On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:28:02 -0500 Neil Rest wrote:
> From: Neil Rest <NeilRest@TEZCAT.COM>
> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:28:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Like Water for Chocolate
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> Lorie G Sauble-Otto <lorie@U.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:
> >Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in
with a
> >discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We
need to
> >begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to
realize the
> >evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is
based on a
> >masculinist construct.
>
> Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is
sexist.
> Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the
sense of
> method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly
sexist
> about "hard science"?
>
> And as to the genre, are you saying that hard sf has been sexist
(which is
> pretty much inarguable!), or are you saying, much more broadly,
that
> "genre" is somehow sexist?
>
>
> Hoping that in requesting greater clarity I've been clear myself,
> Neil Rest
Neil is right I feel. I want the right to take on whatever approaches
feel valuable. I am also wary of any approach which condemns by
association. Hard sf does not have to be sexist. It claims, after all, an
objectivity. That it does not always live up to this is something that
can be worked on, and in fact the genre demands that it be worked
on.
John Huntingdon's book, Rationalising Genius, makes this point very
carefully in an analysis of The Cold Equations, a story which relies
on our acceptance of a spurious logic and objectivity. Hard sf done
well ought to be able to deal with the social structure as it is and as it
may be, sexism is *not* intrinsic in the genre.
Farah.
ps. please could people rememer to change headings when they
change topics. Much of this debate is going on under Like Water For
Chocolate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT