December 27, 2022

Was Louisa May Alcott a trans man?

Peyton Thomas — host of "Jo’s Boys: A Little Women Podcast" — looks at the evidence in a NYT op-ed.

Alcott, we're told, "used the names Lou, Lu or Louy." And: 

She wrote of herself as the “papa” or “father” of her young nephews. Her father, Bronson, once called Alcott his “only son.” In letters to her close friend Alfie Whitman, Alcott called herself “a man of all work” and “a gentleman at large.”...

[S]he wrote, in one letter to Whitman, “with a boy’s spirit” under her “bib & tucker.” Alcott scholars agree that she felt a profound affinity with manhood....

[I]n an interview in the early 1880s, she declared, “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body.”...

[Alcott's fictional alter-ego Jo says] “I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy.” When her stern older sister Meg asks Jo to behave, reminding her that she is “a young lady,” Jo answers, “I ain’t.” Jo’s delight in playing male parts onstage, her rejection of her feminine given name, her status as “son,” “brother” and “man of the family” — all are original to Alcott’s 154-year-old text, borrowed from her own experiences....

“I long to be a man,” she wrote in one journal entry. “I was born with a boy’s nature,” she said in that letter to Whitman, and “a boy’s spirit” and “a boy’s wrath.”...

But people back then thought in their own terms:

“Emerson, Thoreau and Louisa’s father, Bronson, all believed that human beings were fundamentally spirits who happened to be in a particular physical form,” [said John Matteson, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Alcott], “but that the spirit should not be limited, that the spirit has an obligation to develop itself according to its own unique genius."...

Transcendental, a much grander concept than transgender. 

Moving closer to the present, the op-ed author quotes Martina Navratilova: "Do you have any idea how hard you would try to convince me I am trans if I were born 50 years later?"

Her question seems to imply a concern that understanding a historical figure as a trans man might undermine gender-nonconforming women and girls. So is it inappropriate — anachronistic at best, misogynistic at worst — to describe Alcott as transgender?

I believe Alcott’s own statements give the lie to the notion that transgender identity is strictly a modern fad.

“The historical record shows that people have felt in remarkably similar ways to contemporary transgender people,” said Susan Stryker, a professor emerita of gender and women’s studies at the University of Arizona.

Why is today's template any more true than the template Navratilova experienced when she was young or that Alcott had in her day? The op-ed author may prefer the question: What's the most useful way to think about it today? In that light, the author must contend with those who want Alcott as a lesbian icon:

Alcott did speak of having “fallen in love” in her life “with so many pretty girls and never once the least little bit with any man.” However, there is no evidence that Alcott ever had a romantic or sexual relationship with a woman....

Dr. Stryker, the University of Arizona scholar, argued it is possible to recognize the plain fact of Alcott’s identification with manhood without minimizing the impact of “Little Women” on women’s lives and literature. “We can all recognize Lou Alcott in many different ways,” said Dr. Stryker. “We don’t have to turn it into a pissing contest or a turf war.”

Oh! If it's a pissing contest, you really do want to be the man. 

***

There's also this about Hemingway:

Was Ernest Hemingway a raging misogynist or merely an egg? (That is, a transgender woman who never hatched, owing to the strictures of masculinity.)

An egg! I learned a new term.

Speaking of Hemingway and the possibility of his being an "egg," here's a test of how well you know Hemingway. Which of these sentences was written by Hemingway: 

1. "It was a big American breakfast with ham and eggs and it was very good."

2. "There were the programs of the team races of two hours, with a series of pure sprints in their heats to fill the afternoon, the lonely absolute speed events of one man racing an hour against the clock, the terribly dangerous and beautiful races of one hundred kilometers on the big banked wooden five-hundred-meter bowl of the Stade Buffalo, the outdoor stadium at Montrouge where they raced behind big motorcycles, Linart, the great Belgian champion that they called 'the Sioux' for his profile, dropping his head to suck up cherry brandy from a rubber tube that connected with a hot water bottle under his racing shirt when he needed it toward the end as he increased his savage speed, and the championships of France behind big motors of the six-hundred-and-sixty-meter cement track of the Parc du Prince near Auteuil, the wickedest track of all where we saw that great rider Ganay fall and heard his skull crumple under the crash helmet as you crack an hard-boiled egg against a stone to peel it on a picnic."

70 comments:

madAsHell said...

In the future, everything will be re-imagined.

Wince said...

Alcott, we're told "used the names Lou, Lu or Louy."

Louie Louie

Three nights and days I sail the sea
Think of girl, constantly
On that ship, I dream she's there
I smell the rose in her hair.

Louie Louie, oh no
Me gotta go
Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said
Louie Louie, oh baby
Me gotta go
Okay, let's give it to 'em, right now!

rhhardin said...

Attraction to pussy is inexplicable. It's just hard-wired in, to join the brain wiring after the part that figures out if something is really interesting or fascinating, announcing that it's interesting and fascinating. Sometimes, one can imagine, the wiring picks another object in a genetic wiring mistake, that abstractly makes as much sense as pussy but is unusual.

It's not exactly transcendental when that happens, anyway not more than pussy-attraction is transcendental.

cassandra lite said...

George Eliot.

Andrew said...

LOL, no.

RoseAnne said...

Or was she simply a woman chafing at the artificial restrictions of the society of her day?

