I have a question about the reading on John Frog. Although the Berrueco and other people had made harsh comments on the pregnancy of John Forg. However, at the end, they joined John to celebrate the birth. Did this imply that male pregnancy might not be unacceptable in the public's opinion?
I think that change in attitude at the end was a way to bash on women. Although the idea of a pregnant man was not socially acceptable, it was not completely negative because the man gave birth to another man who was essentially a duplicate or mini-me of the father. Because the father was certain that he was the father, and women are sometimes uncertain of who the father is, John Frog's pregnancy turned out to be not such a bad thing at all. To me, this was just another way to emphasize that women can not be trusted as much as men in anything, even pregnancy.
My question is that compared to the reading "Portrait of a Monster," where the first instinct was to blame the ex-girlfriend, why was it not the first instinct of the Mayors to blame the wife? Even more, why is it that they stood up for her so she did not have to be tortured? What shifted in the social norms between the two texts that allowed for less hasty and harsh punishments for women?
It is known that in the past, women did majority of the housework. I noticed that in John Frog Gives Birth this idea gets reinforced when Court Clerk states that John did all the “housework: the sweeping, scrubbing, cooking-and he even did errands”. Do you think kids born in the twenty first century will have this way of thinking as well? I know people born in the twentieth century joke around about it, meaning the idea still exists.
What I don't know about the reading is why all the mayors seem to be attacking each other. Additionally, there are many lower-body or sexual allusions that are used by the mayors in the passage. It seems the play is trying to make an atmosphere of irony and ridicule. All the mayors seem to be rude and stupid. Does it mean the author actually wants to convey that it is legitimate for men to give birth???(Since at the end of the play, all the mayors join in the celebration of the baby.)
The character of John Frog displayed effeminate qualities in his performances and used practices such as male cross-dressing, inversion of sexual roles, and allusions to gay sexuality in the period from 1617 to 1672. Even though his audiences mostly laughed at his theatrics, to what degree was John Frog's actions beneficial or detrimental to the definition of "gender" in society, keeping in mind that his performances implied the notion that men and women could possess qualities from the opposite gender?
In Lanini Sagredo's play, Berrucco states that it wouldn't be "so incredible that [Frog] got pregnant since he did what she should have done". Do you think that the idea that 'feminine activities', such as house work and cleaning, if completed habitually, were enough to impregnate a male, was commonly believed?
The reading on "John Frog Gives Birth" says, "Let it be known to all that, John Frog is in no way a real man, he is publicly shamed in women's clothing". Basically, women in the reading do not consider John Frog as a man because of such an unexpected gender role. Since when did we get to have a particular gender roles for males and females? It would be organized if the society merely follow the preset rules on gender roles. However, every time when get out of the box, why do we deserve to be ridiculed?
In the play, "John Frog Gives Birth", I thought it was very weird how right after the child is born, he is talking and dancing. Is it just me or was it actually weird?
After reading John Frog Gives Birth I came up with a few questions. One in particular, strikes from the last line that John Frog states, " if men gave birth, it would be a great thing- since they were be certain of all their offspring." My question to this quote is that John Frog degrading women by implying that women are portrayed as untrustworthy, and only cause confusion to a males life?
In the reading "John Frog Gives Birth," the mayors and the clerk at first were all condemning John for being pregnant, and they said that he is not a real man. However, the mayors and the clerk end up helping him to deliver the baby and celebrating. It is nice to see them sympathize with Frog when they see him in labor pains. My question is when this play suppose to be taken? John Frog is practically the wife in the marriage. He does all the housework, and his wife is the one who wears pants. The concept of this doesn't seem to exist until late 20th century.
Like Alan stated above, the line " if men gave birth, it would be a great thing-since they would be certain of all of their offspring" interested me. This line in particular interested me because in another course we discussed, paternal uncertainty which states that most me are usually uncertain if their children are actually theirs. It is interesting that this feeling has been going on for many years and was mentioned in John Frog. Is the "cure" for paternal uncertainty for men to give birth, like John Frog?
