Cyberfeminism: Artificial Intelligence & the Unconscious Biases

 Hello Readers

I am Hinaba Sarvaiya and this blog is my thinking Activity task given by our prof Dr.Dilip Bars sir. This blog based on cyberfeminism Artificial Intelligence and the Unconscious Biases.

Cyberfeminism:-

Cyberfeminism is a feminist approach which foregrounds the relationship between cyberspace, the Internet, and technology. It can be used to refer to a philosophy, methodology or community.[1] The term was coined in the early 1990s to describe the work of feminists interested in theorizing, critiquing, exploring and re-making the Internet, cyberspace and new-media technologies in general. The foundational catalyst for the formation of cyberfeminist thought is attributed to Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto", third wave feminism, post-structuralist feminism, riot grrrl culture and the feminist critique of the alleged erasure of women within discussions of technology.

Mia Consalvo defines cyberfeminism as:

-A label for women—especially young women who might not even want to align with feminism's history—not just to consume new technologies but to actively participate in their making;

-A critical engagement with new technologies and their entanglement with power structures and systemic oppression. (in "Cyberfeminism", Encyclopedia of New Media, SAGE Publications)

Prior to the advent of cyberfeminism, feminist study of technology tended to examine technological developments as socially and culturally constructed. One major argument was that technology has been positioned as part of masculine culture—something that men are interested in, good at, and therefore engage in more than women. Even though women throughout history have been active in developing new technologies, feminists have argued that technology has still been looked upon as a masculine creation. For example, although women had been involved in the creation and development of the computer, their contributions were largely marginalized, and their participation often ignored or written out of history. Therefore, feminists such as Judy Wacjman, a professor of sociology at the Australian National University in Canberra, and Cynthia Cockburn, an independent scholar and activist in London, argued that technology needed to be continually interrogated and re-conceptualized, and that women needed to become more active in technological areas as well.

Kriti Sharma takes:-

She has explained about biases in AI and also her personal experiences with AI. she aptly said what about the children who are growing in this world? If we see the robots like Alexa, Siri have female voices and what they have to do is be a obedient servant where we keep of ordering to order food, turns of lights, fans, sing a talk, talk to be being lonely etc. and when a child is working on the project the answers are mostly male. We also have male voice robots but they help in making decisions, handling business, salesforce like ROSS. The child's mind gets a framework of female voice working household work, being obedient and male voice taking decisions.

What happens when white designs technology and their racism is passed to AI.

She pointing towards the solutions for this major issues gives three points-

1. Be aware of our own biases

2. Make sure that diverse team is making technology

3. Give AI diverse experience and atmosphere to learn from.

Robin Hauser talking that...

We find biases in technology because humans are consciously and unconsciously biased and humans programme all shades of biases in technology. The reason is lack of foresight, malicious intent, using screwed data and loving their own biases.

Here she discussed ‘Tay’ and Tay tweets. Microsoft sent its artificial intelligence (AI) bot Tay out into the wild to see how it interacted with humans. Seeing how Tay had the “repeat after me” attitude, people started messing around and taught her inappropriate things such as “cuckservatism”, racism, sexually-charged messages, politically incorrect phrases, and even talked about the Gamergate controversy.

Why are We so Scared of Robots/AIS?

 Hello Readers,

I am Hinaba Sarvaiya and this blog based on Why are w so Scared of Robots/AIS? This tasks given by our prof. Dr. Dilip Barad sir. 

Today's is morden time and we know that the most used of electrical gadgets and same time it's helpful or same time it's harmful but we live in modern age and use of more technology. Today's time of Robotism and we know that the Roberts are come that when human are same spaces to free but same time used of Roberts as a human when works perfectly but it's more Ricky. In this blog we can see how we are scared of Roberts.

Here I am going to talk about short movies which has some storyline connected with Robots in this blog

Why are We so Scared of Robots / AIs?

Here in this blog 3 short film about robots that 1)The first one is about babysitter robot who becomes so obsessed of the child that murders the murder. 2)The second one is on the iMom - Mom robot. 3)The third is on Satyajit Ray's short story 'Anukul' (1976) - directed by Sujoy Ghosh.

In these short movies and other sci-fi movies we see that they make a villain out of technology. Why are we so scared of robots or AIs so that we always imagine them as monsters or villains? What is my interpretation?

