Femininity And Masculinity Are Craps!

Femininity and Masculinity are pure crap How did I get to this conclusion? I’ll tell you. Ask any man or woman you know what it means to be feminine and masculine and then take a look at the world and check how many people, both men and women, actually correspond their description. I’ll tell you: very few. This is because when we define we list all the merits and never a defect. How many women in this world are actually always polite, respectful, submissive, dedicated to their home, children and family, well mannered, sweet, romantic, emotional, faithful etc…? How many men are always fearless, brave, bold, hardworking, provider of their homes, a symbol of protection, strong, resolute, never victims of emotions, rational, etc…? People still fail to realize that saying a woman should be feminine and a man should be masculine is like asking someone to give up her/himself to fit a stereotype of the perfect woman and man. What if a woman is not gentle nor polite? Does that mean she is not a woman? Instead if she is strong and resolute does that mean she is a man? What if a man is not brave and bold, does that mean he is no longer a man? Instead if he is emotional and respectful does that mean he is now a woman? Let’s be rational for once, men and women. Look around you. Haven’t you seen some women are eager to violence just like some men? Can’t you see some men actually prefer to use manners and not authority to solve issues? Not all girls like to play with barbies and baby dolls. Some like to play with Spiderman, or build a city with Lego or have a collection of game cards like Yugi Oh!, Pokémon, Digimon. They watch cartoons like Bay Blade, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Dragon Ball, Naruto and hate cartoons like Sailormoon, Tokyo Mew Mew, Winx, Witch Club. Simply because these last ones are more focused on emotions than on the use or logic. The main characters are girls who are constantly depending on men to get out of danger. In every episode of Sailor Moon, her boyfriend always comes to rescue her. This also happens in Winx and Tokyo Mew Mew. Now that things are changing why are we still trying to enslave girls with the idea that they can’t survive without the protection of a man? Then check the cartoons made for the boys. Women are always their weak point. How many times did Spiderman have to save Mary Jane? Or Superman had to save Louis, or Batman had to save the woman next door? Why are trying to enslave the boys with the idea that their duty is to protect women even at the expense of their life? What if a girl doesn’t like to be protected, isn’t she a woman anymore? What if a boy isn’t strong enough to protect a woman or he is too selfish to do that isn’t he a man anymore? Even before we were born we are given roles to play as if this life was a movie and we the actors. We are in a Plautus’s comedy where only fixed masks exist. There are no variations. It’s always the same old story, with the same characters and inevitably with the same end. Right from children there is the trend of trying to model a girl or a boy to fit into the category of feminine and masculine. Just by watching TV you can see the distinction of toy adverts made for the girls and those made for the boys. They use the guys to advertise the heroes and the girls for the little cutie dollies. How sad! I used to watch Sailormoon, Tokyo Mew Mew and other craps like that but today I am ashamed of myself for wasting my time with such shits. I fell victim of my emotions, allowed myself to be played by my enemies a lot of times. However I have grown stronger and unlike the female characters of those cartoons, I am not going to fall back so easily. This is not only my story. This is the story of boys and girls around the world who feel useless and unfit to live because they are not feminine and masculine. Even if I am not polite or submissive or emotional, I am still a woman and no one can change that. And even if you are not strong and resolute, you are still a man and nothing changes that. We have to be who we are and not interpret roles of what we are supposed to be. We are the architects of our life and selves. No one should do that for us.

Suicide

The first right recognized by the State to man is the right to live. Being a right, it could be thought that a man can choose to make use of it or not, but the matter is more complicated than it seems. Cicero wrote: “Men should remember that he wasn’t born for himself, but for his country and his family”; and this strengthens my idea that an individual’s life is not solely theirs, but as a citizen they have duties towards their country. Cato was placed in purgatory by Dante, because according to him and to many of his contemporaries, his act of putting an end to his life was to be considered heroic as he didn’t want to subject himself to Caesar’s tyranny. Freedom of conscience is also a right conceded by the State to every citizen, but is it really worth giving up the most important thing we have to protect our ideologies? Ideologies that come and go, that change continuously, are put in front of the only thing that it’s once lost, can’t be regained again. It’s clear that the price paid by Cato to keep his conscience intact is more valuable than what was really necessary. When you die, you are deprived of that thing that puts a man on higher level as regards to other humans: thoughts. Aristle imagined a God who has the only occupation of thinking for it was the only thing that allowed him to maintain his perfection. He also wrote that thinking was the supreme activity that made man what he is- We are “rational animals” and to be that we have to have our reason and to have a reason and to use it, we must live. “Life is our reason”: if we deprive ourselves of it, we degrade ourselves to beats. Around an individual there is a family, a community and a State that resent the loss: not economical nor political, but social. We are the society, so, if an that element constitutes it misses, the State also misses it. In this world dominated by social individualism, someone could say: “The life is his; let him do whatever he wants with it”. But can this someone, who states this, dare hurt himself? I am not able to give an answer. However I can make a consideration that occurs most times: this same person shall be the first to feel disgusted at the death of a suicidal. There is an ethical hypocrisy that hides under this absurd individualism. In this society dominated by the selfish “I”, important values are lost everyday, but if there is one that should never change, because what is sustains is always and only that and it doesn’t depend on other factors, is that of life. It’s necessary to have it to live like humans, it’s necessary we conserve it to transmit it to the future generation, it’s necessary we are conscious of it as a respect to the laws that guarantee it for us. When someone feels like he has arrived to the end, beyond which they can’t go and then they think there is no way out, they should stop and think. You are never useless in this world; the fact that you exist is already a great contribution, but it’s not enough. To be what we are, living beings, we have to live.

Conscience

Surely Thomas Moore was a great example of a man who believed till the end in “what he considered right”. Pay attention to the words between hyphens. I could have written “what was right”, ma I didn’t because I believe firmly in subjectivity. Even the laws aren’t objective, they are the voice of the majority. As hard as we try to eliminate this way of viewing ethics, I don’t believe we’ll achieve great results. Let’s remember than during middle age the just was the good and the good was the beautiful, so the three coincide. I don’t think that, if is this objectivity was alright, Machiavelli would have elaborated a new perspective. He wouldn’t have made a distinction between what was just and what was good and I agree with him on this. There shall never be ethical rules that’ll be accepted by everyone, just for the fact that men are different. It would be like saying that all humans think alike and act alike pushed by the same cause towards the same aim. There can be many ways to act well but we should never think that it must be ethically correct. Moore just like Dante associated the good to the just and here lies his mistake. It’s not that I don’t share his choice of not supporting the king (The schism between England and the Catholic Church), I admire him a lot for this. “So do you also believe he acted right?” – Yes, I do because that was what he conscience suggested to him. “So, do I have to blindly obey my conscience to be always right?” – No, you don’t. Simply because I believe that in dealing with the theme of conscience we should also take another one into consideration: the theme of responsibility. A conscious man is also responsible, in my opinion. There is no objective ethics so, consciences won’t be the same for everyone. Don’t forget that the environment in which we grow up, the family, school, friends, can contribute to form the ethical values of a person. I am not saying that humans are totally exposed to the influence of external factors with no way of protecting themselves because I am of the opinion that we have the innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil which don’t necessarily correspond respectively to right and wrong. For this reason when a person decides to listen to that little voice inside their head, they should be ready to face the consequences of what the decisions might comport. When you don’t calculate the pros and againsts of every choice you make, you damage yourself and those around you. Of what use is a conscience that doesn’t favor you? Think about that! “Isn’t this selfishness?” – You are right to say this is pure selfishness, because it is. In my view a man who knows what’s good for him, knows what’s good for his neighbor. “So, is there an objective good?” – There is nothing objective in this world. You can’t satisfy everyone at the same time: someone shall always lose. To conclude I’ll say: “Choose your song but be ready to dance to the rhythm”.

There Is No Ethical Relativism, But Anarchy And Fanaticism

I have heard so much about ethical relativism but somehow I still haven’t understood the meaning, contrary to what I previously thought. Therefore I am taking a step back to the Greeks when this way of defining ethics was proposed for the first time. The sophists were those philosophers who denied the existence of a supreme good to accommodate a new one: common (or relative) good. Other thinkers like Socrates and Plato never accepted this new philosophy and defined it as negative and dangerous: men were to find a point of contact that was satisfactory for everyone, no matter what the origins and the ideologies were. Now we would say that the Socrates were way too idealistic, while the sophists were more realistic because from our personal experience we have learnt that there is nothing that can be good for everyone. Using Saint Augustine’s idea, I’d say that it does good on a side, and less good on the other, if we consider the different grades of good. Today, even though we have adopted these ethical rules we have turned them upside down. I remember these philosophers saying that our personal good was to be sacrificed for the good of the entire community. I think that today it’s absolutely the contrary. There would be nothing wrong at all: after all men make the society, so happy men, happy society. However it isn’t like that. Had men have others in mind when they make their decisions, then there could be a correlation between the happiness of the individual and the happiness of the society. Instead there is a pure selfishness that leaves no space to anyone else if not to “Me, Myself & I”, so we can’t really talk about relativism. We are using the wrong word to classify a negative way of living and at the end we have stained a high ideology of life. This way of ours should be rather called fanaticism and anarchy: we are obsessed by happiness and we use any means to have it. There is no longer respect for legality and morality. While there is a price to pay whenever a law is broken, we are given almost complete freedom to make our moral choices. Maybe at this point religion could be the only way to refrain this impulse of man to make choices that are compromising to someone else, but I don’t think that’s necessary. I am not religious, but I still maintain the basic human principles. If I were to give a reason for this phenomenon, I’d say that whatever is happening today is the result of our inability to think. It seems to me that most people think more with their bodies than with their minds and they force their conscience to submit to their carnal needs. If we thought more, valued the advantages and disadvantages of every action of ours, there would be less inequality and more happiness. However, having this insatiable desire to have more than necessary and sufficient happiness to conduct a satisfying life, we deprive others of the minimum necessity to live happily. A good commander in a battle field before proclaiming a strategy against the enemies, make sure he has studied the ratio enemies killed and soldiers dead. He knows there is no joy in a victory whereby the battle has been won but thousands of families are morning, so as a leader he takes the responsibility of the lives of his men in his hands. If we, as well, were more responsible of others, there wouldn’t be such anarchy. A law is not necessary; common sense is more than enough, but we don’t think hence we’ll never understand. As much as I believe that, when a choice made by an individual strikes against him alone, there is no reason to worry, there are, however, choices of which consequences apparently are limited to the subject but when observed from a different perspective, they aren’t. Suicidal people aren’t the only to have lost something, but the family just like the entire Country has lost a member and a citizen. Maybe one in millions can be omitted, but in a family nuclear it’s devastating: even more when these people have their families as well. We don’t have any ethics today and that can be deduced from the meaning of the word itself: “Rules and norms that help a man to live peacefully in a community”. We are not living fine nor peacefully. We fight each other, we hurt each other, we don’t simply give a damn about others. How can we talk about Ethical relativism? The sophists lived relatively. All we have today is 100% pure ANARCHY.