A Feminist Bard?

It's nearly impossible to take any figure, public or private, and declare them unproblematically feminist. For one, people are multifaceted and contradictory within themselves, and hardly ever conform to one ethical ideal. On top of that, the accepted definition of 'feminist' has morphed enough since its creation that it can be difficult to pin down exactly what the qualifications are, never mind whether all self-declared feminists will agree on whatever you decide.

Of course, people try to declare each other feminists anyway. Sometimes most people agree on a verdict; Laverne Cox is a feminist, Bill O'Reilly is not. More often, particularly with historical figures who are too dead to directly ask, there is some contention. Shakespeare is a fine example of the latter, and it's doubtful that critics will ever totally agree.

Feminism as we know it today was not even a twinkle in the eye of Elizabethan writers. Our understanding of gender has progressed astronomically in the four hundred years separating Shakespeare and bell hooks. Asking what Shakespeare thought of the construction and deconstruction of heteronormative gender binaries is a moot point; the thought as we think it would never have occurred to him. There was no word for heteronormativity in Elizabethan England, it just was.

Calling Shakespeare a feminist is a bit like calling Socrates a communist; it's more than a little anachronistic. Still, taken in the context of his time, Shakespeare can certainly be read as an advocate for gender equality and transgression – a sort of proto-feminist, an early example for later creators to follow. His separation from the words and theories we have today doesn't preclude a relatively radical view of gender and sexuality reflected in his work.

Analysis of ideals in Shakespeare's work that could translate to an analogue of feminism requires presumption of authorial intent, which is, particularly on its own, a questionable method of critique. However, with historical context taken into account, it's possible to make guesses at the way a typical audience of the time would have perceived his work – and, therefore, to make even more abstract guesses at the sort of reactions he might have attempted to provoke with particular plots or lines. And though nearly every play he wrote ended in a reversion to heteronormative standards, the meandering queerness of the meat of his plays suggests at least a passing interest in transgressing gendered expectations.

Would Shakespeare have ascribed to generalized 'feminist' ideals were he alive today? It's impossible to know, but his work says maybe.

"All's Well That Ends Well & Gender Constraints in the Workplace"

 Helen in Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well is a strong, intelligent, and goal-oriented woman. In order to get the man that she loves and move up the ranks in society, she is willing to do whatever it takes. In the beginning of the play we get the King of France that is dying of a fistula, and all the male physicians can’t seem to find a cure for him. Helen, the late daughter of a doctor, and taken in by Bertram’s mother, is able to gain an audience with the king to deliver a cure in exchange for the means to marry whomever she wishes. What is hard core about Helen is that she is willing to sacrifice her life, if the cure does not work, and that she is unapologetic in her abilities to obtain her goals. This of course, our “dear” Bertram has a serious problem with. What I found interesting is the exchange between Helen and the King when she is trying to convince him to accept her father’s cure. One would think that the King would be up for anything in order to live, but this is not the case. The King blatantly admits that her credibility as a physician is considerably less to non-existent due to her gender. When Lafeu enters and addresses the King, he notifies him that there is someone there that can cure him, it is the king that automatically assumes that the physician is male.

            This kind of sentiment is nothing new. Since the nineteenth century women have been fighting for the rights of women, and the destruction of female gender constraints.  Gender inequality in the workplace has been a long struggle for women trying to break into a male dominated arena. This is especially true in the field of medicine. “The entrance of women into American medical practice during the mid-nineteenth century was a direct outgrowth of the social reform movements that characterized the period.” – http://www.hws.edu  the early female physicians faced many struggles in order to achieve success and acceptance. This is still a problem for women and the LGBTQA in the workplace. Females in male dominated professions still make less money on the dollar to their male counterparts, and members of the LGBTQA are harassed in the workplace, and denied jobs based on their sexuality. This is evident in All’s Well That Ends Well. In 2.1 of the play Lafeu has to remark on Helen’s qualifications and credibility, and makes it seem like a major accomplishment considering that she is female. “With one that in her sex, her years, profession.” (2215) Even though Helen is not a physician herself, she is obviously intelligent enough to interpret her father’s work, and deliver a cure to the king. The king tells Helen that he is not going to put his trust in her ability when all the male doctors before her that are among the Assembled College of Physicians (2215) have declared that medicine cannot beat nature, and that he fully expects her to fail (2216). Helen hearing this tells the King that she is willing to put her life on the line, and offers up her price for healing him.  If it had been another male who had offered a cure to the King and the price would have been a wife, and not a husband, it is Bertram that would have received no resistance, and Helen would have submitted to being a prize against her wishes.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge."

While reading Titus Andronicus, I couldn't help but think of the television show Revenge. Both the play and the television series are essentially centered around a woman's thirst for vengeance, despite being presented as the typical tale of the epic hero's fall.

In Titus Andronicus, the play really gets going after Tamora's son is killed. Pretty much everything that happens - Lavinia's rape, Bassianus's murder, etc. - is a result of Tamora's desire for revenge. Similarly in Revenge, Emily Thorne (the character around whom the show is centered) is somewhat of a Tamora figure who is determined to avenge the supposed framing and murder of her father. It is very interesting to see how both Emily and Tamora are either presented or perceived (by people in their respective fictional realms, and outside those realms) as psychotic, villainous characters.

However, what I appreciate about Revenge is that instead of forcing Emily to fit into a Madonna/whore binary, the show allows her character to have depth and complexity - just like a real woman does. Emily can be conniving and ruthless, but no matter what kind of twisted things she does, she still has her humanity. Instead of painting Emily as a woman who is evil to the core, the show places the emphasis on her actions - and not all of her actions are bad. Emily is frequently depicted showing remorse for those that she injuries on her quest for revenge, including people who have betrayed her.

On the other hand, Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus, doesn't afford Tamora much humanity. By contrasting Tamora with the angelic Lavinia, Shakespeare presents Tamora as the "whore". Not once does she seem like an actual human being - she's just a fair-skinned devil.

Perhaps if Tamora's character was given more humanity (such as in Julie Taymor's film interpretation of the play), I would've enjoyed the play more.

This all led me to think about the reason that we still have so many strict gender binaries even though we are centuries past Shakespeare's time. If women are constantly being presented in literature and pop culture as either vindictive wenches or virginal paragons of virtue, then that's what people will expect women to be. Revenge (even with their many flaws) are a step in the right direction.

 It is a bit sad that we aren't at a place where we can see ridiculous representations of women and critique them or understand the irony behind those representations, but shows like

Until our society is at a point where it is the norm for female characters to be portrayed with the same complexity as male characters, I'll take solace in the fact that it's the genius female characters like Emily and Tamora who are responsible for some epic revenge.