What does shakespeare think of womens rights?

Answer 1

This is a complicated question, because women fulfilled many roles. For example, for most of Shakespeare's life, a woman was the most powerful person in the country, a person whom everyone in the country felt had a God-given right to boss them all around. And she did, and they loved her for it. Of course, only one woman in the country could be the queen. Two significant factors which underlay the social and economic position of most women was that women were generally given the task of raising young children and that the job of keeping a household running was very complicated and difficult. It was natural and convenient that these two tasks should go together, and so the responsibility for looking after children and looking after a house went together. Wealthy women could afford to hire servants to look after their children and houses and so had the free time to involve themselves in politics and the arts, which they did. But that was not a lot of women. Most of them went for the child-rearing and house-maintaining combination which required a father for the children and an outside source of income to pay the house expenses, which was the same person as the father. In other words, a satisfactory husband was an necessary part of this economic arrangement, and so a lot of attention was paid to finding young women a suitable mate. It is only fair to say that men also looked forward to the pleasures of a family and the comforts of a well-run home. However in some cases, like Shakespeare's, their obligation to provide the outside income actually prevented them from enjoying the home they were supporting. But I digress. Most women looked forward to a satisfactory marital relationship to complete their economic needs. But this was not always possible. Sometimes their spouses died, leaving them as widows. And the records show that many widows took over the businesses of their late husbands and continued to run them with the complete support of society and their employees. Women could also start up certain home-based businesses, especially spinning, weaving and brewing, even if they were also looking after children and the home. Whew! What a lot of work! But many did it. A woman with an unsatisfactory husband (like Shakespeare's daughter Judith) was in a bad way because not only did they have to start up businesses so their household would have the money the ne'er do well husband failed to provide, but was unable to fully control even the money they made since the husband was legally entitled (with a few exceptions) to do whatever he wanted with all of the property owned by the couple, or either of them. This was the primary legal disadvantage under which women in Shakespeare's day lived. Of course they couldn't vote, but nobody could back then so it didn't matter. We should now consider the position of the unmarried woman. Such women often took up jobs, such as spinning thread, which is why "spinster" meant until quite recently a woman who had never married. They also did needlework and weaving. However, unfortunately, one of the most common occupations for unmarried women was prostitution, a career path which led to early disease and death. On the whole, women had a significant social and economic role and were recognized for it. Englishwomen were allowed much more social freedom than their continental sisters, a fact remarked on by visitors from continental Europe. An extreme and unusual example of social toleration is the case of Mary Frith, the well-known transvestite, small-time crook and sensationalist, a contemporary of Shakespeare.