Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0203A" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:39:47 +0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Carol Ryles Subject: BDG - The Gate To Women's Country Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear BDG members, I first read this book about four weeks ago, and I've been looking forward to listening to and taking part in the discussion ever since. Were there any FEMSF members who had read this story around the time it was first written, and how do you think it compared with earlier feminist utopias? The women living in Women's Country sacrifice much to meet the expectations of their society. How do these sacrifices and expectations compare with those that women face in the here and now and/or in the past? What is your opinion of the methods that the councilwomen use to create their utopia? What are your thoughts about the characterisation and actions of: 1) The women 2) The warriors 3) The servitors 4) The gypsies What do you think this book is saying? Cheers, Carol. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:56:14 -0500 Reply-To: judithberman@earthlink.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Judith Berman Subject: Women in SF Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu, feministsf-lit@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This from Camille Bacon-Smith, a writer and SF scholar: > > March is Women's History Month in Australia, and I'll be teaching an online > seminar in women and sf/fantasy in a big government-sponsored teach-athon > there (via internet, from my study here in Philly) > > I thought it would be great to offer, in the resource section, some brief > quotes from science fiction and fantasy authors about women characters or > women writers (or being a woman writer from those who are). > > Just a few sentences. We don't need a whole essay, but I'd like to have as > wide a variety of comments as possible to sort of propel conversation. If > you are interested in participating with a comment, you can post it here or > at dm.members.camille, or send it to me via email to camille@voicenet.com. > > If we wind up having conversation about the subject, I'd also like > permission to post that conversation to the resources section as well, to > give the students the benefit of insights. > > since I'd like as many comments as possible, please spread this message > around. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:30:14 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: BDG Reminder -- March Discussion Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020228162646.01fc4cc0@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In response to Janice's invitation to make last comments on Illicit Passage, I want to express my own mixed feelings about the discussion. I enjoyed it a lot, and learned much from it. But I felt that what energized people most were the 'what really happened' questions. I was disappointed that more people didn't want to discuss the two issues that interested me the most, and that I wrote about (at length!) in my own post early on in the discussion: one is the whole question of Nunn's politics, and the other the way she wrote of Gillie as a kind of secular saint. The first issue bears on so much today - Leeanne's revolutionary politics bear on globalization and the opposition to it, how far that opposition is revolutionary and anti-capitalist, and how far socialism is still a viable and live option; the way the story is told from the women's perspective bears on how feminism and women's experience alter and inform political responses to inequality, poverty, war. I thought Nunn very interesting in appreciating the grass roots revolutionary impulse, while actually endorsing something quite different: Gillie's approach really takes a lot of thinking about, and I don't understand it all - I need help working that out much more than I need help working out the plot (tricky though that is). Gillie mixes complete irreverence, and a total embrace of joy and of life, with embrace of technology, and an ability to connect with 'the enemy'. The story as a whole promises that social reform is possible and people at all levels of society can come together for the common good. Is this social democracy, middle of the road free market capitalism, with a kind of working class feminist Dionysian gloss on it, or is it something more than that? How you write about larger-than-life characters is my other question: Gillie is mysterious, and becomes more so by Nunn's technique of only showing her through others' reports. Individuals who strike their contemporaries and friends as truly extraordinary provide a great challenge to writers. Modern biography tends to like bringing people down to size. Hagiography is out of style. Even Mother Teresa has Chris Hitchens' amazing and somewhat convincing hatchet job on her, (The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice). If Nunn had tried to write even part of the story from Gillie's point of view, would she have destroyed that aura of almost magical power she had and so made it less believable that she won the war single handed, escaped (probably) with her life, attracted many men (to her sister's annoyance), stayed friends with a revolutionary like Leeanne, etc.? These are the things I would have liked to discuss more even than whether Gillie survives at the end of the book, or what drugs she did or did not take. Any of this resonate with anyone out there? Dave Dave Belden web page: www.davidbelden.