"FEMINISTSF LOG9709A" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:47:00 +0400 Reply-To: emrah goker Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: emrah goker Subject: SF and Ecology-II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello everybody! Unfortunately I am unable to have access to the Internet everyday, so those of you who wonder "where the hell is he?", I am sorry. There has been some discussion on Star Trek; first of all, if I have offended some people with the expression "imbecile Trekkies", I apologize. I agree with those of you who find Star Trek militarist, and remember: There may be worlds in the Star Trek universe which are not militarist, but all TV series of Star Trek (The Old and New Generations, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine) are structured around a crew of military personnel. There are ranks and the word of the captain is unquestionable (just remember Dr Crusher in _First Contact_, she saying that if captain says we stay, we all have to). The Federation is still playing that beautiful British game: Parliamentary Democracy. And finally, although Picard claims that 24th century humans are not motivated by money (in again _First Contact_), however, with what, for god's sake, is Paramount Pictures motivated by? David Christenson, I think in Aug 28, corrected the Sturgeon's Law, sorry for mis-citing it. Thanks to everybody for suggesting books, I will immediately try to find them, though here in Turkey, because people do not like SF much, it is very hard to find new SF (and other) books. I thank to Lisa Garforth for her most valuable comments on Aug 30 about my first discussion, I shall answer her in another message. Peaceful days to you all, Emrah Goker ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:35:52 +0400 Reply-To: emrah goker Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: emrah goker Subject: SF and Ecology-II In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, L Garforth wrote: > Your post was fascinating. I'm also starting academic work on sf utopias > and ecology, although less concerned with Gaian ideas than with current > discourses to do with the concepts 'sustainability' and sustainable > development that have gained currency since the Brundtland Report. Though I do know nothing about the Brundtland Report, what I have in mind is not to criticize ecopolitical implications (be they workable or not) of Gaian ideas. I plan to deal with their philosophical implications and to try to establish a marxist critique (but yet I do not know if it will be worthy or meaningful). I will be happy to know more about the report you write about, perhaps in a personal message. > > I plan to analyse first the theoretical aspects of "Mother Earth" kind > > of ecological thinking, relating to the deconstructionist and metaphysical > > touches on the paradigm. Next, I think, I will use the SF texts to hold my > > point. > > I'm not sure what you're getting at here; my own feeling is that Gaiain > thought is open to criticism on a range of points, from essentialism to > fuzzy mysticism to its tendency to describe a utopian desire for 'one > world' rather as if it were a material actuality... I don't know > how different types of sf deal with that. You probably already know > that the sf writer John Varley has an interest in Gaiain thought (see > especially _Titan_ 1979) ), and I'd also have thought that Vonnegut's > _Galapagos_ would be interesting here?! I have heard about Varley and have put him in my list, yet I have not read anything from him. You are quite right about that there are many ways of critical approach to Gaiain ideas, and I will choose the (post)marxist route I think. I can send you my list once I compile it in a meaningful way. You say about my argument on SF and cultural industry: > Your point is well taken; it's not difficult to see how one would theorise > sf as satisfactorily coopted into some postmodern frenzy of cultural > consumptioon. I'd be loathe to say that was the end of the story though. > Those kinds of left cultural criticism that divide culture into > non-consumerist = good = oppositional and mass culture = consumerist = > coopted tend to be flawed along the lines of their inability to understand > (sociologically!) the difference between a cultural *product* and people's > diverse, unpredictable and often subversive *uses* of culture. You can't > read off the latter from the former. It's got to be more subtle than that? > That's why I'm unsure that the question of "literary value" as abitrator > in the question of what sf 'counts' is a problematic one. I may not have explained myself clearly, and I accept that my criticism has been a bit rapid and not well-thought. I am not in favor of constructing conceptual "dualities" like consumerism(bad) vs. non-consumerism(good), or capitalists(pretty bad) vs. socialists(pretty good), and taking hostile action against one side. Yet I am anti-systemic in my approach to the capitalist society, and to the place of the Entertainment Industry in it. You are right about a dualistic approach leading to misinterpreting what a cultural product is and what people's unpredictable uses of culture are. However, before thinking on the different ways people give meaning to culture, there is an undeniable fact that they PAY for the cultural product, for the art object which they are going to interpret, which they are going to *use*. Following Althusser, some thinkers also hold that those interpretaions, meaning givings are manipulated systematically by some Ideological State Apparatuses of culture, but I am doubtful of that theory. So let's turn to the moment of CONSUMING, that is, providing the required amount of economic capital for the cultural product. I have criticized Trekkies for this. Trekkism began as a multinatinonal corporation sales-pumping policy and millions of fans followed it sheepishly. I do not here talk about the social, cultural meanings many people make from Star Trek movies (and series and books, etc.), I believe they are wonderful sociological insight. Yet the old Earth is not a better place when we pay more bucks to a Star Trek video, but Paramount Pictures is a richer firm. Non-consumerism or vulgar sociological attacking is not a solution. The whole paradigm of the capitalist world-system (on all levels: cultural, political, ideological, economic) must be abolished. > > SF utopias, to be good fiction, to have literary value -though "literary > > value" is dangerous waters- must not be in _stasis_. They must not lose > > their dynamism. > > If you don't know it already, you should read Tom Moylan's _Demand the > Impossible_ on theorising the non-static, non-blueprint sf utopia. It's a > little old now (published in 1986) but still relevant. If you know it > already, I'd be interested in what you (or anybody else) thinks about > Moylan's stuff - and just to drag it back to list-relevance, the > relationship between a new kind of 'critical' utopia and feminist sf he > posits? > > Lisa Garforth Very regretfully, I have not been able to read Moylan's work, not even have heard about it. Once again thank you for the insights you have brought. Best wishes, Emrah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:36:16 +0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: emrah goker Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970828134328.006999f0@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > > SF utopias, to be good fiction, to have literary value -though "literary > >value" is dangerous waters- must not be in _stasis_. They must not lose > >their dynamism. Take Orwell's _1984_: The time seems stopped at 1984, > >nothing moves, nothing changes. Even for a so-called "totalitarian" > >communist society, be it in 20th century or in 24th, stasis is improbable. > > _1984_ was a dystopia, not a utopia. The extreme rigidity of the future > society was part of what made it so frightful. It's not likely that such a > society could exist, but the book nevertheless points out possible end > results of certain trends by exaggerating reality. I agree with you for the wrong usage of the word "utopia" here, but I do not think it is that important: _1984_ is another cornerstone in the tradition of literary creations of "non-existant worlds". > >Or take the wonderful _The Dispossessed_, Le Guin's masterpiece (by the > >way, is she still an anarchist, or an utopian socialist?): A most > >essential part of an organized society, social control, is mostly ignored. > > I'm not sure what you mean by social control. If you mean coercion by means > of a police force, no, Anarres does not have social control. But if you > mean peer pressure and communal expectations, Anarres does have social > control. I recall that children from very early on are taught to share and > are criticised harshly for being materialistic. In all of her works, Le > Guin emphasizes the power of other people's approval or disapproval to > shape an individual's behavior. She takes pains to show the downside of > this means of social control -- simple-minded conventionality and > suppression of difference -- but I do think she prefers it to hierarchical > styles of governing. > > >Why do not the masses revolt during the periods of hunger? What prevents > >them from crime? In Anarres, it seems that some mystified virtues of the > >human nature, like "freedom", "sharing" has been turned into a kind of > >religion. Anarres's fate seems to rot in stasis. > > As far as revolt -- who would they revolt against? There is no government! > Crime in general is a more vexing question. I can't remember if Le Guin > really took the issue on, as did Marge Piercy in _Woman on the Edge of > Time_ or Slonczewski in _A Door Into Ocean_. In both of those books, people > who are violent or antisocial are encouraged to seek healing and if > behavior does not improve are shunned. When it comes to murder, the authors > diverge -- murderers on Shora are exiled to distant rafts, but in > Mattapoisett they are simply killed. This approach takes for granted a > society based on small villages where people's behavior can be fairly > closely monitored by those around them -- for an industrialized economy > based in cities, it obviously has its drawbacks. But for both of these > authors, cities in themselves are an invitation to social collapse. I agree that I have not quite been able to explain myself in "social control": I tried to question the lack of crime in Anarres; Le Guin seems to link all the causes of crime or anti-social behaviour to the existence of a materialist, capitalist society. Things are not that simple. But surely, social control in the way you put here, exists in the novel; my point on revolting is not well-thought. Still, the founder's spirit, and the assumed collective conscious seem to me to swing above the people like Democles's Sword. > Finally, I think one of the major concerns of _The Dispossessed_ is whether > a society like the one on Anarres could survive, given human nature. There > are signs of change (for the worse) in the book, so I did not perceive that > the society was in stasis. It certainly is an "ambiguous utopia." > > -- Janice Of course one cannot say that she was supposed to do this or that, so Le Guin did not have to draw the picture of a workable, perfect society. But still I am doubtful about the dynamism of the rural solace of Anarres, left to their own, could they survive? All in all, your point is better put than mine. Thank you. EMRAH ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:15:04 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Kim Antieau's The Gaia Websters describes a society which intentionally > minimizes technology, as do such older feminists utopia/dystopias as > Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time and Joanna Russ's The Female Man. > > This is also an important secondary theme in the work of such Quaker or > Quaker-influenced SF writers as Joan Slonczewski (A Door into Ocean), Molly > Gloss (The Dazzle of Day) and Judith Moffett (Pennterra, The Ragged World, > Time, Like an Ever-Flowing Stream). Hmmm. I am very unimpressed by this last implied connection. Which is rare with regard to your posts. First of all, I disagree with your assessment of Joan Slonczewski and _A Door Into Ocean_ (The only mentioned book that I have read though I have read other books by her). In _A Door Into Ocen_ the sharers were far more technologically advanced than those other "normal" people. Their technology was completely biological (So it didn't LOOK like technology) but it was very advanced technology none the less. She even emphasizes herself that it is real technology. It was also a still scientific technology in that the sharers were still doing new things with it and knew how it worked. (As opposed to the genetic engineering in _Glory Season_ by David Brin which I would agree that the world was anti-technological). Finally, her other books are not (in my mind) anti-technology. Anti war-technology yes, but not anti technology. Secondly, Quakers are not anti-technology. Many people have some misguided "Quaker Oats" view of horse and buggy Quakers. Guess what, they don't exist, those are the Omish. I'm sure you know all of this, but unless you are Quaker and have to explain yourself to the common mis-informed masses all of the time (especially as an engineer) I'm sure it is easy forget. In fact, there are a number of quaker web-sites and e-mail lists and a huge number of quaker-related schools including (for example) Swarthmore which is as far as I know one of the only small liberal arts colleges with a respested engineering major. I know you didn't come right out and say that Quakers are anti-technology, but I think the implication was very strongly evident in what you said. Finally, I know that it was just an off-hand remark, and sorry for getting all steamed about it, but I really don't want any misconceptions about who and what a very important part of my life is about spread among the some of the people that I most respect and think hold my same basic beliefs and values (whether they call it Quakerism or not... :) Of course I could be wrong. There might be a large group of anti-technology sci-fi writing Quakers out there but I certainly haven't heard of them (until now). -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:49:45 -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: Mimic (! some spoilage) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970829131400.3fffabd8@kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I have to admit that I have not seen Mimic myself. The reason I thought it was cool was this. A super-sexist jerk who is a staff writer at my college newspaper (his last week masterpiece was about how women should not be in the army because they are too weak to throw a grenade without killing soldiers on their own side) recently wrote a review on the _Mimic_. In which he told us how disgusted he was that Mira Sorvino's character was to confront "that only potent male roach mutant" ( it obviously seemed to be a part of his favorite idea of the world feminist conspiracy). I guess for some people it's easier to identify with a cockroach than with a woman. This must be the reason I thought Mimic was a good movie. That, and the fact that it's been compared to Scream, which I loved. I guess I have to watch it to see for myself, but now I'll probably wait for the video. I wonder if anyone saw G.I.Jane. It's not a science fiction (I hope!), but it's a good movie. Of course, I like violent action movies in general, which a lot of people on the list don't. I just think that women have a right to be as agressive as men, if they want to, and can enjoy "blowing up a ship" just as much. However, there were some funny things about the movie: 1. I don't think anyone else but Demi Moore would get away with this (nor with all the other things she's done, from the naked pregnant picture in Vanity Fair in 80's to the Striptease movie). If it was someone like Geena Davis, or simply a single woman actress, there would be a lot of screaming in the audience about man-hating and stuff like that. However, no one would mess with Bruce Willis's wife. It seems that if you got the right man, you can do whatever you want. Still, it's better than nothing. 2. The makers of the movie are bending over backwards to prevent accusations of feminism (e.g. the strange behavior of the female senator, and Moore's constant apologizing that she's "not trying to make a statement"), while promoting its basic ideas. 3. I wonder if it's a common practice to perform military training in a foreign country, which is not at war with US, including killing some native soldiers just for the sake of training. Even if it's a country like Lybia. Jeez, and then we wonder why we get bombs in public facilities. Maybe that's also part of training for the other side's special service schools. 4. The joke about the three hundred pound, superbutch female navy officer "looking like a Russian" was extremely funny. Back in the USSR, we called this "American Sense of Humor". Just kidding. :) Respectfully, Marina On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > Mimic is awful, awful, awful, and besides which, it's full of cockroaches (I > love snakes, spiders are no big deal, but roaches... *shudder* Must be the > housewife in me. ;). The trappings of "power" re: the female protagonist > are all hyper-stereotypical role-reversals, up to the "No, take me!" bravado > stance to save the poor little autistic boy from being annihilated... To > top it all off, there's some really weird kinda nasty racist stuff going on > in there, or at the very least, the same role-reversal/PC effort towards > redemption that doesn't even vaguely mask the still anti-woman, anti-black > paradigms underlying it all... "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:03:04 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Secondly, Quakers are not anti-technology. Definitely not, but I've seen that assumption before, and I've got a few thoughts on it. I hope this isn't too far off the list topic (I do talk about Sharers at the end of the message ;-). Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it Omish, as you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or-less anti-technology. I think it's true that many Quakers believe in simplicity, though, and those tendancies conflict with embracing consumer technology and buying gadgets to keep up with the neighbors or to simply have the gadget for the sake of having it (which seems to pervade the computer industry). There are also arguments that consumerism, etc., is (in the long run) pro-corporate, anti-human, a strong contributor to class division, etc., and is therefore condemnable. This could be construed as anti-technology since our current technology does seem to imply a large corporate/manufacturing complex. That's a different issue, though. I thought that the Sharer technology was incredible. Using plant and biotech to construct just about anything that they wanted to. Definitely not metaltech, but the Sharers were doing things that modern science can not come close to and it was certainly presented as a science, not as mysticism or some such. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:16:22 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: utopias and technology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry... born and raised in rural PA, with an Amish babysitter, I can't let a recent posting slide: it's "Amish" not "Omish". Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:25:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: buying on the net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 00:05 8/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Hi, >> I have never bought anything over the net. Is it safe? And I was also >>wondering if the addresses are available for the book sites mentioned. >> Thanks for your help, >> Rebecca > >Rebecca, > >I wouldn't do it. Go to a store or order by mail, or even phone, instead. > >-Sean > Once you have established yourself as a customer of Amazon, you never have to send your credit information again -- you send them your e-mail address and your password, and they remember. If you prefer, you can phone your credit information to them, and this will then allow you to order by e-mail. All I can say is, I haven't had a problem, except ordering too much. (And that's my fault, not theirs.) Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:20:40 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: GIJane Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Marina wrote: >I wonder if anyone saw G.I.Jane. It's not a science fiction (I hope!), >but it's a good movie. Of course, I like violent action movies in general, >which a lot of people on the list don't. Well, I have a brown belt in tae kwon do; personally, I thought GIJane was great. *grins* Uhm, I do happen to have a major thing about muscled women, but heck. That's only partial bias. =) It was wonderful having an action flick where I could identify with the lead (believable) badass, for once... >2. The makers of the movie are bending over backwards to prevent >accusations of feminism (e.g. the strange behavior of the female >senator, and Moore's constant apologizing that she's "not trying to make >a statement"), while promoting its basic ideas. > Oh, *gasp* no, not feminism, the kiss of death for sales... Another funny thing: 5. The tampons. I mean, really, a Navy Seal is going to use applicator tampons? for the blood squeamish? ;) Heather hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:39:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Joel VanLaven wrote: > On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > > This is also an important secondary theme in the work of such Quaker or > > Quaker-influenced SF writers as Joan Slonczewski (A Door into Ocean), Molly > > Gloss (The Dazzle of Day) and Judith Moffett (Pennterra, The Ragged World, > > Time, Like an Ever-Flowing Stream). > > Hmmm. I am very unimpressed by this last implied connection. Which is > rare with regard to your posts. > > First of all, I disagree with your assessment of Joan Slonczewski and _A > Door Into Ocean_ (The only mentioned book that I have read though I > have read other books by her). In _A Door Into Ocen_ the sharers were far > more technologically advanced than those other "normal" people. Their > technology was completely biological (So it didn't LOOK like technology) > but it was very advanced technology none the less. She even > emphasizes herself that it is real technology. It was also a still > scientific technology in that the sharers were still doing new things with > it and knew how it worked. > > Secondly, Quakers are not anti-technology. Many people have some > misguided "Quaker Oats" view of horse and buggy Quakers. Guess what, they > don't exist, those are the Omish. I'm sure you know all of this, but > unless you are Quaker and have to explain yourself to the common > mis-informed masses all of the time (especially as an engineer) I'm sure > it is easy forget. In fact, there are a number of quaker web-sites and > e-mail lists and a huge number of quaker-related schools including (for > example) Swarthmore which is as far as I know one of the only small > liberal arts colleges with a respested engineering major. I know you > didn't come right out and say that Quakers are anti-technology, but I > think the implication was very strongly evident in what you said. > > Finally, I know that it was just an off-hand remark, and sorry for getting > all steamed about it, but I really don't want any misconceptions about who > and what a very important part of my life is about spread among the some > of the people that I most respect and think hold my same basic beliefs and > values (whether they call it Quakerism or not... :) > > -- Joel VanLaven > Joel, I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I said and got upset. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I might have been. I did not mean to imply in any way that Quakers are anti-technology. I have several friends who are Quakers, including Joan Slonczewski by the way, and none of them are anti-technology. In fact, now that I begin counting them up on my fingers, the majority are science fiction readers! What I meant to say, and obviously didn't say clearly enough, is that the Quakers, and the Sharers in A Door into Ocean for that matter, believe in living in equilibrium with the environment and in minimizing the use of unnecessary or destructive technology. Yes, the Sharers are a high tech people, but they carefully design their technology to avoid environmental damage. Similarly the Quaker settlers of Pennterra in Moffettt's novel of that name, get on just fine with the quasi-intelligent environment of their world by using only necessary agricultural and other technology, only to see their colony brought to the point of collapse, when non-Quaker colonists arrive and begin to use less responsible farming methods, methods that are not necessarily higher tech, but that are more technologically intrusive. In Molly Gloss's the Dazzle of Day, which I'd love to hear your opinion of, Quakers build a generation ship and travel to a new world, hardly anti-tech. Within the ship they use high tech too, but they also set things up so that everyone has plenty of physical labor to do. The good civilizations of Russ's The Female Man and Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, although not Quaker, have a very similar attitude toward technology. Both use technology when it is beneficial to do so and in some ways are very high tech, but at the same time, both attempt to minimize its intrusion on their lives. I hope this clears things up. I don't pretend to know that much about the Quaker faith but, based on what I do know, I don't think that you and I are really in disagreement. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:11:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it Omish, as > you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or-less > anti-technology. I'm not so sure about Shakerism - isn't is a subsect of Quakerism? (Nixon was a Quaker - imagine that.) But the Amish aren't really anti- technology. They're just selective. They don't want technology that will change their lives in what they feel is a negative way. So they shun TV and ownership of private autos, but I believe they're O.K. with public transportation and bicycles. Seeing Amish teen-agers on rollerblades is startling, but it makes sense in their world view. Perhaps the rest of us could learn a lesson from such selectivity. BTW, if anybody knows of any Amish science fiction, I'd love to hear about it. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Yet, throughout the book there exists the whole gamut of strange facts which we ourselves had been aware of for years, all carefully mustered to support a theory doomed by every process of logic to be forever incomprehensible." - Ray Palmer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:40:21 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I'm not so sure about Shakerism - isn't is a subsect of Quakerism? Not to my knowledge, but I know very little about Shakers other than what I found in _Queen City Jazz_ (just finished that this past weekend). > Perhaps the rest of us could learn a lesson from such selectivity. Certainly, although one must also look at the broad picture... Public transportation, bicycles, and rollerblades do not exist in a vacuum. There is a significant amount of technology and industy behind a single bike, and I don't even want to speculate on the origins of the materials used in 'blades. I have had fun trying to apply Ernest Callenbach's notion of "social cost" from _Ecotopia_. I like it... :-) -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:02:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gary Lynch Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: <19970902224021.36624@puma.macbsd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Allen Briggs wrote: >> I'm not so sure about Shakerism - isn't is a subsect of Quakerism? > >Not to my knowledge, but I know very little about Shakers other than >what I found in _Queen City Jazz_ (just finished that this past weekend). > Their lifestyle tends toward the simplistic (i.e. non-technological), but their beliefs around procreation (=taboo) make them an endangered species these days. Only tiny pockets survive, and they are generally quite old. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:53:10 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: <199709030211.WAB08544@mime3.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it > Omish, as > > you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or-less > > anti-technology. > The Shakers were a sort of subset of Quakers, in the sense that mother Anne and the original Shakers who came over from England to America at the end of the 18th century had been Quakers, or some ofd them had been. But there is virtually NOTHING that the Shakers and the Quakers have in common, except their name! ANd, far from being ant-technology, the Shakers actually invented a number of machines in the nineteenth-century. I cannot offhand remember which ones at the moment... but standard labour-saving machines, anyway, helping them in their various businesses (seed-growing and selling, furniture-making etc). They were a very practical bunch. Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor: FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Joint Editor: EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:25:43 +0100 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: GIJane MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 5. The tampons. I mean, really, a Navy Seal is going to use applicator > tampons? for the blood squeamish? Or women with short fingers (sharp nails) and long vaginal passages? Joan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:24:55 CDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Mary Ann Beavis, IUS" Organization: The University of Winnipeg Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: <19970902224021.36624@puma.macbsd.com> Actually, Shakerism was a utopian sect founded by a woman, Mother Ann Lee. They believed in the equality of the sexes, sexual abstinence, and male and female messiahs. M.A.B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:06:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- This is getting farther and farther from feminism, but my last note on this thread is... > On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > > > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > > > Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it > > Omish, as > > > you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or- less > > > anti-technology. Just to note that I didn't write this - I did quote it, however. Anyway, this thread sent me to do some looking-up about the Amish last night. Was surprised to learn that even the more conservative Old Order Amish accept natural-gas appliances, and many Old Order Amish use gasoline-engine farm implements and machines - some use tractors. These things are not seen as a threat to their close-knit agrarian lifestyle. Like most people, I'd been mistaking frugality, the desire to maintain community, and a dislike of things deemed "worldly" for a bias against technology per se. I was also surprised to learn that the Amish are growing, not shrinking, as a national community. But they require good farmland, which is getting scarce. So Amish could very well travel in space someday, in a second migration - but they'd probably need Harrison Ford to run the ship. Epic material here. I *did* say: > Perhaps the rest of us could learn a lesson from such selectivity. And Alan Briggs responded: > Certainly, although one must also look at the broad picture... Public > transportation, bicycles, and rollerblades do not exist in a vacuum. I suppose the Amish, in borrowing the technology of the larger culture and using it for their own subcultural purposes, were really the first cyberpunks. :-) BTW, the Amish are most definitely *not* feminist. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Yet, throughout the book there exists the whole gamut of strange facts which we ourselves had been aware of for years, all carefully mustered to support a theory doomed by every process of logic to be forever incomprehensible." - Ray Palmer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:45:14 -1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel L Krashin Subject: Re: GI Jane ------------------------------ >Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:49:45 -0500 >From: MARINA YERESHENKO >Subject: Re: Mimic (! some spoilage) [snip about Mimic] >I wonder if anyone saw G.I.Jane. It's not a science fiction (I hope!), >but it's a good movie. Of course, I like violent action movies in general, >which a lot of people on the list don't. I just think that women have a >right to be as agressive as men, if they want to, and can enjoy "blowing >up a ship" just as much. >However, there were some funny things about the movie: > >1. I don't think anyone else but Demi Moore would get away with this (nor >with all the other things she's done, from the naked pregnant picture in >Vanity Fair in 80's to the Striptease movie). If it was someone like >Geena Davis, or simply a single woman actress, there would be a lot of >screaming in the audience about man-hating and stuff like that. However, no >one would mess with Bruce Willis's wife. It seems that if you got the right >man, you can do whatever you want. Still, it's better than nothing. Actually, I thought Demi Moore was strikingly miscast...I didn't think she looked tough enough, even with the muscles, to be a plausible SEAL. I don't think she looked mentally tough enough for the role, either -- I can't think of many actresses that could pull it off, maybe Angela Basset, Sigourney Weaver (although she's too old for the part), or that woman who played in the Terminator movies. With the shaved head, she looked like she was ready to star in the "Sinead O'Connor Story" -- not like a trained killer. [snip about the antifeminist elements of the story -- no argument from me] >3. I wonder if it's a common practice to perform military training in a >foreign country, which is not at war with US, including killing some native >soldiers just for the sake of training. Even if it's a country like >Lybia. Jeez, and then we wonder why we get bombs in public facilities. >Maybe that's also part of training for the other side's special service >schools. Speaking as a military man, I can say that precious little about "GI Jane" was true to life. The US *does* do joint military exercises with friendly countries (including such newly friendly countries as the Ukraine and Poland) on a regular basis. The US military generally doesn't kill the people they're training with, in fact, at least in Germany, they pay handsomely for the crops damaged by manuvers. > >4. The joke about the three hundred pound, superbutch female navy officer >"looking like a Russian" was extremely funny. Back in the USSR, we called >this "American Sense of Humor". Just kidding. :) This is one of the lasting legacies of Cold War propaganda -- America taunted Eastern Europe for having ugly women and a poor selection of consumer goods. It annoys my Czechoslovakian wife no end to have people assume she comes from a destitute, primitive country and that she must be tremendously impressed with the achievements of American civilization... > >Respectfully, > >Marina By the way, Marina, have you seen any recent Russian SF in translation available in this country? I have a little collection, but it seems like people stopped publishing it after the early 80's. Yours truly, Dan Krashin P.S. The contents of this email are my opinion only and have nothing to do with the US governments position on anything in particular. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:11:07 -1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel L Krashin Subject: Re: SF and Ecology On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:35:52 +0400 emrah goker wrote >>On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, L Garforth wrote: >>> I plan to analyse first the theoretical aspects of "Mother Earth" kind >>> of ecological thinking, relating to the deconstructionist and> >>> metaphysical touches on the paradigm. Next, I think, I will use the SF >>>texts to hold my point. >> >> I'm not sure what you're getting at here; my own feeling is that Gaiain >> thought is open to criticism on a range of points, from essentialism to >> fuzzy mysticism to its tendency to describe a utopian desire for 'one >> world' rather as if it were a material actuality... I don't know >> how different types of sf deal with that. You probably already know >> that the sf writer John Varley has an interest in Gaiain thought (see >> especially _Titan_ 1979) ), and I'd also have thought that Vonnegut's >> _Galapagos_ would be interesting here?! > >I have heard about Varley and have put him in my list, yet I have not read >anything from him. You are quite right about that there are many ways of >critical approach to Gaiain ideas, and I will choose the (post)marxist >route I think. I can send you my list once I compile it in a meaningful >way. > Postmarxist Gaianism, eh? Sounds like a violent splinter group in a Kim Stanley Robinson novel... Seriously, what do you mean by "postmarxism?" I have seen postfeminism defined in this group, but this is a new one for me. As far as the Gaia hypothesis goes, I know the originator of the idea is still busy writing books and articles on the subject -- if you look into them, you may find some of your work done for you already (always a good thing). AFAIK, the Gaia hypothesis, while fascinating in its implications and therefore a good subject for science fiction, is ultimately one of those interesting but untestable assertions which come up every so often... as such, it seems to have more in common with religious beliefs than scientific theories. As far as treatments of the Gaia idea, I can think of a few right off: David Brin's _Earth_ (a cheesy take on the idea, admittedly) George Turner, the Australian SF writer, wrote a novel something like _The Genetic Soldier_ which takes place in a quasi-utopian future earth where the force of Gaia is an integral part of civilization. Michael Swanwick's _Vacuum Flowers_ features a future Earth where all the human on earth are part of a single consciousness, linked by brain implants -- sort of a cyberpunkish spin on the Gaia idea. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy feature a sort of Gaianist ideology centered on Mars. I hope some of those are of use to you. John Brunner's _Stand on Zanzibar_ and _The Sheep Look Up_ are both great SF novels of eco-disaster but they are not particularly gaia-influenced. My biggest concern about the Gaia idea is that it may give people a false sense of security -- if you think that there is some force keeping the life on Earth safe, you sleep a little more soundly in your bed than if you think that life is only protected by the relative feebleness of humanity's destructive powers. Personally, I think the Earth would be just as happy as an airless desert like Mars or a greenhouse world like Venus... no more humans to make noise and set off atomic bombs in the crust, just peace and quiet until the sun dies. Sorry for writing so much -- I just wanted to add one comment about your earlier post referring to Fukuyama's theory of the "End of History" -- I think this was a cute idea and a lot of fun for the pundits and intellectuals to kick around, but I don't think many people took it seriously -- I know that the military and foreign policy communities didn't, at least, from my reading of the trade journals. Others may disagree with me, but I think it was just a pleasant conceit. Yours, Dan Krashin (next time I post, it'll be more on-topic!) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:36:57 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: <12192153@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >------------------------------ >>Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:49:45 -0500 >>From: MARINA YERESHENKO >>Subject: Re: Mimic (! some spoilage) >[snip about Mimic] >>I wonder if anyone saw G.I.Jane. It's not a science fiction (I hope!), >>but it's a good movie. Of course, I like violent action movies in general, >>which a lot of people on the list don't. I just think that women have a >>right to be as agressive as men, if they want to, and can enjoy "blowing >>up a ship" just as much. >>However, there were some funny things about the movie: >> >>1. I don't think anyone else but Demi Moore would get away with this (nor >>with all the other things she's done, from the naked pregnant picture in >>Vanity Fair in 80's to the Striptease movie). If it was someone like >>Geena Davis, or simply a single woman actress, there would be a lot of >>screaming in the audience about man-hating and stuff like that. However, no >>one would mess with Bruce Willis's wife. It seems that if you got the right >>man, you can do whatever you want. Still, it's better than nothing. > >Actually, I thought Demi Moore was strikingly miscast...I didn't think she >looked tough enough, even with the muscles, to be a plausible SEAL. I don't >think she looked mentally tough enough for the role, either -- I can't think >of many actresses that could pull it off, maybe Angela Basset, Sigourney >Weaver (although she's too old for the part), or that woman who played in the >Terminator movies. With the shaved head, she looked like she was ready to >star in the "Sinead O'Connor Story" -- not like a trained killer. > The Terminator terminator was/is Linda Hamilton, co-star (with Pierce Brosnan) of a great movie called _Dante's Peak_, a sort of anti-disaster movie in that it's focus is not so much on the volcano that's about to blow but on the people of the town at the base of the volcano w/Hamilton as the mayor. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:15:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: <199709030211.WAB08544@mime3.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 22:11 9/2/97 -0500, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >> Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it >Omish, as >> you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or-less >> anti-technology. > >I'm not so sure about Shakerism - isn't is a subsect of Quakerism? Absolutely NOT. Shakers -- a celibate sect that prospered in the 19th century by taking in and raising orphans (much better for the kids than the local 'poor house') is a very definite separatist group. Only a few Shakers still alive -- and they are VERY old now. >(Nixon was a Quaker - imagine that.) But the Amish aren't really anti- >technology. They're just selective. They don't want technology that will >change their lives in what they feel is a negative way. So they shun TV >and ownership of private autos, but I believe they're O.K. with public >transportation and bicycles. Seeing Amish teen-agers on rollerblades is >startling, but it makes sense in their world view. Perhaps the rest of >us could learn a lesson from such selectivity. This depends on the group. Some Amish are more tolerant of 'new' ideas than others -- though none accept 'worldly' things. Some refuse to allow their kids education beyond 8th grade lest they get 'ideas' and leave the community. One group we lived near would allow farm tractors IF and ONLY IF the tires were not inflated. > >BTW, if anybody knows of any Amish science fiction, I'd love to hear >about it. Leigh Brackett posits a kind-of-Amish community in _The Long Tomorrow_ (1955) but only as a place adventurous kids escape from. And she does not name it as Amish, I'm just extrapolating here. >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > >"Yet, throughout the book there exists the whole gamut of strange facts >which we ourselves had been aware of for years, all carefully mustered >to support a theory doomed by every process of logic to be forever >incomprehensible." - Ray Palmer > Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:27:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:53 9/3/97 +0100, you wrote: >On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >--snip-- >The Shakers were a sort of subset of Quakers, in the sense that mother >Anne and the original Shakers who came over from England to America at the >end of the 18th century had been Quakers, or some ofd them had been. But >there is virtually NOTHING that the Shakers and the Quakers have in >common, except their name! ANd, far from being ant-technology, the Shakers >actually invented a number of machines in the nineteenth-century. I cannot >offhand remember which ones at the moment... but standard labour-saving >machines, anyway, helping them in their various businesses (seed-growing >and selling, furniture-making etc). They were a very practical bunch. > >Edward James > > The Shakers also 'invented' the infirmary, with sunshine and open windows at a time when lots of people still thought fresh air was an evil influence. >........................................................................... ... > >Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social >Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > >http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > >Editor: FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION >Joint Editor: EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE > >........................................................................... ... > Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:05:32 -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: robot books for high schoolers In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970829153042.0076c238@131.183.1.4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Kate Williams asked about robot stories for high school students, especially with social consequences: You just about have to begin with Asimov. The "Three Laws" ought to be good for a couple days duscussion by themselves, especially with the _I Robot_ collection. Then the interrupted robot murder-mystery trilogy. _Caves of Steel_ has too many people per robot; _The Naked Sun_ has too many robots per person. And while you're at it, would "R.U.R." be useful? Capek's "robots" are what we now call "androids", but a lot of the issues are there, and it's the source of our use of the word. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:38:20 -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: the question of aesthetics In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Erik Tsao asked: >To what extent does the concerns for "literariness" (a loaded term, I >realize) enter into the writings of science-fiction, fantasy, and horror >writers (both men and women)? Mostly not. Robert Heinlein belonged to the "beer money" school of writing: he claimed that he was trying to get the money which would otherwise be spent on beer. Until The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction began to search out "literary values" and New Worlds promoted experimental writing in sf, it was pretty exclusively the most straightforward of storytelling. (As I write this, it occurs to me that I'm talking about U.S. sf.) It sounds like you want to find a good bibliography of Samuel R. Delaney! >How much does politics alone enter into the act of writing such a novel? Rarely; there are relatively few sf novels which are written exclusively politically. >How does that connect up to the politics of feminist sf/fantasy/utopia? >In other words, what would a feminist aesthetics, or poetics, of sf/fantasy/utopian fiction look like? I can't think of much. Have you read _The Female Man_ by Joanna Russ? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:08:10 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970828134328.006999f0@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Janice E. Dawley" replied to Emrah Goker: >> SF utopias, to be good fiction, to have literary value -though "literary >>value" is dangerous waters- must not be in _stasis_. They must not lose >>their dynamism. Take Orwell's _1984_: The time seems stopped at 1984, >>nothing moves, nothing changes. Even for a so-called "totalitarian" >>communist society, be it in 20th century or in 24th, stasis is improbable. > >_1984_ was a dystopia, not a utopia. The extreme rigidity of the future >society was part of what made it so frightful. It's not likely that such a >society could exist, but the book nevertheless points out possible end >results of certain trends by exaggerating reality. We have always been at war with Saddam Hussein. . . despite the fact that George Bush spent his entire political career shipping arms ro Iraq almost non-stop. I am horrified that "free Americans" are not allowed to travel (by air) without government permission. I am abjectly apalled that almost no one seems to think there's anything remarkable about the situation, and most seem grateful for it. Between a quarter and a third of a million people make their livings off the "War on Drugs", attacking the poor, the non-white and the U.S. Constitution exclusively. It is something of a commonplace that "1984" was about "1948". It was not especially about Russia. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:29:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: <19970902130304.40075@puma.macbsd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Gary Lynch replied to Allen Briggs : >> Secondly, Quakers are not anti-technology. > >Definitely not, but I've seen that assumption before, The Quakers are more likely to pay attention to the question "What are people for?" (The phrasing is from Vonnegut's _God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, or Pearls Before Swine_. And, incidentally, Vonnegut's _Player Piano_ (also in a rare paperback as something like _Utopia 57_) was the first novel to consider technologic unemployment.) >Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is >it Omish, as you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers >are more-or-less anti-technology. (Pretty sure it's "Amish".) The Shakers were very much for *simplicity*, but definitely not "Luddites". The bandsaw was invented by a Shaker woman. >I think it's true that many >Quakers believe in simplicity, though, and those tendancies conflict >with embracing consumer technology and buying gadgets to keep up >with the neighbors or to simply have the gadget for the sake of having >it (which seems to pervade the computer industry). BINGO >There are also arguments that consumerism, etc., is (in the long >run) pro-corporate, anti-human, a strong contributor to class >division, etc., and is therefore condemnable. This could be >construed as anti-technology since our current technology does >seem to imply a large corporate/manufacturing complex. That's >a different issue, though. Right again. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:59:36 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Emrah Goker asked: > There is a paper in my head to write about ecologist utopias in science >fiction and their cultural, ideological, or who knows, political-economic >implications. I consider criticizing the "gaiaist" position in ecology >which holds that the human species is a point -rather a big one- in the >organic continuum of Nature, being no different than, say, an old oak tree >or a pretty badger. Since there is no evidence that oak trees have a culture, the argument is false. A guy doesn't get up in the morning and say, "What a beautiful day! I think I'll go clear cut some old growth forests, and if it's still nice this afternoon, I'll dump some mine tailings in the stream!" He gets up and says, "What a beautiful day! And I have to go to that lousy job!" > I plan to analyse first the theoretical aspects of "Mother Earth" kind >of ecological thinking, relating to the deconstructionist and metaphysical >touches on the paradigm. Next, I think, I will use the SF texts to hold my >point. > Specifically, though I have made up a long list of ecological SF books >and stories, I ask to those who are interested to help building on my >list. Please be careful. Many ecological stories are not technically possible. A good example is _Ecotopia_ which depends on imaginary, impossible technology. > And for my argument here. > I believe what Theodor Sturgeon has told us is true: 95% of all SF is >junk (or has he said "thrash"?). In response to the comment that 90% of science fiction is crap: "Ninety percent of *everything* is crap." >The majority of SF books, stories, films, >computer games, journals, zines, etc. have successfully been integrated >into the capitalist market for culture. Which connects to my implication above that much of the damage humanity does is mediated by culture. >Or take the wonderful _The Dispossessed_, Le Guin's masterpiece (by the >way, is she still an anarchist, or an utopian socialist?): At the 1975 WorldCon (where _The Dispossessed_ later win its Hugo), I asked her if she called herself an anarchist, and she gave me an evasive answer to the effect of "Can a housewife and homemaker be an anarchist?" Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:52:46 +0930 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nimal Jayawardhana Subject: Quakers... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear List, I studied two units in Peace and Conflict Studies in Brisbane at Queensland University (Australia) last year and Quakers have been immensly important to the Peace Movement worldwide. Some of you may know that Pennyslylvania is named after a Quaker. I am interested to know more aboout the Amish, they are often viewed with ridicule and/or contempt, but this is probably due to misunderstanding more than anything else. Human nature... Salutations, |\| | |\/| (Nimal JAyawardhana) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:05:50 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: <12192153@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Daniel L Krashin wrote: > Actually, I thought Demi Moore was strikingly miscast...I didn't think she > looked tough enough, even with the muscles, to be a plausible SEAL. I don't > think she looked mentally tough enough for the role, either -- I can't think > of many actresses that could pull it off, maybe Angela Basset, Sigourney > Weaver (although she's too old for the part), or that woman who played in the > Terminator movies. With the shaved head, she looked like she was ready to > star in the "Sinead O'Connor Story" -- not like a trained killer. I think it's more important to _be_ tough than to look tough. That's exactly the argument of those who object women in the military -- because they are rarely have those three hundred pounds of muscles (and an extra-savage face expression) that are assumed necessary to have to be a good "trained killer". Hey, I am 5'10" and 120 pounds, but I could probably kill a person with a matchbox with appropriate training. The whole point of the movie is that an _average_ woman can become a SEAL, just as well as an average man (after all, none of the guys looked like Schwatzenegger). All you need is good health and a lot of will power to go through all this training. And Demi Moore is someone that most women could relate to. > > >3. I wonder if it's a common practice to perform military training in a > >foreign country, which is not at war with US, including killing some native > >soldiers just for the sake of training. Even if it's a country like > >Lybia. Jeez, and then we wonder why we get bombs in public facilities. > >Maybe that's also part of training for the other side's special service > >schools. > > Speaking as a military man, I can say that precious little about "GI Jane" > was true to life. The US *does* do joint military exercises with friendly > countries (including such newly friendly countries as the Ukraine and Poland) > on a regular basis. The US military generally doesn't kill the people > they're training with, in fact, at least in Germany, they pay handsomely for > the crops damaged by manuvers. In GIJane, no one obviously paid for the damage. Besides, Lybia in the movie did not seem in any way informed about upcoming military exercises. And all the local soldiers who got killed just for happenning to come by did not give their consent to that. Imagine Lybian SEAL landing on the coast of Florida (just for training purposes), shooting some coast guards strolling by and taking off? That would be the same thing. What I am saying, it unrealistic to expect people treat you better than you treat them. > This is one of the lasting legacies of Cold War propaganda -- America taunted > Eastern Europe for having ugly women and a poor selection of consumer goods. Yep, and now they all are portrayed as a bunch of evil mobsters and/or prostitutes trying to lure nice American guys into marriage for green card purposes (think movies from Air Force One to Extreme Measures, and TV shows from Sentinel to Step by Step). Cold War has nothing to do with it anymore. There is simply a need for an enemy image in this culture, and Russians seem to fit best. Since they look more like "average" white Americans while being totally different, they make a better representation of "hidden evil" than extraterrestrials or Arab terrorists whom one could recognize right away. It's an ethnic prejudice, not a political one. > By the way, Marina, have you seen any recent Russian SF in translation > available in this country? I have a little collection, but it seems like > people stopped publishing it after the early 80's. Well, I don't think I've seen any, actually. Except _Master and Margarita_, which is fantasy, and written in 1930's. The best Russian sf I read in Russian were novels by Strugatsky brothers, but I'm not sure if they have ever been translated to English. Most sf of late 80s and early 90's Russian sf I read was very heavily politisized. Besides there appeared some horror stories, which never existed in traditional literature before, as well as paperback romances. But if I find some new translated sf, I will let you know. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:50:21 +0400 Reply-To: emrah goker Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: emrah goker Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970903105936.006c243c@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > > There is a paper in my head to write about ecologist utopias in science > >fiction and their cultural, ideological, or who knows, political-economic > >implications. I consider criticizing the "gaiaist" position in ecology > >which holds that the human species is a point -rather a big one- in the > >organic continuum of Nature, being no different than, say, an old oak tree > >or a pretty badger. > > Since there is no evidence that oak trees have a culture, the argument is > false. A guy doesn't get up in the morning and say, "What a beautiful day! > I think I'll go clear cut some old growth forests, and if it's still nice > this afternoon, I'll dump some mine tailings in the stream!" He gets up > and says, "What a beautiful day! And I have to go to that lousy job!" Good Lord! Why did you twist my argument like that? Now: 1) I meant to acknowledge my disagreement with extremists giving too much emphasis to Nature, conceptualizing _homo sapiens sapiens_ as the most dangerous enemy to it, and meanwhile usually ignoring the exploitative relations of production, consumption and distribution in the capitalist society. 2) I did not mean to give evidence of an oak tree having culture. 3) Your imaginary guy is a typical example of an alienated, middle-class, passive citizen. And I agree that not even multinat leaders do not get up in the morning and say "Let's exploit the Nature!" Of course. Yes. And my problem is here: Those extremist ecologists (belonging to some specific schools of ecology) who believe that, wanting the humanity to be in total harmony with a mystified concept of Nature. 4) And meanwhile, your (not so) imaginary guy will not even care. > In response to the comment that 90% of science fiction is crap: > "Ninety percent of *everything* is crap." I think I have corrected it in one of my recent posts. Anyway, I just wanted to *emphasize* the condition of contemporary SF industry. > >The majority of SF books, stories, films, > >computer games, journals, zines, etc. have successfully been integrated > >into the capitalist market for culture. > > Which connects to my implication above that much of the damage humanity > does is mediated by culture. Yes. I totally agree. And I did not mean to say that the damage we do is only ecological. In addition, culture is not the only level of making Earth a worse place: Economics, politics, ideological struggles which are of course in close interaction with culture, should also be considered. > >Or take the wonderful _The Dispossessed_, Le Guin's masterpiece (by the > >way, is she still an anarchist, or an utopian socialist?): > > At the 1975 WorldCon (where _The Dispossessed_ later win its Hugo), I asked > her if she called herself an anarchist, and she gave me an evasive answer > to the effect of "Can a housewife and homemaker be an anarchist?" Heh. Just as I suspected. Thanks for the information. Best wishes, EMRAH ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:50:44 +0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: emrah goker Subject: Le Guin and Literary Silences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Very recently I have criticized Le Guin's _The Dispossessed_ for being in stasis and lacking social control. My argument was weak and wrongly directed: I failed to explain myself in talking about "social control" (in fact there is not the lack but misuse of it) and could not form a concrete position in the novel's being in *stasis*. What I had in mind was some article written by Gregory Benford, "Reactionary Utopias" in a book (if I remember right) called _Storm Warnings_. I think his point is quite interesting: "_The Dispossessed_ reeks with Old Testament themes and images, using guilt as the principal social control. The founder, Odo, is the central saint of a communal society. Her pain and suffering during nine years' imprisonment _make possible_ the virtue of the later Anarres society ... The impiled lesson is that utopia will not arrive until man comes to grip with his own nature, which means in turn that a citizen is _born guilty_, must repay Odo's pain with his submission to the general will and society's precepts..." (p. 76) So a child in Anarres cannot become a citizen until he/she undergoes an implicit rite, I refer to the imprisonment game, symbolizing Odo's own pains; it was described in extreme detail in the book. This religious "first sin" theme seems to imply that Le Guin, as Benford claims, "avoids the problems of a real utopia". Following Terry Eagleton, questioning about a literary text's (in fact, writer's) "silences" would help us read the text deeper. And Benford says: "The principal ignored problem of Anarres is the problem of evil and thus violence... Guilt (social conscience) simply overcomes such discordant elements. In the middle of a drought in which people starve, no matter how evenly shared, somehow no one thinks of taking up arms with some friends and seizing, say, the grain reserves." (p. 77) So no criminals, no insane people, no naturally violent types. And I remember a prison camp in Anarres for unwanted people. Le Guin's silence, along with the ambiguity. Yet I do not mean to _blame_ her, I am not qualified to, for her ideological silences about violence (which, as Benford claims, continue in _The Eye of the Heron_). She is a science _fiction_ writer, for me one of the best, and the real world does not have to matter for her. Still, literary silences is a good point of discussing utopian literature. Best Wishes, EMRAH ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:16:43 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: L Garforth Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <12192168@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Daniel L Krashin wrote: > As far as the Gaia hypothesis goes, I know the originator of the idea is > still busy writing books and articles on the subject -- if you look into > them, you may find some of your work done for you already (always a good > thing). AFAIK, the Gaia hypothesis, while fascinating in its implications > and therefore a good subject for science fiction, is ultimately one of those > interesting but untestable assertions which come up every so often... as > such, it seems to have more in common with religious beliefs than scientific > theories. I think you're right. Certainly, as far as it has been picked up by popularisers of green ideas the Gaia hypothesis seems to be important rather for the spiritual ideas it implies rather than as a piece of supporting science - I should note also that advocates of Gaia have in the past often managed to rather offensively conflate the 'spirit' of the superorganism that is earth with an older idea of 'Mother Nature' in a way that takes unpleasantly essentialist notions of femaleness rather for granted. Also, that in essence (oops!) the Gaia hypothesis does not of itself support political ecological theory or action; if the earth-organism is self-regulating, what is there for us to do? > My biggest concern about the Gaia idea is that it may give people a false > sense of security -- if you think that there is some force keeping the life > on Earth safe, you sleep a little more soundly in your bed than if you think > that life is only protected by the relative feebleness of humanity's > destructive powers. Personally, I think the Earth would be just as happy as > an airless desert like Mars or a greenhouse world like Venus... no more > humans to make noise and set off atomic bombs in the crust, just peace and > quiet until the sun dies. And at the risk of repeating myself, that's why I think _Galapagos_ is so interesting; one of very few sf novels that genuinely engages with an anti-anthropocentric solution to environmental degradation - the earth would indeed be a lot better off without humanity's "big brains" > (next time I post, it'll be more on-topic!) (ditto) Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:27:36 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: L Garforth Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970903105936.006c243c@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > Please be careful. Many ecological stories are not technically possible. > A good example is _Ecotopia_ which depends on imaginary, impossible > technology. Just how are we defining 'impossible' here!? I mean that both critically and as a genuine question. I'm also doing work on sf and eco/techno themes, and I now shamefacedly admit that my scientific eduction is not all it might be...My point is, do you mean impossible as in not currently possible, or impossible as in against known understandings of physcial laws? Can we talk of either with any certainty? I need to be enlightened here..! Second, isn't there a way in which it doesn't matter? In the particular case of Callenbach's _Ecotopia_, my feeling is that its main function is a propogandist one (I don't actually like it that much as a novel; as I remember it has all the formal defects of the static, blueprint utopia that a lot of feminist - and other - utopian fiction began to challenge in the seventies) - as such, it's an attempt to break us out of received ways of thinking and in fact demand the impossible (thanks to the Situationists..), consider what other possibilities are out there, and how technology (and society) might best be modified in the light of unreasonable aspirations... Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:31:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970903110810.006c243c@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:08 9/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > --snip-- > >I am horrified that "free Americans" are not allowed to travel (by air) >without government permission. I am abjectly apalled that almost no one >seems to think there's anything remarkable about the situation, and most >seem grateful for it. --snip-- > >Neil Rest > Neil, would you elaborate on this? Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:46:50 +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: science fiction novels critical of robotics? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Shakers invented the washing machine, to name but one peice of technology. It makes sense if you think of the amount of communal laundry they had to do, all of the same type and needing the same treatment. Farah On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Edward James wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > > > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > > > Quakers are often confused with Shakers and with the Amish (or is it > > Omish, as > > > you spell it?), though. I believe that the Shakers are more-or-less > > > anti-technology. > > > > > The Shakers were a sort of subset of Quakers, in the sense that mother > Anne and the original Shakers who came over from England to America at the > end of the 18th century had been Quakers, or some ofd them had been. But > there is virtually NOTHING that the Shakers and the Quakers have in > common, except their name! ANd, far from being ant-technology, the Shakers > actually invented a number of machines in the nineteenth-century. I cannot > offhand remember which ones at the moment... but standard labour-saving > machines, anyway, helping them in their various businesses (seed-growing > and selling, furniture-making etc). They were a very practical bunch. > > Edward James > > > .............................................................................. > > Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social > Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > > http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > > Editor: FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION > Joint Editor: EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE > > .............................................................................. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:04:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Widmaier Subject: GI JANE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I have seen GI Jane twice, and my understanding is that they were on their way >to a training mission when this situation arose in Libya. Although it started >as a the last training exercise, operational deployment, it ended up being a >real situation. The command master chief was asked if his trainees could >handle a REAL situation because they were the only group close enough to >respond at the time. Whether this situation is realistic or not, I don't know >(the Navy denies that it would ever use trainees in this situation), but >questioning the realism of whether the SEALS would kill and destroy in a >foreign country on a training mission is inaccurate, as this was suddenly NOT >training, but real. Thus they were acting as any actual SEAL team would act >when detected in hostile territory and attacked. I thought it was a good movie, and Demi Moore did a much better job than I expected. I don't understand how the fact that she was attractive made her ineligible to look tough. I was convinced of her mental and physical strength. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:24:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Williams Subject: novels on social consequences of robotics -- thanks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" thanks for all the suggestions everyone, I look forward to reading the ones I can find and sharing them with students. hope to report back too. kate --- Kate Williams University of Toledo Community and Technical College Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu (419) 479-3161, fax (419) 479-3192 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:25:56 -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: GI Jane MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Actually, I thought Demi Moore was strikingly miscast...I didn't think she >> looked tough enough, even with the muscles, to be a plausible SEAL. I don't > >think she looked mentally tough enough for the role, either -- I can't think > >of many actresses that could pull it off, maybe Angela Basset, Sigourney > >Weaver (although she's too old for the part), or that woman who played in the > >Terminator movies. With the shaved head, she looked like she was ready to > >star in the "Sinead O'Connor Story" -- not like a trained killer. >I think it's more important to _be_ tough than to look tough. >That's exactly the argument of those who object women in the military -- >because they are rarely have those three hundred pounds of muscles (and >an extra-savage face expression) that are assumed necessary to have to be >a good "trained killer". Hey, I am 5'10" and 120 pounds, but I could >probably kill a person with a matchbox with appropriate training. >The whole point of the movie is that an _average_ woman can become a >SEAL, just as well as an average man (after all, none of the guys looked >like Schwatzenegger). All you need is good health and a lot of will power >to go through all this training. And Demi Moore is someone that most >women could relate to. I also am unclear of the significance of "looking tough" -- I don't know why Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, or Angela Bassett "looked" any "tougher" in Aliens, Terminator 2, and Strange Days, (could "tough" mean less attractive? They all looked gorgeous!) or why Sinead O'Connor doesn't look "tough" with her shaved head. However, I disagree with the idea that the movie demonstrated that the average woman could be a Navy SEAL. I think it only showed that Demi Moore, well known for her ability to amaze fitness trainers, might be able to make it. Although I have to say that I don't think the first female Navy SEAL will have such absurdly large breasts - they can interfere with swimming and real ones would have shrunk with the bodybuilding. (or so I've heard). I'd be interested in hearing whether the movie has any persuasive effect on anti-feminists. Catherine Caporusso ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:43:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: GI Jane Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hey, I am 5'10" and 120 pounds, but I could >probably kill a person with a matchbox with appropriate training. Cool! I weigh more than you do! Myself, I'm 5'10" and 130 lbs (and always I am being told to eat)- but one of the toughest women I've known is 5'4", 125 or so, and blond. And I'd want her on my side in any kind of physical confrontation, any day. Throw those stereotypes away, y'all. I haven't seen the movie - but if the implication is that women can't be tough without fitting a certain body type (and that Demi Moore doesn't fit that type; ergo, she wasn't right for the role), that seems to me to be making some dangerous assumptions. Sure, it's handy to have weight and muscle mass in a fight, but training, speed, and endurance can more than tip the balance. Not to mention determination. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:09:56 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970904083112.3407ef16@academic.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I wrote: >>I am horrified that "free Americans" are not allowed to travel (by air) >>without government permission. I am abjectly apalled that almost no one >>seems to think there's anything remarkable about the situation, and most >>seem grateful for it. Martha Bartter replied: >Neil, would you elaborate on this? The "anti-terrorism" measures in force at U.S. airports include the requirement that each passenger show a government issued identification before being permitted to board the plane. It is forbidden to give away a ticket, or to buy a ticket for another person; the name of the pasenger must be on the ticket. If you ask the personnel if they've ever heard of anyone who's ever heard of this . . . sorry, I can't quickly come up with a better adjective than "fascist" regimen ever interfering with an act of terrorism, they can't understand what you're talking about. It's for our own good, after all. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:21:33 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <12192168@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Until he got rich writing interminable _Dune_ sequels, Frank Herbert's entire career was mostly writing ecologically-themed sf. This way predates the Gaia Hypothesis, so there's not much explicitly Gaian, but _The Green Brain_ and _Santaroga Barrier_, for example, might be considered precursors. Incidentally, his very first novel, _Under Pressure_ (also published as _The Dragon in the Sea_), from the 1950's, held up completely until the collapse of the USSR. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:06:18 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" L Garforth replied to me: >> Please be careful. Many ecological stories are not technically possible. >> A good example is _Ecotopia_ which depends on imaginary, impossible >> technology. > >Just how are we defining 'impossible' here!? I mean that both critically >and as a genuine question. I'm also doing work on sf and eco/techno >themes, and I now shamefacedly admit that my scientific eduction is not >all it might be...My point is, do you mean impossible as in not currently >possible, or impossible as in against known understandings of physcial >laws? I read it quite a while ago, so my impressions are clearer in my memory than details. I recall, for instance, the use of foams for things like housing. The combination of characteristics, chemical and phusical, necessary for a substance to be used for fast-setting foam houses is long and complex. There is nothing anywhere near the combination of cheap, easy, not-too-high-tech, and environmentally innocuous taken for granted in the book. Disciplines like chemistry, materials engineering, process engineering are extremely complex. >Can we talk of either with any certainty? Of course. It is impossible for me to walk up the side of a building. It is impossible to light a mtach on a bar of soap. It is impossible to state a logical argument, or a truth, in such a way that everyone will agree to it. >I need to be enlightened >here..! Second, isn't there a way in which it doesn't matter? In the >particular case of Callenbach's _Ecotopia_, my feeling is that its main >function is a propogandist one Obviously. It was my reaction that he severely damaged his propogandistic purpose by telling a story that no one with technical training could possibly take seriously. (On the other hand, I've been vigorously recommending _Ecology and Revolutionary Action_ [if I got the title precisely right!] for decades, just about since Murray Bookchin wrote it.) Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:16:12 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: <199709041326_MC2-1F1E-E595@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >I also am unclear of the significance of "looking tough" -- I don't know >why Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, or Angela Bassett "looked" any >"tougher" in Aliens, Terminator 2, and Strange Days, (could "tough" mean >less attractive? They all looked gorgeous!) or why Sinead O'Connor >doesn't look "tough" with her shaved head. Probably because Demi, though very in-shape, doesn't look anywhere near as hard in the body as Hamilton or Bassett. Weaver's in a class by herself because, while more thin than muscular, she carries a certain weight because of her height (about six feet even, I think) and she has a way, with her eyes and, indeed, her whole face, of adding to her imposingness (I know that's not a word) by affecting a certain expression. Her pronounced bone structure helps, too, and Hamilton and Bassett have similar bone structure (pronounced, very strong jawlines, very noticeable cheekbones, potentially hard eyes). They're all also better actors than Demi, who's pretty good herself. As for Sinéad, she's probably as mentally tough as anybody, but in her case, her eyes soften some of the "tough" look she might have gotten with a shaved head. They're very large, brilliantly-colored (blue, right? Might be green.) and rather warm. That said, Sinéad's a very pretty lady, I've always thought, but I'd think twice before approaching her because of her reputation for being very stong-willed which might lead to her deciding she doesn't like me (like if I say something stupid). I'd like to meet her, but I wouldn't want her, or any of these women, mad at me. > >However, I disagree with the idea that the movie demonstrated that the >average woman could be a Navy SEAL. I think it only showed that Demi >Moore, well known for her ability to amaze fitness trainers, might be able >to make it. Although I have to say that I don't think the first female >Navy SEAL will have such absurdly large breasts - they can interfere with >swimming and real ones would have shrunk with the bodybuilding. >(or so I've heard). Interesting, but I don't know that I buy it, although I notice that Hamilton, Weaver and Bassett (to a lesser extent in Bassett's case) are relatively small-breasted, which may add to their appearance of hardness. I would hope that the Navy wouldn't not pick a person simply because their breasts were too large, whether naturally or due to implants. Anyway, the movie was not about the idea that the average woman can be a Navy SEAL. Nobody who's just average could be a Navy Seal, as I understand it. The movie was also not about being physically in extraordinary shape. The body had to be in great shape, but the mind had to be better, and in this sense, Demi was a great choice: she's in great physical shape, but not so much so that you notice it as much as you would with Hamilton, Weaver or Bassett. This works to Demi's favor because the viewer is able to more easily get past her body and notice how mentally tough her character is (I'm not saying anything against Weaver, Hamilton or Bassett. They all, incl. Demi, had to be extraordinarily mentally tough to get as far as they have in movies.). I'd be interested in hearing whether the movie has any >persuasive effect on anti-feminists. I'm not anti-feminist, but how do you mean "persuasive"? Converting them to feminism? Making them at least acknowledge, if not accept, feminism? Very interesting e-mail, Catherine. Thanks. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:48:16 -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: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970904092133.006be798@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" >Incidentally, his very first novel, _Under Pressure_ (also published as >_The Dragon in the Sea_), from the 1950's, held up completely until the >collapse of the USSR. To which he might have shrugged, smiled and said, "Who knew?" -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:46:22 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Hey, I am 5'10" and 120 pounds, but I could >>probably kill a person with a matchbox with appropriate training. > >Cool! I weigh more than you do! Myself, I'm 5'10" and 130 lbs (and always I >am being told to eat)- but one of the toughest women I've known is 5'4", >125 or so, and blond. And I'd want her on my side in any kind of physical >confrontation, any day. Throw those stereotypes away, y'all. > >I haven't seen the movie - but if the implication is that women can't be >tough without fitting a certain body type (and that Demi Moore doesn't fit >that type; ergo, she wasn't right for the role), that seems to me to be >making some dangerous assumptions. Sure, it's handy to have weight and >muscle mass in a fight, but training, speed, and endurance can more than >tip the balance. Not to mention determination. Of course, it's ideal so have all of the above. I find it intriguing and frustrating when people limit themselves to thinking that if they have some muscle, they can't be as quick, or as enduring (to a point). I've found my reflexes much faster with added muscle. I think it's the ultimate to have a person be very muscular and strong (who'll hit harder, Holyfield or Sugar Ray Leonard?) as well as extremely quick and enduring and couple all that with great smarts and iron determination. See Steve Barnes' character "Aubry Knight" in "Firedance" for a great example of what I'm talking about. Basically, it's best to have weight, mass, training, speed, endurance, determination and intelligence to the greatest degrees possible. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:07:10 -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: GI Jane MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Probably because Demi, though very in-shape, doesn't look anywhere near as >hard in the body as Hamilton or Bassett. Weaver's in a class by herself >because, while more thin than muscular, she carries a certain weight >because of her height (about six feet even, I think) and she has a way, >with her eyes and, indeed, her whole face, of adding to her imposingness (I >know that's not a word) by affecting a certain expression. Her pronounced >bone structure helps, too, and Hamilton and Bassett have similar bone >structure (pronounced, very strong jawlines, very noticeable cheekbones, >potentially hard eyes). They're all also better actors than Demi, who's >pretty good herself. I think that Demi was _very_ hard in the body (although she didn't start out that way) - did you see those muscles in her neck? I'm surprised that you think her body wasn't as "tough" as the others. I am concerned that your concept of "tough-looking" -- tall, strong jawlines, "hard" eyes -- is gendered toward a male standard. The reason that I think all of these women (and/or their characters) are "tough-looking" is the determination shown in their eyes, facial expressions, and body language -- in addition to the muscles on all but Sinead, of course. If you meant to say, and you've suggested it, that Demi _through her acting_ had difficulty demonstrating that "toughness," then I agree with you. >...I notice that Hamilton, Weaver and Bassett (to a lesser extent in Bassett's case) are > relatively small-breasted, which may add to their appearance of hardness. It also makes them look more like men (see above). >I would hope that the Navy wouldn't not pick a person simply because their >breasts were too large, whether naturally or due to implants. I did not mean to suggest that! I just think that a woman with Demi's dimensions might find it difficult to qualify, making her appearance in the movie possibly unrealistic. >>I'd be interested in hearing whether the movie has any >>persuasive effect on anti-feminists. >I'm not anti-feminist, but how do you mean "persuasive"? Converting them >to feminism? Making them at least acknowledge, if not accept, feminism? I should have been more specific -- by "anti-feminist," I was referring to those who oppose women in combat. Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:45:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: Le Guin and Literary Silences In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:50 9/4/97 +0400, you wrote: --snip > What I had in mind was some article written by Gregory Benford, >"Reactionary Utopias" in a book (if I remember right) called _Storm >Warnings_. I think his point is quite interesting: > > "_The Dispossessed_ reeks with Old Testament themes and images, using >guilt as the principal social control. The founder, Odo, is the central >saint of a communal society. Her pain and suffering during nine years' >imprisonment _make possible_ the virtue of the later Anarres society ... >The impiled lesson is that utopia will not arrive until man comes to grip >with his own nature, which means in turn that a citizen is _born guilty_, >must repay Odo's pain with his submission to the general will and >society's precepts..." (p. 76) > You and Benford seem to "read in" this idea -- I'd like to see the textual evidence for it. > So a child in Anarres cannot become a citizen until he/she undergoes an >implicit rite, I refer to the imprisonment game, symbolizing Odo's own >pains; it was described in extreme detail in the book. As I remember this, Shevek and several of his friends literally invented this game -- it was not imposed from above (although the teachers did act in authoritarian ways; e.g. when Shevek added a 'new' idea he was accused of egoizing). >This religious >"first sin" theme seems to imply that Le Guin, as Benford claims, "avoids >the problems of a real utopia". In what way? I don't see that religion -- even a religion that theorizes a "primal sin" -- avoids the _problems_ of a utopia; it problematizes them. > Following Terry Eagleton, questioning about a literary text's (in fact, >writer's) "silences" would help us read the text deeper. And Benford says: > > "The principal ignored problem of Anarres is the problem of evil and >thus violence... Guilt (social conscience) simply overcomes such >discordant elements. In the middle of a drought in which people starve, no >matter how evenly shared, somehow no one thinks of taking up arms with >some friends and seizing, say, the grain reserves." (p. 77) > > So no criminals, no insane people, no naturally violent types. The playwright who puts so much of himself into playing the "beggarman" may not actually go insane, but he does get treated as though he had. I don't think Le Guin sees Anarres as a Perfect Place. >And I >remember a prison camp in Anarres for unwanted people. Here, I read the text to make an analogy to Solzhenitsyn's _Cancer Ward_ rather than an actual prison camp -- adjudging those who fail to follow the party line as "insane." >Le Guin's silence, along with the ambiguity. > Yet I do not mean to _blame_ her, I am not qualified to, for her >ideological silences about violence (which, as Benford claims, continue in >_The Eye of the Heron_). She is a science _fiction_ writer, for me one of >the best, and the real world does not have to matter for her. Still, >literary silences is a good point of discussing utopian literature. > Le Guin has plenty to say about violence: see the revolution on Urras; see also _Left Hand of Darkness_ and _Four Ways to Forgiveness_ among others. If you want to write about _The Dispossessed_ I'd suggest re-reading it rather than relying on Benford. >Best Wishes, >EMRAH > Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:43:28 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: <199709041607_MC2-1F2C-1C12@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Probably because Demi, though very in-shape, doesn't look anywhere near as >>hard in the body as Hamilton or Bassett. Weaver's in a class by herself >>because, while more thin than muscular, she carries a certain weight >>because of her height (about six feet even, I think) and she has a way, >>with her eyes and, indeed, her whole face, of adding to her imposingness >(I >>know that's not a word) by affecting a certain expression. Her pronounced >>bone structure helps, too, and Hamilton and Bassett have similar bone >>structure (pronounced, very strong jawlines, very noticeable cheekbones, >>potentially hard eyes). They're all also better actors than Demi, who's >>pretty good herself. > >I think that Demi was _very_ hard in the body (although she didn't start >out that way) - did you see those muscles in her neck? I'm surprised >that you think her body wasn't as "tough" as the others. > >I am concerned that your concept of "tough-looking" -- tall, strong >jawlines, "hard" eyes -- is gendered >toward a male standard. The reason that I think all of these women (and/or >their characters) are "tough-looking" is the determination shown in their >eyes, facial expressions, and body language -- in addition to the muscles >on all but Sinead, of course. If you meant to say, and you've suggested >it, that Demi _through her acting_ had difficulty demonstrating that >"toughness," then I agree with you. Actually, no. I was saying that Demi's shape actually seemed to make the characteristic. I think there are more large-breasted, in-shape women out there than women in extremely ripped shape. As to being tall and all, I think that's a human standard, not just male. There are plenty of short and tall stars who are tough, but it seems to be the tall ones who look tougher. Take Sigourney Weaver vs. Holly Hunter or Clint Eastwood vs. Gary Sinise. All of them are tough customers, but Sigourney and Clint make people take notice more because they're big. Or, how many superheroes, male or female, are short? Wonder Woman's around 5'11". Superman's about 6'2". Of course, these are idealized and tie in with what our concept of "heroic" is which tends to tie in with what our concept of tough is. Then we run into problems with the word "tough", since that's traditionally associated with men. As to Demi's neck muscles, they're there all right and they look good, but look at a ballet dancer's neck muscles and you see pretty much the same thing and I wouldn't consider them tough in the sense that we're talking about here. all I'm saying is that notable neck muscles do not a hard body make. I saw very few veins or real muscle (that'd be Bassett or Hamilton). She actually looked more muscular in "Striptease". >>...I notice that Hamilton, Weaver and Bassett (to a lesser extent in >Bassett's case) are >> relatively small-breasted, which may add to their appearance of hardness. > >It also makes them look more like men (see above). I dunno. Would Holly Hunter look more like a woman were her breasts larger? > >>I would hope that the Navy wouldn't not pick a person simply because their >>breasts were too large, whether naturally or due to implants. > >I did not mean to suggest that! I just think that a woman with Demi's >dimensions might find it difficult >to qualify, making her appearance in the movie possibly unrealistic. > Welll, the Senator was looking for somebody they could use on camera, since this person'd be getting some attention. This is why she didn't use the powerlifter, choosing Demi the swimmer instead. If anything, I don't know that the real person would be so beautiful, since hardly anybody's as beautiful as Demi, but to elaborate on that point would be to go into the idea that, well, this is a Hollywood movie and most stars in Hollywood who're on Demi's level are pretty good-looking, blah, blah, blah. You make some very good points, but I just wanted to point out the other side as I see it. Ever see "Strange Days"? >Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:45:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: GI Jane Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>I haven't seen the movie - but if the implication is that women can't be >>tough without fitting a certain body type (and that Demi Moore doesn't fit >>that type; ergo, she wasn't right for the role), that seems to me to be >>making some dangerous assumptions. Sure, it's handy to have weight and >>muscle mass in a fight, but training, speed, and endurance can more than >>tip the balance. Not to mention determination. > > >Of course, it's ideal so have all of the above. I find it intriguing and >frustrating when people limit themselves to thinking that if they have some >muscle, they can't be as quick, or as enduring (to a point). I've found my >reflexes much faster with added muscle. Sorry, I should have been clearer in the point I was trying to make - men (gross generalizations!) are taller, heavier, and have more muscle mass along with better gross motor skills than women. Women (gross generalizations!) are more flexible, have faster reflexes, and have greater endurance, as well as better fine motor skills. Proper training adds to anyone's skills in all these areas. No matter how much I work out though, I will never have bulging thews (my muscles don't work that way), I will probably always weigh less than the average male. None of this means I cannot be an effective opponent in a physical confrontation. All it means is that I have different strengths and weaknesses to exploit, as do we all. Our culture's image of a powerful physique is one that not many women fit and as such it is an inaccurate and incomplete image. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:16:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: GI Jane Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Then we run into problems with the word "tough", since that's >traditionally associated with men. (and little old ladies) >As to Demi's neck muscles, they're >there all right and they look good, but look at a ballet dancer's neck >muscles and you see pretty much the same thing and I wouldn't consider them >tough in the sense that we're talking about here. I don't know about that - I consider dancers very tough, very much within the sense we're talking about. No, they're not fighters, but they definitely have the muscles, physical endurance, resistance to pain, and mental concentration skills we've been discussing. Not to mention flexibility! But then again, I used to dance, and I have some very small idea of what goes into it as a profession. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:28:54 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: GI Jane In-Reply-To: <199709041326_MC2-1F1E-E595@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > -- I don't know >why Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, or Angela Bassett "looked" any >"tougher" in Aliens, Terminator 2, and Strange Days, (could "tough" mean >less attractive? They all looked gorgeous!) or why Sinead O'Connor >doesn't look "tough" with her shaved head. One Word: Biceps. :-D Laura "I'm A Sucker For Biceps and Don't Care About Your Genitalia" Wigod ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:25:52 -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: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970904100956.006be798@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Neil, You might be right about this. Even in the Soviet Union ID's in airports became recquired only after a plane was high-jacked to Turkey in 1970, with the whole crew and some passengers killed by the terrorists (who tried to emigrate that way). Before that, no one cared for the ID's and names. Even though there was not a lot of freedom otherwise. The problem is, any government would rather be accused in violating human rights than in inability of protecting human lives. Even now, in Moscow, which sometimes is praised for its democratic changes in press, a person needs a special registration to live inside the city limits, or even visit for more than two days. Joint patrols of police and Army are checking documents on the streets and in subway stations, arresting those who do not have a permit to be there. All this is done in the name of "fighting mafia and terrorism". Besides, in most cases, they check only dark-skinned people (which is explained by the danger of mob clans from Southern Russia and Chechnia terrorists). If something like that was done by a Communist government, that would draw a lot of attention. However, right-wing actions in Eastern Europe now are seen as progressive by the rest of the world. Marina On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > > The "anti-terrorism" measures in force at U.S. airports include the > requirement that each passenger show a government issued identification > before being permitted to board the plane. It is forbidden to give away a > ticket, or to buy a ticket for another person; the name of the pasenger > must be on the ticket. > > If you ask the personnel if they've ever heard of anyone who's ever heard > of this . . . sorry, I can't quickly come up with a better adjective than > "fascist" regimen ever interfering with an act of terrorism, they can't > understand what you're talking about. It's for our own good, after all. > > Neil Rest > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:44:58 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> -- I don't know >>why Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, or Angela Bassett "looked" any >>"tougher" in Aliens, Terminator 2, and Strange Days, (could "tough" mean >>less attractive? They all looked gorgeous!) or why Sinead O'Connor >>doesn't look "tough" with her shaved head. > >One Word: Biceps. :-D > >Laura "I'm A Sucker For Biceps and Don't Care About Your Genitalia" Wigod Gee. You must like Wesley Snipes, Stallone and Schwarzenegger, if you're a sucker for the biceps. I like 'em too. Wish mine were bigger, or at least had more of a peak. As a former wannabe-bodybuilder-but-don't-wanna-eat-right-or-do-steroids, I'm pretty aware of the appeal of a shapely arm. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:42:47 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> Then we run into problems with the word "tough", since that's >>traditionally associated with men. > >(and little old ladies) ? Well, I suppose my landlady's tough, but she's by no means little. Is 92 or so considered old? > > >As to Demi's neck muscles, they're >>there all right and they look good, but look at a ballet dancer's neck >>muscles and you see pretty much the same thing and I wouldn't consider them >>tough in the sense that we're talking about here. > >I don't know about that - I consider dancers very tough, very much within >the sense we're talking about. No, they're not fighters, but they >definitely have the muscles, physical endurance, resistance to pain, and >mental concentration skills we've been discussing. Not to mention >flexibility! > >But then again, I used to dance, and I have some very small idea of what >goes into it as a profession. Truth to tell, I almost didn't put that part in. Ballet dancers just seem to have the leanest, longest necks of anybody that came to mind. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:39:55 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" - men >(gross generalizations!) are taller, heavier, and have more muscle mass >along with better gross motor skills than women. Women (gross >generalizations!) are more flexible, have faster reflexes, and have greater >endurance, as well as better fine motor skills. Proper training adds to >anyone's skills in all these areas. > True. >No matter how much I work out though, I will never have bulging thews (my >muscles don't work that way), I will probably always weigh less than the >average male. None of this means I cannot be an effective opponent in a >physical confrontation. All it means is that I have different strengths and >weaknesses to exploit, as do we all. True. > >Our culture's image of a powerful physique is one that not many women fit >and as such it is an inaccurate and incomplete image. True. Depends on your definition of powerful, too. Roseanne could be a very powerful woman. So could Courteney Cox. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:24:14 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: 2 Notes from moderator: GI Jane & my address Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 1) Is this discussion of Demi Moore's musculature really related to feminist-science fiction? I can see how maybe related to fantasy but not in the sense of this listserve ... 2) Everyone, please note that my personal address has changed to lquilter@igc.apc.org (from lauramd@uic.edu). The listserve address remains the same -- feministsf@listserv.uic.edu and listserv@listserv.uic.edu -- for now. Chris Shaffer (shaffer@uic.edu) has kindly consented to be a co-owner of the list while it is still on UIC's server. Problems may continue to be sent to me, but at my lquilter@igc.apc.org address, please. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:50:48 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: GI Jane -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Marina Yereshenko wrote: >The whole point of the movie is that an _average_ woman can become a SEAL, just as well as an average man (after all, none of the guys looked like Schwatzenegger). All you need is good health and a lot of will power to go through all this training. And Demi Moore is someone that most women could relate to. I have not seen GI Jane and I have no desire to see it (I can't stand Demi Moore). But I can't believe that with all this discussion, no one has made this point: The average man or woman CANNOT become a Navy SEAL. My dad, who went through the Recon Marine training (they used much of the SEAL facilities) back when it was even more difficult than it is now (I believe they had to scale it back because too many trainees died), laughed hysterically at this movie. You need a hell of a lot more than good health and lots of will power to go through the training. You need to be an exceptional athelete, gifted with weapons, possess extraordinary endurance, have the social ability necessary to work well as a team, etc. etc. To say that SEAL men aren't exceptional because they don't look like Arnold Schwartzenegger is silly, because you're forgetting that Arnold is a body builder and actor, not a soldier or aerobic athlete. The body of a competitive swimmer is more the "ideal". I'm not saying that a woman could not go through the SEAL training. Just that she'd have to be pretty extraordinary to do so. Saying that a woman could do so because she "looks tough" or has a lot of willpower is just foolish. Can we go back to discussing SF? Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:42:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Re[2]: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions Comments: To: MARINA YERESHENKO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions Author: MARINA YERESHENKO at Internet Date: 9/4/97 10:25 PM Neil, You might be right about this. Even in the Soviet Union ID's in airports became recquired only after a plane was high-jacked to Turkey in 1970, with the whole crew and some passengers killed by the terrorists (who tried to emigrate that way). Before that, no one cared for the ID's and names. Even though there was not a lot of freedom otherwise. The problem is, any government would rather be accused in violating human rights than in inability of protecting human lives. king about. It's for our own good, after all. > > Neil Rest > Marina: Neil is right about this. You have to show a valid ID to fly on the commercial airlines. People really don't question this, but it constitutes a license to travel. I can't imagine how many average folks who are unaware of this have been halted at airports. All of this is in response to the Flight 800 crash, which they thought was caused by terrorism, a link never proved. This new license to fly is a big hassle. Before I flew out to San Francisco from DC in June, I had to spend an entire afternoon going to the drivers license bureau to get my license renewed. Not an easy thing to go do when you don't own a car. I almost forgot to do it too, since I don't own a car and my license had just expired. This new restriction is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the year something called "passenger profiling" goes into full effect. This will be a computerized system designed to identify potential "terrorists." I'm sure that lots of folks will be inconvenienced by this. I have one acquaintance, who is an American dissident, who has been hassled by this system when they tried to travel. Sorry this is so off topic, but I didn't see Event Horizon nor GI Jane. Chuck0 "glad to hear that a Babylon 5 episode won a Hugo" Bab5 Zone http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1672/bab5.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:45:34 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Huey Alcaro Subject: Re: 2 Notes from moderator: GI Jane & my address In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >1) Is this discussion of Demi Moore's musculature really related to >feminist-science fiction? I can see how maybe related to fantasy but not >in the sense of this listserve ... > >2) Everyone, please note that my personal address has changed to >lquilter@igc.apc.org (from lauramd@uic.edu). The listserve address >remains the same -- feministsf@listserv.uic.edu and >listserv@listserv.uic.edu -- for now. Chris Shaffer (shaffer@uic.edu) >has kindly consented to be a co-owner of the list while it is still on >UIC's server. Problems may continue to be sent to me, but at my >lquilter@igc.apc.org address, please. > >Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org > >"If I can't dance, I don't want to be >in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman > > FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL I'm going to delurk to say, "Thank You, Laura." I was planning to leave the list as I didn't want my mailbox loaded with any more irrelevant stuff. I have learned much from discussions and recommendations related to science fiction and would like to learn more. I'll hang in for a time, hoping that DM and her body and her silly movies go away. Huey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:13:15 -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: 2 Notes from moderator: GI Jane & my address In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >1) Is this discussion of Demi Moore's musculature really related to >feminist-science fiction? I can see how maybe related to fantasy but not >in the sense of this listserve ... > Oh, all right. But Demi's so fun to talk about. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:19:04 -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: GI Jane -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" > >I have not seen GI Jane and I have no desire to see it (I can't stand >Demi Moore). But I can't believe that with all this discussion, no >one has made this point: The average man or woman CANNOT become a >Navy SEAL. See my post from 1:16p.m. on 9/4/97. I addressed it. > >Can we go back to discussing SF? Coitainly (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!) -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:59:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: SF and Ecology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970904100956.006be798@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:09 9/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >I wrote: >>>I am horrified that "free Americans" are not allowed to travel (by air) >>>without government permission. I am abjectly apalled that almost no one >>>seems to think there's anything remarkable about the situation, and most >>>seem grateful for it. > >Martha Bartter replied: >>Neil, would you elaborate on this? > >The "anti-terrorism" measures in force at U.S. airports include the >requirement that each passenger show a government issued identification >before being permitted to board the plane. It is forbidden to give away a >ticket, or to buy a ticket for another person; the name of the pasenger >must be on the ticket. > >If you ask the personnel if they've ever heard of anyone who's ever heard >of this . . . sorry, I can't quickly come up with a better adjective than >"fascist" regimen ever interfering with an act of terrorism, they can't >understand what you're talking about. It's for our own good, after all. > >Neil Rest > I guess I don't feel as strongly about this as you seem to. Most Americans (over the age of 16 or so) have a "government issued" id -- either a driver's license or an official equivalent. No one who has purchased a plane ticket and shows this id gets taken off the plane in handcuffs. At least, I haven't heard of such. To me, "government permission" includes such proscriptions as travel to Cuba -- there's the gov't in action -- but not the request to see id to fly any more than id to drive my car. Or do you consider this also 'fascist'? Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:53:42 -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: Re[2]: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions In-Reply-To: <0009AA8C.1205@aaas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, CMUNSON wrote: > This new license to fly is a big hassle. Before I flew out to San > Francisco from DC in June, I had to spend an entire afternoon going to > the drivers license bureau to get my license renewed. Not an easy > thing to go do when you don't own a car. I almost forgot to do it too, > since I don't own a car and my license had just expired. One of my profs in grad school was a big supporter of privacy rights, and she absolutely despises the rule. Her theory was that it was a way for airlines to pcik up extra money because: 1. Most tickets are sold as non-transferable. 2. In order to change that it costs at least $50 3. Therefore, it was in the airlines best interest to make sure that the person using the ticket was the person they sold it to. Photo matching has its economic uses as well as preventing any alleged terrorism. The prof also had a story about how she managed to bully her way onto the plane without showing any photo id, but I can't remember the details. ObFemSF: as long as we're talking about those neato U.S. government policies, anyone else see a scary parallel between the "workfare workers shouldn't get minimum wage" arguments, and some of Octavia Butler's stuff? Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org jillmari@aol.com http://members.aol.com/ferndock2 "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:46:25 -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: Travel Restrictions The showing of an ID to travel on US airlines is not a government imposed restriction. It's an airline requirement. They have simply jumped on the anti-terrorist bandwagon in order to stop people from doing things like sharing frequent flier miles -- i.e. my husband & I both have the same first initial so we always flew on business as J. Abbott thus allowing us to collect the miles in one account. The airlines all now say that because of terrorist activity they can not issue a ticket with a first initial on it -- come on! Of course the answer is simply to have a corporate travel agency issue the ticket, in which case they will issue it the way you want it. Requiring ID also prevents you from transferring your ticket to some one else. The idea that showing picture ID is a form of deterrent to terrorism is laughable. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:00:56 -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: Re[2]: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >ObFemSF: as long as we're talking about those neato U.S. government >policies, anyone else see a scary parallel between the "workfare workers >shouldn't get minimum wage" arguments, and some of Octavia Butler's stuff? Jill, Not really. Which stuff are you talking about? The factory town in _Parable_? -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:59:09 -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: 2 Notes from moderator: GI Jane & my address In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'll hang in for a time, hoping that >DM and her body and her silly movies go away. > >Huey Welll, okay, but they're not all silly. Hoping conversation about DM'll go away is cool, but hoping she'll go away is futile. Not with the dough she's making. Anyway, who the heck wroke and drew "Heavy Metal"? -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:16:08 -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: Le Guin and Literary Silences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Emrah Goker and Martha Bartter wrote: >>So a child in Anarres cannot become a citizen until he/she undergoes an >>implicit rite, I refer to the imprisonment game, symbolizing Odo's own >>pains; it was described in extreme detail in the book. > >As I remember this, Shevek and several of his friends literally invented >this game -- it was not imposed from above (although the teachers did >act in authoritarian ways; e.g. when Shevek added a 'new' idea he was >accused of egoizing). Indeed, this is the case. Regarding the prison game: "They had picked up the idea of "prisons" from episodes in the Life of Odo, which all of them who had elected to work on History were reading. There were many obscurities in this book, and Wide Plains had nobody who knew enough history to explain them; but by the time they got to Odo's years in the Fort in Drio, the concept of "prison" had become self-explanatory. And when a history teacher came through the town he expounded the subject, with the reluctance of a decent adult forced to explain an obscenity to children." (p. 27, Avon paperback) Shevek and four peers are so fascinated by this strange concept that they decide to try it. The situation gets out of hand, and one of them ends up closed in the makeshift cell for 30 hours. The incident is traumatic enough for all of them that only one of them ever mentions it again, and they never return to the site. Le Guin uses the situation to point out the snowballing effect of power differentials. It starts out as a game, but by the time Kadagv is pushed into the cell, "They were not playing the role now, it was playing them." Psychologically, I'm not sure I agree with her conclusion, but it's thought-provoking. >> Following Terry Eagleton, questioning about a literary text's (in fact, >>writer's) "silences" would help us read the text deeper. And Benford says: >> >> "The principal ignored problem of Anarres is the problem of evil and >>thus violence... Guilt (social conscience) simply overcomes such >>discordant elements. In the middle of a drought in which people starve, no >>matter how evenly shared, somehow no one thinks of taking up arms with >>some friends and seizing, say, the grain reserves." (p. 77) >> >> So no criminals, no insane people, no naturally violent types. > >The playwright who puts so much of himself into playing the >"beggarman" may not actually go insane, but he does get treated as >though he had. I don't think Le Guin sees Anarres as a Perfect Place. > >>And I remember a prison camp in Anarres for unwanted people. > >Here, I read the text to make an analogy to Solzhenitsyn's _Cancer >Ward_ rather than an actual prison camp -- adjudging those who fail >to follow the party line as "insane." With all this talk about crime on Anarres, I decided to track down whatever Le Guin may have said about it. She does, in fact, take a position on the matter, and it's a very interesting one. Early in the novel, Shevek is attacked by another man and beaten. There are other people nearby, but seeing that Shevek is capable of defending himself, they do not intervene. It is implied that if he had asked for help or the situation was obviously skewed the others would have stepped in, with no shame or gratitude attached. Later in the book, the subject of the Asylum comes up between Shevek and Bedap, when it is revealed that their childhood friend Tirin has been forceably sent there because his criticism of Annarean society has been judged "unbalanced." Rather than paraphrase, I will quote, once again: "Bedap hunched his knees up to his chin and wrapped his arms around them, as he sat sideways on the chair. He spoke quietly now, with reluctance. "Tirin wrote a play and put it on, the year after you left. It was funny -- crazy -- you know his kind of thing." [...] "It could seem anti-Odonian, if you were stupid. A lot of people are stupid. There was a fuss. He got reprimanded. Public reprimand. I never saw one before. Everybody comes to your syndicate meeting and tells you off. It used to be how they cut a bossy gang foreman or manager down to size. Now they only use it to tell an individual to stop thinking for himself. It was bad. Tirin couldn't take it. I think it really drove him a bit out of his mind. He felt everybody was against him, after that. He starting talking too much -- bitter talk. Not irrational, but always critical, always bitter. And he'd talk to anybody that way. Well, he finished at the Institute, qualified as a math instructor, and asked for a posting. He got one. To a road repair crew in Southsetting. He protested it as an error, but the Divlab computers repeated it. So he went." "Tir never worked outdoors the whole time I knew him," Shevek interrupted. "Since he was ten. He always wangled desk jobs. Divlab was being fair." Bedap paid no attention. "I don't really know what happened down there. He wrote me several times, and each time he'd been reposted. Always to physical labor, in little outpost communities. He wrote that he was quitting his posting and coming back to Northsetting to see me. He didn't come. He stopped writing. I traced him through the Abbenay Labor Files, finally. They sent me a copy of his card, and the last entry was just, 'Therapy, Segvina Island.' Therapy! Did Tirin murder somebody? Did he rape somebody? What do you get sent to the Asylum for, beside that?" "You don't get sent to the Asylum at all. You request posting to it." "Don't feed me that crap," Bedap said with sudden rage. "He never asked to be sent there! They drove him crazy and then sent him there. It's Tirin I'm talking about, Tirin, do you remember him?" "I knew him before you did. What do you think the Asylum is -- a prison? It's a refuge. If there are murderers and chronic work-quitters there, it's because they asked to go there, where they're not under pressure, and safe from retribution. But who are these people you keep talking about -- 'they'? 'They' drove him crazy, and so on. Are you trying to say that the whole social system is evil, that in fact 'they,' Tirin's persecutors, your enemies, 'they,' are us -- the social organism?" "If you can dismiss Tirin from your conscience as a work-quitter, I don't think I have anything else to say to you," Bedap replied, sitting hunched up on the chair. There was such plain and simple grief in his voice that Shevek's righteous wrath was stopped short. (pp. 137-138) Sorry for the extremely long quote, but I felt that it illuminates much that has been discussed in this thread. It is clear that: 1) There is violence and "crime" on Anarres and it is dealt with by the people closest to the offender. Thus a murderer or work-quitter can expect "retribution" for their behavior unless they leave and go someplace like the Asylum. "Retribution" is unspecified, but I would imagine something similar to the situation in _Woman on the Edge of Time_ where offenders are criticised, shunned or even killed to prevent further damage to the community. 2) The decay of Odonian principles into the stifling reign of "public opinion" (p. 134) is a major concern of the novel. Bedap is a harsh critic of the society he sees around him, and his questioning of conventional wisdom literally rocks Shevek's world. Ironically, I think that the sense that Anarres is in stasis and thus not a "real utopia" is taken straight from this character in the book! Le Guin certainly does not ignore the problem of evil. The character of Sabul, the physicist with whom Shevek works early in his studies, is a shining example of someone who uses influence to keep people out and advance his own position. Even though, according to the structure and principles of Odonianism, he can't and shouldn't do this, in reality he does, and Shevek has to work with and/or around him in order to keep in touch with physicists on Urras and get his work published. I have just realized that this message is becoming much too long! So I will send it now. Looking forward to more discussion -- -- 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, 5 Sep 1997 17:01:57 -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: Re[2]: SF and Ecology, and travel restrictions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > > > >ObFemSF: as long as we're talking about those neato U.S. government > >policies, anyone else see a scary parallel between the "workfare workers > >shouldn't get minimum wage" arguments, and some of Octavia Butler's stuff? > > > Jill, > Not really. Which stuff are you talking about? The factory town > in _Parable_? > > -Sean > Yeah, I didn't have book at hand, and I'd rather be vague than wrong. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org jillmari@aol.com http://members.aol.com/ferndock2 "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:30:06 -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: Le Guin and Literary Silences Would some kind soul please explain the concept of "literary silences" to this budding sociologist? I had a feminist lit crit course a while back but it seemed like the whole thing was about Foucault...I had a hard time paying attention. ;-) Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:44:20 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Le Guin and Literary Silences In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970905151608.00715a38@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:16:08 -0400 > From: Janice E. Dawley > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Le Guin and Literary Silences > > Emrah Goker and Martha Bartter wrote: > > >>So a child in Anarres cannot become a citizen until he/she undergoes an > >>implicit rite, I refer to the imprisonment game, symbolizing Odo's own > >>pains; it was described in extreme detail in the book. > > > >As I remember this, Shevek and several of his friends literally invented > >this game -- it was not imposed from above (although the teachers did > >act in authoritarian ways; e.g. when Shevek added a 'new' idea he was > >accused of egoizing). > > Indeed, this is the case. Regarding the prison game: > > "They had picked up the idea of "prisons" from episodes in the Life of Odo, > which all of them who had elected to work on History were reading. There > were many obscurities in this book, and Wide Plains had nobody who knew > enough history to explain them; but by the time they got to Odo's years in > the Fort in Drio, the concept of "prison" had become self-explanatory. And > when a history teacher came through the town he expounded the subject, with > the reluctance of a decent adult forced to explain an obscenity to > children." (p. 27, Avon paperback) > > Shevek and four peers are so fascinated by this strange concept that they > decide to try it. The situation gets out of hand, and one of them ends up > closed in the makeshift cell for 30 hours. The incident is traumatic enough > for all of them that only one of them ever mentions it again, and they > never return to the site. Le Guin uses the situation to point out the > snowballing effect of power differentials. It starts out as a game, but by > the time Kadagv is pushed into the cell, "They were not playing the role > now, it was playing them." Psychologically, I'm not sure I agree with her > conclusion, but it's thought-provoking. I believe there was a well-known (it had to have been well-known for me to have heard about it) psych study in which two groups of college students played at prisoner and prison-guard roles; the study turned very ugly very quickly. My interpretation of the study actually tied pretty closely to Le Guin's (but then, I'm an anarchist too). I'm sorry, I don't remember the cite (and although I'm a librarian I'm *very* busy right now with moving out to the west coast - anybody know of shared space or temporary rental space in san francisco starting october or november? let me know off-list) but maybe somebody else does. > Sorry for the extremely long quote, but I felt that it illuminates much > that has been discussed in this thread. It is clear that: > > 1) There is violence and "crime" on Anarres and it is dealt with by the > people closest to the offender. Thus a murderer or work-quitter can expect > "retribution" for their behavior unless they leave and go someplace like > the Asylum. "Retribution" is unspecified, but I would imagine something > similar to the situation in _Woman on the Edge of Time_ where offenders are > criticised, shunned or even killed to prevent further damage to the community. > > 2) The decay of Odonian principles into the stifling reign of "public > opinion" (p. 134) is a major concern of the novel. Bedap is a harsh critic > of the society he sees around him, and his questioning of conventional > wisdom literally rocks Shevek's world. Ironically, I think that the sense > that Anarres is in stasis and thus not a "real utopia" is taken straight > from this character in the book! Agreed. It is an "ambiguous utopia." Ambiguous perhaps because Le Guin is in fact dealing with creeping power accumulations - the ways in which power pools in institutional structures. It may appear that Le Guin ignores many of the problems we have in our present society; but she emphatically does not. In fact she creates Urras, the counterpart to Anarres, to display many of our society's problems. IMO, Urras adds to the realism of Anarres. Anarres is not a perfect society; there is no such thing. However, a basic premise of anarchism is that people can live together cooperatively and in an egalitarian fashion. Anarres demonstrates this. How is it achieved? With social reinforcement of cooperative behaviors rather than social reinforcement of destructive, competitive, or aggressive behaviors. Anarres thus avoids many of the problems we see in our own society and Urras, but Anarres is still subject to other problems. I believe we're meant to see that Odonianism (anarchism) might be in many ways a better way of organizing our society but that it would not be *perfect*. I am also reminded of -- who was it, Jefferson? Paine? -- the early US Revolutionary who said that good revolutions must be watered with the blood of martyrs every 20 years. Translating to a non-violent society, that's what I see Le Guin saying: the struggle will not end. We can create a much improved society but there is no achievable perfection. > > Le Guin certainly does not ignore the problem of evil. The character of > Sabul, the physicist with whom Shevek works early in his studies, is a > shining example of someone who uses influence to keep people out and > advance his own position. Even though, according to the structure and > principles of Odonianism, he can't and shouldn't do this, in reality he > does, and Shevek has to work with and/or around him in order to keep in > touch with physicists on Urras and get his work published. > > I have just realized that this message is becoming much too long! So I will > send it now. Looking forward to more discussion -- > > -- 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 > Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:06:14 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kimberley A. Selle" Subject: Re: Event Horizon -Reply (some spoilers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All I have to say about this movie, is that despite the stereotypical portrayals, and the weak plot lines, etc., etc. I went alone, and after that first "startle" during the scientist's dream, felt like I was on a roller coaster ride that was pretty scary. Also, the references to the ship having been to Christian Hell - the characters only said that because they didn't know what else to call it. And I think the point is that instead of bring back something, the ship itself was transformed. Personally, I found myself wondering why, if they truly believed that the ship had become alive, they didn't try some form of communication. It is a new life form, isn't it? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:23:44 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kimberley A. Selle" Subject: Re: Mimic (! some spoilage) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I totally agree!!!!!!! ---------- From: Heather MacLean[SMTP:hmaclean@KENT.EDU] Sent: Friday, August 29, 1997 4:50 PM To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu Subject: Re: Mimic (! some spoilage) At 10:11 AM 8/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >Marina Yereshenko wrote: >>_Aliens_ was a big-budget SF movie, so is _Mimic_. Films with >powerful >women _can_ be marketable and bring lots of cash. > Mimic is awful, awful, awful, and besides which, it's full of cockroaches (I love snakes, spiders are no big deal, but roaches... *shudder* Must be the housewife in me. ;). The trappings of "power" re: the female protagonist are all hyper-stereotypical role-reversals, up to the "No, take me!" bravado stance to save the poor little autistic boy from being annihilated... To top it all off, there's some really weird kinda nasty racist stuff going on in there, or at the very least, the same role-reversal/PC effort towards redemption that doesn't even vaguely mask the still anti-woman, anti-black paradigms underlying it all... And, the special effects are nil. Judgementally yours, Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:49:01 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kimberley A. Selle" Subject: Re: Robots MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCBAE3.609D5F00" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCBAE3.609D5F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What about some of the episodes of Star Trek Next Generation where Data = must prove his sentience? In particular, I remember Captain Picard = having to argue for his sentience and arguing about the federation's = wanting to study Data to be able to create a "race of servants." I = would be willing to bet that these stories or something like them can be = found in the Star Trek Novels. Or where he is simply exploring trying to be human, and thus learning = about himself? In one episode he created a daughter, very moving and = touching. =20 ---------- From: Kate Williams[SMTP:kwillia8@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU] Sent: Friday, August 29, 1997 3:30 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU hello everyone, I am at a school that teaches high school students to design and build robots along with the regular academics -- its a 2 and soon a 4 year = program. we are building a reading list for the students. what would you all recommend? I especially want the books that give social critiques and search for or present alternatives to today's applications of robotics (i.e. eliminate jobs AND shut masses of people out of the economy and out of society). I'm worried about extreme cynicism (like snow crash, although its on my list cause its so technologically creative) and about books being too dense for typical high school kids -- these kids are straight outta toledo (ohio). like, he she and it parable of the sower snow crash is my list so far thanks a lot kate --- Kate Williams University of Toledo Community and Technical College Project Coordinator, Toledo Technology Academy kwillia8@uoft02.utoledo.edu (419) 479-3161, fax (419) 479-3192 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:07:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Eleanor Arnason Subject: Re: Le Guin and Literary Silences Gregory Benford is an extremely bright man with things to say that are worth considering; but having reading several essays by him on hard SF, I think he may have (I am trying to find a polite or neutral term and failing) a hidden agenda when he writes about LeGuin. At present, he seems to be the chief spokesperson for the idea that "hard SF" is the core of science fiction. In theory, hard SF is science fiction about science, but Benford and the other self-proclaimed hard science fiction writers give priority to physics, astronomy and (they always say) chemistry, though I can remember very little SF that turns on chemistry. The lists of hard SF writers -- their canon -- never seems to contain women writers, though several female SF writers have impressive scientific credentials. Hard SF writers tend to use utilitarian prose and to have a limited interest in characterization. This last may be related to their lack of interest in psychology and the social sciences. They also tend to undervalue biology, though starting with THE TIME MACHINE or FRANKENSTEIN, the biological sciences seem to be key to the development of science fiction. Hard SF plots tend to be action driven. Hard SF writers tend to resolve problems through violence; and they tend to have right of center politics. Now, I am not claiming that Benford's work always fits the above description. I have liked some of his work a lot. But he seems to have a tolerance I don't have for quite godawful, technophilic SF, stuff that doesn't convince me for a moment; and I think there's a good chance that he likely to undervalue psychology, the social sciences, writing by women, "literary" writing, left of center writing and plots that are NOT action driven and do not use violence to solve problems. So he may not be the ideal person to analyze LeGuin. Given LeGuin's background -- raised among anthropologists by parents who were not especially religious, as far as I have ever heard -- I doubt that there is a Christian subtext to her work; though Benford, a physicist raised in the American deep south, may have a Christian subtext in his mind, which he reads into other people's work. All best, Eleanor Arnason ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:19:53 -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: Robots In-Reply-To: <01BCBAE3.60943740@p02.hwts12.loop.