Some men don’t want to be married to someone who makes more than them. They feel like their manhood is dependent on being the person that makes more money in the relationship because their partner would be financially dependent on them. The idea that in order to be a man you have to be the dominant in a relationship is something taught by society. In movies men are depicted as physically strong, providers and emotionally stunted. Whereas a woman is depicted as emotionally open, maternal and traditionally a home maker. There are more progressive relationships that don’t dwell on societal/gender expectations. Even then there is somehow always one partner that is viewed as the masculine one.
People fear change as seen in the case of Thomas(ine) Hall. They were different and people assaulted to do examinations. It’s so heartbreaking to read about such a progressive person being treated unfairly and having to conform to society’s rules when Thomas(ine) wasn’t harming anyone. During this time people couldn’t understand how someone who they thought was a women could work out in the fields, one man even said he wanted to purchase Thomas(ine) but he first needed to know if they were a man or woman because that would determine what tasks they could do. I was surprised to read that because at this point in the story Thomas(ine) had proved they could accomplish both a man and a woman’s task well.
I do agree that one thing that men are extremely sensitive about is if their partner is more successful than them. The fact that it means to them that their partner is not financially dependent on them is something that truly makes some men freak out and become irrational. I agree that the views we have on how each gender is supposed to act are portrayed and exacerbated in media and it is causing harm to our society.
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.
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?
It was crazy to me because the townspeople thought they had a right to examine Thomas(ines) body and did not consider what they did assault. They were criminals pretending to be moral people.
The ideas of bodily autonomy in Old and New England use naturalistic elements and symbols to convey femininity. Merchant discusses the unarguable concepts of Mother Nature and her link to God (Christian/Protestant), noting that “To the peasant and farmer, her signs and activities were often enigmatic and had to be accepted as God's will rather than challenged or analyzed” (Merchant, 114). The agricultural revolution occurring in the colonies at this time used the symbolism of Mother Nature as a female figure. Does this mean that if a farm year was terrible, a woman would be blamed? Observing the recent presidential election makes me think about how many paternalistic and misogynistic individuals still believe a woman isn’t suited to be a leader. Reflecting on this article and theme makes me consider the enduring history of paternalistic culture—a culture that has persisted for over 250 years in American history.
It is shocking to me that the natural beauty of childbirth can have negative societal implications. Historically, women have been assigned strict gender roles in American society. This is evident in how women often did not receive formal education, with only elite families possessing the power to educate their daughters. Women were expected to manage the household and care for children. This history of controlled gender roles and rigid social expectations deeply concerns me, particularly in the context of presidential elections. As a male, I strongly oppose regressing to the 1950s mentality. Women should have the same rights as men and deserve autonomy, particularly concerning reproductive rights. American women should not be marginalized by patriarchal systems.
I feel that masculinity is such a touchy topic for most men, and I don't really understand why. A lot of men think being masculine means being the sole provider, being big and strong, and being able to control/manipulate the women around them. Whenever I see a man that acts like that, I think they're showing the exact opposite of masculinity. Anyone can be masculine, not just men, and the fact that they think that specifically is the way to be masculine is honestly quite embarrassing.
We have had discussions in class about historians value as storytellers, and the necessity to reconstruct history to remain objective. Hall is unique in that we can be assured by the failure of historians and society to record itself that their were many like them. Without heeding close attention to the reality of historical stories, we can get lost in our own fictitious explorations. They had a certain spontaneity to them. They appear to have an almost joyful glee in their fluidity. It is funny to imagine the way their spontaneity met the confused and strict hand of the courts. And then I thought about how that glee was never let free throughout Thomas/ine's life. I thought about what it would be like to have a child so constrained by the squeezing in of the courts and society, that their identity becomes remembered by those confines. I want my child to grow up in a world where they are remembered via their own volition. I want freedom to manifest itself in them like a liquid outside a container. Thomas/ine was meant to be free, and as funny as it is to imagine her slipping like gelatin through the fingers of confused courts and inspectors, it is a wasted life. I hope we remember them for that freedom.
The overarching themes connecting the Thomas Hall court records and Carolyn Merchant’s essay The Animate Cosmos of the Colonial Farmer center around the intersections of identity, community, and the relationship to nature during the colonial period. Both texts reflect how the early American worldview was deeply shaped by social structures, cultural expectations, and an understanding of the environment as a living, dynamic system.
In the Thomas Hall court records, we witness a colonial legal system that is concerned with regulating not just behavior but also the identities of its subjects, particularly regarding Hall’s ambiguous gender presentation. These records highlight the rigid social boundaries and the importance of conforming to societal expectations of gender, which were enforced to maintain order in a tightly controlled colonial community. Hall’s case reveals how early colonial life was not just about survival in the New World but also about defining who belonged within the community and how people should behave within its moral and social frameworks. Identity, in this sense, was something policed and shaped by both the individual and the larger colonial structures of power.
