Blog 3, Part 2

My previous list was probably very different than the reading people did in the middle ages and renaissance. Most people probably did not have the luxury of reading for pleasure, and few were probably lucky enough to be reading for educational purposes. Those that were may have been more grateful and dedicated to reading educational materials than I. Generally, I think religious literature was probably prominent for those that were literate...there were probably not many reading materials that were approved of, other than religious texts and maybe some scholarly readings, but I doubt the church overly approved of frivolous, or fun, reading materials.

I think censorship plays a limited role in maintaining the morals of society. I don't think that society's morals are entirely determined by its media...people are not purely a product of their environment. However, I think it does play a certain part. Having more religious, conservative media available may encourage slightly more wholesome, religious behavior among those exposed to it... I am certain that violent, graphic, and sexual media has a negative effect on thought patterns and behavior for those exposed, even if the effect is slight and unintentional. So, perhaps media could be manipulated to encourage a population to align on one side or the other. I think censoring media in certain contexts could produce a better outcome for society, but I still think some people are just crappy people, and they are going to be crappy people even if they watch the itsy bitsy spider all day long. But you can bet I will censor the media my kids are exposed to-- I've seen and done research in this area, and I know for a fact that graphic and violent media is desensitizing, and affects mirror neurons to establish behavioral patterns, even if the child never actually commits that act--it just makes it that much more likely that they will have thought and behavioral patterns with similar threads.

Blog 3, Part 1

Lately I mostly read because it's an assignment, and I'll fail my class if I don't. This is generally a quick reading to get information, skimming and skipping around. On the rare occasion I have subject matter that I'm really fascinated by, I'll read it like a novel. This is usually for classes that have literary material or are psychology-based (my major). When I have free time, usually not during the semester, I read for fun. Typically it's fiction or poetry or mythology or books about psychology. I read my scriptures for spiritual understanding and enlightenment. Letters from my husband who is deployed bring me comfort. So I read for education, enjoyment, spiritual enlightenment, and comfort.

Blog 2, Part 2

1. Women's role in the family and workplace. Juvenal's Satire 3 barely mentioned women at all. In general, women figure very little in writings about Rome. When they do, it is always in relation to men--who they are married to, whose daughter they are, whose child they bore. Women's role is very firmly in the home--there IS no career for a roman woman. She can't decide she wants to be a warrior or carpenter or roman citizen--those are things that are quite decidedly for men only. The struggle for a woman in our society to balance work and family is something that would be very difficult for a Roman woman to relate to.

2. The role and quality of government. Juvenal suggests that government is corrupt in his writings. He says, "No man will get my help in robbery, and therefore no governor will take me on his staff." Corruption in government is a problem in America today--politicians are frequently found to be serving their own selfish needs, and not those of the people. The involvement of government in everyday people's lives is not addressed as much in Juvenal's writings--probably because there were not big debates about whether or not government should pay for health insurance or put children in foster care, because there was no such thing as health insurance or foster care.

3. Right and wrong. Juvenal mentions situations that he finds wrong, yet seem to be frequent occurrence in Rome. "What can I do at Rome? I cannot lie; if a book is bad, I cannot praise it, and beg for a copy; I am ignorant of the movements of the stars; I cannot, and will not, promise to a man his father's death; I have never examined the entrails of a frog; I must leave it to others to carry to a bride the presents and messages of a paramour. No man will get my help in robbery, and therefore no governor will take me on his staff: I am treated as a maimed and useless trunk that has lost the power of its hands." In this quote, Juvenal expresses frustration that the idea of what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is abhorrent, seems to have changed, and he no longer has a place there. He points out that he feels there is dishonesty and cheating in Rome, yet others appear to be happy to live with that. In our society, we have a similar problem--some people find one thing wrong, while others don't see the problem, and think it is perfectly moral.

