Bioethics

In class, we talked about the fact that religion and science have often and still do come into conflict. However, that may be stating things too simplistically. Throughout history, the church has tried to suppress scientific theories that disagree or challenge the church’s authority and power. However, in today’s world it is not religion that interacts with science, but more ethics.
Bioethics is the idea that certain research projects, theories, and inventions must be judged on an ethical basis. During our class discussion, people spoke out against religious interference, saying that scientist should have the freedom to research what they want to. Unfortunately, that is a dangerous statement to make. Throughout history, there have been political, religious, and societal views that have impacted humanity’s perception of everything including science.
Science has occasionally been used negatively in order to promote political views or actions. Ethics and review boards are necessary in order to ensure that scientists are not doing research that does or would harm others. Without rules or control, there is nothing to prevent another Dr. Mengele from occurring.
Review boards are important because they allow regulations to be put in place for research to be ethical. Unfortunately, there are different views on what exactly ethical implies. Bioethics is a complicated topic, because in today’s world there are many controversial issues, such as stem cell research, which cause people to question the nature of ethics.

The power of a princess

I know that pretty much everyong is done posting, but this video was on the front page of Yahoo today, and I thought it was very relevant. So, what do you guys think, are princesses bad for little girls?

Epidemic Blindness

Can you read this? Or is it rather that you choose not to really see it? Many people around the world are facing what I like to call the "blindness epidemic". This phrase kind of mirrors the saying it is hard to ignore the elephant in the room except for some reason people are having no problem ignoring it. In the U.S.A. people are so busy with their daily lives that they fail to really stop and notice what is going on around them. It seems that when there is a big problem, they can easily ignore it as long as it does not specifically affect their lives. One example is how the government is able to manipulate the view of the public when all the public really has to do to know the truth about what is happening is to just do their own research and gather information for themselves. I feel there is sooo much that people choose not to see and to be uniformed is to be blind. How long will the people walk around with their eyes covered and how long until this blissful ignorance becomes the tears of a dying nation?
So will you choose to see or continue to walk in blindness.

Beautiful women and Bratz

Jessica already detailed most of the main ideas in Beauvior’s essay so I would like to focus more on some of the contemporary connections we made in class as well as some of my own. First of all, I want to talk about the Bratz website we visited. I think it is safe to say that if these products come to the minds of several people in the class (including me) when talking about this subject then there is some importance to them. The first thing I noticed with this site is the screen that appeared while it was loading. A tagline in the center of the screen read, “Please wait… It takes time to look this good!” I think that this website should take its own advice and should be telling these little girls to take some time (about five to ten years or better yet never) to be wearing the clothes and makeup they put on these dolls. I explored the site a little and found that the “lives” of these characters revolve around fashion and looking good. The reason girls are growing up thinking that their value is dependent on how they look is because that is what we are teaching them at a young age. One example is my three year old niece who already loves to wear makeup. She sometimes even carries around lip gloss with her. Can we start any younger? I realize that since these ideas are planted in us it is easy to encourage this behavior without even thinking about it. For example, with my niece, my first instinct when she comes up to me with blush on is to say, “Well, don’t you look pretty?” but I try my best to correct myself by saying something more like, “That’s very pretty, but you don’t need makeup to be pretty, you are beautiful just the way you are.” I know it may seem silly, but I think that it is even the little things like that that can influence the future self esteem and self image of the child.
Another issue was brought up by the pole dancing toy. Children want to act like adults. One of the first games kids learn to play is “house.” Many kids can be found dressing up in their parents’ clothes. One thing that I found that feeds into this is teenage (or even preteen) drama shows (the commercial I saw was for The Naked Brothers Band on Nickelodeon). Ok, I’m sorry but I don’t think that 6th graders should have that much drama in their lives. Who cares if Billy likes Sarah who likes Jim who just broke up with Amber?
Bringing it back to the essay, I believe that although women have gained more respect over the years there is still a plague of casual, careless disrespect in our society. I ran into one such example on my way to class the other day. I passed two people who were talking and although I did not hear the entire conversation what I did hear slightly sickened me. A guy was talking about his girlfriend and proceeded to call her a b**** and claim that she should just sit at home on her a** all day and just trust that he isn’t cheating on her instead of bothering him all the time. First of all, I am a firm believer that every woman on this planet is beautiful in her own way (whether others accept it or not) and that names such as that are repulsively disrespectful to that beauty. I especially had a hard time grasping that he would talk about his girlfriend of all people like that. The person he was talking to simply chuckled and they continued with their conversation. I believe that it is these sorts of situations that slowly but surely pick at the identity of women and make them think that they must fit into some mold that society had carved for them. I think that Beauvior elegantly and effectively portrays these ideas in her essay about the falsehoods and truths of womankind.

____ is blind...

When someone in class brought up the phrase justice is blind, it made me start thinking about how many different sayings that we have that have to do with blindness. Blindness is a huge part of our lives, even though it may have nothing to do with actually seeing anything. Sometimes we are "blind" to what others are feeling. The word blind is just used to imply so many other things than actually literally being blind. It has to do with not noticing or being insensitive to others feelings and other types of things.
How many sayings do we have that include blindness. First, there is Justice is blind. I do not totally understand what this phrase is supposed to mean, but I'm gonna try to explain it as much as I understand it. I believe that it somewhat ties back into the revenge that we were talking about. The justice comes back to those no matter what happens. It's basically like karma. What goes around, comes back around.

Another phrase that comes to mind is "love is blind." This one is pretty easy to understand. When one is in love, there are a lot of other things that you just don't notice as much. I'm not going to get all mushy and such and explain how love makes you feel, but it does make it very hard not to be blind, in the way that i described before.

There are other phrases that have to do with blindness, but I can't think of them... what other ones are there?

Blindness symbolism

Blindness, written by Jose Saramago, has made me think about the abundance of symbolism available with the term “blindness.” It seems to me that this “blind” society reflects Saramago’s personal views about society. Blindness is a powerful, yet upsetting, allegory of what might happen if society loses sight of what is truly meaningful. It is made very clear by the end of the novel that the main goal of the characters, especially the doctor’s wife, is to bring out the awareness that there are many forms of blindness and multiple ways of being blind. This idea is further confirmed in the quote at the end of the novel which I brought up in class, “Do you want me to tell you what I think, Say it, I think we didn’t get blind, I think we are blind, Blind who are able to see, Blind that, seeing, can’t see.”
Blindness represents denial; a way of showcasing how people tell themselves “white” lies to get them through the day. Blindness is also helplessness. This is portrayed through the symbolism of the now useless expertise of the ophthalmologist. Everyone is the same; everyone has been reduced down to the point where basic instincts win over civilization. This intrigues me so much because this is the only idea (blindness) that can be so versatile/ambiguous in its symbolism and meaning. What else does blindness represent towards the end of the novel? I would also like to hear some feedback about the obvious, yet vague religious symbolism.

Blindness=Fear

Jose Saramago’s novel, Blindness, gives readers a lot to think about and examine in society. The characters loose their sight and must adapt to their new world and new reality. This offers a lot a lot to a reader in terms of how a society is formed from the ground up, and how morally developed humans are. But another interesting aspect of Saramago’s work is that the characters all go blind for a reason, and this reason directly relates to the theme of the novel.
The blindness spreads to the entire population, so the reader knows that everyone is guilty of the crime that inflicts it. Saramago makes it relatively clear when his characters are discussing when they went blind. “Fear can cause blindness, said the girl with dark glasses, Never a truer word, that could not be truer, we were already blind the moment we turned blind, fear struck us blind, fear will keep us blind” (129). Saramago gives this to his readers, but it is their job to discover what this fear is of. The fear that he speaks of is a fear of each other. A fear that man has of his fellow man. Humans are social beings and define themselves through others, so when humans fear each other they build an entire society based on fear. We can see this in the novel in the characters of the first blind man and the thief. Even before the thief went blind, he was still acting in fear of others and doing things only to benefit himself, as if he was already in the mindset that many were in while at the asylum. When the first blind man finds out, he wishes blindness on his enemy, which depicts the justice through revenge attitude that develops in the blind society. This shows the fear and distrust of man towards fellow man, and in this respect blindness is not a condemnation, but a remedy. When one is blind he is forced to trust his fellow man because he cannot survive on his own. If humans cannot learn to live with and trust each other under these circumstances then they will perish. Blindness is a cure to the fear of society. In a way it opens the eyes of the people to what they have become and what they must change. It is only when the characters truly become able to trust and care for each other when they begin to see again. The author portrays this when the man with the eye patch tells his companions to go on without him because he is too much of a burden, but they do not. Even after all they have been through they stick together and they learn the lesson that Saramago is hoping his readers will also learn.

