The entire question about segregating males between two categories has been of who's a man, and who's not.
The earlier, most basic distinction was based on natural gender.
The males who innately felt to be females, were classified as 'third gender' and not 'men'.
The others were 'men'.
Then the distinction shifted from natural gender to what was socially defined as the roles of men and third gender.
This role hinged on being the penetrator or the penetrated. It was (wrongly) held that the it is the female role to be penetrated, and hence only the third gender were allowed that, and it was extremely stigmatized for men. The situation continued for more than two thousand years, and this distinction between men is practised till today in all non-western socities -- which don't divide males on the basis of homo-hetero, but on the basis of active and passive. The active is 'man' or 'straight', and the passive is 'third gender' or 'gay'.
In the west, the roles of men and third gender were further misdefined, and men were now supposed to desire only women, while all kinds of male desire for men was thought of as effeminate and hence belonging to the 'third gender'.
Men were no defined as 'heterosexual' or 'straight' males, and the third gender were defined as 'homosexual' or 'gay' males.
However, the crux of the two categories remain as that of 'men' and 'third gender', or 'men' and 'non-men' or 'men' and 'queer', and straight or heterosexual males are widely thought of as being the real men, while gays are considered to be effeminate, queers.
It is true to a large extent, because mostly, only effeminate males take on the 'gay' identity while the masculine males don the 'straight' identity, that may not reflect their true sexuality but it reflects their masculine gender, which is more important for men.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Sexual Orientation is not fixed, its changeable, esp. in initial years.
In the West, Christianity classified sodomy (I wish scholars could use the terms that was historically used, and not use 'homosexuality' for sodomy and thus confuse everyone) between men to be unnatural for so long, that in modern West, the entire focus of 'liberating' 'homosexuality' was focussed on proving it to be natural -- which came to mean it was innate and not a choice, as the society believed earlier.
Thus, the modern Western society, goaded by gays, has held that 'sexual orientation' in itself is innate and unchangeable and fixed from birth.
The truth is that, although sexual orientation is innate, it is also affected and influenced by nature uptill a certain age -- the formative years of sexuality. Usually a person has the capability to grow either way -- towards both the genders, but the society intervenes by suppressing one part, so that a person becomes unisexual. Some others, may get fixated on the sexuality that is actually sought to be suppressed if they have a positive experience of it -- and this exclusive fixation may have something to do with the social sanctions against it. Other causes for fixation may be the gender roles -- a queer male who identifies as a 'female' from within, may get fixated on receiving anal sex from men in order to fulfil his/her inner femaleness or femininity.
On the other hand, it may be relatively single sided for a minority of individuals, but for the rest it is double sided, and that is where it becomes a matter of choice. The society tries to influence this choice by creating extreme hostile conditions for one type and forcing the other type on people.
It is because, sexuality is changeable in initial years that there are such extreme social mechanisms, including pressures and rewards in order to force men to become heterosexuals.
Without social intervention, sexuality will remain double-sided and fluid for most men, throughout their lives.
Thus, the modern Western society, goaded by gays, has held that 'sexual orientation' in itself is innate and unchangeable and fixed from birth.
The truth is that, although sexual orientation is innate, it is also affected and influenced by nature uptill a certain age -- the formative years of sexuality. Usually a person has the capability to grow either way -- towards both the genders, but the society intervenes by suppressing one part, so that a person becomes unisexual. Some others, may get fixated on the sexuality that is actually sought to be suppressed if they have a positive experience of it -- and this exclusive fixation may have something to do with the social sanctions against it. Other causes for fixation may be the gender roles -- a queer male who identifies as a 'female' from within, may get fixated on receiving anal sex from men in order to fulfil his/her inner femaleness or femininity.
On the other hand, it may be relatively single sided for a minority of individuals, but for the rest it is double sided, and that is where it becomes a matter of choice. The society tries to influence this choice by creating extreme hostile conditions for one type and forcing the other type on people.
It is because, sexuality is changeable in initial years that there are such extreme social mechanisms, including pressures and rewards in order to force men to become heterosexuals.
Without social intervention, sexuality will remain double-sided and fluid for most men, throughout their lives.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Why do straight males seem so selfish/ mean?
That's the stereotype of straight males, and they're true to a large extent.
But why is it so? Is there a connection between masculinity and selfishness/ meanness? Is masculinity after all a negative, destructive quality?
Definitely not. It has been made into one by the social brand of (fake) masculinity represented by social roles of men.
Natural masculinity has both positive and negative aspects, and it can be just as selfish or mean as femininity but just as selfess and caring too. That is why in the olden days, when social manhood closely reflected natural manhood, masculine, straight males were full of character, propriety, selfless, etc.
However, the social roles of manhood, especially those prevalent in the West --- the heterosexual ones, force men to be selfish and mean towards their own inner-self and towards others as well, in order to compete in the intense anti-man race for (social) manhood. By encouraging, rather forcing men to participate in this race, the FOH train them to be selfish in order to survive. The more selfish you are, the farther you will go in the race. And those who appear at the top, the stereotypes of which straight males are made of, are always the one which are the most selfish -- this selfishness is both inherent -- and a learned thing. While the selfless, honest, courageous, real men, don't make it to the top -- because that means that you will also be honest to yourself -- and then you won't be really all that heterosexual.
But why is it so? Is there a connection between masculinity and selfishness/ meanness? Is masculinity after all a negative, destructive quality?
Definitely not. It has been made into one by the social brand of (fake) masculinity represented by social roles of men.
Natural masculinity has both positive and negative aspects, and it can be just as selfish or mean as femininity but just as selfess and caring too. That is why in the olden days, when social manhood closely reflected natural manhood, masculine, straight males were full of character, propriety, selfless, etc.
However, the social roles of manhood, especially those prevalent in the West --- the heterosexual ones, force men to be selfish and mean towards their own inner-self and towards others as well, in order to compete in the intense anti-man race for (social) manhood. By encouraging, rather forcing men to participate in this race, the FOH train them to be selfish in order to survive. The more selfish you are, the farther you will go in the race. And those who appear at the top, the stereotypes of which straight males are made of, are always the one which are the most selfish -- this selfishness is both inherent -- and a learned thing. While the selfless, honest, courageous, real men, don't make it to the top -- because that means that you will also be honest to yourself -- and then you won't be really all that heterosexual.
Why is masculinity itself stigmatized amongst straight males
straight men don't talk about their own masculinity... why because there is a huge stigma upon discussing it... the stigma was there in the olden days too, but after a society's westernization/ heterosexualization/ modernization, this stigma becomes extreme as it is now associated with 'gay', as more and more 'gays' start using it to define -- ironically, their femininity. In any case, masculinity has a relationship with intmacy between men which is stigmaitzed in heterosexualized spaces as queer, adding to the stigma about discussing masculinity.
How about using the word 'straighthood' or manhood.
How about using the word 'straighthood' or manhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)