Masculinity and men

[duendy]

Hinduism is a patriarchial society, but Goddess worship is extremely strong there. And so was it in the ancient Greece and Egypt --- which were both patriarchal societies. So I think patriarchy in itself has little to do with not worshipping god in a female form. I think it has more to do with monotheism.

EVEn in very ancinet shamanic culture we can see the gleamings of the patriarchal mindset!....we hear tales of the splicing of te Serpent ---for example the shamanic Bon Po culture which was assimilated by the Buddhists ahd which became Tibetan Buddhism. theformer had already dissected an eariler Goddess culture......wit Greeks it wa their subjugation otf te Titans and then their building up of Olympic religion withte patriarchal Zeus on top...in Egypt we have the upstart 'god-king'....so it's all man on top

In Hinduim we have the enormous inluence of the Upanishadian Advaita Vedanta with its 'One' vs a 'Many' where the latter is termed 'MAYA'---ie,m the belief that Nature and human feelings are illusion

so, in othr words a fear of Nature is prominent in ALL these belief systems. a fear of WILD Nature. you will see a pattern where te original Hoddess is spliced into certain characteristics. so for example in Hinduis we haveher wilrd dark aspect, KALI singled out.....whereas originaly she was just an aspect of Goddess
see how wit monotheism similar apporach happens , where 'God' is all-goodness, and light and so there has to be created an arch demon, 'Satan', the 'Devil'...etc

 

[duendy]

m

At the outset, and certainly from the outside, women would look to be the losers, especially if you look from the modern masculinised heterosexual woman's point of view.

But there are things to be considered. E.g., women are the ultimate beneficiaries of the heterosexual society. Now a heterosexual society is the logical topping (ending?) of a process started several millenium ago to promote male-female sex under the marriage institution.

If we look at the traditional societies, it's the men who have always been wary of and resisted marriage (look at all the marriage jokes; and in my counseling with men, they often seem reluctant to get married), while women have always looked forward to it. Certainly what seems obvious is not so obvious. Women do seem to benefit from the marriage institution, even when its patriarchal, and men do seem to lose.

me]]]]i ca see the only benefit for owmen to marry, especially in the past, was social shame if they didn't. i cant see how they whould happily choose to be property. and i cant see why men would not WANT such culture-given power

Surely, women tend to lose outer power, but they don't seem to be too worried about it. Most women seek security more than freedom, and marriage provides them that amply. They want a secure institution where they can raise their youngs safely and properly. She doesn't care if the man gets to give children his name. She is not interested in social identities and power politics associated with them. She easily allows men to fight amongst themselves on these, while she quietly and securedly raises her young.

me]]]]]]]]but like said. all that is so genralist, and simplistic, wit respect. it is like listening to women who wear the veil in Islam rave on how mucy trhey luuureve to be covered up. to walk around in scorching sun covered in black material from head to foot. womehow their shouts of joy dont ring true

And when they introduced the marriage system for the first time (it would have been very very gradual process) women though they would have resisted it would have taken well to the idea, because it does give them protection.

me]]]]]]]]as does prison from the pouring rain and lack of food.....but

It is difficult to say that they are really the losers after all. What appears is not always what it is.

it is extremely complex. we are talking about oppression all round and people fighting to survive. we have to look directly at the source of opression i feel

 

[duendy]

The suppression and denigration of femininity in males is definitely related to the marriage institution and the efforts to force men into it. Like the suppression of masculine bonds, the persecution of femininity in males is part of the mechanism built to pressurise men to direct their sexual energies exclusively towards procreation --- although the reasons for targeting it are different from those for targeting masculine bonds.

me]]]]]towards pro-creation as a mean or a patriarchal-warring culture to have planty of workers and soldiers to keep its power going on!

The challenge now is to determine how (and if possible when) it happened, and why femininity in males was targeted at all? And to get at the truth, we have to look beyond what the heterosexual society tells us about human gender and sexuality --- including its history and science.

YES. i am very very veeeery aware of it imposing MIND CONTROl on one an all. in its war on drugs--its mental health scam, its manipulation of the masses towards consumerism and war (see Edward Bernays), its dumbing-donw in education, its Big Media propaganda-indoctrination....all its sevret activities. all tis is mind control. it --the patiarchal mindset, seeks to control, even the bodymind, even Nature.
Sooo, to explore tis 'demans' one begins allowing the freein UP of one's mind. notice how the marterialists here FEA such a pocess. not only for teir 'antagonists' but for theselves. they see such ...freeing..... as chaos. a living THREAt to their sureities of measure, and 'future' measurement, which will assure them they were 'right' all along...

 

[c7ityi_]

1. The real one granted to us biologically by the nature. (Pl. refer to Is gender orientation biological?). This is known as 'natural masculinity', and we are born with it. It is inside us, and once we develop it no one can take it from us.

