THE STORY OF MAN'S OPPRESSION
Mr Anonymous said:
But surely, were that claim in anyway true, how exactly does society as it stands, in your opinion, come into being in the first place?
Societies have to form at some point, presumably at the very beginning. Now, if your assertion is true, this original conglomeration of peoples into "Society" must have been made up exclusively of individuals free from these sorts of social conditioning factors you yourself site which could only have come into play after society was first formed.
That being the case, these Natural Men as you call them, would have been calling the shots, making the rules, setting the standards by which society forms - so how come everything's as "artificial" as your position claims?
Where did us unnatural Heterosexuals come from, if the sociological structures we initially must have originated were populated by real Natural ones, such as your self...?
Esp said:
Surely in the beginnings of the definition of not only polarized roles, but of society, there were some ambient, physical, real if you like, factors determining the initial sexotypes (yes, Ok, I admit I made that word up, but if it works...).
It seems that it is a Darwinian progression that brought such a state of affairs from one man hitting a woman over the head and dragging her off to have his way, to the (dare I say it?) enforced stereotypes with which we now live.
It has been a rolling ball, over thousands of years, amd we cannot attribute blame against one sex for having enforced this state if we do not deliver proportionalte blame to the other sex for having allowed it to be so.
Over just a hundred years, the lines definite to sexual control have moved an incredible amount. You may not have noticed, but they're moving again.
That is not to say that 'man' is right to have perpetuated what once was, but equally, if 'woman' had kicked up a fuss a little earlier, perhaps this discussion would not be taking place?
c20H25N3o said:
Who artificially handed heterosexuals the artifical power to artificially disempower 'real natural men' whoever they may be? Man this is some kind of sucky challenge. I am heterosexual, now what on earth are you going on about?
At the dawn of the human civilisation, men and women lived as two distinct groups, Women’s primary drive in life was to raise children. They raised them together with other women. Sex with men was primarily meant for reproduction. Any sexual bonding/ intimacy happened only amongst women. Men, like his cousin the Chimpanzees, mated with women only occasionally, most mated a few times in their lives and many preferring not to mate at all. The primary drive of men was to bond with other men --- this bond helped them to stay together in strongly bonded groups, when otherwise their competition instinct would make them kill each other. The survival of the male group depended upon how cohesive they were. It ensured that they could find food, protect their clan from enemy gangs and it even helped in mating with the female, when the time came. Only as much procreation happened as the nature could sustain healthily --- so that humans could live without disrupting the nature.
Initially, (and that must have been the way for a long time) there was a group of males that did not consider itself male, so did not live in the male group --- nor did things that other men did – including bonding with other men. They either lived with the women’s group as ‘women’ and bonded with them (as in the case of sheep) or perhaps they paired off with women and lived seperately from both the women’s and men’s group (as with sea lions). They were neither men nor women. That is the closest we can get to ‘heterosexuals’ in natural times. And they were Transexuals. These men were considered two-spirited (both man and woman in the same body) and given a lot of restpect. They often practised as priests, healers, etc. Transexuals/ Heterosexuals performed an extemely important function --- that of being the bridge between two totally distinct groups of men and women.
Being included in the man’s group was extremely important for masculine gendered men. It was a matter of life and death, for a man could not live on his own if somehow he was not included in the man’s group. Male children grew up in the women’s group till they reached adolescence. Then they were initiated into the male group. The Initiation usually included ‘tests’ that the boy had to go through. These ‘tests’ or the original ‘proofs’ of manhood tested the man’s masculinity and his ability to hunt, fight etc.
The boy was paired off with an older youth in a marriage like ceremony which might have included rituals where the older youth put his semen into the boy which symbolically meant that he was being purified of his femininity (after spending so many years in the female group) and the entry of semen symbolised giving manhood to the boy.
But some boys, including the ‘heterosexual’ boys could not complete the tests. The heterosexual boys were not considered boys in the first place and they were honorably exempt from the test. They had a different course in life. But masculine gendered boys who failed had it tough. They were excluded from the male group. They then lived as lesser men, which meant they had little access to community’s resources, no chance of bonding with another man and no chance of mating with a female.
It was a thing of great honour to be included as a ‘man’ and a great dishonour to be a ‘lesser man’. This is the original concept of ‘manhood’ which later became ‘social manhood’ (and in the modern west ‘straighthood’). A man’s honour or manhood could also be lost after he proved himself as a man --- e.g. if he broke an important custom or showed cowardice in war. It was possible, perhaps, for lesser and outcast men to gain back their honour and social status when they fulfilled certain conditions, e.g., bringing the head of an enemy.
*****************
At one point in the development of human civilisation, when humans started settling in far flung isolated areas, they needed to increase their population more than was possible naturally. This is the reason why a social mechanism was introduced that sought to bind men into social contracts with women (the marriage institution). Men were given several sops, which in due course of time, included ownership of ‘wife’ and ‘children’ (lineage) and easy social manhood. Eventhough the woman gave birth to the child, it was hailed as a man’s achievment. Thus, producing a son came to mean that the man had finally proved his manhood and was worthy of inclusion in the male group --- a group which had suffered a blow after the marriage institution required man and woman to live together.