4. Equal treatment. Juvenal suggests that there is a problem with unfair treatment in Rome. Juvenal points out that the rich are treated better than the poor in Rome: "And what of this, that the poor man gives food and occasion for jest if his cloak be torn and dirty; if his toga be a little soiled; if one of his shoes gapes where the leather is split, or if some fresh stitches of coarse thread reveal where not one, but many a rent has been patched? Of all the woes of luckless poverty none is harder to endure than this, that it exposes men to ridicule". Not only are the poor mocked, but they are not believed--the rich are seen as more honest and trustworthy. "A man's word is believed in exact proportion to the amount of cash which he keeps in his strong-box". We still struggle with fair treatment today--and we constantly argue about how to enforce it. We try to make people hire without discriminating on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ect. We have possibly created more problems in our efforts, but no doubt we still neglect true fair treatment...do we give the poor a fair chance?

5. Immigration. Juvenal addresses the immigration of Greeks to Rome. He expresses disgust that Rome is full of foreigners: "I cannot abide, Quirites, a Rome of Greeks". He seems particularly angry that foreigners have the ability to rise above a Roman. "Must I not make my escape from purple-clad gentry like these? Is a man to sign his name before me, and recline upon a couch better than mine, who has been wafted to Rome by the wind..." This is similar to the problem today--many people are upset at immigrants coming to America. The common argument is that they take away American jobs--rising above those who are citizens. Whether or not I agree with these arguments, it is clear that the immigration debate is long-standing.

Blog 2, part 1

1. Women's role in the family and workplace. I think it is really difficult for women to figure out the timing and responsibilities of their roles at home and at work. With specialization and new technologies, it is no longer a requirement for women to constantly be at home--women don't have to breastfeed, and if they want to work and breastfeed, they can pump and store breast milk. Since babies can survive without their mothers being with them constantly for the first few years, mothers are freed up a little--in addition, feeding a family and maintaining a home is much easier. It is no longer a full-time job to grow, process, and cook food. We have specialized beyond that. Many of the tasks that traditionally fell to women, since they were home with children they had to be pregnant with/breastfeeding anyway, are now much quicker or done by someone else. But being a mother is still incredibly emotionally, physically, and intellectually demanding...so how do we balance the many demands of family life with personal growth and career? Being a well-rounded, educated, involved person can only improve the quality of parenting...but how do women continue to grow themselves and also balance family? Should they get all of their education done first, and then have children? Combine the two? Work part-time?  It is a very difficult decision, and often a painful one for a woman that wants to have a family and also find personal fulfillment and development.

2. The role and quality of government. There is a lot of confusion right now about what government should or shouldn't do, and what is a right, or a privilege. Should government be able to take away a parent's children, if the parent is abusive and neglectful? Or do parents have ownership of their children--do they have a right to treat them however they want? Should government provide for the basic needs of everyone--food, clothing, shelter, health care? Is education a right? How much help do we give the poor? Are some poor undeserving of our aid? Or should we just let the fittest survive, and the weak die out? And does our government accurately represent the people? Are any of the people in office genuinely there to serve the people, or their own political and power needs? Do those in office understand the needs of the poor and helpless?

3. Right and wrong. What is right, and what is wrong? It seems we are constantly changing our ideas of what is wrong--as far as gender roles, equal rights, sexuality, violence, marriage, divorce, ect. Is there a universal truth? Does religion have a role in determining what is right and wrong? Can we impose our beliefs on others? Do we all live by personal standards, or can we force other people to adhere to a general truth? Can we legislate morals? This is something that is really confusing for many people. We seem to be able to agree that murder is wrong...but then we get into context. Can we murder burglars? What about in Texas?

4. Equal treatment. Currently, everyone is screaming for equal treatment. You cannot discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, ect. You cannot revoke someone's rights based on these things. Is this right or wrong? Should we advocate for even more equal treatment, or is this overboard? It is frightening to think of people with mental illness being treated differently based on their diagnosis...some would argue that anyone with a diagnosis should be refused gun ownership, or a job, or even custody of their own children. But 1 in 10 American adults suffers from depression...and then there's ADHD, alcoholism, anxiety...if we tried, we could probably diagnose everyone with something. It is frightening to think that something like that could be used against someone in taking away their rights. But on the other hand, perhaps some discrimination is reasonable. Should men be hired to work at a shelter for battered women? If so, is there any chance some women would not go to the shelter, having generalized their trauma to a fear of all men? Should those with disabilities be hired, just the same as those without? What if it is to work construction? How do we balance a need for equal treatment with a need for reasonable practicality?

