If Arostophanes were Hades Lysistrata would be his proverbial pomegranate

This book to me was really deceptive. I guess I expected more from the characters.
So before I read the book in its entirety this is what I thought each character analysis would be like:
Lysistrata: a crazy, idependent, and self-sufficent character who through her vulgar language and revolutionary actions convinces the womyn of both Athens and Sparta to abstein from sex. Lysistrata also by "sticks it to the man" by lighting the akropolis on fire. Lysistrata is the Grecian epitome of "kicking ass and taking names later"
Lampito- the antagonist in this play constantly indermines Lysistrata's suggestions by constantly suggesting the brutality and rudeness of the Athenian army while secretly alluding to the jealousy that she feels toward Lysistrata.
Kelonike- the unlikely heroine in the story who brings peace to Greece.

But everyone turned out to be bffs and get along really well. I want more conflict!! If someone doesn't get stabbed in the Bluest eye I'll be quite disappointed. j/k...I think.

Too punny for words

Yes that was maybe the lamest title ever but IDC because it was so darn punny. (ha ha I make myself laugh) Anyway I was just reading some one's blog and they were talking about the end where the men and the women party. When the men talk about the drinking are they talking about drinking or is this part of the metaphor used by the womyn wherein their...I don't know what I should call it (We'll their vaginas )are the cup of fine wine that must not be diluted by the water/sperm of their men? If so is this drinking referring to Peace and their truce?
I was really confused on this part. It seems to me like they were actually drinking but them I'm not sure. I think this play has so many puns and metaphors that you don't know when things are literal and when they're being metaphorical.

Lysistrata- Stalin but better

I know... in truth no one is like Stalin or better. But I was just watching the YouTube clip Ms.D just posted and I relized that Lysistrata is very similar to Hedda in the fact that she manipulates the people around her to get what she wants even though they may not be happy in the situation.
Case in point: the womyn and the oath that she forces them to swear. They obviouslyly didn't want to abstain from sex nor did they want to deny their husbands an essential part of their relationship or but themselves in harm's way but somehow Lysistrata "convinved" them. I think the fact that she offers enternal comradory is just low and really manipulative that she has all these womyn thiniking that they're going to be friends for ever if tehy agree to this oath.

Also I don't think that Peace willing gave herself as much as she was "persuaded" by Lysistrata.
Can we really look at Lysistrata as a hero if she used manipulation as a means of achieving peace? Can we call this play revolutionary if it is about a manipulative woman? Does her manipulation make her any different from Hedda or Bernarda?

The Women

So this movie came out this year and it has Jada Pinkett Smith, Meg Ryan, and Debra Messing in it and it relates more to The House of Bernarda Alba than it does this play because the entire movie has no men in it and it is pretty much a story about womyn for womyn staring well...the subject. And while watching this movie I realized that most of the conflict while created by men is between the womyn and so I applied this to Lysistrata and I was like whooa!!
It got me thinking if the theme of The Battle of the Sexes is one that has two opossing sexes or if you could simply apply this theme to the womyn. You could just as easily classify the womyn in this play as warring factions as you could the two armies. Initially they have different opinions and fight over who is right and how they should handle the situation at hand. Also the older womyn who claim to be more experienced are afraid to some extent of the younger girls among them who many fear their husbands will settle for in their absence.
Yes their is an obvious conflict between the men and the womyn but their is obviously some in fighting which I think completely changes the nature of this undeclared battle

Obligation

I was just thinking about how necessary it was for the womyn in this play to fight against their husbands by abstaining from sex. I wonder if they could've achieved the same end using different means. Really, this is the only way you could get your husbands to listen to you is by denying them your body? Random : If Grecian society was so liberal in its expression of sexuality would these men have been so attached to their womyn if they could find sexual solice (sp) else where (in each other)?

Lysistrata w/out abstinence:
I think that the womyn would've gotten their husbands home a lot sooner if they had presented their husbands with the consequences of their actions. By this I mean bringing to their attention the harm and damage that they are doing to the lives of their children. Instead of Myrinne's son being a mere prop used by Kinesias why couldn't he be the force that ended the war.
Imagine how different and more powerful the play would've been if the womyn chose to take their children to the front lines and line the children of all nations in between the two armies and told the men to chose between their children or the war. Which would they have chosen? Would they have come to a truce sooner than they did with their womyn?

