May 4, 2012

A Transgender Psychology 3: The Shadow

Voldmort may be understood as Harry Potter's Shadow
In this post I will look into the role of archetypes in the development of the transgender psyche, focusing on the "dark side of the soul": The Shadow.

The discussion is based on a model developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung.

(Click here for the previous posts in this series).

Archetypes

One of the parts of Jung's theory that I find problematic, is that his categories have a tendency of becoming absolute.

He warns us against this, though, reminding us that the psyche is not a rational place organized on the basis of scientific principles. This is probably why some of his concepts contains contradictions that are hard to sort out.

The word "archetype" is, in my opinion, very useful. It is used to describe the natural basis of many psychological experiences.

The archetypes -- or "primordial images" -- are expressed through symbols in dreams and art. The symbols may vary from person to person and culture to culture, but the underpinning reality may be the same.

In fact, even the symbolic expressions of these archetypes are often very similar across cultural borders. It seems to me, for instance, that we in nearly all cultures find the image of the nurturing mother goddess.

Strongly inspired by a patriarchal Judaism, Christianity tried to get rid of the mother goddess, but lo and behold: She popped up again in the shape of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary even took over associated symbols from the Sumerian goddesses, like the moon crescent and circle of stars.

In other words: There is a psychological need underpinning the appearance of such symbols, and that the basis for that need can be described as archetypes.

(For a critical discussion of the interaction between archetypes and the mind, see my post on the mind/body conundrum.)

Related to instincts

Jung compares the archetypes to biological instincts. In the same way there is a hunger instinct that causes the sensation of hunger and the desire for a burger, there is a mother archetype that shapes your attitude towards motherhood.


You have no way of "seeing" the hunger instinct in itself. You can only feel the effect of it, and that may vary from person to person and from the situation you are in right now. 

In the same way you cannot experience an archetype as it is in itself. You an only experience the way it is expressed in your life or in the lives of others. Through art and dreams we do take part in the creation of images that may express the archetypes and make them conscious. 

In other words: Archetypes are not created by individual men and women. They are discovered, as they are -- in fact -- the result of evolution.

Instincts and archetypes

Personally I find it hard to distinguish between biological instincts and psychological archetypes, not at least because Jung himself argues that the archetypes themselves are biological in nature. 

In the same way the  hunger instinct (biology) may lead to an appreciation of French wine (culture), the archetype of the union of opposites (biology) may be expressed in art as the yin and yang symbol or a hermaphrodite (culture).

The close relationship between instincts and archetypes is also found in animals.

Goslings have a kind of mother archetype that makes them seek out mum when they hatch. Their inborn concept of "mother" does not entail a description of how she looks like, however. A gosling will adopt any moving object nearby as "mother", even if it is a human being. You could say that in this extreme case the human being becomes the cultural expression of "the mother archetype" of the gosling.


We also know from modern studies of the brain, that our ability to hear and see is very much based on "instincts" or unconscious processes. Our brain sort out and interpret sense impressions for us based on wide variety of basic rules, most of which we are not aware. These are instinctual information processes.

Indeed, some researchers will argue that they are semiotic, i.e. based on the development of symbols and signs. (See Vilayanur S Ramachandran's fascinating  book: Emerging Mind). It is not far fetched to imagine that our sexual desire or sex identity may also be influenced by such processes.

What I like about this part of Jung's psychology is that he avoids the pitfall of reductionism. The mind is not a blank slate to be filled by culture. But it cannot be reduced to instinct and drives only, either. The mind is born where biology meets culture.


The Personal and the Collective Unconscious

A dichotomy that may be hard to grasp is the one between the personal and the collective unconscious.

The personal unconscious is easy enough. This consists of personal experiences, ideas and desires you have faced consciously, and then suppressed because they have been considered unacceptable by you or the persons around you.

In cultures that associated sexual desire with guilt, most people will at least suppress some of their desires and "exile them" to their personal unconscious.

Beyond sex

It might help to think of the personal unconscious as the unconscious Id of Freud. Freud reduces all psychic activity to basic animalistic sexual drives.

Jung accepts the important role played by sexual instincts, but adds another level below the personal unconscious. The archetypes are inborn patterns of behavior that helps us navigate the world. They are not  necessarily sexual in nature.

The collective unconscious is the part of the unconscious that is based on "experiences" that are common to all human beings. This where the inborn instincts mentioned above become relevant.

“My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.”
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious , London 1996, p. 43)


The archetypes have not necessarily been repressed. They are unconscious from the very beginning. In fact, it may take a life time to integrate them into your conscious life, if you  manage to do so at all.

