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.
Masculinity to me is anything related to being a man. Men are seen to represent power and authority. In the western world today, men are only "seen" as this. Our power and authority have weakened significantly since the dawn of the industrial revolution and the following feminist movements . Men were seen as the sole breadwinners, they protected and cared for the family. Now that females have a much greater role to play in the family dynamic as well as the social framework of our civilization, men try much harder to hold on to their masculinity through outward shows of power and authority.
Masculinity is most prevalent through items and actions. Off the top of my head, two very masculine things are firearms and wolves. They are both very different, but lets look at the similarities. Both can end a persons life; both are something feared in society; both either have or give the ability of enhanced power and authority. This suggests that one of the key points of masculinity is the ability to do harm to another. What is power without the ability to back it up with force?
Taking George Orwell's 1984 into consideration, men are the only people of real significance in the book. Although there are some unflattering moments towards femininity, this novel has the least out of any other of Orwell's novels (Eckstein 51). Almost all of Winston's acquaintances and coworkers are male with the exception of Julia. Even Julia inst that well developed of a character in the story, she used more as a pawn for making a point across than a central character. The most important of all people in the book, Big Brother, happens to be a male as well. He also has the greatest amount of power and influence. His party backs him up with the power to harm, either mentally or physically, anybody who dare disobey him. In essence, he is the ultimate masculine figure.
Works Cited
Eckstein, Aurthur. "Orwell, Masculinity and Feminist Criticism." Thesis. University of Massachusetts, 1984.
Intercollegiate Review (1984): 47-54. Print.
Orwell, George, 1984 .Toronto: Penguin Books, 1954.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Socrates post Revised
1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?
Socrates, one of the greatest thinkers to ever walk the earth, is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in ancient Greece. The charges are "...corrupt[ing] the young men growing up." and "...for instituting religions reforms" (Euthyphro 2). I admit, the only side I have of the story is that of Platos' dialogues of Socrates (which is widely believed to be very accurate), but if what they attest to is true, than I must say that these charges are unjust.
The first charge is completely unjust right from the get go. Socrates isn't a man who would teach a particular view. Socrates is a man who mainly taught through questions. If you have a particular viewpoint, he wouldn't say your wrong. Socrates would question to see if you truly understand your viewpoint. He would make you think critically and then you yourself would change your own mind. If teaching one to think critically is corruption, than he is surely guilty.
The second charge of religious reforms is, if not false, than greatly exaggerated. In the text, Meletus even states that he knows Socrates believes in divinities (Apology 33). Thus, the question of whether or not Socrates is an Atheist is settled. However, did Socrates believe in the city of Athens gods or make up his own? The answer to that isn't as clear. Even if he didn't, the punishment would have been negligible.
With that said, was this a fair trial? As I am not greatly familiar with the justice system of ancient Greece, I can only draw comparisons with our current one. Those comparisons are a jury of your peers and the right to defend yourself in front of those peers. With this information, I conclude that even if the accusations were false, the trial was fair. Socrates tried to raise reasonable doubt and he failed. Although we today may believe he is innocent, the majority of his jury didn't. As Socrates says, "But we say that every man of you who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact that of remaining here, to do whatsoever we till him. (Crito 63)" Socrates could have escaped prison, but this would have been an injustice in his eyes. Socrates believes that because he stayed in Athens, because he believed that the justice system was fair, because he had the option to leave and didn't, that he would receive the punishment given to him.
Socrates, one of the greatest thinkers to ever walk the earth, is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in ancient Greece. The charges are "...corrupt[ing] the young men growing up." and "...for instituting religions reforms" (Euthyphro 2). I admit, the only side I have of the story is that of Platos' dialogues of Socrates (which is widely believed to be very accurate), but if what they attest to is true, than I must say that these charges are unjust.
The first charge is completely unjust right from the get go. Socrates isn't a man who would teach a particular view. Socrates is a man who mainly taught through questions. If you have a particular viewpoint, he wouldn't say your wrong. Socrates would question to see if you truly understand your viewpoint. He would make you think critically and then you yourself would change your own mind. If teaching one to think critically is corruption, than he is surely guilty.
The second charge of religious reforms is, if not false, than greatly exaggerated. In the text, Meletus even states that he knows Socrates believes in divinities (Apology 33). Thus, the question of whether or not Socrates is an Atheist is settled. However, did Socrates believe in the city of Athens gods or make up his own? The answer to that isn't as clear. Even if he didn't, the punishment would have been negligible.
