FishHook 11 pt 2

A Woman’s Place is Not Just in the Home: Feminist Realism in Housekeeping AUBREY SWART

From the moment they are born, women are told what they should be: good daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, cooks, caregivers, and housekeepers. Thus, throughout their lives, women are plagued by the decision to either adhere to or subvert from societal tradition. They can either choose the comforting stability of conformity or the freedom of individuality. Yet, if a patriarchal society defines the terms of feminine existence, is there a choice to be made or is it an illusion that allows

Nonfiction

men to manipulate women according to their own will? Just like men, women are

complex beings that cannot be limited to two sole forms of existence. Women do not choose which life to live; rather, a male-dominated society labels their lives according to its fatuous standards. An excellent literary reference that better evaluates the senseless categories and limitations men impose upon women is the novel Housekeeping by Marilynne Robinson. The novel equitably explores the two socially presented realities of feminine existence, in a world free of male encumbrance to demonstrate the social construction of these realities. Although Housekeeping differs from traditional feminist novels in its presentation of feminist issues, it is classifiable as feminist literary realism due to its objective portrayal of contrasting characters and symbolic elements as they relate to feminine stereotypes.

Primarily, it is necessary to define feminist realism to establish a base with which to compare the novel. The best way to address the theoretical concept of feminist realism is to divide it into its two major components: feminist theory and critical realism. In essence, feminist theory in literature is the accentuation of the complexity of female existence within a patriarchal society. Lauret, in her book titled Liberating Literature: Feminist Fiction in America, explains how “women’s traditional place has been primarily to pass on the symbolic order, as mothers, to the next generation; feminists, however, have wanted to intervene in it” (99). Society has constructed an order in which women are designated as supplementary figures in a male-dominated world, and to question the established order, as women, would result in dismissal due to insanity. Hence, feminist literary theory provides a safe medium for women to call attention to the inequitable limitations of their societal contributions. Robinson

55

56

exercises this passive form of questioning within Housekeeping in her construction of a female-dominated world. All of the male characters within the novel, especially Ruth’s grandfather and father—who would normally be major male influences in a child’s life— are barely mentioned and inconsequential in their contributions to the narrative. Thus, the absence of men underscores the arbitrary nature of the standards they force upon women. Housekeeping proves that women will continue to exist whether they fall inside or outside the patriarchal lines of conventionality.

Additionally, the presentation of these feminist elements through an objective, critical realist approach strengthens Robinson’s implications of social inequity.

Principally, the addition of the critical realist approach to feminist theory differentiates itself from general feminist literature in how it “does not present a picture of reality which confirms and naturalizes the (implied) reader’s worldview, nor does it… rest content with the documentation of the harshness of that reality” (Lauret 104). Unlike other feminist novels, Housekeeping suggests a reality in which women maintain the freedom of choice without persecution for deviance, nor demonization for conformity.

This new concept of feminine freedom available to Robinson’s characters differs from traditional feminist narratives that tend to idealize independence and condemn domesticity. Lucille is free to embark upon a path of convention and Ruth and Sylvie, although they may be questioned in their decision to live outside of the norm, are free to pursue transiency without criticism.

Moreover, the equal consideration of the alternate lives society tells women they must choose demonstrates a humanistic aspect of the critical realist approach, which aids in the feminist persuasion of the novel. Feminism is centered around the concept of equality between the sexes. Some feminist novelists can undermine their argument for equality by hypocritically assuming a righteous tone that belittles the opposing sex. However, in Housekeeping, the humanistic inclination of critical realism grounds the feminist content through the presentation of the characters. A book titled Feminist Literary Critics: Exploration in Theory, explains this presentation as realism treating “sex and sex-related issues from a human rather than a masculine perspective” (44). Thus, the realism in feminist theory draws attention to societal issues of sexual inequity by allowing women the basic human rights they are normally denied without question or commentary. In Housekeeping, Lucille pursues a more conventional lifestyle than her upbringing, and although Sylvie and Ruth may question the allure of tradition, they never scorn Lucille’s societal integration. Similarly, Lucille may question the appeal of transiency, but she never holds Ruth nor Sylvie in contempt for their unconventional lifestyle. Robinson’s minimization of male presence in the novel allows readers to better comprehend the harm social pressure can inflict on women, by demonstrating the peaceful liberation and coexistence of women free of said pressure.

Now, before delving deeper into an analysis of Robinson’s individual characters, it is important to note how Housekeeping’s feminist realist classification affects their interpretation. Lauret words it best when she writes, “Open endings illustrate that the feminism of these texts is not a matter of a single ideology or theory underlying at all; they are not simple narratives of conversion” (101). Therefore, Housekeeping cannot be reduced to a solely feminist or realist classification. The removal of one aspect of the novel can skew the comprehension of its content by generalizing complex concepts, such as Robinson’s setting of a feminine-dominated world. Furthermore, by fully acknowledging the novel’s multifaceted nature, the reader is able to obtain a richer understanding of the story and characters. To argue that Housekeeping is a form of feminist realism is not to reduce any of the complex representations of the women to mere political propaganda; in fact, this classification deepens the interpretation of the characters and their relationships by adding another layer of meaning to their existence.

For instance, the evolution of Ruth and Lucille’s strong familial bond exemplifies a tragic yet beautiful truth of human nature. United by a cycle of loss, the sisters learn to lean on one another in their childhood; yet, once it comes time for the girls to develop into women, they realize they must grow apart to find themselves. Ruth acknowledges the separation between her and her sister when she remarks, “I had begun to sense that Lucille’s loyalties were with the other world” (Robinson 95). Throughout Housekeeping, the girls grow up only knowing a world of emotional transiency, as they are passed from one caregiver to another. Even in the care of Sylvie, the girls are mostly left to their own devices, with the only constant ever having been one another. Ruth accepts their situation as a comforting and familiar reality, whereas Lucille realizes that there is a more conventional way of life, beyond what they have come to know. Once the girls recognize and acknowledge their place within the world, their individual growth from one another begins, as they both pursue different lives inside and outside the bounds of societal regulation.

After the individual growth of each girl into womanhood has been established, it is clear which societally created label concerning feminine existence each character inhabits. Ironically, due to her deviance from what is considered “normal” in terms of her home life, Lucille represents the willing feminine conformity to the patriarchal roles that society establishes for women. Ruth observes this conformity when she comments, “I was increasingly struck by Lucille’s ability to look the way one was supposed to look.

She could roll her anklets and puff her bangs to excellent effect, but try as she might, she could never do as well for me” (Robinson 121). Not only does Lucille’s portrayal negate the social stigma of forced conformity by demonstrating her affinity for the feminine standards of mainstream culture, but it highlights the importance of individual comfort. A feminist lens may interpret Lucille’s conventional preference as societal brainwashing, an imposition upon her free will; however, the realist aspect proves the contrary. Just like her sister, Lucille is allowed the freedom of choice and she chooses that which comes most natural to her, social propriety.

Conversely, Lucille’s traditionalism serves as a foil that accentuates Ruth’s representation of transient dissociation from patriarchal society. Ruth does not immediately decide to renounce social opinion; it is a slow and learned process as she moves away from merely mimicking her sister’s actions. The initial desire for

57

58

A Woman’s Place is Not Just in the Home: Feminist Realism in Housekeeping

difference is shown through a budding dissonance between the sisters, “Then she [Lucille] began combing the tangles out of my [Ruth’s] hair. She was not gentle or deft, nor was she patient, but she was utterly determined” (Robinson 120). Lucille’s comb symbolizes the parameters of social standard, whereas Ruth’s tangles symbolize tendencies that do not fit within this standard. Lucille believes that adherence to these standards will bring Ruth the same happiness and fulfillment it brings her, so she uses a “tough love” approach. Yet, when Ruth attempts to conform to these standards, she finds that they are uncomfortable, unnatural, and therefore unconducive to the life she wants to live. Ruth and Lucille’s deep familial bond starkens their contrast as foil characters, as each sister wants the best for the other, but both come to realize that contentment is not universally found within the same things.

Still, Ruth and Lucille’s contrast only grows deeper as the novel progresses.

Robinson utilizes the adolescent development of these women to demonstrate the true nature of human growth, which disproves the preconceived notion that women must be faced with a choice. Ruth and Lucille are not plagued by the turmoil of a life-altering decision, they merely evolve into different forms of being, stretching but never breaking the bond they share. Ruth contemplates the future of this increasing dissonance: Lucille would busy herself forever, nudging, pushing, coaxing, as if she could supply the will I lacked, to pull myself into some seemly shape and slip across the wide frontiers into that other world, where it seemed to me then I could never wish to go. For it seemed to me that nothing I had lost, or might lose, could be found there, or to put it another way, it seemed that something I had lost might be found in Sylvie’s house. (Robinson 123)

Ruth does not think negatively about Lucille’s drive to fix her into a socially acceptable young woman, rather she almost pities Lucille’s efforts. Ruth acknowledges her own lack of desire to change herself to conform to standards she does not care for, and she is content in this; yet much like Ruth does not understand Lucille’s drive to change, she knows that Lucille will never understand her discontentment in staying the same. In this case, the “staying the same” implies continuing with the transience of their upbringing.

Taking into consideration Robinson’s patient progression of societal divergence for Ruth’s character outlined above, all of these aspects work together to transition Ruth from passive to active living. Young girls are naturally passive in their submission to their caregiver or other powerful influences in their lives; women are not.