Why are We so Scared of Robots / AIs?

This thinking activity's task and also one kind of question that Why are we so scared of Robot/Als?.If see that Robots have become an integral part of the manufacturing industry, but they’re also moving into other industries as well. As they continue to become a larger part of our society, people are voicing growing fears about them. Whether it’s a fear for their jobs, their lives, or something else entirely, it’s all built on a lack of knowledge.

What exactly is a Robot? 

According to Encyclopedia Britannica 

"Any automatically operated machine that replaces human effort, though it may not resemble human beings in appearance or perform functions in a humanlike manner. By extension, robotics is the engineering discipline dealing with the design, construction, and operation of robots."  

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary 

"A machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects)." And Such a machine built to resemble a human being or animal in appearance and behavior."

Why are We so Scared of Robots ? 

We’ve all seen science fiction films about robots turning on their masters and we’ve certainly heard naysayers talk about how robots are coming to steal human jobs, but are they really so bad? The answer is No. Let’s explore fears that about robots that simply don’t hold up to the light:

1. They’re Not Safe

First and foremost, you’ll hear about how robots aren’t safe. While it’s true that fenced robots in manufacturing are behind said fences for a reason, that’s not to say that their collaborative counterparts are dangerous as well. While nothing is completely safe, collaborative robots are in fact built using a standard set of guidelines known as the ISO TS 15066.

These provide some standards for collaborative robotics to abide by, which helps manufacturers ensure that their robots are as safe as can be. Today’s standards, combined with safety technology, has resulted in several excellent options for safety with collaborative robots:

Power and force limiting

Speed and separation monitoring

Hand guiding

New safety technology continues to emerge as time goes on, quickly revealing that humans have no need to fear their safety around robots in the workplace, so long as they are well informed.

2. They’ll Take Our Jobs

Throughout history, people have always feared technology, because they were scared it would make their jobs obsolete. Cars, the printing press, industrial technology, all of these things were met with fear in the past. People were afraid these things would put them out of work, but in every case, they did not.

They’ll Take Our Jobs ?

Instead, technology creates new industries, new jobs, and more prosperity as a whole. With robots, the same thing is happening today. People in manufacturing are afraid their jobs will be taken, but new jobs are already being created.

Whether it’s someone to program the robots, or a human to work on more intricate tasks that robots can’t perform, new roles are emerging as robots increase production and lower costs. Back-breaking jobs that humans hate can now be given to robots, thus freeing them up to do more rewarding work.

According to Bill Gates.. 

"It is really bad if people

 overall have more fear about what innovation is 

going to do than they have enthusiasm." 

Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, seems to be taking the position that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. He has also voiced his opinion that people need to approach advancements in technology with enthusiasm, not outright fear.He seems to believe that if we plan accordingly and address these fears in advance, humankind will have nothing to worry about.

There’s nothing to fear, because technology creates far more than it destroys when it comes to industries, jobs, and careers.

3. Artificial Intelligence Is Dangerous

We’ve made some huge strides in regards to artificial intelligence, but we’re a long ways off from robots that are as smart, or smarter than humans. People who think about decades in the future may have concerns about the intelligence of robots being used against us, but that’s not something we need to worry about now.

Artificial Intelligence Is Dangerous ?

The current landscape of robotics puts us squarely in control. As a result, the idea of robots turning on us or becoming sentient is still in the realm of science fiction. Major technology figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others are already thinking about how to properly harness A.I.

Geoff Hinton, known as the “godfather of deep learning,” told the BBC that...

“You can see things clearly for the next few years, but look beyond 10 years and we can’t really see anything. It’s just a fog.”

Instead, we should focus on the fact that today’s A.I systems can process information too vast or too complex for humans to grasp. There’s nothing to fear from the growth of A.I as we are still in the infancy of the technology.

Is there a danger Robot/AIs is going to take over the world?

 According to Joanna Bryson..

"There's a lot of really intelligent people who aren't trying to take over the world. There's a broken idea that anything that's intelligent will want will have the same kind of ambitions as we have," 

Example of a cheetah "The idea that just because humans are the smartest animal, anything that is intelligent will become a person is broken. That's like thinking any animal that becomes fast will turn into a cheetah." 

According to Janelle Shane.. 

“So, when we're working with AI, it's up to us to avoid problems. And avoiding things going wrong, that may come down to the age-old problem of communication, where we as humans have to learn how to communicate with AI. We have to learn what AI is capable of doing and what it's not, and to understand that, with its tiny little worm brain, AI doesn't really understand what we're trying to ask it to do. So in other words, we have to be prepared to work with AI that's not the super-competent, all-knowing AI of science fiction. We have to be prepared to work with an AI that's the one that we actually have in the present day. And present-day AI is plenty weird enough.” 

(The danger of AI is weirder than you think - TED)

Examples:-

Thank you for visiting my blog!!

The Culture of Speed and The Counter Culture of Slow movement

 Hello everyone

I am Student of the English department at MKBU. In this blog given by our prof. Dr. Dilip Barad sir. This blog is based on Paul Virilio Dromology, the study of speed and Honore on Slow movement.

TEDTalk on 'In Praise of Slowness':- 

Journalist Carl Honore believes the Western world's emphasis on speed erodes health, productivity and quality of life. But there's a backlash brewing, as everyday people start putting the brakes on their all-too-modern lives.

Today's time we have to leave faster. We have to live a speedy life. Everyday we are busy with work and less time and it feels like a race. If we have to work when we have to speak speedily. Culture of speed that we almost fail to notice the toll it takes on every aspect of our lives, on our health, our diet ect.. 

Honore asked questions like, How did we get so fast? And second, is it possible, or even desirable to slow down? In here we live urbanization, workplace, technology surrounding. We have a lot of time to listen to 'Time is Money'. And looking around, there is a global backlash against this culture that tells us that faster is always better. 

If you slow down,your road is killed by others. people find that they do everything better, eat better ect.. let's have looked up the slow food movement. 

The Slow food movement started in Italy but nowadays many countries are part of them. This movement is about the Renaissance of the farmer's markets. People are desperate to get away from eating and cooking and cultivating their food on an industrial timetable. 

Slow food movement is also known as the slow cities movement. We believe that in the 21st century slowness has a role to play. If we have to slow that give to label of dump or stupid so and so. Slow is a dirty word in our culture. It's a byword for lazy slackers for being somebody who gives up. The purpose of slow movement is to tackle that taboo, and to say that yes, something slow is not the answer that there is such a thing as bad slowness. 

Let's look at Paul Virilio Dromology, the study of speed.

Dromology Term:-

Dromology term coined by the French philosopher Paul Virilio to discuss the importance of speed in warfare and communication. Equivalent to dromo- +‎ -logy.

Speed and Politics (first published in France in 1977) is the matrix of Virilio's entire work. Building on the works of Morand, Marinetti, and McLuhan, Virilio presents a vision more radically political than that of any of his French contemporaries: speed as the engine of destruction. Speed and Politics presents a topological account of the entire history of humanity, honing in on the technological advances made possible through the militarization of society. 

Virilio's vision sees speed—not class or wealth—as the primary force shaping civilization. speed, with the consequence that time and light (the ultimate speed) become the key ideas of the epoch. Although we are to understand that this kind of activity and organisation has been present in the life of humanity since time immemorial, it is the modern and postmodern periods – that is, from the eighteenth to the twentieth century and beyond – that become the particular focus of Virilio’s theorising. 

Virilio had limited his interest in speed to military technology and warfare; he might have been of interest only to military historians and strategic studies. 

Speed is central to transportation and communication, and communication at the speed of light is as integral to world warfare as it is to global capitalism. Speed is fabricated by the machinery of culture; the techniques for handling, recording, storing and transmitting information induces speed.

Virilio’s liberal humanism is anchored in Christianity and phenomenology but he is a “realist” when it comes to science and the human body. He also has described himself as ‘urbanist’, a ‘democrat’ and ‘citizen of the world’. Although he was not linked with new left activism and did not believe in Revolution, he deemed it urgent to analyze the military institution or risk “failing (voluntarily or not) to effect the most necessary de-institutionalization of all: that of the military. 

Speed of technicalture is very harmful to democracy also. When we enter the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, the century of technology, we have already started to experience this undermining of democratic value systems by democracy itself.

Thinking Activity:- The Curse of Karna

 Hello everyone!

I am Hinaba Sarvaiya student of the English department MKBU this blog based on "The Curse of Karna" play written by T.P. Kailasam.

What is the meaning of Curse?