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC > [mailto:feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Janice E. Dawley > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:46 PM > To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Reminder -- March Discussion > > > Hello, everyone! This is just a reminder that March's discussion begins > next Monday, the 4th. Our selection this time is *The Gate to Women's > Country* by Sheri S. Tepper. This book has generated quite a lot > of non-BDG > discussion in the past; I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts > about it. And if any of you have further comments on *Illicit Passage*, > feel free to share them into the coming month. There's no reason > discussions can't overlap. > > Best wishes -- > Janice, for the BDG volunteers > > ****************************************************************** > ********* > > The BDG provides a forum for focusing discussion on a particular > book during > a one month period. The books discussed are nominated and chosen > in advance > by a vote of all members of the FSFFU-L list serve who choose to > vote. Start > thinking about your nominations now. To quote our list-mistress, > "This does > not prohibit discussion of the BDG books at other times; nor does it > prohibit discussion of non-BDG books." > > If you have any other questions about the Book Discussion Group (BDG), its > selections, previous discussions or the Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy > and Utopias Literature List Serve (FSFFU-L), you can start with the BDG > website at; http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304, or the FSFFU-L > website at; http://www.feministsf.org/femsf/listserv/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:26:21 +0100 Reply-To: divadiane9@compuserve.de Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Diane Severson Subject: Illicit Passage - was BDG Reminder Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU Dave, Thanks for bringing this up again! I so wanted to respond to your Gillie/secular saint theory/question, but I barely managed to finish the book more or less in time to take part in the discussion and I still felt I'd missed the boat and didn't have time to really give your ideas some thought. It was easier to talk about the "what happened anyway?" than to get into a real discussion. Sorry. But enough excuses. And at the risk of disappointing you again, I'm going to have to get back to you on this. I will re-read your earlier post and attempt to respond. However, I must warn you that I am no literary scholar, nor am I particularly adept at this sort of discussion. But I will try, because your ideas in particular really did resonate with me! Diane On 4 Mar 2002, at 10:30, Dave Belden wrote: > In response to Janice's invitation to make last comments on Illicit > Passage, I want to express my own mixed feelings about the > discussion. I enjoyed it a lot, and learned much from it. But I felt > that what energized people most were the 'what really happened' > questions. I was disappointed that more people didn't want to > discuss the two issues that interested me the most, and that I wrote > about (at length!) in my own post early on in the discussion: one is > the whole question of Nunn's politics, and the other the way she > wrote of Gillie as a kind of secular saint. Currently Reading: Chocolat, Joanne Harris Recently read: Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston 4.5/5 Illicit Passage, Alice Nunn 4/5; Siddharta, Hermann Hesse (deutsch), 4.75/5; The Masterharper of Pern, A. McCaffrey, 3.5/5; The Dolphins of Pern, A. M., 3.5/5; A Woman's Liberation, ed. Connie Willis, 3.5/5; The Fellowship of the Rings, JRR Tolkein 4.3/5; ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:36:40 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: BDG: Illicit Passage (was BDG Reminder) Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:30 AM 3/4/02 -0500, Dave Belden wrote: >Re: the whole question of Nunn's politics Gillie >mixes complete irreverence, and a total embrace of joy and of life, with >embrace of technology, and an ability to connect with 'the enemy'. The story >as a whole promises that social reform is possible and people at all levels >of society can come together for the common good. Is this social democracy, >middle of the road free market capitalism, with a kind of working class >feminist Dionysian gloss on it, or is it something more than that? What would "more" be? I guess I am a little confused by your drive to pin down exactly what Gillie stands for in a political sense. The book's approach to Leanne's revolutionary movement and particularly the boring new political newspaper the men begin publishing when they get back after the war seems to indicate a reluctance to be categorized politically, an avoidance of labels that too often become straitjackets. I thought Gillie's final departure was as much an escape from political definition by Parkes, Doll, etc. as it was from possible murder plots. Given her druthers, I think she would have avoided winning the war the way she did because it attracted too much attention to herself. But the death of her brother Seamus forced her hand -- it was just too horrible. All that aside, if I were to slap a label on Gillie I would probably call her an anarchist. She might tell me to buzz off, though. >Re: Gillie as a kind of secular saint >If Nunn had tried to write even part of the story from >Gillie's point of view, would she have destroyed that aura of almost magical >power she had and so made it less believable that she won the war single >handed, escaped (probably) with her life, attracted many men (to her >sister's annoyance), stayed friends with a revolutionary like Leeanne, etc.? I didn't find these accomplishments so very magical. Part of the point of all the interoffice communication in the book was to show us how inefficient the station's bureaucracy was and how easy it was for the nowts to hide their activities in plain sight. Gillie was certainly talented, but if the administration hadn't been at such cross-purposes she would have been much less successful. Her ability to attract people and become friends with them was made much of by several narrators, but once again I didn't find