Idle Thoughts -- Lucretia Borgia vs Ophelia and Gertrude

3) Discuss the treatment of woman in Hamlet. Your response should consider that we only have half their story- and their half is told not from thier perspective but from the perspective of others.

Since the play opens with the statement that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, one comes to the conclusion as we watch or read that a lot of things are rotten in the state of Denmark.

One of these may well be the treatment of women. As with all the rest of the play, you can interpret it in different ways. Was Hamlet truly in love with Ophelia? Was he just toying with her as Laertes  feared? And even if Hamlet did love her, why was his need for revenge so much more important than his love for her?

On the face of it, Ophelia does not necessarily come off terribly well. Even assuming that there was a love between her and Hamlet was suicide really a very wise choice?  Of course, we aren't even sure she did commit suicide.  One could argue that whatever the cause of her death it is a result of the way she was mistreated by the males around her. But in other plays Shakespeare presented very strong women who were prepared to stand up for themselves. The possible interpretation is that the society that we are examining in this play is itself poisonous. Remember, they play is about royal and noble families where women are considered to be tools of diplomacy and are expected to be married off according to the needs of the state.

Then there is the matter of Hamlet's mother. He regards her as a foul, despicable creature.  He clearly blames her for the marriage which resulted from his father's death. Again, this made a great deal of sense in dynastic terms. The state was stable if she married the King's brother. This provided continuity to the throne and kept the nation stable

On the other hand, there's always the implication that perhaps she assisted in the murder of Hamlet's father, her husband.  If we assume that she was at least attracted to, if not actually in an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, the entire picture changes.

So we are left to wonder. Is Ophelia weak because society and an overbearing father and overprotective brother have made her weak? Is she weak because she has a weak character? Is Hamlet's mother guilty or innocent? And even if innocent are we to condemn her because she should have said she preferred to be the queen mother and have no power even if this affected state stability in a negative way?

One thing is clear, the women in this play are objects to be used by the men who care for them, or at least who control them.  With the possible exception of Laertes, who perhaps did love his sister, the men are the only characters who matter, and even he expects her to obey him in protecting herself.

You will have to decide for yourself, Kid. The whole point of this play seems to be the real life can be incredibly messy and very confusing and nobody ever really knows much of anything with certainty. You can defend any position you care to take in this regard.

I think we should note that even under these extreme conditions, women in real life sometimes showed great courage and independence.  Over the centuries Lucretia Borgia has been accused of being a truly horrible individual. A careful study of the facts shows that she was a strong woman, a loyal daughter, and probably not the murderess she has been accused of being for the past few centuries.

Although she did do her duty and accepted marriages for purposes of state, she nevertheless remained a strong individual within that framework. This was a very remarkable accomplishment. Certainly none of Shakespeare's characters in this play rise to that standard.

Bible Facts vs Bible Forgeries

Susan and Joyce, interesting Bible issues, aren't they? 

In response to your questions: Ecclesiastes. Why would I like that book? There are a number of reasons. First, note the common thread in many of my favorite Bible quotes:  the endless efforts to be make perfectly fine distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, lawful and not lawful, clean and unclean, etc. etc. etc. are all put down very hard.  Here is an Old Testament book which is as critical of the Pharisees and their endless arguments over minutia and their ignoring of the true heart and meaning of law as is Matthew.

Second, it's a very realistic view of life. It doesn't make promises that can't be kept.

Third, in the end it declares what we have is really enough if we relax and enjoy the life we have, it can be a good one to live.

So, if you read the entire thing you'll find out that, while it's reputation for being hopeless and dreary isn't entirely undeserved, the author does end up concluding that it is best to live your life to the fullest. It is good to have friends, it's good to have a good reputation, it is good to live with the one you love, enjoy life as best you can is the ultimate message, just keep God in mind while you do so.

It is a waste of time to seek great powerful meanings and to imagine yourself a critical player in a huge, vast battle. Better to live your life as best you can and to be fulfilled by that.  The entire theme of my story God's Wolf.

Why do I like King James?  The language is so out of date and it's difficult to comprehend, but the images are beautiful and it is truly the Bible as poetry, something not commonly found in other translations.

St. Paul on homosexuality and putting down women is really interesting!

First, the actual word used was arsenokoitai. The word at the time for homosexuality was paiderasste.  Why use a different word?  The word used is translated as "them that defile themselves with mankind".

Does that mean homosexuals? If it does, why not just say homosexuals? It seems much more likely that it means a particular sexual act rather than homosexuality in general. It was accepted as meaning masturbation throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, an even well past the time of Martin Luther. It only changed into homosexuality after masturbation became accepted by society.

So what's the justification for changing the interpretation of this very ambiguous and unclear word? There really isn't any. At least, not from a scholarly viewpoint.

Even worse, those who look at the Bible in a scholarly way, whether they are believers and nonbelievers, regard this entire passage as part of a forgery added at least 100 years after the rest of Paul's works were written.

 In short, Paul didn't write it. 

The evidence is really very compelling that he didn't. Only those who refuse to let evidence influence their faith believe this passage belongs in the Bible.

Much the same thing to be said about the passages that are attacking women. Remember that Paul said. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  Why should he say that and then later add on, ..."except of course, I was wrong; so ignore everything I already said..."? Why not just remove the offending passages?

 There's good reason for believing this also is pure forgery. A later addendum by someone who didn't like the morality laid down the Bible, so he decided to add on a few of his own prohibitions.

PS,

Anyway you look at it even if we accept the interpretation that Paul, if it was Paul, is condemning homosexuality; it is very clear that only male homosexuality is covered by the term. It is clearly not applicable to females or lesbianism. Shades of Queen Victoria!

PPS,

While the Victorians bitterly condemned homosexuality and threw homosexuals in prison (Oscar Wilde), lesbianism was not against the law. It is reported that this is because Queen Victoria would not permit it. Women would never think of such a dirty thing!   She thought it was insulting to have a law against something that wasn't possible.

We all know about Rush Limbaugh's smear of American women. We know he wants to enjoy seeing our wives and daughters having sex for his enjoyment. I must comment.

The bottom line is that Limbaugh had insulted every American woman who has ever used contraceptives covered by thier health care insurance.  He not only calls them sluts and prostitutes, he says they should post videos of thier sex acts for him to enjoy.  Millions of American men should be defending the honor of their wives and daughters.  Of course, some of us are American males and some of us are American men.  Limbaugh has made it easy to differentiate.

Let me add that free contraceptives are not at issue.    Contrary to the hysterical men like Limbaugh, the contraceptives in question were either covered by the University's health plan or not covered.  That was the issue.  Since health insurance is never free in this country, no ones' precious money was being given away.

  I suppose a wealthy donor to Georgetown University might make a contorted argument that some of his donation might be used to help insure women's health (what a waste of precious money!), but everyone else should shut up, until and unless they donate a large sum to the university.

I also answer the "Why should I pay for it," crowd by asking, why should I for your being saved by a fire department or police department or military paid for with my money?  We live in a society.  We work together to make it better.  This is being human.

Don't want to do your share? Drop out and live alone in the mountains without any help and without any of society's benefits, like roads, electricity, stores, doctors, and so on.  Have fun, rugged individualist