...from Associated Press article of same name:
Just thought this was an interesting change of pace, since here they seem to be on the rise.
At least on American Idol (badah-bah).
That was a horrible joke, I know.
Becatoros writes...
"In this strongly patriarchal society where for centuries women had virtually no standing, sworn virgins enjoyed the same rights and respect as men. They could inherit property, work for a living and sit on the village council, although without the right to vote. The privileges came at a price. They took an oath of celibacy and could never have sexual relations. And they could never go back to being women. ....The reasons for becoming a sworn virgin can be practical - the head of the family dies with no male heir. Or they can be emotional - the woman does not want to marry the man chosen for her. In Albania, particularly in the impoverished rural north, it was practically inconceivable for a woman to remain single and live alone. But by becoming a man, Markgjoni was free. She could earn a living and eat and drink with men instead of being restricted to the kitchen. And she could adopt two habits denied to a traditional Albanian woman: smoking and wearing a watch. "
A watch. WTF.
But this is what grabbed me.
"Anthropologists stress that the tradition of sworn virgins, with its emphasis on celibacy, does not equate with homosexuality, which did not become legal in Albania until the 1990s. "It's kind of the opposite extreme," says Young. "In one way, sworn virgins support patriarchy, because they support the feeling that you've got to have a man at the head, and this woman can be a man." On the other hand, Young notes, "this would be a way round for a woman who had homosexual inclinations."
My initial thought: Silly anthropologist! Missing the opportunity for a whole paper.
No, no it doesn't equate with homosexuality, I agree, but is DOSE equate "woman" with "person to whom men have sexual access". To put a umpteenhundred year old tradition into 1970's radical feminist crude, therefore, "to be female is to "be fucked" and to be male is to "not be fucked". John Stolenberg ought to be thrilled upon reading this, because it takes his argument to the Kalahari !Kung of feminist historical anthropology.
Yes, sworn virgins "support patriarchy" but not the "patriarchy" such as it may be in Western/American culture. This is a patriarchy with a gender binary that is based totally on sexual behavior. In contemporary America, a man is a man because he wears Mitchum and reads The Rules (oops, I meant Maxim). In rural Albania, according to this article, being a man is based on .... not *being* fucked.
I don't know anything about Albanian culture other then what was in the article, so I don't know how prevalent the gender dynamic that 'supports' the sworn virgin phenomenon is in the broader culture, but the whole thing struck me as having some meaty parallels and departures from the discussions of gender binary we have in the West.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tradition of "Sworn Virgins" dying out in Albania.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9710
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I read an article about this a few years ago in which the author argued that sworn virgins were a third gender in that culture. There are actually more examples of cultures with more than 2 genders than most people realize, and this was one of the interesting examples. Several of the cultures in the article had 4 genders.
What are Mitchum and The Rules?
Mitchum= men's toiletries line (deoderant, etc.)
The Rules (that I know of)= a bestselling self-help book for women, teaching them to be (not play) "hard-to-get" to stir men's hunting instincts (gender essentialism, much?)
Just so, Rachel in WY. People outside academia always stamp their feet and roar when we anthropologists gently inform them that gender and race are largely constructed by society. These two categories are so near and dear the average person's (around the world) heart, it is almost painful for them to consider that these taxa vary wildly across human societies and that this in itself is one of the clearest examples of their arbitrary and constructed nature.
To the original poster: I like your interpretation, but I wouldn't call the anthros in the study silly for having divergent ones. In fact, there are always multiple possible theories that can be spun from the same set of fieldnotes. This is the beauty and value of social science.
Jeezelouise, Okra.
You are right, of course.
That was a fit of pique. I was calling them silly because they didn't write the article/study I wanted to read after I read what AP wrote about what they *did* study.
So really, I'm the silly one for wanting the anthros (forgot the names) to retroactively cater to my specific interests.
I'll own it ;)