I'd like to respond to your response, Petra. Everyone jump in, now! I'm
usually quiet on here because I haven't read anything you're discussing, so I
run out and get it (just read Left Hand of Darkness, for instance) and then
you're done with it by the time I could put in my sad little $.02.
<< On 17 Jun 97 , Hope Cascio wrote:
> Anyway, about He, She, and It. I was really saddened by the
> connection Piercy makes between the golem and the android, how they
> are creations of man (man, not woman) and serve man, behave and feel
> just like men, but are not entitled to the rights of other men.
> Bringing in a comparison to Frankenstein suggests that it's not
> right to treat living, feeling creations of men as if they are not
> men, but the feeling I got from He, She, and It was that it was
> proper to treat the golem and the android as if they were no more
> than clay and metal. In the society in which they live the people,
> especially the women like Shira, are often treated as pawns as well,
> and this is treated as a grave injustice. Is Piercy being ironic,
> and wants me to follow this train of thought, that we act as if it's
> all right to treat some people without power like they are
> disposable, and we should be saddened and angered at this treatment?
My response comes a bit late, but I have read the book 3-4 years ago
and my memory might be at fault. However, I remember the viewpoint of
the book differently . Nobody has reacted to Hope's email, has nobody
read that book? I recommend it.
As I remember it, Piercy's point was exactly to show that beings with
intelligence and consciousness (persons), be it women or androids,
should be accepted as persons in their own rights and not be degraded
to tools.
The android is a creation of Shira's grandmother and one man (I have
forgotten the names of both).
I saw the android as more the man's creation, because it was his obsession to
create. It seems like the parallel is drawn between a man's desire to imitate
the feminine creation process, and usually not with full success.
The grandmother tells the story of the
golem to the android. So why does she do it? The impression I've got
is that she does it to make him aware that people will not accept him
as a 'human being', instead they will try to use him only as a tool
(here a weapon).
There's no clear opinion from the grandmother on the "rightness" of either
the golem or, ultimately, the android's, death. The golem, once his
usefulness is over, is "killed." This is considered by the rabbi to be the
proper thing to do with a golem.
Furthermore, at the end of the story Shira has the means at hand to
recreate an android. After some reflection she desists, exactly
because the new android would not be accepted as a person. The
book ends there.
I also noted that the creators of the android are a man and a woman,
the woman being the better and more important scientist without whom
the whole project could not be successful. As I remember, her motives
for creating the android are 'purely' scientific or intellectual: to see if
it
can be done. The 'problems' the android will face, do not stop her,
although she is obviously aware of them. (If I remember correctly,
there are some prototypes not working properly, i.e. she accepts to
create physically and mentally 'handicapped' conscious beings). I
found this fact important as it is often argued that women would be
different scientists than man, more responsible, etc., that man are
more driven to create, even dangerous things, as they have no
natural 'outlet' as women have. Well, this scientist is a grandmother
...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:20 PDT