Why doesn't the society give men the space and empowerment to talk about how they really feel and what they really want and don't want? Almost 99% of the issues that are of immense importance to men are held taboo by the forces that control their spaces.
Why are the mechanisms that disempower men from speaking about their true selves given validity by the heterosexual society which takes such pride in being free, fair and open? And I want to ask this particularly of the feminists and those championing women rights, who give all these mechanisms validity by making out as if they are 'pro-women' acts.
Once men get their space to be themselves, I can guarantee you that they will once again create a system where if men indulge in violence it will be to save women not to harm them.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The difference in pressures on men in heterosexualised spaces and men's spaces is stark in India right now.
In India one can easily see the strong mechanisms and pressures built by the heterosexual spaces as in India while the heterosexual spaces are spreading fast in urban spaces, men's spaces still survive in small pockets. And the same straight men who hang out in both these spaces behave in two very different ways.
In the men's spaces they become themselves while in the heterosexual spaces, they live under intense pressures from which there is no escape and they are forced to give up everything that matters to them and go through the stress of doing things that does not come naturally to them.
To take an example, two guys (for western readers, straight guys) Tarun and Lalit who are in college came to work in our office during their summer internship. They had come from an extremely heterosexualised environment. Where boys and girls hold hands in public, kiss each other in public, girls wear revealing clothes to entice men, and men are expected to submit to that enticement if they are not to be called 'gay', and in fact there is an intense pressure on men to date girls, without which they would be under the threat of being considered 'gay'. Of course, some men do fit in well in this scheme of things and they get all the social power, which they use vehemently as part of the peer pressure, from which boys have no escape now, because there are no spaces that are free of girls, where men can be themselves, even if without saying anything.
But when they came to our office -- which was also heterosexualised, but to a lesser extent. I developed a friendship with both of them, along with a third guy in my office who did have a girlfriend and is in love with her.
First, it was only the three of us, Tarun, me and Lalit. We created our own men's space and grew very intimate in it. Actually, I and Tarun developed a strong bond secretly between us, which had an intense sexual attraction, although like all other such bonds between straight men, it was still hidden.
The bond really flourished in that small men's space we had created. And Tarun in fact stayed on in the office, inspite of bad working conditions, only because of our special bond.
then the fourth guy who had a girl friend came and things changed a bit. He started exerting pressure on us, to talk about girls and to bring girls in the group. When he did that Tarun responded to that pressure as he does in his college by expressing publicly his interest in a particular girl who was invited to the picnic by an office colleague.
This strained our special bond, because i became extremely jealous. i was not used to this pressure as there was no pressure to make girlfriends in my time. All you needed to do was talk about girls in the boys' spaces -- no need to prove the interest practically.
The fourth guy exerted more pressure, and Tarun started to get too close with yet another girl straining our relationship further. But quietly he tried to tell me that he is doing it only out of the pressures. He couldn't tell it to me directly because straight men just dont do it. however, i couldn't understand what he was saying and just went ahead and broke our sacred bond when he went out in the night with that girl.
However, I later discovered that he was actually maintaining a distance from the girls, even when he was dating them. It was all an eyewash for the others. He did not need the girl friends at all, especially when I knew that he cared for our bond so much. Since, I have been working on masculinity, I could easily see all this, although others were fooled.
He said, he is not going to have sex till he is married. He will just have an emotional relationship with girls. I thought, at least men have that much freedom in India today. But tommorrow when the forces of heterosexualisation take away even that leeway from men, men will have no space but to give in to sexual exploitation at the hands of women -- because that is what it is. Sexual exploitation, against the will of men.
the other guy, Lalit, also was under intense pressure to prove his interest in girls. And he too didn't want girl friends. So, what he'd do is to stick around with girls all the time. And, he always chose girls that were not interested in him sexually. And then behave in such ways as he is one of the female friends (not girlfriend). This would make sure that the girls don't get involved with him sexually. But, he would pretend as if he is intensely attracted to one of the girls, who is dead sure is not interested in him. This worked for him, and he needed that pretension badly. But how much stress it was on him. Who cares in our society for what he is going through. there's one thing that all these straight men know for sure. They would do anything to avoid being called 'gay'.
But, its only a matter of time when these small pockets also vanish, if we don't do anything to save men's spaces.
In the men's spaces they become themselves while in the heterosexual spaces, they live under intense pressures from which there is no escape and they are forced to give up everything that matters to them and go through the stress of doing things that does not come naturally to them.
