BLOG 4 - REVISED

            When I read the term "masculinity" my mind automatically jumps to the thought of a stereotypical man. The men that are portrayed on TV as the hero, the jock, or even the cocky big shot. The definition of masculinity given by dictionary.com is defined as "pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men." With such a vague explanation of the term, where is the line drawn between what is a characteristic of man and what is not without thinking through a stereotype.

            In George Orwell's 1984, "Big Brother" ultimately holds absolute power in Oceania because of this "Big Brother” comes across as being the alpha male. This can be seen as being a masculine trait; when it comes to power males generally carry more of it. Think of presidents for example, there have been more males in power in comparison to females. How often do you hear the term "alpha male" in regards to a female? For me it's rare. While everyone else has to abide by the rules of the Inner Party, which forbids free thought, sex, and individuality, Winston feels frustrated with the oppression given by the party. He also feels insecure about his body image, stating that it's pale, thin, and weak (Orwell 128). With Winston being the protagonist, and possessing ‘feminine’ characteristics rather than the typical masculine ones, it shows that the term masculinity is not set in stone or has a clear definition. Orwell is able to prove that not all masculine characters have to be a stereotype, but instead just a character.

            When it comes to advertisements and media men are often depicted as being physically fit, with a perfect smile and wash board abs. From what is viewed on advertisements and billboards, those qualities of the "perfect" yet photo shopped men begin to mold the term of masculinity. If for example you witness a man doing something that could be considered feminine such as ballet, often he would be viewed as not very masculine. However, because of the vague term of masculinity, participating in ballet requires an immense amount of strength. That seems to slip our minds and we begin trust our preconceived notions of what we believe to be masculine. In ordinary life, men who are married feel as though they need to be the provider of the family because they are the male of the house. Another prime example is how masculinity comes across as men being tough and when a small glimpse of sensitivity shines through everyone seems to pounce on it as if it's a flaw, or not allowed.

            High school is the place where the stereotype of being masculine is considered the most. The guys who seem to get all the girls, the ones who play sports, or even the class clowns, they're the ones who are looked at and who mold the definition. It seems as though the males are the ones who have to ask the girls out, or ask their hand in marriage like it's written in some kind of handbook, "the rules to be a man." In spite of all these assumptions of what masculinity is supposed to look like, women are taking charge. They're working in jobs that would be considered a male field such as policemen, or plumbers. They're going after what they want, and it comes to the point where they ask the boys out, or be the one to propose. So why is it that when we think of masculinity our mind goes straight to the hero's, jocks, or even the cocky big shots?

BLOG 3 - REVISED

            Happiness is something that comes and goes. It's an emotion that is quite powerful for the sheer fact that everyone can be happy, but what brings happiness is different for every individual. For example achieving success provides people happiness, but something as simple as changing out of jeans into sweat pants can provide the same emotion.  

            What was shown in Adam Curtis' Happiness Machine was society being happy, however the happiness didn't seem genuine. The individuals "bought" their happiness, and as being consumers when the next product came into light so did their bliss. In the film, the one thing that stood out to me was when a woman said "you all look the same." They all bought what they thought they needed, but in reality it was a want. We need clothes, but we don’t have to splurge on the newest trends. What does this have to do with being happy? Whenever we receive something we want, a feeling of joy overcomes us. It's unfortunate nonetheless that the fine line between a "want" and "need" has faded, and distinguishing between the two seems to be difficult for some. With the regards to Adam Curtis' film, happiness was possible; it's all dependent on what brings you joy.

            In "Civilization and its Discontents" by Sigmund Freud, there's a great possibility of happiness but it has various factors that all intertwine. Freud discusses what men demand and wish to achieve from life, that is, "they strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so" (Freud 42). Freud throughout the book mentions the "pleasure principle" which is a concept that describes how individuals are looking for pleasure and trying so avoid suffering/pain. Pleasure is something that can bring people happiness, so when they don't have it they search for it, and when it's gone they want more of it. Nobody wants to feel pain, to suffer, when we can be happy. Love also comes into the picture when we talk about happiness, he speaks about how everyone looks for love and to be loved, but the weak side to this is "we are never [as] defenseless against suffering as when we love" (Freud 52).  

            We all want to be happy, but happiness is something that's temporary and so when we are happy we hope that it remains. Have you ever felt happy, genuinely happy, but in the back of your mind you're waiting for something to go wrong? You know that happiness comes and goes, but the time frame varies every time.  So you're hoping maybe this time will be longer than the last, you're wishing that the happiness will remain. It's possible, happiness for everyone is possible and I think it's something we all deserve.            