59

Girls transform into women once they are able to transcend their propensity for submission, and become active participants in their own lives. Ruth timidly takes her first step into womanhood when she recognizes her individual existence in the world, “It was a source of both terror and comfort to me then that I often seemed invisible— incompletely and minimally existent, in fact” (Robinson 106). Even though Ruth compares her life to that of a ghost, her self-awareness proves monumental in her development, as she must know who she is before she can evolve into who she wants to be. Ruth finds solace in her ghostlike existence because it means that the world requires nothing of her. Comfort is what keeps Ruth from entering into society alongside her sister; she would much rather be the observer, as opposed to the observed. Ruth’s selfacknowledgement may appear momentarily trivial, but in the grand scheme of the novel, so much has built up to this small but critical moment.

FishHook

Aubrey Swart

Robinson’s patient maturation of Ruth’s character emulates reality in how her growth is an accumulation of little, seemingly insignificant moments that turn out to be major milestones. In this moment, she ceases to flow with the current, as she has thus far, and actively decided to live with Sylvie outside of social convention.

Nevertheless, Ruth’s entrance into womanhood alongside Sylvie does not signify that Sylvie’s sole purpose within the novel is to serve as a guiding figure for Ruth. While Sylvie does openly demonstrate heretical habits that intrigue Ruth, Sylvie never explicitly encourages Ruth to imitate her behavior. Although these women ultimately end up on the same transient path, it is necessary to address each character separately in order to fully grasp the depth of their symbolic representation within the novel. So if Ruth’s coming of age journey into womanhood serves as the sole embodiment of societal deviation in the novel, then what is Sylvie’s symbolic significance?

Even though Sylvie leans more into nonconformity, it would be a misinterpretation to assume that this is all she contributes to the novel. Sylvie is an immensely complex depiction of what womanhood can be without a toxic patriarchal influence forcing women to bind themselves to illogical stereotypes. She is a societal enigma that cannot be confined to the limitations of a singular socially acceptable or rejectable label. To illustrate, Ruth describes an impossible flood that occurs at the time of Sylvie’s arrival, “My grandmother always boasted that the floods never reached our house, but that spring, water poured over the thresholds and covered the floor to the depth of four inches, obliging us to wear boots while we did the cooking and washing up” (Robinson 61). The lake water serves as an involuted symbol of mortality, as it brings new life in the place of death. In this case, the new life is Sylvie, in place of her mother, Sylvia. Water, which had never before reached the foundation of the home in Sylvia’s residency, consumed the entire first floor of the house upon Sylvie’s arrival.

Robinson intentionally coordinates these events to symbolically illustrate the ways in which Sylvie challenges the socially established divide between structure and freedom, by assuming a conventional role on her own unconventional terms.

At first glance, Sylvie hardly seems to be a perfect candidate for the feminist fight for sexual equity; yet her renunciation of feminine stereotypes through labelfree living promotes exactly that. Sylvie leads by example and, in turn, inspires Ruth and Lucille to individually pursue their own lives without worrying about the social implications of their desired existence. For example, after Sylvie arrives to watch after the girls, she does not alter her lifestyle to fit the new context, “Sylvie pushed at the water with 60 the side of her foot. A ribbed circle spread to the four walls and the curves of its four sides rebounded, interpenetrating, and the orderly ranks of light swept and swung about the room” (Robinson 64). Sylvie shows no concern for the flooded house. She accepts the fusion of domesticity and wildness without any demonstration of concern for the home nor the water that has accumulated within it. Sylvie’s indifference aligns with the objectivity of the novel, thus contributing to the realist aspect of Housekeeping’s feminist realist classification. In terms of the feminist aspect, Robinson utilizes Sylvie as a realistic depiction of the possibility for sexual equity by allowing her to inhabit both societally prescribed spheres for women, domestic and free, which further disproves the need for socially gendered boundaries.

FishHook

Not only does the juxtaposition of Sylvie’s character within a domestic space challenge the limitations of feminist stereotypes, but the domestic space itself serves as a form of social questioning. The house, representative of societal structure, serves as a central image around which all other parts of the novel are centered. Each symbolic elements’ interaction with the house serves as commentary on the current male created and governed structure of society. To demonstrate an instance of this commentary, Robinson illustrates: The lawn was knee high, an oily, dank green, and the wind sent ripples across it. It had swamped the smaller bushes and the walk and the first step of the front porch and had risen to the height of the foundation. And it seemed that if the house were not the founder, it must soon begin to float. (Robinson 125) The stark contrast between the wild greenery and the structure of the home presents a visual juxtaposition of the two polarities in which women are told to live. Male ideology propagates the “all or nothing” mentality associated with social conformity. Society claims that, while men can inhabit both house and nature, coming and going as they please, women must designate themselves within one or the other. Robinson’s combination of these spaces society strains to keep separate is a blatant disregard for male authority, as she asserts the inconsequential coexistence of these spaces for women. Housekeeping’s social commentary through symbolic imagery is vital in its contribution to feminist theory due to its emphasis on realistic equity.

Robinson utilizes the house and its housekeeping as an undercurrent that provides meaning to all of the characters’ implied symbolism. Ruth and Lucille are characterized through their minimal interactions with the house and their ultimate reasons for departure, and Sylvie is characterized by her housekeeping, or lack thereof.

Hence, Robinson’s unusually diverse portrayal of the home, a stereotypically domestic

61

symbol, attempts to communicate something new in “a mode of representation which purports to reflect existing conditions” (Lauret 104). A home is generally associated with a woman, who upholds the role of dutiful wife and mother through her housekeeping. Instead of perpetuating idealistic imagery, Robinson allows the themes of loss, impermanence, and nature to permeate the traditionally domestic space. She transfers the concept of “home” from its pedestal of social tradition and perfection to its true meaning of solace by grounding it in the everchanging and messy reality of life.

Much like their family, the women’s home was not perfect; it was saturated by waters of loss, scattered with trinkets of impermanence and barely held together by the overgrowth that surrounded it, but it was theirs.

Consequently, the summative feminist implications of the objective depiction of the women within Housekeeping, and their relation to the symbolic representation of feminine stereotypes within the home, are what earns the novel its feminist realist classification. Robinson utilizes Housekeeping as a vessel for distorting unpresented patriarchal definitions of femininity through the presentation of a socially neutral reality. The novel’s anchor in realism furthers its depth and complexity by presenting a world that has the potential to evolve into a new social reality, in which women are not questioned nor labeled for their choices. More importantly, Robinson discredits the notion of a life defining choice for women as a rite of social passage in the first place.

FishHook

Each and every woman can live according to her own intuition, regardless of whether it aligns with a stereotype or tradition. Robinson proves that women have the right to exist however they wish, in any space or capacity, without fear of ridicule or condemnation, and a society that promotes anything other than this inalienable right should be called into question.

Works Cited Feminist Literary Critics: Explorations in Theory, edited by Josephine C. Donovan, University Press of Kentucky, 1989. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usiricelib-ebooks/detail. action? docID=3039917.

Geyh, Paula. “Burning Down the House? Domestic Space and Feminine Subjectivity in Marilynne Robinson’s ‘Housekeeping.’” Contemporary Literature, vol. 34, no. 1, 1993, pp. 103–122.

Lauret, Maria. Liberating Literature: Feminist Fiction in America, Taylor & Francis Group, 1994. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/ lib/usiricelibebooks/detail.action?docID=180075.

Robinson, Marilynne. Housekeeping. Bantam, 1980.

Nietzsche: Everything is Arbitrary ALICE GRAVES

Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about socially constructed ideologies, language, knowledge, ethics, and 62 “truth” are complex, controversial ideas that many find to be uncomfortable and, sometimes, offensive. It is impossible to separate the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche from his contempt for the Christian religion. “What he flung himself against, from beginning to end of his days of writing, was always, in the last analysis, Christianity in some form or other,” writes H.L. Mencken. “It would be difficult to think of any intellectual enterprise on his long list that did not, more or less directly and clearly, relate itself to this master enterprise of them all” (Antichrist, 8). Nietzsche believed that systematic religion was negating the advancement of human knowledge, and that in order to progress as a civilization, we needed to let go of the old doctrine. In On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, he opens the text with a satirical version of Genesis: “Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of “world history,” but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. – One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless

FishHook

and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.” (TRT, 1191) In this essay, he is attempting to overthrow the European prejudice that had endured up until then: that knowledge preceded the world, is above the world, and will endure whether the world endures or not. Humans invented knowing, and it was arrogant and mendacious. Born, he says, from our own hubris. Nietzsche alludes to the biblical account of both mankind and the world’s beginning indirectly, countering them by describing metaphysical creation as nothing more than an invented fable like the one he gives the reader. This is an illustration that the power of knowing is neither divine, nor immortal, and renders the creation myth as something “brought

Alice Graves

subjects,’ but a later rhetor, named Kenneth Burke, called man “the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection” (Definition of Man, 507). These are reminiscent of Nietzsche’s ideas about words being arbitrary human constructs that only have whatever meaning that we assign to them.

Nietzsche believed that all human language is metaphorical—the result of a nerve stimuli, which is transferred into an image, then imitated in a sound. He says, “we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities” (TRT 1193).

about by the intellect.” He believed that humans so badly needed to make sense of the world that we created God. He even claimed that humans anthropomorphize nonhuman animals and objects because of our own hubris and that we believe the whole universe revolves around us and is even made for us.

In his mind, this is evidence that humans are artistically creating subjects, and he claims that the “truths” that we have today only exist because they are what have been repeated throughout history. Ultimately, they are manmade and subjective. From a Christian view, reality as we know it is dependent upon a higher being which is intelligent. This was directly related to language: “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.” In opposition to Christian and Platonic doctrine, Nietzsche was attempting to reclaim reason and “truth” as something mortal and to return the scepter of judgment and valuation back into human hands. Nietzsche’s ideas on religion, knowledge, and language all come from a similar place. He points out that the world is flawed, because humans are flawed, and that this is reflected in our language as well.

