"FEMINISTSF LOG9707D" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:06:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicole Youngman Subject: Contact << << ltimmel@HALCYON.COM (L. Timmel Duchamp) In response to this commentary, I want to say that the illogical discrepancies or ingredients of movies usually come from a director's wish to simplify a plot and downsize the cast of characters. >> Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I am utterly amazed at how much this movie is being analyzed to death. It's a two-hour endeavor, folks, there's only so much time there. There's no way the director could have given us the entire story of how she survived adolescence AND her earlier childhood. Regarding the relationship with her father, I thought the point was that she had a wonderful, supportive parent in her childhood that inspired her to use her mind, thinking for herself and figuring things out, in a time when girls weren't generally encouraged to do much more than learn how to catch a husband. And I thought her comments to the priest after her father's death had little if anything to do for feeling guilty about it, but were rather a rejection of the priest's interpretation of the event: It was *not* "God's will"; it happened because he had a bad heart and couldn't get to his medicine in time, assuming that would have helped. Logic, not superstition, right? And regarding the hearings at the end, why the hell *shouldn't* she feel emotional and intimidated? Wouldn't anyone, regardless of sex, regardless of how sure they were of their testimony? I thought the idea was to make the audience proud of how *well* she held up under the circumstances, and to have that reinforced by seeing the supportive crowds outside afterwards. Or do we want to strive for some ridiculous hyper-masculine ideal of showing no emotion no matter what? Anyone who hasn't read the book, please do so. Sagan is indeed an excellent writer. And speaking of which... >I, myself, am about to pick up one of his previous novels, perhaps Comet. Whoa!! Hang on a sec!! He wrote *other* novels? And all this time I've been lamenting that he never wrote more fiction?! Some kind soul please tell me what they are so I can go hunting!! Thanks! Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:24:47 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Moltz Subject: GregBear(off-topic) For those who are interested: Greg Bear's talk "Joy and Panic in the Dataflow Age" at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference in Seattle is available as an audiotape. To order, contact National Audio Video, Inc. 1-800-373-2952 tape number 23 cost: $12 Sandy Moltz ssm@pdd8.ae.ge.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:36:16 -0400 Reply-To: Robin Gordon Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Gordon Subject: Sheri S. Tepper; was Re: Poppy Z. Brite In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Robin A. Dubner Dubner wrote: > On the other hand, I discovered Sheri S. Tepper a couple of months ago > and I've been devouring everything of hers I can get my hands on. The first > her books read by everyone. Her feminism, great character development and > lyrical writing are without comparison. I heartily enjoy the repeated themes > of ecological disaster due to uncontrolled human breeding and the evils of > religious fundamentalism. I love the development of her female protaganists > into strong independent women. > Anyone out there who wants to talk Sheri S. Tepper with me? > Hi Robin, I'm the other Robin (or there may be more), and that sound you hear may be the groans of others on the list remembering that I am, it seems the Tepper critic on the list. The only Tepper I've read is Gate and just finished Gibbon's Decline and Fall, which looked interesting and I thought, hey, everyone on the list seems to love her so I should give her another chance. I did enjoy Gibbon's, how refreshing to have a sf novel where the main characters are older women! And the characters were very well drawn, the ideas interesting and the mystical elements enchanting. I liked it a great deal more than I did Gate. But some of the same Tepper elements continued to bother me. Warning- spoilers about Gibbon's Decline and Fall: I won't repeat my concerns here about the homophobia in Gate, if you're interested check the archives. In Gibbon's Tepper has come a fair ways, including a strong lesbian character, and another (probably) suppressed lesbian character. I liked the way she portrayed these women and their sexuality, especially the sculpter. Unfortunately the treatment of gay men is not so great. Despite the fact that a great deal of the plot deals with a plague of the loss of sexual appetite and layers of repercussions which flow from this, never in the discussions of the plague does she address what's happening to gays and lesbians, except a brief note that the lesbian character is also suffering a libido loss. And in one passage about the church, one character knowledgably offers the explanation that priests don't know how to deal with women because they're mostly homosexual men. I know it's not a big part of the novel, but I find it disturbing, given a similar, but worse, lapse into homophobia in Gate. There's a lot to unpack there, why suggest most priests are gay? And then claim this is the root of their inability to deal with women? Sure there are misogynist gay men, but they didn't invent it, and don't have a monopoly on it. The other thing that I was really hit by in Gibbon's was Tepper's continued biological essentialism. It seems to me that Tepper, like many feminists (I respect a diversity of feminisims, but just don't necessarily agree with them all) seems to feel that there is some 'essential' difference between men and women (women are overall more gentle, caring, nurturing, less agressive, violent, warlike, ant that this is natural or inherent not just a product of social construction). This is particularly evident in her discussion of the 'plague', where she places a great deal of emphasis on the reduction in men's testosterone levels as being the central ingredient to a whole host of radical social changes. The message is clear that behaviour is, at least largely, biologically driven, and that the important biological differences are between men as a category and women as a category. As you can probably tell, I'm a realtively radical social constructionist (socialist feminst) myself, and disagree with some of her basic philosophy. OK, enough for now, Robin Gordon ------------------------ Resistance is Fruitful. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:10:20 -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: Contact In-Reply-To: <970722010613_882503124@emout13.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I may be wrong, but I believe Contact was Sagan's only novel. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:21:38 -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: Sheri S. Tepper; was Re: Poppy Z. Brite Comments: To: Robin Gordon In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Robin Gordon wrote: > The other thing that I was really hit by in Gibbon's was Tepper's > continued biological essentialism. It seems to me that Tepper, like many > feminists (I respect a diversity of feminisims, but just don't necessarily > agree with them all) seems to feel that there is some 'essential' > difference between men and women (women are overall more gentle, caring, > nurturing, less agressive, violent, warlike, ant that this is natural or > inherent not just a product of social construction). > > This is particularly evident in her discussion of the 'plague', where she > places a great deal of emphasis on the reduction in men's testosterone > levels as being the central ingredient to a whole host of radical social > changes. The message is clear that behaviour is, at least largely, > biologically driven, and that the important biological differences are > between men as a category and women as a category. > > As you can probably tell, I'm a realtively radical social constructionist > (socialist feminst) myself, and disagree with some of her basic > philosophy. > This is something that bothers me about Tepper as well, what appears to be a gut-level belief that men are incapable of controlling their propensity for violence, and that things can only be improved by a) selectively and secretly breed the violence out (Gate) or b) finding some kind of deus (or fungus) ex machina to reduce male violence (Raising the Stones). Of course Tepper isn't the only writer to consider this a possibility. Butler deals with the issue in the Xenogenesis trilogy and it's a continuing theme in the fiction of Joe Haldeman--see especially his forthcoming *Forever Peace* in which scientists create a way to make humanity incapable of violence. Joan Slonczewski reaches somewhat different conclusions in several of her novels though. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:29:06 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicole Youngman Subject: Re: Contact << I may be wrong, but I believe Contact was Sagan's only novel. >> That's what I thought, too. Someone mentioned _Comet_ as fiction...? Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:11:04 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Horror and Tepper >Since Robin brought Tepper into the Poppy Z. discussion, anyone >out there read her three horror novels? Seems like some people did? Her 3 horror novels, all her sf and fantasy (except the most recent?) and also all her mysteries as Oliphant and Orde! Sometimes (quite often, perhaps) I find the pill sticking rather too obviously out of the jam--but it is always Very Good Jam. Lesley Lesley_Hall@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:07:43 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Different but Equal ??? I think I may have missed a stage in this debate.... << For some ungodly reason, some "feminists" have tried to find differences between men and women. There have been books and television shows about "the differences between men and women" that have been given tacit approval by such feminists and their work. >> There's a long-standing tradition of feminists trying to re-deploy existing debates about difference for their own benefit: e.g. in the C19th, some campaigners for the suffrage argued that if women *were* that different from men, how could men (as politicians claimed) truly represent women in the political process? Some campaigners inverted the terms of the 'difference' debates, so that women's very differences made them superior. It's a rather dodgy strategy, and closer study of earlier debates show women using both equality and difference tactics/strategies. Both are important: why should men be assumed to be the norm to which women have to conform? what is true equality? Lesley Lesley_Hall@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:55:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Outer Limits In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Did anyone see _The Outer Limits_ this weekend? It's about a female scientists who invents a time machine and uses it to go back to the past and kill convicted sexual criminals before they kill their first victim. Another woman, police officer, tracks her down just before the scientist goes back to kill the man that raped her as a teenager. If anyone seen it, please tell me what you think. Marina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 01:19:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jana C. McCormick" Subject: Carl Sagan << NYOUNGMAN@AOL.COM (Nicole Youngman) Sorry for the misinformation, I don't know of any other novels. I just discovered that Comet is non-fiction, all about comets...But I would love to know of any other novels, if any. Comet is the only other book I've found by Sagan, but he did write other books. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:47:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: HScott/PAronoff Subject: Re: Outer Limits In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Probably my favourite _Outer Limits_ episode. I'm always a sucker for time travel and time paradox stories, and this one had some important social themes (dealing with the trauma of rape, how society deals with repeat sexual offenders, capital punishment, abortion rights, the use of fetal tissue in research...). The acting was a big factor in the success of the episode. The scientist is played by Amanda Plummer and the cop by Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro Laren to us Trekkies). SPOILERS BELOW: At 10:55 PM 22/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >Did anyone see _The Outer Limits_ this weekend? It's about a female >scientists who invents a time machine and uses it to go back to the past >and kill convicted sexual criminals before they kill their first victim. >Another woman, police officer, tracks her down just before the scientist >goes back to kill the man that raped her as a teenager. > >If anyone seen it, please tell me what you think. > >Marina I think Amanda Plummer especially did a great acting job. A scientific genius, but one obsessed and in endless pain from being held prisoner and raped repeatedly as a young teen. Her killing of serial rapist/killers to-be did not help her with her personal pain; ironically it multiplied because she still remembered every possible universe she destroyed. She was only saving others from the similar pain. When she finally took the step that erased/prevented her own pain, she "un-saved" all those other women, and restored the cop's pain at the murder of her best friend. So in this story, the time-travel paradox is not about the fate of the planet or of the galaxy, but the pain of rape victims and those who love them. Howard Scott & Aronoff Translation & Editorial Services Montreal, Quebec, Canada alterego@alterego.montreal.qc.