Trying to Make Sense of the Readings for January 30th, 2008

This picture clearly displays my reaction to the first reading...

The piece by Donna Haraway entitled A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century not only fonfused me thoroughly but frustrated me in a sense because I couldn't understand what it was that I was reading. The second sentence into the reading I was thoroughly confused. The sentence saying “Perhaps more faithful as blasphemy is faithful, than as reverent worship and identification.” First I had to look up blasphemy to gain a better understanding, then I looked up reverent to only see that it means to show deep respect or love for. And after going back and trying to better understand it again… I still didn’t understand. After trucking ahead with the rest of the reading I instantly wanted to move on to the next one and say “skip or bump this one” but I kept reading hoping that maybe in the end it would make a little better sense. It didn’t. I will at least say that I did appreciate the little explanations here and there like the one found on page 362 explaining what a cyborg is and then explaining terms found within the definition of a cyborg. But then what I didn’t understand is on the following page (363) Ms. Haraway goes into a more thorough explanation of a cyborg and why she was using or making the analogy to a cyborg that she was using. So after further reading and trying to get myself through this reading I started to wonder if her reference to cyborg’s meant that she is looking into the future and see’s all of us floating around or going around as little robots almost. Just like the Jetsons. I came up with this from where on page (365) she was speaking in terms of “control strategies” and how human beings also must contain the proper standard, the proper code, for processing signals in a common language. Then on page (366) she made a reference to the cyborg being a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern collective and person self meaning to me that we take in so much information and in order to process it we must disassemble and reassemble again a better cyborg maybe?!?

The next reading by Evelyn Fox Keller entitled Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets I found to be not only quite an easier read but thoroughly intriguing. I especially like when Ms. Keller made mention to the fact that women are visible but on the interior we are invisible in reference to our “innermost and most vital parts” (pg. 485). This statement made me think of so many things. First being that of a trophy wife and of course she is not visible because the main reason is to have her there to look good on the males arm; however, her feelings, her emotions, her thoughts and intelligence are unable to shine through and be made visible. Also I secondly thought in terms of reproduction and how genitalia are are contained within vs. a males being outward. This reading was incredibly thought provoking in the sense that I have never thought to think about biology let alone science in the way of secrecy and feminist theory. Just as in the reading it goes to show that every subject is inter-changeable and relatable.

**By the way what is a chimera (found on page 362 in the second paragraph).

Lauren Clark

The article, The Pursuit of Nature's Secrets, greatly brings up a series of questions about women's power, and how we have lost it. I think that before one can inquire about "nature's secrets," we first and foremost need to understand the historical factor of nature and how it was very beneficial to women. Technology, itself, has even ruin humans connection to nature and the ways that the environment (in it's natural state) can be utilized to heal itself. Being of the XX sex, women already had that connection with nature in just having the ability to bring forth life and to bleed without dying. I really believe that men's observation of this connection led to the beginning of men's fear of women, and thus causing for the subordination of women, and the beginning of patriarchy. In addition, the menstrual cycle and it's connection with the moon and gravity, is a highly mysterious phenomenon. Before technology and the concept of land ownership/property, men and women were viewed equally. There were no such things as "division of labor," where men are assigned these choirs and women are assigned another. As women, we took care of the earth. We nurtured it because we realized how greatly we rely on it. So in pertaining to the article, I highly doubt if these secrets are new to women. I believe that many of us may actually practice these secrets as everyday things, and may not necessarily know that they are secrets.

Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets

Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets explores scientists desire to unveil the mysteries of nature. The role of gender in various subjects is very interesting. Men, not privy to the secrets of women and nature, sought to uncover what proves to a formidable challenge and “threat” to them. However, if such questions were to ever be answered would men really garner much satisfaction from the discovery and would positive benefits result? The desire for such knowledge doesn’t come from a place seeking to benefit humanity rather from fear of the unknown and a masculine desire to conquer. Would uncovering women’s secrets remove the little power that we currently hold?
Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto proved a bit more difficult to comprehend. I’m not quite sure I fully understand her cyborg metaphor but the possibility is very interesting, especially the fact that cyborgs already exists in some form.

Making Gender Visible

Like several of my classmates, I struggled with comprehending the material however I believe I understood more of Keller's article. Throughout the article I followed her ideas related to invisibility. According to Christine Froula writings, "the archetypal association of maleness with invisibility and of femaleness with visibility" (516). In other words, women are seen generally purely in the physical form whereas men are viewed intellectually thereby giving them power. This ideal is further supported when Keller asserts “the invisibility of nature’s interior, like the invisibility of women’s interior is threatening precisely because it threatens the balance of power between man and nature and between men and women.” To continue the initial idea, she implies that women's "interior," aspects of themselves beyond the physical are invisible. Likewise, nature's interior may also be ignored by acknowledging only the beauty of nature on the surface and disregarding the true power of nature. In both cases, males lack of acknowledgment for both women and nature creates an environment of inequality in that men have all the power and everyone else is simply ignored and disregarded.

