On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:26:49 -0500 Martha Bartter wrote:
> From: Martha Bartter <MBARTTER@TRUMAN.EDU>
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:26:49 -0500
> Subject: Re: feminist utopia/dystopia
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> 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
The Dispossessed may be an amibguous utopia, but the ambiguity
discussed is not its limitations in gender equality.
I am beginning to sound hostile to the book which is not the intention,
I just wouldn't teach or represent it as a feminist text.
Farah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:05 PDT