Macbeth, nuttin' but a punk

A prophecy foresees a situation to be undeniable. In other words, action is not neccessary on the invidual whose fortune gets told. Macbeth is a doldrum, akin to Saturninus in TITUS, who is destined to lead; but also to have no power. He vies for power at the hint of the possibility, like a lion being fed dead meat. Again, it seems that Shakespeare reveres women for their ability to make tough decisions - in this case, Lady Macbeth inspiring Macbeth to take action for the throne - as well as their uncanny ability to control a man's emotions and actions. Hamlet was moved to action by his mother's incest; Laerte's by her sister's virginity; Titus by Tamora's power and Saturninus by her sexuality; Othello by Desdemona's sexuality and her father and Iago by her choice of man and her virginity. In other words, the man may have the power, but it is only because he opresses the woman's innate power that men do not possess. As we are seeing in Persepolis (well, in Iran and other muslim countries, actually; but also in Persepolis), the woman is veiled. This usurps her authority by taking away her main powers, those of beauty and seduction. By creating flawed and weak male characters, Shakespeare shows a contrast of strength in women. This isn't to say that all of these choices were intended to do that, but I do think they were subconcious choices unknown to him.

After all, doesn't the average man think about sex every seven seconds? That's to be debated, but i'm still interested to know how long it took Shakespeare to write a tragedy.