According to Cambridge dictionary,

"to use a word or an expression that is not polite and shows that you are very angry"

"to say magic words that are intended to bring bad luck to someone" 

You are thinking why I am showing the meaning of Curse because here is one reason to show the meaning of Curse and that is based on Play "The Curse of Karna" written by T.P.Kailasama. here i have discussed some questions regarding this play. 

About author:-

Tyagraj Paramasiva Iyer Kailasam was a playwright and prominent writer of Kannada literature. His contribution to Kannada theatrical comedy earned him the title Prahasana Prapitamaha, "the father of humorous plays" and later he was also called "Kannadakke Obbane Kailasam" meaning "One and Only Kailasam for Kannada".

Three Curses of Karna:-

Mother Earth’s Curse:- 

Karna once helped a little girl who had split Milk (or Ghee) on the ground and feared retribution from her mother. A kind Karna helped the girl retrieve the Milk by squeezing and twisting the ground; in essence, Mother Earth herself. So unbearable was the pain, that Mother Earth cursed Karna that she would be of no assistance to him whatsoever and would even try to make him vulnerable in battle. This resulted in the untimely incident of Karna’s Chariot Wheel getting stuck in mud.

The Teacher’s Curse:-

On the final day of the lessons from Parashurama, Karna unflinchingly bears a scorpion bite, when Parashurama is resting upon his lap. A bewildered Parashurama realizes that Karna can be none but a Warrior and curses Karna that he will forget the knowledge of the weapons, especially the Brahmastra, when he needs them the most. This curse came into effect when Karna forgot the mantra to invoke the Brahmastra while fighting against Arjun on his last day on the battlefield.

A Brahman’s Curse:-

Karna, once when practicing the Shabd Bhedi Arrow, mistook a Cow for a wild animal and shot it down. The Brahman to whom the cow belongs is distraught. He curses Karna that he will be killed by his enemy when his attention is diverted in the middle of a combat. This curse materializes when Karna is busy removing the chariot wheel from the mud and is shot by Arjuna, on the advice of Krishna.

Is moral conflict and hamartia there in karna's character?

Yes we can see the moral conflict and hamartia in karna's character because karna was the most tragic and unfortunate character of The Mahabharata and at the same time, he was the most powerful of all. He was even stronger than Arjuna. The qualities that were distributed among the five Pandavas were possessed by him. He was intelligent, a great archer, powerful, a man of moral values as well as handsome. Then Karna got nothing but utter humiliation and insults. Everyone cast scornful eye on him due to his low descent. Karna never got an opportunity to prove himself as the best. Even Draupadi did not allow him to participate in her ‘Swayamvar’ and insulted him in front of all.

Karna’s tragedy is neither completely Aristotelian nor wholly ancient Greek but an amalgamation of both. Like the other Classical Greek tragic heroes, Karna too is a mere puppet in the hands of destiny. But at the same time, like Aristotelian tragic heroes, he has some faults of his own or some tragic flows (hamartia) which heighten the effects of his tragedy. It was his misfortune that his mother abandoned him at the very moment of his birth and although royal blood was flowing in his vein, he was always condemned by people as a suta. From this standpoint, one can admit that Karna’s misfortune was brought upon him not because of his hamartia but purely for his fate. But at the same time, viewing his character from Aristotelian perspective, we can state that Karna, being a man of morality and ethics, could have chosen the side of Dharma. But by helping and supporting Duryodhana, he indirectly supported adharma, which ultimately led him to his fatal doom. Hence Karna suffered partly for his fate and partly for his hamartia. Nevertheless, his fate including the curse that he had received from his Guru Parsurama is mainly responsible for his misfortune.

Karna-The Voice of Subaltern:-

Karna’s character can also be viewed from the post-colonial perspective of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s ‘subalternism’. A subaltern is a person from ‘an inferior rank’ living at the edge of society. Karna, though in reality was born in the lineage of the royal family, was known as suta-putra to the external world because of his suta parentage. Throughout his life, Karna was never given due respect because everyone regarded him as a person from an inferior rank. Everyone refused and rejected him due to his low origin.

Karna has all the potentialities to shine in life and to make an identity of his own but he could not achieve this because of his subaltern origin. He could not elevate himself from that position nor was he ever allowed to rise by the privilege society. Being a subaltern, he did not have any voice to rise or even if he raised his voice, it is unheard by all because his voice was hindered by the element of noise. Only after meeting Duryodhana, he was able to receive a little honour with the title ‘Anga-Raj’ as the former accepted him as his friend and offered him the anga rajya.

