Destruction of Masculinities

What do I think when I hear the word masculinity? I believe that the media has done a fantastic job at ingraining the idea of strength, power and control pertaining to the idea of masculinities. Flipping through a dictionary to find the definition of 'masculinity' you would come across this definition, "characteristic of a man or men, or having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness".  

Even the dictionary describes masculinity as a sense of strength, which in my mind correlates with power and control. 

In Orwell's 1984 totalitarianism is at an extreme, to a point where a wrong thought could get a person into trouble. Masculinity is torn down in a man such as Winston. If masculinity is about power, control and strength the totalitarian government takes all of that away from a man, to an extent where they don't have control over their own thoughts because they too are being monitored. "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power." (George Orwell, 1984) Winston feels this pressure of suppression of freedom to exert his own masculinity, and hates Big Brother for it. The party controls everything in Oceania, Winston is not even allowed to be with his love, Julia. It's perhaps like 'The Party' is able to exercise their masculinities to the extreme, leaving others completely unable to exercise their own masculinities. This is why I believe people decided to follow Big Brother, to have the sense that they are able to gain their masculinity back, but really is this true? They may feel like they have more power if they are a part of 'The Party' but are they not still following Big Brothers rules and not their own? 

An appropriate comparison is Orwell's 1984 to the ruling of Germany under Adolph Hitler. Hitler would have been like Big Brother, and the Nazi's would be like those who were apart of 'The Party'. Hitler, as in Big Brother, destroyed society with a totalitarian government. They did this through ultimate control, propaganda, and their followers to help them imply their methods. In my opinion, and many others, Hitler and Big Brother's methods and way of controlling their government were completely immoral and illogical. In both examples of Hitler and Big Brother, masculinity is exercised to an extreme, and therefor result in the masculinities of others being destroyed. 

Freud's Theory on Happiness

Freud argues that the primal instinct of human beings is to be nasty and aggressive towards one another. He also argues that in order to be civilized, our two strongest instincts which is sex and violence, must be sublimated. We are all apart of a society, and Freud argues that with being apart, we must suppress these two primal instincts. "If civilization requires such sacrifices, not only of sexuality but also of the aggressive tendencies in mankind, we can better understand why it should be so hard for men to feel happy in it. In actual fact primitive man was better off in this respect, for he knew nothing of any restrictions on his instincts." (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its discontents). Freud argues that humans are not capable of real happiness, and that it us much easier for them to be unhappy. Freud proposes that what we interpret as happiness, is really only a feeling of mild contentment. "One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be 'happy' is not included in the plan of 'Creation'. What we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon. When any situation that is desired by the pleasure is prolonged, it only produces a feeling of mild contentment." (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontent). 

I would argue Freud's first initial proposal of the fact that the human's primal instinct is horrible and aggressive towards one another - and that the result is that happiness can not be obtained in humankind. I can only present personal experience and observation as my source of information against his argument. I saw happiness when I witnessed the proposal of marriage between my sister and brother - in - law, and I felt happiness when I saw their expressions and love in their eyes. Is this aggressive and disgusting behaviour? Would my initial reaction not be jealousy and hatred towards them if what Freud's arguments provided to be correct? To this day, I can still look back and feel a warm sensation of true HAPPINESS, even though it was quite a few years ago now. This is NOT mild contentment, it is years of joy.Freud argues that in society and civilization we are forced to suppress our sexual desires and instincts. I completely disagree. Media and the world that you and I live in today, has absolutely no problem with sexual exploitation, and is nearly limitless when it comes to it. Civilization does not suppress these instincts, but rather support and instigate these sensations in modern day. Freud states that society disapproves of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage and perversions. That statement is completely irrelevant to today's society. Clearly Freud NEVER experienced Vancouver's pride parade! It is quite acceptable to be homosexual in our society, and not only is it acceptable, it is something we show PRIDE about and flaunt it about, as we should! Is this an act of suppression of instinct? 

Freud was severely pessimistic, which I believe distorted his views on the population as a whole. His theories do not correlate with today's modern society, nor do they with my own personal experiences. He proposes that humankind is not capable of happiness within civilization due to the fact of sublimating their primal instincts. Maybe happiness is our own individual interpretation of whatever we take it as. Are you willing to settle with the fact that he is telling you that you never have, or ever will be, happy?

