Susan Faludi's Blame it on Feminism brings up the idea of backlash against feminism- how many are saying that feminism are responsible for the lack of equality and happiness, while those who accuse are actually the ones to blame.
I think this is one of the main ideas in The Handmaiden's Tale. Throughout the novel, women are constantly to blame for all the problems- infertility, crimes, ect. This all probably stems from the religion the government is based on, and how from the very beginning, Eve ate the apple, thus betraying God. Women are told that they are the problem, and must pay the consequences.
For example, the problem of infertility worries the minds of the handmaidens. When the protagonist has an appointment with the doctor, he tells her the truth: "'Most of those old guys can't make it anymore,' he says. 'Or they're sterile.' I almost gasp: he's said a forbidden word. Sterile. There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law" (Atwood, 61). Although men are to blame for the lack of children, the problem is blamed on the women. Not only is it common thought, but the law: women are put on the bottom of the pyramid. This is a classic example of backlash- much like the lack of children and unhappiness of women are blamed on the females in the real world, in the novel it is much the same.
When Janine tells everyone that she was gang-raped at fourteen, it is not the fault of the men who raped her but hers: "But whose fault was it? Aunt Helena says, holing up one plump finger. Her fault, her fault, her fault, we chant in unison. Who led them on? Aunt Helena beams, pleased with us. She did. She did. She did. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson" (72). Not only are women themselves taught that everything is their fault, but that God condemns them too. If Janine's case were in real life, it would seem ridiculous to accuse and humiliate her. Yet in the novel's society, this is what happens. Apparently, women are the cause for every horrible event.
Women are told that they are the cause of problems- and some of them believe it. The backlash in the novel retracted "the handful of small and hardwon victories that the feminist movement did manage to win for women". Although women are more protected, have duties, and are safer overall, they still have not won- far from it.
Reading Julie's reaction to the article, in Equality: Achievable?, I'm not sure how I'd answer the question if inequality will always exist. Julie points out the hypocritical thinking of equality yet self-interest, and how optimistic we could be, thinking that equality will become reality, but I have to say that equality should exist. At any rate, we will constantly be progressing towards equality- we've already improved so far: who's to say that won't continue. There will always be those who wish to oppress and have power (shown by the many dystopian novels that are out there), but the fact that the idea of equality exist means that humanity has a conscience. Unlike Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, I believe something a little bit different: the world will continue to progress into something better- not only physically stronger but mentally and morally as well. It is not only about power, but the society. Although those who are stronger and smarter do usually run the world, I think humanity works together not to make a better individual, but society. Right now, as Julie said, equality seems to be against the most basic human instincts- but the fact remains that despite our instincts we see equality as a good thing- and so this latter idea will prevail and become a part of reality.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Know What You're Fighting For
The Beauty Myth article played along the similar lines of the other feminism articles that we have been reading. Society places constraints upon women by creating that image of the "perfect woman" who must be beautiful. Instead of women knitting and cooking all the time, now it's face painting and hair brushing that occupies their time.
While this concept is true, I am not sure that it can ever be totally erased- society always has a "norm" that we all try to attain. Although I agree that women are overly dehumanized and beautified, variations of the "beauty myth" can apply to all ages, genders, and people. Of course, not everyone has to be beautiful, as women are expected to be, but society has a place where a perfect person should be. Men usually are expected to be strong, tall, macho, and whatever. On television they are often shown to watch the sport games and drink beer... Just as women are expected to look pretty and be successful- for some reason, the two are connected. Children are supposed to be polite and calm, yet active and healthy- any child who dislikes socializing will automatically be looked down upon. What I'm trying to say is that society tries and labels every person within the community- not just women.
Despite these facts, I have to agree that the "beauty myth" is stronger among women. The author keeps relating the war for women earlier to now, and how we (us females) shouldn't lay down our weapons just yet. I have to agree. There is still much to be done to equalize women- not just in action, but mentally. Often times people, both men and women, see and perceive women in a certain way- the idea of that "perfect women" has not quite changed yet, and the media and other corporations are not helping any. At the end of the article, however, the author brings up an important point- that women have to start to change. For that idea of what women should be is all in our heads- if we women stop caring about our looks, so will everyone else. The image of a woman is being carried on through our minds and how we see women. If all of us stop dressing ourselves up and spending hours in front of a mirror, the media will stop portraying women in a certain light- because we won't care so much, and therefore not buy so much. Us women, if we change our ideas, can continue the fight against inequality.