To take an example, two guys (for western readers, straight guys) Tarun and Lalit who are in college came to work in our office during their summer internship. They had come from an extremely heterosexualised environment. Where boys and girls hold hands in public, kiss each other in public, girls wear revealing clothes to entice men, and men are expected to submit to that enticement if they are not to be called 'gay', and in fact there is an intense pressure on men to date girls, without which they would be under the threat of being considered 'gay'. Of course, some men do fit in well in this scheme of things and they get all the social power, which they use vehemently as part of the peer pressure, from which boys have no escape now, because there are no spaces that are free of girls, where men can be themselves, even if without saying anything.
But when they came to our office -- which was also heterosexualised, but to a lesser extent. I developed a friendship with both of them, along with a third guy in my office who did have a girlfriend and is in love with her.
First, it was only the three of us, Tarun, me and Lalit. We created our own men's space and grew very intimate in it. Actually, I and Tarun developed a strong bond secretly between us, which had an intense sexual attraction, although like all other such bonds between straight men, it was still hidden.
The bond really flourished in that small men's space we had created. And Tarun in fact stayed on in the office, inspite of bad working conditions, only because of our special bond.
then the fourth guy who had a girl friend came and things changed a bit. He started exerting pressure on us, to talk about girls and to bring girls in the group. When he did that Tarun responded to that pressure as he does in his college by expressing publicly his interest in a particular girl who was invited to the picnic by an office colleague.
This strained our special bond, because i became extremely jealous. i was not used to this pressure as there was no pressure to make girlfriends in my time. All you needed to do was talk about girls in the boys' spaces -- no need to prove the interest practically.
The fourth guy exerted more pressure, and Tarun started to get too close with yet another girl straining our relationship further. But quietly he tried to tell me that he is doing it only out of the pressures. He couldn't tell it to me directly because straight men just dont do it. however, i couldn't understand what he was saying and just went ahead and broke our sacred bond when he went out in the night with that girl.
However, I later discovered that he was actually maintaining a distance from the girls, even when he was dating them. It was all an eyewash for the others. He did not need the girl friends at all, especially when I knew that he cared for our bond so much. Since, I have been working on masculinity, I could easily see all this, although others were fooled.
He said, he is not going to have sex till he is married. He will just have an emotional relationship with girls. I thought, at least men have that much freedom in India today. But tommorrow when the forces of heterosexualisation take away even that leeway from men, men will have no space but to give in to sexual exploitation at the hands of women -- because that is what it is. Sexual exploitation, against the will of men.
the other guy, Lalit, also was under intense pressure to prove his interest in girls. And he too didn't want girl friends. So, what he'd do is to stick around with girls all the time. And, he always chose girls that were not interested in him sexually. And then behave in such ways as he is one of the female friends (not girlfriend). This would make sure that the girls don't get involved with him sexually. But, he would pretend as if he is intensely attracted to one of the girls, who is dead sure is not interested in him. This worked for him, and he needed that pretension badly. But how much stress it was on him. Who cares in our society for what he is going through. there's one thing that all these straight men know for sure. They would do anything to avoid being called 'gay'.
But, its only a matter of time when these small pockets also vanish, if we don't do anything to save men's spaces.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Science is deliberating misleading public on male sexuality
Whatever nature has created has a purpose. And something which is so basic, strong and universal in men like their sexual, emotional and social need for another man has to have an extremely important purpose in the whole scheme of things. Science, which is too obssessed with reproduction and with pushing heterosexuality will never want to find out this purpose. You can't find out its purpose as long as you kill it and throw it out of the men's spaces and lives. To know its purpose, you will have to stop figthing and driving it out. You will have to accept it and give it a suitable place in the society.
Everything has a purpose when its stage comes. Man's need to bond with another man is the most important stage of life for him. This is one bond that continues for the rest of his life. Indeed, its because man has been cut off from his natural drive to bond with another man that he is the most severelly, the largest and the longest oppressed human group in its entire history.
Everything has a purpose when its stage comes. Man's need to bond with another man is the most important stage of life for him. This is one bond that continues for the rest of his life. Indeed, its because man has been cut off from his natural drive to bond with another man that he is the most severelly, the largest and the longest oppressed human group in its entire history.
I now understand the exact cross men have to bear
While watching the serial "Man vs Wild", where the 'hero' who was trying to survive in the jungle, and was trying to escape from something -- I don't know what, i came late -- it was either predators or mafia, but they were all around and they were out to get him, and the only way he could survive was by camouflaging himself. He did it by putting on masks and stuff that made him mix with the environment -- rubbing mud on himself, especially everything that shone or stood out, and putting plants on himself.
I could immediately relate it with how men have been forced to live all these centuries and especially in the modern heterosexual society. It's so damn hostile to the real man in them, that it will kill them the moment it sees it. So they survive by putting on masks -- masks of heterosexuality. They do a thousand things, just so to mix with the environment, so that the oppressive forces don't find them, isolate them and then banish them from the society and take away their very identity from them.
