Purpose/Objective/Aim/Goal

Are there times where people ask you “What do you think about [add something here],” and you’ve no idea how to respond just because you’ve never gave that something a thought but you’ve had the gist of it? Most of the time the things that we think are unexplainable aren’t exactly unexplainable; we just haven’t thought about it thoroughly.

There are times when we watch a movie or finish reading a book or an article and we’ve this misconception that we understand the point the author/filmmaker is trying to make. However, we don’t really see the vivid explanation of the message. Somehow we can be easily deceived that we know the whole point of the movie/book/article when we don’t. So … would you consider that you’re well informed about the material you just read/watched?

What measures our understanding of certain things? For instance, I watch my favorite TV shows again and again until I don’t want to watch them anymore (which is, like, never). Just because I’ve watched a certain episode a billion times, I have this wrong assumption that I wholly understand the significance of the episode. Honestly, though, I wouldn’t know why I watch it again and again if you ask me.

Consequently, does that mean we do a lot of things just because it is … fun? Or, do we do things because, at the end, they’ll have some sort of impact or usefulness to us? Before we proceed to do anything, do we ask ourselves those questions? Do we have an objective in mind? I understand we don’t necessarily have specific purpose for all things we do–we mostly do things because we want to and not because we’ve to or we’ve an objective in mind. Nonetheless, if we are obsessed about something and we watch/read it consistently, I deem we should be able to give a satisfactory elucidation for questions that are raised by concerned friends/families.

But here are my questions: Is it always OK to do something without a purpose because it is entertaining? Or, do we always have to ask if we’ve learned something from a movie we watched or a book we’ve read or anything? Or, do we have to have a mission for everything we do?

 

Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy

A few months ago, I took a Social Problem class that dealt with feminism, race, class, culture, and sexuality. We read a lot of essays; we analyzed and interpreted what they meant. It was interesting, and I was very eager to learn more about all the issues I’ve listed in the above. For some reason, Feminism and Culture studies were exceptionally appealing to me. Then I started my book hunt. As I was searching for Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir (a recommended feminism book), I found the Female Chauvinist Pigs–a thought provoking read.

I enjoyed and learned a lot of things from this informative book. (In fact, at one point I was so mesmerized by the things that were going on in this world I asked myself if I was living under a rock this whole time. But then again, I am glad that I wasn’t exposed to these ideas at early age–you never know … curiosity killed the cat.)

Honestly … I can’t say I am a feminist, but I agree with some of the things that I’ve read so far. (Does that make me an activist then?) Thankfully, many people have done great things so that we can earn the right and equality we have today. However, it feels like most of us have taken our rights and equalities for granted that we are abusing them. We sell ourselves short to earn power and get “attention” while there are decent and proper ways to earn power and attention. Many of the stories–and interviews–Levy conducted were (disgustingly) disturbing and shocking. Especially underage girls doing things they shouldn’t be doing is scary, and it makes a person wonder if parents are paying attention to their kids.

Truthfully, I was shocked, surprised, ashamed, disgusted, intrigued, and a lot of other things. Ariel Levy did a great job by doing these researches and interviews to present reality succinctly. Levy makes good points about culture, girls, and sexuality. But, while I liked how informative and knowledge filled this book is, there were idea inconsistencies that got me confused and required a re-read. In addition, Levy relied on references too much; there wasn’t much of ‘I think/I believe/I Understand’ from her part. I didn’t see Levy’s involvement in the stories and ideas as much as I wanted to see her point of view as well.

Finally, I recommend Female Chauvinist Pigs. If you get a chance to read it, my suggestion is to take your time and enjoy the ride.

Rating: 4/5

The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde

I’m not a big fan of plays. I bought The importance of Ernest because people said it’s rather hilarious. I didn’t find it that comical, but it made me chuckle here and there. Even though this play contains witty banters, it allots good points about marriage, proposal, culture, cleverness, mannerism, etc. However, I don’t agree with everything said–though, I believe, Wilde was aiming for humor. Some of the points he made, as a matter of fact, are rushed conclusions, personally, but that is not to say the play lacks realism. I did not detest the play entirely, at least it has a good ending. Overall, it was good enough to kill some time, but not mesmerizingly funny or interesting as it was claimed.

Rating: 2/5

Divergent by Veronica Roth

Either in a movie or book, action is not my thing. However, that doesn’t mean I hate action entirely. When the essence of a book or movie loops on action, then I am not interested … which brings me to Divergent, a highly anticipated dystopia book of the year. In Divergent, we get to meet the action oriented, confident, blunt, and brave 16 year old girl, Tris. Although I was conflicted about her for the most part of the book, I came to like her for the last 90 pages as the main story unfolds.

My major problem with Divergent is, it is hard to tell the main point of the book. It was all about mechanical action and Tris’s interaction with countless people she met and initiation. Rather than getting to the point, the book contains too many gratuitous details (unless all those minor details come in handy for the next two installments—but I doubt anyone will remember them). As far as the other characters, I don’t feel like I know them well enough to pass judgment. Except, Tobias. I didn’t peg Tris and Tobias to like each other because there was no instant attraction (which was good), but they both grew on me.

As much as the hype that was going on, I should love and give this book five stars. But the entire time I was conflicted why she even chose dauntless, and why she doubts her choice at times. Truthfully, Tris can be irritating, and rarely, brave. This novel didn’t entertain me, but it had good points for us to ponder: I liked how Roth exposes ethical points without getting preachy. I thought the action thing was too much and too mechanical—and that kind of ripped the fun away.

