Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘germaine greer’

Mayawati & Germaine Greer!


Two events last week, have left me dumbfounded.

The first is the proposal for TETRAFICATION of the state of Uttar Pradesh and the Cabinet recommendation by the UP cabinet. The second is the statement made by Germaine Greer in THE HAY FESTIVAL conducted in Kerala on the 18th inst. where Germaine had stated that in the plays of  Shakespeare the male characters depicted by the Bard, were boyish and not “manly” and “mature”.

Both the resolution and the statement made by the ladies suffer from “INCOMPETENCE”.

To take Madam Mayawati’s issue first, the Constitution of India, at Article 3 empowers the Parliament and also prescribes a procedure for bifurcation, trifurcation and tetrafication or pentafication etc. of the States of the UNION of India. The Parliament of India is the only body competent to send a bill with such proposal to the President and thereupon the President may send the Bill to the affected state for its views. Period. There is no other body or institution which is COMPETENT to INITIATE this division of State legally. Yet, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has got a resolution passed by the Cabinet. This is EXCEEDING the powers mandated under the Constitution of India.

Next is the preposterous “observation” made by Germaine Greer about the male characters in Shakespeare’s Plays. Yes, Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway, who was 8 years elder to Shakespeare, so naturally Shakespeare must have been very well acquainted with Oedipus Complex (as enunciated by Sigmund Freud!) at a personal level. Germaine might be right in her observation that Shakespeare had made his female characters very strong. The strength of these female characters get accentuated more by the fact that they in some way are responsible in putting their menfolk to sleep. For example, Cleopatra, in ANTONY & CLEOPATRA, by withdrawing her forces at the crucial point without going for the aid of her ally, is not a strong feature, but a “WEAKNESS” rather the “FRAILTY” of the woman, who doesn’t follow the etiquette of a war. Cleopatra was a decadent. Her sensual pleasures came ahead of her duties as the ruler of Egypt. She was a scheming and a runaway ruler.

In the case of MACBETH, lady Macbeth just hardens herself in the presence of Macbeth, who suffers from pangs of guilt. Lady Macbeth is like Ahab’s wife Jezebel in the BIBLE. She had always provided solutions  (mostly Procrustean) to Ahab, who suffered from remorse or guilt. Jezebel had no such compunction. Lady Macbeth was just another manipulative Queen, who wouldn’t let go of her privileges and position, and thereby provokes the man to do deeds which are patently criminal or sinful.

Getting  to Gertrude (HAMLET), the character is pitiable. She was sharing the matrimonial bed with her husband’s murderer and balancing her love for her son Hamlet with the comfort and cosiness provided by Claudius.

On the whole, the women characters in the TRAGEDIES of Shakespeare do not have any strength of character, but show great manipulative skills and ability to hold on to what they have and make the most of a bad bargain.

In KING LEAR, there is more character shown by Lear, after the tragic defeat and loss, which arose more out of error in judgement and an inability to see through the guile of Goneril and Regan! His paternal feelings blocking off realpolitik.

Character is not to be a winner ALWAYS, but an ability to take the LOSSES and DEFEATS squarely and go through it without DITHERING and make amends.

Germaine Greer’s statement seems without COMPETENCE, as the male Characters of Shakespeare are shown blending their DUTIES with their EMOTIONS and failing in the process. That does not make the men BOYISH. Whereas, the women characters are GREEDY, RAPACIOUS, PUSILLANIMOUS and PLEASURE -SEEKING, nor do these traits make the women characters “STRONG”!

WOMEN POWER SEEMS TO BE TAKING US IN THE PATH OF INCOMPETENCE!

CLAY & BONE!


According to the Bible, ADAM was made of clay but the woman Eve was created out of the man’s bone. And it shows in their ATTITUDE. Adam was CREATED, there was only one model available and that was God. So God made Man in his own image, but the Woman he created for Adam’s companionship. So he fashioned her after the needs of the MAN. A kind of FIT to a man’s needs.

Since she was made of a tougher material, she thought she deserved a better station in life and proceeded on her MISSION in engaging with a small talk with the serpent. The serpent was “SUBTIL” (subtle in Modern English). Subtlety is the ability to test the waters with an escape route, before the other person identifies the real motive.

Look at what the serpent asked EVE: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?(Genesis Chapter 3 verse 1)

The serpent DOES NOT KNOW the commandment of God. Serpent is making himself knowledgeable about the proscribed TREE by asking Eve a question.Eve identifies the proscribed tree and is IMMEDIATELY met with a CONTRARY STATEMENT from the serpent against the Commandment of God. The serpent says:-And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.

This statement is followed by an ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION by the serpent:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The seeds of death were sown with those words. In this play SERPENT- exeunt!

From thereon the serpent had NO ROLE to play. This thought was enough. Eating of the fruit would make her like gods. And Eve ate the fruit first and then gave some to Adam too. So did the change take place the moment the fruit was eaten by Eve first or did they become “wise” after both of them ate? The answer is that the change was INSTANTANEOUS and the WOMAN DISCOVERED that She was naked as well as her man ADAM. But Adam must have protested that he wasn’t naked, before he ate the fruit, so Eve must have convinced Adam by telling him that HE (ADAM) could realize himself to be “naked” only if he shared the fruit that she had taken a bite of. Adam couldn’t take the NAGGING anymore.ADAM ACCEDED.

EVE was repeatedly telling him that he was naked and all he had to do was take a bite a to REALIZE his status. That is what BONE does to CLAY even today . The nagging must have been so bad, that to buy PEACE the poor fellow took a bite and we are all here tilling our grounds and telling our tales.

So i’d love Pinkola Estes, Germaine Greers and Simone de Beauvoirs ( feminist champs!) to know that MEN love to perfect the available  SYSTEMS, but women go around wanting to discover the NAKEDNESS behind the systems and spoil even those systems which are functioning well. And men to buy PEACE, become victims heeding to the nagging of their WOMEN.

(Listen ladies, don’t take it to yr heart, it is merely an interpretation of events based on high probability!! LOL)

Tag Cloud