American Psychological Association, Invited Address, 2007
Roy F. Baumeister
Contact: R. Baumeister, Eppes Eminent Professor of Psychology & Head of Social Psychology Area, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, Baumeister@psy.fsu.edu, phone 850-264-8792. Note, I will be out of the country July 3-31 except for the night of July 17-18.
YOU'RE probably thinking that a talk called “Is there anything good about men” will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like “Men Are Not Cost Effective” speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called “Are Men Necessary?” and although she never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer was no. Brizendine’s book “The Female Brain” introduces itself by saying, “Men, get ready to experience brain envy.” Imagine a book advertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior male brain!
Nor are these isolated examples. Eagly’s research has compiled mountains of data on the stereotypes people have about men and women, which the researchers summarized as “The WAW effect.” WAW stands for “Women Are Wonderful.” Both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men. Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do.
My purpose in this talk is not to try to balance this out by praising men, though along the way I will have various positive things to say about both genders. The question of whether there’s anything good about men is only my point of departure. The tentative title of the book I’m writing is “How culture exploits men,” but even that for me is the lead-in to grand questions about how culture shapes action. In that context, what’s good about men means what men are good for, from the perspective of the system.
Hence this is not about the “battle of the sexes,” and in fact I think one unfortunate legacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies. I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners, supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other.
Nor is this about trying to argue that men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing to be victims. And I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.
Also I think it’s best to avoid value judgments as much as possible. They have made discussion of gender politics very difficult and sensitive, thereby warping the play of ideas. I have no conclusions to present about what’s good or bad or how the world should change. In fact my own theory is built around tradeoffs, so that whenever there is something good it is tied to something else that is bad, and they balance out.
I don’t want to be on anybody’s side. Gender warriors please go home.
Men on Top
When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
That’s an important first clue to how culture uses men. Culture has plenty of tradeoffs, in which it needs people to do dangerous or risky things, and so it offers big rewards to motivate people to take those risks. Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards. I’m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures aren’t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.
Stereotypes at Harvard
I said that today most people hold more favorable stereotypes of women than men. It was not always thus. Up until about the 1960s, psychology (like society) tended to see men as the norm and women as the slightly inferior version. During the 1970s, there was a brief period of saying there were no real differences, just stereotypes. Only since about 1980 has the dominant view been that women are better and men are the inferior version.
The surprising thing to me is that it took little more than a decade to go from one view to its opposite, that is, from thinking men are better than women to thinking women are better than men. How is this possible?
I’m sure you’re expecting me to talk about Larry Summers at some point, so let’s get it over with! You recall, he was the president of Harvard. As summarized in The Economist, “Mr Summers infuriated the feminist establishment by wondering out loud whether the prejudice alone could explain the shortage of women at the top of science.” After initially saying, it’s possible that maybe there aren’t as many women physics professors at Harvard because there aren’t as many women as men with that high innate ability, just one possible explanation among others, he had to apologize, retract, promise huge sums of money, and not long afterward he resigned.
What was his crime? Nobody accused him of actually discriminating against women. His misdeed was to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought, namely that there might be more men with high ability. The only permissible explanation for the lack of top women scientists is patriarchy — that men are conspiring to keep women down. It can’t be ability. Actually, there is some evidence that men on average are a little better at math, but let’s assume Summers was talking about general intelligence. People can point to plenty of data that the average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So to suggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women were offended.
But that’s not what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women. During the controversy about his remarks, I didn’t see anybody raise this question, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable. There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.
All those retarded boys are not the handiwork of patriarchy. Men are not conspiring together to make each other’s sons mentally retarded.
Almost certainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.
Again, there is a reason for this, to which I shall return.
For now, the point is that it explains how we can have opposite stereotypes. Men go to extremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Want to think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, the inventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better than men? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers.
In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.
A pattern of more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions and other statistical mischief. To illustrate, let’s assume that men and women are on average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at both extremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws up the data to make men and women seem significantly different.
Consider grade point average in college. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get A’s and B’s, but a few range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, the high-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males will pull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades than men — again despite no difference in average quality of work.
The opposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum. Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while the low-achieving ones can’t pull it down. The result? Men will get higher average salaries than women, even if there is no average difference on any relevant input.
Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.
Trading Off
When you think about it, the idea that one gender is all-around better than the other is not very plausible. Why would nature make one gender better than the other? Evolution selects for good, favorable traits, and if there’s one good way to be, after a few generations everyone will be that way.
But evolution will preserve differences when there is a tradeoff: when one trait is good for one thing, while the opposite is good for something else.
Let’s return to the three main theories we’ve had about gender: Men are better, no difference, and women are better. What’s missing from that list? Different but equal. Let me propose that as a rival theory that deserves to be considered. I think it’s actually the most plausible one. Natural selection will preserve innate differences between men and women as long as the different traits are beneficial in different circumstances or for different tasks.
Tradeoff example: African-Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia more than white people. This appears to be due to a genetic vulnerability. That gene, however, promotes resistance to malaria. Black people evolved in regions where malaria was a major killer, so it was worth having this gene despite the increased risk of sickle cell anemia. White people evolved in colder regions, where there was less malaria, and so the tradeoff was resolved differently, more avoiding the gene that prevented malaria while risking sickle cell anemia.
The tradeoff approach yields a radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.
Hence whenever you hear a report that one gender is better at something, stop and consider why this is likely true — and what the opposite trait might be good for.
Can’t Vs. Won’t
Before we go too far down that path, though, let me raise another radical idea. Maybe the differences between the genders are more about motivation than ability. This is the difference between can’t and won’t.
Return for a moment to the Larry Summers issue about why there aren’t more female physics professors at Harvard. Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to. After all, most men don’t like math either! Of the small minority of people who do like math, there are probably more men than women. Research by Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of females in math and science reflects motivation more than ability. And by the same logic, I suspect most men could learn to change diapers and vacuum under the sofa perfectly well too, and if men don’t do those things, it’s because they don’t want to or don’t like to, not because they are constitutionally unable (much as they may occasionally pretend otherwise!).
Several recent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities: Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. In contrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there are genuine differences. Look at research on the sex drive: Men and women may have about equal “ability” in sex, whatever that means, but there are big differences as to motivation: which gender thinks about sex all the time, wants it more often, wants more different partners, risks more for sex, masturbates more, leaps at every opportunity, and so on. Our survey of published research found that pretty much every measure and every study showed higher sex drive in men. It’s official: men are hornier than women. This is a difference in motivation.
Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but it may have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come from working super-long hours. Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One study counted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men.
That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work. Personally, I support that principle. But I recognize it’s a hard sell.
Creativity may be another example of gender difference in motivation rather than ability. The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativity generally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history some men have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits this pattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but different motivations.
I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.
I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.
One test of what’s meaningfully real is the marketplace. It’s hard to find anybody making money out of gender differences in abilities. But in motivation, there are plenty. Look at the magazine industry: men’s magazines cover different stuff from women’s magazines, because men and women like and enjoy and are interested in different things. Look at the difference in films between the men’s and women’s cable channels. Look at the difference in commercials for men or for women.
This brings us to an important part of the argument. I’m suggesting the important differences between men and women are to be found in motivation rather than ability. What, then, are these differences? I want to emphasize two.
The Most Underappreciated Fact
The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?
It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.
Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.
For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.
For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).
The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.
Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.
Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.
To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.
Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.
And it was worth it, even despite the “mostly unsuccessfully” part. Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all.
Are Women More Social?
Let me turn now to the second big motivational difference. This has its roots in an exchange in the Psychological Bulletin about ten years ago, but the issue is still fresh and relevant today. It concerns the question of whether women are more social than men.
The idea that women are more social was raised by Cross and Madsen in a manuscript submitted to that journal. I was sent it to review, and although I disagreed with their conclusion, I felt they had made their case well, so I advocated publishing their paper. They provided plenty of evidence. They said things like, look, men are more aggressive than women. Aggression could damage a relationship because if you hurt someone then that person might not want to be with you. Women refrain from aggression because they want relationships, but men don’t care about relationships and so are willing to be aggressive. Thus, the difference in aggression shows that women are more social than men.
But I had just published my early work on “the need to belong,” which concluded that both men and women had that need, and so I was worried to hear that men don’t care about social connection. I wrote a reply that said there was another way to look at all the evidence Cross and Madsen covered.
