On A Cyborg Manifesto -Donna Haraway

In "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," Donna Haraway argues that cyborgs are, in theory, the postmodern social feminist ideal because they are void of gender. Cyborgs, according to science fiction (as well as the definition that Haraway has adopted), are both simultaneously animal and machine. They do not come from organic families and therefore are not susceptible to labor or individuation (Marxism) or gender formation or the Oedipal complex (psychoanalysis). Haraway states, "the main problem with cyborgs is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism” Fortunately for her argument, offspring are often unfaithful to their origins and have a tendency to rebel. She goes on to say, "their (cyborgs) fathers are inessential." I am not against feminism. I thought I was all for it. It turns out that I just really don't understand it beyond "Patriarchy=Bad.” If anyone versed in feminism wants to sum it up in a comment - I am all ears.

The feminist lexicon - I think I may have missed this conversation.

At first I was intrigued by the use of Haraway’s usage of language. art)ficial, art)facts, object)fication and diff~culties really got me thinking about multiple meanings and root words. Incorpora-tion, justifica-tion, scient-ism, simul-taneously, natura-alize, analyt-ical, constitu-tion, epistemol-gical, com-munication, prob-lems, transforma-tions, televi-sions, educat-tion, and domin-ation. Hey, I am all for isms and skisms -we have lots of ologies in acadamia too. Idendty, possibilidies, disdnctions, subjecdvity, prevedng, primidve, wridng, dme, idndty, indmacy. Ok, I am at a loss. When did feminists start using "d" in place of "ti"? HELP! Anyone?