Shakespeare Fans discussion

Shakespeare often challenged gender roles norms (Macbeth and Lady M; Romeo, Beatrice...)
Can we just analyze that here please?

Great idea, Stephanie. I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, so it would sure be interesting to start a discussion. Count me in.
But where do we start? And who else would like to join us? That is the question.

I really want to discuss the challenges that Shakespeare posed when it comes to gender roles.

(Please help me, this kind of thing is also new to me and I would love to hear people's thought on that.)

Glad you'd like to join in, Listra! But I'm afraid this thread looks a little lifeless ...

I like to go in more on this, here is a little from my review of Othello:

"[An] aspect of this play that I picked-up on and felt acutely aware of was the role of women in this play. Now Shakespeare plays have always shown that they can have strong female characters, but this play seems to, for me, comment on the lack of power or independence that they have. The women are keenly aware of this, despite what the men want to believe about them as Emilia explains: "They are all but stomachs, and we all but food; To eat us hungerly, and when they are full, they belch us." Desdemona, naturally, suffers the most from this way of life as she is used as an object throughout the whole play, she is a trophy for her father and Othello, and Rodrigo, and a very apt pawn for Iago. The exploitation is very cold and One never really sees Desdemona find her "voice", though Emilia often speaks up for women in this play even though she was also unwittingly used by her husband Iago. In the end Desdemona was, as Gail Simone might say, aptly led to be stuffed in Othello's refrigerator."

Desdemona is the only one who remains virtuous though, isn't she? She remains true to Othello in spite of the evidence, and while her actions may seem sacrificial, she is the only character at the end of the play who can "rest in peace". Not so much the others. To me, that makes her a powerful character.

Dear Cleo,

Seeing Desdemona's power expressed in her integrity strikes me as insightful for her and the play overall. In that light, male power, the obvious power in the play, actually serves as weakness a lack of integrity. Emilia speaks out her own lack of integrity which she expresses after the tragedy unfolds. I rarely respond to postings, but yours deserves recognition. I have known this play well, and you have shown me a new and enlightening insight. Thank you.

This is a fascinating topic!

I have been doing some research lately and it seems to me that Shakespeare was quite obsessed with gender roles. I have never seen so much cross dressing in the repertoire of any author, ever! Considering the fact that woman actresses were not allowed on the stage, I always wondered if all the crossdressing females were a natural offshoot of the fact that the 'females' were actually being played by crossdressing men? Perhaps Will was amused by this? I am sure he had a great sense of humor.

He certainly gave his woman substantial roles and speeches, moreso that any of his contemporaries. I always figured he had to be a little ahead of his time. Characters such as Viola and Portia, for example, were really the voices of reason and logic (a quality traditionally attributed to men, especially in Shakespeare's time.)

I see that this discussion is a bit slow, I hope this may give food for thought and revive it :) Feel free to jump in with any thoughts or ideas!

What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women
Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

Here are some useful links...




http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/o...

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainabl...

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewc...

Gail Kern Paster is also a great place to begin a discussion or get some different, intense views on the body in Shakespeare...

http://www.amazon.com/Gail-Kern-Paste...

Great links, Candy! Thanks for posting.

There are, of course, all kinds of different ways we could define 'gender'. But in general and for the purpose of this discussion, I'd say Shakespeare was living in a time when the dividing lines were clearly set. Women -- passive, obedient, mothers, nurturers, dependents, fickle and 'weak'. Men -- aggressive, leaders, protectors, providers, independent, decisive and 'strong'.

Shakespeare turns these ideas upside-down in so many ways!

I liked the comparison of the three plays in the Jocelyn Crawley work. Shakespeare was trying to get at the fallacy of established gender roles. It has been noted before that Romeo and Juliet's suicides may be due in part to the fact that such a love -- or equality of man and woman -- could not yet be achieved in Elizabethan society. And 'Shrew' has been criticized for the subjugation of Kate. Shakespeare was perhaps commenting or even making fun of the whole institution of marriage as it then existed.

Shakespeare challenges the gender roles of his time, but also, it was an unusual time because of Queen Elizabeth herself! She was an unorthodox ruler. The idea of the female monarch who did not wed may have gotten the whole society more interested in so called gender roles. Also, despite the fact that Elizabeth took no husband and bore no heirs, she still managed to secure a stable military and economy for England, moreso than her male predecessors and those that followed!