Revenge: an animalistic action

Why do humans continually seek revenge? Is it of our human nature, or does it revert back to our animalistic habits? In class some said that it gives closure to the situation at hand, while someone counter argued that it gives a sense of closure but it does not heal the heart. The one seeking revenge normally does not feel healed, and it does not satisfy the rage felt from the situation, and often times it makes it worse. Some times one feels revenge is a way of justification for the situation, or to those who were impacted by it but what exactly is justification? To this day people are constantly seeking revenge. For example, the legal act of prosecutions. It is a daily occurrence in this country, which parallels to seeking revenge against another. Some say that it is a justified way of revenge but does it really give anyone closure of any situation. It has been seen in movies, a rapist is killed by the victim’s parents via the death penalty. Who are we to truly seek revenge? Does the justification of this legal action bring guilt to the victims’ loved ones? Is it possible to feel that an action is justified when it results in death? I feel that naturally we would say yes, of course it is it is a justified act to call death to someone; or to even imprison them for a number of years. They get what they deserve, an eye for an eye. But who are we to judge what that person deserves? Now possibly, it would be for the better of humanity that the prosecuted would be dead, but at that point I feel that imprisonment would be the best solution. This feeling to better humanity by the imprisonment of another leads us to the quote from blindness “responsibility is the natural consequence to clear vision.” Does our clear vision lead us to animalistic actions?

Revenge

“You killed him to avenge us, only a woman could avenge the women, said the girl with the dark glasses, and revenge, being just, is something human, if the victim has no rights over the wrong-doer then there can be no justice, Nor humanity.”

This quote kind of relates back to the question that Kyle asked, is it okay to kill. The doctor’s wife killed the leader of the rouges as revenge for the pain they caused the women in the asylum. The quote states that revenge is just, naturally human, and without it humanity does not exist. I agree with doctor’s wife decision to kill the leader of the rouges because he inflicted horrible pain on the women for his own gain. He was starving the people in the asylum and their continued survival depended on his death. In this situation is seems just, but I do not think that it is in many other situations. Going back to revenge, I do not think that simply killing someone, or hurting him or her in some fashion, for the actions they have committed makes humanity. I think that is causes us to be less human; we should be able to rise above the brutality of others. When someone kills a killer, they are not condoning the murder; they are in fact supporting murder. This brings the one who kills the killer down to the originals killer’s level of morals. One should strive to be the bigger person and condone murder in the first place.

One thing that I want to clarify is that I think people should have to live with the consequences of their actions but revenge should not be those consequences. The leader of the rouges starved people and raped many women and the consequences of his actions should have reflected so. His death seemed appropriate because there was no other way to punish him. In our society, a murderer is put on trial and they know what the consequences of their actions could be. Going back to my other point, when courts sentence criminals to death, they are supporting murder and the wishes of many criminals (many wish to die after they have committed a violent crime to escape taking consequences of their actions). Allowing them to live but in jail forces them to live with what they did everyday and, to me, that seems worse than death.

The Doctor's Wife's Tears

“It is possible that we have come to the end of our blindness, it is possible that we will all recover our eyesight, hearing those words, the doctor’s wife began to cry, she should have been happy yet she was crying, what strange reactions people have, of course she was happy, my God…”

I think that the doctor’s wife’s reaction to the return of sight to the first blind man was interesting. There are several reasons she could be crying. She could be crying out of relief that this heavy burden was finally lifted from her. She could be crying out of happiness that everyone will return to seeing and the world can begin healing and fixing the damages that occurred while they could not see. She could also being crying because of the horrors that they will soon be subjected to, which only she had been able to fully experience up to this point. It could be a combination of all of these factors. But what first came to mind for me was that maybe she is crying because in the return of everyone’s sight, she was losing her importance, their dependence on her, and the value which they placed on her opinion.

In terms of the feminist unit, it is interesting to see how her role in life changed when suddenly she was the only one who had something that everyone desperately needed. Even when only her husband knew she was not blind, she prided herself in the little deeds she could do to make life easier for others. And once the hospital was burned down, she became the leader of the group, with the others dependent on her for everything. While it was quite a burden, she took it on willingly. Compared to her previous lot in life, the wife of a man who’s opinion everyone very greatly respected, she was always in the shadows. She is defined through the entire book as the doctor’s wife, that being her defining characteristic. It is interesting that she is not referred to as the only person left who could see or the caretaker. She is not even defined by her matronly characteristics, though she becomes like a mother to her group.

I am curious as to what you think might be the cause of the doctor’s wife’s tears when sight began to return to the world of blind people.

Blindness

I wanted to comment on the quote at the end of the book that we briefly talked about at the end of class today. It was said on the last page during a conversation between the doctor and the doctor's wife. She says "I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see." I thought that this was a very powerful quote because to me, it still seems to be true in our society. I know that there are a lot of people in our society that are blind to what is going on around them. There are people living in poverty and terrible conditions all around us and those that are more fortunate than others still refuse to acknowledge it or do something about it.
The major part of the quote is when she says that they are blind people who can see but do not see. The fact that there are many different things going on in our world that many of us are not aware of is a good example of this. I have learned some things in my women’s studies class about the conditions for women in other cultures that I could not believe. They are still practicing dowry burnings, female circumcisions, and women are not allowed to drive cars either because their place is in the home. I had heard of some of these things before but never knew much about them or how terrible they were. I feel that many people in our society live sheltered lives. In America, the majority of us have it much better than we could ever hope for in other countries. I think it is important for us to be aware that in some cases we are blind people that can see but are choosing not to. It is important for us to recognize what could happen if we continue to be blind to our world and what we should be doing to fix it.

Thoughts on the end of humanity

During class today, I read the back cover of Blindness and wanted to comment on the end of the summary. It says “Blindness is a powerful portrayal of man’s worst appetites and weaknesses—and man’s ultimately exhilarating spirit.” I think now, after reading all of Saramago’s ideas throughout the book, that this quote is wrong and Saramago was talking more about the frailty or destruction of the human spirit.
A novel that uplifted the human spirit, I think, would have ended either in desolation where humanity still existed or with the triumph of humanity overcoming the illness of blindness. The novel didn’t end like this though, it ended with near chaos and little hope and the situation was ended by something other than the power of humanity and everyone could see again. We have seen many examples in the book of how responsibility and morality are out the window and the future seemed bleak as well. The doctor’s wife says once, “Perhaps humanity will manage to live without eyes, but then it will cease to be humanity”. If no one ever regained his sight and the children of the blind were also blind, I think that most people would die very soon and that eventually some sort of structure would develop but I don’t believe it would ever be the same as society today, there would be different morals and feelings and ideas about the future and this is what I think Saramago is getting at.

To Kill?

This is more of a question really than anything else. But I'm wondering others' thoughts on this. Right after the wife kills the guy(s), she leaves and is sitting there with tears in her eyes. She then thinks about what she did and the book says,
"...she knew that if it were necessary, she would kill again, and when is it necessary to kill, she asked herself...
So my question/comment here is when is it ok to kill? In the courts there's the whole insanity plea but that's almost always a bunch of bullcrap just to get out of real prison. But the doctor's wife feels terrible and is physically drained after having killed a man that was raping her. Does everyone feel like that after they have killed someone? even if it was in self-defense? I would like to think that she would feel righteous after having killed and hurt these men. I think that i would. But i'm asking, when is it ok to kill?

Blindness thoughts on Humanity

This last section of Blindness was filled with a bunch of collisions between the two groups of the mini-society of the asylum. First there was the killing of the rogue leader by the doctor’s wife and then there was the burning of the rogues, and the whole building, by one of the inmates. I think that these instances are a very interesting twist in the book and in Saramago’s exploration of human behavior. Before these chapters, all of the action had been initiated by the rogues and all of the destructive actions were taken by the rogues. This time, the roles have switched and the rogues have become defensive and scared while the inmates attack them and the rogues end up dying by the actions of the inmates
I tend to think that Saramago is making a new statement about humanity in this part. He made it clear earlier, through the creation of rogues, that there will always be those in a society who wish to live in unity and those who wish to gain control. The next part is that anyone, not just the rogues, can make use of some advantage to gain control. The doctor’s wife uses her scissors to throw the rogues into chaos and the other woman uses her lighter to eliminate the rogues, even though these woman would have been horrified at their own actions had it been another scenario.
This aspect of humanity can be seen later when the inmates enter into the rest of society. The world has begun to work as a strange cooperative unit, with people wandering into any building or house and taking whatever they need. This setting has also gotten a sort of rogue group now, the inmates who have the advantage of a woman who can still see. The doctor’s wife finds a basement full of food and keeps it a secret from the whole world; this is a secret that could eventually cost lives. The doctor’s wife essentially has control of that basement and will possibly take over other useful resources. It seems that humans are very apt to exploit advantages.

The Myth of Equality of Opportunity in America

There is a myth in the United States that anyone can get ahead if they work hard enough. It is implied that anyone who fails to succeed is lazy or otherwise inferior. This is often untrue however, as the discrepancy between the achieved successes of individuals is more commonly linked to inequality of opportunity. This is an important point addressed by both Virginia Woolfe and John Galbraith.

In Woolfe’s piece, “Shakespeare’s Sister,” she addresses the problems of Judith Shakespeare, the imaginary sister of William. Judith, like William, possesses a penchant for writing and a passion for the theater. Like William, she is driven and talented. Unlike William, she does not receive the benefits of education. Unlike William, she is trapped in a society that laughs at her attempts to get ahead. After she runs away from her house to avoid being forced into an unwanted marriage, she tries to get involved in the theater the same way her brother had. Instead of being allowed to work, she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy that drove her to suicide. Woolfe tells this story in order to respond to a bishop’s comment that no woman could have written the plays of Shakespeare. The bishop presumably meant by this remark that women were of an inferior intellect to men and that the writings, being of a high intellectual quality, were much more advanced than the limited mental facilities a woman possessed. . Woolfe agrees with his assertion that no woman in the time period could have written Shakespeare’s plays in that women did not have the opportunities necessary to match the achievements of men. The social structure of the time prevented that kind of advancement.

Galbraith wrote about the different kinds of poverty, insular and individual poverty. Individual poverty can be linked to some deficiency in an individual, such as a mental disorder or alcoholism. Insular poverty affects an entire region, or island of people. It remains over many generations and is difficult if not impossible to escape from. This is because people who live in these impoverished areas are not presented with the same opportunities as people born in higher classes. This inequality of opportunity is reflected in most aspects of people’s lives. Schools, being largely funded by property taxes, are necessarily poor in poor neighborhoods. The schools are often crowded and dangerous, not an environment conducive to learning. People with more money can afford to send their children to a private school or a public school in a good district. Jobs are often scarce in low income areas; the jobs that do exist are often below the living wage. Drugs and crime are commonly prevalent in low income areas as a way to fight off despair and, in some cases, as a viable way to get ahead and make money. Class mobility, contrary to the American myth, is difficult to obtain. The opportunities given to the poor of America are not usually enough for them to “pull themselves up.”

With both women and the poor, it has been assumed over the years that the reason for their lack of success is some flaw in their composition or lack of effort on their part. The same can be said of minorities and other victims of discrimination. The truth of the matter is that many groups do not succeed because they do not have the same opportunities available to them. Women were held back by the idea that the only way they could achieve greatness was to stay in their house and generally escape notice. Those in poverty are held back by the conditions in which they live. Over the years many groups have been held back by the idea that everyone who does not rise to greatness is held back only by their own inferiority.

Blindness

The novel, Blindness, depicts the adventures of people who are struck with sudden blindness. The government insists that the blind be put into isolation “for the good of the people.” The blind have a hard time adjusting to life in an old mental asylum. Their food is delivered by the military guarding the asylum and does not arrive regularly. A group of the blind came together, and begin to demand valuables from others in exchange for food. When there are, no more valuables the hoodlums demand women in exchange for food. The women comply and suffer from repeated sexual abuse. One of the women kills the hoodlum’s leader and the blind plan an attack on the remaining hoodlums. After a failed attack, one of the women lights the beds blocking the hoodlums’ ward on fire. The blind try to escape and they found the military had left the outside of the building. They were left abandoned, so they leave the building and a group of the blind begin to wonder the city. They find that the whole country has gone blind and is in chaos. People are looting stores and houses and electricity is non-existent.

After reading the section about people looting stores and houses, I thought about the state of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, people in New Orleans were looting stores and essentially began acting with no morals or ethics. People were killing others for no reason. They were acting like animals and had no shame for their actions. Society had essentially broken down and people’s actions reflected that. The doctor’s wife had found that society in their city had also broken down. People were going from store to store looking for anything they could use. People also were not willing to share or help others. The doctor’s wife found a supply of food and she decided to keeps its location to herself so if she needed more food she would know where to go. There was no running water or electricity, in New Orleans and the blind city. The doctor’s wife pointed out that people were so used to having modern conveniences that they did not know how to function without them. This is completely true today. Many people do not know how to do simple tasks because they were replaced with modern conveniences.

One question that I had from reading about society breaking and seeing it happen in New Orleans, is why when a disaster happens do people lose all their morals and begin to act like animals? I think that when things get so bad, people do not care what they do or how those actions make them seem. They only care about surviving and taking care of their family. When the hoodlums demanded the women in exchange for food, this was an action that they would not normally commit. They became desperate and did things they would not normally do. This makes one think what would you do in this type of situation. If a disaster struck your city, like Hurricane Katrina, would you loot stores to survive or would you stand by your moral principles? If you knew there would be no consequences for your actions, would you commit crimes? Would you be selfish or help others? Personally, I would rather be alive than dead with my morals.

Sobe, Jon Stewart, Blindness, and The War on Terror

I was sitting in my dorm last night (4/18/07) drinking a delicious Sobe: Energy and watching a little show known as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The guest that he had on was a former Iraqi Prime Minister (who's name I do not remember at this time). The final question that was asked by Jon Stewart was as he had put, "personal". The question was, to paraphrase, now grieving from the Virginia Tech shooting, how do the Iraqi people deal with these kinds of tragedies everyday on an escalated scale? Stewart's guest replied that there was no time for grieving, due to the frequency of the attacks. The former prime minister even stated how five of the appointed staff members he had selected were killed as a result of the hostility. This question was one that I, for one, had not even thought about...at all...at any time...not even once. We rightfully grieve for the Virginia Tech students, but Iraq has had to deal with this even before the invasion. Talk about blindness, at least on my part. Is this was Jose is partly getting at: The fact that we as a people, whom are a part of a global race, are so blind to the events and experiences around them, even when being able to see? Is Jose's message part "blind to current events" and "blind to shortcomings (referencing to Ross' post on the 18th)"?
To conclude this post, I had sat in my chair, listening ever so closely to the conversation (I'm sure the audience was also by the lack of sound coming from them). Raising my Sobe in respect to those who have lost their lives recently, I now am continuing my evolving understanding of our current events, or these conflicts of "Great Ideas". What do you all have to say?

Blindness

At first glance, the graphic rape scene in Blindness is out of place in the novel. It shocked me and caught me off guard. I had certainly not been expecting anything this atrocious. After class, as I was reading my paper, I read an article in the Times that struck me as very similar to what happened in Blindness.

Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has repeatedly denied that the Japanese military coerced women into sexual slavery during World War II. In actuality, this is documented history and there is plenty of evidence that suggests Abe and other Japanese politicians are simply covering up the ugly truth. The reports were initially submitted to the Tokyo war crimes trials way back in 1948. It took until the 1990s for many of the victims to come forward and share their stories. In 1993, Japan came as close as it has to a confession, admitting to having ran "comfort stations."

This connection struck me as even more relevant to our reading because the Japanese government is trying to keep the public blind to the truth. I think this is also an underlying theme in the novel. We as a society are blind to a lot of things because we don't want to face them. If we recognize these problems then there is a moral imperative to make changes. It reminds me of Galbraith's quote from The Position of Poverty: "We ignore it because we share with all societies at all times the capacity for not seeing what we do not wish to see."

The Oppression of Women

Beauvoir takes on not only the issue of male superiority in our society, but also tries to explain the cause of this discrepancy. I thought she made several interesting suggestions, and presented them in a cool, collected manner. Some of the issues she talks about affect more than just women, such as the identities, which one must choose from to define yourself. She offers women the choice between being the evil woman or the beautiful idolized woman. She can be the Praying Mantis or the conniving woman who seeks to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get her way. Or she can be the innocent, dumb, yet adorable goddess and mother figure. I find neither of these roles to be flattering or positive for women. Either she has no brain, or she uses her brain to manipulate. Other groups are given certain archetypes, which they may fill, be it the hard working migrant worker/illegal immigrant or the mafia member who has little explanation for where his fortunes come from. While I think this classification is changing and more and more people are breaking the stereotype, it is frustrating that such classifications are placed on each other because of our prejudices brought on by different appearances.

