Masculinity, a Force of Conformity

What is it to be masculine? This is a term that is assigned to variety male activities. These male activities are ideas or social norms associated with men. These can very from fishing and playing sports, to fighting for your country. The perfect image of a masculine man would be one of muscle and height; it is also something many men strive to be like. But what makes curtain activities masculine? Is it because most men enjoy these activities or is it that they are expected to enjoy these activities through social conformation.

In my experience masculinity is very involved in the way I live my life. It is very involved in the shaping of my youth. Being masculine is often associated with being cool or popular or even just normal. The things I do in my life that I consider to be masculine would be fishing, dirt biking, camping, and especially working in a trade. I do enjoy these activities but I cannot help but wonder if I started doing them because I was expected to. A tool belt is really a huge symbol of manhood and I am not really sure why. I feel more empowered when I wear one and if I had to guess the reason for this it must be the stereotype of real men being good with their hands. This stereotype is enforced on the public through the previous generation, TV, and common history but these male roles are encouraged throughout 1984.

In our society today, men are still thought of as the provider; the worker in heavy industry and the guardian of the family unit. Due to constant social conditioning, I believe one of the most masculine figures in society is a soldier. This is evident in our society but much more so in 1984 as in most totalitarian governments that rely on military dexterity. The idea of a soldier is linked to being a protector of your nation, which is often portrayed as a female character. “Motherland” and “Homeland” provide ideals for which a man should protect.  In 1984 the mustachioed face of big brother gives him a very powerful but protecting figure. His purpose is to give a friendly trusting face onto Ingsoc to keep a docile public; as he himself does not actually exist but is a form of propaganda employed by the party. He also is in uniform as it is important to his appearance. A feeling of strength and honour is portrayed in a man in uniform and much more so then a women in uniform. War posters and military demonstrations of masculine figures in the army or working makes one feel meek compared to these figures and is encouraged to enlist for his masculinity and pride. This is definitely pried upon by Ingsoc and even our governments in times of war. Many of these masculinities are socially driven and used to guilt men into the idea of what is the ideal man.

             

to be happy, or not to be? is it possible?

Freud’s pessimistic vigor about the human race is definitely evident in his work. I find it very hard to relate to his theories of happiness and the pleasure principal. I myself have never thought twice about the possibility of happiness and assumed I have been quiet happy most of my privileged life. But is this my ego trying to protect me from suffering and a false sense of my biological need for pleasure? Or am I just mildly contempt through achieving a sought out ideal in my pleasure principal? Freud even states that creation may not have made humans able to be truly happy, which implies it is very unlikely he believes it is possible to be happy.

The “pleasure principal” states that we are driven by a desire to achieve happiness by avoiding/postponing pain and suffering. But we have realistic aims in life, which Freud calls the “realistic principal,” where we are willing to accept that our goals will take time to achieve. But these pleasures we seek are very infrequent and there is a considerable and guaranteed amount of suffering which awaits us constantly. This does not sounds as if Freud thinks we can be truly happy, we are guaranteed to age, to be antagonized by the external world and to be tormented by our human relationships through loss of the person or the persons love. This does not sound like a joyous scenario and I must agree that the majority of suffering in my life has been from my human relationships.

There is also his theory that humans have a need for violence and death and there is considerable evidence for such things even in the video games I so choose to play. This pent up lust for violence is also accompanied by a sexual lust and both are suppressed by the super-structure which humans themselves have created. He does agree that it is better to restrict our sexual urges however, but there are too many restrictions especially in Christian societies. The ideals of no premarital sex and monogamy are against our pleasure principal and therefore makes us discontent.

With civilization being the largest cause of suffering should not the solution be to revert back to our primitive instincts and leave civilization? But Freud argues this would make us much less happy then civilization. “The liberty of the self is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in the position to defend it.” (Freud, 72). After all as he states humans have created the super-structure, civilization as we no it is built by humans. We give up certain liberties to live in a society that makes us discontent. Then is it at all possible to be truly happy? It certainly does not appear so.

             

The Makings of a Martyr (Revised)

Revised Question2

There are very few true martyrs that have ever walked the face of this earth. It is hard to specify who was one and who was not as some are more obvious then others and some come down to merely personal opinion. In my mind Socrates is a martyr, a true martyr, even if he never meant to be one.

