Why did Shakespeare's plays often have only roles for men?

Question

Why did Shakespeare's plays often have only roles for men?

Answer 1

Women were not permitted to perform on stage in Shakespeare's time. Even the women's roles were played by men!

If you mean why were so many of the characters men, it is probably because the stories that were considered to be the most interesting involved war or other types of violence in which women, at least for the most part, did not partake (or could not, by custom or law). This is still true today, somewhat, but that's changing.

Answer 2

Women not acting had nothing to do with lack of education, etc. Many women knew how to read and write and run a household (which required knowledge of mathematics). There a number of noteworthy actresses at various time periods--including shortly before Shakespeare's time. The problem was the acting was considered an inappropriate profession for women to follow. Because of the close proximity and manner of said proximity to various men, women were looked down on as loose or unvirtuous if they were actresses. Some were immoral, but many were not--some were married to playwrights, etc. Thus, most women eschewed a career in acting because they didn't want to deal with the rumours about their reputation.

Shakespeare's company followed the practices of many companies by having the novice actors (young men) perform the female roles. As they aged and gained experience, they would move into the lesser male roles, then the leads. Because a company only had a certain number of young actors who could play women, fewer roles for women were written. They are, though, often incredibly strong roles to play (Ophelia, Gertrude, Lady M, Desdomonda, Miranda), and some are quite extensive. History plays often deal with war and royal intrigue, so not many women were involved anyway.

Answer 3

In Shakespeare's time women were not allowed to perform in plays, this was considered indecent. So even the female roles where played by men; usually prepubescent boys. See the film "Shakespeare in Love" for a funny take on this issue.

English society was far more male dominated then, so having many female characters really wasn't a priority.

Answer 4

Back in Shakespeare's day, all roles were played by men. Casting the role of a woman was difficult because they would use young men or boys for the part.
Consequently, most playwrites of that era avoided creating female roles as much as possible.

Answer 5

It wasn't up to Shakespeare, it was the law. In fact most women weren't even allowed to attend theater productions for a while. Shakespeare obviously still wrote female characters into his plays, they were just played by males instead. Young boys mostly played the women, as they were smaller and their voices hadn't deepened yet. Occasionally, older men would play old women. This may seem ridiculous to us, but it was the norm at the time, so that when women were finally allowed to at onstage, that seemed strange. In fact, many men became famous for their stereotypical portrayal of women as damsels in distress, with exaggerated movements and emotions.

Answer 6

Actually, I'm hard pressed to think of a Shakespeare play which only had male roles, though of course those roles were all played by men for reasons for moral reasons.

The comedies nearly always have at least two young women as lovers, often in pairs (Helena/Hermia, Hero/Beatrice, Jessica/Portia, Rosalind/Celia, the two Merry Wives, and two pairs in Love's Labors Lost). Some have only one: Marina in Pericles, Perdita in Winter's Tale.

The tragedies generally had wronged women: Opheli, Desdemona, Juliet, Lavinia, Cordelia; or women who did wrong (Tamora in Coriolanus, Lady Macbeth, Regan and Goneril).

The histories, being classic white-male histories, were primarily focused on the men, but they generally have one or two wives running around (e.g. Lady Percy in Henry IV part 1, Elizabeth in Henry V) or comic parts, like Mistress Quickly.

Since they were white-male histories, why have any women at all? Perhaps to keep some of the troupe in work; perhaps to offer a glimpse at the softer side of some of the men. Not to mention some great opportunities for wailing and gnashing of teeth (like Constance in King John, Volumnia in Coriolanus, or Portia in Caesar).

I think the most male play is probably Timon of Athens, which has only two trivial female roles.

Answer 7

That's not true. All of the plays have women in them; not MANY, mind you, but they're there.

Perhaps you're confusing the existence of female charactrers with the fact that, in Shakespeare's day, all of the roles were played by men.

Answer 8

It was ILLEGAL for women to be onstage in Shakespeare's day. Acting was considered immoral for any gender, but men were permitted to bear the "burden". Women were simply too pure to be allowed onstage. Young boys whose voices had not yet changed played women in Shakespeare's plays. Shakespeare had fun with this by having women pretend to be men in his plays. One instance is in As You Like It were Rosalind dresses up as a boy to protect herself in the forest where she has been banished to. There, she pretends to be a girl in order to get close to her boyfriend and teach him how to woo her. So that's a boy actor, playing a girl, who dresses up like a boy, and then pretends to be a girl. Now tell me that Shakespeare didn't make the most out of not having female actors.

Answer 9

In that time period, women were not let into acting. Men played all roles, man and woman.

Answer 10

Because at that time it was considered very bad for a woman to perform on stage.

During that time the female rolls were mainly played by men.