I am planning to write my essay about Feminism. In the novel, Things Fall Apart, there are two very different views on women. There is the Africa and England view on women. Women are treated different in every country around the world.
In Africa the men are always above the women. Women are treated and looked upon as items or slaves only and nothing more. Early on in the book, Okonkwo was described as "cut out for great things" (Page 7), since he was married to three women. Then later on, Okonkwo gets angry at his first wife just for asking a simple question. "Do what you are told, women", was his response follow by "When did you become one of the ndichie of Umuofia". He is basically insulting her just for asking a question.Very early on in the book, a wife of their tribe was killed by another rival tribe and it was let go pretty lightly. It was a simple trade for a virgin and a young boy in exchange of his dead wife. Other countries would view this and just think that it's stupid. The death of his own wife doesn't even effect him emotionally.
English women on the other hand, have the same rights as their men do. In England, they can have a queen as their ruler without discrimination. The fact that gender don't matter when it comes to ruling shows a lot of respect for women. They can have a king or a queen, it doesn't matter. This shows that women have the same rights as men do in this country, but that's not to say they're perfect. I'm sure there are discrimination , they're just not pointed out as much.
Either way you look at it, there are always going to be discrimination against women. We're all different no matter what, so we're always going to be treated differently. An example would be, typically, women are weaker on strength compare to men. They'd have to do more heavy duty labor than women do. That is not to say that everyone is like that, because there are some women who are stronger than the average man.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Monday, October 3, 2011
Technocracy
The chapter from Neil Postman's Technopoly, shows a display of events in the history of technology. It started with skilled workers, the steam engine, and propels into a whole new world of technology. With every new invention, idealists are becoming more frightened at the fact that we’re dehumanizing ourselves more and more. However though, it is not really doing so, it just “originated” the old ideas.
This chapter bares similarity to Brave New World in the sense of the time the book is set in, where everyone’s objective is to keep progressing without any clear thought of what it is to progress to. In the novel, the citizens are genetically made rather than born, so you can already kind of see that humanity is stripped from them. The technology in the novel has advanced so far that the basic morals of humans has completely change, like how different John feels about Lenina than she is of him. Is technology destroying old ideas and presenting itself as the new one? Clearly, we’re still aware of this matter, so obviously, it’s not changing anything. We all know what a sin is and what its consequences are, so the old ideas still exist. It’s just standing next to a new idea, technology. The idealists have a fear of “Technocracy”, which is a supposed form of political party that will exist if we don’t realize this.
Postman referred to United States a lot implying it being a Technopoly since it’s a free country with the acceptations of any ideas. Postman stated that technocracy “is, a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent- an “unseen hand” will eliminate the incompetent and reward those who produce cheaply and well the goods that people want.” This quote has a totalitarian tone in it, by simply saying to eliminate all those who don’t follow the rules and for the ones who do follow they get whatever they want. This sounds eerily true on some levels, but I’m not convinced. This chapter is more like a warning sign for us that it’s possible if we don’t realize.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Singularity
I think machines can never replace humans no matter how advance they become, but the article does state some legitimate questions. Kurzweil has predicted that by 2045, machines would have surpassed human intelligence at the pace of advance in technology. He “believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent.” It’s quite a bold statement to make and he makes it up with some pretty reasonable explanations.
Machines are advancing quick and human minds are slowing down due to the less work they had which are being done by machines. It’s quite plausible that it could be true even though it sounds like something right out of a sci-fi movie. It’s neither a bad thing nor a good thing, because it’s beneficial for humans. If a man needs multiple artificial limbs, at what point did he has cross over to the machine side. In my opinion though, he is still technically human, since his conscience is still there, so therefore he is still human. To be authentically human, you’d have to be born naturally as nature intended and not like a planned out experiment. If a machine is able to past human intelligence, they still lack the sense of nature in them. On chapter 6, in Brave New World, Bernard is being both romantic and believes that there is some pristine state of existence that man can achieve. His character is most likely the only one who is more aware of the world they live in. Machine is taking over humans more and more according to the rate of advance technology, but not in a hostile way of course.
Machines are advancing quick and human minds are slowing down due to the less work they had which are being done by machines. It’s quite plausible that it could be true even though it sounds like something right out of a sci-fi movie. It’s neither a bad thing nor a good thing, because it’s beneficial for humans. If a man needs multiple artificial limbs, at what point did he has cross over to the machine side. In my opinion though, he is still technically human, since his conscience is still there, so therefore he is still human. To be authentically human, you’d have to be born naturally as nature intended and not like a planned out experiment. If a machine is able to past human intelligence, they still lack the sense of nature in them. On chapter 6, in Brave New World, Bernard is being both romantic and believes that there is some pristine state of existence that man can achieve. His character is most likely the only one who is more aware of the world they live in. Machine is taking over humans more and more according to the rate of advance technology, but not in a hostile way of course.
