31–40 of 44 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to be a woman, just act like one And what does this mean?
I think you're trying to get at gender roles/norms. Since "woman" is rather clearly defined already. Gender roles are a fluid and ever changing concept, rooted in zeitgeist.
This article just sounds like celebration of a power imbalance. To me, reading articles like this push me further from viewing social movements as noble search for equality but instead a gendered focus on gaining power compared to men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is patently false[0]. (This is the largest population I could find) The reason it looks this way is because Western culture has systemic oppositional sexism and views female gender roles as performative and artificial (the way our culture expects women to always be wearing makeup being one of many examples), subsequently trans women are far more salacious of a topic to the general public, whereas trans men are e…
It would be interesting to know what the actual transition numbers are, though. These are just referrals.
[0] https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article explicitly states that the society is not a matriarchy; all the chiefs etc are men. Japan is generally viewed as a heavily patriarchal society, yet has similar customs. For example, a typical couple's bank account is controlled by the wife.
What power do the chiefs actually have? The article says that all domestic decisions are made by women, and there is no hierarchy. Sound like "politicians and chiefs" are western interpretation of what could possible simply be a figure head or a diplomatic position to do trading with other islands.
* Organising and directing the hunters, and dividing their kill.
* The power to declare war, and to divide the spoils.
* Powers relating to treaties and trade with other tribes.
* Adjudicating disputes between families.
The chief and his retinue are often the only recognisable political offices in such societies, in the sense that:
* There is an open and explicit process for selecting the office holder.
* Everyone openly acknowledges their authority.
* They make open proclamations with regards to their rules and determinations.
* They are held accountable for their decisions and their outcomes.
They constitute the public, universal aspect of power — formal authority. This is not the only kind of power possible.
As an earlier poster notes, in most East Asian societies from time immemorial women held the purse strings. Many societies are organised in such a way, that women have great power in aggregate but men hold the official, political positions. Susan Carol Rogers’ “The Myth of Male Dominance: Female Forms of Power” explores this dynamic in French peasant society. Patriarchy and women being in practice more powerful can co-exist.
There are virtually (actually?) no matriarchies in history or on the earth today, in the sense that women hold the majority of positions where power is open, accountable and governed by law (or custom). In most historical societies, women held none of these positions. That doesn’t mean they just rolled over and played dead while men ran riot with the power.
Perhaps as modernity got underway, the official power of men became much more significant. It wasn’t always the case that getting a new road in your town required approval at the state/province level. Informal, local power receded from view and it was only reasonable that women sought the formal, political kind in modernising societies. This change also makes it hard for us to recognise the importance of informal power in simpler societies.
This article just sounds like celebration of a power imbalance. To me, reading articles like this push me further from viewing social movements as noble search for equality but instead a gendered focus on gaining power compared to men.
Isn't trying to gain power compared to men the same thing as trying for equality if there is a an existing power imbalance or am I confused about the semantics here?
This article just sounds like celebration of a power imbalance. To me, reading articles like this push me further from viewing social movements as noble search for equality but instead a gendered focus on gaining power compared to men.
Isn't trying to gain power compared to men the same thing as trying for equality if there is a an existing power imbalance or am I confused about the semantics here?
Equality is empowering but celebrating control over the other gender makes it about power over another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what I said? The article states that those who act like woman from a young age, simply become them. No surgery, nothing physical changes, they simply are treated as woman from that point on.
I think the issue there is that in order for "act like a woman" to be meaningful, you have to have a somewhat fixed notion of what womanly behaviour is, which is hard to disentangle from sexual stereotyping. At least if you apply it to my culture, I don't feel qualified to comment on what happens in Guna Yala.
It is mostly males that become transgender women – female transitions to male are extremely rare... From that point on, his work belongs to the woman’s family, and it’s the woman who decides whether her husband can share his fish, coconuts or plantains with his own parents or siblings. Taken together, these two observations make a lot of sense. In a closed society where women have consolidated power like that, why wo…
I agree, gender could be a red herring here. Power structures could better explain the social behavior. However, I would like to understand the differences, if any, between patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Anyone has a suggestions for resources in this regard?
It is mostly males that become transgender women – female transitions to male are extremely rare... From that point on, his work belongs to the woman’s family, and it’s the woman who decides whether her husband can share his fish, coconuts or plantains with his own parents or siblings. Taken together, these two observations make a lot of sense. In a closed society where women have consolidated power like that, why wo…
I agree, gender could be a red herring here. Power structures could better explain the social behavior. However, I would like to understand the differences, if any, between patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Anyone has a suggestions for resources in this regard?
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/courses/stdsvars.html
There is a website for browsing the data. Looks a little challenging to use:
http://socscicompute.ss.uci.edu/
After describing some of the early research and theorizing about matriarchies, the Encyclpaedia Britannica states: "The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while many cultures bestow power preferentially on one sex or the other, matriarchal societies in this original, evolutionary sense have never existed."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if i'm not mistaken, MTF is more common that FTM in the general population, so it might not be tied to culture.
This is patently false[0]. (This is the largest population I could find) The reason it looks this way is because Western culture has systemic oppositional sexism and views female gender roles as performative and artificial (the way our culture expects women to always be wearing makeup being one of many examples), subsequently trans women are far more salacious of a topic to the general public, whereas trans men are e…