BLOG 2 - REVISED

        To say the charges that Socrates was placed with were legitimate, to me would be a false statement. The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates were one of many where Socrates had tried to speak in all possible directions to prove his point. Socrates had been placed with the charges of corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Who's to say these charges are justified? Some would say Socrates was an educator, and rather than him ‘corrupting the youth’ he was educating them. Although Socrates was charged for not believing in the Gods, the knowledge he spread helped rather than hindered the community. They were able to see the various views on situations, and Socrates helped unlock the knowledge they already had, just like teachers do to students.  

            As the trial began Socrates was placed with charges that were presumed rather than justified. Socrates began to share his opinion of why he was charged, and as I read what was being spoken it seemed as though he was falsely placed on trial. Meletus declared how Socrates was able to "make the worst argument appear the [strongest]" (Plato 22). He seemed to use that as fuel towards his argument about Socrates being guilty. I believe just because Socrates has a way with words, doesn't mean he's doing anything wrong to the point at which he is being argued that he is corrupting the youth. Socrates is known to be a wise man, and the way he pleaded his case clearly indicated his innocence. His wisdom is what got him in misfortune but having and spreading knowledge should not be a crime. 

                To me Socrates was humble enough to accept his punishment, although was it deserved? In all honesty I don't believe so. One shouldn't be placed on trial for preconceived notions, however Socrates was able to sway votes but not the amount he needed in his favor.    That still goes to show how eloquent he is, but was he fooling everyone with his words? As punishment Socrates received the death penalty, now that's a bit drastic. With the votes being 281 to 220 (in the favor of being guilty) doesn't that show some of his innocence? With regards to how close the votes came. I don't believe it was a fair trial, and I understand that "innocent until proven guilty" may not have applied back in that time period, but death is a permanent thing. What Socrates had been accused for may be fixed, but fixing his death I think that's taking it to a level that's not required.

BLOG 1 - REVISED

            From a young age we are all protected from anything and everything that others find harmful in the world, however what we are never protected from is ourselves. The emotions that creep through the walls, the thoughts that haunt us and our actions when placed in certain situations are not guarded, protected or safe.

            The question that's being asked is, is it possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others? We all have our own opinions, thoughts, and what we feel is either right or wrong. Would it be wrong of me to say no? It is not possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others. It's true we've all felt "in the wrong" at one point, but that feeling went away didn't it? Guilt has crept through the cracks in every one of our walls, yet we still seem to go on with our daily routines because we're only affected for a certain period of time. For our brain to play on one emotion constantly we would have to only have that emotion and not any other. I don't believe someone can have everlasting happiness, because any circumstance can switch that feeling in an instant. It's as though we're playing with a light switch, and light can turn into dark with the flick of the switch. So how is it imaginable to carry guilt around with us, when it isn't even possible to always carry happiness?

            Whenever I witness a person without a home, or a child on television from a third world country starving to death, guilt begins to creep in; the walls that hold all my emotions begin to crack. It's only for that second though, or the couple of minutes the commercial was on, and then it all goes away. I begin to just go about what I was doing before. Does that make me a bad person to flip the channel? How about to just keep walking past the homeless, without hesitation? I don't believe so. If every person always felt guilty because of someone else's suffering then how is it more people aren't doing anything to help? Although I do feel guilt, I don't believe that lasts long because I've come to grips with it. It’s not that I constantly feel guilty, but it’s knowing that the feeling of guilt comes and goes. I think we all just come to accept the guilt, and know that there are people in this world living miserably while others are not. Should they be punished with the constant feeling of guilt because they aren't hurting?

            Ursula K Le Guin wrote in “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt with the walls indeed." There was no guilt in Omelas, and if we were to compare that to our society I would say that guilt comes and goes. Just like how the people came and left in Omelas, each alone. If the individuals of Omelas were to feel guilt as a collective, solutions towards issues would have been worked towards. This is a possibility because they’re all feeling one emotion, and wouldn’t lose sight of the problem. On the other hand guilt is an emotion we feel alone, and I believe it's different for everyone. Some feel guilty when seeing the homeless knowing that they don’t have a home to go to, others feel guilty when asking their parents for money. It varies depending on the individual, but the time period someone feels guilty I never believe is constant.