Advance machines may surpass humans in brains and strength, but they can never be humanity itself. They won’t be able to die or express emotions the way humans do. The artists, such as Monet and Da Vinci can never be replaced by machines, because they have no desire like humans would.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
In the Lord of The Rings article, the author, Kathleen E. Gilligan, first started by stating that there are many different ways to view the book series. She makes a claim that Tolkien's books have a religious tone in it by quoting another article, "Baptizing-Middle Earth." Even though Tolkien himself claim that he didn't intended it to be about Christianity. She supports her statement with many examples.
Tolkien may have had simply written religious elements in without even realizing. She supported this by stating facts that Tolkien was a Christian and considering the time that the book was written in may have influences his writing. An example would be how Tolkien's love life had influenced Aragon and Arwen's love relationship in the book.
Another argument is that the The Fellowship of The Ring is rather about the temptation of the ring. The author then went on to addressing what temptation actually means to assure the audience’s understood. She makes the connection of the word on how it always involves something evil. She then also compares how the books are related to the Bible. An example is that the ring itself is "the evil one." Almost all the characters that interacted with the ring are corrupt by it in some ways. She makes many comparisons with the characters from the book and the Bible. Like how the temptations and punishment of Eve parallels with Tolkien’s books. One may get what they want, but pays the price for it in the end. It’s some legitimate evidence that does prove her statement.
She went on explaining that even the most powerful characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel is not safe from the temptation of the ring. She quotes from the book when Gandalf said to Frodo, “Don’t tempt me” stating that even the book itself describes the ring as tempting with gold and shiny. However, these characters do not accept the ring when offered, because they knew the consequences. Unlike Sméagol, who used to be a hobbit, but due to the temptations of the ring, he has become a hideous creature. The author shows two sides of how this can happen to the worse and the best. She then compares this to how Jesus was tempted by the Devil but refuses it because he knew the consequences that could happen.
The evidence she provided is quite easy to understand and see. The examples of the book do reflect a lot of the Bible’s elements. It surprises me how much more there is into one of my favorite books of all time. When I first read it, I didn’t see it as a religious reading like how this author has stated. The way this article was written is exactly how I would’ve written it. The rules don’t differ at all. You start with the introduction of the author and book then the body and lastly the conclusion which sums it all up. It doesn’t do anything different from the format that I was use to. She still use quotes and uses examples like I would.
Tolkien may have had simply written religious elements in without even realizing. She supported this by stating facts that Tolkien was a Christian and considering the time that the book was written in may have influences his writing. An example would be how Tolkien's love life had influenced Aragon and Arwen's love relationship in the book.
Another argument is that the The Fellowship of The Ring is rather about the temptation of the ring. The author then went on to addressing what temptation actually means to assure the audience’s understood. She makes the connection of the word on how it always involves something evil. She then also compares how the books are related to the Bible. An example is that the ring itself is "the evil one." Almost all the characters that interacted with the ring are corrupt by it in some ways. She makes many comparisons with the characters from the book and the Bible. Like how the temptations and punishment of Eve parallels with Tolkien’s books. One may get what they want, but pays the price for it in the end. It’s some legitimate evidence that does prove her statement.
She went on explaining that even the most powerful characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel is not safe from the temptation of the ring. She quotes from the book when Gandalf said to Frodo, “Don’t tempt me” stating that even the book itself describes the ring as tempting with gold and shiny. However, these characters do not accept the ring when offered, because they knew the consequences. Unlike Sméagol, who used to be a hobbit, but due to the temptations of the ring, he has become a hideous creature. The author shows two sides of how this can happen to the worse and the best. She then compares this to how Jesus was tempted by the Devil but refuses it because he knew the consequences that could happen.
The evidence she provided is quite easy to understand and see. The examples of the book do reflect a lot of the Bible’s elements. It surprises me how much more there is into one of my favorite books of all time. When I first read it, I didn’t see it as a religious reading like how this author has stated. The way this article was written is exactly how I would’ve written it. The rules don’t differ at all. You start with the introduction of the author and book then the body and lastly the conclusion which sums it all up. It doesn’t do anything different from the format that I was use to. She still use quotes and uses examples like I would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)