In Ambroise Paré's Monsters & Marvels, he writes that one's imagination has so much control over the body that the reason for the birth of "monsters" is because the woman imagines monsters before giving birth. This idea clearly was not too insane for the time, as Paré included various examples of ancients who subscribed to the same idea. So, if this belief existed, why didn't women just imagine the ideal man or woman before she gave birth? If she was able to control her child, couldn't she have just pictured perfection? And, if a woman gave birth to a monster but claimed she didn't imagine monsters beforehand but rather perfection, how would Paré explain that? Does Paré hint that women are mentally weak because they cannot concentrate on non-monsters before giving birth?
When Elena/o de Cespedes was ordered to work in the house of Juan Nunez, she had relations with his sister Francisca and a married woman Catalina Nunez. However, later in her testimony, she claims that only Ana de Albanchez knew she was a hermaphrodite. However, when she lived in the house in Arcos, she was ordered to wear women's garb, so she wore a skirt. Is Elena/o trying to defend these women? Why? The article also later analyzes the changes in Elena/o's testimony based on the viewpoint of the judges. Does this mean that in order to defend herself, she told the judges that these other women did not know of her condition? How does this help her argument?
I noticed that in several of the readings for this week, a woman's transgression of gender roles resulted in disaster for her - for example, in Monsters and Marvels, a story is told of a girl who was born as furry as a bear because her mother stared too long at a picture of "Saint John dressed in skins," and, in the story of the Nun who Transmutes into a Man, the nun becomes male while she is engaged in heavy physical labor. In these two situations, we see a woman expressing sexual desire and a woman doing "man's work," and these women are then punished for their transgression of traditional female roles. My questions is: to what extent do stories like this about freaks inform and enforce conformity to gender roles?
In his writings "Monsters and Marvels," Ambroise Pare discusses the idea of "monsters" being born due to the woman imagining and thinking about monsters during the conception of the child. Why did they believe this idea to the extent that they ignored any other justification? He mentions how the woman and her husband both had white skin but she gave birth to "a child as black as a Moor." Was this idea a way to cover up and ignore certain indiscretions such as infidelity? Did the people truly believe that this was the only reason especially the men because in this case the woman obviously knew the true reason?
In both "Monsters and Marvels" and "Sexuality and the Marriage Sacrament: Elena/Eleno de Cespedes," they only mention women transforming into men. In "Monsters and Marvels," they say: Now since such a metamorphosis takes place in 'Nature for the alleged reasons and examples, we therefore never find in any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends towards what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should be imperfect.' I was shocked by how they think men will never transform into women because men are already perfect and if they transform into women they will become imperfect. It's only acceptable for women to turn into men because Nature favors perfection. What made the people in this era believe that being a man was in all ways more favorable than being a woman?
All of the readings this week have to do with women either identifying with a male identity or women turning into men. Even the stories that we have read about men who seem to 'turn into women' such as the pregnant man stories, the men still retain their male identity. Are there examples from the 16th century of men transforming into women? What implications would this have had upon this society? Can we infer, from other representations, how a story of a man turning into a woman would unfold?
In the 7th chapter in Monsters & Marvels, Ambrote Pare describes the various stories & examples of women/girls who suddenly had male parts and therefore became men. This is in vast contrast to the earlier articles we read where these gender transformations can occur naturally, but both ways. Either way, how would these changes impact the society and people surrounding that particular person and family? Would they be embraced like Maria Munoz's father in "Nun Transmutes into Man"? Or would it cause uproar and controversy like it has been shown to have happened in our society today (ex:// Chaz Bono in Dancing with the Stars)? What would happen if this idea/concept happened to be true in modern day society? Grace Huang
The allegations made in Monsters and Marvels toward women and their imaginations are very interesting and something that is not typical to come across. My question is if Pare suggests that women imagined monsters before giving birth, therefore gave birth to monsters, is Pare suggesting women are psychologically disturbed or inferior for thinking of monsters in some way? Also why would a women choose to imagine a monster rather than imagining her "ideal" child? Why would a women want a monster for a child? If they didn't, was their imagination uncontrolled and therefore Pare is implying women are weak and inferior?
In the News pamphlet "Nun Transmutes into Man", the father of the nun is pleased when his daughter turns into a man because now "he had a very manly son who can marry." The nun also responded very happy to the news because she was finally able to obtain her freedom. I wonder, then, if everybody responded this happy to the news of a transvestite. Or were female-to-male transvestites only accepted because males were viewed more superior to women? If a male-to-female transsexual occured, were men penalized for turning into women and were they seen as inferior?
In Chapter 8 of Monsters & Marvels, Pare writes, "we therefore never find in any true story that any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends always toward what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should become imperfect." I found this end to the chapter very odd. First off by suggesting that there is no "true" story about a man turning into a woman, isn't there an implied undertone that the write knows that people will doubt the legitimacy of his stories? As well, isn't it going against his point to title the chapter "Women who have degenerated into Men" and then conclude by saying that the women are becoming more perfect by transforming into men?
