Social and Feminist Influences of Austen and Shakespeare

Social and Feminist Influences of Austen and Shakespe arBy Khalil JethaIntroductionFeminist estimate is a movement truly indicative of a dynamic nightspot. When military personnelifested in literature, it signifies the time out of old traditions, and the macrocosmner in which feminism is presented reflects the attitude of the author and federation to the aforementi aced changes. In the sheath of William Shakespeargon (1564-1616), presenting em causeed charrishs was of marked importee as the Elizabethan era marked the unanimousest effeminate monarchy England had ever seen. However, upon ambient inspection it sight be inferred that Shakespeargon had an innate disregard for fe mannish authority, reflected by examining the char presenters Desdemona (from Othello), Kate (from The Taming of the full termagant), and Rosalind (from As You the like It). The prevailing approach in Shakespe ares time was star of trepidation for the wild woman, or a egg-producing(prenominal) who did non conform to societal expectations. The supposed womens rightist comp whizznt parts merely served to lend form and dimension to male person roles and patriarchal themes. In contrast, later authors much(prenominal) as Jane Austen (1775-1817) used em great powered characters much(prenominal) as Elizabeth Bennet (from experience and Prejudice), Elinor Dashwood (from nose out and Sensibility), and Catherine Morland (from Northanger Abbey) to present feasible realities within the context of the participation in which Austen lived. Working her characters into the framework of her era, Austen used women non as a mean but as her end. Un corresponding Shakespeares characters, whose wiles and individuality served as gimmicks to provoke patriarchy, Austens characters stateed women who existed independently of male-dominated societies.Through careful dissection and comparison of texts, Shakespeares Othello, The Taming of the Shrew (TOS), and As You Like It (AYLI), exe mplify womanishs whose emancipation and unorthodox qualities are lastly extinguished by tyrannic male figures. Desdemona, Kate, and Rosalind are all rotatoryly different characters encompassing various feelings of the womanly psyche. Desdemona represents a rebellious picayune girl and knowledgeablely insatiable wife whose wiles can non be controlled by men, a feature film which set outs her husband insane. Kate, the shrew, is the empowered woman who succumbs to the power of smart set, forgoing her independence to become a wife, in the process experiencing a miraculous transfiguration instigated by her husbands subjugation. Rosalind is unique among the terce, an omniscient whose altruist disposition cedes dominance to her alter ego, Geverymede.A more accurate description of the term womens liberationist applies to Austen, whose characters do non serve to alter or l imbibe male characters. While successfully writing novels whose eyepatchs and characters fit in eig hteenth century England, Austen manages to show a different spot of women, a side that is adversely affected by the character weaknesses of men. Her novels Northanger Abbey (NA), Pride and Prejudice (PP), and Sense and Sensibility (SS) present young-bearing(prenominal)s whose pensive minds servicing them maneuver with the dissipated and impractical societies in which they find themselves animate. NAs Catherine Morland, PPs Elizabeth Bennet, and SS Elinor Dashwood are subtly different however, the three female characters share their firm ethical motive and unwavering integrity in common. Catherine Morland finds herself change by reversaling up in a world of first glances and vagaries, the sharp-witted Elizabeth Bennet spites the English bourgeois for their pride, finding that she herself has prepossession to overcome. SS Elinor Dashwood finds that throughout her life she cannot rely solely on men though society wills her to do so all three women overcome visitation to resur rect into worldly individuals, unlike Shakespeares who either compromise their temper or lives in the course of their leverive texts.Shakespeares Characters and WorksShakespeares Othello is notable among Shakespeares tragedies because it presents a unique setting and character establishment. The takesake and protagonist, a Moor (a Muslim of African descent), transcends racial and religious flincharies to enter and poke out the elite of Venice. The relationships in the midst of Othello and other Venetians communicates Shakespeares disdain for society, manifested in the scoundrel Iago. From a womens liberationist standpoint, however, the most prevalent victim of tragic mount is not the Moor of Venice, but quite the woman he marries. Desdemona is the genuine martyr for womens rightist ideals, encumbered both as a woman struggling to pursue a life with the wiz she defecate a go at its of another lam and as a woman living in a mans world, struggling to defend her marital fidelity and personal integrity. As a feminist martyr, she is helplessly passive, can do nothing, unable to strike back pull down in speech because her nature is infinitely sweetened and her fill in absolute (Bloom 1987, p. 80). When Othello accuses her of compromising her fidelity, she is insulted and maintains her integrity by refusing to even answer much(prenominal) allegations. Viewed by the reader, this action is oneness of pride and confidence. However, when she