The Disenchantments of Love III

While dona Blanca's method of securing the Prince's love before marriage is well intentioned and reasonable, having him court her in the typical fashion of serenading her and praising her beauty and other virtues is a false love. Dona Blanca claims that "she wanted a love based on relationship and on her knowledge of her husband's intelligence, nature, and charms. But by instructing him to court her the way she believes is "proper" she prevents herself from truly knowing him. His gestures are purely ornamental as we have seen been the case in other disenchantments, except he is not putting on a show of courting her with the intention of later harming her, but rather because this is what he is expected to do and he also had the desire to go see Spain. This tradition of courting is really detrimental to most of these relationships because it sets a false precedent. The whole point is to flatter the woman and make her believe that the man is in love with her and consequently she with him. In this case it is a particularly false front as we learn later that the prince is homosexual.

( In the final story I was surprised by the commentary on how parents who remarry should treat the children of their spouses previous marriages.
Florentina speaks of how her stepmother loved her as her own and her father loved dona Magdalena as his own, "...which is what good spouses who wish to live in tranquility ought to do. A thousand regrets and feuds are born from husbands who don't like their wives' children and wives who reject their husbands'"
How progressive and insightful, unfortunately not practiced very often even today.)

To return to the question of Maria de Zayas being a true feminist or not, I believe that the roles of Florentina and Gaspar show her ability to set aside stereotypes against both men and women. While the stories are meant to "disenchant" women against the evils of men, Maria de Zayas is clearly not so ignorant as to say that all men are one way and all women another. Her characters make these generalizations about the sexes perhaps as a way of indicating how foolish feminism can be when it defaces all men absolutely. To say that all men are evil is the same as to say all women are inferior.
Really, de Zayas is the most perfect feminist because she shows how women have been abused due to their sex in the past and how history and society has been and continues to be extremely sexist against them, yet she does not allow herself to fall into the same categories as those who have committed these crimes. Through her characters she shows the necessity of giving all humans the opportunity to be the best they can be, free of stereotypes due to their sex.
The reader must look below the surface of these tales and the absolutes proclaimed by the characters to see that de Zayas is teaching a valuable lesson about the dangers of generalizations.
"To generalize is to be an idiot."
William Blake

The Disenchantments of Love II

Before the story of tale four begins, its narrator (Filis) has some opening remarks about men and women (pp. 139-40). How do you interpret these remarks? How do they serve as an introduction for what comes later in the story?

The fourth story is unique in comparison to the other stories because it raises the idea that both men and women are equally fallible. It shows that they can both be evil, although I think it would be foolish not to point out that the “evil” woman in this story is black, and is described negatively due to this fact before her character even comes into play. Don Jaime also mentions that he does not sleep with her though he has Elena believe that he does. This is clearly due to her race because if it were a white woman he would absolutely have done just as he said.

The story is also unique because it is told mainly from the point of view of a man. Don Jaime is evil and foolish for punishing Elena the way that he does and for believing the slave without getting solid evidence before rashly acting on rumor.

At the end however, the story is more sympathetic toward don Jaime. He is taken care of, though he has lost his mind. The slave woman however is dieing and then don Jaime stabs her to death. The narrator says that “her punishment was well deserved” however I cannot think that starting a rumor is deserving of being murdered. I'm not defending her actions but it should not be misunderstood that don Jaime is the real villain here.

What do you think is the significance of the skull in story four? Think about what a skull might mean in a variety of contexts (especially the skill as the remains of a head – what are the functions of a head?).

Elena is given her cousin's skull to drink out of because don Jaime thinks this will be further means of punishing her because he believed her to be having an affair with him. Since this was not the case, the skull must represent something more, though I am not sure what. Bone is the barest form of the human body, because everything else has been stripped away. This could be viewed as a symbol of truth, perhaps representing that Elena was true (a bit of a stretch, I know).

In both the 4^th and 5^th stories we have the theme of the “image of a woman.” We have spoken about this before, but what does this theme bring to these two stories? (An understanding of the myth of Pygmalion helps here.)

In both of these stories there are innocent women who are punished. They are both very beautiful and are both starved until they are emaciated and malnourished. Yet they stay 'beautiful' throughout the years of their torture. Dona Ines loses her eyesight but remains beautiful, as if this is the more important attribute. The description of dona Ines after she has been in the wall for 6 years is quite disgusting yet she is still considered beautiful. This shows that beauty is their most valued virtue (or at least what others value most in them, so while they are starved and lose weight they remain beautiful.

The Disenchantments of Love I

I felt that I had read the story of Isabel/Zelima before, but I couldn't remember where. While I was captivated by the story I found myself getting frustrated with Isabel for making the same mistakes over and over again. The Code of Honor that she values so highly seems to make things worse for her. It is because of her "honor" that she pursues don Manuel after he has left Zaragoza (or so she claims). Even after he has lied to her and betrayed her so many times, she follows him with the intention of reclaiming him as her lover. How can she truly believe that he will be reformed? But then she also claims that she is pursuing him to seek vengeance. She tells Luis that he should not kill don Manuel because "even though don Manuel is treacherous and false, my life depends on his. I must regain my lost honor...". I don't understand her logic.
However she does seem at times to be aware of her own foolishness, saying that when don Manuel pacifies her she is pleased but does not entirely believe him. Yet she still allows herself to be deceived.

