#are placed within a role that rewards either 'masculine' or 'feminine' but not both. and of course everyone continues to be both but

[sammygender]

the thing thats always missing in conversations about gender in general is the fact that 'cis', as an identity, is not a innate Thing Some People Are, but rather a state of acceptance society grooms us into from birth

[so-shiny-so-chrome]

Witness: Supergirrl

Creator name (AO3): supergirrl

Creator name (Tumblr): le-temps-viendra36

Link to creator works:  https://archiveofourown.org/series/343042

Q: Why the Mad Max Fandom?

A: I’ve never seen the original three movies, so I went into Fury Road having no idea what I was about to watch, and it changed my life. I’d never seen a movie that looked or felt like Fury Road, and it blew my mind. What inspired me to write fanfiction for the movie were the women, especially the sisters. I had never seen survivors of sexual assault/domestic violence portrayed in that way, and it made me want to write about them.

Q: What do you think are some defining aspects of your work? Do you have a style? Recurrent themes?

A: I think the defining aspects and recurrent themes of my work are feminism and magical realism/mythical steampunk, and the intersection of those different ideas. Those ideas are all present in Fury Road, I try to delve into them more and expand them beyond the scope of the film. 

Q: Which of your works was the most fun to create? The most difficult? Which is your most popular? Most successful? Your favourite overall?

A: I don’t know if I can pick a favorite work or one that was most fun, because they’ve all been really rewarding in different ways, but the most difficult one was definitely the Furiosa chapter of Our Words. It took almost two years to write because I really struggled with getting inside Furiosa’s head. Even though I enjoy her a lot as a character, I don’t relate to her the way I do to the sisters. Although they’re all victims of Joe, they occupy very different roles in his regime, with Furiosa occupying a more conventionally ‘masculine’ role as an imperator and the sisters occupying the ‘feminine’ role of breeders/wives, thought they ultimately use their different positions within Joe’s patriarchal hierarchy to overthrow and kill him. As a more conventionally ‘feminine’ person, I relate to them more strongly than I do to Furiosa. 

Q: How do you like your wasteland? Gritty? Hopeful? Campy? Soft? Why?How do you like your wasteland? Gritty? Hopeful? Campy? Soft? Why? 

A: I think my wasteland is a blend of gritty, soft, and hopeful, but I focus on the hopefulness the most. For me, the wasteland represents our current world and my own mental health/life, and I have to believe that we can make things better (as they ultimately do in the movie).

Q: Walk us through your creative process from idea to finished product. What's your prefered environment for creating? How do you get through rough patches?

A: I either write things in one intense late night writing fest, or in bits and pieces over time. I only write when I’m alone, and I like to either have instrumental music playing or silence. 

Q: What (if any) music do you listen to for help getting those creative juices flowing?

A: I have a huuuuge long playlist of music that goes with/inspired each part of Words, composed mainly of film and TV scores, that I listen to whenever I write.

Q: What is your biggest challenge as a creator?

A: Finding the time/energy to actually write my fics down. I think about them all the time throughout the day, I am just really bad at actually physically typing them. 

Q: How have you grown as a creator through your participation in the Mad Max Fandom? How has your work changed? Have you learned anything about yourself?

A: I think my work has gotten weirder and more magical/mythical, because I’ve been inspired by the inherently weird, quasi-magical world of Fury Road, and writing Fury Road fic has helped me work through my own experiences as an SA survivor.

Q: Which character do you relate to the most, and how does that affect your approach to that character? Is someone else your favourite to portray? How has your understanding of these characters grown through portraying them?

A: I relate to all five of the sisters in different ways, but especially to Toast. Overall it makes writing her (and Angharad and Cheedo, who I also relate to very strongly) easy and fun. I think I’ve come to see that their different archetypes aren’t mutually exclusive-in their own ways, they’re all knowing and fragile and capable, and so on. 

Q: Do you ever self-insert, even accidentally?

