Hot and sticky.
I have been drinking water continuously for three hours at the suggestion of Kirk Fenner, who is serving as a medicine man of sorts for the sweat lodge. Kirk, 43, is a South Florida electrician who has studied the traditions of American Indians for decades. He's also a former Vietnam veteran who has wrestled his own demons for his warrior soul.
"The sweat lodge is a Native American ritual," he says. "It's a purification rite that represents cleansing and rebirth."
There will be two lodges tonight, each lasting 90 minutes. I'm scheduled for the second. The lodge, built from pine saplings, is covered by blankets, tarps and a sheet of thick black plastic. A dome about 15 feet across and 5 feet high, the lodge resembles an igloo. About 25 of us will be stuffed into it at a time.
We're going to pray, according to Lakota Sioux traditions, and we're going to sing. We're going to talk, if we want to talk, and we're going to moan, if we want to moan. Some of us may be blessed with visions. All of us will sweat more than we've ever sweated before.
"Some people won't go into the lodge," Fenner says. "And that's good. You don't want to do this until you're ready. Some people come in and leave early. That's fine, too. You do what you need to do. That's one of the things about the lodge: It gives you exactly what you need. The lodge tells you to look at something, to look into your heart . . ."
My heart is pounding. I want to do this, but I'm also terrified. I'm slightly claustrophobic, and my lungs are scarred from an old illness. I'm one of those people who gets a flu shot every fall. A doctor here told me he did a sweat lodge last spring and got a lung infection.
We shed shirts and shoes. We remove rings and other jewelry. In the heat of the lodge, metal can burn skin. We line up single file. At the lodge door, we fall to our knees, bow to the earth, and say: Mitakuye oyasin. It's Lakota for "All my relatives" or "All my relations." All of us, men and women, animals, plants and rocks, living and dead, are related and watched over by Wanka Tanka, the Great Mystery, or what white people would call the Great Spirit.
It's warm in the lodge, but not stifling.
Kirk explains what we'll do. There will be four ceremonies, or endurances, honoring the west, north, east and south. We will invite in the spirits and ask them for courage, knowledge and healing. Each endurance will last a little more than 20 minutes.
A boulder, glowing red, is hauled in on a pitchfork and dropped into the pit in the center of the lodge. The temperature leaps by at least 10 degrees. Some of us giggle. Six more boulders, and almost unbearable heat, follow. Giggling stops.
Kirk closes the door flap.
It's as black in here as oblivion.
He ladles water onto the boulders. I hear the hiss before the suffocating steam covers me.
Kirk sings in Lakota. We do our best to follow along. I'm so anxious I have a hard time. I press my face to the earth in hopes of finding cooler air. My lungs feel like they're cooking.
Now Kirk begins a long prayer in English. He's inviting the spirit world into our lodge to help us.
A few of us try praying along. Others moan. My mind is centered on my fear. I want to leave, but I'm afraid to admit it. I don't want to wimp out. Kirk finishes the prayer.
I say: "I have to leave now."
Kirk says, "That's good, brother." Someone else says "Ho!" I crawl, clockwise, among my brothers toward the door. Touching me, they offer unspoken support. Kirk says, "The biggest lesson is knowing when to leave."
I stand outside the lodge and fill my lungs with cool air.
I feel only shame. Courage was all around
Sunday. Dawn. Sandhill cranes, squawking like rusty gates, fly in front of me as I meditate at the lake. What went wrong last night?
I seek out Joey Milisitz, the therapist, who was the hero of last night's ceremony. Joey did both lodges.
I tell him I lost my courage after 10 minutes. How did he last three hours?
Joey says, "I tried to do a sweat lodge last spring. After 10 minutes I had a panic attack. I had to get out of there! This time I was determined. So when I went into the first lodge, I announced my great fear to everybody. I told them I needed their support and their courage."
Joey's wisdom hits me like a thunderbolt. There I had been, sitting in a sweat lodge with 25 of the most supportive people I'd ever met. Yet I had been unable to express a simple, human emotion that surely is shared by all men: fear.
I felt alone in a roomful of friends.
The lesson of the sweat lodge. Harnessing the power
The rest of the morning goes too fast. We gather in the parking lot and line up. One by one, we're going to hike through the woods to the campfire circle, where the elders await to initiate us as men. If you had told me last week I was going to be "initiated" as a man, I would have laughed at you. But now I have to keep wiping my eyes. It's real.
So I walk into the woods. Alone. Someone lunges from behind a bush and blocks my path. He says he is my fear. Am I ready to accept him? I am. We embrace. I walk on, and meet my grief, and my anger, and, finally, my power.
At the campfire circle I step through a doorway constructed of saplings. Six elders welcome me. One ties a chain of beads around my neck. The beads represent earth, fire, wind and sun, components that celebrate the wild man and warrior in men. Kirk Fenner, medicine man, breaks out a ceremonial pipe.
We smoke and we pray.
"How do we translate what we have learned this weekend into the real world?" Michael Panzeca, the head therapist, had asked us earlier. "That's the important thing. Once we are in touch with our power, where do we go from here?" Home again
Three hours later, I pull into the driveway of my St. Petersburg home. Eager to begin my work, I feel like Scrooge on Christmas morning. I almost run into the house, where I gather into my arms my wonderful wife, Suzanne, and my precious children, Kristin, Peter and Katie. I hold them and tell them how much I love them, and how hard it is for me to even say those words, but how I'm going to try and say them a whole lot more from now on.
I'm not ashamed of my tears.
I feel their power. Do you understand me? I feel their power.
St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Fla.
Author: JEFF KLINKENBERG
Date: Sep 22, 1991
Start Page: 1.F
Section: FLORIDIAN
Text Word Count: 3838
A Friday. A moonless night. A dome of stars above. A light wind blows off the lake through the pines. A gathering of men is about to begin.
I'm late leaving my cabin. I walk briskly toward a dark building in the middle of the clearing. The other men are inside the building. I can hear them.
They're drumming.
The sound is loud, primal, frightening. I peek cautiously through the archway. Candles flicker from the middle of the floor. Fifty men are sitting, in a circle, around the candles.
Drumming.
Some of these men, these strangers drumming in front of other strangers, look as disconcerted as I know I must. Yet some look ecstatic. I find a place on the floor and try to pick up the beat. I lack a drum, but I have a tambourine, and I slap it across my thigh with false gusto.
A large, burly man - he must be 50 - howls at the ceiling like a Hollywood version of an Apache. Stands. Starts dancing. Hops around by himself, pounding his drum, grunting, whooping, screaming. A wild man in Rockports. He puts down his drum. Hugs the man to his right.
It cost $200 to be here, yet I want to run from the room.
I don't run, of course. I'm here to write about what happens during the next three days. Gatherings such as this, sponsored by the Orlando Men's Council, are taking place all over the country. Under the direction of psychotherapists and experts in American Indian rituals, men get together in the woods, commune with nature, beat drums, share their deepest feelings, dance with abandon, meditate, hug each other, read poetry, even purify themselves by sitting in 150-degree sweat lodges. What they are supposed to get out of this, I have read, is a spiritual reawakening and a new sense of what it means to be a man.
Participating in the shared emotion of such a gathering, for me, is a frightening prospect.
I was raised like most men. Be strong. Be the best athlete. Get the best grades. Whatever you do, don't cry. Feelings? Hell, real men hide them. Even as my father lay dying, we talked about baseball and fishing instead of our fierce love for each other. We kept secret our deepest emotions. As men do.
This is just one of my sorrows. Other sorrows are harder to articulate because they lurk in the subconscious. But I'll tell you what I think I think: In some regards, men have been as damaged as women by the way society has conditioned us.
The sorrow of women is that they have been devalued into sex objects and treated as second-class citizens. But during the last two decades women have taken action. They have faced their pain, shown righteous anger and are stronger for it. Men, meanwhile, have been socialized for centuries to be the great providers, to be stoic, to be soldiers, to kick ass. We've been conditioned to dominate women and our children, the workplace, other countries and the natural world. In the name of profit we are willing to poison the air and the water our grandchildren need for survival. Disconnected from nature, we have lost our ancient sense of wonder.
The modern work world has similarly taken us away from our families, as Robert Bly points out in his book about masculinity's mythic dimensions, Iron John. Our children are strangers to many of us. We work late, and on weekends, and seldom see them. Some of us, divorced, see our kids even less. Many of us never knew our own dads.
Bly has been talking to men, and writing poetry about men's lives, for more than a decade. But it was about two years ago that he shoved the men's movement into the mainstream. Public television's Bill Moyers filmed a Bly-led men's gathering in Texas that was seen by millions of viewers. Iron John, the book that followed, has been on the best-seller list for 43 weeks. Sam Keen's Fire in the Belly - on Being a Man also has outsold the usual diet books and celebrity biographies. Men's groups are meeting all over the country. Florida has a half dozen, including one in St. Petersburg.
Men clearly want to know more about being a man.
So what is a man? Hell, most of us don't know. A man has to do what a man has to do, we have heard, but we don't know what and why that is. And if we do, for the most part we're incapable of talking about it, much less changing our ways. That's our sorrow and our confusion.
Men have shorter lifespans than women. We are four times more likely to take our own lives. We are three times more likely to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. More men than women are homeless. More men than women are in prison.
"I think we're at the end of an era," says Michael Panzeca, one of three South Florida therapists running this gathering. "Men have achieved as much success as we can with progress and technology. We've got jobs, and cars, and wives and kids. We've got VCRs and stereos. Yet we're empty inside."
So we drum. Who are these men?
The guy on my left has a large drum. He is the dominant drummer. We play his beat, which is loud, slow, primal. The guy on my right has a large drum, too. His beat is slightly faster, and gradually we all join him. It's not a competition. It's a stream that has met a boulder and changed course. After 10 minutes, I feel like a molecule in that stream, carried along for an exhilarating ride.
Panzeca, 29, introduces himself and his assistants, Mark Purcell, 30, and Joe Milisitz, 36. I'm a beginner when it comes to psychotherapy, which may be true of most men, who try to handle their own problems, but I'll say this: These guys don't look like Freud. They wear jeans and T-shirts. They wear their hair in pony tails. They wear fedoras and earrings. Milisitz, with his Jersey accent, sounds like Bruce Springsteen. Purcell, of American Indian ancestry, writes poetry. Panzeca, stalking the room like a caged wolf, shares his background: He's a former alcoholic and drug addict who went sober nine years ago in prison and studied psychology.
He tells us to introduce ourselves, one at a time, and looks at me. I give my first name, where I was born, where I grew up, and where I live now. Most of the men follow my boring example. But halfway through the introductions, halfway around the room, the atmosphere changes.
"I'm from nowhere," says an angry looking man named Roman.
The guy behind him, a man with long blond hair, says: "I'm from the void."
I feel the need to pick up my notebook, my shield against raw emotion. Instead, I wait for a pause and add a personal detail: I'm a reporter. The organizers know, but the participants don't, and they should if I'm going to write about them. Nobody objects. When I tell them I am also a participant in this adventure, some of them, men who have done gatherings before, yell out.
"Ho!"
It's a Native American expression. It means "I agree." There will be a lot of hoing this weekend.
So who are these men? Most of us could be your neighbor. Most of us are well-groomed. All of us are white. I'd say our average age i between 35 and 45, in our mid-life crisis primes. Most of us, I'll learn throughout the weekend, are professionals. At least five participants are psychotherapists themselves. There is one medical doctor and one psychiatrist. There are several stock brokers and real estate salesmen. There are men who work with their hands.
Several men have physical handicaps. One man is unnaturally small. One is blind. One has a lazy eye. One has twisted legs and limps. But most of our problems, our sorrows, our hopes, are hidden in our hearts. And the purpose of the weekend is to help get them out and become better men - for ourselves, our women, our children, our planet.
Panzeca tells us to pick out a walking stick from the corner. He says the sticks will represent our male power. The newspaper reporter in me listens cynically. The man in me listens with an open mind.
Panzeca invites any man 50 or older to stand. He says the older men will serve this weekend as our elders, our mentors, our initiators into manhood. Why not? He sends them into the woods to build a campfire. He next invites us to share our fears. The room explodes with so much emotion I almost jump.
