Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0207B" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:28:13 -0500 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: Robin Reid Subject: Re: Ozark Trilogy Haden 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"; format=flowed At 07:39 PM 07/06/2002 +1000, Maire wrote: >How long ago is it that you read the books (the >Ozark trilogy) ? I'd have to check the "copyright dates" on my old, first edition, paperbacks to answer that -- but it was a while ago; however, I have consistently read and re-read Elgin, as I do a few other writers, because her work is so superb. (She also publishes popular linguistics books in THE GENTLE ART OF VERBAL SELF DEFENSE which makes use of a lot of the the ideas which are explored in her novels -- she earned her Ph.D. in linguistics so it's no surprise that is her "science"-- note how often communication is "analyzed" in the novels. The Ozark trilogy covers, among other thing, the whole issue of how a culture would maintain some aspects of its language (when the nature of language is to change), and how different registers (or dialects) are used by different people: Granny speech, high falutin' speech (used by the magicians?), and of course in this trilogy the RULES of magic are based on Noam Choamsky's transformational grammar! >I am pleased I will have someone to discuss them with when >I start reading them. Is it a... "true" trilogy, or more like a book in >three parts? Unlike the NATIVE TONGUE trilogy (linked but not about the same characters or close in chronology), the OZARK trilogy (which does have a "fourth" novel in it as another poster noted) is a true trilogy and can be read as one book in three parts although it was originally published in three books. >I mean- I never read the sequels to Native Tongue, so obviously >it is a "real" trilogy, Ah, problems with what trilogy means to different people! There is a resolution of sorts to each novel in the O trilogy, but the overall plot is resolved only by the third novel. >wheras, to me, Xenogenesis was more of a long book >in three parts. I see the O trilogy as "tighter" than the Xenogenesis books which shift protagonists in each novel -- Responsible of Brightwater is the MAIN and POINT OF VIEW character (until SPOILER**** * * * * * * she is put in a coma). The other main characters are linked young women, including Troublesome (Responsible's sister), and a cousin of Responsible's whose name I forget but who appears in the first novel. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:35:04 -0500 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: Robin Reid Subject: Re: Ozark Trilogy Haden, plus various waffles 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"; format=flowed MAIRE WROTE: A. I havent read them >yet, so i am not familiar with the names etc that you mentioned (Coyote >Jones etc) but I am guessing that you are referring to different story >lines within the actual books? Or is it another of her books? Is Yonder >Comes the Other ENd of Time one of the books in teh trilogy, or is an >additional book? I'm not sure the books are in print at the moment -- as was the case in earlier years, a lot of paperback sf went out of print. COYOTE JONES refers to another series (three or four novels), a comic feminist spoof of a galactic spy hero (coming from a totally egalitarian society who is sent to a couple of backward planets where women are oppressed although gender is not always the main focus of each one). IN this future, everyone has psychic powers although Coyote is mind-blind in certain ways (he cannot communiate telepathically, if I recall correctly, but he can PROJECT major illusions which is part of his work), and he's a specialist in 20th century America....in YONDER COMES THE OTHER END OF TIME, Coyote meets Responsible of Brightwater -- and the whole problem of the lost colony is a major part of that plot. >Re your point about the sf about splitting off of distinct cultures- I have >always found sf interesting, that explores that idea.. I guess one of the >most common is the minority group given a planet to colonise, its *such* a >common theme, Elgin's point in a number of her novels is that Ozark culture is a MINORITY culture (not restricting "minority" to a racial category). She's not blind to the sexism in that culture (as the OZARK trilogy shows), but her essays and work focus a lot on that issue of preserving a minority culture and how much of that effort is related to language. She has recorded folk songs as well...i have a couple of tapes. Maybe I will get stuck into the Vorkosigan >universe- I get put off by the male protagonist though- or would I get over >that? A male protagonist who is under five feet tall with brittle bones and who is 'gendered' Other/feminine by his culture because of his physical disabilities (on Barrayar, "mutants" were routinely killed by their mothers during the Time of Isolation and while Miles is not a mutant, he is perceived as such because of his physical disabilities)...and don't ignore the OTHER major female characters (Miles is a lot more comfortable with women, I think, than with most other males). >I loved cordelia's Honour, for me it would be perfect if she was the >protagonist of the whole series. Or will I "fall in love" with Miles? I did! (And with Coyote Jones. I don't want to define "feminist sf" as female protagonist only because there are a lot of books out there with female protagonists that I see as totally upholding the patriarchal norms -- feminism is NOT restricted only to women, and concepts of masculinity have to change as well -- so it's worth taking a look at male protagonists by feminist writers -- I consider both Elgin and Bujold to be feminist writers in the sense of using feminist ideas even if neither would necessarily self-identify in that way). Robin > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Lee Anne Phillips > > Sent: Saturday, 6 July 2002 12:09 PM > > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Ozark Trilogy Haden > > > > > > You might also be interested in Yonder Comes the Other End of Time, > > which brings together the Ozark story with the Coyote Jones storyline > > for the first and only time. > > > > This general theme, the splitting off of distinct cultures from Earth has > > been investigated by many authors, from Blish's Cities in Flight stories, > > to Dickson's Splintered Cultures, to the execrable and tedious Herbert > > and pseudo-Herbert Dune interminablia, to Smith's fascinating and > > complex Instrumentality of Man stories. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:42:23 -0500 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: Robin Reid Subject: Re: KIN OF ATA 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"; format=flowed > >Yes, some years back. An underground classic for years. Still available I >think through either Ata Press (the authors press) or perhaps now through >Feminist Press or the like. Once the transition is made into the alternate >reality, the book is completely about (at least, as I remember) that and the >transformation of the rapist who has stumbled into that reality. I really >need to reread this book. The opening is hard for some, as it is rape from >the rapists view, pretty vile stuff, but that's to show us the change that >comes about. The opening was a bit controversial , perhaps still is .-Joy > >"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin I read this book several times for my dissertation since I was including "feminist sf" -- and found it one of THE most irritating books. I'm not against male protagonists in sf, but my problem with the book (OK, I didn't like the main character, but I don't think it's because he's a male: he's a rotten creep, and his "change" is just too much and not justified) was the extent to which the "minority" culture (weren't the people in the culture dark-skinned?) was there to "redeem" the white guy....I found the racial politics unsettling (as has been pointed out about some aspects of seventies feminist rhetoric -- the extent to which "slavery" of African American was used as a "metaphor" for white women's oppression, etc.). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:26:25 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: Body of Glass/ He She It Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear everyone, Please accept my apologies for my late kick off for HSI... I have been offline for two weeks through moving house and so have missed a lot of discussion. I will do my introduction to HSI and if folk have started without me I'll catch up. He She It, known as Body of Glass in the UK is IMO Piercy's companion to Woman on the Edge of Time... but this time it is the anti-future that has become inevitable. Corporations rule an environmentally degredated world... we are stuck in a cyber punk future. It is here that the twists begin - for although many of the sights and sounds of cyberpunk are with us the atmosphere is very different. This is a book about the nature of resistance, the spirit of the opressed and about the concequences that choices of violence/ non-violence have on the soul of our resistance. This is also - as cada to the first theme I mentioned - a book about the nature of the soul, about the concequences of owning and using concious beings in conscription to resistance, however worthy the cause. I find the themes of HSI much thicker and more murky than Woman on... I am more lost among competing moral imperatives than blissed out on a blueprint for a world I can live in. To begin I want to explore the themes of violence/ non-violence as demonstrated in Jewish ethics and culture... as presented here and [if we can do it with respect] in relation to Palestine/ Israel at present. In Tikva and in Prague we have Jewish men confounding stereotyped expectations and engaging in armed resistance. In both cases a fragile community may perish without such choices - yet each must bind up his empathy to create a golem ... a creature who's status as a concious being must be disregarded for the sake of the people the golem must protect. At present many comentators are shocked that a nation birthed from the experiences of the holocaust can make choices to opress others... yet many Jewish historians point to a more complex history where oposing desires for peace and revenge have resulted in armed resistance, and the perpetuation of less justifiable violence against others. A Jewish history of Gangsters and warriors as well as saints [sic?]intelectuals and liberation philosophers. I don't have any clear answers yet but I wonder what choices I would make in such impossible circumstances. OK a few questions to answer or not: In what ways is HSI a feminist book... in terms of a critique of masculinity/ militarism How do we reconcile a peoples' freedom fighting with the use of owned beings... should Yod and Joseph have the same rights as human persons and is the discussion of rights applicable in this situation. What do we make of the female characters different ways of resisting... Malka the cyberwitch, Rikva the assasin, Nili the superdyke and Shira the mother pushed to act? so... over to you, sorry for the lack of a