The fight that happened before, winning equal jobs and voting rights, still exists now, but must be fought in a different manner. There is no physical wrong, but a mental one- and so, if we are to overcome this problem, we can fight mentally.
And this is where the idea connects to The Handmaiden's Tale. I think we can take the author's concept in The Beauty Myth, about women taking up the fight again, and connect it to the women in the novel. For one thing, many women have stopped fighting, because they have already fought one battle, and won- and have fallen into a false victory, thinking that their fight was over. Like the real world, their problem was not solved. While women stopped being in pornography magazines and clothing became not so revealing, among many other crimes ended, women are now being put into a different, yet equally oppressive society in the novel. If women stop accepting the society they are in and limitations they have, all of them, then they could pose a successful threat against their societal limitations. Much like in the article, men have given new and old things to the women to keep them busy, doing menial labor. Serena makes millions of those scarves for those outside of the community- whom the protagonist does not even know if they exist. The main character herself does not know what to do with free time- if she has it, she is uncomfortable and unused to the idea. Always these women have duties to keep them busy- duties that aren't so important in the first place. Serena's scarves are most likely not needed, nor the protagonist's physical exercises, to keep her healthy and fertile. The women may be oppressed and unhappy, but before they fight back they have to realize that first.
While this concept is true, I am not sure that it can ever be totally erased- society always has a "norm" that we all try to attain. Although I agree that women are overly dehumanized and beautified, variations of the "beauty myth" can apply to all ages, genders, and people. Of course, not everyone has to be beautiful, as women are expected to be, but society has a place where a perfect person should be. Men usually are expected to be strong, tall, macho, and whatever. On television they are often shown to watch the sport games and drink beer... Just as women are expected to look pretty and be successful- for some reason, the two are connected. Children are supposed to be polite and calm, yet active and healthy- any child who dislikes socializing will automatically be looked down upon. What I'm trying to say is that society tries and labels every person within the community- not just women.
Despite these facts, I have to agree that the "beauty myth" is stronger among women. The author keeps relating the war for women earlier to now, and how we (us females) shouldn't lay down our weapons just yet. I have to agree. There is still much to be done to equalize women- not just in action, but mentally. Often times people, both men and women, see and perceive women in a certain way- the idea of that "perfect women" has not quite changed yet, and the media and other corporations are not helping any. At the end of the article, however, the author brings up an important point- that women have to start to change. For that idea of what women should be is all in our heads- if we women stop caring about our looks, so will everyone else. The image of a woman is being carried on through our minds and how we see women. If all of us stop dressing ourselves up and spending hours in front of a mirror, the media will stop portraying women in a certain light- because we won't care so much, and therefore not buy so much. Us women, if we change our ideas, can continue the fight against inequality.
The fight that happened before, winning equal jobs and voting rights, still exists now, but must be fought in a different manner. There is no physical wrong, but a mental one- and so, if we are to overcome this problem, we can fight mentally.
And this is where the idea connects to The Handmaiden's Tale. I think we can take the author's concept in The Beauty Myth, about women taking up the fight again, and connect it to the women in the novel. For one thing, many women have stopped fighting, because they have already fought one battle, and won- and have fallen into a false victory, thinking that their fight was over. Like the real world, their problem was not solved. While women stopped being in pornography magazines and clothing became not so revealing, among many other crimes ended, women are now being put into a different, yet equally oppressive society in the novel. If women stop accepting the society they are in and limitations they have, all of them, then they could pose a successful threat against their societal limitations. Much like in the article, men have given new and old things to the women to keep them busy, doing menial labor. Serena makes millions of those scarves for those outside of the community- whom the protagonist does not even know if they exist. The main character herself does not know what to do with free time- if she has it, she is uncomfortable and unused to the idea. Always these women have duties to keep them busy- duties that aren't so important in the first place. Serena's scarves are most likely not needed, nor the protagonist's physical exercises, to keep her healthy and fertile. The women may be oppressed and unhappy, but before they fight back they have to realize that first.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Children are so gullible
Both klaus barbie, and other dolls i'd like to see and Teen Mags: How to Get a Guy, Drop 20 Pounds, and Lose Your Self-Esteem address an idea that does not only apply to girls: the impact of things (socially-accepted/enforced) on a child.