"I fear being insignificant!"
"I fear responsibility!"
"I fear my father!"
"I fear women!"
"I fear death!"
"I fear fear!" Returning to Mother Earth
Saturday. Dawn. A stiff breeze.
I'm exhausted from a sleepless night. I couldn't get the drumming out of my ahead, and my fears about today out of my heart. Today's schedule includes something called "ceremony of the wounds," a "power dance" and a "sweat lodge."
We're going to be using a lot of rituals to help us overcome our inbred white man's reluctance to talk and to feel. Some are Native American in origin; some are staples in psychotherapy. All will be new to me.
"A lot of psychotherapy with men is about their lack of being grounded," says Mark Purcell, who has practiced psychotherapy in Fort Lauderdale for six years, as we drink coffee at breakfast. "They don't connect with people, especially with other men. What we do at these gatherings is help them get grounded."
A drum is grounded in the earth. It's made from wood and animal skin. Beating it is primal. The raw ingredients of a sweat lodge ceremony are earth, air, water and fire. "A lot of what happens here is about nature," says Purcell, of Creek and Cherokee ancestry. So-called primitive men once drew upon Mother Earth for material and spiritual sustenance. They honored the Earth. Modern men fear it and exploit it. On this weekend, we will return to roots that some of us have forgotten.
We will hear much about "Wild Men" and "Warriors." These terms are sprinkled through Bly's Iron John. As Bly sees it, the wild man part of a man's personality is the spontaneous part, the funny part, the vulgar part, the sexual part, the passionate part, the part that feels comfortable in nature. A man needs some wild man in him to be whole. But the wild man part of personality, if taken to extremes, is also dangerous. It can be self destructive and violent, a drug addict or an alcoholic, a game of Russian roulette.
"Jack Kerouac's mistake was trying to become the wild man," Bly says. "He ended up vomiting his liver."
Some men fear even the good qualities of their wild man, or had it beaten or socialized out of them when they were boys, and they are passive, predictable, soft adults. They're sensitive, all right, but they lack energy. Their warrior is undeveloped.
The warrior is the competent part of a man, the part that gets things done, the determined part, the part that makes decisions. The warrior in a man loves himself and his family. The warrior in a man has the courage of his convictions. The warrior is willing to defend both his physical and emotional boundaries.
A warrior has another important component: the so-called nurturing side. This is the ability to teach. To listen. To feel empathy. To be interested in another man's soul. To be so secure in manhood that he can touch another man. Into the woods
Michael Panzeca sends us into the woods. Our mission is to confront our demons, the things that have wounded the wild man and the warrior in us, things that we are afraid even to think about, much less discuss with a stranger. Panzeca has even given us rags to represent our wounds. We tie them where we hurt.
I walk through the palmettos and look for a place to confront - what? I'm unsure. I squat at a fallen pine. In the distance I hear a shriek. Someone else yells, "No! No! No!" This is heavy stuff. Somebody curses with all his might. I look through dead branches across a field and see a man writhing in the sand. I hear someone battering a tree with his walking stick and condemning a father who is not there, who was never there. I think of events of my own childhood.
Tears fill my eyes. Their stories
We return to the fire. Some men are sobbing. Others are taking deep breaths and looking around with wild eyes. I sit on a bale of hay and finger my notebook and try to control my emotions. I'm afraid of letting go.
Panzeca tells us to separate into small groups and to talk, if we want to, about what happened in the woods. Joe Milisitz, the therapist we all call Joey, will lead my group.
So.
What are things that have kept some of us from realizing our potential as men?
One man says he never had a relationship with his dad. He loved his dad, wanted to learn from his dad, but his dad seemed to be dead inside. His dad never had a moment for his son. His dad loved television more than his own flesh and blood.
He stands among us and sobs. That may seem shameful to some of you reading this, a grown man weeping about an absent dad after so many years. But it is among the bravest, most moving things I've ever heard.
The rest of us stand and embrace him. We take the role of his father. "I love you just the way you are," Joey, the therapist, says gently. Someone says, "I'm turning off the television, Andy. Let's talk."
What else?
One man says he was raped by his father. He says he hates to be touched by men. He even hates when a man stands behind him. Sobbing, he asks for help. We stand behind him and embrace him. We honor his pain by sharing his tears.
One man, choking with emotion, says he has never been able to tell anybody, until now, just how angry he is with his domineering mother, who made him feel inadequate when he was a boy. Another man says he was regularly disciplined by his mother - with enemas.
One man was abused by a teacher. Another, by a nurse. One man weeps because he can have nothing but sexual relationships with women. He says he feels only emptiness. Another man calls his wife "that bitch." He's so tired of trying to make her happy.
Back at the fire, we pick up our drums and our percussion instruments. We beat them. We chant. We howl. Then, at Michael Panzeca's invitation, we leap, one by one, into the campfire circle and dance our pain away. We jump, we beat our sticks against the ground in rage, we swing them over our heads in triumph.
The power dance feels as natural as brushing my teeth. In the sweat lodge
Saturday night. Breezeless. Hot and sticky.
I have been drinking water continuously for three hours at the suggestion of Kirk Fenner, who is serving as a medicine man of sorts for the sweat lodge. Kirk, 43, is a South Florida electrician who has studied the traditions of American Indians for decades. He's also a former Vietnam veteran who has wrestled his own demons for his warrior soul.
"The sweat lodge is a Native American ritual," he says. "It's a purification rite that represents cleansing and rebirth."
There will be two lodges tonight, each lasting 90 minutes. I'm scheduled for the second. The lodge, built from pine saplings, is covered by blankets, tarps and a sheet of thick black plastic. A dome about 15 feet across and 5 feet high, the lodge resembles an igloo. About 25 of us will be stuffed into it at a time.
We're going to pray, according to Lakota Sioux traditions, and we're going to sing. We're going to talk, if we want to talk, and we're going to moan, if we want to moan. Some of us may be blessed with visions. All of us will sweat more than we've ever sweated before.
