Satire: Humorous or Something More?

Generally when thinking about satire, political cartoons come to mind. While this is a common form of satire, it comes in all shapes and sizes, oftentimes not admitting its true form and fooling unaware readers. In a study by an Ohio State grad student done to analyze the impact of satire, it was found that generally those with lower interest in politics were more attracted to the satirical videos/articles. Satire can act as a general gateway into political news, and for those with existing opinions acts as a confirmation bias. Satire can also act as a workaround to political correctness, turning a normally sensitive subject into something humorous. By taking the issue largely out of context, the sheer absurdity of the situation acts as a means to shake up the firm roots planted in our ideologies. Satire isn't purely political; there are three classifications of satire. The first classification, Horatian, is more gentle and sympathetic, attempting to solve situations with positivity rather than outrage. The second type, Juvenalian, takes a pessimistic approach, criticizing social evils though anger and scorn, often seen in the political atmosphere. The third type, Menippean, is usually written in prose and seeks to attack a mentality rather than people. Each version of satire has slight differences, but they all serve as a corrective nudge to society. In the case of the Body Ritual Among The Nacirema, it somewhat blends the Horatian and Menippean styles, seeking to entertain more than to change. Since the time of the Ancient Egyptians, satire has been an effective tool driving change, and will continue to adapt to the times and societal climate.

Society Wants a Family

In her work, I Want a Wife, Brady portrays some of the gender difficulties placed on women. While many of the common tropes she mentions hold true, she fails to even acknowledge the other side of the issue: the societal burden placed on men. As a man and husband, you are expected to be the primary breadwinner, working long hours to support your family. You are expected to be an unwavering emotional supporter, and nothing is ever allowed to bother you. This concept has led to the emergence of the term "toxic masculinity", which stems from self reliance and emotional suppression. All humans feel some level of emotion, but for men, being upset can often be looked at as being weak. Gender stereotypes are not just a problem for women; they affect both genders equally. The CDC reports suicide as the second leading cause of death among men under the age of forty-five, making it 3.54 times more common among men than women. Simply by looking at the statistics it's obvious that something isn't right, but any concerns are simply disregarded and brushed under the rug. What can be done to remedy this problem? To start, we should look at the definition of feminism, which states the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. There is no denying the lack of rights women have had in the past, but in recent years, feminist culture has hit a boiling point, and is starting to adopt some extremer, anti-men views in which they suggest that all men are evil. By returning to the root of feminism, equality, we can start on the road to an understanding society, and eliminate many of the mental health and political issues plaguing both genders.

What Defines Disablility?

In a world where prosthetics are becoming increasingly common, what truly defines disability becomes difficult to discern. In some cases, a prosthetic limb can become a mechanical advantage, such as when Oscar Pistorius's running blades came into controversy with the International Association of Athletics Federations. Even in the current running space, the Nike Vaporflys are introducing discussion on where the line of natural skill falls. What was once called "disability" may soon pave the road towards human enhancement, with our current anatomy being seen as a disadvantage. Although Hollywood's portrayal is largely hyperbolic, running blades and exo-suits are already a reality, giving the user increased agility and strength. In Mairs' piece "Disability", she throws around the word "cripple", and seeks to normalize and accept those with physical flaws. Her work was written in 1987, and while we have not quite reached the level, what was once grounds for ostracism could very well become grounds for envy. Labels are limitations set only time and society, and as we progress into the future labels are becoming a personal choice rather than a handicap. I'm sure that Mairs' vision for the future was vastly different than enhancement, but at the same time it presents a bright world of new opportunity and general acceptance for all those with physical ailments. The primary issue of the future remains bioethics and what is an acceptable change to make, but just like other social issues, it is a broad and continuous debate full of compromises. Like landlines in the era of smartphones, the term "disability" may soon find itself an outdated relic of the past.