Masculine Manpower

Masculinity is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the state or fact of being masculine [or] the assemblage of qualities regarded as characteristic of men" ("Masculinity"). Furthermore, the OED goes to define something masculine as "having a character befitting or regarded as appropriate to the male sex; vigorous, powerful" ("Masculine"). These traits of masculinity and being masculine have existed as a sort of human creation and expectation of what a man is, and should be. This idea of the ideal man being tall, strong, brave, and often stoic, is very old, and present in much of the world's literature. It goes back to the epics of the ancient world, in which the strong, brave man must slay the monsters and become the hero in the end. This idea extends to even more modern films and stories, such as James Bond, for example. Here is presented a man, who must use wit, strength, and bravery to defeat the bad guy, and in the end, he inevtiably gets the girl.

The ideas of masculinity are also present in Katharine Burdekin's Swastika Night. This novel is set in the distant future, in which Nazism has taken over and similarly to Orwell's 1984, it "depict a totalitarian regime in which individual thought has been all but eliminated and, toward this end, all information about the past has been destroyed" (Patai, 86). One can also notice that, "There is a similar hierarchy in each novel: Big Brother, the Inner Party, the Outer Party, and finally the proles in 1984; Der Fiihrer, the Knights, the other Nazis, and finally non-Germans, all women, and all Christians in Swastika Nights" (86). This clearly shows in Swastika Nights, the defamation of women. Another of the many parallels present in both novels is how sex is used for strictly procreation, rather than for pleasure. This ability for the ruling power to control something as basic and necessary as sex, it shows total control over the populus.
Another clear example of masculinity present in 1984 and also Swastika Nights, is the presence of a strong, overbearing, supreme male leader. In 1984 it is known as Big Brother, and the phrase "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" (Orwell, 4) remains a constant reminder. The Party (the controlling government in 1984) also uses masculinity in the sense that they promote masculine-type values, such as bravery, victory, strength as strong positive values. The idea that products, such as cigarettes or gin, can be sold as victory cigarettes or victory gin, gives an almost male "hoo-rah" feel.

Daphne Patai, Orwell's despair, Burdekin's hope: Gender and power in dystopia, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1984, Pages 85-95, ISSN 0277-5395, 10.1016/0277-5395(84)90062-1.

"masculine, adj. and n.". OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. 13 November 2011 .

"masculinity, n.". OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. 13 November 2011 .

Orwell, George. 1984. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1954. Print.

Wisdom (or lack thereof)

Question 2

I think that in the Apology, Socrates was not intending to die as a martyr for his beliefs, but moreso that he had accepted the fact that there was no way out of this, and that he was going to die anyways.

One of the main reasons for this is his use of the term wisdom. He has learned that the reason he is wise, is due to the fact that he knows nothing. This, in my opinion, separates him from the term martyr, due to the factthat martyr's will do whataver need be for their cause, while Socrates is just pleading his case against the unfair charges. He does not seem to be pushing his own agenda, just trying to defend his life in the presence of his fellow Athenians. He also, by Apple's definition of the word martyr, does not display or exaggerate his feelings of discomfort, rather he explians the situation as it happened from his eyes.

In fact, when looking at it this way, Socrates' defense speach can be looked at as a kind of lecture. He is teaching the people of the courtroom about his new found knowledge and seems to be attempting to get them to think more critically. He is asking them to open their minds and form their own opinions.

Finally, we can look at how we separate the martyr and someone who is willing to die for their own beliefs. In both cases, one is willing to die for their beliefs in their given sitation, however, the martyr is the one that uses his/her own death to further those means afterwards. When looking at it, there is almost the connotation that a martyr is looking to make a show of things (death being the biggest show of all) in order to further their own belief. On the other side, when someone is merely willing to die for their own beliefs, they have merely accepted the consequences the state has put on their actions, but continues anyways. In essence, the martyr is the next step after accepting your death for your belief.

It is with this distinction between someone who is willing to die and a martyr, and Socrates' real attempts at his defense that we can say that Socrates was not wanting to use his death as a final show to further his own ends, but as merely someone with a belief different from the norm, that he knows will earn him the punishment of the state.





PS- on an unrelated topic... could someone comment with a list of everyone who is in my blog group... I keep forgetting... THANKS :)

Those who stay

In Ursula K LeGuin’s short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas she presents the reader with his or her own version of a utopia. In this utopian society, effectively called Omelas, the people are happy. There is no guilt, no sadness, no pain felt by its citizens. All smile bigger, laugh louder and live merrier. However, halfway through describing the perfect utopia, she presents us with a cost. The cost is a single child’s eternal suffering. All the citizens of Omelas know if it’s existence, “but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery,”[1] and are reluctant to surrender it. LeGuin then goes to mention that there are those who, upon seeing the utter suffering of the child, walk away from Omelas, from perfection.

