This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - B a i k a l
« on: July 31, 2011, 02:48:27 PM »
« on: July 31, 2011, 02:46:03 PM »
A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.
Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean
many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does?
Would would you get if you combined an emotional vagabond, a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist and a genius? An outspoken employee garbed in the latest fringe fashion... hoot couture they'd call it, who insults the company president on principle and cares not one whit; who keeps the office in stitches with his barbed wit and comedic brilliance; and who could, given the right inspiration and the VP's corner office (and a midi studio), come up with an idea that could place your company on the stock exchange by noon tomorrow. That's the kind of person they're talking about, I guess. He will do things, say things, and wear things others wouldn't, for fear of ridicule or reprisal. His outrageous actions and sensuous being affords others an opportunity to experience uninhibited and unabashed freedom, vicariously.
Wow - that's a very interesting post, search engine! Is it some kind of specific profile?
« on: July 31, 2011, 01:46:45 PM »
I'd like to add that, as things are, nowadays it is gay people that are engaged in the freest and most equal relationships. They are already outside of the family and they have already, at least in part, rejected the "masculine" and "feminine" roles that society has designed for them. For straight men and women it is impossible to escape their rigid gender roles and those of oppressor and oppressed. Gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psychosexual needs, and lesbian women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor. Homosexuality, love between people who are alike, is decisively distinct from heterosexuality in its structural feature that two people who are lovers of a third can themselves also, in principle, be lovers. Such provides an absolute precondition if rivalry and hate are to be ended.
I do believe gay men have a great deal to teach straight men about initiation and mourning the loss of power in the culture. Gay community is the story of what men gain by sacrificing the power conferred by gender when they come out of the closet. This is the pivotal real-life experience of every out gay man -- a usually terrifying sacrifice of conventional values and power. It is this that threatens most straight men (and the institutions they control), although it usually gets expressed simplistically in statements about envy or contempt of the gay people's sexual freedoms. The so-called straight man says he has no model for going "beyond the hero" and the conventional male warrior, forgetting or repressing the model right under his nose, represented for him in the gay community -- the man who has renounced, by whatever process and for various reasons, the "patriarchal dividend," i.e., the payoff for being part of the patriarchy. Straight men have much to learn from their homosexual counterparts about handling, containing, and transforming the pain that results from their "falling out" of unconscious identity with the patriarchy.
The breaking down of divisions between gay and straight is not going to happen by gay and straight meeting half-way. Because straight, by definition, is consonant with the gender system, the ground on which gays shall gradually converge with their straight brothers is on their side of the fence. If straights are serious about undermining masculinity, then they must accept the fact of their own deviance as defined by the existing order, and as long as they resist the idea and the reality of homosexuality, we can only see this as a deep-seated allegiance to the masculine gender that belies their professions of anti-sexism. Gays for their part refuse to accept that they are permanently set apart as the minority. This is a static view of the situation - viewed dynamically, they are the thin end of a wedge. Gayness is the wedge that splits open the gender system, in which feminine and masculine men fit together in the sexual division of labor: a double wedge in fact, as the rejection of heterosexuality and all it implies proceeds in parallel among both women and men. As more and more people follow gay people's lead and the gender system crumbles, they shall have to redefine themselves, no longer as a deviant minority but as the new majority, having only pity for the stubborn minority who still cling for a while to the traditional path.
Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for them to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homo and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established on the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual.'
Thinking about being gay in such a way means to make a job out of it.
What exactly do you mean flashplayer? That thinking about being gay as having some kind of "mission" in life causes you so much trouble that you feel just like you're having a full-time job - one for which you're not being paid though? I'd assume this is the deduction one would normally make, although I'm sure someone out there could make the exact opposite argument starting from exactly the same premises..