I don't know about the prodigal son. I don't make that connection in my head, but that doesn't mean anything.

I'm glad you brought up the portrayal of the menfolk, Raquel. That was an issue for another group (that I didn't actually participate in, so, liberal helpings of salt all around) discussing this book. I honestly didn't see villification, but I can be obtuse.

---

Not the prodigal son, but the favored son over his brother Esau, so not a dissimilar dynamic.

---

So when do we talk about my being MASSIVELY SKEEVED about that first menstruation ritual?

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

---

Not the prodigal son, but the favored son over his brother Esau, so not a dissimilar dynamic.

IIRC, Jacob was favored by Rebbecah, and Esau (the older son) was favored by Isaac.

---

Wolfram, yup. Thanks for the correction.

ETA: Esau was Leah's son, correct, and Jacob was Rebeccah's? I don't remember that Esau was necessarily specifically favored so much as being the elder and therefore entitled to inherit - am I misremembering that?

---

ETA: Esau was Leah's son, correct, and Jacob was Rebeccah's? I don't remember that Esau was necessarily specifically favored so much as being the elder and therefore entitled to inherit - am I misremembering that?

No, both Esau and Jacob were the sons of Isaac and Rebeccah. Jacob marries Leah (Rachel's sister) and has children with both of them and their maids (Bilhah and Zilpah.)

You may be confusing Esau with Isaac's brother Ishmael who shared a father with Isaac (Abraham) but had a different mother (Hagar.) Isaac's mother was Sarah.

---

I thought that Leah and Rebekkah were both married to Jacob!

---

Rebekkah, Rachel. . . .

---

Rachel /= Rebekkah. Got it. Man, I used to know this stuff backwards and forwards. It's been a while.

---

What Wolfram said about Esau and Jacob. Esau and Jacob were twins, too. What's more, the Prodigal Son is a parable, not a story about actual people.

Yup, and making the "rape" clearly not a rape to Dinah, that's made explicit. I think if it had actually been against her will (in the novel, I mean), the bit where Shechem loves her and wants to marry her and especially Jacob working out a deal with him where all is forgiven becomes a lot muddier and problematic. From today's standpoint, anyway.

There's probably a case to be made for it not (necessarily) being a rape (in the way we think of rape in modern society) in Dinah's eyes, even from the Biblical account. You'll note Genesis also takes care to mention that Shechem was kind to Dinah, and how willing he and his family was to agree to Jacob's terms. I think it's highly likely that their part of the biblical story is really about pre-marital seduction of a virgin.

Dinah wouldn't have been raised to think that choosing her own husband was her right or responsibility, though. She also would have been raised to understand it was expected she remain a virgin until marriage.

I do think Diamant is justified in her interpretation. Part of the point of the passage is that Simeon and Levi acted badly in taking their revenge, and making that revenge less about defending tehir sister and more about their own rights over their sister clarifies that somewhat.

I agree.

Which is what, historically, women's chastity is largely about. Arguably, if my body belongs to my father anything that happens without his permission is rape whether I consented or not.

Yes.

Rape as property crime. Yep, that's a guaranteed hot button. Grrr.

It doesn't bother me here, I think primarily because the story is thousands of years old. If you were telling me a modern day story where that's how it was viewed, it would push my buttons. But this is how their society worked, and so I can't make myself feel political about it.

One not-so-quick question that I wanted to bring up for discussion has to do with...hmm...don't know how to phrase this...it seems to me that female writers often vilify all male characters in a story when they are trying to write a strong woman's story (either a strong woman or a strong story for/about women). I thought that was the case in The Red Tent, although not as anvilly as other things I've read. Only two male characters seemed like decent people, and neither get a lot of screen time. I've argued this point in my head for this particular book, and I think I don't have a problem with the vilification of men here, because it's so tied in to the purpose of the midrash.

I know. This is something I'd love to talk about with Diamant. Because it was somewhat less anvilly here, I couldn't decide on her motives. If this was just Dinah's characterization (and if she had any fond feelings for Shechem, it may well have been how she felt) I can accept it much more, than if Diamant herself is trying to villify the men (if that makes any sense).

But...does anyone else ever see this phenomenon? Are women equally vilified in stories about men, and I'm just culturally trained to not notice?

I don't think so. But maybe sometimes it is a case that women are not villified as straight-forwardly. I think women are often marginalized (which is this case, is the purpose of the midrash), ineffectualized, or reduced to cliches, instead.

---