Socrates did not beg or plead for his life by appealing to people’s sympathetic side nor did he whimper when hearing he is to be put to death. These are qualities that make up a martyr. If he were to collapse into a shriveling mouse of man it would be hard to say he sacrificed his life for the greater good but was more for forced into it. “I would not plead before you as you would have liked to hear me plead, or appeal to you with weeping an wailing, or say and do other things which I maintain unworthy of me.” (Plato, 46). His speech gives Socrates a brave appearance, and even if he were truly to be scared of death he does not show it. Is not that what bravery is though, to be scared of something but to do it without showing emotion? He appears to truly be unshaken by the verdict that shall claim his life, for it appears he is willing to die for what he said and believes in. If this where just a show for the trial then he would have escaped with Crito but refused too give into to most fundamental of all human instincts, the preservation of the self and die for his beliefs.

It is my belief that every martyr must also have a cause or something to stand for such as Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Socrates may not have been a spokesperson for a specific cause and that is why people may say he is not a martyr but in many ways he is standing up for his belief in a true republic . He has clearly done nothing close to a crime punishable by death and the show trial was more of a pre-determined execution. This makes him a political activist weather he calls himself so or not. Socrates expresses his attachment to his cause and makes it appeal to others in his speech, “My good friend, you are a citizen of Athens, a city which is very great and very famous for it’s wisdom and power, are you not ashamed of caring so much for the making of money, and for fame and prestige…” (36). The government and people close to it are only abusing their power when they put Socrates to death for “corrupting the youth.” No true republic has ever put a man to death for corrupting the youth, in fact that is one of the necessities of a totalitarian government.

Socrates is surrounded by men that worship his every word as most inspirational men do and they are not there for money or power but only to better themselves through Socrates's wisdom. “A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men.” (Plato quote, on Socrates).  Socrates obtains the necessary charisma and uniqueness that would make men want to follow him or even die for him. He never shows even his closest of friends that he is scared of death even if he is. It is human nature to fear death but it is bravery not to show it. Socrates died for his beliefs, sticking to his argument that he had committed no crime and fought against a corrupt justice system.  


Work cited:

"Plato." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2011. 17 October. 2011. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/plato162751.html

The Makings of a Martyr

Question 2:

There are very few true martyrs that have ever walked the face of this earth. It is hard to specify who was one and who was not as some are more obvious then others and some come down to merely personal opinion. In my mind Socrates is a martyr, a true martyr, even if he never meant to be one.

Socrates did not beg or plead for his life by appealing to people’s sympathetic side nor did he whimper when hearing he is to be put to death. These are qualities that make up a martyr. If he were to collapse into a shriveling mouse of man it would be hard to say he sacrificed his life for the greater good but was more for forced into it. “I would not plead before you as you would have liked to hear me plead, or appeal to you with weeping an wailing, or say and do other things which I maintain unworthy of me.” (Plato, 46). His speech gives Socrates a brave appearance and even if he were truly to be scared of death he does not show it. Is not that what bravery is though, to be scared of something but to do it without showing emotion? He appears to truly be not scared for his life and willing to die for what he said and believes in. If this where just a show for the trial then he would have escaped with Crito but refused to loose face.

 Every martyr must also have a cause or something to stand like Martin Luther King or Gandhi. I believe Socrates became a martyr for those seeking wisdom and enlightenment and in many ways for civil rights. He has clearly done nothing close to a crime punishable by death and the show trial was more of a pre-determined execution. This makes him a political activist weather he calls himself so or not. Socrates expresses his attachment to his cause and makes it appeal to others in his speech, “My good friend, you are a citizen of Athens, a city which is very great and very famous for it’s wisdom and power, are you not ashamed of caring so much for the making of money, and for fame and prestige…” (36). The government and people close to it are only abusing their power when they put Socrates to death for “corrupting the youth.” No true republic has ever put a man to death for corrupting the youth, in fact that is one of the necessities of a totalitarian government.

Martyrs always have followers and this characteristic is also applicable to Socrates as he has many followers that are not paid to aid him but are there because they find him to be an inspirational leader of men. He also obtains the necessary charisma and uniqueness that would make men want to follow him or even die for him. He never shows even his closest of friends that he is scared of death even if he is. It is human nature to fear death but it is bravery not to show it. Socrates died for his beliefs, sticking to his argument that he had committed no crime and fought against a corrupt justice system.  