"Some people won't go into the lodge," Fenner says. "And that's good. You don't want to do this until you're ready. Some people come in and leave early. That's fine, too. You do what you need to do. That's one of the things about the lodge: It gives you exactly what you need. The lodge tells you to look at something, to look into your heart . . ."
My heart is pounding. I want to do this, but I'm also terrified. I'm slightly claustrophobic, and my lungs are scarred from an old illness. I'm one of those people who gets a flu shot every fall. A doctor here told me he did a sweat lodge last spring and got a lung infection.
We shed shirts and shoes. We remove rings and other jewelry. In the heat of the lodge, metal can burn skin. We line up single file. At the lodge door, we fall to our knees, bow to the earth, and say: Mitakuye oyasin. It's Lakota for "All my relatives" or "All my relations." All of us, men and women, animals, plants and rocks, living and dead, are related and watched over by Wanka Tanka, the Great Mystery, or what white people would call the Great Spirit.
It's warm in the lodge, but not stifling.
Kirk explains what we'll do. There will be four ceremonies, or endurances, honoring the west, north, east and south. We will invite in the spirits and ask them for courage, knowledge and healing. Each endurance will last a little more than 20 minutes.
A boulder, glowing red, is hauled in on a pitchfork and dropped into the pit in the center of the lodge. The temperature leaps by at least 10 degrees. Some of us giggle. Six more boulders, and almost unbearable heat, follow. Giggling stops.
Kirk closes the door flap.
It's as black in here as oblivion.
He ladles water onto the boulders. I hear the hiss before the suffocating steam covers me.
Kirk sings in Lakota. We do our best to follow along. I'm so anxious I have a hard time. I press my face to the earth in hopes of finding cooler air. My lungs feel like they're cooking.
Now Kirk begins a long prayer in English. He's inviting the spirit world into our lodge to help us.
A few of us try praying along. Others moan. My mind is centered on my fear. I want to leave, but I'm afraid to admit it. I don't want to wimp out. Kirk finishes the prayer.
I say: "I have to leave now."
Kirk says, "That's good, brother." Someone else says "Ho!" I crawl, clockwise, among my brothers toward the door. Touching me, they offer unspoken support. Kirk says, "The biggest lesson is knowing when to leave."
I stand outside the lodge and fill my lungs with cool air.
I feel only shame. Courage was all around
Sunday. Dawn. Sandhill cranes, squawking like rusty gates, fly in front of me as I meditate at the lake. What went wrong last night?
I seek out Joey Milisitz, the therapist, who was the hero of last night's ceremony. Joey did both lodges.
I tell him I lost my courage after 10 minutes. How did he last three hours?
Joey says, "I tried to do a sweat lodge last spring. After 10 minutes I had a panic attack. I had to get out of there! This time I was determined. So when I went into the first lodge, I announced my great fear to everybody. I told them I needed their support and their courage."
Joey's wisdom hits me like a thunderbolt. There I had been, sitting in a sweat lodge with 25 of the most supportive people I'd ever met. Yet I had been unable to express a simple, human emotion that surely is shared by all men: fear.
I felt alone in a roomful of friends.
The lesson of the sweat lodge. Harnessing the power
The rest of the morning goes too fast. We gather in the parking lot and line up. One by one, we're going to hike through the woods to the campfire circle, where the elders await to initiate us as men. If you had told me last week I was going to be "initiated" as a man, I would have laughed at you. But now I have to keep wiping my eyes. It's real.
So I walk into the woods. Alone. Someone lunges from behind a bush and blocks my path. He says he is my fear. Am I ready to accept him? I am. We embrace. I walk on, and meet my grief, and my anger, and, finally, my power.
At the campfire circle I step through a doorway constructed of saplings. Six elders welcome me. One ties a chain of beads around my neck. The beads represent earth, fire, wind and sun, components that celebrate the wild man and warrior in men. Kirk Fenner, medicine man, breaks out a ceremonial pipe.
We smoke and we pray.
"How do we translate what we have learned this weekend into the real world?" Michael Panzeca, the head therapist, had asked us earlier. "That's the important thing. Once we are in touch with our power, where do we go from here?" Home again
Three hours later, I pull into the driveway of my St. Petersburg home. Eager to begin my work, I feel like Scrooge on Christmas morning. I almost run into the house, where I gather into my arms my wonderful wife, Suzanne, and my precious children, Kristin, Peter and Katie. I hold them and tell them how much I love them, and how hard it is for me to even say those words, but how I'm going to try and say them a whole lot more from now on.
I'm not ashamed of my tears.
I feel their power. Do you understand me? I feel their power.
St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Fla.
Author: JEFF KLINKENBERG
Date: Sep 22, 1991
Start Page: 1.F
Section: FLORIDIAN
Text Word Count: 3838
Jun 22, 2009
Gay by choice? If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?
Mother Jones , Sept-Oct, 2007 by Gary Greenberg
Excerpts from the article:
... That's the usual interpretation of reparative therapy--that to the extent that it does anything, it leads people to repress rather than change their natural inclinations, that its claims to change sexual orientation are an outright fraud perpetrated by the religious fight on people who have internalized the homophobia of American society, personalized the political in such a way as to reject their own sexuality and stunt their love lives. But Aaron scoffs at these notions, insisting that his wish to go straight had nothing to do with right-wing religion or politics--he's a nonobservant Jew and a lifelong Democrat who volunteered for George McGovern, has a career in public service, and thinks George Bush is a war criminal. It wasn't a matter of ignorance--he has an advanced degree--and it really wasn't a psychopathological thing--he rejects the idea that he's ever suffered from internalized homophobia. He just didn't want to be gay, and, like millions of Americans dissatisfied with their lives, he sought professional help and reinvented himself.
Self-reconstruction is what people in my profession (I am a practicing psychotherapist) specialize in, but when it comes to someone like Aaron, most of us draw the line. All the major psychotherapy guilds have barred their members from researching or practicing reparative therapy on the grounds that it is inherently unethical to treat something that is not a disease, that it contributes to oppression by pathologizing homosexuality, and that it is dangerous to patients whose self-esteem can only suffer when they try to change something about themselves that they can't (and shouldn't have to) change. Aaron knows this, of course, which is why he's at great pains to prove he's not pulling a Ted Haggard. For if he's not a poseur, then he is a walking challenge to the political and scientific consensus that has emerged over the last century and a half: that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, that efforts to change it are bound to fail, and that discrimination against gay people is therefore unjust.
