Cult of Disgusting

At the end of our Gender Studies unit,

cult of domesticity
barbie
i am never comfy with myself

Drowning in the Truth

I was going to begin this blog by discussing the universal standards that have taken over the world. However, based on previous units I have learned that universal standards, goals, mottoes, or what have you, do not actually exist. Yet, we cannot deny the fact that stereotypes have become a huge part of our culture, as well as others. For example, it is widely known that men are physically stronger than women. Yes, there are always exceptions but in general this statement holds true. Also, on average, women are viewed as nurturing and subservient; they aren't expected to want as much or be physically or mentally capable of certain tasks. Men are supposed to want power, deal with violence, and receive glory. Women are meant to be pure, give birth, and have dinner on the table when he walks in the door. These stereotypes of weak and strong have made such impressions on societies that they are accepted, throughout history and even today. Thankfully, some have questioned their "roles" and taken steps to change the course of their lives. Edna, from The Awakening, was not content with her life as a wife and a mother. She felt that she had the potential to be more of a person, an individual, not just the object of a man's affection. As she set out to live her life and gain her perspective she realized how trapped she had been. No matter what she did to make herself happy, not even equal to a man, just content with herself in her life, she was found that she was still trapped, in a life that was not her's; what she wanted to be her's. Now, I don't know if I agree that Edna purposely committed suicide, or if her death was a complete accident, but I do know that she was exhausted and had to let go. She was tired of pretending for her husband and her children and her friends, and she was tired of, no matter who she was with, being expected to act in a certain way. Edna was completely aware of herself and her desires by the end of the book, and I think she just didn't have it in her to keep fighting against an unbending society. Women today have more freedom than Edna did, but the fight isn't over. It may never be. How many men do you see on Swiffer commercials? On Clorox ones? I hate cleaning, and I'm a girl... so why can't a guy be on one of those advertisements? If we have progressed as a society why are these stereotypes still being upheld, even in the simplest of ways? And for that matter, why am I so offended by them when I think of myself as a strong female. Maybe if I were truly strong I wouldn't feel the need to point out these flaws and condemn the world for it's lack of effort on the behalf of women everywhere. Then, maybe I am weak. But not because I am a female, because I am not comfortable with myself? Because I have been taught that I am not good enough? Because I cannot achieve the things a man can. It's a vicious cycle. Maybe the world is improving, slowly but surely. Will the glass ceiling ever be completely gone, no, probably not. Will more women give up and drown in the ocean because of this, hopefully not. I hope we keep fighting for a balance, because I don't think equality can ever be reached between men and women. The sad truth is that history repeats itself, and while we do not live in caves and gather our food, our own lives may not be as far off as we'd like to think. I am depressing myself with this cynical outlook on the future of the world, and it will not stop me from demanding every ounce of respect and credit that I believe to be mine. I truly hope that I am wrong about this.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

The beginning of this article, though somewhat disturbing to read, made a lot of sense to me. The concept that "right and wrong differ from culture to culture" makes perfect sense, and the idea that cultures can not be compared based on these ideals seems pretty straightforward to me. When the author spoke of the Eskimos who let their infants and elderly die and share wives, it was difficult to comprehend; I have always though that there is a universal respect for life, worldwide. But I immediately looked at myself and realized that I am pro-Choice, which some would consider to be a blatant disregard for human life. I became thoroughly confused; the article is right, the idea of universal truth in ethics is nothing be a myth. There can be no independent standard because "every standard is culture-bound." And again, I was back to agreeing with the article; "right" = tradition. Cultural Relativism began to seem like common sense; "There is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many." I can see how this conclusion came to be; no matter where one lives, everyone seems to think that they are better than everyone else, even in the smallest of ways. It is this attitude, in my opinion, that makes Cultural Relativism plausible, even the claims made by cultural relativists make sense. However, when I read the argument against Cultural Relativism, I saw the 'truth' in it as well. It a nothing more than a subjective theory, because "the fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the mere fact that people disagree about it." Basically, we can not make a subjective idea objective, and this point is probable; one can not make someone else believe anything, especially when it comes to emotions and other debatable opinions. However, if something is a proven fact, there usually is no point in arguing it, and in this case, different cultures have different beliefs and opinions, but the fact is that one is not better or "right" and another worse or "wrong." But once the author, after having convinced me of Cultural Relativism, began to battle back against these ideas, I was lost. The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously undoubtedly has a point; "it makes sense to think that our own society has made some moral progress, while admitting that it is still imperfect and in need of reform. Because Cultural Relativism says that these judgements make no sense, the argument goes, it cannot be right." In each society, many factors work together in order to produce customs and values within that community. And while it is true that all cultures are different (the source from with Cultural Relativism streams) they may not be as different as they appear. It is in the belief systems that cultures differ, not their values. At the beginning of the section titled All Cultures have some Values in Common, I was on board, but as it progressed,  I became very confused once again. If everyone has values that are "more or less universal," how can the customs be so drastically different? Yes, location may make a difference, but how did the belief systems become so removed from one another? Needless to say, this article made me think and consider the world we live in today. How can anyone be "right" with this thought process? Is there anything that is "right," is there any "truth" in the world? It is clear why there are so many disagreements around the world, from politics to religion, but if we all have the same value roots, why do we fight? I truly and completely confused thanks to this article and will forever be questioning myself and others when it is time to make a decision. I think I might just buy my own island and live out my days away from everyone and all of the fighting and disagreements in the world; but that wouldn't help this new internal conflict, now would it?

