This is a thread to discuss a unique form of oppression which has been practised since the ancient times. It’s an extremely potent form of oppression which makes sure that people are willfully enslaved within oppressive ideological confines for centuries without realising what afflicts them. This oppression creates a unique mechanism which has the potential to alter human behaviour sometimes perhaps permanently --- behaviour that harms people in several ways. Escape from this mechanism is almost impossible.

This is the politics of social identities. It creates a mechanism whereby artificial ideologies developed by those in power are institutionalised into social identities. The objective is to consolidate power that these groups are enjoying for whatever reason. These identities are then propagated as basic, even natural human identities. This makes sure that people are then divided on the basis of these identities and groups belonging to different identities become sworn enemies. It also severely limits human choices as people are confined by their identities. The mechanism favours and gives unreasonable power to the preferred social group over the rest --- leading to further exploitation of the disempowered group by the powerful group.

This thread is meant to discuss such social identities and how they have harmed or benefitted (if any!) humankind. We’ll also look at emerging trends and find out ways to deal with them --- nip them in the bud. We’ll try to see who is benefitted by these mechanisms and who stands to loose.

I can think of three prominent instances of politicising social identities. These are:

- The Indian caste system: incorporation of human professions into social identities started in ancient India.

- Religion: incorporation of human spiritual needs into social identities called religion by Christianity and Islam in the medieval times.

- Sexual orientation: incorporation of claimed/ (often indirectly) enforced sexual preferences into social identities of straight, gay and bisexual by the modern heterosexual west.

Let’s discuss them in detail.

Do also post more examples of politics of social identity.

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality

Heterosexuality:

Heterosexuality is the institutionalisation of the tremendous social power that has traditionally been accorded to male-female sex --- because of its procreative value --- into a social identity, in order to consolidate that power and ensure its perpetuity for all times to come.

Heterosexuality seeks to remove the burden of procreation from male-female sex, through social measures (e.g. breaking it from marriage!) and through artificial technologies (like condoms!) in order to make itself biologically possible.

It also seeks to remove the other major hurdles in it's way --- male-male sexual bonds and the tendency of the men and women to stick to their own sexes and live in separate social spaces.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is the institutionalisation of the tremendous disempowerment of male-male sexual bonds (a disempowerment which was initiated in the ancient civilisations in order to make the artificial institution of male-female marriage possible) by the modern west into a disempowered, denigrated, demasculinised and marginalised social identity --- in order to further solidify its disempowerment and to ensure the perpetuation of this disempowerment for all times to come.

Homosexuality seeks to effectively discourage male-male sexual bonds amongst the masculine (straight) male population by artificially binding such bonds and desires into a social identity which belongs to the feminine gendered male.

What compounds the disempowerment of male-male bonds is that femininity in males has been persecuted, denigrated and misrepresented for a long time, and this in all probability also has its roots in the social mechanisms to make marriages possible (a topic for further discussion). The marriage institution, by bringing the male and female together into a family unit, made the feminine gendered male redundant, as their most important social (and also perhaps biological) function was as the link between the men and women --- who are naturally meant to live separate lives.

Simliarities between Heterosexaulity and Homosexuality:

Both Heterosexuality and homosexuality suit a minor section of the society --- (chiefly meterosexuals on both the sides of the heterosexual/ homosexual divide and a small proportion of women) who are the most ardent supporters of forced heterosexualisation of a society (like Islamisation, heterosexualisation is also always forced initially -- being a process against nature). Both heterosexuality and homosexuality together are especially harsh on straight men with a predominant need to bond with other men, and transgendered males with a predominant need to bond with women --- who are seen almost as contradictions of nature (in a society that has turned nature upside down by playing havoc with it)

Both heterosexaulity and homosexuality depend on forced merger of the two human sexes --- men and women (while forcibly demarcating clearly, the borders between the 'homosexual' and the heterosexual). Unless the society is heterosexualised (made mixed gender + traditional masculinity social roles), the whole notion of sexual orientation or those of heterosexuality and homosexuality has no validity.

Bisexuality

The bisexual identity, for all practical purposes, is used by some straight men with a predominant desire to bond with men, in order to avoid the severity of isolation that the homosexual identity brings and to avoid forced social femininity.

The bulk of straight men who have a sexual need for men --- including those with a strong need, however prefers to stay well within the safety of the 'heterosexual' identity, even if it is a farce for them. Many play the role of the 'heterosexual' to the hilt.

Why is this thread of mine ignored? What have you people got against it? :bugeye: :D

Thought of the day:

Just like religion had fixated the 'permanent' and extreme persecution of same-sex bonds for the future, by making them a sin, Science has fixated their 'permanent' persecution for all times to come (in the face of religion losing power) by making them into 'sexual identity'.

Why is this thread of mine ignored? What have you people got against it? :bugeye: :D

Budda1, I'll simply say this just prior to placing you on my ignore list. You've got a severe sexual fixation - to the point of being a chronic obsession. Though you can sometimes (rarely) bend yourself to other topics, it pretty much eventually reverts to your very warped view of sexuality.

I still say you're a fraud (and a sick one, at that!) because you never once saw fit to even provide us with any quotes from your "many publication." You could have easily done at least that without revealing your identity to anyone.

So it is my contention that you are a liar, a fraud and a sexual pervert.

I will not bid you farewell because I honestly do not wish you well.

End.

Budda1, I'll simply say this just prior to placing you on my ignore list. You've got a severe sexual fixation - to the point of being a chronic obsession. Though you can sometimes (rarely) bend yourself to other topics, it pretty much eventually reverts to your very warped view of sexuality.

I still say you're a fraud (and a sick one, at that!) because you never once saw fit to even provide us with any quotes from your "many publication." You could have easily done at least that without revealing your identity to anyone.

So it is my contention that you are a liar, a fraud and a sexual pervert.

I will not bid you farewell because I honestly do not wish you well.

End.
The summary of my answer to your blabber is that I have always given justifications, reasoning, and evidences for whatever I have said. I want my statements to be evaluated for their own validity, not because of what I have published.

My publications are not 'research papers'. They are information materials, anyone can publish. It's easier to lie in the things that you publish, but you cannot escape lying if you do it on this forum, where people are ready to mow you down for even the slightest mistake that you make.

That I have stayed so far --- and it has been a long time --- without anyone being able to prove me wrong even once (maybe once or twice on a side statement), proves you nothing more than a frustrated 'vested interest person

And thank you, you are a pervert yourself!.

End!

Budda1, I'll simply say this just prior to placing you on my ignore list.
Are you scared of the reply, that you must play hide and seek. Like in, come out from your hiding place, 'shoot', 'shoot'! and then immediately go back into hiding?

A hint:

You ignore the truth and ..... SURPRISE, Surprise!!! The truth doesn't go away!

Thought of the day:

Just like religion had fixated the 'permanent' and extreme persecution of same-sex bonds for the future, by making them a sin, Science has fixated their 'permanent' persecution for all times to come (in the face of religion losing power) by making them into 'sexual identity'.

Unless, we defeat and expose science's role in this, we cannot liberate men!

i dont see the problem with social indentity....

whats the problem?

-MT

liberate us from what??

for what??? to follow you? and your secular Atheism???

that will help alot.

i dont see the problem with social indentity....

whats the problem?

-MT

liberate us from what??

for what??? to follow you? and your secular Atheism???

that will help alot.
I don't belong to any 'isms'!

Liberate men from their enormous pressures that don't let them be who they are. Pressures that have bound them, and taken away their freedom eversince the inception of the marriage institution, but exacerbated by the modern/ western/ heterosexual society who have driven men to a corner.

So it is my contention that you are a liar, a fraud and a sexual pervert.

I will not bid you farewell because I honestly do not wish you well.
And what is my fault?

That I am talking about things that are not supposed to be acknowledged?

That I am divulging the 'secrets' of the straight world, that has been a 'secret' only because of the strict 'censure' on its discussion? A 'censure' that I have dared to break.

That I am disrobing the biggest kept social lie --- and exposing the naked truth?

And why shouldn't I do that? Isn't it time that men looked at the whole thing and asked WHY?

[QUOTE=Buddha1]

That I am disrobing the biggest kept social lie --- and exposing the naked truth?