I am a little confused?: Are the individual's from Monsters and Marvels individuals that were born with slight abnormalities which were exaggerated by the people around them? Or, were they all pure social constructions, meaning it was all the imagination of the people around them?
A common theme in several of these texts is the notion that nature tends to improve itself by having women transform into men. Chapter 7 of Monsters and Marvels finishes with "...we therefore never find in any true story that any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends always toward what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should become imperfect." In "Nun Transmutes into a Man," the text ends up capturing a favorable attitude toward FTM's, as "having transformed from woman to man, nature could not have bestowed upon her any better material blessing." In an odd kind of way, were FTM transsexuals thus more tolerated (and even *embraced*) back in the 16th century? Although we have become significantly more open today, would people have been more naturally accepting of these sex changes back then, were they to result in a more masculine-oriented society?
According to my interpretation, the readings for this week exemplify cases where people assigned their lack of knowledge, as well as their fears of the unknown, to some higher powers not from this world. For example a ‘gift from the higher powers’ if a female baby would ‘change into a male’, or a ‘curse’ if a woman would deliver a hairy female or a black child.
Regardless of the advances in science and technology, how come many of these belief-systems are still deeply rooted in so many cultures today? How deeply these beliefs were spread out before our time to be present even now in the most advanced societies? Understanding why people used terms like ‘monster’ to justify different outcomes of nature that in their minds ‘violate the norm’ is in many ways understandable, but why people still refuse to accept various normal possibilities of human body (e.g. transgender variations, or hairy female bodies) up to date?
In the "Nun Transmutes into Man" news pamphlet, I just found the whole blatant portrayal of men as free and women as chained to be rather disturbing - the elation the dad showed when he found out he actually had a son instead of a daughter and how his son was "happy because after twelve years of incarceration she enjoys freedom." Incarceration - don't the connotations for that word imply imprisonment, possibly for a crime? She hasn't done anything wrong except being "closed up" and masculine which makes me wonder, what are the perceptual differences in state for a voluntary nun and a nun who was pressured into joining a convent?
In Ambroise Paré's Monsters & Marvels, he writes that one's imagination has so much control over the body that the reason for the birth of "monsters" is because the woman imagines monsters before giving birth. This idea clearly was not too insane for the time, as Paré included various examples of ancients who subscribed to the same idea. So, if this belief existed, why didn't women just imagine the ideal man or woman before she gave birth? If she was able to control her child, couldn't she have just pictured perfection? And, if a woman gave birth to a monster but claimed she didn't imagine monsters beforehand but rather perfection, how would Paré explain that? Does Paré hint that women are mentally weak because they cannot concentrate on non-monsters before giving birth?
ReplyDeleteWhen Elena/o de Cespedes was ordered to work in the house of Juan Nunez, she had relations with his sister Francisca and a married woman Catalina Nunez. However, later in her testimony, she claims that only Ana de Albanchez knew she was a hermaphrodite. However, when she lived in the house in Arcos, she was ordered to wear women's garb, so she wore a skirt. Is Elena/o trying to defend these women? Why? The article also later analyzes the changes in Elena/o's testimony based on the viewpoint of the judges. Does this mean that in order to defend herself, she told the judges that these other women did not know of her condition? How does this help her argument?
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in several of the readings for this week, a woman's transgression of gender roles resulted in disaster for her - for example, in Monsters and Marvels, a story is told of a girl who was born as furry as a bear because her mother stared too long at a picture of "Saint John dressed in skins," and, in the story of the Nun who Transmutes into a Man, the nun becomes male while she is engaged in heavy physical labor. In these two situations, we see a woman expressing sexual desire and a woman doing "man's work," and these women are then punished for their transgression of traditional female roles. My questions is: to what extent do stories like this about freaks inform and enforce conformity to gender roles?
ReplyDeleteIn his writings "Monsters and Marvels," Ambroise Pare discusses the idea of "monsters" being born due to the woman imagining and thinking about monsters during the conception of the child. Why did they believe this idea to the extent that they ignored any other justification? He mentions how the woman and her husband both had white skin but she gave birth to "a child as black as a Moor." Was this idea a way to cover up and ignore certain indiscretions such as infidelity? Did the people truly believe that this was the only reason especially the men because in this case the woman obviously knew the true reason?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn both "Monsters and Marvels" and "Sexuality and the Marriage Sacrament: Elena/Eleno de Cespedes," they only mention women transforming into men. In "Monsters and Marvels," they say: Now since such a metamorphosis takes place in 'Nature for the alleged reasons and examples, we therefore never find in any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends towards what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should be imperfect.' I was shocked by how they think men will never transform into women because men are already perfect and if they transform into women they will become imperfect. It's only acceptable for women to turn into men because Nature favors perfection. What made the people in this era believe that being a man was in all ways more favorable than being a woman?