Both barbies and teen magazines create preconceptions and images in a child's mind that stick for life. First ideas and memories are important for anyone, and thus a child is particularly susceptible to creating stereotypes and false preconceptions when they are young. Children are known to be innocent and trusting- so they'll believe what anyone (including magazines) say. In early life, the objects that surround a child are telling them what image is perfect, what they should be, and what is wrong. Barbies, like Susan Jane Gilman says, are particularly stereotypical and just plain horrifying. I never thought about this before , and since my access to barbies is severely limited (I am proud to be able to say that I've never owned a barbie), I am not sure as to what extent the ideas a barbie creates effect a child's mind. According to this article, however, it seems pretty great. What shocks me completely, though, is the fact that a child's obsession with barbie does not end with the end of childhood. Reading about the lady who wanted to become a barbie really freaked me out. Sure, she is probably an extreme case, but the fact remains that the majority of people want to be freakishly tall, have blond hair, and be a barbie. How could we have put the idea of perfection upon a scary doll?
Like barbies, I have tended to stay away from teen magazines. In fact, I am not aware of having a role model as a child... unless one counts my older sister- but what younger sister doesn't love and respect her older sis? My experience in the area of teen magazines and their articles is lacking, suffice to say. I was not aware of how stereotypical and dehumanizing these magazines are. What's interesting is how many girls know it is silly and idiotic, yet read it, perhaps unknowingly falling in the trap of these stereotypes. Hanging out with girls, sometimes I listen to them complaining about their weight, or their hair, or how they need to get in shape, when I haven't noticed any difference with their appearance. Of course, I don't usually notice these things anyways, even if there is something to notice, but the point is that girls do have that image of perfection in their minds, of a barbie-like figure that they are forever trying to attain. Not to a drastic degree, but that goal is still there. It's hard to understand why people go on diets or fret about their shape- they look perfectly normal to me.
It is not only barbies that create this image of a 'good and perfect' girl. This concept is everywhere. In Disney movies,the girls are often portrayed the same. Sure, their hair color may differ, but they still remain thin, relatively helpless in a fight, needing a man to come save them, and completely loving and morally pure. Of course, there is Mulan, which gives a fighting image for girls, but her looks are still regarded as that 'pretty perfection'. Diversity in Disney is only just now starting begin (much like barbies)- The Princess and the Frog may have a black woman as the protagonist, but the list at the end of the barbie article of barbies that should be could very well apply to Disney girls. There are no "Dinner Roll Barbies" or "Body Piercing Barbies" in the Disney world either.
What I would like to know is which objects, articles, and toys have an effect on boys to create some preconception of what they should be. For it seems to me that children believe what they see and hear as they take in their surroundings- and why not? They don't know how the world is, or should be. They don't know that the world should not have a should be. As as child, people are just trying to adjust and learn their way around the world. If they are being told the wrong thing, well- who's to tell them that?
Both barbies and teen magazines create preconceptions and images in a child's mind that stick for life. First ideas and memories are important for anyone, and thus a child is particularly susceptible to creating stereotypes and false preconceptions when they are young. Children are known to be innocent and trusting- so they'll believe what anyone (including magazines) say. In early life, the objects that surround a child are telling them what image is perfect, what they should be, and what is wrong. Barbies, like Susan Jane Gilman says, are particularly stereotypical and just plain horrifying. I never thought about this before , and since my access to barbies is severely limited (I am proud to be able to say that I've never owned a barbie), I am not sure as to what extent the ideas a barbie creates effect a child's mind. According to this article, however, it seems pretty great. What shocks me completely, though, is the fact that a child's obsession with barbie does not end with the end of childhood. Reading about the lady who wanted to become a barbie really freaked me out. Sure, she is probably an extreme case, but the fact remains that the majority of people want to be freakishly tall, have blond hair, and be a barbie. How could we have put the idea of perfection upon a scary doll?
Like barbies, I have tended to stay away from teen magazines. In fact, I am not aware of having a role model as a child... unless one counts my older sister- but what younger sister doesn't love and respect her older sis? My experience in the area of teen magazines and their articles is lacking, suffice to say. I was not aware of how stereotypical and dehumanizing these magazines are. What's interesting is how many girls know it is silly and idiotic, yet read it, perhaps unknowingly falling in the trap of these stereotypes. Hanging out with girls, sometimes I listen to them complaining about their weight, or their hair, or how they need to get in shape, when I haven't noticed any difference with their appearance. Of course, I don't usually notice these things anyways, even if there is something to notice, but the point is that girls do have that image of perfection in their minds, of a barbie-like figure that they are forever trying to attain. Not to a drastic degree, but that goal is still there. It's hard to understand why people go on diets or fret about their shape- they look perfectly normal to me.
It is not only barbies that create this image of a 'good and perfect' girl. This concept is everywhere. In Disney movies,the girls are often portrayed the same. Sure, their hair color may differ, but they still remain thin, relatively helpless in a fight, needing a man to come save them, and completely loving and morally pure. Of course, there is Mulan, which gives a fighting image for girls, but her looks are still regarded as that 'pretty perfection'. Diversity in Disney is only just now starting begin (much like barbies)- The Princess and the Frog may have a black woman as the protagonist, but the list at the end of the barbie article of barbies that should be could very well apply to Disney girls. There are no "Dinner Roll Barbies" or "Body Piercing Barbies" in the Disney world either.
What I would like to know is which objects, articles, and toys have an effect on boys to create some preconception of what they should be. For it seems to me that children believe what they see and hear as they take in their surroundings- and why not? They don't know how the world is, or should be. They don't know that the world should not have a should be. As as child, people are just trying to adjust and learn their way around the world. If they are being told the wrong thing, well- who's to tell them that?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Comic on 1984
My sister, after hearing about us reading about 1984, showed me this comic:
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html
It's by Stuart McMillen, comparing 1984 with another novel, "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, which seems to be another dystopia-ish novel about controlling people. You don't actually have to read the book to understand the comic. It states very clearly the point of both Huxley's and Orwell's books. It gives me a creepy feeling, at the end, to know that both can be true.
Just thought I would show this.
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html
It's by Stuart McMillen, comparing 1984 with another novel, "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, which seems to be another dystopia-ish novel about controlling people. You don't actually have to read the book to understand the comic. It states very clearly the point of both Huxley's and Orwell's books. It gives me a creepy feeling, at the end, to know that both can be true.
Just thought I would show this.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
We can't think of something that doesn't exist
Talking Back by Bell Hooks and Sins of Silence by Mai Kao Thao were very thought provoking. There are similarities between both women's lives- how they were told not to "talk back", how every family member punished them for it- male and female. Yet I find it interesting that Bell Hooks continued to talk, while Mai Kao Thao kept her silence.
I think the one major difference between their lives is the fact that for Bell Hooks, she saw and heard women talking, with power and without fear. Although for her it was a crime to talk, she knows that it is possible for women to talk- "And yet it was hard not to speak in warm rooms where heated discussions began at the crack of dawn, women's discussions filling the air, giving orders, making threats, fussing" (15). Bell Hooks sees women talk, and considers it a beautiful thing- describing it as so rich and poetic that she felt compelled to join in. This is where she gains her determination to speak no matter the consequences.
For Mai Kao Thao, however, there are no women she interacts with that she can look up to- there is no knowledge that women have ever spoken up or have a right to speak. Her mother stays silent and does not argue, and when Mai Kao Thao sees this, she accepts it as how life is. Making sure there is no trouble around her becomes the goal of her life. It is not only until she comes to America that she realizes how life was in Laos, and the effect of the silence she kept. Before coming to America, Mai Kao Thao didn't know she could talk back, and that she didn't have an individuality as a child.
