Near the end of the last article we had to read, it talks about the idea of cross-dressing in the Spanish Golden Age. Thinking about this idea in modern times, why is it okay for girls to be "tomboys" who wear traditionally boys' clothing, but it's not okay for guys to wear girls' clothing? Going further, why is it okay for women to do guys' activities (ie. women entered the workforce, even though that was originally for men), but it's not as widely accepted for guys to do girly things (ie. guys can cook, and it's accepted, but it's still found weird for them to play with Barbies)?
We see that in traditional 17th century Spanish society, faith sets strict gender roles for individuals to adhere to. For example, the "Portrait of a Monster" ballads describe the pregnant man's child as the Devil, hinting that anything unnatural and outside gender boundaries is considered inherently evil. However, in "El Parto de Juan Rana," the mayors and scribe eventually accept Juan Rana's son as miraculous and something that should be celebrated. As Peter Thompson writes in "The Triumphant Juan Rana," "By joining in the celebration, the judicial council metaphorically lets go of its phallocentric power" (107). Why was it acceptable in Spanish theater to openly cross gender lines and hypocritically accept gender differences when the social constructs of the time were so severely set in place? Did Juan Rana's plays (in their historical context) make fun of femininity in males or truly send a message about fostering acceptance despite potential social scorn?
From previous works that we have read it has become a central idea that a pregnant man was a shameful thing, feminine, and unacceptable according to the gender roles defined in society. However, this is challenged in "The Triumphant Juan Rana" in which the scribe and Berrueco come to respect the idea that Juan Rana is pregnant. Is this because he is a mayor or because they truly accept it? If the person challenging gender norms is of a higher class and status, is there a different reaction from society? How does class affect gender roles and norms?
It is biologically impossible for a man to give birth. However, in the future, with more technological advances, it may be very possible that men can give birth. After Reading about Juan Rana and Bartolome de Mestanca, I wonder if such technological advances would create more chaos and discrimination in our society or would most of our society accepted it in a more passive aggressive manner?
John Frog is being tried in a society that clearly upholds traditional gender roles. Berrueco illustrates this in a simple sentence: "For if he allowed his wife to wear the pants on occasion, then it's not so incredible that he got pregnant since he did what she should have done." Later, he also says: "It would be torture to make someone else suffer; since she is aware that a wife is an extension of her husband, *she* can take the heat for him." Because the dialogue builds in its gender bias as the characters become more appalled by John Frog's pregnant state, the end comes as even more of a surprise to the readers/audience: how is it that the characters acquire a sudden sense of acceptance and even embracement when John gives birth? Why do their reactions to his child differ from those in the "Portrait of a Monster?" Is it because "John Frog Gives Birth" is meant to be viewed as a fictional, entertaining comedy, while "Portrait of a Monster" is supposed to be grounded in truth? Or is because of the fundamental differences between the appearances of both newborns?
When John Frog gives birth to his child, he states that "he still needs to know if he is [his] son, since it's possible that another man created him in [his] absence." Obviously, this is meant to produce humor since John Frog is, biologically speaking, a man. However, in the eyes of society, he is now a woman because he is pregnant. With this said, he is revealing a hidden message that is later stated in the conclusion of the interlude: the idea that "many women give their kids to other fathers for feeding." As readers, we know that John has to be the father of his newborn baby since he himself gave birth to him, but the reference has been made in regards to women. How do you respond to this message and how do you feel about it?
As I was reading John Frog, I noticed that the trope of the emasculating woman appears again (in his wife), as it did in Portrait of a Monster (in Hernando de la Haba's ex-girlfriend and the witch). In fact, this emasculating woman trope is also present in a lot of modern pop culture. What does this reveal about our society's fear of and derision toward strong women? It seems that for hundreds of years, society has feared strong women as a threat to male power.
I think it's interesting that multiple of the articles/stories/plays we've now read in this class end with a saying about how men can't trust women. This play ended basically by implying when women have babies, we will never know who the true father is, and therefore we cannot trust them. I always have thought that men felt women were inferior beings, yet what these conclusions lead me to think is that men were actually afraid of women and their power. Why were men afraid of women and therefore felt they couldn't be trusted? Did men feel subconsciously threatened by women? I don't think it was simply that men thought they were not as smart or inferior, because all these morals seem to imply men thought woman were cunning and not trustworthy, which would actually make them very clever and smart.
When reading John Frog, I found it interesting that at first the wife was dominant over her husband, who did all the cleaning and cooking, but then the mayors said that she was an extension of her husband. I was wondering, at that time, where the line was drawn between a woman being powerful in a relationship at home and in the eyes of the government?
"Portrait of a Monster" is presented as a “shockingly true” news article. It implies that something that is outside of gender norms, like male pregnancy, is strange and forbidden and must be the work of the devil himself. But the play of John Frog is a comedy full of puns, lighthearted jabs at gender relationships, and ultimately celebrates male pregnancy. Both articles question the gender identity of the pregnant man by suggesting that 'he' must be a woman. Do they imply that people cannot accept the ideas of male pregnancy or "effeminate" men except when they are parodied in a comedy? What are some differences and similarities between the two stories and what do they reveal about the prevailing attitudes toward male pregnancy in that era?
