Is Medea a feminist hero, or a sexist construct of a male playwright?
Contention: Medea is neither a feminist hero nor a sexist construct of a male playwright. While it is possible to interpret her revenge as a representation of female equality (especially in relation to power, influence etc), essentially her revenge is just that; a personal vengeance and not a championing of an ideological cause. Thus, these two are misreadings as in they overlook the fact that Medea 's gender disadvantage is utilised as a dramatic device to show the extent of her revenge rather than anything more symbolic to that end.
Para 1: Medea as the elemental and powerful woman; feminist hero
Para 2: Medea as the sexist construct of a male playwright (find evidence …show more content…
The play depicts its heroine as an "abomination", a monstrosity that kills her own kin in order to achieve her arguably selfish interests. Herself claiming that "nothing has a heart more murderous" than a woman "wrong(ed) in love", the protagonist 's actions throughout the play reflects more the work of a "master craftsmen in working evil” than that of an honourable proponent of gender equality, perhaps an indication that the playwright is correlating the elevation of women to "dreadful" consequences. This is furthermore reflected when the Chorus laments the "troubles" that have occurred due to the "love of women" - here, the playwright seems to be favouring the rational, "seasoned" outlook of Jason that maintains equilibrium in society, rather than the destructive feminine passion of Medea. Finally, the infanticide, the most controversial element of the play, exposes the abhorrent way that Medea envisions installing herself into a position of power. Shocking his audience with a "wretched, accursed woman" who will lay her "bloody hands" upon her own children, Euripides demands us to consider the moral degradation that ensues when a "savage" woman attempts to reverse the established patriarchy. In this way, if Medea 's character is truly a …show more content…
The passionate nature of Medea’s claim to feminine solidarity can initially be taken as a mandate to believe that Euripides envisions her as a proponent for feminism, however there is a problematic discord between such a notion and the reality of the text which, at times, seems to warn against a society in which women exercise power. Nor do we find a satisfactory representation of the text in a reverse scenario, where the grotesque depiction of Medea as a heartless child-killer is interpreted as a sexist caricature - while there are certainly hints that Euripides shows attachment to patriarchal values, it is ultimately Medea that prevails in gaining both the playwright and the audience 's support. We finally come to accept that in Medea, Euripides neither supports nor condemns the inequitable status quo, but employs it in order to create admiration for a protagonist who must surmount, against all odds, her oppressive society, so that she may enact revenge on the man that betrayed
Contention: Medea is neither a feminist hero nor a sexist construct of a male playwright. While it is possible to interpret her revenge as a representation of female equality (especially in relation to power, influence etc), essentially her revenge is just that; a personal vengeance and not a championing of an ideological cause. Thus, these two are misreadings as in they overlook the fact that Medea 's gender disadvantage is utilised as a dramatic device to show the extent of her revenge rather than anything more symbolic to that end.
Para 1: Medea as the elemental and powerful woman; feminist hero
Para 2: Medea as the sexist construct of a male playwright (find evidence …show more content…
The play depicts its heroine as an "abomination", a monstrosity that kills her own kin in order to achieve her arguably selfish interests. Herself claiming that "nothing has a heart more murderous" than a woman "wrong(ed) in love", the protagonist 's actions throughout the play reflects more the work of a "master craftsmen in working evil” than that of an honourable proponent of gender equality, perhaps an indication that the playwright is correlating the elevation of women to "dreadful" consequences. This is furthermore reflected when the Chorus laments the "troubles" that have occurred due to the "love of women" - here, the playwright seems to be favouring the rational, "seasoned" outlook of Jason that maintains equilibrium in society, rather than the destructive feminine passion of Medea. Finally, the infanticide, the most controversial element of the play, exposes the abhorrent way that Medea envisions installing herself into a position of power. Shocking his audience with a "wretched, accursed woman" who will lay her "bloody hands" upon her own children, Euripides demands us to consider the moral degradation that ensues when a "savage" woman attempts to reverse the established patriarchy. In this way, if Medea 's character is truly a …show more content…
The passionate nature of Medea’s claim to feminine solidarity can initially be taken as a mandate to believe that Euripides envisions her as a proponent for feminism, however there is a problematic discord between such a notion and the reality of the text which, at times, seems to warn against a society in which women exercise power. Nor do we find a satisfactory representation of the text in a reverse scenario, where the grotesque depiction of Medea as a heartless child-killer is interpreted as a sexist caricature - while there are certainly hints that Euripides shows attachment to patriarchal values, it is ultimately Medea that prevails in gaining both the playwright and the audience 's support. We finally come to accept that in Medea, Euripides neither supports nor condemns the inequitable status quo, but employs it in order to create admiration for a protagonist who must surmount, against all odds, her oppressive society, so that she may enact revenge on the man that betrayed