Karna is a man of morals and values. Because he not only remained in the side of his friend, Duryodhana but also kept his promise throughout the battle, which he had made to his mother, Kunti, that he would not harm the Pandavas other than Arjuna. But at last, Karna was unable to defeat Arjuna and met his tragic end at the hands of his opponent, Arjuna, his soul enemy. Hence, no other character in Mahabharata is as morally strong as the Maharathi Karna. He is the most powerful, heroic, inexhaustible, enduring, and unbeatable of all characters.

Suyodhana logic:-

 Duryodhana also known as Suyodhana, is the primary antagonist in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. He was the eldest of the Kauravas, the hundred sons of the blind king Dhritarashtra and his queen Gandhari. Being the first-born son of the blind king, he was the crown prince of the Kuru Kingdom and its capital of Hastinapura, often forced into ceding the title to his cousin Yudhishthira, who was older than him. Karna was the prince's closest friend. Notably, Duryodhana, with significant assistance from Karna, performs the Vaishnava Yagna when the Pandavas are in exile. Duryodhana used his greater skill in wielding the mace to defeat his opponents. He was also an extremely courageous warrior and was said to be a good ruler. Duryodhana's greed and arrogance were the two qualities said to have led to his downfall in the Mahabharata.

Duryodhana, who treated karna as an equal and a friend. It was Duryodhana, who gifted him a whole kingdom, realizing his true potential. It was Duryodhana,who never considered him a sutraputra.

Thank you for visiting my blog!!

Thinking Activity: J.M. Couetzee's novel Foe

 Hello Everyone!

I am Hinaba Sarvaiya, a student of the English department at MKBU. This blog is part of my academic activities and this task given by our Yesha ma'am. This task is based on J.M. Couetzee's novel "Foe".

About Author (J.M. Coetzee):-

John Maxwell Coetzee is a white novelist, literary critic, translator and university professor in South Africa. He moved to Australia in 2002. He is the first writer who twice won the Booker Prize, the highest prize in British literature. In 2003, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He is one of the most complex, innovative and intelligent novelists in contemporary writing. Coetzee’s creation includes thinking and trying on reality, history, philosophy, language, culture and many other aspects.

Coetzee’s identity of a descendant of the colonists, the postcolonial features in his works have become one of the hot spots in the study of his works. Coetzee in the context of postcolonial culture, explains in detail how Coetzee created his works in the context of postcolonial culture to solve the problems between history and the present, between history and novels.

About Novel:-

Foe is a novel by J.M. Coetzee was written in 1986, 267 years after the publication of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. Foe was written in response to DeFoe’s Robinson Crusoe and, through the words of J.M. Coetzee. Woven around the existing plot of Robinson Crusoe, Foe is written from the perspective of Susan Barton, a castaway who landed on the same island inhabited by "Cruso" and Friday as their adventures were already underway. Like Robinson Crusoe, it is a frame story, unfolding as Barton's narrative while in England attempting to convince the writer Daniel Foe to help transform her tale into popular fiction.

Friday's Characteristics and persona in for and in Robinson Crusoe.

Friday's is one of the main characters in Daniel Defoe’s novel. The man was a savage from the cannibal tribe. He was rescued by Robinson Crusoe on the twenty-fourth year of living on the island and named after the day it happened.

Robinson describes him as a man of twenty-six years with a pleasant appearance and kind look. From the pages of the book, we learn that he was a Caribbean native with dark eyes, hair, and tone of skin. Crusoe teaches him English and makes him a loyal servant for himself. Robinson treats his like his own child, who needs to be taught how to speak, behave and be obedient. 

The image of Friday became one of the most popular among writers of that time. He learns fast and helps Crusoe in everyday life, solving many problems, that are hard to cope with alone.

Indeed, Friday is a vibrant character in the novel, who is even more charismatic and colorful than his master. Though Robinson doesn’t appreciate intimacy with other human beings, he shows sympathy to his servant, who, in his turn, demonstrates his devotion to the rescuer.

At the end of the story, Robinson takes Friday with him, and they both leave the island. Though Crusoe left him alive and gave him clothes and food, Friday rewarded him with his loyalty, emotional warmth and vitality of spirit.

