While walking home a few days ago, I walked past some cherry blossom tress in bloom. I couldn't help but get excited because the arrival of these dainty flowers means spring is on its way. Of course this is very odd for it only being early February (thanks global warming!), but hey, I'll take it. All these spring-y thoughts started popping into my head, and among those thoughts my mind wondered onto the thought of new babies being born. Most commonly associated with spring time, babies are probably some of the cutest little parasites around.
Now I've never had a baby. But I know that many females will agree, that the idea of having a baby grow inside of you is scary, and well, kind of gross. Of course it is also beautiful and amazing, but the thought of something living off and inside of you has major creep-factor. It is arguably the most intimate parasitic relationship a person can experience. The profoundness if this relationship is obvious; the parasite living inside the womb was created by the host, shares its DNA and will depend on the host for the rest of it's life.
Do babies stop being a parasite when they are born? During their time in the womb they directly take nutrients from the mother in order to develop and grow. But many continue to feed off their mother's breast after birth, and depend/feed of the parents in various other ways.
This idea of babies as parasites is not groundbreaking. People all over the internet have asked this question. In this Yahoo Answers, the user asked "Are babies parasites? Do we have any respect for human life anymore? Other than our own." I'm not sure what the last part of this question is supposed to mean, but I was really surprised by how many people were VERY offended at the thought of their precious children as parasites.
"Parasite" has a bad connotation, and I feel that from being in this class, my view of a parasite has been changing. It no longer conjures up images of only evil little worms living inside the body. Why does it make people so mad to think of babies/children as a parasite?
I believe the answer could be linked to the idea of a "cuteness factor," brought up in class a few days ago during a discussion of Avatar. (Side note: that movie suuuucccked.) Cuteness is associated with sympathetic characters in Avatar, and in other movies, says the review we watched in class. And when you think about it, what is more sympathetic than a baby? They are way too cute to be a parasite!
On that Yahoo Answer mentioned above, lots of definitions were thrown around. The definition of "parasite," according to dictionary.com is:
1.)an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.)a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.)(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
So if one defines a parasite strictly by the first definition, then no, babies can not be considered a parasite. This is because it defines a parasite as an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species. Because babies are obviously the same species as the host (mother), they would not be considered a parasite.
But the second definition I find interesting; it specifically refers to a person. It could be argued that the womb is possibly the most hospitable place we will ever inhabit. It delivers everything we need at that point in our development, nutrition, protection and warmth. And babies don't exactly give any useful or proper return, although this is where I can sliiightly relate to the crazy moms on Yahoo Answers, and could argue the thanks babies give is love (awwhhh).
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The internet is cozy
The online world of social networking, chat rooms, blogs, and various other ways of communication via the internet allows the user, above all, comfort ability. For a lot of people, it is a way to participate in social interaction without anxiety from uncontrollable outside sources. Communicating online is a way for the user to choose what people see, because more tools are available to them to shape the way in which they are perceived by others. These tools allow different masks for the user, which for many, relieves stress.
When visiting Plurk, I read this. It made me wonder if he knew who I was in class, because my profile picture does not look much like me anymore. Concealing or twisting my online identity wasn't intentional, but the year old picture doesn't accurately depict my appearance. But is that all a profile picture does? What is it meant to do? For many, the internet is used to communicate with complete strangers. A profile picture is not only the first visual impression for a person's appearance, but also their personality. It allows the user to conceal and show what they choose. Sites like Facebook and Myspace permits whole photo albums to shape identity, as well as "About Me" sections to share favorite movies, books, music and other personality shaping categories.
The power to control your identity through a medium is not an idea new to the internet. Older forms of communication allow for some level of manipulation as well. When speaking on a telephone the users can manipulate their voices to construct their character, much like penmanship in a handwritten letter can be revealing. While it is debatable how much handwriting truly reveals about a person (if anything at all), it can certainly be used to establish a sense of self.
What makes online so appealing, is the amount of tools a person is given. One can express themselves and construct their self with an intoxicating amount of power. On Plurk alone, one can shed their name, change their location/age/sex, and choose the thoughts shared with others. Plurk seems basic in it's tools to create self when compared with other social networking sites, but for many, concealing is more powerful than expressing.Socializing with somebody face to face is exposing. But behind the computer screen, it can be empowering. This empowerment leads to a comfortable way to communicate with others.
