I went to see A.I. today. The film was visually stunning and had a strong, if often sappy and very Oedipal plot line. I decided it would be a good time to finally get around to reading this intriguing article from Salon on the depiction of robots and mechanical intelligence in science fiction, and how it reflects our need to define ourselves in opposition to computers and technology. The mechanical intelligence of science fiction is usually either (a) docile servant, like Robby or Asimov’s robots, in which case it serves (for the male scientist-engineer) as the perfect substitute for women and for the proletariat, or else (b) hypermasculine and threatening because it is so ruthless and instrumentally rational and physically powerful and therefore a danger to humanity, like SkyNet or HAL, because it has violated its expected slavelike position. The futuristic robot acts to express both the hope and the terror of the male bourgeoisie.

People who know my reading tastes know that I absolutely adore Andrea Dworkin. Therefore I took a great interest in the Guardian’s publication of an article by Louise Armstrong declaring Andrea a true feminist icon much more so than the pop-glam roster offered up by Elaine Showalter. Armstrong argues that Dworkin’s power continues to be that she is entirely media-unfriendly and therefore her presence is (unlike, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s) unsanitized, dangerous, and polarizing. Which is precisely what a radical opponent to male supremacy ought to be. She may not be widely liked, but she will not shut up and she keeps people talking about male violence and its pervasiveness.

Great line for the day: I laughed out loud when I read

So strong a signifier has Dworkin’s name become that it is dragged in, higgledy-piggledy, whenever the speaker/author wishes to dump poo on advocacy with which he/she disagrees. I have seen her name yanked in out of left field, in the New York Times, for example, to say that an author displays an Andrea Dworkin-like attitude toward the genetic alteration of apples.

David Horowitz takes issue with his friend Andrew Sullivan and tells us why gays shouldn’t serve [Salon.com]. The answer: because they’ll fuck all over the place and this will undermine unit cohesion. He deftly silences any attempts to point out the homophobic nature of this argument by spending the opening passage fulminating about how political correctness silences arguments through charges of homophobia, racism, etc. This, of course, is poppycock; by far the most politically correct thing to be these days is politically incorrect, and anyone, no matter how hateful and idiotic, can take up the mantle of the martyr for freethought if he (or she) wants to be immunized against criticism, or hugged on stage by Elton John.

One thing I will give Horowitz: he’s a blithering buffoon but he has an accurate vision of the military. I can’t help but think Right on! as he says Of all social institutions, the military is the most pragmatic. Its task, brutal in its simplicity, is to develop the most efficient killing machine that money can buy and intelligence can devise. and To create the perfect killing machine, the military works hard to drain recruits of their individuality and their self-interested desires in order to make them think like cogs in a machine. An essential part of the military mind is that the members of fighting units don’t think for themselves but do as they are told. But then, of course, I realize that David thinks this is a good thing. Ultimately, I actually agree with Horowitz that this is an excellent argument to show why gays shouldn’t serve in the military. But that’s only because I think it’s an excellent argument to show why no one should serve in the military, for the sake of their own humanity.

While I was out on the road, another abortion provider was bombed, this time in Tacoma, near Seattle WA. Thankfully no-one was hurt. I urge everyone who supports reproductive choice to take this opportunity to send messages of support to the nearest abortion provider (you can find nearby providers through NAF‘s website) and to do what you can to help them — by volunteering as a clinic escort or legal observer, or even just by offering your moral support. Guerilla warfare against reproductive rights cannot be allowed to succeed.