As written in Mary Elizabeth Perry's "Convent to Battlefield", Catalina de Erauso was able to continue dressing as a man after being outed as a woman, and even gained a fair amount of acceptance. Perry attributes this to the fact that since she was so asexual, Erauso did not pose a threat of "proliferating categories" or any "threat of pollution" because he "did not engage in that dangerous game of repeatedly passing back and forth across these lines" (411). Does this mean that Spanish society was relatively indifferent about non-gender conformity as long as the asexual individual picked a side? This seems to be very related to the problems that our discussion class had about Thomas Beatie and his inconsistency as a man/woman. Is our society today reflective of this, or are we now more accepting of continual line crossing?
In an unrelated question just to tie things to the beginning of the semester, what would the ancient Renaissance thinkers say in regards to Erauso using a poultice to "dry up his breasts" to become more manly?
What seemed most interesting in Convent to Battlefield is the acute difference in how people viewed gender back in the 19th century and today. A passage from Convent to Battlefield shows how the lack of a socially constructed gender caused people to not question the ambiguity of the Lieutenant Nun's gender identity - instead it seemed people were more focused on her travails as a woman engaging in male behavior while retaining her virginity. They never really doubted her femininity in spite of her actions or appearance - "they did not even suggest hermaphroditism." She even got a pension from the Spanish Crown for her service in the army, even though it was technically illegal to join the army. If she wavered for even an instant and engaged in feminine behavior while she was in the army, would she still be given the same status as a public figure and curiosity? Transgressing the law was downplayed by her virginity, devotion to heroism, and courage - in a way, she is given the same rights as a man simply because she acts like a man. If we were to put this into the modern era - if an important, respected, and well-known public figure were to suddenly be revealed as a member of the opposite gender to what we perceived, how much impact would that have on his/her reputation? Would his/her accomplishments still overshadow the gender ambiguity like in the Lieutenant Nun?
Every time Catalina was offered a spouse and her dowry, s/he ran off to prevent getting married. Did s/he do this because s/he feared having his/her biological sex revealed or because s/he was not interested in marriage with another? Obviously, later, when his/her biological sex is revealed, she is not rejected for it, but rather thought of as a model. On the other hand, she certainly was interested in his master's wife's sister.
Harjot, I was actually questioning the same ideas of marriage. Convent to Battlefield says that "Erauso refused marriage less from concern with his lack of male physical characteristics than with pressures to conform to social expectations of married men that threatened to curtail his freedom". Yet I wonder whether Erauso was actually not interested in marrying because he/she didn't know which gender he was attracted to? Or is it possible that, he was (as we now call the term) A-sexual? Maybe Eruaso in fact didn't have sexual feelings or desires. Because while he claims he didn't want to feel restrained by becoming married and assuming a male gender role, if he was married as a women he would still be assuming a gender role, just for a female. Maybe as he was confused about his biological sex he was also confused about sexual atttractions and and desires.
The article Convent to Battlefield, the author Mary Elizabeth Perry discusses the reasons and implications for Eruaso cross dressing as a man and running away from the convent. "According to the account of her life that Catalina de Erauso gave to the cleric Pedro del Balle Peregrino she became 'disgustada de aquella vida encerrada'(127) [displeased with the enclosed life] of the convent and decided to run away so that she could live as a man." Did Erauso only decide to cross-dress because she wanted to run away from the convent and enjoy the privileges of being a man or did she really feel transgender? How much was the decision to pardon Eruaso influenced by the idea that she did agree with and understand the idea that males held certain rights and privileges because they were superior?
I thought it was an intriguing idea that Catalina de Erauso was in part so socially accepted because of the fact that she had remained a virgin all her life. Does this suggest that Spain in the 1500s valued chastity over adherence to traditional gender roles? By renouncing her sexuality, did Erauso escape the trappings of a highly gendered traditional society?
In the Temporary Transvestite Film article they talked about how typically when character's cross-dress in a film they are sensitization to the opposite gender's feelings. This brings up some general issues about men and women and actually what the differences are and what this 'understanding' does. To what extent is this sensitization just furthering generalized gender stereotypes and to what extent are these stereotypes true?
I was very interested in the Lieutenant Nun article because I would have thought that the people of that time would not have been very accepting of him/her. Why is it that although Erauso was accepted although she was crossing gender boundaries?
Does it seriously affect actor's personal/private romantic lives when they play a transvestite character, or have to be temporarily transvestite for a role?
What is Erauso's gender (category) - woman, man or other? What is the 'other'? Is the 'other' closer to woman or closer to man? Do we have to clearly fit in any of those categories? Can we come up with the gender that defines Erauso?