Excerpts from the article:
... That's the usual interpretation of reparative therapy--that to the extent that it does anything, it leads people to repress rather than change their natural inclinations, that its claims to change sexual orientation are an outright fraud perpetrated by the religious fight on people who have internalized the homophobia of American society, personalized the political in such a way as to reject their own sexuality and stunt their love lives. But Aaron scoffs at these notions, insisting that his wish to go straight had nothing to do with right-wing religion or politics--he's a nonobservant Jew and a lifelong Democrat who volunteered for George McGovern, has a career in public service, and thinks George Bush is a war criminal. It wasn't a matter of ignorance--he has an advanced degree--and it really wasn't a psychopathological thing--he rejects the idea that he's ever suffered from internalized homophobia. He just didn't want to be gay, and, like millions of Americans dissatisfied with their lives, he sought professional help and reinvented himself.
Self-reconstruction is what people in my profession (I am a practicing psychotherapist) specialize in, but when it comes to someone like Aaron, most of us draw the line. All the major psychotherapy guilds have barred their members from researching or practicing reparative therapy on the grounds that it is inherently unethical to treat something that is not a disease, that it contributes to oppression by pathologizing homosexuality, and that it is dangerous to patients whose self-esteem can only suffer when they try to change something about themselves that they can't (and shouldn't have to) change. Aaron knows this, of course, which is why he's at great pains to prove he's not pulling a Ted Haggard. For if he's not a poseur, then he is a walking challenge to the political and scientific consensus that has emerged over the last century and a half: that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, that efforts to change it are bound to fail, and that discrimination against gay people is therefore unjust.
Mar 3, 2009
Disentangling Heterosexuality from Masculinity
In traditional North American society, being "masculine" is often defined as (1) the opposite of being "feminine" and (2) avoiding sexual contact with other men. Recent trends in attitudes toward homophobia and masculinity, however, suggest that these traditional orientations may have begun to change in North American society. Drawing from a multiyear ethnographic study of heterosexual male college cheerleaders, I argue that associated with these changing attitudes and practices, many men are beginning to disentangle heterosexuality from masculinity. In this context, I demonstrate how avowedly "straight" men, in some instances, engage in gay sex and openly view such encounters as non-threatening to their own personal identities and public status as heterosexuals. The study carries theoretical implications for the conditions under which heterosexuality and masculinity do not imply each other and, most speculatively, when and how gay men are considered masculine.
Note from Reclaiming Natural Manhood site:
This article tries to disentangle heterosexuality from masculinity by showing that heterosexual males too have sex with men...
What is this weird western mindset... how can you prove that heterosexuals are being feminine by proving that they have sex with men?
Mar 1, 2009
Gays are 3rd Gender, and Western straights were bisexuals before the concept of sexual orientation
Sex and the Gender Revolution. Volume 1: Heterosexuality and the 'Third Gender' in Enlightenment London, By Randolph Trumbach. Chicago Series on Sexuality, History and Society. Edited by John C. Fout.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 998. Pp. xiv+509. $35.00
Excerpts from the JSTOR Book Review:
"Trumbach's argument, reiterated throughout the volume, is this: by the very early eighteenth century in London, a "third sex" of effeminate sodomites emerged as a specific and unique sexual identity. Before this period, Trumbach argues, most men had sexual relations with both women and boys, the latter relations occurring before marriage or occasionally on the side. By 1700, however, a man's having sex with another male was seen as aberrant and incorrigible, in fundamental contrast to the sexual behaviour and identity of other men who were now "brought... into more intimate relations with women" (p. 9)
This thesis is not new -- Trumbach has made these points in earlier articles, plus other scholars of sexuality, namely, Michel Foucault, have also claimed that (homo)sexual identity was constructed at a particular moment."
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 998. Pp. xiv+509. $35.00
Excerpts from the JSTOR Book Review:
"Trumbach's argument, reiterated throughout the volume, is this: by the very early eighteenth century in London, a "third sex" of effeminate sodomites emerged as a specific and unique sexual identity. Before this period, Trumbach argues, most men had sexual relations with both women and boys, the latter relations occurring before marriage or occasionally on the side. By 1700, however, a man's having sex with another male was seen as aberrant and incorrigible, in fundamental contrast to the sexual behaviour and identity of other men who were now "brought... into more intimate relations with women" (p. 9)
This thesis is not new -- Trumbach has made these points in earlier articles, plus other scholars of sexuality, namely, Michel Foucault, have also claimed that (homo)sexual identity was constructed at a particular moment."
Jan 18, 2009
The Western politics of Sexual identity
Sexuality is naturally fluid for most most men, only for a small minority is it fixed and concretized.
Each box, but especially, the main box meant for 'normal' men has built-in mechanisms, and what guys consider 'support systems' to help men kill that part of themselves which doesn't fit into that box (We're talking about the 'heterosexual box').
The society has prescribed only three boxes into which men can mould their sexualities during their formative years. And the concept of sexual orientation enforces that men must choose between one of the boxes. The three boxes are:
'heterosexual', 'homosexual' and 'bisexual'
However, 'homosexual' and 'bisexual' are combined together into a common box alongwith the transgendered.
So, there are practically two boxes:
'straight' and 'queer'
Now, the Straight box is marked heterosexual, but alongwith the package is tied masculinity, however it is not mentioned in the label. So when guys want to choose masculinity, they can only choose the 'heterosexual' box, and develop their sexuality along heterosexual lines, by suppressing their sexual need for men. The society uses this choice of the 'heterosexual box' as proof that the majority desire the 'heterosexual box' (without mentioning the 'masculinity' aspect, which is truly the deciding factor).
