"Our lips we kept tied, though aching with silence, though well all the while in our silence we knew
How wretchedly everything still was progressing by listening dumbly the day long to you.
... What, dear, was said in the Assembly today?
'Mind your own business,' he'd answer me growlingly 'hold your tongue, woman, or else go away.'"
In the age when this play was written, women had no real say in the government and by extension war decisions so a coup would be plausible (relatively plausible.) But women were hardly the only ones who didn't have a say in the government so the lack of men defecting lessened my enjoyment of the play.
Fast-forward to right now, women are by no means shut out of politics but still many think that more representation in government is needed. Advocates for this often cite statistics (like only 298 women have served in the U.S. House or Senate) but I have yet to read an article that demonstrates political competence is tied to a certain set of genitalia. I hear almost everyday something along the lines of 'we need more women in politics' but rarely do I hear 'alright. how do we make that happen? how should education about politics be taught to women?' The answer to that is, of course, the same way it is taught to men. For once, show me a poll of the difference in interest in politics between genders.
So the thing that irks me about 'equal' representation today also irks me about this play. Were women the only ones who wanted the war to end? Are men the only ones who should be involved in politics? Of course not. The people that make important political decisions should be the ones who have the knowledge to make them competently. A government run completely by one gender is likely to be oppressive of the other and as for the politics of a women-dominated government...
When everyone starts ignoring gender, race, social status, and religion - when people actually want the 'best person for the job' to have the job, then our cities, states, and even countries will be advanced beyond belief. I love the concept, but I wonder if this can ever really happen.
ReplyDeleteAll week, the news has been about the female GM CEO, and the female Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The feminist in me wants to gloat, but the businesswoman in me wants to say, "why does it matter"? Why does gender have to take over that conversation?
The introduction and the (many) footnotes gave the impression that the play was, in a way, about the first women's movement. On p. 465 there's a footnote that says, "Aristophanes needed a Chorus of Men... so old that they would first see the Women's Revolt, not in terms of sex, but of politics." Which is all sort of its own topic, but primarily the words Women's Revolt are used -- capitalized, even.
ReplyDeleteSo I think this play is about a fight for equality. Just like you said, "A government run completely by one gender is likely to be oppressive of the other." I don't believe Lysistrata was looking for domination, necessarily (like many of the men believed), but equal opportunity. Yes, the women were at times harsh and overly critical of their male counterparts, but don't the oppressed often think ill of their oppressors?
That is a very helpful footnote, and it brings me to an important question. To what extent is the play about political equality and to what extent is it about political inclusion? We'll work on an answer in class!
DeleteOne things that bothers me is that even when a woman does get into power, a big thing everybody wants to talk about is her appearance. I get very tired of hearing about Hilary Clinton's pantsuits and how her hair looked when she got off a plane somewhere. It really shouldn't matter what is worn, but as long as they get a good job done. Nobody hears all about a male politican's suit, for instance.
ReplyDelete