Beauvoir attributes the subordinance of women as being at the fault of men, but it is also partly the women’s fault as well because they accept this role until they do not even recognize themselves in the body they fill. Men always speak of the mysteriousness of women, which in many cases makes women even more desirable to men. I think this is because of the satisfaction that comes from dominating an unknown. Men do not make the effort to understand women, because it is not necessary to them. It is easier to dominate and makes laws that do not benefit, and may even harm, women if you can claim ignorance. Because of this, a slave-master complex has been formed. The ego of the male has been raised so high to consider themselves a gift to women. It is the man who grants the woman time, money, etc. for he is more busy and is the provider. Women have become dependent on men for this reason, and in the time this was written, there was no option but to be dependent on men. The conniving woman needs the man to manipulate and the goddess woman needs the man to take care of her because she is helpless to herself. It is amazing how long this complex has been continued and supported by society.

Finally, women are becoming more independent and capable without men. However there is still a dependence that many women seem unable to escape, such as those who remain in abusive relationships. Fear of the man and dependence on the income and stability he brings keeps women in situations that are inhumane. Woolf points out that the little that is written about women of the medieval age is that they were often beat by their husbands. It was acceptable to treat other fellow human beings as less than that, which has occurred throughout history with various groups. However women are the largest group that has been oppressed for the longest time in history. Beavoir solidifies this idea when she explains that the mysteriousness of women comes from the slave-master complex that has existed throughout history.

Is this oppression still accepted in our society to an extent? How is it that we have abolished slavery and yet women, who are a majority, are still under some oppression?

Society’s Real Motivation

After today’s discussion I have quite an interesting rebuttal / response. Today we looked at marketing for young girls and how society has become a trap for girls to become too feminized. This is a surface observation. In reality, looking more deeply into this issue, I think a reasonable explanation can be obtained.
I have a four-year old sister who is a popular consumer of modern marketing for children. As I see her enjoy herself with her vast amount of toys, I cannot help but think the following. Looking at the overly feminized dolls such as “Bratz,” my sister has a few of these dolls (not “Bratz” necessarily but similar types), in which she enjoys playing with. However, she also has addition dolls that range into all types of people, including minorities, and even men. So although she does have a few of these overly feminized dolls, they only make up a small portion of total collection, showing an interest in all types of people.
In addition to the various amounts of toys she plays with, my sister loves putting on play make-up. On a surface level, a typical response to this act is society’s push for girls to become more “girly.” I disagree. People behind marketing are not trying to push little girls into any direction whatsoever. They simply create and sell the products that sell; and play make-up happens to be a big seller. This is explained because young children love imitation in almost every form. They love to repeat common phrases used by their parents, and they love to take on the actions of their parents. This is how the learning process happens. So, after seeing my mom put on her make-up, my sister gains a desperate desire to imitate her mother. This is not only present in girls, but also boys. Little boys watch their fathers get dressed for work and want to do the same. I know that when I was a kid, a had a play shaving kit which contained a bottle of foamy soap, a plastic razor, and a box equipped with a mirror in which it came in. Does this mean I was being over masculinized? Certainly it does not. It simply means that I wanted to imitate my father because that is the natural instinct for children. This instinct is how children grow up and learn to become much like their parents.
Therefore, it is not the drive of society to try and push little girls to become overly feminized, but simply businessmen and women trying to create something that will sell so they can stay employed at their current institute.

Issues of The Whale Rider

The Whale Rider is a moving story that covers so many issues. First there is the most obvious relationship between Paikea and her grandfather, Koro. He does love her, which is apparent through his diligent care for her in giving her a ride to and from school. I think that a lot of people can identify with Paikea in her efforts to receive approval from her grandfather. Paikea is so meticulous in her tribal dances and schoolwork, seeking to prove to Koro that she is worth something, despite the fact that she is not the boy he wanted. So many people are unhappy because they do not feel that they have received the approval of a parent or role model. This is such an important issue in the low self-esteem of a lot of adolescence today. As we grow older, hopefully people can learn that the only person you really need to please is yourself. To depend on others for your happiness is dangerous.

An even greater issue is the gender roles that the community put on girls. The grandmother played the role, but she was not submissive like a wife is expected. She said that she let Koro think that he was in charge, but really it was she that had the control over the things that matter. However, I thought it was interesting that she kept saying she was going to get a divorce some day, though we know she probably never will. While she gets frustrated with Koro because he is so stuck in his ways, she also respects him for his strong belief and sense of duty.

The movie also touches on the issue of dying tribal culture. This greatly troubles Koro, as well as Paikea. I think that the whales beaching was a really cool way to symbolize the dying culture, and then that Paikea saved the whales, symbolizing her saving the tribal culture. I don’t think that it’s so much that Paikea is a “chosen one” but rather that she possessed the courage and strength that the others had forgotten. She gained her love for the culture through Koro. It is the people that keep a culture alive; Paikea was able to unite the family and the community again, which is what is necessary for the culture to survive.

Blindness and Lord of the Flies

The novel Blindness deals with a fictional crisis in which hundreds of people are stricken with a sudden milky-white blindness. Due to the condition being contagious, the infected are rushed to quarantine in an old mental hospital. The conditions quickly become inhumane, with guards that parallel the SS and sanitary conditions that seem unimaginable. To this point in the book (p. 186), many internees have died from various causes, and an uprising has made itself the only source of provisions, forcing sex slavery on the women if anyone else wants to eat.

Lord of the Flies was published in 1954, long before Blindness was first published in 1995. The main characters in Lord of the Flies (we'll call it LOTF from now on) are Ralph, Jack and Piggy. They are three out of a group of boys who survived a plane crash on a secluded tropical island. Incidentally, if you haven't read the book before and plan to, I'll probably spoil the story a little from now on. Ralph is elected as leader of the group, and he decides that Jack should be in charge of the boys who will gather the food. Piggy is Ralph's right-hand man, more or less. Ralph and Piggy find a conch shell that becomes a signal of power among the group. Inevitably, their improvised government falls apart, with Jack leading a rebellion against Ralph and Piggy's posse. The climax of the story occurs when one of Jack's followers rolls a boulder off a cliff to shut him up in the short term, but crushing and killing him in the long term. Their warfare continues until Ralph finds himself running for his life from Jack's blood-thirsty tribe. He reaches a beach, where he runs into a Naval officer - their rescuer. The boys immediately realize the gravity of what has happened and how the most dire of situations turn them against their friends to the point of murder and savagery.


At least so far, Blindness seems to be a near copy of LOTF. In both books, circumstances out of their control placed a group of otherwise civil people in an environment in which they are forced to fight for their own survival. In both books, any fair civil order that is attempted crumbles under the weight of human nature. In LOTF, Ralph and Piggy are seen as emotional and moral leaders among others who are weaker and some who are evil. In Blindness, the doctor and his wife fill this role. In LOTF, a quick turn of events renders an end to all the power struggles and exploitation that has developed. It is reasonable to assume that if all the internees' sight is restored, and they are released, that they would be in the same situation - shamed to no end of the beasts they became under duress.

What should we think in light of these parallels? Is Blindness a shameless ripoff of classic piece of Literature? Is the theme broad enough that differing details are enough to consider the two seperate stories? I think it's a combination. I don't think it is entirely a shameless ripoff, but it is flirting with earning that title. Personally, I don't think a narrow theme such as this allows for multiple renditions, but that opinion is supremely subjective. You can draw your own conclusion. While I think the situations portrayed in Blindness give cause for reflection and deep thought, I think they shouldn't be allowed to usurp LOTF, with which, as an author, Saramago should be familiar. I think he should take pause in the future before profiting on another LA Times Book of the Year that is really little more than a modern rerun of classic literature.