He sincerely viewed language as a way to program people’s minds and dictate their behavior, making it an unreliable tool that could be used by the wrong people, namely the church. By using words in the right manner, the church (and political figures) could keep the donations rolling in and keep people in line. According to Nietzsche, words are simply abstract, arbitrary human constructs made to facilitate language, and they are often imperfect. He claimed that all language is rhetorical, which is interesting, because language is precisely the thing that shapes human knowledge.

The problem rears its ugly head when we realize that words do not have the same meaning to each person, as it would be impossible to sit down and explain every single nuance of every single thing that we say and experience to another person. When we think about what the human intellect allows us to do, part of it has to do with grasping and manipulating concepts and categories. Nietzsche believes that, rather than truth or lies, the metaphor is the foundation of all language.

Though Nietzsche’s ideas were about rethinking meaning and morality, he has been widely considered a nihilist, and has been cast out from many academic and philosophical communities. Regardless, many rhetoricians have echoed his ideas since before his passing. Nietzsche himself referred to humans as ‘artistically creating

FishHook

FishHook

63

64

FishHook

FishHook

Nietzsche: Everything is Arbitrary

FishHook

Alice Graves

FishHook

Nietzsche provides us with an example of this metaphorical way in which we coin language. He says that “to infer from the nerve stimulus, a cause outside us, that is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle of reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say, “the stone is hard,” as if “hard” were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation!” (TRT 1193).

In other words, our interpretation of the stone being hard does not exist outside of ourselves, but is instead a result of our own nerve stimuli. He then goes on to say that we “separate things according to gender, designating the tree as masculine and the plant as feminine” (TRT 1193). We don’t see this gendering often in the English language, outside of the gendering of a ship as ‘she,’ but Nietzsche was German, and it is something we often see in many European languages. He points out that humans have many strange and arbitrary ways of talking about things, and this is just one example.

By gendering and metaphorizing language, we prove that the creation of language only designates objects in terms of its relationship to men, rather than independently of men. We even group things together in order to have some kind of organization and sense within our own environment, rejecting everything outside those groups as a lie.

Nietzsche gives the example of when one sees a leaf: not one has ever been the same, and they can come in various colors, species and patterns, but because they have similar characteristics, we categorize each one as a leaf.

Nietzsche was not alone in his scrutiny of the human language. J.L. Austin was another rhetor who also believed that meaning was dependent upon the words we use, the contexts in which we utter them, and what actions we perform in the process. He “insisted that words are neither facts, nor things; they are separate and distinct from the raw matter of the world” (TRT, 1301). His ideas were similar to Nietzsche’s own about language only describing objects by their relationship to men. Like Austin, the imperfections Nietzsche observed in language caused him to question the value of words as a form of knowledge. Nietzsche argues that the knowledge that comes with language is limited because, rather than a true definition, words really only provide us with abstract ideas and concepts. If language is what shapes human knowledge, how could we know what is right or true when even our language, the foundation of knowledge, is flawed? His argument here is that truth is impossible because there can only be perspective and interpretation, and that these are always driven by a person’s own interests or ‘will to power.’ This brings us back to his contempt for religious doctrine: …they should know how to distinguish true and false in themselves. All they are capable of is a dishonest lie; whoever today accounts himself a “good man” is utterly incapable of confronting any matter except with dishonest mendaciousness—a mendaciousness that is abysmal but innocent, truehearted, blue-eyed, and virtuous. These “good men”—they are one and all moralized to

His opinion about Christianity was that it is a pathetic faith that produces pitiful followers. He suspected that people who believe that an evil person will be punished in the afterlife tend to make excuses to let evil propagate, because the physical world on Earth doesn’t really matter; the only thing that matters is what comes after. Though he looked upon believers with disdain, he also understood the need that humans have for religion. He believed that humans could not handle the truth and that it could even drive us to suicide if we learned it. Though Nietzsche was invested in his ideas about truthfulness, he also believed that we need our illusions to live as well. He even insisted on the irreplaceable value of art precisely because of its power to immerse us into an illusion: “Truth is ugly. We possess art lest we perish of the truth” (Will to Power; Section 822). He appreciated how art tries to describe what we feel, and think, and how it reaches into a realm of the abstract that we couldn’t easily reach otherwise. Similarly, Nietzsche believed that the death of the concept of a “God” could lead to our value system collapsing, resulting in a confused society which wouldn’t know how to function without the black and white moral guidance of an elevated figurehead.

The Übermensch is a concept, thought up by Nietzsche, which represents a shift from otherworldly Christian values and manifests the grounded human ideal. The word ‘übermensch’ is generally translated into ‘overman’ in English. This heroic figure is a man of strength—a true benefactor to humanity. He is focused on the recognition of mortality, the subsequent fear of this mortality, the presumed chaos of the world outside of categorical experiences. He understands that there is no God to give meaning to his life and so seeks out his own meaning. He lives morally, without the promise of a heavenly reward, and without fear of eternal damnation. This understanding forces the übermensch to confront his own fears about the meaninglessness of his existence, which results in him overcoming those fears. This ideal archetype creates his own moral code and consistently lives by it. He also does not actively shy away from pain, or suffering, but rather grows through it. This archetype affirms life and recreates its meaning ad values. This would be the ideal next step in human evolution, according to Nietzsche, though he feared we could instead see a transformation of humanity into what he calls the “Last Man.” Though Nietzsche has been called a nihilist by many, the Last Man is what he envisions as the result of nihilism. The Last Man is otherwise known as a man who is content in his mediocrity. He lives to prevent suffering in both himself and the world, and therefore will never grasp life, never affirm, and never be the creator of new values.

He lives an empty sort of existence, showing apathy towards others and only caring about his own comforts, with no ethical compulsion to better the lives of himself or others. If men are simply animals, and animal instincts are only to survive and populate, the Last Man is no better than a beast while the übermensch seeks a higher purpose.

The Last Man is incapable of creation, only destruction, and takes no risks and brings no worth into the world. According to Nietzsche, “his race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest” (Zarathustra, 1883). In this race, everyone conforms and follows the herd, because everyone possesses the same desires. They create a society

65

66

FishHook

FishHook

the very depths and ruined and botched to all eternity as far as honesty is concerned. (GM III, 19)

Nietzsche: Everything is Arbitrary

centered around convenience, and distractions, but have little to no pleasure in their lives because they are incapable of thinking deeply about anything at all.

Nietzsche is still stirring up controversy, even posthumously. Many people who study his work seem to find the idea of the Last Man to be a reflection of today’s society. In a nearly Orwellian twist, Nietzsche believed that the government sought to create a passive, conforming society. This society is full of people who go to work, get paid, then spend their money on convenience items. This is a society which is too tired from being a cog in the machine to express creativity or have ambitions. This is the modern slave who basically whips himself. After all, a hungry dog is an obedient one, or so they say. Fortunately, Nietzsche also believed that herd morality was simply a mentality, rather than a characteristic of humanity. In his writings, he hoped to encourage humans to work toward self-improvement, so that they may become übermenschen, and create a society that works together, encourages individuality, and asks itself the hard questions rather than blindly conforming. Nietzsche never explicitly outlined his ideas regarding the ideal society, but we can be sure that it would be one that cultivates intellect, maximizes creative potential, and values individualism. Though it is likely that there will be no utopia, no revolution, and no Kingdom of Heaven, there may still be the Last Man. And though he may be as resilient as a cockroach, we must work to overcome him, for our own sakes.

Works Cited Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.

Burke, Kenneth. “Definition of Man.” The Hudson Review, vol. 16, no. 4, Hudson Review, Inc, 1963, pp. 491–514, https://doi.org/10.2307/3848123.

Nietzsche, F. W., Hollingdale, R. J., & Kaufmann, W. (1968). “The Will to Power” (Vintage Books ed.). Vintage Books.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Edited by Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. Print.

Accessed 20 November 2021.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “The Genealogy of Morals.” Boni and Liveright, 1918.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Au thType=sso&db=edsasp&AN=edsasp.ASPS10020667.soth&site=edslive&scope =site.

67

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and H. L. Mencken. “The Antichrist.” The Floating Press, 2010. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Walter Kaufmann. Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

FishHook

A Book for All and None. Modern Library, 1995. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08715a&A N=rlc.183903&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Luca: A Children’s Movie Like No Other IVYS QUINTANA

Watching children’s movies with my family is one of my favorite pastimes, so when we heard that a new Pixar movie was out, we prepared the popcorn and got comfortable on the sofa, oblivious to the beautiful story we were about to watch. Luca is an animated fantasy film produced by Pixar and Walt Disney Studios and directed by the Italian filmmaker Enrico Casarosa. Due to the COVID pandemic, the movie was released on Disney+ on June 18, 2021, earning about $47.4 million worldwide. Now, if we consider its unique animation and its simple yet heart-warming story about friendship, Luca is definitely an outstanding children’s film.

The movie is set in Italy in the 1960s, and it tells the story of Luca, a timid sea monster kid who dreams of exploring the land but whose parents do not allow it. One day, Luca meets Alberto, a reckless sea monster boy, who shows him the freedom of the surface. Together, they decide to run away to explore the coastal town of Portorosso, only to find that humans hunt their kind. After befriending Giulia, an underdog girl, they decide to help her win a triathlon, unaware of the challenges and risks that await them.

