Anny Middon wrote:
>
> (Query: How many on this list are old enough to remember when Feminism was
> more commonly known as Women's Liberation?)
>
Hi, Anny. I certainly do. While I'm not old enough to have been a
suffragette, I'm definitely old enough to have been a Women's Libber, as
they liked to call us then.
> Actually, I ask that for a reason. I'd like opinions on Susan Calvin, Isaac
[snipped for brevity]
>
> The defining characteristic of Dr. Calvin, mentioned at least once in every
> story in which she appears, is her unattractiveness. At some level (and I
> think this may be directly stated in at least one story) Asimov seems to be
> saying that the only reason Dr. Calvin is a success in her field is because
> she couldn't attract a man.
Maybe he was also trying to make it clear that she was not a bimbo.
Women had little place in many of the early SF stories, and all too
frequently they were just the stereotypical mad scientist's daughter,
there just to provide an excuse for the expository lump and to need
rescuing from the brave (and always male) hero. In some ways, it's
easier, even now, for a non-attractive woman to be taken seriously by
men (speaks the fat, conventionally unattractive woman). Perhaps Dr.
Calvin's more beautiful counterpart was unable to get such a job, men
being convinced that anyone that good looking could also not be so
intelligent.
>
> OK, in the years since these stories were written, I've changed, times have
> changed, ideas about women have changed. If we view these stories in the
> light of the times in which they were written, do they seem so sexist? Did
> Asimov have to make Calvin unattractive and acerbic so that a woman in such a
> high position would be believable to his readers?
>
I would not consider them sexist, given their context. I've mentioned
why I thought she may have been written to be unattractive. As to
acerbic, who wouldn't be in her position?
Another thing which helps support this, I think, is the lack of medical
studies that have been done on women as compared to those done on men.
Unfortunately this has not been evened out. However, I heard Dr.
William Dement of Stanford, a sleep specialist who has been studying
sleep stages and various sleep disorders since the 1950s, speak
recently. One of the things he said was that after having studied so
many men, he approached whoever it was that was handing out grants back
then about having a study involving women. They were appalled at this.
He wound up using his own wife (he joked about getting married so he
could have a female subject) for these sleep studies since he couldn't
get funding to pay any outside women.
> On a broader scale, why did it take science fiction so long to embrace a view
> of the future in which women and men were equals? It seems that most science
> fiction written throughout the 60's and well into the 70's presented futures
> that included the same old same old, with men in the active and powerful
> roles and women as helpmeets. _The Feminine Mystique_ was published in 1963,
> the National Organization for Women was formed in 1966. How come it took so
> long for science fiction to regularly see the future in nonsexist terms?
>
I don't mean to male bash, but let's face it, most of it was written by
men, and men in love with science and technology. For many of them,
social changes such as women's equality probably never occurred to them,
or if it did, that wasn't what they were interested in writing about.
For the women writers, I can see how they felt like they were not in a
secure position and maybe didn't want to rock the boat. And again,
maybe it never occurred to them that things could change. Social
conditioning is strong stuff.
Berni Phillips
bernip@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:18 PDT