I really enjoyed reading about Thomas/ine Hall. I think I finally have an answer to that question everyone has most likely been asked at least once in their life: what historical figure would you want to have dinner with? I would love to hear their story from their own mouth. Although the court case includes their own testimony, the case is still heavily biased because of the judge and jury’s personal beliefs on their gender identity and societal expectations of gender. Because of these beliefs, Hall was treated as a spectacle. They became an object that was used to fulfill others’ curiosities and uphold gender roles. I find it interesting that the people around Hall were more concerned with how they would fit into their ideas of gender roles than Hall themself. I find it disgusting that Hall was forced into non-consensual searches of their body. I refuse to believe that was okay back then. There is no way that a traditional man or woman was subjected to this kind of search and I don’t think this would’ve been viewed as normal behavior. These people only saw this as fine to do because according to them, Hall was an object. Since Hall wasn’t “normal,” people believed they had the right to be curious and act upon those curiosities about Hall’s gender or lack thereof. They were treated like an animal. This kind of curiosity is still around today. Trans people everywhere are asked by complete strangers about what body parts they may or may not have when, quite frankly, is none of their business and is creepy behavior. Stories like Hall’s are not seen anymore, but the sentiments behind them are exactly the same today. For some reason, many cis people feel like they have the right to know about a trans person’s body.
I completely agree. Id love to sit down with them and have a chat about their life and what they went through in full depth. I'd love to pick their brain and see how they were actually feeling in real time and what they did or didn't do to cope with the hardships of what they were going through.
Hall's case was absolutely fascinating and devastating to read. As a Queer individual, I love reading about Queer history and unfolding the lies that Trans and Queer people are part of a new revolution and not a part of our nation's history. When we talk about history from a Queer perspective, it is essential to acknowledge the history of sexual violence perpetuated against people of that culture. The fascination with Queer people and our bodies is a long and tired story that has led to our current social culture of higher rates of assault, murder, and general sexual violence towards trans and Queer people.
I think while it was enlightening to see a story of a non-binary/trans individual in the early times of our country, the telling of their own sexual abuse and mishandling by the people in their community was upsetting. I think Hall's story was especially interesting when we discussed the concepts of manifest destiny, religious purpose, and relationships with land in the U.S. Throughout our discussions in class, we have noted that the colonial vision of land is much different than that of an Indigenous perspective, similar to how the two peoples view gender.
I mentioned in class today that several Indigenous communities and various cultures around the world have developed language for describing alternative genders outside of the American social binary, and that when the Americas were colonized, this rhetoric disappeared due to it being hard to control, and different from that of colonial belief. When we hold discussions around Queer history and the concepts of gender, we need to remember that all forms of social norms in America are constructed to better serve a capitalistic system, and therefore inherently seek to harm Queer/Trans/BIPOC bodies. Essentially anyone who resides outside of a collective social norm is persecuted or required to assimilate ( through marriage rights or the loss of culture, etc.).
When we consider the concept of culture stripping, gender norms, and sexual violence, we begin to wonder how this all ties to land. However, it is important to remember that the Christian belief in man's right to land stems from a woman taking control over her own bodily autonomy, who was then punished with childbirth and submission for her actions. When we view the story of Skywoman and other Indigenous practices, we can see that Indigenous culture holds an immense amount of respect for land and mother Earth. Their planting cycles are based around her needs, and animals are cared for and hunted in a way that remains sustainable. The Englishmen in America however entirely stripped the land of it's nutrients, seeking to "master" it, rather than seek a coexistence.
So how does everything tie together? From the colonial perspective, the Earth has been named as a woman, and also as something to be tamed. Additionally, opposing views (such as that of Indigenous peoples) were effectively erased throughout history to create one colonialist narrative of rights and understanding. This "mastery" of Mother Earth is a reflection of colonialist gender ideals, and what part they believed women played in the world. To continue this thought, it can then be assumed that since the entire society of the English revolved around this gender binary (including placing the actual Earth within this system) that anything "abnormal" (such as Queer, Trans, and non-binary folk) would inherently disrupt the system. This is why I find Hall's story to be so fascinating. Hall's story is an example of modern society attempting to remain in control when opposed by something that dares to be different.
The story of Hall asks us all to question our realities, and why we believe the things we do. Why are certain traits only applied to women? Why has the land and women been both feminized and fetishized and what purpose does this serve to the greater colonialist, capitalist, agenda? Can Queer history and media truly change the perspective of the future and cultivate change?
I completely agree with you when you say Hall's story was so fascinating and how the idea of "abnormalities" affected the system. The way the court resolved Hall's case was telling that they had no idea how to handle their case and that letting them decide what they wanted to do on their own wasn't ever in question.
> How does the definition of manhood through relationship, especially relationships of dominance, make men and male identities, dependent on women’s submission and, thus, vulnerable and fragile? What is an example of this?
In a sense I think that the question answers itself: if a relationship is based on forced subjugation, then the dominant party will be a forceful subjugator. Although I understand the context of the question, I am hesitant to acknowledge that 'male identities' are dependent on people being submissive. I may be missing a layer of nuance given that I wasn't present for this discussion today, but I think that affirming that masculine identities are based on domination could be highly problematic.
Furthermore, as I commented in a previous thread, I think that it is important to interpret the philosophical roots of the societal changes we are studying; people didn't just wake up one day, as some of the terms in this unit suggest, there are reason why people change their thinking, typically to benefit themselves. Think, what socio-economic changes occurred around the shift from animism to mechanism, and why? Why and how could a society shift so rapidly from respecting the earth, to believing it should be extracted and desecrated, with social roles to match?
> We see patriarchy in all three of these relationships and also changing. How so? How is God a part of patriarchal models? How does patriarchy go back to Adam and Eve? What was Adam’s role and how does it relate to the role of the colonial farmer and the scientists in the 17th and 18th C Atlantic World.