There are several reasons why Luca is a terrific kids’ movie. To begin with, the animation of this film is stunning. Luca’s visuals are colorful with accurate details that make it pretty realistic. For instance, all the underwater scenes resemble the real movement of the waves and the sun’s beams spreading through the ocean. Likewise, the scene when Luca goes to the surface for the first time and sees his surroundings—the grass and trees moving with the wind, the sun flares effect when looking at the sky, and the sound of the beach stones while Luca was walking— was very compelling. Indeed, these scenes are able to make the viewer feel the same sensations as Luca because they cleverly use the animations to engage viewers’ five senses, making the film more appealing to the viewers.

In addition, Luca does a good job portraying the Italian culture and demonstrating that it is more than just the typical stereotypes media shows, like pizza and pasta. For example, most of the background music is Italian with a cheerful tune that perfectly matches the adventures of Luca and his friends. Besides, the town of Portorosso 68 includes many common features of Mediterranean towns, such as stone streets with fountains and art tiles and the buildings decorated with old-fashioned posters. Also, the scenery of lively neighborhoods with kids playing on the streets and adults gathering

FishHook

Luca: A Children’s Movie Like No Other

outside business stalls immerses the audience in an accurate representation of the country. These details are significant nowadays because they can help the viewer, especially the younger audience, overcome prejudice caused by stereotypes often displayed in media. Therefore, Luca cleverly evokes a deeper connection with the Italian culture facilitating the audience to get a bigger picture of Italians’ everyday lives.

Furthermore, Luca is a remarkable film because of its emotional engagement.

In fact, the movie creates a perfect chain of funny events that reinforces the bond between Luca and Alberto for the first half of the feature. But then, this true friendship starts to reach the audience on a profound level with the reveal of Alberto’s past and Luca’s farewell. This proves that although Luca’s plot is slowpaced and quite simple, in comparison with other films, it builds an excellent climax capable of touching your heart.

Despite receiving many positive reviews and having a good audience reception, Luca had some critical responses. One example of those negative reviews is the article “Luca Is Another Beautiful, Overstuffed Pixar Sob Sandwich,” written by Eileen Jones, a film critic at the magazine Jacobin. In her article, Jones mentions, “A friend of mine calls this now-common plot in children’s movies the ‘spatula wants to be a ballet dancer’ plot” (Jones). In other words, Luca is an unoriginal and overwhelming movie that uses the same formula of unrealistic dreams becoming true as other films in the industry. Even though I see Jones’ point in that I can admit children’s movie plots can seem repetitive, I cannot agree with her. Jones is not considering that children’s films need to be appealing due to their young audience, which attention is hard to keep. Besides, I have to highlight the importance of fantasy, adventure, and sci-fi in children’s movies since this helps kids develop their imagination and critical thinking. Therefore, what matters most in a film is how it makes you feel, not how unusual or irrational the story is.

In conclusion, Luca’s exceptional animation, emotive plot, and cultural representation make it one of the best children’s movies of all time. Moreover, Luca is like no other children’s movie because it touches many different themes in a lighthearted way, like Alberto’s abandonment issues, Luca’s personal growing, and Giulia’s perseverance to achieve her goals. Still, what makes this film so significant is its message to the audience: sometimes we can feel like outcasts who do not belong anywhere, and in order to be accepted by others, we end up hiding our true self. Yet, instead of being ashamed of who we are, we must embrace our differences and accept others without judging them. By doing so, we will help to make the world a more inclusive and safer place for everyone.

Luca. Directed by Enrico Casarosa, Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2021.

Product of Their Environment: An Examination of Gender Representation in American Children’s Literature AUSTIN MATTHEWS

Over the course of one’s childhood, a number of socialization agents are responsible for influencing an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and values. These include family, friends, school, and of course, the popular culture of the time. Delivered through a variety of media, one type of popular culture that can be overlooked is children’s literature; however, it is important not to understate the impact these essential books can have as often the ideas instilled from them have a lasting effect on an individual’s mind over the course of his or her life. One example of this can be seen by examining gender roles and female representation in American children’s literature in the mid twentieth century. Before this example can be properly illustrated, however, it is important to put it into context. Therefore, let us begin by observing the commonly seen gender roles of women in the United States during the 1950s; following this, we will look at popular children’s literature of the time to see how it can be viewed as reflective of those roles thereby helping to reinforce them. To conclude, attitudes of women in the twenty-first century towards issues of gender will be examined to see if previous agents of socialization have had a lasting impact on those who were possibly influenced by them.

For the duration of the United States involvement in World War II (19411945), American women were essential in terms of domestic labor production. PostWorld War II, however, American men in the military had returned home, which forced many women back into the private sphere. This led to a phenomenon that author Betty Friedan would refer to as “the problem that has no name.” In her book titled The Feminine Mystique, Friedan describes the struggle of white suburban middle-class women who were trapped in roles as domestic housewives. These women longed for more than just the typical household duties, which led to feelings of distress, anger, depression, and dissatisfaction (Friedan 164-169). An important point, the cause of these feelings were not identified immediately, and until Friedan wrote her book, this problem was labeled as mainly psychological, not social. Therefore, this period can be characterized by a lack of collective female consciousness.

Works Cited Jones, Eileen. “Luca Is Another Beautiful, Overstuffed Pixar Sob Sandwich.” Jacobin Magazine, 17 July 2021, www.jacobinmag.com/2021/07/luca-pixardisneymovie-film-review. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.

FishHook

FishHook

69

70

FishHook

FishHook

Product of Their Environment: An Examination of Gender Representation in American Children’s Literature

Reflecting back on the time period now, it is important to pinpoint possible factors that led to this “problem that has no name.” In the article, “‘The Happy Housewife Heroine’ and ‘The Sexual Sell,’” author Elizabeth Fraterrigo states, “Who or what was to blame for the creation of the ‘feminine mystique’? Friedan pointed to advertisers, experts, and educators…” (33). Friedan’s proposition can be translated over to other agents of socialization as well, including children’s literature. However, if children’s literature were to have actually played a role in the reproduction and reinforcement of these problematic gender roles, one should reasonably expect there to be equally problematic gender representations in the popular children’s books of this time period. Through content analysis, researchers are able to draw conclusions about the manifest and latent content of popular culture artifacts, such as children’s literature. Therefore, for our purposes, it will be beneficial to look at studies consisting of content analysis on children’s books in the mid-twentieth century to see how they represent gender.

In the research study titled “Gender in Twentieth-Century Children’s Books,” several aspects of children’s literature were examined to determine if there were any patterns or trends related to gender representation. This was executed by taking a sample number of books and making observations about their titles and their central characters. In essence, the goal was to determine the ratio of male to female representation. The results of the study showed that on average, the greatest disparity of male to female representation in the twentieth century took place from 1930 to 1970, heavily favoring men (McCabe et al. 216-217). Specific details of the results do an excellent job at displaying this disparity.

To begin, let us look at the ratio of male titles to female titles in these books. In 1920, the ratio was recorded to be close to 2:1; however, after the turn of the decade, that ratio increased to roughly 3:1. It then gradually increased throughout 1940 to 1970 followed by a rapid decrease from 1970 to 1980, which coincided closely with the second wave of feminism. Each of the other ratios—male central characters to female central characters, boy central characters to girl central characters, and male animal central characters to female animal central characters—followed the same general pattern, with the exception of a few spikes in 1930 and 1960 in the animal central character ratio (McCabe 217). This, therefore, clearly gives support to the idea that there was an unusually great disparity of gender representation in children’s literature in favor of males from 1930 to 1970; however, it is not merely enough to look at one study. We now move on to the next content analysis, which specifically looks at children’s literature in the key time period of 1930 to 1960.

The research study titled “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Presence of Female Characters and Gender Stereotyping in Award-Winning Picture Books Between the 1930s and the 1960s” analyzed the content of Caldecott Award-winning children’s

71

books. (For reference, the Caldecott Award is given out to the best American children’s picture book each year.) Overall, the study made observations of the presence of female supporting and central characters as well as the occurrence of gender stereotyping for each decade’s Caldecott books. The results varied greatly

Austin Matthews

from each decade and some interesting conclusions can be made from them (Clark et al.).

FishHook

In the 1930s, every award-winning book had a female character, and 45% of them had a central female character, which is, at first glance, a surprising statistic.

However, the presence of female characters alone does not necessarily indicate progress.

Looking at gender stereotyping paints a fuller picture of the decade. The study states that, “Female characters were more dependent, submissive, imitative, nurturant, emotional, and passively active than male characters” (Clark et al. 442). This is a recurring theme throughout the decades; the more female characters there are, the more gender stereotyping, and vice versa.

In 1940, the results were much different. 78% of these books contained female characters, and only 14% of them had a central female character, less than a third of 1930’s numbers. However, there were positive changes in terms of gender stereotyping occurrences. Although some stereotypes remained, Clark et al. found that female characters “were just as independent, competitive, and aggressive as male characters…”

(443). In 1950, 89% of the Caldecott books had female characters and 39% had a central female character, which was a noticeable increase from 1940. However, the aforementioned theme continued as “the amount of genderstereotyping was also second only to that found in the 1930s books” (442-444). Finally, in 1960 we saw another decrease in the presence of female characters as only 67% of books contained at least one and just 17% had one who was central to the plot. Consistent with the primary pattern though, there was less gender stereotyping in the 60s than in the 30’s or in the 50’s (442-444). Again, this study seems to be reflective of the times. Either females were underrepresented, or they were given stereotypical behavioral traits, such as nurturant or submissive. This was not unlike the treatment of some women in this time period who were forced out of the public sphere (underrepresented) and into a life in which they must exhibit certain qualities as a housewife (stereotypical behavioral traits).

