Tu 1

YI-CHEN TU

4108012037

Professor Hsieh

Seminar on Shakespeare 5104

16 June 2022

The Tug of War between Masculine and Feminine in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Abstract

In Elizabethan era or A Midsummer Night’s Dream, gender hierarchy is ubiquitous. Man’s high

status seems indestructible while woman’s obedience to man appears reasonable. However, did

Shakespeare embrace this phenomenon? In one of his masterpieces, A Midsummer Night’s Dream,

Shakespeare seemed to present patriarchy, but what else did he try to express? Why does A

Midsummer Night’s Dream contain two worlds, one with humans and one with fairies. With a better

comprehension of the masculine and feminine in Shakespeare’s masterpiece, readers can

differentiate whether Shakespeare supported the sexism in Elizabethan era or detested it.

Keyworks: Shakespeare’s life, biography, public, private, history

 Tu 2
Outline

Ⅰ. Facts about sexism in Elizabethan era and A Midsummer Night's Dream

A. The ubiquity of sexual hierarchy in Elizabethan era

B. The scenes of chauvinism and misogyny in A Midsummer Night's Dream

Ⅱ. Analysis from the reality in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

A. Defiance or subordination

B. A play within a play— Pyramus and Thisbe

Ⅲ. Analysis from the fairyland in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

A. Tension between Oberon and Titania

B. The catalyst of fairies

 Tu 3
The Tug of War between Masculine and Feminine in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Although the Elizabethan era is reckoned as the epoch of the history of England, there was

still one rusty side no one can deny—sexual hierarchy. Elizabethan England was a fiercely

patriarchal society, which confined women’s behaviors. Montrose said that, “a specifically

Elizabethan context of cultural production: the interplay between representations of gender and

power in a stratified society in which authority is everywhere invested in men” (61). In terms of

basic rights, not only were ladies unable to receive education, they were even deemed as the object

of males. That is, women’s basic rights were not fundamentally existing; more sarcastically, they

were often deprived by laws. For example. the legal restriction merely allowed women to practice

the jobs feasible in the home, such as hat making and brewing. This gender was also barred from

voting. It denotes that females could not even stand for themselves. Also, by observing the

transition of female’s role in marriage, the oppression became more rampant. Instead of choosing

their beloveds, young women’s marriage were often made by their parents, especially fathers. What

patriarchs valued the most was not his daughter’s well-being but the reputation or interest the

families could get. Chamberlain mentioned, “early modern parents did at times undertake

extraordinary measures to bring their rebellious children under control” (33). This notion is further

supported by the notorious 1617 case involving Sir Edward Coke stating that, “Accompanied by

armed horsemen, Coke purportedly broke into a kinsman’s house where his daughter Frances was

hiding with her mother, Lady Elizabeth Hatton. Frances was subsequently imprisoned where she

was verbally and physically assaulted until she agreed to marry the suitor Coke had selected for

her” (Chamberlain 33). The flame of feminine defiance was extinguished since father would spare

no effort in curbing woman’s autonomy, not to mention the “fire” that might shock the patriarchal

structure in Elizabethan era. Upon being “slaved” to marriage, woman was no longer her father’s

responsibility, and her husband turned into her legal owner. Wives were expected to comply with

the “doctrines” their husbands set, which, apparently is unfair and unreasonable to modern people.
 Tu 4
When looking back the history of Elizabethan era, one can never wear “rational” glasses on sexism

at that time. Just like the writer, Olson, asserted, “Even Bottom the fool observes that ‘reason and

love keep little company together, now a daies (MND, III, i. 147-48).’ His sententious surmise—and

it has been taken as the drama’s theme—is best understood in terms of 16th century marriage

doctrines” (96).

As Greer demonstrated, “The Elizabethan society of Shakespeare’s day was completely

dominated by masculine thinking that governed all aspects of daily life” (135), one of his reputable

works, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, is undoubtedly no exception. In The Taming of the Shrew,

Shakespeare illustrated the patriarchy and misogyny when Petruchio refers to his wife as “my

goods, my chattels … my anything” (3.2.). Moreover, in Othello, Desdemona was murdered by her

husband as he had assumed she was cheating on him, which corresponds the writer’s assertion,

“Othello and Measure for Measure present a very narrow-minded, male dominated world in terms

of female expression and sexual freedom” (Greer 144). Similarly, as Montrose speculated, “A