My family attended a professional football game when I was younger. We had to split into 2 groups because of the seats not being located together. My female relatives were negotiating which couples would sit where - my male relatives said I would sit with the men because I would actually watch the game and not bother them. It was one of my proudest moments. ;-)

Her character Jo longed for a "different" life and I don't believe expected to ever marry and have children. She did eventually and became a surrogate "Mom" to a lot of boys.

I prefer to leave the story there. Any secrets Louise May Alcott may, or may not, have had are hers.

Carol said...

She wanted to be a man but was she really as tough, stoical, violent, destructive as a man? I think not.

I suspect many FtM transitioners have never been around real men. It's a different world.

Or they think they would make better men.

Lol.

Joanne Jacobs said...

Louisa May Alcott was an ambitious woman in an era when women's roles were limited. I don't think her wanting to be male or saying she had a "man's spirit" meant then what it would or could mean now.

It annoys me to see exemplary women redefined as men.

n.n said...

Trans/social to be politically congruent ("=") to the handmade tale of the modern model.

Big Mike said...

Oh! If it's a pissing contest, you really do want to be the man.

@Althouse, WON-derfully funny. Made my day. So when it comes to pissing contests you ladies really do have Freud’s penis envy? That man was right about something — who knew?

Big Mike said...

My sisters had a friend named Louise. Her nickname was “Weezy.”

Dave Begley said...

The issue is now settled!

rehajm said...

Oh! If it's a pissing contest, you really do want to be the man

…only if we’re scoring by distance. If the metric is frequency I’m taking the ladies…

Known Unknown said...

Maybe she was Mulan.

Inga said...

Anne Lister also known as Gentleman Jack.

gilbar said...

Or they think they would make better men.

I'm TIRED of being a lesbian woman!!!
i WANT to BE a MAN!
a man that is weak, and scared of spiders, and can't open jars, and Loves dolls, and the color pink, and Flowers! and Poems!! and LOVEY LOVE LOVE!! and stuffed animals (of course!)..
And NEEDLESS TO SAY, i'm not into sports, or conflict or physical labor (or effort)..
But I AM a MAN!! because i like having women lick my front hole!!!!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Food and A Moveable Feast, I get it.

Today on Twitter I saw a video clip during which a trans activist used the phrase "organic phallus" (in the course of arguing there are all kinds of phalluses and it's wrong for some lesbians to have an aversion to dicks, er, organic phalluses). If you didn't know these people are supposed to be taken seriously you'd never stop laughing. Myself I'm slowly moving from feeling sorry for people who are so very disordered and confused to, well, something else.

Lilly, a dog said...

I believe Dr. Stryker would fare well in a pissing contest, unless its original equipment was removed.

Randomizer said...

Claiming that someone born almost 200 years ago belongs to your group is a bullshit practice akin to the "Baptism of the Dead" practice of the LDS. Louisa May Alcott wasn't a trans man or a lesbian in the way we define those terms because she lived in a different time with a different understanding of those concepts.

Joe Smith said...

Well, 'she' was not very attractive.

Probably just a garden-variety dyke...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

rehajm said...
Oh! If it's a pissing contest, you really do want to be the man

…only if we’re scoring by distance. If the metric is frequency I’m taking the ladies…


Yeah, the ladies have us beat in velocity, too; men's urethras are both longer and narrower so the flow rate is usually superior.
Or, sorry, does that need to be male-bodied, or male-presenting, or male-body-identifying?

Rocco said...

Big Mike said...
My sisters had a friend named Louise. Her nickname was “Weezy.”

Was her last name Jefferson?

Carol said...

you ladies really do have Freud’s penis envy?

With one of these I can get all those I want.

Christopher said...

Remember tomboys? Knew some, they were great.

I think it's illegal now?

Michael said...

Cross dresser. Different.

rhhardin said...

Women can pee as far as men. It's the pressure drop not the length of the tube. Both sexes go from bladder pressure to zero. If anything the guys have higher friction losses in the plumbing and so lose a little. It's really just less convenient for women.

barberanne said...

The first sentence is Hem.

chuck said...

Oh! If it's a pissing contest, you really do want to be the [young] man.

You left out the essential adjective.

walter said...

To make an omelette you gotta..you know the thing!

The College Fix
@CollegeFix
·
7h
Almost 40% of students identify as LGBTQ at liberal arts colleges. At some colleges it is as high as 70%.
What could be the cause of this huge spike?
--
Christmas at my brother's abode, "mixed family"
Daughter on her side who was showing up with girlfriend previous 2 years, languished on couch due to pregnancy via dude who went to Ecuador to spend Christmas with family. She was released from psych hospital Friday. Frequent flyer in that sense.
Adopted African American/B/black son expressed shock that he hadn't heard of his half-sister's pregnancy. Perhaps it took wind out of his sails since he and his recent live-in girlfriend gifted (in wrapping) a positive pregnancy stick to step-mom. Estranged daughter on his side unexpoectedly (to me) showed up with her kids after divorcing her hubby because, in part, that he objected to her wanting to date a girlfriend. I was meeeting her kids for first time and was repeatedly wrong guessing their genders due to various presentations and odd names. The other daughter who remains estrangged is apparently identifying as "asexual" while replacing her FB profile pic with a screed claiming Jesus was a Marxist, so shut up.

sean said...

"Why is today's template any more true than the template Navratilova experienced when she was young or that Alcott had in her day?"

Since Prof. Althouse habitually denies the validity of any transcendent standards, or indeed any standards other than her own culturally implanted prejudices, obviously every culture's and every era's standards are equally true. If you don't have God, and you don't have nature, what else do you have but the culture of a particular time and place?

sean said...