The gist of our view was that there are two different ways of being social. In social psychology we tend to emphasize close, intimate relationships, and yes, perhaps women specialize in those and are better at them than men. But one can also look at being social in terms of having larger networks of shallower relationships, and on these, perhaps, men are more social than women.
It’s like the common question, what’s more important to you, having a few close friendships or having lots of people who know you? Most people say the former is more important. But the large network of shallow relationships might be important too. We shouldn’t automatically see men as second-class human beings simply because they specialize in the less important, less satisfying kind of relationship. Men are social too — just in a different way.
So we reexamined the evidence Cross and Madsen had provided. Consider aggression. True, women are less aggressive than men, no argument there. But is it really because women don’t want to jeopardize a close relationship? It turns out that in close relationships, women are plenty aggressive. Women are if anything more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence against romantic partners, everything from a slap in the face to assault with a deadly weapon. Women also do more child abuse than men, though that’s hard to untangle from the higher amount of time they spend with children. Still, you can’t say that women avoid violence toward intimate partners.
Instead, the difference is found in the broader social sphere. Women don’t hit strangers. The chances that a woman will, say, go to the mall and end up in a knife fight with another woman are vanishingly small, but there is more such risk for men. The gender difference in aggression is mainly found there, in the broader network of relationships. Because men care more about that network.
Now consider helping. Most research finds that men help more than women. Cross and Madsen struggled with that and eventually just fell back on the tired cliché that maybe women don’t help because they aren’t brought up to help or aren’t socialized to help. But I think the pattern is the same as with aggression. Most research looks at helping between strangers, in the larger social sphere, and so it finds men helping more. Inside the family, though, women are plenty helpful, if anything more than men.
Aggression and helping are in some ways opposites, so the converging pattern is quite meaningful. Women both help and aggress in the intimate sphere of close relationships, because that’s what they care about. In contrast, men care (also) about the broader network of shallower relationships, and so they are plenty helpful and aggressive there.
The same two-spheres conclusion is supported in plenty of other places. Playground observation studies find that girls pair off and play one-on-one with the same playmate for the full hour. Boys will either play one-on-one with a series of different playmates or with a larger group. Girls want the one-to-one relationship, whereas boys are drawn to bigger groups or networks.
When two girls are playing together and the researchers bring in a third one, the two girls resist letting her join. But two boys will let a third boy join their game. My point is that girls want the one-on-one connection, so adding a third person spoils the time for them, but it doesn’t spoil it for the boys.
The conclusion is that men and women are both social but in different ways. Women specialize in the narrow sphere of intimate relationships. Men specialize in the larger group. If you make a list of activities that are done in large groups, you are likely to have a list of things that men do and enjoy more than women: team sports, politics, large corporations, economic networks, and so forth.
Traded-Off Traits
Again, important personality differences probably follow from the basic motivational difference in the kind of social relationship that interests men and women.
Consider the common finding that women are more emotionally expressive than men. For an intimate relationship, good communication is helpful. It enables the two people to understand each other, appreciate each other’s feelings, and so forth. The more the two intimate partners know about each other, the better they can care for and support each other. But in a large group, where you have rivals and maybe enemies, it’s risky to let all your feelings show. The same goes for economic transactions. When you are negotiating the price of something, it’s best to keep your feelings a bit to yourself. And so men hold back more.
Fairness is another example. Research by Major and others back in the 1970s used procedures like this. A group of subjects would perform a task, and the experimenter would then say that the group had earned a certain amount of money, and it was up to one member to divide it up however he or she wanted. The person could keep all the money, but that wasn’t usually what happened. Women would divide the money equally, with an equal share for everybody. Men, in contrast, would divide it unequally, giving the biggest share of reward to whoever had done the most work.
Which is better? Neither. Both equality and equity are valid versions of fairness. But they show the different social sphere orientation. Equality is better for close relationships, when people take care of each other and reciprocate things and divide resources and opportunities equally. In contrast, equity — giving bigger rewards for bigger contributions — is more effective in large groups. I haven’t actually checked, but I’m willing to bet that if you surveyed the Fortune 500 large and successful corporations in America, you wouldn’t find a single one out of 500 that pays every employee the same salary. The more valuable workers who contribute more generally get paid more. It simply is a more effective system in large groups. The male pattern is suited for the large groups, the female pattern is best suited to intimate pairs.
Ditto for the communal-exchange difference Women have more communal orientation, men more exchange. In psychology we tend to think of communal as a more advanced form of relationship than exchange. For example, we’d be suspicious of a couple who after ten years of marriage are still saying, “I paid the electric bill last month, now it’s your turn.” But the supposed superiority of communal relationships applies mainly to intimate relationships. At the level of large social systems, it’s the other way around. Communal (including communist) countries remain primitive and poor, whereas the rich, advanced nations have gotten where they are by means of economic exchange.
There’s also the point about men being more competitive, women more cooperative. Again, though, cooperation is much more useful than competition for close relationships. What use is there in competing against your spouse? But in large groups, getting to the top can be crucial. The male preference for dominance hierarchies, and the ambitious striving to get to the top, likewise reflect an orientation toward the large group, not a dislike of intimacy. And remember, most men didn’t reproduce, and we’re mainly descended from the men who did fight their way to the top. Not so for women.
One more thing. Cross and Madsen covered plenty of research showing that men think of themselves based on their unusual traits that set them apart from others, while women’s self-concepts feature things that connect them to others. Cross and Madsen thought that this was because men wanted to be apart from others. But in fact being different is vital strategy for belonging to a large group. If you’re the only group member who can kill an antelope or find water or talk to the gods or kick a field goal, the group can’t afford to get rid of you.
It’s different in a one-to-one relationship. A woman’s husband, and her baby, will love her even if she doesn’t play the trombone. So cultivating a unique skill isn’t essential for her. But playing the trombone is a way to get into some groups, especially brass bands. This is another reason that men go to extremes more than women. Large groups foster the need to establish something different and special about yourself.
Benefits of Cultural Systems
Let’s turn now to culture. Culture is relatively new in evolution. It continues the line of evolution that made animals social. I understand culture as a kind of system that enables the human group to work together effectively, using information. Culture is a new, improved way of being social.
Feminism has taught us to see culture as men against women. Instead, I think the evidence indicates that culture emerged mainly with men and women working together, but working against other groups of men and women. Often the most intense and productive competitions were groups of men against other groups of men, though both groups depended on support from women.
Culture enables the group to be more than the sum of its parts (its members). Culture can be seen as a biological strategy. Twenty people who work together, in a cultural system, sharing information and dividing up tasks and so forth, will all live better — survive and reproduce better — than if those same twenty people lived in the same forest but did everything individually.
Culture thus provides some benefit from having a system. Let’s call this “system gain,” which means how much better the group does because of the system. Think of two soccer teams. Both sets of players know the rules and have the same individual skills. One group has only that, and they go out to play as individuals trying to do their best. The other works as a team, complementing each other, playing with a system. The system will likely enable them to do better than the group playing as separate individuals. That’s system gain.
And one vital fact is that the scope of system gain increases with the size of the system. This is essentially what’s happening in the world right now, globalization in the world economy. Bigger systems provide more benefits, so as we expand and merge more units into bigger systems, overall there is more gain.
There is one crucial implication from all this. Culture depends on system gain, and bigger systems provide more of this. Therefore, you’ll get more of the benefit of culture from large groups than from small ones. A one-on-one close relationship can do a little in terms of division of labor and sharing information, but a 20-person group can do much more.
As a result, culture mainly arose in the types of social relationships favored by men. Women favor close, intimate relationships. These are if anything more important for the survival of the species. That’s why human women evolved first. We need those close relationships to survive. The large networks of shallower relationships aren’t as vital for survival — but they are good for something else, namely the development of larger social systems and ultimately for culture.
Men and Culture
This provides a new basis for understanding gender politics and inequality.
The generally accepted view is that back in early human society, men and women were close to equal. Men and women had separate spheres and did different things, but both were respected. Often, women were gatherers and men were hunters. The total contribution to the group’s food was about the same, even though there were some complementary differences. For example, the gatherers’ food was reliably there most days, while the hunters brought home great food once in a while but nothing on other days.