Sexual bonds between men were a great hindrance since the beginning of the marriage institution, because (a) they were extremely common, (b) they were the preferred bonds and thus stopped men from diverting their sexual energy towards women for procreation, and (b) such bonds made men powerful, and prone to being rebels/ nuisance in enforcing the marriage institution. This heralded efforts to reign in such bonds.By the time of the Greeks, male bonds were celebrated and institutionalised but only for a certain time (first half) in a man’s life. He had to perform his social duty of procreation and raising of children in the other half of his life. But the life for men was still balanced between natural needs and social duty.
However producing a child was not the only way to prove one’s manhood (and this was the case till the modern times) and certainly did not completely replace important masculine characteristics. Procreation was especially exempted for macho/ warrior traditions where men did not have to mate with women --- in fact it was forbidden and seen as a feminising factor for men. But for ordinary men, marriage was also linked with competition between men thus increasing the importance of male-female bonds in a man’s life. Winning a bride increased a man’s honour. Then there were several punishments for not ‘marrying’ without a socially acceptable reason (acceptable reasons included: following the macho or spiritual path).. This came to include depriving the man of social manhood which meant barring him from the male community and throwing him together with lesser men. As time passed by and ‘straight’ men and women started sharing life, bringing down the difference between man and woman, the importance of feminine males (heterosexuals) decreased, and soon femininity became a redundant quality. Soon the category of lesser males --- the dust bin for rejected, dishonoured and outcaste men was combined with the third sex/ gender.
There are two possibilities about the existence of ‘homosexuals’ of today in the ancient world. They were either exceptions amongst the transexuals or they are a result of social feminising of men (through marriage) translating into biological feminising through evolution over a long period of time (Scientists have been talking about this possibility!). But by the time of the Greeks, when sexual bonds between men was highly regulated, though still institutionalised, the third sex was allowed to have sex with men --- and we know of a special category of third sex --- the catamites who were disgraced as people who want to have receptive anal intercourse with men as an assertion of their femininity. By the time of the Greeks penetrative sex (whether with a man or woman) became the hallmark of a man, and receptive anal sex that of women and third sex.
However, there are also evidences that from Greek times till the medieval times, the third sex had a respectable and powerful place in the society – at least in non-Christian societies. E.g. Alexander is said to have been in love with a powerful eunuch. So, it is possible that the thing about catamites could have exaggerated by writers in the Christian era who wrote about the Greek times.
Around the Christian era, the category of lesser males was officially called the ‘third-sex’ even though they had a powerful position in the society and were considered a source of sexual gratification for men. Thus men, it was believed could have sex with men, women and the third sex. Anyone who was physically unfit to reproduce was thrown into the ‘third sex’ category. It included impotent men, hermaphrodites and eunuchs. The eunuch thing was probably initiated by transexuals who used it to rid themselves of the male identity, although men were also castrated by nobles who kept them to safeguard their harems.
Men who refused to get married without the acceptable excuses ran the risk of being thrown into the ‘third-sex’ category (which had no place for masculine gendered men). They were assumed to be physically incapable to have sex. There was no concept of there not being a sexual interest. Marriages were never thought of as being there to fulfill sexual urges. They were there primarily to sustain reproduction. And interest or no interest, if you are capable of producing a child you must marry and prove your manhood. In later times however the focus of social manhood shifted from reproduction to a ‘capability’ to have sex with women, although producing a son was still important. In fact having a son became the final proof of being ‘capable’ to have sex with women.
Thus masculine men who had little sexual interest in women at all, or those who had an interest in sex but no inlination to share their lives with women could either decide to force themselves to get married (it was not such a big deal though, all you needed to do was to fuck them once in a blue moon and beget a child. Once you got a son, your social manhood and honour were safe) or could choose a spiritual or (especially in case of macho men) choose a macho/ warrior tradition which required men to keep away from women. The society allowed this as a respectable excuse/ cover from marriage without running the risk of being thrown into the ‘third sex’ category. These sects of spiritual or macho traditions openly celebrated male bonds --- including sexual intimacy, although later when societies banned these feelings, the sects disguised their traditons involving male eroticism and sexual bonding.
********************
Christianity (and later Islam) changed the course of human civilisation by making man’s spiritual needs into a matter of social identity (much like what the west has done with his sexual needs today), in order to consolidate the powers that came from people’s faith in God. They needed to expand and rule the world, and thus needed to grow their population, and sexual bonds between men which were too common and acceptable in their era --- even glorified by earlier Christian sects called Gnostics/ heretics --- were a great annoyance. So they played their most potent card and brought in God to rule ‘sex between men’ as one of the gravest sins punishable by death. Earlier cultures were content with restricting male-male bonds, they did not need to wipe them off totally from the mainstream male society. By using people’s blind faith, religion now blatantly used violence to kill men, till sexual bonds between men went totally underground and/ or was restricted to a few.
But even then the society did not make a distinction between sexual desire for men and sexual desire for women, nor did it think that men who have sexual desire for men are different and seperate than those who have sexual desire for women. Or that most men are not capabable of sexual desire for other men. In fact, they knew too well that men in general have a tendency to get sexually attached with other men. Old timers still say that if the society talks about ‘homosexuality’ (sic) positively, everyone will become a ‘homosexual’ (sic).
In the medieval era, in some parts of the world initial attempts were made to reign in sexual bonds between men by using a weapon even more powerful than religion --- that of social manhood. Perhaps these efforts were limited to the academic/ scholarly sections which did not have a large influence. Sex with men was associated as intricately linked with the disgraced third sex (as evidenced by the book Kamsutra, although it also talks of sexual acts indulged in by two men). And though men were considered capable of indulging in sex with other men, it was considered as dishonourable for men. It seems to have a strong effect --- in those places where sexual bonds between men went underground without violence.
In due course of time Christian societies too adopted this extremely effective strategy of controlling sex between men in the mainstream society by making it dishonourable thing and associating this desire with the third sex. The Christian societies of course used this in addition with the violent laws that forbade sex between men. Non Christian/ Islamic societies knew of no conscious effort by the society to punish sex between men. These societies just stopped acknowledging that sex between men takes place.
But sexual intimacy between men still flourished all over the world --- although secretly, in disguise and behind the scenes --- whether because of a fear of violence or that of social dishonour. The third gender/ sex (today’s homosexuals) feared violence more, they did not care much for social manhood. But social mascullinity had a strong impact on the outward sexual behaviour or masculine (today’s straight) men. One thing that helped this was that inspite of the marriage institution, men and women still lived largely separate lives (in keeping with their nature) and male-female bonds were highly uncommon --- even though the society had started celebrating them through arts and culture. And there were plenty of social opportunities. Such intimacies could easily flourish in the guise of male friendships, as deep male friendships were still celebrated. And physical closeness between men was very common. In addition, the sects of men that exempted men from marriage were still strong, though they had hidden the erotic element in them. And in many non-Christian societies --- the noblemen were allowed to develop sexual intimacies with other men, though they were still restricted for the common man.
*****************
The modern west changed all that. It all started as religion started loosing its influence and sceince took over. Religious power could no longer be used to keep men from bonding with other men. And then another new thing happened. The ancient social mechanism of male oppression (through its reward and punishment strategies to control male sexual behaviour) had given extraordinary powers/ benefits to a section of the society (including some men and women) who are minority. These ‘vested interests’* sought to consolidate this power in the new age through a process called ‘heterosexualisation’ of the society.
The heterosexualisation of a society includes the following:
- abolishing all male-only spaces and making them mixed gender spaces with heterosexual values.
- Abolishing all social customs that may facilitate disguised/ behind the scenes bonding between men and enforcing heterosexual customs like dating, mixed-sex dancing, male-female social kissing, etc. Thus while man and woman can walk hand in hand in public, kiss publicly and even share a bed without eyebrows being raised, in many parts of the heterosexual world two men walking hand in hand may attract hostile cries of ‘homo’ or ‘fags’.
- Glorifying male-female casual sex, and freeing it from the burden of procreation/ marriage.
- Throwing all other human relations in the back ground: Male female sexual desire becomes the supreme human quality upon which the entire society is hinged. The right of the male-female couple is the supreme, superceding that even of one’s parents and siblings. Divorces and single parenthood become common as marriages are now based on shaky male-female romance rather than the social duty to raise children.
- Homosexualisation of male-male love: The heat on male-male love is intensified, making it an unmanly quality that robs a man of his social manhood and power, and throwing it into the feminised/queer/marginalised homosexual space. Introducing the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ was one of the important tools to isolate men who still bonded with men. They abolished the traditional and natural division of men based on their gender and introduced an ‘unnatural’ division based on ‘sexual orientation’.
- Breaking men from men: Creating a social condition where men just can’t bond with each other apart from superficially. Man stops relating with other men and is trained from the beginning to relate with women. Heterosexualisation creates a wall between men.
- Feminising and disempowering men: Taking away men’s rights, and increasing his social masculinity pressures.
- Giving extraordinary and exploitative powers to women: The
* The vested interest groups include the follwing: Whether this group naturally exists among humans or has been a result of centuries of feminising of males is difficult to find out.
- Meterosexual men:
o True Heterosexuals: Although transexual males who are the real heterosexuals are excluded from the ‘straight’ group, men who have a strong femininity in them are a strong vested interest group. In a traditional society they risk being thrown into the ‘lesser male’ category unless femininity in men is given its due place.
o True Homosexuals: Although, the heterosexual society treats homosexuals as second class citizens, it has given them a separate space, where they exercise a lot of control and power. They have also grown very strong politically.
- Masculine, sexually aggressive women: There are women who are inclined to control men. For them sex and romance with men is more important in life than raising children --- which is seen as a burden. Again whether this group already exists in nature or is a creation of our environment, we will never know..
You are gullible if you do not critically analyze every word the media and movies say. A false article in Newsweek, one of our most respected periodicals, could be responsible for muslim riots that resulted in deaths.