I guess for someone like Bell Hooks to gain determination, she had to see it happening and know that it was possible, so she had something to hold on to through the punishments she was given. Since Mai Kao Thao had no one, perhaps the idea that she would 'talk balk' couldn't even occur to her. We often accept life how it is and do not question why life is the way it is- we cannot. How are we to know of something that isn't in life? Mai Kao Thao did not think of talking back because she didn't know it existed.
This ties in with all of the dystopia novels we have read. In We, D-503 does not think of rebellion until after I-330 shows him a life other than the One State's. He hadn't thought of this, because he did not know such a thing could exist. In 1984, the Party limits the Outer Party members' thoughts (with Newspeak and the like) so they cannot think of rebellion- as Sime mentions, it will be impossible to think of rebellion because the words simply won't exist. In A Handmaiden's Tale, one of the Aunts tells the handmaidens that it is harder for them to do their job because they remember the past- but later generations will have it easier because they won't know of any other life. Thus, without knowing that something exists, how can we think of it?
I think the one major difference between their lives is the fact that for Bell Hooks, she saw and heard women talking, with power and without fear. Although for her it was a crime to talk, she knows that it is possible for women to talk- "And yet it was hard not to speak in warm rooms where heated discussions began at the crack of dawn, women's discussions filling the air, giving orders, making threats, fussing" (15). Bell Hooks sees women talk, and considers it a beautiful thing- describing it as so rich and poetic that she felt compelled to join in. This is where she gains her determination to speak no matter the consequences.
For Mai Kao Thao, however, there are no women she interacts with that she can look up to- there is no knowledge that women have ever spoken up or have a right to speak. Her mother stays silent and does not argue, and when Mai Kao Thao sees this, she accepts it as how life is. Making sure there is no trouble around her becomes the goal of her life. It is not only until she comes to America that she realizes how life was in Laos, and the effect of the silence she kept. Before coming to America, Mai Kao Thao didn't know she could talk back, and that she didn't have an individuality as a child.
I guess for someone like Bell Hooks to gain determination, she had to see it happening and know that it was possible, so she had something to hold on to through the punishments she was given. Since Mai Kao Thao had no one, perhaps the idea that she would 'talk balk' couldn't even occur to her. We often accept life how it is and do not question why life is the way it is- we cannot. How are we to know of something that isn't in life? Mai Kao Thao did not think of talking back because she didn't know it existed.
This ties in with all of the dystopia novels we have read. In We, D-503 does not think of rebellion until after I-330 shows him a life other than the One State's. He hadn't thought of this, because he did not know such a thing could exist. In 1984, the Party limits the Outer Party members' thoughts (with Newspeak and the like) so they cannot think of rebellion- as Sime mentions, it will be impossible to think of rebellion because the words simply won't exist. In A Handmaiden's Tale, one of the Aunts tells the handmaidens that it is harder for them to do their job because they remember the past- but later generations will have it easier because they won't know of any other life. Thus, without knowing that something exists, how can we think of it?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Blogging Portfolio Oct. 5
Welcome to Adrienne's Blogging Portfolio October 5 for Quarter 1! Below you will see different categories connecting you with some of the best blogs and comments (If I do say so myself) that I have written! Accompanying each link is a short paragraph that explains why they are the best blogs ever. Some of these blogs overlap with each other in the different sections, but each blog corresponds with the varying topics, focusing on different aspects. Pardon me if they sound a bit autobiographical and pro-me. I know I am slightly biased. Nevertheless, please enjoy reading my blogs- and feel free to comment further on any of them! (And sorry for all of the exclamation marks too...)
Coverage:
Forests: The Shadow of Civilization
I think this blog represents my ability to blog. Not only do I summarize and write my thoughts on the article Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, but thoroughly analyze and improve upon the ideas of the article. Reading really makes me think about lots of things, and writing all of these thoughts down is what a blog is for. The only thing I would change is the title- I would refine it to something like "The Circle of Life: an Unhappy Family Tree". In my blog Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, I feel that I got down a lot of insightful ideas and address many of those "unanswerable" questions that can be talked (or blogged) forever.
Depth:
Why do we read novels?