Existing in an Existentialist's World

Well, it has been a month since the last blog and since then we have read some very painful works for truly tragic literature. I will begin rambling about the lesser of the two evils, Shakespeare's play, Hamlet. I was slightly surprised; I did not hate this story as much as I thought that I would, however I found it difficult to understand in some parts, but the discussions cleared most things up for me. However, I am still unsure how anyone can consider Hamlet to be a hero. The tragic part I get: he is more pathetic than tragic in my opinion though. I define a hero as someone who accepts challenges and obstacles and does their best to overcome them. But Hamlet did not do anything! Yes, he plotted and formulated a plan on how to seek revenge on King Claudius, but it is all in his head. He does nothing! And because of this, many other people are affected and everyone dies...yippee Shakespeare (he really knows how to end a story). Then there is the dreadful tale of Wuthering Heights. I wish that someone had just dropped a brick on my head. This story, if you can even honor it with that term, had a good, very basic, foundation. I think that the idea of how the lives of two families, isolated from the rest of the world with an outsider in their midst, sets an unusual scene for conflicts to occur. Every character in this story has some connection to every other character and for me, I felt that nothing was left for the reader to interpret. The characters lived in a dull world (I pictured greys and mucky greens as I read) and they all have the same names. Miss Bronte, is it really too much to ask for a little differentiation? I suppose that there was some symbolism for naming Cathy after Catherine, but I think that those types of ideas were lost when one falls asleep reading. Neither book consisted of any true action (the duel at the end of Hamlet aside). And the characters in both stories seemed to lack substance and realism. As I read I found myself wondering, "How could anyone be so stupid?" I boggled my mind to consider that a person could be as passive as Hamlet or as self-centered as Catherine. And if there were people like this back when these stories were written, how much has humanity declined since then?
And then we began learning about existentialism. Everything is defined by the individual and there is no meaning to life. It really got me thinking, along with the questions proposed to us in class, which if I may say so, made me terribly uncomfortable. Anyway, when the ideas of existentialism were put simply, I got an idea. If above all else in an existentialist's mind life means nothing and only causes despair, then the works that I despise from this month make a bit more sense. I realize that this is probably way off, but hey, who knows. The sentimental conspiracy is what caused Hamlet to want to avenge his father's murder. If society had not already made it the proper thing to do, the prince may have never gone looking for such trouble. And then there is Heathcliff and Catherine. He was so sure that he was in love with his childhood friend that he spent his life secretly pining away for her love in return. But it was never to be received and she passes away at a young age. Catherine, the girl who thought that the world revolved around her, died quickly and quietly, without so much as wilting a flower. Her life meant nothing, and Heathcliff's life was miserable because the only way he decided that he could be happy was if he was with Catherine.
The points of existentialism fit both stories, in strange ways I admit, but I think they could work. And if I'm totally wrong, that's okay too, however, if it is reflected in my grade I will be disappointed.  We live in a world that seeks to compare each and everyone of us, in everything we do. And grading is a way that we as students have learned to be defined. It is a sad, sad world.

