Talk:Homosociality

Original research
This article has degenerated into a hodge-podge of semi-original research again, quoting extensively various scholars who are saying approximately the same thing. I'm summarizing extensively the scholarship section. There should actually be an investigation for vandalism re: this article. What's the due process on Wikipedia?--Dnavarro (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reread my contributions to the article after a few days and I think it's neutral enough now. Let's take a vote to remove the header? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnavarro (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Victorian-era homosociality
I am interested in the fact of female homosocial bonding in the Victorian era, in which well-to-do women would bond within benvolent organizations and get a kind of intimacy satisfaction from such proximity. More than one would think, women of this class did not marry (check out the statistics in 1830's American cities for example). During whole days of charitable work at the orphanage or working on the minutes of the last meeting, women could seek out moments and hours of sexual or psudo-sexual satisfaction they would never seek with men in formal social situations like a work place.


 * I'm interested in this as well, but unfortunately the article focused on male homosociality, of course. 24.62.95.150 (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosocial and sociology
I don't think I agree with the last edit. Male homosocial bonds range from the actions already described to homosexuality. I have been trying to research the use of the term in Sociology and have so far found little use of the term that deviates from the definition offered by Eve Sedgwick. While I researched the issue, I was hoping someone may be able to offer some assistance as to whether or not Homosocial is used in Sociology and whether heterosocial and bisocial truly exist.

Also, I plan on removing the external link, as it is misleading. The author of that article DID NOT invent the term homosocial, as he claims. That term originated inthe early 1980s and was clearly defined by Eve Sedgwick. -Cari0028 16:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, after some more research I found only scattered use of bisocial. The article which is currently linked to this page and a few google hits. I do not believe that is enough to substantiate discussion of bisociality. This is also because the terms homosociality and heterosociality refer to interactions between people. Therefore a man and a women talking could be seen as a heterosocial interaction, whereas two men would be a homosocial interaction. I find it difficult to find a situation where bisocial could be used. Therefore, I plan on removing mention of the term bisocial. If anyone knows of a good external link for homosociality that would be helpful. -Cari0028 01:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've created articles for bisocial and heterosocial which are absent. They certainly do have uses. First is in describing someone's preferences. If someone is heterosocial, they prefer socializing with women. Bisocials would prefer either, or perhaps a mixing if referring to group preferences. That's the only part I'm stuck on. They also have uses in describing groups. A group of men would be homosocial, a group of mixed would be either bisocial if bonding neutrally, or pseudo-heterosocial if collecting solely for the interest of socializing with the opposite sex. One might see a dance or dating scene as being heterosocial, even if an incompletely-linked group. Tyciol 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This is so dense as to be unreadable. I've read it three or four times and have little to no idea what the term actually means. Can we remove some of the jargon and explain it in terms a non-Soc major would understand? The article seems to intimate that homosociality describes a theory that male heterosexuality is a veneer for male interaction with other males, but does not explain why this should be so, nor do I, as a male, understand how it could be. It seems completely counterintuitive and intended to make spurious claims about the marginalization of women. Also, sourcing some books other than the single one sourced now would be good. Suntiger 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Authors and sources
--Liberal Freemason (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * J. Lipman-Blumen
 * Michael Kimmel
 * Pierre Bourdieu

More information/context
This article uses the term in the context of the 17th and 18th century:



A PDF has the pictures:

