Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0206D" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:50 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Rachel Wild Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_27.296db214.2a48e9c6_boundary" --part1_27.296db214.2a48e9c6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Well... WoEoT is a book i have discussed widely in the UK and I have *never* come across anyone who 'reads' the future sections as products of Connie's mind - not to crit per unjustly [!] but I don't see how Connie could have had opportunities to develop these ideas even unconsciously - I think such social ideas are only possible as group-thought-evolution. Its my opinion that Piercy created a particularly original synergy of ideas around in the 1970's, but they were worked up collectively by various radical liberation movements. As I've said ... their dateline shows in the absence of later Disabled peoples perspectives. I find it fascinating, but sad, folk can read the book this way - do they also feel that this future is mad=negative or perhaps that Mad people can be punished for imagining outside the constraints of their society? [certainly true but nobody in the 1976 is aware of Connie's visions] I miss the vibrancy of feminist=liberation movement thought as it is tasted through WoEoT... [though I was 6 at the time!] but I'm glad that fiction has preserved some of that strand of thought for me to learn from. Feminism has always [?] gone in cycles of one step forward, one back, several sideways. It interests me that sci-fi becomes *historical* as well as visionary. Joy's points about resistance are pertinent here - Connie is living outside the reach of liberation movements ... she has always tried to change her lot as a woman ... but has never had support or solidarity, only Sybil is this for her and cannot be in her life outside the institution. I think Piercy was perceptive to criticise the way liberation misses people [an idea that became more accepted later] she shows the college 'girl' who tries to make a small link with Sybil about witchcraft and Connie speaks about her betrayals in the 'war on poverty' campaigns. What do people feel about the chance of a Mattoipaisettan future - can we get there from 2002? or has that time link dried up? would you want to get there? Bye Rachel --part1_27.296db214.2a48e9c6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

Well... WoEoT is a book i have discussed widely in the UK and I have *never* come across anyone who 'reads' the future sections as products of Connie's mind - not to crit per unjustly [!] but I don't see how Connie could have had opportunities to develop these ideas even unconsciously - I think such social ideas are only possible as group-thought-evolution. Its my opinion that Piercy created a particularly original synergy of ideas around in the 1970's, but they were worked up collectively by various radical liberation movements. As I've said ... their dateline shows in the absence of later Disabled peoples perspectives.

I find it fascinating, but sad,  folk can read the book this way - do they also feel that this future is mad=negative or perhaps that Mad people can be punished for imagining outside the constraints of their society? [certainly true but nobody in the 1976 is aware of Connie's visions]

I miss the vibrancy of feminist=liberation movement thought as it is tasted through WoEoT... [though I was 6 at the time!] but I'm glad that fiction has preserved some of that strand of thought for me to learn from. Feminism has always [?] gone in cycles of one step forward, one back, several sideways. It interests me that sci-fi becomes *historical* as well as visionary.

Joy's points about resistance are pertinent here - Connie is living outside the reach of liberation movements ... she has always tried to change her lot as a woman ... but has never had support or solidarity, only Sybil is this for her and cannot be in her life outside the institution. I think Piercy was perceptive to criticise the way liberation misses people [an idea that became more accepted later] she shows the college 'girl' who tries to make a small link with Sybil about witchcraft and Connie speaks about her betrayals in the 'war on poverty' campaigns.

What do people feel about the chance of a Mattoipaisettan future - can we get there from 2002? or has that time link dried up? would you want to get there?

Bye
Rachel --part1_27.296db214.2a48e9c6_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:21:34 -0400 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been away from email for a couple of weeks, and also have not finished the book yet, but I wanted to say I really enjoyed the discussion so far and hope it will continue. I very much liked Rachel's writing about what the book meant to her personally. This is an amazing thing for a writer to achieve: to spell out a future vision that can inspire people for years and years - even given that they come to disagree with parts of the vision. I agree with Janice that the future people are less gritty and real than the contemporary ones in the book. If I have a problem with Piercy's future vision it is not so much over particulars though I don't like it all, especially the compulsory baby labs, but over a society that seems to be so lacking in internal dissension and contradiction: that seems unlikely, as does the speed with which it has become so mature. But then, this is a less than fully dimensional dream: it is a painting come to life, not a thoroughly realistic historical/sociological portrayal. And that doesn't really matter: we need dreams. (On the baby labs: I used that idea in my own novels as initially liberating to women as an option, but I created a society where they had become compulsory and thus part of the oppression of women, limiting their choices. Compulsory baby labs are not something that I think pro-feminist men could ever accept, even in order to become equal mothers themselves - I mean, why not just get rid of sex and gender altogether, then, and become something post-human?) I was also inspired by this book when it first came out; it was one of a small handful that got me writing novels myself, novels that I felt were in some kind of dialogue with these inspirational works. I had no idea how I would feel reading it again after so long, but as with The Dispossessed I found I was still full of admiration for the book. I still think that many things are possible for us in the future, they just aren't going to happen with the speed some of us imagined in the 1970s, including Piercy in this novel. A book that has inspired me a great deal in the last decade has been Theodore Roszak's The Call of the Earth. He argues there that the main 'agenda' of industrializing societies in the last three centuries has been the struggle for political equality and civil rights; and that the main agenda of these societies in the next centuries will be the struggle for personal meaning in life. It seems clear to me that absent major catastrophes beyond those we have already weathered in the last millennium, that is, if present long term trends (including the struggles for political equality) simply continue, we are on the way to a post scarcity society worldwide. I know some on the listserve will disagree with me, but bear with me a moment. The agenda of political equality and civil rights will remain a huge one throughout developing countries. But the drive to lead meaningful lives will transform the politics and the economic system of the rich countries, as we get over our initial love affair with material abundance and go deeper into the spiritual, ecological, relational. Roszak is inspirational about this, and I am convinced we need utopias in fiction to help us on that path. We don't have to agree with them, exactly. All futurist writing dates quickly in some ways. The point is to stay aware of how different societies can be, to try things out, explore that tension between material conditions and social dreams, between human nature and possibility. And accept that things move fast sometimes, and slowly other times. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:31:09 -0700 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time / baby labs Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII WOTEOT has been one of my personal favorites, too, for a long time -- an inspiration politically & personally & in many ways for me but on to the baby labs: On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Dave Belden wrote: > (On the baby labs: I used that idea in my own novels as initially liberating > to women as an option, but I created a society where they had become > compulsory and thus part of the oppression of women, limiting their choices. > Compulsory baby labs are not something that I think pro-feminist men could > ever accept, even in order to become equal mothers themselves - I mean, why > not just get rid of sex and gender altogether, then, and become something > post-human?) i just read katharine burdekin's PROUD MAN in which humans had done just that: evolved beyond sex & gender. a human from the future comes back to visit 20th century england & makes observations. an interesting novel to read alongside WOTEOT, maybe; but the people from the future are cool & removed from a lot of human passions. this stands in both contrast & similarity to WOTEOT's future utopia. where childbirth & childrearing, and emotions are handled in a "this is the rational way to maximize happiness and accept human frailties" way. in WOTEOT, people are still loving and warm -- but the uglier passions are absent or contained. madness? embrace it & move past it. i liked this emotional coolness in some respects, but in others it didn't work for me. e.g., the "women must give up their biological privilege in order for males and females to achieve full equality" was problematic i thought. burdekin's PROUD MAN had this as well: burdekin's future human repeatedly said that males are biologically disadvantaged, and thus feel they *must* discriminate against women; that the men wouldn't think it fair if women could have babies, AND be presidents/ famous artists / etc. womb envy is a common feminist strain of thought. but while i strongly believe in people's rights to alter their own bodies, i cannot accept bodily alteration as a prerequisite for equality. humans can't treat each other equally without their bodies being equal? it may be true that distinguishing, separating, grouping, and ranking are hard-wired into humans. but if so, then how we handle that innate quality of separating / ranking is what has to change -- not one or another quality on which we've decided to rank. fix the disease, not the symptom. otherwise, i think we would get past racism [if we make everyone the exact same color, or else blind], or we would get past sexism [by making everyone biologically equivalent], etc. -- but we would keep inventing other -isms, using classim, ableism, ageism -- and we'll devise new onews -- and the old ones will keep popping back up, somehow. i was arguing with a person about "strength" -- he thought men were "stronger"; i said (a) it depends on how you define strength (upper-body, lower-body; endurance, sprint; etc.); and (b) the impact of social conditioning on strength shouldn't be under-estimated. then another friend said to me: "but even if it were true, why should it matter?" and i thought that, actually, was a great insight. because we *must* accept difference, and live with it, and that is the real struggle. that's where i think that WOTEOT's baby lab failed: it analyzed the symptoms of the problem (sexism, womb envy), and then it tried to fix the particular symptoms [well, get rid of the wombs, and sexism will go away]. this was the shrink's approach in le guin's THE LATHE OF HEAVEN: racism? make everyone grey. well -- i don't want to just complain about WOTEOT, because after all i loved it. my understanding is that the baby labs was derived from shulamith firestone's work, DIALECTIC OF SEX -- can anyone confirm or deny? laura q ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:35:54 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/24/02 4:32:08 PM Central Daylight Time, Wildseed13@AOL.COM writes: << not to crit per unjustly [!] but I don't see how Connie could have had opportunities to develop these ideas even unconsciously - I think such social ideas are only possible as group-thought-evolution. >> Well, I think Connie could have thought of these things just as well as Piercy could have. I don't think she was unaware of the social changes around her, but she was in a part of society where she wasn't reaping much in the way of benefits (far from it) from any social change movements. In fact, I think one of the important points of the book is that Connie is important, in the present, as a person who must do things in order to help change the world to make a better future possible. And I really don't see any problem with the idea that Connie could have seen, created, imagined, or whatever other word you want to use for it, the future she visits and is visited by. I also think the later link between Sybil and the college girl volunteer who was into witchcraft was (besides having a slightly satirical edge to it) also an enticing possibility of future connections that could lead to the future world Connie was helping keep real (her future contacts were trying to preserve their world, by contacting Connie, or at least, so they said; they wanted something from her; that this may be her imagination or 'reality' are just two ways of looking at it; they could both be true, or even if it's 'only' her imagination, the resistance she is able to make because of that imagination is just as important, for the future, as it is if her future visits are 'real'. In fact, by her imagining them, and Piercy writing it, and helping us imagine a different future, that's also helping create that future. And so far none of us who have said this story inspired them has said they actually visited the future like Connie did. But it still makes a difference for the future. If you get my drift. It really doesn't matter if it's real or not real, in the normal usage of the word. Or, what is 'real', and what creates reality? We do it, one way or another, in ever so many ways, mental, social,etc.) Also of course Piercy says in her thanks page that she's "in debt to the folks from Mouth -of-Mattpoisett who worked so hard to make me understand- who found me dense and slow of wit, but always told me that at least I try". Explicitly inviting us to consider the possibility that she, in writing the book, has also visited that future. And you can take that also in ever so many ways. Piercy (and I think other feminist writers who right now aren't coming to mind) is questioning the whole notion of 'madness', as well as the 'treatment' of it. (In some cultures of course, the 'mad' are considered sacred.) Madness could be , has been considered, a conduit into alternate realities, in fact that's one of the things Piercy is showing us. Connie is being punished not for her visions (which she keeps secret) but for her behavior which is outside accepted 'norms' for her family and for the general social world she lives in . People I've known in the past who were in mental institutions said it was very clear to them that the way to get out was to totally conform to the behavioral norms the staff required of them (norms by the way that probably very few women would consider acceptable now, and also not then; but once you're a 'patient' in these places, your rights go out the window.) But then, those were middle class people who, if memory serves, had checked themselves in, not been committed for 'violent' behavior (which of course, in Connie's case, was defensive and justifiable, but no one believed her or accepted her right to defend her niece and fight back against her pimp/lover; a large part of this was class and ethnic bias, along with the notion that any kind of violence from a woman is abnormal and pathological). What is insanity? What is reality? Is imagination not real? Piercy really invites us to consider all of these things, as much as the particulars of the future she and Connie have visited. Actually , what finally popped into my head was the 'baglady' (Trudy, I think is her name) that Lily Tomlin played in 'Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe'. That was from a much more humorous perspective (and the character wasn't in a mental institution, but living on the street, and so had a whole different level of autonomy), but some of the same ideas