The Shadow

The Wicked Witch of the East represents the
Shadow of Dorothy in the Oz story.
Even if the collective unconscious is the realm of the archetypes, there is especially one archetype that can also be activated in the personal unconscious.

This especially applies to feelings and personality traits the individual or the surrounding considers bad or evil. This may, for instance, apply to anger, hatred, and sexual desire.

The shadow is the archetype most of us recognize.

Voldmort -- the one who cannot be named (since everyone is trying to ignore their own dark side) -- can be understood as the shadow of Harry Potter. Where Harry (the Ego) represents kindness and self-sacrifice, Voldmort equals uncontrolled hatred, greed and the lust for power.

Darth Vader clearly represents the shadow of Luke Skywalker.

Those of you who now think I am babbling (I know you are there!) may take a look at the following clip from where Luke is being trained by Yoda on Dagobah.

Luke  is told to enter a cave that is strong with "the power of the Dark Side". Yoda asks Luke to go in unarmed, but Luke enters the cavern armed anyway. Cavers and dark rooms are typical symbols for the unconscious.

Underground Luke has a vision of Darth Vader. In the ensuing fight Luke gives in to his anger and beheads the dark lord, finding that Vader has his own face. In other words: Luke is forced to see and feel his own dark side. He is forced to become conscious of his dark side.

 


(Sidebar: George Lucas was inspired by the book The Hero With a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell when he wrote the first Star Wars trilogy. Joseph Campbell's research is very much based on the one of Jung.)

Jung says that the shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, as no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort:

"To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance."

Projections

These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such. If a friend, suddenly starts obsessing with the negative character of another person, it could be that your  friend is projecting his or her shadow onto that person.

"Projections change the world into a replica of one's own unknown face," Jung says.

Adolf Hitler was a master in exploiting the projections of the German people. The Jew was given all the negative characteristics possible, and the Germans gladly and willingly projected their own fear, anger and shame onto the Jews. This gave them a sense of emotional relief, increasing self-worth and  purpose. Which is how concentration camp guards could make themselves believe that they were on the good side of the battle.

Homophobia and transphobia may also be the effect of the shadow. It is interesting to see how some of the most intense gay-bashers later turn out to be gay themselves.

Within the transgender community we see how some transsexuals fall into this trap. They start persecuting transgender who do not live up their idea of the ideal woman or the ideal man. The "imperfect" transgender reminds them of who they do not want to be.

The shadows of the transgender

Jung insists that the shadow archetype bears the same gender as the ego in dreams and myths. The shadow of Harry is Voldmort, the man. The shadow of Snow White is the Evil Witch.

This is where Jung's model proves to be too strict to capture the complexity of the transgender psyché. Sure, if the transgender fully and consciously identifies with the opposite sex (that is compared to his or her body), the shadow would likely  follow the pattern described by Jung.

If there is ambiguity, however, things may play out differently. A transgender person may consciously identify with the sex of his or her body, while the transgender nature has been repressed. If that is the case, should we not expect the shadow to be of the same sex as the ego?

Having read a lot of transgender fiction and fantasies, it seems to me that the transgender shadow can be of the same sex as the ego and as  "the cross-sexual self".

In stories written by male to female transgender persons (as found over at, for instance, Fictionmania), the find both male and female characters who embody the shadow, especially the shadow archetype of the mischievous trickster.

TG stories are about being changed from one sex to the other, physically and/or mentally. In many -- if not most -- stories, there is an evil or morally ambiguous agent that ensures that the change happens. This change can be magical or more "realistic" (read: hormones and surgery).

In male to female transgender fiction the trickster can be both male (as the shopkeeper found in the Spells R Us stories) or female (as the female keepers of the Bikini Beach stories or the dominatrix of  the Tabor stories). There are a lot of wizards and witches in male to female TG fiction, as well as male and female genies.

Almodovar does crossdreaming

In Almodovar's latest movie La piel que habito (The Skin I Live In)  the evil trickster or shadow is the disturbed surgeon Robert Ledgard, who changes the main male character of the film, Vincente, into a beautiful woman.

This movie is definitely a male to female crossdreamer fantasy. The fact that Vincente had worked in his mother's dress shop is a dead give away. He has already symbolically accepted the role of a woman. He is designing dresses, but is not gay.

In The Skin I Live In there is also another "shadow" character, the "animal man" and rapist Zeca, who represents untamed male sexuality. So, in this work of art, the repressed evil sides of the male protagonist are male, if we follow Jung's recipe.




(I plan to look for shadows in female to male TG stories in a later post.)