Would I Walk Away From My Utopia? Revision

Question1
           To walk away from a utopian society such as Omelas would be an incredibly arduous decision and I do not believe I could bring myself to give up all the joy that is Omelas. The atrocities being committed on the poor child is a hideous thing that would definitely make me consider leaving but, there is a selfish part of me that could not bare to give up my friends, loved ones and the lifestyle I had become accustom to. 

My reaction to seeing the child would likely be the same as described by Ursula K Laguin “They feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations.” (La Guin, 3). But I too feel like these feelings would be repressed eventually by the constant distraction of all that is good and magnificent about Omelas. It is easy to say that those people of Omelas are greedy and selfish for not leaving but when it comes down to it you must understand where they are coming from as well. After all everyone is a product of his or her upbringing. The way Ursula states the situation is really an ultimatum, “If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.” (4). It is pretty clear your only options are to stay and try to ignore the hidden reality or leave and not look back, there is no half way or even the ability to deal with the problem, it is just personal choice. This really just represents the choice between a Utopia and a clear conscience. Is the society we live in a type of Utopia (far from Omelas) and our boy inside a closet is the exploited third world countries?

Why leave though? Would it change anything? Would i really be making a difference in the child's world? People would only leave to clear there conscious but they must know that the child is still there. To take the child with you would ruin the entirety of Omelas and there is never any protest from the ones who leave, they only fall silent and leave by themselves. The feeling of powerlessness is one that may keep me in the town,as La Guin puts it "...and the acceptance of helplessness, which is perhaps the true source of splendour in their lives." (4).For the ones who leave do little to change what Omelas is. If i cannot fix it why should i leave it?

It is also my reliance on the opinion of others especially elders that would influence my decision. If my parents, friends and possibly people I looked up to or admired stayed and explained to me the need for the child I would assume it is just a necessary evil. After all, there is no guilt in Omelas, and I do not believe it is humanly possible to feel guilt all the time. Eventually the guilt may even turn into appreciation for my life and gratitude of the boy’s sacrifice. As La Guin puts it, “There is no vapid, irresponsible happiness.” (4). Eventually it may even just be swept into the corner of my mind where it is rarely thought of.

La Guin’s story really makes you look deep into yourself and reassess your values. I hope this blog entry does not make me seem gutless for not saying I would walk away from Omelas, and I couldn’t say for certain I would stay either but I am trying to be as realistic as possible.

Would I Walk Away From My Utopia?

Question # 1

           To walk away from a utopian society such as Omelas would be an incredibly arduous decision and I do not believe I could bring myself to give up all the joy that is Omelas. The atrocities being committed on the poor child is a hideous thing that would definitely make me consider leaving but, there is a selfish part of me that could not bare to give up my friends, loved ones and the lifestyle I had become accustom to. 

My reaction to seeing the child would likely be the same as described by Ursula K Laguin “They feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations.” (La Guin, 3). But I too feel like these feelings would be repressed eventually by the constant distraction of all that is good and magnificent about Omelas. It is easy to say that those people of Omelas are greedy and selfish for not leaving but when it comes down to it you must understand where they are coming from as well. After all everyone is a product of his or her upbringing. The way Ursula states the situation is really an ultimatum, “If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.” (4). It is pretty clear your only options are to stay and try to ignore the hidden reality or leave and not look back, there is no half way or even the ability to deal with the problem, it is just personal choice. This really just represents the choice between a Utopia and a clear conscience. Is the society we live in a type of Utopia (far from Omelas) and our boy inside a closet is the exploited third world countries?

It is also my reliance on the opinion of others especially elders that would influence my decision. If my parents, friends and possibly people I looked up to or admired stayed and explained to me the need for the child I would assume it is just a necessary evil. After all, there is no guilt in Omelas, and I do not believe it is humanly possible to feel guilt all the time. Eventually the guilt may even turn into appreciation for my life and gratitude of the boy’s sacrifice. As La Guin puts it, “There is no vapid, irresponsible happiness.” (4). Eventually it may even just be swept into the corner of my mind where it is rarely thought of.

La Guin’s story really makes you look deep into yourself and reassess your values. I hope this blog entry does not make me seem gutless for not saying I would walk away from Omelas, and I couldn’t say for certain I would stay either but I am trying to be as realistic as possible.