And, then suddenly I recalled how Sameer was dating women, even when our relationship was just getting strong -- and I left him thinking he had decieved me, that social power meant more to him. But, he wasn't doing it for social power. He was doing it only because he needed it to survive. He just doesn't have the skills to protect himself, if they catch him. All those scary and hostile heterosexual masks that he wore was to hide himself -- a survival skill, just like that 'hero' in the serial 'Man vs. Wild'. And then the oppression of men became even more stark and obvious. Because this is pretty much what most other straight men do. And it also gave me an idea. If I want men to feel safe to come to our movement, then I must camouflage my ownself, our movement and give them a space where they can safely come without jeopardising their identity and existence. At least in the beginning.
I could immediately relate it with how men have been forced to live all these centuries and especially in the modern heterosexual society. It's so damn hostile to the real man in them, that it will kill them the moment it sees it. So they survive by putting on masks -- masks of heterosexuality. They do a thousand things, just so to mix with the environment, so that the oppressive forces don't find them, isolate them and then banish them from the society and take away their very identity from them.
And, then suddenly I recalled how Sameer was dating women, even when our relationship was just getting strong -- and I left him thinking he had decieved me, that social power meant more to him. But, he wasn't doing it for social power. He was doing it only because he needed it to survive. He just doesn't have the skills to protect himself, if they catch him. All those scary and hostile heterosexual masks that he wore was to hide himself -- a survival skill, just like that 'hero' in the serial 'Man vs. Wild'. And then the oppression of men became even more stark and obvious. Because this is pretty much what most other straight men do. And it also gave me an idea. If I want men to feel safe to come to our movement, then I must camouflage my ownself, our movement and give them a space where they can safely come without jeopardising their identity and existence. At least in the beginning.
We needed to tackle our problems in our own way not copying blindly from the West
The traditional Indian culture had developed certain problems which needed to be sorted out -- sometimes at the basic level -- but to overthrow it completely for blindly copying everything that is negative about the West, in return for their money and technology, is certainly not the best thing to have happened to our civilisation.
It's horrendous.
It's horrendous.
To see a man struggling with and killing his innerself for the society that couldn't care for him less is really painful
As a man who did not built the mechanisms or did not go through the conditioning to suppress my needs and build thousands of minute inner resistances and pretences to hide and kill my natural needs and do what is required for the society, it seems so tortuous to see people like Sameer go through all those painstaking things, sacrificing one's intense and most basic needs and desires in the process, and thinking nothing of it.
Women encouraged to connect with their womanhood, men discouraged to connect with their manhood
When a woman wants to connect with other women in order to explore womanhood, it is considered a positive thing -- she's strengthening her womanhood. But when a man seeks to connect with other men, he is ridiculed by the heterosexual society as 'gay'. He must connect with women if he wants to explore and strengthen his manhood -- how stupid. And unfair.
heterosexual hazing is cruel, much more oppressive for men
Hazing/ Ragging used to be an all men's affair. It's not a heterosexual thing.
It's one thing to have to strip in front of other men, but quite another when you have to do it in front of women. Although, the former may not be a pleasant thing either, but the latter is definitely very humiliating and oppressive.
When men were forced to be heterosexual in privacy it was a different thing. Men were expected to reproduce, and for that have sex with women, whether they liked it or not. But they were allowed privacy, so that they could save their social manhood and do their duty and save their honour.
However, its totally cruel to force heterosexuality on men so openly, and in a humilaiating manner, when man is completley without anything to hide or protect his social manhood.
It's one thing to have to strip in front of other men, but quite another when you have to do it in front of women. Although, the former may not be a pleasant thing either, but the latter is definitely very humiliating and oppressive.
When men were forced to be heterosexual in privacy it was a different thing. Men were expected to reproduce, and for that have sex with women, whether they liked it or not. But they were allowed privacy, so that they could save their social manhood and do their duty and save their honour.
However, its totally cruel to force heterosexuality on men so openly, and in a humilaiating manner, when man is completley without anything to hide or protect his social manhood.
Heterosexual society allows men to express all feelings as long as it is in the limited heterosexual context
The traditional man is expected to suppress a number of his feelings, however, he also has a lot of freedom to express these feelings in non-verbal ways in the men's spaces.
In heterosexualised spaces, however, although men are generally denied any feelings, and there's no men's space to give quiet vent to your suppresed feelings, men are allowed almost any feeling as long as they are within the heterosexual context, and he will be considered a man in a heterosexual society. This includes all those feelings that in a non-heterosexual context would immediatedly be isolated as third gender.
