That was my reply to a question to me, by my friend, thus: what do you think of the Book of Ruth?
What do you mean?
I said: Why didn’t the author name it Boaz, if he didn’t, how did the compiler miss renaming it as Boaz?
He said: Why so?
It is not the struggles of misfortune which should be glorified, but the character shown when a person has the power and resources. Boaz had it in a platter, that night when Ruth uncovered the sheet of a drunken half sleepy Boaz, to have had a fling and paid off the next morning. But Boaz was of sterner stuff- despite his tipsiness Boaz is not only RESTRAINED but also SENSIBLE to the extent of following the rules of succession! That was Character, the next day he followed it through, which Naomi had predicted to Ruth : That man wouldn’t rest!
That makes him a MANLY CHARACTER.
My friend was unconvinced, look at it this way bro: a woman loses three men in her life and is stuck with two young daughters in law, with no security of not only shelter but the next meal. Only Jews had gone through such situations in their history and had yet survived, not through the masculine force, but through the feminine charms and guile! So naturally the Books of Esther and Ruth are examples of triumph of the spirit of the feminine when the masculinity of their men had been subjugated by their enemies. Men are not allowed the luxury of IDLENESS. First they are told to earn their bread, then their family’s and finally the society’s! Men are kept for breeding more worker bees and the rest are castrated into oxen to the plough. It is at this moment that the Feminine forces emerge to defend its offsprings and these books are examples of that Spirit.
I told him: It is always a perspective of identification, you glorify the struggles and I exalt Manly Character.
My friend wanted to end that topic on “diverse perception”, he said: whenever I refer to that book I shall call it Boaz, for you.
I felt a small battle of the sexes had gone in favour of Man.
What an illusion!