"Why is today's template any more true than the template Navratilova experienced when she was young or that Alcott had in her day?"

Since Prof. Althouse habitually denies the validity of any transcendent standards, or indeed any standards other than her own culturally implanted prejudices, obviously every culture's and every era's standards are equally true. If you don't have God, and you don't have nature, what else do you have but the culture of a particular time and place?

john said...

Sentence 2 is from Moveable Feast.

walter said...

I fear rhardin has been conducting strange studies in his garage.

madAsHell said...

Sometimes I think Lazlo, and rhhardin are the same person.

William said...

Ha, trick question. The second one is Hemingway. I wouldn't be surprised if the first was Henry James or Alexander Pope. We all have off days....I'm not sure what transgender is. I'm pretty sure that no one in 19th century Boston did either. We all have inchoate desires and wishes. I wonder what furries did with their libidos before the era of cosplay and internet hookups. They probably led lonely frustrated lives.... So far as her being a transcendentalist goes, that's absurd. Dental implants were not invented until late in the twentieth century.

Balfegor said...

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

Riddle solved -- the Virgin Queen was secretly transgender (haha).

More seriously, the modern idea of "transgender" is an agglomeration of culturally specific ideas involving kind of abstracted platonic conception of gender that can't really be translated meaningfully into other cultural contexts. Superficially, there may seem to be some overlap into contexts where there are exceedingly rigid gender roles that go well beyond biology, but the reinterpretation of historical gender-nonconforming people who struggled with those rogid gender roles as "transgender" in the modern sense isn't particularly illuminating. E.g., the emperor Nero wasn't transgender just because he liked dressing as a woman and imitating a maiden being deflowered when having sex with his slaves. They're who they were in their own historical and cultural context.

takirks said...

Human beings don't adapt well to conditions of plenty and/or "good times". Such states of affairs allow far too much time for their little brains to go all wonky and start overheating, coming up with these intractably insane ideas.

Louisa May Alcott is now transgender? How convenient. That templates perfectly into the same mental space occupied by the African-American nutters that like to proclaim that Africa is the source of all historical progress and advancement, when the opposite is the actual truth. What it boils down to is strip-mining history for things the intrinsically weird can appropriate, like Russians claiming they invented radio and the telephone.

I honestly don't care, really. The fact that they need to go to these contrived lengths is an indicator of how weak their case is for "normalcy" and "we've always been here".

Nobody knows whether or not Baron von Steuben was gay; the evidence isn't there for anything definitive. You have to go to such bizarre lengths in order to torture what evidence we do have for that thesis that it's not even funny.

And, what's really sad and bizarre? The people doing it absolutely have to template their own issues and depravities on historical figures they've never met, never grasping that by doing so, they're guilty of the same sort of appropriation they routinely accuse others of, being as they're unable to conceive of anyone not having their lives revolve around their genitalia. All the evidence for von Steuben being "gay" could as easily be ascribed to someone who was asexual or just not very interested in sex, period. The LGBTWTFBBQ types can't even begin to frame that as a potential, though, because they're so sexually obsessive themselves that they think everything revolves around their genitalia.

Sexualizing history is a huge mistake, because everything that we have from the 1700s essentially lacks much of the surrounding social context you'd need to perform any realistic dissection of it all. Sure, we've got some of their literature, but how many of the people back then were literate and bothering to record what they really thought? How much of what we think we know is truthful and accurate, given the lack of context and depth, let alone the chance that there were intervening censors during the Victorian era that simply chose to leave things out or ignore them?

Precisely none of this BS has the least little bit of reality to it. If I remember correctly, weren't an awful lot of the Louisa May Alcott papers gone through and purged of things that people might have found offensive?

Look at modern media: How much of what you think is "real" is actually the product of idiots who refuse to record things that are "politically incorrect"? You think historians should rely on polling data from these last few decades, when most people just hang up on anyone calling to ask questions? When you know they've been manipulating data?

Do you think that just started up, yesterday? Or, do you suppose that what you're working from to determine the sexuality of historical figures is probably entirely suspect, and essentially meaningless in that it utterly lacks context?

I mean, were the Romans and Greeks actually "gay" as we understand the term? Or, were they something else entirely, something uniquely Roman and Greek in terms of interpreting sexuality? You look at things like the Theban Sacred Band, and you begin to suspect that their understanding of what was "gay" and "straight" might not be the same as ours...

Rosalyn C. said...

Alcott didn't identify with the social role of women of her time and how it prescribed women should think of themselves and what they should desire in life. She had the spirit of a man in that she was independent and self sufficient and didn't want to be a wife and mother. She could be described as gender nonconformist in terms of her role in the world. She transcended her role as a woman. In our age a woman who thought that way wouldn't be accused of wanting to be a man. That's obvious as there is no need to be a man to be independent and self sufficient.
There is nothing to indicate Alcott had body dysmorphia in either her manner of dress or the way she presented herself. In photos she appears as a typical woman of her time, fashionable and comfortable in her own skin. She was a woman who was attracted to women sexually and not to men. I don't know if she ever had same sex relationships. If so, she would have been a lesbian. Certainly she was not a transman however imo. There is something very regressive and absurd in that interpretation.

tim maguire said...

There will always be people trying to justify their current pet project by diagnosing or otherwise drafting historical figures into their schemes. It’s a pretty good con since real evidence is sketchy and the mark is powerless to object.

tim maguire said...

