This document provides an analysis of whether the character Medea from the Greek play by Euripides can be considered a feminist. It discusses the history of feminism and compares Medea's actions to different types of feminism, such as liberal feminism which focuses on equality within existing systems, and radical feminism which demands a complete transformation of oppressive systems. While Medea did not explicitly fight for women's rights, her refusal to conform to traditional gender roles and desire for vengeance against the patriarchal society that wronged her can be interpreted as feminist traits. There are arguments on both sides as to whether Medea's actions ultimately helped or hindered the feminist cause. The document concludes that Medea's unapologetic

1. Is MEDEA a feminist?
Discuss
JENNIFER RICHARDS
In this essay I will be reviewing the text Medea, a play written by Greek play-write Euripedes. I will be analysing
feminist perspectives and ideals presented within the book, and posing arguments for and against Medea's
character being seen as feminist. I shall also be Discussing the history of feminism up to present day and drawing
comparisons between other feminist figures as well as Medea's actions, Lastly I will be talking about the
implications or connotations her actions may have had, as well as her reasoning for such actions and what they
may or may not represent.
Some have argued that Greek tragedy or even more specifically Euripedes is where feminism originated, with
Greek tragedy comes the birth of the heroine, a female protagonist with all the qualities of the hero only
charged with feminine empowerment. The genre sparked the beginnings of various movements and many saw a
new path in the evolution of the social development, Terry Collits mentions the influential book on Greek
tragedy published by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Jean-Pierre Vernant, saying that “They exposed classical studies to
the winds of change which were already transforming other disciplines in the humanities”. He goes on to explain
how “startlingly modern” Medea is, explaining how the outrage of Medea and solidarity of the chorus share the
same perspective of their desires being thwarted prejudice. There have been a large variation of accounts and
other tales with heroines or strong female protagonists yet when we trace back the lineage of feminism
Euripedes is what comes to mind, Euripedes, along with Aristotle, were some of the first to pose the questions
and core values that most modern feminists identify with, and Medea is one of the first pieces of text that
embodies said values.
First off, to truly understand the feminist position posed within the play, we must analyse the term feminist,
which is different to the word feminism and has different connotations. To say that Medea has feminist traits, or
her actions within this play followed the dynamic of feminism would be wholly accurate, however inadvertent,
but being a feminist is an active choice. If you want to look at it literally then no Medea is not technically a
feminist within this play, on account of having never classified herself as such or even stated her fight is for
equality or the eradication of the patriarchy. However the fact still remains that on some subconscious level it
would seem she's choosing to fight not just to exact her own personal vengeance but to set an example, to stand
up for womankind that experienced heavy oppression within their culture.
Considering the vast spectrum that is feminism, as well as the various different types of feminists out there from
radical to liberal, it is tricky to define Medea's subconscious feminist stance. There is no one type of feminism, it
would seem due to her desire to completely and utterly subvert all female stereotypes and gender roles, as well
as her desire to fight back against patriarchal views and oppression she may fit more into the role of a radical
feminist. Medea has a more ruthless approach but more than that, she's not attempting to find ways in which to
live with dignity in society's pre existing social values and rules, she's challenging the rules and values
themselves. In Brittney Cooper's article on internal conflicts within feminism, especially interracial, she writes
“(Liberal) feminisms still center around equality... (radical) feminisms demand justice. There is a difference. One
kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing system. The other
recognises the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation.” Radical and
liberal feminisms are terms more relative to this discussion, as opposed to racial conflict. The same ideals can be
applied to Medea; instead of trying to bargain or reason with Jason, or simply trying to make the best out of a
bad situation she demands justice, casting Medea in the light of a radical feminist.
From a first glance Medea comes across as a feminist that would seem lightyears ahead of her time, considering
the slow progress the feminist movement has made in the last century, to have, not just Medea, but multiple
women within this play take a stance on female empowerment and a protest against the oppressive patriarchy
can be considered as a fairly modern approach for the time in which it was written.
In today's society, with the advancements we have made and the rights women have won, though the battle is

2. still going on, in first world countries primarily the fight has shifted from a complete upheaval of society's
standards and beliefs toward gender roles as well as an abolishment of the patriarchy, to now simply striving for
equality and mutual respect. In parts of the world where women still do not attain the same legal rights of men
the fight is much fiercer, drastic and extreme. This latter is the same kind of fight we see playing out in Medea,
but on a smaller more personal scale.
