The Final Freakin' Blog

I just want to start out by saying that I hate these blogs, and I will not miss them at all. Within the first week of every month, I find myself in a frenzy trying to find out if I can, in fact, turn in the blog "just a few days late." I do not love blogs.
But getting on to the topic, we read a lot of books this year. I think that my favorite unit was the femanist movement one. It had a lot of history involved in it, and it really made me think. I found it interesting that while we were reading all of the novels, like The Awakening and A Doll's House, a lot of the females in the class were saying that they would have stood up for themselves because that's just not what they believe in. But they wouldn't have believed in that during that time because they would have been raised in a completely different way, with a completely different culture and set of beliefs; basically, they would not be the same person. I found it incredible that the "facts" on the inferiority of women could change so quickly, and how we think that we've progressed so much, but if you look more closely you still see a lot of prejudice and old ways of thinking. Personally, I think that the feminist movement was a good thing, and I love having the freedom to do what I want and say what I feel. I think that women fighting for jobs and education was good, but on the other hand, I feel that it put a lot of stress on families. Women are now expected to have jobs, but men are expected to be the breadwinner. So now, with both parents expected to work, it's really hard for parents to raise children and still keep a good hold on finances and/or a good control over their child or children. Too many of the "old " prejudices still exist.We still have a long way to go to balance out our new ways of thinking about women with the way the rest of the country still functions.

February

In all our talks about the feminist movement, I have been repeatedly surprised with the things that men and women actually believed. My favorite belief was that women, just because they were women, experienced regular and temporary periods of insanity. Obviously, these outbreaks of insanity were during a women's "time of the month," but the mentality went even further to disregard women going through post-partum depression, as shown in The Yellow Wallpaper. This mindset seems ridiculous to me. Lately, however, I was watching Dr. Oz (my Mom's favorite), and he had a special on hysterectomies. Dr. Oz was talking about how many women find hysterectomies very difficult to deal with, and that there are others way to get rid of problems without having the uterus completely removed. Something interesting that he mentioned was that the word "hysterectomy" actually derived from the belief that the uterus is the source of a woman's hysteria. He went on to say that even though we have moved forward from that mindset, he can still see lingering branches of thought. Dr. Oz said that many people have the belief that a woman having her uterus removed is not a big deal; if it doesn't work, why keep it? If you don't want any more kids, why do you need it? But he pointed out that men don't willingly go to get their penises chopped off; getting a penis removed is taking away a man's true manhood. Evidently, there is still a disconnect between men and women.
I just thought that Dr. Oz's comment was very interesting, and it related to our unit very well. it goes to show that even though we have moved forward, there are still lingering effects, beliefs, and stereotypes.

January Monthly Blog

The Awakening does make points about self-knowledge and self-deceit of women in earlier times. The novel proves that women were so used to submitting to husbands, that they did not even know what their true feelings were.
As Edna searches for herself, she finds that everything she thought she knew about herself turned out to be untrue. She knew that there was a true Edna there, but every individual thought she had was surpressed. It is even stated in the novel that "she had long been accustomed to harbor thoughts and emotions which never voice themsleves." Edna is so used to submitting to her husband that she unthinkingly pushes back any feelings or emotions of individuality. Edna even acknowledges in the novel that she will "try to determine what character of a woman" she is because she honestly does not know.
I think it is terrible that women, or any people, were surpressed so much in that time period, and at first I found it very surprising that most woman did not even want things to change. After class discussions and some thought I realized that women today cannot succesfully compare themselves to women in that time period; it is very hard to relate to and really understand. The social mindset was completely different, and the "rebellious" feelings that women had back then are what women now feel every day; being an individual woman now happens without thought. And even though I did not really like The Awakening, I feel like I got a lot out of the discussions about it, particularly more understanding about the social mindset.

Cultural Relativism

Although I did not pay much attention to the proof of cultural relativism, I do agree with many of the statements James Rachel explains in the article. The statements made are true for the general majority of humanity, and I would hope that in reading the article, many people would realize that they should be more open-minded. Rachel put it perfectly when he said that "our own way of living seems so natural and right that for many of us it is hard to conceive of others living so differently." Many people tend to forget that their own way of life is not the way for the entire world.
I especially liked the section where Rachel states "when we examine what seems to be a dramatic difference, we find that the cultures do not differ nearly as much as it appears." When faced with a "dramatic difference" more people should take a step back and ask why the other culture is that way. "Many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. The society's values are only of them...The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values." Humanity as a whole generally agrees that murder is wrong, but the other little, "strange" cultural beliefs usually have a story or reasoning behind them. And, personally, I find these strories to be really interesting most of the time. Not eating cows because of reincarnation, and eskimos limiting the number of infants because of their hard and somewhat dangerous lifestyle all make a lot more sense when the reason why is understood.
This article reminded me a lot of Things fall Apart and just American history in general. The white man comes in, believing that every other belief system is primitive and stupid, and he brutally attempts to wipe out an entire culture without even trying to understand the other side. And now, having recently seen the new movie Avatar, I can easily relate this article to that movie. The blue people were very spiritual on their planet, much like the indians. However, in hopes of financial gain, our people came and destroyed many of the important spiritual focal points.
Basically, the main point of this article is to keep and open mind, and to not reject something just because it is different. Different cultural societies put more weight on different aspects of society, with due reason. Personally, I think more people should be like King Darius who "thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation of differences between cultures." Don't make judgements and don't assume...because when you A-S-S-U-M-E you make an A-S-S- of -U- and -M-E.

November Blog

I agree with John Niles when he states that Beowulf "outdistances" the audience. As Niles states: "we know too little of his everyday humanity, his normal human feelings, to be able to see him as an extension of ourselves."