            It's human nature to have our mind wander, so constantly feeling one emotion isn't likely. We accept it and move on; we get wrapped up in other thoughts that we forget what we were feeling in the first place, or we come across a different situation that makes us feel a different emotion. When it comes down to it we are protected by our walls, and feelings such as guilt can only peer through for a matter of time. Hey most things are temporary right?

completely irrelevant

nba lockout really needs to end!
nothing but love for this sport

What is "masculinity"?  What are "masculinities"?  What defines these concepts?  Use examples from Orwell's 1984 as well as those drawn from popular culture, literature, advertising, and so forth to furnish your response.

     When I read the term "masculinity" my mind automatically jumps to the thought of a stereotypical man. The men that are portrayed on TV to be the hero, jock, and even the cocky big shot. The definition of masculinity given by dictionary.com is defined as "pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men." With such vague explanation of the term, where is the line drawn between what is a characteristic of man and what is not without thinking through a stereotype. 

     In George Orwell's 1984, "Big Brother" ultimately holds absolute power in Oceania, because of this "Big Brother"  comes across as being the alpha male. This can be seen as being a masculine trait, when it comes to power males generally carry more of it. How often do you hear the term "alpha male" applied to a female? For me it's rare. While everyone else has to abide by the rules of the Inner Party which forbids free thought, sex, and individuality, Winston feels frustrated with the oppression given by the party. He also feels insecure about his body image, stating that's it's pale, thin, and weak. (Orwell 128) Now thinking of the term masculine and Winston's view of his body, they don't seem to go hand in hand. 

    Now when it comes to advertisements and media men are often depicted as being physically fit, with a perfect smile and wash board abs. From what is viewed on advertisements and billboards, those qualities of the "perfect" yet photo shopped men begin to mold the term of masculinity. If for example you witness a man doing something that could be considered feminine such as ballet, often he would be viewed as not very masculine. However, because of the vague term of masculinity, participating in ballet requires an immense amount of strength yet that seems to slip our minds and we begin trust our preconceived notions. In ordinary life, men who are married feel as though they have to be the provider of the family because they are the male of the house. Another prime example, is how masculinity comes across as men being tough and when a small glimpse of sensitivity shines through everyone seems to pounce on it as if it's a flaw, or not allowed. 

    High school is the place where the stereotype of being masculine is considered the most. The guys who seem to get all the girls, the ones who play sports, or even the class clowns they're the ones who are looked at and who mold the definition. It's seems as though the males are the ones who have to ask the girls out, or ask their hand in marriage like it's written in some kind of handbook "the rules to be a man." In spite of all these assumptions of what masculinity is suppose to look like, women are taking charge. They're working in jobs, that would be considered a male field such as policeman, or plumbers. They're going after what they want, and it's come to the point where they ask the men out, or to get married. So why is it that when we think of masculinity our mind goes straight to the hero's, jocks, or even cocky big shots?


Work cited: Orwell, George. 1984 . London: Penguin. 1949.

                  Dictionary.com. IAC Corporation, 1995. Web. 14 November 2011.

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


    Happiness is something that comes and goes. It's an emotion that is quite powerful for the sheer fact that everyone can be happy, but what brings happiness is different for every individual. 


    What was shown in Adam Curtis' Happiness Machine was society being happy, however the happiness didn't seem genuine. The individuals "bought" their happiness and as being consumers when the next product came into light so did their bliss. In the film, the one thing that stood out to me was when a woman said "you all look the same." They all bought what they thought they needed, but in reality it was a want. What does this have to do with being happy? Whenever we receive something we want, a feeling of joy overcomes us. It's unfortunate nonetheless that the fine line between a "want" and "need" has faded, and distinguishing between the two seems to be difficult for some. With the regards to Adam Curtis' film, happiness was possible; it's all dependent on what brings you joy.


    In "Civilization and its Discontents" by Sigmund Freud there's a great possibility of happiness but it has various factors that all intertwine. Freud discusses what men demand and wish to achieve from life, that is, "they strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." (Freud 42) Freud throughout the book mentions the "pleasure principle" which is a concept that describes how individuals are looking for pleasure and trying so avoid suffering/pain. Pleasure is something that can bring people happiness, so when they don't have it they search for it, and when it's gone they want more of it. No body wants to feel pain, to suffer when we can be happy. Love also comes into the picture when we talk about happiness, he speaks about how everyone looks for love and to be loved, but the weak side to this is "we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love." (Freud 52)  


     We all want to be happy, but happiness is something that's temporary and so when we are happy we hope that it remains. Have you ever felt happy, genuinely happy, but in the back of your mind you're waiting for something to go wrong? You know that happiness comes and goes, but the time frame varies every time.  So you're hoping maybe this time will be longer than the last, you're wishing that the happiness will remain. It's possible, happiness for everyone is possible and I think it's something we all deserve. 

