heh, for a sake of a new topic...

[snuffy shiteside]

my anarchy essay, which surprisingly got an a from my bitch of an english 101 professor...

Freedom Defined Through The Implementation of Anarchy

Freedom has a long history of being fought for. People have killed and died just for the chance of achieving it. Wars have been fought for the freedom of religion, speech, against slavery and tyranny. With something so apparently important to people one tends to question exactly what freedom means. An individual would only achieve freedom when he is able to make his own choices and do what he will with his life without the hindrance of any form of authority presiding over him. Technically, freedom is only available when one is free of a government or any such direct and forcible form of control over a person, or when one is present in an anarchic society.

To begin to define why the implementation of an anarchic society would mean freedom, one must learn what anarchism is. “Anarchism, as its derivation indicates, is the theory which is opposed to every kind of forcible government” (Russel). It also should be known that anarchism and socialism are related in the sense that both followers believe that private capital is a source of tyranny, however, unlike socialism, anarchism believes that the state should not be the sole capitalists. The theory is also opposed to police forces and criminal law in which the will of others is imposed on the individual (Russel). “In destroying government and statutory laws, Anarchism proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority.” (Goldman). In this society, there is no authority or hierarchal order in which the majority rules the minority. Quite simply it is an ideology where no one rules anyone but themselves.

To support such a theory one must also consider why any other form of government infringes on a citizen of that system’s freedom. Governments do not allow complete freedom to their citizens; instead they offer a set list of the freedoms that one has the power to assert. Therefore, the citizens do not have true freedom, rather than an amended version. Herbert Spencer said this when speaking of the immorality of government, “Does [government] not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes?” (Spencer). Communist, dictatorships, and monarchy type systems offer the government complete control over the people and are able to theoretically control every aspect of their citizen’s lives. Even systems such as democracies and republics have a central government that creates laws and enforces them. Although, these governments allow people more rights then other forms they are still infringing on the individual’s will to do what they wish. In any government, the citizen’s freedom is limited by the people that are politically in control.

Comparing these myriad of other forms of government that impose a force that limits certain freedoms on the people, it becomes apparent that anarchism is the only form of society that allows the people actual freedom. In such a society, there is no limit to what a person can do, they are in every way, shape and form, free. They are able to judge for themselves what is right and wrong without the opinions of the majority influencing them.

Works Cited
Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For.” 2 Jul. 2003. 5 Dec. 2004. <http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html>
Russell, Bertrand. “Proposed Roads to Freedom.” 5 Dec. 2004. <http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10-a.html>
Spencer, Herbert. “The Right to Ignore the State.” 5 Dec. 2004. <http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm>

...have fun...

[forelander]

since we're posting essays...

here's mine on gender roles within hamlet, specifically focussed on women. yes i speak a lot of shit...


The ideals, thoughts, wishes and overall dominant position of males are foregrounded within all forms of media while those of the females are marginalised. Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” remains a brilliant play, though upon deconstruction of the invited reading of the text, it bursts with blatant examples of stereotypical gender roles and discourses. All the roles women play are stereotypical representations with no identity outside that defined by their male counterparts. Ophelia only knows how to behave as a daughter; without her father Polonius, she would be without direction and without Hamlet, Ophelia would be lost, for it is these male characters who order and direct her life. Queen Gertrude, while in a position of apparent power, is more a possession to the King akin to his crown than any kind of leader, with no control over anything, least of all her own son; a complete reverse of the relationship between Ophelia and her father Polonius. In William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” males are portrayed as the dominant gender, forced to act the shepherd to the female characters who are portrayed as submissive and weak, both in mind and spirit.

Ophelia’s father Polonius is the puppeteer behind the actions of Ophelia. In the first scene of the play the dominance of Polonius is immediately displayed when he asks “What is’t Ophelia, he hath said to you?” (Scene I.3 Line 89) to which Ophelia immediately responds. No protest is made, no lie told; she replies promptly with the truth. Later in the same conversation between father and daughter the concept that women cannot think for themselves is introduced when Ophelia admits: “I do not know my Lord, what I should think,” (Scene I.3 Line 104). The importance and dominance of males is immediately and forcefully foregrounded in Polonius’ reply: “Marry, I’ll teach you: think yourself a baby.” Polonius’ reply also gives privilege to the expected behaviour of the daughter; it implies a stereotypical, eternal dependence and submissiveness towards the father wherein the weakness of women is foregrounded. Further instances of obedience, submissiveness and passiveness by Ophelia in regards to her father are plentiful, especially in regards to Ophelia’s actions towards the Prince. Despite her marginalised feelings towards Hamlet, she handles the relationship in accordance to her father’s will: “As you did command, I did repel his letters and denied his access to me,” (Scene II.1 Line 108). One would also go as far to think that such letters would remain the property of Ophelia, the contents private. Alas they are not; Polonius takes the letters which “in obedience hath my daughter shown me,” (Scene II.2 Line 124) and reads them aloud to King Claudius and Queen Gertrude, showing little consideration of Ophelia who remains passive and silent. Within the text her feelings and thoughts and will are constantly marginalised by her father, whose perspective is given privilege. It is always Polonius who speaks on her behalf, adding a male discourse into the problems and possible solutions within Ophelia’s life. As a daughter any feelings or thoughts Ophelia may have are silenced; her father speaks for her and governs her life, especially in regards to Hamlet.

Ophelia and Hamlet’s relationship demonstrates the effective silencing of females by the male gender. In the exchanges between the two, Hamlet is always in control, dominating the conversation, if it could indeed be labelled so. During the conversation Ophelia admits “Indeed my Lord, you made me believe so,” (Scene III.1 Line 116). Hamlet is immediately put in a position of power during the relationship. He led Ophelia as it pleased him, and she followed. He told her how things were, and she believed him. Even at the end of the relationship, Hamlet once again takes control; Ophelia came to him to return his love letters and most likely tell him the relationship could no longer continue. Before Ophelia even began to explain herself Hamlet attacked her, and by the end of the conversation Hamlet had completely silenced her, ended the relationship on his own terms and ordered her “Get thee to a nunnery,” (Scene III.1 Line 121). In the attack on Ophelia, several stereotypes of women are presented through Hamlet. Principally it is indicated that woman are deceitful by nature, using beauty as a form of deception and furthering said deception through use of make up: “I have heard of your paintings too, well enough; God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another,” (Scene III.1 Line 144). Hamlet earlier says “Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them,” (Scene III.1 Line 139). Again, Hamlet is implying that women are deceitful and manipulative. However he also notes that their manipulations only affect fools, for the majority of men are still too intelligent to fall for such ploys. Hamlet’s perspective is privileged in all his relations with women in the play, effectively silencing any female character with whom he speaks, without exception; not even for his mother, the Queen.

Queen Gertrude’s role within “Hamlet” is that of a mother and Queen. While she maintains power over many of the characters in the play, it becomes severely limited in regards to the other male characters in her life: her husband Claudius and her son Hamlet. She is more of a possession to Claudius than a Queen with whom to rule, a mere fringe benefit of being King. This discourse is admitted by King Claudius himself when he attempts to confess but cannot: “My crown, mine own ambition and my Queen,” (Scene III.3 Line 56), naming Gertrude in relation to his crown, something which he sees himself as owning and unable to give up. However it is not only Claudius who sees Gertrude as “his” Queen; the ghost of King Hamlet sees her as a possession and admits the power King Claudius maintains over her: “O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power So to seduce!-- won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen,” (Scene I.5 Line 45). King Claudius holds the power in the relationship, demanding Gertrude to “set some watch over your son,” (Scene V.1 Line 307) over whom the Queen evidently has no control. When Queen Gertrude talks to Hamlet (at the command of Polonius and Claudius), Hamlet orders her “Come, come, and sit you down; you shall not budge; You go not till I set you up a glass,” (Scene III.4 Line 18), ignoring her attempt to control him. When she begs him “No more, sweet Hamlet!” he continues on until he is commanded to stop by his father. What his living mother says he ignores, yet he obeys the command of his dead father. What can then be said about the opinions of women? Surely they are not valued, if they receive any attention at all in the first place. Queen Gertrude has no control over her son, indeed Hamlet controls her and she is but a mere possession to both Kings who hold all the power while she herself is marginalised.

“Hamlet” is a prime reflection of the roles members of both genders were expected to play within society, particularly highlighting the stereotype that females should obey the dominant males for their own good. Gertrude’s role as a mother leaves her with even less power than she has as a Queen where she’s seemingly part of the crown. Within relationships males have all the power, Hamlet effectively thwarting any attempt by Ophelia to gain control and silencing her in a situation that was brought about because she was obeying her father, Polonius. As daughter, Ophelia has no control over her own life and seemingly no privacy; any secrets she may be wont to keep only exist as long as her father does not have an inkling they exist, for should he ask she has to tell. Shakespeare’s THROBBING PENIS presents a typical view of expected gender roles in society, providing an archetypal example that compares with all modern forms of media, where the message is loud and clear; males are more important and it is the female’s job only to listen and obey, never to question.


mine's bigger

[snuffy shiteside]

size of your essay only matters to essay whores....

and yeah it is.

[forelander]

i really don't care how big it was, i just needed a way to end my post.

[snuffy shiteside]

indeed...whats with the THROBBING PENIS in there?

[forelander]

ets modded my post for shits and giggles. really adds something though doesnt it?

[snuffy shiteside]

indeed it does, i couldn't imagine reading it without the THROBBING PENIS now.

thank you ets, in all your literary brilliance.