Something that interests (enrages, rather) me immensely is the concept of female-male relationships now and in the past. Clearly injustice is a word commonly used to describe the gender situation throughout time, and I agree. The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir describes the concept of the One and the Other. In the case of female-male relationships Beauvoir argues that men have, from the beginning of time, appointed themselves as the One(s), and have thus appointed women the less important title of the Other. This apparent submission in women has thus shaped the way that we are both perceived in society, and more importantly the way that we have over time been conditioned to dress, act, and feel a certain way. Women were (and continue to be, but this can be argued) moulded into a social ‘norm’ where they were expected to be submissive, quiet, agreeable, feminine, and weak. Men similarly were denied these freedoms (is that a good way to put it?) are were expected to be masculine, strong, powerful, and dominating. This has its implications. To cut it short, women did the cooking while men discussed politics.

Now this brings me to the play, Lysistrata. I have never seen the play, nor have I read the script – all I know about it is that it comes up a lot in Feminist papers and discussions and, of course, I know what I can find on the internet. The basic plot of the play is that women go on a sex strike and refuse to give their husbands what they biologically crave to try to convince them to end the Peloponnesian War.
Researching Lysistrata I was reading through reviews of the play and found a BMCR review saying the following,
“The sexual theme is just an attention-grabber. … the women turn the city into an extended household and seize control of the actual polis – not as “intruders” but as reconcilers and healers.”
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/lysistrata/a/lysistrata.htm
Image taken from: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Texts/Aristophanes/Lysistrata.html
I feel that this makes a very strong comment on women’s political standing and perceived ability, that women had (have) no understanding of war and politics (they belong in the home), and the only way that they were able to get in the public eye – in this case to make a statement/voice their opinions in a protest – was to use their sexuality. My point is woman’s sexuality, not woman’s intellect. Regardless, they are still ridiculed!!
So is sex appeal really the only way that woman was able to make an impact? If so, does this hold true in modern, Western society?
Texts that answer these questions are in abundance, but my problem is that they appear to be written with bias against the opposing parties – feminists vs. males and males vs. feminists.

I’m a feminist (look it up before you conjure up false images of the definition) but I am also a skeptic at the best of times. I believe in the existence of inequality in modern times, but to what extent does this inequality affect women? And to what extent does it affect men? No more writing :) but something to think about.