Of the philosophers we've studied so far Haraway has been the most difficult for me to understand. To be honest it's probably because the minute you start throwing around wildly feminist rhetoric, it is my nature to tune it out. I've never bought into the whole notion of "men bad, women good"...I know too many women!
In terms of comparing her ideas on cyborgs and Frankensteins monster, I'm not sure where I stand. Both things were created not born, but the monster was created from human parts and would therefore, I think, be more susceptible to human understanding and behavior. According to the movie the monsters behavior was reactionary, but does that really excuse it? Ultimately does it matter why, for example , the arsonist burns down the building murdering its occupants, or does it merely matter that he chose to do it? The opinion that we are all cyborgs is also difficult for me to grasp. I believe in free will, so to be told that because we use technology we are cyborgs, and that living without technology is impossible, seems to me to be discounting what it is to be human in the first place...the ability to make choices.
I think Haraways idea that if we are all cyborgs then we will no longer have an "us and them" issue is a bit idealistic, not to mention unrealistic. Everything evolves eventually, and not always for the better. She even says that, "illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins", so I'm curious as to how the assumption can be made that the outcome will be positive. I mean really, didn't she see The Terminator?