The Brontes have been 'queered'

It wasn't really because they thought they would have difficulty getting published, but because they were concerned about the preconceptions that would affect reactions to their work if people knew they were women - especially given the nature of their work. Being a woman wasn't necessarily a barrier in itself to being published, as Jane Austen demonstrated in the previous century; her name wasn't shown on her books during her lifetime, but the author was stated to be "A Lady".

This discussion though, about the Brontës, is about feminism, sexism, breaking down gender stereotypes, expectations and rigid enforcement of them. It's got nothing to do with recent ideas about "gender identity" particularly because those ideas are illogical, lacking definitions and meaning. And queer theory is a load of bunk too.

That isn't the implication at all. Nobody is 'queering' anyone.

Also, they did have a choice. There were other novelists published under female names at the time, and earlier (including gothic novelists who wrote books a lot more shocking, at the time, than the Brontes did). They made a conscious decision to publish with male/unisex names - and that was before they published their novels. Their first published work was their poetry.

Yes, that choice was made within in the context of the time, and their own social status and upbringing as the daughters of a middle-class clergyman. But it was still a choice, and it was a choice that related to gender norms, which is interesting for its own sake. They could, for example, have published as anonymous women (Jane Austen published her books as 'By A Lady') or with obviously male names (as George Eliot did).

It isn't dishonest to discuss this in the context of gender and identity, and the posts don't imply anything about the Brontes' sexuality. It's a perfectly valid and relevant thing to discuss and it is simply not as black and white as 'they had no choice'. I remember lectures going into this when I was studying the Brontes as part of my degree, and that was 30 years ago, so it's not a new area of interest and not one that's fuelled by recent awareness of trans issues.

This was last year by the way.

I still can't...

What The Fuck Have I Just Read?

Signed,
A biologist

I know, right!

The idea that any woman who fights or fails to conform to sexist stereotypes magically stops being a woman is infuriating.

Seed Savers?

What, and I say this as a biologist, the Actual Fuck?!

They have NO art of their own

Did you allow that to pass through your brain?

They have NO art of their own so in a desperate attempt to stay 'relevant' they queer everything.

I reference this workshop session from a previously sensible foundation.

Seed Saving. In which male pollen pollenates female ovules and produces fruit and then seeds. There is no 'heteronormative ideals' in plants that use sexual reproduction to produce seeds that we save for growing food.

It is fucking deranged.

Shakespeare was the greatest gender bender of all time. He doesn’t need “them” to do it to him.

Of course they had to change their names.

Pride month is destructive. People keep creating performative roles out of twists and manipulations to fit in with it.

It has come to the point of searching around for more and more to feed the beast.

Gender gender gender. When the word they are looking for is SEX. Idiotic nonsense. As for gender queer - my brain switches off and my eyes roll so far back in my head.

This.

Discussing their need to disguise their sex, to overcome sexism, would be an absolutely approriate thing to do in Women's History Month. It has nothing to do with Pride. Implying that it does obscures the sexism they faced and the bravery it took to overcome it. It's belittling their achievements and it's offensive.

Wherever fits pushing the agenda. 🙄

True.

It's not meant to be masculine, she describes it as an 'ambiguous choice'.

Adverse to personal publicity, we veiled our own names under those of Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by a sort of conscientious scruple at assuming Christian names positively masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women – without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called ‘feminine’ – we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice[.]”

That reads to me as though they didn't want to pretend that their books were written by men, but at the same time didn't want to declare that they were written by women. Many female authors have done this, even a lot more recently (JK Rowling).

AND with the multitransgaywhatever flag banner displayed right over the museums own comments....

Already been done. Including on this very forum.

Or at least accusing JKR of hypocrisy because "she has no issue changing her sex to serve her purposes, yet she castigates those who do".

Due to her noms de plumes.

Don't tell me! Shakespeare was really Elizabeth I in doublet and hose?

Agree with this

They are saying something pretty odd about Lucy Snow.

Forcing a gender identify on someone and ignoring the sexism they face is bullying
.. oh they said the comments were bullying ?

It's ridiculous.. they're doing the same with Shakespeare I heard on the radio last night