UN

Okay so I think the United Nations Preamble totally copied Lysistrata. Everything discussed in this play as a means in which nations can support each other is written more colloquially in the preamble.
However, I do think that the theme of United Nations doesn't appear in as many parts of the book as it should being as how the women in wanting peace were calling for this kind of national unification. Which makes me wonder if the "power" of this theme is diminished when Lysistrata when trying to convince the men of how powerful they have been together brings up past wars and the eminent one against the Persians. If we're uniting nations shouldn't we being doing in the international arena as well as the domestic one? By urging Grecian men to unite in order to fight yet another war wherein they are killing other men who have wives who probably feel as badly about the war as they do, are they really uniting at all?
Is unification still effective even if it's done to annihilate another group of people? Should we proud of Franco and Hitler because they were unified? Should we be proud of any country involved in WW1 or 2?

Sobreity absolves the possibility of a Hellenistic era?

The theme of Nakedness revealing all(which is a pun) is also applicable to the initial problem of the play: the war itself. If we look at the power and the control each nation wanted to usrp in order to control the entire country as wine you could say that while drunk with the power and glory that it had acquired, Athens revealed its true intentions of controling all the other city-states. So to make this a little bit more clear

Symbolism

1. Nakedness= loss of inhibitions/honesty


2. Wine= power


3. Wine--> loss of inhibition= revealation of intent


4. Athens= drinker

Not that that list helped but what I'm trying to say is that...

"Bros before Hoes" One of the lesser known themes of Lysistrata

I think this play focuses on a theme of malsculine prevelance over genuine femininity(whatever that is) where as in our other novels we've seen all our slightly masculine female characters fail or be villianized by society {side note: Is it the authors who victimize these characters or is it our modern day society? I think we are more focused of gender roles in our modern society than maybe authors such as Ibsen and Lorca wanted us to be. These men spoke out against these gender roles that we so strongly cling to today.}I mean in the other novels the more masculine characters always sufffered in some whether by losing their families or dying. In The House of Bernarda Alba, Adela the more feminine of the daughteers was a "martyr" because she stood up for love and wanted to be everything that is female and no one saw the power and difficulty that Bernarda held. To us she was the villian. And in Hedda Gabbler Hedda masculine nature led her to sucide and ruin while the feminie Mrs. Elvsted fell in love with George.
Lysistrata is different because in order to be sucessful the womyn have to abandon their femininity and focus all their efforts on appealing to the male ego. They have to "think like men" and take away what is most important to a man.

Also in saying that sex is something very masculine and that womyn enjoy it as much as men is Aristophanes saying that women are as masculine as men are?? Just throwin' some stuff out there.
I could be wrong in associating physical gratification (SEX) with masculine ideology. Isn't femininity all about feeling good. Maybe sex is more feminine than it is masculine?
There's a lot to think about.

One step forward many more backward

I know that we're suppossed to be reading this text and seeing all the wonderfully feminist themes but I realized that this book really does more harm than good.
Yes, you can look at it as a revolutionary novel wherein womyn finally rebel against male tyranny and idiocy but is that what this book is really about? From a Marxist perspective yes, kinda because they do decide to stop "shutting up" but do they really say anything with their voices. Are they heard?

I'd like to argue that book is very counter-productive from a feminist perspective because not only does it abuse the power that lies within the female body and the sexuality of womyn it also alienates to some extent the individuality and freedom that a womyn have to look forward to in their lives in terms of sexual freedom.

This book is saying that all womyn are good for is their bodies and it is the only way they can achieve anything. Why doesn't Lysistrata simply speak to her husband and gain his respect and influence him to convince his comrades to withdraw/ end the war?

Do womyn not have voices? Are we not people too? Can we communicate without our hips? Our curves attract you but can't my ideas do the same?

I think this book dilutes the sensual nature of womyn and villanizes them, painting the portrait of a woman as devilish creature who manipulates men to their wish through sexual denial and deprevation.

I'll ruffle your outskirts (lol...aah low-brow humor how you satisfy me)

Okay just a few quick points: I think this story is funny so far. Not audible laughter funny but more like a light chuckle. Or a hidden smile funny. Not like watching an old person fall down the stairs or an SNL skit (which would be the more unfunny of the two).
Characters:
Lysistrata: Byotch! *insert whip sound here* Not really but she comes off that way because she seems so pissed at these other womyn for not showing up. Don't they have to walk long distances? Calm down.

Kleonike: I imagine her to look hawiian. Think about it... Anyway she seems like Lysistrata's bff for way back but at the same time someone who is searching for approval. Needy. Like Brutus to her Ceaser(Mean Girls reference)


Quick question: When they say inspect(Lampito&Ismenia) what does that mean? I got an interstingly strange impression of the whole thing.
Myrrhine: I could see really opposing Lysistrata in this play because they both seem so strong and vocal in comparison to the other womyn who are more quite and seem...squemish.

*I used womyn in this section in honor of Talor and feminist womyn everywhere