Gender orientation isn't biological.

 

[Buddha1]

Gender orientation isn't biological.

Well, we are discussing it on the above mentioned thread and all the evidences point to it being biological. If you have any other information that has not been considered so far, then you can present them in that thread.

Remember, when so many people experience gender as a natural feeling, the onus of proof is on you to prove that is is not, not on the person to prove that what he is going through is natural.

 

[Buddha1]

m
it is extremely complex. we are talking about oppression all round and people fighting to survive. we have to look directly at the source of opression i feel

I think we have two basic differences and we agree on the consequences but believe in two different paths that reach there.

The following are the basic differences between us:

- You consider men and women to be the same, with same needs, aspirations, perspectives on life, desires and potentials.

I think differently.

- You think patriarchy is all about masculine, heterosexual men, who don't think highly of women, feminine males and homosexuals.

I think differently here too.

For me both are typical heterosexual views, not based on reality --- but on what appears to be from the outside of a heterosexual society.

Both are based on the history presented to us by the heterosexual society.

 

[duendy]

I think we have two basic differences and we agree on the consequences but believe in two different paths that reach there.

The following are the basic differences between us:

- You consider men and women to be the same, with same needs, aspirations, perspectives on life, desires and potentials.

I think differently.
me)))))))))))dont be tooo hasty assuming you know what i think....do i believe mean and women to be the same? ...i would answer tis by asking YOU what you MEAn by 'men' and 'women'?,,,,,,,,,of couse, i have assumed from readin what you put out that you dont have a set view of MAN? and WOMAN?....for example there are so many different varieites aren't tere of males.... you can hav the male who hates football, ad is quite emotional, and the womn who loves football and was always a tomboy.....this is simplistic, but i am averse to homogenization, tho of course am aware of cultural pressres to BE 'man' o a 'woman'--that girls must like pink nd boys blue. what about if girl does like blue. are we gonna explain it whe is free or that she is indoctrinated?

- You think patriarchy is all about masculine, heterosexual men, who don't think highly of women, feminine males and homosexuals.


I think differently here too.

me))))))))yeah i do. because as i am understanding it, the patriarchy always assume Earth, Nature, to be Feminine. this i feel is the CORE. for from there, or commensurately, they assumed women's bodies were/are more attached to Earth due to such natral physiological events as menstuation, conception and birth etc....whereas men, patriarchal men began to associate more with 'mind' and this identification brings about duality between 'mind' and body'....so all of tis kind of happens from the latter really. as soon as this pychological split is actualized is when the patriarchy materializes

For me both are typical heterosexual views, not based on reality --- but on what appears to be from the outside of a heterosexual society.

Both are based on the history presented to us by the heterosexual society.

and i see that history as their myth of the split between Nature/'feminine' and 'Mind'/'male'

 

[Buddha1]

You think patriarchy is all about masculine, heterosexual men, who don't think highly of women, feminine males and homosexuals.

The thrust of my arguments on all my threads on male gender and sexuality has been that masculine men are not basically heterosexual. That heterosexuality is a feminine minority. That most men are forced to be 'heterosexual'. As they were forced to get married in the past.

If I'm right then obviously 'heterosexual' men could not have been in power, nor could they hate femininity in men.

There is also no basis to presume that heterosexual men would ever hate or denigrate women --- as is evident from the heterosexual society.

So apparently, my views differ here. But I think it would be wiser to stress our similarities right now. So i'll get back to the discussion on Masculinity.

 

[c7ityi_]

...i would answer tis by asking YOU what you MEAn by 'men' and 'women'?

A man is a male body and a woman is a female body. When the mind thinks it is the body, it transforms the body into mental forms, but since a human is not a body, there are men and women who are not at all like their body is. Women are "soft". When softness is transformed into a mental form, it becomes feelings and sensitivity.

me))))))))yeah i do. because as i am understanding it, the patriarchy always assume Earth, Nature, to be Feminine.

The "patriarchy" is right. There are real reasons why women are associated with "earth". "Yin" is also "associated" with "evil", but that doesn't mean women are evil! You simply just don't understand what it's about.

Just because the BODY is male or female doesn't mean the MIND is. The mind can be both because it is neither. The mind created male and female in its image, and it recreates mental forms of them. But all opposites are 'illusions' (ie. they are not what they seem to be!!), only the wholeness exists.

 

[Buddha1]

My all this discussion is getting over my head!

 

[duendy]

The thrust of my arguments on all my threads on male gender and sexuality has been that masculine men are not basically heterosexual. That heterosexuality is a feminine minority. That most men are forced to be 'heterosexual'. As they were forced to get married in the past.

me)))))))))))so you mean there are 'masculine' men and 'heterosexual' men, and that some masculine men are NOT heterosexual? so what wuld you call men that are NOT heterosexual as you define it? 'masculine...or?

