Man, Woman, or Nunnery

AFriendlyFace · May 31, 2008

Hi everyone,

So I read a lot of 'gay literature', and I'm not just talking about stories here on GA. Right now I'm casually reading this big book of random GLBT facts called, aptly enough "Queer Facts" It's by Michelle Baker and Stephen Tropiano, and here's a link to the book on Amazon (though I'm obviously not encouraging anyone to buy it, just citing it).

Anyway one section gives facts about lesbianism in Chinese history. The following is the passage I thought it would be fun to discuss:

"The Golden Orchid Associations were formed on the back of the silk industry and had an exclusively female membership in which a lesbian couple could choose to engage in a marriage ceremony whereby one partner became the 'husband' and the other the 'wife'. There was an associated party with gifts and a feast, and which was attended by their female friends as witnesses to the event. The couple were free to adopt young girls, who could then inherit family property from the couple's parents. This was apparently a reasonably common practice in the 19th century Guangzhou province, the only other alternative to not marrying a man being the Buddhist nunnery.

So I found that passage rife with things I wanted to discuss.

-First off, it gives no indication either way whether or not a similar institution/ceremony existed for men. By the way the book is set up and in this section, it probably wouldn't do so anyway. However, I would hazzard a guess that no such option did exist for men. Just a guess though.

-Second, I found it irritating that one of the women had to take on the role of the man and be the 'husband'.

-Third, why did only the couple's female friends go? What about family in general and male friends?

-Fourth, why were they only allowed to adopt girls.

-Fifth, based on the wording it seems likely that the couple themselves would not inherit family property. That it instead had to go to these adopted daughters.

-Lastly, I do think that overall this was a good thing given the time and context! At least it gave lesbians another option! However, I still think it's a bit unfortunate (though certainly not surprising) that a regular single life - devoid of marriage to man, woman, or religion - was still not an option for these women.

I was interested so I did a bit more research and found the following link: The Tradition of female-female unions

That seems to be the most informative link I could find and it still didn't give that much useful, new information (except that evidently sometimes non-lesbians entered into these arrangements as well).

Anyone else heard about this at all?

What do you folks think about the above points?

Just curious

Kevin

rknapp · May 31, 2008

A lot of the gender things here could easily be explained as simply being the Chinese way. In ancient China (and probably modern China as well), women were always viewed as being unclean and lesser than men. Men were strong and women were weak. Men were bright and women were dark. Men were right and women were wrong. See a pattern here? Having said that, I would say that men would simply allow women to have this ritual and thusly consider it unworthy for themselves, hence no male-male unions. Building on that, men probably would not allow these female unions to adopt male children in an attempt to keep the male spirit "clean".

This is all of course speculation based off of a Chinese history class that I had taken almost a couple of years ago. Men >> Women was the going theme in Chinese history.

jfalkon · May 31, 2008

Besides the cultural reasons I think some of this may come down to economics. If an industry is dominated by one gender there could be a great advantage to having same sex couples. Both parties could work in the same place. Back then comuting was not what it is today.

The option may not have existed for men because there probably was no industry like the silk industry where men were isolated from women. The millitary comes to mind but it is probably too difficult to keep up a mariage in the middle of a war. There have been cultures which allowed same sex maraiges for men but not for women. One of these was a Native American tribe that lived in what is now the San Francisco Bay area. (Something in the water? ) In their case two women would not have been as able to support each other because of the division of labor.

I think the reason why one of the partners was assigned the role of husband while the other was asigned the wife role was just to fit into the social structure set up by straight people. By this I mean the little things like who's last name the new family will fall under.

Tiger · May 31, 2008

A lot of the gender things here could easily be explained as simply being the Chinese way. In ancient China (and probably modern China as well), women were always viewed as being unclean and lesser than men. Men were strong and women were weak. Men were bright and women were dark. Men were right and women were wrong. See a pattern here? Having said that, I would say that men would simply allow women to have this ritual and thusly consider it unworthy for themselves, hence no male-male unions. Building on that, men probably would not allow these female unions to adopt male children in an attempt to keep the male spirit "clean".

This is all of course speculation based off of a Chinese history class that I had taken almost a couple of years ago. Men >> Women was the going theme in Chinese history.

In modern China, people often put girls up for adoption, because they want boys. Girls grow up and leave home while boys stay home (even if they marry). Thus, the boys are much more productive. China's view of women, in my opinion, is not good.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Tiger

Bandage · May 31, 2008

In modern China, people often put girls up for adoption, because they want boys. Girls grow up and leave home while boys stay home (even if they marry). Thus, the boys are much more productive. China's view of women, in my opinion, is not good.

What else should the Chinese government have done about the overpopulation? It's not that simple...

I wonder what happens with gay boys? Do they leave home as well?

Second, I found it irritating that one of the women had to take on the role of the man and be the 'husband'.

Can be irritating, but it would merely be a role for society, how their relationship is doesn't have to be the same as that social status

Fourth, why were they only allowed to adopt girls.

I agree with rknapp here, I would see no other appearant reason why they wouldn't be able to adopt boys..

I do think that overall this was a good thing given the time and context! At least it gave lesbians another option! However, I still think it's a bit unfortunate (though certainly not surprising) that a regular single life - devoid of marriage to man, woman, or religion - was still not an option for these women.

I do wonder why it was implemented into society?

clumber · June 1, 2008

Maybe there is quite a simple reason for the thing about not adopting boys...

Everything else in this is entirely female. A female-Female union, to which they invite all of their female friends and part of something with an entirely female membership.

The reason for no adopted boys is cos its "girls only". Blokes have no part to play in the entire arrangement.

yukibi · June 1, 2008

First off, it gives no indication either way whether or not a similar institution/ceremony existed for men. By the way the book is set up and in this section, it probably wouldn't do so anyway. However, I would hazzard a guess that no such option did exist for men. Just a guess though.
Fifth, based on the wording it seems likely that the couple themselves would not inherit family property. That it instead had to go to these adopted daughters.

in ancient time, Chinese rich men might stay with young boys (usually teenage boys) for fun but they couldn't marry them. Otherwise, in Chinese (and other asian countries) men have the duty of having MALE children. Girls grow up,leave home, take care of her husband's family, bear children who have the first name of her husband's family. That's why girls are not respected and would not inherit family property. Their father gives them a little property when they married as marriage portion.

However, boys stay home, take care of his family, his parents and inherit all the family property. They have to marry and have children, esp male children to make their family grow larger. Having male children to inherit family is one of the obligations as a male child to his parents and the man who has many male children was well- respected. It was undutiful to their parents and family of not marrying and having male child.

Besides, men could marry many women but each woman could have only one husband and she had to be total faithful to her husband. If they couldn't have children or male children, it was the fault of the woman

It's discrimination and explains the reason of the population explosion (chinese keep bearing children until they have male child)

Now, it's not as strict as ancient time but the influence of feudal ethical behaviour still exists. That's why it's very difficult for gay and lesbian in asia to come out and go their out way. The pressure from the family is terrible.

Fourth, why were they only allowed to adopt girls

it's a point of asian trandition in ancient time. Once upon the time, if a man and a woman stayed alone in a place before marriage, it was considered as a dubious affair. Even when a boy wanted to give a girl something, he couldn't give it directly to the girl (he must put it somewhere and the girl would come and take it). That's why female parents could only adopt girls.

I gonna looking for the informations of the asian tradition if you are interested in. Really, it's very interesting and very diffirent from western tradition. I'm an asian so I'm sure about that

Edited June 1, 2008 by yukibi