Sharada

- I. Understanding Science

- II. Redefning Science

- II. Abuse of science as a weapon in the politics of manhood

                                                                                                      bottom of page

SCIENCE AS AN INSTITUTION OF MAN'S OPPRESSION

 

I. UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE

In the modern age science rules the world. We judge everything on the basis of science. As educated people we are supposed to accept anything only if it is scientific and reject it if it is not.

Science is as powerful today as religion was once in the Middle Ages. We have intense and unshakable faith in science. It will not be wrong to say that we have blind faith in science. We read a 'scientific' research report in the newspaper and immediately accept it even if it goes against our basic grain. In fact it will be perfectly right to say that the modern humans worship science like it is god.

But like religion failed us in the Middle Ages, we may be too overwhelmed by the achievements of science to notice that science too has failed us. And that it is not the best of things that could have happened to the humans.


What is science?

Definition: Science could be defined as the human being's understanding of the physical laws of nature.

Thus science is only concerned about the physical aspects of nature. It only believes in what can be physically verified. It does not acknowledge anything that cannot be physically verified.

Also Science is not nature itself. It's our understanding of the laws that govern nature.

Science can also be understood in the following ways that the term is used:

Science as a worldview: Like mentioned earlier, science is a way of understanding nature (both, nature within us and outside of us) by examining its physical aspects, of drawing patterns in the physical aspects of nature and understanding the laws that govern those patterns.

Science as a methodology: The term science is also used to refer to the standardized methodologies developed by human beings to examine the physical aspects of nature and to establish patterns and to make deductions from them.

Science as an institution: As an institution science refers to the organized body of individuals who are selected by a set process in an organized society, who alone have the right to use science in order to understand nature. It also has the sole right to decide what is given the stamp of 'science' and what is not.

Science as a body of information: As a body of information science refers to the huge amount of theories and 'facts' that have been given the stamp of 'science' by the scientific institution. This information/ knowledge is taught to humans through the organized education system. It is also made available to the public through the media, libraries, etc.


History of science

Most of us tend to believe that science is as old as nature itself. In fact they equate science with nature. People also believe that human beings always had a concept of science. But the fact that humans never had a name for something like science should compel us to explore this issue further.

The truth is that science is a very limited and partial way of examining nature or gathering information ----- a way that was never used by the ancients. Science only looks at the physical aspects of things, while the nature has several other aspects to it that cannot be understood by humans by examining its physical aspects.

The ancients had a very comprehensive worldview of wisdom. While the modern man has knowledge the ancients had wisdom. Because their worldview not only acknowledged and sought to understand the physical aspects (science), but other aspects of life including spirituality, emotions, etc. This worldview did not consider the parts as different from the whole, so when they approached a problem they always considered the problem in its entirety, not just the part that had the visible symptoms.

Therefore science was embedded in their worldview but it was not distinguishable from other aspects of this worldview. Today's humans have discarded all the rest of the forms of this worldview, except the physically verifiable forms and called it science.

This difference between the wisdom of the ancients and the science of the modern man can be easily seen in the things that the ancients created and those created by science. Whatever the ancients created was totally in tandem with the nature ----- just like the ancient pyramids which blend perfectly in their environment without disturbing or ruining it. Contrast it with science; whatever science has given us so far harms the nature in some way or the other.

The difference between the ancient's comprehensive worldview and the scientific approach can also be understood by the following example of deriving curcumin from haldi.

 

The story of birth of science

Towards the end of the middle ages what is 'west' today was extremely oppressed and exploited at the hands of organized religion ------ viz. Christianity. Christianity had abused spirituality to an extremity. It had fooled, ruled and oppressed people in the name of god so much, that many westerners had started to loose faith in spirituality. This loss of faith gave rise to a mentality in the west that was wary of trusting anything that cannot be seen or physically verified, since Christianity had fooled people in the name of god which no one can see or verify.

In the middle ages organised religion had ruled by force. People living in Islamic societies still live under such forced and oppressive circumstances. But in the west unlike Islam, Christianity had started to abandon the path of violence and that gave people a freedom that gave rise to a new approach to life which was rebellious of religion for the most part. But unfortunately, something developed as a response --- to fight off a negative thing also incorporates a lot of that negativity.

This new approach to life soon became very powerful as the modern age set in, so much so that today it rules the lives and values of westerners. However, this is not a healthy approach to life but an approach with its root in negativity ------ a negativity and distrust created by Christianity.

 

Hijacking of science by the forces of heterosexualisation

Just as the vested interests had taken control of the institution of organized religion when it became powerful in the dark ages, this time they took control of the institution of science as soon as it started to become powerful. Today, they are in full control of the institution and decide what kind of research regarding male gender and sexuality is allowed to be conducted, in what manner and what is given the stamp of science. It is actively involved in abusing the institution of science and its loopholes to destroy, distort, suppress, misrepresent and hide important facts in order to help create and maintain new infrastructures to carry on the age old agenda of the societies to harness man's sexual nature towards reproduction. Only this time we don't really need to increase our population, and the modern scientific mechanisms don't help the society, rather they help the vested interests to keep their power by intensify their oppression of men.

 

Drawbacks of science

Incomplete approach to life: Like has been pointed out before, the scientific view of things only looks at what is visible and can be physically verified. It lacks the capability to look at the invisible and physically non-verifiable aspects of life. And life or nature is much more than what we can verify physically. Unless and until we take a comprehensive view of things we are bound to take wrong decisions which are apparent in the way modern societies have taken shape.

Case Study

In a documentary programme on elephants shown on discovery channel, the researcher comments that we cannot assume that elephants have emotions, since there are no scientific proofs.

Science cannot see or verify emotions physically; However, you don't need scientists to tell you that animals too have emotions just like us. You need empathy and a connection with nature to know that. And human beings (except probably the modern westerners) have always, always known that. It is stupid to treat elephants as emotionless beings unless science has the capability or time to verify this fact. But then science has been a dismal failure in understanding or acknowledging the emotions and emotional needs of even the humans.