it so very out of the ordinary that it was miraculous. It need not have diminished Gillie's heroism to include some direct testimony from the woman herself; she was quoted so many times by other people that I feel I know her voice already. Now, it might have added another interesting layer to the novel to have her private voice be substantially different from her public one, but as I have said before I think this would have focused the book even more on her individual accomplishments and character and lessened the emphasis on the complex web of interactions that drove events. Gillie actions were heroic, but I don't see her as a saint (even a secular one). -- Janice ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:15:47 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Steve & Carol Subject: Re: BDG - The Gate To Women's Country Comments: To: feministsf-lit@uic.edu In-Reply-To: <002301c1c38a$6fd640e0$b6cc3bcb@carolphil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi I really want to comment on this one, but it has been a long time since I read the book - I'm going to try and reread it again soon, so hopefully will catch up with the discussion then. As I remember, there was quite a lot of controversy over the book when it was published in some fanzines and apas, but can't remember any details now. I may still have some info, but if so it will be in the attic, and might take some time to find. Carol Hull E Yorks UK > Dear BDG members, > > I first read this book about four weeks ago, and I've been looking forward > to listening to and taking part in the discussion ever since. > > Were there any FEMSF members who had read this story around the time it > was first written, and how do you think it compared with earlier feminist > utopias? > > The women living in Women's Country sacrifice much to meet the > expectations of their society. How do these sacrifices and expectations > compare with those that women face in the here and now and/or in the past? > > What is your opinion of the methods that the councilwomen use to create > their utopia? > > What are your thoughts about the characterisation and actions of: > > 1) The women > 2) The warriors > 3) The servitors > 4) The gypsies > > What do you think this book is saying? > > Cheers, > Carol. > www.geocities.com/steve_kerry_uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:19:02 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: BDG - The Gate To Women's Country Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:15 PM 3/6/02 +0000, Steve & Carol wrote: >As I remember, there was quite a lot of controversy over the book >when it was published in some fanzines and apas, but can't >remember any details now. I may still have some info, but if so it will >be in the attic, and might take some time to find. Among other things, it roused considerable comment from lesbians, since one of her off-hand comments on the natural relations of the sexes is that homosexuality is due to some sort of hormonal imbalance during pregnancy and an aberration. This not only puts all the blame on the mother, even if it isn't her fault, about the hormones and all, it also allows her to avoid explaining why, among a huge group of women who see "real men" only during sporadic festivals while being served by contemptible "pansies," there are apparently *no* lesbians. Yeah, right. Her depiction of the warriors as "manly men" is also deeply flawed, since in any *real* all-male society homosexual attachments form quickly and often violently. Presumably, the warriors spend a lot of time jerking off in the bathroom with the warrior equivalent of Hustler in this oddly skewed future society, and rarely (if ever) look at other men "that way" even after battle when testosterone levels are high and the fear of death makes men horny. Other than that, she's ripped off traditional lesbian scifi/fantasy shamelessly, as the two societies are otherwise eerily similar in form to that of the Hadra, as depicted by Diana Rivers, or a mort of other Separatist fantasies. One can even see glimmers of the quasi-fascist lesbian feminist state of Katherine V. Forrest (Daughters of a Coral Dawn) in the privileged information held by a few elite women and male "servitors" and *withheld* from the unreliable masses. I don't think it's one of her best novels. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:51:16 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: BDG: Illicit Passage (was BDG Reminder) Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020305165242.01fd7540@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I guess I got my answer: most others didn't see it the way I did. I come from a somewhat cult-like religious background where the politics were a curious mixture of elements; then I spent many years in feminist leftwing communes, considering myself more anarchist than socialist; and am struggling now with my politics as I lead a more ordinary life as parent and worker, and have come to appreciate more of what is good about our society. I read more into Nunn's views than anarchism: more someone using anarchist/socialist ideas, but moving towards a more reformist vision, and employing interesting hints of religiosity. Projection on my part? Enough said. On with Sheri Tepper. Dave web page: www.davidbelden.