"Providing a limited and phallic view of homoeroticism as a perversion between men only, the dominant assumption of heterosexuality completely missed the possibility of physical attraction and intimacy between women..." I found this quote to be extremely interested because it seems to address gender differences within Erauso's time period. Illuminating the idea that "lesbianism" was not commonly known, this suggests that women were not believed to resort to the same "perversion" that a few men did. Nonetheless, when Catalina de Erauso declared publicly that she was a woman, she was socially accepted. Because she was a virgin, she was viewed by others, particularly men, with respect. Does this mean that virginity outweighs the traditional gender roles, or is it somehow connected to it?
When reading the forward and introduction for Lieutenant Nun, I was struck by one of the points about transgenderism that the writers brought it up. In the 1500's and 1600's, when the autobiography takes place, people did not have the modern technology or social acceptance to surgically switch genders or to take hormones if they believed they were "born in the wrong body". How does this change the differentiation of someone who is just cross dressing from someone who believes he/she is of the opposite gender? Is it possible to know who falls into which category when looking at cross dressers from this time period?
In “Temporary Transvestite Film,” the writer argues that romantic scenes between transvestites and people of the opposite sex could be interpreted as either heterosexual or homosexual, depending on the point of view of the audience. A bivalent kissing scene could have a heterosexual reading because of “knowledge of the character’s true identity” (Straayer). On the other hand, it could also be seen as homosexual because the characters are perceived as a same-sex couple. In Lieutenant Nun, Erauso has many encounters with women who want to marry her. How could Erauso’s interactions with women be perceived as heterosexual and homosexual? In the article, it offers an example from a movie where the characters’ “awareness of a possible homosexual reading by onlookers prevents them from kissing” (Straayer). Did Erauso escape from marriages with women because she was afraid of being seen as homosexual?
In Convent to Battlefield, there is a quote that describes society's women in "two legitimate states...--virgin or wife" (406). So if those are the only two definitions and virgins are higher up in society, then why is it more common in today's society (especially young adults)to look down upon the virgins and look at people who are saving themselves for marriage as missing out or making the wrong choice? What justifications are used between traditional and modern day societies for virginity? Is virginity still "exalted...above all others"? Grace Huang.
Even as Erauso fought to break gender roles, allowing herself and other women more freedom to choose how they lived, she supported the extreme racism common in Spain. She displayed disgust at the idea of marrying a dark-skinned woman, not allowing a non-white the freedom to define her own identity like she herself had done. Why does she view herself as an acceptable exclusion from the rule, but won't support a moor working for equality?
As written in Mary Elizabeth Perry's "Convent to Battlefield", Catalina de Erauso was able to continue dressing as a man after being outed as a woman, and even gained a fair amount of acceptance. Perry attributes this to the fact that since she was so asexual, Erauso did not pose a threat of "proliferating categories" or any "threat of pollution" because he "did not engage in that dangerous game of repeatedly passing back and forth across these lines" (411). Does this mean that Spanish society was relatively indifferent about non-gender conformity as long as the asexual individual picked a side? This seems to be very related to the problems that our discussion class had about Thomas Beatie and his inconsistency as a man/woman. Is our society today reflective of this, or are we now more accepting of continual line crossing?
ReplyDeleteIn an unrelated question just to tie things to the beginning of the semester, what would the ancient Renaissance thinkers say in regards to Erauso using a poultice to "dry up his breasts" to become more manly?
What seemed most interesting in Convent to Battlefield is the acute difference in how people viewed gender back in the 19th century and today. A passage from Convent to Battlefield shows how the lack of a socially constructed gender caused people to not question the ambiguity of the Lieutenant Nun's gender identity - instead it seemed people were more focused on her travails as a woman engaging in male behavior while retaining her virginity. They never really doubted her femininity in spite of her actions or appearance - "they did not even suggest hermaphroditism." She even got a pension from the Spanish Crown for her service in the army, even though it was technically illegal to join the army. If she wavered for even an instant and engaged in feminine behavior while she was in the army, would she still be given the same status as a public figure and curiosity? Transgressing the law was downplayed by her virginity, devotion to heroism, and courage - in a way, she is given the same rights as a man simply because she acts like a man. If we were to put this into the modern era - if an important, respected, and well-known public figure were to suddenly be revealed as a member of the opposite gender to what we perceived, how much impact would that have on his/her reputation? Would his/her accomplishments still overshadow the gender ambiguity like in the Lieutenant Nun?
ReplyDeleteEvery time Catalina was offered a spouse and her dowry, s/he ran off to prevent getting married. Did s/he do this because s/he feared having his/her biological sex revealed or because s/he was not interested in marriage with another? Obviously, later, when his/her biological sex is revealed, she is not rejected for it, but rather thought of as a model. On the other hand, she certainly was interested in his master's wife's sister.