These double standards give absolute power and benefit to one section of men (who can easily fit into it, without losing much), while it can totally leave out other men, who must lead a sham life, till they live, running away from themselves, in order to fit in as men.
In heterosexualised spaces, however, although men are generally denied any feelings, and there's no men's space to give quiet vent to your suppresed feelings, men are allowed almost any feeling as long as they are within the heterosexual context, and he will be considered a man in a heterosexual society. This includes all those feelings that in a non-heterosexual context would immediatedly be isolated as third gender.
These double standards give absolute power and benefit to one section of men (who can easily fit into it, without losing much), while it can totally leave out other men, who must lead a sham life, till they live, running away from themselves, in order to fit in as men.
Heterosexual society leaves men no lee-way or personal space
men need some leeway, some space and lots of privacy/ personal space to be able to prepare himself to fulfill the social manhood roles, without taking too much toll on him. The heterosexual society gives him no personal space at all. A woman must share all his spaces now.
This makes the task of pretending extremely stressful, and sometimes almost impossible. E.g. if you are forced to be naked in front of a girl and made to climb on her as part of ragging, and you don't get an erection at all, you have all your pretenses lost in front of an audience. Then you don't have the time to feel upset about your sexual exploitation in front of so many people -- complaining about sexual exploitation is a luxury which only women can afford -- you are too much worried about how to explain your lack of erection and save your social manhood, which is now defined as 'heterosexuality'.
Then you seek to compensate that event with thousands of other pretenses, making your life even more meaningless and stressful.
This makes the task of pretending extremely stressful, and sometimes almost impossible. E.g. if you are forced to be naked in front of a girl and made to climb on her as part of ragging, and you don't get an erection at all, you have all your pretenses lost in front of an audience. Then you don't have the time to feel upset about your sexual exploitation in front of so many people -- complaining about sexual exploitation is a luxury which only women can afford -- you are too much worried about how to explain your lack of erection and save your social manhood, which is now defined as 'heterosexuality'.
Then you seek to compensate that event with thousands of other pretenses, making your life even more meaningless and stressful.
Our real challenge: to make men stop fighting themselves and to fight their oppression instead
The challenge before us is to make men, especially young men, to divert their masculine energies from fighting and destroying their own inner selves (their inner essence, feelings, needs, desires and natural manhood) to fighting and destroying the psycho-social mechanisms that force and condition them into a fight with their ownselves.
It's a real challenge, because, as long as men are governed by these psycho-social mechanisms, which are instilled in them right from the childhood, by all the major and minor social institutions (including education, peer-pressure, entertainment, media, science, etc.), they are unlikely to even listen to something that talks about issues outside the purview of social manhood -- they're just taboo for them.
And, unless, you make men realise this, you can't organise them to be able to break the psycho-social mechanisms. The only way out is to organise some men, who are enlightened, who can carry on the fight for long enough for others to feel safe about it and be encouraged to at least listen to it... for when they listen they're bound to think and realise how they're being enslaved and oppressed.
It's a real challenge, because, as long as men are governed by these psycho-social mechanisms, which are instilled in them right from the childhood, by all the major and minor social institutions (including education, peer-pressure, entertainment, media, science, etc.), they are unlikely to even listen to something that talks about issues outside the purview of social manhood -- they're just taboo for them.
And, unless, you make men realise this, you can't organise them to be able to break the psycho-social mechanisms. The only way out is to organise some men, who are enlightened, who can carry on the fight for long enough for others to feel safe about it and be encouraged to at least listen to it... for when they listen they're bound to think and realise how they're being enslaved and oppressed.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The double standards of the ideology of heterosexuality
when a woman wants to connect with other women in order to explore womanhood, it is considered a positive thing -- she's strengthening her womanhood. But when a man seeks to connect with other men, he is ridiculed by the heterosexual society as 'gay'. He must connect with women if he wants to explore and strengthen his manhood -- how stupid. And unfair.
The forces of heterosexualisation cry foul at the treatment they receive in traditional societies but don't see the oppression perpetuated by them
The forces of heterosexualisation (including the media) see all the "regulations" and hence injustices done on male-female relationships, but they don't see the oppression they are themselves causing to male-male bonds? But, of course, them these relationships and feelings don't count, because, they have already been made into sub-human, abnormal, evil, sinful, feelings. So, you don't need to shed a tear for them.
Heterosesexuality is so queer that it makes Masculinity a taboo for men!
The heterosexual set up is so desperate to wipe out male bonds from its spaces -- and any thing that reminds of them -- and its so finicky about removing even the last remanants that it is willing to throw the 'masculinity' element from the men's spaces, if it means being with other men.
