The Women of Things fall apart

                      In the novel "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe, women do not play any significant role in the Igbo society. Much like through history they have been put to the side, downcast to the jobs of caretaker and servant. The men of the Igbo culture, "define what it mean to be female and determine who controls the political, economic, social and literary structures. (Feminism 172)" Men are the dominate in Okonkwo's culture, the women have almost no rights what so ever. Okonkwo beats his wife, and is only looked down upon because his did so on their version of Sunday/AKA the holy day. And adding to that, Okonkwo had multiple wives (it was a sign to others that he was rich and powerful). Women in the novel are not even given names, which just adds to the whole 'property' thing. All of 'married' women are called by their husband's name, its just Okonkwo's first wife, Okonkwo's second wife,etc. and they are not given any rights in their community. The only mention of a woman being one of power floats around two women, priestess and a woman called Anasi who is the first wife of Nwakibie. "Anasi was a middle-aged woman, tall and strongly built. There was authority in her bearing and she looked every inch the ruler of the womenfolk in large and prosperous family. She wore the anklet of her husband's titles, which the first wife alone could wear" (Achebe 18). In fact, that is the only mention of the 'first wife rule' or what you want to call it, about how the fist wife has the ability to wear the "anklet of her husband's titles".

             Although the novel is not directly feminist, the author play up the fact that women have no rights and no power in making decisions. The woman in the novel have been taught by their traditions that they are subservient to their male counterparts. The women mentioned in the book are stereotypical women who are wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and their personalities and characters remain undeveloped and seem to be a filler in a world doninsated by the men of the tribe. Even though “it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights,” (Feminism 167) it seems that that is just what the elders of the Igbo society are doing. Not to put the blame on them outright, the history for women's rights just sucks...  you name the city and women have been used in it at more than one time in history. Men objectify women, just like Helen of Troy was the most prized possession in Greece. The Igbo men value their wives as if they were prized cattle, they more male children they produced- the more valued they were. That is just not right.

Once upon a time... robots took over the human race.

Most of technology is first created for a good cause, but then eventually, something goes wrong and the whole thing goes bad. In looking at Brave New World through the point of view of Neil Postman's chapter, I discovered something new in the fact that in A Brave New World, technology is -in a way- a master of the citizens of the World State. There factories were built, at first to create an equal society. By the time that is the setting in A Brave New World, the factories have become less of a convenience and more of a way of life. Yet, Neil Postman say that "for all the dependence on machinery, tools ought to still be the servants, and not the masters." This is so extremely different from  Ray Kurzweil's ideas that it is on the other side of the solar system. Ray Kurzweil is all gung-ho for the machines taking over, he even gives us a date! Kurzweil says it will happen, Postman says that we shouldn't LET it happen- these two butt heads more than Godzilla and Mothra. Both have different ideas on the same subject. Kurzweil has his "singularity" and Postman has his "technopoly", which he defines as “totalitarian technocracy". Frederick Winslow Taylor fits into Kurzweil's side of the argument. Taylor published a book that contained the first "formal outline of the assumptions of the thought-world of Technopoly" that said that "human judgment can not be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity and unnecessary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking". Taylor is backing up Kurzweil's idea by saying that humans are less efficient and less intelligent than the robots and AIs that are to come. It seems strange that Neil Postman would talk about something in his book that contradicted his own ideas and supported those of his adversary, Ray Kurzweils.

A look at "Temptation and the Ring in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring"

                So, Lord of the Rings. Who hasn’t heard of Lord of the Rings? In fact, I dare you to name one source of media that Lord of the Rings hasn’t been on. Television, movies, books, and now an essay written by one Kathleen E. Gilligan who studies English at Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey.  This essay looks at the Lord of the Rings trilogy, by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, through the eyes of a religious scholar by connecting some of the main characters, points and objects of the trilogy to things that are written in the Holy Bible.  Gilligan’s reason in writing this essay seems to be that she wants to explain a different way to look at the movies or books to the super-fans of the trilogy (you know, the ones that buy the games and go to the comic-on dressed like Frodo or Sam). Although Gilligan does not seem to center on one audience alone, she does address both the people who are interested in the book by itself and the people who are interested in what possible religious phenomenon that Tolkien (unknowingly?) put into his trilogy. Luckily for us, Gilligan agrees with herself on the subject of her essay. The Lord of the Rings does seem to follow a path of temptation and resolution.  It is a subject her readers would appreciate because it deals with how the characters in Tolkien’s trilogy react to the temptation of the ring and if they give in to it or not.  Gilligan choses to sight both work of Tolkien and the Bible, that people understand and have heard of before. Her choices are a great support for her claim/thesis that “In The Lord of the Rings, and the first volume—The Fellowship of the Ring—in particular, Tolkien argues for a religious reading by showing that the struggle for the characters to fight the temptation of the Ring is a direct reflection of the temptation faced by those in The Bible.” Also, with said resources, Gilligan organizes her thoughts in a neat fashion. Each paragraph has a purpose, with the resources mixed in with each other (not a whole bunch of mish-mosh throughout the paragraph).  There is only one point in the essay where Gilligan brings in a resource seemingly out of the blue, a dictionary reference. The reference itself fits with what Gilligan is talking about in her essay, but the dictionary was not. She would have gotten a better reaction from her audience if she had used a commonly used dictionary like the Webster’s Dictionary.  In addition to her resources impacting the readers, her use of formal diction and personification/similes connecting things from Lord of the Rings to what is described in the bible.  On numerous occasions thought her essay she brings up the “ring” gives it direct quality of being tempting on a grand scale. Gilligan does not really establish herself as an acceptable authority in the subject because she gives the authority to the authors/tellers of her resources.  In looking at Kathleen E. Gilligan’s essay has taught me some new things about this this kind of writing style.  I learned that you can take any day sample of literature and make a great example of it.

(\_/)
( . .)                 I'm starting a blog for my Ap Lit. Class    :)
C(")(")