Women in Art

Georgia O'Keefe - "Poppy's"

Sally Mann - "Bloody Nose"


Sally Mann - "Jessie at age 5"

One of the topics brought up in class pertained to women in the art world. I started to discuss the artist Sally Mann and her photographs and how her work was so controversial because it was not “maternal” to photograph her children nude. Many female artist are considered an outrage if their artwork does not show feminine qualities. For example, if a woman were to paint beautiful flowers like Georgia O’Keefe it would be completely acceptable and considered beautiful. If a woman were to create a series of glass bowls to hold fruit, again it would be accepted and considered beautiful. Because it is assumed by society that women only think of things like flowers and fruit; and that is all they are allowed to express. Now I am not saying that art created by women that includes the subjects of fruit and flowers is not beautiful, because it very well can be; but “radical” artist can create beautiful art as well. Female artist become outrageous when they start to create art that is outside of their feminine qualities. When women create art is in any way grotesque or “unattractive”, it causes uproar and the artist is considered radical. For example, Sally Mann noticed her son had a bloody nose when he came running into the house for a snack. The blood was crusted on his face, and it had already stopped bleeding but it was all over his shirt. She stopped him and photographed him because it has happened in every household. The child is having so much fun outside he gets hurt and doesn’t care, the parent notices this incident after it had already happened and the child could care less. Sally Mann called a bad mother for photographing her son, instead of helping him. Though the blood was already dry. Sally Mann is not the only female artist who was considered radical among men in society, but her photographs include two very sensitive subjects: children and nudity.

Response to Whale Rider

Whale rider was an interesting movie experience for me because I didn’t much like the movie at all to start with, I felt it was too slow and I kept thinking about the coldness and stubbornness of Paikea’s grandfather. I do agree though, that the complete reversal of the grandfather’s feelings made the end of the movie so powerful. One of the best moments was when the grandfather called Paikea the wise leader and admitted that he had been blind in not recognizing what she was. This was a perfect movie to watch during the feminist movement because it shows very well the amount of effort required of feminists and the persecution they face to change society for the better. Paikea waited the whole movie, suffering at the expense of the culture, to make a difference, but the important thing is that she came through all this and was strong in the end.
My favorite part of the movie was the climax of her ride on the whale through the water. I felt that this was such a spiritual moment for her and it was very moving. I could really see throughout the entire movie that Paikea took the culture seriously and was dedicated to it and her grandfather. Her love was very powerful towards her grandfather no matter what he did, and she didn’t ever blame him and she only disobeyed him to show him that he was confused and stubborn. She always had the qualities of a leader and she finally realized them at the end.

Whale Rider

The movie Whale Rider really emphasized the role of genders in the community. This became increasingly evident as the movie progressed. In the first few minutes, after the twin brother had died, the viewer could recognize that the grandfather and his tradition were reserved for males. The grandfather eventually learned to love his grand daughter, even though she was not what he wanted. The grand daughter’s actions kept angering the grandfather because she was trying to participate in cultural rituals that were only deemed appropriate for males. I think that something that is important to take into consideration when judging the grandfather for his actions toward his grand daughter, is that he was raised with cultural tradition playing a more important role in his life, than his grand daughter and the other boys. The other boys treated the grand daughter as more of an equal than the grand father did. This is partly because they were raised in different times. He was taught the traditions as being reserved only for males, so in a way he was conditioned to act in the way he did. He was probably never exposed to other cultures, where the woman’s role was not limited to housework and raising the children. He was trying to pass on the only thing he knew, his cultural traditions. As an outsider looking into the situation, it is very easy to say that the way the grand father treated his grand daughter was horrible. However, he probably did not agree because their culture permitted it. I think that it is important, when looking at other cultures, to remember that the differences on how people are treated in society are directly reflective of that culture. In the United States and other westernized countries, women are encouraged to take a more active role in society, but this is not the case everywhere, as is evident with the movie.

Bringing Themes Together

Whale Rider is a film that, in my opinion, requires more post-viewing thought. After watching the movie I was not immediately struck with even the most obvious themes or correlations; I was only looking at it in a very surface manner. However, one main idea that struck me from the beginning that the director did a wonderful job portraying was the beautiful, not over-bearing, sense of feminine pride. The word feminism can sometimes lead to a lot of bad feelings and connotations because, like other minority alliances, radicals can emerge. However, when looked at it such a pure way through the eyes of Paikea, this word is one of strength and respect in a culture that would only acknowledge the leadership/warrior qualities of a man. I could feel Paikea’s struggle through the genius dialogue and consistent themes of overcoming struggle.
Paikea, in Whale Rider, overcomes one major struggle at the end of the movie. This same theme of her essentially fixing the frayed rope that “is” her family tree/ancestors and bringing her whole community together through one action of strength/courage, was seen earlier in the movie when she fixes the engine for her grandfather using the tied fragments of frayed rope. Her grandfather’s response: don’t do it again/too dangerous. This is a distinct foreshadowing to the climax of the movie which I found to be very moving. This idea of overcoming a struggle from a minority viewpoint has been a main theme of ours throughout this course, making this a great movie to end with. Paikea reminded me a lot of Rosa Parks when she refused to sit in the back of class like her grandfather instructed just because of her gender. Also, the theme of feminism which we are now covering is the basis for this movie and is a great way of trying in all the concepts. From Cicero’s time, where he talks of the mistreatment of women, until present day, our class has observed (through the best of authors’ eyes/writing) that oppression can, with enough perseverance, be fought against. There might always be some people who use biased thoughts to form racist or sexist feelings, but there is no reason why we cannot fight against this ignorance.

The origins of Morality

Iris Murdoch was a powerful voice in the 20th century when it came topics dealing with religion. She madder her mark mainly through fiction, but also wrote nonfiction, like Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, in which the selection “Morality and Religion” can be found. In this section she philosophically examines religion and what it has to do with morality in humans. An important question to ask when looking at this topic is, “what is morality?” How was morality born and what does it have to do with religion? Morality is a byproduct of evolution. Morality cannot be found in nature, because other beings besides humans are not intelligent enough to have developed it, but what can be found in nature is the natural ability for animals to govern themselves. The strongest of a group of animals will become the leader and will protect the rest of the group. He will make the choices of when to move and when to fight. Humans still do this. We designate a leader to guide the rest of us, make our laws, command our military, and so on. The difference is that we are intelligent enough to foresee threats coming from within and outside society, and so measures must be taken to prevent these threats from occurring. This is where morality comes in. It is our attempt to prevent the destruction of society as a whole in a world that is based (naturally) on survival of the fittest individual. Humans naturally work to insure their own personal survival and success, or that of their family or offspring, so what morality does is to make is so many humans can live peacefully together while at the same time working for personal benefit. An example of this is two rival butchers. They both own similar businesses, so it would be most beneficial for one butcher to kill the other and therefore maximize his own income. Morality prevents this by structuring a code that shuns murder. While the murderous butcher may still desire to kill the other, he no longer does because morality has made murder taboo. This relates directly to religion because morality is almost always introduced into society in the form of a religion. This adds the only other aspect needed to insure the indoctrination of the moral code into the people, and this is punishment and reward. Threat of eternal suffering and the promise of everlasting life and happiness is enough to make even modern humans follow an idea.

A Few Whale Rider Themes

The movie Whale Rider was unlike most movies I have seen. I have never been exposed to those certain beliefs and customs, and I found the viewing experience quite enlightening. I also thought that the filmmakers did a very good job of developing the characters and portraying the different struggles that Paikea went through and had to overcome. For me, this was one of those movies that I could actually “get into.”
The gender segregation of Paikea and the first-born sons and the resulting conflicts were obvious themes to pick up on. Yet while viewing this movie and thinking about it afterwards, I noticed some other, perhaps more subtle ones. At the beginning of the movie, for example, Paikea’s grandfather made it clear that he was not happy with the fact that his son produced a daughter rather than a son. This was manifested in his apparently apathetic demeanor toward the news of his granddaughter and also when he was chanting over his dead grandson and told his wife to take the granddaughter out of the room—as if he did not want his granddaughter to be near a ritual so holy or special. When I saw this, my first reaction was something along the lines of “What a jerk.”
Yet as the movie progressed, it was clear to me that although Paikea’s grandfather was not happy he did not have a grandson, he still loved Paikea very much. He always picked her up from school and let her ride on his bike with him, and when it was time for Paikea to go back with her father, her grandfather gave her a very long hug and then watched out the window as they left. In my opinion, these are all indications of a loving feeling toward something. Even throughout the rest of the movie when Paikea’s grandfather would scold her and exclude her from the leadership school, I never got the feeling that he didn’t love her—just that he really believed a girl should not take part in those activities. I feel like although Paikea’s grandfather would rather have had a grandson, he still accepted her and grew to love her.
I also picked up on a subtle conflict between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, the second son. I recall a part in the movie when Paikea’s grandmother was telling Paikea about her uncle and how slim and fit he used to be. Paikea asked what happened for him to have changed so much, and her grandmother responded, “He was the second son.” There was also a time when Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle were in the boat with the students from the leadership school and the grandfather threw his whale tooth out into the ocean and told the boys to get it. Two of the boys stayed behind and when the grandfather looked to them for an explanation, Paikea’s uncle said something along the lines of “It’s ok.” From the grandfather’s behavior, I got the feeling that he did not think it was all right, and the uncle’s response seemed like a direct defiance to his father’s ways. I think that there was an obvious yet unstated conflict between these two characters (Paikea’s grandfather and uncle) because Paikea’s uncle was not the first born, and therefore had been written off by her grandfather. Furthermore, I think that when Paikea asked her uncle to teach her what was being taught in the leadership school, her uncle took it as an opportunity to prove to himself and others that he was worthy of knowing such ways even though he was the second son. All in all, I noticed many different themes and ideas presented in this movie, but these two were the ones that really got me thinking. I do believe that although he was extremely hard on her and sexist, Paikea’s grandfather really did love her—he was just completely convinced that she did not belong in that leadership school. I also feel that there was some tension between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, and that her uncle had not been taken so seriously because he was the second son and the grandfather’s first had left them.

