We Just Raise up our Glass, We Don't Give a Rat's Ass if You're a Democrat or Republican.. We're Just All Drunk Americans

I decided to start this one out with a little Toby Keith and "Drunk Americans," because I’m going to start out with a probably unpopular opinion and say that although straight forwardly this is a feminist text, it is much more so a humanist text. Toby's got his own little Utopia in his bar that works out perfectly fine and that is for one key reason: they don't give a rat's ass WHAT you are. I think that there is so much more to Gilman's work than the sex of a person and what they’re capable of, and I believe that the overpowering female to male ratio distracts us from something much greater than feminism. The most powerful plea in this book is that for the “immense Loving Power [to work] steadily… toward good” (98). Essentially, loving, “being loved…and understood” (98). The understanding is most important, for if we can understand one another on the most basic level of existing as human beings, the things we can’t change don’t matter so much and the ability to love becomes much greater, opening endless doors to a successful and united world.

During a discussion of philosophy and religion, Van says to Ellador, “you do love one another— you do bear one another’s burdens—you do realize that a little child is a type of the kingdom of heaven. You are more Christian than any people I ever saw” (98). This specific reference about religion at the end of the text is one that defends the humanist part more so than the feminist. It’s not what doctrine a person follows that matters. Rather, it is the actions they take and the view they personally possess solely because it’s what they have come to value, not what something or someone tells them to value. We can stretch this concept further than simply religion and beliefs as well. This “sameness,” as symbolized by the all-female society, stretches further than just the gender. In fact, I think the intrusion of the men into this society helps to identify which “sameness” matters.

Perhaps the absence of the male for so long, in combination with the quick acceptance and even admiration of them upon their arrival, represents that the physical things or the things we cannot change shouldn’t create friction in a community. At the end of the day, we’re all people. Republican, Democrat, Black, white, male, female, straight, homosexual, whatever it may be. These aren’t the factors that should throw off a Utopia. So, while I can understand the frustration that Gilman’s allowance of the men and the relationships that flower with them may cause, I view it as a really strong statement about humanism. Meanwhile we all thought we were reading a feminist book. Who knew?

Ain't about the cha-ching cha-ching, ain't about the b-bling b-bling

Things that work for me

1. They only drink wine, which is awesome. 'Cause wine.
2.The city/country exchange program. It’s the wife swap of workers.
3. Every ten years they switch houses. In a society of constant structure and singular lifestyle, a change of location, to another location run exactly the same way, is an effective way to keep citizens happy with a little variation while maintaining the way of life that works  best for the population as a whole.
4. The people don’t have the power exactly, but they have a say in who does. Being able to rid government of a tyrant is an awesome and rare thing to find in any utopian society. Bravo Thomas.
5. Each case of the breaking of a law is dealt with separately. The idea of no real systematic punishment is awesome. I think systematic law is often one of the most flawed parts of our own society, so I like that More has taken it into consideration.

 

Things that don't

1. What is the point of having slaves if each house already has forty workers and everything is so nicely put together and everyone works together? The workers will surely do their job, so there’s no need for slavery in a society where everyone does their part without question or cause for rebellion.

2. Moral discussions at dinner… ehhhh. Let me eat my chicken in peace, please. There are only six hours in the work day. Why does the discussion have to be at dinner time? This would just piss me off honestly. If I’m hungry, I don’t want to discuss how to be a good person. I want to eat my chicken. Then I want to eat my ice cream. The once my pint of ben and jerry’s is gone, we can talk.

 

$$$

The strongest part of More's Utopia for me is the non-existence of money and the lack of ownership. So let's touch on that.

1. Same clothing is fine. It’s just like if schools decide to use a uniform or not. The idea behind the uniform is a good one that forces a person to express themselves through different means and find something within themselves that makes them vary from the next person. No fancy jewels or suits. Additionally of course, there are no distractions and if everyone dresses exactly the same, there is less chance of the society crumbling due to bullying, class difference, or let’s be honest, sexual temptation. You have everything you need, and nothing that you don't. (Can you tell I'm all about the song lyrics this semester?)

2. Six hour work days! YES. Thank you King Utopus, you da best. No one has the attention span to actually work effectively for 8+ hours. Nor, is it necessary. Life shouldn’t be that complicated. 6 hours is plenty. Especially if we're not working for money. Not having money period is something that I think is great. We didn't always have it. What happened to just trading? Who even invented the concept of money when you can have a six hour work day without it and be perfectly content?

3. Nobody really owns anything. They put everything in a common area and people take what they need from it, preventing greed. Everyone supplies for everybody. No fig stealers!

4. I know a lot of people might be bothered by the gold toilet seats, but by all means. If you think something shouldn’t be melted down and shaped into a toilet, consider that things are only as valuable as we deem them to be. Kristian Bush has it down. Please watch and live by:

 

I prefer the "Utterly Delusive" Philosophers, Tbh.

