Unbelievably, today I am going to write about a topic that is inspired by something I heard while watching Glee! It was an observation about how "when students are bored they update their Facebook status." This stuck with me because it is completely relevant to my own life. I am not ashamed to admit that when I am bored with nothing better to do, Facebook is the first thing I turn to.
I, like many others am hooked, but why is Facebook so popular? Is it because it gives people a chance to post their lives online? Or is it because it gives people the chance to look at the lives of others?
I would argue that Facebook is not really about being able to speak you mind and tell your stories to other people, I think Facebook has become so popular because it gives you the chance to portray your life the way you want to, regardless of what your life is like in reality.
I highly doubt that anyone ever updates their status by honestly answering the question "what is on your mind?" , instead they create a status that answers "what would you like people to think is on you mind?"
The same is true with images, events and groups. They are all centered around what you want people to know your doing, where you've been, where you're going, and what you want people to think you look like.
So where has this obsession with creating our "realities" come from? It is human nature to try and impress others, or to try and hide what your reality is. Hiding your reality can cover anything from lying about yourself to the extremes of plastic surgery; but nothing has ever been as easy, cheap and successful as hiding your reality on Facebook.
Jeremy Bentham believed that people should only do acts which will result in the greatest happiness for the greatness number of people, and I think that the majority of Facebook users act in this way. We create status updates that we hope will amuse other people, we post pictures because we want others to look at them and have a reaction, thousands of groups are created purely with the intention of causing amusement and happiness in other people. I would challenge anyone to say that they don't consider the reaction of others when updating their Facebook in any way.
It is, after all, impossible to be part of something that millions of people around the world are part of, and still try to use it as a completely individual programme.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Mid Week Madness
So it's Wednesday - or as anyone between the age of 18 and 30 will call it, Mid Week Madness. I received an email this morning on facebook letting me know about 2-4-1 offers on a range of drinks in a club in town tonight.
It is no secret that binge drinking and under age drinking is a massive problem in the UK, we have the largest alcohol consumption in Europe and 1 in 4 adults are binge drinkers. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-302531/Special-report-Binge-drinking.html) A lot of people feel that cheap drinks are responsible for binge drinking but from my own experience I couldn't disagree with this more!
It is my opinion that even if the price of alcohol doubled in the UK we would still have a "binge culture." I come from Guernsey, where the average price of drinks easily double the price of alcohol in England, and this does not deter anyone from drinking in excess! In fact, it has been experience that teens from the channel islands drink far more on a night out than teens from other parts of the UK.
I used to work in a night club in Guernsey where a bottle of water cost £2.20 and alcohol prices were much higher then that and still every Wednesday night and weekends hundreds of people hit the clubs to go on a binge. The price of alcohol did not appear to deter many people from drinking until they couldn't take anymore.
I would argue that cheap alcohol prices are not to blame for binge drinking, I think that the fact there is little else to do in some areas is to blame. If there were other things to amuse teens and adults then I doubt so many people would choose to go out drinking.
In Guernsey there is hardly anything for teens and adults to do. There is an expensive bowling alley, a pathetically small cinema to keep people entertained, and of course there are beaches but these are not much of an advantage in the winter or at night! The result of this is that people choose to socialise in pubs and clubs for lack of anything else. I am not suggesting that this is the only reason why people drink but I would certainly argue that if there were other activities to do then fewer people would binge on such a regular basis.
This is not only the case in Guernsey, I have also seen evidence of this at my time at university. I am 18 years and am a first year so I am not going to try and convince you that I haven't been out drinking in my time here! But I have to admit that if I was not out at pubs or clubs then there would be little else to do on the weekend. The University openly encourages students to attend the student union bar and club, and we are continually bombarded with special student discounts by the clubs in town.
Why are we not being bombarded with offers from book clubs, museums or cinemas? We are not being offered many intellectual opportunities, so instead we go out and destroy our brain cells for a few hours.
So if you are reading this and know that you are going out tonight for Mid Week Madness it might be worth thinking about what you would be doing if you didn't want to drink. Are you being given enough options in your area?
It is no secret that binge drinking and under age drinking is a massive problem in the UK, we have the largest alcohol consumption in Europe and 1 in 4 adults are binge drinkers. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-302531/Special-report-Binge-drinking.html) A lot of people feel that cheap drinks are responsible for binge drinking but from my own experience I couldn't disagree with this more!
It is my opinion that even if the price of alcohol doubled in the UK we would still have a "binge culture." I come from Guernsey, where the average price of drinks easily double the price of alcohol in England, and this does not deter anyone from drinking in excess! In fact, it has been experience that teens from the channel islands drink far more on a night out than teens from other parts of the UK.
I used to work in a night club in Guernsey where a bottle of water cost £2.20 and alcohol prices were much higher then that and still every Wednesday night and weekends hundreds of people hit the clubs to go on a binge. The price of alcohol did not appear to deter many people from drinking until they couldn't take anymore.
I would argue that cheap alcohol prices are not to blame for binge drinking, I think that the fact there is little else to do in some areas is to blame. If there were other things to amuse teens and adults then I doubt so many people would choose to go out drinking.
In Guernsey there is hardly anything for teens and adults to do. There is an expensive bowling alley, a pathetically small cinema to keep people entertained, and of course there are beaches but these are not much of an advantage in the winter or at night! The result of this is that people choose to socialise in pubs and clubs for lack of anything else. I am not suggesting that this is the only reason why people drink but I would certainly argue that if there were other activities to do then fewer people would binge on such a regular basis.