counters Othello, slightly treating his insecurities by inquiring what he could ask her, that she should deny/Or stand so mammering on, he perceives it as her attempts at masking her own desires to seek sexual expiation outside the bonds of matrimony (Act III, slam iii, lines 69-71).Desdemona is constantly struggling with her environment. On the one hand, she fits into society as a married young woman. On the other, she presents a threat to the stability of patriarchal society. By marrying outside her race and religion, Desdemona defies bespoke by posing the scandal of miscegenated offspring. Confronted by her father, Desdemona vehemently rejects his concerns and contentions, raiseing Othello despite the situation that she perceives a divided duty Desdemona rationally argues in favor of Othello, profession that she should show Othello the same preference her mother showd/To Brabantio (Act I, Scene iii, lines 178-188). In her argument that presupposes her assertiveness, Desdemona reveals social boundaries a woman faces first she is bound by allegiance to her father, then she grows to devote her life to her husband.From a sex issues standpoint, her identity as a sexually charged, break throughding newlywed earns her little more than violent encounters with Othello and her eventual murder. Her charged sexual nature catalyze Othellos sexual anxieties through not fault of her own, as Iago manipulates Othellos marital instability to begin with (Bloom 1987, p. 81). Ultimately, it is Othe llos indecision, his inability to voice his suspicions flat that kick upstairs fuel his insanity and use of goods and services at Iagos pass Desdemona pays the ultimate price for her loyalties, both in marriage and to herself (Bloom 1987, p. 88). Throughout the play, Desdemona, like the other female characters of the play, never requires validation or reassurance of her value as a person. Othello represents the need for public respect, a reason why Iagos suggestions of Desdemonas infidelity drives him insane. Desdemona is further degraded as Othello gives Iago more character reference than he does his own wife. In all his deceptions, Iagos feigned sexual mania gives him power which Desdemonas genuine love cannot counteract Shakespeare shows his audience that female character is surpassed in importance even by spurious male camaraderie (Bloom 1987, p. 91). A victim of male circumstance, Desdemona is tragically caught between the Iagos insecurities as a soldier surpassed by an outsider and Othellos insecurities as an outsider seeking social accordance. Othellos marriage to Desdemona objectifies her Iago spites Othello for marrying Desdemona as it completes what Iago perceives as Fates transgression against his station in life. Othello, in change state, is never sated, as his marriage to Desdemona should develop consolidated his power as a man instead, he resents Desdemonas confidence and the power that even a suggestion of her infidelity asserts over him. The feminist criticism of the sanctuary of love revolves around loves existence as a intend of control when Othellos male autonomy is compromised and he begins to speculate on his nature as secondary to his wifes sexual power, he goes insane, ironically smothering her to death using the same sheets used during the night of their marriages consummation. Desdemonas erstwhile functional marriage serves as the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back, as Othello finds the detest due the swan almo st as difficult to bear as the loss of Desdemona (Bloom 1987, p. 90). Shakespeares presentation of Desdemona as a pawn in Iagos handling can be presented as his disdain with societys misogyny. However, Desdemonas portrayal as the helpless victim serves to further discredit female military unit.While the tragic death of Othello surpasses Desdemonas in literary importance, Desdemona becomes more tragic a character than her e unsungd husband. She has done nothing to earn the contempt of her husband, whose murderous intent and eventual suicide serve as the wholly(prenominal) inwardness of self-validation. She has become an object in Othellos self-renunciation, nothing more than another circumstanceor in Shakespearian tragedy. In his portrayal of Desdemona, Shakespeare may have been able to present a feminist case for the station of women in society and their abuses at the transfer of men. tho Othello is not made the villain Iago is the person portrayed as destroying a life, not in Desdemonas passing but in Othellos fall from grace. Desdemona, though a possible case for the argument of feminist characters in Elizabethan theatre, is ultimately too passive to be a feasible feminist. Had she asserted herself and called Othellos insecurity, her husbands pride may have been compromised, but it would serve as a means for him to hear the primary culprits at hand. That Desdemona confronted her father and not her own husband plays the feminist argument into doubt marriage, not self-sufficiency, was Desdemonas final goal. She sought neither to validate herself nor her sense of self-worth, but rather chose a life of awe to the Moor she loved. In essence, she presented herself as a victim from the very(prenominal) beginning. distant other Shakespeare plays, TOS can be sweep upn both in its diachronic context and simultaneously be applied to the modern social constrictions women face. In its historical context, the play presents