The reality is more ambiguous

I would argue that the idea that the shadow must be of the same psychological sex as the ego is difficult to uphold also when it comes to non-transgender people. In folk tales repressed and forbidden desires are often represented by characters of the opposite sex, like the wolf in the fairy tale about Red Riding Hood.
In fairy tales the shadow represent unwanted dreams
and desires. The wolf represents Red Riding Hood's
budding sexuality, as does her red cloak.

Jung would probably argue that the wolf is a symbol for the animus, or the masculine side of the feminine psyche, and as such distinct from the shadow archetype.

But if that is the case, the animal man of Almodovar, may actually be the animus of a female mind, which only proves my point. The movie does not follow Jung's dichotomy to the letter.

Beyond good and evil

Regardless of how we look at this, it becomes hard to make develop an absolute distinction between the shadow and other "taboo parts" of the unconscious mind.

Indeed, in male to female crossdreamer fantasies, the image of the inner female may also express the forbidden or dark side of the personality.

This side of the personality is not necessarily evil (as in the shadow), but negative all the same. If the outer persona is the strong, dominant and efficient man, the inner woman may become the submissive sissy. If the outer persona is the intelligent, disciplined and ascetic man the inner woman may absorb the opposite traits. She becomes the stupid, nymphomaniac,  bimbo.

In the next post in this series I will take a look at the anima and the animus, the cross-sexual archetypes of Jung, and see if we can make sense of it all.

I will also point out how Jung's idea that the Shadow and the Anima has a specific gender, made much of the  Jungian analytic therapy sexist and oppressive.

Next: The animus and anima

More posts in the psychology series.

30 comments:

Miz Know-It-All said...

Jack?
I don't give a rats ass how the transgender identify and how they express it. That's their karma to work out, not mine. What I and the other "seperatists" care about is that in the attempt to co-op what little legitimacy we have. We are forced to be a part of your spectral circus!

Jenna T enters the Miss Canada contest and is outed. The "trans" community didn't do squat to insist she is a normal woman. No! They fell onto her in a feeding frensy of "I'm just like her!" She says she is a woman. The "community" she is transgender, just like you Jack!

Sorry but you ain't and she isn't! So do whatever you want, make whatever theories you need to justify your fetish, but for the love of God leave us alone!

Angel said...

As a fan of Carl Jung, I'm happy that you chose to write this series of articles on his theories, and I must admit that the shadow is one of my favorite subjects... as is the whole process of individuation (I am also very much into alchemy as it applies to such things).

In the past, I've encountered articles relating to applying Jung's theories to transgenderism, but they have mainly related to the anima/animus, particularly anima possession... though in truth, the anima has more to do with what sort of woman a man is attracted to, rather than how he sees himself or his desire to crossdress. But then, as you've stated, nothing in Jungian psychology is set in stone.

Regarding projection, I agree. It can be difficult not to be repulsed by people in whom we see elements of our shadow self. Is it any wonder that the most vocal critics of certain traits are those who have similar traits? The only way to avoid projection is to acknowledge and embrace our own shadow as a part of ourselves.

As the demon in Legend said, "What is light without darkness?"

Angel said...

BTW, here is something you might enjoy. It happens to be one of my favorite songs by Tool. Perhaps you can understand why.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKEJC9WoQw

Masculine said...

Gays are third-genders who are attracted to men. Men who love men have never been classified with 'gays' ever in history,before the medieval Christian west.
It speaks volumes of oppression of men who are attracted to men, something that used to be a universal trait once.

Tina said...

Miz Know it all looks like a in closet gay/transgender. Please spare us if you have nothing else other than hate rant. You probably do not know even 1% of what Jack writes and explains here.
While he goes on explaining and understanding with lot of painstaking research here comes a know it all which probably is an oxymoron.

Jack Molay said...

@Angel,

Thank you for a very interesting link and some good observations! I will publish a post on the anima and the animus, but -- like you -- I will not reduce transgender to anima/animus possession.

@Miz Know-it-All

You are actually inviting yourself into my home to tell me that I am not invited into yours. If this was an attempt at debunking my argument, I am afraid you achieved the exact opposite.

@Masculine

Yes, the contemporary theory of homosexuality is only one of many approaches to same-sex relationships. And it is, as you point out, very recent historically.

Traditionally people distinguished between being active and passive. The passive bottom was ridiculed, the active top was not. This is an attitude that is still found in some parts of the world, including parts of Southern Europe, the Middle East and India - especially of you move out of the upper classes.

I must admit I am also beginning to suspect that much of our homophobia is cultural conditioning. Even if people may be predominantly gynephilic (woman loving) or androphilic (man loving), there is still a part of them that is attracted to their own physical sex.