Cyborg Manifesto...

The article, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century”, by Donna Haraway focuses on both men and women being both a machine and human as cyborgs. It is a very interesting article but a bit complex in the description of how cyborgs function in modern society. There were key points in the article that resonated with me. For example, the portion in the article that explained that the “cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family” (385) was very odd to me. I began to inquire if Haraway characterized cyborgs that way in order to obstruct the traditional family and women’s stereotypical desire of having a family. Haraway also discussed the cyborgs’ inability to become reverent. I wanted to know if Haraway may have been alluding that cyborgs are not religious. Haraway also described the cyborgs as illegitimate offspring of patriarchal capitalism and therefore had the desire to rebel against their parents. I believe Haraway wrote the Cyborg manifesto in order to create a playing field where the world is void of gender and sex. Therefore, roles will not be assumed but created by each cyborg. Haraway also discusses technology’s and communication’s effect on cyborgs and societies in general. Technological communication as Haraway predicted will control and regulate humans and cyborgs. Stress was also mentioned and its effect on cyborgs and women was explained in the article. Women ultimately will use writing as their tools as cyborgs. Throughout the article, I was sometimes confused as to whether she was talking about cyborgs or humans.

In the article, “Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets”, Evelyn Fox Keller explains that feminist theory is used as a tool of power to reconstruct the established thoughts and facts of gender and sex. The problems of feminist theory that Keller lists are that people’s perceptions and responses of images of a man and a woman will vary. Also that people’s responses will not always be consistent. People waver on our definition on what is male and what is female.
Keller explains that secrets in the science field were created by male scientists of biology, physics, and other science fields. A woman, Rosalind Franklin was on the verge of discovering DNA with Chargaff however Chargaff and another man discovered it. Keller seems to be describing that the male dominated field of molecular biology also reigned over the scientific biology. Behind scientific texts lies an author. Keller describes how scientists use their work as “one-way glass” which causes others to reflect instead of them. I did not gain the general idea of While reading Keller’s article, I was confused as to whether women were needed to reveal secrets or men were concealing information.

Nature through a feminist lens

The idea of gender and sex has always been a “hazy” topic. But one thing that has always been clear is the difference between men and women or at least the difference society wants us to see. After reading about what science and nature have to say about men women it re-affirms my idea that society wants to keep you in certain categories that define who we are.

In this article visibility is what the author uses to compare femininity and masculinity. This idea I find very interesting. The author states, “maternity is proved by the senses whereas paternity is a surmise.” She also states that, “maleness is associated with invisibility and women with visibility.” When speaking on femininity these two statements contradict themselves, if visibility is associated with femininity and maternity(female)is proved by senses it cannot be both sense and visible.

Missing the Goddess

To be perfectly honest, I struggled to get to the meat of what Evelyn Fox Keller was trying to communicate in her article entitled “Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secret’s.” However, despite my difficulties, I came to some interesting conclusions or realizations based on what the reading offered. Firstly, I’d like to point to a specific quote found in the reading which states, “the invisibility of nature’s interiority, like the invisibility of women’s interiority is threatening precisely because it threatens the balance of power between man and nature and between men and women.” She states this as a reason modern science has moved in the direction that it has. That is, modern science being used as a tool to uncover mysteries about “mother” nature.
While I have a general understanding of the concepts of gender, masculinity and femininity as socially constructed I was not quite sure of Keller’s intent. However, this article brought to mind the long forgotten concept of the goddess, to balance that of a male god. There was a serious backlash against the goddess with the advent of modern monotheistic religions because the goddess, or the female part of spirituality, threatened the supreme power of a god, and therefore of men as master. Similarly, “the secrets” of womanhood threaten the supreme knowledge and understanding of men.

Science and Feminism

Along with others i did seem to find these two readings rather challenging. However i noticed how the constant battle between scince and nature seems to be never ending. In reading "A Cybrog Manifesto" i was left with a constant question of what is truth? I agreed with the author when she points out that in this cybrog of technology there is no "place" for women. It seemed that through this reading the author used various technological ideologies that she felt would benifit the role of women and by using that as well as trying to find that common language (if ever we do) i agreed that it would help distinguish fact from fiction in the decoding process. As a women living in an industrial society i appreciated how this author seemed to deconstruct a variety of ways to reevaluate, as a woman in an industrial society, information thru a rational and naturalistic standpoint without comprimising feministic views.
In realtion to "Making Gender Visible," i was reminded of the last readings in a way. In the article i was once again reminded of how male dominant the scientific world can be. However, in my opininon her explination of Richard Feynman's approach to the "secrets of nature," showed him not to be resourceful and/or determinded but rather stubborn and overly-aggressive. Once again it is the males trying to dominate what they have no control over.

a cyborg manifesto response..

