Cyborgs! According to Wikipedia, Cyborg is defined as “a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology.” Well then! Obviously throughout this reading she discusses how everything basically relates back to science.

On page 2269, Donna Haraway says “Modern medicine is also full of cyborgs, of couplings between organism and machine, each conceived as coded devices…” What I get from this is that medicine is produced by using bacteria and essentially machines which are man made in certain senses. Let me try to explain that better- An organism is a living thing, such as mold, and many medicines are made of bacteria, such as amoxicillin. What the medicine is doing is putting bacteria in your body to make you immune to it. If you add to medicine, it is not organic, so many Doctors are trying to come up with something to enhance medicine to make it better. Basically, medicine is full of cyborgs because it is being touched and altered in hopes to benefit people who are ill.

I thought it was really interesting, on page 2275, where she says “Identities seem contradictory, partial, and strategic. With the hard-won recognition of their social and historical constitution, gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in “essential” unity. There is nothing about being “female” that naturally binds women.” I don’t know if this is completely off base, but I though of Butler when I read this. Is Haraway saying that women have worked so hard to get where they are, but women shouldn’t be in their own category? Women are equal and can do anything anyone else can, so people shouldn’t refer to women as a group. Does that make sense? She says there is a ” political myth called ‘us.’ ” Us referring to all women. Then where she mentions that “there is nothing about being female that naturally binds women.” Is she saying that women can choose to be whoever they want, and be whatever gender they choose, and be attracted to any gender of their choice? And being female, usually comes along with duties- such as taking care of the house and children.. so just because someone is a female, all of those terms don’t necessarily relate to a female? Sorry if this is confusing, I just confused myself..

On page 2280 it says “But sexual objectification, not alienation, is the consequence of the structure of sex/gender. In the realm of knowledge, the result of sexual objectification is illusion and abstraction. However, a woman is not simply alienated from her product, but in a deep sense does not exist as a subject, or even potential subject, since she owes her existence as a woman to sexual appropriation.” Ok, let’s see.. so I think what Haraway is saying is that many women are seen as objects.. especially in the eyes of men. Women aren’t always taking seriously because (she doesn’t come out and say this, but for example) they are nearly naked in music videos and usually seen as “arm candy” for men. Yes, no, maybe?!

All of this biology talks bring me back to Deleuze and Guattari and how they discuss biology, relating metaphors of/to literature. They’re the ones who talked about the body without organs.. Is this all leading back to how society has a structure but the world doesn’t?

On page 2283, I thought this quote really stuck out.. “No objects, spaces, or bodies are sacred in themselves; any component can be interfaced with any other if the proper standard, the proper code, can be constructed for processing signals in a common language.” In other words, can everything/everyone essentially be “broken down?”

There he is, the man who confused the heck out of me! Is he also against entertainment? I wasn’t really sure which way he was leaning. Something interesting that stuck out was on page 1733 where he says “Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference between them that was the abstraction’s charm. For it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.” Is he saying that the main reason behind everything has changed? That there is no true distinction between what is real and what is not? There isn’t charm to anything anymore, it is not genuine, everything is being done to keep others happy?

On page 1734 Baudrillard goes on to explain the difference between someone who feigns or simulates in illness. He says that “someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and make believe he is ill. Someone who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms.” Meaning that when someone simulates an illness it is hard to distinguish if they truly are sick, or if they’re faking it. It’s hard to tell if someone is faking it because they eventually develop a symptom, maybe something small like a stomach ache. You can develop a stomach ache because you’re making your self sick over thinking that you truly are sick. As for feigning an illness, it is easy to see that one isn’t genuinely ill. They’re pretending they’re ill- so it’s easier to distinguish between such characteristics. He gives a good example later down the page, saying one “hesitates to draw the distinction between true and false, between the “produced” symptom and the authentic symptom. ‘If he acts crazy so well, then he must be mad.’” There someone would be jumping to conclusions, if someone is acting crazy, they assume one is mad, they don’t think “Well maybe he’s putting on a show,” the same as if someone claims they are sick, people are usually going to believe that person. One would like to think that someone isn’t trying to get out of work, or school by using the “I’m sick” card.

Unfortunately, Baudrillard lost me when he was speaking of religion. What does he mean when he says “One can live with the idea of distorted truth?” When religion is taught to us, is it distorted?

So I got really excited when I started reading his section on Disneyland! He talks about dreams and how when you go to Disneyland, nothing is real. He says “Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the “real” country, all of the “real” America, which is Disneyland.” Is he saying that Disneyland is there to take your mind off of what is really going on in the world? He also says that “The Disneyland imaginary is neither truth nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real.” He also says that “In this imaginary world the only phantasmagoria is in the inherent warmth and affection of the crowd..” and all of the rides or “gadgets” that are there. I thought this was so true because I just went to Disney World 2 weeks ago and my brother and I went to the Magic Kingdom one night– It was so exciting and fun because there were so many people around, laughing and having a good time. When it started to clear out it’s like the fun died out with it. We were there late because they had extended hours, so it was open until 3am. When all the families with kids started piling out, it’s like the magic of it all left with them. The park was quiet and dark and it just wasn’t as fun, even though the rides were still open and running. It’s all really interesting to think about…

It’s unfortunate Horkeimer and Aforno rip apart movies because I love them. Movies aren’t made to brainwash people, they are produced as a source of entertainment. You’re not supposed to go to a movie theater, watch the entire movie, go home and reenact what events had just occurred. Horkeimer and Aforno start off their piece by saying “Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part” (1223). Right, they do all work together, but not necessarily in a bad way. Again, movies, the radio and magazines are all here for entertainment– they’re not always supposed to be taken seriously or literally. Movies are made to make people laugh, cry, and enjoy themselves. Many people work or go to school all day, so having some down time watching a movie is what America likes to do.

Because both men are labeled as “philosophical thinkers,” I’d imagine that they feel as though people should pick up books and further educate themselves rather than wasting their time watching movies.

Anyway, on page 1224 Horkeimer and Aforno said “Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce.” Ahh they really hate movies huh? Basically they’re saying how the movies and radio maybe aren’t as classy as they used to be? I guess I can agree with that, but then again, things change. Generations are changing and people “voice” their opinions a lot more freely now-a-days. I think they’re also saying how the producers don’t care if their movies are raunchy or distasteful because they’re an empire, all they care about is making money.. but it’s true because people pay to be entertained.

As far as magazines go, many people do buy magazines because they want to read the latest gossip on the stars and feed into the latest trends. But what do they expect? Women are conditioned to act girly and buy these magazines to keep up with the latest fashions! haha.

On page 1227 where they are discussing Mozart, I think they are just saying that they don’t like the change. They want the music to remain the same, and that goes for movies and radio.

Another thing I found interesting was on page1229 where they say “What happens at work, in the factory, or in the office can only be escaped from by approximation to it in one’s leisure time. All amusement suffers from this incurable malady. Pleasure hardens into boredom because, if it is to remain pleasure, it must not demand any effort and therefore moves rigorously in the worm grooves of association. No independent thinking must be expected from the audience..” I think they’re saying how lazy people are because if people aren’t captivated within the first few seconds of something, they get bored and turn the channel or turn off the movie. Books for example, many people would choose a movie before a book. A lt of people view books as boring or they relate them to homework and movies as viewed as entertainment.

All in all, it’s a little upsetting how much these guys hate movies!

I’m sure many people are going to agree that this was the best assignment thus far. Margaret Cho was so entertaining and funny that she kept my attention the entire time. It was interesting how she started out by saying that she wasn’t nervous to be performing in front of so many people, she was just nervous that she had to do it in front of her parents. She had said that she could feel her parents silent disapproval. This reminded me of the symposium that we all attended because all of the students who spoke and read their papers, were doing what Cho was doing.. except the students were doing it in front of a smaller crowd, but still, it takes guts to get up and speak to a group of people.

Cho started off by discussing the differences between gay and straight men, moving on to stereotypes and adding in humor along the way. She was saying how gay men are much more attractive than straight men and it’s a lot easier to talk to gay men, claiming that she was a heterophobic. She made jokes that many people wouldn’t be comfortable with making themselves. Cho touched upon gays, lesbians, the KKK, and even mothers (or just her mother). By the way, I thought it was hilarious how she made fun of her mother. She talked like an old Korean woman, scrunched her face, and just mocked her. I know that sounds bad, but it was her own mother, so that made it funny! Cho also talked about something very important, body image. A lot of girls today are brainwashed to think that you’re only beautiful if you’re very skinny. When Cho was on television, I guess she dropped 30 pounds in 2 weeks, which is very unhealthy. She was conforming to society. She thought she looked good, but because the network didn’t agree, she had to change.

I think I saw a lot of theory throughout Margaret Cho’s stand-up. First off, I saw Foucault because he discusses sex throughout his text, and obviously Cho didn’t have a problem touching upon that subject. She shared her thoughts with the whole world and wasn’t shy to speak of it. I think Foucault believed that it should be more private, but Cho was very much more open about it (she’s not easily embarrassed). Rubin was also represented when it comes to the sex/gender system. Women are “supposed to be” seen as objects, skinny and pretty, for men. Then of course, I saw a lot of Fanon. There was a lot of racial items being covered throughout this ‘movie’. She talks about people of different races and it’s just covering the fact that a lot of people are where they are because of the place others put you in. That makes sense in my head, but now that I’m rereading it, I’m not so sure? Then of course there’s Judith Butler. When Cho talks about how her mother would call her and say “Are you gay? If you don’t pick up the phone, you’re gay” on her answering machine. Because Cho was born a woman, her whole life she has been conditioned on how to act like a woman. Being gay in her mother’s eyes would just be wrong. Her mother claims that it is ok– that there are a lot of people in the world who are gay, just not people who are Korean. Contradictory?

Either way, Margaret Cho was great and was able to make light of a lot of situations that are viewed as controversies in today’s society.

After reading Gender Trouble, by Judith Butler I searched around the web looking for more background information on Judith Butler. A lot of her work is related to Sigmund Freud and Foucault. I came across a professor’s website and I guess she teaches a class on Butler, but she had said that Butler “wants to question the idea that a person IS male or female, masculine or feminine, which are the fundamental ideas Freud started with. Butler wants to show that gender is not just a social construct, but rather a kind of performance, a show we put on, a set of signs we wear, as costume or disguise– hence as far from essence as can be.” I really liked the fact that this profesor (Dr. Mary Klages) was able to basically put together all of Butler’s ideas in one sentence. It is made clear that Butler is a feminist, so throughout the reading Butler goes on to explain how there’s a certain distinction made between men and women.

On page 2488-2489 Butler says “I read Beauvoir who explained that to be a woman within the terms of a masculinist culture is to be a source of mystery and unknowability for men, and this seemed confirmed somehow when I read Sartre for whom all desire, problematically presumed as heterosexual and masculine, was defined as trouble. For that masculine subject of desire, trouble became a scandal with the sudden intrusion, the unanticipated agency, of a female “object” who inexplicably returns the glance, reverses the gaze, and contests the place and authority of the masculine position.” I picked out this quote for a couple of reasons. The first sentence stood out because over and over I hear how men find women to be a mystery, or confusing. I’ve also heard that women and men think differently. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this, but is the mystery between a man and a woman attractive? Butler then brings up an interesting point where she refers to women as an “object.” Many men see women as an object, even today– especially as a sexual object. Women are seen as objects in music videos, on MTV during the Spring Break programming, having them participate in games where all they have on are teeny bathing suits, and some are even represented as “arm candy.” Anyway, back to the quote where it says “authority of the masculine position” — it seems like what she is saying is that men over power women, they hold all the power because they are the one’s who basically seek out “their” women, that he basically “chooses” her. Men feel like they can have who they want whenever they want, rather than it being a mutual attraction. Did any of that make sense?

Ok, so I’m a little confused on the section where Butler talks about the body. Is she saying that the only way a man and a woman are distinguished is because one looks feminine while the other looks masculine? Or is gender determined on the way a person acts and presents themselves rather than what you look like? Mm, confused? Me too!

I thought it was interesting on page 2943 where the whole idea of AIDS was being discussed. I couldn’t believe that (I think it was Simon Watney’s idea?) a person with AID, someone who is gay/lesbian, is defined as “the polluting person.” On the following page it also says, “Paradoxically, homosexuality is almost always conceived within the homophobic signifying economy as both uncivilized and unnatural.” That is just wrong on so many levels.

Then on page 2496 where the soul is being discussed, I linked a lot of this theory to Saussure because the words signified/signifying continued to pop up. It says “The soul is precisely what the body lacks; hence, the body presents itself as a signifying lack. That lack which is the body signifies the soul as that which cannot show.” The soul cannot show itself through the body, so that is something deep within. The soul is hidden, but it is the most important thing in any person.. (the body can’t show the soul and the soul is exactly what the righteous body needs).

On page 2497 it says, “If the inner truth of gender is a fabrication and if a true gender is a fantasy instituted and inscribed on the surface of bodies, then it seems that genders can be neither true nor false, but are only produced as the truth effects of a discourse of primary and stable identity.” Then a few sentences later it says, “I would suggest as well that drag fully subverts the distinction between inner and outer psychic space and effectively mocks both the expressive model of gender and the notion of a true gender identity.” The way one presents themselves, such as appearance, can be an illusion. In the case of a drag, what you see on the outside is not really what’s in the inside. The outer appearance would be considered feminine, while the person inside the body is considered masculine. So in other words, you can never really tell who a person is by their outer appearance, such as gender? It all comes down to soul?