What's Expected in a Man

A boy growing up is automatically placed under the pressures of acknowledging, accepting, and demonstrating masculinities. These are the characteristics and attributes that separate girls from boys and men from women. As a kid, these pressures include refraining from crying, horseplay/fighting, and so on. However as a boy develops into a man, he is expected to display more and more masculinities. These include the prevention of visible emotion, bravery, independence, confidence, strength. Physical masculine attributes are heavily involved with separating males and females as well. A typical masculine male is portrait as big, strong, and fierce.

All of the listed masculinities are typical characteristics of a masculine man. This is not to say that all men are masculine. Winston Smith is the central character in George Orwell’s “1984”, and he is far from masculine. Winston is tentative, paranoid, emotional, and dependant. He relies on Julia to instigate and motivate almost all of his significant actions, and prior to their acquaintance he was emotionally unstable. Winston works a mundane, effortless job that requires absolutely no strength, while Julia works as a mechanic. This is opposite to the norms of a regular society. Traditionally speaking, a man would work an exhausting, labor intensive job, and the female would work a mundane, degrading job. However in this situation Orwell actually uses Julia as a masculine icon. All of the masculinities that Winston lacked, Julia possessed. A masculine character in the novel would have taken on a leadership role, established his authority, and used his strength and power to issue a revolt against Big Brother. It becomes evident throughout the novel that Julia’s character would be the one to fit this roll.

                It almost seems as though Orwell completely reverses the rolls of men and women in his story. Aside from the example of Julia’s job, the women in 1984 wear cross gender clothing and appear to be the more courageous gender. Of course in today’s society this could not be more opposite. Take for example professional sports. It would be nearly impossible to turn on the T.V and track down a female team sport being aired. As you flick through the channels, you will notice that men participate in fishing shows, while women participate in cooking shows. The evidence oh the pressures of men to follow certain norms in society is so clearly portrait by the media. Almost every commercial intending to sell a product to men advertises the products ability to boost ones ego and to enhance the changes of picking up women. Further evidence can be seen when looking at the work force. Never has there been a female president, and for the most part the high end jobs that generate the largest salaries are occupied by men.

                It is difficult to find an area in society where men are not expected to demonstrate prevalence over women. The pressures to portrait masculinities are literally everywhere and are connected to every aspect of life. As discussed, the roles of the dominant character in 1984 are reversed from man to woman, but the characteristics portrait by Julia clearly outline how a masculine person should act. In order for one to be considered masculine, they must possess bravery, independence, leadership. And while these traits are not visible in Winston’s character, they certainly are through Julia’s.

Raw Emotion

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

Sigmund Freud claims that “The goal towards which the pleasure principle impels us - of becoming happy - is not attainable: yet we may not - nay, cannot - give up the efforts to come nearer to realization of it by some means or other”. I do not agree that happiness is unattainable, however I believe it is very rarely achieved. There is a big difference between the happiness one receives when they purchase a new pair of shoes, and the happiness one receives from being in love with their life. True happiness is a long lasting emotion that can only be received when one enjoys the absolute base of live; living.

            The reason true happiness is so rarely achieved is because of social strain. Society places expectations upon us that pressure us to achieve certain standards living. Basically, we are told that enjoyment will come with money, a big house, fancy clothing, and a nice car. This is not true happiness. What this would mean is that those who do not have access to such items can never be happy. Also, those who do obtain these items will only receive a short lived rush of excitement, not happiness. This is because very rapidly these products will become old, out of date, and devalued. You cannot put a price tag on happiness; it is not tangible.

            In order for happiness to be obtained, it must be based upon raw emotions. Emotions, while they may feel flakey at times, can never be stripped from us. One can crash their car, lose their home, or go bankrupt, but they will always have love, hope, trust, and other emotions to bring them happiness. I believe that too many people sub consciously follow their id’s in chasing after materialistic items. They spent so long trying to keep up to their desire that they truly begin to believe that happiness is derived from their physical possessions. It becomes easy to get caught up in the consumer competition. Once you’re in, the raw values with true potential for happiness become shadowed by the desire for tangible luxuries.

            Freud talks about the “Pleasure Principle” and states that humans will do whatever they can to maximize pleasure. I believe this to be true, however I do not believe that the majority of humans honestly know what brings them happiness. When one is detached enough from their materialistic possessions that they would not be emotionally devastated with the loss of these things, then they are susceptible to true happiness. In this state, when physical items have very little significance in comparison to emotions, one can truly discover what happiness is.

