A reading of Things fall Apart through a Feminism lens

The Early Role of Women and their Counter Strike.

                  First off, the feminist movement started after years of the dominate male population deciding what it means to be a women, and expecting them to follow it. The first major outcry that this was wrong was from Mary Wollstonecraft, who claimed that women “Must define for themselves what it means to be a women.” (Feminism 171). While this was one of the first published author of this message, it did not take hold until the early 1900s. Even after the right to vote was gained and women were able to enter the workforce without to much trouble, women were still held down and oppressed. This led to the rise of the style of writing and analyzing works or art , which is labeled Feminism.

               This style of writing became popular with women writers who were getting the right to publish, and they made a point to show whether that women were being held down, or what happened because of this oppression to an individual woman. This is seen in Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own which was written to create a scenario in which a women had great talent that the world will stop it from growing. This can be seen in the fact that “ Because she cannot economically afford a room of her own, her initiate artistic talents would never flourish.” (172) This for example shows the damage done to the individual woman because of the oppression. The analyzation come from a person viewing a piece of work in a way to understand and interpret the way women are treated. This is a way of showing how a text empowers the males while disfranchising the females.

                In Things Fall Apart,the women are treated like worse then slaves as they are just expected to do as they are told with no other bonding then the rules of society. Every wife much cook for the male head of the household, and her children are always in the property of the father. He is allowed to beat them for little to no real reason and it is seen as acceptable. Women can take no title in the Ibo society, and the is only one female character that has any real power, and she is the priestess of the god.

              Feminism is a hard one to do, I will most likely use the theoretical text to help explain how the dominate male society forces these idea on the women. With that, I will uses the societies expectations, the fact that it is the men that decide and control, not the women, and the actions of the males that keep the females in a class lower then them. Throughout the essay I hope to answer any other question that the Feminism text suggests.

The fall of faith and the rise of technology.

           Neil postmen described three eras and went into some description. The only two that were important were the technocracy and the technopoly. The technocracy was where both religion and science coexist, and in the beginning Faith had the upper hand. The emergence of the tenochpoly is where not only does science get the upper hand, but faith is then put into the technology. It sort of replaces it to the people.

            It is said that Fredric Taylor was one of the reason for the shift. He was the creator of the scientific management. He had only meant it to “make the people work faster by replacing their judgments with laws, rules of their jobs. (51). That could be seen as the first step to cutting out human thoughts if it does not work as machine. It could also be drawn from him that, 'Humans beings, in a sense, are worth less then their machinery.(52). This alludes to the fact that is brought up in A Brave new World. The people are slaves to the machine, in that they must make the people. A good example of the people in the book being slaves of the machine and consumerism, “The controllers won't approve of any new games unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated existing games (A Brave new World 31). They cannot or will not allow anything to be made unless it uses machinery made parts and uses a lot of them. It is a good view in that it is a technological totalitarianism.

             This is almost of the opposite of the Ray Kurzweil's essay on singularity. Ray was hopeful of the use of technology solving Human problems. He also said that if humans merged then the humans would be more advance. Neil had the fact that technology would become the dominating force and that would make humans lesser.

Humans have tried to make their life easier and better, and this is usually what is called technology today. As technology breeds technology, the rate that better and smarter things coming out is increasing rapidly. So far, there are things that the new technology have not been able to do, such as express itself in art , or be able to appreciate art. Those are found in the human mind alone, or was. When Kurzweil created the computer that was able to produce music he really blurred the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence. (Time Magazine) that was probably the first time that the two mixed in a way that could be seen as significance. It leads to the idea of what happens if they are able to understand what is produced. They are then almost able to work and think on a level that was reserved for humans. If you take this farther, there will come a time when it is not the humans who are the smartest, and then the idea is that humans will either merge to stay alive with the machine, or the new advancements in computers and technology may wipe the human race out. If a merge occurred with the technology, then it may be possible that everything that could or would be thought would be stored in a giant data storage so that everyone knows everything. In A Brave New World, the society takes out the humanity by programming humans, and then go and almost destroy the diversity through the manufacturing process. While any growth in technology is neutral, the outcome of the added affect cannot be seen as good or bad yet.

the is my anylisis of an essay

      The author uses many of styles that we have learned in school to try and prove his point. He starts with a clear explanation as to what and why he is writing. His whole argument is based on logical examples to prove how Lord of the Rings has a religious back ground. He knows his audience as readers as he clearly explanations without going into unneeded detail. He first uses the author's background as proof, then used what is in the text to proves that the book has religious meaning, like with the bible. His way of showing that it is possible, and then proving it was well done. It showed that he was not just seeing things in the text, but what could be there unintentionally by the author. He then goes into the characters words and action, to show the ideas that are commonly held to appear in the bible. He holds the text together well by going in order with the loss of Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, and then Jesus himself. He sets up each to be compared to the major characters to show that the parallel goes beyond a few lines. The fact that he uses the author to show that there is a relation is something that I have never heard about, and it does work well to hold the piece together. It keeps the writing together, and makes it more cohesive. He has a very informal way that make his point clear and easily understood. In the conclusion, I was always told to never use any proof, or anything else, just to recap what you had already said. He does bring himself as a creditable source in that he did the research, with the bible and then digging into the authors history. There are no problems with the context, and the format of the essay is very interesting,. He states a given thing, and then proves it in the various characters. It allows the assumption by the reader that there is more then what he offered. He goes in to bring up a lot of the proofs that he offered earlier, and even adds it to more characters. It brings a feeling of completion to the whole essay, and offers that one last bit of power to the work.

           The other thing that should be noted that he is not trying to prove that one should read the book with a religious out look. He is merely trying to say that if one were to look at it in a religious lens, that there is merit in doing so. The examples he offers are not proving that it is there, but merely showing that it could be there. He does not tell you to read it that way, but shows what one would find if they decided to. That adds to his credibility because it is examples of what could be found, and showing the merit to read it under that light. It is very well done, and the argument is written out clearly and could be understood by anyone. It is a very different way of writing then we are thought, in which we prove idea and put ideas into the book, where he is only saying that it could be seen this way.