How do we form our notion of "masculinity"...it's a broad term....

            From the time I was a kid, surrounded by nine ‘girl-cousins’ who only offered me Barbies to play with, I definitely knew that there were differences between what girls were ‘supposed’ to be like and what boys were ‘supposed’ to. At home, I had dinosaurs, hot-wheels s and sports toys, not dolls. But as I watched TV, eagerly waiting for my cartoons to reappear, what messages were being subliminally conveyed to my young mind? Media is still telling me how to be manly…but what exactly is this notion of masculinity?

          Shaped by family, culture, friends and media, being a manly male is something that has been instilled in many men from a young age, but why? I would like to think that masculinity is something personalized, that it’s whatever a man choses to make it. But that is not what pop culture teaches me, it almost seems like a prescribed formula for being a man. It shows me ‘how real men ought to act, ought to talk and what they should look like.’ But it also says something somewhat reassuring; that men are cool, interesting and powerful.

Orwell’s 1984 plays up on these traits, and shows nearly all of its main characters as male: O’Brien, Parsons, Mr. Charrington, Goldstein, and Big Brother (in addition to most named coworkers). Most likely influenced by the tradition of female exclusion in public life, it seems like Orwell simply finds men more influential and interesting; even Winston’s (female) lover remains anonymous until we learn her name in subsequent chapters. Many female characters in the book are simply described but not named, whereas males are given an identity and therefore power.  

Media gives us a much more direct idea of what masculinity is. Fiction, whether literature or audio-visual, often portrays the ‘ideal male-character’. The features that go along with him, good looks, strength, bravery and cunning, are those that all men should strive to have, yet all of these traits are good ones to have anyways, regardless of whether media propagates them or not. Advertisements on the other hand, use these positive traits to market products. Are their products invented to instil such wondrous qualities in the buyers, or to simply give the illusion of them? The answer is a matter of opinion, and of how brainwashed advertising has made you. Take clothing for example. What shows a higher degree of masculinity: a pink tutu or a tool belt? The fact that men have traditionally been blue-collar workers rather than women gives away the answer. BUT, if a guy feels manly wearing a pink tutu, more power to him!

Historical context and culture has largely defined what masculinity encompassed. The things men have been doing for millennia (labouring, protecting the family, hunting etc.) are naturally thought of as masculine. Advertisements use these traditionally male roles but also add modern ones like ‘the athlete’ or ‘the car-lover’. These new forms of masculinity play up on image rather than personality. The way ‘real men’ should be (the basis for society’s version of masculinity) includes appearance (clothing, hair, cars, music, and technology) just as much as personal traits.

“Masculinity” has evolved. No longer is it solely the role that men play in daily life, but neither is it the characteristics associated with these roles. We ultimately have the power to decide what defines our own masculinity, yet at the same time, media and advertising are telling us how we need to act and look in order to be a proper man. Masculinity means the things that are associated with being a man. What exactly those things are is not up to popular culture, media or even society to decide (perhaps to influence). The things associated with being a man can only be decided by each individual male, they (including me) decide what is proper for themselves and by their own standards.

Who are you? What do you want? ...my money??!

Can a parent feel safe knowing their child is alone at home? According to Sigmund Freud, we are children and can't be trusted to look out for ourselves; we’ll just get into trouble. But then who should be entrusted with our well-being? This question arose in me after witnessing Adam Curtis’ film The Century of the Self. Furthermore, from reading Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, I came to see how Freud views man as infantile with reference to religion. This idea also contributed to my question and helped me understand how I view myself.

With the way that Edward Bernays was portrayed in Curtis’ film, I actually felt insulted. His idea that the masses “are all stupid” and need elite psychologists to manage them demonstrates how futile he finds civilization. If the populace had no superior (yet still human) guidance, would we all break out in riotous violence? This is untrue. Yes, there are hooligans and trouble-makers, but I sincerely believe that humans enjoy peace) over all else (not utilitarian pleasure maximization) and have the capacity to get there without “supervision”. It appears that these ruffians influence people around them and thus become unruly, not that everyone innately levitates towards causing a ruckus. However, the notion is supported that we are irrational and need rational-minded people to guide us, like Bernays. This hierarchical classification of humans seems outright uncouth. It is essentially a scheme to control people and use them as consumers, boosting the incomes of the rich and greedy, like Bernays.

We must also ponder which types of gatherings are being discussed. The film portrayed urban and constricted crowds. All the surrounding commotion and chaotic action have the potential to aggravate the throngs of people, unlike peaceful gatherings like pilgrimages or festivals. Still, the need for the subliminal advertisements appealing to carnal yearnings is really only benefitting the businessmen. With their billboards of beautiful broads and brilliant BMWs, do they truly care about comforting us, or pacifying our primitive urges with capitalist propaganda?

