Role of Women in Homer’s Odyssey Was Homer in keeping with this tradition in the Odyssey? That naturally depends upon what you argue the tradition is that Homer is in keeping with. Let’s look at some of the raw material in the Odyssey. Language and specific incidents aside, is the nature of woman as depicted in the Odyssey in any way revealing? And what is it in human nature we scan for when excavating for gender bias? And how do we separate systemic bias from innocent ignorance? I heard a woman author yesterday morning describe difficulties male writers have when writing about birthing–no matter how hard they try, they usually get some of it wrong. So, what do we look for? Sexuality? Emotional quality? Intellect? Drive for power? Need to control? Capacity for labour? If we detect differences in the text how do we distinguish between three possible conclusions. One, differences in treatment reflect the underlying Homeric thesis that women are “different but equal in nature,” Two, different treatment of men and women in the text reflect a thesis that women are “different and unequal in nature” — arguments about misogyny fall in here but a host of other interpretive possibilities are possible too. Three, the different treatment reflects simple ignorance. How much do we attribute what we discover to male authorship — or female authorship? In beginning, we might look to the gods for a clue. The adultery between Ares and Aphrodite for example is evenly represented — both parties are to blame — both are shamed — both are banished. Although there is some “locker room talk” between two of the male gods that they would willingly lie in chains several layers thick to be beside Aphrodite. Sexuality among mortals is another key to this poem and this question. Women and men are represented differentially in this regard — The herdsman Eumaios — Odysseus brother by “adoption” recounts how he came to Ithaka a captive of a slave woman Phoinikia — a woman who had been seduced by a roving seafarer who, “…made such love to her as women in their frailty are confused by, even the best of them.” The god Artemis later kills Phoinikia for her “treachery?” I think this example speaks volumes about male and female sexuality. Male seducers are represented as boys sowing their oats — part of normal living. Seduced females are viewed as weak and treacherous — a treachery that woman in her “frailty” is unable to avoid. This is a very bizarre message. The overt and easy emotional character of men and women is possibly one of the reasons many find this poem so enduringly human. Whatever our weaknesses and failings as humans men and women both are deeply moved by thoughts of home; memories of old love; lost friends; lost youth; and death. Men weep — Odysseus prodigiously throughout the poem — the poem is drenched in tears — and laughter too. The emotional overtones here are easy and free — it’s an attractive and I think healthy world in that regard. there are contemporary understandings of human nature that view the capacity for easy emotional discharge as a key to thinking well, thinking rationally. Our intellectual capacities can be stopped up, occluded by, unfinished emotional work. A good cry, a good laugh, a good scream, is just what the doctor ordered. Retentive individuals, cultures, genders, tend to act differently — irrationally in some areas. BACK TO ARGUMENTS An alternate tack is to confront the “unequal in nature charge” — misogynist in particular claim head on. Far from evil — women in the Odyssey — Penelope in particular — present and offer that which is most prized in human life — a harmonious environment for living well — the good life — the community of family — and all that entails. That ideal — that which Odysseus strives to reestablish through his 20 year Odyssey elevates Penelope to the status of hero in this poem. Her world and all that it represents stands as a commentary on, resolution of, and alternative to, the effect of the war and violence brought by the males into their world. This approach is core to any argument that represents women as different but equal. Were that this sort of analysis was that easy. Penelope’s character is complex enough. There is unease throughout much of the poem about how Penelope’s relationships will resolve. Two other mortal women loom prominently over these uncertainties: Helen and Clytemnestra! The seeds of doubt over Penelope are sown by the shade of none other than Agamemnon who says to Odysseus in Hades that Clytemnestra will give “an evil reputation to all women, even on one who does good” (p..201-202). The possibility that Penelope might yet prove unfaithful builds suspense throughout the narrative. Odysseus of course returns to Ithaka in disguise–in part on Agamemnon. `s urging. Odysseus needed to know that Penelope was faithful. There was a parallel earlier in the story in Haephaistos snaring of Aphrodite with Ares. Penelope is not always represented as having the best judgement. Telemaklos her son notes, “…my mother is like that, perverse for all her cleverness: she’d entertain some riff-raff, and turn out a solid man.” (p. 379) And, the suitors as shades recount how Penelope tricked and deceived them over a three year period (p. 449). What is Homer up to? Why offer these seemingly contradictory colorations to the otherwise idealized Penelope? Is it to build intrigue. Or does it reflect a fundamental anxiety about and distrust of women–even with this the best of women? If we look to another “best of women” Penelope’s counterpart — Helen — to see how Homer depicts her character in this regard, our anxiety only deepens. We see her as formidable–a women endowed with priestly powers: a possessor of secret mind altering recipes, and a capacity to interpret omens. Penelope may stand as a commentary on the effect of the war and violence brought by the males into their world, but where do we place Helen catalyst of one of the gravest battles in antiquity? One must respects such charisma and charm and power. One fears it too. Kirce and Helen actually share much in common. All these “best of women” in the poem, Penelope, Helen, Arete and Nausicaa, represent ideals for marriage. Odysseus hears Arete described on p.112 by Athena: “no grace or wisdom fails in her; indeed just men in quarrels come to her for equity. Suppose, then, she looks upon you kindly, the chances are that you shall see your friends under your own roof, in your father’s country.” Yeah! If Arete looks kindly — if not — will it be like the red queen — off with his head? That I suggest might be part of our anxiety. In fact, if you look squarely at those women in the story who are capable of not looking at you kindly: Calypso, Circe, Scylla and Charybdis, and the Sirens. Here we receive that overwhelmingly western and overwhelmingly modern message of woman as femme fatale: that deadly admixture of lust and love, pleasure and danger, pleasure and pain, pleasure and death pleasure and slavery. Women consume, women demean, women destroy. Kirke’s trance beguiles and bewitches. The Sirens lure. Skylla devours. Or, if we listen to the shade of Agamemnon, Odysseus’ earthly equal, we are exposed to some of the most troubling dialogue in the poem. Agamemnon’s condemnation of Clytemnestra is effectively a curse on all women: “…[she] defiled herself and all her sex, all women yet to come, even those few who may be virtuous.” Agamemnon has a chip on his shoulder — he was hacked to pieces by his wife — but still, we respect his perspective as the shade of a great king — and counterpart to Odysseus. Agamemnon then advises Odysseus thus: “…indulge a woman never, and never tell her all you know. Some things a man may tell, some he should cover up..” [repeat] Advice like this has been the warp and weft of contemporary male culture. And God help the 12 slave women who shamed Odysseus. To one of those who shame, Melantho, who sleeps with Eurymaklos, Odysseus says, in response to her impudence, “…let me tell Telemaklos how you talk in hall, you slut; he’ll cut your arms and legs off…” These women who “dishonored” Odysseus were butchered in a most cruel and heinous way. In a modern context the behavior against these women would be viewed universally ..today…as a serious war crime. Case closed? No. In this question I find myself honestly confused by the Odyssey. Misogyny is such a powerful term. And while one can build a case — with examples such as those we’re drawn on here — I do not find myself walking away from this poem with that sort of taste in my mouth. Much to the contrary. Fundamentally, as I’ve said earlier, this poem is so outrageously human. The emotional landscape so rich. The tears so real. The feelings so honest. The laughter so genuine. misogyny — as a pervasive and systematic hatred for women doesn’t work here. There are simply too many contradictions. For one thing Athena, a female figure, a deity, a role model, a stand in for female virtue, an asexual one at that, is allied not just with Odysseus–as she indeed is, throughout the poem, but she is allied to Penelope too. The dream sent to comfort Penelope in her anguish over Telemaklos’ safety is but one example of this. Penelope’s anguish is thus real. She cares for her son and her husband and her moral position. If any of those things were fabrications, deceptions, tricks, disassembly, evil, the gods would not be deceived. Penelope is as virtuous as Clytemnestra vile. Women and men are treated as made of the same moral stuff as men. On a higher plain — the Olympian plain — there are several cool allusions to gender balance that hint at mortal analogs. Odysseus in addressing Nausikaa — who he says he will invoke for the rest of his days as if she were a goddess – “…may Zeus the lord of thunder, Hera’s consort, …” grant me…This invocation implicitly recognizes that Hera is at least coequal to Zeus — if not the ideal who is really in charge. Menelaos addresses Telemaklos in a similar vein on p.271 “…may Hera’s Lord of Thunder see you home…” Telemaklos addresses Helen, “…may Zeus, the Lord of Hera…” Are these gender balances — acknowledged in formal address significant? These are not the appellations of a culture steeped in misogyny. These are the appellations of a culture that recognizes and celebrates gender harmony as much as it recognizes the mystery of the sexes. If there is bias in the writing — that comes from the tone of the oral and written culture — it is expressly male — that does not mean misogynist. Pleasure and fear where they do coexist need not equate to hate and anger. Turn the tables. Women then as now have at least as much reason to fear men — has that sentiment translated as hate — from women? A pity more is not written about Princess Ktimene — Odysseus’ sister — unfortunately Homer refers to her but once and has her given away to a Samian prince. A great project might be to recover — recreate — construct the adventures of Ktimene — in story and song!
Desecration of the Flag Should be Prohibited
Desecration of the Flag Should be Prohibited
Is it necessary to allow all forms of protest to protect the right of citizens to express grievances against their government? It is not a violation of free speech to outlaw burning of the flag because it is not speech. It will not lead to the limiting of other avenues of protest, of which many are more expressive of specific problems. All attempts to protect the flag short of a Constitutional amendment have failed in the end. A change to the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag is a necessary step to protect one of our most sacred national symbols.
Several methods to protect the flag have been tried over many years. Between the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s many of the states passed laws protecting the flag. There were numerous prosecutions for flag desecration during the Vietnam era and afterwards, until 1984 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional. The controversy peaked in 1989 and 1990 when a federal law to prohibit flag desecration was passed and subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.
The first amendment guarantees its citizens the right of speaking freely, but is the act of burning a flag “speech”? It is an inflammatory action that should not be protected by a clause meant to insure that citizens would not be suppressed in their efforts express unhappiness with the government or its actions. Limiting a person’s right to free expression is not a radical new idea either; speaking or writing false stat…
… middle of paper …
…ot believe the founding fathers have imagined that citizens of this country would want burn their own flag.
In conclusion, the right of free speech never meant persons could do anything they please, regardless of its effects, and when that effect is to undermine the integrity and heritage of our great country we must act. The inflammatory act of burning our flag does not accomplish anything except the alienation and devaluation of the rest of us. It is an attack by a citizen on their own country, an act of domestic terrorism. Protecting the flag is not an abridgment of free speech, but rather an action to honor our most recognized national symbol. We must act to restore out flag to the position of respect that it deserves as an emblem of our nation.