Although at first this blog was merely a spurt of ideas from my mind directly to the keyboard, once Julie and I started discussing the broad ideas of mine things started to clear up. In one of my comments, I reference a book that helps clear up my ideas and give evidence that proves the fact that books are our friends more undeniable. As Julie and I continue to discuss, our ideas and comments become stronger and explicit as we support them with evidence from other books and writers. This discussion shows that a lot of depth can be achieved with a simple question: Why do we read novels?
Interaction:
Reaction to Psychology of the Novel
In this blog I respectfully point out a different interpretation of Psychology of the Novel, giving a comparative to Aishwarya's opinion. I think Aishwarya wrote out her thoughts quite clearly, and it made me think about what the author might have meant about the ideas he wrote about. In replying to Aishwarya's blog, the varying explanation leaves room for argument, leaving the door open to further discuss novels.
Discussions:
Why do we read novels?
This blog not only demonstrates that the blogs I write can be thought provoking (I hope), but also begins a discussion between another fellow blogger and I. It is so easy to have a discussion on something that one is adamant and strong about. I loved blogging on this subject, and discussing it even further with Julie was enjoyable.
War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery
This blog of mine about the North Korean Gulag and its connection to 1984 seemed to have trigger a lot of thought from fellow classmates. They agreed with some ideas I had, and wrote about things I hadn't expanded on. As Monique says, I "allow the reader (me) to really ponder what you are saying. (which is the effect a blogger should have on a reader)". I have found that writing these blogs have shown me what blogging is about: not just writing down ideas, but a discussion with anybody out there who cares to read about your opinions. These comments told me what I was doing right and what I needed to improve upon.
Totalitarian State of the 21st Century
This is Julie's blog about the North Korean Gulag: all by itself a complicated story. However, on Julie's blog, together we think further not only on the implications of the story but the thoughts behind Shin, and why he feels what he feels. We discuss thoroughly what makes Shin leave, why Shin regrets his decision, and what might happen afterwards. Through several comments, a lot of information is processed, uncovered, and explained. I feel that this blog portrays a good element of both Julie's and my ability to look in-depth and discuss an idea/article.
Xenoblogging:
Nature vs. Machine: What is Humanity?
Nina's blog on the relationship between nature, machine, and humanity sparked a lot of thought for me. So, I commented. Not only was I the first to comment and think about what Nina had blogged on, but I expanded on what she said and the ideas she had. I took a statement that I thought was particularly astute and developed it into a firm idea, grabbing facts and stories from life (well, Animal Planet, but... It's a creditable source). Nina's blog was quite profound, and I was happy to comment and broaden her ideas.
Manipulation of Truth: What is Truth?
The blog Javiera wrote on the manipulation of truth made a good beginning, and I was happy to comment further on the concepts that she talked about. Here, I talk a little about the ideas she says and ask questions to invoke a bigger discussion relating a broad idea to the world today. I think these comments show an intellectual discussion that both of us maintain and keep going.
Write and Wrong of Writing
In Sabrina's blog, I comment about what I think is definitely right about her ideas and what I feel needs a little more explaining. I ask several questions about the statements she makes, as well as bringing up examples from our world to reveal other perspectives about writing, and what it should and should not be used for. This idea of what writing is used for is an interesting idea, and I'd like to keep talking about this.
Wildcard:
Polar Opposites
In this blog, I talk about an idea (inspired by Nina) and hope to make my readers think about my opinions that may influence how they think and what they think. I want people to consider both motives and actions, as well as love the world. I try and show readers how I view the world a little bit, and connect my thoughts to even broader, larger ideas that involves every human being. I have learned that blogging is not only writing, but discussing, and I believe that this is what I accomplished here.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Polar Opposites
I have come to realize that polar opposites are, in fact, more similar and go together than many other things in life. This idea I have really thought about after reading Nina's blog about how nature and machines are sort of the same, and complement each other. Polar opposites seem to have a lot in common, and this concept applies to many things.
The first thing that comes to my mind are people: it is often enough that those who seem completely different from each other tend to get married. My parents, for one. There are a multitude of differences between them- their personality, the way they look at things, even their physical attributes. Black and white vs. the philosophical discussions, straight to the point vs. taking forever to get to the point, and practical vs. loving to go around on walks taking pictures of random things. For some reason, although one person dislikes a majority of things that another person loves to do, two people can still be the best of friends. Arguments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes slightly raised voices debating over an idea does not mean that there is anger. Many times when my parents 'talk', there are smiles and laughs between the- yet if I hadn't been there I would have thought they were serious and quite angry. Perhaps it is because of the way I have grown up, but I notice many times when polar opposites get along much nicer than those who are almost the same.