She seems to control most situations but how she uses this power/talent is unfortunate because it only causes her further misery. At the end she finally decides to go to a convent and take God on as a husband. While I cannot say I would do the same thing, I don't understand why she didn't do this in the first place, if this were the only way to preserve her honor.

Her goal by telling the story is to warn women against trusting men and trusting flattery. Which I think she makes more than apparent with the numerous times she falls for don Manuel's lies. "Woe be to all ill-advised and credulous women who let themselves be overcome by lies so well adorned that their glitter lasts only as long as does the appetite!"

As far as this work being considered anti-feminist or 'poor feminism' I don't think that this is the case. I think that the story shows how women can be manipulated by men because of their lower social status due to sexist society. What might make the story seem anti-feminist is how Isabel fits into the stereotype of an overly emotional, unreasonable woman. At the beginning she has the reason and respect of a man but when she starts doing ridiculous things to pursue a man who has already proven himself to be "evil", she discredits herself and her sex.

All this being said, love makes people do stupid things, especially forgiving those who they love for any and all transgressions.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies II

Christine de Pizan speaks through the voices of her characters to negate the argument of male writers who make claims about women that are entirely unfounded.
Reason, Rectitude and Justice (all female characters) give their opinions about the nature of women and explain why the prejudices against them created by men are incorrect.
As far as I am concerned, reason is the highest virtue and most valuable trait for a human (man or woman) to have. Reason disproves all else. Lady Reason tells Christine that what she has read written by men is in accurate, "...I can assure you that these attacks on all women-when in fact there are so many excellent women-- have never originated with me, Reason."
As a means of validating herself as a writer, Christine de Pizan uses examples of women who exhibit traits which men insist they do not have, women who act in ways that shows how ridiculous the claims made against women are. The examples she uses from history span over different time periods and countries, showing that women everywhere have proven themselves to be equal to if not superior to men.
Possibly her most useful tool is the Bible, and Chistine de Pizan uses it to her advantage. By giving examples from the Bible, she makes it very difficult for anyone to dispute her words because they would not want to sound like they were saying anything that might be remotely construed as negative or contradictory to the Bible.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies I

I think that the interruption by her mother in the prologue is a means for Christine de Pizan to reveal a little bit about herself to the reader. Because she lives at home with her mother we can assume certain things. I originally wanted to say that it could indicate her youth but given the time period it wouldn't be uncommon for a grown woman to be living with her mother, however it would indicate that she is unmarried. This would be an important factor that would effect her writing because as a single woman she would naturally have very different views of marriage and marital relations than a married woman.

Christine de Pizan's apparent gullibility in the prologue does not reflect her true beliefs about the nature of women. She is writing satirically in response to the countless male writers who condemn women as being inferior and believe "that the behavior of women is inclined to and full of every vice". She mocks them by pretending that she shares these beliefs. She claims to have been persuaded that they are correct because it seems that all the writings she comes across are in agreement about the evil nature of women. This tactic is effective because even as she is agreeing with the anti-feminist writings she is disproving them. It is not expected that a woman would be as clever and subtle in her writing as de Pizan is.
Just in case the reader is missing the irony, de Pizan points out her own use of satire through the voice of the women who come to visit her. One asks her why she puts such faith in the words of men who "spoke on many subjects in a fictional way and that often they mean the contrary of what their words openly say", which is exactly what de Pizan herself is doing.

Pan's Labyrinth

I had seen this movie before but had forgotten many of the details. Ofelia's fantasy doesn't exist in the world of adults. At the end we see the two worlds clashing when the commander comes after her in the labyrinth. He cannot see the faun she is talking to because he does not have the faith that comes with youth an innocence to believe in anything so fantastic.
Whenever things get too unpleasant in the "real" world, Ofelia retreats into her fantasy, but as far as she is concerned the two are connected and equally real. After several tests of cunning, bravery and character, Ofelia is brought back to her rightful world in death. Her loyalty to her mother and brother in reality results in her eventual return to her fantasy family.

Run Lola Run

The repetition of the story in Run Lola Run was interesting because the viewer thinks they know what is going to happen next but each time, the story changes slightly, resulting in an entirely different ending. The final ending (I don't know whether it was the true ending or not) was the typical "happy" ending because not only does nobody die, but they manage to pay the man off and are 100,000 marx richer.
The "mythic/fictional" aspect of the story comes in when Lola manipulates time by screaming and shattering glass. Mannie turns to her for answers at the beginning and this gives the viewer the impression that Lola is the problem solver of the relationship. She finds ways out of tight situations, by tweaking the circumstances. It seems she tries all available possibilities for how the story could go and then settles on the one that has the most desirable outcome.