Female Ambiguity in Cavendish

1. In “The First Part of Bell in Campo,” two women refuse to go to war with their husbands after they are invited. Madam Whiffell’s speech makes it clear that not all women are interested in accompanying the men to war: “Alas husband I am so tender, that I am apt to catch cold if the least puff of wind do but blow upon me; wherefore to ly in the open Fields will kill me the first Night, if not, the very journey will shatter my small bones to peeces” (2.5). In the end of “The Second Part of Bell in Campo,” these women who refused to join Lady Victoria are punished by a new social system in which the members of the “feminine” army outrank civilian women. How should we interpret this outcome? As for the women who refuse to go, is Cavendish blaming these women for wishing to maintain their subordinate position, or is she blaming a society that has relegated women to a position in which they unquestioningly identify with this subordination? Is the success of the “feminine” army a true victory for women, or has the army really won rights simply by mimicking men? Do women such as Madam Whiffell deserve to be punished, or has the “feminine” army simply found someone to play the subordinate role to them, just as they have played the subordinate role to men?
2. In “The Convent of Pleasure: A Comedy,” Lady Happy believes that “Men are the only troublers of Women” (1.2). She is then troubled and made extremely unhappy by her love for the princess, a supposed woman. When the princess turns out to be a man in disguise, Lady Happy’s troubles are solved because now she can marry her love. On the other hand, it remains that these troubles and unhappiness originated with a man. What are we supposed to do with this contradiction? Are men held up as the consistent source of unhappiness, or is Cavendish suggesting that perhaps men can make women happy after all (as suggested by the princess after viewing the play within the play)?