Thomas Kando – Homophobia (Pt. 2)


, , ,

Normalcy as the desired goal

There seemed to have been one aspiration the majority of MtTs revealed in their interviews, namely to neatly fit into the dominant society and to distance themselves from the deviant subcultures they might be associated with:

Continue reading


Thomas Kando: Sexism (Pt. 1)


, , ,

Sex Role Compliance & Affirmation

The first divergent characteristic Kando examines is the degree of masculinity and femininity. Since he is a sociologist and not a queer theorist or post-structuralist he defines femininity and masculinity respectively as to be “in accord with cultural definitions of proper male or female roles, styles and attitudes” (p. 19). A feminine woman and a masculine man “behave as our culture wants them to” (ibid). Masculinity¬† and femininity can be measured with scales*.

Continue reading

Thomas Kando: Sex Change – The Achievement of Gender Identity Among Feminized Transsexuals


, , ,

In light of recent debates I have decided to do two blog posts on an early ethnographic study undertaken by Thomas Kando. His work was cited approvingly by Janice G. Raymond in The Transsexual Empire which sparked my interest. I will only concentrate on the sexism and homophobia which was revealed in the study because I find these topics to be the most eye-opening.

Continue reading

What is patriarchy?



Patriarchy is a social structure.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not a figment of the imagination of crazed conspiracy theorists. It has quite reputable origins in anthropology, right around the time during which social scientists of varying degrees of conservatism were quite solidly convinced that male-dominated societies had been preceded by non-patriarchal or matriarchal cultures. Usually, both kind of societies, patriarchal and matriarchal, were constructed to be diametrically opposed with the former being described as progressive through ceaseless competition while the latter would appear as peaceful and harmonious but stagnant.

There is no doubt about the ruthlessness of patriarchal hierarchies. In the most traditional sense patriarchies are societies in which the father (pater) of the family (pater familias) stands at the top of the social hierarchy. At his disposal there is a host of powers he can wield to the detriment and betterment of his family and other household members who are considered property. Being property and having either no or only a limited number of rights but never more than their master their well-being is completely dependent on his character and moods. The sons of the household are considered more valuable than the daughters – however, they are still subject to their father’s plans.

So, there are two very important structural characteristics to be kept in mind when it comes to patriarchies:
1) Men have more power than women.
2) Some men have more power than others.
Patriarchy never means equality between men. That certain individuals are so convinced that if women were kept in complete control men would live in a paradise where their skills, personalities and attractivity didn’t matter is wishful thinking.

However, power is male as women are delegitimized or even outright disempowered because of the stigma of their sex. As a result, most men are not interested in abolishing patriarchy. They know that by virtue of their maleness “the rule of the father” can be obtained. Consequentially, a low-status male will not rebel against patriarchy –¬† he will rebel against men of higher status in his quest to obtain the power that he thinks should be his because of his sex alone. Large sectors of society successfully remain oppressive towards the general populace precisely because no revolution has ever bothered itself with matters insignificant to male ambition. Remember that child abuse and rape were not present as problematic in society until women’s rights activists began talking about and advocating against it. In Germany, the first magazine or newspaper to run a feature on the topic was its only feminist magazine.

Because men have similar interests they share a peculiar kind of solidarity in which they are willing and able to agitate against common enemies but never against one of their own group. Men have successfully scapegoated entire groups of people for every ill possible if the individuals of these groups had shared characteristics different from their own. The most successful scapegoating, however, is carried out against women. Men actively bond over women’s oppression and debasement. Most conveniently, this allows for male-on-male violence to either disappear or to be blamed on women instead. The victims of male-on-male violence are in reality nothing more than collateral damage in service of upholding patriarchal structures. They only become important when their victimhood can be blamed on someone outside of a given male reference group. Sometimes the victims themselves are in denial. And who can blame them when they have been told to “chercher la femme” for their entire lives?