The Abrahamic belief systems promotes male dominance over women in public life. Adam and Eve is is patriarchal because it portrays women as left-overs, and cause trouble. This is portrayed as partly Adam's fault because he should have control over his woman. The colonial farmer and scientist relate to this because they are encouraged ideologically to exert control over the earth.
> How do these relations compare with Skywoman and the Wampanoag idea of kinship with the land and responsibility to the land in Native American relations of sovereignty?
When the land is objectified and becomes a thing, what does it become possible for colonial farmers and as capitalism and industry advance, for Anglo Americans to do to the land?
Skywoman, which is derivative of native American creation stories, and the Wampanoag idea of kinship is almost the opposite. The tribes live on the earth which is an independent and powerful entity. Instead of overcoming nature, the tribes are more inclined to work with it.
When land gets objectified and the environment destroyed, it ideologically allows mass development. This is an example of alienation.
> In the mechanistic model, there is a step in which nature is rushed. How do humans use technology to rush nature? What technologies are they using? What is the thinking of Bacon and then Descartes, that facilitates this rushing and objectification of nature?
Humans use technology to 'rush' nature to benefit us. Fertilizers, breeding animals and crops, synthesizing oil (instead of digging it out of the ground), etc. Bacon and Descartes pioneered enlightened forms of logical analysis. They both essentially believed that we could use the resources provided by the earth to enhance our (humanities) quality of life. This facilities the 'rushing' of nature because it encourages people to take an active role in investigating the properties and materials of earth.
> Then, these gendered relations of power get racialized in slavery. How so?
I would tread very carefully as you intersect the race/gender/class issue as it transcends public opinion, there are innate mechanisms of our economic system which encourages these disparities, and it hasn't always been that 'workers are more physical, bosses are more aristocratic'. This might lead people to believe that strong = worker and weak = boss.
To get on with the question, justifying slavery, particularly in America, was very bloody and very dirty. Slavery wasn't justified before Slavery happened, the slave-owners were forced to justify slavery as the gruesome aspects of it were made public. A modern example: Palestine. The genocide and ethnic cleansing as been ongoing since the first Nakba, in 1948. Only now, since the beginning of this latest episode, has Israel been forced to answer for its actions.
Furthermore, for the slave-owning aristocrats to justify Slavery, they delved into the deepest darkest elements of the scientific racism to make the case to the pubic (which obviously was unsuccessful). They doubled down on the idea that white men are the highest on the totempole, white women were just below them, then all the non-anglo-saxon white were below them. It wasn't inherent, it was taught, radicalized, societally.
> How might the politics of objectification and the surrender of bodily autonomy along the American gendered hierarchy explain some of the race and class dynamics in this election?
The Republican party has been openly fascistic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, and it hasn't played well with the majority of the US population. The gendered hierarchy is more in the background this election than compared to 2016, when a large part of Hillary's campaign was based on 'being the first female president', because the Democratic party has learned that voters don't care nearly as much about the identity of the person running, but about the policies they are running on. In fact, the Democratic policy shifts surrounding the border, Israel, crime, and medicare for all very well could cost them the election.
The Republican party has shifted to the right, and so has the democrats. The difference is, the Republican voters have also shifted to the right, but a good chunk of the Democratic voters have not.
> What thoughts does the case of Hall provoke in you?
Well its all just very sad but not surprising even to this day. I think its clear from the historical record that Hall likely had some sort of hormonal imbalance and would probably determined to be intersex today. It's kind of just stressful because I am a trans person and this is the type of discourse swarming around now. Last year multiple southern states made it illegal to 'do drag in public', obviously targeting trans people. So its reminiscent of that.
As we began to shift to a more mechanistic view as shown in the Brooks reading husbandry became less and less prevalent as we became more extraction focused. There was a quote by Bacon that I can't seem to find that essentially stated that following expulsion from Eden that the land was our only tie to what we lost and over the years we became bent on mastering/ dominating this land to reclaim what we lost. In doing so and abandoning husbandry of the land we would further stray from those religious ideals that set the tone for what we see in the Hall documents as well as the current presidential elections. In terms of the Hall documents it's seen with Hall slipping between the conventional gender roles at will, demonstrated by adopting a masculine role to fight in Europe and switching back to sewing bone lace once the fighting had concluded. Along with taking predominantly female roles in the Americas upon Hall's arrival. In Hall documents one of the things that stuck out to me was that sexual relations between females was not prohibited by law only Male x female at the time. Since Hall was identifying as female at the time this wouldn't have been against the law, yet the court and neighbors would conduct search's whether warranted by the court or not, to determine Hall's sex. This was unreasonably rash and invasive from my perspective.in the ruling for Hall to wear both Male and Female clothing I feel this was a significantly better outcome than some of the alternatives that could have happened. This also relates to the President debate because of the loss of a form of autonomy, for Hall how they dress and for modern day women abortion. This comes with a sense of emasculating and removing control from a dominate group of men (ex. President Trump), similar to Bacon's quote on religion and the shift to mechanism (a sense of hyper masculinity and dominant control) through a seemingly weaponized sense of religion (blaming Eve for the ejection from Eden, Earth being female associated, abortions) tends to throw a wrench in to the ideals of bodily autonomy because it opens hundreds of ways for it to potentially be limited and violated like it was for Thomas(ine) Hall.
Good summary, Payton. I think that your distinction between Woman x Woman relations and Male x Male relations are important to note. In western society sexual ambiguity is more permissible between 'women' than 'men'. Interestingly we can find something like this in Iranian society, homosexuality between men is forbidden UNLESS the 'bottom' medically transitions to female (which is legally recognized). I suggest you read into that because its very fascinating, that distinction was made relatively recently (80s 90s?).
