Talk:Homosociality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authors and Sources

--Liberal Freemason (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Information/Context

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

[1]


A PDF has the pictures:

[2]


NantucketNoon 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)