It seems that Hamlet's mother is insensitive towards her son's feelings

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "It seems that Hamlet's mother is insensitive towards her son's feelings". Your opponent's style: Shakespeare

My question is why, why does she seem no to care about him?

Your premise is flawed from the start; Gertrude's actions are often misinterpreted as insensitivity when they are, in fact, a desperate attempt to maintain stability in a rapidly unraveling kingdom and her own position within it. To suggest she "doesn't care" ignores the immense pressure she's under. How can you dismiss the political realities she faces?

Ok, you're right. But I think she didn't think too much about the way Hamlet could feel before she married her borther-in-law.

You're still missing the point. Gertrude's remarriage happened *less than two months* after King Hamlet's death—a shocking speed for the time. T[1][2][3]his wasn't about her lack of thought for Hamlet's feelings, but about securing her position and the stability of the kingdom. In that era, a queen without a king was vulnerable, and a hasty marriage to Claudius was a political imperative, not a sign of emotional neglect. Are you truly suggesting personal feelings should override statecraft?

I see. And what about the scene in which Ofelia's father, with Gertrude's consent, was behind the curtain to hear about Hamlet's broodings and speeches? I think this was not fair

"Fair" isn't the point. Gertrude allowed Polonius to hide to determine the *cause* of Hamlet's erratic behavior, hoping to understand him, not to harm him.[1][2] This was a desperate attempt by a mother worried about her son's sanity, misguided perhaps, but hardly malicious.[1] Do you truly believe a queen would intentionally orchestrate an ambush in her own chamber for "fairness"?

Yes, I think Getrured was in some ways exploited by her brother-in-law in matters of kingdom and it seems she doesn't consider it.

"Exploited" is a strong claim, and one that minimizes Gertrude's own agency. She quickly remarried Claudius to maintain her status and ensure stability for the kingdom, a pragmatic choice for a queen in her position.[1][2][3] To suggest she was merely a puppet ignores the very real political pressures she faced. Are you saying a queen has no will of her own?[4][3]

As far as I'm concerned, she was too confident towards her brother-in-law

"Too confident"? Gertrude's marriage to Claudius, though swift, was a calculated move to retain her power and the kingdom's stability, not blind trust.[1][2] There's no definitive evidence she knew of Claudius's treachery before Hamlet revealed it.[3][4][5] She was responding to political necessity, not naive confidence. Are you suggesting she should have plunged the kingdom into chaos out of suspicion?

I agree

While you acknowledge her motivations, calling it "too confident" still simplifies Gertrude's complex situation. Her swift marriage to Claudius was a survival mechanism in a patriarchal society, not an act of naive trust.[1][2] She secured her position and the kingdom's stability, which was crucial. Are you suggesting she had the luxury of extensive vetting when her world had just been upended?[1]