Are male-female seggregated societies unnatural/ oppressive or are heterosexual ones?

Question

In mammals the original lifestyle consists of totally seggregated male and female spaces as represented by one of the oldest mammals ----- the elephants.

Mammals have no social pressures to do so. Males and females instinctively prefer that.

It is the same-sex sexual bonds that keep these male-only/ female only spaces strong and livable.

However, some males (around 5%) are exclusively 'heterosexual' (sic) & they need to live with females. Since they can't they become loners (as in elephants).

But, in species (such as horses or lions) where the females become weak (due to weakened same-sex bonds) these 5% males + 7% to 10% others who are predominantly so-called 'heterosexual', control these female spaces as harems.

That's the only heterosexual space that we know of in the natural mammalian setting (including tribal humans).

Males, especially love and need their male-only spaces. Destroying these spaces by heterosexualising them is the bigggest but unacknowledged....

.....and thus invisible oppression of men.

Heterosexual human social spaces are the root of all major social problems including the visible oppression of woemn and the invisible oppression of men.

E.g. when a male is forced (by psycho-social pressures) to marry and live with a woman, which is against the core of his nature, he may take out his frustration on the woman through violence (because she's weak physically).

Male spaces ------ whether in humans or animals can be heterosexualised only after males have been sufficiently weakened/ demasculated by breaking them from each other ------ as in the west.

Heterosexual spaces are unnatural and oppressive both for men and women, but in the present situation, especially for men.

What do you think?

Those who reply without reading, their answers do not count

Answer 1

I think society is so diverse today that we can only rely on social patterns emerging naturally, as in nature. Animals have a totally different life pattern today due to human behaviour. Human intervention into their environment has changed their lifestyles dramatically so to use them as a study of human behaviour is miss guided because human and animal behaviour has changed due to interaction into each others lifestyle! Strange but true! Have a good day.

Answer 2

Interesting question. I believe your point of view is a bit too close to the ground.

Look at it this way -- no one "invented" society. Society is a natural artifact of human life. Those humans who associated into groups and who lived by "norms" established by the clan, they survived better than the lone wolf types who just hunted when they could and reproduced when they could.

So, the inclination to affiliate into society is now BUILT IN to almost everyone. It is a part of the survival strategy of the human race. Look at baboons or chimps -- they also have an in-bred social organization. It is a part of being a baboon.

You are looking at the rules inside a clan. that can be different from animal to animal. Cranes and eagles mate for life - one mate, mating season after mating season. No one "forces" them to do so.

So, my friend, no one has "done" anything. A more mature view of society understands that it is a part of the natural evolution -- not some foreign "thing" that gets "imposed" as you have written.

Just find your ROLE in the society. If being in a monogamous heterosexual relationship isn't right for you, the "clan" has other roles you can jump into. Soldier, firefighter, nurse come to mind, where there is more of a team approach and less of a mom+dad+kids approach. And still be a vital central part of society. And just as above, no one will "do" that to you -- you will make that decision of your own will.

Answer 3

You gave me a headache.

Man used to have a need to reproduce.
So he took a mate, knowing then that the
off spring of his loins was of his blood.

Now they go on the " Maury Show " to find out.

Spaces, or species?

Sounds like you are all for Gayness.
End of the human race.
Man is not to be lover of Man.
That's one of the reasons God made Woman.

Answer 4

My first handle your question is that you're difficult the time period "gay" with "homosocial." To income from the social agency of alternative adult males loads of the time isn't gay; that is homosocial. i might want to assert extremely frankly that maximum human adult males are homosocial, even although they stay usually interior the agency of the option sex. (A gay guy or gal might want to be homosocial, heterosocial or bisocial, as can someone of the different sexual orientation.) regardless of this, sex-segregated societies and communities might want to be very validating on condition that such loads of people of ones own gender are readiliy accessible to confer with, to exhibit to, and to do activities with on a universal foundation. i imagine that's very actual for adult males -- interior the armed facilities, in activities, in sex-segregated dorms and such or perhaps in religious orders. For some adult males, even engaged on the pastime round usually male coworkers might want to be validating to their masculinity (we do not continually ought to stay one by one from women to have our masculinity verified; adult males can get that similar income through interacting with adult males outdoors of the residing house.)