Is Susan reflecting the white mentality of Crusoe? (Robinson Cruseo)

Susan Barton describes her life during and after her time on the desolate island with Cruso. The major difference between the two novels is that Foe assimilates a woman’s voice into the highly masculine story of Robinson Crusoe. Barton’s time on “Cruso’s island” is spent in preoccupation with Cruso’s way of life, and life after her rescue is spent in reflection of her relationships with Cruso, Friday and Foe. 

This female voice is presented through the words of a male author, J.M. Coetzee, who presents Barton as a submissive supporting actress to the extremely dominant character of Robinson Crusoe.

Susan Barton, the narrator in Foe, finds herself shipwrecked on a desolate island with a man named Robinson Cruso. It does not take long for Barton to recognize her status on the island after she tells Cruso her story of being washed ashore. She says, “I presented myself to Cruso, in the days when he still ruled over the island, and became his second subject, the first being his manservant Friday” (Coetzee 11). Throughout the novel, even long after Cruso’s death, she describes the island as “Cruso’s island.” She finds herself as the mere female companion to the king and his manservant, Friday.

Who is the Protagonist in the novel?

Susan Barton is the voice of the novel, she is not the main character because she is most concerned with telling the story of “Cruso’s island.” J.M. Coetzee is a male author who uses the voice of Barton to convey a deeper understanding of Defoe’s male character, Robinson Crusoe. As a woman, she is used as an instrument to further define the characters and story of Robinson Crusoe. 

The beginning of the novel is focused on Cruso and his island, while the end of the novel is focused on Barton defining her relationship with Cruso and also her relationship with Friday. Through her meek subservience and her role as the supporting actress to the ever-present figure of Robinson Cruso, Susan Barton’s voice is lost. Coetzee uses her as merely a device to relay the stories of Cruso and Friday. 

Thank you for visiting my blog.

Thinking Activity:- Critical Theories

 Hello reader,

I am Hinaba Sarvaiya student of English department at MKBU. In this blog I am dealing with the critical theories applyed in to literary peices. This task given by our prof. Dilip Barad sir. 

Feminism Theory:-

The 'women's movement' of the 1960s was not, of course, the start of feminism. Rather, it was a renewal of an old tradition of thought and action already possessing its classic books which had diagnosed the problem of women's inequality in society, and (in some cases) proposed solutions.

What feminist critics do:-

1. Rethink the canon, aiming at the rediscovery of texts written by women. 

2. Revalue women's experience. 

3. Examine representations of women in literature by men and women. 

4. Challenge representations of women as 'Other', as 'lack', as part of 'nature'. 

5. Examine power relations which are obtained in texts and in life, with a view to breaking them down, seeing reading as a political act, and showing the extent of patriarchy. 

6. Recognise the role of language in making what is social and constructed seem transparent and 'natural'. 

7. Raise the question of whether men and women are 'essentially' different because of biology, or are socially constructed as different. 

8. Explore the question of whether there is a female language, an ecriture feminine, and whether this is also available to men. 

9. 'Re-read' psychoanalysis to further explore the issue of female and male identity. 

10. Question the popular notion of the death of the author, asking whether there are only 'subject positions ... constructed in discourse', or whether, on the contrary, the experience (e.g. of a black or lesbian writer) is central. 

11. Make clear the ideological base of supposedly 'neutral' or 'mainstream' literary interpretations. 

A number of feminists have concentrated, not on the woman as reader, but on what Elaine Showalter named gynocriticism—that is, a criticism which concerns itself with developing a specifically female framework for dealing with works written by women, in all aspects of their production, motivation, analysis, and interpretation, and in all literary forms, including journals and letters.

The Madwoman in the Attic by Susan Gubat and Sandra M. Gilbert:-

“It would not be too much to say that Anglo-American feminist criticism barely existed before [Gilbert and Gubar] rocked literary studies.”

-Deborah D. Rogers, The Times Higher Education.

In 1979, Susan Gubar and Sandra M. Gilbert published The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination, a hallmark of second-wave feminist criticism. Over 700 pages long, The Madwoman in the Attic presents an analysis of a trope found in 19th-century literature. Gilbert and Gubar proposed that all female characters in male-authored novels can be categorised as either an angel or a monster; women in fiction were either pure and submissive or sensual, rebellious, and uncontrollable.