Masculine said...

Even if today, the truth about universal men's sexuality for men maybe suppressed in the west, there was a time, before science overtook the task of 'studying sexuality,' when this fact was commonplace in the men's spaces. Now, considering that many of the scientists who had fudged up men's sexuality through their lopsided and misleading theories and concepts, were also men (eg., Darwin, westphal and Freud), there was no way this essential truth could have escaped their attention, as they were laying down the roots of the modern concepts on male gender and sexuality. surely, they had an agenda. It's western science, that is totally responsible for the immensely hostile environment in the west, that men live under today. Based on those false foundations deliberately laid down by the anti-man forces,

Today's anti-man forces go on building up on that -- basically, creating half-baked theories after theories after theories, that basically serve to give scientific validity to the invalid homo-hetero divide, to potray man's desie for men as effeminate and minority and atypical and to portray man's desire for women as universal and manly and normal. Naturally, they can never prove any of these theories ever (eg, they have never found a scientific basis for 'sexual orientation' and gay gene), yet, these half-baked theories and concepts (that at best represent half-truths)are accepted in the west as universal truths, since, the western culture is already strongly convinced of the existence of the homo-hetero categories ... thanks to the relentless work done by the anti-man forces in the west, during all these decades.

Masculine said...

In order to portray that men in nature are straight and heterosexual, thy essentially highlighted two major kinds of men as representing the entire class of man as a whole:
(1)The 20% of men who are extremely sexually promiscuous with women. But these men are hardly heterosexual in the sense of enjoying a whole term emotional relation with a woman. And they control harems of females in certain phases of their life.Besides,many of them are also open to sex with men, especially if they can find a vulnerable male by chance, such as in prisons.

(2)The minority of effeminate and transgendered males who like men who are portrayed as 'gays' by the west to prove desire for men is a feminine quality.

Then the west further wipes out two other major categories of males from the mainstream altogether and makes them socially invisible,although they represent a majority in their own ways:
(1) Transgendered males who like women,ie., queer heterosexuals.
(2) Masculine men who love men.

Jack Molay said...

@Masculine

Allow me to speculate:

The strict divide between men and women, active and reactive, masculine and feminine on the one hand and the strict heterosexist requirement on the other hand developed in the upper classes of Europe in the 19th century. It happens at a time when the economy allows for homes where the man is the breadwinner and the woman is working at home.

In Norway, for instance, there is a huge cultural shift from the farmer's wife on the one hand (who had the keys to the farm and therefore was -- for all practical purposes -- its CEO) to the middle class Mad Men mum-at-home model found in the 1950s to the 1960s.

Between the wars the bourgeoisie followed the kept woman model, while working class women were working in factories and brought home their own salaries.

In the West the heterosexist dogma gains strength when women stays at home. As both Kinsey and Wilhelm Reich pointed out, same-sex male bonding was not a strict taboo among working class Americans and Germans, probably because many women had paid work.

Being the passive recipient during sex might have been frowned upon, but male bonding as well as sexual interaction was not. (this especially applies to reciprocal masturbation and similar activities).

When the woman become completely dependent on the man, a new kind of dynamic develop: A fear of being cuckolded. The endless number of stories about the postman refers to this fear. If a woman cheats on his man, she proves that he is not in fact a manly man, according to this paranoid style of living. Since he now is the owner of the productive capabilities of his wife, he has to prove that he controls her. This might contribute to strengthening the fear of male sexuality.

An argument against this would be countries like Saudi Arabia, where women have been reduced to servitude, but where the male bonding -- at least the non-sexual part -- has been strengthened, simply because women have been removed from the public sphere. The only women men can be with are the ones they own themselves. But then again Yemen and Saudi Arabia has a very small capitalist middle class.

Indeed, thinkers like Judith Butler and Deleuze/Guattari indicate that the male bonding taboo is part of the new capitalist economy. That is: The modern "core family" of mum, dad and two to three kids, is the basis of the consumer society, and the taboos at breaking up this unit is therefore enormously strong. You can see this in contemporary American politics where the Tea Pary movement pretends it is defending traditional family values. The fact is that these values are rather new , historically speaking.

Masculine said...

@Jack,
In the west male bonding is taboo to a severe extent because it is for all practical purposes "homoosexualized". And inspite of formal outard claim that sexuality is independent of gender, most mainstream people see "homosexuality" and effemimate as synonymous.
This male bonding taboo has become so high and lunatic in the west that two men with manhood in west even fear holding hands together. They come to our country and get shocked to see men holding hands which they see as "gay" and hence feminine. Like here:

http://www.stuffindianslike.com/2008/04/170-holding-hands.html

I would also disagree with your view that this taboo increases when women are made to stay at home. Because,this applies to all places,even in the workplace itself and there are few women in west today who don't work.

