Reason for Distinct Differences Between the Sexes & Their Ability to Live Ideal & Rounded Lives
Due to the economic practices and societal standards of our current time, it is impossible to maintain a happy life enriched with a healthy balance of everything one wishes to do, especially as a woman. Referring to this level of attainment as “having it all,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, a very successful woman within the foreign-policy branch of the government, relays experiences from both her own life and from the lives of other similarly high-ranked women whose acquaintances she has made in her years as a high-up person in the government. Time and time again, Slaughter found her own difficulties of juggling the raising of a family while maintaining the level of commitment required her from her career shared by other women in similar positions.
Women in particular cannot, in this present time, “have it all” because women in particular struggle to “have it all,” often finding it difficult to reconcile the expectations of motherhood with career-related pressures. At least at the same time Slaughter clarifies, such a feat is reserved purely for superwomen.Slaughter argues the reason for such distinct differences between the sexes and their ability to live ideal and rounded lives is the way women have been treated and how society has molded them into what they are now. From the continued denial of equal votes pre-1920 to the birth of the kitchen-bound homemaker in the 1950s, women have consistently been viewed as inferior to men.
Although ending by saying why does Slaughter focus so heavily on what is applicable only to her? There is a very slim margin of women who do want such high-status and pressure jobs and fewer still who attain it so why generalize an entire half of the population based solely on her own limited/ unique/rare experience.
With the continual acceptance and normalization of LGBTQ people, will this struggle of balancing family and work move more onto their shoulders and resultantly off of straight women? There is a certain undisputed fact that it is immensely difficult, nigh impossible, in fact, to maintain a healthy, happy life while simultaneously balancing family and careers. This difficulty is doubly impacted by high-leveled jobs. The professions that demand weighty decisions that affect many. Such decisions and consequences require time and are stressful, something families share. Why does Slaughter directly link being successful to having it all? Many would disagree in that their idea of living a successful life is simply being able to appreciate what they have. Why do you need a crazy government powerful job to be.
The Confessions: St. Augustine’s Views on God and Reason
Augustine’s conversion: God is above reason
Most people know St. Augustine of Hippo as one of the Great Latin Doctors of the Church due to his numerous works explaining and defending the Church against the numerous heresies at the time. Less people know who Augustine was before his bishophood and consequent sainthood – someone who was “so great a sinner”, to directly quote his autobiographical The Confessions. Augustine’s stance of Christianity zigzagged throughout his pre-conversion years, from being genuinely curious about it to outright dismissing it by going against St. Monica, his Christian mother, and participating in the Manichean sect for nine years.
One of the consistent traits of Augustine since his childhood days is his intellectual inquisitiveness and search for the reason in everything he sought. Augustine points out in The Confessions rather early on that he was searching for the Truth, and that he engaged himself in anything he saw could possess this Truth. Augustine had an interest and natural talent in rhetoric, the act of persuasion to convince others that what you are saying is true, and went to study in Carthage to pursue this study. Augustine’s stint with the Manicheans was also in search for Truth, as he was promised that Mani, the sect’s leader, would be able to give him the answers to his questions. When both rhetoric and Manichaeism disappointed Augustine, the former in how it morally corrupted people’s perception of truth, and the latter in how empty the promised truth was, Augustine did not hesitate to abandon them and continue in his search. It was only through St. Ambrose, another Great Doctor of the Church, who helped Augustine become more welcoming of the Catholic faith when the bishop explained it to him with reason.
Everything about Augustine’s search for Truth was driven by reason, by logic and argumentation, which is why it is ironic that Augustine’s moment of conversion happens when Augustine lets go of reason. Augustine states in The Confessions that he was moved by the story about Saint Anthony the Great, a rich Egyptian who, after hearing a reading that he felt was directed at him, gave up all his belongings to the poor and become a hermit in the desert. Augustine was tormented and angry, questioning his inability and unwillingness to commit just as St. Anthony did, before crying out to the Lord. In this moment, Augustine lets his emotions get the better of him, not his intellect, and it is only in this moment that God reaches out to him through the voice of a calling child, as Augustine recounted. It is only in this moment that Augustine finally saw the Truth he had been looking for so long – God.
Augustine returns to using his intellect and reason after the conversion, this time for the Catholic faith. More unreasonable events happen in Augustine’s life, most prominently his sudden ordination as priesthood and then bishop, but the saint was unwavering in his belief. If Augustine had doubted the faith in any period of his life, he would not have hesitated to leave it like he did with the Manicheans before. He never did.