Gender inequality seems to have increased with early civilization, including agriculture. Why? The feminist explanation has been that the men banded together to create patriarchy. This is essentially a conspiracy theory, and there is little or no evidence that it is true. Some argue that the men erased it from the history books in order to safeguard their newly won power. Still, the lack of evidence should be worrisome, especially since this same kind of conspiracy would have had to happen over and over, in group after group, all over the world.
Let me offer a different explanation. It’s not that the men pushed the women down. Rather, it’s just that the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress.
Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist.
Why? It has nothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything like that. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.
Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.
Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.
Giving birth is a revealing example. What could be more feminine than giving birth? Throughout most of history and prehistory, giving birth was at the center of the women’s sphere, and men were totally excluded. Men were rarely or never present at childbirth, nor was the knowledge about birthing even shared with them. But not very long ago, men were finally allowed to get involved, and the men were able to figure out ways to make childbirth safer for both mother and baby. Think of it: the most quintessentially female activity, and yet the men were able to improve on it in ways the women had not discovered for thousands and thousands of years.
Let’s not overstate. The women had after all managed childbirth pretty well for all those centuries. The species had survived, which is the bottom line. The women had managed to get the essential job done. What the men added was, from the perspective of the group or species at least, optional, a bonus: some mothers and babies survived who would otherwise have died. Still, the improvements show some value coming from the male way of being social. Large networks can collect and accumulate information better than small ones, and so in a relatively short time the men were able to discover improvements that the women hadn’t been able to find. Again, it’s not that the men were smarter or more capable. It’s just that the women shared their knowledge individually, from mother to daughter, or from one midwife to another, and in the long run this could not accumulate and progress as effectively as in the larger groups of shallower relationships favored by men.
What Men Are Good For
With that, we can now return to the question of what men are good for, from the perspective of a cultural system. The context is these systems competing against other systems, group against group. The group systems that used their men and women most effectively would enable their groups to outperform their rivals and enemies.
I want to emphasize three main answers for how culture uses men.
First, culture relies on men to create the large social structures that comprise it. Our society is made up of institutions such as universities, governments, corporations. Most of these were founded and built up by men. Again, this probably had less to do with women being oppressed or whatever and more to do with men being motivated to form large networks of shallow relationships. Men are much more interested than women in forming large groups and working in them and rising to the top in them.
This still seems to be true today. Several recent news articles have called attention to the fact that women now start more small businesses then men. This is usually covered in the media as a positive sign about women, which it is. But women predominate only if you count all businesses. If you restrict the criteria to businesses that employ more than one person, or ones that make enough money to live off of, then men create more. I suspect that the bigger the group you look at, the more they are male-created.
Certainly today anybody of any gender can start a business, and if anything there are some set-asides and advantages to help women do so. There are no hidden obstacles or blocks, and that’s shown by the fact that women start more businesses than men. But the women are content to stay small, such as operating a part-time business out of the spare bedroom, making a little extra money for the family. They don’t seem driven to build these up into giant corporations. There are some exceptions, of course, but there is a big difference on average.
Hence both men and women rely on men to create the giant social structures that offer opportunities to both. And it is clear men and women can both perform quite well in these organizations. But culture still relies mainly on men to make them in the first place.
The Disposable Male
A second thing that makes men useful to culture is what I call male expendability. This goes back to what I said at the outset, that cultures tend to use men for the high-risk, high-payoff undertakings, where a significant portion of those will suffer bad outcomes ranging from having their time wasted, all the way to being killed.
Any man who reads the newspapers will encounter the phrase “even women and children” a couple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of this phrase is that men’s lives have less value than other people’s lives. The idea is usually “It’s bad if people are killed, but it’s especially bad if women and children are killed.” And I think most men know that in an emergency, if there are women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his life without argument or complaint so that the others can survive. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it looked in the movie). That in itself is remarkable. The rich, powerful, and successful men, the movers and shakers, supposedly the ones that the culture is all set up to favor — in a pinch, their lives were valued less than those of women with hardly any money or power or status. The too-few seats in the lifeboats went to the women who weren’t even ladies, instead of to those patriarchs.
Most cultures have had the same attitude. Why? There are pragmatic reasons. When a cultural group competes against other groups, in general, the larger group tends to win out in the long run. Hence most cultures have promoted population growth. And that depends on women. To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a few penises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. If a group loses half its men, the next generation can still be full-sized. But if it loses half its women, the size of the next generation will be severely curtailed. Hence most cultures keep their women out of harm’s way while using men for risky jobs.
These risky jobs extend beyond the battlefield. Many lines of endeavor require some lives to be wasted. Exploration, for example: a culture may send out dozens of parties, and some will get lost or be killed, while others bring back riches and opportunities. Research is somewhat the same way: There may be a dozen possible theories about some problem, only one of which is correct, so the people testing the eleven wrong theories will end up wasting their time and ruining their careers, in contrast to the lucky one who gets the Nobel prize. And of course the dangerous jobs. When the scandals broke about the dangers of the mining industry in Britain, Parliament passed the mining laws that prohibited children under the age of 10 and women of all ages from being sent into the mines. Women and children were too precious to be exposed to death in the mines: so only men. As I said earlier, the gender gap in dangerous work persists today, with men accounting for the vast majority of deaths on the job.
Another basis of male expendability is built into the different ways of being social. Expendability comes with the large groups that male sociality creates. In an intimate, one-to-one relationship, neither person can really be replaced. You can remarry if your spouse dies, but it isn’t really the same marriage or relationship. And of course nobody can ever really replace a child’s mother or father.
In contrast, large groups can and do replace just about everybody. Take any large organization — the Ford Motor Company, the U.S. Army, the Green Bay Packers — and you’ll find that the organization goes on despite having replaced every single person in it. Moreover, every member off those groups knows he or she can be replaced and probably will be replaced some day.
Thus, men create the kind of social networks where individuals are replaceable and expendable. Women favor the kind of relationships in which each person is precious and cannot truly be replaced.
Earning Manhood
The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive.
Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.
Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement.
These demands also contribute to various male behavior patterns. The ambition, competition, and striving for greatness may well be linked to this requirement to fight for respect. All-male groups tend to be marked by putdowns and other practices that remind everybody that there is NOT enough respect to go around, because this awareness motivates each man to try harder to earn respect. This, incidentally, has probably been a major source of friction as women have moved into the workplace, and organizations have had to shift toward policies that everyone is entitled to respect. The men hadn’t originally built them to respect everybody.
One of the basic, most widely accepted gender differences is agency versus communion. Male agency may be partly an adaptation to this kind of social life based on larger groups, where people aren’t necessarily valued and one has to strive for respect. To succeed in the male social sphere of large groups, you need an active, agentic self to fight for your place, because it isn’t given to you and only a few will be successful. Even the male ego, with its concern with proving oneself and competing against others, seems likely to be designed to cope with systems where there is a shortage of respect and you have to work hard to get some — or else you’ll be exposed to humiliation.
Is That All?
I have not exhausted all the ways that culture exploits men. Certainly there are others. The male sex drive can be harnessed to motivate all sorts of behaviors and put to work in a kind of economic marketplace in which men give women other resources (love, money, commitment) in exchange for sex.
Cultures also use individual men for symbolic purposes more than women. This can be in a positive way, such as the fact that cultures give elaborate funerals and other memorials to men who seem to embody its favorite values. It can also be negative, such as when cultures ruin a man’s career, shame him publicly, or even execute him for a single act that violates one of its values. From Martin Luther King to Don Imus, our culture uses men as symbols for expressing its values. (Note neither of those two came out the better for it.)
Conclusion
To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.
Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.
Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.
What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.
The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.
The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.
Sep 19, 2008
Aug 18, 2008
Seeing Males Together: Brokeback Mountain and Picturing Men
The Chicago Blog
Publicity news from the University of Chicago Press including news tips, press releases, reviews, and intelligent commentary.
History's fundamental lesson warns those who are comfortable with contemporary social arrangements, as it reassures those who are oppressed by current practices: It hasn't always been like this, and isn't likely to stay this way forever. This lesson is certainly true when it comes to the way that American men today are inclined and allowed to express their affection for each other—whether that affection involves romance, sexual longing, or just profound fondness.
from the book cover
Ang Lee's magnificent film Brokeback Mountain is the sad story of two Wyoming ranch hands whose society severely inhibits their twenty-year-long affectionate and sexual relationship. They express their mutual attraction only when utterly alone in the wilderness, at huge expense to their emotional lives and also their relationships with women. Yet Brokeback Mountain may also be instructively seen as a movie that raises disturbing issues about the ways that all American men feel about the appropriate ways to express their fondness for each other, whether or not that fondness is accompanied by sexual desire. Our culture still so scorns sexual desire between two men that there is a common fear that such desire just might accompany any fondness, as well as a fear that other people might jump to conclusions about the implications of two men's attraction to each other.