A: Yes, I definitely project some of my own thoughts and experiences onto the Sisters, especially with regards to their being survivors of sexual assault. But I think that it’s impossible to completely remove yourself from your writing/characters.

Q: Do you have any favourite relationships to portray? What interests you about them?

A: So many! I really love the relationships of the five sisters, with each other in particular but also other characters, like Furiosa, Max, and Nux. I think their unique personalities, their strong bonds with each other, and their dynamic is endlessly fascinating. 

Q: How does your work for the fandom change how you look at the source material?

A: I definitely pay closer attention to minor details, like how the characters’ clothing changes throughout the movie, and what characters are doing in the background, because it’s such a detailed world and there’s a lot you can pick up on in those little things. 

Q: Do you prefer to create in one defined chronology or do your works stand alone? Why or why not?

A: My series Words consists of several multi-chapter fics and oneshots that all exist in the same chronology, but I also have some oneshots that stand alone. Overall I prefer to write in the Words universe because it feels more real and detailed to me. 

Q: To break or not to break canon? Why?

A: I break canon all the time and I think it’s generally a good thing. For me, I’m usually doing it because I want to tell a story that fits into the broader themes of Fury Road without necessarily aligning with all the specific facts of the film. 

Q: Share some headcanons.

A: I have so many! Most are in my fics, but one that I’ve never had the chance to incorporate into my writing is that Miss Giddy used stolen War Boy paint to write the words left in the Vault for Joe to find.  

Q: What are some works by other creators inside and outside of the fandom that have influenced your work?

A: Within the fandom, @jaesauce’s modern AUs have definitely influenced how I write Toast and Capable, both as individuals and in the context of their relationship with each other and with Slit and Nux respectively. Outside the fandom, I’ve been really strongly influenced by Jo Graham’s Numinous World series, with its themes of magic, the divine, and social justice.  

Q: What advice can you give someone who is struggling to make their own works more interesting, compelling, cohesive, etc.? 

A: It sounds a little trite, but in my mind, ultimately fanfiction is for yourself. If other people like it, then great, but that isn’t my purpose in writing it. So I write what I find interesting and compelling, and sometimes other people are interested and sometimes they aren’t, but it’s okay either way. As for maintaining internal cohesion, I find it helpful to re-read what I’ve previously written to make sure I haven’t forgotten anything. 

Q: Have you visited or do you plan to visit Australia, Wasteland Weekend, or other Mad Max place?

A: I have not yet, I would like to visit Australia someday, and I think the Wasteland Weekend would be really fun to attend one year.

Q: Tell us about a current WIP or planned project.

A: Right now I’m just working on Knowing, the last fic planned in the Words universe, set from Toast’s POV. I’ve got it all worked out in my head, I just need to get it on the page!

Thank you @le-temps-viendra36

[crewhonk]

Why Wonder Woman is Bomb as Fuck

heres that final feminism essay i wrote for my political science class in case any of you wanted to read it! Citations and shit are under the read more cut!

 Before Wonder Woman was released in 2017, there was never a solid superhero movie for girls and women to watch and further find representation in— the hyper-sexualized ‘Catwoman’ movie released in 2004 caters mostly only to the male gaze; Halle Berry is dressed in leather straps for most of the movie, and forced to fight in a way that almost resembles pole dancing. Wonder Woman (2017) changed the game— it was about a strong woman of colour who was raised in a proud society of body-positive women, and leaves the safe confines of her home to do what she believes is right. While Wonder Woman is a god with supernatural abilities, the female viewers find themselves not needing to sacrifice their femininity to relate to male characters. There are huge surface elements to what kind of feminism the movie portrays, and there are huge underlying and background elements that really drive the idea home of what it means to be a woman. Wonder Woman is the feminism we need because Diana Prince (Wonder Woman’s alias) is a model feminist in this new form of feminism, the raw element of feminism that is incorporated into the very fabric of production, and the director herself making waves and blazing trails in Hollywood today, smashing any ceiling that had been previously constructed. 

