William Shakespeare is a rich and suggestive author in terms of alerting

students to issues in women's studies and gender ideology. Although Shakespeare

reflects and at times supports the English Renaissance stereotypes of women and
men and their various roles and responsibilities in society, he is also a writer who
questions, challenges, and modifies those representations. His stories, as we all
know, are used in secondary and college classrooms even today and, thus, afford
opportunities not only to understand Renaissance culture better but also to
confront our own contemporary generalizations about gender, especially what it
means to be female. In his own time, Shakespeare seems to have been raising
questions about the standard images of males and females, about what the
characteristics of each gender are, about what is defined as masculine and feminine,
about how each gender possesses both masculine and feminine qualities and
behaviors, about the nature and power of a hegemonic patriarchy, and about the
roles women and men should play in acting out the stories of their lives. Since
feminist criticism today focuses on many of these same issues, we can bring such
critical inquiry into the classroom by asking straightforward questions of and about
Shakespeare's stories.
Defining what a female was supposed to be and do was an act of Renaissance
culture, as it has been for other times. For Shakespeare, as well as for most of
Renaissance society, women as the feminine represented the following virtues
which, importantly, have their meaning in relationship to the male; obedience,
silence, sexual chastity, piety, humility, constancy, and patience. However, gender
characteristics were socially constructed and there was an easy cross-over of
masculine and feminine traits to both genders.
Defining masculine and feminine characteristics allowed writers like
Shakespeare to draw males with certain "feminine" characteristics and females with
certain "masculine" characteristics. This merging of masculine and feminine in both
males and females might help to explain how easy it was for the Elizabethan stage to
employ and accept all male casts and utilize men to play strong female characters
like Juliet, Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra, and Kate, the Shrew. Contemporary audiences,
so set on separating female from male, would have great difficulty returning to this
standard practice of the Renaissance.
Indeed, both masculine and feminine characteristics were parts of what the
Renaissance considered "human nature" and each gender participated in both sets
of characteristics to varying degrees. For example, take the act of weeping. Although
both genders cried and were "allowed" by the culture to weep (think of all the tears
men shed in Julius Caesar over the deaths of other men), tears were thought of as
"feminine" but not exclusively female. In Hamlet, when Laertes learns of the death of
his sister Ophelia, he weeps in sorrow, with genuine feeling, but exclaims, "The
woman will be out," meaning his tears represent his "womanly" part that cannot be
suppressed (or repressed) by his masculine strength."
Just as the Renaissance defined female roles, it clearly delegated certain
behaviors to males. Theirs was a patriarchal society. We catch a glimpse of this
patriarchy in a play like Romeo and Juliet with the power of Lord Capulet. It's easy to
see that the male had a place and a role to play, just as the female had a lesser place
and a role. The woman is either in the house of her father as Juliet is or in the house
of her husband as Lady Macbeth is. Notice in Macbeth that Lady Macbeth is observed
only within the castle at Enverness, and it is her duty to make "preparations" for the
arrival of King Duncan. Lord Capulet underscores this female responsibility when he
announces, in anticipation of the marriage of Paris and Juliet, that he will "play the
huswife for this once." In Macbeth, as in Renaissance society, men were expected to
engage in public affairs (as soldiers, politicians, leaders), to be talkers, make
decisions, move events forward. They led lives which were duty-bound (mostly to
the state), aggressive, and self-satisfying. On the other hand, women were expected
to assume a more passive role. For example, at the beginning of Romeo and Juliet
when the boys are milling around the streets of Verona and talking dirty about girls,
Sampson (one of Capulet's servants) remarks, "And therefore women, being the
weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall; therefore I will push Montague's men
from the wall, and thrust his maids to the wall." The passage is ripe with
stereotypical Renaissance thinking: women are weaker (physically, emotionally,
intellectually, morally), and they exist for male sexual gratification-they're only good
for "thrusting" to the wall. When Lady Macbeth decides to become an "active"
partner in her husband's deadly mischief, she needs to pray "Come, you spirits ...
unsex me here, / And fill me from the crown to the toe topful / Of direst cruelty,"
which suggests that it is not "natural" for a woman to be cruel.
Yet, as is often the case, these ideological statements, often placed in the
mouths of minor characters, are questioned, proved false, reversed in the telling of
the story. Shakespeare rises above the stereotypical views of Renaissance society as
he portrays women as more than passive vessels. For example, the love of Romeo
and Juliet is an equitable experience. Each assumes responsibilities for making their
relationship work. Lady Macbeth goes beyond Juliet's collaborative nature and takes
charge of her relationship with Macbeth. When Macbeth sends his wife a letter
relating all the strange happenings and prophecies so that she may know all-know
that what is promised is promised not only to him but to her, he calls her "my
dearest partner of greatness." Perhaps she sees herself more "manly" than her
husband, for she fears his kindness and passivity, calling him to her-"Hie thee
hither."
Certain characteristics were associated with the male and a different set with
the female. Shakespeare reflects this Renaissance distinction between, and joining
of, the masculine and the feminine, a juxtaposition which is also apparent in the
female monarch of his day, Queen Elizabeth. The chief worry of Elizabethan males
was to get the Queen married off to someone so she could produce children. Surely
she knew that if she had done just that, she would have lost the great power she had
as an unmarried Renaissance female prince. Elizabeth, of course, was not above
playing with gender distinctions when it was to her advantage. In her famous speech
to the troops at Tilbury who had gathered for the landing of the Spanish Armada,
Elizabeth played both the female and the male role: 'I know I have the body but of a
weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of
England too ... I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and
rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field."
Like Elizabeth, the wonderful heroines of the romantic comedies-Beatrice in
Much Ado About Nothing, Rosalind in As You Like It, and Viola in Twelfth Night-
reflect this blend of feminine and masculine attitudes and behaviors. Although they
are women, subject at some point in each play to the care of fathers, brothers,
and/or husbands, each is also "masculine" in her actions. As "strong females," they
demonstrate more self-awareness than the men; they use their reason, they talk,
they are mobile, often found in the out-of-doors rather than inside their fathers' or
husbands' houses. They control the action. Portia, for example, controls the final
scene of The Merchant of Venice by bringing about the downfall of Shylock through
her tempering of justice with mercy and by controlling the forces which enable her
to live happily ever after with Bassanio. Viola, too, earns marriage with the man of
her choice by acting literally as both male and female, and cleverly manipulating the
Duke's relationship with Olivia. Like Portia, Rosalind dominates the action in As You
Like It. She is intelligent, strong of character, patient, and demonstrates an
unshakable integrity. Furthermore, she is strong and able to defend herself when
falsely accused of treason.
We need to bring these issues of gender roles into the classroom. There is
clear argument for the validity of this line of study in a high school or college setting.
It can be observed that students themselves are concerned about their roles as male
or female as they make educational and vocational choices which will affect the rest
of their lives. It is important that all students be given a sense of pride in who they
are, whether they be a female or a male. Researchers have shown that it is essential
that students examine male and female role models to assist them in better
understanding themselves and in making unrestricted decisions about their future.
Literature which appears to stereotype them sexually and, consequently, to limit
their options for further education and career choices can be very detrimental to
these students. Females, especially, have been subject to these kinds of limiting
roles. Connie Schmitz and Judy Galbraith see this problem in gifted girls: "Gifted
girls continue to face special conflicts in resolving society's expectations of them as
women as gifted people ... The question is how to be talented and feminine at the
same time" (Schmitz 32-33). Emily Hancock refers to the "Renaissance girl," whom
she says adult women need to recover and retain within themselves, describing her
through the eyes of an eight year old: . . . "I was good at absolutely everything. I was
interested in almost everything I knew about" (Hancock 16). This confidence and
interest needs to be kept as this child moves toward adulthood, and literature needs
to show girls, in particular, how this can be done. Hancock continues: "Much has
changed and is changing for the girl of eight or nine. But the most important change
is yet to come, the retrieval of such a partnership-without domination-between men
and women ... Too much cultural change ... has turned us toward applauding in
females the "masculine" qualities they display" (259). Clearly there is much interest
in a dialogue about what the role of females ought to be. The study of gender roles in
Shakespeare's plays provides an excellent vehicle for that discussion. Questions to
begin such discussions might include the following: How many males and females
are there? Who are the main characters? Are they predominantly male or female?
Which characters are stronger, smarter, wiser, more sensitive? What characters did
you particularly admire? Who is most like you? Most different? Who irritates you
and why? What would you have changed about the story if you had been the author?
How would the characters of your play fare in out society? Some issues to consider
are:
father/daughter relationship
use of disguises/masks
marriage customs
acceptable speaking versus expected silence
comparisons to Queen Elizabeth
nunneries
female/male education overheard conversations/deceit
traditional behavior
characters' actions when with others of same or opposite gender