of what is madness, what is reality, who is sane and who isn't, and are the 'visitors' real or imagined, and does it matter, or is it the same thing, were touched on in that play. (I once tried to act that part in a workshop/class, and there was just an immense amount of possibilities in portraying that character). -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:05:41 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time / baby labs Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/24/02 6:31:22 PM Central Daylight Time, lquilter@EXO.NET writes: << my understanding is that the baby labs was derived from shulamith firestone's work, DIALECTIC OF SEX -- can anyone confirm or deny? >> You've had me scouring my house looking for my copy of Dialectic of Sex, and I still can't find it ! (Damn, maybe it was another loan that never came back!) Anyway, in the process I did come across Sarah Lefanu's book, Feminism andScience Fiction, in which she particularly connects Firestone's call for the development of a utopian feminist fiction (or, her observation that at that time there was not any literary image of a future feminist society; so in that regard, we have made progress) with Piercy and others who began creating those images, and if memory serves, she is correct in saying that Firestone believed technology should (if controlled by women, or in an egalitarian society) free women from the tyranny of reproduction. Actually, Lefanu has quite an interesting section of WOTEOT. Worth reading. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:30:39 +0100 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit regarding Rachel's comment: "I have *never* come across anyone who 'reads' the future sections as products of Connie's mind - I don't see how Connie could have had opportunities to develop these ideas even unconsciously - I think such social ideas are only possible as group-thought-evolution. " I agree with Joy, here, who said: "I think Connie could have thought of these things just as well as Piercy could have" If you dream of Paradise, the form it takes might reflect or be a straightforward increment on what you know of such things, from the cultures you have lived in (i.e. group thought evolution). But your dream might also be a creative attempt to escape the constraints of the world you live in - including its idea of Paradise. I find it interesting that much of the work we've read here has a theme where this creativity (of the author, directly, or perhaps of the author's character) produces a new world, which is flawed in new ways. Sometimes this is intentional. So, as regards Rachel's comment: "I find it fascinating, but sad, folk can read the book this way" I found this patronising - not only to "Connie", and her capability for creative escape, but also to myself. This is because I am one of those people who read the book keeping in mind the possibility that the alternate world might not be literally true (inasmuch as this concept makes sense in fiction..) - and might, instead, be a depiction of Connie's creative escape from her circumstance. This ambiguity added value for me. As to whether the future was 'mad negative': no, not mad, necessarily. and not negative, entirely. (subtly, maybe.) As to whether mad people can be punished for imagining outside the constraints of their society: Well, for sure people who are NOT mad ARE punished for imaging outside the constraints of their society. So this probably holds for people who are mad, too. But perhaps less so, as their power to effect change is often reduced. There are a few notable exceptions where people who are mad, in common sense parlance, attain positions of great power, and manage to do effect great change and do great harm by ignoring some constraints of society. (Think Idi Amin.) But mostly, the people I've known who have been mad in various ways, have become less externally effective because of it. It's romantic to think that they might have seen a nobler and better truth, and are being repressed because of some self-protective reaction that Society has, reacting to change as a threat. But mostly, from what I've seen, madness causes suffering to the afflicted, and to those around them, without a lot of obvious point to it. I wish it were otherwise. -Heather ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:14:21 -0700 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: John Snead Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <200206250112.17mICR22l3Nl3rE0@bissell.mail.mindspring.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dave Belden wrote: > > I have been away from email for a couple of weeks, and also have not > finished the book yet, but I wanted to say I really enjoyed the > discussion so far and hope it will continue. I very much liked > Rachel's writing about what the book meant to her personally. This is > an amazing thing for a writer to achieve: to spell out a future vision > that can inspire people for years and years - even given that they > come to disagree with parts of the vision. I agree with Janice that > the future people are less gritty and real than the contemporary ones > in the book. If I have a problem with Piercy's future vision it is not > so much over particulars though I don't like it all, especially the > compulsory baby labs, but over a society that seems to be so lacking > in internal dissension and contradiction: that seems unlikely, as does > the speed with which it has become so mature. But then, this is a less > than fully dimensional dream: it is a painting come to life, not a > thoroughly realistic historical/sociological portrayal. And that > doesn't really matter: we need dreams. Agreed on all counts. > (On the baby labs: I used that idea in my own novels as initially > liberating to women as an option, but I created a society where they > had become compulsory and thus part of the oppression of women, > limiting their choices. Compulsory baby labs are not something that I > think pro-feminist men could ever accept, even in order to become > equal mothers themselves - I mean, why not just get rid of sex and > gender altogether, then, and become something post-human?) Would becoming post-gendered, posthuman beings really be that bad? It sure sounds far better than what we have now. At minimum, I firmly believe that the world would be a *far* better place in many ways if sex and reproduction were completely separated (if nothing else, teenage and accidental pregnancy would be a thing of the past). At minimum, I think such options should exist for people who want to make use of them, and from what I've read about research along these lines, I'm guessing they will exist in a decade or so. -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:18:29 +1000 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time / baby labs Comments: To: STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <12b.1335cc5c.2a490dd5@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:05 PM 24/06/02 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 6/24/02 6:31:22 PM Central Daylight Time, lquilter@EXO.NET >writes: > ><< my understanding is that the baby labs was derived from shulamith > firestone's work, DIALECTIC OF SEX -- can anyone confirm or deny? >> I too have lost my copy - but I do have a quote from Shulamith Firestone:: "...Pregnancy is barbaric...Childbirth hurts!..." and from other sources, she is often credited with being the first to expound the concept that 'liberation' from biology through technology was a necessary step in women's liberation. ..and she did use language like the "tyranny of reproduction" and I see this thought as a classic 60-70s feminist theme, prominently displayed in many feminist writings both fiction and non-fiction. IMHO, it was an understandable reaction of this generation of feminist thinkers, (maybe over-reaction? Like throwing the baby out with the bath-water?) a kind of phase that feminist thought needed to go through maybe. After millennia of all women everywhere having little, or no choice in reproduction, most often without even a choice in the sire of their offspring etc - I can well empathise with Shulamith Firestone and others who believed that technological liberation from the "tyranny" of reproduction would be the main wellspring upon which a gender egalitarian society could be built. But looking back now, decades later, many later feminist theorists have challenged this and explored issues of motherhood and reproduction from different slants. As Laura pointed out - biology is not the problem - and the reconstruction entailed in WoEoT is rather drastic ---- and its interesting to me, that racial differences were celebrated in the WoEoT, and also cultural ones, where different villages "adopted" a particular culture or mix'n'matched cultures..... ....but not gender differences...no.... just can't be tolerated for some reason. It also seems to me, that the "preferred" or utopian, human biology is more akin to the male, than the female. With the subtle message, that its the unique female biology that's "wrong" and needs correcting, or *re-construction* (or de-construction?) to a more efficient model. Something which bothers me also with recent post-modernist theory which has expanded this concept. Just some thoughts - Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:53:00 -0400 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time / baby labs Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20020625221829.00e17ea0@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julieanne wrote: > It also seems to me, that the "preferred" or utopian, human > biology is more > akin to the male, than the female. With the subtle message, that its the > unique female biology that's "wrong" and needs correcting, or > *re-construction* (or de-construction?) to a more efficient model. Theodore Sturgeon wrote a utopian novel (Venus Plus X) in which gender is abolished, as it were, by all people being able to be pregnant, so going to the female pole as the ideal. What would Firestone have made of that idea? I like it - but then I have always suffered from womb envy... I like the idea of being able to create a child in my body, and suckle it, and be that deep into the biology and life of it all. Yes, it's oppressive when you have no choice: but I have no choice to become pregnant, and I have to live with that, and find some personal grace in that handicap. Mystics have generally taught that acceptance of what is is the way to freedom - a paradox that I have generally opposed on political grounds, but it has some deep point to it. John Snead wrote: > Would becoming post-gendered, posthuman beings really be that > bad? It sure sounds far better than what we have now. At > minimum, I firmly believe that the world would be a *far* better > place in many ways if sex and reproduction were completely > separated (if nothing else, teenage and accidental pregnancy would > be a thing of the past). At minimum, I think such options should > exist for people who want to make use of them, and from what I've > read about research along these lines, I'm guessing they will exist > in a decade or so. > A decade? Help! We haven't grown up enough yet! I am seriously scared of genetic engineering. I feel that it is moving too fast. So easy to make quick fixes, that then turn out not to be fixes after all. I find it much more appealing to go with Laura Quilter's argument that the point is not to erase differences, but to learn how to live with differences. Monks, dedicated to poverty, nonetheless manage - with almost nothing - to create and recognize distinctions of status, style, wealth: some compete for who has least. We make hierarchies - that's who we are. Do we want to genetically alter that part of ourselves too? What is left when we engineer all the rough corners out of ourselves? (supposing that we can, which I doubt). I presented a study to a sociology class showing that at present rates of intermarriage in the US, the majority within a very few decades will be mixed race. Asian American women are marrying out at over 30%; Black Americans marry out least, but at around 8% (I think) it's still a fairly fast one way street. A Black American woman