These comfortable interactions through ones computer can be very different from the interactions had with others in everyday life.
You've Got Mail!
Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "You've Got Mail," exemplify this type of relationship. In their lives, they cannot stand each other. But online, behind their aol screen names, they are able to connect. The internet allows for them to create a separate identity that they are in complete control of. If one wanted to cut off their internet "relationship," it's as simple as not returning an email. No awkward silences, no having to worry about what you look like, and one can be so much more witty and charming when writing an email.
Parasitic relationships can be seen in the relationship of "real" identity and "internet identity," which for many people can becoming addicting. The ability to live as a different person can be more appealing than "real life."
When visiting Plurk, I read this. It made me wonder if he knew who I was in class, because my profile picture does not look much like me anymore. Concealing or twisting my online identity wasn't intentional, but the year old picture doesn't accurately depict my appearance. But is that all a profile picture does? What is it meant to do? For many, the internet is used to communicate with complete strangers. A profile picture is not only the first visual impression for a person's appearance, but also their personality. It allows the user to conceal and show what they choose. Sites like Facebook and Myspace permits whole photo albums to shape identity, as well as "About Me" sections to share favorite movies, books, music and other personality shaping categories.
The power to control your identity through a medium is not an idea new to the internet. Older forms of communication allow for some level of manipulation as well. When speaking on a telephone the users can manipulate their voices to construct their character, much like penmanship in a handwritten letter can be revealing. While it is debatable how much handwriting truly reveals about a person (if anything at all), it can certainly be used to establish a sense of self.
What makes online so appealing, is the amount of tools a person is given. One can express themselves and construct their self with an intoxicating amount of power. On Plurk alone, one can shed their name, change their location/age/sex, and choose the thoughts shared with others. Plurk seems basic in it's tools to create self when compared with other social networking sites, but for many, concealing is more powerful than expressing.Socializing with somebody face to face is exposing. But behind the computer screen, it can be empowering. This empowerment leads to a comfortable way to communicate with others.
These comfortable interactions through ones computer can be very different from the interactions had with others in everyday life.
You've Got Mail!
Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "You've Got Mail," exemplify this type of relationship. In their lives, they cannot stand each other. But online, behind their aol screen names, they are able to connect. The internet allows for them to create a separate identity that they are in complete control of. If one wanted to cut off their internet "relationship," it's as simple as not returning an email. No awkward silences, no having to worry about what you look like, and one can be so much more witty and charming when writing an email.
Parasitic relationships can be seen in the relationship of "real" identity and "internet identity," which for many people can becoming addicting. The ability to live as a different person can be more appealing than "real life."
Friday, January 15, 2010
YouTube Poem
The union forever
go on, say it
fast as you can
I do
I remember
that dress looks nice on you
I will
now that I know
promise what you will
because forever is a promise
maybe, not
When I began to think about this Youtube poem assignment, I was inspired by J.L Austin's "How to do Things with Words," and the idea of marriage. The utterance of "I do," is an example Austin gives to his readers of a performative sentence. My mind jumped to David Bazan's song, "I Do," a song about marrying his wife because of their child, and possibly regretting it. "His utterance is perhaps misleading, probably deceitful and doubtless wrong, but it is not a lie or a misstatement," says Austin (11). Is this still true when later in marriage, there are doubts? Is the statement of "I do," considered a lie when it is truthful at the time and later disintegrates? By promising you are not only uttering words that make up a statement, you are creating a bond with these words.
go on, say it
fast as you can
I do
I remember
that dress looks nice on you
I will
now that I know
promise what you will
because forever is a promise
maybe, not
When I began to think about this Youtube poem assignment, I was inspired by J.L Austin's "How to do Things with Words," and the idea of marriage. The utterance of "I do," is an example Austin gives to his readers of a performative sentence. My mind jumped to David Bazan's song, "I Do," a song about marrying his wife because of their child, and possibly regretting it. "His utterance is perhaps misleading, probably deceitful and doubtless wrong, but it is not a lie or a misstatement," says Austin (11). Is this still true when later in marriage, there are doubts? Is the statement of "I do," considered a lie when it is truthful at the time and later disintegrates? By promising you are not only uttering words that make up a statement, you are creating a bond with these words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)