spellcheck! and I hope to catch up soon. ByeBye Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:28:41 +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: KIN OF ATA 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 Interesting diversity of reactions... I read this recently because of something nice someone said about it on the list, a while back. I'm glad I did. At the time I read it, it was useful for me to read about the possibility of personal redemption from the excesses of purely materialist culture and associated anti-social behaviour. The personal context here was that someone had just pressed the 'eject' button on my job as one of the few senior-ish females employed at a local marble and glass temple of capitalism. So there I was, travelling through the air, spinning around, hoping not to crash land too hard - and by coincidence (or was it more than that?) - it was a good moment to extract some personal comfort from the book. Sometimes a book really hits hard because it is just the thing for the moment. Then later, sometimes it remains a favourite, and sometimes it's...'ugh how could I have'. For those who found it 'irritating' and 'tedious' - er, yes, I do understand what you mean. I'll be interested in having another look at it in a few years, to see what it feels like then. Heather p.s. re - Robin's comment about disliking the book's treatment of race - my recollection is that the inhabitants were kind of bit of this and a bit of that, rather than any particular homogeneous type? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:44:34 -0500 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: Robin Reid Subject: Re: KIN OF ATA Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <000c01c226be$289832a0$e61b0150@hashome> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >p.s. re - Robin's comment about disliking the book's treatment of race - my >recollection is that the inhabitants were kind of bit of this and a bit of >that, rather than any particular homogeneous type? I'm sure you're right - that they were not any specific "race" currently existing, but still in terms of "color" and "technological level," it's still easy enough to see the binary of White(male western materialist) "redeemed" by the primitive Other -- and that idea that a "minority" race exists to "redeem" the mainstream Oppressor has been current for some years. Since there is only one human race, the fact is that all ideas of different "races" are social constructs, but those social constructions of "race" are very real in their effects on human beings. A lot of sf criticism analyzes how the "different alien species" reveal mainstream attitudes about race in America....lots in STAR TREK criticism about this topic. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:40:30 -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: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Body of Glass/ He She It Comments: To: Feminist SF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:26 PM 7/8/02 -0400, Rachel Wild wrote: >To begin I want to explore the themes of violence/ non-violence as >demonstrated in Jewish ethics and culture... as presented here and [if we >can do it with respect] in relation to Palestine/ Israel at present. It's an interesting problem. I find myself conflicted on all levels. On the one hand, I want to believe the traditional Passover story and focus on justice and liberation, since that's the way it's presented every year and is the most flattering interpretation; but the first part of the story is often forgotten, that Joseph made it possible for the Pharaoh impoverish and enslave the Egyptian people while Joseph and his people were enriched at the expense of others. That the later "enslavement" of the Hebrews was in some sense a case of "what goes around, comes around." And the reported enslavement is somewhat problematical when one considers that they are supposed to have left with several tonnes of gold and silver, herds of cattle and flocks of sheep and goats, weapons of war, and other household goods. There are odd appurtenances to be found among slaves. Are we hearing the *whole* story here? We know we're not since the voices of women are often absent. A whole series of questions that women would raise, perhaps *did* raise, are left unrecorded and unheeded. As far as we can tell from reading the story, men stood alone at Sinai, while the women were safely at home dusting the furniture and arranging their hair, but the Rabbis take pains to make it clear that we were *all* there, despite the fact that the men who wrote down the story mostly didn't notice, forgot to mention their names, or perhaps didn't know. Nowhere, I think, is the continuing conflict between the forces of violence and the inclination to peace more evident than in the complex relationship of the descendents of Abraham and Sarah to G-d as depicted in Tanach and thousands of years of collected commentary and tradition. Despite the obvious second class treatment of women in Torah, the narrative is moved along in large part by women. Despite bloodthirsty pronouncements and unspeakably cruel actions from time to time, the overall trend is toward loving kindness and compassion. Marge Piercy is very conscious in much of her work of this movement toward encouraging the inclination of all people to good and discouraging that inclination that leads toward evil. She's a member of the Reconstructionist Movement in Judaism, which seeks to preserve the heart of Judaism, our culture, practices, beliefs, and ritual while responding to the modern world. When we light Sabbath and festival candles, we have at our backs a spiritual lineage of women going back many thousands of years, a span of time so great that here in America, at least, where a mere hundred years is halfway to antiquity, it boggles the mind. In Judaism we have a religion and culture that was old when the Roman Empire was young, and who, going back along one's family tree for more than five thousand years doesn't find (if it were possible to look) more than a few rogues, murderers, and criminals among the wished-for saints? I think Piercy's novels don't shy away from complexity and ambiguity because it's honest, and honesty is one of the first things one notices about our history. The people in the Torah narrative are presented, for the most part, with their flaws *and* strengths intact. It's precisely the need to wrest our own meaning from these subtle stories that makes them rich enough to stand the test of time. If Esther can be viewed as a heroine, why so can Vashti. As valid a case for seeing a feminist lesson in Esther as can be made as seeing a lesson in courage and humility. For Vashti was perhaps even more courageous than Esther, since she undoubtedly knew that her self-respecting response to the King would result in her death. The Rabbis jump through considerable hoops to make her out to look bad, because they wanted to make Esther look good, but the real situation looks much more grey than black and white when one really reads the story and ignores the jingoist celebration. Viewed in the cold light of day, Mordecai looks more like an whiny opportunist than a hero, and the result of the King's revised "justice" is to kill one group of people *instead* of another, not to stop the killing entirely. Once Esther faces the risk of death alone, Mordecai smoothly moves in to take the credit and arrange everything to his liking. It's never been *just* Jewish men, although they often like to think so. In the Warsaw Ghetto, armed women wanted to run to the woods and form an armed resistance while the men wanted to protect their homes and, to be fair, those who couldn't run. The women stood by the men and essentially all were lost. Which choice was best? I know what my own answer might be today but I don't know what might have looked best at the time. Every choice was fraught with peril. I think the women's choice *might* have been best, because it *might* have preserved the lives of some who otherwise perished, *might* even have shortened the war and preserved lives unknown to the Warsaw fighters, but hindsight is always considerably more reliable than foresight. Some things must be done for mere survival. Some choices only make sense in the context of preserving the power to make better choices at some future time. When one reads most foundation stories, one reads a "sanitized" and bowdlerized tract rather than anything that seems like real history. While we may now focus on intellectualism and mercantilism in Jewish history, other threads have always been present. Some of our greatest teachers have been simple laborers, farmers and woodcutters are more common than bankers and doctors, warriors have always been there, lurking in the background, while our attention is cleverly drawn to chanting scholars on fire for the word of G-d and their secular counterparts who pursue the life of the mind rather than that of the sword or the plow. >I don't have any clear answers yet but I wonder what choices I would make >in such impossible circumstances. > >OK a few questions to answer or not: > >In what ways is HSI a feminist book... in terms of a critique of >masculinity/ militarism > >How do we reconcile a peoples' freedom fighting with the use of owned >beings... should Yod and Joseph have the same rights as human persons and >is the discussion of rights applicable in this situation. It's fairly easy, I think. While the Hebrews "escaped" from slavery, this didn't seem to make them *much* wiser than their slave-holding neighbors. Or, if it did, it took a long time for the lesson to sink in. When the Ameican Colonies rebelled against the British Crown, slave-holding was perfectly legal and acceptable. There's an elaborate system of accounting for the lesser value of slaves in figuring population embedded in the Constitution, an odd feature to be found in a statement "democratic" principles. The Constitution was based, in part, on the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, yet dropped the rights of women as too radical for a society still in thrall to the rights of the Petty King (husband) in "his" household. It wasn't by accident that the first convention on the rights of women was held in Seneca Falls, the heart of the Iroquois Confederacy; the five nations of the Iroquois were the Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Cayuga, and Onondaga and the women who convened the Convention on Women's Rights knew it well. Even in "our" democracy, a state not shared by the majority of the world's inhabitants, we still retain "ownership" of things that ought to be free or held in common. While we may have better access to justice than many, that access is not perfect. There is still the opportunity to work toward the repair of the world and our unshared social order. >What do we make of the female characters different ways of resisting... >Malka the cyberwitch, Rikva the assasin, Nili the superdyke and Shira the >mother pushed to act? If these women asked the four questions, what would those questions be? I think a parallel can be drawn between the new liberation haggadot, especially feminist haggadot, and Piercy's story. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:29:24 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: More waffles 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 7/7/02 10:31:23 PM Central Daylight Time, leeanne@LEEANNE.COM writes: << That sounds right to me,but I'd have to reread it. The ordinaryness of >rapists is part of what's so creepy.-Joy But surely not surprising. >> No it's not surprising, it's ordinary as you go on to point out in detail. <> Obviously I do not agree it's a dreary read, although I haven't read it in a while (probably 30 years in fact). But it doesn't deny male misogyny, it posits a world where even a misogynist born and bred in our world can be transformed, i.e., another take on egalitarian futures/alternate realities.-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:29:26 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: KIN OF ATA 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 7/8/02 10:38:10 AM Central Daylight Time, Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU writes: << extent to which the "minority" culture (weren't the people in the culture dark-skinned?) was there to "redeem" the white guy....I found the racial politics unsettling (as has been pointed out about some aspects of seventies feminist rhetoric -- the extent to which "slavery" of African American was used as a "metaphor" for white women's oppression, etc.). >> Well, it's hard to address this since it's been so long since I've read it. I don't know if you mean the Ata culture is symbolic of a 'minority' culture, since as far as the book goes, the inhabitants of Ata are the majority in their world. It's largely because they are, and hold the power of that reality, that they are able to insist that the man who arrives from 'our world' change. Without getting too bent out of shape about it. As I recall (and as I say, memory is a bit hazy ), that was one of the interesting things - these people didn't put a great deal of energy into this guy, other than not tolerating his bad behavior, and he ended up changing because of facing the totally different set of priorities and beliefs he encountered. So, if memory serves, I'd say what Bryant is positing is, what happens if a man, a sexist pig, even, gets plopped down into the middle of a culture which is totally egalitarian and doesn't even give a damn about all the dichotomies etc in his mind. Is such a person able to change, even if they start from a misogynist childhood, etc? Or, not so much asking, can they, but showing how it might happen.. This is a bit different from positing how to get to a future where a whole misogynist culture is changed. It's a different question and it's worth thinking about, like almost everything Bryant writes. And I think it is a challenge to read, because usually Bryant doesn't fit any particular line, she just tells her story as it is most truthful to tell it. Having said that, it may be that if I'd reread it, I'd be saying something different. But personally, I think it's probably a good thing that people find this book 'irritating'. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:48:12 +0200 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: =?iso-8859-1?q?Castiello=20Restituta?= Subject: OFF TOPIC: Women and borders Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-738345182-1026244092=:60036" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --0-738345182-1026244092=:60036 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everyone, I'm a member of this mailing list from about two years now but seldomly have taken part to discussions although I always have enjoyed reading the threads. I'm sorry for posting this off-topic mail but although it is not exactly the right place maybe someone of you can help me. I'm collaborating with some professors of the Istituto Universitario Orientale of Naples, Italy at the construction of a site for a project that has been sponsored by the government dealing with women and multiculturalism. The subject of the project is "Women and Multiculturalism: Hybrid Languages, Divided Identities". We are looking for some on-topic sites to be listed in the "link" section of our site. Does anyone of you know anything existing on the web dealing with this topic, with special regard for the subject "women and borders"?This last one is the subject on which the efforts of researchers are mainly focused. Any help will be highly appreciated. Thanks and regards Restituta --------------------------------- Scarica il nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: con webcam, nuove faccine e tante altre novità! --0-738345182-1026244092=:60036 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

  Hi everyone,

I'm a member of this mailing list from about two years now but seldomly have taken part to discussions although I always have enjoyed reading the threads. I'm sorry for posting this off-topic mail but although it is not exactly the right place maybe someone of you can help me. I'm collaborating with some professors of the Istituto Universitario Orientale of Naples, Italy at the construction of a site for a project that has been sponsored by the government dealing with women and multiculturalism. The subject of the project is "Women and Multiculturalism: Hybrid Languages, Divided Identities". We are looking for some on-topic sites to be listed in the "link" section of our site. Does anyone of you know anything existing on the web dealing with this topic, with special regard for the subject "women and borders"?This last one is the subject on which the efforts of researchers are mainly focused. Any help will be highly appreciated.