5. Immigration. It fascinates me when people rant about illegal aliens taking jobs from American citizens. Do American citizens really want the jobs illegal immigrants take? Would anyone really want to work ridiculous hours picking fruit or cleaning? If they did, they would need to be paid significantly more. Are we willing to pay 3x as much for our produce? If we deport all of the illegal immigrants, it could seriously damage our economy--we could have farmers letting whole orchards go unpicked, because they can't find anyone willing  to do the work. We need those workers. But if we allow them to become legal American citizens, all of a sudden they have rights--rights to fair wages. And things get really expensive for us. Essentially, illegal immigrants are our not-quite-slave-labor. Are we ready to give that up and let them become citizens? Or are we just going to rant about them stealing our jobs? We can't deport them, because we need their labor. We can't make them citizens, because then we have to acknowledge their rights. And we can't admit this, because then we are evil nasties.

A Comparison of Hecuba and Oedipus as Tragic Heroes

As a tragic character, I find Hecuba much less compelling than Oedipus. As I watched the play, I found myself struggling to connect with Hecuba as a human being. It went from there to revulsion for the person she became. Hecuba, as opposed to Oedipus, appeared to be relatively guiltless, undeserving of her misfortunes. She fell from Queen of Troy to a slave of her conqueror. Many of her children died in the war. Cassandra was taken as a war prize for Agamemnon, her daugher was sacrificed on the burial mound of Achilles, and her son, whom she had believed safe, was betrayed by his host and killed for the gold he carried with him. In all of these things, it seemed that Hecuba was completely innocent. She had done nothing to contribute to her misfortunes. In contrast, many of the evils that befell Oedipus could be directly attributed to his pride. Still, I found that I connected better with Oedipus. I saw in him a great man that had a flaw. I understood that he was partially to blame for the horrors that happened in his life, but I also felt that he was not aware of the things he had done. I saw that his flaw led to very serious mistakes--but I connected with that, because I have some minor flaws that have led to serious pain. I felt Oedipus was more human, and easier to relate to, than Hecuba.
As the play progressed, I was repulsed by the revenge Hecuba took on the man who killed her son. Just after her daughter was slaughtered by her enemies, she murdered the two young children of her son's killer, before blinding him. I found it shocking that, after pleading for mercy for her daughter, she was able to heartlessly kill another man's children, even if that man was her enemy. After she had experienced what it felt like to witness the death of all of her children, I couldn't believe she would do that to another person, even if that person was her enemy. While Oedipus committed awful acts--murdering his father, marrying his mother--he did them without being fully aware of what he was doing. He had no idea who the man was he killed--he simply reacted in anger after being attacked on the road. Hecuba seemed to be insane, inhuman, and unfeeling, while Oedipus was shocked and disgusted by the things he had done.
It was interesting for me to realize that I had more pity and feeling for Oedipus than a poor old woman who lost everything, through no fault of her own--but I did. I felt that Oedipus, in the end, showed strength of character, in acknowledging his flaws--the story of Oedipus ends in redemption, while Hecuba's story is one of blood and vengeance and horror. I could not pity the old woman who, after losing everything, chose to knowingly inflict further pain on others.

Blog 1: Oedipus' Hamartia

    Most greek tragedies feature a great man that suffers from a fatal flaw, to such an extent that he is destroyed. Oedipus is one such man, and his weakness, or hamartia, is his hubris, or great pride. Pride is emnity--it can be observed in those that see themselves as above others, and are easily angered by others challenging them. It was pride that caused Oedipus to unknowingly commit awful sin--killing his father, marrying his mother, and causing her to bear him children and siblings in one.