This is not only the case in Guernsey, I have also seen evidence of this at my time at university. I am 18 years and am a first year so I am not going to try and convince you that I haven't been out drinking in my time here! But I have to admit that if I was not out at pubs or clubs then there would be little else to do on the weekend. The University openly encourages students to attend the student union bar and club, and we are continually bombarded with special student discounts by the clubs in town.
Why are we not being bombarded with offers from book clubs, museums or cinemas? We are not being offered many intellectual opportunities, so instead we go out and destroy our brain cells for a few hours.
So if you are reading this and know that you are going out tonight for Mid Week Madness it might be worth thinking about what you would be doing if you didn't want to drink. Are you being given enough options in your area?
Monday, 21 February 2011
Sup Lizzy?!
This post stems from the views of Mary Wollstonecraft and something which I over heard another student say today.
Last week I had a seminar in which we discussed the ideas of feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft who dislike the fact that women are given respect simply for being women in much the same way that a King is given respect just for being born into the royal family. This left me thinking about all the people I have respected for no reason other than their job, or role in society, and in particular to teachers.
When walking around campus today there were students who were shouting out random words each time someone passed them. They were students who I know to be performing arts students and I assumed that this was a task they had been set by their teacher. After walking past them I heard the guy in front of me say "the teacher's not watching why the f*** are they bothering?!"
I have to say that in some ways I completely agree that if I was given a task by a teacher, but they were not going to know if i had done it or not then I probably wouldn't bother! In fact that is an attitude that I have held for the majority of my school life because I do not have any particular respect for teachers and I always questioned why on earth all the other pupils did exactly what the teacher said even if it was something they found boring or pointless.
In a secondary school in an classroom environment students outnumber teachers on average 21 to 1. This means that students theoretically have the power to do over ride the teacher by working together - but this rarely happens. Students who dare to challenge the teacher are often standing alone without the support of the rest of class. I think that this is a great shame, because if students rebelled together then there is absolutely no doubt that they would get the result that they want.
It is not only teachers who are simply given respect without having earned it. To use Wollstonecraft's example, royalty are given respect for absolutely nothing. I have never met the Queen, nor have I even seen anything happen that is a direct result of her actions alone. And I am sure that most of you reading this are exactly the same!
I would not suggest that you start treating everyone disrespectfully, but the next time someone asks you to do something that you don't want to do, it might be worth stopping to think why you should do it! It is always good to challenge authority - as long as the consequences are not going to be too disastrous!
Last week I had a seminar in which we discussed the ideas of feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft who dislike the fact that women are given respect simply for being women in much the same way that a King is given respect just for being born into the royal family. This left me thinking about all the people I have respected for no reason other than their job, or role in society, and in particular to teachers.
When walking around campus today there were students who were shouting out random words each time someone passed them. They were students who I know to be performing arts students and I assumed that this was a task they had been set by their teacher. After walking past them I heard the guy in front of me say "the teacher's not watching why the f*** are they bothering?!"
I have to say that in some ways I completely agree that if I was given a task by a teacher, but they were not going to know if i had done it or not then I probably wouldn't bother! In fact that is an attitude that I have held for the majority of my school life because I do not have any particular respect for teachers and I always questioned why on earth all the other pupils did exactly what the teacher said even if it was something they found boring or pointless.
In a secondary school in an classroom environment students outnumber teachers on average 21 to 1. This means that students theoretically have the power to do over ride the teacher by working together - but this rarely happens. Students who dare to challenge the teacher are often standing alone without the support of the rest of class. I think that this is a great shame, because if students rebelled together then there is absolutely no doubt that they would get the result that they want.
As far as I am concerned the Queen is a perfect stranger to me, yet if I ever saw her I would not simply carry on my way ignoring her existence in the same way that I do with other strangers. If I was ever to converse with the Queen I would not talk to her like "Sup Lizzy how's it going?" because this would be incredibly disrespectful. But the Queen has never done anything to personally earn my respect so why would I treat her with respect? It seems very hypocritical!
I would not suggest that you start treating everyone disrespectfully, but the next time someone asks you to do something that you don't want to do, it might be worth stopping to think why you should do it! It is always good to challenge authority - as long as the consequences are not going to be too disastrous!
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Would you give someone £6.2million to kick a ball?
The first topic that I have decided to focus on has stemmed from something I learnt in my news agenda lesson on Friday. I learnt that the Chief Executive of the Hampshire County Council is paid an annual salary of £207,969. Anyone can see that this is an extremely large salary, but allow me to put this into perspective compared to other salaries:
Wayne Rooney - £6.2m
Justin Bieber - >£5m
Chief Executive - £207,969
Prime Minister - £142,500
GP - >£80,000
Teacher - >£25,880
I know there are football fans who would say that Wayne Rooney deserves his ridiculously large income, but it appears to me that the figures above which show a deceasing annual salary, also show a descending importance of job! I don't think that anyone would argue with me that a doctor or and teacher is less valuable to society that Wayne Rooney and Justin Bieber are!
