Masculinity

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.

According to dictionary.com, “masculinity” is “pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men”. From medias, popular culture, literature, advertising and other stereotypical images and relations of men are set out to be classified in the category as masculine or not masculine. The typical prospective of obtaining the traits for being masculine are dominant, emotionally and physically strong, independent, protective, brave, handsome, charismatic, intelligent and competent, and rational. If a man does not show those characteristics, he would be portrayed with feminine traits. Those are the visualization that we are provided from media, history, popular culture, literature, advertising and so forth. 

Culturally and historically already defined what a man should do. Men had to protect their family, had to work within jobs that recognize them as a man. Hunting would also show the characteristic of being masculine. As a tradition for men their qualities were described to be expected of containing strength and boldness. Additionally, clothing is another way drawn into the features of males, such as colour and style. If a male wore pink clothing and skinny, tight fitting clothes, or the clothes that would be seen on a female would demasculinize him.

From Orwell’s 1984, the image of manliness is portrayed greatly through power. Such as O’Brien, Goldstein, and lastly Big Brother whereas they were all masculine and given power. Big Brother was given the ultimate role of  representing maleness because he was seen with a masculine figure, especially since he was a dominate leader. Big Brother was seen to be deliberately protective, protecting his people from being corrupt and other harms. Big Brother never seemed intimidated, his masculinity was the absolute power. On the other hand Winston was not utterly fitted as masculine because in the end of the novel he betrays Julia. From the betrayal he showed a feminine trait of being weak and powerless from his vast feat of rats. Winston did no successfully protect Julia, nor what he believed in. Not only he lost his masculine self-image, but also to mankind. Julia and other women had qualities that were viewed more as masculine since they worked with machines and mine mines; they had jobs that men would have. Also the women wore clothing that were unisex and they were described to encourage such aggressiveness. 

(( SIDE NOTES: )) Now we the expectation of masculinity is questionable, what other characteristic is acceptable? For example a individual male has majority of the “masculinity” traits, but a few not considered as manly qualities, would he still be accepted in the eye of the society that he belongs in the category of masculinity? 

Is there a way in pursuing happiness?

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

The definition of “happy” is the “feeling or showing pleasure” or “contentment”, “causing pleasure”, which could lead to “resulting in something pleasant”. I truly believe that to be happy is possible. But as the expressions of Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud starts to make me think deeper of the word “happiness”, what is the definite nature of happiness?

There are many different ways and forms of happiness shown in the documentary of Adam Curtis. Edward Bernays was portrayed by Adam Curtis who had the build up of being happy and expressions of freedom, and contained happiness also another example is in the documentary, where cigarettes were seen as happiness for women because it made them feel more independent. The relation of Adam Curtis' documentary that illustrates experiences of materialism which causes happiness is also shown in modern society. Whereas a person would simply feel happy/satisfaction when they buy goods and ideologies

Though through the ideas of Sigmund Freud, he states that happiness is from the interpretation of our own personal being, where we, ourself are the only one that is able to really feel it, not looking in it from others. He did not consider happiness being a value, but instead it being as pain then achievement of pleasure. Human tend to pursue happiness because of human psyche and natural instincts to seek happiness and pride. The reason for pride of purchasing these are because human would feel proud to purchase something new and trendy, to just fit in with other parts of society.

In conclusion with agreement to both beliefs and theories of Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud it is possible to be happy, even though it may be "temporary happiness", there is still happiness involved.  Even though there may be "false consciousness" of being or feeling happy, there is still that small amount of happiness we feel inside us. Therefore I think happiness exist beyond and through all matter, it is up to oneself to determine their "true happiness".

Work cited:
Sigmund Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents"
Adam Curtis, Century of The Self. Episode One: Happiness

Socrates and Plato's /Apology/

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

Charges that were against Socrates are fairly legitimate. The two main charges were corrupting the youth and not believing in the city’s god’s. Another charge was creating new gods. Therefore three Socrates faced three charges. Socrates challenged the worshiping of the gods where he questioned the necessity and holy fundamentals as what was established as a just of unjust actions among the Athens’ youth. 

To look at how Socrate “corrupted” the youth, we have to look at it in the Ancient Greece era and not in our modern day perspective because in our society it is more free, while his society was not.

As it may seem that Socrates had a reasonable trial because he was allowed to express and define himself and his beliefs in court where there were many judges and juries whereas it seems as if it was a fair trail whereas a fair punishment was also given. Considering of the era where Socrate was being trialed, which during the Greek laws it may seem to the people in Athens that he had a fair trail. He represented himself and such. But as for our time now and their time then “fair trail” may be measured differently. Already from the beginning of the trail there were prejudices made against him (page 23). I believe it was not a fair trial since there was a prejudice at the start of the trail, but other than that overall I thought that the process, content, and format of a “fair trail” was reasonable. There are also other forms where we are not able to realize the extraordinary happiness, such as health/medical care. 

 

To walk or to not walk

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.

At first when this question came to my mind I simply just thought that my answer would be to walk away “in tears, or in tearless rage” because of my strong emotions towards the cruel scene would not allow me “face this terrible paradox”. Whereas I believed that I would be a citizen of Omelas who could not be able to stand the doings towards the child and cannot do anything about it. I supposed that I would be different from all of the citizens of Omelas because I considered that I could try to stand up for the child and change.

But then as I put more thought into the question my answer slowly changed because there was not any guilt, pain, and grief in this utopian world. I started to question myself, if I was to born and raised as a citizen of Omelas, I would just follow the regulations and do what everyone else does since I would not know or feel things outside of what I would be surrounded by, since I would be just like them, a citizen of Omelas. Being a child that grew up in a society like this would just follow everyone else because they were raised like that. For example children in other countries where war occurs or were raised to go to war do not know more of what happens outside their society or think what they are doing is wrong.

Then I thought that since there were already citizen that “would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they could do.” I might not be able to change or do anything.  Nevertheless to walk away means to ignore the situation, however for myself to ignore this, living in around this would be hard. It’s just like when my parents would drive by Hasting and I would notice outside the window of the scene, they just told me to ignore those people out there. They are still considered people, to just simply ignore them and forget about them ruthless, but then it’s a natural thing that people still do.

As my thoughts wonder all around this question to fight for my concluding answer between what I think, what I believe, what I would feel, and what I know. The answer would be that I would stay since there was no guilt, pain and sadness, just happiness. I would not be able to ignore and forget about the child. I would just simply try to live and find happiness, with the child being in the back of my mind. This may sound greedy, selfish, and merciless but if I were to leave Omelas, it would not be an improvement at all. What I realize that even though at a point in time we are sympathetic and feel guilty for what has happen around us and the world, but in someway we slowly continue onwards with our life and maybe even forget about what had happen for awhile, just like the citizens in Omelas.