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." )

Misogyny in Lysistrata

In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, the idea of matriarchy, as well as female power as an independent force, is completely rebuked throughout the duration of the play. The idea that women are attempting to control the fate of Greece is inherently ridiculous to the male chorus members; their rebuttals dismiss women on the basis that their sex is inferior, and that women are refusing to fulfill their duties as wives. “What a catastrophe--MATRIARCHY...I’ll teach these women not to trouble us” Although these remarks are accurate, the blatant misogyny of Ancient Greece is as enlightening, as it is unsettling. The idea that women might actively seek to control one aspect of the governing forces in their world is hilarious to Aristophanes’ audience because the socially accepted norm for women in Ancient Greece was to remain in the home and exert their influence over their husbands in a slight, yet significant way, that might convince them to act differently in public. 

Even though this play is a comedy, it addresses serious issues, as many comedies tend to do, such as women's roles and the power vacuum between the sexes in Ancient Greece. Ultimately the entire play boils down to a humorous battle of the sexes, but this battle highlights the roles of women in Ancient Greece. Women were expected to remain in the home and leave political action to the men in society, even if they were leading their entire civilization over the cliff of destruction because of the lure of war and glory. 

The evolution of women’s rights and roles has shaped history, just as Lysistrata and her followers shaped the course of the ongoing, fictional war. Whilst men have attempted to withstand the development of active roles of women throughout history, clinging to their ‘traditions’ as the chorus of men cling to their creed: “I won’t be ployed to revise, re-do, amend, extend, or bring to an end my irreversible credo: Misogyny Forever!”

Lysistrata - A Breakdown of Her Characteristics and Traits

In this play, women were originally portrayed as the husband's helper, rather than their equal. Every day, women start their mornings by fussing over their man, waking up the maid and taking care of the baby. Every woman is taught to accept their place in the society, except for Lysistrata who believes that there are more important matters to attend to. At this point, Lysistrata was already revealed as a mature woman with unconventional thoughts. She then goes on to reveal her plot of stopping the war. Although initially faced with suspicion and rejection, Lysistrata’s idea is eventually accepted by everyone, showing that she had both the wisdom and charisma to lead her people. When the gates of the Akropolis are finally opened, Lysistrata came out to greet the men only to be threatened by the Commissioner and the police. Instead of running back inside the city, she warns whoever tried to hurt her that she is not afraid to fight back. When more archers are thrown at her, Kleonike and Myrrhine are willing to risk their lives protecting her. This proves that Lysistrata is brave and a well-loved leader. When asked of her plans by the Commissioner, Lysistrata described her intentions of smoothing the relationship between both sides, cleansing the city of corruptions, get rid of people who doesn’t mean well to the city and pulling their men back from war. This demonstrated that Lysistrata is wise and well-versed in politics. When a few of her comrades are attempting escape from the city into the arms of their husbands, Lysistrata is alert enough to separate the truths from the lies and had no problems keeping the women in the city. And most importantly, Lysistrata make such a huge deal at stopping the war by getting all the women to abstain from sex because she is a compassionate person who hates to see misery and despair around her. By getting all the men back from war, there would never be deaths and losses to cry about.

Lysistrata: Who run the world? GIRLS

For me, the most relevant part of Lysistrata is the idea that women have the ability to run countries better and more effectively than men.

"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...