I found reading about Halls case to be very interesting and shocking. The towns people felt entitled to an answer of their gender this made them see Hall no longer as a person but an object this resulted in them conducting searches of their private parts which is not only invasive but dehumanizing. I think a lot of the disapproval came from going against the hierarchy this scared the town because they weren't able to control them. This makes me think about how we see living things becoming objectified as we switch to a more mechanistic world as illustrated in the Brooks reading we see the relationship with the land go from loving and nurturing to something that needs to be conquered. The land then became something to capitalize on never giving back. This mechanistic view made it easier to justify their actions because once you see something as nonliving it doesn't seem abusive almost like they believed it was there right to the land so they can take it for all its worth.
I was interested in the term “husbandry” and the idea that anyone, especially a European colonist, could view the land in such a way. More specifically, I’m interested in how “husbandry” has evolved through the lens of gender and land relations. If at one point, to husband the land meant to care for and nurture it, there is definitely a different understanding of that act now, at least to me. In my perspective, I have always thought traditional marriage to be an economic act and exchange of ownership. However, I enjoy the idea that acting as a husband towards land could actually entail some level of respect, and it’s a shame that ideology did not survive for long. The persistent expansion of what it meant to be masculine and how patriarchy operates seemed to reconstruct that mutually respectable perspective rather quickly.
Hierarchies of masculinity also served to enhance systems of gender and racial oppression. Because there had to be someone at the top of the food chain, the struggle for power, or even just the feeling of being powerful, relied on the further oppression of already vulnerable populations; poor/indentured white men, white women, indigenous men, indigenous women, enslaved men, and enslaved women engaged in the power struggles emerging from defined social identities, willingly or not.
In the case of Thomas(ine) Hall, their gender identity did not fit into the constructed categories of the time, and thus locating their position within the hierarchy was difficult. I don’t think it was so much how they identified that created heated discourse around Hall, but rather where to arrange them within the apparatus of social status and how to determine which powers could be afforded to them. This is seen in the negotiation of their indentured servitude contract and the charges of fornication. If Thomas(ine) was determined to be male, then their contract would be more expensive and they would be tried in court for fornication. But, if they were determined to be female, their contract would be less expensive and they would not be tried. Because the collective group could not come to a consensus about their identity, they were publicly ostracized and stripped of the power that either position could potentially hold.
The dehumanization of Hall and the resulting lack of autonomy and agency that they endured is reminiscent of the shift towards the mechanistic thinking of land and nature. When Mother Nature was alive and seen as a wife to a husband, she maintained a power that commanded respect. When Mother Nature was stripped of life she became, like Hall, a separate entity that could be ostracized from society, a body that could be subjected to the whims of the social hierarchy around her.
I enjoyed learning and reading about Thomas/Thomasine Hall's life. Though at first it was difficult to decipher i became invested in the tellings of what happened in their life. If i had the opportunity to id love to hear about their hardships directly from their mouth because throughout the years something may have become blurred or just not a true telling. I especially enjoyed the class discussion where others added on to what Thomas/ine might have been feeling like at that time. Id love to hear more about their story more in depth without the bias of other tellers of their life as well as bias in the court.
In Carolyn Merchant's article, she describes English farming and farming practices and depicts this gradual change from animism to a mechanistic viewing and treatment of the land and nature in Colonial America. Something that stood out to me was the implications that a mechanistic view brought into play. If you believe in mechanism, you believe that everything is like a machine- every human, plant, animal, animate and inanimate object are the same- unfeeling and senseless. It is easy to see how the Englishmen were able to take advantage of the land and of others with lower status based on this idea. Another important thing that I took away from the reading was that these English farmers went from simply sustaining themselves and their close community to having to sustain these larger, urban colonial settlements. Therefore, the context that led to this mechanization of land is important to consider. The need for more agricultural production encouraged agricultural improvers to implement new methods to boost agricultural output, one of which being "up and down husbandry" - essentially switching between yielding crops in a field for a few years and then having a few years of pasture to let the land recover. There was also processes of fertilization that they implemented in order to speed up land recovery and plant growth.
This mechanization of agriculture in Colonial America reflects what was happening in their culture in regards to society and gender roles. In the early colonies, gender was crucial in determining the jobs and roles a person would play in their society. As we can see with the case of Thomasine Hall, any challenge to this binary way of living threatened to turn their whole world upside down. I think a large issue people (men) had with Hall, was that if someone raised as a woman could so easily switch to presenting and preforming in society as a man, what was to stop the women of the town revolting? What was to stop the women from declaring that if Hall can do it, they can too. Anyone who acted outside of the binary world the colonists lived in would be immediately ostracized and turned into a spectacle in order to prevent said person from changing the way colonists viewed gender and gender roles. Therefore, this "husbandry" of the land and shift into mechanization reflects the need colonial men's need for submission.
The case of Thomas/Thomasine Hall brings to mind the larger environment of discrimination against queer people, particularly people who do not subscribe to traditional gender binaries and roles. To have a person be so violated in the name of finding out which gender binary they need to be labeled under is incredibly devastating. The hysteria that emerges when someone is open, honest, and doesn't align themselves with a traditional gender role or moves fluidly between their gender presentation represents an innate evil in humanity: the desire to control the presentation of others so that it falls into a realm of understanding with which we are familiar. This has been a massive debate in recent years, particularly with the sensationalization of gender fluidity and the rise of terms such as 'transgender' and 'non-binary'. When someone doesn't align with one person's narrow view of gender, it is, from their perspective, an attack on the life that they no and are familiar with. This is NOT a sympathy post for Hall's aggressors, or aggressors that appear in our modern life, it is rather an observation of the fact that simply interacting with a person who expresses their gender differently doesn't elicit feelings similar to a disagreement, it pierces the bubble in which the aggressor lives, often making them defensive or even violent. There are even laws that back this up, often referred to colloquially as 'panic defense laws' which are used to justify the killings of queer individuals based on the idea that this act of piercing the bubble can be so disorienting as to temporarily disconnect them from their sanity.