 

 

Loopholes in the scientific methodology: A standardised set of procedures has been developed by the scientific institution that has to be followed for any scientific researches undertaken through it. These methodologies may work very well when sincere people undertake them, however the fact is that it is not that difficult to follow the methodologies in letter and not in spirit and arrive at manipulated, faulty or mischievous results, especially when they are even partly in non-physical areas such as human behaviour, sociology, psychology, etc. We will discuss many such manipulative researches in the field of male gender and sexuality.

Case Study

The process of peer-review, which otherwise is an important part of the prescribed scientific methodology, has been so much abused by the forces of heterosexualisation to thwart genuine researches that seek to expose their lies, that even scientists who have a lot of credibility, who want to expose these lies have to circumvent the peer-review process if they want their work to ever reach the public.

Scientists have indulged in gross irregularities with scientific processess starting from the subject that they take up for research to choosing samples to drawing deductions to presenting them.

Science is incapable and ill-equipped to understand non-physical aspects of life, e.g. emotions and human behaviour: Science is useful only in areas that have a clear-cut physical aspect to them. But in areas which don't have a clear-cut physical aspect to them, science can just not work. It is as simple as that. This includes all those areas such as human emotions, psychology, sociaology, animal behaviour, etc.

Instutionalisation of science into an organised body takes away the power of the individual to observe and learn from life on his own: When they institutionalised 'god' and said only the authorised body (church) can decide what is god and what he wants and how to get to him, and that you can only reach god through this organised/ authorised body of individuals who are trained in a strict, non-flexible way, ------ one immediate consequence was that the individual lost the power to communicate directly with the god. Now he had to approach him through his agents, and he had no choice in whom he is going to choose as his 'agent'. God communicates with us through our feelings, our inner self, our experiences in life........ but people belonging to the institutionalised/ organised religions of Judaic/ Christian/ Islamic 'religions' have lost the power to feel god in this natural way. They just accept blindly what the authorised body tells, rather orders them about god. This way, people gradually lose their power to see god through these simple things in life. They start to judge even nature based on what their religious texts tell them. They become close to reality and they start seeing even nature through the narrow glasses of their religious preachings.

Individuals living under these religions cannot seek god on their own. If they are exceptionally endowed spiritual beings, they can't spread their spiritual messages to people, unless and until they adhere to the dogma of the authorised body.

Something similar happened with knowledge and wisdom when these were institutionalised and organised in the institution of science and its control rested in a selected authorised body of individuals who were were trained in a certain very rigid way. Immediately, the individual lost his power to use his wisdom and reasoning to learn from things all around him. His knowledge now does not count. You may have plenty of knowldege and wisdom gathered through years of work, but if you don't belong to the institution of science your wisdom will have no social value. The modern institutions of the society will not allow you to disseminate that knowledge. And the masses are also trained not to accept any knowledge or wisdom that doesn't come to them through a 'recognised' university or an individual with the requisite 'degree' because that denotes affiliation to the institution of science.

Loopholes in the scientific institution:

Science institution has become too powerful to serve mankind: Science has become very powerful in the modern world because of many factors. One factor is the enormous advancement it has made in the field of technology and several miracles that it has achieved. But perhaps more important is the fact that people need a god to worship. Eversince Christianity did it for them, People have started needing a powerful 'authority' which can decide for them what is right and what is wrong, so that they don't have to use their conscience or judgement. And science has been all too willing to take up that place ------- thereby empowering those who control the scientific institution. And history is witness to the fact that whenever an institution gets too powerful, politics sets into it and it starts to be abused and no longer serves the purpose for which it was initially established.

Today people believe in science with closed eyes. This gives those who control the institution of science the power to control and manipulate them. It is exactly how it worked when organised religion was so powerful.

Science is conceited: Science has assumed so much social power that it has literally started believing that it is the god. Science is unwilling to accept its shortcomings and its limitations. And those who are part of the scientific institution react with anger and conceitedness when their limitation is pointed out to them.

Case Study

It is a very common experience with doctorsthe world over that when they cannot diagnose a disease, even with clear physical symptoms they simply ascribe it to psychological causes ------ meaning the disease is all in the mind of the patient and it doesn't really exist.

It is even more common to do so, when the disease does not have clear physical cymptoms.

There is also a mentality amongst the medical fraternity that if your symptoms don't exist in their books, you can't possibly be suffering from it.

Case Study

A very important example is the medical concept of IBS or the Irritable Bowel Syndrome. It is a name given to a horde of varied problems related with the digestive system, which are common the world over in the modern world, which the medical world has not been able to diagnose or treat. Therefore, they are just bundled together under the common term IBS and ascribed psychological causes, for which no real treatment really exists in modern medicine.

Only a minor proportion of these cases are actually exclusively psychological cases or "all in the mind". Moreover most of them have very clear-cut physical symptoms. Stress does trigger or worsen bouts of these diseases but that is common in most digestive disorders. It is highly dubious to say that the diseases are caused by stress alone.

It is not surprising that most of these IBS cases rejected by the modern science and asked to seek psychological help find great relief and are mostly able to control or even treat their symptoms when they seek treatment from what the modern science calls "alternative medicines" (of course the mainstream medicine space has been forcibly occupied by allopathy).

The irony is that these myriads of digestive disorders are a 'gift' of science, as they are triggered by all the pollutants, chemicals and irritants given to us by science including preserved and packaged food, plastic and harmful alloys and chemicals etc. that are part of almost everything produced by science that we consume today.

Science exhibits the same conceitedness as has been displayed by religion in the days erstwhile. This conceitedness arises from getting immense social power in the form of blind faith by the masses. Remember how religion thought itself to be bigger than nature itself, and had invented words like 'unnatural' to refer to those parts of nature that did not fit into how it wanted to arrange this world. Thus it had conceitedly judged male-male sex ----- that is so commonly found in nature, to be 'unnatural' ----- a label that has often been used by science as well. Religion had held that sex is only for reproduction, a view later adhered to by science.