My main question came more from Berrueco than Juan Rana. I wanted to take a look at the comment where the narrator noted, "Berrueco, it would seem, considers Juan Rana's pregnancy to be logical under tehse inverted circumstances." This is basically saying that Berrueco is OK with Juan Rana's condition because he is acting like a female, therefore receiving female treatment. In a society that has such strict gender roles, I was wondering how Berrueco was allowed to say something like this and not be questioned? Was it because of his high rank that none of the other mayors thought this was absurd?
i agree with eric, i think that its wrong for him to say that but then again his high rank like in many other societies gives people in those high positions the power to bend the law or act in ways that if someone with less power would, then they would get punished but because they are "above the law" they can do whatever they want.
In the play, John Frog is first condemned for being pregnant but after the birth, the mayors accept him and dance along with John Frog and his newborn son. Does this have anything to do with his real life? Because in 1636, he was arrested for sodomy, but then was released from jail without the authorities conducting an investigation.
The fact that John Frog questioned the legitimacy of his child was confusing for me. I understand that John Frog is unsure who else the child belongs to because he doesn't know how he got pregnant, but obviously the child is his since he came out of him. So why does John Frog do this?
Also, the entire play seems unrealistic to me because of John Frog's political status. It doesn't seem as though a similar situation would occur if John Frog were just an average man. To what extent does power trump "crime"?
From Berrueco's words, "What makes it an even more incriminating, perverse, heinous and grave crime(and let no one think I'm exaggerating) is that John Flog makes a better woman than a man." we all know that John was accused not of his pregnancy but of his feminine behaviors. From description of his wife, I find that his wife was like a man, instead of a woman.
Here comes a problem, John Flog was charged with his inappropriate behaviors for gender, but his wife wasn't. Why could this happen?
Both John Frog and Portrait of a Monster, leave the reader with a message in their very last lines that suggest that women are not to be trusted. The author of John Frog states that the only advantage for men giving birth is that they would be able to guarantee the child is their own. Both stories seem to believe that women will lie to men in order to use them. How widely accepted was this portrayal of women at this time?
I have a question about the reading on John Frog. Although the Berrueco and other people had made harsh comments on the pregnancy of John Forg. However, at the end, they joined John to celebrate the birth. Did this imply that male pregnancy might not be unacceptable in the public's opinion?
ReplyDelete(in response to Chenyan):
ReplyDeleteI think that change in attitude at the end was a way to bash on women. Although the idea of a pregnant man was not socially acceptable, it was not completely negative because the man gave birth to another man who was essentially a duplicate or mini-me of the father. Because the father was certain that he was the father, and women are sometimes uncertain of who the father is, John Frog's pregnancy turned out to be not such a bad thing at all. To me, this was just another way to emphasize that women can not be trusted as much as men in anything, even pregnancy.
My question is that compared to the reading "Portrait of a Monster," where the first instinct was to blame the ex-girlfriend, why was it not the first instinct of the Mayors to blame the wife? Even more, why is it that they stood up for her so she did not have to be tortured? What shifted in the social norms between the two texts that allowed for less hasty and harsh punishments for women?
It is known that in the past, women did majority of the housework. I noticed that in John Frog Gives Birth this idea gets reinforced when Court Clerk states that John did all the “housework: the sweeping, scrubbing, cooking-and he even did errands”. Do you think kids born in the twenty first century will have this way of thinking as well? I know people born in the twentieth century joke around about it, meaning the idea still exists.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't know about the reading is why all the mayors seem to be attacking each other. Additionally, there are many lower-body or sexual allusions that are used by the mayors in the passage. It seems the play is trying to make an atmosphere of irony and ridicule. All the mayors seem to be rude and stupid. Does it mean the author actually wants to convey that it is legitimate for men to give birth???(Since at the end of the play, all the mayors join in the celebration of the baby.)
ReplyDeleteThe character of John Frog displayed effeminate qualities in his performances and used practices such as male cross-dressing, inversion of sexual roles, and allusions to gay sexuality in the period from 1617 to 1672. Even though his audiences mostly laughed at his theatrics, to what degree was John Frog's actions beneficial or detrimental to the definition of "gender" in society, keeping in mind that his performances implied the notion that men and women could possess qualities from the opposite gender?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Lanini Sagredo's play, Berrucco states that it wouldn't be "so incredible that [Frog] got pregnant since he did what she should have done". Do you think that the idea that 'feminine activities', such as house work and cleaning, if completed habitually, were enough to impregnate a male, was commonly believed?
