Dexys Midnight Runners - Come On Eileen

Admittedly, I've never read Doctor Mary Pipher's book Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. (I read the excerpt of it on Amazon.com, though, and it looks very interesting.) Essentially, Doctor Pipher is saying that as girls enter the adolescent stage, they lose who they truly are inside and confine themselves into the narrow definition of women, that women must be docile and submissive and please others instead of thinking, "Who am I? What do I want?"

Some people think that feminism is not what the Bible teaches. The Bibles teaches that "Wives, submit to your husbands" (Ephesians 5:22). Some people take this very seriously. I know some people who used to go to a church who refused to let their wives work, because if wives earned their own income, you can't really be submissive to your husband.

I'm not a feminist, and yet I've never been one who bows my head or lowers my eyes at the oncoming male. When I first read that verse, I began to struggle with wondering that if God created all men (I take this to mean wo-men as well, too) equal, and if God loves us all, why should we be submissive? Why does it sound like men have to bruise our heads under their heel?

Then, I heard a sermon (unfortunately, I don't remember the source) that my mum was playing on our CD player which was very interesting... It said that women were not created from a bone from the man's leg, so that the man would not step on her; women were not created from the man's head, so that she would not rule the man. Instead, she was created from his ribs, so that she will be able to support him.

Slowly, I began to work my opinions out. I believe that women can have their own opinions (didn't the Lord not deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman?) and their own strength. In a healthy marriage, a husband and wife should talk it out, and the husband should hear his wife's opinions. But ultimately, it is the husband's decision.

(I know easier said than done, but that's another issue I'll deal with when I'm there :-D.)

For many years, I felt that I was and knew that I was rather unusual. I didn't like shopping, I never really struggled with self-image, I didn't really care what boys thought of me.

And the subject of "boys" is another issue.

I'm not afraid of guys and what they think of me. I've gotten something of a reputation of arguing with guys, not being afraid of being teased by them... For a while, it was fun. Then, after a while, my mum told me (with the best intentions) that I might be scaring guys off. This got me worried until one day, one of my guy friends started trying to hook me up with his best friend. When I inquired why, my friend said, "Well, he relates to you better than any girl."

"Oh."

I don't care if guys are scared off by me. In my opinion, that either means that they're expecting the girl to curl up, giggle and die, or they don't like me for who I am (or at least, the side that hates guys who expect girls to curl up, giggle and die).

But suddenly, recently, with a recent influx of more teenage girls into my homeschooling group of friends, I feel the pressure to conform...

Shopping, face, body, image...

If we are so liberated and emancipated, why do we fear what others think of us? Why can't we be proud to be women - a woman, the one who God intended for us to be? Who gives a shite about what the media wants us to be? You do realise that the image of skinny women only really came after the widespread influence of the media?

Be proud. Be you.

Duffy - Mercy

I used to think that everyone was an actor, that everyone could carry out a simple role in a drama. (We're not all Peter O'Tooles and Meryl Streeps.) However, I've learned today that acting doesn't come naturally to everyone.


I'm not just talking about the whole self-conscious issue. I'm talking about those logic-orientated, scientifically wired minds - there are steps to everything, and always a right answer to everything. In drama, as we thespians know, there are no right or wrongs in interpreting a role.


Let's talk about an actor's nightmare role - Hamlet.



One of the best known actors who's portrayed Prince Hamlet, Edwin Booth (brother to Lincoln's assassin, incidentally), portrayed the ill-fated son of Denmark as a quiet, thoughtful, sensitive man. His portrayal is considered one of the best in the history of theatre.
Edwin Booth as Hamlet, c. 1870
(source: Wikipedia)



In a more recent production, Ed Stoppard (son of Shakespeare in Love writer and famed playwright Tom Stoppard) played the Prince Denmark as, what I perceived from the reviews, a little indecisive (perhaps because Stoppard's Hamlet was younger) and fast-talking (not in the John Leguizamo way) with just the right touch of madness.

Ed Stoppard as Hamlet
(source: indielondon.com)





Hundreds of actors from Richard Burbage (original Hamlet) to David Tennant (current Hamlet on the West End) have portrayed Hamlet, and they've all done it differently. They did it as their "actory sense" told them to. There's no logic in acting besides the fact that you have to logically think how your character would react in that situation. However, unlike most "logical issues", there's no right and wrong to that one.