Science displays the same conceitedness and a sense that it has the power to define what is nature and what is not, and the power to ascribe motives at its whims, to things that occur in nature or to deny those parts of nature that doesn't fit its view of things as represented by several fake theories it has developed. Thus first it makes dubious theories, then popularises them, and then goes on to judge, validate or reject nature on the basis of that fake theory. One classic example is Darwin's theory about sexuality which we shall discuss later.

Case Study

There has been documented evidences of scientists regularly dismissing incidences of same-sex sexual bonding in the wild as "immoral" or "unscientific" or "pervert" or "disgusting", and either qualifying its reportage with those words or in most cases deciding not to report them at all.

One scientist admitted that it took him two days of internal struggle to decide whether or not to report widespread sexual activities between male mountain sheep that he noticed in the wild.

 

 

Do not accept science without questioning it!

 

 

 

II. REDEFINING SCIENCE

Reclaiming man's ability for a comprehensive and healthy approach to knowledge and wisdom

It's about time that we realised the immense harm caused by science to the humans and try to work that around. The only way to do that is by reclaiming man's ability for a comprehensive and healthy approach to knowledge, to wisdom and to life itself. An approach that has all the elements of philosophy, logical reasoning, empathy and spirituality. An approach that sees humans as an integral part of nature and realises that man's survival depends upon working with nature and not against it.

Further reading:

Sciforums discussion: "Science is not god"

 

 

 



III. ABUSE OF SCIENCE BY THE FORCES OF HETEROSEXUALISATION AS A WEAPON IN THE POLITICS OF MANHOOD

 

PART ONE: DEVELOPING NEW MECHANISMS OF MEN'S OPPRESSION

Science started as a rebellion against religion but as soon as it started to become powerful it was taken over by the vested interest just as they took over the control of religion about 1800 years earlier.

And soon science took over the agenda of religion as an institution to further the oppression of men ----- this time in a completely different way.

While religion was open, outright and unapologetic about its role in pressurizing men into reproduction, especially about its hostility towards male to male sex…….. science could not do so. Science needed to appear factual, just and non-judgmental.

So science needed to build new mechanisms, new infrastructures to perpetuate the old agendas of oppression.

 

Giving science's stamp to societies' pathological obsession with reproduction

Johann Roughgarden, biologist.

Amongst the first thing that the institution of science did was to carry forward the obsession of religion with reproduction into the modern era.

While religion had put reproduction as a requirement from 'god' (e.g. in Hinduism its your religious duty to get married and produce a son in order to go to heaven)…… and came down heavily on non-reproductive sex ----- including non-reproductive male-female sex ----- science put reproduction as a requirement from nature or 'biology, instead of god.

Early scientists, prominent amongst whom was Darwin himself, laid down the basis for science's contention that all life forms exist primarily to reproduce. Reproduction was said to be the one and only purpose of life ----- into which all members of a living species are 'naturally' built to participate. The immediate corollary of this contention was that those human beings that do not reproduce were deemed to be biologically sick, abnormal and unhealthy. They were 'lacking' individuals. In fact they were now treated as a biological 'burden', when religion treated them as a 'burden' to god. Their existed was now scientifically declared to be meaningless.

Science has claimed for long (and in a way it still does) that non-reproductive sex doesn't happen in the animals. That it is a peculiarly human phenomenon, a product of man's brain, a sickness brought about by human intervention ------ particularly those between the two males or two females.

E.g. Biologists still claims by and large that what they term as 'homosexuality' (sic) is a biological dead end.

Biologists early on misrepresented animal sexual life by presenting it as primarily and exclusively 'heterosexual' ------ the kind of lifestyle practiced in the west. Males were shown as having enormous, constant and exclusive sexual appetites for females and it has unquestioningly accepted as a biological fact, as this also reflected the formal p9osition of the society (wrongly referred to as popular opinion) of the time.

Darwin presented females on the other hand as choosy, finicky and coy about sex with males.

Darwin's theory of 'sexual evolution' took this obsession of science with reproduction to ridiculous and sick levels. It basically propounded that all biological evolution is geared towards making the male and female to mate for reproduction, and that any biological activity that doesn't ultimately lead to reproduction is a waste and that nature cannot afford to 'waste'.

While its true that everything in nature has a purpose and a place, but science grossly misrepresented this purpose as being exclusively or even primarily as reproduction and deeming all other biological occurrences as 'wastes'.

New-Darwinists that represented the forces of heterosexualisation (the modern form of vested interests) ran wild with this proposition and have built a huge biological science structure ------ that we are taught in schools and universities ------ on its faulty proposition. This is what modern day biology is primarily based on. Every new theory and every act of living beings is judged against this faulty criterion. They have built one lie upon the other --- each successive lie being 'validated' on account of the previous ones.

 

Case Study

If documentary films on wild life shown on TV are any indication, then when male mammals in the wild do a simple thing like peeing, they're actually leaving a trail to hook the female or fight (compete) with the male.(they call it marking territories to ward off other 'males', while welcoming females, which is an outright lie!).

 

These programs reinforce the theory that males have no contention with females, that males like to live in a heterosexual world, that females are welcome by males in their territories because males are exclusively/ constantly sexually attracted to them, and that males are by nature averse and hostile to other males. All of these are either blatant lies or half-truths at best.

 

Case Study

According to Darwin's sexual selection theory, male peacock has long tail only so that it can attract the female ------ a theory now being disputed by some leading biologists who claim that its purpose is more same-sex bonding than attracting females.

 

 

This trying to fit natural aspects into faulty scientific theories gets especially ironical (that's a mild word, hilarious would be more like it!) when scientists try to dismiss sex between same-sexes in the wild as also something that is meant to facilitate reproductive sex. E.g. explaining that two female macaques are having sex only in order to excite the male to mate (a common myth created in the west about men enjoying two women having sex with each other). When two males have sex, they're doing it to practice sex with a female in the future.

So basically science tries to lay down its half-baked theories first ----- which are given the stamp of 'scientific facts' by the vested interests controlling the institution, and then it goes about aggressively browbeating actual facts to fit into those ridiculous theories. It has to do a lot of cutting, censoring, thrashing and bending to do so, building one lie upon another till they erect a huge structure of lies and half-truths. This is exactly what organized religion had done 1800 years ago ----- put words into the mouth of 'god', an act conducted with the sanction of an authorized body (e.g. church) which is controlled by the vested interests ----- and then judging and distorting everything ----- from nature to humans on the basis of that false 'word of god', which assumes the stamp and even denomination of 'spirituality'.

 

Case Study

It sounds awful and unbelievable to a person belonging to a non-Judaic/ Christian/ Islamic religion when a terrorist quoting religious texts to incite violence is described by the media as a spiritual leader.

 

To sum up the discussion till now, the institution of science decided to back up the mechanisms built by the societies to force men into reproduction. They gave scientific stamp to ALL the myths developed around male gender and sexuality during all these ages. In effect it gave scientific credence to the dirty politics of social manhood.

And the first thing that it did was to say that the essence of manhood is indeed reproduction. That men are biologically built to have sex (exclusively) with women, and that is what defines a man. And that those who cannot reproduce biologically are sick and abnormal. Science further stated that all men have this instinct to have sex with women, and a lack of this desire at any point of time in life denotes a sickness, a 'lacking' an 'unscientific' thing, an abnormality, a disorder or a disease.

And thus for the first time in the history of humankind, those who did not want to mate with women were equated formally with those who were biologically unable to reproduce (e.g. the hermaphrodites), and not wanting to sleep with women became a disease or a 'lacking' too. In popular parlance this was promptly used by the vested interests to say with 'scientific' authority that those who don't want to have sex with women are lacking ----- lacking in 'manhood'. That they were not men. That they were the same as the transgendered males who were considered half-males/ half-females and had been falsely propagated for long as being biologically unable to reproduce after castrating them.

This put huge pressures on men to prove their sexual interest in women, which was unprecedented in human history and still often unknown in the non-western(ised) world. In this new scheme of things there were no escapes for men from the pressure to have sex with women, except by accepting the third-sex status. In the traditional societies men merely needed to get married and reproduce in order to get social manhood. There was no obligation for them to prove they liked having sex with women. The emphasis had always been on reproduction. They could just hate having sex with women, but as long as they were able to do it and had even one child to prove it, they were men.
This new politics of manhood created a competition amongst men to prove their sexual interest in women. This immensely empowered the trait of sexual interest in women for men which became a hugely valuable thing for them which men spent huge efforts to develop or fake where they 'lacked'.

This gave a huge boost to the vested interests who were also getting more and more powerful with advances in technology and with industrialization. They used this scientific validity of 'reproduction' to liberate sex between males and females from heavy social regulations under which they existed previously ----- and make it all powerful. Ironically, while they used scientific stamp to reproductive sex to 'liberate' male-female sex, they eventually moved on to liberate male-female sex from 'reproduction' itself and forced social acceptance for non-reproductive, casual, non-marital male-female sex.

With the power of science they created a society in the west which is based primarily on male-female sexuality, where it is expected from all individuals in order to be in the mainstream. The rebels are thrown to the margins of the society. Where men are given extreme powers if they conform to heterosexuality, and severely disempowered if they reject it.

Thus if was not long before the empowerment of male-female reproductive sex by science (through forcing it on all men) was hijacked to give power to male-female heterosexuality (which is basically non-reproductive in nature).

Science's most important gift to the politics of manhood --- THE CONCEPT OF 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'

While on the one hand science helped in intensifying the pressures on men to have sex with women in order to qualify as men, at the same time the forces of heterosexualisation were destroying men's spaces by heterosexualising them, and were forcing out in the open the male-male sexual bonds that had survived quietly all these hostile ages under the safety of men's solidarity provided by the mainstream men's spaces. Almost everyman participated in male-to-male sexual bonds. it was accepted in men's spaces at least, that male to male sexual desire was a universal male quality ------ the only sexual desire that was stigmatized for men was a desire to be entered. The forces of heterosexualisation wanted to make men's sexual interest in men a great liability for them. They wanted a mechanism, a weapon whereby they could drive such bonds right out of the mainstream men's space so that they  could define it exclusively in terms of male-female socio-sexual intimacy (what they later termed 'heterosexuality'). Therefore, these forces of heterosexualisation abused the institution of science to give them a weapon which could achieve this purpose; this latest addition to the artillery of the politics of manhood was called "Sexual orientation". And it signaled/ concretized the final defeat of male-male bonds at the hands of the politics of manhood.

It all started with the development of the concept of sexual orientation by suitably abusing science to present what appeared on the surface of the society as the 'facts'. Men's sexual need for men had been rendered completely voiceless in the formal social sphere in the past 2000 years of politics of manhood (in men's spaces it was still somewhat vocal). So when science used transgendered males who liked men (who were never considered men in any human societies in the past) as the representatives of men who like men, no man had the voice or the courage to challenge it. The vulnerability of men was increased a million times by the fact that the western science, like the society did not consider Gender a valid/ biological point of difference. Ironically, western men did not themselves know how they were different from the transgendered males and transsexuals.

And thus science coined for the first time the concept of 'homosexuality', which mischievously mixed male transgenderism with male sexual need for men. The femininity of the transgendered males was explained in terms of their sexual need for men, and soon the two different concepts of gender and sexuality became one and the same. Now any man who showed any kind of sexual interest in men was promptly labeled a "homosexual", and thus deprived of manhood by throwing in the queer/ feminine/ third sex, 'gay' space.