Diana Prince, an amazon the Themyscira and God Killer opens the film as a child, running through her paradise island to watch the over Amazon women train and spar together. Diana grew up around strong and intelligent women, and as a viewer myself, there was a sense of pride that this island now existed. The body positive representation from strong women who supported each other was something that made many female viewers (including me) tear up at the screen, and this feeling up representation on all levels carries throughout the movie. Now, this essay is not a movie review, but there are elements of the movie which need to be discussed to truly explain how much this movie has done and will do for modern day feminist movements. Diana Prince, upon hearing that Earth is in turmoil turns away from everything she has ever known to fight for those who don’t have the ability to fight for themselves. The bravery and faith she has.  in herself is something that became and continues to become an element which most women try to adopt throughout their lives— whether it is in a job interview, or standing up for what they believe in in front of hundreds of thousands of people the faith in self that is taught is fundamental to furthering the movement. Her partner, Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) continues to try to subdue her from taking any action; whether it is active in a parliament meeting or action in furthering the front line of the war. In all cases, she chooses to ignore the demands of man— both refusing to submit to him to become a tool to the success of his own mission and refusing to conform to what it means to be a modern woman in 1918. “Wonder Woman truly acts like his equal, refusing to be less than she is just because he asks her to” (Miki Beach). She also continues to push boundaries by refusing traditional clothing in the fitting sequences at the beginning of the movie. This is a huge demonstration of subversion feminism (Zoe Williams)— she destroys the social constraints of the patriarchal society she lives within by choosing a disguise that is traditionally masculine in form— a suit jacket, long skirt and black journalism hat. However, when it comes to fighting she stays faithful to the culture she comes from and takes off her cloak and disguise to reveal her Amazonian garb. She takes “No Man’s Land” almost effortlessly (she is a god, anyway) and her strength and raw fighting style is choreographed, not for the infamous Male Gaze, but for realism and is orchestrated to give her a huge emotional fighting style— almost rejecting feminine fighting styles in media by flipping tanks, and screaming and crushing buildings under her raw strength. While she does show an impressive amount skin it is never deemed sexual or appealing, as she is too busy fighting and proving herself every second of this movie. 

A huge part of Wonder Woman’s character is her empathy for humans— she puts herself in danger for the greater good, and she offers her life for the people she loves: she leaves Themyscira to protect her people, she takes “No Man’s Land” so save the people living in the seized town on the German side, and she offers to do what she needs to do to save Steve’s life— “whatever it is I can do it” (Wonder Woman, 2017). Her struggles with sticking to her morals and what it means to be good makes her an inherently flawed character and brings her down from a Goddess level to a level which hits home for many watching— not just cis women. Within this portrayal of her character, it allows women to not have to sacrifice a part of their identity to relate to a man, because it finally gives women a strong and inexplicably human form of representation in the form of Diana Prince. The reformation of feminism this movie demands is not that of any main stream of feminism we have today— it is not liberal feminism in the sense that a woman’s success is defined by mens success; Diana makes her own form of success and truly raises the bar of what success should be. It is not Marxist feminism in which inequality is rooted in the home; Diana is raised in an equal society where every woman is responsible for the same duties, and nobody is exempt from specific roles. Neither is it Radical feminism— there is the acknowledgment of physical inequality within the movie and within the production, but it is not a main part of what it means to be a Woman. Wonder Woman redefines what feminism is meant to be in the sense that the movement should be based on beliefs that movements should be created on what is right rather than what people ‘deserve’. 

