To Be Masculine, Or To Be Emasculated?

Masculinity / Masculinities

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 the Cambridge Online Dictionary, masculinity includes “the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men.” Thus masculinities refer to something traditionally considered to be a characteristic of a male. Currently, some stereotypes of male characteristics may include being strong, brave and dashing, but through different eras and cultures characteristics of masculinity can differ.

            Masculinity in a popular culture setting focuses on being fit, as well as a main focus on aesthetics. One leading man example is Brad Pitt, who some women want to be with and who some men want to be, which presents the idea that Brad Pitt portrays the desirable masculine qualities in that culture. However, in the past, for instance pre WW2 there was a large focus on males being the bread winner in the household. Contrasting males, who were not the bread winner, were sometimes viewed as having their masculinity emasculated. Today that same judgment can be seen, although it is less common, however, it appears some males still strive to produce a higher income than their partner which presents the idea that income, or type of job a male acquires reflects his masculinity.

            In George Orwells 1984 it is interesting to see how the role of masculinity affects characters in the book. Winston, the protagonist, dislikes nearly all women, “especially the young and pretty ones” (12). He believed that it was always the women who were the strongest advocate supporters of the Party, “the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-outs of unorthodoxy” (12). This reflects a little of Winston’s masculinity which is reflected by the time period in the book; since he is the only one not ‘brainwashed’ by the Party, he feels a specific dislike not only for his society, but the women in his society who advocate the Party rules. It’s seems Winston feels smothered and is also being suppressed. One reason he did not like a girl behind him was due to the fact he “wanted to go to bed with her and would never be able to do so” (17).  His masculinity is suppressed in the sense that he is unable to sexually express himself since it goes against the Junior Anti-Sex League and the Party. Eventually, Winston resorts on sneaking off with prostitutes to appease his desire although it is viewed against the law.

            Winston creates Comrade Ogilvy who portrays the type of strong masculinity desired by the Party. Comrade Ogilvy joined the Spies at age six, “at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police” (49) and age seventeen he joined the Junior Anti-Sex League. At age nineteen he designed his own hand grenade and died at twenty-three. He didn’t drink or smoke; he was celibate and only discussed the Party philosophy. Comrade Ogilvy would pretty much be a Catholic Sylvester Stallone. Ironically, since the Party and Big Brother are so in control masculinity is suppressed and isn’t even allowed to surface; “‘Mrs.’ was a word somewhat discountenanced by the Party- you were supposed to call everyone ‘comrade’” (22).

           Later when Winston goes to a restaurant he sees a beetle like man and notes that he finds everyone there unattractive. However, he thought that “if you don’t look around you, you would think the ideal physical type set up by the Party would be – tall, muscular youth and deep-bosomed maidens, blond hair, vital, sunburnt, and carefree- existed and even predominated,”(63) but that wasn’t that case, everyone he saw he thought was “small dark and ill favored” (63).  One would think that the Party would try and have the most attractive predominated in society; however the Party is actually dramatically suppressing those views, leaving no room for freedom of expression.  

             Winston notes that “the ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible and glittering- a world of steel and concrete of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting- three hundred million people all with the same face” (77) It is this view of extreme conformity that destroys masculinity.

           Overall, depending on the era and cultural settings, masculinity can be suppressed, or shaped however a particular society finds desirable. However, either way there can be large effects on individuals and consequences in that society.

Robots

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?

       After looking at Curtis and Freud’s views on civilisation, it appears to be highly unlikely as well as risky to let humans take care of themselves. At the beginning of the video, Century of the Self, it states that, “this series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.” When looking at Curtis’ video Century of the Self you can dramatically see how people are practically brainwashed as consumers. A Wall Street Banker, Paul Mazer, declares "we must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture” (Century of the Self) in the 1930’s; this statement expresses the particular values in a civilisation and whether it is for the benefit of the society, or not is another matter. It demonstrates the control that civilisation has in directing individuals how they want them to live.

       Looking back on the stock market crash, people needed to go back to consuming what was a necessity in their lives and it was devastating. It was as if once you took that step forward into a glamorous consumer lifestyle, it is difficult to go back to a simple way of being. Obviously there were a lot more complexities to it, but I’m trying to propose that it’s hard for people once they live a materialistic lifestyle to go back to a simple necessity-consumption-only lifestyle. The government and media have such a powerful influence in pushing people to move forward, thus it makes it extremely challenging for some to genuinely take care of themselves when now people rely heavily on something they cannot control.