As the feminine gendered males who like men thronged the 'homosexual' space and claimed to be THE only representative of men's sexual need for men, and as male sexual need for men officially became their 'property', men distanced themselves from this stigmatized group by defining themselves as 'heterosexual' and disowning completely their sexual need for men. This is what the vested interests had always wanted to accomplish but could not achieve because the men's spaces were very strong. What the institution of religion could not achieve for them with all its bloody and violent ways, they achieved by treacherously abusing the institution of science without causing a ripple.

However, till this date, in the west it is mainly the 'homosexuals' who define the mainstream men as 'heterosexuals' or 'straights' while the men themselves think of themselves only as men (even when they secretly harbour a sexual desire for men). They never think of themselves as heterosexuals unless contrasted with the homosexuals.

(Also see the chapter: Sexual Orientation is an invalid concept)

 

Abusing science to redefine male gender spaces in terms of the western concept of 'sexuality'

The human societies had put their weight behind the politics of manhood in the past only in order to harness male sexuality towards reproduction as much as possible in order to achieve adequate people to fill those societies ----- something not possible in the natural scheme of things.

They had no other or further interest to oppress men or male bonds or to give undue powers to male-female sex or its desire. Besides till now it had not been possible to thoroughly wipe out male bonds or the desire for male to male sex from the mainstream.

It had been a long standing dream of the vested interests, ever since they tasted power for the first time as male-female sex was privileged by the societies for its reproductive value ------- to consolidate their powers and to concretize their victory by defeating permanently the men's spaces and the male sexual bonds which were the backbone of these spaces. In the past they had often tried to manipulate the politics of social manhood to redefine formal manhood in terms of male-female sexual desire and the 'discredited', unmanly third-sex male space in terms of male-male sexual desire. However, they could never succeed in the past primarily because the men's spaces were very strong and they thwarted this move of the vested interests. It would have needed another long drawn bloody battle to force this criterion of manhood on men which the vested interests had no chance to win.

Thus this effort of the vested interests to redefine manhood in terms of sexuality could never work beyond the formal space where the vested interests ruled (in addition to the women's or third-sex spaces who ignorantly accepted the formal manhood as the real manhood) ------ mainly because the men's spaces were strong and they had a say in how manhood was actually practiced on the ground. Besides, since the motive of the society in implementing the politics of manhood was not to unduly oppress men or benefit the vested interests, but only to boost reproduction, the vested interests were powerless to have their way.

This situation had changed dramatically in the modern west when suddenly due to several developments the vested interests were finally able to attack and destroy men's spaces. The institution of science not only gave the weapons needed to destroy men's spaces, but it also provided the opportunity and resources to do so.

After the men's spaces were adequately defeated, the next step was to reorganize male gender spaces as sexual spaces. But the problem was that science could not have given stamp to a division of male spaces in terms of social concepts of manhood. That is to say that it could not say that only those who have a sexual interest in women are men, while the rest are non-men or lesser men, because this would have sounded judgmental, which is outside the purview of science. Science could also not segregate males on the basis of natural manhood because science did not recognize gender as biological; hence manhood or masculinity could not be given a scientific stamp. As per science anyone born with a penis was supposed to be a 'man' even if (s)he was transgendered. Science found the next best solution. It renamed the masculine gendered, manly mainstream male space as the heterosexual space. Thus in due course of time heterosexuality became synonymous with masculinity and manhood. And the third sex, feminine gendered male space was rechristened as "homosexual" and with this man to man sexual desire was clubbed together with the queer to man sexual desire and became synonymous with transgenderism, lack of manliness, courage and everything else that manhood stands for.

With this the forces of heterosexualisation got everything that they ever wanted ------ to have sexual need for women officially designated as "masculine" and sexual need for men officially designated as "feminine". Only this time there were no men's spaces to thwart this definition at the ground level. Now these formal definitions with the stamp of science became unopposed, the practical definitions of manhood that ruled the ground. Only they were cleverly named in a disguised manner to conceal the true nature and purpose of this division.
Thus science as an institution has been instrumental in consolidating the powers of the vested interests and concretizing their victory while at the same time consolidating and concretizing the defeat of men's spaces/ male bonds.

 

The role of science and technology in destroying men's spaces

The vested interests could never have destroyed the men's spaces and become the forces of heterosexualisation without abusing technology and the institution of science.

The primary ways in which science helped in heterosexualising men's spaces was as follows:

- Science gave a rare and huge opportunity to reorganize social spaces which was brought about by a near complete industrialization of the society. A reorganization which was otherwise not possible without enormous bloodshed --- this gave the vested interests the opportunity to destroy men's spaces.

- It provided the economic and technological power and resources brought about by industrialization, with which the enormous task of reorganizing social spaces could be achieved ------- this gave the vested interests the resources to destroy men's spaces. E.g. the main source of entertainment and information in the middle class, urban spaces in the industrialized world is the media ----- which is totally in control of the forces of heterosexualisation and they present a highly distorted and concocted picture of male gender and sexuality. They are also instrumental in building up the pressures on men in the modern age.

- the institution of science was abused to develop new tools and weapons to destroy men's spaces and invent new and more intensified pressures on men, while at the same time seeming to be 'open', 'fair' and of course 'scientific' (e.g. the concept of 'sexual orientation').

 

PART TWO: MISREPRESENTATION, DISTORTION AND SUPPRESSION OF FACTS BY THE INSTITUTION OF SCIENCE TO HELP THE FORCES OF HETEROSEXUALISATION

Amazon.com's review of Bruce Bagemihl's book on same-sex bonds in animals

The institution of science since its inception has found it acceptable to misrepresent and suppress important facts about male gender and sexuality without affecting its conscience or credibility ----- as they are supposed to be doing a great service to humanity by helping with its much needed mechanisms.
Thus half truths about the biology of gender and sexuality have been propagated as scientific, unalterable and universal facts.

The scientific programs shown about wildlife on TV channels are very representative of this false propaganda by science. These programs keep focusing on male-female mating process and the competition/ aggression/ rivalry between the males and blows both of them way out of proportion to make it seem the only reality of males, when in reality they represent only a minor part of the complete picture. In this propaganda they block everything else that forms part of the majority. If these programs are to be believed, all that the males in the wild ever do is to fight amongst themselves for the females, to mate with the females or to prepare/ wait to mate with the females, when all of these taken together forms less than 5% of male behaviour, at least in the mammals.