The main form feminism takes in the movie “Wonder Woman” and its production is mostly liberal. The male representation within character Steve Trevor and in producer Charles Roven and screenwriter Allan Heinberg. Having men within productions of female based media is not an issue— there needs to be an element of masculinity for the exposure that men can bring to such a production. However, the director, Patty Jenkins, who is a female in the highest position in production is genuinely groundbreaking and doesn’t define her own triumph by mens standards. She fights for the central concern of feminism— the political, and economic opportunities and recognition women deserve in comparison to men, but not limiting that recognition if it goes beyond that of any man. The higher level of women in the production of the 2017 movie is the new movement of feminism, and with social movements like #MeToo and #TimesUp women are finding more and more platforms to speak up and fight for that representation without the threat of sexualization and without having to constantly justify their positions in industries. Radical feminism has its place in the new movement as well. For example, in “Wonder Woman”, she has a confidence in her body and rejects conformity to conservative social structure— she refuses to be sexualized, and uses her body for heroism and strength. As she was raised in an all woman society, there was no sexualization of the body for a Male Gaze, and saying while men are essential for reproduction, they are unneeded in the name of pleasure (Wonder Woman). She was taught from the day Zeus gave her life that her body was simply a means for delivering justice to those who created injustice when others couldn’t do the same.

When Patty Jenkins, was announced to begin direction of “Wonder Woman” (2017) on April 15th, 2015 she immediately began blazing trails very few women have before her. She opened up avenues for others in higher film making positions. Sure, despite her huge success in acquiring the role, “only 7% of the top 250 movies were female directed” (Luscombe). 

She brought to the table the idea that that specific statistics and standards need not continue to frame the industry any longer. Jenkins was unbending in her original contract regulations, as she fought for the proper wage she believed she deserved— the equal to a mans. She provided an ultimatum for Warner Brothers; either give her the same wage they would give to a male peer, or find another director. Jenkins fought hard for what she knew she deserved and it paid off, as she was rewarded with not only a $7-$9 million dollar contract, but her final product garnered over $100 million domestically and $800 million world wide in the opening weekend (Luscombe). This opening weekend was the highest profit for a female director in history, and the success opened many new doors for other aspiring female directors. Her own success in her career was a part of another history-breaking moment; her direction, along with Greta Gerwig (“Lady Bird”) and Dee Rees (“Mudbound”) were the first time that this high volume of women would have a chance to win an Oscar for their work (Sehtoohdeh). Jenkins and her female peers opened doors for those who needed help opening them, and changed the course of media history. 

  Jenkins’ timing was almost picturesque in her development of Wonder Woman. The iconic superhero movie was produced and released in a time of intense political climate— the candidate nobody wanted to see win the American election won by Electoral College vote. The production and release also preceded the social movements #TimesUp, and #MeToo that rocked Hollywood and exposed many men in power as sexual offenders. In these times, Wonder Woman rapidly became what it meant to be Woman— being Women meant that there was a certain strength in kindness, and empathy, and there was a strength in bravely standing up for what you believed was right. Woman around the world looked at this movie and saw a piece of work both relevant to the times but simultaneously timeless. The raging success of Wonder Woman brought a new level to feminism and the fight for equality and representation in media— because it was something that worked based on the widespread cultural belief that women were just as capable of their own success because “It’s not about ‘deserve’. It’s about what you believe” (Wonder Woman, 2017).

Works Cited

“Wonder Woman”. Directed by Patty Jenkins. Performances by Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, David Thewlis, Connie Nielsen, and Elena Anaya. 2017. 

Beach, Miki. “Why Wonder Woman is Exactly the Role Model Women and Girls Need”. Burlington VT Moms Blog. 27 June, 2017. https://burlingtonvt.citymomsblog.com/2017/06/27/wonder-woman-role-model/. Accessed 25 March, 2018. 

Williams, Zoe. “Why Wonder Woman is a Masterpiece of Subversive Feminism”. The Guardian. 5 June, 2017. https://theguardian.com. Accessed 25 March, 2017. 

Luscombe, Belinda. ‘’Short List: No. 7 Person of the Year Patty Jenkins”. Time Magazine. 4 December, 2017. http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-patty-jenkins-runner-up/. Accessed 24 March, 2018. 