            I do not agree with Sigmund Freud when he claims that “The goal towards which the pleasure principle impels us - of becoming happy-is not attainable”. I believe it is extremely hard to achieve absolute happiness. I believe that true happiness is rare, but it is definitely possible. Take for example, the moment when a Mother gets to hold her newborn child for the very first time. The child looks up to the mother, and at that time, in that place, ultimate happiness has been achieved.

Socrates: A Man For His People

Question 2: Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

Socrates: A Man For His People

Defining Socrates as either a Martyr or simply a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is an impossible objective. Claiming that Socrates was a Martyr is an understandable proclamation when his methods of proposing ideas are analyzed and considered. The first sign of this was his discussion of piety and impiety with Euthyphro. It appears as though Socrates uses trickery and wit to transform, or corrupt Euthyphro’s mind frame towards his own beliefs. Without further investigation, the charges of “Corrupting the Youth” would seem to be legitimate. However, Socrates’’ intentions require a more in depth analysis to reveal their true reason.

Was Socrates a corrupt man, attempting to employ his corruption upon the youth? Or was Socrates a man who realized the importance of, as he said himself: “Stinging the lazy horse that is Athens, provoking it into action”? I believe Socrates realized he possessed philosophies that were vital for the future of Athens, and his true intentions were to spread this wealth of knowledge with his society for the benefit of the whole. Claiming that Socrates was either a martyr or a man willing to die for his beliefs can be proven incorrect for the same reason. That reason was his intent behind his actions.

 Defining Socrates as a martyr is understandable, especially when he claims that: “If the punishment were just he would be celebrated as a hero”. While on the surface this sounds a lot like the actions of someone seeking sympathy and admiration, this definition is broken when taking into mind his real intentions. Socrates’ push for educating Athens would portrait that he is worried about the people and not himself, and therefore not a martyr. When claiming him a man willing to die for his beliefs, the same principal can be applied to separate Socrates from this description. Death would only prevent Socrates from his ability to inform, and to teach the people. There is a large difference between corrupting, and educating. Socrates was a man of great knowledge, who had the power to educate, and to evolve Athens. He knew this, and realized that he must stay alive in order to carry out his teachings. For this reason, it is not adequate to say that he was willing to die for his beliefs.

The main point that removes either of the two labels from Socrates was the intentions behind his actions. He knew what Athens needed to become successful in the future. And although some of the things he said or did throughout the trials would say differently, he was a man living for his people.

Omelas!

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

                      As members in today’s society, we like to think of ourselves as ethical and morally correct human beings. It's understandable, but what is this based on? Is holding a door open, or offering your spot on a bus to an elderly person enough to justify classifying ourselves as ethical? Our society is developed from a capitalistic state, in which money and power is what drives us. The desire for economic success will always have the last say in the decisions we make. What this means is that as members of this type of society, we will always make the decision to help ourselves, before considering the fallout results. Classifying thyself as moral and ethical would mean one considers all possible outcomes before every decision. The option that benefits thyself the most is not always the correct one. Once we are able to make the decision that serves society as a whole, and not our greedy desires, we will be able to consider ourselves as morally correct.

                      I would love to be able to say that I would leave the city of Omelas, as I’m sure most people would. And sure, if I was asked in public what my decision would be, I would untruthfully say that I would leave. But in reality, I would stay. In the back of my mind I would know that the poor boy in the cellar is living in hell, so that I can live in heaven. I also realize that I do have the option to release the boy, or to walk away. However, either of these options would result in lowering my condition of life materialistically. My constant need to serve myself would over power the thoughts of the boy. The guilt that follows me does not go away, but it is suppressed by my greed. This story works as an allegory for the conditions we live in today. Everyone who buys designer shoes knows there is a very high possibility they were built in a sweat shop, from a child who makes a dollar a day. How often does this thought actually affect our decision? Our desire for the shoes, our greed, suppressed the thought and allowed for the justification of purchasing the shoes.

                      When broken down, it becomes clear that actions controlled by desire will never result in ethical decisions. And when considering our society, and realizing that it is controlled by greed and desire, it becomes evident that moral decisions are rarely ever made. After breaking down my thoughts that I collected from reading the story, my answer becomes clear. I would not leave Omelas.

Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11? Please share your thoughts. Respond either to this blog or start a new posting on your own blog site.

I was at my early morning hockey practice. My dad was my coach and he had us running a routine warm up drill. All of a sudden a commotion started in the building, and people were gathering around the t.v screens. My teammates and i gathered at the glass to watch the horror unfold. At the time all it was to me was two planes crashing into the buildings. Of course now i understand the significance of it. This day is embedded in my memory, and it will forever remain there. It can still replay it in my mind as clearly as the day it happened. I wil never forget.