It seems so odd to me that so many people don't understand that the world wide web is far from world wide and that much of the world doesn't even have access to it. In another DTC class of mine we are discussing how to create an on-line library of unpublished works from all over the world that anybody could contribute to, and its funny how people in the class just assume that anybody in the world could get on-line and access the library. Many of us living in this society with all the technology at our fingertips don't even think twice about it. It doesn't cross their minds that others aren't as fortunate to have this stuff.

The statistics in the article by Andy Carvin (Mind the Gap...) seem a little crazy though. I know this article was written in 2000 so things have definitely changed somewhat. It's actually pretty amazing how many people in this country do have access to technology and the internet. I know people on welfare who don't have a high school diploma, or even enough food in the fridge and still have internet access at home. The problem I think at least here in this country is more what Mark Warschauer was getting at in his article in that it's not all about the haves and have nots, the digital divide so to speak, but rather the lack of education and training on the use of technology. "The internet itself must provide the right tools so people are able to take advantage of and use it for more varied purposes, more learning styles, more languages and cultures" (Carvin). Because I've noticed that even though many of the lowest socioeconomic level households now have access to the internet and computer, they don't know how to use the stuff effectively. Then their kids don't learn at home what other kids with the same access are learning and that increases the gap between the two groups.

Providing the technology just isn't enough. Attention needs to be given to the human and social systems that must also change for the technology to make a difference. "A digital divide is marked not only by physical access to computers and connectivity, but also by access to the additional resources that allow people to use technology well" (Warschauer). Couldn't say it better myself. There are so many factors that go into the "digital divide" besides the actual divide of digital technolgy access.

Both of these articles were very enjoyable to read and made some excellent points!

Cyborg Manifesto by Haraway

This week I'm taking a little different approach to posting my blog for the article. I am actually posting this as I read the article and so far I'm a paragraph into this thing and am having a difficult time with her use of rhetoric. Exactly how is she using the term blasphemy? I just don't get what the hell she's doing here. "Blasphemy protects one from the moral majority within, while still insisting on the need for community. Blasphemy is not apostasy?" I keep running this over in my mind and I'm coming up with this: blasphemy means to see yourself as as good as God, having God type qualities, or even better than God right? And apostasy is a separation from your religion or cause. So I'm trying to put this together. Seeing myself as equal to God isn't a separation or departure from my own religion or cause. Hmm. I guess it is just interesting to me trying to understand her use of language. Yes, i get it that she is talking about the humor and irony in politics and that she feels the need for that approach in socialist-feminism, and this leads her into talking about the cyborg. She wants to create a political myth that is faithful to both feminism and to materialism.....Blasphemous and ironic. But I'm just thrown off by this introduction.

Okay, maybe this isn't how I'm gonna do this. It might take forever. I'll read this overwhelming 'article' and come back because I probably don't need to pick it apart phrase by phrase. Bad idea mixed with too much ritalin.

So it sounds like Haraway is saying that we are all cyborgs, hybrids of machine and organism in today's world and that the cyborg will change what counts as 'women's experience' in these times (this article being a little old but still just as relevant). Cyborgs are not a thing of the future, but instead a commonality in modern medicine, reproductive technology, manufacturing, etc... so whether we know it or not - we are all cyborgs. And her socialist and feminist views do not agree with separating mind and body, animal and machine, idealism and materialism into dualisms. She sees cyborgs as being mixtures of biological human beings and mechanical/electrical components so intertwined that they can no longer be separated.

The point she tries to make about the classification of women being a socially constructed category rather than biological is quite interesting. When thinking about the cyborg and even the other stuff we've talked about in class like creating a virtual identity in cyberspace, it becomes clear how not only gender, but race, sexuality, and class can be socially constructed. So, disregarding the biological aspect of gender, we must take a different view on feminism altogether and throw out the binaries of either male or female. We are human cyborgs. ? ?

Okay, I just can't do this anymore. It's really hard to read into these metaphors upon larger metaphors.....I'll have to come back to this article. I don't know if it's just me or what but it is killing me. It's a tough read.

I guess I am going to come back and read the rest of the article another time because just reading the first few pages has taken some time. And trying to relate that to some of the issues raised in class is challenging. I didn't even realize the different waves of feminism and influences and stuff.....But I can make some comments on relative ideas that come to mind. It seems like we can certainly throw in the issue of feminism to the discussions we've had on race in cyberspace. Power is given to women by allowing a sort of equal voice and the ability to invent either true or fictional identity. But have you guys ever heard of second life? I haven't messed with it at all but have just recently heard of it. A 3D social networking site where you actually create an avatar and interact with other avatars virtually or whatever. It sounds like there are all kinds of uses for this site - psychiatrists interacting with patients who won't actually come into an office, characters giving on-line performances like singing or speeches or whatever...... I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess just that when you think of this kind of thing on-line it puts a whole new perspective on race and gender and stuff being anonymous on-line. Your avatar is actually doing on-line things that you do in life. How crazy is that? Interesting to me I guess.