Phil 298H podcast 2.m4a
This podcast examines the role of deception and subjectivity surrounding women in both the Theogony and Agamemnon. The podcast was designed to cover the class week of 1/26-1/30.
Corrected Weekly Roundup 1 Link
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/39589
- On deception and trickery:
Well done. I found your emphasis on “deception and trickery” important, but now I wonder: are these attributes even worthy of praise. Especially in a culture that celebrates heroism (i.e. bravery on the battlefield), these traits take on a negative connotation, implying a lack of honor. These don’t read like positive applications of “intelligence”, instead revealing a lack of strategy, which would include anticipation of long-term events. In other words, these female characters, though they act as agents of change, they are only reacting to events beyond their control. Furthermore, while their methods appear rational, their motivations are arguably emotional or irrational in nature. In this regard, I suppose that once again the female depictions actually perpetuate certain gender stereotypes in spite of the appearance. Thoughts?
This is an interesting topic. Are the instances of female trickery and deception in our tragedies calculated grabs for power / attempts at change, or are they merely the irrational outbursts of emotion that the stereotypical image of the Greek female claims they are? I would argue for the first. There is significant emphasis on the irrationality of women in both Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers, but behind almost every “irrationality” is a self serving motive. At first glance these acts might seem like the classic emotional outbursts of the classic Greek female, but it is just the opposite. These women realize they live in a society that oppresses, suppresses, and represses their will, but at the same time they also recognize that they are surrounded by men through which, with the right manipulations, they can see their wills acted out. This is as far from irrational or emotional as you can get. In some cases, such as Clytaemestra’s premeditated murder of Agamemnon, the Greek woman proves to be even more cunning and calculating than her male counterpart.
Absolutely. Their methods are manipulative and therefore rational in execution. But to what end? Is the murder of a husband responsible for the death of a daughter really a rational reaction (this is further complicated considering the circumstances of Agamemnon’s choice)? Is inconsolable rage not an emotional reaction (especially since vengeance will not return the dead to life)?
By today’s standards, we would consider such a person criminally insane (although the level of premeditation might complicate the sentencing process). This is one more way that females, even those counter-culture characters of Gaia and Clytemnestra, appear to reinforce those gender stereotypes. Hannah and Samantha ask a valid question: how far are these characters really breaking down these barriers, if at all?