in my class was the most enthusiastic for this future - she couldn't wait for race to end. I can't help feeling the loss, and that the gains will be minimal: we will still make all the distinctions we want, to make some of us feel like winners and some losers, in physical appearance as well as all the other ways. And if we manage to largely overcome that by the development of a wiser culture, which I believe possible and is evident in many people today, then we needn't have got rid of race to begin with. The existence of race challenges us to become human beings, not racists; the existence of gender challenges us to understand each other. The beauty of feminist and gender politics is that it brings issues of equality, power, respect right into our most personal lives: you may think you can escape race and class by living in your family/community bubble but gender politics is right in the bubble with you. But I guess what will actually happen is that genderless bodies will become an option, and then people will choose which way to go in a genetic engineering marketplace which will include all kinds of cyber powers, exoskeletons, all that stuff and we will continue our massive love affair with technology and with the status it can confer on those that have it. And none of that will help us choose to become more considerate of each other and less hierarchical in the way of Marge Piercy's vision. dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:04:49 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/25/02 3:32:28 AM Central Daylight Time, heather.stark@VIRGIN.NET writes: << But mostly, the people I've known who have been mad in various ways, have become less externally effective because of it. It's romantic to think that they might have seen a nobler and better truth, >> Not to overromanticize madness, but it can be and has been seen as a sacred function. In Connie's case, she wasn't mad, just stepping outside the confines of feminine roles (what man would ever be committed to an insane asylum because he got into a fight with another man?), and lots of people in mental institutions are in there for similar reasons, they got real unlucky in having attention drawn to their 'deviant' behavior. Piercy specifically acknowledges her debt to Mental Patients Liberation Front and others working on those kinds of issues. What we have with Connie is a pretty sane woman who exhibited 'deviant' behavior, vis a vis the female role, got committed to a mental hospital, labeled insane, and driven to the point of actually attacking those experimenting on her, thus a selffulfilling prophecy (interms of the mental health establishment). Things have changed a bit in being able to commit people, but probably not as much as we might like to think. It's also pretty interesting to just think about the use of the word 'mad' - as in crazy or angry, and for women, if you are angry you are also crazy, as far as lots of the world is concerned. Be in the wrong place at the wrong time, particularly of the wrong class or race, and that takes on more than metaphorical reality, which Piercy shows us with Connie. That's not to say lots of people don't need help and are in pain. But the whole question of what is sanity in an insane world is not just a metaphorical or romantic one. It has real consequences in how people are treated. For every psychiatrist who is empathetic and helpful, how many more are just either "doing a job", (and thus willing to go along with who knows what) , or as someone (was it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?, or somewhere else) said, are just assholes with power who have gotten a degree in how to manipulate and control people, and then given the institutions and legal authority to do so? The world is full of people doing jobs, and for every person in any job who is inspired and called to do it, there are tons of people who are just getting by, and in that situation, a kind of implicit fascism exists. Not just psychiatry, but everywhere. It's a sickness that pervades the world we live in. Probably that's part of what Piercy is showing us. I even have to wonder about what the idea of 'externally less effective' means. I see all kinds of people who are considered to be effective and successful who I think are really screwing the world up. Some of them I really think are delusional. But, it's a kind of mass delusion that is considered 'normal' and real and sane. I mean we've got a President who takes a what me worry view of global warming, and ...oh hell, I won't even go on, it's depressing. And is depression a malfunction, or a realistic view of the world? And so on andso forth. I don't mean to harp too much on this, but...well you know, beautiful gentle people are destroyed in this world every day by the externally effective (delusional- my view) powerful. Isn't that what Piercy is showing us (among other things?)? [Just an aside, another interesting book or series of books to read visavis these subjects are:" the Nazi Doctors:Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide", by Robert Jay Lifton, 'The Authoritarian Personality' (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, Sanford), and , as a kind of antidote, 'The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. What Let Ordinary Men andWomen to Risk Their LIves on Behalf of Others?", Oliner and Oliner. The second book is particularly slow going, but the other two are passably well written and full of food for thought. Conformity and fascism, and its relevance to gender and deviance/commitment/insanity are subjects we probably all need to think about in some detail.]