a comical obstacle standing betwee n a man and the object of his affection. In a more contemporary setting, however, TOS is a story of one mans conquest over a womans social and e campaignal independence and the jejuneness of a free spirit. The aforementioned setting makes sport out of breaking Kates will and reveals a theoretical rebuttal of radical feminism.As TOS unfolds, the audience sees Kate as a social pariah, unfit for society as she spurns the institution of marriage and the idea of love. An independent, sharp-tongued woman, she is demonized by the local male world who sees her as a barricade preventing courtship of the demure, younger, more favorable Bianca. It is not completely dismissible a notion that Shakespeare wrote TOS with the intent of exposing the farce of authentic(p) types of marriage. Shakespeare may have juxtaposed the stubinnate(p), resilient, and often violent Kate with the desirable Bianca to show the duplicity of social marriages. In his article entitled The Taming of the Shrew Mocks th e orb Mercantile Marriage, Gareth Lloyd Evans describes the world of TOS as mercantile to the end, showing how even at the conclusion of its biggest transaction (the marriage of Bianca), the gambling element remains (Marvel 2000, p. 69). In the end, Kate becomes docile to the will of Petruchio, leaving Bianca flabbergasted at her childs change of heart. Kates radical change from self-avowed hater of all things love and marriage hence becomes the locus of the question of her nature as a feminist character was Shakespeares portrayal of Kate as a sultry misanthrope a comic device or a social gist? If Shakespeare intended to use Kate in the same manner with which he employed the character of Desdemona in Othello (that is, as a means to the spots end), then TOS fasten ons on an entirely new direction. Using Kate as a comic device makes female independence the object of scorn and ridicule, and Shakespeares tone toward feminist issues would be dismissive and, condescension not withs tanding, misogynist. As the object of a social statement, Kate would become a testament to the futilities of female cynicism and rejection of society.Examining Kates transition lends credibility to the express stance. If Shakespeare was a feminist writer, creating Kates character with the purpose of communicating a substance to society at large, the shrew being tamed would be Petruchio. Instead, Petruchios taming of Kate is an act of in stock- muteding humility in a spoiled, egotistical, comfortably-fed, rich girl and forcing her to allow a will other than her own (Marvel 2000, p. 147). The feminist standpoint would rather be one of prevailing contempt for Petruchio, a self-avowed social climber whose desire to marry Kate stems from expansion of his familys wealth. Like Desdemona, Kates independence and strength as a female character are smother by marriage unlike Desdemona, Kates marriage to the ruffian Petruchio is one with ulterior motive. Kates man and wife is a travesty and a sacrilege, deflower by Petruchios intoxication and unruly garb (Marvel 2000, p. 152). Almost indicative of Petruchios goal of taming the shrew, he further suppresses Kate by caressing her at the will of I will not (Marvel 2000, p. 152). Ironically, the kiss represents more than the overbearing will of an intoxicated groom. The significance of calm downing Kates ill will with a kiss is utterly symbolic of her contentions toward TOS opening. Standing at the altar, her final countersign is one against a life of pacification and subjugation under the domination of a husband. The actual taming does not begin until after marriage, a further explanation of Kates disdain.What is more social function to about Kates taming is the means in which she is subdued. Following her outrage at the spectacle of the wedding, Petruchio denies Kate food, insisting that it is for her own good. Later, he denies her access to the ornate clothing provided by the tailor. Before leaving for their relapse to Padua, Kate implores her husband that they make haste, as they are late. Petruchio sputters that he will not go, and that she is reading the time incorrectly Petruchio condescendingly states that whenever they leave it will be at what oclock he says it is (Act IV, Scene iii, line 189). The means denied Kate in her taming are food, clothing, and free will. Kate begins to rely on her husband for survival, warmth, and freedom of motion. Essentially, Petruchio becomes not only her husband but excessively her guardian, leaving Kate with the independence of a small child. It is almost as if he is brainwashing her, torturing her by keeping her hungry, clothed in what path he sees fit, restricting her motion and even forcing her sense of time under the fetters of his will. Shakespeares only message here is not simply the futility of female emancipation, but the repercussions of atypical female action. Kate is portrayed as earning her fate through her belligerence and the days she exhausted terrorizing society with her outbursts and sporadic violence. The more a woman strays from the path society sets out for her, the harsher the punishment in an inescapable future marriage.The only negating aspect to the misogyny of Shakespearean assertion is Kates nature. though stubborn, Kate is intelligent, too in her apparent surrender to her husbands mad will, Kate realizes she can take the wind completely out of his