The Whale Rider

In response to your questions, instead of posting this as a comment I am going to post it as a Blog because you addressed many of the issues that I was going to address as well.

The young girl did a wonderful job acting, but I believe the presence of the superiority issue was not only addressed with her as a young child but with all women in the community. In the beginning of the movie the women were addressed to go to the kitchen and cook the food. Later, when the school was going to “open”, all of the women were in the kitchen while the men were outside and the Chief was ordering his wife around knowing that the other women would follow her lead. Most of the discrimination came from her grandfather, and not the others in the community. The boys who were her age did not demand that she sat behind them, one of them even taught her fighting moves. Her uncle helped her learn fighting moves while his friends encouraged them, if I remember correctly, the grandmother told her granddaughter that the uncle used to be wonderful at the sport and encouraged her to ask him to teach her. It was a direct discrimination between grandfather and granddaughter. For, she was the twin who lived, the one who broke the rope of chiefs in their family threads. The grandfather viewed her as a curse, she was not male therefore she could not be chief.

The Whale Rider!

First I wanted to say what I thought about the movie...
I was kind of split on this. I liked the movie, but I can't really say why. The little girl really was an amazing actress, and I really could understand how much she was hurting from not being accepted. The topic itself was slightly confusing though. I don't know if it was simply because they didn't explain it enough or what but I was slightly confused most of the time.

Ok, now for the actual discussion stuff. I wanted to ask everyone why they thought that the makers of the film used that topic. Why was it from a community or society that not very many belong to or can really relate to? Also, they didn't really explain its customs. For example, I wasn't sure if the girl wasn't allowed because the grandpa simply didn't want her to or if it really just wasn't allowed by the customs. You would think that they would have used another society, such as africans, like in hotel rwanda. But they only had one person that was being discriminated against, one little girl. So I was kind of confused on that and was wondering what everyone thought on why they did that...

Another thing that i really liked in the movie is how it really related to Blindness... I know we haven't technically read this yet, but chad was talking about how the wife of the doctor still felt compassion for the people that had hurt her and others. I thought that this was just like the girl after she had moved out of her grandpa's house, yet she still came back, and still had enough compassion/love for him to talk to him and ask him to come to her play. Just an observation!

So, this post doesn't have much to do with what we were talking about, but I saw the cartoon posted by Matt and it got me thinking about how ungrateful we are in this country for everything that we have.
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...

So, this post doesn't have much to do with what we were talking about, but I saw the cartoon posted by Matt and it got me thinking about how ungrateful we are in this country for everything that we have.
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...

Representation

In Mary Wollstonecraft’s piece regarding, “Unnatural Distinction Established in Society,” she brings up some relevant points regarding class and female representation in politics. Wollstonecraft argues that one class always drives against another class—presumably the upper and lower class. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft attacks the British political system and specifically politicians who excessively tax the poor in order to give to the rich. However, drawing back to Elizabeth Cady-Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” where her main point concerned the ability for females to vote and participate in the political system, it was also Wollstonecraft who called for the same rights in her 18th Century essay. While Wollstonecraft’s essay is over 200 years old, it is somewhat depressing that many of the issues she brings up, still need to be addressed in the 21st Century.

The points Wollstonecraft argues against regarding class and feminism are discussed in an article by Holly Sklar titled, “Imagine a Country—2006.” Sklar brings up the fact that the poverty rate during the 1970s in the United States was lower than it is today and considers the numbers paradoxical since America is the richest country in the world. However, it is the political system that Sklar, similar to Wollstonecraft and Cady-Stanton, takes issue with. Wollstonecraft stated, “…I really think that women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed in the deliberations of government” (paragraph 22). While in the United States today, women can vote and are elected to political positions, the actual amount of women holding representative positions is shockingly low and not representative of the actual population.

Drawing back to the “Imagine a Country” article, Sklar brings up the notion of unequal representation, by offering what fair representation in the U.S. Senate would look like, based on population-- 51 women and 49 men, yet only 16 women currently serve in the senate and just 35 have served in total. Secondly, one out of two current senators is a millionaire. By looking at the unequal representation of how Americans are represented in the halls of its government, it is no wonder that there continues to be unequal distribution of wealth and equality in the country since very few “average” citizens have ascended to power, to truly offer an image of what America really looks like. In conclusion, perhaps if the government was not run by the privileged for the privileged few, there might be time to tackle issues like: tax cuts for the wealthy, fair pay for women, and the ability for all Americans to have access to a proper education.

Wollstonecraft

I found Wollstonecraft’s piece very interesting as well as still relevant. I thought reading something from the 1700’s would be pointless because I would not be able to relate to it. There were many things that were addressed that are still true today, one of them being class issues. Much of it had to do with the wealthy part of society. She talks of how the wealthy are often idle and will only do things to earn certain titles or honor through being a soldier or statesman. This still seems to ring true in the way that people identify certain jobs with having power or high social status. There are people in this world that only judge how successful of a life you’ve lived by how much money is in your bank account. I thought Wollstonecraft’s piece talked about this in relation to women in a good way as well. Today, women are still only climbing the corporate ladder so far and then they hit the glass ceiling. Although many think that women’s issues in the US are solved, there is still many issues that need to be resolved. Women still only make $0.75 for every dollar that a man makes. The fact that Wollstonecraft addressed some of these issues in her piece back in the 1700’s was really revolutionary and it is amazing that some of these issues are still prevalent today. The last major idea in Wollstonecraft’s piece that I agreed with is when she talks about beautiful women and women in the home. I do not agree that pretty women will neglect their duties as wives and other things just because they are pretty but I know that many pretty women will get by in life a lot easier than less-attractive women. There was a psychology study done and it showed that more pretty women were helped on the street when they needed it and many were promoted faster than other women. Also, there are still many women that face mothers and grandmothers that encourage them to be housewives when they want to go into a professional field.

The writings of Nietzsche have been very influential and, although I do not agree most of what he says, I find his logic and thought process very interesting. To some extent, I agree with his basic argument that morality is anti-nature. By this I mean that it goes against human nature to act morally. Human nature is corrupt, selfish, and sinful. If everyone did as they wanted to and not as they ought to, the world would be a much darker place.
I feel that many of Nietzsche’s conclusions were based on misconceptions of the church and/or misconceptions the church had on the teachings of Christ. First of all, Nietzsche talks about the denial of passions in the church. His experiences with the church may have been different from mine, but what he says in paragraph 2 is not how the church portrays passion. He states that the church hates passion, but this is not true. Let’s take sex for example. God loves sex, He created sex and even encourages it—within the context that He created it for—marriage. God values passion, but He also values self-control. It is important to remember that even a good thing used in the wrong way can be bad. Similarly, a seemingly good act done for with wrong motives is not a good at all. This is where legalism comes in. Legalism is following the “rules” just for the sake of following the rules and not out of love for God and desire to please Him. It has been a big problem in the church for pretty much as long as it has existed. Many people think that the Bible is just a book of rules, and if you break any of these rules then you are going to go to hell. This is not entirely true. Although there are many instructions on how to live a godly life in the Bible, the key message is this: we no longer bound by the law. God did not send Jesus to condemn the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).
In paragraph 5, Nietzsche states that the church wants to destroy its enemies, but as stated in the Sermon on the Mount (which Nietzsche refers to in paragraph 1) Christians are to love their enemies. This is where the church often stumbles. They think that just because someone does not follow God they should be judged, shunned, and condemned. This is entirely non-biblical. Christians are commanded to love everyone—regardless of if they are drinkers, smokers, homosexuals, cheaters, whatever.
Nietzsche seems like he thinks that the church denies intelligence and discourages learning. This has happened in the past, but wrongfully so. Why would God give us minds if He did not want us to use them?
In conclusion, I feel that many of the points made by Nietzsche are problems with the church, not with Christianity. They are based off of imperfection and misinterpretations made by the church and not flaws in the Bible itself.

