*** SPOILERS ***
The genetics aspect of GATE TO WOMEN'S COUNTRY was a bit flakey but very
interesting. (I'm completely a non-essentialist so I didn't buy it as
real, but as a suspension-of-belief literary device it worked just fine.
It should be noted that the whole genetics aspect also tied into the
rather off-hand dismissal of homosexuality. Again, I found the biology to
be not-believable.) For instance, it seems that "violence" or perhaps we
should say "irrational violence" is a sex-linked tendency. The leading
women and their male partners are engaged in a long-term breeding program
to eliminate or substantially diminish that trait in humans. Now, if one
wanted to discuss the (specious) genetics in the book, one could argue
that this trait is also revealed to some extent in some of the women -
certainly the protagonist's sister seems to be terminally stupid. And
most of the women were in the dark about the agenda of the ruling
council. The separatist society seemed to have two major functions: (1)
to allow the ruling council to surreptitiously weed out the genetically
violent; and (2) to place social controls that allowed the society to be
maintained and not ultimately destroyed (again) while this breeding
program runs its course.
It was a very interesting book. If you can accept as a literary device
(for suspension of disbelief) these essentialist biological ideas, then
the book poses this intriguing moral dilemma: if we *knew*, really *knew*,
that a particular trait caused all these problems and it could be
eliminated, would it be moral to do so? In my opinion, Tepper thinks the
answer is yes. But the question is ambiguously answered if at all, and
there are examples in the book that you could point to as reasons for NO.
Such as the too-casual elimination of homosexuality. Whether Tepper saw
that as a problem with the society or not I have no idea - there's no
textual evidence to suggest that she did.
Once again that the moral dilemma only works if you overlook the biology.
I see no reason to believe that there are simple genetic expressions of
behavioral traits that can be bred in or out. Behavior being such a
complex phenomena, Tepper's basic premise is really flawed - I really
don't believe you can ever select for or against behavioral patterns such
as violence or homosexuality.
Of course I also think that essentialist constructs are really harmful to
the feminist project, so in that sense the book is not helpful. But it
works for me on the level of: "I don't believe in a god but if there were
a god I wouldn't like him because he behaves like a jerk." From a logical
& scientific perspective, I don't like the concept of biological
essentialism - but if it could be proven (as in Tepper's novel) I wouldn't
like any society that could control our biology.
all this said, i really have to say that i really loved this book; it was
one of the first books i found, after WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME and THE
HANDMAID'S TALE, that carried on the dialog about gender and power. and
i think it is a remarkable book, and one of her best works to date.
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
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, The Jeli's wrote:
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:52:41 -0800
> From: The Jeli's <utaar@cnnw.net>
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] old thread- feminist dystopias/utopias
>
> >Some other things to think about are the works that ostensibly have
> >women and men existing together (these two are very different, and i'm
> >not sure I like the implications of Sargent's) Tepper's _Gate to Women's
> >Country_ and Sargent's _Shore of Women_. Men aren't entirely eliminated
> >(used for procreation) but it was also a man-made catastrophe/war that
> >caused a situation women took advantage of.
>
> The interesting part (for me) about _Gate to Women's Country_ was the
> secret that it wasn't the warriors begetting children, but the gentle
> men that the women had let back into their cities and who supposedly
> lived with the women's families as "servants". When I found that out near
> the end of the book I was genuinely surprised. I really liked the idea that
> the women really didn't want to get rid of men entirely, that they were
> willing to let men back into their cities and their lives as long as the men
> behaved themselves. I don't want to spark a heated debate on the
> list, but I find it hard to read books that are hateful towards men. I know
> I for one wouldn't want to live without them (after all, who would open jars
> for me?) ;-)
>
> Cami
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> utaar@cnnw.net
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/7115
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "What we call human nature in actuality is human habit"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:34 PDT