========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:04:20 CDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Mary Ann Beavis, IUS" Organization: The University of Winnipeg Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970428201630.3b7f4116@kent.edu> Let's face it, the phrase "hard science" has a pretty macho ring to it! It's probably no accident that men "dominate" the "hard sciences," whereas women tend to be attracted to the "softer" disciplines and social sciences. Just an opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970428201630.3b7f4116@kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In response to Lorie G Sauble-Otto , I wrote: >>Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. >>Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of >>method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist >>about "hard science"? Heather MacLean replied: >Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a >hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish >as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as >they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience >continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its >stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist. > >The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own >allegiances to patriarchy. > >Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this >very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which >may therefore invalidate it. *grins* If a fascist sexist pig walks off the top of a building, he will fall with an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, splattering his DNA all over the place. If a pagan feminist, who is really really in touch with herself and Mother Earth, walks off the top of a building, she will fall with an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, splattering her DNA all over the place. This is "the state of things as they are, reality, actuality, truth.". It is equally true in Chicago, Cuzco, Cairo and Lhasa. In the vitally important work of disentangling ourselves from the imprisonment of our assumptions, some of which are deeply embedded in our culture and language, let's not be idiots. One of the attractions of science fiction is the seriousness with which it can consider our relations with the universe at large. Certainly, sf began with much more limited horizons, and, we hope, much more constricting preconceptions than we have now. It is our hope that we contribute to the broadining of horizons and further clarification of vision(s), but we do stand on the shoulders of giants, albeit human giants. "Reality is what doesn't go away when you aren't looking." Neil ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:58:41 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Science as sexist Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Neil -- I was not debating that certain laws of physics seem to be unimpeachably rigid. The original question was about _hard_ science as sexist. _Hard_ science (among which physics) pretends to fully describe reality. The problem is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that constitutes "reality" which is not in the realm of _hard_ science. And is therefore *devalued*, in terms of describing reality, when contrasted with hard science. That's all. Note that under the laws of quantum mechanics, either your fascist, sexist pig or your pagan feminist may or may not splatter. =) The odds are pretty heavy that they will, however, you're right. Heather idiot extraordinaire =) >In response to Lorie G Sauble-Otto , I wrote: >>>Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. >>>Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of >>>method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist >>>about "hard science"? > >Heather MacLean replied: >>Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a >>hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish >>as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as >>they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience >>continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its >>stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist. >> >>The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own >>allegiances to patriarchy. >> >>Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this >>very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which >>may therefore invalidate it. *grins* > Neil responds: >If a fascist sexist pig walks off the top of a building, he will fall with >an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, >splattering his DNA all over the place. > >If a pagan feminist, who is really really in touch with herself and Mother >Earth, walks off the top of a building, she will fall with an acceleration >of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, splattering her >DNA all over the place. > >This is "the state of things as they are, reality, actuality, truth.". It >is equally true in Chicago, Cuzco, Cairo and Lhasa. > hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:29:20 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorie G Sauble-otto Subject: Re: Fwd: Like Water for Chocolate In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970428172802.006ae82c@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > Lorie G Sauble-Otto wrote: > >Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a > >discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to > >begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the > >evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a > >masculinist construct. > > Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. > Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of > method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist > about "hard science"? > Take a look at the discouse of reproductive technology and the way it is represented in fem sci-fi for an idea of what I am implying. > And as to the genre, are you saying that hard sf has been sexist (which is > pretty much inarguable!), or are you saying, much more broadly, that > "genre" is somehow sexist? Guess I'm saying "yes" to both. > > > Hoping that in requesting greater clarity I've been clear myself, > Neil Rest > Lorie Sauble-Otto Dept. of French & Italian Mod Lang 549 The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:31:18 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorie G Sauble-otto Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970428201630.3b7f4116@kent.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > At 05:28 PM 4/28/97 -0500, Neil Rest wrote: > >Lorie G Sauble-Otto wrote: > >>Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a > >>discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to > >>begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the > >>evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a > >>masculinist construct. > > > >Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. > >Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of > >method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist > >about "hard science"? > > > > Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a > hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish > as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as > they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience > continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its > stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist. > > The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own > allegiances to patriarchy. > > Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this > very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which > may therefore invalidate it. *grins* Thank you for your much more eloquent conveyance of my ideas. lorie > > Heather > =) > > > > hmaclean@kent.edu > http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ > Lorie Sauble-Otto Dept. of French & Italian Mod Lang 549 The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:13:58 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Fwd: Like Water for Chocolate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Re Magic realism: this isn't a comment so much as a request. I have been turned right off the *concept* of magic realism (not the literature itself), not because of the quality of the literature but because of the appalling standard of the three academic papers I have listened to on the topic. I would really appreciate it if any body could either explain to me what it is, or point me in the direction of a lucid article on the topic. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:25:50 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Hard sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:14:32 -0700 Lorie G Sauble-otto wrote: > From: Lorie G Sauble-otto > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:14:32 -0700 > Subject: Re: Fwd: Like Water for Chocolate > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a > discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to > begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the > evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a > masculinist construct. > > This sounds a little like the determinist argument that women are gentle and men hard -- an argument used by both strands of feminism and masculinism. I am not terribly keen on it. There were women involved in the construction of "hard-sf" in the earliest days. You can't after all, get much harder than Frankenstein. Farah > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:30:56 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: hard sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:28:02 -0500 Neil Rest wrote: > From: Neil Rest > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:28:02 -0500 > Subject: Re: Fwd: Like Water for Chocolate > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Lorie G Sauble-Otto wrote: > >Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a > >discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to > >begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the > >evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a > >masculinist construct. > > Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. > Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of > method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist > about "hard science"? > > And as to the genre, are you saying that hard sf has been sexist (which is > pretty much inarguable!), or are you saying, much more broadly, that > "genre" is somehow sexist? > > > Hoping that in requesting greater clarity I've been clear myself, > Neil Rest Neil is right I feel. I want the right to take on whatever approaches feel valuable. I am also wary of any approach which condemns by association. Hard sf does not have to be sexist. It claims, after all, an objectivity. That it does not always live up to this is something that can be worked on, and in fact the genre demands that it be worked on. John Huntingdon's book, Rationalising Genius, makes this point very carefully in an analysis of The Cold Equations, a story which relies on our acceptance of a spurious logic and objectivity. Hard sf done well ought to be able to deal with the social structure as it is and as it may be, sexism is *not* intrinsic in the genre. Farah. ps. please could people rememer to change headings when they change topics. Much of this debate is going on under Like Water For Chocolate. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:33:44 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Science as sexist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:59:32 -0400 Heather MacLean wrote: > From: Heather MacLean > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:59:32 -0400 > Subject: Re: Science as sexist > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > At 05:28 PM 4/28/97 -0500, Neil Rest wrote: > >Lorie G Sauble-Otto wrote: > >>Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a > >>discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to > >>begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the > >>evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a > >>masculinist construct. > > > >Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. > >Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of > >method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist > >about "hard science"? > > > > Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a > hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish > as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as > they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience > continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its > stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist. > > The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own > allegiances to patriarchy. > > Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this > very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which > may therefore invalidate it. *grins* > > Heather > =) > Science is also a discourse between competing theories. If I followed your ideas, however, I would be reading astrology not science fiction. I too believe in radical feminism, but this does not invalidate science or the scientific method, it just means that we have to reconsider what objectivity looks like (particularly in areas such as biology). Farah > > > hmaclean@kent.edu > http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:39:52 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Science as sexist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:04:20 CDT Mary Ann Beavis, IUS wrote: > From: Mary Ann Beavis, IUS > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:04:20 CDT > Subject: Re: Science as sexist > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Let's face it, the phrase "hard science" has a pretty macho ring to > it! It's probably no accident that men "dominate" the "hard > sciences," whereas women tend to be attracted to the "softer" > disciplines and social sciences. Just an opinion. This is a historical phenomenon not the call of biological destiny. Women tend to have been involved in all sciences a. where the education was available to them and b. where such activity was considered amateur and aristocratic. When an activity is professionalised or gains in status it usually does so by laying down qualifications for entry, and for some reason the correct genitalia appears to be crucial. This has applied from everything to brewing, mathematics, medicine, teaching and English literature. After all, its not that long ago that classicswas considered too difficult and too prurient for girls. Only after it lost its status were girls encouraged to do classics (girls are *so* good at languages aren't they???), or perhaps it was their very entry which lowered the status of the profession. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:35:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tonya Browning Subject: Re: Science as sexist Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm interested in this hard science/soft science debate in terms of science fiction, because I believe (as people have mentioned) science fiction reflects a similar delineation in science. Sarah Lefanu (great critic BTW) has discussed this polarity: Soft mean[s] concerned with the new sciences such as psychology, linguistics, ecology (and sociology and town planning), with a critique of the uses of technology, and with the social structures of the future. Hard SF was associated with the traditional male writer: soft, of course, was what the women were" ("Sex, Sub-atomic Particles and Sociology" 179). As Donna Haraway mentions in her writing, a hesitancy to stake claims on male territory is indicative of stereotypical male/female roles in society, where men control/create the mechanized and women are figured as purely organic creators. The proliferation of ecologically and politically based feminist utopias is often used as justification for such stereotypes, based on the genre concept of "hard" and "soft" science fiction. In a world of ever-increasing technology, such dualities must be negated by female authorship without invalidating the feminist scholarship that has preceded it. For centuries females have been dissuaded from choosing the "hard" sciences (usually involving technology) like physics and astronomy, and in a prejudiced scientific community often found a higher level of acceptance in the "soft" sciences like sociology and psychology. A mimetic reflection of this tendency can be found in scientific fictions, the science fiction originally written for those interested in sciences. Unfortunately, the bad is reflected with the good, and females have been excluded from the respected arena of hard science fiction as a result. Feminist revisions of what constitutes soft science fiction have been to the genre's benefit, but the problem of synthesis still remains. Whew. I hope that made sense. If we agree that the polarity itself (hard/soft) is problematic, I guess we should take a look at women who write "hard" science fiction. David mentioned Melissa Scott as a hard science fiction writer. I would suggest Pat Cadigan for the same reason-both women are part of the cyberpunk/post-cyberpunk genre. As science fiction authors neither hesitate to use a level of technology often associated with hard science fiction, yet as "cyberpunk writers" (Cadigan's _Synners_ and Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_) both use that power in order to critique the technology (& rubrics of sexuality, etc) itself. Their work often subverts stereotypes unlike writers like William Gibson or Bruce Sterling (try _Islands in the Net_ as one example). Tonya ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:46:20 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Science as sexist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:27 -0500 Neil Rest wrote: > From: Neil Rest > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:27 -0500 > Subject: Re: Science as sexist > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > In response to Lorie G Sauble-Otto , I wrote: > >>Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist. > >>Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of > >>method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist > >>about "hard science"? > > Heather MacLean replied: > >Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a > >hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish > >as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as > >they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience > >continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its > >stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist. > > > >The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own > >allegiances to patriarchy. > > > >Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this > >very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which > >may therefore invalidate it. *grins* > > If a fascist sexist pig walks off the top of a building, he will fall with > an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, > splattering his DNA all over the place. > > If a pagan feminist, who is really really in touch with herself and Mother > Earth, walks off the top of a building, she will fall with an acceleration > of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed, splattering her > DNA all over the place. > > This is "the state of things as they are, reality, actuality, truth.". It > is equally true in Chicago, Cuzco, Cairo and Lhasa. > > In the vitally important work of disentangling ourselves from the > imprisonment of our assumptions, some of which are deeply embedded in our > culture and language, let's not be idiots. > > > One of the attractions of science fiction is the seriousness with which it > can consider our relations with the universe at large. Certainly, sf began > with much more limited horizons, and, we hope, much more constricting > preconceptions than we have now. It is our hope that we contribute to the > broadining of horizons and further clarification of vision(s), but we do > stand on the shoulders of giants, albeit human giants. > > > "Reality is what doesn't go away when you aren't looking." > Neil My previous reply to heather may or may not have failed to get through (the mail server went down - a little hard fact for you) so I will repeat my points which essentially coincide with Neil (just to add a feminine voice here). I too subscribe to a radical feminist understanding of the world, but it doesn't alter the reality of science. If I thought otherwise, I would be reading astrology not sf. The real issue is that scientists (human beings remember) have often claimed a false objectivity, and it is this we should be challenging -- the claim to scientific status for spurious thinking. Such thinking should be challenged whether it is filling human skulls with sand to test the intelligence of men and women, blacks and whites, orusing the male body to assess the correct dose of a medication. In science fiction, we should be prepared to pounce on such sloppy thinking like hawks, not start muttering that hard science is intrinsicially sexist. There is a very nice piece by John Huntingdon in his book Rationalizing Genius which does just this, criticizing the story The Cold Equations for its flawed "objectivity" which actually masks acute sexism. On another note, it is always useful to remember that the first piece of hard sf, Frankenstein -- the extrapolation of the logical consequences of a scientific development -- was written by a woman. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:48:57 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Re[2]: Science as sexist Comments: To: Heather MacLean Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil -- I was not debating that certain laws of physics seem to be unimpeachably rigid. The original question was about _hard_ science as sexist. _Hard_ science (among which physics) pretends to fully describe reality. The problem is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that constitutes "reality" which is not in the realm of _hard_ science. And is therefore *devalued*, in terms of describing reality, when contrasted with hard science. That's all. Note that under the laws of quantum mechanics, either your fascist, sexist pig or your pagan feminist may or may not splatter. =) The odds are pretty heavy that they will, however, you're right. Heather idiot extraordinaire =) I didn't want this to be my first post to this excellent list, but I'll jump right in. Science is more than just physical facts. Science in this century has certainly moved away from hard deterministic notions that everything can be EXACTLY known. (i.e. relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.) Please keep in mind that what is researched depends very much on worldviews, cultural mores, and politics. Why is so much research money getting poured into the biological sciences? Because there is profit to be made. The science professions are also dominated by men. This has to affect how they do science. BTW, let me put some positive votes for Slonczewski's "Door Into Ocean" and Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" and "He, She and It." Chuck Munson Webmaster American Association for the Advancement of Science ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 14:12:14 -0400 Reply-To: Laura Sells Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Sells Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970429101927.006bf6dc@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, there is a whole body of feminist literature out there about sexism in science. And about how science is intrinsically sexist. And I am sort of surprised that no one has brought that up yet in this discussion. If you study the philosophy and history of science, you will see how the philosophical beliefs that fund science are sexist. In fact you can trace this back to Aristotle, even. (A good book on this is Genevieve Lloyd's _The Man of Reason: Male and Female in Western Philosophy, U Minnesota P, 1984). F. Bacon's famous line about strapping nature to the rack to probe her for her essential truths is one example. But beyond the sexist attitudes of famous philosophers of science, which undoubtedly influence the way science has developed, there are other sexist dimensions to science as well. One is the epistemological structure of objectivity. (As radical feminist Dale Spender points out, Objectivity is just another word for male subjectivity.) Objectivity is a sexist practice. There are several hundred publications that make this argument. Probably one of the most well known authors on this subject is Sandra Harding, but also Donna Haraway, Nancy Hartsock, Evelyn Fox Keller, Sue Rosser, Ruth Bleier, and many others. Sandra Harding is very accessible on this subject. Then there are the institutional structures of science, things like how many women are actually scientists, how many women get funded for research, how many women are encouraged to practice science, yada yada. As a result, science is sexist not only in philosophy but in practice as well. What happens as a result is that the "culture" of science is a male culture, exhibiting male values, and generalizing from masculine worldviews to the rest of the world. Brian Easlea, who I believe is a nuclear physicist, talks about the male culture of the science lab. He is very readable. Now, I know that this discussion is starting to get off the topic, which is feminist science fiction. But if we take Donna Haraway's starting point, which is that all science is really only science fiction, maybe we are not so far afield after all. Happy reading, Laura Sells University of South Florida Department of Women's Studies ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:29:32 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: science & science fiction Anyone who wants to talk about "hard science fiction" needs to be *explicitly* clear about the following: (1) Science fiction, including "hard science fiction," is a form of literature, not science. It never occured to me that this was a problem until I read an article by a college English instructor in the Spring, 1997 issue of _Extrapolation_ actually claiming that "hard sf" is a "branch" of science: a mistake only someone who is completely ignorant about the practice of science could make; and (2) "hard sf" grossly misrepresents how science works and how practicing scientists conduct research. Practicing scientists work collectively and collaboratively. My partner of 27 years is a research mathematician whose work has included not only the most abstract forms of differential geometry, but many applied science projects as well (ranging from oceanography, geology, mathematical anthropology, to his current work constructing algorithims for a computer graphics team). Though mathematics is the least technology-dependent science discipline, he, like the many dozens of his colleagues I've met, almost *never* works alone. Two or three times a year we have visitors in our house, mathematicians who work long-distance with him, who need intense personal contact, involving hours of talk, of drawing pictures for one another, of trying out various possibilities, interspersed with sessions in which each person works by him- or herself. I washed laboratory dishes & did other lab housekeeping tasks about 25 years ago in a genetics lab-- there the collective process was even more evident. Many of my friends have been biologists, who never work alone, but always in groups. & for the last year and a half, I've been copy-editing medical research papers. The ONLY single-author papers come from clinical physicians writing up a case-study about an interesting clinical observation. All the real research papers are written by multiple authors. Nothing could be more obvious but that science is almost never practiced individually. & yet hard sf represents scientists as individual heroes with unique intellects. Popular representations of science-- including the way the Nobel Prizes are packaged & contextualized-- are largely responsible for this image. But the fact was, Einstein & all those other scientists at Gottingen were not loners. It's no accident that they chose to congregate, rather than living off in garrets sweating out the feats of their genius alone. Nor was it an accident that the physicists sequestered at Los Alamos to work on developing the atom bomb. In science, synergy is the name of the game. In real life, the collective aspect of science practice is conducive to feminist forms of interaction (if only the political & economic contexts that determine funding & research priorities didn't drive science in feminist-unfriendly ways). In short, "hard sf" projects a narrative ideology congenial to a certain way of looking at the world. The story it tells is a simplistic, fake version of how science works. It leaves out the sociology of knowledge, and the political and economic framing that real scientists would love to escape. I would note, though, that real world science & hard sf are both driven by an ethic of the "possible," viz., the desire to do & to discover or learn what is possible, by the definition of knowledge as the conquest of the unknown, *regardless of the consequences*. This ethic proclaims that if something *can* be done, or known, then it *should* be done, or discovered, simply because it hasn't been before, & is therefore a challenge to human amour propre. *This*, not the methods of science per se, is where feminism confronts science as a problem. & this ethic (besides a certain boy's club mentality) is what the self-proclaimed "real hard sf" afficionados refuse to allow feminist depictions of science, however accurate (& however based on the real-world science experience of the writers), to be called "hard." Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:03:58 -0400 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I do not see the proper, basic underpinnings of science as sexist. However, the scientific community/culture/etc (at least the "popular" notion of it) is an entirely different matter. I would posit that much of that culture is not only sexist but racist, classist, and hetero-sexist. Rather than going into all the gory details of the faults of this culture/society thing I will explain my views on the feminism of basic science. The way I understand science is that it is based on the principle that our concepts of the universe are always probably flawed/incomplete. However, we should always be testing them and trying to make them better. One way that I understand feminism is that our current conceptions of sex/gender and society are flawed/incomplete. And, we should test them and make them better. Going one step further (sort of, as I understand it) into Queer theory, we will always have inaccurate, incomplete conceptions about ourselves as a group and we should always be testing and refining them. So, I see some of the basic ideas of both science and queer theory (hence certain brands of feminism) as being exceedingly similar. (always question). The difference seems to be one of what to focus the questioning on. Here is an idea, "hard sci-fi" focuses on physical science/engineering whereas feminist sci-fi focuses on society (esp. gender roles). So we seem to be lacking feminist "hard sci-fi" because it would have to focus on both things at once. While there are certainly works that attempt to do just that, it is generally a very tough thing to pull off. Also, it very easy for the readers to disregard one focus or another. However, it is possible that "hard sci-fi" and feminist (well, at least Queer by my definition) sci-fi share many of the same underlying ideas. I can't help but think of Joan Slonckzewski's _A_Door_Into_Ocean_ as an example of a book that deal with both. I find it interesting that she is Quaker (and that that is found to be generally interesting in this forum) because one of the lesser-known but perhaps stranger tenets of Quakerism is that of "continuing revelation." The basic idea is that we are always learning (being shown maybe (for some)) more and different (more advanced/refined maybe) things about our world, ourselves, our spiritual aspects, and everyhting. Well, at least that's how I understand it. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:38:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Gordon Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Tonya Browning wrote: > Sarah Lefanu (great critic BTW) has discussed this polarity: > Soft mean[s] concerned with the new sciences such as psychology, > linguistics, ecology (and sociology and town planning), with a critique of > the uses of technology, and with the social structures of the future. Hard > SF was associated with the traditional male writer: soft, of course, was > what the women were" ("Sex, Sub-atomic Particles and Sociology" 179). and... > respected arena of hard science fiction as a result. Feminist revisions of > what constitutes soft science fiction have been to the genre's benefit, but > the problem of synthesis still remains. > > Tonya I totally agree with you Tonya. So then, one (not the only) feminist project in sf is for women writers to take up the challenge of writing about high-technology future scenarios with an eye to feminist issues and understandings of the humanities and social sciences. While some authors have done this with fantastic results, there are still very few women writing high-tech futures, cyberpunk, or space exploration focussed fiction compared to the emergence of strong women writers in other parts of the fantasy/sf genre. I think one of the most insidious trends in modern science fiction is the assumption that by whatever point in the future an author is concerned with sexism will have inevitably vanished. While this is of course preferable to much of the more blatantly sexist sf that revels in the resurgence of unchallenged patriarchy, or other worlds of extreme sexism, it adds to the complacency that makes challenging sexism today so very difficult. The theory goes like this (I'm sure you're all too familiar with it), history is on a unilinear trajectory of progress and improvement, and having set the wheels in motion towards the equality of the sexes, the future will just inevitably achieve sexual equality. It's the Gene Roddenberry view of the world underlying the Star Trek series (and many others). More often that not it's a good excuse for male authors to ignore issues of sex, or similarly race, or sexual orientation, for that matter any issues of social inequality and conflict. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:35:38 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Science as sexist Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, everybody seems to have an opinion on this, thought I'd add my own humble opinion :) Basically, I agree with Farah and Tonya. I think "Hard SF" has the same sexism that surrounds women entering "hard science" domains. I really do think it's that simple (or that complex...). I think that there is a certain amount of status surrounding hard SF, similar to that which surrounds science and engineering. Speaking as a PhD candidate in electrical engineering, I do have a clue about these things. I, personally, have had a love-hate relationship with hard SF. I love the science itself, but often dislike the stories surrounding it, particularly the roles women often play (or fail to play...). This was especially true of classic hard sf that I read growing up. Much as I love the science of my profession, but dislike the traditionally male ways that funding, good-old-boys-networking, and posturing that goes on. To write good hard sf, you have to know about good hard science. (And also be a good writer, of course!) If women are discouraged for whatever reason out of these fields, it seems logical to me that they would not write "hard" sf, either. Maybe I'm just over-simplifying things. Also, I hope I'm not too far off the subject material of this server. I've only been on it a week... Bonnie PS: Linda Nagata's "Bohr Maker" is a piece of "hard sf" written by a female author that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm not sure if it classifies as "feminist sf", although it certainly has strong female characters in it, both on the "good" and "bad" sides. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:35:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Tonya Browning wrote: > I'm interested in this hard science/soft science debate in terms of science > fiction, because I believe (as people have mentioned) science fiction > reflects a similar delineation in science. > > Sarah Lefanu (great critic BTW) has discussed this polarity: > Soft mean[s] concerned with the new sciences such as psychology, > linguistics, ecology (and sociology and town planning), with a critique of > the uses of technology, and with the social structures of the future. Hard > SF was associated with the traditional male writer: soft, of course, was > what the women were" ("Sex, Sub-atomic Particles and Sociology" 179). > > As Donna Haraway mentions in her writing, a hesitancy to stake claims on > male territory is indicative of stereotypical male/female roles in society, > where men control/create the mechanized and women are figured as purely > organic creators. The proliferation of ecologically and politically based > feminist utopias is often used as justification for such stereotypes, based > on the genre concept of "hard" and "soft" science fiction. In a world of > ever-increasing technology, such dualities must be negated by female > authorship without invalidating the feminist scholarship that has preceded > it. For centuries females have been dissuaded from choosing the "hard" > sciences (usually involving technology) like physics and astronomy, and in > a prejudiced scientific community often found a higher level of acceptance > in the "soft" sciences like sociology and psychology. A mimetic reflection > of this tendency can be found in scientific fictions, the science fiction > originally written for those interested in sciences. Unfortunately, the > bad is reflected with the good, and females have been excluded from the > respected arena of hard science fiction as a result. Feminist revisions of > what constitutes soft science fiction have been to the genre's benefit, but > the problem of synthesis still remains. > > Whew. I hope that made sense. If we agree that the polarity itself > (hard/soft) is problematic, I guess we should take a look at women who > write "hard" science fiction. David mentioned Melissa Scott as a hard > science fiction writer. I would suggest Pat Cadigan for the same > reason-both women are part of the cyberpunk/post-cyberpunk genre. As > science fiction authors neither hesitate to use a level of technology often > associated with hard science fiction, yet as "cyberpunk writers" > (Cadigan's _Synners_ and Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_) both use that > power in order to critique the technology (& rubrics of sexuality, etc) > itself. Their work often subverts stereotypes unlike writers like William > Gibson or Bruce Sterling (try _Islands in the Net_ as one example). > > Tonya > Yes, Tonya, I think it made complete sense. I would argue that to the extent that the phrase "hard science fiction" means anything today, it's simply a political concept used to describe the work of a group of generally (although not exclusively) conservative or libertarian science fiction writers, most of whom are male, most of whom center their stories on physics and engineering. These writers include, Gregory Benford, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Allen Steele (the token liberal), Charles Sheffield, Paul Preuss, Robert Forward, Michael Flynn, and a few others. I'd also argue that the debate over whether or not women can, should, or do write science fiction in which the sciences, hard and soft, are central is really a case of beating a dead horse. Octavia Butler, Pat Cadigan, Nancy Kress, Catherine Asaro, C.J. Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan Slonczewski, Melissa Scott, and Linda Nagata, among others, have all produced and are continuing to produce scientifically-based science fiction which covers the entire range of sciences. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: science & science fiction In-Reply-To: <199704291829.AA25944@halcyon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, L. Timmel Duchamp wrote: (2) "hard > sf" grossly misrepresents how science works and how practicing > scientists conduct research. Practicing scientists work collectively > and collaboratively. This is a very important point. Most of the conservative, so-called "hard sf" writers seem obsessed with what has been called The Great Man School of History. By this I mean that they almost always show one great scientist or captain of industry leading the way, backed by a bunch of second bananas. This unscientific idiocy is perpetrated in recent supposedly hard sf by Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Michael Flynn, Robert Forward, and others. Basically it's the same wishfulfillment fantasy idea that was used by the early space opera writers like E.E. Smith, Ray Cummings, John W. Campbell, and George O. Smith. As it was by Heinlein. It's simply an extention of the conservative-libertarian view of the heroic scientist as high IQ, high sperm-count ubermensch. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:29:33 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: hard sf It's my opinion that "hard sf" is much more about technology than science. It is, literally, about hard (and preferably shiny, and preferably sterile i.e. not contaminated by anything remotely resembling an organism) things: rockets, pipelines, dyson spheres, orbital stations, computers. Any novel without one of these big dumb objects probably won't be lauded as hard sf by those who read that sort of thing. My novel, SLOW RIVER, isn't often called hard sf--even though it's all about biology and chemistry (can't get much harder than chemistry, really)--because sewage isn't shiny, hard, and metallic. It's icky and, well, too connected with the body. Not all shiny intellect. Too close to the human, the fallible, ungodly etc. etc. The debate about whether or not science is sexist is, in my opinion, a red herring. This is all about the classic mind/body split. Just my two cents. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.america.net/~daves/ng/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:10:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorie G Sauble-otto Subject: Re: Science as sexist Comments: To: Laura Sells In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi--I thought that my original comment implied just that but I just figured anyone on this list would take that info a priori. lso On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Laura Sells wrote: > Well, there is a whole body of feminist literature out there about sexism > in science. And about how science is intrinsically sexist. And I am sort > of surprised that no one has brought that up yet in this discussion. > > If you study the philosophy and history of science, you will see how the > philosophical beliefs that fund science are sexist. In fact you can trace > this back to Aristotle, even. (A good book on this is Genevieve Lloyd's > _The Man of Reason: Male and Female in Western Philosophy, U Minnesota P, > 1984). F. Bacon's famous line about strapping nature to the rack to probe > her for her essential truths is one example. > > But beyond the sexist attitudes of famous philosophers of science, which > undoubtedly influence the way science has developed, there are other > sexist dimensions to science as well. > > One is the epistemological structure of objectivity. (As radical feminist > Dale Spender points out, Objectivity is just another word for male > subjectivity.) Objectivity is a sexist practice. There are several hundred > publications that make this argument. Probably one of the most well known > authors on this subject is Sandra Harding, but also Donna Haraway, Nancy > Hartsock, Evelyn Fox Keller, Sue Rosser, Ruth Bleier, and many others. > Sandra Harding is very accessible on this subject. > > Then there are the institutional structures of science, things like how > many women are actually scientists, how many women get funded for > research, how many women are encouraged to practice science, yada yada. As > a result, science is sexist not only in philosophy but in practice as > well. What happens as a result is that the "culture" of science is a male > culture, exhibiting male values, and generalizing from masculine > worldviews to the rest of the world. Brian Easlea, who I believe is a > nuclear physicist, talks about the male culture of the science lab. He is > very readable. > > > Now, I know that this discussion is starting to get off the topic, which > is feminist science fiction. But if we take Donna Haraway's starting > point, which is that all science is really only science fiction, maybe we > are not so far afield after all. > > Happy reading, > Laura Sells > University of South Florida > Department of Women's Studies > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:53:04 -0700 Reply-To: byerwood@ix.netcom.