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >What about some of the episodes of Star Trek Next Generation where Data >must prove his sentience? In particular, I remember Captain Picard having >to argue for his sentience and arguing about the federation's wanting to >study Data to be able to create a "race of servants." I would be willing >to bet that these stories or something like them can be found in the Star >Trek Novels. > >Or where he is simply exploring trying to be human, and thus learning >about himself? In one episode he created a daughter, very moving and >touching. > Kimberley, You refer to "The Measure of a Man" and "Lal", two of my favorite episodes and two of the reasons I loved that series. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:51:14 -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: Event Horizon -Reply (some spoilers) In-Reply-To: <01BCBAE3.5CAE4A80@p02.hwts12.loop.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Kimberley A. Selle wrote: > the references to the ship having been to Christian Hell - the characters only said that because they didn't know what else to call it. NH: That's one way to read it, and it makes sense. But I think you'd *have* to read it in; it was nowhere in the text of the film. (As Nalo puts on her writing group hat): If your audience has to guess at and assign meaning to elements of your text, then you get wildly different readings, according to what people want to see there. Which can be fun if you're doing it deliberately, but I doubt that they were. > Personally, I found myself wondering why, if they truly believed that the ship had become alive, they didn't try some form of communication. It is a new life form, isn't it? NH: Oh, ditto, big time! At one point, one of the crew members explicitly tells the captain that she believes the ship is producing the phenomena as some sort of reaction to them as foreign bodies. In other words, it's allergic to them. Now me, I would have immediately been flooding the air with huge doses of Claritin, then I would have hauled out the Universal Translator and started broadcasting "We come in peace" on all channels. Whoops, sorry; didn't have enough sleep, and I'm getting wingy. Dumb movie. On a happier note, I just saw John Sayles' new film "Men With Guns." Not a particularly feminist movie, so I'm not going to go off on too long a tangent here, but it does contain some elements of magic realism, and it's beautiful, and doesn't take the easy way out, and doesn't resort to too many broad stroke stereotypes. Big budget doesn't have to mean insulting to the intelligence. -nalo > "There are two kinds of dates; the kind that you go out with, and the small fruit that you eat." -my aunt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 15:47:27 -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: GI Jane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > Basically, it's best to have weight, mass, training, speed, > endurance, determination and intelligence to the greatest degrees possible. > > -Sean > Yep, and when you lack any of these, you can compensate by others. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 13:37:29 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: review: THE MISCONCEIVER Lucy Ferriss Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just read this book. Thought I would alert the group to it. (My short review of it below.) If anyone else has read it and would like to add another review or commentary to the feminist-sf web pages let me know. (Or on any other work or author, of course.) Lucy Ferriss. The Misconceiver New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. This thoughtful work explores a possible (and unfortunately not at al improbable) near future in which the "Coalition" (read: Christian Coalition) has engineered an overturn of Roe v. Wade, making birth control and abortion ("misconception") difficult or illegal for white women to obtain. (Ferriss has clearly observed the not-too-subtle racism in the right wing's simultaneous campaigns against both "welfare mothers" and abortion.) An intense exploration of a very possible future in which women's lives and opportunities are constrained by religious dogma and state power, this novel has been compared to Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Ferriss is also the author of several other works which I haven't read, but The Misconceiver will place her on my list of authors for which to watch. (review by lq from the feminist-sf web pages) Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:21:12 -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: GI Jane, tough eyes and big breasts In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On the subject of why other actresses would be better for the role than Demi Moore, Sean Johnston wrote: > Weaver's in a class by herself > because, while more thin than muscular, she carries a certain weight > because of her height (about six feet even, I think) and she has a way, > with her eyes and, indeed, her whole face, of adding to her imposingness (I > know that's not a word) by affecting a certain expression. Her pronounced > bone structure helps, too, and Hamilton and Bassett have similar bone > structure (pronounced, very strong jawlines, very noticeable cheekbones, > potentially hard eyes). Does that mean that you must have "tough eyes" and "strong jawlines" to do a "man's job"? Because otherwise she's too sexy? I've heard that in Albania, there was a tradition of "Albanian Virgin". It allowed a woman to drink, smoke, gamble, and do anything men do, on one condition -- she'd have to give up sex, for good. Which shows that traditional fear of female strength has nothing to do with motherhood, idealization of female "delicate nature", or anything else but simply sex. Most of men did not want someone they can be sexually involved be stronger (or smarter) than them. The same reason why some men can "understand" a strong woman easier if she's a lesbian ("Yeah, now I see why she's so aggressive!"), or if she's old and "ugly" (all the jokes about Janet Reno). Because since men don't have to restrain their sexuality for social acceptance (no one would call a guy a slut, whatever he does), they do not develop mechanisms of protection against a partner who can take advantage of them. And if a woman is as strong and intelligent, they cannot even use the power of physical or economical superiority to protect themselves. Result can be something like the story in the movie "The Last Seduction". Besides, is there some scale to determine "eye toughness" (as a means of determination whether one is fit to be in SEAL, or to be cast for a tough role)? About the large breasts, I wonder if the size of penis and testicles in any way intervenes with being a good soldier? I mean, you cannot even support the stuff with a bra or something. Does that "interfere with swimming" (or running, or fighting)? And what if one gets kicked below waist during the battle? There is no way to knock out a female that easy. A good punch in the breast would hurt a lot, but I never saw a woman rolling on the ground because of that. So, the question is, whose body is more vulnerable (and therefore less suited for battle)? And would tough eyes and strong jawlines be a whole lot of help? Besides, I've read that even riding a bicycle for too long can make a man impotent (according to some research). Maybe some day there will be a discussion whether some professions are not suited for men because they can "affect their reproductive abilities" (remember the number one excuse for banning women in 19th century from everywhere outside home?). I personally hope that would never happen. Sexism should dissappear without turning the other way around. But judging one's strength on eye expression is a little unserious, I think. > I'd be interested in hearing whether the movie has any > >persuasive effect on anti-feminists. I'm afraid the answer is no. They either ignore it, or perceive it in their own way. Like, "Xena - the Cleavage of the Gods" (an expression I heard last week). With G.I.Jane, it would be something like, "Have you seen those boobs, man? Under the wet T-shirt? I would not mind to get shot, man, I swear, just to get a hot chick like that drag me from the battlefield!" Sorry, there are too many frat guys in my school to bevieve that people like that could change. Besides, they don't really have to. They can believe whatever they want, the catch is to keep these people from defining government policies. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:38:21 -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: GI Jane and Delany In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Concerning the argument about male/female toughness in relation to size, does anyone remember the discussion on related matter in _Triton_ by Samuel Delany? The main character recalls how he was always puzzled by illustrations in old books, where the woman would always be shorter that the man. He was wondering why all women in those books were midgets. And the person he was talking to offered two explanations. One, that a man would prefer to go out with a woman smaller than himself. ("That would mean a lot of really unhappy tall women and short men", said Bron. "For what I heard, there were", said the other guy.) The second explanation was, that according to some research, parents were 70% less likeky to pick up a baby, or play or talk to it during the first year of its life if the baby was female. And since physical contact and attention are so important for healthy development, this had to affect everything, including the child's future height and bodyweight. This is on the point of strength based on physical differences. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 17:16:14 -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: GI Jane -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Wow, Debra. No need to take it so sensitively. Stallone is not much of green beret either, despite Rambo. However, that was not the point of that movie, and neither it is of this one. Hollywood will never be realistic, because honestly, no one would want to see it exactly like in real life. I don't know how well it depicts military, but I can tell you that any movie with a plot going on outside of US can _always_ be shown as "/Comedy" in that country, no matter what it is about. One hilariously idiotic example I can think of right away is _Golden Eye_ (the latest James Bond flick). Just the way actors fake your accent would make you laugh to tears. Going back to science fiction, what people here think about Twin Peaks? I just saw a couple parts on tape yesterday. It's not really feminist, but it's a pretty unusual fantasy. It used to be my favorite TV show when I was a teenager. I'd like to know what anyone else thinks about it. Marina P.S. Yes, and what I meant by "average woman" was that one does not have to be a world champion in wrestling to qualify. Because that -- the physical strength -- is the common excuse for not letting females there. On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Debra Euler wrote: > Marina Yereshenko wrote: > >The whole point of the movie is that an _average_ woman can become a > SEAL, just as well as an average man (after all, none of the guys > looked like Schwatzenegger). All you need is good health and a lot of > will power to go through all this training. And Demi Moore is someone > that most > women could relate to. > > I have not seen GI Jane and I have no desire to see it (I can't stand > Demi Moore). But I can't believe that with all this discussion, no > one has made this point: The average man or woman CANNOT become a > Navy SEAL. My dad, who went through the Recon Marine training (they > used much of the SEAL facilities) back when it was even more > difficult than it is now (I believe they had to scale it back because > too many trainees died), laughed hysterically at this movie. You need > a hell of a lot more than good health and lots of will power to go > through the training. You need to be an exceptional athelete, gifted > with weapons, possess extraordinary endurance, have the social ability > necessary to work well as a team, etc. etc. To say that SEAL men > aren't exceptional because they don't look like Arnold > Schwartzenegger is silly, because you're forgetting that Arnold is a > body builder and actor, not a soldier or aerobic athlete. The body > of a competitive swimmer is more the "ideal". > > I'm not saying that a woman could not go through the SEAL training. > Just that she'd have to be pretty extraordinary to do so. Saying > that a woman could do so because she "looks tough" or has a lot of > willpower is just foolish. > > Can we go back to discussing SF? > > Debra Euler > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:16:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Back to SF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Can we go back to discussing SF? I apologize for sending some more G.I.Jane postings after the listmistress's warning had been issued. I don't have a computer at home, and it takes time to read everything that collects since last time I checked it, while I try to answer the mail when I read it. However, I don't really understand public irritation on the "off-subject" postings. After all, if one doesn't like a particular thread (or any of the existing ones) why doesn't she start another one, instead of getting mad on others for not posting what she wants to read? This is not TV, if you don't like what's on, post something else. Besides, DM's movie might not have been sf, but it definitely was feminist, unless one believes that feminism has to be exclusively pacifist, ecological, and community-spirited, due to some mythically "different, non-violent nature of women". Don't mean to offend anyone, but posting something you _would_ like to read would be more likely to change the situation than whining that someone else does not do that. As for leaving the list, that is a rather pathetic way to express disagreement, and it won't change anything for sure. Just a thought, which I don't expect anyone to share, either. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:35:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Back to SF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Can we go back to discussing SF? I apologize for posting some more G.I.Jane messages after the listmistress's warning had been posted. I don't have a computer at home, and it takes time to read everything that has accumulated since the last time I checked, while I'm trying to answer the mail right away. However, I don't entirely understand the public irritation over the "off-subject" postings. If someone does not like a thread (or any of the existing ones) why would not she start one of her own, instead of getting upset that others do no post what she wants to read. This is not TV, if you don't like what's on, post something you do. Besides, DM's movie might not be sf, but it definitely was feminist, unless one believes that feminism must be exlusively pacifistic, ecological, and community-spirited, due to some to some mythically "different, non-violent nature of women". I don't mean to offend anyone, but presenting a subject that you _would_ like to see discussed is more likely to change the situation than whining that everyone is talking about something else. As for leaving the list, that is a rather pathetic form of protest, and would not change anything for sure. Just a thought, which I don't expect anyone to share, either. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:32:33 -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: GI Jane -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Wow, Debra. No need to take it so sensitively. Stallone is not much of >green beret either, despite Rambo. However, that was not the point of that >movie, and neither it is of this one. Hollywood will never be realistic, >because honestly, no one would want to see it exactly like in real life. >I don't know how well it depicts military, but I can tell you that any >movie with a plot going on outside of US can _always_ be shown as >"/Comedy" in that country, no matter what it is about. One hilariously >idiotic example I can think of right away is _Golden Eye_ (the latest James >Bond flick). Just the way actors fake your accent would make you laugh to >tears. Try watching _You Only Live Twice_ and watch for the Japan scene where Bond's being bathed. > To say that SEAL men >> aren't exceptional because they don't look like Arnold >> Schwartzenegger is silly, because you're forgetting that Arnold is a >> body builder and actor, Good point, but one correction: there's no 't' in Schwarzenegger. -Sean ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:36:52 -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: Back to SF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >Can we go back to discussing SF? > >I apologize for posting some more G.I.Jane messages after the >listmistress's warning had been posted. I don't have a computer at home, >and it takes time to read everything that has accumulated since the last >time I >checked, while I'm trying to answer the mail right away. > >However, I don't entirely understand the public irritation over the >"off-subject" postings. If someone does not like a thread (or any of the >existing ones) why would not she start one of her own, instead of getting >upset that others do no post what she wants to read. This is not TV, if >you don't like what's on, post something you do. Besides, DM's movie >might not be sf, but it definitely was feminist, unless one believes that >feminism must be exlusively pacifistic, ecological, and >community-spirited, due to some to some mythically "different, >non-violent nature of women". I don't mean to offend anyone, but >presenting a subject that you _would_ like to see discussed is more >likely to change the situation than whining that everyone is talking >about something else. Good idea. As for leaving the list, that is a rather pathetic >form of protest, and would not change anything for sure. Just a thought, >which I don't expect anyone to share, either. > >Marina Marina and others, I see your point and agree at least partially. Leaving the list would be like sticking your head in the sand if something was going on round you that you didn't want to see rather than saying something about it. Or like not voting if you don't like any of whatever election's candidates. Still, I see Laura's point about wanting to keep the subjects so those which concern feminism and SF, not one or the other. -Sean