The 'gay' or 'homosexual'/ 'bisexual' or 'queer' box is labelled 'man to man sexuality', however, the package is ties with feminine gender/ transgender and passive sex. Now, when masculine males refuse the 'gay' box, or choose the 'heterosexual' box it is seen as a sign that they don't need men sexually, when in reality they are rejecting the box for its feminine gender (which is not even acknowleged on the label, but widely propagated by the society to discourage men from choosing it.).
At the sametime, most of the males that do choose the 'gay' or 'homosexual' box are males who are primarily third gender or feminine males who happen to like men. Now, these males confuse their preference of the feminine gender with their sexual need for men, influenced by social propaganda and so when they're choosing the 'gay' identity, the major determinant of their choice is their feminine gender, and not a sexual need for men per se, since most masculine males who also feel that attraction do sacrifice it because it is not available in a box with manhood.
This is how the Western politics of male Gender and Sexuality, enforced through the oppressive concept of Sexual Orientation works to make the majority heterosexual and the minority homosexual.
Jan 16, 2009
The third gender in twentieth-century America
George Chauncey's brilliant and often persuasive study of male homosexual relations in early twentieth-century New York was published two years ago on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riot that inaugurated the recent gay liberation movement. The world that he describes was the product of a major shift in western sexual behavior that had begun two hundred years before, around 1700. And his book is in dialogue with the scholars who over the past twenty-five years have tried to analyze that shift. The nature of the problem to be discussed can be indicated by asking whether homosexuality and heterosexuality are biological categories that divide the world into a majority and a minority that can be found in all times and places. To such a question most western people today would reply yes. And while they would probably wonder why a minority should be homosexual, they would simply accept without question that most people are heterosexual. Since the 1970s, however, the work of some historians and sociologists has radically challenged these presumptions. Mary McIntosh in a classic article in 1968 began the discussion by proposing that homosexuality in modern society was a deviant role into which some men were socialized beginning around 1700. Nine years later in 1977 Jeffrey Weeks and myself, under McIntosh's influence but independently of each other, rephrased McIntosh's proposal. Weeks maintained that the modern homosexual role emerged in the late nineteenth century when the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality were invented.(1)..... click here to read more.
Jan 15, 2009
Who is a Real Man
Masculinity and Femininity are real natural, biological things... they're not just a matter of social roles... although, its true that by defining them in their own artificial terms, the society has muddled the concept of manhood.
Thus masculinity (that makes real men) is biological and so is the third gender (queer/feminine/transgendered males).
Natural Masculinity is something the seed of which men are born with. However, this seed needs to be developed into manhood, which is where the role of the society comes in. The society can either provide the required environment for this seed to grow to its full potential or deprive it of this environment, making men into lesser males.
Natural masculinity needs men's spaces and male bonds to develop into full manhood. It is when one's masculinity is given place in the men's spaces and combines together with the masulinity of other men, the resultant masculinity generated is multiplied several folds and each member can partake in this immense power generated. This enhanced masculinity when acknowledged by the men's spaces is called "Manhood". This is Natural Manhood. Some of the characteristics of natural manhood are, courage, bravery, honor, etc.
But, the society has politicized Manhood for thousands of years now, progressively, in order to control man's behavior, especially his sexual behavior, originally, in order to bind him into endless reproduction and rearing of children. This was done by making granting of 'manhood' dependent upon the man fulfilling certain criteria fixed by the society -- which came to be known as "male roles". This 'artificial' manhood created by the society is known as 'social manhood' (as against the manhood that is naturally generated). If the man failed to fulfill these roles he was denied manhood, and either became a lesser male or was banished into the queer (i.e. third gender) zone.
However, social manhood has mostly been based on traits and acts that force men to go against the requirements of their natural masculinity, i.e. they are contrary to natural manhood. So, in effect, men are then queered in order to gain artificially generated social power and 'manhood'. Reproduction and serving the female sexually is an artificially fixed role of Social manhood.
The Westernized roles of social manhood are far removed from man's nature and act as extreme pressures and stresses on men, that make a mockery of the entire manhood thing. And this, when the society does not need to make men into reproduction machines anymore, with a population boom and advancement in medicines. This is an oppression of men, but these very social roles of men prevent men from raising a voice against it, ironically by threatening to make him a lesser man socially, when his natural manhood demands that he speaks up.
Thus you can see, that in this set up, the Naturally real man, becomes socially a lesser man, and the naturally lesser man becomes real men.
If we really want to go for the real thing, we need to show a lot of courage, organize and fight the society to change the anti-man rules of manhood and take the control of men's spaces and the power to define manhood away from the anti-man forces, into our own hands. It's a woman dominated society that has succeeded in breaking men from men, and uniting again is the only thing that can liberate us.
Thus masculinity (that makes real men) is biological and so is the third gender (queer/feminine/transgendered males).
Natural Masculinity is something the seed of which men are born with. However, this seed needs to be developed into manhood, which is where the role of the society comes in. The society can either provide the required environment for this seed to grow to its full potential or deprive it of this environment, making men into lesser males.
Natural masculinity needs men's spaces and male bonds to develop into full manhood. It is when one's masculinity is given place in the men's spaces and combines together with the masulinity of other men, the resultant masculinity generated is multiplied several folds and each member can partake in this immense power generated. This enhanced masculinity when acknowledged by the men's spaces is called "Manhood". This is Natural Manhood. Some of the characteristics of natural manhood are, courage, bravery, honor, etc.
But, the society has politicized Manhood for thousands of years now, progressively, in order to control man's behavior, especially his sexual behavior, originally, in order to bind him into endless reproduction and rearing of children. This was done by making granting of 'manhood' dependent upon the man fulfilling certain criteria fixed by the society -- which came to be known as "male roles". This 'artificial' manhood created by the society is known as 'social manhood' (as against the manhood that is naturally generated). If the man failed to fulfill these roles he was denied manhood, and either became a lesser male or was banished into the queer (i.e. third gender) zone.
However, social manhood has mostly been based on traits and acts that force men to go against the requirements of their natural masculinity, i.e. they are contrary to natural manhood. So, in effect, men are then queered in order to gain artificially generated social power and 'manhood'. Reproduction and serving the female sexually is an artificially fixed role of Social manhood.