In contrast, Merchant’s The Animate Cosmos of the Colonial Farmer presents a different facet of colonial life—how early settlers and farmers saw themselves as part of a living, animate world. Colonial farmers viewed the land as imbued with spiritual and natural forces that needed to be respected and balanced. This perspective positioned human beings not as separate from nature but as part of a larger cosmic web, where their actions on the land had ethical and spiritual consequences. The idea that the land was alive and responsive shaped colonial agricultural practices and the settlers’ relationship with nature.
Together, these texts provide a complex picture of colonial life, where both personal identity and the environment were deeply intertwined with larger community values. The court records emphasize social control over individual identity, particularly through legal and religious lenses, while Merchant’s essay explores how colonial farmers’ relationship with nature was one of interdependence and mutual influence. The two works suggest that early colonial life was marked by a need to both conform to social norms and navigate a world understood as animated by spiritual and natural forces. These overarching themes of control, belonging, and interconnection offer valuable insights into how colonial settlers experienced both their individual lives and their environment.
I enjoyed this discussion because we talked about what masculinity actually means to people and how people can have differing definitions of what the word means. The definition of manhood in regard to how it is dependent on women's submission is a complicated affair. To men, their one goal in life is to the big strong person that everyone can rely on and fawn over and if women are not submissive and going along with it, they're not fulfilling their purpose. An example of this would be this day and age's definition of a traditional wife, they are meant to be completely dependent of their husbands and have no other reason in life other than being a wife and submissive to their husband. The thoughts that the Hall case provokes in me is that it is completely messed up and not okay. Hall reiterated multiple times that they are what they are and that sometimes they dress like and man and other times they dress like a woman and that it was how they had always done it, and it had never been a problem until now.
I found the case of Hall to be very interesting as Hall was a person who enjoyed being more feminine and expressed it from wearing women’s clothes. Because of this, the people in the town wanted the actually truth of Hall’s gender, leading to a searches on their body without any consent. I felt these people dehumanize Hall because they didn’t see Hall as a person because the way they identified themselves but more as an object. I also felt this very much relates to how society views transgender people, people not accepting them as who they are.
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.
Some men don’t want to be married to someone who makes more than them. They feel like their manhood is dependent on being the person that makes more money in the relationship because their partner would be financially dependent on them. The idea that in order to be a man you have to be the dominant in a relationship is something taught by society. In movies men are depicted as physically strong, providers and emotionally stunted. Whereas a woman is depicted as emotionally open, maternal and traditionally a home maker. There are more progressive relationships that don’t dwell on societal/gender expectations. Even then there is somehow always one partner that is viewed as the masculine one.
People fear change as seen in the case of Thomas(ine) Hall. They were different and people assaulted to do examinations. It’s so heartbreaking to read about such a progressive person being treated unfairly and having to conform to society’s rules when Thomas(ine) wasn’t harming anyone. During this time people couldn’t understand how someone who they thought was a women could work out in the fields, one man even said he wanted to purchase Thomas(ine) but he first needed to know if they were a man or woman because that would determine what tasks they could do. I was surprised to read that because at this point in the story Thomas(ine) had proved they could accomplish both a man and a woman’s task well.
I do agree that one thing that men are extremely sensitive about is if their partner is more successful than them. The fact that it means to them that their partner is not financially dependent on them is something that truly makes some men freak out and become irrational. I agree that the views we have on how each gender is supposed to act are portrayed and exacerbated in media and it is causing harm to our society.
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.
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?
It was crazy to me because the townspeople thought they had a right to examine Thomas(ines) body and did not consider what they did assault. They were criminals pretending to be moral people.
The ideas of bodily autonomy in Old and New England use naturalistic elements and symbols to convey femininity. Merchant discusses the unarguable concepts of Mother Nature and her link to God (Christian/Protestant), noting that “To the peasant and farmer, her signs and activities were often enigmatic and had to be accepted as God's will rather than challenged or analyzed” (Merchant, 114). The agricultural revolution occurring in the colonies at this time used the symbolism of Mother Nature as a female figure. Does this mean that if a farm year was terrible, a woman would be blamed? Observing the recent presidential election makes me think about how many paternalistic and misogynistic individuals still believe a woman isn’t suited to be a leader. Reflecting on this article and theme makes me consider the enduring history of paternalistic culture—a culture that has persisted for over 250 years in American history.