Just something interesting. I'm thinking you should watch it :)

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


    To say the charges that Socrates was placed with were legitimate, to me would be a false statement. The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates were one of many where Socrates had tried to speak in all possible directions to prove his point. Socrates had been placed with the charges of corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Who's to say these charges are justified?


    As the trial began Socrates was placed with charges, that were presumed rather than justified. Socrates began to share his opinion of why he was charged, and as I read what was being spoken it seemed as though he was falsely placed on trial. Meletus declared how Socrates was able to "make the worst argument appear the [strongest]." (Plato 22) He seemed to use that as fuel towards his argument about Socrates being guilty. I believe just because Socrates has a way with words, doesn't mean he's doing anything wrong to the point at which he is being argued that he is corrupting the youth. Socrates is known to be a wise man, and the way he pleaded his case clearly indicated his innocence. His wisdom is what got him in misfortune but having and spreading knowledge should not be a crime. 


    To me Socrates was humble enough to accept his punishment, was it deserved? In all honesty I don't believe so. One shouldn't be placed on trial for preconceived notions, however Socrates was able to sway votes but not the amount he needed in his favor. That still goes to show how eloquent he is, but was he fooling everyone with his words? As punishment Socrates received the death penalty, now that's a bit drastic. With the votes being 281 to 220 (in the favor of being guilty) doesn't that show some of his innocence? With regards to how close the votes came. I don't believe it was a fair trial, and I understand that "innocent until proven guilty" may not have applied back in that time period but death is a permanent thing. What Socrates had been accused for may be fixed, but fixing his death I think that's taking it to a level that's not required.  


Work Cited: Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984.  Print.

2. Although the people of Omelas are fully aware of the child's suffering, those who remain in Omelas don't seem to feel any guilt. In fact, Le Guin reinforces this in her story. Do you think it's possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others?  Please explain and provide examples.

From a young age we are all protected from anything and everything that others find harmful in the world; however what we are never protected from is ourselves. The emotions that creep through the walls, the thoughts that haunt us and our actions when placed in certain situations are not guarded; protected or safe.

  

   The question that's being asked is is it possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others? We all have are own opinions, thoughts, and what we feel is either right or wrong. Would it be wrong of me to say no? It is not possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others. It's true we've all felt "in the wrong" at one point, but that feeling went away didn't it? Guilt has crept through the cracks in every one of our walls, yet we still seem to go on with our daily routines because we're only affected for a certain period of time. For our brain to play on one emotion constantly we would have to only have that emotion and not any other. I don't believe someone can have everlasting happiness, because any circumstance can switch that feeling in an instant. It's as though we're playing with a light switch and light can turn into dark with the flick of the switch. So how is it imaginable to carry guilt around with us, when it isn't even possible to always carry happiness?

Whenever I witness a person without a home, or a child on television from a third world country starving to death guilt begins to creep in; the walls that hold all my emotions begin to crack. It's only for that second though, or the couple minutes the commercial was on and then it all goes away. I begin to just go about what I was doing before. Does that make me a bad person to flip the channel? Or just keep walking passed the homeless? I don't believe so. If every person always felt guilty because of someone else's suffering than how is it more people aren't doing anything to help? Although I do feel guilt, I don't believe it lasts long because I've come to grips with it. I think we all just come to accept the guilt, and know that there are people in this world living miserably while others are not. Should they be punished with the constant feeling of guilt because they aren't hurting?

Ursula K Le Guin wrote in “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt with the walls indeed." There was no guilt in Omelas and if we were to compare that to our society I would say that guilt comes and goes. Just like how the people came and left in Omelas, each alone. Guilt is an emotion we feel alone, and I believe it's different for everyone. Some feel guilty when seeing the homeless knowing that they don’t have a home to go to, others feel guilty when asking their parents for money. It varies depending on the individual but the time period someone feels guilty I never believe is constant.

It's human nature to have our mind wander, so constantly feeling one emotion isn't likely. We accept it and move on, we get wrapped up in other thoughts that we forget what we were feeling in the first place, or we come across a different situation that makes us feel a different emotion. When it comes down to it we are protected by our walls and feelings such as guilt can only peer through for a matter of time. Hey most things are temporary right?!