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: K Wood/C Byers Organization: Byerwood Productions Subject: Re: Science as sexist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit farah mendlesohn wrote: The real issue is that scientists (human > beings remember) have often claimed a false objectivity, and it is > this we should be challenging -- the claim to scientific status for > spurious thinking. Such thinking should be challenged whether it is > filling human skulls with sand to test the intelligence of men and > women, blacks and whites, or using the male body to assess the > correct dose of a medication. In science fiction, we should be > prepared to pounce on such sloppy thinking like hawks, not start > muttering that hard science is intrinsicially sexist. Candace -- "Making war is easy. It's making peace that's hard. That's why so few people do it." Xena, Warrior Princess KOFY-TV ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:54:01 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: science & science fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:29:32 -0700 L. Timmel Duchamp wrote: > From: L. Timmel Duchamp > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:29:32 -0700 > Subject: science & science fiction > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Anyone who wants to talk about "hard science fiction" needs to > be *explicitly* clear about the following: (1) Science fiction, > including "hard science fiction," is a form of literature, not > science. It never occured to me that this was a problem until > I read an article by a college English instructor in the Spring, > 1997 issue of _Extrapolation_ actually claiming that "hard sf" > is a "branch" of science: a mistake only someone who is completely > ignorant about the practice of science could make; and (2) "hard > sf" grossly misrepresents how science works and how practicing > scientists conduct research. Practicing scientists work collectively > and collaboratively. My partner of 27 years is a research mathematician > whose work has included not only the most abstract forms of differential > geometry, but many applied science projects as well (ranging from > oceanography, geology, mathematical anthropology, to his current > work constructing algorithims for a computer graphics team). > Though mathematics is the least technology-dependent science discipline, > he, like the many dozens of his colleagues I've met, almost *never* > works alone. Two or three times a year we have visitors in our > house, mathematicians who work long-distance with him, who need > intense personal contact, involving hours of talk, of drawing > pictures for one another, of trying out various possibilities, > interspersed with sessions in which each person works by him- > or herself. I washed laboratory dishes & did other lab housekeeping > tasks about 25 years ago in a genetics lab-- there the collective > process was even more evident. Many of my friends have been biologists, > who never work alone, but always in groups. & for the last year > and a half, I've been copy-editing medical research papers. The > ONLY single-author papers come from clinical physicians writing > up a case-study about an interesting clinical observation. All > the real research papers are written by multiple authors. Nothing > could be more obvious but that science is almost never practiced > individually. & yet hard sf represents scientists as individual > heroes with unique intellects. Popular representations of science-- > including the way the Nobel Prizes are packaged & contextualized-- > are largely responsible for this image. But the fact was, Einstein > & all those other scientists at Gottingen were not loners. It's > no accident that they chose to congregate, rather than living > off in garrets sweating out the feats of their genius alone. > Nor was it an accident that the physicists sequestered at Los > Alamos to work on developing the atom bomb. In science, synergy > is the name of the game. > > In real life, the collective aspect of science practice is conducive > to feminist forms of interaction (if only the political & economic > contexts that determine funding & research priorities didn't drive > science in feminist-unfriendly ways). > > In short, "hard sf" projects a narrative ideology congenial to > a certain way of looking at the world. The story it tells is > a simplistic, fake version of how science works. It leaves out > the sociology of knowledge, and the political and economic framing > that real scientists would love to > escape. > > I would note, though, that real world science & hard sf are both > driven by an ethic of the "possible," viz., the desire to do & > to discover or learn what is possible, by the definition of knowledge > as the conquest of the unknown, *regardless of the consequences*. > This ethic proclaims that if something *can* be done, or known, > then it *should* be done, or discovered, simply because it hasn't > been before, & is therefore a challenge to human amour propre. > *This*, not the methods of science per se, is where feminism > confronts science as a problem. & this ethic (besides a certain > boy's club mentality) is what the self-proclaimed "real hard sf" > afficionados refuse to allow feminist depictions of science, however > accurate (& however based on the real-world science experience > > of the writers), to be called "hard." > > Timmi Duchamp A very good summary of the situation. It is *always* a mistake to think of any aspect of behaviour as intrinsic. Thanks Timmi. farah ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:59:30 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: science & science fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > From: Michael Marc Levy > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0500 > Subject: Re: science & science fiction > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, L. Timmel Duchamp wrote: > > > (2) "hard > > sf" grossly misrepresents how science works and how practicing > > scientists conduct research. Practicing scientists work collectively > > and collaboratively. > > This is a very important point. Most of the conservative, so-called "hard > sf" writers seem obsessed with what has been called The Great Man School of > History. By this I mean that they almost always show one great scientist or > captain of industry leading the way, backed by a bunch of second bananas. > > This unscientific idiocy is perpetrated in recent supposedly hard sf by > Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Michael Flynn, Robert Forward, and others. > Basically it's the same wishfulfillment fantasy idea that was used by the > early space opera writers like E.E. Smith, Ray Cummings, John W. Campbell, > and George O. Smith. As it was by Heinlein. > > It's simply an extention of the conservative-libertarian view of the > heroic scientist as high IQ, high sperm-count ubermensch. > > Mike Levy See Alfred Berger, The Magic That Works, for an account of this conflict in the life and work of John W. Campbell. A superb book. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:57:28 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Science as sexist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:35:38 -0700 Bonnie Gray wrote: > From: Bonnie Gray > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:35:38 -0700 > Subject: Re: Science as sexist > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Well, everybody seems to have an opinion on this, thought I'd add > my own humble opinion :) > > Basically, I agree with Farah and Tonya. I think "Hard SF" has > the same sexism that surrounds women entering "hard science" domains. > I really do think it's that simple (or that complex...). I think > that there is a certain amount of status surrounding hard SF, similar > to that which surrounds science and engineering. Speaking as a PhD > candidate in electrical engineering, I do have a clue about these > things. > > I, personally, have had a love-hate relationship with hard SF. > I love the science itself, but often dislike the stories surrounding > it, particularly the roles women often play (or fail to play...). > This was especially true of classic hard sf that I read growing up. > Much as I love the science of my profession, but dislike the > traditionally male ways that funding, good-old-boys-networking, and > posturing that goes on. > > To write good hard sf, you have to know about good hard science. > (And also be a good writer, of course!) If women are discouraged > for whatever reason out of these fields, it seems logical to me that > they would not write "hard" sf, either. > > Maybe I'm just over-simplifying things. Also, I hope I'm not > too far off the subject material of this server. I've only been on > it a week... > > Bonnie > > PS: Linda Nagata's "Bohr Maker" is a piece of "hard sf" written by a > female author that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm not sure if it > classifies as "feminist sf", although it certainly has strong female > characters in it, both on the "good" and "bad" sides. I agree with Bonnie up to a point which ties into an earlier discussion about male v female students in sf classes. As boys are increasingly turning to computer games they seem to be less interested in literature in general and sf in particular. The boys I went to school with were just on this verge -- still reading sf but just as interested in the new space invaders games. I suspect that increasingly boys are moving out of literature altogether, just as women are starting to move into many branches of science, We may see a big shift in who the hard sf writers are in the next ten years. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:06:57 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anastasia McPherson Subject: Anybody out there? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ladies (I assume) I was THRILLED to find this mailing list as I am working on a sci-fi novella and I love to read sci-fi as well. What are people reading these days? I am a big fan of the anthology and am waiting for the new Dozois Years Best to come out. I also just finished a new anthology called starlight which had women well represented, however, the quality of the selections was something less than memorable. Even Maureen McHugh's story was an obvious derivative of LeGuin's "Left Hand of Darkness". And here is a meaty question. I have always loved the utopia/dystopia dyad but find myself leaning toward creating dystopic futures by extrapolation and see this tendency in the other literature of the day. How much of this do you think is due to the millenialism abroad n the culture today and how much due to a real weighing of the facts of our near future? Sincerely, Anastasia McPherson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:07:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <199704301506.LAA22881@mail.med.upenn.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Anastasia McPherson wrote: > Hi Ladies (I assume) NH: No, we are women and men here. I'd even tread cautiously with assuming that anyone's necessarily identifying her (him?)self as a 'lady.' :) > > And here is a meaty question. I have always loved the > utopia/dystopia dyad but find myself leaning toward creating dystopic > futures by extrapolation and see this tendency in the other literature of > the day. How much of this do you think is due to the millenialism abroad > n the culture today and how much due to a real weighing of the facts of > our near future? NH: I wonder how much of that is due to what fiction *is,* which is watching characters deal, successfully or no, with problems or conflicts. I think that's what holds our interest. I don't know or understand much about classic definitions of utopia lit or theories about what it's *for,* but going by a simple definition of what a utopia is supposed to be, it's probably not going to be very interesting to write a story that essentially says, "Well, here we all are, and everyone's happy, and everything works fine. The end." Hmm. Would Kim Stanley Robinson's _Pacific Edge_ qualify as a utopia? What's interesing about that novel is that even in that essentially peaceful setting, people still butt heads, and there's still plenty of room for disappointment, disagreement, anger, loss, difference...the stuff that makes fiction interesting. -nalo "Proud to be flesh." By the way, this is probably an ideal forum to ask for help. I'm a juror for the Tiptree Awards that will be announced in 1998. Didn't out myself sooner because I'm so very junior a writer, and this is an intimidating bunch of people. However, if any of you come across any speculative fiction published in 1997 that "explores or expands our notions of gender and gender roles," I'd be happy if you'd send me a private e-mail about it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:18:40 +0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "H. Merrick" Subject: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" *** warning and apology : long post ****** a great discussion, with lots of interweaving threads, some of which I would like to try and pull together a bit... I feel the biggest problem with these issues is their complexity (and historical and cultural contingency) and the fact that we have to discuss them in such simplified oppositions as hard/soft, science /culture etc. Firstly the issue of 'hard sf' and 'hard science'; I think Nicola is spot on - the use of 'hard' and hi-tech is a very important factor in the way that hard sf is defined. Thus a lot of novels (including especially feminist sf) which imagines quite radical changes in technology based on 'hard sciences' such as micro-biology and nano-technology (like _Door into Ocean_ and Butler's _xenogenesis_) do not seem to be 'hailed' as hard sf (or 'feel' like hard sf). What exactly do we mean when we talk about hard sf? - from the post so far I think a lot of us would base a definition on early readings of Hienlein and Clarke, but science and technology has developed into unimagined areas since - not least being the turn from outer space to the 'inner space' of genetic engineering and nano-technology. And who gets to police these boundaries and how? As many critics have noted, it isnt just a question of getting science 'right'. I can't help but think here of an article which attributed the 'decline' of the sf field to the corrupting influences of 'soft' sf written by women.... Even if we can claim that hard sf is defined according to the subject or methodology of certain branches of the sciences, we run into problems. I think it is Evelyn Fox Keller who details how a science like biology has gradually developed from being a 'soft' science to a 'hard' science (the apotheosis being of course physics). She argues that it wasnt the subject matter of biology that changed, but its methodology. (must excuse my vagueness here - rather late - I will get the reference and more detail if anyone is interested). On one important level, the distinctions between 'hard and soft' sciences is intrinsically related to that other great divide - the 'two cultures' of science and culture - that is, hard sciences supposedly deal with the 'natural world' while soft sciences deal with the human or cultural world. (Obvious problem here being the separation of human and culture from 'nature') Which leads on to what I think as one of the root problemmatics of this debate; (and indeed, one of the problems haunting perceptions of feminist and constructivist critiques of science - important to remember that, as another post mentioned, it is not only feminists who have attacked the precepts of the 'scientific method' - see critics from Thomas Kuh, to Bruno Latour) ie how it is we actually conceptualise science, technology, culture and nature. Many recent feminist and cultural studies of science and technology take as their starting point the seemingly obvious position that all are inseperable from each other, implicated and imbricated in a web of social, cultural(racial, sexual etc ) relations. This point is worth emphasising precisely because scientific and technological discourses so often appear to be autonomous, independent of 'culture' or society or 'nature'. The sciences do not merely 'observe' and theorise about 'nature' or the 'natural', but are actively involved in constructing what counts as 'nature'; technology is also invoked in establishing the boundaries of 'nature' and the 'natural' - to complicate this, just think of the 'natural' rock that becomes a tool and primitive form of technology when used to build or grind - or at the other extreme of 'genetic technologies' which consist of 'natural' material. It is in this atmosphere of 'leaky borders' and dissolving boundaries that the figure of the cyborg has come to gain such metaphorical weight. The figure of the cyborg and its many theoretical, political, textual and media manifestations suggests some of the fears and hopes surrounding the potential erasure of once secure boundaries which have enormous implications for notions about the body, subjectivity, human/not human ... . There are many kinds of cyborgs, and ways of thinking about them - see the changes in Haraway's ideas since the 1985 manifesto. (must finish up and desperately trying to find a hook to bring the thread back to feminist sf) - certainly the Gibson/Sterling brand of cyberpunk has not had the last word on cyborgs, computers, or AIs. In light of these issues, can we perhaps turn a fresh eye on the amazing amount of work appearing by feminists dealing with contemporary techno-culture, from Melissa Scott, to Nicola's hi-tech (lo-culture?!) Slow River, Bes Shahar, Sarah Zettel, Lisa Mason, Misha, Laura Mixon, Mary Rosenblum... Should ew call these feminist cyberpunk or cyber-feminist sf, or feminist cyborg fiction... or maybe (my preference) just plain old feminist sf dealing with contemporary concerns, which at the moment happen to be cyborgian relations and information technology? Helen note of expanation and apology: I am writing a doctoral thesis on feminist sf (which is why I have been lurking till now - no time!) - and you guessed it! these issues are what my current chapters are all about so they are foremost in my mind. All things considered, you got away quite lightly! :) Helen Merrick Department of History University of Western Australia email : hmerrick@cyllene.uwa.edu.au Ph : 09 - 272 8461 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:35:45 -0400 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <199704301506.LAA22881@mail.med.upenn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Anastasia McPherson wrote: > Hi Ladies (I assume) There are many women, er womyn, er females or this list, but universals and assumptions are generally dangerous enough apart, let alone together. :) > I was THRILLED to find this mailing list as I am working on a > sci-fi novella and I love to read sci-fi as well. What are people > reading these days? I am a big fan of the anthology and am waiting for > the new Dozois Years Best to come out. I also just finished a new > anthology called starlight which had women well represented, however, the > quality of the selections was something less than memorable. Even > Maureen McHugh's story was an obvious derivative of LeGuin's "Left Hand > of Darkness". As was I. Thrilled that is. I'm personally am reading the textbooks assigned for class, the books for my book groups (e.g. _Celestis_), and the messages on this mailing list. When I can, I read some sci-fi of my choosing. I tend to look for certain authors. Currently, the authors that I look for include: David Brin, Nicolla Griffith, Mellisa Scott, Neal Stephenson, and Sheri S. Tepper. > And here is a meaty question. I have always loved the > utopia/dystopia dyad but find myself leaning toward creating dystopic > futures by extrapolation and see this tendency in the other literature of > the day. How much of this do you think is due to the millenialism abroad > n the culture today and how much due to a real weighing of the facts of > our near future? Well, first of all, I don't see much millenialism abroad at all. So there have been some cults and such, but there have always been kooks. So there has been some popular millenial fiction, but then our culture seems to sieze on anything and everything. So, given only those two options, I would have to go with a real weighing of the facts. However, perhaps what we are seeing is more of a reaction to the overly-optimistic, techno-philic sci-fi of yesteryear. Perhaps we are seeing a push towards evenness. (there should probably be similar numbers of utopias and dystopias). Perhaps the incredible feats of technology that we have seen in our own lives (computers and all) and the fact that these far-reaching changes haven't really seemed to affect us all that much has worn some of the wonder wore off of technology. Perhaps the near complete failure of so many so-called idealists of certain generations to retain their idealism and principles as they aged has taught us too much about our own lack of fibre. I think that we have become a more cynical people (sigh). Anyway, welcome. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:42:35 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <199704301506.LAA22881@mail.med.upenn.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Anastasia McPherson wrote: > Hi Ladies (I assume) No, you can't assume that! > And here is a meaty question. I have always loved the > utopia/dystopia dyad but find myself leaning toward creating dystopic > futures by extrapolation and see this tendency in the other literature of > the day. How much of this do you think is due to the millenialism abroad > n the culture today and how much due to a real weighing of the facts of > our near future? > If there is "millennialism [UK spelling!] abroad in the culture today", then I think this is to a large extent abroad in _American_ culture -- or, more accurately, _US_ culture. I see very little evidence of it in Europe, and, of course, elsewwhere in the world (the Muslim world, India, China) it is meaningless -- they don't use the same calendar! There must be more people in the USA who see the millennium as being of historic significance, because of a strange misreading of the Bible, than in the rest of the world put together. But why should the millennium, in a strictly Christian sense, tend toewards dystopic thoughts? Many millennialists (I can never remember whether they are the pre-millennialists or the post-millennialists) see the millennium as ushering in a wonderful utopic time. To take another tack, science fiction writers have _usually_ tended to the dystopic, Makes for better fiction, arguably. And (to agree with your suggestion) it is a bit difficult to extrapolate a utopia of any kind from current trends. Do you remember the prologue of David Brin's _Earth_, where he says "This is the best 2050 I can possibly imagine: scary, isn't it?", or words to that effect. Admittedly, Kim Stanley Robinson extrapolated a utopic California of 2075 or so, in _Pacific Edge_: but somehow his dystopic 21st century Orange Counties, in _The Wild Shore_ and _Gold Coast_, seemed that much more plausible... Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor: FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Joint Editor: EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:54:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Tiptree award material In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: [message snipped, PS included...] > By the way, this is probably an ideal forum to ask for help. I'm a juror > for the Tiptree Awards that will be announced in 1998. Didn't out myself > sooner because I'm so very junior a writer, and this is an intimidating > bunch of people. However, if any of you come across any speculative > fiction published in 1997 that "explores or expands our notions of gender > and gender roles," I'd be happy if you'd send me a private e-mail about it. Just to clarify, does this include any sort of writing? Is there a Tiptree award for short stories, novels, novellas, etc? Or should we just be looking for novels? (that is the award I know about). In any case, the search is on! :) -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:56:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Tiptree award material In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Clarification; short or long speculative fiction is eligible. -nalo On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Joel VanLaven wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > [message snipped, PS included...] > > > By the way, this is probably an ideal forum to ask for help. I'm a juror > > for the Tiptree Awards that will be announced in 1998. Didn't out myself > > sooner because I'm so very junior a writer, and this is an intimidating > > bunch of people. However, if any of you come across any speculative > > fiction published in 1997 that "explores or expands our notions of gender > > and gender roles," I'd be happy if you'd send me a private e-mail about it. > > Just to clarify, does this include any sort of writing? Is there a > Tiptree award for short stories, novels, novellas, etc? Or should we just > be looking for novels? (that is the award I know about). > In any case, the search is on! :) > > -- Joel VanLaven > "Proud to be flesh." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:39:36 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Hard science In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear all- what a vibrant discussion of hard vs "soft" science fiction! My small contribution concerns an early utopia *The New Atlantis* (1625 ish). Francis Bacon, rightly or wrongly, has been adopted as the "father of science." A telling description given that his New Atlantis celebrates the masculine almost to complete exclusion of women. In the area of reproduction women are firmly confined to the margins particluarly in the "feast of the family" a patriarchical ritual whereby the father of a certain number of descendents is publically celebrated for his prowess, while the mother of all these offspring (ie she who has actually done all the work, at considerable risk to her own life) watches from a private room where she is invisible- and is completely forgotten. Here science provides consumanable miricles of various kinds (food that never decays! Wonder drinks!) which largely keep the population passive while a hierachy of priests/scientist censors all information. Apart from the invisble woman at the feast of the family, the only women seen are the silent women appearing on the side of the road, apparently venerating the priestly caste who are respendant in rich clothing and glorious carriages. The "great man" theory of scientists, pointed out by Mike Levy I think, has a history almost as long (or possibly longer) than the history of modern science in England itself. So here, at the beginnings of this "objective" disipline- one of Bacon''s goals was to eliminate biases of every kind- Bacon sorted out the role of women to his own satisfaction. They should be not seen and not heard. I don't think that there is a "pure" science anywhere, somehow independant from ideology and humanity, as someone way back in the discussion suggested. Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:49:25 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Regarding Helen Merrick's extremely interesting post, I was struck by an offhand comment she made about changes in Harraway's position on cyborgs. What might these be? And where can I find them???(probably in her latest book that I really must read). Incidently, I'm impressed by your project- the history of feminist science fiction- and even more impressed that you are doing it in a department of history. A bit different from the Tudors and the causes of the Mexican revolution stuff that I did at university.Things must be hot in Australia! Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:49:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Middleton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi- I'm a new person, so I thought I'd introduce myself. I'm a scientist/university prof (plant ecologist) who really enjoys reading science fiction, particularly "natural" science fiction, e.g., "Earth Abides" by George Stewart and "Ecotopia" by Ernest Callenbach. I'm sure that others in the discussion group share this interest and could pass on other interesting titles. I haven't been very successful in finding very many of these. In the books I have found, often the science is fairly flawed, or they are sexist or racist -- another reason I find this discussion group so intriguing. To spice up my non-majors ecology class at the university, I organize some lectures/discussion around a natural science fiction title. "Biomes" (the vegetation types around the world before we destroyed them all) is a dreadfully boring topic for most students, so I changed it. I began to use the sci-fi book, "Earth Abides", as part of the biomes unit. The book worked out really well from the biomes angle, but it was really tiring apologizing for all of the sexist/racist overtones in the book. >From a science perspective, the ideas in the book did make a great springboard for a discussion of how people change the earth. This is really the entire point of teaching students about biomes in the first place, but it was much more interesting for the students to start with the sci-fi approach and then progress to the sci approach. I eventually wrote a sci-fi thing of my own to use in class to avoid the sexist/racist problem. Does anyone know of other books similar to "Earth Abides", that discuss the way the world would change without so many people? I'd really like to vary the title from year to year. Beth Middleton Dr. Beth Middleton Department of Plant Biology, 411 Life Science II Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 618-453-3216 FAX: 618-453-3441 Sabbatical Phone and FAX: 618-457-6760 bmiddleton@plant.siu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:47:56 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Andrea L. Klein" Subject: Re: Anybody out there? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Edward James wrote: > To take another tack, science fiction writers have _usually_ tended to the > dystopic, Makes for better fiction, arguably. And (to agree with your > suggestion) it is a bit difficult to extrapolate a utopia of any kind from > current trends. Do you remember the prologue of David Brin's _Earth_, > where he says "This is the best 2050 I can possibly imagine: scary, isn't > it?", or words to that effect. Admittedly, Kim Stanley Robinson > extrapolated a utopic California of 2075 or so, in _Pacific Edge_: but > somehow his dystopic 21st century Orange Counties, in _The Wild Shore_ and > _Gold Coast_, seemed that much more plausible... > Along those same lines, I think Ursula Le Guin said something to the effect of "anything carried to its logical extreme becomes pessimistic" or dystopic.... Thus, the very activity of sf, extrapolation, necessarily tends toward a dystopic future. I don't know if it's just that, or whether we simply find the contours of the shadows, or the "darkside", more interesting, more dimensional--as others have suggested. Or maybe it is "milleniumism" :) as well, at least in the U.S. That's all, take care, Andrea Klein ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:07:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" First and foremost, I'm startled and delighted at the quality and quantity of, uh, discourse I've prompted. It certainly bodes well for the list. My most frequent reaction to the posts has been that we need to be more precise about which of several overlapping, sometimes fuzzy, meanings we are using. "Science" as a method of inquiry has, IMNSHO, proven itself as a way of approaching certain large, important areas of Truth. "Science" as a human activity, especially a collaborative, communal human activity, is subject to a variety of problems. I assume that members of the list don't need this amplified! To an extent, Heather was referring to this distinction >Neil -- I was not debating that certain laws of physics seem to be >unimpeachably rigid. The original question was about _hard_ science as >sexist. _Hard_ science (among which physics) pretends to fully describe >reality. The problem is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that >constitutes "reality" which is not in the realm of _hard_ science. And is >therefore *devalued*, in terms of describing reality, when contrasted with >hard science. That's all. Note that under the laws of quantum mechanics, >either your fascist, sexist pig or your pagan feminist may or may not >splatter. =) The odds are pretty heavy that they will, however, you're right. And Farah referred to my second definition >Science is also a discourse between competing theories. Timmi Duchamp also emphasized the collaborative nature of "real science". Some of the recent hard sf writers do try to portray this. Benford and Bear come to mind. my apologies to the poster of this for losing your name as I shuffled notes for this global response: >I want the right to take on whatever approaches >feel valuable. I am also wary of any approach which condemns by >association. Hard sf does not have to be sexist. It claims, after all, an >objectivity. That it does not always live up to this is something that >can be worked on, and in fact the genre demands that it be worked >on. A more elaborate distinction needs to be made of the various implications of "hard" and "soft" in the sciences, and of "hard sf". My understanding of the basic meaning of "hard" science is that it deals with "hard" facts, things which may be measured or calculated precisely, in contrast to "soft" facts which intrinsically have less precision. "Hard science fiction" means to me science fiction centering around engineering, where "answers" are very quantifiable, and the "correctness" of solutions can be measured. I don't think I've seen much use of soft-science fiction of soft science-fiction. I agree with Nicola Griffith: >It's my opinion that "hard sf" is much more about technology than science. and disagree with Mike Levy: >I would argue that to the >extent that the phrase "hard science fiction" means anything today, it's >simply a political concept used to describe the work of a group of >generally (although not exclusively) conservative or libertarian science >fiction writers, most of whom are male, most of whom center their stories >on physics and engineering. My understanding of the "hard" is more to do with the sciences than the political stance. Sturgeon's _The Skills of Xanadu_ comes to mind. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:29:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >note of expanation and apology: I am writing a doctoral thesis on feminist >sf (which is why I have been lurking till now - no time!) - and you guessed >it! these issues are what my current chapters are all about so they are >foremost in my mind. All things considered, you got away quite lightly! :) > >Helen Merrick >Department of History >University of Western Australia >email : hmerrick@cyllene.uwa.edu.au >Ph : 09 - 272 8461 I've taken the liberty of forwarding your post to a couple of womem sf scholars and feminist fans of my acquaintance. If you get posts out of the blue from Betty Hull, Beverly Friend or Avedon Carol, it's my fault. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:45:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <10657F23EA6@coned.uwinnipeg.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:04 4/29/97 CDT, you wrote: >Let's face it, the phrase "hard science" has a pretty macho ring to >it! It's probably no accident that men "dominate" the "hard >sciences," whereas women tend to be attracted to the "softer" >disciplines and social sciences. Just an opinion. > Men "dominate" -- and that's changing. Try _Fair Science_ by Cole, and _Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?_ by Harding. Just two I happen to have handy. Also -- check out the number of women graduating with science degrees today. There's no reason to think this opinion will stick around forever. (Cooking IS a science, ask any chef; it's only considered "not a science" when any woman except Julia Child does it.) Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:56:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <199704301850.NAA82778@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, Beth, You might want to look for Judith Moffett's Pennterra. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the science, but it sounds like the kind of book you'd like. You might also want to try Joan Slonczewski's books. She's a well-known bacteriologist at Kenyon College and an excellent sf writer. Mike Levy Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Beth Middleton wrote: > Hi- > > I'm a new person, so I thought I'd introduce myself. I'm a > scientist/university prof (plant ecologist) who really enjoys reading > science fiction, particularly "natural" science fiction, e.g., "Earth > Abides" by George Stewart and "Ecotopia" by Ernest Callenbach. I'm sure > that others in the discussion group share this interest and could pass on > other interesting titles. I haven't been very successful in finding very > many of these. In the books I have found, often the science is fairly > flawed, or they are sexist or racist -- another reason I find this > discussion group so intriguing. > > To spice up my non-majors ecology class at the university, I organize some > lectures/discussion around a natural science fiction title. "Biomes" (the > vegetation types around the world before we destroyed them all) is a > dreadfully boring topic for most students, so I changed it. I began to use > the sci-fi book, "Earth Abides", as part of the biomes unit. The book > worked out really well from the biomes angle, but it was really tiring > apologizing for all of the sexist/racist overtones in the book. > > >From a science perspective, the ideas in the book did make a great > springboard for a discussion of how people change the earth. This is really > the entire point of teaching students about biomes in the first place, but > it was much more interesting for the students to start with the sci-fi > approach and then progress to the sci approach. I eventually wrote a sci-fi > thing of my own to use in class to avoid the sexist/racist problem. > > Does anyone know of other books similar to "Earth Abides", that discuss the > way the world would change without so many people? I'd really like to vary > the title from year to year. > > Beth Middleton > Dr. Beth Middleton > Department of Plant Biology, 411 Life Science II > Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 > 618-453-3216 FAX: 618-453-3441 > Sabbatical Phone and FAX: 618-457-6760 > bmiddleton@plant.siu.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:58:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: science & science fiction In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 15:46 4/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, L. Timmel Duchamp wrote: > > > (2) "hard >> sf" grossly misrepresents how science works and how practicing >> scientists conduct research. Practicing scientists work collectively >> and collaboratively. > >This is a very important point. Most of the conservative, so-called "hard >sf" writers seem obsessed with what has been called The Great Man School of >History. By this I mean that they almost always show one great scientist or >captain of industry leading the way, backed by a bunch of second bananas. > >This unscientific idiocy is perpetrated in recent supposedly hard sf by >Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Michael Flynn, Robert Forward, and others. >Basically it's the same wishfulfillment fantasy idea that was used by the >early space opera writers like E.E. Smith, Ray Cummings, John W. Campbell, >and George O. Smith. As it was by Heinlein. > >It's simply an extention of the conservative-libertarian view of the >heroic scientist as high IQ, high sperm-count ubermensch. > >Mike Levy > One really important exception -- Benford's _Timescape_ where the science IS done collaboratively, as well as competitively, and where the life of a junior academic aspirant looks pretty accurately depicted as well. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:01:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Papers being read at WisCon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The following is a list with (abstracts) of the academic-style papers being read at WisCon next month. I thought it would be of interest to many of the people on this list. Mike Levy Friday 5:00-6:30 pm Conf. 3 1. Laurie Marks Telling Stories: On Creativity in the Academy This paper tells stories about how the telling of stories and other creative acts are forbidden and marginalized in institutions of higher education. 2. Philip Kaveny The Reception of Science Fiction In American Public libraries 1977-1987 This paper explores the converging popular and academic reception of science fiction as an emergent body of literature during a carefully specified period 1977-1987. Kaveny argues that a group of marginalized accademics by breaking off from MLA (The Modern Language Association) in 1971,and forming their own professional association known as the the Science Fiction Research Association(SFRA), were able within a hand full of years to gain professional jurisdiction over issues of litertary quality, as it related to public library selection within that genre. The results were problematic for both the vitality of the genre, and its respesentationwithin public library collections through out the United States. Saturday, 9:30-11:00 am 1. Billie Aul Rumaging in the Closet: Women Writers and Their Gay Male Characters This paper looks at slash fan fiction and the academic attention such writing has received. Aul's interest is in whether the fan authors, writing in a non-commercial, women-dominated community, are able to play with the gender roles of their gay characters in ways no available to women authors working in commercial science fiction and fantasy. Aul uses the Bem Sex-Role Inventory as a jumping-off place to explore gender role assignment in a variety of slash stories and in three commercial stories, Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Heritage of Hastur_, Ellen Kushner's _Swordspoint_, and Maureen McHugh's _China Mountain Zhang_. 2. Cynthia Zender Breaking the Gender Confines of the Appropriate In _Toward a Recognition of Androgyny_, Carolyn Heilbrun presented a methodology to determine whether or not a fictional character was an androgynous character. Heilbrun's essay concentrated on "classical" and "mainstream" literature. Yet, there is an explicit assumption in the SF/F field, (the Tiptree Award) that the SF/F genre is where androgynous works _do_ appear. This paper uses Heilbrun's methodology to examine several novels ( _The Shadow Man_ by Melissa Scott, _Godmother Night_ by Rachel Pollack, _The Forbidden Tower_ by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and _Left Hand of Darkness_ by Ursula LeGuin) in the SF/F genre to determine whether Heilbrun's methodology is relevant to the genre and whether the genre is, in fact, producing androgynous fiction according to Heilbrun's (and by extension, "mainstream") standards. Saturday, 5:00-6:30 pm Conf. 3 1. Sandra Lindow Inner Space in Ursula K. Le Guin's _Catwings_: A Study of Trauma and Recovery Ursula K. Le Guin's Catwings series has been criticized as being too frightening for its intended audience. Indeed, the winged kittens experience parental abandonment and severe emotional trauma. _Wonderful Alexander and the Catwings_, the third volume in the series, includes a particularly poignant description of post/traumatic stress disorder in early childhood. This paper will examine Le Guin's text based on the latest findings and scholarly research on childhood trauma. 2. Michael Levy Ophelia Triumphant: The Depiction of Adolescent Girls in Two Recent SF Novels The recent success of Mary Pipher's book _Reviving Ophelia_ has brought considerable attention to the particular problems faced by adolescent girls in contemporary American society. In this paper I propose to apply Pipher's theories to two recent science -iction novels, Octavia Butler's _Parable of the Sower_ (1993) and Jack Womack's _Random Acts of Senseless Violence_ (1993), both of which involve adolescent girls growing up in a decaying, enormously violent, near-future America. I'm also interested in examining these novels within the context of the bildungsroman tradition, both in it standard articulation and in various more recent feminist re-visioning. Sunday, 9:30-11:00 Conf. 1 1. Janice M. Bogstad Can Men write Feminist Utopias? In the last handful of years, a number of male authors have written novels in the utopian tradition which feature either female-dominated societies or female protagonists who are central to the society constructed. Focusing onThe Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson, The Remote Country of Women by Bai Hua, China Mountain Zhang by Maureen McHugh, Glory Age by David Brin, Against a Dark Background and Complicity by Iain Banks and The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent, this paper compares the feminist utopian novels by male writers to those of female writers. Style, social scope and comparison of characterization of women and men in relation will be the primary areas of analysis. Monday, 11:00-12:30 pm 1. Lisa Yaszek "Unusual Stories": Production, Reproduction, and Sexual Identity in the Industrial Era This paper attempts to provide a context forthe current controversy surrounding the technological mediation of reproduction by examining the relationship between nineteenth-century medical and industrial practices, focusing on the similar ways in which both fields historically have authorized (masculine) control of the (feminine) laboring subject. Finally, this paper considers the popular response to this situation by briefly examining images of male and female reproductive subjects in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Freud's Oedipal theories of sexual development. 2. Rebecca Holden The High Costs of Cyborg Survival: Octavia Butler's XENOGENESIS Trilogy This paper investigates the range of cyborg positions in Octavia Butler's XENOGENESIS trilogy and the high costs of taking on any cyborg position. While Butler's early cyborg fiction investigates the usefulness of cyborg positions for bringing difference and women of color into feminist sf, her later cyborg fiction further complicates Donna Haraway's cyborg fix for feminism and feminist sf by focusing on the practical problems involved in accepting cyborg positions and making those potent connections with those who are truly different. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:09:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Science as sexist In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970430170724.006ae55c@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > and disagree with Mike Levy: > >I would argue that to the > >extent that the phrase "hard science fiction" means anything today, it's > >simply a political concept used to describe the work of a group of > >generally (although not exclusively) conservative or libertarian science > >fiction writers, most of whom are male, most of whom center their stories > >on physics and engineering. > My understanding of the "hard" is more to do with the sciences than the > political stance. Sturgeon's _The Skills of Xanadu_ comes to mind. If you look at the writers who are generally labelled hard science fiction writers they are almost all politically conservative males and many, in fact, use relatively little real science in their stories. Some have been known to make really silly scientific errors. Larry Niven, for example, once had the sun rising in the west. Female SF writers are almost never labelled as hard sf writers even when their stories are chock full of scientific materials. Check out the chemistry in Nancy Kress's Beggars Ride or the Biochemistry in Slonczewski's books or the Chemistry and Engineering in Griffith's Slow River. By any rational use of the term, these books are much more hard science than most of what Larry Niven and Poul Anderson are doing, but Niven and Anderson are labelled hard sf writers and Kress, Slonczewski, and Griffith aren't. Mike Levy