Homophobia afflicts all males in our society, both those who genuinely are sexually attracted to each other, like Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain, as well as those whose love or simple affection for each other has no sexual dimension to it. For one man to tell another he loves him, some joking around often trivializes the expression, with all the depth of a commercial for Bud Light; if two men embrace, a reassuring punch is often part of the action. Simply because they are men, gay men—in spite of being sexually drawn to each other—may often be no less free of inhibition in expressing affection than are their straight brothers.
As a historian who has studied the shifting history of American men's various sorts of relationships with each other, I think it is critical to note that Brokeback Mountain's Ennis and Jack were nineteen in 1963, the year they met. (So was I coincidentally.) They were shaped by the culture of 1950s America, a culture that was unusually hostile to male intimacy, as I argue in Picturing Men.
When most American boys learned to fear and despise any suggestion of queerness in themselves, Ennis received a peculiarly graphic lesson: His father made it a point to show his nine-year-old son the sexually mutilated corpse of a rancher whose relationship with the man with whom he shared a home had bothered his neighbors. Jack's dream for himself and Ennis—simply to live together in peace—was a modest one, in contrast to the reasonable dreams of men today who want to marry each other. Yet, living when they did, Ennis could only warn Jack that if their feelings for each other were ever to "grab on to us again in the wrong place, wrong time, we'll be dead." Their intimacy had to remain in the shadows, making Brokeback Mountain a tragic tale of unrealized potential.
Picturing Men shows a different world. The lost world of American men that I depict in my work was a time when men clearly were comfortable with each other, feeling free to physically express mutual affection for all to witness—not hidden away on a Brokeback Mountain, but in front of a camera, wholly without the coldness or the reassuringly exaggerated gestures that would come to mark photographs from a later time. Picturing Men does not argue that the lost world was in every way better than the world of men today, but does surely maintain that the earlier world was different, and that our understanding it, and the reasons for its demise, might improve men's relationships nowadays, with each other and with the women in their lives.
Picturing Men is based on my systematic scrutiny of thousands of everyday photographs of two or more American men together, from the dawn of photography before the Civil War until the early 1950s—both studio portraits as well as the snapshots that became common after the invention of roll film in 1888. The book displays well over a hundred representative images, showing men indoors and out, in homes, dorm rooms, and bunk houses, at the beach and in the work place, soldiers, sailors, and civilians, camping, hunting, and posing for athletic team portraits. The ways men posed with each other changed markedly over the time my book surveys, and my interpretation of those changes leads me to an interpretation of drastic changes in the quality of men's various relationships with each other over a century of American history.
ibson_fig_xiiAs cultural evidence, photographs document certain things, yet are wholly silent about others. In looking at this photograph taken around 1915, we see two men doing something we rarely observe nowadays. I refer not simply to their pose, but to the fact that they had their portrait taken together in a photographer's studio, a ritual once widespread among American men but extremely rare today. Many observers may confidently think they see evidence of romance and a likely sexual relationship in this photograph, but that judgment reveals something only about the observer, not the subjects. Without an inscription, we can actually discern nothing from this image regarding a matter that has come to obsess us about relationships: whether the parties are having sex with each other.
What we do observe in this photograph—and in countless others—is male intimacy, two men who were clearly so comfortable with each other that they felt no need to clown around, to reassure themselves and anyone who would see their photograph that nothing culturally scorned was being displayed. Another of history's critical lessons is that change always brings both gain and loss. Picturing Men maintains that certain losses that American men have experienced in their relationships with each other have been severe. It is not simply fictional ranch hands, and not just men sexually drawn to each other, whose lives today are full of unrealized potential.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow thanks for writing this book. This is an issue that so needs to be talked about. I've noticed this also how men are so afraid of each other. It's cultural so we see every one else acting in the same way and we think it's a normal thing but it's actualy not a normal thing. It's extremely abnormal and disfunctional.
Posted by: God loves you [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 29, 2007 05:11 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ibson,
It's a wonderful book no doubt, but at the same time a reminder of the unfortunate state in which men are today, that this book has been featured and reviewed under the gay and lesbian section -- the very concept that has been the greatest tool in wiping off all kinds of open, proud affection for each other from the Western men.
It is primarily because of the concept of sexual orientation, which portrays man's sexual desire for men as straight mainstream, while clubs masculine male desire for men together with those of the feminine/ transgendered/ queer / third sex through ill-conceived and oppressive definitions. It can be easily shown through a study of men and manhood through the history, that men will avoid like hell what is socially ascribed to the third sex. In the beginning before the concept of 'sexual orientation' came, only receptive anal sex was seen as 'unmanly' thing of the third sex. A masculine male's affection for another man was seen as perfectly normal, and sexual affection was seen as a macho vice. After this concept (of 'homosexuality' )was fully established now showing bodily or sexual affection towards men implied that you're not on e of the 'real' (read straight) men but one of them -- the queers/ third gender/mollies/ effeminate/ gays. And this is why men have disowned their sexual need for men. And they'll never accept it again, till the concept of gay/homosexuality/sexual orientation that seeks to isolate them from the men's community into what is clearly the third sex community (even if its not officially defined so) is done away with.
Unfortunately, now this concept is being thrust upon societies like India, where men's spaces and men's affinity is very strong. Soon it will be history when the gay movement is given power and place in the society, with its misleading classification of the society. Unless, we decide to expose what is wrong with sexual orientation.
regards,
Please see:
http://sexual-orientation-is-oppressive.blogspot.com/
http://heterosexualisationofsociety.blogspot.com/
Publicity news from the University of Chicago Press including news tips, press releases, reviews, and intelligent commentary.
History's fundamental lesson warns those who are comfortable with contemporary social arrangements, as it reassures those who are oppressed by current practices: It hasn't always been like this, and isn't likely to stay this way forever. This lesson is certainly true when it comes to the way that American men today are inclined and allowed to express their affection for each other—whether that affection involves romance, sexual longing, or just profound fondness.
from the book cover
Ang Lee's magnificent film Brokeback Mountain is the sad story of two Wyoming ranch hands whose society severely inhibits their twenty-year-long affectionate and sexual relationship. They express their mutual attraction only when utterly alone in the wilderness, at huge expense to their emotional lives and also their relationships with women. Yet Brokeback Mountain may also be instructively seen as a movie that raises disturbing issues about the ways that all American men feel about the appropriate ways to express their fondness for each other, whether or not that fondness is accompanied by sexual desire. Our culture still so scorns sexual desire between two men that there is a common fear that such desire just might accompany any fondness, as well as a fear that other people might jump to conclusions about the implications of two men's attraction to each other.
Homophobia afflicts all males in our society, both those who genuinely are sexually attracted to each other, like Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain, as well as those whose love or simple affection for each other has no sexual dimension to it. For one man to tell another he loves him, some joking around often trivializes the expression, with all the depth of a commercial for Bud Light; if two men embrace, a reassuring punch is often part of the action. Simply because they are men, gay men—in spite of being sexually drawn to each other—may often be no less free of inhibition in expressing affection than are their straight brothers.
As a historian who has studied the shifting history of American men's various sorts of relationships with each other, I think it is critical to note that Brokeback Mountain's Ennis and Jack were nineteen in 1963, the year they met. (So was I coincidentally.) They were shaped by the culture of 1950s America, a culture that was unusually hostile to male intimacy, as I argue in Picturing Men.
When most American boys learned to fear and despise any suggestion of queerness in themselves, Ennis received a peculiarly graphic lesson: His father made it a point to show his nine-year-old son the sexually mutilated corpse of a rancher whose relationship with the man with whom he shared a home had bothered his neighbors. Jack's dream for himself and Ennis—simply to live together in peace—was a modest one, in contrast to the reasonable dreams of men today who want to marry each other. Yet, living when they did, Ennis could only warn Jack that if their feelings for each other were ever to "grab on to us again in the wrong place, wrong time, we'll be dead." Their intimacy had to remain in the shadows, making Brokeback Mountain a tragic tale of unrealized potential.