The entire taboo has been to hetersexualize all kinds of social institutions for men which I see as an anti-man mechanism. Because, male bonding (which may or may not include sexual bonds), is an inherent part of real natural masculinity.
Infact,as per my analysis, the males who are most naturally comfortable sharing emotional bonding with women are the feminine males including the queer heterosexuals and many transsexuals.Many masculine men can also be exclusively heterosexualized through training from a young age but that would be against the core masculine nature of the boy.

Jack Molay said...

@Masculine

I agree with your view of the taboo. I am just trying to find out what caused it.

I have friends from Southern Europe who are not equally shy of male bonding, even the physical one.

As a Northern European it took me some time to get acquainted with the idea that men are to hug when meeting each other, and even touch when talking.

Now the influx of immigrants from North Africa and The Middle East is changing the way Norwegian boys behave. There is a lot of hugging and even kissing on the cheeks, which would have been absolutely unheard of when I was a kid.

So I am wondering why the Mediterranean region has a more relaxed attitude towards physical male bonding than the Northern European/North American region.

There is another development that puzzles me as well. In 19th century Norway "bromances" were quite common, i.e. strong male friendships with expressions of love.

I have read letters from that period where men declare their love and devotion for each other. An no, this is not about sex, but they do use terms of endearment that nowadays are only found in love letters.

In other words: The intense fear of being accused of homosexuality if you are befriending a man as a man is pretty recent.

The reason I bring up the role of women is that that is the only parallel development I see that can be associated with the increasing hetero-normative pressure.

I see that the fear of same-sex "sexual contamination" is increasing in the middle classes of India and Southern Europe in parallel with the development of an affluent middle class. Can that be a coincidence?

Masculine said...

@Jack,
Everywhere western culture and education spreads,man-man desire and intimacy becomes "homosexualized" and man holding hands with girls becomes "manly".
In all traditional cultures, the exact opposite thing happened.
This reversal of manhood roles and definitions has been brought about by the anti-man mechanisms which I call as FOH (Forces Of Heterosexualization).
The FOH is a very powerful 9even if just a minority) faction prevalent all across the world, especially the west due to its strong Christian backgrund and they are the ones responsible for making something that is an integral part of masculinity, look "queer".
The result is that whatever is there of masculinity today in straight spaces is actually "queer" and it is the gay space that has become more pro-man an closer to masculinity. This unfortunate development of manhood and masculinity roles has been a direct consequence of the FOH which forces all men to reign in their sexuality for men and divert all their emotional,romantic and social needs onto women to be qualified as a man in society.
In reality,most men, whether or not they have a need for intimacy for women, always have a stronger and more primary need for intimacy with other men. The FOH wanted to destroy this trait of men because if that did not happen, very few masculine men would ever care to form exclusive emotional relationships with women and participate in the family reproduction process.

"As a Northern European it took me some time to get acquainted with the idea that men are to hug when meeting each other, and even touch when talking."
This speaks volumes of the kind of unnatural soociety you are dwelling in. In nature, the only males who hug and hold hands with girls rather than other men day long are the various shades of queer males from the effeminate to the transgendered.

Masculine said...

It's funny, how the west, esp. its LGBTs think that how westerners think and behave today is how the entire world has always been. That is simply bullshit.
Just a few years ago, things in India were WAY different. Hardly any man had girlfriends, even when you could always have them with just a little secrecy. Afterall, a few men did have girlfriends. But, most men were not only happy without girls (they just married for social duty which is not same as 'hetrosexuality' of the western kind), they hated girls who tried to intrude into men's spaces -- esp. sexually. So, men resisted women's entry into army, boys resisted having their schools made into co-education schools, and so on. Not too long ago, I saw a group of street rowdies harrassing a girl (whore) on bus who sought to stand in the midst of the boys in the bus crowd, in order to be 'close' to them. They openly called her a whore and discouraged her behaviour. This tendency has been all too common amongst boys -- to fiercely protect men's spaces, esp. against sexually aggressive women. If men were really heterosexual, these men should have felt suppressed and should have welcomed these whores with open arms. (Things are different today, because, the forces of westernization have artifically changed the roles of manhood using their immense financial and technical powers).

Masculine said...