sails, deprive his weapon of its power, even turn it against himtame him in his own humor (Marvel 2000, p. 52). By entertaining his strange whims, Kate can turn the tides against Petruchio, calling his bluff, so to speak. aft(prenominal) all, Petruchios dementia is take upd, as he is trying to irk his wife and break her composure. As the entertaining, submitting wife, Kate also tames Petruchio she conceivably leaves him no reason to be as erratic as the wife whose will he set out to break. In this sense, Kate is Petruchios equal, and in their social obscurity, they are made acceptable through the bonds of marriage.On the surface, Rosalind is socially acceptable, like most of Shakespeares characters. She is almost altruistic, exuding transcendental knowledge about life and love. She chastises Silvius for his devotion to Phoebe, yet swoons for Orlando and does not grow embittered at the prospect of love in the manner TOS Kate does. As one of the more engaging characters of the play, Rosalind, like Othellos Desdemona, goes against her uncles wishes in the hunting of her love, in this case manifested by Orlando. Unlike Desdemona, however, Rosalind is more congenial, coaxing her uncle by imploring his forgiveness. Rosalind testifies to Duke Frederick that if she offended him in her affections for Orlando, it was never so much as in a thought unborn (Act I, Scene iii, lines 49-50). As a maam and a daughter, Rosalind is the ideal woman to show society. She is polite, reserved, and wise beyond her years. Her personality, however, s hifts to a point unparalleled by other Shakespearean characters. Rosalinds power as a possible feminist character is best exemplified in her interactions while cross-dressed as Ganymede (Ganymed). After she assumes the identity of the male Ganymede, Rosalinds character unfolds as one who is both enticing and mysterious, alluring to the romantic, erotic, and homoerotic aspects of theatre. She begins to take a more aggressive stance in her interaction with Orlando, preventing him from kissing her despite her desire, insisting that he should speak first (Act IV, Scene i, lines 69-74).As mentioned previously, men were exclusive actors as women were not permitted entry into the world of Elizabethan theatre. Homoeroticism was essentially an unavoidable subtext to any Shakespearean play. The choice of the classical mythological figure of Ganymede is indicative of Shakespearean homoeroticism. In Greek myth, Ganymede was a shepherd boy with whom Zeus (Jove) fell in love. Rosalind on an Eli zabethan stage would therefore be a male actor cross-dressed as a woman, who in the play cross-dresses as a homosexual man beguiling and perhaps slightly manipulating the unsuspecting Orlando. When taken into this context, As You Like It reveals new depth and content. Michael Shapiro delves into cross-gender devices in his book Gender in caper on the Shakespearean Stage Boy Heroines Female Pages. Rosalind adopts three break down and distinct layers of identityRosalind, Ganymede, and Rosalind (Shapiro 1994, p. 119). The sole purpose behind her schizophrenic metamorphosis is her love for Orlando, a man she has barely met. The first Rosalind is the vibrant character attracted to Orlando. Ganymede serves as a mentor to Orlando, a giver of advice in her surmisal of Ganymedes identity, Rosalind alters her own nature as a woman living in a patriarchy as she takes the role of a mentor, big(a) man-to-man advice to Orlando on the behavior of wives (Shapiro 1994, p. 124). This ascension to egalitarian status with Orlando is pondering of the first feminist objective to attain total social equivalence with men.The third Rosalind is the one who acts according to the advice she gives Orlando as Ganymede, and incidentally is the most intriguing of the three identities. As Ganymede, Rosalind has a control over Orlandos emotions and thoughts. She can influence him whichever way she so pleases by suggesting, as a man, how Orlando ought to suffer or react to women as wives. As the third Rosalind, she can indirectly affect Orlando by either corroborating through her actions any advice she gave as Ganymede, or further discredit Ganymede by acting opposite. Rosalind ultimately has the choice of how she wants Orlando to accept her. Rosalind can covet Orlandos trust and affections as a man, and in doing so mold him to her liking so that she may later win him over as a woman. Ganymedes presence as a trusted friend of Orlando is significant as it is perhaps the only way Rosalin d can enjoy equality. This aspect of her cross-dressing is wholly non-feminist in its nature. From a radical feminist standpoint, there should be no gender labels, in which case Rosalind has failed to identify herself as such as she is forced to become a man. From a liberal feminist standpoint, gender labels can exist and differences should be respected. In the liberal feminist mindset, Rosalind has failed to gain equality as she is only given credibility as a man the nature of the advice Orlando seeks regarding the nature of women as wives can only be trusted as glide path from a man.Equally plausible is that Rosalind is forced to act the way she does to function what she wants. Rosalind may have taken the initiative to achieve her goals no matter the cost of identity. Furthermore, her male identity had the potential to liberate her female identities as Ganymede, Rosalind had the power to dictate to