Y

When I read Glengarry Glen Ross, I can honestly say I didn't question why there were no women in it. I actually didn't even notice. And I think the obvious reason is that the play was written by a man. I don't find the play to be misogynistic nor anti-feminist; I find the play to be about men in general and I don't think the addition of a woman would maintain the integrity of their characters (or lack thereof).

These men are put in this mock life or death situation and thus in the heat of the moment you see each man for what he truly is. I believe this is an analysis of the self and where Mamet might place himself amongst these sordid individuals.

At first, I felt no sympathy for these characters. I found Levine to be pathetic, begging for help from Williamson, insulting him when refused, and then going right back to kissing his ass again. Roma, albeit shrewd and smooth, was just too arrogant for me to like him. Moss was full of hot air. Aranow had no courage. And Williamson...well, I did feel bad for him because he really was just doing his job.

Roma says "What is our life? It's looking forward or it's looking back" and that encompasses all these men through stages. Perhaps they start out unassuming like Aranow, gain a little arrogance and hot air to become a Moss, become a successful Roma, and crash and burn to become a Levine. This play is about a man saying "What kind of man do I want to be?"

This existential quandary would not be solved or exacerbated by using women as any characters. Perhaps Mamet does not write women well and therefore chooses to write stories about men, a subject he is most familiar with because he is one. If anything, I don't think this play would be as cutthroat and despicable if there were women in it. It could either lean further into misogyny about getting beaten by a girl or become soft and have no compulsion to move forward. Maybe it's saying that women would have nothing to do with this environment because they're too smart to be in it.