The job to protect the citizens outweighs jealously and due to rules, the people leading a society have to follow them which prevents war due to jealousy.

Without law and order (which government provides), there is chaos (as mentioned in the micro lecture).

I agree with the author's claims. These three reasons are why government is important. It allows people to have order and keeps drastic internal conflicts at bay. It is natural for people to have differences which is why if you give people the freedom to act on those differences, it leads to trouble. A like mind is important for society.

It is human nature to be self-centered and to think you know best. It is interesting how the author points out that even though people admit differences between them and other people, yet believe they are wiser, that is a trait that makes men equal.

This lowkey sounds like what a man from The Handmaid's Tale would say. I wouldn't be surprised if he supported how women were treated in that book. Freud likely would not consider the way they treat women in the book as oppression but instead, women being in their rightful place.

This reminds me of the philosophical question of is 'good' or 'bad' subjective or objective? If it is subjective, then can we really label anything as 'good' and 'bad'?

I feel like primitive humans may have been happier than contemporary human civilization due to the fact that we are all extremely comfortable with our easy access to food, no need to defend ourselves from nature every day, and so on. Comfortability makes us disregard all the good happening in our life because it seems so small. However, if we were fighting for our life every day, we would be happier about the smaller things.

North Korea, South Korea. Palestine, Israel. Both are geographical neighbors but have issues due to different belief systems. This goes back to our problem of individuality.

Freud claims that there is no way to have a world free of aggression because that is a part of male natural behavior. This can be supported by the fact that most wars in history were started by men

Individuality is a gift and a curse. We love to protect it but it is the main reason why we do not have peace. Due to us all having different belief and moral values of what is "right", one person's hero can be another's enemy

Humans are spoiled in life. Since we do not have to work for our basic necessities, anything, such as a job, that we find unstimulating, we don't do to the best of our ability.

As a society we tend to underappreciate the small things that should make us happy. We are sad when we hear about a baby dying but we never celebrate how many lives are saved. It's as if we hyperfocus on the bad and fail to try and focus on the good.

This is actually something I have pondered about. If we were to go back to our primitive ways, would we get along better? Would our fight for survival cause us to come together for a common cause? Does this mean that comfortability in human society has caused us to be selfish and unaware of the suffering of others? My answer leans towards yes.

pg. 51 A lot of marginalized communities are marginalized due to stereotypes (stereotypes are discussed further on pg 55). For example, people stereotype women as emotional so that is why they could never be president. "They may start a war." Yet, statistically, men have started more wars than women leaders. Men have been the main cause, especially in current day, of the distress of the world.

After reading this article, I wonder if in order to be a dystopia, must there be all " five faces" of oppression?

"Violence is a social practice" Bullying is a form of oppression by this definition. That makes sense though because when bullying happens, it makes the person being bullied feel lesser than and will likely continue to fear being picked on.

"The culturally dominated undergo a paradoxical oppression, in that they are both marked by stereotypes and at the same time rendered invisible" (55). What is terrible is that stereotypes have become so ingrained in our society that we have started to stereotype ourselves as a way of justification of whether or not we fit in a certain group of people.

I feel as though this line could be interpreted in a few different ways based off of other people's comments. I am especially interested in the author's meaning by "origin". I interpreted origin to mean biological make up. If this is the case, I would disagree in saying that we are entirely the product of social processes because your biology can also influence the social processes. Addiction is a good example. Some people are more likely to become addicted than others.

Sometimes, people are excluded out of social groups due to the typical features being different and upbringing being different. For example, biracial individuals struggle to fit into a certain social group because their belonging to the group comes into question due to differences in upbringing and how they look.