Talk:Cyborg theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
D'oh. I just created Cyborg feminism. That should probably be merged with this (by someone who understands it better than I do). Risk one 10:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Should this topic reference the futurist movement or is the futuristic descriptive nature of "cyborg feminism", (i think this is a better name,) purely symbolic? --Borbetomagus 13:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but as I understand it the way the idea of a cyborg is used differs between writers. It can be used to show what happens to the idea of gender when the human body slowly turns artificial, it can be used as a metafor for the female body or even as a metaphor for feminist theory. I only looked in to this briefly to create the stub, so all this needs to be checked. Risk one 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This whole thing is silly, cyborgs have *nothing* to do with feminism. If you want more just look a the major in ghost in the shell
[edit] Merge with Donna Haraway.
Without opinions from other scholars, this concept is clearly limited to this one woman, so I propose merging with her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Doing this would be like merging the theory of relativity page with the Albert Einstein page. A theory and a person are very different things. Cls14 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Haraway HAS influenced other, including N. Katherine Hayles, Jill Didur, Neil Badmington, and so on. What is worth discussing is if this article should be merged with posthumanism or posthuman (critical theory) because both are relevant to Haraway's cyborg theory and expand upon it in many ways.--AdamFJohnson 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)