Setoohdeh, Ramin. “‘Wonder Woman’ Director Patty Jenkins on Equal Pay, Hollywood Sexism and James Cameron’s Nasty Words”. Variety Magazine. 10 October, 2017. http://variety.com/2017/film/features/patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-hollywood-sexism-equal-pay-james-cameron-1202583237/. Accessed 21 March, 2017. 

[rachelbracewriting-blog]

Sexuality as a Container for Power in Early Modern Drama

English society, following the death of Queen Elizabeth I, grappled with issues of emasculation as it attempted to qualify the reign of a strong female monarch. This struggle to contain female power emerges within plays of the Jacobean era. The Duchess of Malfi and The Renegado represent examples of this fear, made more pronounced as they were written during the early years of James I’s reign. Paulina, Donusa, and the Duchess of Malfi all fall into the category of strong women who are contained through their own bodies, their main characteristic being either an extreme chastity or sexual lasciviousness. Their sexuality is directly tied into men’s wishes and desires. Chastity becomes remarkable only for its power to impact men and their desires. Sexual activity becomes noteworthy only for the power a woman’s lust can have over a man. Both forms of power are tied into their impact upon men, but are not recognized by male characters as power within its own right. The female characters often discuss their power in terms of its tie to sexual behavior, further acting to contain the effects of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. However, within these plays are moments in which women are allowed to be powerful, with no excuses made for their actions. These moments of power must be contained in other ways, through death, marriage, or deference to a male relative. Representations of female power create direct links with the extremes of sexual behavior, revealing the English fear of emasculation caused by the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, however, women within these plays are allowed moments where they demonstrate their power outside of these constraints.