So much so that talking about masculinity itself has become a taboo.
Of course, there's another angle to this issue, and which is that 'gays' have abused the word masculinity so much, by using it for themselves, when they -- being third gender -- have nothing to do with 'masculinity', that men who have taken on the 'straight' identity to distance themselves from the third gender, are forced to give up 'masculinity' itself.
And the queer elements in the heterosexual space are only too eager to point that out, and any talk of masculinity is quickly labelled as 'gay'.
So much so that talking about masculinity itself has become a taboo.
Of course, there's another angle to this issue, and which is that 'gays' have abused the word masculinity so much, by using it for themselves, when they -- being third gender -- have nothing to do with 'masculinity', that men who have taken on the 'straight' identity to distance themselves from the third gender, are forced to give up 'masculinity' itself.
And the queer elements in the heterosexual space are only too eager to point that out, and any talk of masculinity is quickly labelled as 'gay'.
what gives men the power to impose social manhood pressures on each other?
Why does it create so much pressure if any tom dick harry, but especially your peers or friends question your sexual interest in girls.
What gives their remark, so much power?
It is not that they have inherent power, and that’s make their remark so powerful, that you have no option but to submit to what they have said (and pursue girls in an apparent manner!). Well they do have power, that they get from falling in line with the social pressures. But what makes their remark doubly powerful is the fact that the pressure has already been created by the society. All they are doing is throwing the pressures at you.
So, we have to ask men to stop throwing the pressures at each other, in order to strengthen men's spaces and empower men.
What gives their remark, so much power?
It is not that they have inherent power, and that’s make their remark so powerful, that you have no option but to submit to what they have said (and pursue girls in an apparent manner!). Well they do have power, that they get from falling in line with the social pressures. But what makes their remark doubly powerful is the fact that the pressure has already been created by the society. All they are doing is throwing the pressures at you.
So, we have to ask men to stop throwing the pressures at each other, in order to strengthen men's spaces and empower men.
Their science and biology are wrong!!!
They will never be able to do justice to either human sexuality or biology unless and until they consider the universal phenomenon of strong sexual need of men for other men. Till they do that, everything that they find out about human sexuality will be a lie.
How does giving freedom to male female sex oppress bonds between men
I always sensed that giving such extreme freedom and validity to male-female sexuality, when man to man relationships are so condemned, will lead to extreme isolation of such feelings in the men's spaces. The more freedom male female expression of sexuality gets, the lesser will be the freedom for men to relate with each other. But I just couldnt explain why and how this would be so.
Now that i got the chance to see it first hand in an almost totally heterosexualised set up, dealing with two college straight men (at least in India they're still not known as straight men, but just men), I found out how it is achieved.
what happens is, as male female expression of sexuality gets freedom, it is promptly taken up by some men to score points in the intense race for manhood. And since the society now promotes that as 'manly', in fact a must to be a man, it soon becomes part of the race that every man must participate in if he wants to be considered a man.
In a similar fashion, some smart guys will always sense the extreme vulnerability of male to male sexual feelings that the forces of heterosexualisation create in such spaces and they are going to use it to gain that valuable extra point by putting down such feelings and men who indulge in them as 'gay'. And, in all likelihood, they will be boys/ men who feel the most strongly about male to male sexuality. However, men are not organised, at least not around this issue, and they only think about individual gain, and not how their actions are going to affect the entire male community. So, they kickstart a cut throat competition that assumes such enormous proportions and creates such intense hositlity that extends far beyond sexual or even emotional and becomes so intense that two friends or even brothers can't even hold hands without being called gay.
The society after isolating male to male sexuality in the third sex 'gay' label, then creates several sterotypes, all concerned with the third sex who like men, superimposing them on men who like men.
So, its not only your relationship with men, but even things like bringing tiffin to college will make you a 'gay' or 'queer', because real men don't bring tiffin to college.
And, so also, you are not supposed to be ashamed of being naked and humiliated in front of girls -- so men are sexually humiliated in front of females and they grin and bear it. Because, well, if they don't they will be isolated as 'gay'. And, nothing is more harmful to men than being labelled as 'gay'. it takes away their manhood, their right to be a man, their dignity, their pride. It makes him isolated in the men's group, and nothing is more humiliating to a man. No wonder that men prefer death than to be called 'gay'.
Now that i got the chance to see it first hand in an almost totally heterosexualised set up, dealing with two college straight men (at least in India they're still not known as straight men, but just men), I found out how it is achieved.
what happens is, as male female expression of sexuality gets freedom, it is promptly taken up by some men to score points in the intense race for manhood. And since the society now promotes that as 'manly', in fact a must to be a man, it soon becomes part of the race that every man must participate in if he wants to be considered a man.
