Macbeth, Manhood and T****

I'm watching several versions of Macbeth and I keep thinking two things.  

I admit to not having watched much Shakespeare, so it is perhaps normal for him to talk to often about experiencing the world either as a man vs. as a woman.  But it definitely seems to be a theme in Macbeth.  It is also possible that I am seeing this through the twin lenses of #MeToo and Man v. Bear.  That said, seems to me that Shakespeare was talking shit about what it means to be a man LONG before any modern sensibility about men being dangerous.  

The thing I kept hearing repeated again and again was how, in order to do the difficult (in this case meaning both "wrong" and "criminal") things, you had to be manly.  Lady Macbeth (whose real name is Gruoch ... Gruoch ingen Boite ... and I can't fault Shakespeare for not using it) fears her husband is too full of "the milk of human kindness" to do what is necessary and, later, says that when he completes the deed, THEN he will be a man.  Later, she prays to be "unsexed" so that she, too, can participate in the "manly" act of regicide without remorse. When Macbeth is confronted by his guilt in the form of Banquo's ghost at the banquet, Lady Macbeth again questions his manhood.  Later, Macbeth is able to kill all feelings of propriety and guilt which allow him to kill MacDuff's wife and children without thinking twice or feeling any remorse afterwards.  He has become a manly-man.

Again and again, there is this idea that manhood somehow means an inability to feel and the ability to do all manner of wrongs sans regret.  What kills me is that it appears Shakespeare is deriding that idea because Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are clearly the villains of the play.  And yet ... that appears to be the current definition.  The same characteristics that led Macbeth and all those in his orbit to ruin are what I hear we've lost in our increasing "feminization" or "unmanning" or whatever it is that supposedly happened to our culture.  

Which leads me to T****.  He is, absolutely, the poster-child of the broken image of manhood currently espoused by himself and his MAGAts.  As soon as that thought struck me, I was struck by another.  What if the character of Macbeth were replaced by T****?  I was immediately laughing and horrified in equal measure.  Laughing because ... well ... could you imagine the dialogue? 

Blood-bolted Banquo smiled upon me

Big man, strong man,

Tears streaming down his ghostly face

And he said to me,

"I'm so grateful that you killed me

because you really should be king of Scotland,

and really England, too, 

and France, 

Just everywhere."

Melania should have died hereafter,

but there's a lot of other women who want to be with me,

tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,

which is a funny word, why not just one morrow?

Two for morrow, one for joy.

That way for dusty death

except not for me

because my physiker said I'm still healthy,

not like crooked Joe MacDuff...

But horrified because the play couldn't be done with T**** in the place of Macbeth.  Macbeth, at least in the beginning, has some reservation about doing the bad things.  And the majority of the second act is him wrestling with his guilt.  Can anyone imagine T**** feeling anything akin to remorse or doubt for any action that he does, regardless of cause or consequence?  The main conflict of the play would be rendered pointless.  

That was our president.  And, God help us, may be again.