True conceptualization of masculinity

Masculinity.  When first read the stereotypical thoughts always come to mind:  the James Bond, athletic, powerful individual with a muscular figure and courageous feats of fearlessness. In truth, masculinity is a biological trait linking back to prehistoric times of the hunter/gatherer societies where man would play the dominant, male testosterone role of survival. Living in a patriarchal society today, the role of masculinity would be seen as something desirable by both sexes – more likely desirable by the females. I believe that it’s due to society’s norms of gender hierarchy that females are seen as more of a symbol of the state rather than taking on a dominant role where a man would play the role as isn’t necessarily the case. The male’s role in this is to protect the state (the female) and by doing this, the male is taking on the role society has set forth. The female can be the breadwinner just as much as the male. Likewise, the male can play the role of caretaker. Essentially it’s just a set of masculinities that society has labelled on the individual to believe that certain roles/duties are only allowed by a certain sex. You don’t have to be strong to play sports or have certain masculinities to do “manly” activities such as fixing a car.

Through the media and advertising such as video games or popular television shows, the imagery of the predominant masculine figure is being shown consistently. In television shows such as Dragon’s Den, there is a male dominance in the business world by showing the top business men/woman by a comparison ratio of four men to one female. Why is this? Why are there a greater number of male CEO’s compared to female CEO’s? The answer isn’t so clear cut, but the fact of the matter is that society has deemed females unsuitable to play important roles as they move up the hierarchal ladder. Men and woman can be working the same job, but men will have the slight advantage and favouritism whether it is the higher pay they receive, or the benefits. Also in other media forms, say video games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you would never see a female fit the role of the “hero” in the game or in any advertisement methods. Undoubtedly, the advertisement uses an array of explosions that makes you think, “If I buy this game I will be as manly as the guy in that advertisement”.

Relating this to George Orwell’s 1984, masculinity plays a major role in this novel by the constant showcase that “Big Brother is watching you”. Linking back to the belief that females are the symbol of the state, Orwell portrays a society where the males are clearly dominant and superior to the females.  By showing that you can control the females – who essentially are the state – the males show that they can control them and make them,

“…a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing persecuting – three hundred million people all with the same face” (Orwell, 77).

Orwell does an interesting job in showing the dominant male society and the masculinity that lingers in it. On one hand, the men do dominant and control the females, yet on the other hand Winston himself and the rest of the male society aren’t actually free and masculine at all. To some extent, they are but Winston himself is not allowed to do what he wants and love Julia; All the while Winston is being repressed of his true male testosterone driven desires of love and rebellion. Just as in today’s society, the clash between men and women ultimately show that those who lack power have no voice, and therefore are deemed the lesser role and lack what is seen as “masculinity”. 

Pursuit of happiness..?

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy?  Why?

         What is true happiness? Well, one approach can see it as being in a physically and mentally stable position where you see yourself as living the “good life”. Adam Curtis brilliantly argues by showing how Edward Bernays influenced the lives of so many just by the way people thought and acted; it gave the masses a sort of freedom to express themselves and act out their aggressions and desires. A perfect example being the females in society smoking and wearing shorter skirts— a clear attempt to gain a form of freedom, by crowd pleasing attention. I was surprised when I realized how much society has been shaped and influenced do to the works of so few. It makes you think if we really are happy and content with our lives today, or if we are just sewing our ego on our shirt and pretending that we are truly happy with what we have.


         I would agree beforehand that I was truly happy and living in a position where I had many benefits in my favor such as educational funding and health care. This, however, didn’t last long as questions arose after reading Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents.  Freud argues that what we deem as happy is actually a temporary fix of happiness to fill the void that we can not truly be real. In other words, we hold back our true ambitions and desires to be happy because society’s norms have deemed it as such. Freud describes this as the pleasure principal: We cannot just run around and do as we please, but instead we act out in certain ways to please ourselves temporarily and convince that we are truly happy with it. Are we actually experiencing happiness or are we tricked into a false consciousness? 


         This false consciousness, could be due to the material desires and labels we so much desire in our day to day lives. Freud quotes Schiller saying, that “hunger and love are what moves the world” (Freud, 104). Hunger is defined as an ego-instinct (satisfaction of internal needs), whereas love is directed toward objects external to the ego. Would marriage be an appropriate label to measure and fill in the love/sexual satisfaction? From personal experiences, the materialistic drives and wants of my self happiness essentially put me in a position Freud argues that happens to so many of us. We make ourselves believe that we are truly happy, when in fact we are just a product of society and not happy at all. Thus, concluding that it is possible to be happy, but only temporarily.

Legitimacy of Theories

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

In Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, & Crito translated by F.J. Church, it can be argued whether the charges against Socrates were legitimate and if the trial against Socrates was conducted in a fair manner. I believe the charges laid against Socrates were legitimate; Socrates was initially being accused of corrupting “the young men growing up” and claiming that he [Socrates] is “a maker of gods” (Euthyphro, pg.2). I agree due to the period of time that this thought would be considered unjust (impious) and unsettling with the rest of Greek society. The trial on the other hand, was unfortunately one sided where Socrates knew his ideas would not be favored by the elders of Athens. Socrate ideas were new and went against the morals and previous beliefs that the society had believed in, which landed him in the trial in the first place.

During the Euthyphro and Apology, the argument of what is right (pious) and what is believed to be pious by the gods is constantly being criticized. Through the attempted teachings to the youth, the argument allowed room for accusations to be laid out. Specifically in the Apology, Socrates and Meletus engage in arguments whether Socrates believes in god or not. Socrates tells Meletus that he himself does in fact “believe in divinities” (Apology, 33) when Meletus’s main base argument was to prove that Socrates does not believe in any god and ultimately Socrates himself is a “complete Atheist” (Apology, 32). As a counter argument Socrates states that if one man believes in the children made by the gods then how can they not believe in the gods themselves? 

