More Thoughts on Lysistrata

One thing I should have mentioned about 'Lysistrata' is its incredible treatment of women. Virtually the only positive members of the entire piece are the women, especially Lysistrata herself. I don't know a lot about the treatment of women in ancient Greece but they were obviously second class citizens. Aristophanes has them display a power over their men that gives them the upper hand. (Granted, the situation is hardly,well, dignified . . .)
Wikipedia tells me that I'm reading too much into this:

As indicated below (Influence and legacy) modern adaptations of Lysistrata are often feminist and/or pacifist in their aim. The original play was neither feminist nor unreservedly pacifist. Even when they seemed to demonstrate empathy with the female condition, dramatic poets in classical Athens still reinforced sexual stereotyping of women as irrational creatures in need of protection from themselves and from others.^[43] Thus Lysistrata accepted the men's conduct of the war out of female respect for male authority^[44] until it became obvious that there were no real men in Athens who could bring an end to the destruction and waste of young lives.^[45] She must protect women from their own worst instincts before she can accomplish her primary mission to end the war – she has to persuade them to forgo sexual activity, even binding them with an oath, and later she must rally them with an oracle when they show signs of wavering.

Well. This seems to fall into the modern feminist idea that only modern feminism is feminism. When looked at as a range I'd say that 'Lysistrata' easily falls into the category of 'moving the ball forward'. It's not hard to see why modern adaptations think this way too.