One additional element that I would like to point out is Freud’s view of religion. Its rudimentary meanings seem to contradict this entire blog. He states that humans are infantile and need a father’s protection and guidance. As a Christian, I see the need for this father figure as a need for God, and this is what Freud also finds. Conversely, he writes this in a condescending tone to theists. Unlike the greedy administrators of mass consumerism, this leader is a loving and caring one, a true father, here to benefit us. Though we may be rational, we all make some mistakes and need direction. The God of religion is not a greedy capitalist manipulator. He acts as a shepherd, keeping us within range. Nonetheless, it actually is childlike that Christians come to their Father-God in humble prayer asking for pardon and protection, but I do not view this as pathetic, like Freud does. I view this as courageous and strong, accepting and asking for help when we know that we cannot live righteously alone.

According to Curtis, Freud or Bernays, we cannot take care of ourselves. We are too feeble-minded, and for religion, too carnal to always make the right choice. However, the suggestions of who should take care of us and what their modes for doing so are, are significant. Should it be an avaricious businessman, perhaps an omnipotent deity or - ourselves? The answer is in a choice, one that only you can make.

What makes a martyr a martyr?

Did Socrates know what he was getting into when he practiced his pensive personality? Perhaps it is his circumstances of his death that allowed his name to endure centuries to appear in my course work. His personality, thought process and death is well known, but only after pondering a while … (and doing a brief Google search) did I realize that Socrates actually was a martyr, but in a different sense than what I had previously held martyrs to be. Historically, martyrdom was synonymous with standing up for spirituality and religion in the face of hypocrisy and persecution. However, I see that martyrdom means accepting an unjust death for not backing down from one’s belief, whether or not that belief was preached out loud, or simply discussed.

It is certain that Socrates was willing to die for his philosophy (he even explained how escaping from jail would be against his very own beliefs and that it was contrary to his acceptance of society). He never thought that he should change or deny his ideas for others to accept him, but also, he didn’t think that his philosophy would end up killing him. In section XXVIII of the Apology (page 45), Socrates innocently states, “I am not accustomed to think that I deserve anything evil.” Socrates was not a public figure in Athens who was out to cause trouble, nor did he ever burst out in agony or distress about his society or even try to get sympathy or admiration for his point. He simply talked to and questioned people about their ideas; he was not a dramatic figure denouncing society like Martin Luther for example, rather, Socrates was an innocent conversationalist. What is more, a martyr cannot be a martyr without unjustly dying for their beliefs (the Oxford English Dictionary supports this definition). They may display displeasure with society in order for people to see their point, but this is only one path, usually taken by people who want change. Apple’s definition of a martyr is for revolutionary people, not tame people killed for their beliefs, like Socrates. A martyr is not always out to be martyred, rather, becoming one is an end result, no matter if beliefs are outwardly or dramatically propagated or not.

The above quote demonstrates that Socrates did not believe his actions deserved death; for he did not preach against the gods, or against men, but eventually defended his own beliefs in the face of persecution. This is further supported by Socrates’ defense that the Athenians “…have scarcely spoken one single word of truth,” (Section I of the Apology, page 21). Nonetheless, Socrates still accepts the verdict because, ultimately, he knows that his accusers are corrupt. He also knows injustice is occurring before him – just like the martyrs of Christendom. St. Peter accepted fate, not because he deserved death (for being an out-law, which he would’ve recognized he was since he had broken Roman law, which by the way was pagan in his eyes), but because he stood for truth. Trying to escape death would translate into denying the truth that is being stood for, which St. Peter never did, this is what made him a martyr. He never tried to show his suffering or get sympathy; he simply stood for truth.

Over three hundred years before, Socrates did the same, and this means that he must be a martyr too. A martyr consents to their unjust death because they acknowledge that their society is corrupt, obviously not realizing the truth that they themselves stand for, be it divine grace or philosophical discussion. Whether or not the truth is dramatically displayed or simply evident in their conversations, a martyr is unjustly persecuted and killed. This is what happened to Socrates; unbeknownst to him, his innocent conversations and examination crossed the unseen boundaries of Hellenic society’s rule. He was not out to be killed for his belief, but he was willing to be killed for them. After being called out and questioned, he never denied his beliefs and thus he accepted his unjust verdict, delivered to him by a morally blind jury. Never making a scene with, though dying for, his light-hearted, perambulating antics, Socrates is one of the few philosophical martyrs and perhaps it is his innocent stance that makes this such a poignant example of martyrdom.

My Hero, spiritualism and reality are the keys to making my list.

I have heroes for different things. My main hero (really a saviour) is Jesus Christ - I am a Christian. He lived on this earth some 2000 years agao and He is well-documented in the Gospels. He did make a difference in people's lives: He healed the sick, the bind, the lame, leppers, deaf, mute and cast out evil spirits. There is another side to His heroism, slightly beyond the purpose of this class however. He is an eternal hero, and his act has been played over again and again. He gave his life for those he loved, as a sacrife taking their place. For non-christians and for people who are not familiar with the idea of sin and needing salvation, this may not ring any bells for you. For me, I see this as a gift that we can choose to accept, and with a choice to acknowledge Jesus' self-sacrifice, living a godly (righteous, serving) life comes along in the package. It is hard for people to follow up Jesus' love for all of God's children, dying for the sake of humanity, but it is ultimately good, the right thing to do rather than living for our own self pleasure. Jesus Christ was selfless and served others before Himself. His attitude on life and living is that of God's (As christians, we believe that Jesus is essentially God incarnate, a manifestation of the Divine).
The fact that He accepted his ultimate calling to die on behalf of all people's wrongdoing shows how loving He is: an ultimate hero.