However this priority of relatively meaningless people is reflected constantly in society. For example, current charities are asking for the following monthly donations:
WaterAid - >£2 - (http://www.wateraid.org/uk/)
Barndardos - >£5 - (http://www.barnardos.org.uk)
WWF - >£10 - (http://support.wwf.org.uk/)
Some people may claim that it is unethical to make the statement that one charity is more important that another, however I am going to out on a limb and say that while I think saving endangered animals is incredibly important, I do not think that adopting an animal should be 5x more expensive than paying to give people in poverty clean water. I think that it would be incredibly hypocritical of anyone to suggest that paying more to save animals than people is ethical. I think that these people need to imagine how they would feel if they were dying because they did not have clean water and then someone came up to them and said that they would give clean water to their animals to drink but no to the people. I highly doubt there is anyone who would accept this and agree that the animal deserves clean water over humans.
I do however want to be clear that I am not suggesting that no one should give money to the WWF or any other animal charity, I am suggesting that we should give at least as much money to other humans.
I think it is despicable that if Wayne Rooney donated one month of his wages to Water Aid it would equal to roughly 260,000 people giving one month's donation. I know that Wayne Rooney does do charity work, particularly for Claire House and Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, but I can't help to think that if he was donating what he could afford rather than what he wanted to then I am sure he would be able to make a massive difference to charities all over the world.
In 1970 the third world debt totalled $25 billion, by 2002 this total had increased to a staggering $523 billion (£322 billion.) This seems like an amount so large that the third world will never be able to pay it back - and that is true. It would be impossible for countries where workers earns the equivalent of 60p a week to ever be able to pay back their enormous debt. However, if you look at this total from the view of the western world, it is still a huge sum because it is not out of the realm of possibility to be able to pay it. For example, the total net worth of the Forbes top 20 richest people in the world list is £502billion. This is more than what is needed to completely eradicate the debt - and in fact would leave each man with at least £2billion which I am sure you will agree is more than enough to survive on!
It is simple enough for me to tell you a simple way of eradicating the third world debt, but I am not naive enough to think that the 20 richest people in the world will ever hand over their fortune for the benefit of the third world. It is a sad fact that people are selfish and I do not ever think we will see a world in which the richest people are willing to sacrifice their fortunes, or even a world where people finally admit that £6.2million is too much money to give someone for kicking a ball back and forth.
I am not going to suggest that everyone reading this should go and donate their life savings to charity, but I think it is important that you think about how you spend money and where it is going to end up.
Wayne Rooney - £6.2m
Justin Bieber - >£5m
Chief Executive - £207,969
Prime Minister - £142,500
GP - >£80,000
Teacher - >£25,880
I know there are football fans who would say that Wayne Rooney deserves his ridiculously large income, but it appears to me that the figures above which show a deceasing annual salary, also show a descending importance of job! I don't think that anyone would argue with me that a doctor or and teacher is less valuable to society that Wayne Rooney and Justin Bieber are!
However this priority of relatively meaningless people is reflected constantly in society. For example, current charities are asking for the following monthly donations:
WaterAid - >£2 - (http://www.wateraid.org/uk/)
Barndardos - >£5 - (http://www.barnardos.org.uk)
WWF - >£10 - (http://support.wwf.org.uk/)
Some people may claim that it is unethical to make the statement that one charity is more important that another, however I am going to out on a limb and say that while I think saving endangered animals is incredibly important, I do not think that adopting an animal should be 5x more expensive than paying to give people in poverty clean water. I think that it would be incredibly hypocritical of anyone to suggest that paying more to save animals than people is ethical. I think that these people need to imagine how they would feel if they were dying because they did not have clean water and then someone came up to them and said that they would give clean water to their animals to drink but no to the people. I highly doubt there is anyone who would accept this and agree that the animal deserves clean water over humans.
I do however want to be clear that I am not suggesting that no one should give money to the WWF or any other animal charity, I am suggesting that we should give at least as much money to other humans.
I think it is despicable that if Wayne Rooney donated one month of his wages to Water Aid it would equal to roughly 260,000 people giving one month's donation. I know that Wayne Rooney does do charity work, particularly for Claire House and Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, but I can't help to think that if he was donating what he could afford rather than what he wanted to then I am sure he would be able to make a massive difference to charities all over the world.
In 1970 the third world debt totalled $25 billion, by 2002 this total had increased to a staggering $523 billion (£322 billion.) This seems like an amount so large that the third world will never be able to pay it back - and that is true. It would be impossible for countries where workers earns the equivalent of 60p a week to ever be able to pay back their enormous debt. However, if you look at this total from the view of the western world, it is still a huge sum because it is not out of the realm of possibility to be able to pay it. For example, the total net worth of the Forbes top 20 richest people in the world list is £502billion. This is more than what is needed to completely eradicate the debt - and in fact would leave each man with at least £2billion which I am sure you will agree is more than enough to survive on!
It is simple enough for me to tell you a simple way of eradicating the third world debt, but I am not naive enough to think that the 20 richest people in the world will ever hand over their fortune for the benefit of the third world. It is a sad fact that people are selfish and I do not ever think we will see a world in which the richest people are willing to sacrifice their fortunes, or even a world where people finally admit that £6.2million is too much money to give someone for kicking a ball back and forth.
I am not going to suggest that everyone reading this should go and donate their life savings to charity, but I think it is important that you think about how you spend money and where it is going to end up.
My Voice
This is the probably the first blog post that I have not been assigned to write, or that is not an expansion on topics that I am covering in my journalism course. It has taken me while to start blogging and this is largely due to the fact that I was not sure what I wanted to blog about! It is not in my nature to just sit and write about any small thing, I would much rather write about issues that are important and it is not until recently that I have had the inspiration to start writing about such things.
I have always loved the film Born Free (this is actually relevant I swear!) because I was completely inspired by Joy and George Adamson but particularly George Adamson. He gave up a 'civilised' life in order to work with lions in Africa and his life story has been inspirational to people all over the world. Some of the last words in his autobiography are ones which I know are going to stick with me for the rest of my life:
I have always loved the film Born Free (this is actually relevant I swear!) because I was completely inspired by Joy and George Adamson but particularly George Adamson. He gave up a 'civilised' life in order to work with lions in Africa and his life story has been inspirational to people all over the world. Some of the last words in his autobiography are ones which I know are going to stick with me for the rest of my life:
"Who will raise their voices when mine is carried away with the wind?"
This one question has been going around in my mind from the first time I read them years ago. They were originally meaningful to me because I used to want to be a wildlife conservationist and I thought that I would be the one to raise my voice. I have always wanted to make a difference in the world, like millions of other people in the world want to! As I matured I began to interpret the words of George Adamson in a different way, and began to think about how important it was that his voice was listened to by the world and while I would have loved to go and work with people and animals in need, it would not have been as influential as making my voice heard about these topics. So I decided that journalism would be an excellent step into making sure I was able to make my voice heard.
So the next problem I faced to make sure I was certain about what it was I wanted my voice to say! There are quite a few people who assumed that I want to become a fashion journalist or write "and finally" pieces, and while these are valid careers they are not the kind of work that I aspire to, and these blog posts will prove that the assumption made by others could not be further from the truth!
These posts are going to be about establishing my voice as a journalist, so that when the time comes when my voice is lost to the wind, it will be missed. And I hope that those of you reading this will start to consider what you want your voice to say.
Mary Wollstonecraft - Feminism
Key Seminar/Reading Notes
My Thoughts/Opinions
To be perfectly honest when I found out the reading for this seminar was by a feminist writer my heart sank a little bit. I am one of those girls who think that feminism is somewhat of a complete wast of time, and i often find my self extremely annoyed by women who think that females are better than males at everything. This hatred towards feminists may have stemmed from a childhood friend I used to have. I was best friends with her from reception until year 11; this was because I had finally had enough of her feminist ways! I will always remember one day laughing at a sexist joke told by one of the boys in class and she wouldn't talk to me for a week because I was a "disgrace to women everywhere."
I am not suggesting that women should be treated as second class citizens to men, I am simply saying that women need to accept that there are some things that men are simply better at, and similarly there are also things that women are better at. We are equal, but different.
I have to admit that I did admire Mary Wollstonecraft in the sense that she made the effort to educate herself even though she came from a poor family and had little hope of ever accomplishing anything of value, but after reading her opinions about women I began to wonder just how educated she actually was!
Unlike traditional feminists who blame men for inequality between the sexes, Wollstonecraft blames women for allowing themselves to be objectified. She believed that it is the responsibility of women to question why they are not treated as equals, and to challenge the role that society has given them. This is not something which I particularly agree with because during that time men had always been treated as superior over women, so there was not necessarily any reason for women to accept this - it was something that they were born into and that they accepted. I think it is unfair of Wollstonecraft to suggest that women should instinctively question something which they have been born into and accept.
However, the fact that women are born into this role is something with Wollstonecraft uses in her argument for a reason why women need to be treated equally. Wollstonecraft had been heavily influenced by the ideas of John Locke, who believed that all people are born a blank slate, completely equal and then aspects such as education and wealth have an effect on the people we become. Wollstonecraft believed that we are all born blank and that we all have the same potential as one another. She did not believe that gender should play any role in society at all, and that gender should only become an issue when you enter into a relationship.
In her book, Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft says that "a King is always a King and a woman is always a woman.' This suggests that like a King, women are born to be given respect, they do not earn it. As men are not mentioned that also gives the impression that a man can be anything he desires. Wollstonecraft resented the fact that women were given respect rather than earning it because she thought that this in itself was sexist because it was men deciding how much respect to give to women. She said "the passions of men have placed women on the throne." This could be interpreted in a number of ways. One is that Wollstonecraft was making a comment about how women are "placed" in roles where they are given respect but that they haven't actually earned it. This could also be interpreted to suggest that men do not actually think that a woman should be "on the throne" and instead only put her there as a result of their passions, not reason. I do not agree with Locke's suggest that men and women are innately the same. I think that there are parts of a woman's nature that are innately different to a man's. For example, there is no doubt that most women have a maternal instinct, for example they play with baby dolls growing up. I do not think that this is simply because society dictates that boys should play with action heroes and girls with baby dolls, I tihnk that this is because of the different natures of girls and boys.
Wollstonecraft stressed the importance of equal opportunities of education between the sexes. She believed that education was the gateway to a respectable, fulfilling life and that if women were given the same opportunities as men then there is no reason why women would not be able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. She also believed that women who were education would start to question their role in society. This is something that I would agree with because I also believe that a good education can open doors, and without one a person, male or female, cannot expect to become a high achiever. There are however exceptions to this rule depending on what your definition of a high achiever is. If the definition of high achiever is someone who is intellectually superior to others then education is possibly the only way to become successful. However, if your definition of successful is someone who is able to make a lot of money from their ideas then you only need to look at examples such as Richard Branson, who never graduated, to see that an education is clearly not essential to this kind of success.
In her book, Wollstonecraft likens women to caged birds. This is also something which could be interpreted in a number of ways. Wollstonecraft could have meant that women are like caged birds in the sense that they are there only to be admired by people are outside of the cage, and that they are completely reliant on their others to take care of them. In this sense Wollstonecraft would have suggested that the people admiring the birds are men and that women need men to provide everything that they need. Wollstonecraft could have also compared women to caged birds to suggest that women have the potential to be free and spread their wings in the sense that if they were freed from their cages then they would be able to go much further in life. Wollstonecraft could have also meant that birds are naturally free, but have been caged by humans. This could reflect her opinion that women are naturally free to educate themselves and have a beneficial role in society, but this freedom has been removed by men who have placed them in cages.
Wollstonecraft's work was largely discredited after her death when her husband revealed that she had illegitimate children, had affairs and was suicidal. He said that she had tried to kill herself because she fell in love with a married man who did not love her back, however her suicide attempt failed. The fact that Wollstonecraft tried to kill herself over a man's love not only discredited because is revealed her to be mentally unstable, it also discredited her because she was will to end her life just because a man did not love her. This was completely contradictory to her work because it proved that she cared about gaining love, respect and attention from a man as much as any other other woman did, more so in fact! I think that if Wollstonecraft was alive today then she would be pleased with the progress in education in the sense that women and men are given the same opportunities, however I think that she would also be very surprised the number of women who still allow men to control them despite their education. I do not think that a man should try to control a woman, but I think that if that is the kind of relationship that a woman wants to have then she should be entitled to that. Even to this day women all over the world are inspired by stories such as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, in which the male protagonist is quite chauvinistic and does not give women much respect. However in spite of this women still swoon over this type of male lead, which I think proves that there is something in a woman's nature which makes them want to be controlled and looked after.
My Thoughts/Opinions
To be perfectly honest when I found out the reading for this seminar was by a feminist writer my heart sank a little bit. I am one of those girls who think that feminism is somewhat of a complete wast of time, and i often find my self extremely annoyed by women who think that females are better than males at everything. This hatred towards feminists may have stemmed from a childhood friend I used to have. I was best friends with her from reception until year 11; this was because I had finally had enough of her feminist ways! I will always remember one day laughing at a sexist joke told by one of the boys in class and she wouldn't talk to me for a week because I was a "disgrace to women everywhere."
I am not suggesting that women should be treated as second class citizens to men, I am simply saying that women need to accept that there are some things that men are simply better at, and similarly there are also things that women are better at. We are equal, but different.
I have to admit that I did admire Mary Wollstonecraft in the sense that she made the effort to educate herself even though she came from a poor family and had little hope of ever accomplishing anything of value, but after reading her opinions about women I began to wonder just how educated she actually was!
Unlike traditional feminists who blame men for inequality between the sexes, Wollstonecraft blames women for allowing themselves to be objectified. She believed that it is the responsibility of women to question why they are not treated as equals, and to challenge the role that society has given them. This is not something which I particularly agree with because during that time men had always been treated as superior over women, so there was not necessarily any reason for women to accept this - it was something that they were born into and that they accepted. I think it is unfair of Wollstonecraft to suggest that women should instinctively question something which they have been born into and accept.
However, the fact that women are born into this role is something with Wollstonecraft uses in her argument for a reason why women need to be treated equally. Wollstonecraft had been heavily influenced by the ideas of John Locke, who believed that all people are born a blank slate, completely equal and then aspects such as education and wealth have an effect on the people we become. Wollstonecraft believed that we are all born blank and that we all have the same potential as one another. She did not believe that gender should play any role in society at all, and that gender should only become an issue when you enter into a relationship.
In her book, Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft says that "a King is always a King and a woman is always a woman.' This suggests that like a King, women are born to be given respect, they do not earn it. As men are not mentioned that also gives the impression that a man can be anything he desires. Wollstonecraft resented the fact that women were given respect rather than earning it because she thought that this in itself was sexist because it was men deciding how much respect to give to women. She said "the passions of men have placed women on the throne." This could be interpreted in a number of ways. One is that Wollstonecraft was making a comment about how women are "placed" in roles where they are given respect but that they haven't actually earned it. This could also be interpreted to suggest that men do not actually think that a woman should be "on the throne" and instead only put her there as a result of their passions, not reason. I do not agree with Locke's suggest that men and women are innately the same. I think that there are parts of a woman's nature that are innately different to a man's. For example, there is no doubt that most women have a maternal instinct, for example they play with baby dolls growing up. I do not think that this is simply because society dictates that boys should play with action heroes and girls with baby dolls, I tihnk that this is because of the different natures of girls and boys.
Wollstonecraft stressed the importance of equal opportunities of education between the sexes. She believed that education was the gateway to a respectable, fulfilling life and that if women were given the same opportunities as men then there is no reason why women would not be able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. She also believed that women who were education would start to question their role in society. This is something that I would agree with because I also believe that a good education can open doors, and without one a person, male or female, cannot expect to become a high achiever. There are however exceptions to this rule depending on what your definition of a high achiever is. If the definition of high achiever is someone who is intellectually superior to others then education is possibly the only way to become successful. However, if your definition of successful is someone who is able to make a lot of money from their ideas then you only need to look at examples such as Richard Branson, who never graduated, to see that an education is clearly not essential to this kind of success.
In her book, Wollstonecraft likens women to caged birds. This is also something which could be interpreted in a number of ways. Wollstonecraft could have meant that women are like caged birds in the sense that they are there only to be admired by people are outside of the cage, and that they are completely reliant on their others to take care of them. In this sense Wollstonecraft would have suggested that the people admiring the birds are men and that women need men to provide everything that they need. Wollstonecraft could have also compared women to caged birds to suggest that women have the potential to be free and spread their wings in the sense that if they were freed from their cages then they would be able to go much further in life. Wollstonecraft could have also meant that birds are naturally free, but have been caged by humans. This could reflect her opinion that women are naturally free to educate themselves and have a beneficial role in society, but this freedom has been removed by men who have placed them in cages.
Wollstonecraft's work was largely discredited after her death when her husband revealed that she had illegitimate children, had affairs and was suicidal. He said that she had tried to kill herself because she fell in love with a married man who did not love her back, however her suicide attempt failed. The fact that Wollstonecraft tried to kill herself over a man's love not only discredited because is revealed her to be mentally unstable, it also discredited her because she was will to end her life just because a man did not love her. This was completely contradictory to her work because it proved that she cared about gaining love, respect and attention from a man as much as any other other woman did, more so in fact! I think that if Wollstonecraft was alive today then she would be pleased with the progress in education in the sense that women and men are given the same opportunities, however I think that she would also be very surprised the number of women who still allow men to control them despite their education. I do not think that a man should try to control a woman, but I think that if that is the kind of relationship that a woman wants to have then she should be entitled to that. Even to this day women all over the world are inspired by stories such as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, in which the male protagonist is quite chauvinistic and does not give women much respect. However in spite of this women still swoon over this type of male lead, which I think proves that there is something in a woman's nature which makes them want to be controlled and looked after.
Friday, 11 February 2011
HCJ lecture notes - introduction to Romanticism
Key lecture notes
my thoughts
Today's lecture was an introduction to the topic of Romanticism. I studied Romanticism as part of my A-level English literature course, but only in the sense of studying the changes in poetry and novels from that time.
The Romantic period has always been something that has interested me because I am fascinated by the way that society seemed to back track on itself during this time, where the progression of empirical ideas seemed somewhat irrelevant. I am always impressed with the way that people can completely change the way in which we progress as a species and the Romantic period is one of the best examples of this. There is nothing in the universe that forces us to progress whether it be technologically, scientifically, socially, politically, philosophically, etc; it is something which we seem to naturally keep doing and I find it hard to imagine that we will ever cease to progress in the same way as the Romantic period.
Today I learnt about the massive influence Jean-Jaques Rousseau had on Romanticism. Rousseau presented his ideas towards the end of the 18th Century, but it wasn't until the 19th Century and particularly during the French Revolution that other people tried to put his ideas into place in society.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, the 18th Century was hugely important in terms of the development of and discovery in the scientific world which lead to a move away from dogma from the church and into empiricism. The Romantic period saw a shift from empiricism towards subjectivity. This meant that rather than understanding how the world around us works people started to focus more on how they worked in the sense that there was more concern for human emotion and sensitivity. Personally I think that this is the best way for society to function, but in moderation! I think that it is important for us to act in such a way that we consider our emotions and importantly the emotions of others around us. However, I can also see how structure and laws in society prevents extreme behaviour. In this sense I would have to agree with Locke's ideas of society that people should not have total free will because disputes will arise so it is necessary to have a government to sort these disputes. Rousseau on the other hand suggests that people should have complete free will because we obey the rules by obey ourselves.
Rousseau believed that the developments of the Enlightenment had tainted man's knowledge and life, and that nothing in books or life was the truth. He believed that truth could only be found in the nature. He also believed that the natural, primal state of man is the most virtuous. I recently watch a documentary on the BBC called Human Planet in which we are shown the most extreme environments that man has learned to survive in. There was one episode which focused on how man has adapted to live in the jungle. The tribes who live in the jungles live in harmony with nature and I imagine that this is the kind of lifestyle which Rousseau believed to be virtuous. Below is a clip from the programme which shows the first footage of a tribe living in the Brazilian rain forest. The tribe are one of the few remaining tribes in the world which have remained "untouched" by modern life in the sense that they have had no contact at all with anyone outside of their tribe and appear to be blissfully unaware of the advances that have been made in all aspects of life. I often wonder what it would be like to be a member of one of these tribes, and I imagine it would be similar to how Rousseau imagined it to be , free, simple and virtuous living in harmony with nature.
Although Rousseau thought that this way of live wold be the best possible way for us to live, he also accepted the fact that this would never be possible in reality. I completely agree with Rousseau about this because it is obvious that man has become too accustomed to and dependant on modern life. For instance, if I were to be taken out of modern society and placed in a jungle there is no way that I would be able to survive! This is so much of a fact that the ITV reality TV show "I'm a celebrity get me out of here!" is based entirely around the concept that people who live privileged lives are unable to survive even a few weeks in a natural habitat. This however is not even a true attempt to live in the natural world because the celebrities are given beds, meals, clothes etc and have people on guard at all times to intervene should nature get the better of any of the contestants. In a way this proves that we cannot even attempt to live in the natural world fully, that is something which is seen as impossible, yet viewers of the programme act as if the celebrities have been completely removed from civilisation, when in actual fact they are simply participating in what can only be described as a glorified camping trip!
It could be argued that man has been struggling to live in harmony with nature from the beginning of time, for example the Neanderthals started created tools in order to help them become more efficient in their struggle with the natural world. To this day man does not work around nature, instead we find ways to make nature work around our lives. For example we construct dams to try and store and control the flow of water in a way that is convenient to us, and we clear huge masses of land in order to build on rather than finding areas that are suitable for us to live in.
In order to make his beliefs of the virtuous natural state of man fit with the fact that man can never return to a natural state, Rousseau tried to create a structure in which we are free not in a physical sense, but free to behave in whatever way we want to. Rousseau said that "man is born free but everywhere is in chains." By this he meant that we are born free but are then chained by the restrictions imposed on us by society and laws. He believed that a free society would be one in which man obeyed the law by obeying himself; so that rules were followed but only ones which were agreed upon by everyone. For example if you choose to eat toast every morning then it would not impose on your free will if a rule was created to say that you must eat toast in the morning, because that is something you want to do and happily agree to doing. There is a dilemma with this way of creating laws though in the sense that Rousseau suggest we must only do things which we are happy to do, however that system would mean that some people ended up doing things which they didn't want to. For example, if one person hated toast then they would not be following the rule because they want to, they would be following it because they had to, and so they would not longer be free to do what they want. In a way, this dilemma means that Rousseau;s suggestion is in fact what is happening in society today. We follow rules and some people follow them because they agree with them and would behave in that way anywhere, where as there are some people who only follow them because they are told to do so - does this mean that only the people who follow the rules because they want to are free?
Rousseau wrote a book outlining his beliefs about how society should function and sent it to Voltaire, a french writer and philosopher. Voltaire completely disagreed with Rousseau's suggestions, stating that "No one has used such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if one should walk on all fours." This criticism was not limited to Voltaire and very few people listened to Rousseau or held his beliefs with any credibility. It was not until the French Revolution that Rousseau's ideas started to become integrated into society.
The French Revolution started in 1789, just over a decade after Rousseau died. It stemmed from the fact that France was completely bankrupt as was the King, Louis XVI. In order to find a solution to this King Louis XVI convened with all three estates of France, the monarchy/aristocracy (1st estate), the clergy (2nd estate) and the rest of the civilians (3rd estate). It was during this time that the 3rd estate decided that things needed to change, they were no longer happy with the King having all the power, they wanted to have a democracy which was fair to everyone.
The third estate convened in a national assembly where they created a constitution. The new constitution reflected the beliefs of Rousseau because it focused on the rights of man, the belief that all men are born free and equal and the importance of free will. The want for change led to the French Revolution. The Revolution was quite slow to start until the storming of the Bastille which acted as a catalyst.
It was during the Revolution that the guillotine was invented, and was used to execute the King and the Queen Marie Antoinette. This was not only important in the sense that the civilians had the King killed, but also because the guillotine meant that everyone was killed in the same way - even royalty. This meant that there was equality of men even at death.
The Revolution resulted in massive changes in society and interested many people who were excited by the changes, for example Wordsworth and Mary Wollstonecraft were particularly excited by this. They both visited France during this time and Wordsworth said of the Revolution: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven." This sums up perfectly just how much the French Revolution impacted society.
my thoughts
Today's lecture was an introduction to the topic of Romanticism. I studied Romanticism as part of my A-level English literature course, but only in the sense of studying the changes in poetry and novels from that time.
The Romantic period has always been something that has interested me because I am fascinated by the way that society seemed to back track on itself during this time, where the progression of empirical ideas seemed somewhat irrelevant. I am always impressed with the way that people can completely change the way in which we progress as a species and the Romantic period is one of the best examples of this. There is nothing in the universe that forces us to progress whether it be technologically, scientifically, socially, politically, philosophically, etc; it is something which we seem to naturally keep doing and I find it hard to imagine that we will ever cease to progress in the same way as the Romantic period.
Today I learnt about the massive influence Jean-Jaques Rousseau had on Romanticism. Rousseau presented his ideas towards the end of the 18th Century, but it wasn't until the 19th Century and particularly during the French Revolution that other people tried to put his ideas into place in society.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, the 18th Century was hugely important in terms of the development of and discovery in the scientific world which lead to a move away from dogma from the church and into empiricism. The Romantic period saw a shift from empiricism towards subjectivity. This meant that rather than understanding how the world around us works people started to focus more on how they worked in the sense that there was more concern for human emotion and sensitivity. Personally I think that this is the best way for society to function, but in moderation! I think that it is important for us to act in such a way that we consider our emotions and importantly the emotions of others around us. However, I can also see how structure and laws in society prevents extreme behaviour. In this sense I would have to agree with Locke's ideas of society that people should not have total free will because disputes will arise so it is necessary to have a government to sort these disputes. Rousseau on the other hand suggests that people should have complete free will because we obey the rules by obey ourselves.
Rousseau believed that the developments of the Enlightenment had tainted man's knowledge and life, and that nothing in books or life was the truth. He believed that truth could only be found in the nature. He also believed that the natural, primal state of man is the most virtuous. I recently watch a documentary on the BBC called Human Planet in which we are shown the most extreme environments that man has learned to survive in. There was one episode which focused on how man has adapted to live in the jungle. The tribes who live in the jungles live in harmony with nature and I imagine that this is the kind of lifestyle which Rousseau believed to be virtuous. Below is a clip from the programme which shows the first footage of a tribe living in the Brazilian rain forest. The tribe are one of the few remaining tribes in the world which have remained "untouched" by modern life in the sense that they have had no contact at all with anyone outside of their tribe and appear to be blissfully unaware of the advances that have been made in all aspects of life. I often wonder what it would be like to be a member of one of these tribes, and I imagine it would be similar to how Rousseau imagined it to be , free, simple and virtuous living in harmony with nature.
Although Rousseau thought that this way of live wold be the best possible way for us to live, he also accepted the fact that this would never be possible in reality. I completely agree with Rousseau about this because it is obvious that man has become too accustomed to and dependant on modern life. For instance, if I were to be taken out of modern society and placed in a jungle there is no way that I would be able to survive! This is so much of a fact that the ITV reality TV show "I'm a celebrity get me out of here!" is based entirely around the concept that people who live privileged lives are unable to survive even a few weeks in a natural habitat. This however is not even a true attempt to live in the natural world because the celebrities are given beds, meals, clothes etc and have people on guard at all times to intervene should nature get the better of any of the contestants. In a way this proves that we cannot even attempt to live in the natural world fully, that is something which is seen as impossible, yet viewers of the programme act as if the celebrities have been completely removed from civilisation, when in actual fact they are simply participating in what can only be described as a glorified camping trip!
It could be argued that man has been struggling to live in harmony with nature from the beginning of time, for example the Neanderthals started created tools in order to help them become more efficient in their struggle with the natural world. To this day man does not work around nature, instead we find ways to make nature work around our lives. For example we construct dams to try and store and control the flow of water in a way that is convenient to us, and we clear huge masses of land in order to build on rather than finding areas that are suitable for us to live in.
In order to make his beliefs of the virtuous natural state of man fit with the fact that man can never return to a natural state, Rousseau tried to create a structure in which we are free not in a physical sense, but free to behave in whatever way we want to. Rousseau said that "man is born free but everywhere is in chains." By this he meant that we are born free but are then chained by the restrictions imposed on us by society and laws. He believed that a free society would be one in which man obeyed the law by obeying himself; so that rules were followed but only ones which were agreed upon by everyone. For example if you choose to eat toast every morning then it would not impose on your free will if a rule was created to say that you must eat toast in the morning, because that is something you want to do and happily agree to doing. There is a dilemma with this way of creating laws though in the sense that Rousseau suggest we must only do things which we are happy to do, however that system would mean that some people ended up doing things which they didn't want to. For example, if one person hated toast then they would not be following the rule because they want to, they would be following it because they had to, and so they would not longer be free to do what they want. In a way, this dilemma means that Rousseau;s suggestion is in fact what is happening in society today. We follow rules and some people follow them because they agree with them and would behave in that way anywhere, where as there are some people who only follow them because they are told to do so - does this mean that only the people who follow the rules because they want to are free?
Rousseau wrote a book outlining his beliefs about how society should function and sent it to Voltaire, a french writer and philosopher. Voltaire completely disagreed with Rousseau's suggestions, stating that "No one has used such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if one should walk on all fours." This criticism was not limited to Voltaire and very few people listened to Rousseau or held his beliefs with any credibility. It was not until the French Revolution that Rousseau's ideas started to become integrated into society.
The French Revolution started in 1789, just over a decade after Rousseau died. It stemmed from the fact that France was completely bankrupt as was the King, Louis XVI. In order to find a solution to this King Louis XVI convened with all three estates of France, the monarchy/aristocracy (1st estate), the clergy (2nd estate) and the rest of the civilians (3rd estate). It was during this time that the 3rd estate decided that things needed to change, they were no longer happy with the King having all the power, they wanted to have a democracy which was fair to everyone.
The third estate convened in a national assembly where they created a constitution. The new constitution reflected the beliefs of Rousseau because it focused on the rights of man, the belief that all men are born free and equal and the importance of free will. The want for change led to the French Revolution. The Revolution was quite slow to start until the storming of the Bastille which acted as a catalyst.
It was during the Revolution that the guillotine was invented, and was used to execute the King and the Queen Marie Antoinette. This was not only important in the sense that the civilians had the King killed, but also because the guillotine meant that everyone was killed in the same way - even royalty. This meant that there was equality of men even at death.
The Revolution resulted in massive changes in society and interested many people who were excited by the changes, for example Wordsworth and Mary Wollstonecraft were particularly excited by this. They both visited France during this time and Wordsworth said of the Revolution: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven." This sums up perfectly just how much the French Revolution impacted society.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Blogs
After my tutorial today, I was instructed to look at blogs from other journalism students not only in the UK but from all around the world. I started searching for blogs and the first one I came across was an Americab post about how journalists need to be able to work with new media in order to keep up with a technologically advancing world. I thought that this was particularly apt because there I was searching for blogs from journalism students, only to find a post about how journalism students need to be able to do things such as blog!
Here is the link to the post, and my comment:
http://mediachannel.org/blog/2010/02/journalism-students-on-the-future-of-media-video/comment-page-1/#comment-19157
After looking at that blog I started searching for other journalism sudents' views on new media and came across a blog post entitled "To Tweet or Not To Tweet" posted December 2010 by an American journalism student.
Here is the link to the post and my comment:
http://www.juliekinzeramericanportfolio.com/blog/?p=103#comment-209
I think that reading the blogs of other journalism students has been beneficial because it has allowed me to evaluate which posts receive a large number of comments, and which ones are left relatively unread!
Here is the link to the post, and my comment:
http://mediachannel.org/blog/2010/02/journalism-students-on-the-future-of-media-video/comment-page-1/#comment-19157
After looking at that blog I started searching for other journalism sudents' views on new media and came across a blog post entitled "To Tweet or Not To Tweet" posted December 2010 by an American journalism student.
Here is the link to the post and my comment:
http://www.juliekinzeramericanportfolio.com/blog/?p=103#comment-209
I think that reading the blogs of other journalism students has been beneficial because it has allowed me to evaluate which posts receive a large number of comments, and which ones are left relatively unread!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)