At 18:11 4/22/97 BST, you wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:49:58 -0500 Heather Whipple wrote:
>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
>
I don't see _The Dispossessed_ as anyone's "utopia." Le Guin calls
it "ambiguous," and I would agree. Certainly women don't get treated
worse on Anarres than men do but men don't get treated very well.
No individuality allowed (if it looks like a "propertarian" individuality).
Very little humor. Conditions on Urras may be worse -- no one on
Anarres starves unless they all do, for example, and the blatant
antifeminism we see among the elite doesn't occur there either, but
the rigidity of the thinking patterns and the demand that everyone
conform to the collective ethic simply demonstrates the reverse of
American individuality. And I think that's why Le Guin calls it
"ambiguous." No extreme works very well -- we may be reaching the
extreme of alienation that comes with individualism carried to the
nth degree -- but the kind of collective pattern followed, say, in
Japan or China, where "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"
is pretty hard on the non-conformists (and it doesn't take much to
attain that designation).
If we assume that a female utopia achieves gender equality in jobs and
pay and respect and opportunity and general honor, then we must assume
a utopia where motherhood (which is the woman's privilege) gets honored
-- whether it's paid or not. So we can't call the US any kind of female
utopia, no matter how much better things are for women than they were a
few dozen years ago. If we insist that a female utopia allows women to
treat men the way men have treated women for so long, we envision a
reversal -- different in kind, but not in character -- from Le Guin's
The Dispossessed.
Martha Bartter
Truman State University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:05 PDT