If I'm right then obviously 'heterosexual' men could not have been in power, nor could they hate femininity in men.

me))))))))so maybe it wasn't eterosexual man--as you define it--that were/are in power, but men thataren't heyterosexual, and Do hate femininity in men, denigrate women and disrespect Nature?

There is also no basis to presume that heterosexual men would ever hate or denigrate women --- as is evident from the heterosexual society.

So apparently, my views differ here. But I think it would be wiser to stress our similarities right now. So i'll get back to the discussion on Masculinity.

well, i await your response to my response

 

[duendy]

A man is a male body and a woman is a female body. When the mind thinks it is the body, it transforms the body into mental forms, but since a human is not a body, there are men and women who are not at all like their body is. Women are "soft". When softness is transformed into a mental form, it becomes feelings and sensitivity.

me)))))))hah your audacity amuses me. the way yo 'tell it like it is'


The "patriarchy" is right. There are real reasons why women are associated with "earth". "Yin" is also "associated" with "evil", but that doesn't mean women are evil! You simply just don't understand what it's about.

me))))no, you and the patriarchy done got it wrooong gal. tho i have no qualms Nature being feminine....when that is used against it, as in 'rape' (Francis Bacon), i lose my composure!

Just because the BODY is male or female doesn't mean the MIND is. The mind can be both because it is neither. The mind created male and female in its image, and it recreates mental forms of them. But all opposites are 'illusions' (ie. they are not what they seem to be!!), only the wholeness exists.

dont think you iunderstand....i was not AGREEING with patriarchal mindset, but trying to explore it. as i said, it is they who, i believe, began identifying wit intellectual 'mind' which caused a schism between their limitations of tat understanding and body/instinct/feelings/emotions--tus projecting what they repress onto women, Nature and men they saw as having feminine qualities, etc.....like teir Shadow

 

[duendy]

My all this discussion is getting over my head!

gonna come soon wid my Zen stick and whak u one....hehye

 

[Buddha1]

well, i await your response to my response

I am writing a somewhat long sequence of how I hypothesise femininity as well as masculine bonds came to be persecuted. I think I'll post it by tommorrow.

 

[Giambattista]

- Men in westernised societies face extreme pressures of social masculinity.

- An important, in fact basic part of this pressure is to be heterosexual.

- Some of these pressures assume the importance of life and death for men.

Someone in a Christian "ex-gay" organization once said that about 1/3 of all people enrolled (to get rid of unwanted same-gender attractions) were married men.

I believe that is a perfect example of the pressures and what they lead to.

And yes, many of them have committed suicide after no "results" were obtained.

 

[Giambattista]

Meanwhile here is one evidence from a discovery channnel programme several months ago about Greek masculinity. According to the commentary:

"Men used to enter into fierce physical combats in order to 'prove their manhood'. These combats used to be deadly. They often resulted in one (or sometimes both) the competitors dying or being crippled for life. They used to be no-holds barred fights.

And the rewards. The winner used to be regarded as the Alpha male. And he would get the sexual attention/ company of the best of (male) youth."

Pride can be deadly.

 

[Giambattista]

"People talk about female sexuality being more fluid than male. I rather see this more as a social construction than something from female brains, or female hormones, or whatnot. I do think that male sexuality is just as fluid, but because of social pressures of masculinity, it is not expressed."

Girls Gone Wild commercials makes it look like every little bi*** in a skimpy bikini wants to make out with another bi*** in a skimpy bikini. I do not know if your media carries that kind of advertising (generally late at night) but if that's all you saw, you would probably think that bisexuality in women is rampant. But of course, they only do it to please men. That's why their brains are so small.

Who says though that male sexuality is JUST AS fluid? How do you know it isn't MORE fluid. Though I think you've said that it is, judging by your theories.

Just about every poll or study I've ever seen indicates that there is anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times as many gay men as gay women. I don't remember ever seeing a study that DIDN'T indicate more gay men than gay women.

Though the overall numbers of those considered gay differ quite widely throughout the studies, with some showing as little as 1% and others approaching 10%, the ratio of men over women is a recurring characteristic. This trend is seen as early as Kinsey's studies.

 

[Giambattista]

But, Buddha1, aren't you yourself a social influence on men's masculinity, by telling them that real men hug penis?

They do everytime they jerk it.

 

[Buddha1]

Who says though that male sexuality is JUST AS fluid? How do you know it isn't MORE fluid. Though I think you've said that it is, judging by your theories.

It's not my quote pal! It's from a straight woman on a site.

 

[Giambattista]

It's not my quote pal! It's from a straight woman on a site.

No! I was aware of that. It sounds familiar. I think I may have come across that before.