Lysistrata, I am sure, can be interpreted in several
ways, but the two main, possible reasons for the play, to me, is rather a push
for women power or feminism or maybe it is just for entertainment as a light-hearted
war comedy. During the time that the play
was set there was no actual power for women and I imagine that those who
watched or read the play considered it absurd for a woman to settle a war. It would seem to me, with the shallow
understanding of the text and time period that I have, it was more for
entertainment than to start a political debate.
However, the feminist view point cannot be ignored which leads us to question
the role of Lysistrata. If we operate
under the impression that it is a pro-feminism play, then why is the main lead
female character unlike the majority of women and the resolution to war so
irrational? Lysistrata is clearly not
married, and is not ever really involved in the action. When the Chorus of
Women are in the Acropolis, Lysistrata was not involved in the taking of the
Acropolis nor is she involved in the sex strike that she designed and convinced
the women of many neighboring towns to do.
She purposely sets herself apart from these other women. Even when she speaks, she is more tactful
than the others. The Chorus of Women
resort to bashing and threats when confronted by the men, but Lysistrata always
spoke with a calm, calculated confidence.
What sets her apart as different from the other women is the same factor
that causes respect not only from the women, but from the men as well. Myrrhine actually does exactly as she says
when her husband comes around and when the Spartans and the Athenians get
together they call on Lysistrata to make the terms of the treaty. I believe that if this play was truly for
feminism that the lead female character would have more of a common background. Instead she is shown in the light more of a
male character of the time period with her dominance and demanding personality
without actually being involved in the action, but sitting back and more
directing it. I feel as if it was more
written as entertainment for this reason along with the absurdity of ending war
with the withdrawal of sex. If it was
written for a push for feminism, I feel as if a more serious and realistic
conflict would be necessary.
The two opposite purposes you ascribe to comedy (either it's rallying for women's rights or it's mocking the premise entirely) are a great way to consider the larger cultural context in which the drama was performed. I also find how you acknowledge the limitation of your critical perspective especially encouraging. By pointing out what you are unsure of, you indicate to yourself and others in which direction you need to go next.
ReplyDelete"Instead she is shown in the light more of a male character of the time period with her dominance and demanding personality without actually being involved in the action, but sitting back and more directing it." When I read this line and how you mentioned she had no husband, I felt a bit disturbed by Lysistrata's character. It made me think why in the world is she doing all that to end war. Yes, the males get to spend more time with females after the war, yet she has no husband or lover. To me, this play was secretly implying women should take the roles as mother figures, good housewives, or enticing sex partners, so I also didn't see it as a push for feminism, too. Lysistrata "wasn't involved" in being any of those roles. (After reading your post, it feels kind of creepy to me for a woman to preach such things yet not participate.) Perhaps, Aristophanes created her character for humor seeing as it might have "absurd" during his time for a lead female character, OR maybe he created her to act as a role model for women in the audience, NOT to act as strong leader, but to preach what she wanted: end of war of so that males and females can spend some quality time together assuming their status quo roles where everyone is satisfied. (housewife role for females)
ReplyDelete