Neither sentence sounds like Hemingway. The first one is careless with the adjectives—big and very, not Hemingwayesque. The second sentence is much too long—he typically wrote in tight crisp sentences, more like the first one. So if one is Hemingway, I’ll guess the first.

Ann Althouse said...

Both sentences are Hemingway — both from "A Moveable Feast."

Ann Althouse said...

I presume in a literal pissing contest the winner is determined by distance or by hitting a target placed at some distance. Or maybe the proverbial writing your name in the snow.

The man's advantage is so extreme I can't believe anyone questioned it.

Someone imagined a pissing contest consisting of counting how many times a person needed to piss, and giving the win to the person with the larger number. Someone else imagined measuring the force at the point of urine exiting the body. What the hell kind of contest is this?

Ann Althouse said...

@Rosalyn C.

Your comment made me think that perhaps what Peyton Thomas and Martina Navratilova are struggling with is which *way* Alcott is more useful:

1. To help prove that there really is a condition whereby the soul/mind/essence of a man/woman is born into the physical body of the opposite sex.

2. To help prove that there is a wide range from conventionally masculine to conventionally feminine that can exist in what is, physically, a male or female.

I happen to think #2 is the more useful idea. #1 elevates and intensifies traditional gender roles and identifies a serious medical problem. #2 tosses off traditional roles and declares the individual free to be what he/she already is.

Eleanor said...

When we say women in the past who wanted the freedom and independence men had must have been transgender, we're saying to be a "real woman" a woman must be content to live a life of dependence and subservience. Were all of the little girls in the 50s and 60s who became interested in STEM because they were fascinated by the space program really little boys? It was a well-established cultural norm in that timeframe that it was not feminine to like and excel at math and science. We're still battling that stereotype.

Today when men want to imitate women, what "feminine attributes" do they choose to adopt? Do they become caretakers for the young. the old and the sick? That's a cultural feminine norm. No, they put on stilettos, exaggerate hairstyles and makeup, and wear clothing biological women would never wear on the street. They twerk. Louisa May may have been the daughter Bronson Alcott did more masculine things with, but he had no son. Being a spinster doesn't define one's sexual identity. Being unmarried doesn't make a woman a lesbian. Louisa is also the daughter who became a nurse and tended to the sick and wounded soldiers during the Civil War. Which of the things Louisa did defined her gender?

Terry di Tufo said...

“Boys sprinted past on bicycles, automobiles jammed with elaborate betasselled sportsmen slid up the street, high horns tooted to announce the approach of the race, and unsuspected cooks in undershirts appeared at restaurant doors as around a bend a procession came into sight. First was a lone cyclist in a red jersey, toiling intent and confident out of the westering sun, passing to the melody of a high chattering cheer. Then three together in a harlequinade of faded color, legs caked yellow with dust and sweat, faces expressionless, eyes heavy and endlessly tired.”

Wikipedia has a nice poster of the Buffalo Stade, which was named for Buffalo Bill.

I knew the first quote was Hemingway and guessed the second was as well. There is speculation on the internet that his longest sentence is in Green Hills of Africa and totals more than 400 words.

I am sorry I want around for your Gatsby Project. Above is an entry for a Tender is the Night Project.

Ann Althouse said...

@Terry di Tufo

Thanks! Great sentence!

I'm also sorry you weren't around for the "Gatsby" project.

I could do a Tender Is the Night project. Thanks for the idea!

Tina Trent said...

Alcott wrote thousands of pages about aspiring to fulfill womanly virtues; raised her dead sister's daughter and declared motherhood the highest calling; had an important male lover whom she finally deemed too foppish; thought womanhood was the core moral model (which in her family it was, as she had to write porn under a fake male name so her family literally wouldn't be homeless, thanks to the narcissistic absurdities of transcendentalism, which always was a fraud and left her lazy father with the idea that working for a living was below him.).

That's why he's barely in the novels.

The character based on Alcott loves and marries a masculine, non-foppish man with whom her character runs an orphanage for boys, where she reflects specifically and constantly on the joys of marriage and the need for nurturing healthy children with both feminine motherly love and strong fatherly hands.

She did rail against sexist and legal indignities of the time but fought for legal equality, not equivalency or erasure of the two sexes. These few cherry-picked sentences have been repeatedly "discovered" by professionally incompetent, and in my personal experience, lazy and self-obsessed gay and trans "academicians" for forty years now. Enough. Her work is an extraordinary examination of how traditional sex roles, while sometimes a trial, are civilization's way of growing up and persisting. She's not their sex toy.

Ann Althouse said...

The first of my Hemingway quotes almost seems like someone else imitating him. It's the stereotype of Hemingway.

The second one is insanely long, so you might guess it's not Hemingway or that it must be the real Hemingway because that's what makes my question interesting.

Ann Althouse said...

@Eleanor

Excellent points. It made me think of my own teen years in the 1960s, when I think that I would have chosen various male options at my high school: I had to wear skirts and nylons every day and would have preferred to wear pants and socks with my shoes. I would rather have had the shop and mechanical drawing classes the boys got instead of the sewing and cooking taught to the girls. I was outraged to be barred from working on the lighting crew for the school plays.

"Were all of the little girls in the 50s and 60s who became interested in STEM because they were fascinated by the space program really little boys? It was a well-established cultural norm in that timeframe that it was not feminine to like and excel at math and science. We're still battling that stereotype."