Were There Any Reasons to Kill Julius Caesar?
I believe the conspirators in Julius Caesar were incorrect and immoral in their killing of Caesar. Caesar’s death ultimately caused more problems than it did fix anything. After his death, a fight broke out between Cassius and Brutus and Mark Antony and his forces. Brutus and Cassius were the ones who wanted Caesar dead and in the end they both end up dead as well. The whole plan definitely did not go as it was suppose to. The conspirators were wrong to kill Caesar because he did nothing wrong that would give them a reason to kill him, his death just created more issues for everyone, and he was actually a good leader and did good things for Rome.
Caesar never really gave anyone a reason to want him murdered. Cassius wanted Caesar dead mainly out of jealousy. Brutus was basically manipulated into thinking that Caesar was going to become too powerful. Caesar did gain a lot of power in the republic, but he never said he was going to completely take over nor did he have plans to do so. Mark Antony said, “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; and, sure, he is an honourable man.” Caesar was offered more power and a crown but he did not accept it which shows that he never had intentions of taking over. The conspirators believed he just put on a show for the crowd to make them like him by not accepting this power and to make them think he was humble. I believe Caesar did not just do this for the crowd and that he was a good leader and never wanting anything bad for Rome. The conspirators really had no actual reason for wanting Caesar dead, but you could tell they were jealous of the power he had. Many people in Rome liked Caesar and had no problem with him. This shows that he was a good leader and killing him was not the best thing for the people and country, which is what they should be thinking about. Mark Antony even spoke at Caesar’s funeral and tried to explain the conspirators reasons for killing him and what they feared would happen. The crowd was still angry and this showed even the people did not believe he was gaining to much power or that he would use his power in the wrong way. The conspirators were only thinking about themselves and their position in the whole situation. It would be different if Caesar was a bad leader and was trying to gain all that power for other reasons, but he was not. The conspirators had to have realized he did not have any bad intentions. Caesar did not deserve to die because of the jealousy of the conspirators.
Caesar’s death was followed by many problems that could have easily been avoided if he was not killed. For example, after his death Brutus and Cassius got an army to fight Mark Antony’s army. They both wanted control of Rome and this caused them to fight. This battle ended in the death of Brutus and Cassius, who were the main ones that planned the death of Caesar in the first place. After the battle, Antony and Octavius rule Rome which is not what was the plan was supposed to even be. This could have all been avoided if they never killed Caesar. His death only led to the death of others. The conspirators did not really completely think through everything that could have happened once they killed Caesar. They did not consider the problems that could occur when they kill him. They were only thinking about themselves and not about what would happen to Rome and how it would affect everyone else. The conspirators should have really thought about everything that could occur when they killed their leader. His death was not worth what followed it. His death really did nothing good for Rome. If they would have never killed Caesar, they would not be dead as well and Caesar could have done more good things for Rome. Caesar said, “A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.” Caesar’s death was not a “necessary end” and it should not have happened the way it did. Caesar should have been able to live out his life the way he was supposed to and many things could have been avoided.
Caesar was a good leader for Rome for many years. He did many good things in these years. Caesar was very intelligent and had good leadership skills. Caesar said, “As I love the name of honour more than I fear death.” Caesar did everything for Rome and was not selfish like the conspirators. He led many battles and tried his best in all of them. I believe Caesar never had intentions to do evil or selfish things in Rome. I do not think Caesar having what the conspirators viewed as “too much power” would have been such a bad thing since he was a good leader. The conspirators believed he would get all this power and they did not know how he would treat it. I really do not think he would use it to do bad things. Caesar never gave the conspirators a reason to believe he would use this power in a bad way. They just envied this power and did not like that he was gaining it. However, Caesar would not have all this power if people in Rome did not think he deserved it. At his funeral and when he was murdered, the crowd there was very angry. This shows the people also liked him and also believed he was a good leader. The conspirators should not have killed a good leader like Caesar just out of jealousy.
In conclusion, there were not many logical reasons the conspirators had to kill Caesar. There are more reasons why he should not have been killed than there are why he should have. He never did anything wrong to the conspirators or anything wrong to Rome. His death created problems that could have easily been avoided if the conspirators were not jealous of him and his power. Caesar did mostly good things for Rome and definitely did not deserve what happened to him. The conspirators were very wrong to do this to Caesar and just made problems for themselves, including some of their own deaths.