The Westernized roles of social manhood are far removed from man's nature and act as extreme pressures and stresses on men, that make a mockery of the entire manhood thing. And this, when the society does not need to make men into reproduction machines anymore, with a population boom and advancement in medicines. This is an oppression of men, but these very social roles of men prevent men from raising a voice against it, ironically by threatening to make him a lesser man socially, when his natural manhood demands that he speaks up.
Thus you can see, that in this set up, the Naturally real man, becomes socially a lesser man, and the naturally lesser man becomes real men.
If we really want to go for the real thing, we need to show a lot of courage, organize and fight the society to change the anti-man rules of manhood and take the control of men's spaces and the power to define manhood away from the anti-man forces, into our own hands. It's a woman dominated society that has succeeded in breaking men from men, and uniting again is the only thing that can liberate us.
Jan 9, 2009
Excerpts from the book: Queering India: Same-sex Love and Eroticism in Indian Culture and Society
By Ruth Vanita
ISBN 0415929504, 9780415929509
252 pages
In these three films Mohanlal portrays a single unattached man, without a wife or even a girlfriend. At the outset he is located outside normative heterosexual bonding. He is initially defined by a male bond, a close friendship with another man who either desires or is desired by him. All three films subsequently explore the taming of this man within the heterosexual matrix.
Dr. Sunny, the psychiatrist in Manichitrathazhu, makes his initial appearance in the film as the best friend of Nakulan, whose wife Ganga requires psychiatric help. Verghese, the protagonist in Thacholi Verghese Chekavar, is also defined in terms of his close friendship with Shyam, his young male protege. Jagan the protagonist in Aram Thampuran, is introduced as the best friend and muscleman of Nandakumar, a wealthy businessman. Dr. Sunny is an eccentric globe-trotter who, in the episode that introduces him, provides a detailed description of his journeys in the episode that introduces him, provides a detailed description of his journeys during the previous few months, which include brief stays in several all-male spaces. He recounts his travels from the United States to Bangalore and then to Sabarimalai in Kerala, focus of an all-male pilgrimage, and mentions having stayed wiht various male friends. Verghese is a martial arts expert who is frequently seen in the all-male space of a traditional gym, the Kalari. Besides, he is indifferent to his mother's constant appeal to get married. jagan, a muscleman hired by business magnates, is a loner without a family who constantly inhabits sites frequented by the city mafia that are marked as masculine. The introductory episode presents him sharing a drink with a male rickshaw puller on the roadside. In a subsequent telephone conversation with his patron Nandakumar, he describes his activities during the previous few days, all of which are connected with male friends.
Apart from being confined to "masculine" locations and male bonds, these men are also presented as indifferent or even hostile to women. Verghese violently rejects the advances of an attractive young girl. Annie, who relentlessly pursues him through the first half of the film. Later, when he kidnaps the heroine, Maya, mistaking her for Shyam's truant girlfriend, he repeatedly makes it clear that he has absolutely no personal interest in her. it is his emotional commitment to Shyam that persuades him to be rude and violent to Maya. Dr. Sunny's initial reaction to the women he meets in Nakulan's house is marked by humorous sarcasm. He playfully harasses most of the women there till he embarks on the serious mission of curin. g Ganga, Nakulan's wife, of her mental illness. Jagan is not enthusiasti when his patron Nandakumar offers him a "few expensive blankets" (slang for expensive female sex workers) in return for his services. After relocating to the village, jagan initially reacts with sarcasm to the heroine Unnimaya's confident defiance. Later when his female friend, a city girl named Nayantara, proposes to him, Jagan rejects her without hesitation.
It is also interesting to examine the contradictions between visual and oral narratives in the film. jagan describes Nayantara as a good friend but the sequences in which they appear together present him as stiff and uneasy in her company. While Nayantara's words and body language clearly denore her warmth toward jagan, his response is cold and remote -- preoccupied as he is with several other issues that constitute the main concern of the narrative. yet Jagan is the only character among these three who shows any heterosexual inclinations. A subsequent song sequence in the film suggests an earlier heterosexual affair he had -- perhaps a brief relationship with a northern Indian girl that ended tragically.
The weariness or hostility that these men exhibit toward women directly contrasts with the warmth, affection, and commitment they show toward women directly contrasts with the warmth, affection, and commitment they show toward male friends. The Mohanlal character in all the films discussed here is either desiring or desired by a male friend. Verghese, the martial arts expert, is clearly depicted as desiring his young male disciple and friend, Shyam, and the entire film is about his struggle to win him back after a brief estrangement. When Annie's desperate attempts to seduce Verhese fail, she taunts Verghese by telling him that when she last met Shyam he looked "so cute and sexy". Instead of being worried about the possible alienation of Annie's affections, Verghese's anxieties about Shyam are heightened, since Shyam has been avoiding him for the past few days.
Dr. Sunny and Jagan do not express such overt desire for their male friends. Yet these friendships are the most important commitments in their lives. Though he is a busy psychiatrist, Dr. Sunny puts off all other engagements to be with his friend in his hour of need. Jagan's commitment to business magnate Nandakumar is similar; he violently assaults and almost kills a rival businessman for his friend's sake and later refuses to accept the monetary reward offered by Nandakumar.
Negotiating the Physical
Male bonding has been a prominent trope in mainstream cinema all over the world ever since the film industry was established. Patterns of male bonding and structures of same-sex friendships have changed overtime. Commercial concerns make it mandatory for mainstream cinema to engage in dialectic with changing attitudes and realignments of desire in hegemonic social discourses. Thus, the solidarity of two white males that appeared in early Hollywood Westerns is replaced in more recent films by an interracial friendship between white and black men. The function of the female vis-a-vis male bonding has also been changing. Conventionally, it was the destiny of one of the two men to die so as to faciliate his friend's union with the woman. But in some recent films it is the woman who dies while the male buddies survive the final catastrophe (for example, in The Deep Blue Sea, 1999). In this context I am interested in the evolving structure of male bonds in Malyalam cinema, particularly its negotations with the physical.