QUOTE]

another thing,you're very arrogant

Please people! Let's at least be serious for a moment!

And Buddha1, maybe you should take your own advice and talk about sexual preference only when it is needed. I believe you told me the same thing in the gender thread!

Yes, it is important as far as social identity is concerned. You did seem to focus on it a bit excessively when starting this thread, though.

Just a comment/suggestion, is all.

Racial identity

People often define themselves by race and/or skin color. Black power? Black racism? Yes, it does exist!

I've seen some outlandish pro-African racial propaganda before, akin to Aryanism only this was more Africanism, with the black race being somehow superior.

Would you believe it involved some rather outlandish theories about how the melanin (skin pigment) concentration in Africans somehow increases intelligence. The theory was, needless to say, a bit pseudo-scientific. Better yet, New Age is a label that would suit it just fine.

I am prepared to write more on this, a little later.
Since black people are probably the most visible minority (in the US that is), even more visible than Hispanics simply because of their history in the United States and the stark contrast in physical appearance, I notice them more. So I will probably focus on that, since it's easier! :p
After all, they have at least one television network, called Black Entertainment Television.
I have read commentary on the rather elitist attitude of having a television channel for a specific skin color, and that White Entertainment Television would be obliterated before it got off the ground.
It seems to imply that if you're black, you're entertained by what they have to offer! Seems to, that is.

Any persons of color out there? Specifically of African ancestry who would care to comment on the popular black culture and what African identity means to the common black man?

I will just say that over the years I have increasingly noticed how minorities conform to their own stereotypes. If you're like us, you talk this way, these issues concern you, this is the music that WE like, please be like your brothers and sisters. It gives them a sense of community, of belonging, and possibly a feeling of being somehow better than outsiders, other races.
The gay community in general, though not a specific race, also tend to corner themselves into their own niche. Gay power, rights, agenda (though that term is generally used by anti-gay conservatives), lifestyle tend to dictate how people with "alternative" sexual preferences should think and act.

Mentality of the minorities.

How bout some examples of this very real, and sometimes harmful, phenomenon!

Racial identity
Any persons of color out there? Specifically of African ancestry who would care to comment on the popular black culture and what African identity means to the common black man?


Or UNcommon?

Buddha,
You started a thread that showed tremendous promise but you've been unable to build upon it.


I think that social groupings as a whole sharing ideologies, some identity, and a contrast provide a relatively easy avenue for the power hungry. Said constructs are further susceptible to oppression and manipulation when wholly accepted by society at large and integrated into the social mechanism. Thus, someone born into a society accepts the ideologies/values of the social grouping he is 'belongs'. Injustice/Oppression, etc therefore become meaningless as the member is disallowed a proper frame of reference. Hoepfully after the football game is over I shall have time to further expound on one of the categories.

in the meantime....

That I am disrobing the biggest kept social lie --- and exposing the naked truth?

And why shouldn't I do that? Isn't it time that men looked at the whole thing and asked WHY?

i want to but cant look if you do not post pic
hope you are cute
age and location?

this "naked truth"....is it big and stuff?

/pant :o

in the meantime....



i want to but cant look if you do not post pic
hope you are cute
age and location?

this "naked truth"....is it big and stuff?

/pant :o

That very funny!

Now what about black power?

Religion is just a powerful organization that has controlled the world for a long time.

better to be secular humanists than to falsely believe we are all divided by some arbitrary bullshit like religion - and then fight endless wars because we THINK we are "different".

better to be a secular humanist than to shout "bakalakakah" while killing fellow human beings.

Doesn't all this boil down to a very basic "In Group/Out Group" phenom?
In the big scope of things, it doesn't get more elementary than that; why is it such a misunderstood concept, and why are we seemingly unable to rise above it?
(Maybe because it IS so elementary...)

Buddha,
You started a thread that showed tremendous promise but you've been unable to build upon it.
My apologies. I just wanted to shake people into coming here. See this thread has been lying 'vacant' for a couple of months now.

Your input was valuable. I look forward to more.

Ok, let’s take as a start, religions.

