The play Medea, ends in the murders of two sons by their mother, Medea, to get revenge on her husband. This result angered me because of the amount of indecisiveness that Medea had about carrying out the deed. She kept going back and forth about whether or not she could go through with it. If she had made up her mind and stayed with it the whole time it would be easier for the audience to accept it and pass it off as an act of insanity or just pure evil. The indecisiveness shows that Medea actually weighed both options and thought it through as a rational person would. After she reveals her plan to the Chorus, they reply saying, “You would not have told your plan to me unless you hoped I would dissuade you,” (69). I agree that she would not have told anyone of her plan unless she was having second thoughts and wanted to be talked out of doing it.
I think that a large part of her ultimate decision was based on the gender roles presented in the play. These roles were clearly laid out by Medea early on and they entailed concepts about how a woman’s main goal is to satisfy the men and to produce heirs for them. In the end when Medea is contemplating the murders of her sons, in a way she is contemplating whether or not she fits in with the gender roles. If she decided to spare her sons lives she would be giving into the role of the typical woman, protecting her husband’s heirs. Medea ultimately chose to carry out the deed to inflict emotional pain on her husband and deny her role as a woman.
Until I read your post I did not think of her actions that way. In hindsight, it is perfectly clear now why the author put in the part about women having to satisfy men and produce heirs. It is, of course, still not justified that she ends her children's life, but when put into a different perspective the motivs are completely different.
ReplyDelete