The act of going blind in symbolic literature always seems to represent a willful avoidance of the truth or reality. Invisible Man, a novel written by Ralph Ellison in 1952, reminds me of Blindness by Jose Saramago in many ways. I realize that we have not read this novel in class, but Ellison’s approach to blindness as a symbol of ignorance is so closely related to Saramago’s work that it should be briefly researched. The narrator of Invisible Man repeatedly mentions the inability of the characters to see what their hate and bias prevents them from seeing. A physical blindness affects two man characters, Reverend Homer Barbee and Brother Jack, and phrases such as “empty eyes” and “blinding lights” prevent many from actually observing (which I think was an important distinction of seeing that we discussed at the beginning of class on Wenesday). Although this novel is much different from Blindness, the theme of blindness in the sense of voluntary ignorance and denial is very similar. This was such an influential novel in its time, as well as today, that I cannot help but think that Saramago was greatly influenced by Ellison’s poetic usage of the themes of blindness, white versus black, and stereotypes (labels).
Blindness is completely timeless. It has no color, no names. There is nothing which a future generation could reference as a specific time in history because they will be experiencing the same stereotypes and “blindness” towards what they choose not to observe. This is kind of novel that we need to take note of and realize that unless we start to observe our similarities and embrace, not just remain blind to, all of each other’s differences, prejudice will continue to thrive. One last point that I thought of after class was how the milky white color of blindness seemed to represent a type of purity to me. I agree that it has aspects and symbolism in accordance to fog/seeing etc, but white strikes a purity reference in the minds of many analytical readers and might make sense if the act of going blind is looked at as putting everyone on a “level playing field” (temporarily purifying/taking away the ability to sin by way of bias). I would like to know what everyone thinks of that idea and the Invisible Man reference.

Murdoch

Iris Murdoch is a well-known British philosopher, who in her book Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals discusses how, as humans, we understand morals. An often debated question is whether morals can exist outside the premise of religion. In the “Morality and Religion” excerpt from her book, Murdoch gives an explanation for both sides of the argument. She views religion as being stronger than morality because generally religions have more direct views about good and evil.

I want to explore the idea of whether morals can exist without religion. I think that morals can be present in a person’s life, without them having a religious devotion. There are many people in the world, who have no religious affiliation, nor believe in a higher power. However, these people still act as moral beings and deem certain things as right and wrong. These people make these decisions based on what they feel inside of them, not on a given religious instruction. Although, it may seem as if many moral decisions are based on religion, people are capable of producing their own moral code, which is many times similar to that of a religious one. There are many moral theories that exist, that do not have any religious premise.

One thing that came to my mind while thinking of morals existing without religious influence is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on religious values, but the law separates church and state. This separation forces other laws passed to have motivations that are not religious. The government manages to pass laws like that, so it is possible to have morals without religions, but is this separation really a separation or are the lawmakers just able to claim that their laws are not religiously motivated? I think that essentially most laws pasted in the United States have some sort ties with a religion. Most government officials are religious and it is impossible to not bring their religious morals with them. I agree with Murdoch that religious morals are stronger because they offer people an easier way to live their life, than does a person who has to pick their own morals for every situation. In addition, many people do not live their lives by strict religious morals, so they use a combination of religious and their own morals.

Murdoch presents both arguments for and against morals existing with religion. I liked one thing her piece because she left the answer up to the reader. She showed her unbiased in the situation and this let the readers form their own opinion on the issue. One thing that I did not like about her piece was that it was difficult to read, and that made the reading not enjoyable. I think that morals can exist without religion, and thousands of people live their life that way.

Religious Ignorance

The Koran, written around the year 650, is comparable to the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah. The Koran serves as a basis for the religion of Islam, the fastest growing religion today. Written by the prophet Muhammad, this text lays out the “Five Pillars of Islam.” These include the Testimony of Faith, Ritual Prayer, Obligatory Almsgiving, Fasting, and the Pilgrimage to Mecca.

As a Christian, I found that much of what is included in the Koran is very similar to the Bible. This was actually somewhat surprising to me, although it should not have been. After reading “The Night Journey” from the Koran, I realized that I really do not know that much at all about religious beliefs other than Christianity. I feel like Americans, most of whom identify themselves as Christians, feel like Christianity is by far the largest religion. America treats major Christian holidays as the most important ones, even though we are a nation that prides itself on freedom of choice and religion. Just think about the most widely “Hallmark“ holidays in the United States. These include Christmas, and Easter, two major Christian holidays. Islam is holding a very close second to Christianity worldwide in size. But for me, I could not tell you when the biggest Muslim holidays are, which I don’t think is very atypical for the average American.

As horrible as it is, I think that many Americans and even Christians in general judge Muslim people, and assume that most practicing Muslims are extremists and somehow connected to terrorism. They tend to forget or deny the fact that there are Christian extremists as well, and that they also would not want to be judged merely based upon a skewed view another group has of them. The clip we watched in class from the 700 club was an example of a misrepresentative Christian person. Most Christians, I would hope, would not want themselves to be associated with people who are so ignorant of other people and their beliefs. Yet while I believe this, I also think there are many people who, in a less extreme way, judge others against one group’s example. This is when people start to generalize Muslims as extremists connected to terrorism, which is why so many Muslim people felt looked down upon and discriminated against after September 11, 2001. This is, obviously, wrong, and many people, including myself, should try to learn more about other religions and cultures.

Blindness

Blindness starts off with a man going blind at a traffic stop. From that starts a chain of others becoming blind too. The thief who stole his car, the doctor he visited, and the patients that were at the doctor’s office also went blind. What was happening seemed to be an epidemic of this mysterious white blindness so the Ministry of Health transferred all these blind people and the ones who came in contact with them to a mental institution. The only answer, in this time of panic, was to put them in quarantine and try to stop the spread. They were completely sealed off from the world they once lived and were left alone to defend for themselves. Do you think this is what our society would do? Is it moral to do such a thing to prevent others from becoming blind? I believe our society would act the same way in a time of panic, but I do not believe that we would just leave the blind to defend for themselves. There would be many people looking for a cure and trying to stop the spread, instead of containing all of the sick and waiting for them to die or kill themselves.
One interesting point in this book was why the blindness is white and not black. It seems as though the people can take in light, but they can not see the objects ahead and no matter how hard they tried, they can never see through the whiteness. In addition, the blindness changed the way the people viewed each other and the objects around them. For example, the people’s names are no longer important, so each person’s meaning and importance is defined by their career or the way they looked. The objects around them have seemed to change because they see them from a different perspective now; only touch. Since their sight is now gone, it seems to me that the people can now see the objects and people for what they truly are.
Another interesting point is that being blind seems to take away the people’s sense of being in control and judging others because they no longer see what is around them. They are very vulnerable now since they lost their sight and they are in an environment where there is no outside help. People can get away with anything here; including murder. The only one who can see is the doctor’s wife, and she feels guilty that she can see because she notices the actions that people do when they think no one is watching. She reminds me of the quote in the beginning of the book, “If you can see, look. If you can look, observe” because she is the only one with sight and has the ability to observe the other’s personal actions. But the question is; would she want to observe? Furthermore, would you rather observe or be blind?
So far, Blindness has brought up many important and interesting situations that I have never thought about before. It has showed how easily society and the people in it can change in a moments notice. Blindness has also showed that we do not observe what is around us as much as we should. We take our sight for granted.

Issues in Murdoch

Murdoch discusses the topics of virtue, or morality, and religion. She points out that these ideas are interrelated yet different. Morality and religion are both associated with leading a virtuous life and are significant factors of society but they are separate so that an individual may harbor either or both. Murdoch reasons that religion is the stronger motivator of the two for good conduct of an individual and that religion is higher than morality because it is organized. To finish this segment of Morality and Religion, Murdoch shows an important similarity between religion and morality; both means of having goodness are dependant on the existence of an opposing evil.