Yeah, I got all As in math and science but received no encouragement and chose not to take any math and science in my senior year because I had myself taking 2 foreign languages and an art class and a theater class. I remember asking my junior-year Trig teacher if I should take calculus next year, and she told me that's for those who want to go on to be engineers. Absolutely zero hint that I could be one of those people.

"Being unmarried doesn't make a woman a lesbian. Louisa is also the daughter who became a nurse and tended to the sick and wounded soldiers during the Civil War. Which of the things Louisa did defined her gender?"

And she wrote books about the domestic life of women.

Tina Trent said...

Rosalind C., over thousands of fiction and non-fiction pages, she did identify with and strive to fulfill traditional feminine virtues -- and raise their status in society. She was involved with men. Her greatest anxieties about her character arose from her felt vices such as impatience, anger, and impure thoughts, anxieties identically common to both males and females in her small religious and cultural circles. Her male characters strive to repress such behavior too. You can't understand any of this without understanding the role of religion, which ever so curiously never gets mentioned here. She chose traditional faith after seeing the ignorance and damage of snake-oil fads peddled by several of the transcendentalists.

Jaq said...

If the second one is not Hemingway, it’s a much more complete imitation than the first. His posthumously published Garden of Eden is about a man on his honeymoon who discovers his wife is actually trans.

Ann Althouse said...

"Pissing contest" has an entry in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissing_contest

"A pissing contest, pissing duel, or pissing match, is a game in which participants compete to see who can urinate the highest, the farthest, for the longest, or the most accurately...."

There's a subheading, "Female world record":

"Pissing contests usually, but not always, take place between males. Kacie T. H., in her book 'All is fair in pissing contests," describes a female pissing contest that she witnessed in Italy back in 2018, supposedly documented by Guinness World Records. This resulted in a record 30 foot arc, beating previous male records....

"There is also early Irish literature about female pissing contests. In the story "Aided Derbforgaill" several women compete to see who can urinate deepest into a pile of snow. The winner is Derbforgaill, wife of Lugaid Riab nDerg, but the other women attack her out of jealousy and mutilate her by gouging out her eyes and cutting off her nose, ears, and hair, resulting in her death. Her husband Lugaid also dies, from grief, and Cú Chulainn avenges the deaths by demolishing a house with the women inside, killing 150.."

RoseAnne said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
@Eleanor

Excellent points. It made me think of my own teen years in the 1960s, when I think that I would have chosen various male options at my high school: I had to wear skirts and nylons every day and would have preferred to wear pants and socks with my shoes. I would rather have had the shop and mechanical drawing classes the boys got instead of the sewing and cooking taught to the girls. I was outraged to be barred from working on the lighting crew for the school plays.


I would agree with all of that except the last sentence. My sister, 2 years older, broke the lighting crew barrier while in high school. I didn't join because I didn't want to work for my sister who was the light crew director by then.

tim maguire said...

In Gung Ho, an old Michael Keaton movie about a Japanese company buying a US auto plant and trying to manage American workers according to Japanese principles, there’s a scene where Keaton is having beers with his Japanese counterpart and they get into a discussion about pissing contests. The cultural hook is that Americans pee for distance and the Japanese pee for accuracy.

TaeJohnDo said...

I was an AF C-130 Nav in the '80's when female crew members were just starting to come on board. The 130's had a urinal port that drained out the bottom of the aircraft, and a honey bucket that slid down on rails into position. Sometimes there was curtain that went around it. The rule on honey bucket use was that the first crew member to use it had to service it when we landed. On one low-level training flight with two Loadmasters, one of them female, the male LM came laughing up onto the flight deck saying, "you should see the (other) Load - she has to take a piss and she's hanging on to straps above the urinal - she said there's no way she gonna' be the first one to use the honey bucket." So she's back there hanging on while we're jinking along at 300' above ground level hanging on for dear life squatting over the urinal. We had a lot of respect for her after that.

Lurker21 said...

Artists, it's said do tend to be "androgynes" who aren't wholly masculine or the wholly feminine, but that's something like a metaphor. It doesn't mean that they aren't either male or female or that they have to change their sexual organs until their genitalia correspond to some imagined identity.

Louisa May Alcott was an ambitious woman in an era when women's roles were limited. I don't think her wanting to be male or saying she had a "man's spirit" meant then what it would or could mean now.

Good point, some dissatisfaction with confining roles and stereotypes is human and natural. Reacting a bit against such constraints is how we expand and evolve what it means to be a man or a woman or a human being.

Lurker21 said...

I'm dipping into the recent book on Young Bloomsbury. These were people who spent so much time playing with gender and sexuality that, in contrast to their elders, they really didn't leave much behind in the way of actual accomplishments.

You can see see a parallel between Britain a century ago, and America today: wealthy and powerful empires, secure enough in their global supremacy to indulge in things like this, yet slowly sinking, perhaps because they've lost focus on what's important. They didn't have fully developed gender ideologies then, and had to make to with partygoing in the Twenties and communism in the Thirties.



Listening to Alcott's biography a few years back, it did seem like she had a crush on Henry David Thoreau, when she was growing up. There's a kind of neutral territory, or no man's land, between wanting to have a man (or a woman) and wanting those masculine or feminine qualities so much that one wants to be (or thinks one is) the opposite sex oneself. We describe that territory one way, and the 19th century surveyed and charted it differently.

Dude1394 said...

Evidence and New York Times in the same sentence. That’s funny.

Rosalyn C. said...

Ann, I’d go with Alcott demonstrating option 2. “To help prove that there is a wide range from conventionally masculine to conventionally feminine that can exist in what is, physically, a male or female.” I can imagine her being more concerned about virtue which has no gender than identity politics.

takirks said...