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:13:31 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marcus Subject: Re: Outer Limits In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > Did anyone see _The Outer Limits_ this weekend? It's about a female > scientists who invents a time machine and uses it to go back to the past > and kill convicted sexual criminals before they kill their first victim. > Another woman, police officer, tracks her down just before the scientist > goes back to kill the man that raped her as a teenager. > > If anyone seen it, please tell me what you think. > > Marina I saw it a while ago. I can't remember the details too well. Weren't there was some interesting complications around the final erasure of the rape of the scientist who built the machine--maybe when that rape was prevented she lacked the incentive to build it in the first place and the causal chain erased the time machine itself from existence? What did this do to the revenge killings that the time machine had already been used for? And was there an issue of the different memories of the cop and the scientist? Did the cop save the scientist from her life of revenge by killing the scientist's rapist, have the police case against her disappear and everything was left only in the memory of the cop? I would like to discuss it, but you'll have to refresh my memory. Marcus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:24:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elizabeth Pandolfo Subject: Re: Female quest narratives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On 19 July, 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: >I think this is a topic we could all be interested in! My immediate guess >(though I'd hesitate to back it up with examples (since it is past midnight >here)) is that female quests are less in the mode of hero setting out to make >his fortune and more 'accidental' in the way they come about. Also maybe more >'anti-heroic': not exactly feminist perhaps but a series I fell in love with >many years ago, Jane Gaskell's 'Atlan' sequence, has the protagonist Cija >ending up in all sorts of grotty situations (kitchen maid in a low-class inn, >holed up in tatty garretts, etc quite apart from being incarcerated by her >husband Zerd in an extremely gothic tower for about a third of the second >volume) in fact could be read as proceeding from enclosure to enclosure. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond--I've been out of town for a while! I would definitely agree that female quests in fairy tales are very 'accidental' in the way they come about. I'm not so sure about fantasy stories though. It's not a pattern I've noticed with them, but I'll look. I'm interested in your description of Gaskell and her protagonist proceeding from enclosure to enclosure. Annis Pratt wrote a book called Archetypal Patterns in Women's Fiction (I think) where she describes this as one of many patterns found in fiction by women. Put simply, the various patterns represent the authors' own oppression as women. I find her book intriguing and I highly recommend it, though what fantasy and SF she discusses she sees as very liberating while I tend to see it as still displaying the patterns of oppression she describes. Elizabeth -- Elizabeth L. Pandolfo/Briggs pandolfo@macbsd.com http://www.macbsd.com/~pandolfo/index.html "Whatever happens, believe that the journey is worth taking..." --Pesh, "Seaward" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 23:41:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne V Stuecker Subject: Overpopulation >The known, proven solution to high birth rates is affluence. Neil (or anyone else who can answer this question) - Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are to have children? This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there? Also, are you proposing that all of earth's inhabitants should be made rich (my interpretation of the word "affluent")? Wouldn't a more sound plan be to see that everyone has what they need and that the world has no use for terms like "rich" and "poor"? -- Anne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:25:39 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicole Youngman Subject: Re: Overpopulation << Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are to have children? This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there? >> How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people *do* tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. It may be because there's a correlation between being working-class or poor and the likelihood of being a member of a religious group that preaches against birth control, or because poor girls see very little *other* options for their lives and start having (lots of) kids sooner, whereas middle- and upper-class girls are more likely not to get pregnant because they're more careful, not wanting to screw up their futures. People who are better-educated tend to be better off (and vice versa) and have fewer children as well. More opportunities for women definately helps lower birth rates *and* infant mortality rates. One excellent book on the subject (poverty and teen pregnancy, that is) is Kristin Luker's _Dubious Conceptions_. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:38:03 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Amanda Elliot Subject: Re: Overpopulation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Anne I think the research into this question shows that its not just monetary 'wealth' but women's education levels and their opportunity to make choices about their lives. Which is why there are differences in birth rates within countries as well as between countries. The common denominator tends to be women's education levels ... educating men doesn't seem to make too much of a difference ... . ( I will try and find some references for you ... I can't find any right at this moment ... my desk and files are an utter mess). But from what I remember the higher women's education levels and the more opportunities women have to make their own choices about their life (and I also include access to affordable and safe contraceptives and abortions within that) the less children they are likely to have ... and the higher their age at the birth of their first child is likely to be. At 11:41 22/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >>The known, proven solution to high birth rates is affluence. > >Neil (or anyone else who can answer this question) - > >Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are >to have children? This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal >evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there? > >Also, are you proposing that all of earth's inhabitants should be made >rich (my interpretation of the word "affluent")? Wouldn't a more sound >plan be to see that everyone has what they need and that the world has no >use for terms like "rich" and "poor"? > > -- Anne > > Amanda Elliot Social Policy Research Centre University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW 2052 ph: 385 3845 fax: 385 1049 e-mail: a.elliot@unsw.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:46:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Williams Subject: The Long Kiss GOodbye Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" if talk about this video is cool on this list -- I found Long Kiss Goodbye to be an upbeat action movie about an ex-assassin (Geena Davis). also feminist. also fantasy. unfortunately the government wasn't quite as evil as I find it to be in real life... well nothings perfect. with reference to the list's contact discussion -- which someone said was way more involved than the movie itself -- I really dig it when we get ahold of a movie or book where we can say, this glass is definitely HALF FULL, and celebrate that, in a world of corporate, disempowering, alienating, dishonest, depressing! culture. --- Kate Williams University of Toledo Community and Technical College Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu til late July: (419) 531-8340 x205, fax (419) 531-8412 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 07:39:22 -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: The Long Kiss GOodbye In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970724134630.0074b4bc@uoft02.utoledo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think you mean The Long Kiss Goodnight--by the way, I agree and I loved the flick. On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Kate Williams wrote: > if talk about this video is cool on this list -- I found Long Kiss Goodbye > to be an upbeat action movie about an ex-assassin (Geena Davis). also > feminist. also fantasy. unfortunately the government wasn't quite as evil as > I find it to be in real life... well nothings perfect. > > with reference to the list's contact discussion -- which someone said was > way more involved than the movie itself -- I really dig it when we get ahold > of a movie or book where we can say, this glass is definitely HALF FULL, and > celebrate that, in a world of corporate, disempowering, alienating, > dishonest, depressing! culture. > > > > --- > Kate Williams > University of Toledo Community and Technical College > Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy > kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu > til late July: (419) 531-8340 x205, fax (419) 531-8412 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:41:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Caporusso <104525.2243@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Movies, Alien 4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit De-lurking to say that I was also very pleased with the discussion on Contact. Now that I know it's OK to talk about movies, has anyone heard anything about Alien 4? Any chance of it being a feminist film? P.S. So who is on this list? - Catherine Caporusso; graduated from UIC in 92; now women's rights lawyer working at the AFL-CIO in DC through a fellowship; always was a feminist and always loved science fiction, but only recently started reading feminist science fiction; very interested in reproductive issues; love STNG, the Holdfast trilogy, and Tank Girl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:22:57 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Overpopulation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In my experience, at least when talking about young people some 15 years ago, the bizarre thing to me was that the college track kids -- who actually mostly already had the basic information as opposed to the disinformation that seems to perpetuate itself faster even that people ("you can't get pregnant the first time" "You can't get pregnant if the girl is on top" "Douching with coke will keep you from getting pregnant") -- were the ones who got the classes talking about sex and its consequences, while the non-college bound didn't. Which always seemed backasswards to me. I think our schools have improved the distribution of information now, (at least at my daughter's school it seems to be part of the basic program) and probably the biggest obstacle is kids' sense of immortality and invulnerability: "nothing bad can happen to me." Any SF out there postulating a reduction in population because people have less sex for fear of death? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:00:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Overpopulation In-Reply-To: <19970723.225915.18278.1.avs5@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are >to have children? This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal >evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there? I'm not a sociologist, but I play one on my computer. ;-) Here's my guess: Fewer children = Better educated = Money Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:31:11 -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: Overpopulation In-Reply-To: <19970723.225915.18278.1.avs5@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anne V Stuecker replied to me: >>The known, proven solution to high birth rates is affluence. > >Neil (or anyone else who can answer this question) - > >Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are >to have children? Yes. The data are overwhelming. >This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal >evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there? That's a WHOLE LOT more complicated. Presumably, there are a variety of psychological, social and economic causal factors. That's why I stuck to the final result and didn't go into mechanisms. > >Also, are you proposing that all of earth's inhabitants should be made >rich (my interpretation of the word "affluent")? Yes. >Wouldn't a more sound >plan be to see that everyone has what they need and that the world has no >use for terms like "rich" and "poor"? "rich", "poor", "affluent" are to a great degree subjective. "Absolute" values vary substantially from person to person and society to society. In my opinion, the overall evidence is completely convincing: Within two generations of universal material security, population growth would not only stop, but slight shrinkage would be likely. (Incidentally, there is a second factor in controlling birth rates which has only recently begun to get major attention. It will be no surprise to members of this list that family size is inversely proportinal to education and economic opportunity for females.) Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:33:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: The Delenn Deserves Better code MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is for everyone who keeps on wondering what exactly Delenn deserves better is 1. We believe that Delenn is one of the best characters on Babylon 5, if not EVER. 2. We also believe that Delenn, since she is an amazing character in her own right, does not need to be attatched to any man. 3. And since she is such an amazing character, we are stunned and dismayed that, despite her obvious intelligence, charm, and beauty, a relationship between Delenn and John Sheridan would even EXIST! 4. DELENN DESERVES BETTER! Delenn has been an utter goddess, whereas John Sheridan is nothing more than an incredibly lame Earthforce captain. 5. Nothing shall be taken seriously. As a result, John & Delenn's relationship doesn't exist. 6. Not only does Delenn deserve better, WE deserve better. We can not spend our lives sacrificing our individuality for someone else. 7. Creativity is a necessary part of life. And fan fiction is a great beginning for creative output. 8. We do not hate men, nor do we necessarily hate John Sheridan. We simply feel that their relationship is wrong. 9. We do not consider JMS a deity. He is a man. And he can make mistakes. 10. And as God as our witness, we will never hear Delenn say "Oh John" again! You can join Delenn Deserves Better by going to: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/9060 Delenn Deserves Better was created by Kate Bolin. This document can be sent anywhere, as long as these last lines remain. And remember, Delenn deserves BETTER!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm already in the gutter....next stop, it's the drain..." Alien Sex Fiend "I Walk The Line" Kate Bolin http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin Founder of Delenn Deserves Better!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:40:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Middleton Subject: Overpopulation and ecological theory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An ecologist took a whack at the relationship between wealth, population size and human history a few years back in "The Fate of Nations", by Paul Colinvaux. Colinvaux's take on this is that humans fill different economic niches, much like plant and animal populations. The wealthy niche is rather small, but consumptive. Necessarily, wealthier people have fewer children, because there is a smaller economic niche for them to fill. He applies all these ideas to human history, e.g., war. One of Colinvaux's ideas is that environmental phenomena such as drought causes wars because of the shrinking of the resource base. For example in recorded history, the people in the Asian steppes start wars every 500-600 years corresponding with major drought there. To me these ideas are sort of appealing, but no doubt more complicated. The idea works within a culture better than cross-culturally. People in developing countries without a social security system typically have more children to insure that a few of the children survive to support them in their old age. In India, for example, the boys are the likely caretakers of the elderly. So, to insure that one boy survives, people in the villages have 2 boys. Since it is equally likely to have girls, the average village family has 2 girls. It is pretty logical then that the average family size in India is 4 children. I don't know what the average family size is for the middle and upper class in India, but I'm sure that the number is well below 4 children. In India, the "1 girl + 1 boy = happy family" family planning signs are everwhere. It isn't lack of education that drives this, so much as economic necessity. Beth ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:13:52 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Williams Subject: 11 of 441 nobel prizes to women... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" article in LE MONDE might be of interest: Sex and science by Ingrid Carlander Only 11 of 441 Nobel prizes have gone to women. And in Europe women's near absence in the fields of science, mathematics, engineering and new technology seems astonishing. This comprehensive report takes a hard look at what keeps women away from the sciences. http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/06/sex.html --- Kate Williams University of Toledo Community and Technical College Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu til late July: (419) 531-8340 x205, fax (419) 531-8412 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:28:51 -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: Movies, Alien 4 In-Reply-To: <199707241141_MC2-1B84-60C5@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Catherine Caporusso wrote: > De-lurking to say that I was also very pleased with the discussion on > Contact. Now that I know it's OK to talk about movies, has anyone heard > anything about Alien 4? Any chance of it being a feminist film? > > Catherine Caporusso; graduated from UIC in 92; now women's rights lawyer > working at the AFL-CIO in DC through a fellowship; always was a feminist > and always loved science fiction, but only recently started reading > feminist science fiction; very interested in reproductive issues; love > STNG, the Holdfast trilogy, and Tank Girl > Another lawyer! I'm very jealous of your work at AFL-CIO, I work in labour law too, though here in Canada, just accepted a position doing grievance arbitration with OPSEU (Ontario Public Service Employee's Union). Anyways, I saw a trailer for Alien 4 which looked good, and I LOVE that signourney weaver but have to say I'm skeptical about two things: how do they bring her back to life and why is winona ryder in it? Tank Girl is absolutely fantastic, anyone who hasn't seen it definitely should, it is very fierce young feminist and fabulous fun. Not only one but two terrific female heroes, tank and jet girl, out to save the young girl who is anything but helpless herself. robin. --------------------------------- "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." ani difranco ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:48:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Middleton Subject: Re: 11 of 441 nobel prizes to women... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think this web page on women in science misses the main point. It's not so much a problem in education anymore. The female/male ration in grad school, at least in some of the sciences is getting fairly even (e.g., biological sciences). The problem is social. The job market is so narrow for Ph.D.'s in the sciences, that you must move to the job. Most women opt to put their relationships first, and careers second. At my university, we have but a small handful of female science/mathematics faculty. Almost all of them moved here with their husband's job, and then eventually "lucked" out or chiseled out a job opening in their area. To do a career in science, you have to move to the job. This is the problem. Beth At 02:13 PM 7/24/97 -0400, you wrote: > article in LE MONDE might be of interest: > > Sex and science > by Ingrid Carlander > > Only 11 of 441 Nobel prizes have gone to women. And in Europe > women's near absence in the fields of science, mathematics, > engineering and new technology seems astonishing. This > comprehensive report takes a hard look at what keeps women away > from the sciences. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/06/sex.html > > > >--- >Kate Williams >University of Toledo Community and Technical College >Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy >kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu >til late July: (419) 531-8340 x205, fax (419) 531-8412 > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:16:07 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Overpopulation >Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are >to have children? Not the individual, the society, or group within the society, as a whole. I don't think any demographic historian has answered this entirely to everyone's satisfaction, but on changing population patterns in the W European working classes since around 1800, Wally Seccombe's 'Weathering the Storm' is pretty good. Lesley Lesley_Hall@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:45:30 -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: Tank Girl: was : Movies, Alien 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Tank Girl is absolutely fantastic, anyone who hasn't seen it definitely > should, it is very fierce young feminist and fabulous fun. Not only one > but two terrific female heroes, tank and jet girl, out to save the young > girl who is anything but helpless herself. > > robin. I also enjoyed Tank Girl a lot (except for the Roos, but then I'm allergic to muppets and pseudo-muppets), and particularly the performance of the woman who played the title character (Laura Petty?) Yet just about every review I've ever seen of the movie has been lukewarm to negative. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions of this movie. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:01:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Re: Tank Girl: was : Movies, Alien 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I liked Tank Girl, but it wasn't the most amazing movie I had ever seen. Of course, it's been awhile since I've seen it.... Lori Petty was really good though. And it was great to have a female film director doing science fiction. kate bolin ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm already in the gutter....next stop, it's the drain..." Alien Sex Fiend "I Walk The Line" Kate Bolin http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin Founder of Delenn Deserves Better!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:27:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Movies, Alien 4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robin, et al: >Anyways, I saw a trailer for Alien 4 which looked good, and I LOVE that >signourney weaver but have to say I'm skeptical about two things: how do >they bring her back to life and why is winona ryder in it? > >From what I've heard, Sigourney/Ripley is back because the Company had harvested some of her DNA earlier. So, she's not so much Ripley as a Ripley clone. But not quite a perfect copy -- seems like there is a little bit of alien DNA mixed in there too. Ooops. Not sure about WR, unless they need a fully human female to carry the audience's sympathies? My favorite thing about the Alien movies -- they are the one line of toys (my silly obsession) where there are guaranteed to be enough female figures produced! :) Really. Star Trek does okay, I must say. But look at just about anything else and either there aren't any females produced at all (see the "Lost World" toy line) or they are very limited in the ratio to male figures (see the Mighty Ducks -- they're from outer space and out of a team of 5, 2 are female. One is athletic, the other is kinda the computer geek. They only made figures of the athletic one, and I believe she was packed in a 1:17 ratio.). Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:28:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: female quest narratives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Speaking of female quest narratives, I had a student this morning present on an essay on Orson Scott Card's _Ender's Game_ series. The essay used Otto Rank's concept of the hero monomyth to examine the Card series. Of course, Card is not really a feminist sf writer, but the concept of the monomyth is interesting especially since it can be seen as the primary structure in many quest narratives. In fact, two of the novels I taught that could be called feminist, Elizabeth Moon's _Sheepfarmer's Daughter_, and Joan D. Vinge's _The Snow Queen_ do follow this format. The problem of course is that you could probably reduce all quest narratives to this formalist theory thus over-simplifying the text. In any case, what do you all think? Erik Erik Tsao Graduate Student Department of English Wayne State University Detroit, MI "The naked Senses sometimes see too little -- but then _always_ they see too much." --Edgar Allan Poe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:24:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Movies, Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Robin, et al: > >>Anyways, I saw a trailer for Alien 4 which looked good, and I LOVE that >>signourney weaver but have to say I'm skeptical about two things: how do >>they bring her back to life and why is winona ryder in it? Here's one thought: because she wanted to be. Here's another: because she's Winona Ryder. Oh, one more: because she can. I love it. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:22:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Tank Girl: was : Movies, Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> Tank Girl is absolutely fantastic, anyone who hasn't seen it definitely >> should, it is very fierce young feminist and fabulous fun. Not only one >> but two terrific female heroes, tank and jet girl, out to save the young >> girl who is anything but helpless herself. >> >> robin. > >I also enjoyed Tank Girl a lot (except for the Roos, but then I'm >allergic to muppets and pseudo-muppets), and particularly the performance >of the woman who played the title character (Laura Petty?) Yet just about >every review I've ever seen of the movie has been lukewarm to negative. > >I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions of this movie. > >Mike Levy Mike, Great stuff. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:25:47 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nicole Youngman wrote: > > How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people *do* > tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. >From another sociologist-in-training: What Nicole said is very valid and I would like to add my $0.02 worth (I'm new to this list so gidday to y'all) One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is SELFISHNESS. Think about it. Mr and Ms TINK (two incomes, no kids) are holidaying - for the third time this year. Winter in the Alps, Christmas in Tenerife, and Summer in the Bahamas. When they go home, it will be to a lovely apartment in a nice section of town only minutes from the trendiest places to eat. In the garage is the red ferrari that he's about halfway through paying off; she much prefers to take cabs everywhere because she can't be bothered to remember where she parked the car. And anyway, it's much more fun to call her friends from the relative comfort of the back seat than snarl and wrestle with the rush-hour traffic. They get away from it all for long weekends in a cabin in the hills, on a 2 1/2 acre block that a local gardener maintains for them. Their spare time is filled with leisure pursuits they both enjoy, and each will give in to the other if there's something really important that both should attend and only one really is interested; this doesn't happen often, anyway. He's into computers and buys every new gadget going, and a lot of software he hardly ever uses. She slaps his wrist playfully, but feels fully justified in spending a similar amount, on clothes, facials and her spiritual guru. One weekend, they visit his sister. Who married an ordinary guy with a steady job who wanted kids. Sis didn't particularly feel like having any, but to please him, she did. Mr and Ms Tink are horrified at the state of the place as they walk in. Sis has no job outside the home, but there are toys underfoot everywhere, dust on the horizontal surfaces (many of which are piled up with papers and you can see a 'final demand' or two poking out from some) and the beds aren't made. (the Tinks have a housemaid and never have to think about such things) Sis offers them a drink, but has to clear the breakfast dishes off the table before there's a space for them to sit. Meanwhile, in the background, there's a mini-opera going on. To the accompaniment of intermittent howls from the baby, who's teething (and has kept his parents awake for three solid nights now), the two older kids are having a 'Mine!' 'No, Mine!' fight over a small bit of coloured plastic something or other. Ms Tink feels tired already and sinks into the nearest chair. Only to jump up hurriedly as she finds strawberry red juice soaking into her Armani suit. Having boiled the kettle and surreptitiously wiped out a couple of cups with an apron that looks like it should have been washed (but a glance out of the window shows that the washing line is over-full already, nappies and kids' clothing taking up the bulk of the space), Sis comes to the table and oohs and ahs over the lovely delicate hand-blown glass ornament that Mr and Ms Tink brought her back from their last overseas trip. Then she carefully wraps it up and puts it away 'so the kids don't wreck it'. Ms Tink, who loves beautiful things, is very sad that Sis will probably never get to appreciate it properly. Meantime, the nephews come roaring into the kitchen, grab some cakes from the plate on the table, and slam out the back door into the yard. They don't bother to greet the visitors in the process, and Ms Tink is horrified to find that her matching handbag now sports a highly visible dent from being trodden upon in the pandemonium. Sis fetches the baby, and offers him to Mr Tink, who finds that unfortunately he's rather damp. Manfully ignoring the damage to his trousers, Mr Tink draws the line when junior wipes his snotty nose on his jacket as part of the cuddling process. Sis of course, is horribly embarassed, and indicates that she can't see why the Tinks should have worn their best clothes when visiting a houseful of kids... The Tinks look at each other. These *aren't* their best - just ordinary everyday wear. The visit drags interminably on. As the front door shuts at the culmination of their visit, everyone breathes a sigh of relief. The kids run round shouting, ecstatic to at last be able to let off steam and not be on their best behaviour. Sis cries a few silent tears. she and bro used to be so close. Mr and Ms Tink shudder as they fold themselves into the 'fast tomato'. They compare their lifestyle, laid-back, lotus eating, pleasing themselves and each other... with that of Sis who is constantly at the beck and call of her man and her kids, never has anything nice to wear, never goes anywhere beyond the PTA and the annual school concert, and is being ground down by endless hours of unrewarding and unremitting housework she can't afford to get help with. The Tinks look at each other and vow, as they have many times in the past; 'NO KIDS'..... And if you had the lifestyle and the income of the Tinks (and I personally know a few myself who are in exactly this position and for whom the biological clock is ticking) - ask yourself; which would you choose? Kids or no kids? -- Regards Melanie Dunstan (mother of 4) in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:03:54 +0930 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Brigid Venables." <9309629n@MAGPIE.MAGILL.UNISA.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Tank Girl: was : Movies, Alien 4 Comments: To: Sean Johnston In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > >I also enjoyed Tank Girl a lot (except for the Roos, but then I'm > >allergic to muppets and pseudo-muppets), and particularly the performance > >of the woman who played the title character (Laura Petty?) Yet just about > >every review I've ever seen of the movie has been lukewarm to negative. > > > >I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions of this movie. > > > >Mike Levy > It gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling - but I have to admit, I'd hoped for so much more. Loads of powerful, clever feminist imagery. In terms of comic book films, I'm just **hanging out** for the "Sailor Moon" film. (if it's ever made). (That's not really sci-fi, though, is it) Regards - Brigid. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:13:38 -0700 Reply-To: kimselle@loop.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kim Selle Subject: Re: So who is on this list? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kate Bolin wrote: > > I am beginning to wonder what type of people sign up for this > list...Do we have a lot of professors? College students? Random people? > Writers? Computer geeks? Et cetera? My name is Kim Selle. I'm a Portfolio Administrator at an investment management firm in Los Angeles. I love Science Fiction and Fantasy - as long as the story has "meaning" - whatever that means. Actually, as long as the story has some impact upon me or assists me in my personal growth or is just compelling or well thought-out, I'll read it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:47:51 +0930 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Brigid Venables." <9309629n@MAGPIE.MAGILL.UNISA.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: Melanie Dunstan In-Reply-To: <33D7118B.F91@p085.aone.net.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Melanie Dunstan wrote: > Nicole Youngman wrote: > > > > How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people *do* > > tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. > > >From another sociologist-in-training: What Nicole said is very valid and > I would like to add my $0.02 worth (I'm new to this list so gidday to > y'all) > > One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like > this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is > SELFISHNESS. > Melanie Dunstan (mother of 4) > in Perth, Australia > Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm > Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts As a former TINK (or DINK - double income, no kids) myself, who then became a pregnant SINK (single income no kids) when Mr DINK "dinked" once too often with the wrong bimbo, and is now a SIOK...(single income, one kid) Marxist theory, powerful though it is (and I hope it continues to be taught in Australian Universities despite the current sociological climate sweeping across our lovely nation), doesn't explain the existence of extremely expensive sperm-donor programmes, or adoption programmes. Even the rich still yearn for kids. I often wonder if we've just forgotten how to communicate a love of life for what it is: even I'm using a corny phrase to describe a powerful sensation. For example, I am stumped as to why I love my son... - no economic theory in the world could explain how I feel about my son. Although Rosanne the t.v. character says that her kids are the only things in our life that she's ***paid*** upfront for - so maybe that's the reason. If I had time, I'd tie this to feminist sci-fiction....! Brigid. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:57:32 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne V Stuecker Subject: Short story Melanie - Thanks so much for that story. I've always learned better from fiction than from textbooks. -- Anne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:43:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne V Stuecker Subject: Overpopulation and ecological theory Beth Middleton writes: >Colinvaux's take on this is that humans fill different economic >niches, much like plant and animal populations. The wealthy niche is rather small, >but consumptive. Necessarily, wealthier people have fewer children, >because there is a smaller economic niche for them to fill. What does that mean, "smaller economic niche"? Wealthier people have more economic resources. I'm confused. -- Anne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:34:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne V Stuecker Subject: Rich=fewer kids Neil - (I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative, I just want to understand your point and why you support it.) Now that I've posted a disclaimer, here are my comments: Neil Rest replied to me: >Anne V Stuecker replied to me: >>Wouldn't a more sound plan be to see that everyone has what they need and that the world has no use for terms like "rich" and "poor"? >"rich", "poor", "affluent" are to a great degree subjective. I understand this, but I want to know what _you_ mean to say when you use the word "affluence" to describe the solution to overpopulation. >In my opinion, the overall evidence is completely convincing: Within >two generations of universal material security, population growth would >not only stop, but slight shrinkage would be likely. "Universal material security" does not, to me, imply affluence. It means that, as I said, everyone has what they need. Please define your terms for me. Also, what is your source for this datum? -- Anne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:08:09 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote: >Nicole Youngman wrote: >> >> How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people *do* >> tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. > >One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like >this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is >SELFISHNESS. I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean: the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish, therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense. -- Janice ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Feed Your Head, Volume 2; The Best of Márta Sebestyén "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:27:33 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Short story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anne V Stuecker wrote: > > Melanie - > > Thanks so much for that story. I've always learned better from fiction > than from textbooks. > > -- Anne -------- Just call me Hans Christian Andersen... LOL :-)) -- Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:34:48 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janice E. Dawley wrote: > > At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote: > >Nicole Youngman wrote: > >> > >> How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people > *do* > >> tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. > > > >One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like > >this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is > >SELFISHNESS. > > > > I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean: > the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have > no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish, > therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense. > > -- Janice > > ----- Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless, benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main