A good deal of Shakespeare's popularity and his subsequent staying power may come from the unique way he was able to portray sex and gender roles.

I just wrapped up Julius Caesar, which is the most man-centric Shakespeare play I've taught. There's a scene in which Portia says that her mind is as strong as a man's, but she can't act because her heart is a woman's.

I frankly see it as Shakespeare saying that women are the weaker sex, but I'm interested in whether anyone has a less sexist interpretation.

Interesting question, Phil. Shakespeare's attitude to women seems to change over the course of the plays. Taming of the Shrew, one of the earliest, is notoriously sexist. Much Ado, in the middle, much less so. All's Well, a bit later, less so again - Helena is a highly assertive, intelligent woman who outwits the men. But factually women had less power, so they are weak in that sense, and the social convention that they are emotionally weaker may also weaken them in their own and the men's expectations. I think that's what's happening in Julius Caesar. But other Shakespearean women don't always bear that out -look at the fierce Queen Margaret in Henry VI (early play) or Regan and Goneril in King Lear (late play). However, the strong women in Shakespeare often feel they have to get want they want via manipulation of their husbands, like Lady Macbeth. That may be no more than a reflection of social reality of the time, or a barrier that even Shakespeare couldn't cross. I've analysed this in 'Shakespeare and Democracy' (Troubador, 2015).

Surely Portia is among his strongest? There is her death, and the way Brutus and Cassius speak of it.

The other Portia (Merchant) is fairly astounding too.

Portia manipulates Brutus well, with the on-her-knees thing and the speech about how strong she is, but then she kills herself off stage.

Interestingly, I saw a production of JC this week in which the actress was pregnant, so they just made Portia pregnant, too. I thought it brought an extra layer to her scenes.

Gabriel- Your post raises the question of whether Shakespeare was mirroring his times or questioning his times. Was he just showing gender roles as they were, or was he criticizing them?

There's a scene in Henry V in which King Henry threatens a town by saying that if they don't surrender peacefully, he will lose control of his soldiers and they will rape and kill everything that moves. I struggle with whether Shakespeare thought that was clever manipulation or a dirty trick.

Portia's suicide is heroic in the Roman way. She's a suitor to Brutus, similar to other suitors.

Bryn wrote: "Portia's suicide is heroic in the Roman way. She's a suitor to Brutus, similar to other suitors."

Can you expand on that? I figured she killed herself out of despair and isolation when he left town without her.

Phil wrote: "Bryn wrote: "Portia's suicide is heroic in the Roman way. She's a suitor to Brutus, similar to other suitors."

Can you expand on that? I figured she killed herself out of despair and isolation whe..."

Hmm, I see very differently. Don't Brutus and Cassius discuss her suicide in admiration -- these who are shortly to have to kill themselves upon defeat in battle; she has shown them the way. The way a Roman dies with honour in defeat, stoically. It follows on from her conversation with Brutus the night the conspirators visit him: she gashes her thigh to demonstrate her fortitude. Quite what injuring herself proves may be opaque to us, but Brutus, a Roman to his bones, understands it a display of her imperviousness to pain and her resolution. Again, she leads the way for him, who as yet is irresolute. Portia is a heroic wife, and twice leads the way with her physical courage and mental resolution.

That's why I find her among the strongest of Shakespearean women. I think the key is to listen to how the men speak of these acts of hers. They see them as acts for emulation, which put their own weaker resolution or doubts to shame. We can be led to interpret by our modern notions, so important that we notice how the people in the play interpret her behaviour.

Excuse me, my friend I do not have information about this work

I have always felt that Ophelia made a choice that was somewhat heroic too. I must think about how I want to write on that....because I do not believe suicide is heroic...or anything. But I feel when it comes to the community one lives in, with its rules, if it is oppressing....then I can understand why someone would choose to leave it.


I believe a lot of what we label as depression is actually forcing people who do not respond well to industrial patriarchies to fit in....and that is a kind of control system that takes a lot of submission to fit into and feel autonomous....or happy. I think these two women made a decision that the system wasn't right for them....and they actually could not think, live or function within the rules as they were set.

Candy -- yes, I agree -- the women could not fit into the structures society had set for them, and I think that was Shakespeare's clever point! :-)

I am reminded of the 90's movie Thelma and Louise (I highly rec for any who have not seen it!)

I really love Ophelia, her beautiful madness. I would add that perhaps Elizabethan society did not see death and suicide the way we see it. We are taught that it is the worst thing EVER, but these people -- in a highly religious society -- were taught that they reap all their rewards in Heaven. There was something of conscience and making peace with God, and of course you could always end up in the OTHER place ;-) But still, I think there was a deep belief of reaping rewards in Heaven.

Christine wrote: "We are taught that it is the worst thing EVER, but these people -- in a highly religious society -- were taught that they reap all their rewards in Heaven"

Even so, suicide was frowned upon immensely. This is why Hamlet soliloquises, wishing for death, and yet he cannot bring himself to commit the act because it is beyond sinful and shameful. There was belief in Protestantism that God had already decided who would and would not make it to heaven, but regardless of this no one wanted to risk their chances.

Alisha wrote: "Even so, suicide was frowned upon immensely. This is why Hamlet soliloquises, wishing for death, and yet he cannot bring himself to commit the act because it is beyond sinful and shameful ..."

Which begs the question -- Who was the brave one? Ophelia or Hamlet? Hehe :-)

And what of Gertrude? She drinks the poison -- a smart lady who must have indeed realized it WAS poison. Are Shakespeare's women braver than his men?

This is complicated. On one hand the sin of suicide and the other that heaven is a good place. I always wonder when there are such clusters of communities in the United States where fundamentalists believe heaven is better than life on earth why there aren't much more suicides. I believe the taboo is existing because suicide is such a temptation.


Life is hard work, and sometimes people are not nice...finding "tragic optimism" as Victor Frankl suggests or "radical acceptance" as Marsha Lineman suggests are options that I wonder if Opehlia or Hamlet could have benefitted by...and surely those psychological innovative philosophies are born out of the history of nihilism?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...

I think there is a logic in the minds of these few women....that it's a rigged system and to get out of it. Philosophical puzzle solving was bogged down by oppressive society in some ways. As it is also today....but people are trying to out-think oppressive cultures? That is what Hamelt was trying to do....and the only way he could find knowledge was by talking out loud....and creating art (the play within the play)

His positive action was talking to himself and writing a play...

Radical Acceptance looks hard. Tragic Optimism sounds hard too, unfortunately.

Regarding Fundamentalists -- I am pretty sure they consider suicide a major sin which would leave them no chance to get in Heaven. It is considered 'murder'.

I believe some cultures THINK, or act like (or pretend??) they are trying to out-think oppressive cultures, but in the end all cultures on earth are somewhat oppressive.

Candy, Christine, Alisha & co - great thinking, this is getting deep. I think Ophelia never gets to discover herself - pushed around by brother, father and (potential) lover in different ways, lacking a mother who might have been able to pass on female wisdom about handling men. I don't see her suicide as brave or perhaps even fully conscious, more of a dream-like helplessness. I also feel (speculatively) that Shakespeare may have been too busy exploring Hamlet to have given her much of a chance, compared with some of his other heroines who are also oppressed by the system but find ways to work around it or even outwit it - Beatrice in Much Ado, Paulina in Winter's Tale, Helena in All's Well. But the best comparison and antidote to Ophelia's suffering is in Two Noble Kinsmen, where a lower-class woman goes mad for an idiot nobleman but is brought out of it - by a doctor who prescribes sex before marriage to her true lower-class lover! But this part of it may have been by Fletcher, who showed elsewhere (in 'The Tamer Tamed') an expllcit wish to 'correct' Shakespeare's depiction of compliant women.

These are very thoughtful comments here.

Yes, I think all cultures are oppressive too Christine,in fact, that is how they work, by creating customs and taboos that hold a community together. I think the trick is that of having a benevolent priestess, or leader, or head of the group.

What a concept right now with U.S. election.....what we could use is a benevolent candidate to choose....is there one ? LOL

Candy wrote: "What a concept right now with U.S. election.....what we could use is a benevolent candidate to choose....is there one ? LOL ..."

Oh my, has there ever been a benevolent politician? Hmmmm. But don't ask me, I am far too cynical/ sour when it comes to politics :-)

Gabriel wrote: "Candy, Christine, Alisha & co - great thinking, this is getting deep. I think Ophelia never gets to discover herself - pushed around by brother, father and (potential) lover in different ways, lack..."

Looks like I've got some reading to do here! I still have not read 'Noble Kinsmen' nor "All's Well'. They both sound great!