Thanks and regards

Restituta

 


Scarica il nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: con webcam, nuove faccine e tante altre novità! --0-738345182-1026244092=:60036-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:23:23 -0500 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: Robin Reid Subject: Re: KIN OF ATA Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <122.13d0f6fe.2a5b7a56@cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:29 PM 07/08/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Well, it's hard to address this since it's been so long since I've read it. I >don't know if you mean the Ata culture is symbolic of a 'minority' culture, >since as far as the book goes, the inhabitants of Ata are the majority in >their world. It's largely because they are, and hold the power of that >reality, that they are able to insist that the man who arrives from 'our >world' change. Without getting too bent out of shape about it. As I recall >(and as I say, memory is a bit hazy ), that was one of the interesting things >- these people didn't put a great deal of energy into this guy, other than >not tolerating his bad behavior, and he ended up changing because of facing >the totally different set of priorities and beliefs he encountered. So, if >memory serves, I'd say what Bryant is positing is, what happens if a man, a >sexist pig, even, gets plopped down into the middle of a culture which is >totally egalitarian and doesn't even give a damn about all the dichotomies >etc in his mind. Is such a person able to change, even if they start from a >misogynist childhood, etc? Or, not so much asking, can they, but showing how >it might happen.. This is a bit different from positing how to get to a >future where a whole misogynist culture is changed. It's a different question >and it's worth thinking about, like almost everything Bryant writes. And I >think it is a challenge to read, because usually Bryant doesn't fit any >particular line, she just tells her story as it is most truthful to tell it. >Having said that, it may be that if I'd reread it, I'd be saying something >different. But personally, I think it's probably a good thing that people >find this book 'irritating'. -Joy Very interesting points -- doesn't make me like my "memory" of the book any better, but proves again that multiple readings are not only possible but absolutely necessary to understand any text.......Robin >"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety >deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:22:40 +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: Angela Barclay Subject: cyborg politics: He, She & It Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >How do we reconcile a peoples' freedom fighting with the use of owned >beings... should Yod and Joseph have the same rights as human persons and >is the discussion of rights applicable in this situation. Joseph and Yod were created to be supersoldiers like so many of the cyborgs in our popular culture (the Terminator . . . Robocop . . . Max and her cohorts on "Dark Angel" . . .) and then snuffed out because they fulfilled their obligations too well. In my opinion their deaths were akin to being put to sleep by "parents" (or pet owners) who were not willing to take responsibility and properly train their offspring. What do you think? It seems to me that Piercy created them through her Drs. Frankenstein and then had an abrupt change of heart at the end. I thought Shira's flirting with the idea to recreate Yod was an awkward ending. It also seemed that the ideas it is immoral and cruel to create a conscious weapon and wrong to manufacture a sentient servant occur to the characters as an afterthought. While Joseph and Yod have undeniably dangerous propensities, they also show equally as strong capabilities to care for and nurture others. Their flaws perhaps made them even more human. I'm interested in hearing what others thought of the ending and of the fate of the golems. Piercy acknowleges that Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto influenced her writing. Haraway celebrates the cyborg as being a hybrid creature which inhabits both fantasy and reality and serves to collapse the boundaries and binary oppositions (he/she, human/machine, self/other, inside/outside, nature /culture) inherent in patriarchy. FSF scholar Jenny Wolmark claims "Haraway's cyborg metaphor is a playful but deeply political response to a perceived need to contruct other, inclusive