Midsummer Night’s Dream figures the social relationship between the sexes in courtship, marriage,

and parenthood” (61-62), misogyny was also unveiled in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare

presented the atmosphere against women by depicting the interaction and conversation between

masculinity and femininity. For example, Egeus’s reaction to the fact that Hermia is unwilling to

marry Demetrius dooms readers with patriarchal oppression. Furthermore, Hermia’s self-denial

stimulated by Demetrius and Lysander is also a strong evidence of misogyny. When digging deeply

into the play, Pyramus and Thisbe, presented in Theseus’ wedding, one can easily notice how low

the female’s status is in that the society even preferred having unwise labors act to allowing women

to stand on stage. However, “Shakespeare has so artfully exposed his secrets under the guise of

farcical parody that few have grasped what he was up to” (Hutton 304) and bibliophiles of this book

may have no awareness that what they observe are only the tip of the iceberg. They may barely

learn the facts of sexual hierarchy in Elizabethan era or in A Midsummer Night’s Dream; however,
 Tu 5
Shakespeare’s viewpoints on this topic remain ambiguous to them. As a result, with a better

understanding of the sexism and rhetoric used in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, readers can

differentiate whether Shakespeare supported the sexism in the 16th modern England or detested it.

The subordination and defiance of women are substantially depicted in A Midsummer Night’s

Dream. The events occur in this works echo Jeanne Addison Roberts's statement, "Shakespeare

showed astonishing insight into a variety of female dilemmas and strengths" (qtd. in Greer 136). For

instance, in the very first scene, gender hierarchy is introduced by the conversation between

Theseus and Hippolyta. Based on Theseus' utterance, "Hippolyta, I wooed thee with my sword /

And won thy love doing thee injuries" (1.1.17-18), one can realize that their relationship is actually

bended by battle. The way Theseus, the king of Athen, gets his wife, denotes that he may never

consider Hippolyta a lover but a plunder showing his power. To him, Hippolyta is not a person but

an object. The concept of women's subordination to men is as well revealed when Egeus is forcing

his daughter, Hermia, to marry Demetrius. According to his conversation with Theseus,

EGEUS. As she is mine, I may dispose of her,

Which shall be either to this gentleman

Or to her death, according to our law

Immediately provided in that case, (43-46)

readers can easily notice that fathers have the supremacy over their daughters and this power is even

granted by law. Normally, the word "mine" is often used when people are claiming that they own

the object. We hardly use independent possessive pronouns to refer to people since human shouldn't

be omitted. However, in this case, Egeus seems to "skip" his daughter subconsciously, which,

displays the low status women have in families. Furthermore, given Theseus's statement, "To you,

your father should be as a god, / One that compos'd your beauties, yea, and one / By him imprinted,

and within his power" (48-51), he can also be regarded as the behalf of patriarchy. In his opinion,

daughter's father is not just an elder, but a god that makes you and it is reasonable for you to obey
 Tu 6
the god. Moreover, the omission of mother is worthy being aware. Mother is supposed to be

credited for the born of children, including boys; but here, Theseus's speech erases all the

contribution from mother and attributes it to father just like Montrose concluded, "the mother is

represented as a vessel, as a container for her son: she is not his maker. In contrast, the implication

Theseus' description of paternity is that the make is the only begetter; a daughter is merely a token

of her father's potency" (72). Furthermore, not only does man's superiority control woman's

behavior, but it also dooms over woman's mentality. Take Helena for instance, her emotion and

spirit are under the lead of two men, Demetrius and Lysander. Originally, Helena was showing her

affection to Demetrius but he declines her with the only reason— he loves Hermia; however, if

readers looked back the plot before, they would discover that Helena and Demetrius used to love

each other. From this perspective, one can learn how superior man is since man can always have the

leadership role in a relationship and upon man deciding to abandon a relationship, woman has to

accept the fact. Moreover, the rejection leads to Helena's self-denial. Helena doesn't blame on

Demetrius for ditching their relationship but on herself. Helena attributes the non-blooming love to

her appearance. Based on the argument between Hermia and Helena,

HERMIA. His folly, Helena, is no fault of mine.