Male characters frame women’s inherent power in terms of their perceived chastity, presenting their purity as a kind of container for their power, undermining the way that Queen Elizabeth’s purity gave her authority. The Duchess of Malfi and Donusa are discussed in these terms, their royal power reduced down to an image of purity from which all their influence derives from. The Duchess of Malfi’s gaze is presented as the source of her power over men, and is described “Whilst she speaks / She throws upon a man so sweet a look / That it were able to raise one to a galliard / That lay in a dead palsey, and to dote / On that sweet countenance.”1 It is not her speech which compels men, but the look ‘she throws upon a man.’ This removes power from the Duchess’s own ability to command men to do what she says and places it upon her eyes, putting her authority within the realm of coy flirting glances instead of actual power. Further, the Duchess’s eyes protect her from being propositioned and surrendering the virtue which gives her power, “But in that look / There speaketh so divine a continence / As cuts off all lascivious and vain hope.”2 Her power is presented as ‘divine’, drawing a loose parallel with Queen Elizabeth, who was often represented as a virginal deity. The Duchess’s seemingly divine and unbelievable power is contained within her purity, acting opposite to the way in which Queen Elizabeth’s purity gave her power. Donusa’s chastity contains Elizabeth’s power by showing its tenuousness, for Donusa surrenders her chastity to Vitelli. Vitelli describes Donusa’s previous chastity as, “The sword with which you ever fought and conquered / Is ravished from you by unchaste desires.”3 Donusa’s chastity becomes the source of her authority, the way in which she ‘fought and conquered.’ However, the ease with which it is ripped from her acts to contain Donusa’s power and Queen Elizabeth’s, making both of their power seem fragile.  Power can be “ravished” from a woman, the connotation behind “ravished” implying that it is a man taking that power, further lessening the authority that comes from purity. The framing of women’s power within early Jacobean plays connects authority to purity, effectively containing these women, as well as the memory of Queen Elizabeth. Women’s chastity gives them power over men by denying men what they want and controlling them through their desire. In The Renegado, Paulina’s continued chastity drives Asambeg, her captor, wild with desire that places him within her power. He says, “Why should I hug / So near my heart what leads me to my prison, / Where she that is enthralled commands her keeper / And robs me of the fierceness I was born with?”4 Paulina logically has no power, as she is kept in a closet and cannot leave, however her chastity confers on her a form of command over Asambeg that physically impacts him, stealing “The fierceness [he] was born with.” While her chastity cannot gain her freedom, it can reverse the natural state of her captor and cause him to “hug so near [his] heart” the source of his own pain. This depiction of chastity as a power only over men who desire that woman acts to demystify the virginal power that came to be associated with Elizabeth. It falls within a pattern of destroying Elizabeth’s influence, “the dissolution of that network of symbols [which] began to appear on the stage and other touch points in English culture.”5 Presenting chastity as power over men makes it a tenuous power, for the first loss or perceived loss means this power cannot ever be regained. This is represented within Donusa’s plot arc, as her reported impurity is met with the statement from Asambeg that, “If Mustapha dares, with malicious breath, / On jealous suppositions, presume / To blast the blossom of Donusa’s fame / Because he is denied a happiness.”6 Asambeg acknowledges the unstable position that power taken from chastity exists in, referring to chastity as a fragile ‘blossom’ to be blown away ‘with malicious breath.’ This statement also recognizes that it is not necessary for chastity to actually be lost, merely for it to be suspected to be gone. Power gained through chastity serves only to control men, making its loss a surrender of power, and this fragile idea of chaste power undermines Queen Elizabeth’s cult of virginity. Men not only present women’s power as derived from chastity, but also from the other extreme, sexual lasciviousness, making women’s authority a product of the extremes of sexual behavior. In The Renegado, Carazie describes English women to Donusa, saying, “Your city dame / Without leave wears the breeches, has her husband / At as much command as her prentice, and if need be / Can make him a cuckold by her father’s copy.”7 Feminine power is mocked here, presenting an image of the sexually active women who has all the power her husband should have, as she “wears the breeches.” Further there is an implication that all women act this way, as the city dame could cuckold her husband “by her father’s copy” implying that the mother cuckolded the father. While this image of power is sarcastically invoked, it betrays the English preoccupation with women acting in the role of men and taking their power, caused in part by Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Donusa’s power over Vitelli falls within this realm, her sexual agency causing him to abandon his Christian beliefs momentarily. After Donusa seduced him, Vitelli states, “Though the Devil / Stood by and roared, I follow! Now I find / That virtue’s but a word and no sure guard, / If set upon by beauty and reward.”8 The Devil is invoked, showing Vitelli’s awareness that sleeping with Donusa would be sinful. This knowledge pales in comparison to the “beauty and reward” Vitelli is confronted with, making it clear that the “reward”, Donusa’s body, is what has moved him to this course of action. While Donusa’s sexual power over Vitelli is contained through his later refusal to continue sleeping with her, there are parallels drawn “between the seraglio and the threat to masculine sexuality/prerogative, while simultaneously suggesting the ubiquitous lure and unremitting danger of unchecked female desire.”9 Donusa’s seduction of Vitelli fits within the English fear of powerful women stealing their autonomy. Men depict female power as deriving from their sexual agency, and the subsequent power they gain is stolen from the men they seduce. Women define their own power in terms of purity, using the language men establish to create a space for feminine power. Paulina uses her chastity as a shield that allows her to ridicule Asambeg. She tells him, “Thus spit at ‘em and scorn ‘em – and, being armed / In the assurance of my innocent virtue, / I stamp upon all doubts, all fears, all tortures.”10 Paulina characterizes her “innocent virtue” as a weapon or shield she is armed with, giving her the power to spit at Asambeg’s courting. Her language recalls Vitelli’s description of Donusa’s virtue as, “The sword with which you ever fought and conquered.”11 Paulina uses the same language of weaponry to discuss her virtue, utilizing the linguistic terms established by men to create a space for her own power. Donusa borrows from the language of women’s chaste power when seducing Vitelli, describing her gaze “Their influence – let me prove it truth in you - / To give to dead men motion.”12 Donusa places her power within her eyes, rather than her whole person and royal status, making it her gaze alone that raises dead men. It recalls the language Antonio uses to describe the Duchess’s power “She throws upon a man so sweet a look / That it were able to raise one to a galliard / That lay in a dead palsey.”13 In both cases power rests in the woman’s eyes alone, and they can “give to dead me motion” and “raise one to a galliard that lay in a dead palsey.” There is also a parallel in the gendering of the recipient of the gaze; it is not women who are enchanted by Donusa and the Duchess, but specifically men. The gendering of power makes it reliant on men’s reaction to them, making men the indirect source of their power. This takes power from women and places it where it supposedly belongs with men, recalling the way in which King James I carefully gendered the monarchy as masculine. Women use the same language as men when describing their chaste power, placing the power they have within men’s linguistic and literal control. It is within women’s depiction of power through sexual agency that there becomes a true space for women’s power as something that begins to belong to them entirely. The Duchess argues against her brothers’ insistence that she not remarry by stating, “Diamonds are of most value, / They say, / that have passed through most jewellers’ hands.”14 The Duchess’s analogy about diamonds not only argues for women’s sexual freedom, but it also situates her as a diamond, placing power on herself through association with a rare and desirable jewel. However, she tempers her powerful statement with the pause caused by “they say,” qualifying the assertion by making it someone else’s and not her own. The Duchess takes command of her sexuality, refusing to bow to her brothers, telling them “Alas, your shears do come untimely now / To clip the bird’s wings that’s already flown.”15 By making herself a bird within this analogy, the Duchess implies that her sexual freedom is as natural as a bird’s inclination towards freedom and flight. She makes it clear that her brothers cannot control her, as their “shears do come untimely,” and now that she has claimed sexual agency they cannot take it from her. Paulina uses her sexual agency to gain power through manipulation, rather than simply being powerful because of the sexual freedom in itself. She tells Asambeg, “But satisfy me in a suit / That to the world may witness that I have / Some power upon you, and tomorrow challenge / Whatever’s in my gift.”16 Paulina’s “gift” is her body and virtue, which Asambeg sought for the entirety of the play. She uses the future promise of herself to gain the “suit” she wants and show that she has power over him through this. This use of sexual agency exhibits true power; however, that power is contained through its influence upon only the man who desires her body. This limiting of women’s expression of their power to their sexuality allows for some containment, as their influence still relies upon a relationship to men to function. Women within these plays wield power through their claim to royalty and, without connection to sexuality to contain these displays, they are inevitably contained through other measures. The Duchess of Malfi regularly claims power from her status as a ruler. When she is imprisoned by her brother she states, “I am Duchess of Malfi still.”17 Despite being in a position where she holds no real power, the Duchess claims that she does have authority, for she is the Duchess of Malfi “still,” a bold statement in the face of her essentially powerless state. It makes her authority something that lives within her and cannot be taken.  She uses language similar to Queen Elizabeth’s during her captivity, stating, “For know, whether I am doomed to live or die, / I can do both like a prince.”18 The Duchess, like Queen Elizabeth makes herself “a prince,” gendering her power as masculine to give it more weight. This inhabiting of power whether she lives or dies, invests the Duchess with the kind of command that Queen Elizabeth wielded. The Duchess’s power is vast enough that it is controlled only through her death, and the parallels with how Queen Elizabeth exercised power makes the queen’s death seem like a containment for her power in the Jacobean era. Donusa wields royal power as the Duchess does, telling the officers arresting her “Who am I that you dare this? / ‘Tis I that do command you to forbear / A touch of violence.”19 Donusa slips easily from sexual power into royal power, her language becoming less poetic than her seduction of Vitelli and more direct. The shorter sentences convey a sense of command, and her rhetorical question “who am I that your dare this?” acts as a threat encased in the knowledge that she can punish them for their indiscretion. Donusa further threatens her accusers with royal power by stating “We shall remember this.”20 The “we” used in this context is the royal ‘we,’ showing Donusa’s authority by linguistically falling into the pattern of royal speech.21 Donusa’s royal power is contained through her marriage and escapewith Vitelli, allowing for the play to continue to refute and qualify female power in the wake of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Women wield royal power without connection to sexual activity, inhabiting natural power that must be contained through other means within the plays.

