Shakespeare the Feminist
Now, you might be reading that title and going “What the? Shakespeare came from an age steeped in chauvinism and treating women like property.” People in a class I took in university thought he was particularly hard on women. Lady Macbeth gets cited as an example, because she asks that her feminity be taken away so she can commit murder. Hamlet’s Ophelia commits suicide, so does Juliet, and Cordelia (of King Lear) and Lavinia (of Titus Andronicus) are treated even more harshly.
So how is he a feminist?
Through subversion. Shakespeare is a sneaky writer. Almost every single one of his contemporaries spent time in prison for criticizing English rulers, government and tradition. It was really easy to end up in trouble for such views, or for religious heresy. You had to be very, very careful. Shakespeare found a way around it. The illusionist’s trick of “the hand being quicker than the eye” and diverting your attention elsewhere while he pulls off a “magic” trick.
When Shakespeare wanted to criticize English traditions, he showed them in a play about Rome, like Titus. Because England had ties to Rome historically, and admired and emulated their culture. They were an Empire too. He couldn’t get in trouble for mocking England, because England never got mentioned in the play. How do I know that Will liked subversion? Because of his plays. Hamlet in particular talks about the power of plays, wearing masks, and manipulating people. In King Lear, Edgar disguises himself as Tom of Bedlam, and passes honesty off as insanity. The Fool in Lear is also an honest character, whom no one takes seriously because of his role. Shakespeare was essentially saying “I can be as honest as I like, within a play, because you won’t believe it. You’ll think I’m merely playing.” But, all the time, an audience’s minds are absorbing information and ideas, and brains don’t know the difference between truth and lies, sarcasm and fact. They just absorb information, it’s up to the conscious person to interpret ideas later. But they’re still absorbed.
So, what does that have to do with feminism? That’s actually easier to prove, than my little theory about Shakespeare enjoying hiding things in the text. It’s quite simple. Cordelia is brutally killed, Ophelia pushed into depression, Juliet forced to kill herself, and Lavinia has things done to her that no one should ever read about. The audience may or may not have cared, on a societal level. Women were treated as property all the time. But two things happen in Shakespeare’s plays. You are deliberately led to feel sympathy for characters in tragedies, for one thing. You mourn Juliet and Cordelia, you feel sad for Ophelia and Lavinia. You care. That’s the first thing, and it’s easy for a modern audience.
Such empathy might not have been easy for a male-dominated British society. However, here’s the second thing: Shakespeare’s actors were men. So his audiences might or might not think “hey, she’s a girl, who cares what happens to her?” Or, maybe they still felt bad. But in their brains, their unconscious minds would go like this:
“Hey, Juliet’s a guy! (of course, it sounded more like Elizabethan English, I’m paraphrasing). You can’t abuse a guy! Lavinia’s a man! You can’t attack or rape a dude! That’s not proper behaviour! Someone should start a duel! That’s unacceptable for honour, for justice, for society!” Their brains would pull a switch. Unconsciously, if it’s wrong to hurt a man, even when they’re playing a woman, then maybe it’s wrong to hurt a woman, too. And so society begins to shift.
Of course, it helped that Queen Elizabeth was around and liked the plays. When the head of your male society is female, things have to start changing a little.
Why am I bringing this up? A) I like Shakespeare and studied him a lot. B) I’m subversive too. On the surface, No Man an Island is an adventure fantasy with some spiritual and religious themes. On deeper levels, it’s addressing things that I think are errors in theology and churches and people’s perspectives. I do it subtly. I also use traditional writing tricks about characterization and plot, and subtly use them in new ways to trick readers with preconceptions, until I ultimately lead them towards the truth in the story.
Want an example? 188. Rewind – Literature Debate is a great example of what I’m talking about. Sonja criticizes the “Special Child Syndrome” in literature, like Harry Potter being a special orphan with a destiny. Well, Ethan comes across as one of those in much of the story. There’s even a prophecy about it. But everyone’s story makes that individual special to themselves, and if they become aware of it, you get an Everyman story, which is a very different thing.
I’m sneaky. That’s what I like best about Shakespeare.
i agree. one of the things that we take for granted is perspective. in shakespeare’s time, he really revolutionized the female character, making her more than just some flat, waif-like extra. making you care for juliet, as you say, was something that audiences previous – and writers too – could not do (if they did it, then it certainly wasn’t done as well, and i think that this is one of the reasons that we still read his works hundreds of years later). i look at some of his female characters (the older ones like lady macbeth, not necessarily juliet and the like) and am kind of surprised that, in context, they really can appear to be stronger, intelligent women compared to what our idea of where women must’ve stood in those times. i can imagine that had he used another more obvious technique his works would not have been as readily embraced.
Wow, thanks mplimasol! That’s one of the fastest comments I’ve ever had on a post. And much appreciated.
Re:”Now, you might be reading that title and going “What the?” Shakespeare came from an age steeped in chauvinism and treating women like property.” I don’t agree. That’s a recent view found (created?) in university English departments. Earlier generations of readers understood Shakespeare in an entirely different way — and understood women with rather more complexity also.
You’re absolutely right, Aletha. I should have moved my quotation mark, to indicate that. Shakespeare’s age wasn’t what people make it sound like, and his era wasn’t so black and white.
This post came about because people in my class went on about patriarchy and that Shakespeare was supporting it: but a close reading of his text proves that wasn’t so.
More obviously, you have the strong and savvy female charactors like Portia in The Merchant of Venice, coming to the rescue of her man.
Problematically, there’s also The Taming of the Shrew : classic male domination fantasy.
Can’t really pigeonhole him.
The “taming of the shrew” really illustrates my point. It starts as a play within a play: which highlights to the audience that Kate is being played by a man. Her subsequent mistreatment throughout the play would lead to the male dominated society thinking simultaneously about the fantasy AND the fact that it is being inappropriately force onto a male figure, thereby subverting the fantasy and making it apparent that no one should ever be dominated.
See? Sneaky.