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC > [mailto:feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Janice E. Dawley > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:37 PM > To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Illicit Passage (was BDG Reminder) > > > At 10:30 AM 3/4/02 -0500, Dave Belden wrote: > >Re: the whole question of Nunn's politics Gillie > >mixes complete irreverence, and a total embrace of joy and of life, with > >embrace of technology, and an ability to connect with 'the > enemy'. The story > >as a whole promises that social reform is possible and people at > all levels > >of society can come together for the common good. Is this social > democracy, > >middle of the road free market capitalism, with a kind of working class > >feminist Dionysian gloss on it, or is it something more than that? > > What would "more" be? I guess I am a little confused by your drive to pin > down exactly what Gillie stands for in a political sense. The book's > approach to Leanne's revolutionary movement and particularly the > boring new > political newspaper the men begin publishing when they get back after the > war seems to indicate a reluctance to be categorized politically, an > avoidance of labels that too often become straitjackets. I > thought Gillie's > final departure was as much an escape from political definition by Parkes, > Doll, etc. as it was from possible murder plots. Given her druthers, I > think she would have avoided winning the war the way she did because it > attracted too much attention to herself. But the death of her brother > Seamus forced her hand -- it was just too horrible. > > All that aside, if I were to slap a label on Gillie I would probably call > her an anarchist. She might tell me to buzz off, though. > > >Re: Gillie as a kind of secular saint > >If Nunn had tried to write even part of the story from > >Gillie's point of view, would she have destroyed that aura of > almost magical > >power she had and so made it less believable that she won the war single > >handed, escaped (probably) with her life, attracted many men (to her > >sister's annoyance), stayed friends with a revolutionary like > Leeanne, etc.? > > I didn't find these accomplishments so very magical. Part of the point of > all the interoffice communication in the book was to show us how > inefficient the station's bureaucracy was and how easy it was for > the nowts > to hide their activities in plain sight. Gillie was certainly > talented, but > if the administration hadn't been at such cross-purposes she would have > been much less successful. Her ability to attract people and > become friends > with them was made much of by several narrators, but once again I didn't > find it so very out of the ordinary that it was miraculous. It need not > have diminished Gillie's heroism to include some direct testimony from the > woman herself; she was quoted so many times by other people that I feel I > know her voice already. Now, it might have added another interesting layer > to the novel to have her private voice be substantially different from her > public one, but as I have said before I think this would have focused the > book even more on her individual accomplishments and character > and lessened > the emphasis on the complex web of interactions that drove events. > > Gillie actions were heroic, but I don't see her as a saint (even a secular > one). > > -- Janice ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:20:44 EST Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: BDG - The Gate To Women's Country Comments: To: feministsf-lit@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although I read this book first years ago, probably when it came out, I realized in the rereading I had totally confused it in my memory with the Suzy McKee Charnas Motherlines trilogy. So I began to remember it better as I read it, but I can't remember very well at all how I responded to it on first reading years ago. I don't think this is a 'utopia' in any sense. It's a post apocalyptic novel, and the premise that genetic selection can create a society where there would be no more war (not yet achieved in their society) as well as better female/male relations, is very questionable. Still it's one of those thought experiments that are interesting in making us think about what would work and what wouldn't, but not as a prescription. Personally I don't remember the particular controversy about homosexuality, but I don't see that as any more controversial than the whole idea that genetics is the foundation of the type of society. (Just a sidenote: I do think there's reference to homosexuality among the warriors, but it's denied/repressed or grudgingly allowed as a kind of perogative of the powerful males, which is common in 'warrior' groups.Among the women it's pretty much ignored, even more so because reproduction is the principle issue. Not that lesbians couldn't reproduce in this society, for all we know, they did exist and did reproduce - but in retrospect, only a few people know who the real fathers of the children are, so since that's a secret, lots more may be. ) The nature nurture debate about what makes people as they are, or what makes womanness and maleness, is not going to be settled anytime soon. However, I think a basic premise of feminism is that genes or biology aren't the most important determinants (to use a pretty icky word) in human society; rather, we think women and men learn to be women and men. In that sense, I'd say I'd have to question whether this is a feminist book. OTOH, assuming the author is kicking around the idea to make us think about thoseissues, then it is feminist to that degree. We don't learn about the eugenics til the end (we have some clues of course before then), so the bulk of the story involves various conflicts and critiques of feminine/male roles and behaviors, and much of this is feminist in content. None of it is perfect, and that's a good thing in terms of being at all believable. The storytelling was pretty damn good , and using the Greek myth/neodrama based on it, as well as the nice little revelation of the confidence game the women were practicing with the warriors, was done without too much of the artifice and tying up of loose ends which I often dislike in these types of stories. The vision here is pretty bleak though, when you come right down to it. Willingness to allow- even encourage- widespread carnage in order to select a certain society is draconian, and the only thing that remotely justifies