My idea of a manifesto is a call to action. I feel as though it is a verbal slap in the face, an effort to use language to make things happen. This essay does such, I feel as though it is a response to those feminists who sought, throughout the 70s and 80s, to define what woman truly is. It embodies the principle ideas of opposition to the considered “norms” of science and the Western cultural ideals. The "ironic political myth" of the cyborg--the proposition that we are all hybrids--offers a way to give up the effort to define the "real nature of women" or of any person, animal or thing.

Haraway creates this “ironic political myth” which combines the idea of postmodernism with a kind of socialist feminist critique. As she says, “I am making an argument for the cyborg as a fiction mapping our social and bodily reality and as an imaginative resource suggesting some very fruitful couplings” (p.150). The division between nature and culture has been a very treasured one in the U.S. and practically ingrained in every secular progress. I found this text to be very difficult, as well as hard to understand, but I found central themes discussed in class still prevalent within this piece. (I hope I took away the main ideas, because it was very taxing to sort through :-(  guess i'll find out in class...)

The Secret Science

After doing the readings I feel like I have the same understanding prior to doing the assignment.  The readings were somewhat difficult to understand and follow.  Between the two selections the one that I could understand the most was "Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature's Secrets."  Overall I thought the author aimed to explore the function of gender in the world and in this exploration the "secret" was revealed.  Keller talks about nature's secrets and the urge for them to be understood.  Biology is typically linked to mystery but after exploring the world of biology it was noted that mystery doesn't exist.  These mysteries or intangible secrets of nature simply tells us that there are no secrets at all, everything just hasn't been uncovered.  In order solve these mysteries scientists aimed to remove the mysterious language in science that left open doors to questioning facts or myths.  

Relating this article to a real life experience I turn to the reference on page 516 of "maleness as invisibility and of femaleness as visibility.  The reassertion that females were linked visibility reminded me of how women are constantly surveyed.  Although women themselves are surveyors of other women, men still have the upper hand.  This constant privilege of power is handed to men.  Whatever is invisible to them must be attained, they feel it is their right to posses all.  In turn there is an oppression against women with this power domination and in turn women are controlled.  Certain secrets that women have men try to undo.  Scientists are also promoting this scenario.  If this is going to be the norm having secrets uncovered by either males or scientists, there needs to be an understanding of control and how to go about it in the right way.   Although control should be implemented, I still wonder if we let men understand the "secrets" will gender relations improve?

Trying to Make Sense

Only after conversing with a few of my peers did I feel comforted knowing that I was not the only person that found articles 76 and 92 challenging.

As far as “A Cyborg Manifesto” is concerned, I am certain that I didn’t get as much out of the reading as I was supposed to however, there were some points in her argument that I believe I understand. Overall Haraway is discussing the differences between the natural and the cultural. In her attempt to “build an ironic political myth” (384), she argues that a combination of nature and culture (also known as a cyborg) is necessary to a social-feminist culture. The benefit of the cyborg is that it would allow for multiple perspectives to be seen versus the “Single vision [which] produces worse illusions than double vision or many-headed monsters” (386).

The second article “Making Gender Visible” was a little bit easier to comprehend. One of the things Evelyn Fox Keller talks about is the idea behind nature’s secrets and the burning desire for those secrets to be uncovered. At one point biology was a science surrounded by mystery, but after the discovery of “the secret of life” biology transformed to a science where mysteries didn’t exist, rather their answers had simply not yet been found-- As Keller states “The only secret of nature was that there were no secrets, and now that secret was out” (519).

Still not much of a science person...

