Society and Women - Advertising

Killing Us Softly 3  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412#

Though dated around 1999, this video is a fantastic piece about the depiction of women in the media and I highly recommend anyone with even a faint iota of interest to give it a look.

Now again it is a bit of a dated piece, but still provides quite a bit of insight into advertising's view of women and potentially what they should apparently strive to be. Are things different today? Yes and no. The very first piece of advertising about birth control pills likely wouldn't last two seconds in today's market (unless it was in jest, but never seriously). The idea of women being fixated on household choirs is unquestionably offensive, but as the talk illustrates there are much more subtle ways to depict this passivity (being silent, vulnerable, etc.) Of course the speaker is being a tad bit selective about her ads to prove her thesis (elevators are dangerous?), but, overplayed or not, the message is still there. Objectivity and the unobtainable image of the "perfect woman" are quite clear.

Now if you were to ask me the question of if things are worse today for women I would have to say yes. With the internet being much more integrated into our daily lives the potential to see these images increases exponentially. There are companies trying to move away from these images purposefully, like Nike's ads specifically aimed towards positively depicting women and their body's, and it's a fantastic step in the right direction.

"My shoulders aren't dainty or proportional to my hips. Some say they are like a man's. I say, leave men out of it. They are mine. I made them in a swimming pool then I went to yoga and made my arms."

The only problem is that it's the equivalent of throwing a pebble in the ocean when you think about it. It's a good disturbance, but it will hold little sway over the giant wave of ads constantly washing over women. The biggest issue I think though is that these awful messages are getting to girls at a younger and younger age. My friends and I were recently talking about how a great number of modern children's cartoons have become so sterile you can actually feel yourself losing brain cells with censorship (although tailored more to avoiding violence), but the internet is fair game.

However, a friend of mine pointed out how the show Dora the Explorer, a show featuring one of very few non-adult characters like Barbie, is being sexualized in a spin-off show. Why? This all seems so contradictory. It's scary that there are products aimed for toning the body's of little girls at the age of seven (shoes by Sketchers) and scarier still that padded bras are advertised for such a young age demographic before they've even started developing. What kind of message is this sending? Girls this young should not be thinking of themselves as sexual beings and it's terrible how they're constantly given figures that instill the belief that physical beauty is everything.

I'm looking at you Disney.

Sadly there is no quick fix for this kind of problem. I mean you can't exactly keep these girls in a bubble for their entire lives. Big change needs to happen in the world. I feel like the best thing you can do is keep an eye on your child and instill in them at a young age the ideal that physical beauty is not all that they are. They can be smart, imaginative, passionate, caring, devoted, independent, all of these things and more. Is it a guarantee? Unfortunately it's not that easy. All we can really do is give them the right tools in life and hope they make the right choices when they begin to venture out of the nest.

Never stop questioning.

Sources:
http://adland.tv/ooh/nike-gets-real-ads-women
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/skechers-markets-butt-toning-shoe-to-7-year-old-girls.html?page=2
http://voicerev-sharemyjourney.blogspot.com/2011/03/padded-bras-for-little-children-what-on.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/03/dora.html

Self - Buddhism

""Know Thyself?" If I knew myself, I'd run away."
                                                                  -Geothe

From the above quote it is pretty clear what the speaker is trying to say. Basically if we look at ourselves there's a very good chance we would not like what we see. Certain aspects of who we were that we wished were different, heck we might not even agree with it. If we did "know ourselves" there's a good chance we would "run away" to re-define ourselves. Prove that definition wrong.

Another thing we might want to consider is whether we can find our "self" at all. David Hume had the idea that trying to look at your self is like chasing your tail because all you ever see is abstract past emotions, experiences, etc. Never the true "now" of self. John Locke on the other hand believed in the "tabula rosu" or "blank slate" view of self that we fill in with our own personal experiences, creating self. Buddhism offers a unique view into the idea of the self. It doesn't exist. Plain and simple.



Yeah you. You don't exist.

I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means, but here's a shot at a very brief summary. Believing in samsara (wheel of time, cycle of life and death, reincarnation), Buddha essentially believes that everything in the world is suffering. A more optimistic view of this is that everything is always decay in the world (dying). That said, the second you establish a self, thus attachment, you open yourself to potential suffering. Here are the four noble truths of Buddhism.

Four Noble Truths of Buddhism
1) Life means suffering
2) The origin of suffering is attachment
3) The cessation of suffering is obtainable
4) We should follow the path of suffering's cessation

No self or "anatta" is the idea that by accepting the now (always in a state of arrival and departure) one will free themselves from all suffering. Basically, the whole point of this state of mind is to one day break free of the cycle and into Nirvana.

Not to be confused with the band.

A lot of Buddhism seems logical. I mean focusing on the "now" to avoid worrying about the past or future makes a ton of sense. On the one hand though, as Steph and I pointed out, a life of no attachments is kinda iffy. Side-stepping the issue that if there is no reincarnation you could very well have screwed over your one and only life, it goes against our traditional definition of "living". A huge part of how we live our life is by setting goals to try and obtain. What does this say about friendships we make? Relationships we have? I mean they do have the potential to create suffering, but does that mean we should avoid them altogether? In a never ending cycle of life and death, yes I suppose.

I see where this belief is coming from, but since I don't share the idea of reincarnation I choose not to throw away some of the very things that make life so interesting. A purpose gives us something to strive for, something to achieve and most importantly a reason to wake up in the morning. Could you potentially never get what you want? Suffering does and will occur if you don't because it was something you truly desired to have. That desire and drive however, so long as it keeps burning is what gives us hope and meaning. It's true that friends and relationships can and likely will blow up in our faces at times, but the time prior to that far outweighs that loss.

The idea behind letting go of material possessions and truly living in the now are fantastic concepts, however I see them as a way to better appreciate the life we do lead. It is our desires and friendships that make life worth living, despite the chance that it might not work out. After all, " 'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." (Lord Alfred Tennyson)

Never stop questioning.

Being and Becoming

This isn't something that we're really talking about in class just this second, but it is something I've been meaning to write about for some time. I want to address my issues if we're living in a world that is solely becoming (multiple truths opposed to a single truth).

Before getting into that, we have to look really briefly at the four different mechanisms (realms of truth) which we use to find truth in the world; Rhetorica, Mystica, Empirica and Logos. Rhetorica is all about any truth given through language or communication of any kind (conveying an opinion). Mystica is unwavering truth that is found through religion or spiritual beliefs. Empirica is when truths are found through scientific theory, i.e. with evidence to support. Finally, Logos are indisputable facts in the world and is largely focused on mathematical laws. The Pythagorean Theorem for instance is constant, has always existed and will exist long after we're gone.



Question that punk.


Now factoring in being and becoming, we can actually arrange these realms of truth...

Being<------Logica-------Mystica-------Empirica-------Rhetorica------>Becoming

The image is pretty self-explanatory. Now if the world is solely one of becoming that means that the "truest" truth would be rhetorica... yeeeeeah I hate that idea. Here's my reasoning. If rhetoric is the only method by which we can find learn and experience truth, suddenly the world becomes one in which the best truth is only found through whoever can convey their argument best. Since there are multiple truths of equal weight, finding truth would be merely an act of persuasion or debate. As we know from Thank you for Smoking, the great thing about arguing is that if you do it correctly you're never wrong. Theoretically what this means is that if a single person was extremely good at rhetoric, he/she could effectively control the world.

I despise using this individual as an example constantly, but Hitler's ability to persuade the German people is an instance demonstrating just how flawed a world of becoming can be. His astounding ability to mislead and persuade upstanding German citizens is still something examined by many psychologists.

I'm fine with having multiple opinions and such in the world, but the reason why is because it's difficult for us to see the world of being. By shooting down every idea that's different than our own we are denying the possibility of what being can be, but at the same time I believe there are such truths in the world, things that are universally right and wrong. Can I say precisely what they may be? No, but there are a select few in history who apparently have gotten a glimpse and it's apparently awesome. I think there are moments in our lives where we get a glimpse of it as well. Little moments of complete certainty that cannot be explained. I've had one or two of these moments of clarity, so that's why I feel I can vouch for it.

Ultimately, I feel that we walk in a world of becoming, but it is a surface with tiny cracks in which we are able to catch occasionally see the layer of absolute truth beneath. I really do believe there are fundamental truths out there, if only because the alternative of truth constantly being a tug-of-war just feels wrong in my eyes. Like a tree, perhaps our ideas can branch out on their own, but ultimately all link back to one point. The roots. Being.

Never stop questioning.

Ethics - Kantian Ethics

Alright, so there are ton of different ethical models that exist in the world. They can essentially be divided up into three broad categories: virtue ethics (desirable qualities a person should have such as honesty and loyalty that we obtain through practice), duty ethics (all humans are required to fill certain duties of right and wrong) and consequential ethics (the right act is one which leads to good outcomes).

One we focused on primarily was Kantian ethics and it's an idea which interests me quite a bit. Part of duty ethics, Kantian ethics thrives on the "Golden Rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's based on the idea that not only are there "right and wrong", but that by following one mantra it is obtainable.

Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.

It's an ingenious concept applicable to a great number of situations. For instance if someone believes it is alright to steal, then you must be okay with everyone stealing, including from him/herself. If you think it is okay for you to kill someone, then it is also appropriate for everyone else to do so. Makes sense. If you hate the idea of skinning animals you shouldn't wear a fur coat. Looking at lying specifically, if it was a universal law that one did not lie, Kantian ethics suggests the world would be a better place. No matter the potential outcome, this branch of ethics suggest morality is only in the "right" intention since we cannot predict outcomes. An end to justify the means is not acceptable. Again a fantastic idea... but it falls apart when put under specific circumstances...

If for instance you knew the whereabouts of someone hiding from a killer and were asked by the killer where he/she was. By lying you could potentially be saving their life, but that would make lying okay all the time... The simple solution to this matter is that this is acceptable behaviour because it would be universally moral for anyone to lie in this specific situation. Logical for Kantian ethics, however suddenly a few general universal laws becomes rather chaotic. How would one ever be able to keep track of how to act in every single situation?

Yes it is based on personal decision on what should or should not be a universal law. But even still I do not believe it "right" to stand aside while people close to me are being physically abused simply because I believe violence is wrong and the abuser clearly doesn't share my view.

It's in these little details that Kantian ethics falls apart. Some may argue that I'm just nit-picking by creating specific situations that will likely never occur, but I would say the contrary. I feel the details are the most important part of ethics. There's no point in having a massive wall if it's full of holes people can sneak through. Courtrooms are forced to deal with these specific issues on a daily basis and there are times when "right" and "wrong" isn't so clear. (Another situation would be euthanasia...)

So what do we do? As I've said in earlier posts, I do believe there is ultimately a truth, but it is definitely difficult for us to see let alone construct a society around. I do believe Kantian ethics has something going for it when it says we must focus on the intent, not necessarily the outcomes. There's the saying that hell was paved with good intentions, however we can't predict the outcomes of our actions either. Ultimately, in the absence of this truth I believe that (in terms of ethics) we must act in the way that the majority views the world when providing judgement and making decisions. I'm not saying we need to push our ethical beliefs on everyone, but I guess I just hold the optimistic belief that the more people involved in an ethical belief, the closer it will be to being the "right" one. Naive? Perhaps, but I guess I'm hoping that belief is one in which we support the rights and freedoms of everyone.

Never stop questioning.

Self - Identity

"Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody."  ~Mark Twain

I've always thought the idea of "identity" was an interesting concept. I mean, what is it that truly defines who we are? Is it your unique talents? Interests? Personality? Appearance? Thoughts? Relationships with others? Career? Suddenly a simple question becomes ridiculously complicated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-GV46SUcWs

A quick scene from the movie Anger Management that has been stuck in my mind for years. Yes it was probably largely done to frustrate Adam Sandler's character, but it does a great job illustrating just how difficult it is for someone to define themselves.

Can we ever define ourselves at all? As the above quote graciously given by Mr. Twain says,  there is a side that we hide from the public, but who is that person really? There are actions and personas you take on in different company (wouldn't speak the same way to your grandparents you do to your close friends... I hope). Are you all one in the same or is one the "real" you? (Stopping with the questions) There are times in public however that you might alter your character slightly to "fit in", especially if you're new.



"Yes, it was Maria. But who is Maria really?"

 

I always liked the idea of your name having a big impact on who you are. Maybe not so much the name itself defining who you are through the combination of letters (although an interesting concept), but representing who you are.



The difficulty in classifying people is likely because no one person typically fits into a single stereotype, nor are we so complicated that any form of identification is impossible.  Personally, I think there are two possible explanations when it comes to defining oneself. The first possibility is that we give ourselves purpose (and therefore an identity) by deciding whatever we choose to live our lives for. Some people may say, "I'm a musician" or "I'm a teacher" and that could very well be a huge part of who they are. That particular interest or career is something they shape their lives around and becomes a large part of who they are. It's our purpose. The only problem is some people do not see fit to limit themselves to one thing, and that's alright too.

The second idea of mine, and my favourite, is that we are ultimately defined by our actions. We can sit in our room and pretend to be someone different all we want, but it is our interactions with the world make us who we are. Our little decisions we make in our lives add up really quickly and shape what we become, or perhaps just bring something to life that was always there. Combine that with names and suddenly when someone sees that simple text they also see your experiences together. For some it could be something small like "Oh they were nice" to an avalanche of emotion and memories that goes beyond mere words. We breathe life into our names everyday.

I'm not saying it's a perfect explanation and sometimes people may accidentally associate your name with things that may not be true about you, but that's not something you can change. That's really their call. Best just to not think so much about "who am I?" if you're completely unsure but to really just act. Not to sound like a broken record, but if you do what feels natural, everything will likely fall into place.

Never stop questioning.

Dependency

When we're infants,
we need others to survive.
                  
When we're dying,
we need others to survive.

But here's the secret. In between,
we need others even more.

                                                                      -Tuesdays With Morrie

Another quote from Oprah Winfrey's production. We watched the film quite some time ago, but this is one of the lines of dialogue that really stood out above the rest.  Naturally at birth we are extremely dependent; unable to feed, bathe or survive on our own whatsoever.  This is also true, and even illustrated, in those who are dying as the viewer observes the deteriorating health of Morrie. To say that we are even more dependent in-between these two phases is bold to say in the least.

Clearly Morrie is not speaking of physical dependency, but an emotional one. The friendships and relationships we have created are apparently far more vital to our sanity than we might think. Something about it doesn't seem to stick though... This September many of us leaving the nest and setting out into the world to pursue higher education or enter the working world. We are entering a time of complete and utter independence. It's exciting, it's scary and it's happening. It's a time of great change in our lives and for this quote to enter our lives at such a crucial junction causes a moment of pause. It speaks against the very independence we are trying to strive for.

Time to head out...

Before analysing the quote, what is it about dependency that scares us? When we're children all we can ever dream about is growing up and acting on our own. Is it merely a matter of human pride? Or could the idea of relying on others be scary because others are unpredictable? People enter and leave our lives all the time. The only real constant is ourselves. Maybe it's because we're afraid to trust. The idea of physical dependency is most certainly scary because we like to be in control. Perhaps the same is true with emotional dependency. The D-word is often associated with one thing, weakness.

Morrie insists time and time again (by the way the film is based on a real person's life) that our relationships are the most important aspects of our lives. It is the people close to us that make our lives worth living and according to him, we need them to "survive". Despite appearing contradictory to what is going on in our lives, what Morrie says makes a lot of sense. We may not realize it often, but the people we allow into our lives have a huge effect on us. As for how this relates back to us leaving for University, maybe his idea can still hold true. Not only is this a chance for us to really spread our wings, but to test the limits of our friendships. It's true that some will snap and break, while others will hold firm. It's risky, however this is a time to fly that might be necessary.

As for emotional dependency it's iffy. As I said, in the grand scheme of things, the only constant is truly you. Are we really a constant though? More than that, many people thrive on human contact. I believe he's hinting at the fact that the time between birth and death we are in the very middle of our life journey. Anything and everything will happen. We enjoy the company of others more at this time because it's comforting to know that we're not the only ones journeying. As tough as life gets, we're not alone. There's nothing wrong with independence (knowing how to live with yourself is important), but don't completely shut out everyone in your life in order to achieve it. You are as much a part of their lives as they are of yours. Supporting one another is far from weakness.

Never stop questioning.

Truth and Lies

“Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies.”

                                                                        -Ralf Waldo Emerson

“The first reaction to truth is hatred.”

                                                                        -Tertullian

“Lies that build are better than truth that destroys.”

                                                                        -Sengulese Proverb

“I’m not mad that you lied to me, I’m mad that I can never again believe you.”

                                                                        -Nietzsche

I know it’s a lot of quotes about the relationship between truth and lies, but I couldn’t really limit myself to one or two because it’s a concept that has come up countless times.  As human beings we have this innate desire to find “the truth” because, in my eyes, it’s something sturdy that we can hold onto in the world.  I think that is why many people would prefer to hear the truth over a lie.  As the first quote goes, lies also have the potential to be beautiful, but only when the person never discovers it to be a lie. The problem with this however is that the longer the lie remains concealed, the more devastated the individual will probably be if it is revealed.

I contemplated what it would be like if we could only blurt out the truth and coincidentally House just happened to have a patient suffering from a condition that had him do precisely that… an eerie coincidence, but I’ll take it!

Thank you television.

So it tackled a lot of really interesting concepts about the condition really quickly. On the one hand his lack of filter caused him to insult a few of the doctors, but his brutally honest (if not rash) comments flattered some of the female staff. They even talked about whether the fact that he always had these comments, but just never said them, changed who he was now that they weren’t filtered. The episode got really touchy though when he called his young daughter “below average” and that his wife’s career was “for people who can’t accomplish important things themselves” (the look in his eyes as he tried to hold himself back was heart-wrenching). He participated in an extremely risky surgery to remove himself of this condition. For him the choice was easy.

Now it was just one man, but if we analyze it from a human perspective, it becomes scary how hurtful little comments we hold back from the people close to us can cause a ridiculous amount of pain. The man was cured and his daughter will likely forgive him some day, but what he said to his wife… he can never take that back, despite how much he loves her.

Then for some reason I got this weird concept in my head, is something that goes unsaid as bad as a lie? Pondering out loud, I got a pretty impressive response, with one of my peers saying that if we said everything on our minds all the time things would just be ridiculous, but holding back something that you believe needs to be said is just as bad as lying. I really like that differentiation.

Can I honestly say that lying is always bad? No, because you can likely throw out certain scenarios where a “white lie” is actually more beneficial (a surprise party for instance!). Personally I would prefer to be told the truth all the time and do my best to do the same for my friends. If we are honest as much as possible maybe we could prevent a situation like that man was in. Am I perfect? Far from it. I can understand how a lie can have good consequences, but compliments and musings don’t have to be lies. In fact, I think a truth that makes you feel good is one of the best feelings in the world. Both receiving and delivering it. Yes, the truth may be difficult to swallow at times, and even met with frustration, but it is in essence beautiful because the truth is the simplest idea there is. It’s not sugar coated or pretending to be something it’s not. It is origin. It just is.  

Never stop questioning.