ReplyDeleteAll of the readings this week have to do with women either identifying with a male identity or women turning into men. Even the stories that we have read about men who seem to 'turn into women' such as the pregnant man stories, the men still retain their male identity. Are there examples from the 16th century of men transforming into women? What implications would this have had upon this society? Can we infer, from other representations, how a story of a man turning into a woman would unfold?
ReplyDeleteIn the 7th chapter in Monsters & Marvels, Ambrote Pare describes the various stories & examples of women/girls who suddenly had male parts and therefore became men. This is in vast contrast to the earlier articles we read where these gender transformations can occur naturally, but both ways. Either way, how would these changes impact the society and people surrounding that particular person and family? Would they be embraced like Maria Munoz's father in "Nun Transmutes into Man"? Or would it cause uproar and controversy like it has been shown to have happened in our society today (ex:// Chaz Bono in Dancing with the Stars)? What would happen if this idea/concept happened to be true in modern day society? Grace Huang
ReplyDeleteThe allegations made in Monsters and Marvels toward women and their imaginations are very interesting and something that is not typical to come across. My question is if Pare suggests that women imagined monsters before giving birth, therefore gave birth to monsters, is Pare suggesting women are psychologically disturbed or inferior for thinking of monsters in some way? Also why would a women choose to imagine a monster rather than imagining her "ideal" child? Why would a women want a monster for a child? If they didn't, was their imagination uncontrolled and therefore Pare is implying women are weak and inferior?
ReplyDeleteIn the News pamphlet "Nun Transmutes into Man", the father of the nun is pleased when his daughter turns into a man because now "he had a very manly son who can marry." The nun also responded very happy to the news because she was finally able to obtain her freedom. I wonder, then, if everybody responded this happy to the news of a transvestite. Or were female-to-male transvestites only accepted because males were viewed more superior to women? If a male-to-female transsexual occured, were men penalized for turning into women and were they seen as inferior?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 8 of Monsters & Marvels, Pare writes, "we therefore never find in any true story that any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends always toward what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should become imperfect." I found this end to the chapter very odd. First off by suggesting that there is no "true" story about a man turning into a woman, isn't there an implied undertone that the write knows that people will doubt the legitimacy of his stories? As well, isn't it going against his point to title the chapter "Women who have degenerated into Men" and then conclude by saying that the women are becoming more perfect by transforming into men?
ReplyDeleteI am a little confused?: Are the individual's from Monsters and Marvels individuals that were born with slight abnormalities which were exaggerated by the people around them? Or, were they all pure social constructions, meaning it was all the imagination of the people around them?
ReplyDeleteA common theme in several of these texts is the notion that nature tends to improve itself by having women transform into men. Chapter 7 of Monsters and Marvels finishes with "...we therefore never find in any true story that any man ever became a woman, because Nature tends always toward what is most perfect and not, on the contrary, to perform in such a way that what is perfect should become imperfect." In "Nun Transmutes into a Man," the text ends up capturing a favorable attitude toward FTM's, as "having transformed from woman to man, nature could not have bestowed upon her any better material blessing." In an odd kind of way, were FTM transsexuals thus more tolerated (and even *embraced*) back in the 16th century? Although we have become significantly more open today, would people have been more naturally accepting of these sex changes back then, were they to result in a more masculine-oriented society?
ReplyDeleteAccording to my interpretation, the readings for this week exemplify cases where people assigned their lack of knowledge, as well as their fears of the unknown, to some higher powers not from this world. For example a ‘gift from the higher powers’ if a female baby would ‘change into a male’, or a ‘curse’ if a woman would deliver a hairy female or a black child.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the advances in science and technology, how come many of these belief-systems are still deeply rooted in so many cultures today? How deeply these beliefs were spread out before our time to be present even now in the most advanced societies? Understanding why people used terms like ‘monster’ to justify different outcomes of nature that in their minds ‘violate the norm’ is in many ways understandable, but why people still refuse to accept various normal possibilities of human body (e.g. transgender variations, or hairy female bodies) up to date?
In the "Nun Transmutes into Man" news pamphlet, I just found the whole blatant portrayal of men as free and women as chained to be rather disturbing - the elation the dad showed when he found out he actually had a son instead of a daughter and how his son was "happy because after twelve years of incarceration she enjoys freedom." Incarceration - don't the connotations for that word imply imprisonment, possibly for a crime? She hasn't done anything wrong except being "closed up" and masculine which makes me wonder, what are the perceptual differences in state for a voluntary nun and a nun who was pressured into joining a convent?
ReplyDelete