Socrates' Trial

Socrates is EXTREMELY obnoxious. Socrates is quite conceited in the fact that he really and truly just does not seem to shut up. What are supposedly conversations seem to me to be more like monologues of Socrates’ ranting. He asks questions, and answers his own questions, and continues on to have a conversation with himself. The end result of these 'conversations' that he has, usually ends with him somehow or another proving to the person that they themselves, are idiots. Now Socrates never did use the word 'idiot', but I'm sure you can imagine that this is the way you would feel after talking to him would you not agree? His opinionated ways and non stop talking irritate me immensely, as I'm sure it did Meletus. He was also irritating to have around, and I believe Meletus did not like the fact that Socrates made him feel belittled, and proved him to be 'unwise'. I believe he was guilty of being agitating, but not of what he was tried with. I realize that there is more than one reason for his trial being unjust, but I would like to focus on the one particular aspect that I find to be the most obvious; that the trial was unfair. Socrates was a smooth talker and easily proved that Meletus had contradicted himself when he accused Socrates of not believing in the Gods. Socrates gets Meletus to agree that he believes in divine, which must mean that he believes in spirits or demigods. Socrates says, "But do we not believe that divinities are either gods themselves or the children of the gods? Do you admit that?" Meletus Response was, “I do". Socrates then continues on, "Then you admit that I believe in divinities. Now, if these divinities are gods, then, as I say, you are joking and asking a riddle, and asserting that I do not believe in the gods and at the same time that I do, since I believe in divinities". (Apology Pg.35 Section XV) Demigods are either Gods or sons of Gods, and Meletus agreed that Socrates believes in this, yet one of the things he is being accused of is that he does not believe in God's. Meletus contradicts himself, is that not enough to prove that the charges right then and there are illegitimate? If I were to say that I hate chocolate, then confessed that I loved Brownies, would you still believe my original statement where I said that I hated chocolate? Brownies are clearly mostly compromised of chocolate. I most certainly would not believe the original statement if someone was proved to have contradicted oneself, as Meletus did. I had a situation when I was watching one of my five year old neighbours one day. It was lunch time and it was one hell of a game trying to figure out what I was going to be able to get into her mouth. Do you like Cheese? No. Do you like Tomatoes? No. Do you like Yogurt? Peanut butter? Fruit? No, no oh and… No. I then finally got her to agree to let me make her a 'surprise' lunch. I decided to take the easy route, seeing as how I didn't even think she was going to finish it, and made her a classic macaroni from a box. I served it to her, and she finished it within 30 seconds. She looked up at me with a great big grin on her face and said, "YUMMY!" I chuckled to myself realizing that five minutes ago she had been putting up the act of being completely disgusted by cheese. She said one thing, and then a couple minutes later contradicted herself, which made the first statement of not liking cheese false. Meletus did the same, he claimed that Socrates did not believe in the God's, but then later on said that he did believe in the God's. That right there proves that the trial charges were illegitimate and Socrates had proven a flaw in Meletus' trial against him.

2. Although the people of Omelas are fully aware of the child's suffering, those who remain in Omelas don't seem to feel any guilt. In fact, Le Guin reinforces this in her story. Do you think it's possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others? Please explain and provide examples.

I can feel guilty for days, heck, even weeks and sometimes months. But is it a constant poking that I can never escape from? 'Poking' is what I would definitely describe it as. It bugs me at times, but I am able to have a small feeling of ease or distraction. It is extremely difficult to stay fixated on one particular thing, for large amounts of time. Focus is something that we as humans try to work very hard on, I know I personally do. My mind is a whirlwind, it experiences a majority of different feelings and ideas in a matter of hours, even minutes. 

Buddhist monks, guru's and yogi's spend their entire lives trying to reach a state, which is called 'Samadhi'. Samadhi is a state of enlightenment, where you are completely focused on one thing, you are in complete bliss, and your mind is at an absolute stillness. They spend hours, years, and decades trying to reach this point. Once they do, they are in a trance like state, and there is no definite amount of time in which they will stay there.The point that I am trying to make, that is unless you are a monk who has been practicing the art of mediation for decades, you are most likely not able to constantly feel guilty, because are mind's are wonderers. There have been many times where I have made a mistake, and feel horribly guilty, but a friend somehow makes me laugh, or my dog somehow makes me smile. Those few seconds I have forgotten about the guilt.

Although the point I'm making is that you can't always feel constantly guilty do to the fact of the wandering mind, I am not saying that justifies staying in Omelas. You may not constantly feel guilty, but guilt can constantly stay with you. It 'pokes', you'll have moments of ease, but then feel that nagging at the back of your mind once again and again. If I were to stay in Omelas, I know that I would always have that feeling of 'poking' of guilt at my heart for that child. Omelas would not be considered a utopia for me, because of the fact that I would be unable to do anything for that child. It's not the fact that the child exists, but the fact that I would be powerless to the situation. In my utopia, I wouldn't feel belittled in that way. I would not stay in Omelas, because that would be supporting the act of doing nothing for that Child. One person can make a change, and if I had my way I would walk away from Omelas hand in hand with that child from the cellar.