On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Allen Briggs wrote:
>
> > And, incidentally, given that we are on FEMINISTSF, what do feminists
> > today make of FRIDAY?
>
> For example, he has the statement, "It takes a human mother to bear a
> human child". And he still has Friday defining her happiness in terms
> of babies and kittens to a large degree. And then there's the portrayal
> of Friday as a nymphomaniac (this does not set her apart from a number
> of his other characters... ;-). I also had a small problem with the
> fact that Friday had major problems with some human societal rules but
> seemed to know the "barnyard dance" inside and out (much better than I do
> or ever did).
I'll add a few more. I really disagree with the characterization of
Friday as a nymphomaniac, which suggests that she is somehow pathological
in her use of sexuality. I have real questions with some of Heinlein's
portrayals of sexuality, esp. father-daughter sexuality. His characters
were often highly sexual and uninhibited (in his later works anyway) --
but I don't think that's the same thing at all as nymphomania or -- what
is it, satyriasis? Something we hear of less often.
You might all be surprised to learn how often I have had people write to
me and suggest Heinlein as a feminist writer. Strong women characters,
what many see as a liberatory sexuality, and "especially for his time"
are the refrains and reasons.
I think it's also interesting to look at what I think of as clear
deterministic tendencies in his characterizations of women -- such as the
idea that all women love to have babies -- and contrast those with the
ways in which he seemed to think of humans as very transformative and
actually having fluid gender identities. Lazarus Long switched sexes and
so did one of his other characters (another old man). (I hope I'm not
misremembering any of this but it's possible.)
I enjoyed Heinlein when I was young, and especially FRIDAY. (Where did
her name come from, by the way -- Robinson Crusoe allusion or something
else?) If I'd read any of his stuff in the past five years, I suspect I
would still enjoy it on some levels. To read any literature, one becomes
almost inured to problems of perspective (the writer's sexism, racism,
etc.) -- aware, critical, but not overly affected. No, that's not right
-- it's more true of some types of literature than others. It's true (for
me) of Heinlein's work, which is essentially non-realistic adventure
stories anyway. But I am much more critical -- to the point of affecting
my own enjoyment and appreciation of the work -- of sexism, racism,
classism, or a limited perspective of one sort or another in works which
are supposed to be "serious" or "realistic." (Realistic in terms of
their portrayals of human nature, not in terms of today's society or
history or whatever.) So, for instance, I was much more disappointed by
the flaws I found in LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS when I read it at 25 as an
informed feminist, than the problems I found in FRIDAY from reading it
when I was 15 and rereading it again in my early 20s. This relativity
can be disconcerting and perhaps it's not quite fair. Opinions?
>
> Anyway, a few semi-random thoughts from someone else who does generally
> like Heinlein.
>
> BTW, the novella(?) GULF (which can be found in _6 x H_) appears to have
> been a predecessor of FRIDAY that does a bit more with the superman
> ideas and "the Boss's" organization. It's been a while since I've read
> that one, though, and don't remember much about it...
>
> -allen
>
> --
> Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com
>
Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be
in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman
FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:49 PDT