The Imperfect Sex: Why Is Sor Juana Not a Saint?

[Xipe Totec]

Every hegemonic power in every historical period establishes the limits of what is normal and, consequently, of what is natural. Thus, the power that ordered patriarchal society reserved for itself (reserves for itself) the unquestionable right to define what was a man and what was a woman. Every time some exalted man resorts to the mediocre argument that "things have been like this since the beginning of the world," he situates the origin of the world in a recent period of the history of humanity.

Like any system, patriarchy fulfilled an organizing function. Probably, at some moment, it was an order convenient to the majority of society, including women. I don't believe that oppression arises from patriarchy, but instead when the latter attempts to perpetuate itself by imposing itself on processes that range from the survival to the liberation of humankind. If patriarchy was once a logical system of values for an agricultural system of production and survival, today it no longer means anything more than an oppressive, and for some time now, hypocritical tradition

In 1583, the reverend Fray Luis de León wrote La perfecta casada (The Perfect Wife) as a book of useful advice for marriage. There, as with any other text of the tradition, it is understood that an exceptionally virtuous woman is a manly woman. "What here we call woman of principle; and we might say manly woman (. . .) means virtue of spirit and strength of heart, industry and wealth and power." Then: "for a man to be gifted with reason and understanding does not make him worthy of praise, because having them is his own nature (. . .).


http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/majfud250207.html


Some thoughts on the most revered poet in Mexican Literature, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz.

This essay reverberates meaning not only on the emancipation of women, but the emancipation of the GLBT community (IMHO).

[TlalocW]

1. Hombres necios que acusáis

a la mujer sin razon sin ver que sois la ocasion de lo mismo que culpais.

That opening line of her most famous poem is the reason why - basically, "Stupid men who accuse women, without reason, without seeing that you are the reason for the act." (My poor translation) Basically mocking male sexism by asking in relation to prostitution, who is more guilty, she who sins for pay, or the men who publicly condemns them but pays for the sin.

The Catholic Church always considered her a loose cannon. If you're expecting them to make her a saint, you have more faith than I do in Catholic Church.

TlalocW

[Xipe Totec]

2. Silly, you men-so very adept, at wrongly faulting womankind,

The best translation I have found, so-far:

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/24888-Sor-Juana-Ines-de-la-Cruz-You-Men


Silly, you men-so very adept
at wrongly faulting womankind,
not seeing you're alone to blame
for faults you plant in woman's mind.

After you've won by urgent plea
the right to tarnish her good name,
you still expect her to behave—
you, that coaxed her into shame.

You batter her resistance down
and then, all righteousness, proclaim
that feminine frivolity,
not your persistence, is to blame.

When it comes to bravely posturing,
your witlessness must take the prize:
you're the child that makes a bogeyman,
and then recoils in fear and cries.

Presumptuous beyond belief,
you'd have the woman you pursue
be Thais when you're courting her,
Lucretia once she falls to you.

For plain default of common sense,
could any action be so queer
as oneself to cloud the mirror,
then complain that it's not clear?

Whether you're favored or disdained,
nothing can leave you satisfied.
You whimper if you're turned away,
you sneer if you've been gratified.

With you, no woman can hope to score;
whichever way, she's bound to lose;
spurning you, she's ungrateful—
succumbing, you call her lewd.

Your folly is always the same:
you apply a single rule
to the one you accuse of looseness
and the one you brand as cruel.

What happy mean could there be
for the woman who catches your eye,
if, unresponsive, she offends,
yet whose complaisance you decry?

Still, whether it's torment or anger—
and both ways you've yourselves to blame—
God bless the woman who won't have you,
no matter how loud you complain.

It's your persistent entreaties
that change her from timid to bold.
Having made her thereby naughty,
you would have her good as gold.

So where does the greater guilt lie
for a passion that should not be:
with the man who pleads out of baseness
or the woman debased by his plea?

Or which is more to be blamed—
though both will have cause for chagrin:
the woman who sins for money
or the man who pays money to sin?

So why are you men all so stunned
at the thought you're all guilty alike?
Either like them for what you've made them
or make of them what you can like.

If you'd give up pursuing them,
you'd discover, without a doubt,
you've a stronger case to make
against those who seek you out.

I well know what powerful arms
you wield in pressing for evil:
your arrogance is allied
with the world, the flesh, and the devil!

[TlalocW]

3. Eh, kind of

It's definitely not a literal translation (especially since it's rhyming), but it catches the spirit of her poem.

Unfortunately, it's kind of the same situation you have with Hamlet. It's best if read in the original Klingon. (Star Trek joke) :)

TlalocW

[Xipe Totec]

4. Quote from one of the posts on the link:

"I am an English teacher and was looking for something I could use in my World Literature class. I came across this poem and recognized the timelessness of her thoughts. I also have two years of Spanish and this is one of the better translations I have seen (some are so far off it becomes criminal). It cannot be translated word for word - it is the meaning that becomes important - and it's there."

PS: I love Star Trek and I recognized the quote immediately (I have the Star Trek movie collection).

:hi: