Feminism and "Things Fall Apart"

The men of "Things Fall Apart" come off as very sexist individuals.  At least, to people like us they do.  In the African world demonstrated in this novel by Achebe, sexism is the norm.  As stated by the narrator, "No matter how prosperous a man was, if he was unable to rule his women and his children (and especially his women) he was not really a man."  Males are the dominant gender in the novel, with females primarily serving to feed the family and produce children.  This display of sexism is typical of basically every culture at one point in time.  Even America was once this way - although not to the extent of shooting at wives or beating them like it's nothing - with women playing the roles of stay-at-home moms who are usually found in the kitchen.  In my essay, I would like to discuss the role of women in novel and how they compare to women in other cultures, both in the past and present.

For example, having a girl child is not desired in Umuofia.  This is similar to the views regarding female babies in China.  In China, a surprisingly large amount of female children are given away or even killed.  It is just something that is simply not desired.  In Umuofia, the female children are merely tolerated, however.  Okonkwo even wishes that one of his children, a girl, would have been male.

The way that women are treated in the novel is also reminiscent of real life.  All three of Okonkwo's wives are beaten and reprimanded.  If a woman does not fulfill her duties, she will be beaten.  This is not unlike reality.  Beating women unfortunately still occurs today, though it was more prevalent in the past. The name of the clothing piece "wife beater" had to have come from somewhere.  This term stemmed from popular culture in America.  But it's not just popular culture that such things happen.  Using examples from other cultures, I would like to use the femininity in "Things Fall Apart" and compare it with real-world examples.  

Technology's Monopoly on Humans

     Today, technology seems to be everywhere: our homes, schools, our workplaces.  According to Neil Postman's Technopoly, there was once a time in which technology merely aided humans to make our lives easier and more efficient.  "Technocracy filled the air with the promise of new freedoms," and "speeded up the world."  A "technopoly" is a society in which technology rules human methods of though.  According to Postman, technopolies "include the beliefs that the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency..." (51).  Where humans were once inventing for the idea of freedom and better lives, technology makes the existence of the human mind unnecessary.  Computers are relatively free of error in calculations, but human error makes our lives inefficient.  So, we looks to technology to maintain the quality of our lives, and customs such as religion and reading become seemingly irrelevant. 
     In relation to Brave New World, the members of the World State have given up traditional customs completely, such as families, parenthood, and religion.  Instead, their only dependency is based on Henry Ford, who invented the assembly line and the Model T car.  Postman acknowledges the fact that the World State represents a technopoly when he states "Huxley himself identified the emergence of Henry Ford's empire as the decisive moment in the shift from technocracy to technopoly," (49).  In the novel, efficiency is indeed a primary concern of the leaders, demonstrated by the methods in which humans are produced.  No longer do humans have to worry about reproduction - there's an assembly line and ovaries which pump out thousands of babies (and the factory workers boast about this efficiency).  This situation is not a technocracy, because the focus is not on inventing for freedoms and well-being, but rather inventing things that will make society more efficient and have to think much less. 
     Similar to Brave New World, Postman notes that America has become the first technopoly because of how much we rely on technology to do our work for us.  Today, Americans don't even have to think if they don't wish to.  We have things like Google which find the answers for us.  We have fast food chains that make our food for us, requiring no effort on our part.  Things that make our lives more efficient aren't necessarily the best for us.
     Regarding this chapter, Postman acknowledges Frederick Winslow Taylor as the "originator of scientific management," (50).  Scientific management originally was only supposed to relate to industrial production.  Taylor's idea was to increase profits while also increasing the working conditions.  This is similar to Brave New World in that people are conditioned to like what they do and have no other ideas of what life might be like.  In turn, the people are happy and so the system runs efficiently.

Let's keep technology in check, please.

     Something often sought after is perfection: the ability to live longer (or forever), to never make mistakes, etc.  Because we are human beings, we are imperfect for the time being; the only way to reach perfection is through the use of technology.   However, that is not to say that technology isn't already merged with humans, because it is in many ways.  Technology currently serves to make our lives easier and more efficient.  However, according to Raymond Kurzweil, technology will eventually totally merge with humans to increase the longevity of our lives.  He believes computers will gain consciousness and exponentially grow to be much more intelligent than humans.
     I don't believe something like this should happen.  As mentioned in the article, "there might conceivably come a moment when they [computers] are capable of something comparable to human intelligence."  What is the necessity of this?  Technology should keep growing, even at its rapid exponential rate, but that does not mean that computers have to become consciously aware of things as humans are.  I don't mind if they are able to compute and solve problems faster than humans can, but there is just no need for computers to become conscious beings.  I believe that there is no purpose for them to inhabit the world as we do.  The trouble of ensuring that "that the AI is friendly" is unnecessary.
     Humans were put on the world naturally to reproduce and survive for as long as nature allowed.  If we use technology to increase our lifespans and halt the aging process completely, the purpose of life is erased totally.  I should mention the immense overcrowding (as if we already aren't overcrowded now) and shortage of resources that would likely occur.  If we literally become slaves to technology - if we rely solely on technology for the fundamentals of survival - then we lose our authenticity as humans, as Bernard insists in Chapter 6 of Brave New World.  Bernard wishes not to be "enslaved by my [his] conditioning."  From the start of their lives within the world of the novel, humans are in contact with technology incessantly.  With the assembly line, humans rely on technology to be born.  I agree with Bernard - we shouldn't let something that makes our lives easier take us over.  Let the technology do the thinking and the work, but don't give it a consciousness, otherwise it will start to get fed up with its duties to humanity.  

    We as a society rely on technology more and more each day, be it cell phones, cars, or the factories producing our food.  Technology is a useful aspect of life, but to let it grow to become something on the level of and above human consciousness is not very smart.  I can't help but be reminded of the cliche Hollywood films like "I, Robot" and "Rise of the Machines" in which technology becomes so smart and so strong that it formulates a plan to take over humanity.  However impossible it might seem, this is a very likely reality if we let people continue to play the role of a god.

So, what's with the sparkly vampires?

     Reading Tori E. Gibbs' essay "Vampires: The Ever-Changing Face of Fear" shed light on something that isn't often thought about or discussed.  Gibbs elaborates on the history of vampires in literature in film (as well as real life accounts of the creatures), and how they have been transformed into something much different than their original, fearful forms.  I was surprised to find that such a topic was considered for this essay - usually the youth nowadays merely accept that vampires are sparkly, perfect, and godlike.  Books and films like "Twilight" romanticize the idea of vampires, and transform them into something far more alluring than blood-sucking night dwellers.
     What I first noticed about Gibbs' essay was that it didn't feel like a rigid, structure-bound essay that was determined to stick to solid writing guidelines.  Instead, it felt very natural and free-flowing, which seemed to increase the quality of the essay.  There were no paragraphs that felt stretched out to fit the minimum sentence requirement that some essays are guided by.  There were no paragraphs that followed the topic sentence, detail, commentary, etc. "rule" that some instructors deem must be followed in order to create a well-written essay.  Without strict guidelines to follow, it felt as if Gibbs understood well the direction in which to take the essay, while allowing it to flow naturally. 
     Usually, essays (especially to the high school student) are based solely upon specific works of literature or film.  From my experience, essays are often based off of a couple specific works.  Gibbs, however, widens the field in her essay; she takes multiple works of literature and film, and compiles them together with lore and actual examples from the real world.  So, it was clear to me that Gibbs' essay was different from most others that I have read, making this essay particularly interesting. 
     Gibbs had the upper hand while writing this essay, as she chose a topic that is relevant to today's society and one that ignites the imaginations of countless people.  Along with a topic that is interesting, she develops her ideas and provides evidence that supports the topic she wants to discuss.  By giving evidence and building upon it, I felt that Gibbs maintained a sense of credibility (or as we recently learned, ethos). 
     This essay was also interesting and different because of the fact that Gibbs didn't really try to be convincing; I didn't feel like she was trying to make me believe something with her essay.  Rather, this essay documents a change in a pop-culture topic: how vampires have transformed.  No, I'm not talking about vampires morphing into bats. Gibbs discusses how vampires have gone from frightening beasts in capes to attractive, glimmering, and perfect people who seem to be ordinary.  She finishes off her essay with a glimpse into vampire lore and alleged "sightings" of such creatures.  I truly appreciated that for once an essay was relatable.
     While I did find this essay compelling, there was one fault that caught my eye.  Her essay started off without any problems, but the ending was too abrupt.  There was no real conclusion - she literally ended her essay by giving real life accounts of vampires.  I understand that her essay is structured differently than most, but it was awkward to have a proper introduction, but to completely disregard a conclusion that sums up the topic.  It was almost as though she went over some sort of word limit, or just got bored and said "OK, enough!"  Or maybe that was just part of her plan to make her essay different, but awkward and abrupt endings aren't good.
     This essay by Tori Gibbs was one that intrigued me a lot.  Different from the average essay, Gibbs'  proved to be relatable and free-flowing without a too-strict structure holding it back.  Although I did notice some things that could be made better, the essay overall was one that definitely grabbed my interest in a new and different way.  I can't help but suggest that you read it.