Picturing Men shows a different world. The lost world of American men that I depict in my work was a time when men clearly were comfortable with each other, feeling free to physically express mutual affection for all to witness—not hidden away on a Brokeback Mountain, but in front of a camera, wholly without the coldness or the reassuringly exaggerated gestures that would come to mark photographs from a later time. Picturing Men does not argue that the lost world was in every way better than the world of men today, but does surely maintain that the earlier world was different, and that our understanding it, and the reasons for its demise, might improve men's relationships nowadays, with each other and with the women in their lives.
Picturing Men is based on my systematic scrutiny of thousands of everyday photographs of two or more American men together, from the dawn of photography before the Civil War until the early 1950s—both studio portraits as well as the snapshots that became common after the invention of roll film in 1888. The book displays well over a hundred representative images, showing men indoors and out, in homes, dorm rooms, and bunk houses, at the beach and in the work place, soldiers, sailors, and civilians, camping, hunting, and posing for athletic team portraits. The ways men posed with each other changed markedly over the time my book surveys, and my interpretation of those changes leads me to an interpretation of drastic changes in the quality of men's various relationships with each other over a century of American history.
ibson_fig_xiiAs cultural evidence, photographs document certain things, yet are wholly silent about others. In looking at this photograph taken around 1915, we see two men doing something we rarely observe nowadays. I refer not simply to their pose, but to the fact that they had their portrait taken together in a photographer's studio, a ritual once widespread among American men but extremely rare today. Many observers may confidently think they see evidence of romance and a likely sexual relationship in this photograph, but that judgment reveals something only about the observer, not the subjects. Without an inscription, we can actually discern nothing from this image regarding a matter that has come to obsess us about relationships: whether the parties are having sex with each other.
What we do observe in this photograph—and in countless others—is male intimacy, two men who were clearly so comfortable with each other that they felt no need to clown around, to reassure themselves and anyone who would see their photograph that nothing culturally scorned was being displayed. Another of history's critical lessons is that change always brings both gain and loss. Picturing Men maintains that certain losses that American men have experienced in their relationships with each other have been severe. It is not simply fictional ranch hands, and not just men sexually drawn to each other, whose lives today are full of unrealized potential.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow thanks for writing this book. This is an issue that so needs to be talked about. I've noticed this also how men are so afraid of each other. It's cultural so we see every one else acting in the same way and we think it's a normal thing but it's actualy not a normal thing. It's extremely abnormal and disfunctional.
Posted by: God loves you [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 29, 2007 05:11 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ibson,
It's a wonderful book no doubt, but at the same time a reminder of the unfortunate state in which men are today, that this book has been featured and reviewed under the gay and lesbian section -- the very concept that has been the greatest tool in wiping off all kinds of open, proud affection for each other from the Western men.
It is primarily because of the concept of sexual orientation, which portrays man's sexual desire for men as straight mainstream, while clubs masculine male desire for men together with those of the feminine/ transgendered/ queer / third sex through ill-conceived and oppressive definitions. It can be easily shown through a study of men and manhood through the history, that men will avoid like hell what is socially ascribed to the third sex. In the beginning before the concept of 'sexual orientation' came, only receptive anal sex was seen as 'unmanly' thing of the third sex. A masculine male's affection for another man was seen as perfectly normal, and sexual affection was seen as a macho vice. After this concept (of 'homosexuality' )was fully established now showing bodily or sexual affection towards men implied that you're not on e of the 'real' (read straight) men but one of them -- the queers/ third gender/mollies/ effeminate/ gays. And this is why men have disowned their sexual need for men. And they'll never accept it again, till the concept of gay/homosexuality/sexual orientation that seeks to isolate them from the men's community into what is clearly the third sex community (even if its not officially defined so) is done away with.
Unfortunately, now this concept is being thrust upon societies like India, where men's spaces and men's affinity is very strong. Soon it will be history when the gay movement is given power and place in the society, with its misleading classification of the society. Unless, we decide to expose what is wrong with sexual orientation.
regards,
Please see:
http://sexual-orientation-is-oppressive.blogspot.com/
http://heterosexualisationofsociety.blogspot.com/
Aug 3, 2008
Homosexuality is an invalid concept
Not only is the word 'homosexuality' not found in any of the pre-modern civilisations even in the west, there has not been even a concept anywhere near it. There are several flaws not only in the concept of 'homosexuality' but in that of 'sexual orientation' itself. In this article we try to pinpoint the exact reasons why the concept of homosexuality is invalid.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
The objection to the word and concept of 'homosexuality' is not only about its definition. There are at least the following 7 serious drawbacks with the concept of 'homosexuality':
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
To an individual, what would suffice would be to say that he is a man attracted to another man. Thus I'm a 'mansexual' ought to make sense.
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
In a pond in Delhi crowded by young men, they used to go wild with male eroticism ----- both subdued and open kind. But enter homosexuals (Hijras) and suddenly a lot of that masculine male eroticism fades, because the Hijras think that only fellow Hijras who want to be fucked anally or suck dicks have a sexual interest in masculine (straight) men.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
____________________________________________________
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
May 3, 2008
On Salman Rushdies criticism of Marriage: No Salman shall put asunder
Hindustan Times
May 02, 2008
Appeared on Hindustan Times, New Delhi on 3rd May, 2008
Veteran matrimonialist Salman Rushdie has a fresh take on marriage. It’s really all about ‘till dress do us apart’ says the celebrated author who has waltzed up the aisle four times. Will there be a fifth time? No, says Uncle Sal, marriage is not necessary. Yes, the grand institution of matrimony is all about women wanting to slip into a wedding gown but not the onerous duties of marriage. Now Salman may have hung up his tuxedo but that does not mean that he is past a bit of slap and tickle judging by the various lovelies on his arm. After all, as Groucho Marx said, “A man is only as old as the woman he feels.” And judging by the author’s record, neither age not custom has stalled his infinite variety.
Do we detect a slightly bitter note in his aversion to nuptials? We know that the beauteous Padma Lakshmi, Biwi No 4, left him mid-way while writing The Enchantress of Florence. A novel experience for a man who is known to love ’em and leave ’em. His proposition that weddings without marriages is a better option may find takers. For many women, this could be a winning proposition. First some poor klutz hands over a nifty engagement ring, then comes a wedding ring and gifts galore from all and sundry. So you corner that washing machine you have always wanted and that nice Wedgewood dinner set and maybe a ticket to the Caribbean for a honeymoon that you have no intention of taking in the company of your dearly beloved. Then come the day, there you are, your diet-diminished figure in a ravishing and expensive sari, salwar kameez or gown. If it can be a destination wedding in, say, Puerto Rico or Barcelona, nothing like it. You go through all that death do us part thing and then cast off the groom and move onto new pastures. Sal may not know it, but he has echoed what Mae West had maintained many years ago, “Marriage is a great institution but I’m not ready for an institution.” Yes, indeed. Salman is the new Gloria Steinem of literature. On a more devious note, it is possible that this is not really the boor’s last sigh but Sal’s way of ensuring that his millions are not frittered away in further pay-offs to future wives.
Will he stick to his resolve? Well, his track record is not too encouraging — a bit like Elizabeth Taylor who said she never slept with a man she had not married, which explains her multitude of husbands, Sal too seems a commitment junkie. Unlike his compatriot Vidya Naipaul, whose disdain for both marriage and women is well known, Salman seems to be quite sure of the ground beneath his feats. But clearly for moment, it’s four times bitten, fifth time shy for the man. With a new book for children on the way, Sal seems to have opted for the permanence of the written word a la Omar Khayyam. “The moving finger writes and having writ moves on/ nor thy piety nor wit shall… cancel… a word of it.” Quite a difference from the ‘I dos’ and don’ts of matrimony.
May 02, 2008
Appeared on Hindustan Times, New Delhi on 3rd May, 2008
Veteran matrimonialist Salman Rushdie has a fresh take on marriage. It’s really all about ‘till dress do us apart’ says the celebrated author who has waltzed up the aisle four times. Will there be a fifth time? No, says Uncle Sal, marriage is not necessary. Yes, the grand institution of matrimony is all about women wanting to slip into a wedding gown but not the onerous duties of marriage. Now Salman may have hung up his tuxedo but that does not mean that he is past a bit of slap and tickle judging by the various lovelies on his arm. After all, as Groucho Marx said, “A man is only as old as the woman he feels.” And judging by the author’s record, neither age not custom has stalled his infinite variety.
Do we detect a slightly bitter note in his aversion to nuptials? We know that the beauteous Padma Lakshmi, Biwi No 4, left him mid-way while writing The Enchantress of Florence. A novel experience for a man who is known to love ’em and leave ’em. His proposition that weddings without marriages is a better option may find takers. For many women, this could be a winning proposition. First some poor klutz hands over a nifty engagement ring, then comes a wedding ring and gifts galore from all and sundry. So you corner that washing machine you have always wanted and that nice Wedgewood dinner set and maybe a ticket to the Caribbean for a honeymoon that you have no intention of taking in the company of your dearly beloved. Then come the day, there you are, your diet-diminished figure in a ravishing and expensive sari, salwar kameez or gown. If it can be a destination wedding in, say, Puerto Rico or Barcelona, nothing like it. You go through all that death do us part thing and then cast off the groom and move onto new pastures. Sal may not know it, but he has echoed what Mae West had maintained many years ago, “Marriage is a great institution but I’m not ready for an institution.” Yes, indeed. Salman is the new Gloria Steinem of literature. On a more devious note, it is possible that this is not really the boor’s last sigh but Sal’s way of ensuring that his millions are not frittered away in further pay-offs to future wives.
Will he stick to his resolve? Well, his track record is not too encouraging — a bit like Elizabeth Taylor who said she never slept with a man she had not married, which explains her multitude of husbands, Sal too seems a commitment junkie. Unlike his compatriot Vidya Naipaul, whose disdain for both marriage and women is well known, Salman seems to be quite sure of the ground beneath his feats. But clearly for moment, it’s four times bitten, fifth time shy for the man. With a new book for children on the way, Sal seems to have opted for the permanence of the written word a la Omar Khayyam. “The moving finger writes and having writ moves on/ nor thy piety nor wit shall… cancel… a word of it.” Quite a difference from the ‘I dos’ and don’ts of matrimony.
Oct 3, 2007
WHY VALENTINE DAY SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY MEN, ESPECIALLY IN NON-WESTERN COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA:
When the society decided to force men into 'compulsory' sex with women through marriage, and as a major corollary, decided to ban male-male sexuality entirely from the formal space, it made men and men's spaces extremely vulnerable in front of the vested interest groups, including women. However, the deal was that the society will keep enough tabs on male-female sex/ intimacy, including prohibiting its public display and restricting all powers and benefits granted to it within the institution of marriage, and in fact penalising male-female sex outside of marriage much more than male-male sex — which the society tended to ignore when it occured behind the scenes. This deal was the main pillar of the entire 'plan' as it created a kind of 'balance'. Especially important was the reigning in of female sexuality because of the immense power that was otherwise placed into females, as 'manhood' became dependant upon serving women sexually. Without this 'balance', men and men's spaces would have become totally vulnerable to being persecuted and exploited by the vested interest groups, that tended to gain by the restraining of men.
With this deal the following was ensured:
- The only motive for the society to invest so heavily into the persecution of men, was reproduction and (secondarily) marriage; so, while other forms of sexual needs —— primarily man-man sexuality —— were persecuted, man-to-woman sexuality, too, was not unfairly benefitted —— at least, not beyond what was necessary. And, extremely important was the fact that women's capability to harm men through the artificial 'sexual power' granted to them through the route of manhood, was also heavily reigned in. In a way, everyone —— including the vested interest groups —— sacrificed for the sake of reproduction. Some more, some less. All of this at least had a purpose. The society as a whole was being 'benefitted' —— at least, that is what was believed.
- Other forms of sexual intimacy, again, primarily male-male sexual bonds, thrived behind the scenes —— even if superficially (i.e., their intensity was controlled) —— in the men's spaces, which were very strong and served as breathing spaces for men, for periodic respites from social persectuion. The society was o.k. with it as long as it was not acknowledged and it didn't come in the way of marriage or reproduction. This provided a great behind-the-scene-vent to men, to air their same-sex sexual and bonding needs, even if it meant that the society was intentionally promoting 'hypocrisy'. Leading 'double lives' was extremely important in order to maintain 'unnatural' social structures without making life unbearable.
But today, it amounts to a gross injustice, when, riding on the back of westernisation, the society is being forcefully heterosexualised, whereby the human needs long forced underground are being buried further into the ground and then it is claimed that male-female bonding is the only sexual need present in humans (especially men) —— and goes ahead to remove tabs from it, including tabs that were placed on female sexuality —— all in the name of openness, fairness and freedom. The result is that the anti-men forces gain complete control of the formal, mainstream social spaces. Then, they start persecuting men to the extreme by weeding out man-to-man sexuality even from the secret underground hideouts that they'd built in the mainstream —— and throwing them into the 'third gender' fringes through the invalid western concept of 'homosexuality'. Indeed, in heterosexual societies like the US, two men cannot even hold hands on the street without being thought of, or even abused as, third gender/ gay/ effeminate.
These forces also bring upon men, especially the youth, immense pressure to, not only have sex with, but even to bond emotionally and socially with women.
The irony is that this new brand of male-female sex is non-reproductive (casual) and is termed as 'heterosexuality'. For all the social investment that goes into reigning in men to the extreme, and forcing them into 'heterosexuality', the society does not gain anything in return. The only people to gain are the vested interest groups —— which include some men, women and members of the third sex (gay) — who are immensely empowered (and the irony is that they believe this is all 'naturally' predestined). These vested interest forces are actually a minority, which is only made extremely powerful after men have been chained in through the age-old conspiracy against them.
And this is why the introduction of western 'heterosexual' celebrations like the "Valentine Day" should be opposed in India, alongwith other facets of heterosexualisation.
With this deal the following was ensured:
- The only motive for the society to invest so heavily into the persecution of men, was reproduction and (secondarily) marriage; so, while other forms of sexual needs —— primarily man-man sexuality —— were persecuted, man-to-woman sexuality, too, was not unfairly benefitted —— at least, not beyond what was necessary. And, extremely important was the fact that women's capability to harm men through the artificial 'sexual power' granted to them through the route of manhood, was also heavily reigned in. In a way, everyone —— including the vested interest groups —— sacrificed for the sake of reproduction. Some more, some less. All of this at least had a purpose. The society as a whole was being 'benefitted' —— at least, that is what was believed.
- Other forms of sexual intimacy, again, primarily male-male sexual bonds, thrived behind the scenes —— even if superficially (i.e., their intensity was controlled) —— in the men's spaces, which were very strong and served as breathing spaces for men, for periodic respites from social persectuion. The society was o.k. with it as long as it was not acknowledged and it didn't come in the way of marriage or reproduction. This provided a great behind-the-scene-vent to men, to air their same-sex sexual and bonding needs, even if it meant that the society was intentionally promoting 'hypocrisy'. Leading 'double lives' was extremely important in order to maintain 'unnatural' social structures without making life unbearable.
But today, it amounts to a gross injustice, when, riding on the back of westernisation, the society is being forcefully heterosexualised, whereby the human needs long forced underground are being buried further into the ground and then it is claimed that male-female bonding is the only sexual need present in humans (especially men) —— and goes ahead to remove tabs from it, including tabs that were placed on female sexuality —— all in the name of openness, fairness and freedom. The result is that the anti-men forces gain complete control of the formal, mainstream social spaces. Then, they start persecuting men to the extreme by weeding out man-to-man sexuality even from the secret underground hideouts that they'd built in the mainstream —— and throwing them into the 'third gender' fringes through the invalid western concept of 'homosexuality'. Indeed, in heterosexual societies like the US, two men cannot even hold hands on the street without being thought of, or even abused as, third gender/ gay/ effeminate.
These forces also bring upon men, especially the youth, immense pressure to, not only have sex with, but even to bond emotionally and socially with women.
The irony is that this new brand of male-female sex is non-reproductive (casual) and is termed as 'heterosexuality'. For all the social investment that goes into reigning in men to the extreme, and forcing them into 'heterosexuality', the society does not gain anything in return. The only people to gain are the vested interest groups —— which include some men, women and members of the third sex (gay) — who are immensely empowered (and the irony is that they believe this is all 'naturally' predestined). These vested interest forces are actually a minority, which is only made extremely powerful after men have been chained in through the age-old conspiracy against them.
