ranting, a bit.

17 May

I’ve been surprised at the amount of hits I’m getting from people searching “homosocial relationships.” I thought I was the only one in the world who thinks it’s important.

So I was exploring some other blogs and I quickly realized that I am not the only idiot who has academicized (queered?) same-sex, non-sexual relationships.

I came across this one. The blogger (RJ) says homosociality is this:

it’s roughly the idea that men’s relationships with women are secondary to men’s relationships with other men, and that women are used as currency of exchange in male relationships, that women are used by men in various ways in order to negotiate their relationships with other men, etc.

And goes on to say:

Given a choice between looking bad in front of other men by treating a woman like a human being vs. looking bad in front of a woman by going along with what sexist guys are doing, guys operating under homosociality will always choose the latter.

It has become clear to me that homosociality has different meanings. I mean, in RJ’s post, homosociality is made to be about men and is later compared to the term “pussy-whipped.” 

Another blogger, Hugo (a “pro-feminist” male, Women’s Studies prof. who connects the “struggle around food” to sexuality in his syllubus) talks in legnth about his struggle to over come the social pressure to hate women to impress men. What a concept?!  Should I give him a pat on the back for that one?

Here’s the thing:  Where are women in these blogs? The writers keep talking about how women are treated as objects and that’s bad. But the way in which both of the blogs address homosociality and male relationships, the objectification/woman hate is only expanded.

It’s ridiculous.

It’s not homosociality… it’s patriarchy.  

And some more pictures for Mert:

Advertisements

3 Responses to “ranting, a bit.”

  1. emily May 18, 2007 at 2:14 pm #

    i know the pictures are supposed to be for mert 🙂 but i must say that i really love the archery image. hott.

    also, i find it really interesting to link homosociality for men to patriarchy. it seems like in some sense much of the world is homosocial men (my mom often talked about her work environment as being one big “boy’s club”). maybe it’s b/c i’m a woman, but it seems to me that women, who are so often not recorded in history, are more in need/ deserving (?) of defining relationships in alternative ways (does that make sence?).

  2. timanna May 19, 2007 at 4:53 am #

    makes sense to me! i mean, i think it’s just crazy that for men, having relationships with just men makes them hate women. i mean, i just don’t get it. also, the last picture reminds me of high school. heh.

  3. lesbianist May 19, 2007 at 9:00 pm #

    hey! i do love the pics, too.

    i think women’s homosociality is important, but i am not all for clear-cut distinctions between homosocial and homosexual. i dont like the framing of lesbianism as sexual by definition and i think friendship can be romantic and lesbian without sex. i would hope that homosocial is a choice for women in which the next logical step is homosexual.

    while i agree that homosocial for men= patriarchy, i dont think heterosocial for men is necessarily any better. its problematic either way so i say let them keep to themselves and leave us alone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: