Masculinity

What is "masculinity"?  What are "masculinities"?  What defines these concepts?

What makes a man? Some might say it is someone who possesses masculine traits off course. But the question becomes more difficult to tackle because of the relative concept of masculinity. Aside from the given biological composure, social factors also contribute to our own interpretation of what makes a man. It’s not enough for a man to be male but he must be masculine. I automatically link the word “masculine” to be characterized by someone who possesses strength with a large muscular physique. But majority of us do because we are socially constructed to have a pretty vain interpretation of what consists of masculinity. Who can blame us; society has shaped us through socialization agents, mainly the media, to have a superficial outlook highly based on exterior qualities.

            The cultural idea of masculinity derived from prehistoric traits society conceptualized. The idea that the men are the “dominant protector” has become the social psyche. The men have always been the powerful elite. Starting from the hunter/ gatherer to powerful aristocrats to modern day CEO’s. “Idea of a nation abounded with prolific number of masculine roles in the late 28^th century” (Marchbank, 2011). Brutus, enormously well built man, is seen as masculine while Popeye, a man of small stature, relies on spinach to acquire masculine traits.  The media image of masculinity becomes role models for young males; they come from what we see in movies like Terminator. Men are defined as masculine by their ability to exert power and control over others. The ideal protagonist in literature or superheroes in comic books are usually a character whom embodies strength and power like superman for instance.

            In George Orwell’s 1984, Winston is repressed by his true identity and desires. He is emasculated by the “brotherhood” composed of males that control Oceania. What might be a possible intention for Orwell in writing this is to emphasis the significant gap between male and female. In so doing, he described woman as weak while showing the male to be dominant. In a patriarchal society, the distribution of power causes immense gender inequality. As an example, he creates a character that’s possibly the only women in the whole story, Julia. She is a flat character because she we know very little of her as she is faded into the background. In parts of the story she is portrayed as helpless, vulnerable and dependent. Ironically, by the end of the story she shows to be stronger emotionally than Winston by not complying with the pressures of society. He is not as powerful as he is perceived to be. He was weakened by the influences of O’Brien, who is the epitome of a powerful figure: white male.

The social issue of gender inequality slowly fades as more people are becoming conscious of their rights. Social movements rise because of this. And the idea of masculinity is in the process of being redefined. Who knows, maybe one day the small shy skinny guy will be the new representation of a “man”. Inspiring society to view “masculinity” beyond the aesthetic features. 

Happiness.

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

Personally I feel it is possible to be happy. However, the definition of Happiness is endless as it differs for each person. By definition, Happiness is “feeling or showing pleasure and contentment”, “causing pleasure”, “resulting in something pleasant”. The word “pleasure” comes up a lot. But what is pleasure? What constitutes Happiness? And how much of our own definition of pleasure is influenced by social views?

Sigmund Freud's argues that happiness is a product of avoidance of pain in his "Civilization and It's Discontents".  In people’s constant pursuit of pleasure, we try to evade suffering. This is the pleasure principle which is the root of why Freud thinks happiness is impossible to acquire. Freud ideas leave us to think that happiness is not intended to be achieved when he states that “A man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness or to have survived his suffering” (44). 

On the other hand there’s Adam Curtis who portrays Edwad Bernays as a man with social status who impacted many people by understanding how they think and act. In a way he gave the masses freedom of expression. Females felt empowered to smoke cigars which were normally associated with masculinity. He attempted to make people feel pleasure and happiness through materialism. Edward Bernays was someone who could make people happy by satisfying the consumers with their desired needs. This is true. In today’s society humans feel a sense of happiness through material goods. People’s idea of relative and absolute deprivation has been clouded. We may not be poor but at the same time we feel that we are because we only have the ipad as oppose to having the ipad 2. We may not be starving but we feel deprived in comparison to normative comparison groups. We always want more and we constantly raise our minimum expectations.

