Loathe to Learn

 This weeks discussion on the prompt about Orwell's thesis had sparked a great level of personal thought. I had always dismissed it as a silly concept simply put in place to inspire a dry novel whose sole destiny was to find its way onto the summer reading lists of "aspiring" high schoolers. However reading more about Orwell's theses, and its mysterious, "equally chilling" counterpart, Huxley's vision. A story depicting a world where rather than the pursuit and distribution of knowledge be controlled, knowledge is so readily available that it is simply drowned out in itself. It is seen as irrelevant and unneeded, as society would eventually find its way of making knowledge and its ever importance obsolete. What was most thought provoking about this prompt however, is how disturbingly true it feels. I myself can claim to be a guilty victim of overlooking the vast amount of knowledge in-front of me. I am constantly drawn away from learning by the skewed pyramid of personal importance that I and society have spent years to build in my head. And even me and those alike in our very distracted state of minds, are only one generation, with many destined to follow. So if this is the road society seems to be going down, is Huxley's vision our unfortunate end destination?

Correctness

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Or at least so the saying goes. Clearly however this saying is lost in translation from being spoken of theoretically to the actual world we live in. Through the sound emitted by ones vocal chords should not have a way to harm another. We have found a way to take offense to this. And thus, the concept known as political correctness is born. It is odd, that a method of thinking supports that such decibels audible to the general population be altered in written and spoken form to simply preserve one's "feelings." The true harm towards one another is distributed emotionally, or physically. But verbally? And even speech not intended to spite another. Could someone truly take offense to Lincoln not using "foremothers and forefathers" but rather just "forefathers" in his famous Gettysburg Address?  Could someone really listen to one of the great speeches in our nations history and think nothing of its purpose, but simply of its inclusiveness? It is quite a path that our society has taken, where even the smallest thing that could be found offensive, is found offensive, and this is something that I hope to see reversed, or resolved throughout the course if my life. 

Priorities..?

The needs of many vs the needs of a few. This is an issue that the government probably faces every day. It is unfortunately difficult to cater to the needs of every last citizen in the country. For every group of people that is watched over, it unfortunately breeds another group that is neglected, as after there are so many of us and so little change inducing eyes. This is something that personally I have been thinking about a lot since reading The Clan Of The One Breasted Women. I find if very sad that the very uncovered hidden population of mormons were the ones that the government found it rightful to expose to the harmfulness of their bomb testing. Their valued secluded nature was what made it so that they were prime targets to the horrible side effects that came from the bomb testing. So simply them living like they were raised to and keeping quiet, by the members having "listened, observed," and "rarely asking questions" caused them to have to suffer, which I found to be very sad and very thought invoking. I certainly hope that silent injustices such as the bomb testing we read about ceases to exist and we can all be a peaceful, "unmarking" race! 

What isn't marked?

So marking. Marked vs unmarked. Its an odd way of looking at a topic that's been hit many times in this class, which is women and their societal roles and "limitations." That everything a woman is to do is judged and goes down under and against her image. That society has placed barriers on how it is that a doll (COME SEE GUYS AND DOLLS) is to act in public. However this same society places its own views on the actions of guys as well. It is not true that we both live in different worlds, it is the same cruel yet beautiful world that judges both sexes. It may seem like "our colors are duller" but it is true for both sexes. In fact I don't believe that there are things that are marked and unmarked. I think everything and every action is marked and all together contributes to our image in society and amounts to who we are. Much like how a girl could be judged on what she wears, the same goes for a guy. She may dress "too scandalously" but he may dress "to feminine" at the exact same time. There isn't much that goes for one without going for the other, and no matter how dull our colors may seem they will always appear that way until you choose to see them with light and realize that every action inevitably will be marked. (OH AND COME SEE GUYS AND DOLLS)

Gendered space

So is it true that there are spaces out there that seem to attract one gender more than the other? Perhaps. Is it true that there are spaces out there that cater more to one gender than the other? Perhaps. Is it true that society however places standards on certain places and professions that make them seem more viable to one gender than the other? Most Definitely. Now there are probably many examples of this throughout the course of history, and even in our modern day (Ex. Logging workers, auto repair, etc. are all considered to be male professions) however the most common “gendered space” that I run into in my daily life, is playing flute. Why is it that there are seemingly, at the high school level, only female flute players? What is socially considered so feminine about the instrument that in troy high’s symphonic band there are zero male flute players? I guess maybe there is just nothing seemingly “rugged” or “macho”(Ehrlich 571) about the instrument, and it is usually is seen in a much more delicate and gentle light, which is typically what is associated with females. However it is still much more uncommon to see a male playing flute (Which in troy high at least you simply don’t see) as opposed to a female playing drums, or a female playing trumpet, or any other primarily “considered to be male” instruments. I wonder if this is simply due to the constant push for women to take part in “primarily male” roles, the opposite (aka men doing feminine stuff) is never truly considered.

Love or Naw?

Love or naw?

So how deep really is love? It can only be an emotion so deep in the end if the illusions that accompany it truly yield its results. But what about five minute marriages? Do they really do the ever lasting emotion that every fable ever written by man seems to be centered around? It is odd, how much marriages have come to be about much more than just the love that they were formerly driven off of. Maybe love is just a grand emotion. Perhaps love truly deserves an over the top introduction into the lives of every newly married couple. Perhaps consumerism is truly what is meant to be loves eternal companion in the lives of every soon to be married couple. Every weeding I have ever been to seemed to be larger than the one prior, and- like many others I am sure- truly do find the the gaudy and flashy nature of a wedding to be an important aspect of the function itself. But perhaps I'm wrong. After all I am young, and without a solid understanding of both love and marriages. Perhaps a five minute wedding truly could be "just as nice" as any couple "hoped and dreamed it would be." Wishing everyone a great rest of the break~!

Chasing Class

It seems everywhere I stick my neck out these days, all I hear about it money. Im not sure if its how the world has changed in front of my eyes as Ive grown from a small boy, but it truly does seem that the coveted green bill really is what makes the world go round. Its odd however, because I don't think that my parents think about money the same way. As a matter of fact whenever they talk to me about my future (although they still hold the stereotypical  indian "you will become a doctor on an engineer, take your pick" stance) they attempt to make me want to choose one of the two due to their class. That, I believe, is the largest difference between indian and american culture, and their views on each other. The two have very different definitions of "class." When I think of class, as a child born and raised in america, I instantly think James Bond. Fine wine, elegant suits, and a lifestyle of luxury (minus the killing). And all of those things are all derived from money. However on the other hand in indian culture occupation is the primary derivative of "class." Being a university professor, for example-though financially separated from many other professions- is one of, not the most respected jobs in india. It is odd however, having first generation parents, who growing up in india have all their values, but push for their children to pursue careers based on net income. Its the same way the typical indian take on america is about its excessive consumerism, yet they mold themselves to fit that same new template that they criticize. Even through my own observations from my last trip to india, all the hype seemed to be surrounding the new McDonald's that just opened, or the line at pizza hut, or the express that was just added to the mall. As critical as Indian are of American lifestyle, and its depiction of "class," its seems that they are coming ever so closer to following the same path. So to that extent, why does Indian view on American culture even matter? We're all headed towards consumerism and the eternal chase of wealth either way, and is hazlitt is right, we will all be passing "through life with little credit or pleasure" anyways.