This week’s readings were challenging. I began with the cyborg reading and after being confused for about a half hour, I decided to take a break and move on to the Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets. Although this reading was clearer and easier to comprehend, it still demanded a good deal of focus and thought. As my title states I am not much of a science person. Therefore, while reading about the “drama” within science and biological discourses and the mechanism of genetic replication, I was trying to find something to hold my attention.
One concept I recognized was the explanation of “maleness as invisibility and of femaleness as visibility” (516). As Keller mentioned, I would think that maleness would be more visible than femaleness. She briefly explained that this “triumph of invisibility” (Freud) was somehow created by thoughts about the “link between power and invisibility” (516). She completes her thought on page 519, saying that in her view, the invisibility is not related to masculinity but to power. Men feel threatened when the secrets of the interiority of nature (and women) are kept from them. In my mind this seems like another issue with the male ego. Why must men know everything!? (Aside from science, men still feel like they need to know EVERYTHING!). This desire for power stems back to Greek mythology and expands on the curiosities of God’s secrets.
Another concept I absorbed from the article was the aspect of “secrets” and the male desire to undo, expose, and delve deeper into secrets that do not involve them (especially secrets kept by women or nature which is also feminine). Throughout the reading, scientists are trying to solve the secrets of life and nature. Scientist attempted to remove all mysterious or questionable language from science as if they could let no mystery go unsolved.

Sister's of Society's Secrets

Although I found Kellers “Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Natures Secrets” a very difficult read, I do feel that it raised some valid points about how women are viewed, studied and depicted through science. It almost everything in our world can be divided into the categories of masculine or feminine Much like Kellers point that the right brain is said to be feminine and the left masculine. Commonly used statements such as “mother earth” and “father time” speak volumes the presence of gender even when describing natural phenomena. Kellers example of pregnancy and the mysteries surrounding it engulfs, in many aspects, the “secrecy” of femaleness. The mysteries of conception, as far as the females role in the process is concerned, causes so many questions to arise. It is funny how society quietly discusses pregnancy and the process of creating, barring and delivering a child, yet the state being pregnant is one of the most blatantly obvious parts of the female-experience. Keller writes, “Pregnancy…though visible to all the world in its outward signs, is invisible in its internal dynamics. It is, in fact, the ultimate secret of life, knowable if not visible to the mother, but absolutely inaccessible to the father.” I think there are so many (if not all) aspects of the feminine experience that men, scientist or not, will be excluded from. In there exclusion there is often criticism, fascination, disinterest or disgust for processes that they do not understand.

Who's got Milk?

I found this to be an article that was difficult for me to understand. I kept asking myself what exactly is" Keller trying to say?"However, after reading it over about three times it finally came to me on how she viewed the power in nature with men, and male and female heterosexual relationships as a whole.
As I continued to read and take this essay apart I decided that as a society people have the tendency to label what is masculine and what can be feminine. Although when you look at images in the media it obvious that the male and female bring forth different thoughts and feelings in different people. The images of women are often affected by the government, economy, religion and culture as well as other systems of inequality.
When I take a look into the pursuit of Nature's secrets and I began to think about what is secreative to men but yet still visible to women I am reminded of the stage of pregancy and motherhood that sustains life afterwards. In this I am refering to breast milk. This stage is influencial to infants because it creates a connection between the mother and child along with the necessary and only nutritions for a human child in its first stages of life. Breast milk is yet still a mystery for men and often times can be mistaken for diary. All in all, the entire pregancy phenomeon baffles men, from conception to nursing a child.Thus proving, the female body still holds secrets beyond a man's knowledge.

Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature's Secrets

When I first started reading, I was a little confused and really bored. I had no idea what Evelyn Fox Keller was talking about. I had to read this a couple of times before I was able to consciously write about it. I now have a little better understanding of the purpose of this reading and am better able to compose my own thoughts in regards to it. Keller says her point is "that however eager we seem to be to divide the world of personal attributes into categories of male and female, we are not always sure which is which." Keller, along withe the past authors we have read in Feminist Theory, somehow always open my eyes to aspects of feminism and what it is to be woman that I guess I knew, but didn't really realize. Keller talks about the tradition of femaleness being obscure and secretive. When I think about it, there are aspects about being female that could be considered "secretive". For instance, she gives an example using pregnancy.
It's interesting because pregnancy and conception are like the biggest mysteries in the world to me! I mean there are books and plenty of research that can break down the stages of conception and pregnancy, but nobody REALLY ever sees it happening. Pregnancy is a mysterious process to me, and when I have known people to be pregnant, I still can't really understand or believe that there is actually a child inside of them. I think that because women posses such obscure and invisible secrets such as the power of pregnancy, it is the job of the people who aren't in on the secret, in this case men, to unveil this secret process. Now I could take that into two directions. In the first direction, I could say that men are exploiting nature's secrets dealing with women, but I think that would be extreme. On the the other hand, men could just be curious about certain things pertaining to women. Keller, along with the other authors we have read in Feminist Theory, somehow always open my eyes to aspects of feminism and what it is to female that I often overlook. Now these ideas and different thought processes have been brought to my attention, I can apply them to my life in hopes of giving others a different way of looking at things.