Any interaction or behaviour in the wild that doesn't fit the heterosexual image of biology is simply blocked out or ignored or misrepresented. And it is considered perfectly acceptable and uncontroversial to do so, only because the forces of heterosexualisation rule and control the society.

 

Case Study

A wildlife programme on discovery channel shows the story of two male raccoons who are strongly bonded with each other ----- they always stay together 'confusing' the researchers as it goes against everything they have learnt in their books. They try to separate them by imprisoning one of them and chasing away the other.
The other raccoon risks his life to come to the cage in the night and struggles all night to free his mate. He finally manages to free his pal by digging a burrow. The researchers are amazed by the devotion of the male to his mate. This kind of bonding is never seen between males and females in mammals.

 

It never occurred to the researchers even once that the bond between the two males could have been sexual and that the two could be lovers (of course it doesn't mean that they'd be having anal sex which is considered the only evidence of male to male sexual behaviour by the researchers).

And even if the researchers knew about the sexual angle, they can't 'disclose' it openly, for the institution of science will not allow the researches to go public.

Bruce Bagemihl has in his book 'Biological Exuberance' carefully documented several cases over the 200 years of science ----- where scientists have done everything to suppress, destroy, distort or ignore instances of widespread same-sex sexual activities in the wild ------ while unintentional misjudgment and non-noticing such sexual activities or bonds or confusing them as being between two opposite sexes is a thousand times more common.

Here are some excerpts from a reader's review of his book from Amazon.com:

 

Excerpts from a reader's review of Bruce's book:

" If you want to know what the birds and the bees are doing when Jerry Falwell isn't looking, this is the place to find out. Don't expect to find traditional family values in these pages. What you will discover instead is that animals aren't doing it for Darwin, they are doing it for fun. There are amazingly detailed descriptions, pictures and illustrations here of animals having all kinds of sex (that will amaze you), and most of it isn't for procreation.

More interesting to me, though, is the speculation on the sexual origins of language and culture in chapter 2 and the devastating examination in chapter 3 of bigotry in the biological sciences in over two hundred years of observations of animal homosexuality. Bagemihl shows, for example, that in science as in society, there's a presumption of heterosexuality. Field researchers have commonly assumed, with no independent verification, that whenever they see a pair of animals engaging in what appears to be sexual behavior they are observing a male-female pair. Conversely, whenever they observe a known same-sex pair engaging in behavior that would be classified as sexual between a male and female, they classify it in some other way. This protocol largely precludes the gathering of data about animal homosexuality even when it's being observed. In some cases, though, it resulted in published studies being repudiated as much as 20 years later when it was discovered that what was presumed to be heterosexual behavior in a population was really entirely homosexual. (It's an interesting fact that in some species heterosexuality has never been observed by scientists even when they go to great lengths to observe it over periods of many years.) Also, a lot of animal homosexuality that has been recognized as such has simply been excluded from the published reports. As a result, there is still widespread belief among scientists and the public that animal homosexuality is rare or nonexistent. People will believe otherwise after reading this book.

Chapter 4 looks at the attempts to explain away animal homosexuality and chapter 5 considers arguments on the other side that try to attach evolutionary value to homosexuality. Bagemihl rejects all the proposals on both sides, demonstrating the weakness of all the explanations and typically showing that they are plainly inconsistent with the evidence of animal behavior. Finally, he arrives at the question that the reader has been waiting for almost 200 pages: "Why does same-sex activity persist--reappearing in species after species, generation after generation, individual after individual--when it is not 'useful'?" His answer is not to show that it is useful, but rather to treat the plain existence of homosexuality as a reductio ad absurdum argument against the biologists' assumption that only traits that contribute to reproduction will survive (i.e. are useful). In pursuing this line of thought Begemihl offers interesting descriptions of animals that are nonbreeders, animals that suppress reproduction, animals that segregate the sexes so that reproduction can't happen, animals that engage in birth control, and animals that engage in other nonreproductive behaviors. He also shows that a lot of the sex that actually occurs is not for reproduction, but apparently for pleasure. All of this he believes calls for a new conception of the natural biological world."

 

 

Its not that there have not been honest scientists who were overwhelmed by the difference between what they were taught in universities and what they found out in the wild. Some of them did try to report what they saw, risking heavy personal and professional odds. But the powerful scientific institution made sure that there work never gets out.

 

Case Study

A female biologist studying Japanese Macaque monkeys reported what she saw ----- widespread sexual bonds between female macaques. Her colleagues and seniors started to shun and ridicule her and called her a lesbian and a pervert. Her funding organization was shocked by the revelation and threatened to cancel her funding. She stood by her report and her research was never published.

 

 

Lately some brave scientists have had some success reporting the truth. But most of them can bring out their work to the public only by circumventing the peer-review process which doesn't let any research which contradicts the heterosexual ideology (Darwinism!) escape this process into the world outside. They put a hundred objections and reject such research.

Some of these researches conducted by well known and accredited biologists have created ripples in the scientific world. But the strategy that the forces of heterosexualisation adopt to deal with such researches is just to ignore them and not to react to them, and then go on about things as if these researches never ever existed. The media which is also controlled by the forces of heterosexualisation too doesn't give any publicity to such researches and the scientific institution continues to spread lies till the research is finally forgotten.
Meanwhile many fraudulent, half-baked researches are cleverly passed out to the public via the media which propagates these researches to the hilt, adding its own 'masala'. This negates any influence that the genuine researches had had on the public mind.

What is more surprising is that even in the west a sizeable section of scientists don't know about the important work by scientists like Bruce Bagemihl or Paul Vasey or Johann Roughgarden ------ which talk about a totally different world of animal gender and sexual behaviour, than told to us by Darwin. These scientists have gone as far as to challenge Darwin with their enormous researches. But the media blacks out on their researches BECAUSE they hurt the heterosexual ideology.