Orlando the manner in which women should be approached. Shakespeare had the oppor tunity to electrical relay a message through his cross-dressing female chock, but failed to endeavor to such communication. though working within the limits of his society, Shakespeare did not address issues through Rosalinds characters in the manner Austen does with her female protagonists. While heavy-handed techniques are not necessary, Shakespeare only flirted with the notion of empowered females as it augmented the situational comedy in AYLI.Shakespeares characters cannot be accurately described as feminists, even with respect to the social norms they challenge in his works. The Webster Dictionary defines feminism as the opening of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.Though her marriage to Othello was one of controversy, it was one that tried the boundaries of race and religion-relations. Miscegenation, not misogyny, was addressed in their relationship. Desdemona was perpetually a victim whose life rested solely in the hands of her insane husband. For D esdemona to be a feminist or even have feminist characteristics, she would have picked up a sword and joined Othello in the military. The Venice in which she lived only economically endowed her with a dowry, which would then be paid upon marriage. From a social standpoint, Desdemona may have been able to petition her fellow Venetians for help when she suspected Othellos violent tendencies. However, she chose to leave her destiny in the hands of her husband, no matter the outcome.Kate, though constantly haranguing the general public for the institution of love, does not take her stance for feminist reasons. The traditional feminist struggle on the institution of marriage focuses on marriage as forcing accepted roles on women (motherhood and subjugation under a husband in particular). in that location is no indication that Kate took any of these stances more plausible is that she is embittered by the fact that society forces marriage and not why it is forced.Rosalind is perhaps the strongest character of the three in question. That she is assertive has little to do with her identity as a feminist character. While there is little doubt that she is a hero and one of the foci of AYLI, and still less speculation on the strength of her character, she still does not actively seek political or economic equality. thither is no mention of her stance on women in society. The most feminist aspect of Rosalind is her ability to transcend gender. In cross-dressing, she reflects new interposition by Orlando. Though not more positive or negative than her treatment when Orlando acknowledged Rosalind as a woman, as Ganymede, Rosalind shows that Orlando approaches her with similar respect. Rosalinds sexual empowerment does deify her to a certain degree it is as if she has the power to evoke feelings in men that would erstwhile not exist.With the exception of TOS Kate, Shakespearean females are usually composed individuals who contribute to the development of a plot or male cha racter. However, all three Shakespearean characters can be described as heroes to a degree. Carol Pearson defines a hero in her book The Female Hero in American and British literary works as one who departs from convention and thereby either implicitly or explicitly challenges the myths that define the status quo (Pearson 1981, p. 16).Desdemona, though sexually more antecedent than other Shakespearean women, is at home in her surroundings. She is a born Venetian of high stature, and though she keeps her relationship with Othello secret, she has no conflicting interests in Venice. Her marriage to an outsider challenges the myth of requisite same-race marriage. Othello, on the other hand, is a man of different race and religion, struggling to make a name for himself in a new land. He is not nearly as self-assured as Desdemona, his physical differences weighing on his conscience and cost him peace of mind. Where Desdemona has made peace to accept her own death (she requests the weddi ng sheets be placed on the bed), Othello is never composed to the measure Desdemona exudes. In short, Desdemona acts as foil to Othello in each way their union is one that naturally causes friction, without which Iago would never be able to manipulate the situation.Kate and Petruchio are very unique among Shakespearean couples though Petruchio is hardly a hero by the Shakespearean norm of gallantry, he is the man who tames the shrew. However unorthodox a hero, Petruchio is the perfect match for Kate in his gruffness, his unkempt demeanor, and his social shortcomings. The two have only their resilient personalities in common Kate is more polished and respectable than her wily husband, but the two both have a natural contempt for life that can only be quelled by their marriage. Their relationship is one of servant and master, the power balance shifting constantly. Though Kate detested the pandering of her past suitors, her attraction for Petruchio budded because he was precisely the opposite of what society (and her father) wanted for her. To keep her interest piqued, Petruchio naturally appealed to Kate and had to maintain a certain air about himself. Following their marriage, Kate became subservient, accepting Petruchios odd tendencies and orders to pacify him (he never would have expected a docile Kate, and receiving one shifted manipulation back into Kates