Female characters claim natural power that exists outside of the confines of sexual behavior and royal blood, power that is contained through more extreme methods. The Duchess of Malfi uses the power that naturally lives within her to curse those who have wronged her “Oh, but you must / Remember my curse hath a great way to go. / Plagues that makes lanes through largest families / Consume them!”22 She stops Bosola’s protests with “Oh but you must,” making him bow to her command, with the “must” giving him no choice. Further, the Duchess’s curse has power in itself, promising to consume those who have wronged her. Donusa uses her natural power to compel Vitelli to be with her, stating “To my embraces, you turn rebel to / The laws of Nature, the great queen and mother / Of all productions, and deny allegiance / Where you stand bound to pay it.”23 Donusa’s language, similar to the Duchess’s, positions the object of her command within a position where they are already “bound to pay.” Donusa makes her claim more nature based than the Duchess, who draws power from her own hate, and positions Vitelli’s refusal as a turn from the “laws of Nature.” These manifestations of female power outside the confines of sexuality make female characters harder to contain. The marriage of Donusa and the Duchess’s death act to alleviate the “acutely felt anxiety in Tudor and early Stuart England about how women could be governed and controlled.”24 All female power eventually comes under male authority, manifesting the transition from Queen Elizabeth to King James. The natural power female characters claim must be contained through other means than sexuality, showing the English preoccupation with qualifying female power at the start of King James’s reign. The English fear of emasculation manifests in the representations of female power on the stage, which contain female power through linking it with the extremes of sexual behavior, however, female characters wield power outside of these qualifications, necessitating other forms of containment. Donusa and Paulina from The Renegado and the Duchess from The Duchess of Malfi exhibit power that is tied to sexuality by male characters. These women are allowed moments in which they exercise true power, divorced from the influence of men, which is contained through marriage, the patriarchal control of a male family member, and death respectively. The plays follow the desires of English society to restrict the effects of Queen Elizabeth’s reign after King James’s masculine gendering of English rule.

