Greatness

           We live in a society that celebrates ideals and greatness. We passionately follow our favorite professional sports teams and athletes, spending long hours debating their exploits with our friends. In school, we study the works of the greatest minds history has seen, including Shakespeare’s literature and Newton’s theories in physics. We enjoy listening and watching the most dramatic musicians and actors. Although we realize that we can never achieve even an approximation of these people’s mastery in their respective fields, we do not feel down on ourselves.

So why is beauty any different? Why do people apparently have lower self-esteem if they are not as attractive as Barbie when they simply accept that they will not be a fraction of the player Lebron James is? The fact that Barbie is an idealistic representation of beauty is, in some ways, a good thing. It teaches us that although we must strive for excellence, there will always be someone better than us.

As a child, I never compared myself to my toys; I imagined myself as my action figures and stuffed animals. I imagined myself as having the strength of an elephant or the speed of a cheetah. I never compared myself to these animals and felt down that I could never achieve their skills. Similarly, I would infer that girls may have imagined themselves as Barbie rather than compared themselves to her. Mr. Ryan did not “design Barbie as a weapon”; he intended for Barbie to be an icon of beauty, encouraging children to imagine themselves as a larger than life person with greater independence and self-esteem.

In short, neither Barbie nor the idealistic beauty standards should be criticized; it is the mindsets of the people that must be changed. People must be more open to appreciating the greatness of others while priding themselves in the skills and talents they do possess.

Risk vs. Reward

In the general public, a new discovery or invention is met with a sense of wonder and excitement. Rarely are people cautious of any negative repercussions. Some of the inventions that are most relevant to our lives are in the forms of technology, including phones and the internet. The need to exercise caution begins right here: we tend to overuse this technology have no idea what impact the technology will have on us long-term, fifty years from now.

It is also important to remember that, while some degree of caution is required, being overly cautiousness can lead to people potentially becoming intolerant to new ideas. For example, Copernicus’s theory of a heliocentric as opposed to a geocentric solar system was met with much skepticism, and so was Darwin’s theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not present any real risks whatsoever, but people still perceived risks just because it was different from their personal, rooted ideologies. The theory of a spherical Earth instead of a flat one was also a major dispute in history, and it apparently is still disputed by some today. Explorers to the New World were once cautious about sailing because they feared falling off the flat Earth, but they nevertheless braved this fear.

Although cautiousness is required in future scientific research, I don’t think that such cautiousness should compromise the spirit of the research and the risks involved to create a new technology. Stating that the future of science is “hemmed with peril” is too dramatic and unrealistic. While progress in science and technology does bring its own set of unanticipated risks, I believe that science generally allows for less caution, greater safety, and more innovation.

Misunderstanding

The controversy regarding the Charging Bull and Fearless Girl statues is primarily a result of misunderstandings between different groups of people. While advocates for Charging Bull view the bull as a celebration of the strength of the American economy, feminists may view the statue as a symbol for the “lack of women on corporate boards” and “unimaginative sexis[m].” In the end of the day, the conflict over the statues can be seen as a confirmation of the difficulties in acknowledging and accepting other viewpoints.

Feminists probably see the Charging Bull as an exhibition of masculine dominance primarily because the statue depicts a bull, a male animal. However, many fail to realize that Di Modica could have easily chosen to install a fierce animal other than the bull to celebrate American economic strength - perhaps an eagle or a horse. Would Visbal and other people have interpreted the statue to symbolize masculine dominance if the statue was of an animal that could be either gender? Probably not.

Essentially, I feel that Fearless Girl’s purpose to attack male-dominated Wall Street is largely unwarranted. Many prestigious universities have made deliberate efforts to increase female enrollment. For example, Harvard, MIT, Yale, and other universities all have over 40% female enrollment in their business schools. It will take time for these changes in universities to transfer to the workplace.

I also feel that attacking Wall Street for their lack of female employees is counterproductive, simply generating antagonism. The goal should be to promote cooperation between people of all backgrounds. Although it might have generated less attention from the media, perhaps a statue of men and women standing on equal terms in the vicinity of Wall Street would have been a more apt portrayal of the gender equality that society hopes to achieve.