#misandry |
The Amazon women are originally
found in Greek myth as a representation of wild, dark, feminine forces that
need to be tamed by male civilization.
Typically portrayed as (sometimes promiscuous, sometimes virginal) women
instilled with a hatred of men and marriage, they represented a kind of gender
deviance that was “othered” in order to define the sexual morality and
identities of Athenian women. Derived
from the Greek “a-mazos” meaning “without a breast”, implying a lack of
maternal instinct or interest, their male offspring were commonly emasculated,
crippled, killed, or sent away—a rejection of maleness that opposed the
pervasive Greek desire for legitimate male heirs. Archaic male authors wrote of
the Amazon women
for centuries, highlighting Greek anxieties regarding the power and temptations
of femininity. The Amazons could be
fearsome rivals or essential allies, but they ultimately existed to be tamed by
love or war; a neutralized threat.
Sir John Mandeville’s Amazons were
perhaps a bit more sympathetic to a contemporary audience, but were cultural
Others nonetheless. Their rejection of
male children echoes the practices of their ancient predecessors; the
mutilation of their bodies—the amputation of a single breast—could represent a
contrasting rejection of femininity, placing them in a gender grey-area which
allows them to exist beyond (or perhaps somewhere in between) the medieval
virgin/whore dichotomy. We later see
them as necessary guardians of Alexander’s gate, keeping the Jewish population
physically isolated from the Christian world—
until the prophesized “end of
times”, during which they are doomed to fail.
Although this incarnation of Amazonians serves a functional societal
purpose, they are not fully integrated into any aspect of “normal” society, and
will eventually be ineffectual. Thriving
under a matriarchal democracy that rejects any notion of patriarchal monarchy,
these women exist in a liminal space, simultaneously empowered by their
freely-existing femininity but nevertheless subject to the perspectives and
desires of Christian hegemony.MaleGaze.jpeg |
Like her ancient and medieval
counterparts, Wonder Woman—Princess Diana of Themyscria—is an
Amazonian
character created by a male author in order to establish boundaries or
guidelines for the behavior of women.
American psychologist William Moulton Marston created Wonder Woman as
“psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule
the world.” This proto-feminist notion
is, like historical portrayals of Amazon women, complicated by social
ambivalence; Marston’s Wonder Woman is a simultaneously empowering and limiting
figure , encouraging women to be strong like Diana whilst eliminating from their
aspirations any value that she does not stand for. Marston's motives in Diana's creation complicate her existence as a feminist icon, despite the fact that she is a truly admirable and complex character.
Ultimately, the pervasive presence
of these Amazonian figures throughout literary history illustrates the
symbiotic relationship between mythology and culture; by systematically
creating and portraying atypical characters, authors have the power to
establish (sometimes problematic) guidelines for the behavior of society at
large.
I thought your point about how the Amazon label places these mythical women in between the perceived female opposite roles is a really good one. This Amazon role might be the closest that a female character in medieval literature can get to a "trickster" role, since they deny both sexual innocence and sexual guilt and engage themselves in behavior traditionally seen as masculine, like fighting. In this way, they escape the dichotomy of female roles in medieval society and engage in tasks independent of men's desires or even a male presence. The fact that they engaged social attention through history, and also that they were never cast as villains, proves that they created a valuable middle ground in the perception of females in society and myth. This ambivalent role is a source of power for Amazons, but it also throws society for a loop: humans like things (especially myths) to be concrete, and Amazons are not that. This ambivalent role gives them a lot of power, but it also makes them confusing figures, and people begin to project whatever they think of them onto the figures themselves: either as a potent feminist icon, or a exciting, sexually charged challenge that's eventually tamed. The only thing the Amazon, and Wonder Woman, are not seen as is human beings, and that might represent the true limitation of the archetype
ReplyDelete