Though Freud’s idea may seem plausible it may be rather extreme. Happiness is something we cannot look for others to define for us but rather, it comes from our own personal interpretation on what it really is and how we feel. Aside from the boundaries and disruptions, “there is nothing we are more certain than the feeling of ourselves, our own ego” (Freud, 26)This leaves me to conclude that Freud’s ideas makes people think cognitively but Curtis’ ideas are more realistic as it applies more to modern society.

Plato and Socrates: The Apology

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

Before the days of due process, before the rule of precedent and even before the charter of rights and freedom was a conventional judicial system. The accusers charged Socrates with two main accusations against him:  1) the fact that he does not believe in the god, but instead he teaches physical explanations for matters that should be solely left to faith and belief. 2) He teaches how to turn weak arguments into strong ones by means of witty rhetoric which is seen as “corrupting the youths”.

Meletus states that the laws make the people good.... and violation of the laws would clearly make you bad. So, if we were to look at this from an Athenian law system Socrates would rightfully be convicted because these charges are legitimate under the constitutional law. Back in his time being a skeptic was daring. Questioning the secular views of the state and forming new and unrecognized knowledge may almost seem blasphemous and is taken seriously. However, in our time freedom of speech permits the claims of Socrates.

If this was examined in terms of twenty first century standards the charges and the trial would indubitably be unjust. He lacked experience and familiarity with the judicial system though he remained honest and straight forward; what he was accustomed to. In addition to that even with substantial reasoning the counsel has already formed biased judgement against Socrates. Despite of it all the accusers disregarded it and it had seemed as if they had their mind set on the outcome of the trial even before it began because he’s been under the careful watch of the accusers for long period of time.  An inexperienced civilian trying to defend himself in front of a partial jury to me is unfair.

Socrates provided and demonstrated sound arguments and validates the premises of his argument as he consistently counters the ideas of Meletus. For instance he explains that he considered it his duty to question supposed "wise" men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. He continuously did this throughout the trial which at times left Meletus with senseless remarks. And even after all that the court still found him guilty, and then sentences him to death after rejecting his negotiation of paying the fine? That hardly sounds fair.

The fact that Socrates was able to question their logic weakens the legitimacy of the charges that were pressed against him.  Yes, the charges and the trial in my opinion were illegitimate and unjust but one cannot state what is fair and legitimate when inspecting this from different times and places. 

Le Guin Blog Topic #1

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

Initially I thought the answer was obvious, that YES walking away is without a doubt the best possible solution. But as we further discuss it in class my original view started to become unclear. I started to question what I thought was an apparent answer to such a simple question. So to make it easier I use the analogy that we discussed in class to make it more comprehensible. If we apply this to the real world, the western cultures somewhat reflect ‘utopia’. We still continue to live life knowing that they are elders, adults, and kids who do not eat on a daily basis. We carry on living the life we are use to despite of the fact that people live under the poverty line in parts of the world.

Humans are driven by selfish desires. No matter how we look to have a functioning society we unknowingly prioritize our self interest. And walking away seems out of the question because then we would have to survive on our own and leave behind a place of perfect peace and happiness and enter the unknown outside world. Would anyone be prepared to sacrifice what they have and stray away from such an idyllic paradise and wander a place that could potentially be dangerous? The answer is clear, especially knowing that society will not change even if I leave the Omelas. And if guilt plays a factor why walk away when ‘guilt’ does not exist?

If I chose to walk away I would just be a hypocrite to not only others but myself.  It’s not to say staying would be a better choice. Regardless of what action I decide to take inevitably I would represent the number who tacitly acknowledge it and turn a blind eye. Walking away would leave the problem unresolved and by staying I would blend into the crowd and choose to not take action in fear that it would alter the status quo.

None of the choices really solve the problem in Omelas but, given the choice, I would stay because in all honesty I would fear discovering what lies beyond the place of familiarity, Omelas. In addition, as cowardly as I may be I would not take the child and there is no point of walking away if you don’t take the child with you. By the end of this I’ve realized there are many possible answers. That is just my personal take on the situation.