I 've always had the sneaking suspicion that Tepper just didn't want to
be bothered with the complications of homosexuality as part of the
"Women's Country" structure.
I love it too: in fact I shall have to get a new copy soon; mine is
starting to disintegrate. I still cry when I get to the end, after all
those perusals!
Laura: I'm DELIGHTED to see you are doing the SF column for Feminist
Bookstore News!
Possible SPOILER below
The "undesirable" women were sterilized too, including Stavia's sister
(though she had produced children first).
Frances Green
http://gayellowpages.com
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:04:20 -0800 Laura Quilter <lquilter@IGC.APC.ORG>
writes:
>*** 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 - 19:07:35 PDT