/r/Books is pissed off that historical female authors who were forced to publish under male pen-names are having their work republished under their real names, because apparently it's evil to assume they weren't trans

submitted by marmorsymphata from (reddit.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thrownawaycan 64 insightful - 9 fun64 insightful - 8 fun65 insightful - 9 fun -  (4 children)

In the comments people argue that wearing men's clothing and not behaving as proper women of the era were expected is point proof that these women were trans.

[–]MezozoicGay 68 insightful - 1 fun68 insightful - 0 fun69 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If those women were publishing under their women's name, they would not be published in the first place. And in many countries they would be put in prison for doing that.

Women just had no rights at all, there were no way for woman to do ANYTHING as woman, so the only way was is to pretend that they are a man. Those TRA are so blind in their midle class straight men privileges, that they can't even imagine what "not having rights" can possibly be, and they are thinking that women back then lived like men living right now.

Hey, even JK Rowling was publishing under men's name. Is she a trans now? All this anti-JKR movement is transphobic then!

George Eliot continued to publish as George Eliot even after her identity became known

I wonder, if that has something to do with publishers not allowing any women books to be published or not?

And "even after her identity became known" - are they thinking there was internet back then? Only few academics and aristocracy did know that. And even if with some miracle publisher decided to publish first book written by woman, I can imagine her loosing all customers if she publish under her real name.

By the way, I needed to google about George Eliot to know who it is, because in our schools, since USSR times we were studying her as Mary Ann Evans.

[–]lefterfield 46 insightful - 1 fun46 insightful - 0 fun47 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wonder if the historical ignorance is deliberate - it makes it easier to accept their narrative that women aren't oppressed because of our sex, but because of our "femininity." It's hard to imagine that anyone is stupid enough to think that women who published under men's names really thought they were men. Much easier to accept it as TRA propaganda or a deliberate attempt to undermine feminism.

[–]Anandamide 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think so, and not just in this regard. I was at a lecture discussing the excavation of ancient Viking graves in Scandinavia, and the primary topic was the discovery that one of the warrior-style graves contained a female body. The items buried with her indicated wealth, high-status and esteem. During Q&A, an audience member could barely contain her excitement that this woman MUST have been trans! The lecturer (Neil Price btw, excellent) politely made reference to beliefs at the time of shapeshifting into animals and all sorts of things, but this woman absolutely would not consider that perhaps, the buried woman had simply been a female warrior. The myopia was astonishing.

[–]lefterfield 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeeeeah, I remember that story. Just incredible, the mental hoops people jump through to maintain a particular narrative.