In addition to the merit in examining literary characters totally within the context of
the work in which they appear, a teacher using Shakespeare's plays for gender study
in the classroom and the students doing the study should have some background
knowledge of the time in which the works were written. This reading and discussion
could limit the outcome of the study by defining the Renaissance woman used as a
model for Shakespeare's work and, therefore, making these heroines predictable in
behavior and restricted to Renaissance standards only. Quite the opposite happens,
however, because of the disagreements which appear in research on gender defined
roles of that period. Scholars are not in agreement as to whether Shakespeare's
women and men reflect his time or defy his time, whether they reflect society's
attitude or only the author's attitude, whether they are women and men for all ages
or the Renaissance only, and whether the Renaissance man and woman were really
liberated thinkers or people tightly restricted by their society. Ironically and
delightfully, the more reading one does about the period, the more unclear the issue
becomes. What a wonderfully fertile base for study which encourages diverse
thought about sexually defined roles of modern young adults.

Works Cited and Recommended Reading

Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. London: MacMillan Press,
1975.
Hancock, Emily. The Girl Within. New York: Fawcett Columbia, 1989.
Jardine, Lisa. Still Harping on Daughters. New Jersey: Barnes & Noble, 1983.
Lenz, Carolyn, Ruth Swift, Gayle Green and Carol Thomas Neely. The Woman's Part:
Feminist Criticism ofShakespeare. U of Illinois, 1983.
Papp, Joseph, and Elizabeth Kirkland. ShakespeareAlive. New York: Bantam Books,
1988.68-102.
Rose, Mary Beth, ed. Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Syracuse Press,
1986.
Schmitz, Connie C. and Judy Galbraith. Managing the Social and Emotional Needs of
the Gifted: A Teacher's Survival Guide. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing Company,
1985. 32-33.