I found this piece to be fairly difficult to walk through because of some of the vocabulary and writing style but mostly because Murdoch makes very few points and sometimes focuses on contrasting conclusions. For example paragraph five ends with the conclusion that everything exists and is sustained by God and the beginning of paragraph six concludes that God must exist so man may explain his world and the existence of guilt.

One topic that I find interesting, that Murdoch points towards, is the explanation of why nonreligious people do act moral or sometimes feel compelled to be moral. She guesses at the fact that moral conscience cultivated in childhood can affect an individual the rest of her life. Of course a nonreligious person is not bound by the laws and consequences of religion and so may choose not to act morally. So the final question is why should a nonreligious person be limited by morals. I do feel that religious exposure plays a large role in imposing morals for secular society but this may not be the only answer that exists

Islam and Christianity

Nowadays, fundamentalists on both sides dwell on differences between Islam and Christianity rather than focusing on the numerous (and significant) similarities. For starters, the two religions share an almost identical creation story. Also, as a previous post mentioned, the Ten Commandments are each reiterated and Moses and his "tablet" are even specifically mentioned. Both religions believe in the same God, many of the same prophets, and that Jesus was born to Mary.

Another significant fact to realize is the importance of Muslim Civilization to current Western Civilization. While all of Europe was in a dark age of almost 1000 years, Muslim scholars were preserving and translating ancient Greek and Roman texts. This was extremely important when the Renaissance began in Italy.

There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. Given this fact alone, one would assume that our politicians could explain the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a Shiite. But as this article shows, many of our politicians are clueless. Perhaps that is why we think we can somehow walk into a country and solve a 1400 year civil war.

And as we mentioned in class, there are radicals in any religion. In Islam it is the Salafi movement. The word "salaf" means "righteous predecessors" in Arabic. Salafi followers maintain that the form of Islam practiced during Mohammed’s time was the purest, and it must be copied. In essence, they want to turn the clock back to the 7th century. But it is interesting to note that within the Salafi movement, there are violent and non-violent sects, and most are non-violent. Al Qaeda is an example of a violent Salafi group. In this context, it is easy to see how small of a minority the radical fundamentalists really are. They are literally a sect within a sect.

So how does Al Qaeda justify their actions? First, all Salafis believe it is their duty to unseat apostates, or unjust rulers. If a ruler is not adhering to what they consider to be the true Islamic faith, then they can use whatever means they deem necessary to remove him. This is what we see going on in many Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the Salafis believe that America is waging a war against Islam, and therefore, violence is a defensive jihad which is incumbent upon all Muslims. Also, there is no unconditional prohibition against killing civilians in the Koran. Given all of this, it is quite easy for Al Qaeda to justify their actions, although we may not find any of it convincing.

Koran v. Bible

It was interesting to read a chapter of the Koran while having a Christian background. It is wild how many similarities the text holds to some Bible passages, but at the same time some of the difference are so stark. “The Night Journey” chapter outlines some of the guidelines for the Islamic religion, as well as offering arguments for when people try to oppose the Islamic beliefs. There are also descriptions of the consequences for not following these guidelines, both here on Earth and later in the afterlife.

Early in the passage is a list of commandments that are similar to the Ten Commandments of the Christian religion. There are several that overlap, including “serve no other god besides God,” honoring your father and mother, though the Koran extends this to all kin, and “you shall not commit adultery.” However, the Koran provides provisions for some factions that are not included in the Bible’s list. The Koran specifies protection to orphans and their property and also not cheating each other when trading.

The commandments that struck me the most, however, have to do with killing. The Bible says, “thou shalt not kill,” period. However, the Koran says, “you shall not kill your children” or “any man whom God has forbidden you to kill.” It is “a great sin” to kill your kin or to unjustly kill another man. However, this leaves room for interpretation as to what about the people that God “tells” you to kill. This is the justification that many radical Muslims use when flying planes into buildings or other terrorist acts. I know that this is not the belief of all Muslims, and that it is merely an interpretation. Surely the Bible has been used to justify horrific acts such as slavery.

However, parts of the Koran further continue to suggest that some killing is acceptable when saying that you must give warning to the citizens of a city before you destroy it, so as to give them a chance to make changes in their sinful ways. Much of the history of Muhammad involved building up an army of followers and fighting with the Meccans, usually victoriously. I’m not trying to put down the Islamic religion or say that the history of the Christian religion is better, as there were the burnings at the stake etc. However, these transgressions were of the church, not the actual religion. It is just interesting that this is certainly acceptable to some extent in the Islamic religion, as it was under the directions of the creator of the Islamic religion.

I do like that the Koran stresses a personal relationship, saying, “Your Lord knows you best. He will show you mercy if He will and punish you if He pleases.” However the Koran does not seem to portray a God that is as forgiving as the Christian picture. Christianity preaches that God will be there for you even if you turn your back on Him. The Koran has more of an attitude that you should be careful to not turn your back on God because how else will you know that He will be there in the storm when everyone else forsakes you and you truly need Him?

In this brief study of Islam, the thing that I like the most is the sense of community within the religion. Everyone prays at the same times, is required to memorize the Koran, and makes a pilgrimage to Mecca; and one cannot be a “nonpracticing” Muslim. So many people identify themselves as Christians though they do not good to church as the Bible demands, or maintain a working relationship with God. The Koran was right when it says, “Truly, man is ever thankless.” However the Islamic religion seems to be designed to help people stay close to God and fight for the belief of others.

Blindness

I imagine that if our country was suddenly struck with a blindness epidemic, people would react like they do in the book. Even though we have faced epidemics, they were not the same as having everyone going blind. Other epidemics involve people getting sick and dying; a blindness epidemic keeps everyone alive, but completely changes their lives. Eventually it would change all of society and how it functions, and we wouldn't know what to do. In my critical thinking class, we talked about who responds best to emergency situations, like the one in Blindness. My professor talked about a book (or maybe an article—I don’t remember) that analyzed people’s reactions to the famous War of the Worlds broadcast. The author was interested in finding out how we deal in situations like that. Who panics? Who is calm and takes control? Our professor told us that those who had been trained for emergency situations were the least likely to panic. Even though their training did not include what to do during an alien invasion, a nurse, for example, would still know to go to the hospital. People felt better when they knew that they had a role in case of a disaster.

In Blindness, no one really had a role. It ended up being a kind of disaster because people had no idea what to do. The best thing they could think of was to round up all the blind and get them away from everyone else. Of course, they did that to help stop the spread of blindness, but also because they were scared. Getting the blind of out plain sight would help people deal with it, because it would be easier to avoid. I think that simply not being able to see something makes it easier to deal with. Being in the quarantine seemed almost worse for the doctor’s wife because she could see everything that was going on. She could see the awful state of things around her, and things like the thief’s face and skull blown apart by the gunshots. Even though the blind could imagine what had happened, it would still be different than actually seeing it. They had to spend their time figuring out to do basic things, rather focusing on what was happening to society while they were there. And most likely, things probably weren't working out too well.

BLINDNESS

Here is the video that I didn't have time to show today. It isn't really informative but it just seemed interesting how these people came to their conclusions about the novel and how they reacted to the novel's messages so emotionally.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tf2BAhXEgOc

As I watched “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring Al Gore, one quote particularly affected me. Gore stated, “I don't really consider this a political issue, I consider it to be a moral issue.” When talking about global warming, its effects on our population and world, Gore, in my opinion, made a great point with this statement. Even though the majority of his societal fame comes from politics, people should not relate this cause to the same category; this is much larger. Gore later continues with, “You see that pale, blue dot? That's us. Everything that has ever happened in all of human history has happened on that pixel. All the triumphs and all the tragedies, all the wars all the famines, all the major advances.....it's our only home. And that is what is at stake, our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization. I believe this is a moral issue, it is your time to cease this issue, and it is our time to rise again to secure our future.”
My chemistry professor is very adamant about letting people know about the near future affects of global warming and how we are our world’s only hope. He, however, does not present his information with the same type of sarcastic wit that Gore does. No matter how the material is explained, or how the facts are presented, this is real. I thought this movie was wonderful in its ability to motivate our young population and inform everyone of what awaits us if we do not change.
-- I had made arrangements with my chemistry teacher to take my exam late (during the time you watched the movie as a class), and I had to watch this by myself. So, I am very interested on everyone’s opinions on how the movie (or if the movie) motivated you.