And this is why the introduction of western 'heterosexual' celebrations like the "Valentine Day" should be opposed in India, alongwith other facets of heterosexualisation.
May 19, 2007
Two of the greatest myths about male gender and sexuality spread by the western society
(with strong backing from its scientific institution)
In the matter of human gender and sexuality, the western scientific institution has ------ instead of destroying the lies created by Christianity to manipulate male gender and sexuality ------ chosen to toe its line, and perpetuate ------ even strengthen those lies by giving it a stamp of science ------ by hook or crook.
What had happened was that the institutions of science, like all the other small or big institutions of the western society was hijacked by the vested interests, quite early on ----- as soon as it started getting powerful.
Here we are going to look at two of the greatest lies spread by the western world about human, particularly male gender and sexuality.
Myths that the traditional, non-westernised world knows to be untrue:
MYTH 1:
GENDER IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
Human civilizations have, since the ancient times known about and recognized at least two distinct genders of males ------ the predominantly masculine gendered male and the transgendered male.
Femininity (as well as masculinity) in humans have long been established as a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact in ancient India, in the Vedas the very word used for gender is “nature” (prakriti). In many ancient tribes, even today, there is this practice of identifying the 'different' male ----- the feminine gendered male, who is then raised not as a boy but as a distinct feminine gender.
Furthermore this femininity was not believed to be related with sexuality as is portrayed by the western world today. The feminine gendered male could chose female or male partner.
The politics of gender and sexuality has ever since, for long tried to redefine this 'third sex' space in terms of sexuality, and it was redefined to include only males who desired exclusive receptive sex from men. Although, these males were predominantly transgendered, the definitions were so mixed up that their transgenderism was considered to be a part of their sexuality for receptive sex where they treated their anus or mouth as vagina, and this kind of sex would fulfill their desire to be a woman (as they were performing the socially ascribed female role of a receptor).
In this process, the 'third sex' that liked women ----- that initially constituted the overwhelming majority of the 'third sex' category were totally wiped out of the scene……. they apparently went underground.
Also, those who went underground were masculine gendered males who liked receptive anal/ oral sex and the feminine gendered males who did not like receptive anal/ oral sex.
In the west however, the gender and sexual politics being played with males took a different route. Christianity came down heavily on transgenderism which was punishable by death. Soon transgenderism went almost completely underground for centuries, till even the phenomenon was totally wiped out from the society. When science took over from Christianity, it too disacknowldeged gender as a distinct biological phenomenon from human sex. It held that men were biologically supposed to be exclusively masculine while females were meant to be exclusively feminine. Any variance to this rule was considered to be a socially orchestrated anomaly.
And while the Scientific institution on one hand refused to acknowledge feminine gender in males as biological, it went on to deliberately confuse feminine male gender with male sexual desire for men. Because, like in the medieval times, the only visible group of males that liked men was the transgendered or the overly effeminate male who predominantly sought receptive sex with men. It was convenient for Science to only look at the issue from a superficial level and assume that what appeared on the surface was the true nature of male gender and sexuality.
The traditional societies considered only those males who sought exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex with males to be feminine gendered ------ which was also borne out by facts. However the west started to portray any kind of sexual desire between men as 'feminine' and 'different'.
And while the traditional world continued to accept transgendered males as a naturally different gender, the western science still considers it a disease, an abnormality, a socially caused phenomenon to be treated.
And while the scientific institution considers gender to be non-existent biologically, the social activists working around the issue of male gender and sexuality (including feminists and gays) consider male femininity or masculinity to be a matter of choosing socially prescribed roles of males and females that has nothing to do with nature. As per this belief, Femininity or masculinity doesn't reside within a person but is determined by, e.g., whether he wears male or female clothes………….. and is therefore considered a matter of social choice. Interestingly, sexuality is not considered to be a choice or to be socially orchestrated but instead held to be biologically ingrained in a person. This view of social scientists is quite different from that of the physical sciences, but both deny the truth of gender being a biologically occurring human phenomenon quite distinct from the outer sex.
The fallacy upon which the entire western outlook on male gender and sexuality is based can be understood in this way. There are two concurrent but different definitions of ‘gender’ popular in the west. And both of them are way off from the real thing.
(i) The first definition is the traditional western definition, where gender is equated with ‘sex’. Thus the masculine gender is the same as the male, and the feminine gender is the same as the female as per this definition.
(ii) The second definition is used by the so-called progressive section of the western society ------ the intelligentia and the social scientists. As per this definition Gender denotes the artificial social roles fixed for each sex by the society (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls). Thus as per this definition, you can become masculine just by wearing men’s clothes and smoking ciggerrettes. And you can become feminine just by wearing lipstick. Gender is seen as something that exists outside of us, as an artificial behaviour.
To understand the real, biological/ natural gender please click here.
MYTH 2
MALE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY OCCURING PHENOMENON
The west is a society where the mainstream society has been extremely heterosexualised, where most men's spaces have been destroyed by heterosexualising them, and there is extreme hostility against man-to-man bonds in these spaces ------ even against non-sexual intimacy between men. At the same time male-to-male bonds are only allowed under the label of 'homosexuality' in the third sex 'homosexual' sphere.
In the western heterosexual society, there is no difference between the sexual need of a transgendered male for another man and between that of a man for another man. Both are considered homosexual, since the western society does not recognize gender as a valid human phenomenon. The traditional world does not consider relationship between a transgendered male (Hijra) and a man to be 'homosexual' in nature, since they have different gender identities.
Interestingly the western world makes a difference between the transgendered male's attraction for women and that of a man's attraction for women. The former is not allowed the straight space/ identity and is clubbed together with the 'homosexuals' as 'queer' or LGBT.
The traditional society made a stark distinction between those who displayed an exclusive interest (which is closely related to their femininity ------ whether biologically or as an assertion of their social gender) in receptive anal/ oral sex on the one hand and those who were predominantly penetrators or those who did not indulge in anal/ oral sex at all. While indulging in receptive anal sex was not always considered unmanly (like during the Muslim period in India), but transgendered males were supposed to indulge primarily in receptive anal or oral sex and were considered a distinct gender.
The western world on the other hand does not make a difference between those with predominant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, and those predominantly into the penetrator role or those not into anal or oral sex at all. It clubs all male to male sexuality into the previously third sex space which is rechristened 'homosexual' or 'gay'.
All of this is a part of the conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation to force men to be (exclusively) 'heterosexual'. Naturally, under such conditions only a few men ever acknowledge their sexual need for men and hide themselves behind fake heterosexual masks and a fake repulsion for male to male physical intimacy.
The western society, including its scientific institution then holds this misleading scenario as a 'proof' of the majority of men being exclusively heterosexual, and sexual need for men being a rare phenomenon, an anomaly that occurs only in a few individuals in whom it insists something somewhere has gone wrong.
On the contrary, most traditional societies were although not supportive of man to man sexual bonds most of the time -------- at least not formally, accepted the fact, at some level, even if it was at the peer (straight) male level ------- that man's sexual need for men was a universal male phenomenon and that all men are capable of being attracted sexually to other men. However, they expected men to have self-control and to fight these desires.
E.g. in India it is still largely believed that all men are capable of being sexually attracted towards other men ------ at least in the men's spaces. A certain amount of sexual play is even allowed between men. It is called "Masti". The situation and beliefs are diametrically opposite in heterosexualised, westernised urban, middle class India, where it is propagated that man to man sexuality is a thing for feminine gendered males called 'homosexuals'.
Even in the west in some pockets which have escaped wide-scale heterosexualisation, e.g. black or Latino working class spaces, where men's spaces are strong, straight (i.e. mainstream/ majority of) men still engage in sexual intimacy with other men without considering themselves as non-straights or 'homosexuals or 'bisexuals'. It is still believed to be something that all men are capable and willing of.
And the older generation of westerners and many Christians still realize that all men have this inner capability to be sexually attracted to other men. They should know because they have had to develop such intricate mechanisms to force men to suppress these sexual needs. These people still believe that if you accept same-sex bonds as valid and manly sexual need, then every man shall start indulging in them.