       For example, now with cell phones when someone’s cell breaks it is dramatically compared to the end of the world for some people and they feel as though they have lost all communication with people out of their sight; which is horrifying for them. However, weren’t people surviving just fine less than fifty years ago without them? People have built such reliance on technology and for possessions to work instantly that when they break down they don’t know what to do anymore. This I believe to actually hinder human development, some people are losing their ‘street smarts’ so to speak, or even their common sense.

       Freud suggests that to be involved in civilization an individual must sacrifice some personal happiness in order to promote the interests of social unity and cohesion in their society. He believed we would be completely out of control with our true impulses, thus to be civilized we must do without the two vital claims to our instincts: sex and violence. Clearly, Freud believed we cannot trust ourselves and if someone is to participate in a society they must be civilised. Since people must live together in society, it is hard to strive for happiness while trying to avoid suffering or displeasure by not indulging in our impulses.

       Overall, I’d like to believe that humans can be trusted to take care of themselves, but after learning of Curtis and Freud’s views it seems as though it is virtually impossible for individuals to exist in society and live completely harmoniously with their impulses. Since civilisation controls these ‘dangerous’ impulses, it demonstrates civilisation’s influence in the ability to control individual lifestyles to an extent (example, making them consumers). After watching the video, I thought that it was a saddening picture, watching people being directed into a way of life like robots. However, I think now if people were to start being trusted to take care of ourselves, we would not know what to do, or where to start.

So This Is Where Obi Wan Kenobi Gets It From!

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?

      Although it is difficult to decipher whether Socrates is an extreme martyr, or not, I believe Socrates is a man willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs and is not milking the martyr role. However, I want to be clear that I do not believe he is seeking out his death. Socrates believes that “wherever a man’s station is, whether he has chosen it of his own will, or whether he has been placed by his commander, there it is his duty to remain and face the danger without thinking of death or of any other except disgrace” (34). This shows how Socrates station and path selected by the gods has leaded him here, to court, and he is going to continue his way of being with his beliefs even with the setback of the wrongful accusations.

      In court, Socrates informs the jury about his process and cross-examining people who consider themselves wise. His results found that neither his subject nor he knew anything worth knowing, but his subject thinks he has knowledge when he really does not and Socrates does not think he has any; thus, Socrates is clearly wiser than his subject for not believing he has something when he does not. Socrates later compares his results with views on death, he says “for death my friends, is only to think of ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know;”(35) people do not know if death is the greatest thing for a person, but instead fear it as if it’s the worst evil. This shows ignorance thinking that we know what we do not know.

      Socrates goes on to say he does not “care a straw for death,” but does care “very much about not doing anything unjust or impious” (39).Socrates’ defense is that he never did anything unjust, but it is the anger of those he proved to have little wisdom that has brought him to court. Socrates does believe in the gods and refutes all his accusations and actually flips it on Meletus accusing him of charges. Socrates knows if he is to be convicted it is due to prejudice and resentment, but he continues defending himself and trying to convince the court of the truth. He is not looking for the court’s sympathy during his trial. This is clear since he informs them that even if he is to be acquitted he will not stop his process, he clearly states “I will not change my way of life; no, not if I have to die for it many times” (36). By stating this I feel he is able to receive some admiration, thus his votes which are closer together than imagined.

      In the end, Socrates reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, in the sense of how calm and collective he is during his trial. However, Socrates ‘jedi mind trick’ is his use of language and asking questions to prove his point. Both of the wise men finish their lives defending their beliefs and educating their followers. This leaves the wise men gone, but their followers carrying on their messages. In all, I believe Socrates was ready and willing to die for his personal (justice) and philosophical (wisdom) beliefs.

Original-The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Sorry for the confusion! I revised my other Omelas post after Patrick commented on it, but here is my original copy.

Question One: If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk away?

After my first read of the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K Le Guin, I thought that perhaps the people who walked away from the town were taking a plunge into their own exile the same alienation which the imprisoned child in the town faces. I also considered though, wouldn’t that make them cowards for just walking away from the town? Simply leaving the child there and frankly running away from their problems? I agree with the second option, that the people who walk away from Omelas are running away from their problems without doing anything to help the situation- it is selfish and a useless effort to fix any issue. However, the ones who stay in Omelas are also selfish in the sense that they just learn to live with the poor child’s emotional and physical abuse and believe that the child’s suffering keeps their town flourishing.

