Comments on: Vindication of the Rights of Cyborgs? http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/vindication-of-the-rights-of-cyborgs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=vindication-of-the-rights-of-cyborgs English 738T, Spring 2015 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:10:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neil http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/vindication-of-the-rights-of-cyborgs/#comment-276 Neil Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:13:05 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=455#comment-276 I agree with much of what you written, but while it is true that MW works within a gender binary, she argues importantly that gender is performative and that any person is capable of a wide spectrum of gender behaviors across the binary. This, it seems to me, is what makes her such a compelling precursor of DH, who moves the argument beyond the gender binary itself, as you point out. I agree with much of what you written, but while it is true that MW works within a gender binary, she argues importantly that gender is performative and that any person is capable of a wide spectrum of gender behaviors across the binary. This, it seems to me, is what makes her such a compelling precursor of DH, who moves the argument beyond the gender binary itself, as you point out.

]]> By: Amanda Giffi http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/vindication-of-the-rights-of-cyborgs/#comment-206 Amanda Giffi Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:29:44 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=455#comment-206 I think the phases Jen points to arise from the shifting definition of what is woman. The characteristics attributed to, legal rights of, professions of, and etc of women have certainly changed from Wollstonecraft 's to Haraway's (to our) time. The fact that we still need to define woman (often still against man) seems to me that we really aren't all cyborgs now. Although, I do think there are aspects of the cyborg argument that I see in Wollstonecraft, especially what Jen refers to as "a very pleasing image of hardness and softness," which I think is what Wollstonecraft is asking of women. I think the phases Jen points to arise from the shifting definition of what is woman. The characteristics attributed to, legal rights of, professions of, and etc of women have certainly changed from Wollstonecraft ‘s to Haraway’s (to our) time. The fact that we still need to define woman (often still against man) seems to me that we really aren’t all cyborgs now. Although, I do think there are aspects of the cyborg argument that I see in Wollstonecraft, especially what Jen refers to as “a very pleasing image of hardness and softness,” which I think is what Wollstonecraft is asking of women.

]]> By: Nigel Lepianka http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/vindication-of-the-rights-of-cyborgs/#comment-160 Nigel Lepianka Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:50:58 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=455#comment-160 This is an interesting issue to digest, but this is my unrefined, initial response, which I may end up coming back to correct after finishing _Vindication_: But I do not see the two distinct "phases" you reference, mainly because I see that both Wallstonecraft and Haraway are asking for the same thing, which you stated yourself: "insisting on blurred spaces, as well as a reality that is irreparably complicated, simultaneously interconnected and fractured." At the beginning of _Vindication_, Wallstonecraft points out that she wants to see women become more "masculine", which I think is a more polite way of insisting on the hybridity (cyborganism?) of women as opposed to the essentialism of men ("Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very careful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made foolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession, [25]). Woman's "hardness and softness" is as much a binary figuring as Haraway's machine and organism, as both are insisting upon women as being, or maybe emphasizing, their liminality. It is also interesting to see the word "cultivation". Cultivation implies labor, and labor is what ties women to capitalism in the modern world: they reproduce, and reproduction is what sustains capitalism- if we decided that a cyborg is a "cultivated" woman, is she just being prepared (again?) to be marketed? iWoman? As I said, these were initial reactions, which I'll think about more as I finish _Vindication_, perhaps with an eye to how woman must "cultivate" herself beyond dependency in Wallstonecraft's terms. This is an interesting issue to digest, but this is my unrefined, initial response, which I may end up coming back to correct after finishing _Vindication_:

But I do not see the two distinct “phases” you reference, mainly because I see that both Wallstonecraft and Haraway are asking for the same thing, which you stated yourself: “insisting on blurred spaces, as well as a reality that is irreparably complicated, simultaneously interconnected and fractured.” At the beginning of _Vindication_, Wallstonecraft points out that she wants to see women become more “masculine”, which I think is a more polite way of insisting on the hybridity (cyborganism?) of women as opposed to the essentialism of men (“Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very careful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made foolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession, [25]). Woman’s “hardness and softness” is as much a binary figuring as Haraway’s machine and organism, as both are insisting upon women as being, or maybe emphasizing, their liminality.

It is also interesting to see the word “cultivation”. Cultivation implies labor, and labor is what ties women to capitalism in the modern world: they reproduce, and reproduction is what sustains capitalism- if we decided that a cyborg is a “cultivated” woman, is she just being prepared (again?) to be marketed? iWoman?

As I said, these were initial reactions, which I’ll think about more as I finish _Vindication_, perhaps with an eye to how woman must “cultivate” herself beyond dependency in Wallstonecraft’s terms.

]]>