HELENA. None but your beauty. Would that fault were mine! (1.1.205-206)

we can realize Helena is self-abased and even wish to have Hermia's beauty just because Demetrius

is betrothing her. Additionally, Helena calls herself Demetrius's "spaniel" (2.1.210), implying the

extreme gender inequality in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. However, what intrigues critics to

discuss the work is not Shakespeare's depiction of misogyny but that of woman's defiance. Unlike

the situation in Elizabethan, females in the play voice for themselves. From some contents, readers

can sense that Shakespeare was not barely conveying gender inequality but denouncing it. For

instance, Hermia makes her father have no choice but to seek help from Theseus. It's well noted that

the disclosed scandal Hermia declines the chosen marriage may destroy Egeus's reputation.
 Tu 7
Shakespeare granted Hermia the chance to show outsiders that woman can strive for their rights.

Furthermore, when Hermia is arguing for not wanting to marry Demetrius, Theseus, out of surprise,

doesn't silence or sanction her with law. Instead, he gives her options, to marry Demetrius, to die or

to be a nun, and gives her days to think twice. Last but not least, when Lysander and Hermia is

resting in the forest at night, Hermia rejects Lysander's invitation to sleep together. We should notice

that in such a male-superior society, woman's disobedience is intolerant. However, from

the regards mentioned above, Shakespeare appeared to show us woman under patriarchy can still

have self-consciousness and disobey man's order. Woman is not the "object" manipulated by man.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is well-known for its Play-Within-A-Play. The inserted play,

Pyramus and Thisbe, plays a crucial role in leading readers to Shakespeare's inner thought. The plot

of Pyramus and Thisbe is similar to that of A Midsummer Night's Dream. For instance, lovers in

both plays are obstructed by parents. Actions were taken to defend their autonomy on love. Hermia

and Lysander runs away from Athen while Pyramus and Thisbe arranges to meet up near a tomb;

however, in the former work, Pyramus and Thisbe are both dead. Nevertheless, would the tragedy

or the agony those characters experience occur if their parents gave them, especially woman,

sufficient freedom? Moreover, the biggest difference is exposed when Hutton states that, "the comic

animist world of Athens, under the guidance of the fairies, and the tragic nonanimist 'Babylonian'

world in the play-within-a-play of 'Pyramus and Thisby,' where there is no guidance of any gods or

spirits whatsoever" (289). Indeed, calamity only happens in a no-fairy world, implying the

significance of fairies; more specifically, Shakespeare was most likely to symbolize fairies as the

savor for the oppressed people and satirize patriarchy by presenting Pyramus and Thisbe. Also,

Shakespeare's rhetoric was so clever that he brought up the play to the characters in Theseus's

wedding as the reminder for respecting each other, chiefly woman. The thought is as well supported

by Hutton, "Shakespeare's deliberate rather than unwitting decision to include a tragic story within

his comedy surely reflects his desire to instruct as well as to entertain; for if a wedding celebration
 Tu 8
demands entertainment, the newlyweds also need instruction as preparation for sustaining their new

commitments" (294). In addition, one can also discover Shakespeare's sarcasm by observing the

actors of Pyramus and Thisbe. For instance, when Flute was worrying his beard and stated that,

"Nay, faith, let not me play a woman. I have a beard coming" (1.2.45-46), Quince responded,

"That's all one. You shall play it in a mask, and you may speak as small as you will" (1.2.47-48).

Furthermore, the actor of Pyramus, Bottom, does not even know who Pyramus is before rehearsal.

All these are pointing out the low social status female holds. To prevent woman from acting, society

compromises to let workers act even though they're not qualified. Last but not least, a big satire

about man's arrogance appears in mechanicals' rehearsal scenes. When rehearsing, actors are

worried about the bloody scenes or lion's growling since it may terrify audiences, especially ladies

(3.1.10-35). Not to mention woman's boldness, are their acting skills exceptional enough for

audiences to be personally on the scene? Moreover, mechanicals' concern for "the ladies" is akin to

parents' concern for the "the kids" (Hutton 292), which, satirizes man's pride.

The tension between masculine and feminine occurs not only in the reality but also in the

fairyland of A Midsummer Night's Dream. However, even in the imaginary world, masculism still

surpasses feminism, incarnating Shakespeare's depression on this issue. Oberon and Titania's

struggle for Changeling Indian Boy is a transparent exemplification. Their debation over the

ownership of Changeling Indian Boy reflects the concept of man's reluctant subservience to woman.

