Paarquale refers to other authors such as Whitman, Gruber and Cartledge to endorse her assertion

Paarquale has made it her mission to portray Lysistrata as a play designed to denergrade women and that this debasement is enhanced through the established stagecraft techniques of the day. A male depleted Athens that needs to reclaim it’s masculinity is Paarquale’s historical focus. With this tunnel vision, Paaquale’s critique is self serving. She sees the comedic devices as furthering the ridicule of women and Aristophane’s attempt to sweeten his message of peace to attract an audience, as anti-woman. Murray has taken the play at face value and has attempted to show that the battle strained Athens can be reflected in the play’s text. Aristophanes was a playwright delivering a message to audiences within the theatrical protocols of the day. He should be celebrated as a writer who established a form of humour with devices that are still relevant today. Make love not war displayed with nudity, is that more 60’s and “Hair” than 411 BC? Gender reversal that shows the frustrating struggles from both sides, is Lysistrata more Tootsie or Mrs Doubtfire than we realise?

Paarquale’s contention is that Aristophane’s main aim was to re-assert masculinity. However we can’t say this about the author in terms of his other published plays. This desired impact, suggested by Paaraquale is not consistent with his peace trilogy, as the other two present as serious plays. On reading Lysistrata are women really depicted as the weaker sex? While Paarquale might assert this was the aim, it is the men

Some topics in this essay:
Moulin Rouge, Paarquale Aristophanes’, , Gruber Cartledge, Aristophanes’comedy Sophocles, BC Gender, message peace, Tootsie Doubtfire, World War, murray suggests, historical focus, gender reversal, 411 bc, male actors, aristophanes playwright, times war,