When we refuse to see transgender, genderfluid, gender non-conforming, or non-binary individuals for something other than the label that could be attached to them for our comfort, we lose the ability to interact with them as human beings. Hall, in this case, had their bodily autonomy completely revoked simply because their presentation pierced the bubble of the conservative, binary, religious community they lived and worked in. Hall was violated and treated as entirely subhuman, simply because the community saw them as a threat to their version of the world, rather than a human being. This community viewed Hall's actions as deception rather than self-expression. All of this abuse, sexual or otherwise, is an attempt to control and continue a patriarchal society. Hall's expression made them unable to be controlled and manipulated by powerful white men, and as such, they were deemed in need of a lesson and humiliated in hopes that they would reject their identity to fit in.
I appreciate that you acknowledge that labeling people and seeing them as that label inhibits our ability to interact as humans. Hall was not seen as a human, but a threat to their overall way of life.
One key note that stood out to me during the Hall Case was the fact the verdict flipped and flopped from being a woman to then being man and eventually was that Hall was declared as both man/woman and was instructed to dress in both women and men clothes. In doing so, the town believed they are doing an "honor" to everyone as now it's no longer in question and both the men and women in the town can agree. Regardless, now Hall is scrutinized more as they can't dress how they were happily doing so in the past, now they have to wear men trousers and shirts with a woman's "bonnet" and apron. I can imagine
This case was an interesting yet upsetting read that shows how dark Colonial American History truly was. Especially noting how members of society during this time who were considered an "abnormality" were mistreated and even assaulted because of other members feeling they have superiority over them. Unfortunately, this even can still be seen in today's society as members of the queer community are often time more likely to be victims to violence than others.
I think the way that the way that Hall's body was examined when they were viewed as a man and as a woman was very interesting. When attempting to prove womanhood, the other townspeople felt entitled to examine Hall's body. And when they were attempting to prove manhood, they focused more on the size of their penis, and how it compared to the commander's. I think the fact that as a "woman", Hall was assaulted and invaded, and as a man, they experienced the same thing but in a different scope. The forcing of certain clothing items and appearance was also interesting to me. Even in someone non-binary, we can see the gender binary being enforced and replicated in a person who attempted to exist outside of the system.
Thinking back to events in which masculinity has changed and evolved over centuries, the Thomas(ine) case is a great example of challenging traditional masculine and feminine norms from the 18th century by demonstrating that gender is not necessarily defined by physical attributes. The controversy surrounding this case raised the question of the construction of masculinity and how men and women should differentiate in behavior or presentation according to social norms. Although this unfortunately remained unrecognized by the public during this century, the case can highlight the importance of accepting individuals who choose not to conform to traditional expectations or gender norms. It can also serve as a suggestion that gender is not as orderly as people during this time period thought, and that individual human experience or gender identity cannot be easily categorized. The invasion of Thomas(ine)'s privacy and bodily autonomy during this case is nonetheless disturbing, and I believe it is important for this moment in history to emphasize the need for better understanding and acceptance of gender diversity.
Manhood, historically, and in the Christian bible has its roots in dominance. In the concept of submission of others they find total power. The idea of a woman in charge is a threat to their idea of manhood. The guidelines for manhood are very ridged. However they start to blur in the case of Thomasine Hall.
Thomasine Hall was searched and prodded four times. The lines of sexuality were blurred because they moved so fluently between genders. They were also an intersex person, and this confused people. What was considered manly or manhood was the topic of discussion when trying to put a label on Thomasine.
People struggle when a woman starts to show traits that are most often showed by males. Kamala for example; her simply taking charge and shaking Trumps hand at the debate was enough to shock people. It is hard for some to picture a woman "dominating a man". I once dated a guy, (not for long after this comment) who was threatened by me wearing jorts! Red flag.
The presidential debate was an interesting and exhilarating watch. For me personally, I take pleasure in seeing a politician so passionate about the plans for America and its people. I think Harris did a splendid job in this debate because of her body language, the way she spoke, and the eye contact. She had, what it felt like to me, a very masculine aura during. Her body language and the way she spoke articulately, are traits the President of the United States should possess. The eye contact was confident and assertive which also made me feel like she was sincere and determined about her agenda.
For Trump it almost felt like there was a lack of masculinity. Going back to the discussion earlier in class, it felt like Trump had a "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. Which resulted in him looking uninterested and unpassionate. I am aware that this strategy was used to make himself look intimidating but to me, there was an obvious absence of leadership and masculinity.
Completely agree with your interpretation of Kamala's body language and performance during the presidential debate! Adding off of what you're saying, I also found it almost frustrating during the debate from the constant argument rather than discussion. The majority of the debate was Trump making a non credible claim against Kamala, resulting in her having to defend herself, taking away from the time she had to discuss her plans for her potential presidency and things the public actually wanted to hear from her. His dependency on insulting her and attempting to dominate her all goes back to the "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset that you referred to, which can be a very immature and discreditable way to react when running for presidency.
After talking about it in class and coming to a better understanding of what happened to Hall, I was greatly appalled. What happened to Hall was lots of sexual harassment and sexual assault. It also hurt to read about how Hall was constantly referred to as 'him' or 'his' since at the time these historic documents were found, it was well known that Hall was non-binary.
I see myself as gender fluid, comfortable enough with myself and to tell others that I see myself as both male and female, comfortable with my masculinity and femininity. I am usually masculine presenting out in public because I am not yet comfortable with my self image to go out and present as a woman.
I wish I had Hall's courage to one day dress in men's clothing and go out and live my life to then turn around and dress in women's clothing.
What happened to Hall is also a fear of mine, having others constantly trying to figure out if I am a man or woman, telling me what I can and can't wear. I know society is more evolved and ever changing compared to what it was like back then, but that fear is what stops me from going out in public as feminine presenting.
I honestly hope we can get to a point in society where people can just live their lives as however they want without others judging them or telling them that their way of life is wrong.
I agree with you Deonte, what happened to Hall and how they were treated was awful and unacceptable. No one should have to go through that. I also hope that one day we can all accept each other as we come!
Here's my substack: https://ttj38.substack.com/?r=4buqi5&utm_campaign=pub-share-checklist
Looking good so far!!
