Feminism

I found the discussion in last class to be the most interesting yet, because opinions were so goddamned polarized. That the some of the girls in class were so offended by Selene was interesting. I actually liked her character because she focused on using her strengths. I'm not sure what would have made the other girls happy. If Selene was a real physicist? I found her characterization more realistic. She was smart, but just not good at math, and that's true for a lot of people of both genders. Would it have been less sexist if she hadn't wanted a baby at the end? I'm not so sure, I found that to be a natural and necessary progression of the plot.

The objections to Dua were interesting too. Unlike, Rachel, I did see Dua as representing women, but it was cool that she was also nearly a rational, and yet seen as all the more feminine because of her wispy appearance. The fact that she and Selene both acted as catalysts to the men in their lives showed that they were using the strengths they possessed instead of seeking credit like men. So yeah, I foudn overall that I liked both the female characters because they were fairly realistic. The truth is that women rarely make significant discoveries in science, most likely because of some social processes rather than lack of intelligence, but it's still the truth.

Okay, I'm reaching

Okay, so what did Minority Report have to do with The Gods Themselves? Let me consult my syllabus. "The Politics of Knowledge" Okay, I guess that makes sense. In both stories ignoring knowledge is beneficial on the short run. Reminds me of many, many science fiction plots. Here's one of my favorites, I've never managed to locate this story again, and I've looked (If you know it, I'll love you). :::

There's a great delicious food that's been opened up in chains across America and it's cheap! You get a little fat, but when you do, you go to the new liposuction-type place next door and get thin quick. Whenever you go to the lipo-place, you get a tiny blue dot tattooed on your wrist, and they build up as you keep going into a little bracelet. But people seem to be disappearing as they get full bracelets. Because the aliens invented both services, the food and the lipo, and when you've had enough energy-giving fat taken out, you're of no use and you're removed from the population by the aliens. So yeah, good stuff at a price you don't want to believe.


I looked up biographies of Asimov and I found out that he considered the second section, the alien section, of the book to be his greatest science fiction writing. I can believe it, I suppose. While the excess of sex reminded me of Heinlein, I found the whole thing to be a great commentary on relationships betwen men and women, in that stereotypical men can't quite understand emotionality. But, that's obvious. Why did I liek this book? A lot because of the sexual tension between Selene and Ben, but there were other reasons, I guess, just well doen overall.

Religion, etc.

I am always immensely amused when comments equating to "Dumb people follow organized religion because they have lower reasoning skills" are made because it means that a few key people are going to get really pissed off. Sadly, much of what I was expecting was curtailed by a shift in the conversation, but enough was said to create a great rift between Alex, who I agree with to some extent, and Lennea, who I also agree with to some extent.

I don't want to think that religious people are literally less intelligent, but less educated I can believe. Is it the education necessarily or is it the experience of college? Because I'm sure that graduates of Brigham Young are intelligent, but they haven't been turned away from religion by their education. In my overly liberal sensibilities, my snap judgment is that religious people are stupid and ignorant, but I don't think I actually believe that. At what point in college does a ridiculously religious person lose the belief that only they are right, which is where the distinction between religious and crazy religious is drawn for me.

So yeah, I guess my point is that religion confuses me and the reasons people believe in it are vague and incomprehensible so far. I feel that religious people who think they are the only correct ones are being true to religion, and therefore are the most honest ones, but simultaneously the most judgmental and ineffective.



Also, for the next book: look at this picture of Asimov, damn, nice sideburns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Paul's Leadership in Weber's Terms

The first thing I think of when I read Weber's three justifications of domination is the line from Shakespeare "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them" For Paul, power came in all three ways: "traditional", "charismatic", and "legal". His birth, his upbringing, and his following gave him the proper basis for domination, according to Weber. However, this doesn't yet mean that he fits Weber's qualifications for being a politician.

The only true requirement Weber puts on politicians is that they be able to continue despite difficulties, to say "In spite of all this" and keep working. Paul fits this nicely, in many cases; for one very simple example, when his son is killed and his sister captured, he continues his battle. Paul's vision and ability to see beyond small matters are his greatest strengths. In Weber's view, politics requires passion and perspective, and Paul fills those well.

P.S. Weber is Demosthenes, and Demosthenes is Weber.

Summarizing

I figured for this one, I'd just write why I think Paul qualifies as a Messiah. The Fremen Messiah is called the Mahdi, which means he will lead them to paradise. The Lisan al-Gaib, another name for the Messiah kind of, will share the Fremen's dearest dream, which I assume must be followed through on, the greening of Arrakis. Paul and his mother fulfilled various other necessities, such as knowing certain prayers and aspects of life on Arrakis. What I think is necessary is to divorce the concept of Messiah from religion altogether. The Fremen Messiah is not the son of god or a god himself, but instead just the first guy to come along and deliver them from oppression and Paul is that guy.

As to the question of whether the whole religion is false because of Bene Gesserit contamination, I think this is overlooking the fact that the Fremen had a separate religion when they arrived, and that the Bene Gesserit words are simply additions. Similarly, just because Paul goes about being the savior systematically doesn't mean he's manufactured as well.

Proper Preparation

In looking at issues for my discussion of Dune in class, I chose Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein as a similar novel. One of the most significant aspects of the main characters of each book, Paul and Mike, are that they are entirely prepared by their upbringing to take the place of Messiah offered to them. For Paul, fortune tto have been born into wealth, as well as the aspirations of those around him, such as his mother, aided him in his command of the Fremen. However, a mother's hopes are not reason enough to teach a young boy every aspect of human nature needed to conquer a world and a race.

The effective use by Paul, trained in such efficiency, of the religious system around him was another piece of intellect he was trained in inadvertently. While it was fate, engineered or not, that allowed Paul to fit Fremen prophecy, the fact that he succeeded was entirely fortunate. The way he followed to become leader was dangerous enough, but only his preparation in so many social areas allowed him to win.

Manifest Destiny from another perspective

The concept of Manifest Destiny has always actually made sense to me in the same way the theory of evolution does; the best civilization, the most adaptive and the most robust, survives and spreads to new areas, displacing native populations and what not. I don't think that the whole American sense of conquest is positive, but it makes sense overall. The fact that the Borg were also acting under Manifest Destiny amuses me because it brings the metaphor of evolution to a head.

The concept of the Borg versus the Federation strikes me as a representation of whichever wars involved the US going up against powers greater than itself. Not quite the Revolutionary War, because that US wasn't quite at the expansionary level of the Federation, but maybe WWII. In that war, we chose to end it with a nuclear bomb, while Picard could have made his big attack with the virus Hugh was to hold? Well, maybe. This comparing of the Federation to the US, in anxious liberal mode, interests me because of these other parallels that can be drawn.

The issue of two different groups each having Manifest Destiny is interesting to me because of the implications that it would have had for the original colonizing Americans who would have found that concept impossible. Star Trek, by introducing the Borg, shows another, new conflict in which the US is not on top.