In a similar fashion, some smart guys will always sense the extreme vulnerability of male to male sexual feelings that the forces of heterosexualisation create in such spaces and they are going to use it to gain that valuable extra point by putting down such feelings and men who indulge in them as 'gay'. And, in all likelihood, they will be boys/ men who feel the most strongly about male to male sexuality. However, men are not organised, at least not around this issue, and they only think about individual gain, and not how their actions are going to affect the entire male community. So, they kickstart a cut throat competition that assumes such enormous proportions and creates such intense hositlity that extends far beyond sexual or even emotional and becomes so intense that two friends or even brothers can't even hold hands without being called gay.
The society after isolating male to male sexuality in the third sex 'gay' label, then creates several sterotypes, all concerned with the third sex who like men, superimposing them on men who like men.
So, its not only your relationship with men, but even things like bringing tiffin to college will make you a 'gay' or 'queer', because real men don't bring tiffin to college.
And, so also, you are not supposed to be ashamed of being naked and humiliated in front of girls -- so men are sexually humiliated in front of females and they grin and bear it. Because, well, if they don't they will be isolated as 'gay'. And, nothing is more harmful to men than being labelled as 'gay'. it takes away their manhood, their right to be a man, their dignity, their pride. It makes him isolated in the men's group, and nothing is more humiliating to a man. No wonder that men prefer death than to be called 'gay'.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
First hand experience of Heterosexualised India for the first time
They'd created such an intense pressure to be heterosexual, to date girls, and they have also created such hostility towards male intimacy -- that its no wonder that a small 'gay' identity is now emerging, for men who just find totally left out from the mainstream male space and can't cope with the pressures.
However, it is a stark truth, more than in the West, that the gay space is an unmanly, undignified, third sex space... and most men would rather suppress their sexual need and need for intimacy than take up this space and identity -- or they may use it secretly, without taking on the identity.
Therefore in the end, its predominantly the queer male (that is the third gender, effeminate male) who likes men, who actively and happily takes up the gay identity.
And its the same in the West.
However, it is a stark truth, more than in the West, that the gay space is an unmanly, undignified, third sex space... and most men would rather suppress their sexual need and need for intimacy than take up this space and identity -- or they may use it secretly, without taking on the identity.
Therefore in the end, its predominantly the queer male (that is the third gender, effeminate male) who likes men, who actively and happily takes up the gay identity.
And its the same in the West.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Only the youth power can drive out heterosexualisation
If only young men who spent all their time, energy and talent trying to fit into social manhood, can spend it all on defeating the forces of heterosexualisation.
A look at how unfairly the West classifies people
To label a man who likes another man as 'gay' is rather like calling an Indian (South Asian) "black". It may suit the so-called whites to label everyone who is not as white as them as 'black', but then why should Indians take that identity. Not that there is anything wrong in being black. But that's just not us. In fact Indians are racially closer to the Europeans than to the Africans.
The double standards of the West in classifying people on the basis of race, on an unfair basis, can be easily seen from the fact that, if we were to consider only the colour of the skin -- then Chinese and Japanese men are have as white a skin as the Europeans. So, why don't we call Chinese and the Japanese as "whites". But then that will not suit the Western whites (well at least those who are in power).
The double standards of the West in classifying people on the basis of race, on an unfair basis, can be easily seen from the fact that, if we were to consider only the colour of the skin -- then Chinese and Japanese men are have as white a skin as the Europeans. So, why don't we call Chinese and the Japanese as "whites". But then that will not suit the Western whites (well at least those who are in power).
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Western Society Makes Queers Of Men
Today's westernised society in India is making namards (roughly translated in American English as 'queers') of men. In my office, I am unfortunately seeing how 19 and 20 year old guys are being deprived of their manhood, while the namards are now being defined as the real men (although they're still not called straights in India).
This society is also making men weak socially, by breaking man from man and by destroying men's spaces.
In my days, which is not really far off -- just about seven years ago, things were far more better. I have painfully watched men's manhood being taken through the Westernisation of the society, without being able to do something about it.
In my days, a young guy who spent time with the girls, because he was madly in love with one of them, was highly teased as Shikhandi (again 'queer'). Today, I see my 19 year old friend desperately trying to fit with the girls, so that they don't consider him 'queer'.
Spending time with girls really makes you queer (i.e. a half-man/ half woman, not someone who likes men), and its visible in the way these guys conduct themselves. Today, spending time with girls does give them social manhood, status and power as a man -- and that may hide their inner lack of manhood that the society has created. But, internally they are not men anymore.