Eleanor said:

"When we say women in the past who wanted the freedom and independence men had must have been transgender, we're saying to be a "real woman" a woman must be content to live a life of dependence and subservience."

This sentence is typical of the sort of thing that leaves me wondering what world the women mouthing it live in, because it sure as hell isn't the real one that I've lived in and observed all my life.

"Freedom and independence"? WTF? Lady, have you ever looked at the lives most men lead, and noticed that there's very little of either actually present? Most men live their lives in the yoke, serving as oxen dragging the lives of their wives and children forward. There's very little "freedom" and damn all for "independence". And, on top of that, you get the same bitch you work yourself to death for denigrating and belittling you in front of your children, as a reward. Then, quite often, when you've reached a point where you can begin to relax and take it easy, having accrued some success at your labors, the selfsame selfish spoiled bitch divorces you for "not paying enough attention" to her every want and emotional need over the years when you were working yourself to death for her lifestyle and ambitions.

Women have very little effective empathy, as a general thing. They look at the lives of men, and only ever see the things they want to see; they see "freedom and independence", never noticing the "duty and obligation" that go right along with them. Is it any wonder that the men most of them raise are blind to these realities, as well?

I really have to laugh, every time I hear some woman bitching about the men she has to pick from, all unawares that she and her sisters are the ones who raised those unsuitable failed males, having effectively removed the boy's father from his life, and having made mockery of that unfortunate cuckold of the spirit for most of that young man's upbringing. You wonder why you can't find "decent men"? It's because you raised them, dishonoring and discrediting their fathers all the while.

It's an odd thing: Most of the really lousy men I know, who I'd sooner shoot than let any women in my family associate with? They all share one universal trait: There were no men in their backgrounds, having been raised by women. Mostly single mothers or those who had very unequal marriages, where the wife dominated a cowering and cringently subservient husband. Sons from either situation are typically horrible human beings, reflecting the quality of their upraising. I've known a few exceptions, but those were guys who generally spent their childhoods as far from home and their mothers as they could manage.

Any woman that sees the traditional roles women played in successful societies as being "dependent and subservient" has usually missed out on the reality of things, which is that there is no truly "free and independent" life for any man or woman, period.

(cont.)

takirks said...

There are only differences in the manner we are dependent and subservient to others, and how we approach those duties and obligations unique to our sexes. You really cannot get away from these facts, without first separating yourself from such things entirely, not if you want to maintain a working society.

The thing that amazes me is how self-blind most women are; they can rarely see outside their own lives to recognize that others are suffering the slings and arrows of those twin demons, duty and obligation, as much as they are. They look at the lives of others with envy, never recognizing that the things they see as enviable are actually no such thing, because those features of other lives are twinned with wretched consequence. Sure, in traditional societies, males typically have more say in the public commons, but who has reign in the household, behind closed doors? Who decides who gets access to sexual intimacies and tender love? Who knows whose children are truly whose?

Women watch, with envy, as men go about their daily lives, imagining that they're free from the sort of obligations and curtailments that are routine to their own, totally oblivious to the obligations and curtailments that men must put up with as a condition of their "freedom and independence", which very often exist only in the imaginations of women.

Nobody has a life of true "freedom and independence", unless they're the sort of unfettered and irresponsible wretch that we all condemn; we may sometimes look at such people and think "Oh, but if only I were as unconventional and unafraid as they..."

The reality is that such people are usually sociopaths who will die alone and unmourned by anyone at all. Doesn't matter what sex they were, or what roles in society they eschewed, the raw fact is that they were disconnected from society, and contributing damn all to the social commons. All too many "modern women" inhabit this space, unknowingly and unaware.

chuck said...

> I remember asking my junior-year Trig teacher if I should take calculus next year, and she told me that's for those who want to go on to be engineers. Absolutely zero hint that I could be one of those people.

I always liked this story from an interview with Mary L Cleave:

In the process, Cleave became one of the first women, if not the first, to earn a doctorate in Civil and Environmental Engineering from USU. This came after some prodding by Joe Middlebrooks, dean of the College of Engineering at the time, who told her she was too impatient to be a good scientist [and should be an engineer instead]. “And I told him he was out of his mind because there weren’t women in the College of Engineering graduate program then,” she says. “But he was absolutely right. Every 10 years I’ve got to change what I’m doing, and, you know, not just on an academic level, but on a personal level too.”

Eleanor said...

takirks

There's a vast difference between having other people dependent on you and living in a society where your only choice is to be dependent on others. In Alcott's day men were free to earn their living, travel independently, own property, and inherit. None of those options were available to women. Alcott was able to earn money through her writing, which gave her some financial independence- something few women of her time had.

Tina Trent said...

Actually, Alcott didn't write to be free: she wrote so her family wouldn't starve and be homeless after her father abandoned his familial responsibilities to found a failed utopian transcendentalist colony, Fruitlands. Ironically, her need to step in and become the family breadwinner made her quite pragmatic about what she wrote and published: like male writers of that time who had to rely on income from their books to buy their hearth and bread, writing was as much a business and marketplace as an art.

Most intellectuals and utopian colonies, including the philosophical clan around Alcott, were very interested in eugenics and limiting reproduction, not merely for ideological reasons but also for the very practical fact that impoverished people would clamor to join them in order to feed their own children. We talk a lot about art and rights and noble ideas here, but blunt realities about living at the edge of ruin and starvation played the larger role for most people then, including Alcott before her eye for publishing what the public wanted to purchase stabilized her family's life.

takirks said...