I believe that all large social groups can exist only when members feel a part of the group—when members associate themselves with the group through set structures. All societies therefore have rituals they maintain, and said rituals usually form around ubiquitous natural occurrences like death, life, harvest, etc. Thus from the onset, the first societies usually had simplistic rituals around these occurrences, which through habit and time became sacred. The attachment of sacredness to rituals of course begets an elite to preside over these rituals. Over generations, structures develop along the rituals as they became more imbedded into society. They grow with society and blend into the social lives of the group, and are therefore harder to challenge.

The development and acceptance of the social group of for example, a caste system, is a gradual process that must have developed over a sacred. Citizens accept fewer rights over generations; each subsequent generation finds it easier to accept the existing fabric or rules that govern it. The problem as I see it is twofold:

One, as religions evolve within societies, they mold and take the shape of the society’s mores and values. Therefore, the abuses and neglects of religion often go unnoticed. The rules developed for the benefit of the elite and its structure might impact society in the devaluing/valuing of a gender, genetic traits, etc. However, since developed over centuries, they are accepted parts of social life. The elite even takes its advantages for granted, the abuses imparted by the elite or ruling group over its servants is unnoticed by the elite. That the peasant works and gives half of what he earns to the church is just an accepted part of life, and not seen necessarily as an abuse. That sexual aggression is limited or that human sexuality becomes highly constricted is seen more as a social rule as opposed to a religious structure that has become part of society.

Two, social structures must necessarily exist since the members of any given group must identify with some form of social structure, it is not so easy as all religions must be destroyed or all social structures must be destroyed. The reasoning is that the destruction of one simple means the creation of another structure—structures must exist, and ritualistic structures even more so, else societies cannot exist; and two, these structures form the fabric of value systems, etc. and influence our way of thought even when we challenge these social structures. And yet by their very existence said structures, especially religion, which has the affirmation of a sacred, are by nature breeding grounds for the elite and easy avenues for those willing to abuse.

better to be secular humanists than to falsely believe we are all divided by some arbitrary bullshit like religion - and then fight endless wars because we THINK we are "different".

better to be a secular humanist than to shout "bakalakakah" while killing fellow human beings.
The question is why can't we believe in god and still don't see each other as different.

The point that you're missing here is that:

- by institutionalising faith in god into a social identity;

- by making out others as enemies (as done by Christianity and perfected by Islam);

- by makiing 'their' gods different from 'ours', (the other gods were 'evil' while 'ours' the real one!);

- by making proselytising into 'our' identity a 'noble' task;

- by making the protection and furtherance of 'our' religious identity as our primary duty towards 'god', even (especially) by killing or converting the non-believers as 'evil'!;

the makers of organised religion, while consolidating their social power, sowed the seeds of endless vioilence and hatred amongst human beings.

Human beings who originally all saw god in a similar way --- into symbols of nature, into ideal human beings......and had immense respect for each others gods and goddesses, and never considered each other different on account of what 'god' one worshipped, nor used it as a social identity.

better to be secular humanists than to falsely believe we are all divided by some arbitrary bullshit like religion - and then fight endless wars because we THINK we are "different".

better to be a secular humanist than to shout "bakalakakah" while killing fellow human beings.
While what you're saying is right, things should not have come to this pass!

When tommorrow so-called heterosexuals and homosexuals will be ready to kill each other because of their enmity, you might say, better to be asexual than to be homosexual or heteroseuxal!

- by makiing 'their' gods different from 'ours', (the other gods were 'evil' while 'ours' the real one!);
While Christianity (and Islam) incorporated faith in god into a social identity and saw themselves as Christians and Muslims, they also went about giving other faiths an identity too (whether they wanted it or not!) --- even when the other faiths did not quite see themselves as a matter of identity, and did not consider the 'gods' or prophets of the others as 'different' or 'evil' or 'enemies' and did not see Christianity or Islam as a threat.

Today we are firmly divided into various religious identities! The only way not to have a religious social identity is not to believe in god at all, and that is only available to the westerners.

So a Muslim will be considered a Muslim, even if he doesn't believe in Islam!

But even today non-Christian/ Islamic religions see these two religions with equal respect and reverence as they give to their own gods/ goddesses, and trust them easily, completely ignorant of the fact that these religions see them basically as enemies to be wiped off from the face of the earth.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990