We can see a large number of empowering qualities within her character. Always being proclaimed as an
intelligent woman, with implications toward her bravery, upon reading the play many may see her as admirable
for having the courage to stand her ground and to do what she felt was right, as well as disproving all
preconceptions toward the female role. Some could go as far as to say that her character subconsciously
promotes feminism, without proclaiming herself to be a feminist or to even be fighting specifically for women's
rights, there are subtle connotations and implications in her dialogue that put forth the idea that she isn't just
fighting for her own liberty, justice and vengeance against an oppressive male, but all the women in her society
and culture that have to endure the patriarchy much as she does.
Many will argue that there was nothing empowering about her actions, that they had little to do with feminism
and were just part of a quest for irrational vengeance. If anything some may go as far as to say that her hysteria
was damaging to the feminist cause, that it may give other women a bad name. However if you go deeper you
can see that her refusal to comply, compromise or moderate her vengeance for the sake of the happiness, mercy
or comfort of others, especially Jason, puts her on a pedestal of feminist ideals; she unashamedly parades her
feelings about the given situation, no matter how hysterical they may seem, this freedom of personal expression
being something that women for centuries have been encouraged, nay, pressured into censoring for the sake of
male comfort. She behaves just as any man would do, and has done, without feeling the need to be apologetic
for how much pain she experienced.
Considering the author, a renown “champion of women's equality”, we are immediately presented with the
perspective of proto-feminism. It is hard to view this play or Medea as anything but with these preconceptions,
that being said there are two very equal arguments for and against Medea being seen as a feminist; while she
completely alienates herself from the patriarchal view of a traditional woman, an ideal wife or mother and
unashamedly follows her own will as a person, not just a woman, because of her irrational reaction, no matter
how justified or non-conformist it may be, in the bigger picture it does little to aid the cause, or pave a way for
women to stand their ground. Her protest and fight for vengeance ends up sinking in to the sea of dominant
male views on women and is merely written off as the stereotypical hysterical woman. Her selfishness portrayed
can be criticised by men and women later on in our world for ultimately discarding rationality and a feminist
stand for her own personal goals and thus reinforcing the idea that a passive woman is a better woman.
In the end however it is never truly stated by Medea or anyone else within the play that she wishes to consider
the bigger picture and the fact that her character may be written off as hysterical or hindering could be simply
down to others failing to follow her example, within reason. It wasn't simply the betrayal by Jason, after all, that
triggered such an extreme response, one must realise that his abandonment was the straw that broke the
camel's back. Looking at either the bigger picture or Medea's personal goals the same conclusion can be drawn:
she took a stand unapologetically, made herself out to be somebody who won't be pushed around or succumb
to society's standards or the patriarchal ideal, she was wronged and she exacted vengeance, she disregarded her
standing as a woman despite the disapproval of those around her and that in itself is a feminist act.
Due to how relatable Medea's character is to modern women, in the sense that we all have a festering dark side
drawn to revenge and anger, only Medea is unashamed about letting this side out, one can consider this a
timeless quality. It can be persistently called upon by women throughout history and in modern day and be seen
as a reason to be unapologetic for your emotions. Medea's betrayal and rage may be looked at as a
representation of the turmoil of women through years of tyranny from mankind. However instead of bending to
the will of the patriarchy and or crumbling under the influence, becoming a martyr or a victim, Medea conquers
oppression and domineers masculinity, as many women have done since, “Medea's story has hooks upon which
the modern viewer or reader can hang elements of the lives of modern women”, this relatable quality not only
in Medea but in the events of the play can subsequently be construed as a representation of modern women,
and perhaps even the feminist movement. Tales of marital betrayal and revenge that follow suit can be seen in
War of the Roses or The First Wives Club.

3. Cheryl Fuller, in her feminist essay of Medea explains that “the character Medea is the same woman transported
across time”, as previously stated this timeless quality allows a reflection of the female struggle between love
and hatred, loyalty and betrayal, sacrifice and justice that we have seen played continuously throughout time.
One could even argue that perhaps this was one of many sparks that triggered the beginnings of the feminist
movements. Regardless of whether or not this was the intention of Euripedes, we cannot deny the impact the
story had and the clear feminist qualities embodied within Medea's rich character. One might go as far as to say
perhaps she's the woman many wish they had the courage to be?