narratives in which diversity and difference are significant rather than peripheral. The subjectivities could, therefore, be regarded as its most valuable characteristic and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons for its continued usefulness in feminist and cultural theory (1999, p. 6)." While Piercy may have been influenced by Haraway's work, I don't see that _He, She and It_ celebrates cyborg politics. Agreements? Disagreements? At the same time I don't like that the golems were killed off, I am conflicted as to whether they should have be allowed to be self-governing or to create more of their kind and as such be given "human rights." Here we run into a common theme in SF: the fear of being taken over by technology. To tell you the truth I am also conflicted as to whether Avram or The Maharal had the right to create Yod and Joseph in the first place- to "serve and protect" anyways. I guess that's the beauty of FSF: it gets us thinking about our own rights and dangerous propensities. Last summer, when I was struggling with Haraway's cyberfeminism, members kindly pointed out the following sites: >Donna Haraway's _The Cyborg Manifesto_ is available here: >. > >You may also want to check out > > >>Janet Abbate uses some cyborg stories to teach the history of technology >>http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/Faculty/JAbbate/cybo >>rg/ >> >>a list of fiction and criticism >>http://www.clovis.cc.nm.us/la/beenm/research/CyborgCrit.html >>Or, try Sandy Stone's homepage for some interesting theory re body / >>hybridity / etc >>http://sandystone.com/ Thanks for hearing me out- I find this cyborg business fascinating but confusing. I'd love to hear your thoughts on cyborg consciousness . . . politics . . . Angela ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:48:00 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: KIN OF ATA Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reread this book over the last couple of days just to refresh my memory. Although this is off topic of the current book, just wanted to put two more bits in (and then hopefully shut up:>)) Have to say I was impressed as ever by the quiet way Bryant builds her story. The only thing tedious (to my mind) would be the slow movement of the middle section, where she describes the unfolding of the man's (and our) understanding of Ata. In fact I found this quite effective, since the point was to see the many subtle and not so subtle resistances not only of the person telling the story, but of any of us who are 'separated from Ata'. But since this was first published in 1971 as the Comforter, I'd have to say it presages Piercy and many others in many of its themes. An interesting contrast to Woman on the Edge of Time , in that Ata is a seemingly 'low tech' world, which actually exists on our own planet, but in fact, through the dreaming, keeps our planet from total destruction. Like WOTEOT, Atans share all childrearing and possess no one, but childbirth takes place in the natural 'lowtech' fashion. Entry into Ata takes place through some kind of psychic transplantation, similarly to WOTEOT, although until the last third or so of the book it appears that this entry is completely physical, rather than temporary and somehow not completely physical, as it was in WOTEOT. In both books, men and women manage to live together in an egalitarian fashion, and it is only through the complete discipline of the Atans and their refusal to engage in 'donagdeo' activities, that the man telling the story of this transformation is able to reach his own. This is one major distinction between the two stories, in that in WOTEOT, war, albeit on a distant front, and capital punishment for repeat offenders, exists. In Ata, this would have been 'donagdeo', undermining all they value and their principal purpose in life. Also similarly to WOTEOT, the question of whether or not Ata is real or delusion comes up, but unlike with Pierce, is answered strongly in the affirmative as real. I love the challenge of this book to believe in our dreams. Bryant has said this was a Jungian approach. By interesting coincidence, I've been reading Jung lately, and have found some of his remarks on the shadows arising in times of crisis, sweeping through whole nations with mass delusions , particularly relevant to current world events. So rather than seeing Bryant as naive or Ata as 'innocent', I think it is timely as ever. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin