Feminism

For my Things Fall Apart essay I will be using the Feminism lens. The way the women in this book were treated is definitely way different than women are treated now. Well, some women are still treated like that, but for a majority, that is a thing of the past. In the story, the men strongly believed that "Nature intended women to be our slaves...they are our property...what a mad idea to demand equality for women" (Napoleon Bonaparte). Each man had his own little living compound. In this compound was his Obi, and then a shack for each of his wives and their kids. Each wife would cook and serve him each meal and take care of the kids. The man was the "ruler" of his little compounds. Also unlike now, it was custom to have several wives and several children with each wife. Also in this time, it was completely okay for the man to beat his wives for no apparent reason. The only time this was frowned upon was during the period right before the growing season. It was believed that it was disrespectful to the Gods and there for if you beat your wife, you would have a bad growing season. In the beginning of the article, it talks about how " women... must define for themselves what it means to be a woman. Women themselves must take the lead and articulate who they are and what role they will play in society by rejecting the patriarchal assumption that women are inferior to men." This relates to the book in the fact that not all women are "passive, meek, and humble". A great example of this is Ceilo. She was very strong and powerful when she came to take the daughter. She picked the girl up, put her on her back and set off into the forest. She walked all night in complete blackness with the girl on her back. She walked to a completely different village and then almost all the way back without even stopping or slowing her pace. This all relates back to the fact that not all women are the same. It depends on their personality and how they define themselves. 

Singularity and A Brave New World

Um... So I have not gotten to chapter six yet.... so here goes nothing!!

        In this article, I think that obviously a man had to create the first computer otherwise I would not be writing this blog right now. A man had to create the first computer otherwise I think that there would be very little technology today. Computers create almost everything technical. Without computers we would not be able to have such advanced math formulas that create basically everything.  Without the formulas that we have today, we would also not be as far ahead as we are in science. With what we have done with math and science is the reason that computers themselves have progressed. I do believe that one day computers will overpower humans but I also believe that that will be farther into the future. Each human can only contain so much knowledge, but then when put into a computer, all of that knowledge is put together in one place and can be used instantly. In the article, it states that "creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only," well that is partly true. Kurzweil shows this because yeah, the music may have been written by the computer, but Kurzweil built the computer himself. To be that is a work of art on its own. So basically since Kurzweil built the thing that wrote the music, Kurzweil wrote the music himself. This could be taken many ways: in the article they are talking about a literal piece of art, but if you don't look at it literally, you can see that this seventeen year old built a computer on his own. That is basically like one of us building a computer right now on our own. That is defiantly a work of art on its own.

        The article also states that "It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn't even take breaks to play Farmville." This is also true because even the most efficient humans would not be nearly as quick as computers. We could not physically work nonstop.  Humans have short attention spans, we would constantly have to stop to eat, go to the bathroom, and sleep. These are all necessities for human survival that computers and machines would not need. Therefore, of course computers will be faster. I think that this could be both a good thing and a bad thing; it depends on how it will be used. If in the wrong hands, of course anything will have a negative effect, no matter what it is. That is also the same for good... it all depends on how it is being used and in what manner.

Rhetorical Analysis

For my rhetorical analysis I used "A Generation of Men Raised by Women: Gender Condstructs in 'Fight Club'"http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/227/2/a-generation-of-men-raised-by-women-gender-constructs-in-fight-club

In “A Generation of Men Raised by Women” Tori E. Gibbs describes the different roles men and women typically have in books and movies, and how the movie “Fight Club” practically switches the characters roles. She is showing that not every story has to fit the stereotypical gender rules. I think that the author wrote this mainly for people who have read the book or watched the movie. I haven’t done either and I had to read the article twice before I got what was being written about. The article jumps around a little bit, but after my second time reading it, I knew what she was talking about. You can tell that she is mainly writing to people who know about the story because in the beginning she does not say what is going on, she just jumps into what her article is about. Some ways that she could be writing to people who do not know the story line are her specific visual examples from the movie that help the reader understand and visualize what is happening. Gibbs' thesis is that every relationship needs equal amounts of masculinity and femininity in order to have the full potential. Both male and female are equally dependent on each other. It just so happens that in this story, the male (Jack/Tyler) is more feminine and the female (Marla) is more masculine. Some would agree with this thesis, but others would claim that male and female are not dependent on each other at all, and others would argue that the roles of male and female should not be switched. So yes, the thesis can cause the readers to have many different views. The author uses many good examples of where the Jack shows his feminine side, and Marla shows her more masculine side. For example, she tells how the Jack has a spotless house, considers his furniture as an expression of his person, and he shows that he is not afraid to cry. And to counter that, Marla is not afraid to run out in front of a car, she sleeps on a dirty case less pillow, smokes, cusses, and her house is a mess. Although toward the end of the article, the author explains that the characters kind of switch back to their stereotypical roles towards the end of the story. Jack soon runs fearlessly in front of a bus in order to help Marla get to safety. Along with his more masculine self, he learns to care more for Marla, and Marla becomes more feminine and become more caring towards Jack. So, I think that if the paragraphs were in order from what happened in the beginning to what happened in the end, the article would have been a little bit easier for those who have not read the book or have not seen the movie to understand. The author kind of put what happens in the middle of the story in the beginning of the article, then what happened in the beginning, then what happened in the end. The writer uses easy to understand words, but the writing is not so informal that it makes the article boring to read or mute out the point. The point is still strong and easy to understand. I did not notice any tropes, and the writer did not really build herself a strong ethos because it seemed like she didn't really put her own input in, she mainly just used evidence from the book and movie.

There were only a few things that I noticed that contradicted the “rules” that I had learned over the years. The first and main one was with the introduction paragraph. Gibbs did not use any questions, or catchy phrases. She did not beat around the bush; she got to the point and said what she wanted to say. The other one was that she didn't use an obscene amount of quotes. I think that she only used one or two quotes. And even with out several quotes, she was still credible and understandable. If I could I would definitely like to be able to write and not have to use quotes to support everything that I say in that paper.