I really enjoyed reading about Thomas/ine Hall. I think I finally have an answer to that question everyone has most likely been asked at least once in their life: what historical figure would you want to have dinner with? I would love to hear their story from their own mouth. Although the court case includes their own testimony, the case is still heavily biased because of the judge and jury’s personal beliefs on their gender identity and societal expectations of gender. Because of these beliefs, Hall was treated as a spectacle. They became an object that was used to fulfill others’ curiosities and uphold gender roles. I find it interesting that the people around Hall were more concerned with how they would fit into their ideas of gender roles than Hall themself. I find it disgusting that Hall was forced into non-consensual searches of their body. I refuse to believe that was okay back then. There is no way that a traditional man or woman was subjected to this kind of search and I don’t think this would’ve been viewed as normal behavior. These people only saw this as fine to do because according to them, Hall was an object. Since Hall wasn’t “normal,” people believed they had the right to be curious and act upon those curiosities about Hall’s gender or lack thereof. They were treated like an animal. This kind of curiosity is still around today. Trans people everywhere are asked by complete strangers about what body parts they may or may not have when, quite frankly, is none of their business and is creepy behavior. Stories like Hall’s are not seen anymore, but the sentiments behind them are exactly the same today. For some reason, many cis people feel like they have the right to know about a trans person’s body.
I completely agree. Id love to sit down with them and have a chat about their life and what they went through in full depth. I'd love to pick their brain and see how they were actually feeling in real time and what they did or didn't do to cope with the hardships of what they were going through.
Hall's case was absolutely fascinating and devastating to read. As a Queer individual, I love reading about Queer history and unfolding the lies that Trans and Queer people are part of a new revolution and not a part of our nation's history. When we talk about history from a Queer perspective, it is essential to acknowledge the history of sexual violence perpetuated against people of that culture. The fascination with Queer people and our bodies is a long and tired story that has led to our current social culture of higher rates of assault, murder, and general sexual violence towards trans and Queer people.
I think while it was enlightening to see a story of a non-binary/trans individual in the early times of our country, the telling of their own sexual abuse and mishandling by the people in their community was upsetting. I think Hall's story was especially interesting when we discussed the concepts of manifest destiny, religious purpose, and relationships with land in the U.S. Throughout our discussions in class, we have noted that the colonial vision of land is much different than that of an Indigenous perspective, similar to how the two peoples view gender.
I mentioned in class today that several Indigenous communities and various cultures around the world have developed language for describing alternative genders outside of the American social binary, and that when the Americas were colonized, this rhetoric disappeared due to it being hard to control, and different from that of colonial belief. When we hold discussions around Queer history and the concepts of gender, we need to remember that all forms of social norms in America are constructed to better serve a capitalistic system, and therefore inherently seek to harm Queer/Trans/BIPOC bodies. Essentially anyone who resides outside of a collective social norm is persecuted or required to assimilate ( through marriage rights or the loss of culture, etc.).
When we consider the concept of culture stripping, gender norms, and sexual violence, we begin to wonder how this all ties to land. However, it is important to remember that the Christian belief in man's right to land stems from a woman taking control over her own bodily autonomy, who was then punished with childbirth and submission for her actions. When we view the story of Skywoman and other Indigenous practices, we can see that Indigenous culture holds an immense amount of respect for land and mother Earth. Their planting cycles are based around her needs, and animals are cared for and hunted in a way that remains sustainable. The Englishmen in America however entirely stripped the land of it's nutrients, seeking to "master" it, rather than seek a coexistence.
So how does everything tie together? From the colonial perspective, the Earth has been named as a woman, and also as something to be tamed. Additionally, opposing views (such as that of Indigenous peoples) were effectively erased throughout history to create one colonialist narrative of rights and understanding. This "mastery" of Mother Earth is a reflection of colonialist gender ideals, and what part they believed women played in the world. To continue this thought, it can then be assumed that since the entire society of the English revolved around this gender binary (including placing the actual Earth within this system) that anything "abnormal" (such as Queer, Trans, and non-binary folk) would inherently disrupt the system. This is why I find Hall's story to be so fascinating. Hall's story is an example of modern society attempting to remain in control when opposed by something that dares to be different.
The story of Hall asks us all to question our realities, and why we believe the things we do. Why are certain traits only applied to women? Why has the land and women been both feminized and fetishized and what purpose does this serve to the greater colonialist, capitalist, agenda? Can Queer history and media truly change the perspective of the future and cultivate change?
What do y'all think?
I completely agree with you when you say Hall's story was so fascinating and how the idea of "abnormalities" affected the system. The way the court resolved Hall's case was telling that they had no idea how to handle their case and that letting them decide what they wanted to do on their own wasn't ever in question.
> How does the definition of manhood through relationship, especially relationships of dominance, make men and male identities, dependent on women’s submission and, thus, vulnerable and fragile? What is an example of this?
In a sense I think that the question answers itself: if a relationship is based on forced subjugation, then the dominant party will be a forceful subjugator. Although I understand the context of the question, I am hesitant to acknowledge that 'male identities' are dependent on people being submissive. I may be missing a layer of nuance given that I wasn't present for this discussion today, but I think that affirming that masculine identities are based on domination could be highly problematic.
Furthermore, as I commented in a previous thread, I think that it is important to interpret the philosophical roots of the societal changes we are studying; people didn't just wake up one day, as some of the terms in this unit suggest, there are reason why people change their thinking, typically to benefit themselves. Think, what socio-economic changes occurred around the shift from animism to mechanism, and why? Why and how could a society shift so rapidly from respecting the earth, to believing it should be extracted and desecrated, with social roles to match?
> We see patriarchy in all three of these relationships and also changing. How so? How is God a part of patriarchal models? How does patriarchy go back to Adam and Eve? What was Adam’s role and how does it relate to the role of the colonial farmer and the scientists in the 17th and 18th C Atlantic World.