It's reasonable for Titania to keep the boy aside her in that taking care of him is the way to return his

mother, a worshipper of Titania's (2.1.125-142). She further claims that not even the fairy kingdom

is worthwhile for handing this kid to Oberon (2.1.149). In contrast, Oberon, the king of fairyland,

does not mention any variables for keeping the child, but strikes for the ownership at all cost. This

scene is quite similar to the time when Egeus forces Hermia to marry Demtrius without good

reasons and they all conclude one point: Male's supremacy is indubitable. Whoever you are, the

daughter or the queen, you are the possession of man, like Montrose said, "Each of these rulers is
 Tu 9
preoccupied with the fulfillment of his own desires in the possession or repossession of a

wife" (67). This notion is supplementally endorsed by Oberon's behavior—dropping the "love-in-

idleness" (2.1.174) juice on the Titania's eyelids. Man's craze for power is unpredictable. However,

Shakespeare did not only picture man's stifling oppression but also woman's struggling. For

instance, before making the cunning move, Oberon tried to persuade Titania, which, means he still

respects his wife. Otherwise, he can just snatch the boy from her. Also, instead of succumbing to her

husband's rhetoric, Titania stands for herself and even exits in front of Oberon (2.1.125-150). Even

though Titania's defiance is remarkable, there are still losers in the competition. It is Oberon that

gets what he wants at last and Titania that says, "my lord" (4.1.103), after the magic on her is

undone. All these suggests woman loses.

Shakespeare's desire for changing gender hierarchy can be inferred from the fairies in A

Midsummer Night's Dream. Firstly, fairies' influence on the reality of the work is magnificent. For

example, Titania states that the real world is disrupted because of her argument with Oberon.

Furthermore, the well-being of the four lovers can mostly be credited to Oberon and Puck's effort.

Human's destiny is under the influence of fairies' deeds. It is worth noting that most of the time,

fairies intervene human's world for the sake of human's well-being spontaneously and fairies seem

to embody Shakespeare's intention on making the world better. For instance, Oberon wants to help

Helena to get Demetrius when hearing their dispute; and therefore, orders Puck to put the magic

juice on Demetrius's eyelids. Fairies' altruism is also recognized by Hutton, stating that, "Such

altruism sets an ideal standard for gods, who surely should be kind enough to help suffering

mortals without prescribing any preconditions or demanding any succeeding gratuities" (301).

Shakespeare also wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream to display the predicament woman faced in

his era. However, reality is reality. Fairies' endeavors on creating the happiness in the world are still

under human's decision. Before Theseus's wedding started, even though Egeus truly understand

Hermia and Lysander are meant to marry each other, Egeus still against this marriage. However, it is
 Tu 10
when Theseus determines to accept their marriage that Egeus stops opposing. Likewise,

Shakespeare craved for the disappearance of misogyny but he was not omnipotent.

To sum up, via comprehending the cause-and-effect of events and digging deeply into the plot

of A Midsummer Night's Dream, readers can discover the fact that, "Shakespeare creates the illusion

that all is well while in reality heads are rolling all over the place" (Hutton 304-05). Indeed, the play

presented in Theseus's wedding is entertaining and the four lovers seem to have a bright future.

Readers may smile knowingly when Mechanicals' worries and the ass-head Bottom are displayed.

However, when one recalling all the content, it's terrifying to discover countless compromise and

sacrifice are made behind the happiness. Thinking of the arguments between male and female

characters or female's escape and self-denial, one may question that agony appears to be the only

way to happiness. What's worse, is happiness ever achieved? To Shakespeare, the true happiness is

achieved when contemporary readers understand the enclosed meaning of the book and take action

to tackle the revealed problem. However, even though Shakespeare wanted revolution, he was like

the fairies in A Midsummer Night's Dream, "not omnipotent, cannot totally alleviate the sufferings

of mortals, nor can they be held responsible for all of the world's evils" (Hutton 301).
 Tu 11
Work Cited

Chamberlain, Stephanie. “The Law of the Father: Patriarchal Economy in A Midsummer Night's

Dream.” Journal of the Wooden O, vol. 11, Aug. 2011, pp. 28–40.

Greer, Conley. “To BE A Woman: Shakespeare’s Patriarchal Viewpoint.” The Corinthian, vol. 5, no.

24, June 2003, pp. 135–146.

Hutton, Virgil. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Tragedy in Comic Disguise.” Studies in English

Literature, vol. 25, 1990, pp. 289–305.

Montrose, Louis Adrian. “‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan

Culture.” Representations, vol. 2, 1981, pp. 61–94.

Olson, Paul A. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Meaning of Court Marriage.” ELH, vol. 24,

June 1957, pp. 95–119.