Lawgivers
Uh huh. Man who roleplays as stereotypical HOTTTT woman tells feminists they’re not feminists.
Also – nobody knew the difference between women and men until colonialists made it all up.
Imagine white people laying down the law about BLM. Imagine white people who roleplay as black people – a crowd of Dolezals – laying down the law about BLM. Imagine thinking that was progressive.
Maybe this guy was merely attempting to be one of those wise Dolenzals of which you speak:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8395345/Toronto-man-charged-turned-anti-racism-protest-BLACKFACE.html
How does one “deconstruct the patriarchy” if the root of women’s oppression isn’t sex-based, but “gender”-based? It seems to me that radical feminists at least have a consistent story: because women can give birth and are generally smaller and weaker than men, men have always sought to control them and, through them, reproduction.
But if gender isn’t a social construct but some innate sense of “being a man” or “being a woman” — what’s the story? It just so happened that men established a patriarchy for no specific reason; one side got control over the other. Could have gone the other way. A sort of fluke, then.
This is nonsense on stilts. Indigenous cultures were varied; they were, and are, not some monolith with the same ideas about gender and gender roles.
Not surprisingly, those indigenous cultures that had “third gender”-type roles tended to be the most sexist. They offered a role for men (for men/I>, rarely if ever women!) who were homosexual or otherwise not “manly” enough to fit in, but they did not necessarily see them as leaders or “spiritual guides”, and they certainly did not hold contemporary trendy views about sex and gender.
https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/toward-an-end-to-appropriation-of-indigenous-two-spirit-people-in-trans-politics-the-relationship-between-third-gender-roles-and-patriarchy/
Sastra,
Patriarchy means “rule of the fathers”, after all. One can’t have rule by fathers if “fathers” and “mothers” are just Western colonialist social constructs that don’t reflect Woke Reality.
And that’s why there was no patriarchy before white people invented it sometime after 1492.
Oh yes, those indigenous cultures, which were diverse in all sorts of ways except, curiously, the way (we’re told) they regarded trans/non-binary/whatever people. Yeah, that’s not a reductive blurring of two continents full of societies…..
Ah, Mister Munroe uses the “nice” gas-lighting against a real woman. Yet Mister Munroe has said many many many un-nice things about gays and lesbians and real women and yet has the nerve to play the victim when he gets called out for those things. Seems his penis-haver privilege is still intact.
And I am just going to say it — the idea that “native and indigenous cultures” were somehow all pure and sweet is such a pile of road-apples. Some native and indigenous cultures practiced infanticide and slavery and tortured prisoners and certainly often treated their women like garbage. So, Mister Munroe, miss me with your “noble savage” trope and your disgusting racist take that it took white people to teach native and indigenous cultures that humans come in two sexes.
The whole Noble Savage thing being a deeply colonial trope in any case…
Wot a laff.
I can trace a direct line from today’s misogyny to a bunch of black/brown people in the Middle East who wrote a bunch of books about how to subjugate wimmin. Books that are still read today, and used to reinforce the necessity for women to be dominated by Men.
The Patriarchy wasn’t invented 600 tears ago.
@southwest88, in some parts of Pasifika culture if a man has fathered all boys, the last of these is often made to dress as, and perform the duties of, a daughter. A man must have at least one slave to meet his needs.
Roj, you’re referring to Fa’afafine (Samoan) and other similar third-genders throughout the Pacific. For those not familiar, the literal translation is something along the lines of ‘in the way of a woman’.
I can’t claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that the too many boys so the youngest had to be a girl, is now regarded as a western interpretation, assumption, or just plain made up thing. People I’ve heard talk about it in NZ have said they can tell us what the modern take is, but the traditional nuances are so lost behind the veil of colonialism and christianity that they can’t be really certain of the original status of Fa’afafine or how a boy became one.
In NZ there is certainly some blurring with modern western trans culture, but this is most certainly not the traditional view.
Interesting Rob. I made my comments based on stories told to me by my Kiwi partner who spent a bit of time in Samoa. Her brother married a Samoan woman and is buried in their front garden. I also drew on this SBS documentary some years back.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fa-afafine-the-boys-raised-to-be-girls
Not that I have a dog in the fight, but I find the various ways communities socialize each other fascinating.
So, ‘patriarchs have uteruses too!’ is going to take off as the new rallying cy?
Whee. Pre-colonial everywhere equals Eden. Pretty blatantly now, too.