Most striking in these male solidarities is the recognition and definition of the male body's organic existence as both desiring and desired. For example, jagan's stiff response to Nayantara stands in contrast to his response to similar overtures from Nandakumar. In an earlier scene we see a jubilant Nandakumar celebrating the achievement of a sought-after business deal that Jagan had earned for him. Nandakumar expresses his joy by repeatedly uttering phrases like "ever since I got you," and "since you became mine," while holding jagan by his shoulders and caressing his hair. He also offers him a few curious rewards; prominent among these is a joint trip to Europe. Throughout the scene, Jagan is more composed than Nandakumar, yet warm and willing. The scene ends with Nandakumar declaring that they are going to forget everything that night and "sleep together." Thus, Jagan is more desired by than desiring Nandakumar.
Jan 4, 2009
Hegemonic Masculinity
"Mr. Jones" by Amy Winehouse
...nobody stands in between me and my man / it's me and Mr. Jones / what kind of fuckery is this?...
So following reading Betty Friedan's genius, I read another article by Michael Messner called "Sexuality and Sexual Identity".
I liked it. I learned a little bit about the dynamic of male bonding and male relationships and how they strongly influence how a man relates to a woman.
I will admit something right now. I'm a man hater. Yes. Me. I love and I cannot stand them. Yes. I am damaged. But I don't care. And neither do they. Which is why I hate them. The only man I love unconditionally is my Dad. I do not have Daddy issues. My Dad is an incredibly intelligent and charismatic man who was and is very involved in my siblings' and my life. He always told me I was smart, funny, beautiful and all the other things I haughtily advertise about myself. He started it. He told me I could change the world and I believe him
So Daddy is not the issue. Men have just been disappointing. Yes. Because I am damaged.
But I started to feel bad for men a little bit after reading this article. Being a man, socially, can be terrifying and limits the expression of the whole person that every person is. Women still have it harder. I'll tell you why later but read my jawn about the article. My empathy does not shine through very well, but trust me, I see that it is hard to be a guy:
The male version of the problem with no name has been erroneously categorized as having no name. The problem is actually called hegemonic masculinity, a function of patriarchy. Hegemonic masculinity requires a man to demonstrate certain characteristics and behaviors that will socially qualify him as a "masculine man". Failure to do so subjects a man to being called such things as a "fag" or a "sissy" or a "girl", qualifying the aforementioned concepts as negative epithets that are contra-masculine.
The other phenomenon of hegemonic masculinity involves the manner in which men bond. The second article, "Sexuality and Sexual Identity" by Michael Messner, addresses the detrimental affect male bonding and competition has on the intimacy between men and women and the self-image problems it causes for men.
As specifically discussed in the article, sports are an important social tool in portraying masculinity and being accepted as a "man". The aggression, physical prowess, discipline, etc. that organized sports requires and produces identifies athletes as the uber-man. His masculinity is not questioned but he is under more pressure to exert his masculinity. He must be well versed in the language of "getting women" and sexually potent and experienced (or promiscuous even).
The "locker room" culture is a breeding ground for the expectations about sexual behavior and interactions with the opposite sex. Messner poignantly points out that men bond under the condition of "[separating] intimacy from sex (homosocial)" and define their "relationships with women as sexual but not intimate (heterosexual)". This distinction does much to damage potential intimate relationships between men and women. Simultaneously, homosexuality is strictly banned. Homophobia serves as a motivator to more actively demonstrate one's "maleness" by objectifying and hypersexualizing relationships with women.
POSTED BY KARMA, INC. AT 2:09 PM
LABELS: ANSWERS, MR. JONES
...nobody stands in between me and my man / it's me and Mr. Jones / what kind of fuckery is this?...
So following reading Betty Friedan's genius, I read another article by Michael Messner called "Sexuality and Sexual Identity".
I liked it. I learned a little bit about the dynamic of male bonding and male relationships and how they strongly influence how a man relates to a woman.
I will admit something right now. I'm a man hater. Yes. Me. I love and I cannot stand them. Yes. I am damaged. But I don't care. And neither do they. Which is why I hate them. The only man I love unconditionally is my Dad. I do not have Daddy issues. My Dad is an incredibly intelligent and charismatic man who was and is very involved in my siblings' and my life. He always told me I was smart, funny, beautiful and all the other things I haughtily advertise about myself. He started it. He told me I could change the world and I believe him
So Daddy is not the issue. Men have just been disappointing. Yes. Because I am damaged.
But I started to feel bad for men a little bit after reading this article. Being a man, socially, can be terrifying and limits the expression of the whole person that every person is. Women still have it harder. I'll tell you why later but read my jawn about the article. My empathy does not shine through very well, but trust me, I see that it is hard to be a guy:
The male version of the problem with no name has been erroneously categorized as having no name. The problem is actually called hegemonic masculinity, a function of patriarchy. Hegemonic masculinity requires a man to demonstrate certain characteristics and behaviors that will socially qualify him as a "masculine man". Failure to do so subjects a man to being called such things as a "fag" or a "sissy" or a "girl", qualifying the aforementioned concepts as negative epithets that are contra-masculine.
The other phenomenon of hegemonic masculinity involves the manner in which men bond. The second article, "Sexuality and Sexual Identity" by Michael Messner, addresses the detrimental affect male bonding and competition has on the intimacy between men and women and the self-image problems it causes for men.
As specifically discussed in the article, sports are an important social tool in portraying masculinity and being accepted as a "man". The aggression, physical prowess, discipline, etc. that organized sports requires and produces identifies athletes as the uber-man. His masculinity is not questioned but he is under more pressure to exert his masculinity. He must be well versed in the language of "getting women" and sexually potent and experienced (or promiscuous even).
The "locker room" culture is a breeding ground for the expectations about sexual behavior and interactions with the opposite sex. Messner poignantly points out that men bond under the condition of "[separating] intimacy from sex (homosocial)" and define their "relationships with women as sexual but not intimate (heterosexual)". This distinction does much to damage potential intimate relationships between men and women. Simultaneously, homosexuality is strictly banned. Homophobia serves as a motivator to more actively demonstrate one's "maleness" by objectifying and hypersexualizing relationships with women.
POSTED BY KARMA, INC. AT 2:09 PM
LABELS: ANSWERS, MR. JONES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)