Blog 3 — 14 Feb 2020

When reading Lysistrata, I was taken aback by a few things. First, I was surprised that although the play’s description may seem feminist, with women taking initiative to control the government to end a war, the women’s dialogue had the opposite effect. The women in the beginning constantly put themselves down and clearly regard themselves as “mere women,” secondary to men, which was a disappointing realization. On the other hand, I was very surprised by the sexuality of the women. When Lysistrata first suggests that the women practice celibacy, the women object, claiming that it would be too difficult to give up. This was refreshing, since the common trope in current media is claiming that men want sex and women do not have the same desire. This ends up desexualizing women, completely dissociating sexuality from their beings by perpetuating these false stereotypes on such a large scale. Thus, I found it rather freeing to hear about women that enjoyed sex openly, even if it wasn’t in a particularly empowering context. I wonder where and when the shift occurred causing women to shun their sexuality.

Regardless, although these women end up with all the power in the play, I found it interesting that it didn’t resonate as an empowering story. However, upon closer analysis, I believe that although the women physically held all of the power, they still perceived themselves as secondary citizens, and this inferiority complex permeates the play. As a result, I find myself questioning the many ways in which power dynamics work. Although someone may tangibly hold the power, if they are not aware of the power they wield, they may as well not have it at all. Instead, I believe power has more to do with confidence, personal identity, and societal expectations. This presents a bleak future, since I feel that often people can’t relish and appreciate their empowered role in society if they view themselves as inferior, which is a very difficult mentality to change (especially when it has been systematically put in place for many years prior). I’m curious what theories exist to help resolve these identity issues in relation to power.

On a completely different note, I was also quite impacted by the comment Dr. Chiara made about militarism and sexuality, particularly the fact that the word “vagina” literally translates to “sheath.” I had never been confronted with thinking about sexuality through the lens of militarism, and it makes me question what other subliminal messages have been passed on indirectly. What comes to mind first is a text we had to read in my anthropology course freshman year, In this paper, the anthropologist claimed that medical descriptions of insemination had sexist tones. She pointed out the many ways the sperm was given active, dominant vocabulary regarding its movements, while the female anatomy was given receptive, passive language. While I felt in that context the anthropologist was pushing a little too hard to find that evidence in the text, I believe that it is common to find that language and subliminal messaging in other mediums and texts. It may seem obvious that these subtle presentations of sexism come through in media, it is difficult to acknowledge the discrimination that can be found in scientific documents. We often look up to science as an objective research tool, above the impact of societal expectations, but we often forget about the human that has a role in producing the science. This role causes the inherent biases that carry through in the resulting papers. It may not be intentional, but it certainly reflects the attitudes of the current society. Dr. Chiara’s comment inspired be to be mindful of the messages I am receiving, and to think critically about subliminal messages that may appear through untraditional mediums.