This play tells the story of women who, fed up with the current parliament (is drinking not an inherent part of politics? Judging by the laws they pass, it certainly seems so), decide to take matters into their own hands. Disguising themselves as men, they seize control of the government and introduce a communist society where everything is shared—property, resources, and even love lives.

In this new system, men are granted the freedom to sleep with any woman they desire. However, to keep things fair, one must first sleep with an elderly woman before being with a young beauty. The final part of the play childishly mocks the absurdity of this arrangement.

Overall, Aristophanes seems to suggest that handing power over to women (or any other faction) leads to an even more chaotic government—and perhaps this is not the way to solve our problems (Very relevant, as evidenced by populist movements erupting all over the world without solving the existing problems). A funny (although a bit childish) comedy with a sharp political undertone.

It began far better than it ended. I found the humor a bit belabored at parts, but this may just be coming from a modern viewpoint.

Simplemente sublime. Me reí mucho leyendo está obra

Meget sjov

No podía evitar pensar esta obra como una crítica a las ideas comunistas, a pesar de los anacronismos que esta interpretación comporte.

This hits the comedy mark for the college guy in me (and of course that's a good bit so I laughed at all the shitting-and-fucking jokes throughout this), but it's ultimately a dumb satire that has been misinterpretted too often to be empowering of Athenian women when the effeminacy is the brunt of every joke that Aristophanes laps against Athenian society during the Peloponessian War.

It's core is misogynistic. That is the play at the end of the day. Another review claims Aristophanes to be a champion of women's rights. I could see that if they had not looked into Aristophanes whatsoever beyond just reading this play in a vacuum, which is entirely possible, but no; the guy was an asshole and would want a woman in civil office just about as much as he would have liked the Spartans to run a pike through his ribs. If anything, that is the message of Ecclesiazusae, that the alternative of women leading government (thanks to their effeminate husbands, who Aristophanes is using to satirize a weak Athenian government in relation to the man's truly patriarchial standard of governance), is about as ridiculous as the government they enact or of Athens surrending to Sparta.

TLDR: Play is funny for its poop and sex jokes because you probably should not grow too old to laugh at a line like, "I want to lie in your lap/ and play see-saw with your butt!" but is ultimately a misogynist, political satire during the Peloponessian War.

Una satira donde las mujeres en Athenas logran llegar al poder y establecen una especie de sistema comunista en lo economico y en lo sexual, si uno se mete en el contexto de la epoca es inmensamente probable que lo que quizo hacer Aristofanes es una burla explicita hacia ellas y tambien explicar que pueden gobernar de una manera igual de caotica segun su obra.

Pas tout de suite dedans, mais une fois que les règles des femmes sont en place, et qu'on sort de la mysoginie dans l'écriture du début, vient le cocasse. Enfin les hommes subissent le sort habituel des femmes!
Gaillardine offre une vision très pertinente de la société telle qu'elle devrait être et d'une dirigeante maternelle.

آتن در سال 391 قبل از میلاد، تاریخ اجرای نمایشنامه زنان در اکلزیا، در یکی از فاجعه بار ترین دوران تاریخ باستان خود قرار داشت. فقر و بیکاری و سیاستمداران فاسد آتن را در بر گرفته بودند و در پایان جنگ سی ساله فرسایشی بین آتن و اسپارتا و صلح موقت بین دو حکومت، با حمایت پادشاهی هخامنشی (ما!!!) جنگ دیگری بین این دو در گرفت که برای آتن موجب شکست های بسیار و از دست رفتن بخش اعظم ناوگان جنگی آنها شد.
در این شرایط، آریستوفانس ناامید از هر ترفند سیاسی و دموکراتیک، نا امید از هر سیاستمدار پوپولیست یا تیرانیست و به طور خلاصه ناامید از مردان ، از سر ناچاری، به سیاستی روی می آورد که در آتن آن دوره خنده دار و غیر ممکن و آوانگارد به شمار می رفت: محول کردن کامل حاکمیت به زنان و برابری کامل حقوق جنسیتی، تقسیم مساوی سرمایه بین طبقات مختلف جامعه، مزرعه داری و برداشت محصول اشتراکی، آزادی کامل جنسی و لغو قوانین ازدواج.
لازم به دکر است که آریستوفانس نه یک متفکر پیشرو بود، نه کمونیست(!) و نه فعال حقوق زنان، تمامی این روش ها علی رغم اینکه در دنیای امروز ما تاریخ به شمار می آیند، در آتن دو هزار و پانصد سل پیش، شوخی های خنده داری به منظور تمسخر حکومت و فره��گی در حال نابودی بودند و محکوم به شکست حتمی.

Buenísimo, creo que nunca me había reído tanto con una obra (del tipo que sea).

"The Assembly of Women," or, "Ecclesiazusae," reminded me very strongly of my favorite Aristophanes, "Lysistrata." If you loved that play as much as I did, you will enjoy this one as well.

The first scene starts off with a group of wives in Ancient Athens stealing their husband's clothes and setting off to speak at the male-only Assembly. Their novel ideas, which concern land ownership, equality, and even sex, are met with a mixture of both outraged indignation and curious popularity.

This play was very fun, and I loved the spirited, mischievously intelligent women. I cannot leave out their husbands - exaggeratedly slow witted, they were hilarious.

Aristophanes is perhaps the world's first champion of women's rights, and he puts his ideas into comedy very well.

Chega ao fim minha experiência com o teatro grego. Nove livros depois, experimentei um pouco de cada um dos três grandes tragediógrafos atenienses, Ésquilo, Sófocles e Eurípides, além do principal comediógrafo, Aristófanes. Ter lido a Revolução das Mulheres logo após o fim de Lysistrata foi interessante, porque apesar das duas obras terem sido escritas com 20 anos de intervalo entre uma e outra, têm o mesmo tema.

Em ambas as obras, a ideia é dar o poder às mulheres atenienses, em Lysistrata devido à interminável Guerra do Peloponeso e em Revolução das Mulheres simplesmente pela incapacidade masculina de governar. Mas há uma diferença importante entre as duas obras: Lysistrata é claramente uma crítica sério atenuada pela comédia (como as boas comédias são até hoje), enquanto Revolução das Mulheres retoma o espírito caçoador e de entretenimento de As Nuvens, perdendo assim uma quantidade razoável de importância.

Quanto à história, achei curioso que há 2400 anos já existia a ideia de uma sociedade comunitária. Claro, as ideias de execução de Valentina (ou Praxágoras no original) são péssimas, e a ideia do novo governo rapidamente se degenera em um simples problema sexual, envolvendo a socialização do direito ao sexo. Ainda assim, é interessante ver que desde que o ser humano se organiza em sociedade, em uma das mais antigas e civilizadas comunidades da antiguidade, já houvesse o interesse e um certo apelo à ideia da socialização de bens.

Em resumo, sobre a minha leitura da literatura de teatro grega: de Aristófanes, acaba sendo leitura obrigatória apenas a Lysistrata, com as tragédias obrigatórias sendo a Oréstia de Ésquilo, Édipo Rei de Sófocles e a Medeia de Eurípides.