Its a woman's world...

I find the role of women in Glengarry Glen Ross to be very interesting in peculiar. I would first like to note that the assumption that David Mamet is anti-feminist or misogynist is, I feel, completely ludicrous. Making the judgment solely on Glengarry Glen Ross, it seems to me that Mamet is making the opposite point. In a world where men are seemingly in control, it is the women surrounding them whose actions affect (both directly and indirectly) our main characters. In fact, the women of the play, at first, seem to play as a force of good or reasoning against our mostly despise-worthy cast of real estate salesmen. First we start with Mrs. Lingk, who stops her husband from making a purchase of land they probably don’t need and don’t have the money for. She stops her husband from being conned or taken control of by another man, for that matter. From this we can see that Roma is nothing compared to the control that Mrs. Lingk has over her husband. No matter what Roma says or what tricks he plays on Mr. Lingk, Mrs. Lingk is still the commander over her husband. It’s an interesting idea seeing as how the characters spend a great deal of time manipulating others only to be thrown off by what these men would like to call “the weaker sex”. Even odder it is that they constantly use femininity as an insult towards one another. Possibly to downplay how inadequate they really are. Even if a woman causes Roma to lose a deal, it is Levene who truly feels the wrath of the other sex. First there is Levene’s daughter, who I doubt would ever want to bring about her father’s demise, but nonetheless contributes to it. Her age is never specified, but I do get the impression she is fairly young. I’m not sure where this came from specifically, but the “ill-daughter-in-a-hospital-bed” cliché usually refers to someone in the 7-12 demographic. Her (perceived) age still does not stop her from being an influence on Levene. It is most likely because he needs money for her sickness that he decides to break into the office and steal the leads. It is his love and desperation that drives him to that act. With all that being said, I am sure that the result would have been the same if it was a son rather than a daughter, but Mamet picks a girl for this role to further illustrate his purpose for women in this world. Earlier I said that women could be looked at as a force of good, but that is not entirely true. Harriet Nyborg who cons Levene shows that even the other sex is capable of these men’s trickery, and can even trump them in it. Harriet’s motivations are not clear (she probably just wanted to get rid of some crappy crumb cake) and her husband’s involvement in the scheme could have been greater or smaller than hers. None of this is made perfectly clear. What is clear, however, is that because of her Levene has been taken advantage of. He is the subject of his own games. The final “fe-nail” (female + nail, Ha!) in the coffin is Mrs. Lingk. After Williamson blows Roma’s sale, Levene accidently exposes himself as the thief who broke into the office and stole the Glengarry leads. Because of a woman who Levene has no connection with at all, he is now exposed and sent to jail. This right here shows us how far the women in Mamet’s universe have control. Almost everything is at their will or because of their actions. The men in the story may have the ability to manipulate and control language for their own means, but it is the women who have the final call on what happens. The men’s words and language which they hold in such high regard is nothing but air.

A gender-bending reading of King Lear

I find Coppelia Kahn’s argument that King Lear showcases the title character’s discovery of his inner woman to be very intriguing and enlightening, but I did have some trouble completely agreeing with it at first. It is no doubt that in the play, Lear’s pride and self-assurance lead to his demise (not the mention the demise of many others) and at the end of the story he understands the error of his ways and becomes a more remorseful person, but can this be classified as womanly when two (out of three) female characters in the play are volatile and corrupt? I am speaking of Regan and Goneril, who both show extreme cruelty and manipulation towards others, just like their male counterparts. As for caring, guiding, and “motherly” characters in the play, Cordelia and two other male characters (The Fool and Kent) fill this role. I was confused as to how a gender specific characteristic could be applied to a play which seems to have no regard for them. What would be regarded as motherly and wholesome is exhibited by both male and female characters, as what is “manly” and stern is blurred between the sexes. So, to me, the gender classification of King Lear did not seem to work. But alas, I started to see how I might be wrong, as I was equating “father” with “evil/power hungry/ arrogant” and “mother” with “love/goodness/sympathy”. I now know that Kahn is not saying Lear must recognize the “woman” inside of him so he can become “good”, but rather to balance out his masculine reign. I may have missed this detail, and I blame my reluctance towards Shakespeare’s writing style for it, but where was the Queen? (If this is disclosed in the story, please enlighten me.) Where was Lear’s “better half” as some would call it? Lear does not possess the balancing and rationality that a companion as close as a romantic partner would bring to him. The ideal leader would be able to conjure up that other half within himself and use both sides to rule, but as we can see in the story, King Lear has a rough road ahead of him until that revelation occurs. Perhaps at the end of the story, his tears and remorse come from his realization that he is missing that critical element (whether internally or externally) that would make him the great leader he only pretends (and forces others to pretend) that he is. This may be what Kahn is leading us to believe with her argument, but personally I do not believe assigning gender roles/stereotypes to the argument is the best way to go, especially if this criticism is recent, as gender roles are becoming more and more obscured in modern society. This is probably what lead to my original confusion with the topic, as I am not a fan of gender stereotypes. But looking past the actual wording of the argument helped me gain a greater understanding of what she might be saying. She sees King Lear a tale of self-discovery in that no one is without fault and that we each require the love of someone close. I would also like to point out Regan, Goneril, and Edmund and ask where these characters fit in this reading of the novel. Are they on the same path of self-discovery? Do they reach their goal? If not, what is blocking their way? Is it similar to what is happening to Lear?