It is shocking to me that the natural beauty of childbirth can have negative societal implications. Historically, women have been assigned strict gender roles in American society. This is evident in how women often did not receive formal education, with only elite families possessing the power to educate their daughters. Women were expected to manage the household and care for children. This history of controlled gender roles and rigid social expectations deeply concerns me, particularly in the context of presidential elections. As a male, I strongly oppose regressing to the 1950s mentality. Women should have the same rights as men and deserve autonomy, particularly concerning reproductive rights. American women should not be marginalized by patriarchal systems.
I feel that masculinity is such a touchy topic for most men, and I don't really understand why. A lot of men think being masculine means being the sole provider, being big and strong, and being able to control/manipulate the women around them. Whenever I see a man that acts like that, I think they're showing the exact opposite of masculinity. Anyone can be masculine, not just men, and the fact that they think that specifically is the way to be masculine is honestly quite embarrassing.
We have had discussions in class about historians value as storytellers, and the necessity to reconstruct history to remain objective. Hall is unique in that we can be assured by the failure of historians and society to record itself that their were many like them. Without heeding close attention to the reality of historical stories, we can get lost in our own fictitious explorations. They had a certain spontaneity to them. They appear to have an almost joyful glee in their fluidity. It is funny to imagine the way their spontaneity met the confused and strict hand of the courts. And then I thought about how that glee was never let free throughout Thomas/ine's life. I thought about what it would be like to have a child so constrained by the squeezing in of the courts and society, that their identity becomes remembered by those confines. I want my child to grow up in a world where they are remembered via their own volition. I want freedom to manifest itself in them like a liquid outside a container. Thomas/ine was meant to be free, and as funny as it is to imagine her slipping like gelatin through the fingers of confused courts and inspectors, it is a wasted life. I hope we remember them for that freedom.
The overarching themes connecting the Thomas Hall court records and Carolyn Merchant’s essay The Animate Cosmos of the Colonial Farmer center around the intersections of identity, community, and the relationship to nature during the colonial period. Both texts reflect how the early American worldview was deeply shaped by social structures, cultural expectations, and an understanding of the environment as a living, dynamic system.
In the Thomas Hall court records, we witness a colonial legal system that is concerned with regulating not just behavior but also the identities of its subjects, particularly regarding Hall’s ambiguous gender presentation. These records highlight the rigid social boundaries and the importance of conforming to societal expectations of gender, which were enforced to maintain order in a tightly controlled colonial community. Hall’s case reveals how early colonial life was not just about survival in the New World but also about defining who belonged within the community and how people should behave within its moral and social frameworks. Identity, in this sense, was something policed and shaped by both the individual and the larger colonial structures of power.
In contrast, Merchant’s The Animate Cosmos of the Colonial Farmer presents a different facet of colonial life—how early settlers and farmers saw themselves as part of a living, animate world. Colonial farmers viewed the land as imbued with spiritual and natural forces that needed to be respected and balanced. This perspective positioned human beings not as separate from nature but as part of a larger cosmic web, where their actions on the land had ethical and spiritual consequences. The idea that the land was alive and responsive shaped colonial agricultural practices and the settlers’ relationship with nature.
Together, these texts provide a complex picture of colonial life, where both personal identity and the environment were deeply intertwined with larger community values. The court records emphasize social control over individual identity, particularly through legal and religious lenses, while Merchant’s essay explores how colonial farmers’ relationship with nature was one of interdependence and mutual influence. The two works suggest that early colonial life was marked by a need to both conform to social norms and navigate a world understood as animated by spiritual and natural forces. These overarching themes of control, belonging, and interconnection offer valuable insights into how colonial settlers experienced both their individual lives and their environment.
I enjoyed this discussion because we talked about what masculinity actually means to people and how people can have differing definitions of what the word means. The definition of manhood in regard to how it is dependent on women's submission is a complicated affair. To men, their one goal in life is to the big strong person that everyone can rely on and fawn over and if women are not submissive and going along with it, they're not fulfilling their purpose. An example of this would be this day and age's definition of a traditional wife, they are meant to be completely dependent of their husbands and have no other reason in life other than being a wife and submissive to their husband. The thoughts that the Hall case provokes in me is that it is completely messed up and not okay. Hall reiterated multiple times that they are what they are and that sometimes they dress like and man and other times they dress like a woman and that it was how they had always done it, and it had never been a problem until now.
I found the case of Hall to be very interesting as Hall was a person who enjoyed being more feminine and expressed it from wearing women’s clothes. Because of this, the people in the town wanted the actually truth of Hall’s gender, leading to a searches on their body without any consent. I felt these people dehumanize Hall because they didn’t see Hall as a person because the way they identified themselves but more as an object. I also felt this very much relates to how society views transgender people, people not accepting them as who they are.
Looking good so far!!
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.