ReplyDeleteHarjot, I was actually questioning the same ideas of marriage. Convent to Battlefield says that "Erauso refused marriage less from concern with his lack of male physical characteristics than with pressures to conform to social expectations of married men that threatened to curtail his freedom". Yet I wonder whether Erauso was actually not interested in marrying because he/she didn't know which gender he was attracted to? Or is it possible that, he was (as we now call the term) A-sexual? Maybe Eruaso in fact didn't have sexual feelings or desires. Because while he claims he didn't want to feel restrained by becoming married and assuming a male gender role, if he was married as a women he would still be assuming a gender role, just for a female. Maybe as he was confused about his biological sex he was also confused about sexual atttractions and and desires.
ReplyDeleteThe article Convent to Battlefield, the author Mary Elizabeth Perry discusses the reasons and implications for Eruaso cross dressing as a man and running away from the convent. "According to the account of her life that Catalina de Erauso gave to the cleric Pedro del Balle Peregrino she became 'disgustada de aquella vida encerrada'(127) [displeased with the enclosed life] of the convent and decided to run away so that she could live as a man." Did Erauso only decide to cross-dress because she wanted to run away from the convent and enjoy the privileges of being a man or did she really feel transgender? How much was the decision to pardon Eruaso influenced by the idea that she did agree with and understand the idea that males held certain rights and privileges because they were superior?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was an intriguing idea that Catalina de Erauso was in part so socially accepted because of the fact that she had remained a virgin all her life. Does this suggest that Spain in the 1500s valued chastity over adherence to traditional gender roles? By renouncing her sexuality, did Erauso escape the trappings of a highly gendered traditional society?
ReplyDeleteIn the Temporary Transvestite Film article they talked about how typically when character's cross-dress in a film they are sensitization to the opposite gender's feelings. This brings up some general issues about men and women and actually what the differences are and what this 'understanding' does. To what extent is this sensitization just furthering generalized gender stereotypes and to what extent are these stereotypes true?
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in the Lieutenant Nun article because I would have thought that the people of that time would not have been very accepting of him/her. Why is it that although Erauso was accepted although she was crossing gender boundaries?
ReplyDeleteDoes it seriously affect actor's personal/private romantic lives when they play a transvestite character, or have to be temporarily transvestite for a role?
ReplyDeleteWhat is Erauso's gender (category) - woman, man or other? What is the 'other'? Is the 'other' closer to woman or closer to man? Do we have to clearly fit in any of those categories? Can we come up with the gender that defines Erauso?
ReplyDelete"Providing a limited and phallic view of homoeroticism as a perversion between men only, the dominant assumption of heterosexuality completely missed the possibility of physical attraction and intimacy between women..."
ReplyDeleteI found this quote to be extremely interested because it seems to address gender differences within Erauso's time period. Illuminating the idea that "lesbianism" was not commonly known, this suggests that women were not believed to resort to the same "perversion" that a few men did. Nonetheless, when Catalina de Erauso declared publicly that she was a woman, she was socially accepted. Because she was a virgin, she was viewed by others, particularly men, with respect. Does this mean that virginity outweighs the traditional gender roles, or is it somehow connected to it?
When reading the forward and introduction for Lieutenant Nun, I was struck by one of the points about transgenderism that the writers brought it up. In the 1500's and 1600's, when the autobiography takes place, people did not have the modern technology or social acceptance to surgically switch genders or to take hormones if they believed they were "born in the wrong body". How does this change the differentiation of someone who is just cross dressing from someone who believes he/she is of the opposite gender? Is it possible to know who falls into which category when looking at cross dressers from this time period?
ReplyDeleteIn “Temporary Transvestite Film,” the writer argues that romantic scenes between transvestites and people of the opposite sex could be interpreted as either heterosexual or homosexual, depending on the point of view of the audience. A bivalent kissing scene could have a heterosexual reading because of “knowledge of the character’s true identity” (Straayer). On the other hand, it could also be seen as homosexual because the characters are perceived as a same-sex couple. In Lieutenant Nun, Erauso has many encounters with women who want to marry her. How could Erauso’s interactions with women be perceived as heterosexual and homosexual?
ReplyDeleteIn the article, it offers an example from a movie where the characters’ “awareness of a possible homosexual reading by onlookers prevents them from kissing” (Straayer). Did Erauso escape from marriages with women because she was afraid of being seen as homosexual?
In Convent to Battlefield, there is a quote that describes society's women in "two legitimate states...--virgin or wife" (406). So if those are the only two definitions and virgins are higher up in society, then why is it more common in today's society (especially young adults)to look down upon the virgins and look at people who are saving themselves for marriage as missing out or making the wrong choice? What justifications are used between traditional and modern day societies for virginity? Is virginity still "exalted...above all others"? Grace Huang.
ReplyDeleteEven as Erauso fought to break gender roles, allowing herself and other women more freedom to choose how they lived, she supported the extreme racism common in Spain. She displayed disgust at the idea of marrying a dark-skinned woman, not allowing a non-white the freedom to define her own identity like she herself had done. Why does she view herself as an acceptable exclusion from the rule, but won't support a moor working for equality?
ReplyDelete