About a decade ago, there was an advertisement often displayed on TV, where a whore asking for a lift from a macho, alpha male, was snubbed by him, who left her behind. The forces of westernization that followed soon after, took strong exception to the ad, and made a counter ad, making fun of that macho male, saying he is not 'man' enough.
The westernized media and other forces of heterosexualization, have used immense western capital to force men to become heterosexualized against their wishes, by forcefully changing the roles of manhood. Indeed, in today's schools and colleges in Indian meteros, boys are shamed for holding hands with friends. And, they are shamed for not having girlfriends or for not having had sex with girls. This is what the western society has done to its males already.
You put a gun on the men and force them to be heterosexual, and then you claim, its natural for the masses to do so.
This is the real secret behind 'man's heterosexuality.'

Jack Molay said...

@Masculine

Now I am confused, because now you are turning the heteronormative tale into a kind of -- I don't know -- andronormative (?) tale.

If I understand you correctly the proper relationship for a man is with other men, from which women are to be excluded.

I love women! I like being with them, also in a non-sexual way. I work with women, live with a woman and have female friends. I learn as much from them as I do from men. And given that they often have a different life experience, I learn different things from them.

I do see the need for men's spaces, being that clubs, masonic lodges, fishing trips or soccer matches.

Men need spaces where the male/female sexual dynamics is absent, in the same way women need the sanctuary of a girl's night out.

But surely, the main reason Yemeni men prefer the company of men, is that the presence of women outside the family is taboo. They have been conditioned to think of the presence of women as dishonorable. That they are, in fact, very much interested in women, is proven by the way they treat foreign women (as whores).

I dream of a society where men can be what they truly are. If that is being a masculine man with masculine men, that is a good thing. If that is being a "softer" man, who is sexually attracted to men, but who loves the company of women, that's fine. If it means being a man who wants to share his life with a woman, that is the way it should be.

Do you really mean that men's love of women is in some way unnatural or wrong?

Masculine said...

"If I understand you correctly the proper relationship for a man is with other men, from which women are to be excluded."

It is not that women are to be excluded. If things were left to nature,many masculine men would naturally reject, especially the ones who are promiscuous whores.What is right or wrong is different. I am talking about the truth.It may not be a positive trait for society and that is why vested interests want to so much queer the trait of man-man desire so that men stay away from it.

"I love women! I like being with them, also in a non-sexual way. I work with women, live with a woman and have female friends"

In nature,the males who gel emotionally well with females are various shades of queer to transgendered males.Masculine men if they at all care about females, care only for the physical part and that too at certain moments of their life.

" They have been conditioned to think of the presence of women as dishonorable. That they are, in fact, very much interested in women, is proven by the way they treat foreign women (as whores)."

You seem to take the facades presented by men all across the world as real. I proved in my previous post how without the pressure of manhood being tied to heterosexuality, men mostly never encourage whores.

"Do you really mean that men's love of women is in some way unnatural or wrong?"

Yes, there are many men who love women and many who don't. For those who do, it is not wrong. Neither for those who don't.What I am saying is different.

In fact, I am also wanting the same things as you are.That things should be left to nature. Let men be who they are. We should not interfere with the emotional and social needs of an individual beyond what is necessary. It is not about what is right or wrong. It is about being in touch with nature and in nature it is just that most masculine men are also having deep emotional needs for other men (regardless of whether they have attraction to women or not). This trait is being tampered with and artificially queered by the FOH and this is what is so wrong.

Masculine said...

What happens in the west today is that the moment I raise a voice about man's rights, I begin to sound anti-woman. I am not at all saying men should not have relationships with women when they need to. However, what I am saying is they should not be forced into exclusive relations with women when they may not want to, by tying manhood with heterosexuality.

Lindsay said...

@masculine
What a misogynistic attitude. Don't try to use your flawed logic as an excuse to continue your cultures oppression of women. I'm personally glad that the world as a whole is moving to a more gender neutral society (albeit slowly).

You seem to be worried about losing your gender entitlement. If you were a more secure male you wouldn't be worrying about such nonsense.

Masculine said...

@Lindsay,
It seems you really have nothing to argue logically other than simply accusing people of being misogynists. The problem is that you people are just too much concerned about women's oppression and really seem to think men have no oppressions at all.
Women may be oppressed but how the hell does raising issues about men mean being misogynist?
That is exactly what I said.Whenever I raise man's rights issues, I am labeled an anti-woman or misogynist. Why then shouldn't I call feminists as anti-man by the same logic?