    Oedipus' pride is so great that it makes him furiously angry with others, enough to want to kill them. When Oedipus hears from Tireseas, the blind prophet, that it was he who killed the late king and brought plague upon his people, he is furious, and convinces himself that Tireseas is lying, and is in the employ of his brother-in-law, Creon. he threatens the prophet, a servant of the God Apollo: "Do you really think you can say this unpunished?" ( Sophocles 23). He proceeds to accuse Tireseas of being a false prophet, a fake, and not a messenger from God. He no longer wants advice from Apollo's prophet-- he declares, "I did not know what nonsense you would speak, or I would hardly have sent for you" (25) In essence, he rejects the word of a God, through his servant. He believes Creon is attempting to take the throne. When he confronts Creon, Creon asks, "What do you want? To cast me from this land?" to which Oedipus replies, "Hardly--I want you to die, not flee" ( Sophocles 32) Oedipus' pride is so great that he is willing to kill others that threaten him.

    As the play continues, we learn that the pride and anger we see in Oedipus is nothing new--he confides in Jocasta that he heard a prophecy from an oracle that he would kill his father and marry his mother, and he fled his home, Corinth, to escape this fate--to attempt to escape the will of the Gods, and prove them wrong. He believed he could defy the Gods--a great example of hubris. As he traveled away, he met a chariot on the road, and the chariot drove him off the road. Oedipus admits, "In my anger I struck the driver, turning me off the road, and the old man, when he saw, watched me as I passed the chariot and struck me on the head with the two-pronged goad" (Sophocles 38-39). Insulted at being pushed off the road, unwilling to move aside for a larger, more difficult to maneuver chariot, and infuriated that an old man would hit him on the head, Oedipus kills them all, fulfilling the prophecy of Apollo--he would kill his own father. Thus, Oedipus brings about his own downfall through his hamartia: his pride.

    Even after the prophecies are fulfilled, Oedipus and his mother are not aware, until Oedipus begins digging up his past and attempting to find out who his parents are. Jocasta, Oedipus'  mother and wife, begins to realize what happened, and begs him to stop. "No, by the gods! If indeed you care for your own life, do not go after this! I grieve enough...obey me, I pray. Do not do this...what I say is best." Oedipus replies, "I cannot be persuaded not to learn this clearly...what you say is best has long annoyed me" (Sophocles 48). In his pride, he ignores the warning of his wife, assuming she knows nothing he does not. Later, when he is questioning the shepherd who spared his life as a baby, he is angry when the shepherd refuses to speak. He threatens him multiple times, finally declaring, "You are dead if I have to ask it again!" (Sophocles 52). Oedipus is so determined to learn of his parentage that he ignores the warnings of others, refusing to believe they have wisdom he lacks. He drives on, heedless of their attempts to stop him, until he learns the truth of what he has done. His pride, his refusal to listen to others, strips away the protection of ignorance. With full knowledge of the monstrosity of what has happened, Jocasta hangs herself, and Oedipus blinds himself and goes into exile.

    Oedipus' hamartia, his pride, is the root of his misfortunes. He attempts to defy fate, ignores the prophecies of Apollo's servants, threatens those who do not submit to his will with pain or death, and refuses to listen to the council of those who know better than him. In the end, he has lost everything. One day he is king, a leader and savior of his people, with a wife and children he loves, and the next he is the next he is the most wretched of men, murderer of his father, husband to his mother, brother to his children. His mother and wife is dead, his eyes are blinded by his own hand, and his kindgom is in the hands of his brother-in-law and uncle Creon.

Works Cited

Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Trans. J. E. Thomas. Clayton: Prestwick House, 2005. Print.

Epithet Assignment

Well, this shiny new blog gets to debut with a fun assignment for my classical civ class.... 4 epithets that describe me! Horray!
...in the context of things that would fit into an epic poem, and traits my friends/family would use to describe me, here we go:
1. Rosalind the brown. (because, according to my sisters, I am brown, and make brown babies).
2. Sneaky Rosalind (my husband is responsible for this one. I am indeed a sneaky, sneaky wifey).
3. Rosalind the eater of brie (saint angel brie, to be specific. But d'affinios will do in a pinch.)
4. Psychologist Rosalind (my major, and also something that defines how I interact with everything. I solve every problem with research--science is my other lover.)

There you go. I'm brown and sneaky and I eat brie and I'm into psych. Happy blogging!