In societies closer to nature, like innumerable tribal societies, as well as in traditional non-Christian societies, there have always been three groups of people -- Men, Women and Queers (i.e. people who were both men and women; only they were not seen as freaks, but normal people, and Queers were more likely to be heterosexual).
As in my days, in all these societies, it was a matter of great discredit for a man to go in the women's spaces. A normal man would not be seen dead in their spaces and would avoid female company normally. Likewise, the only women who'd even dare to venture into men's spaces were 'whores'. In tribal as well as traditional societies, only Queers (who were more often than not heterosexuals) would like to transgress male and female spaces.
Being a namard is not only an outer thing (i.e. being a eunuch)... One can also be a namard from inside. Being a namard (or queer or gay) is also not necessarily about taking it up the ass -- although a lot of eunuchs take it in because for them a social symbol of 'womanhood'/ queerhood.
Being a namard/ Queer/ Gay is about having both male and female both inside the same body. A hermaphrodite is one kind of namard. Another kind of namard -- and which is more ocmmon is the one who has a male body but is internally female. So, he would behave like women. Being a Gay is not about "liking another man", (all men are capable of liking another man!) as the Westernised society today propagates, but it is about being a female in male's body who likes men -- which in the case of gays or eunuchs, basically boils down to wanting to be penetrated by men.
So, what is being a Man or mard all about then.
Being a mard is not about 'fucking' a woman -- otherwise Hanuman would not have been the God of 'mards'. Being a man is about having a male body as well as soul. And socially, its about being a part of the men's spaces. Those who have men's body as well as soul naturally care about men's spaces. That's where they draw their strength and their manhood from. Witout men's spaces they are nothing. They become weak and vulnerable.
And that is what they have become today, after India's Westernisation.
Today's society teaches young men that being a man is about liking women. And, it is only about liking women and wanting to bond with them socially and emotionally, apart from sexually. So, that's what today's youth strives to do all the time -- love women. How it actually affects their manhood is a different matter.
In my own time, all one had to do to be a man was to get married and reproduce (at least for ordinary men...). Till then, you could relax and enjoy the men's spaces and male bonding, though, if you wanted to gain points over peers, you could also talk and talk about girls, or be more adventurous and evetease (today's generation doesn't seem to know what it meant to their predecessors), and a few would actually go and hump girls and then have a story to tell to their friends for the rest of their lives (although, it seems that the ones that really cared for sex with women, did it quietly without making a hullaballoo about it, and those who made hullaballoo were more likely than not exaggerating. We called them Badmaash!). There was no pressure to date whatsoever, and to be seen with girl/ girls was actually quite disreputable for a man, and even those micro minority who actually had a 'relationship' (they were always the older men, younger guys won't think much about it!) would do it sneakly.
Isn't it funny that ancient and traditional societies, all through the history considered contact with women to be an antithesis for manhood, and it was almost mandatory for warriors and pehalwans to keep away from women (they only did it for reproduction, much later in life). Even sexual contact was included as manly, only later in the course of human history -- that too to encourage reproduction.
Has nature changed since then? for the modern, Westernized society, it is not only the cursory sexual contact with women, but a complete emotional, social, mental and sexual contact which has become mandatory for men to be a man -- otherwise, they risk being isolated as 'gay'.
Obviously one of the societies is lying. Obviously only one could be correct -- for these are the two extremes. So which one is the correct one? Did the ancients knew better or does the 'scientific' West know it all?
While, I would like you to ponder over this, I'd like to touch upon a few other important points.
(more to come...)
This society is also making men weak socially, by breaking man from man and by destroying men's spaces.
In my days, which is not really far off -- just about seven years ago, things were far more better. I have painfully watched men's manhood being taken through the Westernisation of the society, without being able to do something about it.
In my days, a young guy who spent time with the girls, because he was madly in love with one of them, was highly teased as Shikhandi (again 'queer'). Today, I see my 19 year old friend desperately trying to fit with the girls, so that they don't consider him 'queer'.
Spending time with girls really makes you queer (i.e. a half-man/ half woman, not someone who likes men), and its visible in the way these guys conduct themselves. Today, spending time with girls does give them social manhood, status and power as a man -- and that may hide their inner lack of manhood that the society has created. But, internally they are not men anymore.
In societies closer to nature, like innumerable tribal societies, as well as in traditional non-Christian societies, there have always been three groups of people -- Men, Women and Queers (i.e. people who were both men and women; only they were not seen as freaks, but normal people, and Queers were more likely to be heterosexual).
As in my days, in all these societies, it was a matter of great discredit for a man to go in the women's spaces. A normal man would not be seen dead in their spaces and would avoid female company normally. Likewise, the only women who'd even dare to venture into men's spaces were 'whores'. In tribal as well as traditional societies, only Queers (who were more often than not heterosexuals) would like to transgress male and female spaces.