ReplyDeleteThe reading on "John Frog Gives Birth" says, "Let it be known to all that, John Frog is in no way a real man, he is publicly shamed in women's clothing". Basically, women in the reading do not consider John Frog as a man because of such an unexpected gender role. Since when did we get to have a particular gender roles for males and females? It would be organized if the society merely follow the preset rules on gender roles. However, every time when get out of the box, why do we deserve to be ridiculed?
ReplyDeleteIn the play, "John Frog Gives Birth", I thought it was very weird how right after the child is born, he is talking and dancing. Is it just me or was it actually weird?
ReplyDeleteWell, the 'unknown' is Prerna Agarwal. Strange why it is behaving funny!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading John Frog Gives Birth I came up with a few questions. One in particular, strikes from the last line that John Frog states, " if men gave birth, it would be a great thing- since they were be certain of all their offspring." My question to this quote is that John Frog degrading women by implying that women are portrayed as untrustworthy, and only cause confusion to a males life?
ReplyDeleteIn the reading "John Frog Gives Birth," the mayors and the clerk at first were all condemning John for being pregnant, and they said that he is not a real man. However, the mayors and the clerk end up helping him to deliver the baby and celebrating. It is nice to see them sympathize with Frog when they see him in labor pains. My question is when this play suppose to be taken? John Frog is practically the wife in the marriage. He does all the housework, and his wife is the one who wears pants. The concept of this doesn't seem to exist until late 20th century.
ReplyDeleteLike Alan stated above, the line " if men gave birth, it would be a great thing-since they would be certain of all of their offspring" interested me. This line in particular interested me because in another course we discussed, paternal uncertainty which states that most me are usually uncertain if their children are actually theirs. It is interesting that this feeling has been going on for many years and was mentioned in John Frog. Is the "cure" for paternal uncertainty for men to give birth, like John Frog?
ReplyDeleteMy main question came more from Berrueco than Juan Rana. I wanted to take a look at the comment where the narrator noted, "Berrueco, it would seem, considers Juan Rana's pregnancy to be logical under tehse inverted circumstances." This is basically saying that Berrueco is OK with Juan Rana's condition because he is acting like a female, therefore receiving female treatment. In a society that has such strict gender roles, I was wondering how Berrueco was allowed to say something like this and not be questioned? Was it because of his high rank that none of the other mayors thought this was absurd?
ReplyDeletei agree with eric, i think that its wrong for him to say that but then again his high rank like in many other societies gives people in those high positions the power to bend the law or act in ways that if someone with less power would, then they would get punished but because they are "above the law" they can do whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteIn the play, John Frog is first condemned for being pregnant but after the birth, the mayors accept him and dance along with John Frog and his newborn son. Does this have anything to do with his real life? Because in 1636, he was arrested for sodomy, but then was released from jail without the authorities conducting an investigation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that John Frog questioned the legitimacy of his child was confusing for me. I understand that John Frog is unsure who else the child belongs to because he doesn't know how he got pregnant, but obviously the child is his since he came out of him. So why does John Frog do this?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the entire play seems unrealistic to me because of John Frog's political status. It doesn't seem as though a similar situation would occur if John Frog were just an average man. To what extent does power trump "crime"?
- Merry Chin
From Berrueco's words, "What makes it an even more incriminating, perverse, heinous and grave crime(and let no one think I'm exaggerating) is that John Flog makes a better woman than a man." we all know that John was accused not of his pregnancy but of his feminine behaviors. From description of his wife, I find that his wife was like a man, instead of a woman.
ReplyDeleteHere comes a problem, John Flog was charged with his inappropriate behaviors for gender, but his wife wasn't. Why could this happen?
Both John Frog and Portrait of a Monster, leave the reader with a message in their very last lines that suggest that women are not to be trusted. The author of John Frog states that the only advantage for men giving birth is that they would be able to guarantee the child is their own. Both stories seem to believe that women will lie to men in order to use them. How widely accepted was this portrayal of women at this time?
ReplyDelete