The Myth of Cyborgs

The similarity between Haraway's cyborg and Frankenstein's monster that is much less on the surface is beneath the way the cyborg and the monster's feelings about the human world. Haraway's cyborg was one, which was devoid of a human history so that it was the embodiment of nothing but social progression and social equality. The monster was not created with this intent but with the intent of overcoming death and the promise of being able to create humans. However, Frankenstein quickly learns that his monster like the Cyborg was without a human history and could not function within society. Haraway would only see this as a positive and this conflict as just one of many on the way the way to true equality by way of Cyborgs. But, is it really the myths and shared human history that forces upon us old social structures? From the beginning of Myth, it has played the part of explanation of forces not understandable not a religious purpose (the Golden Bough is about this and I agree with it). Yes the myths bring people together but they bring people together in the realization that we in fact know nothing about the world and so there must be some greater force controlling. Myths do not perpetuate social structures because most of us (except fundamentalists) are smart enough to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of what the Bible says (For me myth is a fantastic exaggeration of concrete event so it doesn't bother me to place the Bible in this context.) What's interesting is that the Monster disproves Haraway's thesis that Cyborgs will bring about true equality because it too falls prey to human acts of kindness and love; not because Frankenstein has told him any stories of Zeus and Leda but because he has observed other humans interact and wants to be the same way. In this manner Frankenstein seems more human than Cyborg because he is able to observe and feel others but in the end his Cyborgosity prevents this from ever fully taking shape. I read an interesting article Foreign Policy that said patriarchal structures are doomed to still rule the earth even after feminism because feminists, environmentalists, great thinkers of our time etc... Are less likely to reproduce than say a patriarchal evangelical family. Thus, Cyborgs aren't the key to equality as Harway theorizes but the willingness to think about the future of our humanity is. One has to ask the question, "Do I want intolerant people to undo 50 years of social growth in one generation?"
N.B. The article in Foreign Policy is called The Return of Patriarchy. There's also a companion article called The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration, which gives empirical evidence for the previous article. I would link the articles but the site won't let me however they're both on ebscohost and not in the library because it doesn't stock Foreign Policy.