Smashing the Patriarchy with Gilman

 Much like Dr. MB statement about the definition of Utopia, I do not mess around with the definition of feminism. Whether it is good or bad, it is still a Utopia. I do not humor people who claim we should really be humanist or that feminism is misandry at its finest. No. Just no. Feminism has undoubtedly changed over time and we have to acknowledge that before anyone writes this book off as not feminist. It is, but not in the way we think of now. Even the feminism of 2015 is radically different than the feminism of 1995, much less 1915.  We should not be afraid to call this a feminist work. We really should not be afraid of the word at all. Feminism is not about man hating, it is about gender equality. Feminists just want to "smash the patriarchy" and make sure we all have equal rights. That is all.

Now that that is out of the way...

I think this book is inherently feminist even though it may not seem so at first. While we wonder why she started out so great with her all female society and then succumbed to what we deem a less feminist ending, I think she did it on purpose for a variety of reasons. The most glaring is that she really intended to juxtapose the two worlds so that in making a shocking world only focused on females and the female perspective, it really forces one to look at the current male society. By showing an almost overbearing female society, Gilman really points out the double standards of the present. Terry, Jeff, and Van (though Terry mostly) really react to being confined and being treated as somewhat lesser. They are always watched, much like women in Gilman's society were always being judged and kept on a short leash that did not extend too far outside the home. One of my favorite double standards that Gilman subtly addressed is the idea of maternity. Many people have this idea in them that all women want to be mothers. Gilman certainly plays on that idea in the female society she writes about, where motherhood is exalted. However, when the men are formally joined to their "wives" the burden of fatherhood is suddenly thrust upon them. Terry exclaims, "Fatherhood! As if a man was always wanting to be a father!" (106). By Terry pointing out that not every man wants to be a father or is enraptured by it, it makes one think then of the reverse view of modern society and presents a novel idea: not every woman wants to be a mother.

Another reason for the switch to a love story and inherently less feminist to some, is that Gilman is commenting on the fact that males and females really need to work together to find a middle ground. Gilman presents various stereotypes of man. Terry is the burly manly man who represents masculinity in all its glory. Jeff represents men who see women as a beautiful idea rather than a person (manic pixie dream girls, anyone?). Then Van represents the middle ground. We are meant to think Van is a great guy. In this regard, I think Gilman is calling for men to set aside a hyper masculine way but also to not be too disillusioned with the woman spirit as well. We do not need to be worshipped, just equal.

Finally, the books reversion to needing men to survive I think is a call by Gilman admitting that there is still a long while to go. I am somewhat reminded of The Awakening (which you should all read if you have not) where the main character breaks free of her womanly duty and is a woman on her own but ultimately ends up *spoiler alert* committing suicide in the end as she cannot fully escape. I think the way Gilman ends Herland is similar. She acknowledges the desperation she must be feeling. She can be an activist and write stories with feminist messages, but that does not always equate to results. In her ending, Gilman admits this is a hard fight that is not won and may seem hopeless at times. I certainly commend her for her contributions.

Sir/Saint Thomas Moore

I would like to first state a surprising fact I found. As I was driving to campus with my roommate, I was telling her I was reading Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. She replied, as she went to Catholic school, that Thomas Moore was a canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic church as a martyr of the reformation. I found this intriguing as we refer to Saint Benedict and Saint Augustine by their canonized titles, but not Moore. I guess all of Moore's other accomplishments, such as his role as Lord Chancellor and his classic works outweigh his sainthood. So do we look at Utopia from a religious perspective the same way we look at City of God? I would inherently say no, but I think his religious background perhaps comes into play as he describes Utopia. Utopia is not Heaven and I do not think Utopia is a religious text at all, but I think elements were definitely taken from it.

For example, Moore places men in the characteristic head of household saying that "wives are subject to their husbands" and that "the head of household looks for whatever his family needs" (50). We discussed earlier how in past days, the head of households were not only responsible for taking care of the household but also their salvation. It would not have made any sense for Moore to exhibit other views about women at the time, though women did contribute to society in that they had assigned work. Even though Moore did use the phrase "weaker sex" on page 42, I will of course forgive his sexism because of those olden times he lived in. When he also mentions the religion of the people of Utopia on page 60, it sounds very similar to the Christian tradition; monotheistic, there is an afterlife, and good deeds on earth pay off in the end.

Anytime we talk about Utopia and whether it is good or bad, of course our morals come into play. I think there are a lot of good things in Utopia that we can all agree are good. Required farming so everyone has food seems pretty okay to me. Having people not covet money seems awesome! Venerating those that did not choose the academic life and instead chose trades and appreciating their contributions to society is something we talked about on the first day. Sure enough, this is discussed early on in the text. Moore obviously chose the way the people of Utopia lived based on what he deemed a morally good society. For him, and many others that are of Christian faith, these morals come from what their higher power deems right and wrong. Most of us being brought up in the society we live in which is bombarded with similar morals, whether we are believers or not. It does not suprise me that people genuinely like Utopia and think it is a cool place.

I am interested when we move on to sci-fi and more godless societies to see how our morality comes into play with liking or disliking the texts. Until then, I will think on the crescent island and its unreachable "perfection".

Legitimacy in the City of God

I was intimidated before reading this based on what Dr. MB said in class. I have not taken an English class since senior year of high school, so I think you can imagine my fear. However, I trusted my Lutheran upbringing and tried to go into this with an open mind, like always. What I found was a text riddled with what one classicly sees when dealing with Christian theological texts. The phrases seem long and circular, but really everything just leads back to God. All answers for moral questions brought up in the Earthly City lead back to reasoning based solely in scripture and the Word of the Lord, and that we cannot hope to be happy or perfect in this earthly place when the perfect City of God is waiting for us.

I think what is interesting to me that popped out right from the beginning was how the City of God gains legitimacy. Many utopias or utopian stories are just that: stories. Plato's Republic describes Socrates and his friends coming about the perfect city and in turn the perfect citizen, but it never is seen as real. For St. Augustine and many, many people, the City of God is a very real place that we will one day be able to live. I think that makes this text rather interesting, though. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal city that is not real and inherently unattainable, St. Augustine discusses what he believes to be a real, and attainable, perfect place. For St. Augustine, and his readers, there is no debate about whether it is possible, because it already is in existence. We just have to get there.

The context is also everything for this writing. It occurs after the Fall of Rome where people were scrambling for meaning and a sense of community. The great empire of Rome has fallen and these people are no longer the most powerful. In the classic days of Rome, the Gods were to blame for good and bad happenings, so naturally people were turning to God to blame for the ruin. St. Augustine, being the saint he is, took this opportunity of despair from the people to evangelize like no other (except that the majority of the population could not actually read what he wrote so who really knows how good he was). He spreads the "good news" and tells the lost sheep that God is not to blame for Rome's destruction because how could things not go wrong in the Earthly City? He mentions how our Earthly city was founded in selfishness and speaks of a city founded on the greatest love of God (393). That seems pretty great to someone who suffered in the Fall of Rome. Is the idea not tempting of a place founded in love and not hate (unless you are an inherently wicked sinner. They are not invited to the party, of course), one where we are protected by God's Divine Grace? Throughout the rest of the passage, Augustine just continues to mention the impossibilities and wrong doings of the Earthly city and continues to make points about how much better this City of God is and will be when/if we get there. We will no longer be tempted, we will be free of our earthly tethers, and we will know true peace. He rejects the old way of thinking, the old philosophers, and dismantles the idea of a commonwealth of the people in the Earthly City later on.

This text overall I just find to really be harkening to our human nature of wanting community in some way. For the people of Rome who are undergoing turmoil, I am sure they were looking for a sense of community too. Is it too cynical to say that perhaps Augustine is taking advantage of that fear and using promise of a perfect community to spread Christianity? Perhaps, but is there no better setting to spread beliefs and doctrine than in times of trial?

Media and Science

I think most people can agree that media has always played a part in shaping how the general population feels on many subjects.  The media has the wonderful ability to provide hope to a country when its at its lowest, but unfortunately it also spills a lot of fear, prejudice, and hatred. In a world where we are rapidly coming up with new technologies and new scientific discoveries are made on a daily basis, it is sometimes good for media to turn a critical lense toward science. As we make advances, ethics definitely comes into play and as a scientific community, we should continually ask "just because we can do this, should we?" I have no problem with outside sources looking into the scientific community to examine it. The problems are when the media takers either bad science and spreads it as the gospel truth, or takes facts and skews them to be terrifying. There are many things about science that people will not understand if they do not have suitable background knowledge and that ignorance can quickly breed distrust and fear. The world would be a much better place if the media would stop spreading lies and bad science. 

One of the biggest examples of the wildfire spread of bad science is the statement that vaccines cause autism in healthy children. There was one paper produced in 1998 that described a connection in a small study children. When repeated in studies that included one with 14,000,000 children, no connection was found. And yet, in the quest to find the cause for autism, a disorder we still do not fully understand, the media latched on to this one case of bad science. As a result, currently 1 in 4 parents believe vaccines cause autism and we are seeing the effects, such as a rise in cases of diseases previously thought eradicated and unnecessary deaths of children and those with compromised immune systems.There is also a lot of unnecessary drama regarding thimerosal which is an antimicrobial preservative that is no longer in vaccines due to general outcry. Thimerosal contains an atom of mercury (Hg) in its atomic structure. Mercury is very toxic on its own, but when bonded to other atoms, it creates a nontoxic molecule. Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl) are also poisonous on their own and when we ingest them, it can make us sick. Yet common table salt is just an atom of sodium and an atom of chlorine together to make a harmless ionic compound and common food additive. I will not bore all you with the other facts but see this link for a good infographic describing the myths surrounding vaccinations  and this link from the CDC that explains thimerosal and why the fear is so unwarranted. 

An example of fear mongering in the media by skewing information was the general hysteria over the ebola outbreak. General fear over the Ebola outbreak led to it becoming a bigger deal than it ever turned out to be. At a doctors appointment in Frederick this year, I saw on a newspaper a giant headline reading "EBOLA IN FREDERICK" in regards to the one American nurse who became infected with Ebola landing at Frederick municipal airport on her way to Bethesda to get treated. I can only imagine the panic it may have caused for some people, especially if they were ignorant to how ebola is spread (direct contact with fluids from an infected individual). 

The media wants sensational stories that will get viewers and readers. This often comes at a cost. Besides discrediting the science community, they spread fear to people without science backgrounds who are not equipped with the tools to even decide for themselves if what they are hearing is true. There are countless other examples of people not believing in scientific findings (climate change, evolution, etc.) and you can choose to not believe them when presented with the evidence. But the media does not present all information or presents it in a biased way that does allow the common viewer to form their own opinions. This needs to stop. I think the only way it will is if news stations/sources agree that they should start doing the honorable thing and stop spreading misinformation. More news stations should get in the practice of consulting those with scientific backgrounds that can explain findings to the public in a way they will understand that is also accurate to the findings. This practice of fear mongering only leads to continued distrust of the scientific community and can inhibit future progress. 

I leave you with this one statement: always examine any media report on a scientific study. Lucky for you all, I love infographics, so have one more outlining how to identify bad science. Bad science and skewed reports are on the rise. However, we can all work towards a more scientifically aware, and better, world.

And get your shots.