It seems like it has been so long since I read this book somehow. I don’t quite remember much in detail.. But as I was reading through Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft was “viewing [women] as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone” Well.. it is true how many women were mistreated and seem to have been oppressed by men/society decades ago. Years have passed and so many things have changed. But there still are people who think and claim the rights of women as Wollstonecraft did.
I personally think that women go get the same education as men do but it is the expectations that change their behavior. Yes, “men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in”. But even when women are equally educated as men, they still tend to rely on men.
To think of this other way around, men still want to be seen like a ‘man’, more masculine because the society expects/ pressures men to change this way. Not all men are born masculine but many women prefer men who are powerful. The society expects men to be intelligent, wealthy, masculine, less emotional… and much more. It is not only women who are oppressed to have beauty or to be submissive.
Educated women know how to stand up for themselves and knows how to reason. However, it is the balance that men and women creates when they are together. Neither men nor women are able to be fully independent alone.
Vindication of Rights of Woman also reminds me of one of the book from Hillary Clinton. How she became who she is today as one of the most influential women in history. I do not know direct quotes because it was translated into Korean, but she was emphasizing how education is one of the fastest way to be treated as equal among men. As Wollstonecraft and Hillary Clinton emphasize, education takes a great role for women. However, all I want to say is that femininity and masculinity should both be balanced rather than trying to be superior over one another.
Apocalypse Now … I personally enjoyed this movie for being realistic. It shows the craziness of the war, the power structure, the society’s view of females, and the nature of human beings. It seems realistic because of the way people fires guns and bombs towards innocent people as if it is a game. Calmness of the Americans in the middle of the gun shots shows the pride in those who have power. The dancing and sexual scene of women shows how women are commercialised as fulfillments of men’s sexual desires. Parts where Americans are shown as nature in human beings is when they suffer from the trauma of the war; and also the part where movie director encourages soldiers to make action in the middle of the battle, which shows the egotistical part of human beings. Unlike Heart of Darkness, where the director was influenced by, the movie didn’t seem to be racial. Maybe it is because it shows the reality of war in general rather than focusing on one particular topic. Or maybe because I was analyzing the soldiers while watching the movie. It is interesting how they were not able to complain about their traumatic situation of killing people, but at the same time, they did not seem to feel guilty of their actions. Anyhow, overall, I don’t have much to say about this movie because it just seems like a documentary. What more can I say? those who were inferior were out of focus, which is the reality of a war.
This book starts and ends as a story told by a man named Marlow. History is basically about imperialism, civilization, and a man with a great reputation named Kurtz. I might not have been too careful in reading but it seems like a confusing book. It has so many things going on. I am not so sure what Joseph Conrad is trying to imply through this story yet. But one thing that I do not like about this book is about how Europeans break into Africa, take over their land saying that they are helping them to be “civilized”. Were Africans actually getting helped by the Europeans? It just seems like a joke. They were just treated as slaves fulfilling their desires to expand their territories. What is the point of shouting for equality of all human beings while oppressing others? I am just not so fond of this book since the story just automatically makes me think about Korean history. I don’t want to bring this up all the time but I just hate the feeling that I get when it comes to colonialism, imperialism,,, etc. Well… I have never experienced WW2, Japanese Colonization, or the Korean War, but I have learned since young age through stories that my grandparents told or through history classes in Korea. Korea may have been a developed country, but I know how “Western cultures” are taken as a superior being in my country. I don’t want to be too detailed or personal. But overall, I didn’t like this book, it is too disturbing and disgusting.
Rights of Man is a powerful and revolutionary book that deals with rights of all people. How class systems should be destroyed and that people in power are just people with certain position to look after its people. This book feels familiar somehow but I don’t quite remember it. I should find out if he was the first person to claim equality of all people. Rights of man seems like a boring book by its cover but it is actually easy to follow since it is written right to the point. Although this book is written decades ago and although many countries have freedom today, it is ironic how people still claim for equalities of people. It still seems as if ideas of Burke and Paine still remains in the society.
Rewriting the Soul
As Hacking deals with multiple personalities in Rewriting the Soul, do people have multiple personalities? People do act differently in different situations and towards different people but isn’t it one of the ways people trying to socialize? Or maybe in order to survive? I mean, personalities do change over time because of past experiences or environments people live in. But does that mean people have multiple personalities? What if it is not multiple but personalities that change through lifetime through different experiences? Hacking also says that people are made up. A person changes by other’s description. If this is so, then how does this relate with multiple personalities?
Psychology, history, and dehumanization are the main keywords that are expressed in Black Skin, White Masks. As a non-caucasian and as a Korean, this book is very interesting and easily understandable in some parts. Many topics such as post colonialism, racism, and stereotypes can be related with historical facts about my country, how Koreans once lost their identity during Japanese colonization and how we are still living under the post colonial state under the United States after the independence. How is it possible that all men are equal?
Five Questions on Leviathan
1. Hobbes indicates how the state should be ruled in certain ways. But does he mention how people should obey under certain powers/rules?
2. Hobbes has atheistical views in some parts, whereas in other part of the book he emphasizes the power of religious authorities. What is it that he is trying to discuss?
3. Is religion a tool for power?
4. Can a person only be categorized in one of the two parts, “good and evil”? Who makes these judgments? If people are following the rules of God, then does God have a right to enforce human beings between happiness and unhappiness?
5. Is freedom of an individual equaled to an unlimited power of a ruler?