John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, ed. Leah S. Marcus (London: Bloomsbury, 2009), 1.2.112-116.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 1.2.116-118.

Philip Massinger, The Renegado, ed. Michael Neill (London: Bloomsbury, 2010), 3.5.7-8).

Massinger, The Renegado, 2.5.104-107.

Carla Spivack, “Dismembering Eliza: The Backlash Against Female Rule in Early Jacobean England,” (Boston: Boston College, 2007), 1.

Massinger, The Renegado, 3.3.28-31.

Massinger, The Renegado, 1.2.32-35.

Massinger, The Renegado, 2.4.134-137.

Judy A. Hayden, “’Turkish Dames’ and ‘English Mastiffs’: The ‘Turk’ and the Female Body in Massinger’s The Renegado,” (2013), 349-361, DOI: 10.1080/0268117X.2013.836459.

Massinger, The Renegado, 2.5.125-127.

Massinger, The Renegado, 3.5.7.

Massinger, The Renegado, 2.4.23-24.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 1.2.113-115.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 1.2.215-216.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 3.1.83-84.

Massinger, The Renegado, 5.3.154-157.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 4.2.137.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 3.2.68-69.

Massinger, The Renegado, 3.5.87-89.

Massinger, The Renegado, 3.5.110.

“Royal ‘We,’” Oxford English Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/royal_ %E2%80%9Cwe%E2%80%9D.

Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, 4.1.98-101.

Massinger, The Renegado, 3.5.17-20.

Anthony Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordination in England 1500-1800, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 27.