When asked the question “Would you walk away?” most look to their moral compass, which tells them that the morally “right” choice would be to walk. However, reality and the current world situation leads me to believe that no, one would not walk away. My answer to the moral question is no, I would not walk away. Now, this is not to say that I, or anyone who would not walk, condone the suffering of children, nor do we believe that it is right. Yet, when looking at the choices we, as a North American society make, it leads me to believe that many who supposedly would walk, would do nothing of the sort.

To justify this, one must first look at how the story of Omelas is a microcosm of the world today. It all boils down to the fact that what we wear, what we eat, and even the toys we played with as children, come mostly from poorer and less fortunate countries, and it is through their suffering that we get to live in our own sort of pseudo-utopia. This can clearly be seen in the grand city of Omelas where, more directly, their happiness and prosperity comes from the suffering of a single child. It is also important to note that our society is fully aware of sweat shops, and the suffering of other nations, and in the same way in Omelas, we choose to ignore it. Looking at the fact that even with this knowledge that many of our material products are a product of suffering, we still use them. Most toys are made in China, most likely in a sweatshop, and we still buy countless numbers of them for children. It is almost common knowledge that companies such as Nike and Pier 1 Imports use resources such as these and yet, people still wear Nike’s and Pier 1 Imports is a very successful business. Due to the fact that we, as humans, like to think of ourselves as morally good, we push out thoughts of the pain and suffering that went into our “stuff” to feel better. Due to the fact that many of us, including myself, will not go through the effort to cause change and solve the problem, I can conclusively say that I, along with most of the western population, would walk away from all the happiness and prosperity of Omelas.

Another thing one must look at is the act of walking away, and its aftermath. Some of the people in Omelas see the child and are so outraged and feel an utter sense of guilt that they make the choice to leave Omelas. Some will argue that they don’t feel guilt as it is written in LeGuin’s story that, “one thing … there is none of in Omelas is guilt,”[1] but those who do feel guilt leave the city and are no longer a part of Omelas. When looking at motive for leaving Omelas, the only explanation I can see is guilt. One can look at leaving Omelas as the right choice; that walking is good, or morally right if you will. However, one must ask the question; what does walking away actually do? Does the child suffer any less because they walk away? Or do they walk away to remove themselves from the situation, and thusly the guilt attached to it? I believe that, no matter how good their intentions are, those who walk are only detaching themselves from guilt. They are distancing themselves from the society they view as immoral, and in doing so no longer have to feel guilty about how they live. In no way however, are they fixing the problem of the child’s suffering. It is important to also note that LeGuin points out that those who walk away, walk alone. None of them attempt to free the child, nor do they attempt to rally others in an effort to end it’s suffering. They merely leave Omelas and leave the guilt they feel behind.

In closing, one can look to see that neither leaving or staying in Omelas is the morally “right choice.” Staying means that you live off the avails of the suffering and pain of a small child. Conversely, leaving Omelas by oneself only removes one from having to suffer the guilt that coincides with living in Omelas. In analyzing the information, I can comfortably say that I would not leave Omelas, but neither would anyone else. We are too comfortable with the way things are to go out of our way to change them. We push back our feelings of guilt about the situation in order to feel better about ourselves. Also, those who do walk away are no more morally right than the rest of us. Even if one does leave Omelas, the child is still there, still suffering, and all for the good of the beautiful utopia of Omelas.

[1] Ursula K. Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. New Dimensions Volume . Ed.

Robert Silverberg. USA: Signet,1973.Print.

Where I was 10 years ago...

On that fateful day on September 11, 2001 I would have been going into grade 2.  My teacher's name was Ms. Lindsey, and it would have been just before the start of my new school year.  Frankly, I don't remember what I was doing on that day, but looking back, it was a time of great sadness around me.  It wasn't until about 2 years later that the full impact of what had occurred hit me.  I was devastated.  The idea that someone could have such a disregard for innocent human life is, to me, deplorable.  My own opinions of the event aside, I still believe that the people working in the tower on the day of the attack did not deserve to die.  It brings up the point though, of how fast life can change.  No one working in the towers that day, or those who took the day off, would have thought that this would happen.  It astounds me still, even after the tragedies I have suffered this past year, how fast things can go from "happy and sunny" to "depressing and rainy," in the mere blink of an eye.

I may not remember the 11th of September 2001, but I feel the impact that such a ruthless act can inflict on an already "on-edge" world.