The Abrahamic belief systems promotes male dominance over women in public life. Adam and Eve is is patriarchal because it portrays women as left-overs, and cause trouble. This is portrayed as partly Adam's fault because he should have control over his woman. The colonial farmer and scientist relate to this because they are encouraged ideologically to exert control over the earth.
> How do these relations compare with Skywoman and the Wampanoag idea of kinship with the land and responsibility to the land in Native American relations of sovereignty?
When the land is objectified and becomes a thing, what does it become possible for colonial farmers and as capitalism and industry advance, for Anglo Americans to do to the land?
Skywoman, which is derivative of native American creation stories, and the Wampanoag idea of kinship is almost the opposite. The tribes live on the earth which is an independent and powerful entity. Instead of overcoming nature, the tribes are more inclined to work with it.
When land gets objectified and the environment destroyed, it ideologically allows mass development. This is an example of alienation.
> In the mechanistic model, there is a step in which nature is rushed. How do humans use technology to rush nature? What technologies are they using? What is the thinking of Bacon and then Descartes, that facilitates this rushing and objectification of nature?
Humans use technology to 'rush' nature to benefit us. Fertilizers, breeding animals and crops, synthesizing oil (instead of digging it out of the ground), etc. Bacon and Descartes pioneered enlightened forms of logical analysis. They both essentially believed that we could use the resources provided by the earth to enhance our (humanities) quality of life. This facilities the 'rushing' of nature because it encourages people to take an active role in investigating the properties and materials of earth.
> Then, these gendered relations of power get racialized in slavery. How so?
I would tread very carefully as you intersect the race/gender/class issue as it transcends public opinion, there are innate mechanisms of our economic system which encourages these disparities, and it hasn't always been that 'workers are more physical, bosses are more aristocratic'. This might lead people to believe that strong = worker and weak = boss.
To get on with the question, justifying slavery, particularly in America, was very bloody and very dirty. Slavery wasn't justified before Slavery happened, the slave-owners were forced to justify slavery as the gruesome aspects of it were made public. A modern example: Palestine. The genocide and ethnic cleansing as been ongoing since the first Nakba, in 1948. Only now, since the beginning of this latest episode, has Israel been forced to answer for its actions.
Furthermore, for the slave-owning aristocrats to justify Slavery, they delved into the deepest darkest elements of the scientific racism to make the case to the pubic (which obviously was unsuccessful). They doubled down on the idea that white men are the highest on the totempole, white women were just below them, then all the non-anglo-saxon white were below them. It wasn't inherent, it was taught, radicalized, societally.
> How might the politics of objectification and the surrender of bodily autonomy along the American gendered hierarchy explain some of the race and class dynamics in this election?
The Republican party has been openly fascistic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, and it hasn't played well with the majority of the US population. The gendered hierarchy is more in the background this election than compared to 2016, when a large part of Hillary's campaign was based on 'being the first female president', because the Democratic party has learned that voters don't care nearly as much about the identity of the person running, but about the policies they are running on. In fact, the Democratic policy shifts surrounding the border, Israel, crime, and medicare for all very well could cost them the election.
The Republican party has shifted to the right, and so has the democrats. The difference is, the Republican voters have also shifted to the right, but a good chunk of the Democratic voters have not.
> What thoughts does the case of Hall provoke in you?
Well its all just very sad but not surprising even to this day. I think its clear from the historical record that Hall likely had some sort of hormonal imbalance and would probably determined to be intersex today. It's kind of just stressful because I am a trans person and this is the type of discourse swarming around now. Last year multiple southern states made it illegal to 'do drag in public', obviously targeting trans people. So its reminiscent of that.
As we began to shift to a more mechanistic view as shown in the Brooks reading husbandry became less and less prevalent as we became more extraction focused. There was a quote by Bacon that I can't seem to find that essentially stated that following expulsion from Eden that the land was our only tie to what we lost and over the years we became bent on mastering/ dominating this land to reclaim what we lost. In doing so and abandoning husbandry of the land we would further stray from those religious ideals that set the tone for what we see in the Hall documents as well as the current presidential elections. In terms of the Hall documents it's seen with Hall slipping between the conventional gender roles at will, demonstrated by adopting a masculine role to fight in Europe and switching back to sewing bone lace once the fighting had concluded. Along with taking predominantly female roles in the Americas upon Hall's arrival. In Hall documents one of the things that stuck out to me was that sexual relations between females was not prohibited by law only Male x female at the time. Since Hall was identifying as female at the time this wouldn't have been against the law, yet the court and neighbors would conduct search's whether warranted by the court or not, to determine Hall's sex. This was unreasonably rash and invasive from my perspective.in the ruling for Hall to wear both Male and Female clothing I feel this was a significantly better outcome than some of the alternatives that could have happened. This also relates to the President debate because of the loss of a form of autonomy, for Hall how they dress and for modern day women abortion. This comes with a sense of emasculating and removing control from a dominate group of men (ex. President Trump), similar to Bacon's quote on religion and the shift to mechanism (a sense of hyper masculinity and dominant control) through a seemingly weaponized sense of religion (blaming Eve for the ejection from Eden, Earth being female associated, abortions) tends to throw a wrench in to the ideals of bodily autonomy because it opens hundreds of ways for it to potentially be limited and violated like it was for Thomas(ine) Hall.
Good summary, Payton. I think that your distinction between Woman x Woman relations and Male x Male relations are important to note. In western society sexual ambiguity is more permissible between 'women' than 'men'. Interestingly we can find something like this in Iranian society, homosexuality between men is forbidden UNLESS the 'bottom' medically transitions to female (which is legally recognized). I suggest you read into that because its very fascinating, that distinction was made relatively recently (80s 90s?).
