Joan of Arc is they/them.. apparently

[hazeydays14]

So Shakespeare’s Globe theatre are putting on a play ‘I, Joan’ based on Joan of Arc, only she will be non-binary and go by they/them pronouns.

I am so angry. I don’t really care what pronouns people want to use in their every day lives but to make one of the few women who have actually made it into the history books ‘less’ female has really pissed me off. Surely the thing that put her there was the fact that she was a woman.

It always seems to be erasure of women. Why didn’t they pick one of the many, many men in history and make him non-binary to prove how inclusive they are... 🙄

It’s just silly I think, JoA being female is so fundamental to the way she was treated, I wonder how successful this play will be?

The cynic in me immediately thinks that there's no such thing as bad publicity. For all her/his/their proclamations about the portrayal of Joan, if she's honest with herself, having feminists rage against her in the press can only help increase interest in her play ... methinks.

And yes, I agree with @hazeydays14 in that this culturally woke gender-fluidity revision of the arts and history was always going to start with the erasure of women because the patriarchy still rules us even when we do not realise it!

I believe they are also doing this to Elizabeth, who already had to give up her right to marriage and children in life to be our Queen.

If Joan of Arc had a heart
Would they/them give it as a gift?
To such as me who longs to see
How an angel
Ought to be

Maybe we need to start doing it to men in history. Eg this man wasnt a violent aggressive narcissist. Clearly a woman.

twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1558058022668312577

I can see why they’re doing it,
butbagree that we have so few women historically figured and heroes I’d prefer they just left her as she is.

The problem with this approach is throughout history most women didn't do much to stand out because of the constraints of the time both those written in law and the social constraints. And the fact there was no contraception so women would've typically spent a lot more time pregnant or recovering from childbirth. Therefore those who actually made history did it because they didn't act like 'typical women' ie get married, get pregnant and raise a family.

And we all know that the only reason you know you're a woman is by acting like a woman and liking womanly things. I think we need to prepare for most notable people from history being either a he or a they in the future 😉

Apparently Elizabeth I was also a wanna be man.

'They' always trans strong women of history... did TiMs not do anything of note then? 🤔

Apparently not

That's brilliant. I will have that in my head all day now 😂

I booked tickets for this for me and my staunchly feminist mother without reading the reviews / synopsis. When my mum saw the gist of it, we were both so outraged we decided not to go.

Fuck turning strong females of history into non binary/trans/gender fluid/whatever. It’s not progressive or creative or edgy, it’s plain old fucking misogyny.

J’ai nom Jeanne la pucelle….car c’est pour cela je suis née

I am called Jeanne thé Maiden ( or young unmarried girl : female) and it is for this that I was born ( nee : female form of verb)

so in her own words she had no doubt.

Do they actually use they/them pronouns in the play? Not exactly historically correct, is it?

They've also gone for Louisa May Alcott, writer of Little Women. Anyone who didn't accept that women should just stay at home and do the housework.

I think blaming the 'patriarchy' is pointless and gets no-one anywhere. This is a MRA agenda run by men who want women to 'be kind' and essentially to erase us. Not all men - not most men - want to erase women, their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, cousins, nieces, friends. Thus, attacking the 'patriarchy' is a distraction (one needs to remember that under neo-liberal capitalism most men are as oppressed as most women, though in different ways). We need to attack the actual perpetrators who are queer theorists and trans allies, those who want to break the sex binary and also wish to bring down boundaries (queer theorists are the social/philosophical equivalents of economists who want to bring down the barriers to trade, when they actually mean removing inconvenient workers' rights, environmental protections and regulation of standards in food and goods). The trans activists and allies are the problem.

Furthermore, ‘La Pucelle’ literally translated is ‘The Virgin’ and obviously a feminine noun to denote the virgin is female.

Grammarnut Patriarchies push the notion that men are the natural leaders of society and are born with traits that make them rule better than women.
When a woman demonstrates she can lead as well as any man and her womanhood is taken from her it absolutely looks like more patriarchal BS.

Her whole experience was based on her being a girl/woman.
Without that the whole thing is nonsense

I have always been sceptical of the patriarchy encompassing all men, because not all men behave in this patriarchal way. No-one in Joan's time thought she was anything other than a woman. Orleans sold her down the river because he had changed his allegiance not because she was female, for example - he'd have done the same with an inconvenient plough boy who had led armies to victory. I don't think women have their womanhood taken from them if they lead as well as a man, history does not suggest this e.g. Elizabeth I emphasizes that she is a 'weak' woman (manipulative female, who effectively ruled through her supposed weakness) and no-one suggested that she was in any way a man or like a man, rather emphasising her womanhood (virgin cult). No-one, at any point before trans activism arrived on the scene has ever suggested that Joan of Arc was other than a woman, so I think it is the transactivism. This may be an arm of the patriarchy, I suppose, but it is really an example of deep rooted misogyny in some (not all) men.