Eleanor said:

" In Alcott's day men were free to earn their living, travel independently, own property, and inherit. None of those options were available to women."

Typical point of view from a modern woman's perspective...

Zero recognition of the obverse darker side of the coin, either. Which is also sadly typical. Do take a look, why don't you, at the realities of those words "earn their living, travel independently, own property, and inherit..."

You see "freedom". The typical male looks at that and sees... What, pray tell? Why, the downsides of all of that "freedom", which is that they have the actual obligation to go out and fight for all those things. They're not just given, which is the typical female construct, being as that's all they can really understand from their point of view: Daddy gonna give me what I want. If I whine enough, or simper enough.

That's why women are naturally on the side of "more government", because that's what daddy is, the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-beneficient and generous father that all they have to do is demand something of. That all-too-common mentality is a reason I have my doubts about the virtues of suffragism.

How the bills get paid? Not her problem.

Thing missed by most women? Being "Daddy" is a bitch. Take a long, hard look at the reality of male life. Be honest about it. There are reasons why we have statistically shorter lives, and present something like 90% of the damn death rate in workplace accidents: It's because we're expected to actually, y'know... Do things. Physical things. Real things, that require real work that break our bodies down.

Women aren't, as a rule: Even when they infiltrate "traditionally male occupations", the reality is that they're usually sucking up the "gravy jobs" like working in the shop office or doing something that doesn't include actual, y'know... Risk. Or, much in the way of actual physical effort.

This isn't just because the average male is protective of the useless mouths that wander in, wanting careers and a paycheck, it's because they're physically incapable and generally run away when things go badly wrong in physical occupations. Even if she does decide to run towards the sound of the guns, when she gets there, all the silly bint usually accomplishes is to add yet another body to the pile which needs to be cleaned up afterwards. That's the reality, the one most such bright feminine lights never quite manage to comprehend.

Men are routinely expected to die in the course of their daily occupations. Women aren't. Stick that up on the wall where you keep your precious little ideation of "freedom and independence", because that's the reality. It was even worse, during Alcott's day. Then, it wasn't just the workplace that was dangerous, it was the rigor and hazard of daily life, like managing the horses that killed thousands every year, or other unpleasant realities that killed more young males than anyone ever credits, these days.

Granted, "women's work" in the home wasn't much safer in those times, but the odd thing is this: We somehow managed to fix most of all that, we males, building out the infrastructure so as to do away with wood-fired stoves and other such dangers.

When was the last time you heard of a woman burning to death in her kitchen cooking dinner, again?

(cont)

takirks said...

Do note, my good woman of modern times: Most of those innovations were developed and made widespread through the good offices of almost entirely male effort, by men who didn't like seeing their wives and daughters killed by burning clothes or other such routine household risks. Today's mostly-safe household environment came about because of those efforts, ones that are entirely ignored or denigrated by today's modern women. You want to see the reality that was, before modern times? Go to India; ask around, find out how many women die every year in burning saris set afire by household cooking fires. Then, note how few Indian men really give a f*ck, and consider how it was that all that came to change, in the Western world.

Envious, silly women see "freedom and independence", never noting the flip side to both of those things: The freedom to fail, the unfulfilled need for others. It's well and good to be that young man of independence that she looks at and envies for his "freedom", but what she fails to note is that "freedom" bears a heavy price, that of loneliness and lack of human connection. "Freedom and independence" is what it looks like at twenty or thirty years of age; by the time you hit sixty, it's a lot more like "disconnection, ennui, and despair". You also fail to note the attrition rate for the "free and independent".

An awful lot of "cat ladies" are going to learn this brutal reality, in coming years. How do you feel about that? Is that "fair"? Will it be a "crisis"? Or, will it be ignored, the way we ignore the same thing when it's some elderly male, living alone?

You think it's so great, being a man? Go put on pants, make yourself up as one, then try walking in men's shoes for a few weeks. Better yet, for the full experience, trap yourself so you can't go back. Be that guy looking for love and companionship, being a five or a six on the scale of what is attractive to flighty little girls mimicking real women, and see what it feels like to experience constant rejection and belittlement from them. Live alone, have a risky occupation where nobody cares if you live or die; see how that hits your feelings...

Norah Vincent gave it an honest try. It probably contributed to her depression and eventual suicide.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/woman-pretended-to-be-a-man-dies-assisted-suicide-realizing-difficult

I am not going to say that her experiences trying to mimic and experience male life did all the psychic damage to her, but the point is made by her experiences: The grass ain't quite as green as it looks on the other side of that fence, ladies.

I guarantee you that when and if modern conveniences go away? So, too, will "modern femininity" as expressed by most "modern women". Freud had it entirely wrong: The problem with most mentally-ill women of today ain't "penis envy", it's better expressed as "role envy", and the failure to recognize that most of those issues are fully and exclusively down to basic biology. Could be, too, that it's all recognized, somewhere subconsciously, but there's also a huge component of denial in it.

We're a sexually dimorphic species, and I suspect that the reason for that dimorphism has solid structural basis in our nature and our environment. Which has the necessary follow-on that denying that fact or trying to change it without actually addressing the reasons for it is a fool's errand.

(cont)

takirks said...