I found reading about Halls case to be very interesting and shocking. The towns people felt entitled to an answer of their gender this made them see Hall no longer as a person but an object this resulted in them conducting searches of their private parts which is not only invasive but dehumanizing. I think a lot of the disapproval came from going against the hierarchy this scared the town because they weren't able to control them. This makes me think about how we see living things becoming objectified as we switch to a more mechanistic world as illustrated in the Brooks reading we see the relationship with the land go from loving and nurturing to something that needs to be conquered. The land then became something to capitalize on never giving back. This mechanistic view made it easier to justify their actions because once you see something as nonliving it doesn't seem abusive almost like they believed it was there right to the land so they can take it for all its worth.
I was interested in the term “husbandry” and the idea that anyone, especially a European colonist, could view the land in such a way. More specifically, I’m interested in how “husbandry” has evolved through the lens of gender and land relations. If at one point, to husband the land meant to care for and nurture it, there is definitely a different understanding of that act now, at least to me. In my perspective, I have always thought traditional marriage to be an economic act and exchange of ownership. However, I enjoy the idea that acting as a husband towards land could actually entail some level of respect, and it’s a shame that ideology did not survive for long. The persistent expansion of what it meant to be masculine and how patriarchy operates seemed to reconstruct that mutually respectable perspective rather quickly.
Hierarchies of masculinity also served to enhance systems of gender and racial oppression. Because there had to be someone at the top of the food chain, the struggle for power, or even just the feeling of being powerful, relied on the further oppression of already vulnerable populations; poor/indentured white men, white women, indigenous men, indigenous women, enslaved men, and enslaved women engaged in the power struggles emerging from defined social identities, willingly or not.
In the case of Thomas(ine) Hall, their gender identity did not fit into the constructed categories of the time, and thus locating their position within the hierarchy was difficult. I don’t think it was so much how they identified that created heated discourse around Hall, but rather where to arrange them within the apparatus of social status and how to determine which powers could be afforded to them. This is seen in the negotiation of their indentured servitude contract and the charges of fornication. If Thomas(ine) was determined to be male, then their contract would be more expensive and they would be tried in court for fornication. But, if they were determined to be female, their contract would be less expensive and they would not be tried. Because the collective group could not come to a consensus about their identity, they were publicly ostracized and stripped of the power that either position could potentially hold.
The dehumanization of Hall and the resulting lack of autonomy and agency that they endured is reminiscent of the shift towards the mechanistic thinking of land and nature. When Mother Nature was alive and seen as a wife to a husband, she maintained a power that commanded respect. When Mother Nature was stripped of life she became, like Hall, a separate entity that could be ostracized from society, a body that could be subjected to the whims of the social hierarchy around her.
I enjoyed learning and reading about Thomas/Thomasine Hall's life. Though at first it was difficult to decipher i became invested in the tellings of what happened in their life. If i had the opportunity to id love to hear about their hardships directly from their mouth because throughout the years something may have become blurred or just not a true telling. I especially enjoyed the class discussion where others added on to what Thomas/ine might have been feeling like at that time. Id love to hear more about their story more in depth without the bias of other tellers of their life as well as bias in the court.
In Carolyn Merchant's article, she describes English farming and farming practices and depicts this gradual change from animism to a mechanistic viewing and treatment of the land and nature in Colonial America. Something that stood out to me was the implications that a mechanistic view brought into play. If you believe in mechanism, you believe that everything is like a machine- every human, plant, animal, animate and inanimate object are the same- unfeeling and senseless. It is easy to see how the Englishmen were able to take advantage of the land and of others with lower status based on this idea. Another important thing that I took away from the reading was that these English farmers went from simply sustaining themselves and their close community to having to sustain these larger, urban colonial settlements. Therefore, the context that led to this mechanization of land is important to consider. The need for more agricultural production encouraged agricultural improvers to implement new methods to boost agricultural output, one of which being "up and down husbandry" - essentially switching between yielding crops in a field for a few years and then having a few years of pasture to let the land recover. There was also processes of fertilization that they implemented in order to speed up land recovery and plant growth.
This mechanization of agriculture in Colonial America reflects what was happening in their culture in regards to society and gender roles. In the early colonies, gender was crucial in determining the jobs and roles a person would play in their society. As we can see with the case of Thomasine Hall, any challenge to this binary way of living threatened to turn their whole world upside down. I think a large issue people (men) had with Hall, was that if someone raised as a woman could so easily switch to presenting and preforming in society as a man, what was to stop the women of the town revolting? What was to stop the women from declaring that if Hall can do it, they can too. Anyone who acted outside of the binary world the colonists lived in would be immediately ostracized and turned into a spectacle in order to prevent said person from changing the way colonists viewed gender and gender roles. Therefore, this "husbandry" of the land and shift into mechanization reflects the need colonial men's need for submission.
The case of Thomas/Thomasine Hall brings to mind the larger environment of discrimination against queer people, particularly people who do not subscribe to traditional gender binaries and roles. To have a person be so violated in the name of finding out which gender binary they need to be labeled under is incredibly devastating. The hysteria that emerges when someone is open, honest, and doesn't align themselves with a traditional gender role or moves fluidly between their gender presentation represents an innate evil in humanity: the desire to control the presentation of others so that it falls into a realm of understanding with which we are familiar. This has been a massive debate in recent years, particularly with the sensationalization of gender fluidity and the rise of terms such as 'transgender' and 'non-binary'. When someone doesn't align with one person's narrow view of gender, it is, from their perspective, an attack on the life that they no and are familiar with. This is NOT a sympathy post for Hall's aggressors, or aggressors that appear in our modern life, it is rather an observation of the fact that simply interacting with a person who expresses their gender differently doesn't elicit feelings similar to a disagreement, it pierces the bubble in which the aggressor lives, often making them defensive or even violent. There are even laws that back this up, often referred to colloquially as 'panic defense laws' which are used to justify the killings of queer individuals based on the idea that this act of piercing the bubble can be so disorienting as to temporarily disconnect them from their sanity.