Being a namard is not only an outer thing (i.e. being a eunuch)... One can also be a namard from inside. Being a namard (or queer or gay) is also not necessarily about taking it up the ass -- although a lot of eunuchs take it in because for them a social symbol of 'womanhood'/ queerhood.
Being a namard/ Queer/ Gay is about having both male and female both inside the same body. A hermaphrodite is one kind of namard. Another kind of namard -- and which is more ocmmon is the one who has a male body but is internally female. So, he would behave like women. Being a Gay is not about "liking another man", (all men are capable of liking another man!) as the Westernised society today propagates, but it is about being a female in male's body who likes men -- which in the case of gays or eunuchs, basically boils down to wanting to be penetrated by men.
So, what is being a Man or mard all about then.
Being a mard is not about 'fucking' a woman -- otherwise Hanuman would not have been the God of 'mards'. Being a man is about having a male body as well as soul. And socially, its about being a part of the men's spaces. Those who have men's body as well as soul naturally care about men's spaces. That's where they draw their strength and their manhood from. Witout men's spaces they are nothing. They become weak and vulnerable.
And that is what they have become today, after India's Westernisation.
Today's society teaches young men that being a man is about liking women. And, it is only about liking women and wanting to bond with them socially and emotionally, apart from sexually. So, that's what today's youth strives to do all the time -- love women. How it actually affects their manhood is a different matter.
In my own time, all one had to do to be a man was to get married and reproduce (at least for ordinary men...). Till then, you could relax and enjoy the men's spaces and male bonding, though, if you wanted to gain points over peers, you could also talk and talk about girls, or be more adventurous and evetease (today's generation doesn't seem to know what it meant to their predecessors), and a few would actually go and hump girls and then have a story to tell to their friends for the rest of their lives (although, it seems that the ones that really cared for sex with women, did it quietly without making a hullaballoo about it, and those who made hullaballoo were more likely than not exaggerating. We called them Badmaash!). There was no pressure to date whatsoever, and to be seen with girl/ girls was actually quite disreputable for a man, and even those micro minority who actually had a 'relationship' (they were always the older men, younger guys won't think much about it!) would do it sneakly.
Isn't it funny that ancient and traditional societies, all through the history considered contact with women to be an antithesis for manhood, and it was almost mandatory for warriors and pehalwans to keep away from women (they only did it for reproduction, much later in life). Even sexual contact was included as manly, only later in the course of human history -- that too to encourage reproduction.
Has nature changed since then? for the modern, Westernized society, it is not only the cursory sexual contact with women, but a complete emotional, social, mental and sexual contact which has become mandatory for men to be a man -- otherwise, they risk being isolated as 'gay'.
Obviously one of the societies is lying. Obviously only one could be correct -- for these are the two extremes. So which one is the correct one? Did the ancients knew better or does the 'scientific' West know it all?
While, I would like you to ponder over this, I'd like to touch upon a few other important points.
(more to come...)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
how deeply the society has suppressed men...
Isn't it an indication of how deeply the society has suppressed men's sexual need for other men, that a trait which was so basic to the overwhelming majority of men, has been obliterated socially from amidst them for so long that people are shocked and surprised when they see instances of them in the society -- even in the majority of men who themselves are struggling their own sexual feelings for other men.
Those who're the worst affected play the most important part unwittingly in heterosexualisation
Unfortunately, its the VERY young men who are going to be the worst affected by the heterosexualisation of the society and relaxing of regulations on women, that actively participate in making it happen, all for short term gains (in terms of social manhood).
E.g. A collegiate friend insists that his mother is o.k. with girls leaving "i luv u" messages on his phone, and that he is not afraid of his mother, when he neither wants that message from that girl, neither is his mother o.k. with it.
E.g. A collegiate friend insists that his mother is o.k. with girls leaving "i luv u" messages on his phone, and that he is not afraid of his mother, when he neither wants that message from that girl, neither is his mother o.k. with it.
Why is it important to put limits on women's sexuality?
Why is it important to put regulations on women's freedom to talk about sex and to ask it of men...
because men are not empowered to say 'no' to women.
Unless and until men get that power, it is totally oppressive to lift these regulations from women, as is done in westernised societies.
because men are not empowered to say 'no' to women.
Unless and until men get that power, it is totally oppressive to lift these regulations from women, as is done in westernised societies.
No leeway for young men in heterosexual spaces
Today's heterosexual spaces leave so little leeway for young men to say no to girls, and there's hardly any young man in these spaces who has not been sexually exploited by sexually aggressive girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)