At the same time almost everyone knows about the half-baked and mischievous researches that say that men who like men are inherently different from men who like women. The former are more like women (i.e. they are queer!). E.g. the research that says that 'homosexual' (sic) men have hypothalamus that resembles female hypothalamus.

 

Other instances of suppression/ distortion/ ignoring of truth by science

Case study: Jesus slept with men

You can add other examples here.

 

When this anti-man, western science is taught in non-western, non-heterosexual, traditional societies, slowly the 'heterosexual' ideology is transferred into the younger generation as THE 'scientific' and universal 'reality', and these societies slowly start to look down upon their own non-heterosexual ways as uncivilized, 'unscientific' and even unmanly. In any case these are people who are already mesmerized by the enormous economic and technological powers of western science, and like the westerners broken from their nature, they too start worshipping science as if it were god, to question which is nothing short of blasphemy.

 

PART THREE: DEBUNKING SOME OF THE FRAUDULENT RESEARCHES BY THE FORCES OF HETEROSEXUALISATION ON MALE GENDER AND SEXUALITY

1. Hypothalamus Theory: Men who like men (homosexual (sic) have brains of women (put in a more scientific and politically correct terminology in the research).

2. Gene Theory: Liking men is an anomaly caused by a gene.

3. PPT Theory: Men who like men (homosexual (sic)) have brains that react like women when confronted with sudden sound.

4. The Bailey Inc.: Male Bisexuality is a myth.

5. The Bailey Inc.: The real transgenders are 'homosexual', while the heterosexual ones are fake/ psychological cases (meaning heterosexuality cannot be queer!).

6. The Pheromone Theory: The Pheromones oozed by men who like men are different from that oozed by men who like women.

7. The gay sheep theory.

If you have understood the ancient politics of manhood and the designs of the forces of heterosexualisation, you will have no trouble understanding that these researches are just meant to perpetuate the age old agenda of the vested interests in the present age of science by giving the myths created by them the stamp of scientific institution. And by way the scientific institution gives them this stamp in a hurried manner without making proper checks and in the manner that the media splashes these half-baked researches as 'facts' that the 'world' had 'always' known, quite clearly proves that the forces of heterosexualisation are desperate for this scientific validity to their lies.

These researches basically aim to prove that:

a) Manly men have sexual desire for women. Or desiring women is a manly (straight) quality.

b) Desire for a man is a feminine/ transgender/ queer/ unmanly/ womanly trait.

c) Heterosexual transgenderism is not real and should not be acknowledged, just as straight male attraction for men is not real.

d) That the western divide between males who like men and males who like women is real and based on biology.

e) There is an attempt to discredit and unacknolwedge male bisexuality as it disturbs and threatens the heterosexual ideology.

 

The main drawbacks of these 'scientific' researches on male gender and sexuality

The main drawbacks of the above researches are:

1. The biggest drawback is that they take the western social categories of heterosexual and homosexual as biological categories that can be understood by biological science ------ without having any need to prove that they are indeed so.

Science also accepts without questioning the premise that sexual desire for men and sexual desire for women naturally occurs in different individuals.
This is the main problem with science. Whatever is acceptable to popular public opinion (read 'the ideology in power) is not required to be examined and is easily assumed to be a 'fact'.

However, nothing can be assumed in science. We have already seen how these categories are a result of intense gender and sexual politicking of the dirtiest kind.

You can learn more about the drawbacks and invalidity of the sexual orientation division here.

2. The acceptance of 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' categories as biological also means that the institution of science negates the immense effect of social environment ----- including the immense pressures and conditioning, that works on male gender/ sexuality.

3. Male sexual desire also occurs in straight men: Most men harbour a secret, suppressed or mutilated sexual desire for men. How does the researchers know that a person who says or thinks he is exclusively heterosexual doesn't have a secret, suppressed or crippled sexual need for men that never got a chance to develop. For more info see the heterosexualisation of men.

4. Wrong sampling: Those who relate with the 'gay' identity are mainly feminine gendered males and those with feminine sexuality (i.e. exclusive or predominant sexual interest in receptive sex). Men's sexual interest in men is a far more diverse and universally occurring phenomenon than this. The rest of the men just suppress and hide their sexual need for men. Therefore, when a sample of 'males' who like men are taken from the 'gay' community, it will predominantly consist of queer or feminine gendered males.

Similarly, the feminine gendered heterosexuals are not given the 'straight' identity and are included in the LGBT community as transgenders. The sample of men taken from the straight community will mainly consist of masculine gendered heterosexualised males.

5. Comparing feminine gendered males who like men with masculine gendered males who like women is not going to be a very valid comparison of their sexual differences.

6. Wrong deduction --- Ascribing gender differences to differences in Sexuality (sic): When masculine gendered heterosexuals (sic) (i.e. those who claim to exclusively like women) are compared with feminine gendered homosexuals (sic) (i.e. those who like receptive sex), the biological differences noticed between them is most likely because of the differences of gender between them, i.e. that of masculinity and femininity. Since the gender factor is not even considered, it is very easy for science to ascribe these differences to 'sexuality' (sic). However, this is obviously misleading. The inability of science to comprehend gender as a biological trait should not be allowed to muddle human being's understanding of our own sexuality.

We can know the true picture only when masculine gendered men who like men are compared with masculine gendered men who like women (assuming that the two traits mostly occur in different individuals, which is a baseless assumption!).

How do we know e.g., that transgendered males who like women do not have the same enlarged feminine hypothalamus as has been claimed to exist in 'homosexual' males. In other words, how do we know that the feminine hypothalamus noticed in gay males is not really indicative of their sexuality for men, but of their transgenderism, which has nothing to do with who they are attracted to.