action. It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the Tinks to be of less-than average income.... -- Regards Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:10:33 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildney Cavalcanti Subject: Re: female quest narratives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Erik wrote: The problem of >course is that you could probably reduce all quest narratives to this >formalist theory thus over-simplifying the text. In any case, what do you >all think? I agree that the concept of the hero monomyth *is* simplistic and maybe too formalist. On the other hand, it appears to be very useful in order to stress one of the gender differences in quest narratives. Collective protagonists (as opposed to *one* female hero - or heroine - I still have not chosen which term to use...) abound in feminist sf. I can think of Wittig's Les Guerrilleres (spelling?), Charnas's free fems and riding women, Gearhart's hill women, etc. Could you give me the full reference for the monomyth theory, please? Ildney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:02:51 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildney Cavalcanti Subject: Re: FEM-SF Mundane -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >My rather lazy solution is not to get into genre discussions at all, if >possible, but to stick to describing/referring to individual books. If anyone >else has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. > >Regards >Deirdre Hi, Deirdre, Unfortunely, the people who are writing academic works about sf cannot avoid the genre discussion. My own solution has been to try to define what brings the stories I am working with together, and to stress the fact that descriptions come dangerously close to prescriptions and that the definition I am working with is "operational" and provisional (not final or all-inclusive). I am not sure we can avoid genre discussions even outside the "academic environment", though. What brings the people in this list together, if not the *genre* (fluid version of the concept, please remember that)? > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:25:18 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: bernip@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Berni Phillips wrote: > Melanie, maybe this is true in your area, but for many other TINKs, it's > a very different story.She hopes that one day they will be in a financial situation to > have both a family and a roof over their heads before her fertility runs > out. > > This is what the situation is like for many people in the U.S. --------------- Gidday Berni Thank you for sending another equally valid scenario to add to the responses to the 'does anybody know why?' question. I hope you copied it to the list! ;-) As I mentioned in the prelude to the story, my version is a major (but not *the only*) reason - yours would appear to be another major reason. And there are probably quite a few more major reasons, and a plethora of minor ones as supporting cast. Regards -- Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:35:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Middleton Subject: Re: Overpopulation and ecological theory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:43 PM 7/24/97 -0400, you wrote: >Beth Middleton writes: >>Colinvaux's take on this is that humans fill different economic >>niches, much like plant and animal populations. The wealthy niche is >rather small, >>but consumptive. Necessarily, wealthier people have fewer children, >>because there is a smaller economic niche for them to fill. > >What does that mean, "smaller economic niche"? Wealthier people have >more economic resources. I'm confused. > > -- Anne "Smaller economic niche" refers to how much of a certain type of resource (in this case money) is available to a particular group of people. Each individual in this "wealthy" niche has more money than people outside of it, but the niche itself is small in terms of how many people can occupy it. What Colinvaux was saying was that only a few people can occupy this wealthy economic niche. Wealthy people have to spend much more money on their children in order to keep their children in the wealthy economic niche, so therefore they have fewer of them. Also, there isn't space for a lot of people in this niche. If the rich had too many children, their offspring would overpopulate this niche. He also suggests, that since power can be traced to the wealthy, that wars often start when this wealthy niche is becoming overpopulated (too many rich people, too few "wealthy" resources for them). These ideas make some sense, yet many ecologists think that "niche theory" can't be applied to people. Niches are usually subdivided between species, not subpopulations. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:57:57 -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: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: Melanie Dunstan In-Reply-To: <33D7118B.F91@p085.aone.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Melanie Dunstan wrote: > One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like > this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is > SELFISHNESS. Think about it. Mr and Ms TINK (two incomes, no kids) are > holidaying - for the third time this year. Winter in the Alps, Christmas > ..... Melanie, while I recognize some anecdotal truths in the stereotypes you portray in your story I have to take issue with your characterization of people who chose not to have children when they have the financial means as selfish. As someone who has decided that I myself will not have any children (unless I were to fall in love with a woman who already had them) I find that this is a common accusation/belief by many who do have children. First, I would hope that as feminists we can all support every woman's right to CHOOSE whether or not to have children, and if so how many. This is the main issue in the economic discussion re birth rates, unfortunately women in poorer regions, and poorer women in the first world rarely have the education, access to birth control or abortions, or personal life options to choose not to have children or to have only one or two. But for those of us lucky enough to have this choice, please do not assume you understand why those of us who choose not to have children do so. We may do so because we have issues from our own childhoods, from abuse, to alcoholism, to neglect, or we may have chosen life paths that require flexibility or mobility, doing work abroad or with major committments outside the home where we live, we may not think we'll be good parents, we may not be able to have children physically, or just plain choose not to. To label us as selfish, whatever our reasons, assumes that we should/must want to have children as some natural drive. I give generously to many people in my life, but just don't choose to have children. (dear list moderator, sorry to continue so off topic) robin. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:52:09 +0100 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: allcrafts@P085.AONE.NET.AU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Melanie wrote: > Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that > the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they > would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless, > benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a > family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness > or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main > action. > > It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the > Tinks to be of less-than average income.... Speaking as a TINK struggling to combine self-employment with part-time study and a relationship with my partner I take exception to the above paragraph. Perhaps you are referring specifically to the story and intend no general inference to be drawn. But it seems to me you assume too much. Is choosing to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle any more selfish than choosing to have children? I don't think so. And to what joys are you referring? Do every mother & father experience parenting as a joyous experience? I think not. Perhaps some of us who choose not to have children are not simply selfish but are self-aware, realising that having children is not just a lifestyle choice - it is a massive commitment and responsibility and perhaps one for which we think our personal qualities are less-suited than for our current roles. Joan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:31:21 -0700 Reply-To: essency@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janet E. Essency" Organization: Gordon B. Olson Library Minot State University 500 University Ave.West Minot, ND 58707-0001 Subject: Re: Movies, Alien 4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is short article in either this week's or last week's Entertainment weekly. From the pictures I saw of Ripley, it looks as if the director is going for a sexier Ripley. How they bring her back is though cloning. Why Winona Ryder in it? I am still unclear on that. Re: Who is on this list? I am serials librarian who moved here from Chicago and am still trying to used to the wide-open spaces. I have been reading science fiction since college. I enjoy the discussions on this list as I have not found that many people here who like it. Janet ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:17:59 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: NESchaadt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NESchaadt wrote: > > Ms. Dunston: > > I found this short story rather chilling and a bit offensive. > My husband and I choose to remain childless for one reason. Curiosity is > not a reason to procreate. Is it appropriate to bring a child into this > world to satisfy intellectual curiousity? I don't think so. > The childless couples I know are engaged in a variety of philanthropic > activities. They build natural surface trails, volunteer at abortion > clinics and work with elders. They are not hedonists, constantly looking > for thrills and new knick knacks. > NS > Nancy Schaadt > Free-lance journalist based in N. Texas. > ---------- Gidday Nancy I apologise for chilling and offending you. This was not my intention. Please be aware that I offered the story as 'one of the biggest reasons' - not THE biggest reason (and I've had an email from Berni on the list with an equally valid major reason and a FAR more chilling - to me - scenario than the one I described) And, as I said to Berni, the reason that you have offered for your acquaintances' lack of children is another important answer to the question 'does anyone know the reason why?' that was raised on this list earlier this week. My Tinks in the story were an amalgam of the Tinks that I personally know and love - some of whom are my own close family, so I feel I know my own area of this subject quite well, as you do yours, and as Berni appears to also. >From what I've seen so far, it would appear that the answer to the question raised is not as simple as it first appears, and very much depends on whether the choice to have children or not is self-determined (by education, preference or vocation) or inflicted (as in Berni's example). I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind your statement 'Curiosity is not a reason to procreate' - do you feel that I was suggesting it should be? That also was *certainly not* my intention, either. Or are you stating that the reason you and your husband chose to remain childless was *because* you feel curiosity is not a reason to procreate? Apologies again if I seem dense; my own personal 'playtime' comes rather late in the day - usually when the rest of the household are sleeping- (due to the demands of running two businesses and four children from home taking up most of the 'normal' hours of the day) this can have a detrimental effect on my mental abilities from time to time. Thanks for your response -- Regards Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:01:34 -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: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: Joan Haran In-Reply-To: <199707251358.IAA66936@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Joan Haran wrote: > Melanie wrote: > > > Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that > > the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they > > would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless, > > benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a > > family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness > > or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main > > action. > > > > It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the > > Tinks to be of less-than average income.... > > Speaking as a TINK struggling to combine self-employment with part-time > study and a relationship with my partner I take exception to the above > paragraph. Perhaps you are referring specifically to the story and intend > no general inference to be drawn. But it seems to me you assume too much. > Is choosing to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle any more selfish than choosing > to have children? I don't think so. And to what joys are you referring? > Do every mother & father experience parenting as a joyous experience? I > think not. Perhaps some of us who choose not to have children are not > simply selfish but are self-aware, realising that having children is not > just a lifestyle choice - it is a massive commitment and responsibility and > perhaps one for which we think our personal qualities are less-suited than > for our current roles. > > Joan > I agree completely with Joan. The idea that women who choose not to have children are selfish is an accusation hurled at women with hideous frequency by people who simply want women to stay in their "natural position": barefoot, pregnant and powerless.The desire for children CAN be read, in its own way, as a selfish one. And if, as in the original story, the woman in question simply has children because her partner wants her too, then I would suggest she has rather foolishly allowed male desires to overpower her own. Kids are not something you should compromise on. Was she afraid of losing said male? Having children to keep the man in your life in your life seems to be to be alot closer to selfishness than anything else. But throwing around mutual accusations seems rather pointless: an acceptance of woman's informed choices seems to be the key. Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:27:37 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: Robin Gordon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Gordon wrote: > > Melanie, while I recognize some anecdotal truths in the stereotypes you > portray in your story I have to take issue with your characterization .... as many others did, both on and off list. Robin posted a note to the moderator at the end of this email to apologise for continuing an off-topic subject; therefore I will make this my last public posting on the subject and continue to reply privately to the emails I receive on this. My stated intention was - and still is - to offer *a* (NOT *THE*) point of view and one possible answer to a question posted to the list, based on my own personal experiences (I chose not to have kids until age 30 due to my own hedonistic lifestyle and selfishness) and those of close family, friends and acquaintances with whom I am sufficiently familiar to enable me to gain some understanding of their reasoning processes. I recognise, admit and understand the fact that there are many other childless couples in different circumstances who have both chosen to make the decision and/or had it inflicted upon them by circumstance. Even upon close inspection, I can't see where the original email I posted invalidated any of that. Nor do the experiences of those couples invalidate my own. The reason I posted the reply as a story is that - apart from the fact that I'm unable to stop writing them - it enabled me to amalgamate the experiences of which I am deeply aware into a caricature couple and their relatives who represented exaggerated bias in the areas I was attempting to highlight. And let's face it, one of the easiest ways of getting inside another person's skin is through a story - for stories are what led us to this list in the first place. -- I rest my (public) case. Regards Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:41:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >But >throwing around mutual accusations seems rather pointless: an acceptance >of woman's informed choices seems to be the key. > >Tanya. YES. I choose at this point in my life not to have children because I do not believe I could provide for their emotive or physical needs properly as a single parent with a limited income. My younger cousin, with virtually no economic opportunities (she's a beauty school drop-out, ok? Really) and an abusive boyfriend (last I heard, he was in jail), choose to have a child. Which of us is more selfish hardly seems the point. I would posit than when women see themselves as having opportunities other than having and raising children, they are more likely to delay having children and to limit their family size, and that when bearing and raising children is seen as the only opportunity open to them as adults women are more likely to seize that option. Access to birth control is only a small part of the puzzle. delurking to post off topic (for shame!) Tera ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:05:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: Re: female quest narratives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rebekah Berger wrote: >Erik, as I am not an academician, and it's been a long time since I've been >into psych, could you explain what the hero monomyth is? The hero monomyth, as defined by Otto Rank, is, conceptually speaking, the basic formula for quest narratives. It proceeds in the following manner: 1. The miraculous conception and birth of the hero 2. The initiation of the child-hero 3. His withdrawal from the larger family or community for a period of meditation and preparation 4. The trial and quest of the hero 5. The death of the hero 6. The hero's descent into the underworld 7. The hero's resurrection or rebirth 8. The hero's ascension, apotheosis, and atonement. (The source for this is a book on Orson Scott Card. Since it was a student who gave me the article, I don't have the exact title of the book. It's chapter five of the book, titled, "The Child-God with Life and Death in His Hands: Characterization, Heroism, and the Hero Monomyth.") One thing to note is that in both Elizabeth Moon's trilogy, _The Deed of Paksenarrion_ and Joan Vinge's _Snow Queen_, stages 5-8 become part of the 4th stage. The heroines don't go through death, descent, ascension, etc. literally. They go through these experiences in a figurative sense. _Deed_ is very much a *bildungsroman*, a novel of the education of the heroine. Comments on this? Erik P. S. One of the reasons I joined this list was because my research project for the dissertation is to connect, theoretically and historically, recent speculative fiction (from the 70's through the present) with the radical fiction of the first 3 or 4 decades of this century. So I apologize if my vocabulary sometimes goes beyond everyday lingo. ET Erik Tsao Graduate Student Department of English Wayne State University Detroit, MI "The naked Senses sometimes see too little -- but then _always_ they see too much." --Edgar Allan Poe ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 03:26:58 +0800 Reply-To: allcrafts@p085.aone.net.au Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melanie Dunstan Organization: Allcrafts Goods & Services Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tanya Wood wrote: > I have replied to Tanya privately -- Melanie Dunstan in Perth, Australia Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:11:25 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicole Youngman Subject: TINKs Sorry this is a bit late--silly me, I spelled "listserv" with an "e" at the end... >And if you had the lifestyle and the income of the Tinks (and I >personally know a few myself who are in exactly this position and for >whom the biological clock is ticking) - ask yourself; which would you >choose? Kids or no kids? Whoa Melanie, that was quite an essay!! ;-) Here's a simpler version: Many women who are better off/better educated will spend their 20s trying to finish grad school and/or get their careers off the ground; therefore they do everything they can to wait until their late 20s/early 30s to start their families. By then they're a lot less likely to have more than a couple of kids. Which isn't to say that no one ever decides not to have kids because they enjoy their lifestyle too much, but I think that's overly simplistic. Plus, it reminds me of anti-abortion arguments I hear a lot of around here (I live in Alabama)--career women are too selfish to have kids, so they "kill their babies" rather than screw up their chances of getting that big promotion. Ugh. I guess the bottom line is that in an ideal world, we'd all be able to have as many kids as we want whenever we wanted them. Given the chance, most women (and men too, if they're the egalitarian sort) will opt for smaller families because that gives them the best chance of having lives of their own *and* enjoying parenthood. So--can anyone think of stories/novels dealing with birth control? "Even the Queen" is the only one that comes to mind right now for me. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:26:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rberger Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Couldn't help being drawn into this. I'm the mother of one son. You think that would satisfy people. No. For the past 16 years I have been bombarded by people telling me how selfish I am to have had only one. Total strangers would ask me why I didn't have more children. Let me tell you, some of us are natural-born mothers and some of us (like me) are not. My son has been raised by a lot of flying by the seat of the pants, and his mom - me - is now happy that he's a teenager so that I have more time to myself to write. Selfish? Okay, to some people, that's what I am. But I'm happier and son is happier, and I intend to find out as much about myself as I can and to develop as many parts of me as I can. Being a mother answered some of these questions and showed me a whole lot of parts to me that surprised me. But it is also important to follow one's own path, whether with a child or not. And yes, to Tanya and Joan, women have been chiefly defined for thousands of years by their ability to give birth and mother. Up until the present time, birth control was not an option for most women, and most women had no say in what their lives could be. At this point, with more effective birth control, women have more choices. We stumble along, trying out different roles for ourselves and we make a lot of mistakes along the way. But we also have more of an opportunity to find out who and what we are. And if some of us prefer to be childless or to have only one child, that is an option we now have. Amen!! Rebekah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:28:18 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rberger Subject: Re: female quest narratives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:05 PM 7/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Rebekah Berger wrote: >>Erik, as I am not an academician, and it's been a long time since I've been >>into psych, could you explain what the hero monomyth is? > >The hero monomyth, as defined by Otto Rank, is, conceptually speaking, the >basic formula for quest narratives. It proceeds in the following manner: > >1. The miraculous conception and birth of the hero > >2. The initiation of the child-hero > >3. His withdrawal from the larger family or community for a period of >meditation and preparation > >4. The trial and quest of the hero > >5. The death of the hero > >6. The hero's descent into the underworld > >7. The hero's resurrection or rebirth > >8. The hero's ascension, apotheosis, and atonement. Thanks so much, Erik. You have helped me in my own writing of a female quester. Rebekah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:33:53 -0700 Reply-To: kimselle@loop.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kim Selle Subject: Re: elizabeth hand MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Tsao wrote: > > >Has anyone read Elizabeth Hand's _Awaken the Moon_ (recently published by > >Harper in mass market paper)? I just finished it and passed it on to a > >friend. Thoughts on the book? Janice E. Dawley wrote:> > I believe you mean _Waking the Moon_. I read it last summer and was quite > disappointed. I absolutely loved Hand's earlier novel _Winterlong_, and was > hoping for something as good -- instead I found a heavy-handed (and much > too lengthy) saga whose earthshaking insight was that women can be really > evil. The faces of Kali, Othiym, whatever -- how new is it to symbolize > women as either devourers or saints? I kept hoping that she would attempt > to stretch the boundaries of gender definitions and portray something new, > but my persistence was not rewarded. Frankly, I was amazed that this novel > won the Tiptree award. Anyone have insight as to why? Or can anyone show me > how I'm wrong in my reading of the novel? > > -- Janice I'd like to say that I felt the same about _Waking the Moon_. Although I felt it did have sort of an "Ann Rice" feel to it. I felt that her descriptions were often too "halucinogenic" (sp?) to be easily followed. Anyway, her newest book, _Glimmering_ is even worse. It does not deliver what is promised in the jacket synopsis. And meanders for over 400 pages about a disaster that happened to the sky and the breakdown of society as we know it in a "William Gibsonish" manner. Extremely disappointing. Anyone read it? Any thoughts? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:43:52 -0700 Reply-To: kimselle@loop.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kim Selle Subject: Re: Gate to Women's Country (Spoiler) - Sherri Tepper (was Poppy Z. Brite) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit patricia johnston wrote: > > Hello, > Seems to be a lot of yays/nays re Poppy`s writing. If someone has an e-mail > address for her, perhaps she (Poppy) could join the list and join the > discussion. Also has anyone read Gate To Women`s Country by Tepper, and > what are your thoughts. > Patricia. Read it several years and continue telling people about that book. I thought it was fascinating and thought-provoking, especially since it was my first introduction to Tepper's personal philosophy about genetic manipulation of the species to achieve a desired result. Would consider re-visiting it if you'd like to engage in an in-depth discussion. Kim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:47:43 -0700 Reply-To: kimselle@loop.