With that said, was this a fair trial? As I am not greatly familiar with the justice system of ancient Greece, I can only draw comparisons with our current one. Those comparisons are a jury of your peers and the right to defend yourself in front of those peers. With this information, I conclude that even if the accusations were false, the trial was fair. Socrates tried to raise reasonable doubt and he failed. Although we today may believe he is innocent, the majority of his jury didn't. As Socrates says, "But we say that every man of you who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact that of remaining here, to do whatsoever we till him. (Crito 63)" Socrates could have escaped prison, but this would have been an injustice in his eyes. Socrates believes that because he stayed in Athens, because he believed that the justice system was fair, because he had the option to leave and didn't, that he would receive the punishment given to him.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
A Wise Man Once Said......
1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?
Socrates, one of the greatest thinkers to ever walk the earth, is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in ancient Greece. The charges are "...corrupt[ing] the young men growing up. (Euthyphro 2)" and "...for instituting religions reforms (Euthyphro 2)." I admit, the only side I have of the story is that of Platos dialogues of Socrates (which is widely believed to be very accurate), but if what they attest to is true, than I must say that these charges are false.
The first charge is completely false right from the get go. Socrates isn't a man who would teach a particular view. Socrates is a man who mainly taught through questions. If you have a particular viewpoint, he wouldn't say your wrong. Socrates would question to see if you truly understand your viewpoint. He would make you think critically and then you yourself would change your own mind. If teaching one to think critically is corruption, than he is surely guilty.
The second charge of religious reforms is, if not false, than greatly exaggerated. In the text, Meletus even states that he knows Socrates believes in divinities (Apology 33). Thus, the question of whether or not Socrates is an Atheist is settled, however, did Socrates believe in the city of Athens gods? The answer to that isn't as clear. Even if he didn't, the punishment would have been negligible. The most important charge against Socrates is corrupting the youth.
With that said, was this a fair trial? As I am not greatly familiar with the justice system of ancient Greece, I can only draw comparisons with our current one. Those comparisons are a jury of your peers and the right to defend yourself in front of those peers. With this info, I conclude that even if the accusations were false, the trial was fair. Socrates tried to raise reasonable doubt and he failed. Although we today may believe he is innocent, the majority of his jury didn't. As Socrates says, "But we say that every man of you who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact that of remaining here, to do whatsoever we till him. (Crito 63)" Socrates believes that because he stayed in Athens, because he believed that the justice system was fair, because he had the option to leave and didn't, that he would receive the punishment given to him.
Works Cited
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito by Plato
Socrates, one of the greatest thinkers to ever walk the earth, is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in ancient Greece. The charges are "...corrupt[ing] the young men growing up. (Euthyphro 2)" and "...for instituting religions reforms (Euthyphro 2)." I admit, the only side I have of the story is that of Platos dialogues of Socrates (which is widely believed to be very accurate), but if what they attest to is true, than I must say that these charges are false.
The first charge is completely false right from the get go. Socrates isn't a man who would teach a particular view. Socrates is a man who mainly taught through questions. If you have a particular viewpoint, he wouldn't say your wrong. Socrates would question to see if you truly understand your viewpoint. He would make you think critically and then you yourself would change your own mind. If teaching one to think critically is corruption, than he is surely guilty.
The second charge of religious reforms is, if not false, than greatly exaggerated. In the text, Meletus even states that he knows Socrates believes in divinities (Apology 33). Thus, the question of whether or not Socrates is an Atheist is settled, however, did Socrates believe in the city of Athens gods? The answer to that isn't as clear. Even if he didn't, the punishment would have been negligible. The most important charge against Socrates is corrupting the youth.
With that said, was this a fair trial? As I am not greatly familiar with the justice system of ancient Greece, I can only draw comparisons with our current one. Those comparisons are a jury of your peers and the right to defend yourself in front of those peers. With this info, I conclude that even if the accusations were false, the trial was fair. Socrates tried to raise reasonable doubt and he failed. Although we today may believe he is innocent, the majority of his jury didn't. As Socrates says, "But we say that every man of you who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact that of remaining here, to do whatsoever we till him. (Crito 63)" Socrates believes that because he stayed in Athens, because he believed that the justice system was fair, because he had the option to leave and didn't, that he would receive the punishment given to him.
Works Cited
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito by Plato
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Omelas
If I was a citizen of Omelas, I would have left. A utopia for all or a utopia for none. A society based on the DIRECT misery of others is not a society that I can be part of. Our current society that takes advantage of cheap labour, sometimes involving children, is INDIRECT. It is indirect due to it taking place in another country half a world away. Although there is no difference in the misery, the child in Omelas is easily accessible. If you wanted to see it, you could. This is not as easy as in our current society. Due to the fact that we are not exposed to this practice, we don't think about it. Out of sight, out of mind. If there was a factory down the road that used child labour and you had to pass it every day, the issue would be more prevalent in your daily life. To sum it up, even though the kind of misery existing in Omelas exists in the world today, I couldn't belong to a society that accepts it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)