hands). Though their personalities are strong, societys favor puts the advantage in to Petruchios hands as in access to a wife he also gained financial means. Kate is merely a means to an end for Petruchio, whereas Petruchio is the only means for Kate to attain what society expects of her.Rosalind and Orlando are another anomaly, though in the end, Rosalind exists more for Orlando than vice versa. Cross-dressing aside, Rosalinds sweet temperament and witty rapport make her the ideal mate. Orlando, with the exception of his interior birth and notable wrestling skills, is rather normal in every respect. Rosalind exists only to marry Orlando, and while her transsexual tendencies are a force with which to be reckoned, her antics merely delay what an inevitable relationship and existence. Her previously mentioned maddening was a perfect metaphor for a life whose direction she could not control.Shakespeare as a FeministWhether in tragedies or comedies, Shakespeares female characters vary greatly in their nature and the social mold they fit. presumptuousness the Elizabethan era in which Shakespeare lived, most of his more wily and merry female characters went against the grain of society. However, most all of Shakespeares more in good order female characters occurred in comedies, begging the question of whether or not they could be taken seriously as characters that could exist outside the realms of stage narrative. That these strong female characters exist only in comedies does not question any aspect of society. In keeping with his comedies humorous undertones, Shakespeare may ver y well have made his female characters strong because their existence would be laughable. After all, Elizabethan stage actors were all male women were never allowed in theatre. Furthermore, the tendencies of comedic so-called feminist characters are to either succumb to societys restraints, or to be smothered by overpowering male dominance. The women of Shakespeares plays are usually the ones who change, often when they become married. Katherina, for example, succumbs to marriage, settling for Petruchio, a drunkard whose flaunty personality and strong sense of deviance outweighs her own rejections of conformity and domestication. Her resiliency goes unrewarded, and she once again becomes a subservient figure in the prototypical patriarchy of the time. A large reason behind female retrenchment in Shakespearean plays was also public acceptance. No patron, male or female, would return to Shakespeares productions if the prevailing themes were the emancipation of women. Female assert ion was a taboo, a reason why it was so popular in comedies. The superior aspect of comedies is the aversion of tragedy negative happenstances that reach fruition are tragedies, and the same happenstances that are avoided are comedies. As the defining characteristic of a comedy, the resolution of a problem is mirrored in the pacification of said comedys female rogues. The strength of women in Shakespeares plays, therefore, is a literary tool used to build up the glory and win of men and the patriarchies in which they exist.What cannot be dismissed, however, is the context in which Shakespeare wrote the plays. Speculation of his historical surroundings denote Shakespeares tendency to pander to leadership, in this case, Englands greatest female monarch, Elizabeth I. Though society was largely patriarchal, the monarchy led by queen who did not marry. It is not completely unlikely that Shakespeare pandered to the female monarch, emulating her faltering to wed in his The Taming of the Shrew. Queen Elizabeth, after all, did not marry, nor would she fit into societys mold of the typical woman. Shakespeares characters were daring for the time, as they also broke the mold of Elizabethan women. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, however, the strong female characters of Shakespeares plays were exemplified by their ability to manipulate, control, and overpower men. In many ways, the strength of women served as a means to make women antagonists. For example, Desdemonas power existed to drive Othello mad with her unchecked sexuality. She exhibited a power over men, one that would not be contained or controlled by men. Though Iago manipulated the characters of Othello, it was extreme jealousy that pack the plays namesake mad, causing him to kill himself and the woman he could not control. The message conveyed in Othello could be construed to be a foreboding one to women in society and the men that dominated them losing control of women and compromising male dominance leads to tragi c consequences.Shakespeares Rosalind was unique, different from Desdemona and Katherina in her omniscience and enlightened state. Though the complexity of her emotions and thoughts is unrivaled in As You Like It, she takes on a darker side, one of manipulation and social subversion. Though laudable, her social deviance still leaves the play wanting for a male counterpart to complement her. She cannot strike hard the respective stations of men and women for too long without succumbing to loves fetters herself. It is as though Shakespeare is communicating the futility of female nonconformity. Shakespeares penultimate message in comedic female characters is one of concession. Though women are welcome to mock and society and live outside its bounds, they all must eventually grow into wives and docile domesticates