When we refuse to see transgender, genderfluid, gender non-conforming, or non-binary individuals for something other than the label that could be attached to them for our comfort, we lose the ability to interact with them as human beings. Hall, in this case, had their bodily autonomy completely revoked simply because their presentation pierced the bubble of the conservative, binary, religious community they lived and worked in. Hall was violated and treated as entirely subhuman, simply because the community saw them as a threat to their version of the world, rather than a human being. This community viewed Hall's actions as deception rather than self-expression. All of this abuse, sexual or otherwise, is an attempt to control and continue a patriarchal society. Hall's expression made them unable to be controlled and manipulated by powerful white men, and as such, they were deemed in need of a lesson and humiliated in hopes that they would reject their identity to fit in.
I appreciate that you acknowledge that labeling people and seeing them as that label inhibits our ability to interact as humans. Hall was not seen as a human, but a threat to their overall way of life.
One key note that stood out to me during the Hall Case was the fact the verdict flipped and flopped from being a woman to then being man and eventually was that Hall was declared as both man/woman and was instructed to dress in both women and men clothes. In doing so, the town believed they are doing an "honor" to everyone as now it's no longer in question and both the men and women in the town can agree. Regardless, now Hall is scrutinized more as they can't dress how they were happily doing so in the past, now they have to wear men trousers and shirts with a woman's "bonnet" and apron. I can imagine
This case was an interesting yet upsetting read that shows how dark Colonial American History truly was. Especially noting how members of society during this time who were considered an "abnormality" were mistreated and even assaulted because of other members feeling they have superiority over them. Unfortunately, this even can still be seen in today's society as members of the queer community are often time more likely to be victims to violence than others.
I think the way that the way that Hall's body was examined when they were viewed as a man and as a woman was very interesting. When attempting to prove womanhood, the other townspeople felt entitled to examine Hall's body. And when they were attempting to prove manhood, they focused more on the size of their penis, and how it compared to the commander's. I think the fact that as a "woman", Hall was assaulted and invaded, and as a man, they experienced the same thing but in a different scope. The forcing of certain clothing items and appearance was also interesting to me. Even in someone non-binary, we can see the gender binary being enforced and replicated in a person who attempted to exist outside of the system.
Thinking back to events in which masculinity has changed and evolved over centuries, the Thomas(ine) case is a great example of challenging traditional masculine and feminine norms from the 18th century by demonstrating that gender is not necessarily defined by physical attributes. The controversy surrounding this case raised the question of the construction of masculinity and how men and women should differentiate in behavior or presentation according to social norms. Although this unfortunately remained unrecognized by the public during this century, the case can highlight the importance of accepting individuals who choose not to conform to traditional expectations or gender norms. It can also serve as a suggestion that gender is not as orderly as people during this time period thought, and that individual human experience or gender identity cannot be easily categorized. The invasion of Thomas(ine)'s privacy and bodily autonomy during this case is nonetheless disturbing, and I believe it is important for this moment in history to emphasize the need for better understanding and acceptance of gender diversity.
Manhood, historically, and in the Christian bible has its roots in dominance. In the concept of submission of others they find total power. The idea of a woman in charge is a threat to their idea of manhood. The guidelines for manhood are very ridged. However they start to blur in the case of Thomasine Hall.
Thomasine Hall was searched and prodded four times. The lines of sexuality were blurred because they moved so fluently between genders. They were also an intersex person, and this confused people. What was considered manly or manhood was the topic of discussion when trying to put a label on Thomasine.
People struggle when a woman starts to show traits that are most often showed by males. Kamala for example; her simply taking charge and shaking Trumps hand at the debate was enough to shock people. It is hard for some to picture a woman "dominating a man". I once dated a guy, (not for long after this comment) who was threatened by me wearing jorts! Red flag.
The presidential debate was an interesting and exhilarating watch. For me personally, I take pleasure in seeing a politician so passionate about the plans for America and its people. I think Harris did a splendid job in this debate because of her body language, the way she spoke, and the eye contact. She had, what it felt like to me, a very masculine aura during. Her body language and the way she spoke articulately, are traits the President of the United States should possess. The eye contact was confident and assertive which also made me feel like she was sincere and determined about her agenda.
For Trump it almost felt like there was a lack of masculinity. Going back to the discussion earlier in class, it felt like Trump had a "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. Which resulted in him looking uninterested and unpassionate. I am aware that this strategy was used to make himself look intimidating but to me, there was an obvious absence of leadership and masculinity.
Completely agree with your interpretation of Kamala's body language and performance during the presidential debate! Adding off of what you're saying, I also found it almost frustrating during the debate from the constant argument rather than discussion. The majority of the debate was Trump making a non credible claim against Kamala, resulting in her having to defend herself, taking away from the time she had to discuss her plans for her potential presidency and things the public actually wanted to hear from her. His dependency on insulting her and attempting to dominate her all goes back to the "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset that you referred to, which can be a very immature and discreditable way to react when running for presidency.
After talking about it in class and coming to a better understanding of what happened to Hall, I was greatly appalled. What happened to Hall was lots of sexual harassment and sexual assault. It also hurt to read about how Hall was constantly referred to as 'him' or 'his' since at the time these historic documents were found, it was well known that Hall was non-binary.
I see myself as gender fluid, comfortable enough with myself and to tell others that I see myself as both male and female, comfortable with my masculinity and femininity. I am usually masculine presenting out in public because I am not yet comfortable with my self image to go out and present as a woman.
I wish I had Hall's courage to one day dress in men's clothing and go out and live my life to then turn around and dress in women's clothing.
What happened to Hall is also a fear of mine, having others constantly trying to figure out if I am a man or woman, telling me what I can and can't wear. I know society is more evolved and ever changing compared to what it was like back then, but that fear is what stops me from going out in public as feminine presenting.
I honestly hope we can get to a point in society where people can just live their lives as however they want without others judging them or telling them that their way of life is wrong.
I agree with you Deonte, what happened to Hall and how they were treated was awful and unacceptable. No one should have to go through that. I also hope that one day we can all accept each other as we come!