Beauty is in the Eye of Society

Beauty is in the eye of society. Society has created an unattainable standard of beauty yet forces women to try to attain it. Even though Barbie dolls reflect these unattainable standards, I don’t think they have a psychological impact on young girls that causes them to become obsessed with their appearance. I used to play with Legos for years yet I don’t have a desire to become an engineer. The main reason girls are so concerned about their appearances is due to their role models who impact their life. When Emily Prager said that “we’re all trapped in Barbie’s world”(Prager 355), I imagined an adult incarcerating their child in a giant version of Barbie’s dream house. Parents only buy their female children barbies and pink dresses which cause girls to feel like these are the only options for their gender. Celebrities are constantly teaching girls that if there is some part of you that society doesn’t appreciate just change it with plastic surgery. Doll manufacturers are only concerned about making money so they don’t care if Barbies affect beauty standards or not. It is the adults in society who care about the beauty standards of the next generation. Real people have a greater impact than a plastic doll.

                           "Help, I'm trapped"

Predator vs. Prey

 

The relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed in society is analogous to the relationship between the predator and prey in nature. The oppressor/predator is threatening. The oppressed/prey is threatened.

Human society is manufactured in such a way that prey always exists.  It’s our choice whether or not we want to eat away at the weaknesses of the minority. Oppressors gain nourishment and justify their own faults surrounding the oppressed in a “magic circle of ignominy”(Hawthorne 242) and feeding on the vulnerabilities of the minority just like a pack of wolves surround a moose and feed on it for sustenance. Just like a “leech”(Hawthorne 114) feeds on humans for sustenance The ability to feel content with weakening people defies the definition of being human. 

The oppressed are also less human because parts of their identity are being stripped away from them and judged by a hypocritical society. Staples exemplifies the threatened/preyed upon feeling when he describes walking down the street as “the equivalent of the cowbell hikers wear when they know they are in bear country”(Staples 207).  

To truly become a human, one must “have the freedom…of the [people] sitting next to you”(Tannen 382). The predator/prey relationship in society creates a superiority and inferiority complex that dehumanizes both the majority and the minority.

Disestablishmentarianism

Corruption is the death of government. A theocracy can never withstand the test of time because all religious institutions eventually become corrupt.  The idea of combining church and state might seem appealing because the government will be “pure” due to the presence of “holy” people who can make righteous decisions. Yet these “holy” people end up abusing their power.

             Throughout European history, the popes that were head of the church and state weren’t pious people but rather hedonistic sinners whose actions contradicted the words they preached (sounds familiar?). Pope Alexander VI (1431-1503) literally bought his way into the papacy by bribing the church.  In Iran, one of the last remaining theocracies, the Ayotallah Khomeini is revered like a god despite having caused the death of thousands of Iranians during the Iranian Revolution. Hawthorne also shows that even the Puritans, who were meant to “purify” the Church of England, had immoral policies and morally corrupt reverends.  

            Power can be easily abused in the name of god, which is why corruption exists in religious institutions. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, Edwards finds it so easy to get into the minds of people by using the word god.  The irony is that “God”, the spiritual epitome of morality, is used as an excuse for immoral actions by theocratic societies.

Is it a part of human nature to oppress or criticize someone who is different from you?

The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world yet there are still differences in the rights bestowed upon men and women. In the essay “There is no Unmarked Woman”, Deborah Tanner points out the minute differences between men and women in society such as how “ ‘Ms.’ declines to let on about marriage (checking ‘Mr.” declines nothing) (Tanner 391). The fact that any differences occur between genders is shameful considering how advanced modern day society has become. Are these unjust differences in rights among genders a choice that humans make or is it just natural to oppress people contrasting from yourself?

            The Puritans who were once oppressed and persecuted found it so easy to become the oppressors and persecutors. It’s almost like they felt limiting other people’s rights was fair despite having their rights limited for hundreds of years. Since the beginning of civilization, humans felt they had the right to dominate people mentally and physically.  Yet an interesting article in the New York Times shows that not all humans favor inequality. The Vanatinai people of Papua New Guinea have a society where men and woman share equal “burdens and privileges”. This outlier among societies gives hope that it’s not in our nature to limit peoples rights and that it is possible to one day attain a harmonious society.