             Thus, if I were a citizen of Omelas I would like to believe that I would be heroic, take the child with me and leave forever, or perhaps take the child out of its claustrophobic room and stay within the town and face consequences there. Maybe nothing would change in the town; maybe everything will still flourish and the child can live freely. It is a Utopia isn’t it? So why not?

            In order to fully answer my question of “would I walk away from Omelas?” I need to reflect on question number three as well: to what extent is Omelas an analogy of our own society? Simply because although I say I want to be heroic, Omelas can be related to our modern society. The fact is we all wear clothes (at least the majority of the time). Where do those clothes come from? Maybe some from your grandma, but others come from sweatshops in undeveloped areas of the world in which some employees are young children. Do people still wear clothes? Yes, including myself. My point is that I’m not doing anything about it, I could boycott Nike or another name brand, but honestly I do not know which stores exactly do sell clothes by underdeveloped areas, probably quite a few though. This makes me stuck in my own Omelas in which I know the problem exists, but I’m not truly doing anything about it. I absolutely hate to admit that sad truth, but I believe I am also stuck in Omelas. 

*Sigh* "My Hero!"

There are many people that have touched my life without me ever meeting them and I definitely view them as heroes; for instance, people who have fought for freedom or equality rights, or simply standing up for what they believe in. However, I feel like it will be easier for me to describe what a hero is after  I describe my mother. I love both my parents, they are amazing, but my mother and I have a complex relationship; yet I absolutely view her as my personal hero- guardian angel like.The fact that she is able to juggle so much at a time with work (a boss who is a total nut), a family (a large and obnoxious one) and everything that comes along with those things is incredible. It may not sound like a lot, but believe me, my mother puts up with a lot from her work and still manages to touch peoples' lives every day at the senior's home she works at. She takes care of everyone at work and out of work. That's a general hero trait isn't it? - Selflessness? Well that's my mama! I don't have a lot of time to right about this, and plus I admit it is quite sappy, but this is my very brief overview about one of my heroes. I feel as though this may across mushy, or lame, but when I think of a hero in my head, she is definitely one of the people that pop into my head. So why not write about her? The sad thing is that I don't think she knows that she's viewed this way in my mind. From all our fighting I'm sure it may even come to a shock at first to her!

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"

Question One: If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk away?

After my first read of the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K Le Guin, I thought that perhaps the people who walked away from the town were taking a plunge into their own exile: the same alienation which the imprisoned child in the town faces. I also considered though, wouldn’t that make them cowards for just walking away from the town? Simply leaving the child there and frankly running away from their problems? I agree with the second option, that the people who walk away from Omelas are running away from their problems without doing anything to help the situation- it is selfish and a useless effort to fix any issue. However, the ones who stay in Omelas are also selfish in the sense that they just learn to live with the poor child’s emotional and physical abuse and believe that the child’s suffering keeps their town flourishing.

             Thus, if I were a citizen of Omelas I would like to believe that I would be heroic, take the child with me and leave forever, or perhaps take the child out of its claustrophobic room and stay within the town and face consequences there. Maybe nothing would change in the town; maybe everything will still flourish and the child can live freely. It is a utopia isn’t it? So why not? However, Le Guin does state that "they [the people of Omelas] would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do" (3); It is the idea that the whole society would crumble if the child were to be freed. Thus how heroic would it be if I saved the child, but then a whole society suffers? This increasingly complicates the matter at hand and I believe Le Guin really traps her readers in Omelas.

            In order to fully answer my question of “would I walk away from Omelas?” I need to reflect on question number three as well: to what extent is Omelas an analogy of our own society? Simply because although I say I want to be heroic, Omelas can be related to our modern society. The fact is we all wear clothes (at least the majority of the time). Where do those clothes come from? Maybe some from your grandma, but others come from sweatshops in undeveloped areas of the world in which some employees are young children. Do people still wear clothes? Yes, including myself. My point is that I’m not doing anything about it, I could boycott Nike or another name brand, but honestly I do not know which stores exactly do sell clothes by underdeveloped areas, probably quite a few though. This makes me stuck in my own Omelas in which I know the problem exists, but I’m not truly doing anything about it. I absolutely hate to admit that sad truth, but I believe I am also stuck in Omelas.