The entire structure of exclusive heteronormativity is a stupid gender-role imposed on men due to which they have their real natural masculinity mutilated froever. I would not consider things such as healthy social male-female bonding or even marriage as unhealthy but what happens in the west is encouragement of a filthy perverted brand of heterosexual intimacy with women, imposed on men. This is certainly not healthy by any means. It is a sheer waste.
And I am not the one losing gender entitlement. Infact, right since feminism began and started to encourage whores to hog the limelight without simultaeneously paying attention to problems of men,males have become vehemently oppressed but unlike female issues, their problems are never addressed. They only have to suffer in silence because the moment they raise a voice they become 'gays'.And you call this as mere insecurity?

Infact, even in the west several men's activists are trying to fight against the rigid gender and sexual roles of men but nobody notices them.They are all alone and no man even dares to support them lest they should be called as gay.Many men's rights groups have to nowadays include women among them so that these groups are not seen as gay.It is an extremely pathetic situation for men in the west.

However, queer males and transsexuals like you never get to see this reality of men and simply think that women are the only ones who are oppressed.

Lindsay said...

@masculine

So what is it you want? Do you want to have sex with men but not be labeled gay or homosexual? Why are you worried about someone else's label? Or do you want to have sex with men and women? Then you're bisexual. Or do you consider yourself heterosexual? But you still want to have sex with men?

Why is it women's fault? Just because they're learning to stand up for their own rights? How is that interfering with yours? It sounds like it is threatening to you. You use the word whore for women a lot, it sounds like you have a pretty deep rooted hatred for them. Do you think men and women should be treated equally?

You seem to think it's a problem with the west. In reality the west is very supportive of most sexual lifestyles. Maybe you should move here and away from your repressive government, you might be pleasantly surprised. I see a lot of male to male hugging, kissing and hand holding.

Masculine said...

@Lindsay,
You are wrong. Men in west can kiss other men and hold hands only when gay or bisexual which is being a part of queer LGBT.
Men in west cannot kiss or hold hands with men if they are to be seen as straight males with manhood.

Masculine said...

And, I got to know of men's universal need for love/intimacy with men, from growing up in non-westernized India and working deeply on gender and sexual issues with men. I'm not extrapolating anything. I have seen, observed and experienced this universal male need for men, first hand, and I know that it is, in most cases, far more strong than male need for women can ever be. In fact, when I was growing up, men would usually try to put off marriage as far as possible. Today, they can't say that openly and pretend, as if they couldn't wait to get married.
This would also explain the immense hostility that societies have for man-man bonds, and why societies have been at war with it for so long. Because, men need to be broken from other men, in order to be forced with women.
Besides, today the world is on the verge of dying out because of male-female sex (over reproduction).

And, what is the fun of forcing the entire population of men to mate with women enmasse through the use of unnatural technological means like the contraceptives.

Western people, first use the excuse of reproduction to force heterosexuality on men, and then, strive to break the connection of male-female sex from the burden of reproduction, so that you can enjoy it in the same way as men are supposed to enjoy with other men. So, that you can make sex between men totally redundant. But, that is unnatural, and anti-man.

Masculine said...

" In reality the west is very supportive of most sexual lifestyles. Maybe you should move here and away from your repressive government, you might be pleasantly surprised. I see a lot of male to male hugging, kissing and hand holding."


Can two male friends cross the road in the US hand in hand, if they feel close to each other, without being jeered at, or even stoned and ridiculed as 'gay'?
And therein, same-sex marriage is allowed but only gays are allowed to marry gays. And gays may be men for you, but certainly not in the eyes of mainstream culture. In almost all mainstream circles,gays are seen as effeminate or atleast unmanly or males without manhoood.

Men are not allowed socially or legally or religously to love or have sex with each other in marriage, like men and women are; not even in the west.In the west, they can't do that without being 'gay.' Which is like saying its ok for a woman to date men, by being a 'whore.'

"So what is it you want? Do you want to have sex with men but not be labeled gay or homosexual? Why are you worried about someone else's label? Or do you want to have sex with men and women? Then you're bisexual. Or do you consider yourself heterosexual? But you still want to have sex with men?"

It is not about my personal needs. It is about liberating all men and this I know will take time, maybe generations, just like women's liberation took. However, it would be faster only if heterosexualization is not done at such a large scale.

Yes,I want men to be able to love men without being gay but as straight (remember that 'straight' means practically a real masculine man with manhood and not 'heterosexual' as the west formally portrays; in any case, most men are really not heterosexual). That will be the day when men truly get liberated.

Masculine said...

"Why is it women's fault? Just because they're learning to stand up for their own rights? How is that interfering with yours? It sounds like it is threatening to you. You use the word whore for women a lot, it sounds like you have a pretty deep rooted hatred for them. Do you think men and women should be treated equally?"