7. Wrong approach to understanding sexuality: There is an old tale from Panchatantra where four blind men set out to find what an elephant looks like. One of them touches the tail of the elephant and says, "An elephant is like a rope!". The other one touches one of the legs and exclaims, "The elephant is like a pillar!". The third one grabs the ear of the elephant and says, "you are both wrong, the elephant is like a fan". The fourth man touches the trumpet of the elephant and says, "The elephant is like a big snake!". Of course all of them were wrong, for they got only the half-truths. This is exactly how the western science has attempted to understand human, especially male sexual need and behaviour. By examining it in abstracts. There have been almost no attempts to examine human sexuality in its entirety. It is impossible to do any justice to a complex subject like male sexuality by conducting such ridiculous researches in abstracts.

8. Wrong deductions: The manner in which the deductions are made by the researchers is also very dubious. E.g. the research about PPT mentions that there are differences between straight and gay responses to sound, but that they are insignificant. But, they do highlight that there are differences. Yet, if you take any two group of samples ----- you may divide the 'straight' sample into two parts, and you will find that the results of the two parts will never be exactly the same. There will be minor differences.

9. Wrong presentation: The manner in which the results of these dubious researches are presented to the world is also questionable. E.g. in the above example of the PPT research, the results were presented to the media saying that there are differences between straight and gay PPT ratios but they are minor. Now, the media wanted to hear that there are differences between gay and straight responses and it promptly ignored the 'minor' part, and splashed the results as 'gay' PPT ratio is different than straight ratio.

10. Wrong motives: Thus the topics chosen by the researchers for their researches on male sexuality (most of them are about finding out the 'cause' of 'homosexuality' (sic) or to show that 'homosexuals' (sic) are womanly or they are not really men), the manner in which the samples are collected, the unsubstantiated and unscientific assumptions that these researches are based on, the way in which deductions are hastily made, and in the manner the results are presented to the world ------ they all make the motives of these researches and the role of the scientific institution in promoting such researches, highly suspicious. Their purpose is undoubtedly to help the forces of heterosexualisation build new infrastructures with the backing of science in order to sustain the mechanisms of men's oppression.


Other researches on male sexual need and behaviour and their drawbacks:

A. SURVEYS ABOUT "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" (sic)

1. The Kinsey survey

The Kinsey survey on male sexuality had shaken the western world, especially with its revelations about the incidences of male-to-male sexuality. Kinsey was a nightmare for the forces of heterosexualisation, and therefore his research has long been forgotten by the west and the forces of heterosexualisation are back at their usual propaganda.

Even though the Kinsey research reported a considerably high level of male to male sexual incidences (around 46%), Kinsey was himself disappointed with the results. Because he knew that the incidences of male-to-male sexuality in his times were much higher ------ near universal. But science has a limitation in properly examining such aspects of human sexuality. Because science only reports what it sees, and most of the male-to-male sexual experience is not talked about.
Here are the constraints of the Kinsey research because of which the universal phenomenon of male-to-male sexuality has been grossly underreported in his research, although high by western standards:

1. Like mentioned earlier, science has a limitation in reporting the incidences of such sexual behaviors because most of them that happen in the mainstream are not reported.

2. Kinsey reported only the incidences of male to male sex. He did not report the extent of presence of such desire or need in men. Most men have such a need but either never indulge in sex with men or just do it once or twice in their life. This is because it is impossible for a straight man to indulge in such sex without risking his manhood or straight status. Besides there are hardly any opportunity to do so in the mainstream male space.

Since the time of the Kinsey, the western society has been extremely heterosexualised. With extreme hostilities towards such bonds and mechanisms like 'sexual orientation' in place, today both the incidences and reportage of male to male sexuality have become almost nil in the mainstream, and most of the reportage is limited to the 'gay' ghetto.

2. The 1 in 10 is 'gay' (sic) researches

The usual figure quoted for the incidence of male-to-male sexuality now by the west (including by the 'homosexuals' (sic)) is that 10% of any population is 'gay'. Of course when they say 'gay' they mean all males who like males. The forces of heterosexualisation, of which the gays are an important part are divided over this figure, and it is like political bargaining. The gays want the society to settle at this figure, while many non-gay vested interests want the figure to be brought down to 2% to 5%.

These figures that count people based on their claimed sexual identities are a hoax in the name of science. Their main drawbacks are:

(i) 'Gay' is not equal to all male to male sexual need: These researches assume that sexual preferences in the male population occur strictly according to the homo – hetero divide created by the society. And that most of the cases of male to male sexuality are neatly labeled gay. So that you can arrive at the figure of male to male sexual need by counting all the 'gay' heads.

(ii) The reality is that the 'gay' space is only for the feminine gendered, queer males who like receptive sex with men, and almost everyone who is 'happy' calling himself 'gay' belongs to this group, which is certainly not representative of the majority of male to male sexual need, most of which is suppressed or hidden in the straight space because it doesn't relate with the 'gay' space.

(iii) The surveys, of course, conveniently ignore the immense politics around male gender and sexuality and the immense mechanisms/ pressures/ hostilities that condition/ train/ force men to be heterosexual.

(iv) Again these surveys only talk about the actual incidences of male to male sex. They ignore the actual extent of male to male sexual need which is suppressed or hidden. It is the actual extent of male to male sexual need which should be important here.

(v) They are only talking about the exclusive male to male sexual incidences. And although even that is much higher than 10%, the truth is that without the pressures, the natural incidence of exclusive heterosexuality is just around 5%. So will they accept that only 1 in 20 or even 1 in 10 is heterosexual?

 

3. Other researches that seek to count heads based on reported 'sexual orientation'.

This part is yet to be added.

 

B. RESEARCHES REGARDING MALE TO MALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE WILD

1. Researches by Bruce Bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, Paul Vasey, etc.

This part is yet to be added.

C. RESEARCHES REGARDING MALE TO MALE SEXUAL BONDS IN THE HISTORY OR IN NON-WESTERN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES

This part is yet to be added.

 

Also see the following

Related News

1.

Exotic mates for reluctant Delhi apes

2.

Animal exchange programme

 

top of page