 NantucketNoon 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

POV
Am I the only one who has noticed the feminist slant of this article, and the portrayel of non-sexual man to man relationships in a negative light? 216.201.12.156 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one. I felt exactly the same way. I could not believe what I was reading. There is a problem with NPOV in this article. --Atikokan (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I stated in a previous edit that I'd like to see this article deleted. I objected to the term because it seemed to me to promote the view current among some gay and lesbian authors that any preference among heterosexuals for same-gender friendships is evidence of repressed homosexual desire, a view which is presented in the article, and one which I find ridiculous and offensive. But it now occurs to me that since I consider the terms heterosocial and bisocial to be useful additions to the lexicon of sociology and social psychology, that I ought not to balk at the term "homosocial" either, provided its literal meaning based upon its root words is preserved without the incorporation of any bias or agenda into its definition. ( None of us has the right to define the terms of a discussion in such a way that opposing views cannot be as easily articulated as our own. ) That said, this article does have problems, and they're both interesting and challenging ones. More to follow subsequently on these, and on how I believe they can be most usefully addressed. Ohiostandard (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the writing is slanted, but it is so disorganized and poorly written that the entire article needs to be scrapped and started fresh. There even appears to be some vandalism in some places (or missing phrases or sentences that conntect the parts at least). The article needs to start with history of the term and note how different authors seem to use it in very different ways. It should also focus on the more common uses and not pick up on every minor scholar's use of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.3.182 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, seven years have passed since this dialogue, but the article still looks like a feminist NPOV, starting with the statement that "only lesbians can be true feminists" and ending with a strange attempt to link any relationship between males with subconscious or metaphorical homosexuality. Not to mention the fact that the term itself deliberately or not consciously links any relationship between people of the same sex with homosexuality and homoerotism, almost openly declaring that "true heterosexual" should only communicate in principle with members of the opposite sex. In general, I believe that the article should be completely rewritten, for in its present form this is a little-connected original study based on feminist works. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Homosociality in the Elizabethan era
The Folger Library edition of Shakespeare's "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" features a fantastic essay postscript concerning homosocial relationships. That particular play is notorious (or just noteworthy) for its ending, which by modern social standards, is unfathomable, but within the context of homosocial relationships in the Eliabethan Era, is completely fathomable. If anyone who has a copy of this edition would take the time to include this content (properly cited, of course), it would do wonders to elucidate the meaning of the term, as well as provide another historical example.

If no one else has this edition, and is looking to clarify the meaning of the term, here's a little overview. In "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," there are three significant characters--two male friends and a disputed female lover--and two kinds of relationships--sexual relationships, as between one of the gentlemen and the female; and social relationships, as between the two gentlemen. At the end of the play, one of the two gentlemen has become a criminal and abducted the female character from the other gentleman, with the intent of raping her. He is foiled by the other gentleman, but in the end, all is forgiven, and the female is given to the would-be rapist as an act of good-will. In fact, it is this reconciliation that confers upon the two young men the title of "gentlemen." From that, you can see that cultivating male-male homosocial relationships was far, far more important in the male-dominated, aristocratic Elizabethan Era than was, say, taking a bride in a male-female sexual relationship. Throughout the play (as well as other Shakespearean plays), the two "gentlemen" speak to (or of) each other in language that, nowadays, we would associate only with sexual relationships. They profess to love one another, call each other "dear" and "sweet," etc., and this is not at all unusual or a sign of latent homosexual tensions between the two (unless you want to make that claim yourself).

Hopefully, someone can do something about this. I'm sure, even on the Internet, there's material about this important subject -134.84.102.237 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pov
This article is very degrading to men. I will be working on it, but anyone else who wants to is welcome to help. I think the section about Eve Sedgewick is way too long, for starters. -Zeus-u 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. How is this article degrading to men?Prairiemoon (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Proportionality
This article has some proportionality issues, as mentioned by Zeus. I severely trimmed down the section about Eve Sedgwick -- effectively eliminating the separated section. I'm hoping this edit won't be instantly reverted, but discussed on the talk page. I did not intend to, but not being a feminist scholar, might have misrepresented Sedgwick's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnavarro (talk • contribs) 00:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in prisons and seminaries
Author Richard Sipe says that the reason so many boys are targets of priest abuse is because priests have the closest contact with boys and young men in seminaries and in parishes where, until recently, girls were not allowed to be altar servers. Sipe calls the priesthood a "homosocial culture," not unlike a men's prison. "Think what kind of sex is available to men in prison. Just because prisoners are committing homosexual acts doesn't mean they are all homosexuals. It's what's available to them," Sipe says. "Boys and men are more available to priests socially." ADM (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even without sex, ie. without any sexual activity involved, prisons as well as seminaries and monasteries are homosocial setups. A soccer club or in fact any sports club for only boys and men, or only girls and women is also a homosocial setup. At many times sex is not involved, but there is certainly "bonding" between members of a society or a sport club or a monastery werldwayd (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Validity
"Feminist scholars such as Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Heidi Hartmann have emphasized the role of male homosociality in perpetuating perceived patterns of male dominance in the workplace." I'm pretty sure "feminist scholars" have said this about everything from burning ants to juggling aeroplanes, so does it really carry any weight at all as a piece of information? It seems utterly irrelevant. 62.254.12.55 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities
— Assignment last updated by LivMourning (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)