Aside from the personal preference, I liked Roth’s prose. So elegant and readable. I believe that is why I didn’t stop when things weren’t making sense. Also, this book has good pace and it doesn’t bore you at all. All in all, Divergent is a well-analyzed work for young adults, and I liked it. I look forward to see how things turn out for Tris and the other factions.

Rating: 3/5

Values

On my last post, I’ve discussed about tolerance and how being intolerant affects not only adults, but kids too. People are intolerant because they are scared of changes, and they like the same-old-same style. Behind the same-old-same myth, I wondered why people like the old fashion and why they can’t accept the new changes. The first thing that comes to mind to why they like the familiarity is because they are acquainted with the environment, the thing (whatever it is), or the situation. Consequently, they despise the change. However … what is the main reason why people don’t want to tolerate?

The answer is: Values.

Values (noun)* — beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something).

People can’t tolerate because they have an assured values and beliefs they grew up with. If a kid grows up in a family where the father is abusive to the mother and the mother doesn’t do anything about it—the kid learns that it is OK to treat a woman badly and disrespectfully. So this kid’s belief toward women and dignity is unhinged. Likewise, a particular culture or nation will have a certain belief and values about some things, and when those changes occur, they become bigoted—and, sometimes, defensive.

A good (and interesting) example that I can give is the feminist movement. In a nutshell, most of us believe men don’t want women to be equal to them because of women’s vulnerability, physical weakness, and other trite reasons.  However, under all those fluffed excuses, there is a better justification why most men don’t support gender egalitarianism–Values. I don’t have to divulge how inhibited and old fashioned people were in old times. What men knew back then was how to provide for their family—and I don’t believe they even viewed women (their wives) as their half, other than a caregiver for their kids. When, all of a sudden, women want equal opportunity and treatment as men, it doesn’t only come as a shock but as a disrespectful progress to what they’ve clutched on their whole life: Men are superior to women. Men’s values/beliefs became a myth instead of being a ritual they’ve practiced.

All things considered, you have to acknowledge the fact that those people who prefer to hold on to the customary, at least, have values. They shouldn’t be underappreciated. They know what they believe and they stick to it. The imperative question is: Can we ask people to adopt new values? Can we persuade them one is better than the other—therefore there would be less intolerance among people? I’ll let you think about those. Nevertheless, I believe values can define us: they are standards we live by; principle we set; ideals we manage to fathom.

***

*Definition from thefreedictionary.com 

Tolerance

I got to thinking about people and how different we all are. As beautiful and intriguing that sound, I don’t believe we appreciate and tolerate our differences. Sometimes we expect others to be a certain way—or a certain person. The reason why we don’t tolerate one another is, according to A.C. Grayling, the author of Meditations for the Humanist, “Fear begets intolerance, and intolerance begets fear: the cycle is a vicious one.” I agree with that. People want you to be a particular way so that they can administer you the way they like. You’ll be easy and instruct-able. If you are not manageable, they fear you’ll do the inevitable—the greater good. They are scared of losing the custom or routine they’re used to, and what they want is for everything to be the same. Familiar.

According to A.C. Grayling definition of Intolerance, “Intolerance is a psychologically interesting phenomenon because it is symptomatic of insecurity and fear.” Here is a good example. I used to work at a retail store and my job allowed me to meet so many people. And this lady that I met looks like she is in her 50’s, and she was telling me all these negative things about this group of people shopping, and how they took over some part the nation. At that moment, I didn’t know she was being intolerant—I took her hasty generalization as superiority. What she was worried about was the fact that things were changing and she didn’t like it. She didn’t want to tolerate the changes—she was apprehensive and ill at ease.

That is the bigger mindset of intolerance. When you bring it down to your own space (school, work, family, church, etc.), there are people who are evocative to intolerance. If we take a family, it is definite that everyone isn’t going to have the same behavior, attitude, and perception toward life. We all have limitations and great qualities. But a parent shouldn’t expect a child to get rid of all their weakness because their other child didn’t have them. “She/he did this on her/his own, why can’t you be like her/him?” Well … that isn’t going to change anything, except to make a child feel a lot worse about themselves. A year or two later, we see parents seeking counseling for the degraded kid because he/she has no self-esteem. Talk about major problems now.

Sometimes it is not our culture, or the environment we live in, or the people we hang out with that build—or break–us to be the kind of person we are today. Parents play a major role in shaping us for a better tomorrow. If you have a bad day at school and you come home to a warming and loving atmosphere, that bad day at school means nothing. However, if your mom start nagging you from the door, the day just got worse. Parents should accept their kids for who they are and let the kids explore life’s goodness. (Kids should know they are accepted for who they are. Then kids will not only have a better life, but a broad-mindset that can tolerate others and accept them for who they are.)

As A.C. Grayling said, “… the cycle is a vicious one.” Indeed.  Strangely enough, there is nothing new happening in this world. The world didn’t have new problems yesterday or today or will have a new one tomorrow. It is all the same problems cycling all over again. And I believe the key for a better future—with no “vicious cycle”—lies on parents’ hand. Providing necessity alone doesn’t make a big difference in a kid’s life: children want to be loved, accepted, and tolerated by those who are close to them–and it is parents’ responsibility to create that warm, loving, and endurable environment for kids.