Continuing on, the third content analysis looks at the use of pronouns in American books during the twentieth century and early twenty-first century. Titled “Male and Female Pronoun Use in U.S. Books Reflects Women’s Status, 1900-2008,” this research gives us yet another unique perspective of gender representation in the midtwentieth century. From 1900 to 1950, the ratio of male pronouns used to female pronouns used remained approximately 3.5:1; however, following 1950 and into 1960, there was a noticeable increase ending in a peak around 1968 at 4.5:1, which is roughly one more male pronoun for every female pronoun compared to the earlier years.

Following this peak, there was a sharp decline and by the 2000s, the ratio was only 2:1 (Twenge et al. 491). Once again, the underrepresentation of females in literature is extremely evident within the mid twentieth century, which continues to support the hypothesis that the agents of socialization during this time reflected and reinforced the commonly seen gender roles of American women.

To conclude our section on content analysis, we look at a journal regarding the content in 72 popular children’s literature of the time, including that of Dr. Seuss.

The journal, titled “Content Analysis and Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Books,” takes us through an exercise that author Frank Taylor gives his students in order for them to learn about gender stereotypes in books. Important to our discussion, this gives us an insight to how influential and deceptively clever these stereotypes can be. Taylor breaks his students up into groups, so that they can analyze the latent content within the selected literature. For the purpose of this paper, the exercise itself is not as salient to the discussion as the students’ experiences and observations.

FishHook

Product of Their Environment: An Examination of Gender Representation in American Children’s Literature

One female student states, “I have never thought of these ideas as I have read these books to my children. I am quite offended by the messages that are so craftily hidden by the authors.” Another says, “I never realized how children’s books could have such stereotypical views within them.” The last female student had a particularly long review, but one that is especially insightful:

“There was a part in the book where a female dog asked a male dog if he liked her hat. Every time he said no, until in the end he finally said yes when she had on the most fancy hat. The last picture showed them going off together. This was a symbol of power of looks. Showing how the male dog wouldn’t take her until he liked her hat, and that the girl dog got a new hat each time to impress him.” (Taylor 306) These quotes serve an essential purpose as they effectively showcase the power and influence that gender stereotypes can have. They achieve this influence in a clever way that can be hard to recognize if you are not looking for it. It is not unreasonable to propose, therefore, that the gender stereotypes of children’s literature in the mid twentieth century had an impact on the children of the time, and this impact has had an effect on the attitudes of those individuals today. To illustrate this, let us examine the current attitudes different age groups in the United States have towards feminism.

To begin, we will look at a survey conducted in 2016 by The Washington Post in an article titled “What Americans think about feminism today.” In the article, different age groups were asked a variety of questions pertaining to feminism. When asked if they identify as a feminist, 63% of women ages 18 to 34 said yes, 51% of ages 35 to 49 said yes, 68% of ages 50 to 64 said yes, and 58% of ages 65 and older said yes (Cai and Clement). The last two categories are the most important to our discussion. Women who were 50 to 64 in 2016 were born between 1952 and 1966, while women who were 65 or older were born before 1952. Therefore, the former category generally began being socialized by children’s literature in the late 1950s and early 1960s, right when Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, and the second wave of feminism was beginning. A majority of the latter category, on the other hand, was socialized before this movement and were vulnerable to the many previously discussed gender stereotypes in popular children’s literature of the time. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that

73

the 10% difference of women who identify as a feminist between these two categories is partially due to the variety

Austin Matthews

of socialization agents that were prevalent during their respective childhoods. An article

by Amanda Barrosa titled “61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well; many see feminism as empowering, polarizing” also identifies differences in attitudes dependent upon age group. An average of 63% of women ages 18 to 49 said they believe that feminism describes them either very or somewhat well, while a slightly lower 60.5% of women ages 50 or older agreed to this. The author also states, “Women younger than 50 or more likely than their older counterparts to say feminism is empowering (73% vs.

63%)” (Barrosa). This again gives support to the idea that the various agents of

FishHook

socialization that were at play in the middle of the twentieth century had a lasting impact.

Finally, in an article titled “Older and Younger Adults’ Attitudes Toward Feminism: The Influence of Religiosity, Political Orientation, Gender, Education, and Family” generational attitude gaps are again observed. Similar to the previous findings, the authors of this journal come to the conclusion that younger women are generally more open to the idea of feminism and the feminist movement. Adding to this, the authors also state, “Given that generations likely internalize the women’s movement differently based on their developmental stage when events occur (Zucker and Stewart 2007), it makes sense that younger adults might be socialized to align with statements that promote gender equality” (Fitzpatrick Bettencourt et al. 871). This proposition epitomizes an essential point being made within this discussion. It is a reasonable claim to make that the time in which an individual is socialized as a child has an effect on their current attitudes towards feminism. Across the board, we have seen younger women generally be more open to identifying as feminists, while older women have on average been more hesitant to do so. With context, this should now be unsurprising as many of the women in the latter category grew up with particular agents of socialization, including the children’s literature that we have observed, that presented consistent, systematic, and powerful gender stereotypes. It is very likely that this has had an impact on these individuals’ current attitudes, beliefs, and values.

Now, it would be naïve to assume that the entirety of the differences of attitudes towards feminism seen between age groups is caused by children’s literature or any agent of socialization alone. However, the idea is not that children’s literature is the only factor at play here; instead, it is simply one of the many factors that should be taken into account when considering these differences. It also reinforces an important point, which is that children’s literature can be a powerful and impactful force. As seen in the previous content analyses, gender representation in children’s literature has slowly become more equitable since the beginning of the second wave of feminism. However, there is still more work to be done. This agent of socialization continues to be a prevailing force in the lives of children everywhere, so it is important for future research to consider the influence that it still has.

In conclusion, popular culture is often reflective of the time period. This is illustrated by examining American children’s literature in the middle of the twentieth century.

74 During this time, as described by Betty Friedan, suburban middle-class white women were often forced into the private sphere as domestic housewives. This not only led a number of these women to have intense feelings of dissatisfaction and a lack of fulfillment, but it also epitomized the robust and often cruel gender roles on display for most women in America around the 1950s. Reflective upon this, the children’s literature of the time deployed equally problematic gender stereotypes that played a part in socializing individuals of the time, and this agent of socialization, among others, has had a lasting effect on the current attitudes, beliefs, and values of women who were influenced by them. Despite significant progress made in how current children’s literature represents gender, there is an obvious imbalance that still remains; therefore, an awareness of the issue must continuously be emphasized until we achieve an equal representation of gender across all children’s literature.

FishHook

Product of Their Environment: An Examination of Gender Representation in American Children’s Literature

Works Cited Barossa, Amanda. “61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well; many see feminism as empowering, polarizing.” Fact Tank: News in the Numbers, Pew Research Center, 7 July 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2020/07/07/61-of-u-swomen-say feminist-describes-them-wellmany-see-feminism-as-empoweringpolarizing/. Accessed 14 Apr. 2021. Cai, Weiyi, and Scott Clement. “What Americans think about feminism today.” The Washington Post, 27 Jan. 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/ graphics/national/feminism project/poll/.

Accessed 11 Apr. 2021.

Clark, Roger, et al. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Presence of Female Characters and Gender Stereotyping in Award-Winning Picture Books Between the 1930s and the 1960s.” Sex Roles, vol. 49, no. 9–10, Nov. 2003, pp.

439–449. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1023/A:1025820404277.

Fitzpatrick Bettencourt, Kathryn, et al. “Older and Younger Adults’ Attitudes Toward Feminism: The Influence of Religiosity, Political Orientation, Gender, Education, and Family.” Sex Roles, vol. 64, no. 11–12, June 2011, pp. 863–874.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11199- 011-9946-z.

Fraterrigo, Elizabeth. “‘The Happy Housewife Heroine’ and ‘The Sexual Sell.’”

Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, June 2015, pp. 33–40.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.5250/fronjwomestud.36.2.0033. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1963. Print.

McCabe, Janice, et al. “Gender in Twentieth-Century Children’s Books.” Gender & Society, vol. 25, no. 2, Apr. 2011, pp. 197–226. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0891243211398358.

Taylor, Frank. “Content Analysis and Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Books.”

Teaching Sociology, vol. 31, no. 3, July 2003, pp. 300–311. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3211327.

Twenge, Jean, et al. “Male and Female Pronoun Use in U.S. Books Reflects Women’s Status, 1900-2008.” Sex Roles, vol. 67, no. 9–10, Nov. 2012, pp. 488–493.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0194-7.

I. IntroductIon

Computer systems are ingrained into modern society. For individuals and organizations alike, computers fulfill many different purposes that are often important or even necessary. Businesses, in particular, usually leverage sophisticated software and large amounts of data to support many, sometimes crucial, aspects of their business. As a result, computer systems hold immense value and often contain sensitive information that attracts many attackers. These attackers pose serious threats that can devastate computer systems, crippling users, especially businesses, who are not prepared. And, the more society relies on computer systems, the greater those threats will become.

Fortunately, there are many ways to defend against computer threats. A multilayered approach involving secure hardware, network connections, operating systems, and applications is the most optimal. However, the security of the operating system boasts some of the most sophisticated tools and techniques. Therefore, this paper provides a comprehensive summary of operating system security: what specific threats it faces, how it defends against those threats, and what its future looks like.

Summary of Operating System Security ISAAC HOPF

Abstract—Computer systems are ingrained into modern society and face many threats.

The more society relies on computer systems, the greater those threats will become.

Fortunately, there are many ways to secure computer systems, including operating system security. Operating system security is the most sophisticated method, and it offers several powerful security solutions. These security solutions are usually positively influenced by the threats operating systems face. Nonetheless, operating systems are different; they face different threats and implement security differently, sometimes with varying levels of strength. Overall, operating system security is crucial and will always have a future. Currently, there are many advanced technologies that can significantly improve operating system security and cybersecurity as a whole.