it is that this is postapocalypse. But for anybody who believes in the transformative power of consciousness and political debate and struggle, which is at the core of feminism as well as most movements for social change, this society, or the premises the author bases the society on, is pretty far removed, even antithetical. The women and the men, except for a select few, really are not engaged in transformation in any political sense. No one is challenging the warriors' behavior directly, the women are encouraged to do many things but not openly challenge the social rituals, the 'servitors' have 'hidden powers. Of course, it may be that all this secrecy is necessary to prevent the rebellion of the warriors. But that's only true if one really accepts the idea that the warriors are genetically incapable of being transformed. If the warriors weren't perforce a separatist group, and the boys not forced to be socialized within it, would there be the need for such ruthless culling? OTOH, if we look at the warriors and the servitors and the women in a symbolic way, perhaps we are being encouraged to see the limitations of all these roles, even in the supposed interest of making a better world. Whether carried out by men or women. The Iphigenia play probably deserves a little closer analysis than I've given it so far, in looking at the various ironies of the roles reversed and otherwise. Personally, what I'm thinking about now, and I haven't worked it through all the way, is a comparison between this kind of vision and the one of, say, Picnic on Paradise (or even Whileaway, in the Female Man). In Picnic (I HOPE I'm remembering the right story, unlike what I remembered of Gateway before rereading), a woman goes about killing off the survivors of their interstellar wreck, because she can see the men coming up with all kinds of visions of survival which wouldn't work, but would require women to go into full reproductive mode in the attempt. Her response is ruthless, even nihilistic, but it's a refusal to accept a desperate attempt at survival which would mean useless degradation. In Gateway, the women are having lots and lots of babies, along with all the other work they do, but they do control the conditions of their work, so to speak. They are determined to survive, not to end the whole thing, and they come up with a scheme they think will make life better in the long run. But their scheme is eugenic , and hidden. I would guess, if you played this novel out in a series, the writer would have to start poking holes in the eugenics, and also the rather static quality of the social structure. The breath of fresh air in this novel is the traveling groups, especially the magician and his family. OTOH, Russ' Female Man, if I remember correctly, doesn't posit any genetic determinism (although some of her alternate societies may believe in it), but the ruthlessness directed in her Whileaway utopia against certain individuals is because of social demands, rather than genetic determinism. Well, I take it back, if memory serves, one thing they may be trying to select for is intelligence. Whether that makes any more sense than trying to select for nonaggression, I'm not sure, but I think it was a conscious decision, made throughout Whileaway society, not a secret agenda. Gee, I'd have to reread that book to really see where all these comparisons lead. Okay, this is enough for the moment.-Joy Martin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:19:29 +0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Angela Barclay Subject: Re: BDG: Illicit Passage (was BDG Reminder) Comments: To: feministsf-lit@uic.edu Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Dave: I am the one who nominated _Illicit Passage_ and therefore was in charge of the discussion. I appreciate your feedback that I focused too much on the plot and didn't delve deep enough into issues of theme and politics. The comment a femininst fantastic work makes upon society . . . relationships . . . our treatment of the environment . . . our warring tendencies . . . is certainly more important than its plot twists. This is something we should keep in mind in our future discussions. Something else to keep in mind is that we all bring to the discussion table different life experiences and areas of expertise. Politics is certainly not mine. I'm enjoying what I'm learning about politics . . . feminism . . . FSF . . . SF proper from this listserve. Questions: So, what comments do you have about _Gate to Women's Country_? (How does it compare, for example to _Illicit Passage_?) I thought it was a great read but can see how it created controversy. (Carol: did you find those articles yet?) _Gate_ is imbued with the notion of biological determinism. Was this theory in vogue at the time Tepper wrote the novel? Who are the major proponents of this theory? What are the major tenets of this theory? How has this theory been debunked? What comments can you make about it? How does _Gate to Women's Country_ reflect the feminism of that era? Angela ---------- >From: Dave Belden <> >To: >Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Illicit Passage (was BDG Reminder) >Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2002, 8:51 PM > >Well, I guess I got my answer: most others didn't see it the way I did. I >come from a somewhat cult-like religious background where the politics were >a curious mixture of elements; then I spent many years in feminist leftwing >communes, considering myself more anarchist than socialist; and am >struggling now with my politics as I lead a more ordinary life as parent and >worker, and have come to appreciate more of what is good about our society. >I read more into Nunn's views than anarchism: more someone using >anarchist/socialist ideas, but moving towards a more reformist vision, and >employing interesting hints of religiosity. Projection on my part? Enough >said. On with Sheri Tepper.