Beowulf

We are beginning our hero unit in English, and had to respond to some questions before we started our first story. Now that we have completed the first piece of literature, I am still thinking about the initial questions: what qualities do I think a 'hero' must possess, does a hero have to overcome a major feat in order to be considered great, and what is a 'hero'? At first I thought these questions were fairly easy to answer, but after reading the story Beowulf, I will admit I am a little confused. The character of Beowulf contradicts many aspects and simply does not live up to in some ways, what I believe a hero is.
I said that a hero must possess a great inner strength that propels him/her to fight for what is right. A hero must also be fair, caring, determined, and loyal. I do not think that a hero necessarily has to overcome so huge physical or mental challenge, such as slaying a dragon or solving a Rubik's cube (I have no idea where what came from, but to me it's a feat). Because, what if the guy trying to save the girl from the beast doesn't succeed? And the child prodigy simply can not solve the puzzle? What if your grandfather can not fight off the cancer after a 2 year battle? To me, all of these people are heroes, even though they did not conquer what they set out to do. The fact that they took the time to fight for something, and give it everything they had makes them a hero to me. Here, winning doesn't matter as much. A hero must be able to recognize the essential parts of himself and of the world, the strengths and weakness of both, in order to perform at the elevated level that we see them as.
As a girl who used to watch Disney movies every day (mainly the ones with the princesses, my how things have changed) the description above is how I picture a hero. However, after reading Beowulf, I have become skeptical. I really enjoyed the poem as a whole, but I can not see how Beowulf is an epic hero, or any kind of hero for that matter. In m opinion, he does not fit my criteria for a hero at all. I found Beowulf, although helpful towards the Danes, arrogant and annoying. He knows how wonderful he is and he knows that everyone loves him and it got on my nerves how he always had a remark to everything anyone said about him. When Unferth tried to put him in his place, Beowulf retorted with a "Well actually, THIS is how the fight went down (insert exaggerations here)...it wasn't a big deal." And when the king of the Geats died and his son passed away as well, it just MADE SENSE to give the kingdom to Beowulf. I mean, come on, does everything have to go right for this guy? He didn't stumble once. Nothing was difficult for Beowulf, even dieing was pretty easy for him. And Beowulf was not made into a personal character, he was created more as an ideal, I believe, which I think makes it hard for the reader to relate to. We don't know if he cared about anyone, or even himself. He reminded me of Achilles in a way, who never really fought for anyone in the Trojan War other than himself. Both men did what they were expected to do and then got out of the way. How can one be determined about something if they have no connection to it? It's impossible. Beowulf never sacrificed anything; he never knew what it felt like, what it meant, to lose until the end. And people today talk about him as a hero. He is classified as an epic hero in my English notebook. But I simply can not agree...I don't see it.

Fountainhead

After reading a considerable number of blogs from previous years, I am still stuck on how to go about this.  I suppose if I look at it as a way to say what is on my mind, it won't be as difficult.  However, I read one of the articles given out in class and it stuck a nerve. The article, "The Hypocrisy of Ayn Rand," seemed to be by some guy who was bored with his life and had way too much time on his hands, and I immediately was enraged by the blatant attacks on Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead, a required reading for my AP English class this year.  The author of this web article claims that Rand is a hypocrite for preaching her views of objectivism and the power of the individual, and "in secrecy" being a "welfare mooch." 

First, allow me to give some background on what is now one of my favorite books, The Fountainhead.  It is the story of an architect who refuses to compromise himself or his work for the sake of someone, or even something else.  He lives in a corrupt society where everyone gives in to the authority above them and the rights of the individual are lost.  Howard Roark, the main charater, has the strength and the passion to persevere throughout the novel and in the end he, signfiing the individual, comes out on top.  I loved Roark from the beginning and was continually impressed with his personal strength (a cliche way to put it) and his ability to laugh in the face of, what weaker men would consider, danger.  Without knowing Ayn Rand's philosphy I agreed with Howard Roark, and I desperately wanted him to succeed.  If this individual could rise against the warped nature of society, it seems logical to believe that anyone can, too. And this is the impression that the story left me with.  

Then, during the discussions in class, I began to fully grasp the belief behind the novel.  In my opinion, most of Rand's agruments make sense: "Reality...facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reason...is man’s only means of percieving reality...[and is] his basic means of survival. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." (Capitalism is a different story). But her view of capitalism is important, and is the reason why I am now questioning her philosoohy, thanks to the article.

The point is that Rand was diagnosed with lung cancer, and under her husband's name (O'Connor) sought help from the government to help pay for treatment.  The author of the article claims this as hypocrisy, while I believe that it can only be subjected to being human.  Yes, Ayn Rand has "despised government intereference" but when one is put in a position, such as learning of an illness that can not be taken care of alone, one is forced to reconsider earlier opinions. Maybe she realised that she was mistaken, or even wrong, but who are we to judge?  Rand is human, like you, like me. How can we criticise her when we make mistakes too? If this author has so much room to bash another person, I would like to meet him and see how truly perfect he is.  

It does not sit well with me anymore to say that I am agreeing with Objectivism, or disagreeing with it, however, one is forced to consider their priorities before jumping into a lifestyle that may come back to bite them. And that is what I am now taking away from these pieces of literature. I am aware that my opinion may seem faltering, but I can't say whether or not I see a truth in these works anymore. Maybe our lives aren't supposed to be perfect and we really do have to make mistakes in order to see what is real, what is important, and what is true. Although Rand tried to get her philosophy across in The Fountainhead, the only truth that I can see is that you have to look out for yourself, and clearly, Rand did not in this case.  It is still a wonderful book, Rand is still an awesome writer, and this "mario piperni" guy still needs a life, in my eyes.

Citations:

http://mariopiperni.com/hypocrisy/the-hypocrisy-of-ayn-rand.php

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro