some thoughts
Like Danka mentioned, we are presenting on Thursday, so these are just a few points I want to get out there before class.
First, as Jessica commented, I too found it interesting that the type of double standard towards women’s sexuality that Sor Juana mentions is very much alive and well today. Women are in a lose/lose situation, where to exert sexual agency is to be labeled promiscuous and to limit sexual agency is to be labeled a prude. There are just so few moments in history (or even any moments in history) where a woman can express her sexuality without fear of how her actions will be deemed by society.
Also, I like how the emphasis in the piece is being switched from the acts of women to the acts of men. She’s making men address the problems of women’s oppression, and not just discussing how women can react to their oppression and fight it. I see this echoed in a lot of contemporary writings, such as the shift of the discussion of racism from being just something people of color must deal with, to something that also privileges and must be dealt with by white people. This might be a stretch, as far as the comparison goes, but it is what came to my mind when reading. Any thoughts?
I agree with Jessica that Christine de Pizan is pretty straightforward and daring in the type of language she uses. I would extend this to include Sor Juana as well. The last four lines of her poem have a bit of a bite to them. Plus, there’s the whole line about how blessed the woman is who rejects a man. It makes me wonder how she was able to be so bold – I’m curious if the fact that she was a nun had anything to do with the way she was able to express herself.
The “rejecting men” comment by Sor Juana made me think of the de Pizan writing because it revolves around this idea of women separating themselves off, apart from men. I’m wondering what others think about this approach…