I never even blamed women for this? I simply said that after the feminists liberated women, the anti-man forces got a bigger chance to enforce mass heterosexuality on men to qualify for manhood because now it is not just marriage but full fledged 24-hour heterosexuality to be qualified as 'straight'. Previously,women had restrictions and this gave men a lot of leeway to be themselves even if not all the time.

It is not that women should not be liberated. But, the problem is that there is hardly anyone to look at the men's oppression.
And how is it that I am wrong in calling self-indulgent promiscuous women who wish to dominate men as 'whores' but your society calls even a simple display of love between men as 'gay'?

Masculine said...

The point is that
gay is a third gender, emasculated identity, and it is perfectly normal for men to fear the term 'gay' and hate it intensely.
Men should not have to be 'gay' to desire men, just as women should not have to be 'whores' to desire men.

Although, the society does reserve all the formal space for male female relationship, and leaves no space for relationships between normal men. When women already have such a sole right over men, formally, then it makes sense to put some restrain on this power unduly given to women, and demand that any woman that shows desire for men be considered a 'whore.' Unless, women agree to forsake this artificial power over men vested in them.

Masculine said...

This is my blog where I have highlighted the pressures men face.If hardly anyone here gets tears in his eyes after going through this,my stance that it is an anti-man culture will only be reinforced.

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.in/

Lindsay said...

@masculine

You need to come to terms with your homosexuality/bisexuality. You seem to have a revulsion to the term gay. But it's just a label. Don't let your fear of labels control your life. There are lots of macho gays out there. They don't show any signs of femininity.

You seem to feel that if heterosexual men were given an unfettered freedom to chose they would pick men as companions over women. I think you're totally wrong. Most western countries now accept homosexuality and men (and women) are now free to choose their partners and the vast majority freely choose to be heterosexual.

I still don't see why you take your frustrations out on women. Quit calling them whores all the time. You might get a little more sympathy. Remember that women have been repressed for centuries. You seem to resent that they're finally standing up for equal rights.

Also, I don't think Jack's blog is a good platform for this discussion. It's way off topic.

Masculine said...

This is something that I am saying after being 500% sure of it. I am nor ordinary layman and I have done hundreds of real ground-work research with thousands of regular straight men.

I have worked with and studied men very, very closely, in groups, individually -- everywhere, in non-westernized societies, and I've seen how they are forced to be heterosexual as the society westernizes.

If all men wanted physical intimacy with women -- so exclusively, then men would never have been so insecure about their heterosexual status, that you can scare them into non holding hands with each other, simply by calling them 'gays.' And, there would be no hatred for third genders who call themselves 'gays,' because, it would leave women all for the men. Men hate gays because, they are third genders who stigmatize the trait of men liking men for the men. They steal men's spaces to desire men.

There was no need for such extreme psycho-social mechanisms to force men with women, and to break men from men, if most men naturally feel such a strong need for intimacy with women.

What I have been doing in the internet for a few years is to simply make an attempt to spread this important message to as many men and third-genders as possible so that the connection between men desiring men and 'homosexuality' is broken and men get their final freedom and natural manhood space back. Because, the heterosexualization of men by tying manhood with heterosexuality is the root of all their oppressions and also this in turn plays in important role in men oppressing women. So long as men don't have their own freedom to be themselves, they cannot give women freedom practically.

Masculine said...

"You need to come to terms with your homosexuality/bisexuality. You seem to have a revulsion to the term gay. But it's just a label. Don't let your fear of labels control your life"

This is an advice almost every westerner gives me,nothing new here.If it was just a matter of accepting my sexuality, I would have been in a gay bar right now happily dancing with 'macho gays' you speak of.
I also initially knew gay means only a man's attraction to men and I labeled myself gay, as the dictionary says so. That was 15 years back. And then, I began to sense what the fear of being gay creates in regular straight guys around me. I observed this again and again in several men and I also found that they all secretly had attractions to men in various degrees themselves. I found how gay represents the third-gender attraction to men and hence stigmatizes the man-man desire completely by 'homosexualizing' it. And men will always stay away from desiring men so long as it is connected with 'gays' and 'homosexuality'.Just like decent women will stay out of desiring men if that is called as "whore".

The point is that macho or not, 'gay' represents a male without manhood and men cannot afford to take that genderless space just on account of their desire for men. They would rather mutilate or suppress it than take up a genderless space devoid of manhood.And that is what men have been doing ever since homosexuality came up in the 18th century. The society interprets this silent facade of men and represents it as meaning most men being enmasse heterosexual, almost creating a stereotype. That is what the western conspiracy is.

Vickie Davis said...

Hey, Ms know it all (Mae West) what is your boy name??

http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens17666876_1298317033mae.jpg