-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:04:46 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time / baby labs Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/25/02 7:20:55 AM Central Daylight Time, jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU writes: << but not gender differences...no.... just can't be tolerated for some reason. >> Actually, I think it was one gender difference - the reproductive difference - that was changed or eliminated. That's not to say that I don't think there's room for disagreement with Firestone on this issue. I think the emphasis of Firestone was on power and where it comes from and how it can be changed (to put it very loosely; I'd suggest reading her to get the actually arguments), and the idea that childbirth puts women at a serious disadvantage in many respects. But of course, the question of who controls technology is just as difficult. If you can get the control of technology that you need to make it work in a prowoman or egalitarian way, then you don't necessarily need to change the biology. Firestone was struggling with some of the basic questions of how come women were/are oppressed, and how to end it, and biology and childbirth seemed like a basic situation which resulted in disempowerment. At any rate, it is definitely true that control of women reproductively, and women's right to control their own bodies and reproduction and all that goes with it , are still issues being fought over everyday in the political realm. It's still an essential question, but I think Firestone was kind of begging it by thinking technology could be the solution, because control of technology is the same battle.-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:50:01 +0100 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In reply to Joy's reply to my reply to Joy's reply to Rachel... I agree that, in the book, dissident views and disruptive behaviour are what get Connie locked up. She is angry, and is called 'mad'. And, as Joy says, there are many stories to be told about who this happens to, where, and why. But, to return to the question of whether there a possible reading that Connie has created a richly detailed utopia all by herself, as a way of coping with her repressive and punitive 'treatment'... At the beginning, I found that this was just as plausible as the literal reading that the utopia was intended to be more than a creation of Connie's, which took her over, and started to reach out to affect events in her 'home reality', as well. But, by around the middle, I thought it was somewhat - but not entirely - clear that I had been told by Piercy to not to listen to any stray resonances emerging from the ambiguity of this potential double-reading, and I should instead just sit quiet and believe! believe! believe! I might have liked the book a whole lot better, if I had been able to. -Heather ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:59:27 +0100 Reply-To: "donna.fancourt" Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: "donna.fancourt" Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, I am very much enjoying the discussion of Woman on the Edge of Time, especially the discussion of the *madness* of Connie, which I also see as deliberately ambiguous. There are some critics who have written as though Connie were truly *mad*, seeing her visions as delusional and a result of her schizophrenia, or at the very least, the strong anti-psychotic drugs that she is taking in the hospital. However, I think that to say that Connie is *really* mad is to side with the doctors, who are portrayed as having a distinct lack of insight into Connie's psyche (or anyone else's) and therefore I think that this could be a mistake. Piercy's critique of women's madness, which she draws from the work of Phyllis Chesler and many other mental health campaigners (as Joy notes) is a stinging one, and the narrative encourages a sympathetic reading of Connie's very *rational* reactions to her experiences in the hospital and in Mattapoisett. In an interview published in her collection of essays and interviews 'Part-Coloured Blocks for a Quilt' Piercy confirms that she kept the representation ambiguous on purpose, the interviewer comments, 'Well, the whole thing could be an hallucination, but to me, that doesn't really matter' and Piercy replies, 'It's very carefully kept that way'. Piercy, in my opinion, is saying a lot of things about madness, about the way women can so easily be defined as *mad* when it would be better to see them as angry, unhappy, frustrated and struggling (among other things). I prefer to see Connie's vision of a utopian future as her way of coping with her situation in the psychiatric hospital (fantasy as a means of survival), perhaps also as partly as a product of the strong drugs she is taking (even though she started having the visions before being admitted to hospital) and also that she really does travel to a utopian future through her strong telepathic powers. I think each view on its own is insufficient, but all three can co-exist. There is so much to say on this topic - I find the novel fascinating, and survives a number of different readings and *explanations*. This is a particularly relevant discussion for me, as I am studying madness and altered states of consciousness in relation to contemporary feminist utopian fiction (post 1970s) for my PhD research, inspired initially by Piercy's novel. If anyone has any suggestions of contemporary feminist utopias that deal with madness and altered states I'd be very pleased to hear of them. I have been researching for a while, so have quite a few already, so am aware of the well-known ones, but more obscure novels/stories exist that I don't know of. I'm also less aware of male authored contemporary utopias (post 1970s again) and their treatment of madness and altered states, so would be very happy for anyone to suggest some texts. Sorry for the long post, and thanks for your help in advance, Donna :) ----- Original Message ----- From: Joy Martin To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Woman on the Edge of Time > In a message dated 6/25/02 3:32:28 AM Central Daylight Time, > heather.stark@VIRGIN.NET writes: > > << But mostly, the people I've known who have been mad in various ways, have > become less externally effective because of it. It's romantic to think > that they might have seen a nobler and better truth, >> > Not to overromanticize madness, but it can be and has been seen as a sacred > function. In Connie's case, she wasn't mad, just stepping outside the > confines of feminine roles (what man would ever be committed to an insane > asylum because he got into a fight with another man?), and lots of people in > mental institutions are in there for similar reasons, they got real unlucky > in having attention drawn to their 'deviant' behavior. Piercy specifically > acknowledges her debt to Mental Patients Liberation Front and others working > on those kinds of issues. What we have with Connie is a pretty sane woman who > exhibited 'deviant' behavior, vis a vis the female role, got committed to a > mental hospital, labeled insane, and driven to the point of actually > attacking those experimenting on her, thus a selffulfilling prophecy (interms > of the mental health establishment). Things have changed a bit in being able > to commit people, but probably not as much as we might like to think. > > It's also pretty interesting to just think about the use of the word 'mad' - > as in crazy or angry, and for women, if you are angry you are also crazy, as > far as lots of the world is concerned. Be in the wrong place at the wrong > time, particularly of the wrong class or race, and that takes on more than > metaphorical reality, which Piercy shows us with Connie. > > That's not to say lots of people don't need help and are in pain. But the > whole question of what is sanity in an insane world is not just a > metaphorical or romantic one. It has real consequences in how people are > treated. For every psychiatrist who is empathetic and helpful, how many more > are just either "doing a job", (and thus willing to go along with who knows > what) , or as someone (was it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?, or > somewhere else) said, are just assholes with power who have gotten a degree > in how to manipulate and control people, and then given the institutions and > legal authority to do so? The world is full of people doing jobs, and for > every person in any job who is inspired and called to do it, there are tons > of people who are just getting by, and in that situation, a kind of implicit > fascism exists. Not just psychiatry, but everywhere. It's a sickness that > pervades the world we live in. Probably that's part of what Piercy is showing > us. > > I even have to wonder about what the idea of 'externally less effective' > means. I see all kinds of people who are considered to be effective and > successful who I think are really screwing the world up. Some of them I > really think are delusional. But, it's a kind of mass delusion that is > considered 'normal' and real and sane. I mean we've got a President who takes > a what me worry view of global warming, and ...oh hell, I won't even go on, > it's depressing. And is depression a malfunction, or a realistic view of the > world? And so on andso forth. > > I don't mean to harp too much on this, but...well you know, beautiful gentle > people are destroyed in this world every day by the externally effective > (delusional- my view) powerful. Isn't that what Piercy is showing us (among > other things?)? > > [Just an aside, another interesting book or series of books to read visavis > these subjects are:" the Nazi Doctors:Medical Killing and the Psychology of > Genocide", by Robert Jay Lifton, 'The Authoritarian Personality' (Adorno, > Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, Sanford), and , as a kind of antidote, 'The > Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. What Let Ordinary > Men andWomen to Risk Their LIves on Behalf of Others?", Oliner and Oliner. > The second book is particularly slow going, but the other two are passably > well written and full of food for thought. Conformity and fascism, and its > relevance to gender and deviance/commitment/insanity are subjects we probably > all need to think about in some detail.]-Joy > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:48:47 -0400 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Gwen Veazey Subject: Woman on the Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C21E91.61851CC0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C21E91.61851CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, As always, I am enjoying the discussion on our book. I found _WotEoT _a = chore to get into, but well worth the effort. Yes, the future scenes are = expository, but this is one of the most complete and satisfying visions = of a feminist utopia with which I am familiar. I couldn't help but = wonder if a novel like this with so much exposition would have trouble = getting published now.=20 I liked Connie, also. Not the perfect, lovely heroine but a woman of = substance. I do wish she had left something in writing to = explain/defend/enlighten about her murderous actions and sent it to the = newspaper! Thanks to all who have personally shared. Dave, do you miss monthly = periods, too? During my sleepless years of nursing babies, I often = wished my husband's nipples worked. (I did relent and let him give = bottles of Similac without iron to them sometimes.) Best to all, Gwen ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C21E91.61851CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

As always, I am enjoying the discussion on our book. I found _WotEoT = _a chore=20 to get into, but well worth the effort. Yes, the future scenes are = expository,=20 but this is one of the most complete and satisfying visions of a = feminist utopia=20 with which I am familiar. I couldn=92t help but wonder if a novel like = this with=20 so much exposition would have trouble getting published now.

I liked Connie, also. Not the perfect, lovely heroine but a woman of=20 substance. I do wish she had left something in writing to=20 explain/defend/enlighten about her murderous actions and sent it to the=20 newspaper!

Thanks to all who have personally shared. Dave, do you miss monthly = periods,=20 too? During my sleepless years of nursing babies, I often wished my = husband=92s=20 nipples worked. (I did relent and let him give bottles of Similac = without iron=20 to them sometimes.)

Best to all,

Gwen

 

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C21E91.61851CC0-- --- [DirectUs Mail Server (2)]