Therefore, it is both wrong and right to say that patriarchy hurts men, too. Factually speaking, men have been sacrificing each other for centuries. However, consider that Western patriarchy is less severe than many of those we can find in the past. Still, the lion’s share of men’s criticism in regards to the damage they inflict on each other has been located in modern Western societies. Actually, as has become common, they do not even speak about men as actors, they only invoke an amorphous construct which they then call “patriarchy” and speak about it like it was an actor to not be forced to name men as the perpetrator – or better yet: speaking in the passive voice to focus on the victims without addressing the context and the men they were victimized by*. Why now, why not 500 years ago or earlier when patriarchy was often much more violent? The answer is simple: having a permanent subjugated class is such a sweet privilege to have that all other costs of patriarchy lose their severity. What is especially hurtful to men now is to see their privileges being eroded, an outcome of their habitual disregard of women’s ambition and strength. Men have not suffered under patriarchy in so far that patriarchy was never considered the root cause of their suffering. Unequal distribution of resources among men as a result of systems like capitalism and monarchy were always considered main culprits.

Therefore, attacking feminism can be understood as a diversionary tactic. But it also is a strategy to funnel women’s energy into working for men seeing as “working for men” is the role definition of woman in patriarchal societies. In many ways, being always attuned to men’s emotions and well-beings, women are easily guilt-tripped into investing in men’s well being. Men are interested in taking advantage of this because this kind of relationship/emotional work most likely cannot be expected from other men since they have not been socialized into providing social support and end up as, if patriarchal socialization proves to be successful, more or less psychologically unstable. Being psychologically unstable, i.e. having difficulties in managing emotional complexities, serves to make men desperate to hinder social progress that would put them at a disadvantage relative to their current status.

So now, we have identified the following factors:
1. Patriarchy is a social structure.
2. Patriarchy is hierarchical.
3. Patriarchy is upheld by men to benefit men.

Interaction of Individual & Collective


, , , ,

(Okay, I hope nobody saw what I posted before this. I somehow managed to hit the wrong button. Damn WordPress, much more confusing than Blogspot.)

I think it it absolutely necessary to consider the importance of individual change in making collective change happen. In sociology, there is a very helpful theoretical framework called “methodological individualism”. Here, phenomena on the society (macro) level are the result of aggregated individual motives and the resulting actions.

As an example I have drawn this amateur Photoshop graphic:

The first level is that of society. I assumed that radical feminism leads to collective female empowerment. However, the first cannot will the latter into existence. So what precisely might radical feminism accomplish within a society’s populace? When we want to look at the behaviour of a populace we must look at its individuals. So: an ideology of radical feminism inspires desire for freedom. For the sake of demonstration I have assumed that a desire for freedom will motivate an individual to engage in separatism. Feel free to replace this with a more fitting or differentiated action. A mass of individuals all making the same decision to engage in separatism will then lead to collective female empowerment in society.

I used the question marks to show where explanations for the cross-over from micro into macro and vice versa must be given. The interaction shown in the graphic only exists if these cross-overs are caused by certain mechanisms. This is where political strategies come into play – use them as mechanisms. You can draw models like mine to try to think up strategies (to replace the question marks) which might lead to the results you desire to see in individuals and in society.

However, it really is a simple model. So we add another factor:

Patriarchy is added as a context. Although the arrow seems to indicate that radical feminism results in patriarchy, this is absolutely not the case. I have not gone over the deep end yet, people. The arrow is supposed to show that the impact radical feminism has on actions of separatism is affected by a context of patriarchy. Every individual choice a woman makes will be influenced by patriarchal structures which in turn has an effect on the ability & motivation to engage in separatism.

When you consider that patriarchy is a very constricting social system which punishes non-followers of gender norms, its effects on women’s willingness to resist is great. I think I do not need to mention that it has a detrimental and stifling effect.

If you consider this fact while looking at the model above it becomes clear that prevention of collective female action is achieved by targeting women as individuals. However, since every woman is targeted in a more or less similar way women as a whole react very similarly to being discriminated against. This then negatively influences the amount of collective female empowerment in a society by reducing separatist action.

The bottom line: patriarchy works because it works on the collective and individual level at the same time. However, since everyone women is targeted because of her sex, she will never be unaffected regardless of individual differences. It is ultimately best to focus on structures seeing as we cannot escape them and it is best to eradicate them if they should harm us instead of concentrating too much on personal coping mechanisms and strategies.*

*(Mobilization, however, seems to require a certain amount of conscious individual initiative against oppressive structures which in turn might put harsh pressures on a woman and her living situation. So here it really comes down to an individual’s or a group’s will to set other people into motion but that’s another cup of tea.)