The question was put forward of to what extent do we have to have bad things in order to have the good? Maybe in order to recognize something at "good" a person has to experience what we deem as "bad," but I'm not so sure that you have to have bad for there to be good. If something is good, it is because it is so, not because something bad says it is. Things do exist by opposition, but that's only really for analytic purposes.  Augustine says we can have a good place without bad, but not a bad place without any good. Even though some of his arguments might come off as pessimistic, I think this is the basis for a lot of what he says.

There is a difference between happy and fulfilled. I think he would argue that in order for a person to have a fulfilled life on earth, he/she absolutely does have to have the bad with the good. To get a full human experience, we have to experience every emotion and go through struggles and experience the ups as well. Happiness however, cannot be achieved on earth completely because Augustine says if we don't have faith in a better world after our existence on earth is over, we're settling for less, even if what we settle for makes us completely happy because he believes there is eternal bliss in Heaven and if you're Christian, you will go there. But, if I genuinely do all I can with what power I have as a person, and I'm happy with that, I don't see how I'm settling for less. I think I would be losing happiness by waiting for it to find me after I die rather than discovering what it is to my fullest potential while I'm alive.

I disagree with a lot of his religious stances. Partly because I'm not religious, and partly because I spent my last semester writing a 20 page paper on humanism and its importance. So, I lean toward striving to achieve all we can while we have what we KNOW to be, rather than living for a life we HOPE will come later. Disregarding heaven as a post-life destination doesn't doom a person's happiness. In fact, I would argue that it enhances it. Believing in going to heaven after we die is a hope. Nobody knows. Can we really BE happy if we spend life HOPING for happiness and eternal bliss instead of finding what creates happiness? It's like relying on something else to fill a void that we don't try hard enough to fill ourselves on earth. Rather than saying, 'this is the way it is because that's the way God intended it to be, but I wish it were different," why not go and do something about it? What is so wrong with trying to achieve the happiest level of human existence as a human being?

Tell your boyfriend if he says he’s got beef that I’m a vegetarian and I ain’t fuckin’ scared of him

To take a step toward a better utopia, everybody would be a vegetarian. This would solve lots of issues (although undoubtedly while causing others, but isn’t that why utopia is unattainable?). I’m not a vegetarian, but I don’t like meat other than bacon, chicken, and turkey. It has nothing to do with it being pork or whatever. Bacon tastes nothing like pork chops and that will never change. That covers the question I get about 48 times a year of “you like bacon but not pork chops? You know that’s still pork right?” I don’t care. I like to imagine that my bacon originates from the package it came to me in. Likewise with chicken and turkey. Now that we’ve settled that, allow me to tell you that I am fully willing to live without it and I believe it could save many people. There would be less obesity from the obscene amount of bacon people consume. We have a beer and bacon festival for God’s sake. THAT would not happen (unfortunate, I know.) Allow me to show you something called epic meal time:

 

Enough said. Now, assuming the society follows my later stated guidelines, there would be a much lesser vitamin deficiency of all kinds, particularly vitamin B which is found in leafy greens like spinach. Everyone should eat spinach. Lots of it. With everything. Now allow me to show you the super-realistic results of spinach consumption:

I repeat, enough said. Animals would be happy-go-luck. There would be no need to weapons, since we wouldn’t need to kill animals for food. Since no one would have weapons, there would be no need to have them for self-defense or protection from them. If you feel the need to protect yourself, get some pepper spray.

An entire utopia cannot be realized. Even a single piece that makes utopia cannot happen, because all of the population must be on the same page, and this just doesn’t happen. It would require a single person or group of people with endless amounts of power over all things, and therefore can only be achieved by force, threats, and violence. While utopia cannot be accomplished/maintained in an acceptable way, certain changes that progress toward Utopia may be considered. I do not wish to go about making everyone vegetarians through violent threats. Achieving this would inevitably end in the slaughter of all animals aside from humans so that the population of anything else would not exist, which is more gruesome than the slaughter of any in the first place for a food source. I realize I’m ranting about how it just isn’t possible, and we all know that. But I wanted to acknowledge on a simple basis why. Now that I have, I suppose I’ll imagine the strong-feeling vegetarians and animal rights activists of the world have gained world domination and give it a shot. I really want to go 1984 style and just brainwash the heck out of everyone, but I won’t.

You can’t require someone who doesn’t want to be somewhere to respect and follow the normal way of life there. For example, if a girl doesn’t want to go to college but does so because her parents “make” her, she will most likely resent the fact that she’s there and rebel, therefore breaking guidelines and disrupting peace. Since utopia doesn’t require the entire planet necessarily to be a part of it, a group of people with the common belief of being vegetarian could create a community in which they establish practices and an agreed upon detailed outline of how to live their lives. In this community there would be no slaughter of animals. It would require a doctor or nutritionist so the population wouldn’t become malnourished. There would need to be education on how to be a vegetarian. Many people would have to grow crops so there would be plenty for a market, so the community will not go hungry.

I guess while I’m writing this I just can’t get past my belief that without violence and protest and everything of the sort, any single practice across humanity cannot be achieved. So I’m really struggling to brainstorm a way in which it can be done, especially across a large population. Maybe that’s the point. Can an attained utopia among a small collective group of people be considered utopia? Maybe, I don’t know.