Keywords—Operating systems, operating system threats, operating system security

FishHook

FishHook

Product of Their Environment: An Examination of Gender Representation in American Children’s Literature

75

76

FishHook

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

II. operatIng SyStem threatS

Operating systems are bombarded by threats that can wreak havoc on the operating system and its users. Usually, attackers threaten processes used by programs, the system’s network connections, or even the users themselves. Program threats use code to infiltrate operating systems, while, on the other hand, network threats exploit the network connections of operating systems. User threats involve social engineering, which takes advantage of users to expedite program threats. Overall, there are many different types of operating system threats, and they accomplish a variety of malicious acts.

A. Program Threats 1) Malware: As its name suggests, malware is malicious software, and it aims to “exploit, disable, or damage computer systems” [1].

Typically, malware must be downloaded to take effect on a computer, but this can be accomplished in many ways, such as with fake emails, along with legitimate software, or in misleading links. These types of downloads do involve action from the user, so if a user is knowledgeable, they can usually prevent malware attacks. Overall, malware is broad and acts as an umbrella term for many different types of malicious software. The three most common types of malware are ransomware, trojan horses, and viruses. a) Ransomware: Ransomware is the most dangerous type of malware right now. By encrypting all data on a system, ransomware renders the system’s data inaccessible. At this point, attackers demand a large sum of money, a ransom, in exchange for the key that decrypts the system’s data. Since the attackers are criminals, they may not give the decryption key even if the ransom is paid—leaving the system’s data inaccessible forever. Large organizations, like businesses, are at a high risk of ransomware attacks. Since a business usually needs their data to operate and can afford to pay large ransoms, they are prime targets for attackers. Currently, ransomware is dangerous because many, usually smaller businesses, are not prepared

Isaac Hopf

the recent rapid increase in ransom payments and how dangerous ransomware is becoming. b) Trojan Horses: Trojan horses are named after the Trojan Horse used during the Trojan War. A trojan horse pretends to be something it is not to deceive someone and perform some malicious action. In terms of malware, trojan horses pretend to be legitimate programs to deceive the operating system and its users. Trojan horses, of course, are not legitimate programs and actually perform malicious actions such as stealing information or escalating the attacker’s privileges. Two common variations of trojan horses are trojan mules and spyware. Trojan mules pretend to be a login screen to steal a user’s password, while spyware hides in another program to steal information or use the system to send spam to other systems [1]. c) Viruses: Viruses are the most vicious type of malware because they are purely destructive and destroy files, cause programs to crash, and even attempt to replicate and infect other systems [1]. Computer viruses get their namesake from biological viruses that infect humans because they both operate in much the same way. Biological viruses infect humans, make them sick, replicate, and attempt to infect other humans. Computer viruses infect computers, cause damage to them, replicate, and attempt to infect other computers as well. Furthermore, computer viruses also evolve over time because attackers frequently update and create new viruses. Thus, there is a large variety of viruses, and new viruses are discovered often. While viruses typically don’t target any specific entity, such as a business, their huge variety and quick reproduction are still dangerous.

2) Code Injection: Code injections exploit benign software by injecting malicious code at a vulnerable section of the software [1]. Most code injections overflow a buffer, overwrite data, and break the software.

Some code injections are more sophisticated and can cause more damage to a wider variety of vulnerabilities. Overall, the vulnerabilities arise from poorly designed software. Therefore, poorly designed software itself represents a threat to the operating system.

B. Network Threats

Fig. 1 Ransom payments from 2013 to 2020.

for ransomware attacks and, if they are attacked, incur serious damages, pay the ransom, and encourage attackers to continue attacking. Fig. 1, derived from [2], demonstrates

77 FishHook

1) Network Traffic Attacks: Network traffic attacks intercept a computer system’s network communications by either sniffing or spoofing [1]. When an attacker sniffs, they can view all network traffic and obtain sensitive information from that traffic.

A sniffing attack does not disrupt network traffic. When an attacker spoofs, they direct the network traffic to themselves, pretending to be the receiver and/or sender between two computer systems. Therefore, they can disrupt and even modify network traffic.

Overall, sniffing or spoofing could give the attacker access to the victim’s credit card, bank accounts, or even identity.

2) Denial of Service: As its name suggests, denial of service attacks deny the use of service or, in other words, the use of a computer system. Unlike the other types of

78

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

Isaac Hopf

attacks that break into the computer system, denial of service attacks use brute force to flood a computer system with fake requests—preventing legitimate requests from processing. This brute force technique, of course, is easier than breaking into a computer system, but it does not damage the computer system itself. Attackers often use denial of service attacks against popular websites so that legitimate users cannot use or even access the site. Therefore, it is often used as a form of protest against the owner of the website.

C. User Threats User threats target the user through social engineering, wherein attackers manipulate users to expedite program threats. For instance, one of the most common types of social engineering, known as phishing, involves fake emails that attempt to convince users to do some action, like clicking a link. This link could contain malware, and by clicking it, the user would install the malware themself—expediting the program threat. Overall, a knowledgeable user can avoid most user threats and prevent most attacks by recognizing social engineering.

While user threats do not directly target the operating system, the expedited program threats certainly do. Furthermore, user threats are the most common type of threat, as Fig. 2, derived from [3, p. 19], shows. [4, p. 1] corroborates, stating that “more than 80% of all breaches had a social engineering element to them.” Since user threats are so common and expedite program threats, they are a serious concern to operating systems even though they do not directly target the operating system.

III. operatIng SyStem SecurIty Considering all the threats that computer systems face and the significance of what could be at stake, operating system security must be strong and capable of handling attacks. Fortunately, many threats often positively influence security. Thus, there are many security solutions—some of which are broad, while others are more specialized. The most common security solutions include cryptography, user authentication, antivirus software, and firewalls. Another important security solution is user-friendliness.

A. User Authentication User authentication is a general and simple security solution that ensures the user is who they say they are by using passwords. Simply, to access a system, the user must enter their password. Passwords alone, however, are usually not strong enough, especially for sensitive systems like banking systems. Multi-factor authentication, which requires a password and something else the user can access, such as a phone, is the most effective and convenient method for strengthening passwords. Although, biometrics, in which a password and some biological component, such as a fingerprint, are required, also significantly strengthens passwords.

79

FishHook

Fig. 2 Number of reported victims per type of threat in 2020.

User authentication was designed to generally secure operating systems against attackers who pretend to be a user they are not or attempt to escalate their privileges.

Essentially, if the operating system cannot identify the user, then an attacker can easily pretend to be an admin user who has high privileges. As an admin, an attacker can run malicious programs and processes without the operating system noticing. After all, operating system security largely “depends on the ability to identify the programs and processes currently executing, which in turn depends on the ability to identify each user of the system” [1].

B. Cryptography Cryptography is another general security solution that can be applied to any process using data, although it is used most frequently for network communication.

Through encryption, cryptography can protect data such as network communication, files, or even external storage by rendering the data unreadable to anyone who does not possess a specific key [1]. In the past, civilizations and, later, nations used cryptography to deliver confidential messages, especially during war times. Here, ciphers were used to encrypt and decrypt messages; if the receiver knew the correct cipher or variation of cipher, they could decrypt an encrypted message. For computers, however, complex algorithms with keys are used to encrypt and decrypt data; if the receiver knows the correct key or keys, then they can decrypt encrypted data.

The safest type of computer encryption is public-key encryption. Publickey encryption uses two different keys: a public key and a private key. The public key is available to anyone, while the private key is kept secret. When transmitting messages, the sender encrypts their message with the recipient’s public key; then, the recipient decrypts the message with their private key [5]. Since it is impossible to determine the private key from the public key, public-key encryption is very secure. This security, however, comes with a cost of heavy resource usage. Therefore, publickey encryption is typically only used for important network transmissions; singlekey encryption techniques work well enough for unimportant transmissions or for encrypting data.

Overall, computer cryptography was designed to secure an operating system’s data, including network connections, against attackers who attempt to access sensitive data or intercept network traffic. By rendering network communication and other data unreadable 80 without a key, it is significantly more difficult for an attacker to obtain sensitive information that can be used to harm the system or user.

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security C. Antivirus Software

Antivirus software is a security solution that can detect viruses and erase them from the system. Typically, antivirus software will regularly scan the operating system for patterns of instructions that make up viruses; if a virus is detected, then its instructions are deleted [1]. Since antivirus software scans for patterns, if a virus does not follow a stored pattern, then it cannot be detected. Therefore, antivirus software stores many patterns. Ideally, there is a stored pattern for every currently existing virus or family of viruses as well as any new viruses. Attackers produce new viruses frequently, so antivirus software must be regularly updated to account for new viruses.

Overall, antivirus software was designed to secure operating systems against viruses and other similar types of malware. Without antivirus software, it would be much more difficult to track down viruses and safely erase them as other security solutions are incapable of scanning the operating system for a huge variety of virus patterns.

Isaac Hopf

with its operating system, security is distinct as well. Furthermore, all operating systems incur system-specific threats that security must account for. Overall, the security of each operating system is unique and applies general and specialized security tools in a variety of ways to maintain protection.

A. Windows Windows is the most widely-used operating system, as shown in Fig. 3, which was derived from [6], especially for business, so it faces far more threats than any other operating system. Attackers have the most to gain from Windows, so it is more worthwhile to produce threats for Windows instead of other operating systems. Because Windows faces the most threats, it is a dangerous operating system without the proper security.