It could be argued that the intention of Euripedes was less in the support of female empowerment, but more of
a jab at male dominion: “Euripede's Medea indeed questioned prevailing norms and beliefs, primarily those of
the heroic masculine ethic, but it did so at the expense of women,” whether or not women see Medea's
vengeful, maniacal behaviour as a positive trait is one thing, and not something that can be argued as it is
subjective, however how those traits can actually help the cause is another, considering her ill temper is not
directed at women but at men, women have more freedom to look at it from either side. However when one
realises that any man who reads Medea is more likely to only see the side of her victims and subsequently draw
biased and misguided conclusions about who women really are, we see that the play and her character only
serve to further segregate the two genders. If we are to argue in favour of Medea's feminism we have to see
that she fights for equality, not female superiority, she has to have qualities that positively impact both genders,
one shouldn't have to attack an opposing party to defend one's own point.
The question still stands “Can Medea be considered a feminist?” In the last paragraph I discussed Euripede's
portrayal of this character, in that context as I explained it is hard to see her as a feminist because of how
damaging her role is to the feminist movement, however that is only if she is viewed as a fictitious character
instead of an ideal or a real person. Let's pretend for a moment that Medea really existed, would we condemn
her actions against misogyny and oppression because it makes feminism look bad? The fact still stands that
because the inequality was so drastic then, so too must the fight against it be. An obedient and tame woman is a
decent woman in the eyes of ancient Greece, had she not attacked the patriarchy to defend herself and
womankind then perhaps her stand would have been in vain and her tale lost. “Silence is a woman's glory”;
many men believed, and still do, by making as much noise as possible Medea creates her own female glory, one
not designed and designated by mankind. It is a feminist's duty to create her own glory and help create a world
where that is a universal possibility, to question natural order and man's role of ruler over society. We can see
the influence of Aristotle (or possibly vice versa) in this play, when it comes to who should rule a household and
who should be ruled it is clear that Medea is challenging this, as Aristotle says “Ought a woman to be temperate
and brave and just,” these are three qualities that stand out the most within Medea's character. “For if a noble
nature is equally required in both, why should one of them always rule, and the other always be ruled?” This
notion is very apparent within the play, it was at the point which Medea learns of her exile that one can imagine
this occurring to her. It is a question any feminist must ask themselves and others and constantly remember in
order to progress. One could even consider it the ultimate feminist question, the reason to fight oppression.
In conclusion, the arguments for and against Medea's role as a feminist depend entirely on perspective of the
play, how it was written; how it can be seen as spiteful toward men and hurtful to the feminist cause. How little
thought Euripedes gave to the bigger picture and how through a potentially selfish desire to put forth his opinion
he wound up doing more harm than good. Are there not however correlations there? Medea's behaviour and
Euripedes' cause for writing the novel come across fairly similarly. It can be cast aside as a petty jab at men for
their fiendish behaviour or it can be seen as an attempt to represent any oppressed and down trodden women
who needed something to fuel their fire. When it comes down to it Medea's actions, what she represents and
the questions implied by her character paint the picture of radical feminism at its finest. Though her story is
personal the message is universal, question your role as a woman, challenge the reign of men and fight back
against enforced silence no matter what the immediate cost, because of this I conclude that yes Medea should
be considered a feminist.

4. References
Aristotle., and Rackham, H. (1959). Aristotle: politics. 1st ed. London: Heinemann, pp.Book 1 section 1254a,
section 1254b.
Collits, T. (n.d.). Intimations of Feminism in Ancient Athens: Euripedes' Medea. 1st ed. [ebook] Sydney: University
of Sydney, pp.1,2,3,7,8. Available at:
http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/547/516 [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].
Cooper, B. (2014). Feminism’s ugly internal clash: Why its future is not up to white women. [online] Salon.com.
Available at:
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/feminisms_ugly_internal_clash_why_its_future_is_not_up_to_white_wom
en/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].
Fuller, C. (2010). Medea, Feminism and the Shadow. Undergraduate. University of Minnesota.
Messing, A. (n.d.). Protofeminist or Misogynist? Medea as a case study of gendered discourse. 1st ed. [ebook]
Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, pp.2, 3, 4, 5. Available at:
http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/kingston-mann/Messing.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].