In their book, Gilbert and Gubar discuss the angel/monster trope in novels written by women, covering the works of Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, George Eliot, Emily Dickinson, and the Brontës. They claim that 19th-century female writers carried a lot of rage and frustration about the misogynistic world they lived in and the predominantly male literary tradition they tried to enter, and that this gender-specific frustration influenced these writers’ creative output. According to Gilbert and Gubar, their rage was often shown through the figure of the mad woman. They conclude by urging female writers to break out of this patriarchal dichotomy and not to let themselves be limited by its impositions.

The Madwoman in the Attic was revolutionary because Gilbert and Gubar showed that literature written by women is not an anomaly, but that there is, in fact, a distinct female literary tradition to be found. 

Queer Theory:- 

Queer theory is often used to designate the combined area of gay and lesbian studies, together with the theoretical and critical writings about all modes of variance—such as cross-dressing, bisexuality, and transsexuality— from society’s normative model of sexual identity, orientation, and activities. The term “queer” was originally derogatory, used to stigmatize male and female same-sex love as deviant and unnatural; since the early 1990s, however, it has been adopted by gays and lesbians themselves as a noninvidious term to identify a way of life and an area for scholarly inquiry.

I have to taken one an American poet Andrea Gibson who known for the queer poet under the activist banner and I picked up to understand of queer study in his poem “Swing-Set”, Pole Dancing to Gospel Hymns. 

Andrea Gibson, an American, gender-queer poet under the activist banner, 

constantly makes visible and disputes the normative aspects of gender identity in the specific socio-cultural context in which they are writing (Pansy 119).

Gibson’s poetry both deals with sexuality 

and also illustrates the complexities and problems that occur when sexuality and gender identity both function according to the norm. 

The poem “Swing-Set,” from Gibson’s 2006 collection, Pole Dancing to Gospel Hymns, raises questions regarding gender identity that can be examined through Bornstein’s concept of “gender attribution”. In this poem the speaker , who is a The child introduces the poem with a simple question: "Are you a boy or a girl?" In the poem, it is precisely this confusion that results in the child’s question “Are you a boy or a girl?” The voice in these lines indicates that there are only two 

alternatives of gender that one can identify with.

In this line we can see the adult is yet again faced with a child reflecting their parents’ understanding 

of gender:

"Uh…my mom says that even though you got hairs that grow from your legs and the hairs on your head grow short and poky and that you smell really bad like my dad"

Gibson uses formal devices in order to put emphasis on the physical characteristics that are used to define gender. The mother figure seems to have taught her child what attributes constitute a man (hairy legs, short hair and smelling bad) and what constitutes a woman (shaved legs, long hair and smelling good).

The next line of “gender attribution” is introduced in a dialogue between the 

gender-queer figure and a woman at a public restroom, where the woman says: 

"Sir! Sir, do you realize this is the ladies’ room?!"

This line also tells the addressee that they are not accepted in the 

category of "woman". The addressee replies by saying, "Yes, ma’am, I do. / It’s just I didn’t feel 

comfortable". The lines indicate that the woman-speaker’s had failed.

In the poem “Swing-Set,” Gibson deals with the notion of “gender attribution,” 

revealing that there are normative expectations of gender, such as hairy legs and short hair that are typically associated with being a man. However, by contradicting this belief, and by 

projecting these physical attributes on a body that is not assigned male at birth, Gibson also shows how gender can indeed be indefinable, ambiguous and indeed queer.

Thank you for Visiting my blog.

Teachers' Day Celebration

 

Hello everyone, as we know 5th September is celebrated as Techers' day. on this day generally students enact their teacher and take their place in class (in Schools). we students of Department of English celebrate it in unique way. (suggested and guided by our Head of Department Dr. Dilip Barad Sir.

We celebrate Teachers' day virtually. For the celebration of this day we are supposed to create whole content. we make a small lecture video, a google quiz and provide an auto- generated certificate to all to respond to quiz. a way of future teacher, teacher for digital world is being shaped in this process. This year we are also adding our video on a ed. ted platform as an educator.

I am participating in Teachers' day and making a video on play Mahesh Dattani "Final Solutions".

Here is my Short Video lecture.

Please attempt a small Google quize link is given below..

https://forms.gle/FZaZWwaYzEGTDLCDA