In turn, to refute the prejudice arisen by accusations that Socrates was impious in the fact that he went against the religious beliefs, Socrates goes on and explains that the Oracle had foretold him that he was the "wisest of men" (Apology, 26) further ensuing his pursuit of knowledge and clarification of his ideas and the ideals shrouding the society. And it was under this notion that Socrates was compelled to have a healthy criticism towards any aspect retaining to Athens, even if this meant flirting with a controversial subject such as religion.  In the end, the trial was unfair because before Socrates' argument he knew he had persuaded some of the elders and youth, the one’s that had constantly “attacked” Socrates’ theories from the start were the one’s feared the most. Socrates reconciliation with the link between his views of god and what the Greek society believed in was solidified by stating that, “piety and what is pleasing to the gods are different things” (Euthyphro, pg. 13). In the end, Socrates willingly accepted death with open arms.

Should I stay or should I go?

1. If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk?  Please explain and justify your decision.

            After reading Ursula K Le Guin's story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", I had convinced myself that I would also be one of the people who would "walk ahead into the darkness" (Le Guin, 4) and leave the city for the sole purpose of the child's sake. As I came to that justification, however, I thought, are the people leaving Omelas cowards and just running away from their problems? Or is it because of something else?

            I believe the fact that the people themselves know "that they, like the child, are not free"(4), makes it an intolerable setting to live in. The fact that the "joyous" town shines with all its' glory and pride is because of the child suffering. The people had known the child was the reason the city prospers and lives on, yet they cover up the "crime" they are doing to the child and go about their lives. "They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched" (1). The word "wretched", being the word that foreshadows the sorrows of the imprisoned child, exhibits the morbid behaviours covered up by society in order to maintain a standardized level of peace and prosperity. It seems that if people know there is a problem that ultimately benefits the majority of society, it is socially acceptable to ignore the problem and basically go about your own life.

            Comparing this to modern society, we face a similar standpoint. We have Third World countries such as Indonesia and Turkey with factories filled with under payed labourers who work in horrible conditions, producing vast consumer goods such as nike/adidas shoes and our fancy name brand clothing that society's norms tells us to buy and wear. Yet we still go about our day, essentially looking out for our best interests, and even buying the products these labourers make. I myself have selfishly bought a pair of adidas shoes, blatantly supporting the child labor that's commonly reoccurring overseas without realizing just to be accepted in society. To some extent, staying in Omelas would be considered rational due to the similarities it has on our own society. The people have been socialized with a controlled variable and cannot possibly imagine life outside of Omelas. No one would be willing to give up their lifestyle for the betterment of a single child. This disregard for children and their basic rights of life and freedom is the exact reason why many including myself would leave the city. This drastic bargain had left myself in a paradox that society, as rash and egocentrically driven as we are, know and are fully aware of problems occurring today but still won't do the right thing to stop them. We wouldn't go over to these developing countries and stop each factory individually with employing children because realistically it would take ages, and it would stop the capitalistic interests of the companies.

            On the other hand, if one choses to leave Omelas, why wouldn't they take the child with them? For the child to be set free, the society had "to exchange all the goodness and grace of every life Omelas for that single, small improvement"(4). The matter could have arisen that if the child was taken, society knew it had to replace the child with another or "wither and be destroyed" (4). Nevertheless, walking away from Omelas would be the superlative choice. Seeing the child being imprisoned without any restraint shows that the will inside one's self must overcome the rationality of society's norms. People choosing to leave Omelas one by one see the problem that is afoot, but they don't really do anything to solve it. They realize that they must bear the guilt of leaving the child there, while acknowledging that they are also overcoming their own will to stay - refuse and pretend that everything is fine in the "beautiful" city of Omelas.

-------------------------------

DRAFT


1. If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk?  Please explain and justify your decision.

            After reading Ursula K Le Guin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", I had convinced myself that I would also be one of the people who would "walk ahead into the darkness" (Le Guin, 4) and leave the city for the sole purpose of the child's sake. As I came to that justification, however I thought, are the people leaving Omelas just cowards and just running away from their problems? Or is it because of something else?

            I believe the fact that the people themselves know "that they, like the child, are not free"(4), makes it an intolerable setting to live in. The fact that the "joyous" town shines with all it's glory and pride is because of the child suffering. The people had known the child was the reason the city prospers and lives on, yet they just cover up the "crime" they are doing to the child and go about their lives. "They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched" (1). The word "wretched", being the word that foreshadows the sorrows of the imprisoned child. It seems that if people know there is a problem or wrong doing that ultimately benefits the majority of society, it is socially acceptable to ignore the problem and basically go about your own life.

            Comparing this to modern society, we face a similar standpoint. We have third world countries with factories filled with under payed laborers who work in horrible conditions, yet we still go about our day, essentially looking out for our best interests, and even buying the products the laborers make. The shoes we wear, the clothes, almost everything was made from their blood sweat and tears. This blatant disregard for children and their basic rights of life and freedom is the exact reason why many leave the city. Thus, another question arose. Why didn't the people leaving take the child with them? For the child to be set free, the city had "to exchange all the goodness and grace of every life Omelas for that single, small improvement"(4). The matter could have arisen that if the child was taken, the city knew it had replace the child with another or "wither and be destroyed" (4).

            Nevertheless, walking away from Omelas would be the best choice. Seeing the child being imprisoned without any restraint shows that the will inside one's self must overcome the rationality of society's norms and leave. We see that people who leave the city one by one see the problem that is afoot, but they don't really do anything to solve it. They realize that they must bear the guilt of leaving the child there, but also acknowledge that they are also overcoming their own will to stay and pretend that everything is fine in the "beautiful" city of Omelas.