At least the traditional society, including the western traditional society and religions like Christianity has been much more honest in their approach towards man to man sexual intimacy. The western society has on the other hand distorted facts and abused the institution of science in order to reach its goal of suppressing same-sex bonds in the mainstream without appearing to be 'violent' or 'unfair' on the surface.
In the matter of human gender and sexuality, the western scientific institution has ------ instead of destroying the lies created by Christianity to manipulate male gender and sexuality ------ chosen to toe its line, and perpetuate ------ even strengthen those lies by giving it a stamp of science ------ by hook or crook.
What had happened was that the institutions of science, like all the other small or big institutions of the western society was hijacked by the vested interests, quite early on ----- as soon as it started getting powerful.
Here we are going to look at two of the greatest lies spread by the western world about human, particularly male gender and sexuality.
Myths that the traditional, non-westernised world knows to be untrue:
MYTH 1:
GENDER IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
Human civilizations have, since the ancient times known about and recognized at least two distinct genders of males ------ the predominantly masculine gendered male and the transgendered male.
Femininity (as well as masculinity) in humans have long been established as a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact in ancient India, in the Vedas the very word used for gender is “nature” (prakriti). In many ancient tribes, even today, there is this practice of identifying the 'different' male ----- the feminine gendered male, who is then raised not as a boy but as a distinct feminine gender.
Furthermore this femininity was not believed to be related with sexuality as is portrayed by the western world today. The feminine gendered male could chose female or male partner.
The politics of gender and sexuality has ever since, for long tried to redefine this 'third sex' space in terms of sexuality, and it was redefined to include only males who desired exclusive receptive sex from men. Although, these males were predominantly transgendered, the definitions were so mixed up that their transgenderism was considered to be a part of their sexuality for receptive sex where they treated their anus or mouth as vagina, and this kind of sex would fulfill their desire to be a woman (as they were performing the socially ascribed female role of a receptor).
In this process, the 'third sex' that liked women ----- that initially constituted the overwhelming majority of the 'third sex' category were totally wiped out of the scene……. they apparently went underground.
Also, those who went underground were masculine gendered males who liked receptive anal/ oral sex and the feminine gendered males who did not like receptive anal/ oral sex.
In the west however, the gender and sexual politics being played with males took a different route. Christianity came down heavily on transgenderism which was punishable by death. Soon transgenderism went almost completely underground for centuries, till even the phenomenon was totally wiped out from the society. When science took over from Christianity, it too disacknowldeged gender as a distinct biological phenomenon from human sex. It held that men were biologically supposed to be exclusively masculine while females were meant to be exclusively feminine. Any variance to this rule was considered to be a socially orchestrated anomaly.
And while the Scientific institution on one hand refused to acknowledge feminine gender in males as biological, it went on to deliberately confuse feminine male gender with male sexual desire for men. Because, like in the medieval times, the only visible group of males that liked men was the transgendered or the overly effeminate male who predominantly sought receptive sex with men. It was convenient for Science to only look at the issue from a superficial level and assume that what appeared on the surface was the true nature of male gender and sexuality.
The traditional societies considered only those males who sought exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex with males to be feminine gendered ------ which was also borne out by facts. However the west started to portray any kind of sexual desire between men as 'feminine' and 'different'.
And while the traditional world continued to accept transgendered males as a naturally different gender, the western science still considers it a disease, an abnormality, a socially caused phenomenon to be treated.
And while the scientific institution considers gender to be non-existent biologically, the social activists working around the issue of male gender and sexuality (including feminists and gays) consider male femininity or masculinity to be a matter of choosing socially prescribed roles of males and females that has nothing to do with nature. As per this belief, Femininity or masculinity doesn't reside within a person but is determined by, e.g., whether he wears male or female clothes………….. and is therefore considered a matter of social choice. Interestingly, sexuality is not considered to be a choice or to be socially orchestrated but instead held to be biologically ingrained in a person. This view of social scientists is quite different from that of the physical sciences, but both deny the truth of gender being a biologically occurring human phenomenon quite distinct from the outer sex.
The fallacy upon which the entire western outlook on male gender and sexuality is based can be understood in this way. There are two concurrent but different definitions of ‘gender’ popular in the west. And both of them are way off from the real thing.
(i) The first definition is the traditional western definition, where gender is equated with ‘sex’. Thus the masculine gender is the same as the male, and the feminine gender is the same as the female as per this definition.
(ii) The second definition is used by the so-called progressive section of the western society ------ the intelligentia and the social scientists. As per this definition Gender denotes the artificial social roles fixed for each sex by the society (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls). Thus as per this definition, you can become masculine just by wearing men’s clothes and smoking ciggerrettes. And you can become feminine just by wearing lipstick. Gender is seen as something that exists outside of us, as an artificial behaviour.
To understand the real, biological/ natural gender please click here.
MYTH 2
MALE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY OCCURING PHENOMENON
The west is a society where the mainstream society has been extremely heterosexualised, where most men's spaces have been destroyed by heterosexualising them, and there is extreme hostility against man-to-man bonds in these spaces ------ even against non-sexual intimacy between men. At the same time male-to-male bonds are only allowed under the label of 'homosexuality' in the third sex 'homosexual' sphere.
In the western heterosexual society, there is no difference between the sexual need of a transgendered male for another man and between that of a man for another man. Both are considered homosexual, since the western society does not recognize gender as a valid human phenomenon. The traditional world does not consider relationship between a transgendered male (Hijra) and a man to be 'homosexual' in nature, since they have different gender identities.
Interestingly the western world makes a difference between the transgendered male's attraction for women and that of a man's attraction for women. The former is not allowed the straight space/ identity and is clubbed together with the 'homosexuals' as 'queer' or LGBT.
The traditional society made a stark distinction between those who displayed an exclusive interest (which is closely related to their femininity ------ whether biologically or as an assertion of their social gender) in receptive anal/ oral sex on the one hand and those who were predominantly penetrators or those who did not indulge in anal/ oral sex at all. While indulging in receptive anal sex was not always considered unmanly (like during the Muslim period in India), but transgendered males were supposed to indulge primarily in receptive anal or oral sex and were considered a distinct gender.
The western world on the other hand does not make a difference between those with predominant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, and those predominantly into the penetrator role or those not into anal or oral sex at all. It clubs all male to male sexuality into the previously third sex space which is rechristened 'homosexual' or 'gay'.
All of this is a part of the conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation to force men to be (exclusively) 'heterosexual'. Naturally, under such conditions only a few men ever acknowledge their sexual need for men and hide themselves behind fake heterosexual masks and a fake repulsion for male to male physical intimacy.
The western society, including its scientific institution then holds this misleading scenario as a 'proof' of the majority of men being exclusively heterosexual, and sexual need for men being a rare phenomenon, an anomaly that occurs only in a few individuals in whom it insists something somewhere has gone wrong.
On the contrary, most traditional societies were although not supportive of man to man sexual bonds most of the time -------- at least not formally, accepted the fact, at some level, even if it was at the peer (straight) male level ------- that man's sexual need for men was a universal male phenomenon and that all men are capable of being attracted sexually to other men. However, they expected men to have self-control and to fight these desires.
E.g. in India it is still largely believed that all men are capable of being sexually attracted towards other men ------ at least in the men's spaces. A certain amount of sexual play is even allowed between men. It is called "Masti". The situation and beliefs are diametrically opposite in heterosexualised, westernised urban, middle class India, where it is propagated that man to man sexuality is a thing for feminine gendered males called 'homosexuals'.
Even in the west in some pockets which have escaped wide-scale heterosexualisation, e.g. black or Latino working class spaces, where men's spaces are strong, straight (i.e. mainstream/ majority of) men still engage in sexual intimacy with other men without considering themselves as non-straights or 'homosexuals or 'bisexuals'. It is still believed to be something that all men are capable and willing of.
And the older generation of westerners and many Christians still realize that all men have this inner capability to be sexually attracted to other men. They should know because they have had to develop such intricate mechanisms to force men to suppress these sexual needs. These people still believe that if you accept same-sex bonds as valid and manly sexual need, then every man shall start indulging in them.
At least the traditional society, including the western traditional society and religions like Christianity has been much more honest in their approach towards man to man sexual intimacy. The western society has on the other hand distorted facts and abused the institution of science in order to reach its goal of suppressing same-sex bonds in the mainstream without appearing to be 'violent' or 'unfair' on the surface.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)