Lysistrata- Debunking the Presence of a Feminist Agenda

          As some have by now surely pointed out, Lysistrata might appear to the modern audience to have a somewhat feminist/pro-matriarchal agenda, as admittedly was also my initial impression. However, it surely cannot be so, and I would argue that the purpose of the play was surely more satire than feminist-agenda. There are two details in the play that, when they are compared with what I would consider the typical feminist agenda, reveal inconsistencies in the plot that don't allow for the presence of such an agenda. Let me clarify: these particular inconsistencies are not criticisms of the plot itself; on the contrary, I thought it was amusing. However, if one is looking at the play through the lens of the feminist agenda, the faults become increasingly evident as the play proceeds.

           In the ancient world, nearly all societies were considered patriarchal, which means that things were both run and done in a very masculine regard. Wars were a source of revenue, men were the only ones given the privilege of serving in the military, and in almost all cases, were the exclusive subjects of artwork, literature, and history. (There were a few exceptions, granted, such as in the case of Hypatia, the mistress of Pericles, but they were so few in number in comparison that little is left to doubt as to the presence of strong record-favorability.) The Greeks regarded the female forms as “defective males,” possibly even going so far as to suggest the birth of a woman the result of improper heating of the growing child in the womb of the mother. (Coincidentally, they could have attributed womankind’s seemingly eternal state of “It’s freezing in here” to this idea.) They even had a term for the perfection and idealization of the male existence, called Arȇte. It should be noted, however, that in Greek society, women had more rights than they had ever had before in almost the entirety of human history, but it still wasn't anywhere close to the level of modern-day gender-equality that we experience. The point to be made is this: even at this time in history, Greek playwrights certainly weren’t going to write for women. At the same time, they probably wouldn't seriously suggest, and to a largely male audience at that, that women could run the government better than the men; that suggestion wouldn’t fall in line with the opinions of the age, and certainly wouldn't have garnered much of an audience.

If that didn't convince you, let's take a look at the whole point of the feminine agenda. Most would argue that in a work designed to promote the favorability of women over men in the making of ancient-world political decisions, it would be unwise to give the audience any reason to believe that the smart, strong-willed women protagonists had any kind of defining trait, or motivation, that they shared with their baboon-like, sexually-driven male counterparts. However, in the play, the reasoning behind the beginning of the coup-de-etat spawned from what seemed to be a very masculine issue: sexual starvation. Now, don’t get me wrong, both men and women obviously have basic, biological desires for certain kinds of… relief… but the idea of sexual starvation is one that most people commonly associate with men, simply because men have a higher sex-drive, on average, than women do. (Don’t believe me? Comedians joke about this subject all the time, there are segments of the Bible that discuss the issue of wives denying their husbands, and so on and so forth.) In my opinion, to give the women this very masculine motivation for their scheme in the first place would seem to undermine their femininity, and by extension, also the potential for a feminist agenda.

           My opinion as to the purpose of this play is possibly a little more sarcastic than it would appear in the modern world. I think the play served as a method by which the author wanted to show that things in the Greek government were getting so bad regarding war that a bunch of women could do things better. It would be like saying “A bunch of five-year-olds could run this university better…” In this case, the women merely serve as the placeholder for anything “less than” a Greek man and his Athenian government. The sexual motives in the play? Merely a vessel (and one that certainly everyone in the audience can easily understand) by which the point can be delivered to the audience: we want these stupid wars to end.

(Disclaimer: I happen to love women, and approach feminism the same way I approach masculism: they're both ridiculous and backward. Men and women were intended to exist in harmony. My pastor said once that "Women are better than men... at being women. And men are better than women... at being men." )

Lysistrata- Political satire at its finest….

I think this play is interesting from a female perspective, because my initial reaction was that the play sounds sympathetic to women and feminism. In truth, if taken in the history and context at the time Lysistrata was written, it is the opposite of a feminist work. The idea that a woman would conspire to go against her husband or any man was absurd. In today’s terms, this play would be a comedy of epic proportions, because the events in the play are so ridiculous to Athens men, that they thought it was hilarious in 411 B.C. This reminds me of the movie Cats and Dogs, where the humans are portrayed as the sub-intelligent species, compared to the highly intelligent canines and felines. I also think it is important to remember that this play would have been performed by all males, so you can imagine men, pretending to be women, telling other men pretending to be women, how great their butt looks . . . very comical when you think about it.

The leading lady, Lysistrata, states at the very beginning that there are no more men left in Athens, because if there was a true man, the war would be ended. The underlying idea that a woman could end the war, because there were no real men, was a political jab to the ruling men of Athens by Aristophanes, the author of the comedy, who wrote this play during the Peloponnesian War being fought between Athens and Sparta. The idea presented in the play that if the money was cut off from the men, this might end the war, and that women could budget better than the Athens men--showed clear underlying frustrations that the money was being mishandled by the men at war, and even women could do better.

I believe this play is more political, rather than gender related. Aristophanes portrays most of the women as weak, inferior, senseless and preoccupied—these things would all be in keeping with a stereotypical female in 411 B.C. from a male’s point of view. Aristophanes was saying that even a female could do better than what our government is doing. Ironically, many times they can. Even though this writing was meant to be funny and absurd, I bet there were still women who were impacted by some of the ideas presented in this play. 

Something else I thought was very funny—Lampito , the Spartan girl, was portrayed as the ‘hillbilly’ of all the women. It was amusing to me that I had no trouble at all reading her dialect in the story. 

Lysistrata: Lysistrata and Comedy vs. Feminism

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.