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kim Selle Subject: Re: Glimmering by Elizabeth Hand (was Is this a genre?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Did you find _Glimmering_ to be interesting and were you "satisfied" with it when you read it? I was so disappointed, that I wanted to return it, even though that wouldn't be ethical since I'd already gotten what I'd paid for. I'd love to hear something that could change my opinion about this book. NESchaadt wrote: > > I've just finished two books, _Glimmering_ by Elizabeth Hand and _Gibbon's > Decline and Fall_ by Sheri Tepper that made me think (understatement of the > year--I cried as I finished the Tepper) about feminist speculative, science > and utopian fiction. As both deal with the end of the millenia, is there a > feminist millenial (is this a word?) sciece fiction? Do feminist writers > have a unique view of the year 2000? Are there other titles you > -collective- can recommend? > Many thanks, > NS > > Nancy E. Schaadt > phone: 214 943 4347 > fax: 214 946 7887 > e-m: nschaadt@txcc.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:54:39 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeanine Pedersen Subject: Re: Posting problem I have noticed in the last week or so the e-mail I get from this list is coming out of order, for example I got several of the replies to the overpopulation post (tinks) prior to having received the original post -- on the one hand it was very confusing, on the other hand it saved me the bother of writing an irate response to it ;-) I also got the question on monomyth prior to the monomyth post. Is anyone else having this problem or is it just a typical aol screw up? (My -- what an idea aol screw up....lol) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:19:47 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Posting problem Jeanine Pedersen writes >I have noticed in the last week or so the e-mail I get from this list is >coming out of order [snip] Is anyone else having this problem or is it just >a typical aol screw up? Yes: this is happening to me as well (MSN): assumed it might be a server problem. Lesley Lesley_Hall@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 17:44:23 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Overpopulation; a short story Comments: To: Melanie Dunstan In-Reply-To: <33D85718.5F20@p085.aone.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Melanie, I may be wrong, but I think that having children when you are not able to provide a decent level of living, is the WORST example of selfishness. I have a cousin who got married at 20, to a girl who was 18. They did not have money to buy furniture for their, even a kitchen table. Which did not stop them from having a baby, and then keep coming every day to my parents and telling heartbreaking stories how they didn't have money to buy milk for their daughter, until my Mom would give them money, which we did not have excess of, either. When I tried to talk about what they were thinking when deciding to have a baby when they could not take care of themselves, my Mom also told me I was selfish. If I am -- fine, but i rather be selfish and never have kids, than doom my children to never have the childhood they deserve. Besides, just because you _do_ have children, it's not an excuse to have a miserable life in a dirty house. It's very convenient to blame one's underachievement on children (I bet Mr. Tink's sister keeps reminding them on daily basis that "if not them", she would have a much better life, and how they don't appreciate how much she gave up for them). And enjoying your life (including vacations in Europe, or simply having a full-time job for a woman) is not a crime, either. Except when people want to believe that having children is the only thing that makes a woman's life meaningful and is mutually exlusive with having a life. I don't mean to be rude and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I would recommend Ms. Tink to ask her children whether _they_ wanted her to make this kind of sacrifice. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Melanie Dunstan wrote: > Janice E. Dawley wrote: > > > > At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote: > > >Nicole Youngman wrote: > > >> > > > I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean: > > the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have > > no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish, > > therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense. > > > > -- Janice > > > > ----- > Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that > the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they > would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless, > benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a > family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness > or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main > action. > > It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the > Tinks to be of less-than average income.... > -- Regards > Melanie Dunstan > in Perth, Australia > Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm > Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:16:31 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne V Stuecker Subject: Re: Posting problem Lesley_Hall writes >Jeanine Pedersen writes >>I have noticed in the last week or so the e-mail I get from this list is >>coming out of order [snip] Is anyone else having this problem or is it just >>a typical aol screw up? > >Yes: this is happening to me as well (MSN): assumed it might be a server problem. I am also experiencing this. I have Juno. -- Anne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:34:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Posting problem In-Reply-To: <19970726.191653.2902.0.avs5@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Jeanine Pedersen writes > >>I have noticed in the last week or so the e-mail I get from this list > is > >>coming out of order [snip] Is anyone else having this problem or is it > just > >>a typical aol screw up? > > > >Yes: this is happening to me as well (MSN): assumed it might be a server It's not something that's all that uncommon, and is a result of the indirect way e-mail travels. Nothing to worry about unless you start recieving your own messages back before you write them and send them out. As far as the education/children thread goes, we've been asked by a few people if/when we were thinking about the kids thing, and after a MFA and a MPP, our response is: "We can't have kids, we have student loans instead." Guess we're talking a slightly different correlation here. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org jillmari@aol.com http://members.aol.com/ferndock2 "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:21:28 +0930 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Brigid Venables." <9309629n@MAGPIE.MAGILL.UNISA.EDU.AU> Comments: To: feministsf@listserv.vic.edu In-Reply-To: <33DA18E1.1115@loop.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I am trying to get off the list - nothing personal, I just can't manage the huge volume of mail this extremely chatty group send me with my pissweak email subscription deal - and can't seem to get my command accepted at listserv@listserv.vic.edu. Can anyone help me? Brigid. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:08:15 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: F Mendlesohn Subject: Re: list member mentioned in TV Guide Comments: To: Heather Whipple In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Heather, thanks for the note about the mention in TV Guide (sorry this is so late but I have just put the finishing touches to the PhD!). If anybody is interested in the conference, please contact me direct. Farah. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:58:25 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: F Mendlesohn Subject: Re: So who is on this list? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Elizabeth Pandolfo wrote: > > My Ph.D work will focus on Celtic mythology and YA fantasy and SF, looking > for a more feminist alternative to the heroic quest narrative structure in > the mythology, and how that may be incorporated in contemporary British YA > fantasy and SF novels, depending on the author's gender. I also research > Japanese children's books dealing with WWII and the bombings, and > children's hypermedia and theories of children and technology. If anyone's > interested in these topics, I'd love to discuss them off-list. > > Elizabeth Elizabeth, I tried to contact you off-list but the message bounced. I am interested in YA sf novels. As a community they seem increasingly negelected, perhaps because few of the big sf names seem to write them. It seems to have become a separate genre altogether (please correct me if I'm wromg). The next issue of Foundation, by the way, is a special issue on children's sf. Contact E.F.James@reading.ac.uk for orders, Farah > > > -- > Elizabeth L. Pandolfo/Briggs > pandolfo@macbsd.com > http://www.macbsd.com/~pandolfo/index.html > > "Whatever happens, believe that the journey is worth taking..." > --Peth, "Seaward" > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:05:26 -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: 11 of 441 nobel prizes to women... In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970724181352.007562b8@uoft02.utoledo.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough] > Only 11 of 441 Nobel prizes have gone to women. And [at least] one of those was to the mother of a science fiction fan! Neil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:04:37 -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: Overpopulation and ecological theory In-Reply-To: <19970724.225738.3894.9.avs5@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough] Anne V Stuecker asks: >Beth Middleton writes: >>Colinvaux's take on this is that humans fill different economic >>niches, much like plant and animal populations. The wealthy niche is >rather small, >>but consumptive. Necessarily, wealthier people have fewer children, >>because there is a smaller economic niche for them to fill. > >What does that mean, "smaller economic niche"? Wealthier people have >more economic resources. I'm confused. More consumption per capita means fewer individuals can be supported in a given situation. How many Joads can live on what a Rockefeller consumes? [disclaimer for the clue-impaired: the above names are used in a cartoon manner as commonly understood images] Neil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:04:28 -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: Overpopulation; a short story In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970724230809.006fa068@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough] "Janice E. Dawley" asks: >At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote: >>Nicole Youngman wrote: >>> >>> How about sociologist-in-training? Actually, yes, better-off people >*do* >>> tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. >> >>One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like >>this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is >>SELFISHNESS. > > > >I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean: >the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have >no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish, >therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense. Not exactly. The couple with the money has the opportunity to be selfish; the choice between junior's college fund and a newer Testosterona is a real choice. The poorer couple will be relatively poor no matter what. Neil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:04:03 -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: female quest narratives In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970725091528.082fa11c@pop-hub.strath.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough] Ildney Cavalcanti wrote: >(as opposed to *one* female hero - or heroine - I still have >not chosen which term to use...) One of the most intriguing ad hoc monologues I've ever heard at a con (science ficiton convention) was Gordy Dickson talking about the lack of a feminine equivalent of the word "hero". ("Heroine" certainly isn't it!) His example of such a character was Pilar in _For Whom the Bell Tolls_. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:04:46 -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: Rich=fewer kids In-Reply-To: <19970724.225738.3894.7.avs5@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [this got marooned in my out queue on Friday; I hope it's still timely enough] Anne V Stuecker asked: >(I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative, I just want to understand >your point and why you support it.) Now that I've posted a disclaimer, >here are my comments: > >Neil Rest replied to me: >>Anne V Stuecker replied to me: >>>Wouldn't a more sound plan be to see that everyone has what they need >and that the world has no use for terms like "rich" and "poor"? > >>"rich", "poor", "affluent" are to a great degree subjective. > >I understand this, but I want to know what _you_ mean to say when you use >the word "affluence" to describe the solution to overpopulation. Hmmm . . . No worries about material necessities, and some steady level of luxury. >>In my opinion, the overall evidence is completely convincing: Within >>two generations of universal material security, population growth would >>not only stop, but slight shrinkage would be likely. > >"Universal material security" does not, to me, imply affluence. It means >that, as I said, everyone has what they need. Please define your terms >for me. Also, what is your source for this datum? Over the past couple of hundred years, there has been a fairly rigorous relation between rising levels of affluence and declining birthrates. (I repeat the subsidiary point that this fairly simple, straightforward gross effect in all liklihood has complex causes!) Much of Europe has negative population growth, and in Japan the average age has just passed 40. There are significant local variations in birthrate vs. "absolute" affluence, but the overall pattern is one of the clearest and most universal in sociology. Your comments seem to distinguish "absolute" affluence of a society from "relative" affluence of groups within the society. Here in the United States, there are clearly wide differences between the affluence of different classes, but still, the overall birthrate is in the neighborhood of the "replacement level" (I don't have numbers at hand, though I'm sure I've bookmarked the Bureau of the Census. If [relatively] hard precision is necessary, it's doable.). It is my impression that other industrial countries have less of an income disparity, and overall, they seem to have somewhat lower birthrates, so your point is well taken, but it seems to be somewhat secondary. (Geez, when I try to be clear and precise, both, it seems to come out stiff & pedantic. *sigh*) Does any of this clarify any of your problems with the initial assertions? Neil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:41:51 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Gordon Subject: McCaffery: Freedom's Landing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This weekend's wander through the bookstore yielded something I haven't read in a long time, an Anne McCaffery book. As others have mentioned I read her work when I was younger, enjoyed the Crystal Singer books as a teenager but wouldn't think of her as one of my favourtie authors, and I'm not into fantasy generally, so have avoided the dragon books. I have to say I really enjoyed Freedom's Landing, and I think there's a sequel which I'll go looking for this week. The lead female character was strong, resourceful, three dimensional, and very believable. I liked the aliens as well, and the complexity of social interactions. The mystery of the planet Botany unfolds well, and kept me reading late into the night. I certainly look forward to the second one. has anyone else read this? I'm interested to know what you thought. Robin. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:57:26 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Tepper's earlier books Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Denise had commented: >I also love Tepper, even though she is frequently so extreme in her >positions that I wonder if she is pulling our collective leg. You should >try her mysteries as well, She writes under the name Oliphant and Orde. >She also wrote a horror story under the name of Horlak. Currently I am >trying to locate her earlier works, Marianne etc. > Tepper's earlier works are definitely slighter, more in the epic fantasy tradition, although the underpinnings of her convictions remain. Speaking of which, in a spate of housekeeping, I am cleaning out my accumulated extra Teppers, which I will send to any interested/needy parties on the list for the cost of shipping. These are all paperback reading copies, not collectables, but perhaps I can help fill in someone's collection. Also, this is a personal offer, not an offer from Mysterious Galaxy. :) Anyway, I have to spare the following Tepper books: 1 Jinian Star-Eye 1 Song of Mavin Manyshaped 1 Search of Mavin Manyshaped 2 Necromancer Nine 3 Wizard's Eleven (so I wasn't paying attention. ooops!) Please respond to me directly, not the list. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:47:30 -0500 Reply-To: anderbdm@win.bright.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Dawn L. Anderson" Subject: Re: McCaffery: Freedom's Landing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Gordon wrote: > > This weekend's wander through the bookstore yielded something I haven't > read in a long time, an Anne McCaffery book. As others have mentioned I > read her work when I was younger, enjoyed the Crystal Singer books as a > teenager but wouldn't think of her as one of my favourtie authors, and I'm > not into fantasy generally, so have avoided the dragon books. > > I have to say I really enjoyed Freedom's Landing, and I think there's a > sequel which I'll go looking for this week. The lead female character was > strong, resourceful, three dimensional, and very believable. I liked the > aliens as well, and the complexity of social interactions. The mystery of > the planet Botany unfolds well, and kept me reading late into the night. > I certainly look forward to the second one. > > has anyone else read this? I'm interested to know what you thought. > > Robin. Hi Robin I just have one correction for you and that is the "dragon" books (Pern) are Science Fiction. Ann gets very testy when you call them Fantasy. I don't know why she just does. I was at a chat where she was the guest speaker and she made that point rather quickly. As for Freedom's Landing yes I have read and enjoyed it also and the sequel is Freedom's Choice which is also pretty good. Have you read Powers That Be series from AM? If so what did you think of them? I didn't really like them, which bothered me as I usually enjoy everything by AM. Dawn ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:56:12 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Teppers -- Mavin Manyshaped gone Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dawn has already requested the Mavin Manyshaped books, which I have set aside for her, but everything else is still available. :) Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:30:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joanna goltzman Subject: goddesses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Does anyone know of more feminist science fiction that deals with goddesses? Elizabeth Hand's _Waking the Moon_ deals with the goddess in an interesting way and so does Elisabeth Vonarburg in both _The Maerlande Chronicles_ and _Reluctant Voyagers_. Thanks. Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:37:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: metamorphoses in the feminism and in the postmodernism (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu, cicas@tin.it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'm passing this query to the feminist-sf list, in case anybody wants to contact this person about (see below): (cicas, for more info about the feministsf list, or to subscribe, check out: http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/listserv/ ) Laura Quilter / lauramd@uic.edu Electronic Services Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:11:14 -0700 From: cicas To: lauramd@uic.edu Subject: metamorphoses in the feminism and in the postmodernism I would like to get some informations about the relation between the feminism and the postmodernism with some connections to the metamorphoses in feminist's writings, particulary in Angela Carter's writings. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:28:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tim Capehart Subject: Re: Gate to Women's Country (Geek alert) I'm new here. Gate to Women's Country is one of my favorite novels & Tepper (in all of her guises) is my favorite author. I too would be glad to see her discussed here. I recently finished her newest SF (Family Tree) and found it lacking compared with previous novels. STILL I recommend it as a bookseller/librarian. She is a world-builder who is not afraid to punch her readers' buttons. Tim Capehart & Scot Tannreuther tdcape0@pop.uky.edu dirknduck@uky.campus.mci.net http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/7427 Read it several years and continue telling people about that book. I thought it was fascinating and thought-provoking, especially since it was my first introduction to Tepper's personal philosophy about genetic manipulation of the species to achieve a desired result. Would consider re-visiting it if you'd like to engage in an in-depth discussion. Kim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:04:10 -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: goddesses In-Reply-To: <199707282130.QAA17482@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, joanna goltzman wrote: > Does anyone know of more feminist science fiction that deals with goddesses? NH: I forget; doesn't Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Mists of Avalon?_ Emma Bull's _Bone Dance_ brings in some of the lwas (deities) of the Voudun pantheon, and a couple of the female ones appear. And there's Karen Joy Fowler's _The Sweetheart Season,_ but that's kind of stretching it. Funny, it was reading contemporary fantasy that led me to look into some of the pantheistic, animistic (is that the right word?), goddess-centred religions, but now I can't think of too many novels which directly feature goddesses. -nalo "You'll say reality is under no obligation to be interesting. To which I'd reply that reality may disregard the obligation but that we may not." -Jorge Luis Borges ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:01:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Outer Limits In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Marcus, In that episode, erasing the rape from the scientist's past made her a totally different person (you can barely recognize her when the cop finds her again), but she still became a scientist and invented the time machine. Even though she did not think of using it to kill sex criminals anymore. So, when the police officer, who investigated all these murders, came back to her time, she discovered that murder cases of those would-be criminals got replaced by the rape-murder cases of their victims. Including her best friend. So she decided to find the scientist and use her time machine to re-kill the criminals whose murders she had been investigating before. I am afraid this description does not make a lot of sense, but if you saw the episode, you'll probably understand. I found it very interesting how the story explores the question whether it is justifiable to kill a person who have not yet commited the crimes he is going to be executed for in future. In other words, to kill one yet innocent person to save several other innocent people, his victims. And how the police officer's opinion on that changes when she discoveres, that one of the raped and strangled victims is her friend. Besides, the women characters and acting were absolutely great. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Marcus wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > > Did anyone see _The Outer Limits_ this weekend? It's about a female > > scientists who invents a time machine and uses it to go back to the past > > and kill convicted sexual criminals before they kill their first victim. > > Another woman, police officer, tracks her down just before the scientist > > goes back to kill the man that raped her as a teenager. > > > > If anyone seen it, please tell me what you think. > > > > Marina > > I saw it a while ago. I can't remember the details too well. Weren't > there was some interesting complications around the final erasure of the > rape of the scientist who built the machine--maybe when that rape was > prevented she lacked the incentive to build it in the first place and the > causal chain erased the time machine itself from existence? What did this > do to the revenge killings that the time machine had already been used > for? And was there an issue of the different memories of the cop and the > scientist? Did the cop save the scientist from her life of revenge by > killing the scientist's rapist, have the police case against her disappear > and everything was left only in the memory of the cop? I would like to > discuss it, but you'll have to refresh my memory. > > Marcus > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:04:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: goddesses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joanna: Lots and lots of Jo Clayton's books deal with gods and goddesses of various genders and species. I think the _Soul Drinker_ books may have the most. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:10:10 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Gate to Women's Country Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Tim: >(Geek alert) Pour quoi? > >I'm new here. Gate to Women's Country is one of my favorite novels & Tepper (in >all of her guises) is my favorite author. I too would be glad to see her >discussed here. I recently finished her newest SF (Family Tree) and found it >lacking compared with previous novels. STILL I recommend it as a >bookseller/librarian. She is a world-builder who is not afraid to punch her >readers' buttons. When you mentioned _Family Tree_ in comparison to "previous novels," were you referring to the more recent ones (_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_, _Shadow's End_, _A Plague of Angels_), earlier ones like _Gate_, or a combination? Inquiring minds want to know. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com