A myth
According to an author, this essay is “an effort to build an ironic political myth.” She wants it to be “faithful to feminism, socialism, and materialism.” The author proves to be extremely ambitious, for she wants this myth be “more faithful” than anything else, than any boldest blasphemy. This essay is supposed to show us another way of life, the future we dread and can’t help waiting for. The irony is that it is next to impossible - there are so many arguments that prove this idea to be hardly feasible - to build a doctrine that is faithful to feminism, socialism, and materialism equally. It is no wonder she calls it a myth.
Independent
The essayist states that cyborgs are not going to depend on us. “Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein’s monster,” the cyborg “does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden.” The truth is that the cyborg “does not dream of community on the model of the organic family.” The cyborg wouldn’t recognize “the garden of Eden.” It is not “made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust.” We are full of flaws whilst cyborgs are closer to perfection than we would even be. The irony is that even the cyborgs are imperfect, for they are “offsprings of militarism.” There is no need to worship anything; we have to admit that this world is not without a flaw and try to make it a better place.
Animals
The author mentions that “many branches of feminist culture affirm the pleasure of connection of human and other living creatures.” Thus, “movements for animal rights are not irrational denials of human uniqueness,” for they are “a clear-sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach of nature and culture.” The irony is that people are animals, though we walk orthograde. Apparently, we are just a part of nature, we don’t own other living beings, and we have no right to harm nature as much as we do. Sooner or later, we will learn to accept the fact that human and other living creatures are not that different.
