feminist expression in the middle ages and early modern period
when i see women playing dumb and helpless, it really irritates me. they’re reinforcing sexist stereotypes; undoing the work that so many dedicated their lives to, that so many of us still fight to protect. of course, that’s in the context of our society today. this position of nominal equality that i often take for granted today (and some women, in my opinion, spit on), that allows me to do almost anything a guy can do and allows me to get mouthy at anyone who tries to limit me because i’m just a girl, is fairly recent. playing dumb was once a strategy for survival, for both women and black slaves (and probably countless others that i just don’t know about).
i learned about the “honor code” in barbara weissberger’s amazing class on medieval spanish literature and i feel like it changed how i view the world. there are different types of honor, but the one that is most interesting and horrifying is basically this: the women in the family are kind of, i don’t know, containers for a man’s honor. if a woman is unchaste, she dishonors her husband, father, brothers, uncles, cousins, whoever. (and “unchaste” here includes rape as well as unconfirmed rumors about her sexual behavior.) the only way to recuperate that honor is to marry her off to the guy (if she’s unmarried) or to murder her. why on earth would a woman’s sexuality be so incredibly important to her family??? before paternity tests, the only way to make sure the children who were inheriting your fortune were really yours was to keep absolute control over your wife. this absurd system is probably a lot more complicated than this but this is the main idea.
so this is the system in which the characters in maría de zayas’ stories (and de zayas herself) were living. cheating or just being suspected of cheating means death. so what is a good, chaste wife to do when another man tries to seduce her? keep it from her husband? well, the woman in the end of that story was killed. tell her husband? that woman was killed, too. under this ridiculous system, women, even the most honest and obedient ones, cannot possibly win. there has been a debate for centuries about maría de zayas’ intention in writing these stories. some say she is upholding the honor code. i’m with those who say she was using irony to criticize it—criticizing it directly would have been risking her life.
sor juana is one of my heroes: she was a mexican nun in the 16th century and is considered the first feminist in the americas (of course, she lived before the term “feminist” or the republic of mexico existed—but the anachronisms are appropriate—she was ahead of her time). she was an absolute genius; when she was tested by a panel of (male) experts she totally kicked ***, and the forms in which she wrote poetry were just about always perfect. i think “redondillas” speaks for itself. (and i think we were supposed to read her “respuesta a sor filotea” also but couldn’t find it so maybe not. is a defense of her right to study, veiled in self-depreciating, overly complimentary language—a genius’ version of playing dumb.)
i had never heard of de Pisan before but it looks like she was doing the same thing—criticizing the unfair position of women in a roundabout way to minimize her risk of punishment. she, of course, had been convinced by the volume of writings and by reputation of philosophers that women must be evil, even though her own experience didn’t reflect that. she was somewhat self-depreciating, like sor juana and some of de zayas’ female characters, and emphasized her devotion to god. she argues for women’s right to education (in the voice of another character, not herself) but still promotes sexist ideas about women’s role, including staying with and putting up with abusive husbands. (i wonder if this is because of the times or if she’s still self-censoring?) i also think that the apparition of the three figures is interesting—very christian imagery but secular figures. (i wonder if that was received well or maybe interpreted as blasphemous?)
coincidentally, the main character of _the doll’s house_, which i read over the weekend to prepare for toril moi’s talk, is doing some of the same stuff. playing dumb for her husband in order to do what she wants (or fix what he didn’t want her to do before he finds out).
the bijns poem, though, was very different. i’m curious to know how the poem was received and what the companion poem about men was like. also, could single women really be independent? did they have legal rights—to own property, for example?