Dorian Gray is the Devil

"My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One of us has got to go." -Oscar Wilde, several weeks before his death. The obsession with beauty and beautiful things has always been evident in humankind. We like pretty things. We like objects and images which we find "aesthetically pleasing." In class we discussed how Dorian Gray's painting becomes hideous because ugliness is what we associate with evil, or immoral activity. In reality, evil is very rarely so obvious. People might get frown lines because they don't smile, but they could have just had a rough life. I think mankind has an obsession with characterizing good and evil. We see children, dogs, flowers, sunlight, the 19th century Impressionism movement as "good." We see savage tribes, sharks, darkness, or selfish intentions as "bad." When something does not fit into either category, it makes man uncomfortable. Dorian Gray had a terrible soul but he was the most beautiful man of his time. I said this in class, but I hate how a lot of literature and art depict the Devil as someone who is revolting, horrific, and fearsome. The Devil was an angel, and accorsing to Scripture angels are supposed to have about 9 wings and hundreds of eyes covering their body. That's not something I personally find aesthetically pleasing, but in my opinion Lucifer should look just as beautiful as Michael or Gabriel. If you paint Gabriel looking like he's walking the red carpet, Lucifer should be right there with him. Historically, people portayed the Devil with dark skin and dark features as a way of establishing a dominant white race. Look at how retouched the magazine covers are in society. Darker skinned people have their features lightened, women are often subject to sudden waist-shrinkage, and every imperfection is calulated out of the equation. This is something we are surrounding ourselves with every day. Through every media outlet we are taught what to find beautiful. People believed Dorian Gray was beautiful because he was young, because his outer shell did not display causes from his inner soul. Dorian Gray was like Lucifer, he loved music, he fell from his pedastal of being "God's" (Basil) favorite and he was beautiful.

Marie Antoinette Did Not Deserve That, France.

So when I first read The Awakening I was not really super into it because I don't tend to like characters that are presented without flaws or appear to be upheld toma high standard by everyone else. In previous literature, this was the case in The Power of One, in which I found Peekay's constant praise annoying. In The Awakening however, Edna Pontellier has flaws that extend beyond the basic formation of her character. Her flaw is her society, as fatal as Acheilles' Heel and even more debilitating on both emotional and physical levels. After class discussion of the novel and analyzing the work itself, I now have a very strong respect for Edna Pontellier and Kate Chopin. I think that this nature of judging women for being too perfect, or "promiscuous", or "ugly" is a nurtured critical perspective people are often taught to have when encountering anybody. In Edna's society, she cannot do anything because she is a women and therefore must uphold all qualities and chacteristics of the feminine lifestyle. In our society, we tell women they will be tested on intelligence and judged by beauty. When I look at women in today's media who are forced to live under certain archetypes created for them by the media, I think of Taylor Swift being criticized for obsessing over love and boys, remarks in social media condemning the way in which Rihanna presents herself, or Secretary of State Hilary Clinton having to maintain the image of a powerful women. People don't want to talk about Taylor Swift writing a song about her family, or they use the same scornful words to criticize Rihanna wearing sweatpants, or how nobody is asking Hilary Clinton the same questions they are asking Martha Stewart. Edna was expected to behave a certain way to appear perfect to the outside world. The role she played was not a role she wanted to play, so she "exited stage right". The expectation of women is still unchanged in that society expects them to behave exactly as we wish. When they don't, we criticize. When they do, we criticize. This week, for International Women's Day, I came across a quote "In some countries it is more dangerous to be a women than to be a soldier." When you compare the freedom of a women in 1890 to a women in 2015, the difference is striking. However, Edna still exists in every women that is told she cannot dress a certain way, say a specific thing, or learn a certain skill.

How We Destroyed Them

Native Americans have experienced a long, brutal history involving many of humanities worst violations against human rights. The list of abuses includes, but is not limited to: genocide, disease, rape, militarization, concentration, social isolation, appropriation of culture, and political inequality. Throughout history we have often seen, and are pleased at the outcome of, the underdog winning against oppression. It becomes very hard for the average American to admit that what Hitler did to six million people is being reflected here, crudely, in the modern day United States. In an excerpt we analyzed from The Toughest Indian, there was a young Native American who had trouble adjusting from his native culture to American assimilation. His native culture has been washed out by an all-American ideal of conforming. The Native people are not allowed to wear their grass skirts, although there is no law forbidding it there is a very negative social taboo invoked with traditional Native American culture. Roman Fury was a symbol of tradition, of respect for history, and the American  invasion into Native culture. He had the greatest potential, leadership qualities, and intelligence beyond his years; however this is also on top of the fact that he has grown up a poor orphan who lives isolated on an Indian reservation with his grandmother. His Native culture is misunderstood by American citizens, specifically Mr. Williams, a figurehead at Roman's school.

While it can be true that Americans were not the ones who settled here, we were the ones who continued to push and poke Native tribes farther west over the course of almost three centuries. We gave them smallpox blankets to further ease our troubles and justified the immorality through the American belief in Manifest Destiny. What we did was wrong, and what we are doing today is wrong. We have isolated the last of a once great and powerful population onto small reservations in which the United States government establishes, oversees, and controls. Reservations are extremely depressing, full of alcoholics and gamblers, the people who once dominated the continent have been reduced to hollow shells. I do love reading the pro-feminism books but I wish we read more about Native Americans in school. Until very recently in my education was I actually taught in a classroom setting how the American people destroyed the Native lifestyle. It's just very sad to me.

(Pictured below: Native American land claims throughout history) source

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot

I feel like we always read about these guys who are so in love with some glamorous, out-of-their-league woman. J. Alfred Prufrock is Gatsby, only older, and Poe, only more sane. It's a literary trope that's worn out it's welcome to me, only one notch above the more common dead horse writers love to  beat, the love-triangle. Madame recommended a book to me called, The Cult of the Saints which is basically the in-depth analysis of the culture of Virgin Mary and the world's fascination with saintly, virginal women. Even before the birth of Christ, women who stayed on a more devout, modest path were often held above women that engaged in scandalous behavior. All female saints prior to the fourteenth/fifteenth century were considered devout women because they abstained from sex. That was the way to solidify their sainthood. Saint Joan of Arc was a French martyr who saved France at 18 years old, but the people of her time appreciated her because she preached Christianity and abstained from romantic relationships. Would she have been canonized if she had been a prostitute before leading the French army to war? She probably would never have been given the chance to lead the French army to war. This woman who captivates Prufrock, although never described, has basically driven him to live his life alone and drowned in anxiety. She has to be beautiful, or at least in some way remarkably above the "average" woman. I think that even though people try to say that our modern world has moved away from that unattainable Virgin Mary image, we haven't. There's criticism for women who dress promiscuously, dress-codes in place to prevent the sighting of an exposed shoulder, and, the most horrific, is that there are cultures where a woman who has lost her virginity (by force or choice) is no longer allowed to live within her home community. There was a news story a couple of years ago about a girl in some Middle Eastern country who looked upon a boy and her father killed her on the spot. Why? Women are always compared to saints. They always will be.

Cultural Relativism and the Hijab

"We agree that we shouldn't eat Grandma; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) Grandma." I found this article (The Challenge of Cultural Relativism by James Rachels) to be extremely fascinating. In this essay, Rachels speculates on the theory of Cultural Relativism: how it is implausible and how it is beneficial. The basic idea of this belief centers around appreciation for different cultures, and how one region's moral compass may be drastically different from their neighbors'. At first, I thought this was a really good idea because it seems to develop a deep respect for other cultures, something that I believe most people have trouble with. For example, there is a great misconception that all Middle Eastern women are oppressed, they have no rights, and they are socially inferior to men in their culture. I know this is not true, and that while there are extremist groups of individuals like Jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood that distort Western perspectives of the Middle East, there are great women who emerge from these cultures. In America we say that we are so progressive, that we are so much better than the Middle East, but Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister whereas the United States can't even get a woman Vice President. We have a subculture of women in America who chose to dress in a fashion from their country, be it a burqa, a niqab, chador, or hijab, and face large amounts of discrimination for "blindly representing a culture that oppresses women." Most Americans have no understanding of the religious significance associated with this type of dress, and merely choose to label it as a symbol of Middle Eastern inferiority. Most of the time, women choose to wear this headgear not because a man forced them to, but because it is a personal choice for the individual that represents modesty, faith, and virtue. However, in our society the hijab has negative connotations in Western minds. With Cultural Relativism, different cultures would no longer be able to criticize each other because there is no inherent good or bad moral code. In the case of Middle Eastern woman, this would disallow generalizations that spread negativity with cultural headgear. Within each culture, the morals differ and therefore cannot be compared because there is no universal scale to compare it on. Women over there wear scarves on their heads, most women over here don't; the scarf is seen as good or bad depending on the region and therefore neither culture is correct.

Cultural Relativism reminded me a lot of Things Fall Apart because there were so many aspects of that specific African culture that shocked me. Men had a lot of wives, everyone was obsessed with yams (I still don't understand what a yam is, but everyone says it's just a sweet potato), people cut up their dead babies and (surprise) women were expected to do everything for their husband. According to Cultural Relativism, this is all okay. A culture that cuts up dead babies is just as equal as a culture that does not do that.

In the end, I found myself opposed to the idea of Cultural Relativism, although I could see it had good intentions. I do strongly believe that cultural appreciation is one of the most important things for a well-rounded individual, and it is a familiar topic to me because I am considering a cultural studies minor in college. While I agree with some of what Rachels is describing, he makes very good points about the flaws of Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism does kind of scrape away any negative parts of history (even the Holocaust or slavery) by stating it was appropriate in the culture of the time. I disagree greatly with this ideal because to me, the entire purpose of society is to make it better and more fair for those involved, but to simply disregard historical downfalls is wrong. We have to learn from history. If people pretended that Hitler was kind of a chill guy or slavery was cool, first of all they're wrong, and second of all society could be sent back a few years of social progress if those select groups gathered a large enough following. So, while Cultural Relativisim promotes respect of other cultures, it also inherently supports ignorance.
Ultimately, the article was worth reading and I learned a great deal from it.

I Just Remembered I Had to Do This

So it is eleven at night at the moment and I just remembered that I forgot to do this (sorry). I was really sick this week and I took a lot of cold medicine. Okay yeah so this month we had an interesting discussion about fate. Is fate real or are we essentially just those tin metallic balls spinning around the arcade game pin-ball machines until we just fall through? I think this question is kind of disturbing because it makes you think about the universe as a whole. To clarify, it's almost like everyone has a string tied to them and we're all just walking around, colliding with each other, and making this ugly knot. That's chaos theory. And if I call my boyfriend right now at this very moment it could ruin his life. He won't get enough sleep, he'll go to college tomorrow, he'll fail a test, I'll have ruined his life because I called him at 11:11 PM. However, I don't believe in that. On the other hand you have predestined fate where we have no choice, no control over ourselves and the frightening reality that we are all pawns in a very lengthy game of chess. I don’t necessarily believe in that either. I believe that people are put in certain situations, good or bad, because God believes they will do what is right. Does this mean that only the bad things in our lives are God’s responsibility? I don’t think so. In my mind, everyone is in control of themselves. You can do whatever you want but it will not influence other people. In Oedipus, he fulfilled his own prophecy by trying to run away from it and became a pawn for the gods. I don't agree with this, although it was interesting that by choosing to discover his fate the gods ultimately punished him. If Oedipus really did not want to fall victim to his fate, he could have just not married anyone, not married a woman significantly older than him, or not killed anyone. In the end, I believe it was his choice. He felt that he was powerless and allowed himself to be in the situation.

Ayn Rand: Feminist? Probably Not.

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand was undoubtedly one of the best pieces of literature I have ever read, although I do not really care for Ayn Rand herself. I have a great interest in the dynamics of Rand's characters. They are abnormal; nobody could ever be as self-assured as Roark, no woman could ever be as intentionally self-destructive as Dominique, and even Toohey's outlandish manipulations seemed slightly far-fetched. In spite of these inhuman qualities, Rand still managed to present her ideal characters as human. Dominique was the most important female character of the novel, and really the only female main character. She was educated, beautiful, coveted, destructive, and cruel. Her purpose within the novel is to counter all of Roark's successes, through direct or indirect manipulation. She was motivated to destroy, whereas Roark was motivated to create; in part establishing Rand's ideology that women are inherently bad. Dominique was someone that I could aspire to be, not entirely, but in part. She was well-spoken, strong-willed, and intimidating. Whether Rand had intended to or not, Dominique had power. She was a perfect example of a modern day feminist in that she was educated, likable, and did not allow others to control her. I kind of admire her apathy. Since feminism is the ideology of women and men being equal, Ayn Rand would have wholeheartedly rejected the movement because she believed that certain humans were superior to others. Truthfully, Dominique might have rejected the feminism movement as well because she always had to go against what the rest of the world rallied behind. Rand had to make Dominique unattainable and cold so that she could be someone Howard Roark admired.

During one of her interviews, Ayn Rand remarked that women should have their own "male hero" to admire (hers was a serial killer), and within The Fountainhead this is presented through Dominique's unfounded obsession with Howard Roark. She closely followed his work in order to prevent him from success, wrote about his buildings, and waited for him. Dominique liked pain, and she saw Roark as the chief executive of pain. She cut herself up after Roark's bomb, demanded that he "destroy" her, and made fully conscious decisions to say the wrong thing to the wrong audiences throughout the novel. Why was she like this? Precisely because Ayn Rand saw women as inferior to men; and although Rand had progressed past the "housewife" archetype, Dominique could never have achieved successful status without her father, Wynand, Roark, Keating, Toohey, or other prominent men to aid her. Dominique had the potential to be the greatest feminist character of the century, but this was destroyed under Objectivism.