Hi class. Now that I've let Lee make the first move, I guess its my turn to post something!
Although Lysistrata is a comedic play, it deals with some very serious issues. Some of which still exist today. As we decided in class, however, a sex strike to stop a war would probably not be quite so successful in modern society. However, are there any contemporary situations where such acts of deprivation could work? If not sex, then is there anything else which could be withheld to convince society of something? MLK Jr and Ghandi are two very famous examples of where peaceful strikes have succeeded, are there any other examples recent times? Also, as modern capitalists, what would you be willing to give up for a cause and what could be taken away from you to make you support a cause?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8025457.stm
Thanks for reading, I look forward to reading your responses!
And just for fun, Extra Credit if you can guess what animal this is:
(\ /)
(' . ')
(") (")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, for starters, I believe that the animal is a rabbit.
As far as the abstaining from something in order to peacefully resolve war I do believe that in a modern, first world country such as America, the complete cessation of all sexual activities could be proper means to end a war or conflict, however I feel that the trouble would be in actual agreement granted from the individuals whom it would effect. As a whole, our society is much larger now and so contact with the entire country would be difficult. As a second thought, the fact that the media constantly produces images of sex and that much of the entertainment and marketing industries are fueled by sexual advertising means that such a strike would be nearly impossible unless individuals were willing to risk both their careers and in turn their financial status. Also, the overall economic situation is much more intertwined between nations since the world grows increasingly smaller as tighter connections in greater numbers are made between nations and so the interdependence would be another force working against the efforts. This also brings in the issue that many women are completely immersed into the industries aforementioned that are supported by such intimate exploitation therefore they would be much less likely to jump on board. Also, sex is something that is now much less monogamous in nature to most individuals and so it is a lot easier to come by in desperate need granted there are diminishing ties between sexual activity and things such as faith and lasting human bonds which were once strongly ingrained in society and now are selectively practiced to varying degrees.
Going back to the economics of it all, not only would it destroy certain industries, but rather than replenishing the funds such as was the plan in Lysistrata, it would take away a large amount of income to several aspects of the international market. The sex industry is worth billions annually and if such purchases were no longer being made since copulation had been halted, it would put a damper on the local and perhaps eventually the global economy. This would mean varying things depending on how far the abstinence strike spanned.
I do believe that it is much more difficult now to lead a successful peaceful strike because often times the value of a human life is considered a minimal sacrifice for something more. Altogether I believe that humankind is becoming more and more self absorbed and therefore individuals are less likely to get on board with a cause, especially one that may not be widely supported. While there are examples, such as The Rescue, a protest that I was involved in two years ago for Invisible Children which eventually led to action by President Obama in the form of a LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Reconstruction Act, they are far and few between.
Also, in another light, thinking of whether this is even remotely probable in third world countries is out of the question. A peaceful protest would be met simply by a slaughter. And abstinence would lead to nothing more than rape which is already occurring systematically in countries such as Uganda and parts of Central America where wars are being fought. The item being withheld would have to be of utter importance to the soldiers, and to some there is simply no object they would be willing to settle for. For many cases, I believe money would be the closest thing to an object of enough importance and even to some all the treasures of the world would not suffice to persuade them to lay their arms at rest.
A recent strike that I'm sure some of you have heard about was the Georgia prisoner's strike that took place this past December. The inmates came together and refused to leave their cells until they were granted better living and work conditions. The biggest part of the strike that received lots of attention was that the prisoner's united, regardless of race, color, and any other differences to achieve this goal. I thought it was interesting how inmates came together peacefully. Prisoners are often stereotypically considered to be violent, however, they disproved this misconception through the strike. I think the purpose of the strike was to show people that inmates are people too and that they are capable of much more than violence.
In the original post Sam talked about MLK and Ghandi taking peaceful action in their civil disobedience. i came across something interesting that relates to both Ghandi and MLK. In 1846, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay poll tax because paying it would be a form of supporting the Mexican War as well as the existence of slavery in the United States. For his actions, Thoreau served one night in jail. Thoreau's actions were peaceful, however they had somewhat extreme consequences. This event lead to the publication of "Civil Disobedience" in 1848 which has since become and continues to be important to resisters across the board, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. I just thought it was really interesting. So if you want to read a great piece of work, I HIGHLY suggest reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience.":)
Depending on exactly what the cause was for would vary on what I would be willing to give up for it. If it was a cause I was actively involved i and passionate about, I would be more willing to give up more.
Oh! And the little picture looks like a bunny:)
First, that is definitely a bunny rabbit.
Second, I agree that the present day is so changed from how life was back in the day from when Lysistrata was written that unless we got every woman on earth to obstain from sex, it MIGHT work, but then again today we also have, as it was put in Lysistrata, 'do it yourself kits' that men could use to take care of this problem.
Another thing is that in today's society men aren't the only ones in power anymore, women are too, and so how would we conduct this ban if women were the ones in power creating the problems? And also homosexuality is a lot more accepted into society today than it was back in the days of Lysistrata and so, all these questions bring up, who would we target to bring this ban upon people? And with internet and porn out there, even if we got all the prostitutes out there to follow the ban, there are still videos and picture, etc, that can't be banned from being looked at.
I really don't think there is much that could be done as far as things being withheld. The population is huge and I don't think we could reach people in other countries that we are fighting with and say, 'hey! why don't you all abstain from sex (or whatever)'. The only thing I could think of is if we all just didn't work and got everyone to just sit around, but this would only work if the problem was internal, not dealing with other countries.
I honestly think I could give up quite a lot. Electronics, driving, etc. I don't doubt that it would be hard, but I believe that it could be done.
And also, I wanted to share this song with people, because I thought it summed up, in a funny way, sort of what Lysistrata was talking about:
The Pants
By: Brad Paisley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz9ZzNpWbvw
36, 32, boot cut with a skoal ring
Grease stains, bleach spots and a hole in the knee
You say the man inside those Levi's don't take orders
And she'll just have to realize you'll do as you damn well please
You wear the pants, buddy good for you
I'm so impressed, yeah whoopty-doo
You need to know that ain't how it works
It's not who wears the pants, it's who wears the skirt
In the top drawer of her dresser there's some panties
Go try on that purple pair with the lacy frill
With your big old thighs I bet you can't get in 'em
And with that attitude of yours, hell I bet you never will
You wear the pants, buddy good for you
I'm so impressed, yeah whoopty-doo
You need to know that ain't how it works
It's not who wears the pants, it's who wears the skirt
A big old boy like you can probably bench 350
A little thing like her can barely lift the bar
But just wait until that woman has a headache
And she sits there with her legs crossed we'll see how strong you are
You wear the pants, buddy good for you
We're so impressed, whoopty-doo
You'll soon find out that ain't how it works
It's not who wears the pants, it's who wears the skirt
You wear the pants, she'll wear the skirt
Oh man, everyone already said what the picture was. I was so excited to say that it is a bunny! :)
I do not think that there is any way at all possible in today's society that witholding sex could even come close to solving a major issue and definitely not a war. Wars today involve various countries; the chance that women from all of these countries could come to a compromise is slim to none. Yet, I do think that the act of deprivation could be a successful tactic. The thing being deprived would have to greatly affect every class of people and cause some hindrance to them in their daily lives. The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is money. However, I have no idea how money would be used. My reasoning is just that everyone uses money on a daily basis and needs it to survive.
Depending on the cause, I would be willing to give up a variety of possessions as well as time to see the cause succeed. The extent to which I would take this would completely depend on how passionate I was on the issue or cuase at hand.
Everyone's already said this, but that is totally a bunny!! :)
That article was really interesting, considering it dealt exactly with what lysistrata was talking about and the women actually initiated a sex ban that recently.
It would be really difficult to find something that everyone would be willing to give up in society today because we're all so greedy and focused on what we need right now. Personally, I couldn't imagine giving up the internet or anything like that for more than a day or two because it's so tied into our society. I suppose that stopping spending money would be a super effective way of getting the government and the rest of the world to listen to a cause. This would be especially effective currently since the economy's in such shambles right now, and a freeze on income is the last thing the government needs right now.
I believe that abstinence from sex would be improbable as a means to ending anything. This is due to the fact that I believe America as a whole to be weak in constitution. The populous is very comfortable with its ways and I believe that the people would cheat and revert back to its old ways before the problems have been solved. I do think, however, that if things the general populous has no control over (such as TV providers abruptly ending service), could be stripped to create an effect. The question is whether the problem for which the privileges have been removed would be solved or if the focus would become the actual stripping of privileges. I believe people would see their civil liberties being encroached upon rather than sacrifice for a cause. I personally would be willing to give up eating, so as to hunger strike. What could be taken from me is the internet, my portal to knowledge. I would see my liberties being stomped on, but because I put so much importance in my internet, I would do anything to have it back as quickly as possible. I would ignore the reason it was taken and do as I was told to regain it.
A bunny wabbit
I think that the idea of withholding something, be it sex or anything else, for some cause is a very interesting idea. We live in a society where instant gratification is expected, so it would be hard to get everyone to give up something to achieve a larger goal. Frankly, I don't think everyone would have the foresight to delay their gratification to achieve a larger goal. Still, if people did have something taken away i think that same need would initialize some sort of change.
I would like to think that I'm not so attached to material things that I could give up something for the right cause. Like Christian, it would depend on the cause and on what I had to give up.
Cute Bunny.
I agree with Miranda, instant gratification is commonly expected in our society, so people in general don't have a very high level of self-control or resistance to temptation. Not only would it take self-control to give something up for a cause, but it would take a lot of patience for the boycott to actually have an effect. Today, we choose more direct methods, such as force, bribes, or war, to get what we want. Also, there is such a variance in cultural values that it would be difficult to find something to give up that would make a significant impact for everyone.
There are many things I would be willing to give up depending on how much I cared about the cause, but a couple things I would not let go of are people that I love and my faith.
I had typed a really good response but the internet disconnected itself and I lost it so I will try my best to make a new one.
First of all, I do not see how abstaining from sex could possibly stop a war (maybe a home dispute) or any of societies other problems in our modern society. Personally I cannot possibly see what out there could possibly be successfully boycotted now a days in order to bring about a desired kind of change. Society has evolved into a point where if things don't come easily not many people are ready to engage in it. The more work and sacrifice that must be put into a task, the less volunteers you will have, and therefore a successful boycott would be hard pressed. However after reading some of these comments I did realize that although there is not much we can use to boycott there is much that the government can take away from us in order to make us come quietly. Things like television, internet, and cellular phones that at one point did not even exist would be cause for wild desperation and chaos amidst society. People would be enraged at the loss of these pleasures taht we enjoy, yet eventually would submit to a change in order to regain their luxuries of modern life. We would eventually give out quiet consent for things our ancestors were well off without! I agree with Christian that the only possible thing we could with hold from others in society that would have a true deep effect is our money- however it would be a double ended blade. Through our money is the way that we enjoy our modern little luxuries and therefore by not providing our money we would need to be willing to give up so much more on our part in order to bring about change. The lack of commitment in society in general would therefore make this highly unprobable and therefore I am at a loss for what we could possibly boycott.
And that is an ewok
Jk it is a rabbit jaja =)
Post a Comment