Feminism For the Win!

            Beginning in the twentieth century, the feminist movement gained momentum after coming to life in the previous century. These bluestockings used the men around them, the media, and the misogynistic views throughout history to support their cause. In the delightfully exciting packet on literary feminist theory, the author whose name I have yet to discover throughout this entire process, points out that “Central to the diverse aims and methods of feminist criticism is its focus on patriarchy, the rule of society and culture by men.” This is where the plight of women in literature becomes crucial, especially in the novel, Things Fall Apart. In Chinua Achebe’s novel, he depicts elements of African culture, especially social aspects. The women in this novel are little more than slaves. They are restricted from many of their societies ceremonies, they are there mainly to bear children and cook, and can be beaten within an inch of their lives (except during the week of peace). They are treated as objects to be manipulated rather than human beings. And sadly, the men’s yams are prized more than their wives (of which they can have several).

         The idea of feminist literary criticism is to challenge and critique these patriarchal views depicted in literature, something easily done with Achebe’s novel. Though Achebe’s central idea is to derail colonialism, he also undermines the validity of the culture he depicts. To readers, today and when the book was published, their culture is reprehensible. In modern times, it is NOT okay to beat a significant other, and even in the 1950’s it was frowned upon to beat a wife. As such, the fact that this culture condones the subjugation of women does not reflect well upon them and as I reader (and a feminist) it made me feel that it is possible colonialism was good for Africa. Though it is traffic that they lost many of their cultural traditions when the Europeans invaded, certain aspects are better off eradicated from the world. The blatant sexism and oppressive patriarchies depicted in the novel are primitive in nature and morally repugnant.

Technopoly

Lori Yvette Fernandez Lopez

3 Oct 2011

AP Literature

Technopolies

In his piece, Technopoly, Neil Postman divides human existence into 3 sections. The ancient world was one in which humans used tools for basic survival. During Sir Frances Bacon’s lifetime, Postman claims, that the Technocracy came into existence. In this period technology and tools were both used and accepted though they fought a battle between themselves. Unlike the technocracy in which man and machine coexisted, technopolies describe the total takeover of man by machines. As Postman claims “in America, a collective fervor for invention took hold of the masses” ushering in the technopoly. In the world of the technopoly, which Postman agrees with Huxley, began at the turn of the 20^th century with Ford’s perfection of the assembly line and creation of the automobile. In the age of the technopoly man is so dependent upon technology, it rules us, controls our lives. This is true in the modern age where we are glued to our cell phones and computers as well as in the fictional world of Huxley’s Brave New World. In Brave New World our beliefs as they are now have ceased to exist, ushered out by the advent of technology. People no longer conceive children, but rather use scientific advances to grow and control fetuses from “conception” to “birth.” In the novel, the most prevalent for of transportation seems to be aviation (helicopters, etc.) rather than walking, biking, or riding as was dominant in technocracies. Rather than turning to home and family for happiness and comfort they turn to soma.

Postman cites Fredrick Taylor’s book, The Principles of Scientific Management as the “first explicit and formal outlines of the assumptions of the thought-world of Technopoly.” In my interpretation, this means that Taylor’s book is the first outline of the basic fundamentals of a technopolistic nation/world. In this way, his piece has similar import to that of Adam Smith’s book on the basic functions and characteristics of capitalism—a system already in existence though unpublished. 

Though Postman claims that our world as well as the world in Huxley’s novel are both Technopolies, our worlds are vastly different. We still retain some elements of our traditions (religion, childbirth, chastity, sobriety), however, they have eschewed their past as irrelevant since the Technopoly has essentially eliminated all other aspects and ways of living as seen through the differentiated culture between the New World and the Savage World.  

Singularity

Lori Yvette Fernandez Lopez

9-26-11

Period 6

Response to the Singularity

            Singularity is the merging of man into something the species was never meant to be. In this case, a machine. This possibility is horrifying! Humanity, with all its diversity and individuality, is a marvelous thing. Each person is different—different appearance, personality, and genetics. Without these characteristics, we are not humans, and should man merge with machine, we would cease to represent humankind. The authors thought that “Maybe we'll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually,” while sounding cool and like the plot of a bad sci-fi movie, is not a positive conclusion to humanity’s reign on earth. Our bodies are as unique as our minds and our physical features help us to distinguish ourselves from the 6+ billion people sharing our planet. Can you just imagine our world without physical humans? Rather than saying “hi, bob. How are you today?” we may have to say “greetings program 198. Your antivirus software is powerful today.” To which I say no thank you! This uniform world in which every human/robot is very likely the same is not for me. Should we allow ourselves to be taken over by technology like the article presents, we are no better than the citizens of Brave New World. If we were to scan our minds into an everlasting robot as the aforementioned quote suggests, we become as they are. We would have the same genetic makeup as each other—binary code—we would be copies of each other within our ranks—like the alphas who are all designed to be tall and elite—and we too would have no sense of self. This would be the most tragic casualty of the machine. We would be as indistinguishable as Fifi and Joanna in Bernard’s mind—merely players in a game; separate bodies with a mind so similar they are the same.

            The technological era has resulted in many marvelous advances in thinking, medicine, and gadgetry. However, technology needs to have its limits, and taking over the human world is definitely one of them.    

To man: beware the machine.

Love, Woman. J

Defying English Strictures

Lori Yvette Fernandez Lopez

Mr. Dominguez

AP Literature, Period 6

6 September 2011

            From the time a student learns to write in elementary school and well into high school, their teachers try to structure their words into what they believe to be the best possible format. However, their structured methods of writing are not always the most efficient in conveying the writer’s true thoughts. Haley Cavataro in her essay, “The Performance of Femininity in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland and Simone de Beauvior’s Second Sex,” an analysis of the role of femininity during the turn of the century, does not always follow the rules of writing given to students throughout their school careers.

            The structure of this essay defies many of the rules we have learned over the years. Since entering Junior High we were told to never use rhetorical questions in an essay, however, Cavataro uses them throughout the entire response to incite deep intellectual thought in her readers. The questions reflect her thoughts on the books message, and inspire philosophical exploration into the issue of feminism during that era. Her paragraphs rather than being one topic per paragraph they bounce around. They sometimes include multiple ideas while others are a continuation of a previously touched upon thought. Rather than be blobs of information that many teachers seem to prefer her paragraphs—and the essay as a whole—reflect the natural flow of her thoughts. In addition, there are places during the essay in which her elevated language slips away to be replaced by the vernacular. For example, in her article she refers to herself as a part of a whole when she uses the first person pronoun “our.” In most academic settings this would result in the loss of a grade because it is not the “proper” way to compose a piece.

            Most noticeable of all the deviations from apposite wording in an English essay is her voice that radiates throughout the piece. In my experience a teacher would rather you report on an essay coldly, with little opinion to influence the tone of the piece. Rather than having a neutral tone throughout the piece as if merely reporting on a prompt rather than having an opinion on it. Her stand on feminism and the role of women permeates the article. Not only does she present the opinions of the original authors, she gives her audience hers as well. Cavataro even has the gumption to disagree with the authors’ sentiments. Though this is not unheard of, there are English instructors who believe that a student is not yet knowledgeable enough to disagree with a published author’s opinion. Cavataro disregards these instructors and writes with her heart and for herself rather than follow the conventional writing structures.

            Cavataro’s break from the strictures of formal writing, though initially shocking and appalling, is refreshing. To know that we as writers can use our voice to express our thoughts rather than the voice an English guru tells us we should assume. This article teaches me that there is no wrong way to express myself in words. There is unlimited freedom of expression. What you say and express is more important that whether or not you conform to the outlines of correct English.