D. Firewalls A firewall is a security solution that can limit network traffic into a computer system. Essentially, firewalls stand between the “trusted and the untrusted” and limit access between them [1]. In this case, the trusted side includes trusted networks like a home network or the operating system, while the untrusted side includes untrusted networks, usually the Internet. Firewalls limit access to the trusted side by blocking certain network communication from the untrusted side. Usually, firewalls block network communication that could pose a threat to the operating system or trusted network—preventing attacks from ever reaching the operating system. Unfortunately, firewalls can’t detect all threats, and certain attacks, like code injections, could pass through the firewall [1].

Nonetheless, firewalls were designed to secure operating systems against malicious network communication. While firewalls cannot block attacks like code injections, they can block many other network-based attacks. Without firewalls, all network-based attacks could enter the operating system—significantly increasing the risk to the operating system and putting heavy stress on other implemented security solutions.

81

E. User-Friendliness Unlike other security solutions, user-friendliness does not perform any action; instead, user-friendliness is implemented into the design of the user interface and ensures easy understandability and usability of the operating system security. Userfriendliness is an important security solution, however, as the user is often the very first line of defense for computer systems, and they face the most threats. With understandable security, users can become aware of the threats their security defends against—reducing the risk from user threats and social engineering. Furthermore, with usable security, users can effectively perform manual actions, such as running a virus scan—enabling users to better protect the system themselves.

Fig. 3 Estimated worldwide shipments of desktop computers in 2020, by operating system.

Windows security implements all essential security features, like antivirus software, user authentication, firewalls, and cryptography, as well as other security features for controlling and reviewing apps, browsers, devices, computer health, and family [7]. With the additional security features as well as a clean, informative menu, shown in 82 Fig. 4, Windows security is very user-friendly. However, Windows security does lack more advanced security features and is not as powerful as other operating system security, especially since it faces the most threats. Windows users who are not knowledgeable about potential threats and businesses who rely on Windows computer systems should have additional security. Therefore, Windows security also works seamlessly with thirdparty security software, like McAfee or Trend Micro [7].

IV. comparIng operatIng SyStem SecurIty Security differs between operating systems, such as Windows, Mac OS, or Ubuntu. Each operating system is distinct, and because security is designed to work

FishHook

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

Fig. 4 W indows security menu that shows all security features and their statuses on one screen.

Isaac Hopf

Overall, Linux-based operating systems are difficult to infiltrate, and attackers don’t gain much from them, so attackers usually focus on other operating systems. Therefore, Linux-based operating systems, like Ubuntu, are naturally very secure.

Ubuntu security implements user authentication, firewalls, and cryptography, but, unlike other operating systems, it does not implement antivirus software; Ubuntu security also implements more advanced security features, similar to Mac OS security, such as address space layout randomization, SYN cookies, and “AppArmor” [9]. With most of the essential features and many advanced features, Ubuntu security is very powerful even without antivirus software. Linux-based systems don’t need antivirus software as they face very few threats and viruses are rare. Businesses using Ubuntu or other Linux-based computer systems may still use additional security, particularly antivirus software, but Ubuntu is less risky than Windows or Mac OS, so additional security is not as necessary. In addition, being Linux-based and less popular, Ubuntu security is not refined for user-friendliness like Windows is. Overall, Ubuntu security is very powerful, but it is hard to compare to other operating systems because it lacks antivirus software. Antivirus software isn’t necessary for Linux-based systems, but it certainly is for Windows or Mac OS.

B. Mac OS

V. Future oF operatIng SyStem SecurIty

Mac OS is a popular operating system, but it is used far less than Windows, as shown in Fig. 3, which was derived from [6], especially in business. Therefore, it still faces some threats, but not as many as Windows. Attackers don’t have much to gain from Mac OS, so they don’t focus on Mac OS as much as Windows. Therefore, Mac OS is a relatively safe operating system regardless of security.

Mac OS security features all the security essentials, like cryptography, user authentication, antivirus software, and firewalls, and applies them in advanced ways, such as “FileVault2,” which encrypts all data; Mac OS security also features other, advanced security tools, like address space layout randomization, system integrity protection, permission systems for apps, and even procedures to lock and locate the system, which further harden the system against malware and even theft [8]. With advanced applications of security essentials and advanced security tools, Mac OS

83

security is very powerful. While third-party security software can still add security to Mac OS, users who are not knowledgeable of the potential threats won’t need it.

Businesses relying on Mac OS computer systems, however, may need additional security depending on their risk assessment. Businesses will always be at higher risk than individual users because businesses use computer systems for many different, necessary tasks that keep the business in operation. In addition, being a popular operating system and having fewer users than Windows, Mac OS security is userfriendly, but not as much as Windows. Overall, Mac OS security is much more powerful than Windows even though it is less popular.

C. Ubuntu Ubuntu is a Linux-based operating system, which is naturally very secure for several reasons. First, as shown in Fig. 3, which was derived from [6], Linuxbased operating systems are far less popular than Windows or Mac OS and has very few users.

Second, Linux users are typically knowledgeable about potential threats, so they are very careful. Finally, Linux is open-source, so it is reviewed by many more people than Windows or Mac OS who can catch insecurities and fix them.

FishHook

There is always a future for operating system security. For as long as society relies on computer systems, threats to computer systems will exist. And, the more society relies on computer systems, the greater those threats will become. Therefore, operating system security and the research and design of operating system security are always necessary; otherwise, new, more advanced threats will overcome society.

Currently, the United States Government has identified several technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, trustworthy distributed digital infrastructure, and secure hardware, as “priority areas” of cybersecurity research [10].

These technologies, or priority areas, are the focus of most cybersecurity research today and show the most promise for advancing cybersecurity and, by extension, operating system security.

A. 84 Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence, generally, uses computers to simulate human or, in other words, rational intelligence. As shown in Fig. 5, derived from [11], there are several divisions of artificial intelligence: knowledge representation, machine learning, vision and perception, natural language processing, and robotics. Each division of artificial intelligence replicates some aspect of human intelligence, such as understanding languages, perceiving surroundings, or even learning. Altogether, artificial

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

intelligence has enormous potential for society.

In terms of operating system security, artificial intelligence has powerful applications. With sufficient research, artificial intelligence can automate routine security tasks and assist in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to threats [10].

Researchers can train artificial intelligence by primarily using Fig. 5 D ivisions and applications of

machine learning and substantial amounts artificial intelligence. of relevant data. However, knowledge bases, pattern recognition, understanding semantics, etc. may also be helpful depending on the application. Currently, some researchers are exploring the use of artificial intelligence for detecting network attacks, identifying misconfigurations that could lead to vulnerabilities, prioritizing operating system security patches, and enhancing intrusion detection and malware detection [12].

B. Quantum Computing Quantum computing, as its name suggests, applies quantum mechanics to computing to enable tremendous computing power. In conventional electronic computing, each bit stores exactly one value, but in quantum computing, each bit, known

85

as a quantum bit or qubit, can store two values simultaneously [13]. Therefore, quantum processors can drastically surpass the processing power of the conventional electronic processor—speeding up typical processes as well as enabling processes that were previously not possible. Overall, quantum computing is especially efficient at processing large amounts of data. In reality, it could accurately model complex phenomena like weather, climate, the economy, or even quantum mechanics itself [13].

Quantum computing could also revolutionize cryptography through quantum cryptography. Currently, there is no one approach to quantum cryptography as researchers are exploring optimal quantum cryptographic methods. However, quantum cryptography generally uses some quantum mechanic to secure communications and data. For instance, one popular approach, also known as photon cryptography, uses polarized photons and the principle of uncertainty to detect attackers and prevent them from reading the transmitted data [14]. Another popular approach uses quantum entanglement to securely distribute keys or share secrets [15]. Overall, with sufficient research, quantum cryptography can fully secure network communications and data.

C. Trustworthy Distributed Digital Infrastructure Trustworthy distributed digital infrastructure primarily refers to advanced wireless networks, such as 5G wireless networks. 5G or higher wireless networks offer “higher data rates, lower latency, and higher reliability;” with research, these networks can also be very secure [10]. Fast, reliable, and secure wireless network connections are crucial for cloud computing, autonomous vehicles, or Internet of Things environments.

As for operating system security, 5G or higher wireless networks can significantly increase the security of network connections—reducing the risk from network threats.

D. Secure Hardware Secure, trusted hardware substantially reduces the risks to operating systems and other applications that rely heavily on hardware components, such as Internet of Things environments or autonomous vehicles. With ideal hardware, attackers could not access the hardware or use the functions of the hardware against the computer system

FishHook

Isaac Hopf

itself. A strong method for securing hardware is by implementing roots of trust, which are “highly reliable,” “secure by design,” “inherently trusted,” and perform “critical security functions” [16].

While researchers are still enhancing roots of trust, developers are already utilizing roots of trust in the latest operating systems. For instance, Windows 11, the newest version of the Windows operating system, implements a “Trusted Platform Module” chip, known as the TPM 2.0 chip, that protects encryption keys, user credentials, and other sensitive data [17]. The TPM 2.0 chip is a prime example of a root of trust and heavily secures Windows 11 systems against threats, particularly threats to hardware.

VI. concluSIon Since computer systems hold immense value, attackers pose many serious threats. However, there are three main types of threats: program threats, network threats, and user threats. Program threats usually include various types of malware, like ransomware, trojan horses, and viruses, and code injections that target programs and processes. Network threats involve network traffic attacks with sniffing or spoofing and denial of 86 service attacks that target network connections. Finally, user threats, the most common, target users through social engineering to expedite program threats. Overall, the more society relies on computer systems, the greater those threats will become.

Fortunately, operating system security has many solutions, including user authentication, cryptography, antivirus software, firewalls, and user-friendliness. User authentication prevents attackers from pretending to be a user or escalating privileges.

Cryptography secures data and network communication by rendering them unreadable without the correct key. Antivirus software can detect and erase viruses and other malware. Firewalls secure network connections by blocking potentially malicious network traffic. Finally, user-friendliness can help users become more knowledgeable.

There are many operating systems that handle security differently, including Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu. Windows is the most dangerous operating system and does not have very strong security, but it is user-friendly, and users can easily add thirdparty security. Mac OS is a relatively safe operating system and has very advanced and strong security. Finally, Ubuntu, which is a Linux-based operating system, is a very safe and secure operating system. Linux-based operating systems are naturally very secure, and Ubuntu has relatively advanced security as well.

There is always a future for operating system security. Currently, researchers are exploring artificial intelligence, quantum computing, trustworthy distributed digital infrastructure, and secure hardware. Artificial intelligence can automate routine security tasks and assist in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to threats. Quantum computing can revolutionize cryptography by using quantum cryptography.

Trustworthy distributed digital infrastructure can significantly increase the security of network connections. Finally, secure hardware can further secure operating systems with roots of trust. acknowledgment I would like to thank Dr. Sarah Stevens and Lori Huck (University of Southern Indiana) for the opportunity to pursue honors projects. I would also like to thank Dr.

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

Srishti Srivastava (University of Southern Indiana) for accepting this paper as an honors project and enabling my curiosity for operating system security.

References [1] A. Silberschatz, P. B. Galvin, and G. Gagne, Operating System Concepts, 10th ed.

Wiley, 2018.

[2] F. Richter. “Crypto Ransom Payments Skyrocketed in 2020.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/25245/total-value-of-cryptocurrency-receivedbyknown-ransomware-addresses/ (accessed November 18, 2021).

[3] “Internet Crime Report,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2020. [Online].

Available: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_ IC3Report.pdf.

Accessed: December 3, 2021.

Isaac Hopf

[15]M. Choi and S. Lee, “Quantum Cryptographic Resource Distillation and Entanglement,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-8, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00547-5.

[16]A. Regenscheid. “Roots of Trust.” Computer Security Resource Center. https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Hardware-Roots-of-Trust (accessed December 2, 2021).

[17]D. Weston. “Windows 11 Enables Security by Design from the Chip to the Cloud.”

Microsoft. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/06/25/ windows-11enables-security-by-design-from-the-chip-to-the-cloud/ (accessed December 2, 2021).

[4] C. Hadnagy, Social Engineering: The Science of Human Hacking, 2nd ed.

Indianapolis, IN, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018.

[5] “Public-Key Cryptography,” in The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide. Helicon, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://search. credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/public_key_cryptography/0.

Accessed: November 23, 2021.

[6] T. Alsop. “Estimated Desktop PCs Global Shipments by OS 2014-2020.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/749763/worldwide-desktoppc-shipments-byos/ (accessed November 28, 2021).

[7] “Stay Protected with Windows Security.” Microsoft. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/stay-protected-with-windowssecurity-2ae0363d0ada-c064-8b56-6a39afb6a963 (accessed November 28, 2021).

[8] “MacOS Security.” Apple. https://www.apple.com/macos/security/ (accessed November 28, 2021).

[9] “Security Features.” Ubuntu. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features (accessed November 23, 2021).

[10]N. Amla et al., “Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development Strategic Plan,” United States Government, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www. nitrd.gov/pubs/Federal-Cybersecurity-RD-Strategic-Plan-2019.pdf.

Accessed: December 2, 2021.

[11]D. Partridge, “Subdivisions,” in “Artificial Intelligence,” in Encyclopedia of the Human Brain. Elsevier Science, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://search. credoreference.com/content/entry/esthumanbrain/artificial_intelligence/0.

Accessed: December 1, 2021.

[12]L. F. Sikos, AI in Cybersecurity. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018. [Online].

Available: https://link.springer.com/content/ pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-988429.pdf. Accessed: November 30, 2021.

[13]H. Henderson, “Quantum Computing,” in Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology. 3rd ed. Facts on File, 2017. [Online] Available: https:// search.credoreference.com/content/entry/fofcomputer/quantum_ computing/0.

Accessed: December 2, 2021.

[14]M. A. Panhwar, S. A. Khuhro, T. Mazhar, D. ZhongLiang, and N. Qadir, “Quantum Cryptography: A way of Improving Security of Information,” International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.

9-21, Jan. 2021.

FishHook

FishHook

Summary of Operating System Security

87

FishHook

Isaac Hopf

88

FishHook

CONTRIBUTORS’ NOTES Hope Burdette is a junior majoring in art with an emphasis in graphic design.

While design is her major, she enjoys both digital and film photography as a hobby.

Emma Goodrich is a senior pursuing a degree in art with an emphasis in interactive media design as well as minors in graphic design, photography and criminal justice. She enjoys creating work that sparks conversation and revolves around nature, environmental issues and growing up on a farm in southern Indiana.

Meredith Grace is an emerging writer who is graduating from the University of Southern Indiana in 2022. She enjoys expressing herself through writing any genre but is specifically passionate about poetry. She is ecstatic to be a part of FishHook.

Alice Graves is a junior pursuing a double major in rhetoric and English teaching with a double minor in secondary education and creative writing. She’s the Vice President of SWU and a member of both Sigma Tau Delta and the Deans’ Student Advisory Board.

She loves gothic fiction, folklore and spending time with her dog.

Isaac Hopf is a senior pursuing a degree in computer science with a minor in computer information systems. He enjoys exploring technology and learning how it can be used.

He is always excited to share what he’s learned, especially when it involves online safety and cybersecurity, which are essential in today’s digitalized world.

Abigail Joy is a senior pursuing a degree in English (teaching) and a minor in creative writing. Fiction has always had a piece of her heart and she is excited to finally share a piece of her with others.

Austin Matthews is a sociology major and psychology minor who will be graduating in the Spring of 2022. After graduation, he plans on pursuing an EdS in school psychology at Indiana University. He is grateful to be able to share his work with the readers of F ishHook.

LJ Mayer is a senior pursuing a degree in mechanical engineering. Engineering has grown his appreciation for nature and how people view it. He is excited to share his work and hopes it will inspire others to take time to admire the scenes around them.

photographer with two brain cells currently fighting for third place. He is excited to share his work with FishHook readers for the first time.

Brad Neace enjoys a vast array of different activities, from games to writing as well as outdoor fun. His style of writing comes from whatever he is thinking about at the time and/or his interpretation of an event. He loves the horror and psychological thriller side of both books and movies. He really enjoys taking time to stop and think, and for him, his writing is a way of doing that.

Jaydon Pritchard is a junior pursuing a degree in English with an emphasis in creative writing. He writes fiction as well as poetry. He believes both genres allow him to explore humankind in a unique way. He hopes his work does the same for readers of FishHook.

Ivys Quintana is an international student from Panama and a sophomore majoring in English teaching. During her free time, she enjoys reading webcomics and watching documentaries. She loves traveling and spending time with her cat, Michi. Ivys is happy to share her academic composition and hopes readers find it interesting.

Tegan Ruhl is a sophomore double majoring in journalism and English with an emphasis in creative writing. Her dream goal is to pursue a screenwriting career and watch her ideas come to life on the big screen, inspiring people to pursue the creative genes we’ve all been blessed with.

Aubrey Swart is a senior pursuing a bachelor of arts in professional writing and rhetoric, with a minor in Spanish studies. She competes on USI’s Cross Country and Track teams, and she loves to read in her spare time. After graduation, she plans to pursue a master of arts in English.

Katelyn Vinci is a student at the University of Southern Indiana.

Noah Youngson is a former student of the University of Southern Indiana. He mainly writes poetry and non-fiction, and he enjoys writing what he thinks will resonate with people his age.

is a student at the University of Southern Indiana.

Miriam McDonald is a sophomore who’s pursuing a theatre degree. They enjoy writing poetry and pieces of fiction. She also enjoys drawing and painting (digital being their favorite medium). They are excited to share her writing and art with the FishHook readers.

Denise McKenzie is a freshman pursuing an English degree. She’s President of the Student Writer’s Union and a member of the Honors Student Assembly. Her favorite pastimes are creative writing and cuddling with her two black cats.

Joshua Meredith is a senior pursuing a degree in photography and journalism. He is rarely seen without a camera on his shoulder. A dedicated

FishHook

FishHook

89

90

FishHook

FishHook

EDITORS’ NOTES Sarah Doan* is a 2022 graduate of the University of Southern Indiana, having completed her studies of English with a creative writing concentration and sociology. Writing is her passion, along with teaching color guard and learning about languages.

Hunter Morgan is a junior pursuing a degree in English (teaching) with a secondary education minor and is a part of the USI Honors Program. He enjoys reading and writing fiction and poetry and believes in finding stories and meaning in the smallest parts of life.

Kyla Schlink is a junior studying professional writing and anthropology at the University of Southern Indiana.

They enjoy art of all forms whether it be writing, painting, photography, or textile art and engage in many forms themself. They are excited to share the pieces found in this edition of FishHook with others.

Violet Thomas-Cummings is a student at the University of Southern Indiana.

Alexia Willard* is now a graduate of the University of Southern Indiana. Before they graduated in May of 2022, an essay of theirs was published in the best-selling book Autistics on Autism. For the future, they plan to be an author.

Madeline Woolsey is pursuing a major in both English literature and French. She is an avid reader and prefers realistic fiction. Madeline enjoys drinking coffee or tea while reading or writing, and she is happy to be a part of FishHook and to present the nonfiction section. * denotes editors who also contributed submissions

FishHook

FishHook