It has been often argued that narratives, plays and stories in general serve as a representation or picture of the era in which they were created. And as such, they serve as a reminder of the morals, beliefs and ideals of a particular society of that time, including those directed towards gender. And through these works, we can gain knowledge as to what was expected of males and females in terms of serving their gender roles during a specific era, and how these roles have changed over time. During the time of 'John Frog' a woman was expected to bent backwards, if needed, to the will of her male superiors, whereas in the modern day, this image is not necessarily true. I wounder, how outraged was the audience when they first saw the play out in the public, and heard that Frog's wife “got him to do all the housework: the seeping, scrubbing, cooking...” And how popular was this play at that time, considering that the main character of the play was not a hero - as usually portrayed main characters were as at that time, but a pregnant person who does household shores?
When the judges are discussing the punishment for John Frog, Burrueco, the original sympathizer, declares that his punishment should be to torture him. The Court Clerk explains how the law excuses him from torture and they ponder punishing the wife instead. If a law protects a child in a mother's womb, for it is not their fault for whatever problem has occurred, why is a women not barred from this same punishment from her husband? If the argument is that a "wife is an extension of her husband", shouldn't a child be an extension of its' mother? Although I do not agree with that statement about owning a wife, it does bring up an interesting point about control and how gender roles play a part in determining the power in a relationship. If the judges knew the sex of the baby, would there also be a second glance at the punishment?
To me what was most interesting about Juan Ranas was that in time where people were very critical of someones behavior, they were very accepting of Juan Ranas. How is it that someone of his physique was able to become so famous and loved by the public, with very little ridicule.
In culture, the issues of gender roles has always had deep roots in tradition and beliefs. It's one of those things that people don't normally bother wondering about its transgressions much. That's why it has so much entertainment value - not unlike violence in the modern times. Violence serves as a reminder of our bellicose past, but what practical function does entertainment such as the John Frog play do for society?
It is clear that the 17th century public loved Juan Rana and loved 'John Frog gives Birth'. However, given the other representations of the pregnant man during this time period it seems odd that this play would have been widely accepted. Were there any openly opposed to this play? Why was this style of humor and subject matter so easily accepted, especially given Rana's history? Does it have to do with the medium of the play itself?
Near the end of the last article we had to read, it talks about the idea of cross-dressing in the Spanish Golden Age. Thinking about this idea in modern times, why is it okay for girls to be "tomboys" who wear traditionally boys' clothing, but it's not okay for guys to wear girls' clothing? Going further, why is it okay for women to do guys' activities (ie. women entered the workforce, even though that was originally for men), but it's not as widely accepted for guys to do girly things (ie. guys can cook, and it's accepted, but it's still found weird for them to play with Barbies)?
ReplyDeleteWe see that in traditional 17th century Spanish society, faith sets strict gender roles for individuals to adhere to. For example, the "Portrait of a Monster" ballads describe the pregnant man's child as the Devil, hinting that anything unnatural and outside gender boundaries is considered inherently evil. However, in "El Parto de Juan Rana," the mayors and scribe eventually accept Juan Rana's son as miraculous and something that should be celebrated. As Peter Thompson writes in "The Triumphant Juan Rana," "By joining in the celebration, the judicial council metaphorically lets go of its phallocentric power" (107). Why was it acceptable in Spanish theater to openly cross gender lines and hypocritically accept gender differences when the social constructs of the time were so severely set in place? Did Juan Rana's plays (in their historical context) make fun of femininity in males or truly send a message about fostering acceptance despite potential social scorn?
ReplyDeleteFrom previous works that we have read it has become a central idea that a pregnant man was a shameful thing, feminine, and unacceptable according to the gender roles defined in society. However, this is challenged in "The Triumphant Juan Rana" in which the scribe and Berrueco come to respect the idea that Juan Rana is pregnant. Is this because he is a mayor or because they truly accept it? If the person challenging gender norms is of a higher class and status, is there a different reaction from society? How does class affect gender roles and norms?
ReplyDeleteIt is biologically impossible for a man to give birth. However, in the future, with more technological advances, it may be very possible that men can give birth. After Reading about Juan Rana and Bartolome de Mestanca, I wonder if such technological advances would create more chaos and discrimination in our society or would most of our society accepted it in a more passive aggressive manner?
ReplyDeleteJohn Frog is being tried in a society that clearly upholds traditional gender roles. Berrueco illustrates this in a simple sentence: "For if he allowed his wife to wear the pants on occasion, then it's not so incredible that he got pregnant since he did what she should have done." Later, he also says: "It would be torture to make someone else suffer; since she is aware that a wife is an extension of her husband, *she* can take the heat for him." Because the dialogue builds in its gender bias as the characters become more appalled by John Frog's pregnant state, the end comes as even more of a surprise to the readers/audience: how is it that the characters acquire a sudden sense of acceptance and even embracement when John gives birth? Why do their reactions to his child differ from those in the "Portrait of a Monster?" Is it because "John Frog Gives Birth" is meant to be viewed as a fictional, entertaining comedy, while "Portrait of a Monster" is supposed to be grounded in truth? Or is because of the fundamental differences between the appearances of both newborns?