I laugh my ass off, every time I hear some woman tell me how "free and independent" I must be, as a man. If you lot who say that lived a day in my life, you'd have probably blown what few brains you have clean out of your heads due to sheer existential despair. I rather doubt you could cope with the male reality, at all. You're too used to the inherent and automatic deference and acceptance offered most women in our gynocentric society.

You say you want it, but the reality is, almost all women don't have what it takes to truly "live as a man". If you truly tried dealing with the crushing rejection and resultant disconnection from others, you'd be suiciding in a lot higher numbers than the males are, that's for damn sure.

Y'all say it a lot, but you don't really mean it, and if you tried it, for realsies? Most women would end themselves if they couldn't go back. That's the reality of it all.

And, if anyone wishes to argue that point, do explain to me, first of all, why our gyno-lords and masters are all upset and taking all sorts of corrective actions over the supposed drama and damage to little girls in our society, while ignoring the statistically much worse crisis for boys and young men? Why aren't there any corrective measures being taken for the low male participation rates in college and schooling in general? Where's the outrage? Hell, where is anyone even bothering to care? Girls fail, and it's a crisis; boys fail, and all we hear is sniggering dismissal about how those boys are obviously unfit. With little girls, it's a crisis, and WE MUST TAKE ACTION. With little boys, it's a subject for laughter.

And, y'all wonder why men like me, who actually observe these things, think so little of you and your childish arguments.

To be modern woman is to live in a damn bubble, ignorant, vacuous, without empathy for others. Women say all sorts of nice things about their own virtues, but demonstrate something else entirely in real life.

The irony here is this: I started out, a long, long time ago as someone who was fully indoctrinated by the various parties, mostly female, in my life. I was a true believer in the bullshit; I once mouthed all the pious shibboleths, fully in accordance with the "conventional wisdom" of the times.

Unfortunately, I'm also cursed with unfortunate and apparently rare powers of observation and honesty with myself, and what I've observed is that most of those shibboleths are self-serving lies, served up in vast heaps by people who're mostly too stupid and self-centered to ever conduct the least little bit of self-examination or extrapolation from personal experience.

Sure sounds good to whinge and complain about seventy cents on the dollar, until you go dig into the numbers and find that women are actually overpaid for the hours of work they perform, compared to the men. Women with family obligations are routinely held only to forty hours a week, in salaried jobs. Try that as a man, ladies: Ain't gonna fly.

Shit, I spent most of my military career getting screwed over because I was a bachelor, routinely pulling far more than my fair share of out of hours duties than married or female counterparts. That was just a given; inarguable, because I "had nobody to care for" at home. Also, for most of that time, "home" was the barracks, conveniently co-located with work... Never mind that I'd routinely be putting in 80-90 hours a week, while female counterparts were unfortunate if they did more than fifty a couple of times a year. They even got preferential promotion rates, while because I was an Evul White Male (tm), I got held back behind even alcoholic deadbeats with extensive records of spousal abuse and drunk driving. Wrong melanin content, in my skin, see?

(cont)

takirks said...

Do understand this, however: I am not saying women haven't had it rough, and it wasn't a pleasant lot, to be a woman. Ever. Or, in the "bad old days". Women get screwed, every day and in every way--Just, differently from men. What frankly pisses me off, and what I'm reacting to here is the idea expressed that this screwing-over is somehow unique to women, and at the hands of some patriarchal conspiracy of yore. Reality? Everybody got screwed, is getting screwed, and the only real thing is that we're getting screwed with slightly different unlubricated implements in different places.

The human condition is inherently unfair, and inherently f*cked up beyond repair; I freely acknowledge that. What I object to is the construct that somehow, some way, men are really and truly living "better lives" than women, and we're doing so because we're big meanies holding out on the girls. Reality, ladies? We're far more likely to be trying to protect you all, because we're mostly noble dumbasses who think that way.

Which I would point out to you is something we learn mostly from... Women. I guarantee you that behind every f*cked-up male you ladies encounter, there was some equally (but, differently...) f*cked-up female (and, likely, a male...) that parented him. I'd also point out that a lot of you are getting that which you said you wanted, men raised to be the men you say that you want, by other women, with appropriate womanly virtues.

And, that you really don't like it, not one damn bit. Note how few leading men in Hollywood are American, and how many hail from more traditional climes, with more appropriately male attitudes. That's not an accident, in any way, shape, or form: You did this to yourselves.

"Freedom and independence". Sure. Right. All the goddamn time. Just don't go and get stupid enough to step behind the curtain for some of your own; you won't care one whit for the experience. Do ensure you can get back, after your little explorations of the dark side, because you'll likely be wanting a means of painless self-destruction if you can't get back.

PM said...

Louis Maybe All Cut

Tina Trent said...

Takirks: the human condition, modern niceties such as dentistry and starvation stripped away, has for thousands of years relied on the ideal -- not reality but ideal -- of men risking their lives to provide and protect and fight, as women risked their lives in childbirth but also labored just as mighty to maintain house, farm, and hearth. They sacrificed differently but both sacrificed equally prior to the modern age, and very, very few wealthy people interacted with inheritance laws, voting, or other modern era fixations.

You get that. In our era, I have no doubt in supporting equality for women in terms of education, voting, jobs, etc. But I vehemently oppose both special privileges for anyone and the failure to recognize that some career sacrifices are far more important than accommodations for career-oriented women who want it all without a man. Such woman, and the men who abandon the kids, force us to be their government proxy husbands. Get a bloody husband, or be a bloody husband to your own family. Don't make my family do it for you, boys and girls.

Thanks for the remembrance of that odd brave writer, Norah Vincent.