As an audience, we receive little insight about Beowulf's inner thoughts and emotions, and any information about his childhood is very subtle. His heroism is overly-done, and his strength and virtual perfectionism in his pride and loyalty set Beowulf on a scale much higher than our own. Modern readers are unable to relate to Beowulf because he is almost unreal. He is described as having the "strength of thirty men." He can outwit the most evil demon, Grendel, and even rip off the fiend's arm with his bare hands. This fantastic strength and confidence is unreal to modern readers.

In addition, the change in times may account for the lack of empathy for Beowulf. The setting of Beowulf was a time of a "shame culture," as Jones points out. The "vital principle is the pursuit of honor and avoidance of shame." Of course, in a time like this, pride, honor, and boasting, are valued. Nowadays, people do not appreciate people who are too proud. There is a disconnect in the time periods.

Something that I find interesting about Beowulf is that it seems to be over-analyzed. The poem has been criticized and dissected in every way possible, and people still cannot agree. As I have already stated, I believe that Beowulf is not a realistic human character. I find it a bit ridiculous that people go so far as to analyze his relationships with "father figures" and how they may have influenced his character. I think what is really needed to grasp the concept of this poem is an understanding of the setting and times, and the knowledge that pride and honor were the motivating forces that drove most every action of any "hero" of the time.

Monthly Blog 2

The authors of Beowulf and Grendel had colliding views about history and mankind. In Beowulf, men are portrayed as pure, honest, and valiant, where history is honored and respected. The author of Grendel, however, depicted men as wasteful, barbaric liars who changed history so that every respected man died with honor.
Originally in Grendel, Grendel just wanted to fit in with the humans. Then, throughout the outbreaks of wars, Grendel began to notice how cruel and truly inhumane the humans could be. Grendel noted in the story that the men were "wasteful" because they did not even eat the things they killed; they simply killed for the thrill of killing. The author of Grendel was also sure to include the way men boasted of themselves without end and how they beat women when the females "deserved" it. Grendel, the evil, malicious monster of Beowulf, was disgusted with the humans' behavior.
The author of Grendel furthered his belief that mankind is barbaric through his depiction of Beowulf. Grendel did not depict Beowulf as the brave hero like the poem did. In Grendel, Beowulf was described as a sincerely crazy man who was born to kill others. Beowulf supported the wars where creatures and men were uselessly murdered and left to rot. He was, by no means, a hero and was doubtingly even human in Grendel's eyes.
In addition, the author of Grendel believed that men change history to their liking. In the story, Grendel listens to the Shaper tell wonderful stories and poems about heroes and bravery and ancestry. But Grendel begins to realize that these stories are not all complete truths. When Unferth crawled up to Grendel's cave, Unferth stated that even if the others could not find his body and had no idea how he died, the Shaper would make it that he died with honor. No matter what the honest truth was, history could be altered to make a better poem. In Beowulf, the poems and stories and songs were where a lot of information about the past came from; it was all the reader had to make judgements from. So, the author of Beowulf either believed all the stories were true or thought nothing wrong in altering the facts of the past.
In conclusion, the author of Grendel differed from the author of Beowulf in that he felt mankind was far from heroic, and history is simply something that is tampered with in order to make it more pleasing.

Selfishness. It's such a simple word, one that can be defined at a young age, but to really think about the word and it's concept might bring about a completely backwards understanding of it. This backwards thinking of "selfishness" is what Rand highlighted in The Fountainhead; she points out that selfishness has all the wrong connotations and is actually a virtue.

In The Fountainhead, Keating and Roark are both selfish characters, although this would not make sense simply using the universally understood connotations of selfishness. Roark's form of selfishness is probably the easiest to understand. Roark wants everything to be done EXACTLY the way he wants it, or nothing will be done at all. He'd rather have no work as an architect than have to find a compromise with a committee.

Keating, on the other hand, is selfish for the sake of other people. He does everything for the public; Keating even forces himself to give up Catherine, his love, to be with Dominique, the woman most men desire. Keating stops at nothing to achieve greatness in the eyes of the people, committing seemingly "selfish" acts, such as knocking down competitors one by one for the spot as Francon's "right hand man." Keating was admired as a young man, but as he aged he received more and more rejection from the public, who turned on him and labeled him selfish.

Roark describes Keating in the novel, saying that "He didn't want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn't want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others." Roark, and therefore Rand, is pointing out that by building his life on the thoughts and wants of others, Keating is a sincerely selfless individual. He is a "second-hander." And since many people live to fulfill the expectations of everyone else, it is selfishness that society lacks; selfishness is the true virtue. Selfishness implies that there is a self, an individual, with accomplishments, wants, and desires that are all truly one's own.

Before reading The Fountainhead, I never thought of the concept of selfishness versus selflessness so deeply. Although I still believe that some people can be completely selfish while still caring about the opinions of society, I do agree with Rand's point of view. Too many people let others dictate their thoughts, driving them to do rash things that could grant them the label of selfish. But really, in a philosophical sense, these "second-handers" are doing everything for everyone else.

Historically, society has always been skeptical of individuals. People who think outside of the box are normally rejected or isolated from the crowd. It's not until years later that people begin to appreciate the work of the "outcasts." In today's world, people are still trying to live up to others. Kids will try to be different and make a statement by standing out: dying their hair five different colors and wearing mis-matched outfits. Many of them try to stand out in the same way, and even find a group of friends that have died hair, too. By "making a statement" they are really just going along with the crowd, because it's "cool" to be "different." Pure individualism, however, comes by not caring what others think is cool, or rebellious, or dorky, or in. It comes by doing what YOU want to do, whether you're with the crowd or against it.