ReplyDeleteWhen John Frog gives birth to his child, he states that "he still needs to know if he is [his] son, since it's possible that another man created him in [his] absence." Obviously, this is meant to produce humor since John Frog is, biologically speaking, a man. However, in the eyes of society, he is now a woman because he is pregnant. With this said, he is revealing a hidden message that is later stated in the conclusion of the interlude: the idea that "many women give their kids to other fathers for feeding." As readers, we know that John has to be the father of his newborn baby since he himself gave birth to him, but the reference has been made in regards to women. How do you respond to this message and how do you feel about it?
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading John Frog, I noticed that the trope of the emasculating woman appears again (in his wife), as it did in Portrait of a Monster (in Hernando de la Haba's ex-girlfriend and the witch). In fact, this emasculating woman trope is also present in a lot of modern pop culture. What does this reveal about our society's fear of and derision toward strong women? It seems that for hundreds of years, society has feared strong women as a threat to male power.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that multiple of the articles/stories/plays we've now read in this class end with a saying about how men can't trust women. This play ended basically by implying when women have babies, we will never know who the true father is, and therefore we cannot trust them. I always have thought that men felt women were inferior beings, yet what these conclusions lead me to think is that men were actually afraid of women and their power. Why were men afraid of women and therefore felt they couldn't be trusted? Did men feel subconsciously threatened by women? I don't think it was simply that men thought they were not as smart or inferior, because all these morals seem to imply men thought woman were cunning and not trustworthy, which would actually make them very clever and smart.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading John Frog, I found it interesting that at first the wife was dominant over her husband, who did all the cleaning and cooking, but then the mayors said that she was an extension of her husband. I was wondering, at that time, where the line was drawn between a woman being powerful in a relationship at home and in the eyes of the government?
ReplyDelete"Portrait of a Monster" is presented as a “shockingly true” news article. It implies that something that is outside of gender norms, like male pregnancy, is strange and forbidden and must be the work of the devil himself. But the play of John Frog is a comedy full of puns, lighthearted jabs at gender relationships, and ultimately celebrates male pregnancy. Both articles question the gender identity of the pregnant man by suggesting that 'he' must be a woman. Do they imply that people cannot accept the ideas of male pregnancy or "effeminate" men except when they are parodied in a comedy? What are some differences and similarities between the two stories and what do they reveal about the prevailing attitudes toward male pregnancy in that era?
ReplyDeleteIt has been often argued that narratives, plays and stories in general serve as a representation or picture of the era in which they were created. And as such, they serve as a reminder of the morals, beliefs and ideals of a particular society of that time, including those directed towards gender. And through these works, we can gain knowledge as to what was expected of males and females in terms of serving their gender roles during a specific era, and how these roles have changed over time. During the time of 'John Frog' a woman was expected to bent backwards, if needed, to the will of her male superiors, whereas in the modern day, this image is not necessarily true. I wounder, how outraged was the audience when they first saw the play out in the public, and heard that Frog's wife “got him to do all the housework: the seeping, scrubbing, cooking...” And how popular was this play at that time, considering that the main character of the play was not a hero - as usually portrayed main characters were as at that time, but a pregnant person who does household shores?
ReplyDeleteSorry, typo error: chores..
ReplyDeleteWhen the judges are discussing the punishment for John Frog, Burrueco, the original sympathizer, declares that his punishment should be to torture him. The Court Clerk explains how the law excuses him from torture and they ponder punishing the wife instead. If a law protects a child in a mother's womb, for it is not their fault for whatever problem has occurred, why is a women not barred from this same punishment from her husband? If the argument is that a "wife is an extension of her husband", shouldn't a child be an extension of its' mother? Although I do not agree with that statement about owning a wife, it does bring up an interesting point about control and how gender roles play a part in determining the power in a relationship. If the judges knew the sex of the baby, would there also be a second glance at the punishment?
ReplyDeletethat was Grace Huang by the way :) sorry :)
ReplyDeleteTo me what was most interesting about Juan Ranas was that in time where people were very critical of someones behavior, they were very accepting of Juan Ranas. How is it that someone of his physique was able to become so famous and loved by the public, with very little ridicule.
ReplyDeleteIn culture, the issues of gender roles has always had deep roots in tradition and beliefs. It's one of those things that people don't normally bother wondering about its transgressions much. That's why it has so much entertainment value - not unlike violence in the modern times. Violence serves as a reminder of our bellicose past, but what practical function does entertainment such as the John Frog play do for society?
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the 17th century public loved Juan Rana and loved 'John Frog gives Birth'. However, given the other representations of the pregnant man during this time period it seems odd that this play would have been widely accepted. Were there any openly opposed to this play? Why was this style of humor and subject matter so easily accepted, especially given Rana's history? Does it have to do with the medium of the play itself?
ReplyDelete