The first thing that comes to my mind are people: it is often enough that those who seem completely different from each other tend to get married. My parents, for one. There are a multitude of differences between them- their personality, the way they look at things, even their physical attributes. Black and white vs. the philosophical discussions, straight to the point vs. taking forever to get to the point, and practical vs. loving to go around on walks taking pictures of random things. For some reason, although one person dislikes a majority of things that another person loves to do, two people can still be the best of friends. Arguments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes slightly raised voices debating over an idea does not mean that there is anger. Many times when my parents 'talk', there are smiles and laughs between the- yet if I hadn't been there I would have thought they were serious and quite angry. Perhaps it is because of the way I have grown up, but I notice many times when polar opposites get along much nicer than those who are almost the same.
Not only can couples make great polar opposites, but individuals themselves (and no, I am not talking about dual personalities). Inside the human body, there are scores of contrasting systems. For instance, our brain. Split into two sides, the left brain is empirical, with analytical and scientific thought. The right side is the opposite, not looking at the facts, but the imagination, using creativity and art. It is interesting to notice that in one brain, and one body, there are antipodes.
 |
| http://share.sweska.net/files/left_right_brain_xp.jpg |
Contrasts can be found not only in the brain, but in the entire body itself. Around 60% of a person is water- yet despite consisting more than half of oneself being water, we still drown in a few minutes. Isn't that weird?
This irony carries on through all people and the world.
Anyways, my parents, despite their minds seeming incompatible, still manage to find common ground- and love each other all the more for it. They love all that antique stuff, exotic foods, and a bunch of other stuff. Even though I admit that my parents are not at all alike, I could not exactly put them on the opposite sides of a line. The same goes for the brain: one may be analytical and the other creative, both rely on each other to make decisions and live life. I think it's safe to say that polar opposites are closer to each other than we realize.
Also, not only do polar opposites somehow have things in common, but cannot exist without the other. I mean, without polar opposites, there cannot even be a word to define just one word (without its antonym). Let me take the example of good and evil: one cannot exist without the other. If there was no evil, no poverty, hatred, death, ect., then I do not think that good could exist either. Out of poverty can come determination, from hatred forgiveness, and death to love. For if we have no reason to be determined, than how can determination exist? Or forgiveness, love, or friendship? If no evil existed, we would not be able to recognize that good exists, because without this comparison, it would just be life, and everything would be the same. Part of loving humanity comes from the ability to get past evil and be good. If poverty causes people to strive and do great things, can this be considered bad? And without hatred, forgiveness could not exist, because we must first hate before we can forgive. The definition of forgive (according to the Oxford Dictionary) is this: "to stop feeling angry or resentful towards (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake". "Evil" may live in the form of arrogance and mistakes, but good is what is morally correct. If everything was morally correct, than we would fail to think about what is right, and we would not be good- we would just be conforming to the norm. Forgiveness is- what I think- an aspect of humanity, and without forgiveness, humans would not the humans they are today. Furthermore, if death were not to be, there could not be a strong love between people and the world (not to mention a colossal population). Death causes us to hold on all the more strongly to ourselves, others, and the things we value. If nothing died, and everything was always there, we could not appreciate what we had. Like the common saying goes, "we don't notice it's there until it's gone" (or along those approximate lines). To be good, we must truly think about what and who we are, with all of our motives underneath. An act of good, let's say giving a bunch of videos to someone, can be considered kind, but if the motive is merely because the videos were poorly made and the giver just wanted to get rid of them, it takes away at least a bit of the good from the action.
I think the idea that there are polar opposites (yet not polar opposites) illustrate a much grander and mind-boggling idea: that nothing has only one truth/fact. We live in a 3D world, and there are multiple perspectives to a single object or idea. There is not black and white, but a rainbow: and nothing can be said for certain and without debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)