On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:49:58 -0500 Heather Whipple wrote:
> I am not on the SFRA list and don't know what was discussed there
(are
> many people on both lists? Is repetition a problem?) so I echo
Emily's
> request to Farrah for elaboration on the statement that _The
Dispossessed_
> is unequivocally NOT feminist. While I wouldn't say it is a perfect
> feminist utopia, it does question some sexist assumptions. It is
> primarily interested in exploring anarchy and not feminism, but this
comes
> back to the point I raised in my earlier post, that it is not a simple
> thing to determine what is feminist and what isn't (i.e. seems to me
that
> anarchy and some feminisms share some common goals). The
book's subtitle,
> "An Ambiguous Utopia," suggests that what may be revolutionary
(or
> feminist), for one person/planet may not be for another--as well as
> addressing up front (so to speak) that it might not be utopia at all.
>
> TD explores structures of power, and while it also contains some
> essentialism and does also portray a sexist society, I would still
argue
> that that focus on power relations and property politics does make
it at
> least partly feminist. I certainly don't see that Le Guin believes
"when
> the revolution comes everything will be ok"; her point is exactly the
> opposite--that revolution needs to be an on-going process. The
problems
> on Anarres are precisely *because* people have become
complacent.
>
> ***************
> Heather Whipple
> hwhipple@script.lib.indiana.edu
My point is not that The Dispossessed has no feminist elements, but
that it is not a feminist utopia. I still feel tho' that Le Guin speculates
very poorly where women are concerned and that whilst I admire her
work, she is very behindhand in this area compared to even many
male writers. It simply isn't her strong point: she tends to take up
others' ideas and use them well, but her political strengths are
elsewhere.
farah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:04 PDT