Macbeth and Feminism

During Jacobean England women were seen as possessions – owned by their fathers or husbands. A character like Lady Macbeth, who is driven, ambitious and motivated was wildly unusual and would have challenged that society to the core! She’s presented as infinitely more competent than her husband as well – she plans and organises the murder; and the fact that they got away with it was entirely down to her. And even at the end, Lady Macbeth won’t allow herself to fall into enemy hands or become property again and so she makes the decision to take her own life. In many ways, this is the most significant expression of her power: she will not be owned by anyone, and she will not bow down for anything. Clearly Shakespeare was writing in support of powerful women, centuries before this became mainstream thinking.

(A protofeminist is a feminist from the time before feminism was even an idea)

However you feel about Macbeth’s ambition, it seems pretty clear that he wouldn’t have killed Duncan if it weren’t for the involvement of his wife and the witches; so really, Macbeth is simply a play about a man who is led astray by women. Yes, some of the women in Macbeth are presented as powerful and aggressive, which could be seen as a feminist act – but bear in mind that Queen Elizabeth had just presided over 50 of the most violent years in English history (and she, personally, ordered the deaths of thousands of Catholics.) As a result, powerful aggressive women weren’t as unusual as we might think. So no, this play isn’t feminist. There are two types of women in this play: Lady Macbeth and the witches who are powerful but evil; and Lady Macduff who’s helpless without her husband. There is really nothing feminist about this play!

Macbeth wants to be king, and so he turns to his dutiful wife and she organises it for him. There can be no clearer example of a woman serving a man: he wants to be king, so she organises it, and then stands back to allow him to reap the rewards. In this respect, she’s just a traditional subservient, Jacobean female. It’s also telling that, after the murder, Lady Macbeth becomes an almost secondary character in the play; her descent into madness is never really explored and in the end her death is almost brushed under the carpet. This is because, despite all her intelligence, her cunning and her resolve, this play is really about Macbeth – he is the man after all!

(nb. I actually kinda stole this analysis from Mr Bruff... and it's completely reliant on the idea that Lady Macbeth's threats and bullying were actually misunderstood service. I'm not sure I buy it, but anything possible to be believed is an image of truth, as a wise man once said)

Shakespeare was a populist playwright, which means he wrote plays that would entertain and spark debate. With Lady Macbeth he creates a character who is deliberately confrontational. She’s clearly the real villain in the piece, but she’s also the most interesting character on-stage; she’s a powerful woman, which was challenging, but since she’s also presented as evil, it’s quite conformist. It seems obvious that, after the play had ended, Jacobeans would have sat up and discussed her role in it all: was she a witch? Did she really kill herself? Was she just after Macbeth’s titles or did she actually love him? Was she loyal to her husband, or just after her own ends? Jacobeans would have discussed this, and so should we…