Another hero of mine is totally different. It is not a specific person, but all the people who fight for righteousness around the world., and this comes in many forms: sustainability and human rights being the closest to my heart. Figures such as David Suzuki, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr just to name a few.

My fictional heroes are very minimal in number. I like Superman because he's a ...superhero! His powers are amazing...and fictional. The mythical/fictional realm of heroes never made a big impact on my life. I knew they were fake, non-existant being and I'd rather spend my time admiring real people who walked the earth fighting for righteousness!

Well here's my long blog written in 10 min in the SFU Surrey Mezzanine! Thanks for reading! Ευχαριστω!

A Kaleidoscope of Emotions: Guilt is only one in the ever-changing mindset

How do you feel at the moment? More specifically, is guilt on your mind? Our complex world has enabled us to effortlessly bounce between emotions and thoughts. This means one emotion can only be our mind for so long. We watch the disheartening news about a famine in Somalia where millions of people are dying of starvation, but we can effortlessly change the channel and get a laugh out of The Big Bang Theory.  Though globalization has drastically connected the globe (economically) like never before, we can retract into our own personal world by taking advantage of all the things the world offers us to occupy our time with.

My first thought about whether or not a person could constantly feel guilt was simple: “for sure!” I will always know, deep in my soul, that billions of people are far less fortunate that me. Thus, when I hear people say, “I really need a new phone,” I almost immediately think of the children on the World Vision commercials, who really need food, medicine - and love. However, until the thought strikes me, I do not feel guilt or any profound sorrow. Could it be true that the tragic reality which is always in the back of my mind, could be so easily covered up, hidden away by a kaleidoscope of emotions, chatter and daily occurrences? It can be true, and if it’s the reality for me, it is probably a reality for many others. We are fortunate enough to have plenty of things to do in our day: things that require our attention. The things we occupy our day with thus have the power to change our emotions and thoughts. For example, when a person chats on Facebook with a friend, they probably aren’t thinking about the effect of Myanmar’s military dictatorship on its people.  There is no reason for them to feel sorry for Myanmar until they actually are faced with the reality, be it in the news or in a conversation.

Just like the people of Omelas - who are busy singing and dancing, riding horses and marching in parades – we are busy studying, chatting, working and relaxing. As an end result, we are too pre-occupied to think about the world’s suffering, too busy to let the guilt (grief should be more like it) reign over our thoughts and sentiments. But wait; aren’t there people who are not too pre-occupied? People whose calling it is to think about the misery of millions? Mother Teresa did that! She wasn’t a school teacher constantly nattered at by children, too occupied to give alms to the poor. She was a woman of God who took the responsibility of caring for the untouchables. The guilt, grief and sorrow of other people’s suffering was her every concern. Though her emotions obviously shifted, she was immersed in a place where suffering was (and still is) extremely apparent. She could not escape it, not like you or I who are so distant and removed from that world. We can just play basketball or read poetry; this is not the case in a city like Calcutta. But Mother Teresa’s life is a special case.

The citizens of Omelas are a great comparison to modern North Americans. That child is hidden from them, but they know it exists, just like we know of the sweat shops that exist for the benefit of our wardrobe. Those people that make our clothes, grow our food and make our iPods are on the other side of the world. In the same way, if the billions of people in poverty lived like us, they’d need people on the other side of the world making consumer goods for them. We could not survive like that; for us to have all the modern luxuries that we do, they must go without. If they used as many resources as our society does, the earth could not sustain us all. So we ignore their suffering so that we can feel better about our fortunate lives. If we do not ignore them and reject that guilt (that we have it all, and they have nothing), we will be consumed by the injustice that life is.

Whether it is a conscious or subconscious decision to neglect the anguish of people around the world, by doing it we can free ourselves to live our life as we like. By this, I mean serving our own needs instead of helping those less-fortunate than us. But if we were surrounded and gripped by the sorrow that grips so many others, would we not be moved to do something for them instead of forgetting about it and moving on?

Fall Has ARRIVED

Yea...i think it's fairly clear that summer has disapated. A few days of cloud and drizzle has definitely ushered in the new season. I even had a dream about fall, pumpkins and fallen leaves...and rain :(

First Post

So I'm just experimenting with this blog. Here's my name in a few different languages.
антони переира коста. Cyrillic
ანთონი ფერეირა ქოსთა。Georgian
アントニペレイラコスタ。Japanese
Ανθονή Περεηρα-Κωστα. Greek
.אנטוני פרירה קושתה Hebrew

(Now I'm editing it to say that I couldn't figure out how to put my Chinese name on here, but I could just look it up on google!)
Tadaa! Anthony in Chinese