"FEMINISTSF LOG9710A" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:14:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jana C. McCormick" Subject: Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man >If you find this offensive, please do not read on. I found this book quite enlightening and helpful. Kind of like, everything you ever wanted to ask a man and were afraid he wouldn't answer. Men talk to each other a lot more about sex than to their own partners. Who wants to criticize when it may be offensive to the recipient? I guess when two men are in a relationship they don't have as much of a communication problem regarding sex. I wonder if it works the same for gay women? Maybe women who are gay would be wonderful at advising straight men. What do you think? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:56:50 -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: Pheromones Comments: To: Erin Rubenstein In-Reply-To: <3431C0D7.55A71AC4@pilot.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Erin Rubenstein wrote: > Someone else commented that it may be vestigial in humans because we > don't need it anymore. You might want to be careful with that logic. > Evolution doesn't work like that, that would be giving it human > qualities... Specifically fore-thought. NH: True. And it's my understanding that Elaine Morgan (_Descent of Woman_) wasn't saying that we lost instinct because we don't need it any more; the theory is that we had to learn to override certain instincts in order to survive, and that intelligence developed to the extent it has in order to compensate for some of the lost biologically-coded behaviour. For a more in-depth explanation of that, it'd be better to read the book--which is fascinating and written in a snappy style. I'm paraphrasing and condensing drastically. > flattering. Like _Dune_ and other books. I have to question if it is > fair to assume the author has the same agenda as we do on this > listserve. Inaccurate portrayal and token women are always bad, but > sometimes feminism may not be in the authors agenda. NH: That's how I feel about _Dune._ It doesn't feel written from a feminist place, but I don't find it anti-woman, and it is in fact one of my favourite series of all time. It has male and female characters that are complex and intriguing and feel human. Whereas Heinlein's depiction of the ideal desirable woman is extremely problematic for me. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 00:07:48 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Sex and immunity in Fiction In-Reply-To: <720DD1D18FD@calc.vet.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Now, I cannot tie this in with science fiction or fantasy, but some > list members seemed curious. > Well, I've been reading about this subject in a few novels lately. Has anyone read Leona Gom's The Y Chromosone? An excellent novel about a "utopian" society in which almost all the men hve died off due to an epidemic that affected only males (or perhaps mostly males, I can't recall). Has anyone read this novel? I'd really enjoy discussing it if anyone is so inclined... pam bedore ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:10:56 -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: Tomboys (not particularly sf-related) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > I'm just wondering, does it seem natural to everyone, that a girl "cannot" > be a "little lady" and capable of breaking a brick in half with her hand at > the same time? > > Marina NH: Butchfemmenerdgirls unite! (And boys too, for that matter). I was the 'tomboy' (wish there was a better word) who climbed trees with a book in her teeth in order to have a quiet place in which to read. Sing hey, ho! for a satin shift and a pair of combat boots. I don't think they have to be polarities. Modes can co-exist. People are complex. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:08:31 -0700 Reply-To: "H. Tytel" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "H. Tytel" Subject: BC bookstore/Future education? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Stacey's intro reminded me of a question I've been forgetting to ask. Does anyone know of any SF/Fantasy which focuses on future homeschooling or "alternative education"? It seems that most of what I've read either has characters homeschooling because there's no alternative (IE, world war III has destroyed all the schools), or in some hellish sweatshop version of traditional schools ( Michael Swanwick's _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_, _The Mists of Avalon_, etc. ). Can anyone think of SF featuring homeschoolers by choice or kids in an alternative or "free" school by choice? I'd love to find something like this..... As you can see, I'm a bit behind, having just been in Vancouver, BC for a short break. I am deeply envious of anyone who lives near the Women in Print bookstore - their (Tiny!) SF/Fantasy section looked like a greatest hits of this list. I got a copy of the Y chromosome there and I'd love to hear other's opinions of the book as well - I'm not done with it yet. Hailey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:08:17 -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: Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think this is over the on-topic boundary. Sorry, Laura--hopefully it'll just be a couple of messages... > Men talk to each other a lot more about sex than to their own partners. Really? I find the opposite to be true for myself. I've never been considered "normal", though, as far as I know... ;-) I do, however, have the impression that women talk to each other a lot more about sex than to they do to men, and probably more than they do to their partners (in general). -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:10:38 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: women and nature... Comments: To: MaryKay Bird-Guilliams In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, MaryKay Bird-Guilliams wrote: > Pardon my ignorance, but I have been reading these posts hoping someone > will define essentializing. Is this seen as a common fallacy in literary > trends? I have read Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia, as well as tons of > SF literature, she definitly theorizes that western male civilization > equates women with nature - by definition: scary. Is that what you mean? > > Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us > Reference Librarian > Wichita Public Library > > Dear Mary, Hey, i can pardon anyone's "ignorance"- I seem to have so much of my own. And you seem to have the idea anyway- aPaglia is not exactly original in her noticing that women equate with nature in western culture- but she also seems to agree with it, which does make her an essentialist. I remember an alarming passage when she said that becuase men can pee further, and more strongly than women, then they were somehow "naturally" fitted to dominate nature, and women merely trickle weakly having little imapct.Paglia clearly has never drunk much beer (or met a particularly projectile female friend of mine). The idea of essentialism is simply that: that biology determines destiny, that there is no way of changing this.The problem for feminism is obvious: if women are "naturally" weak, emotional, passive etc, then they need to be protected by stronger, wiser, more objective men. But on the other hand, as Toril Moi points out- there is a need to defend women as women are (with the underlying assumption that women are culturally not biologically defined). These are tough problems to negociate: one way out is Diana Fuss suggestion that "strategic essentialism" is a contingent solution. Luce Irigaray does this quite well, I think. Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:14:11 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: bewitched by Heinlein and Daniel Boone In-Reply-To: <970930220812_793224393@emout20.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Ann Wheeler wrote: > > In reading the recent threads on Friday and I Will Fear No Evil and Daniel > Boone (I haven't heard or thought of that theme song in thirty years, and > now it won't go away--what a boon, what a doer, what a dream-come truer > indeed), I've been reflecting on the books and television shows I loved as a > young girl--with Heinlein's books high on the list--and the reasons that I > avoid some of them now. When I was reading Heinlein at 11 and 12 and 13, I > did love the adventure; they seemed like such exciting, hopeful books and I > wanted to go live in them. I felt the same way about Daniel Boone, whose > red-haired wife (Rebecca?) I remember as being just as brave and daring as he > was. They WERE adventurous for the period we grew up in. They were a vast improvement on the huge number of girls' books I always characterized as "Julie must adjust to entering a new high school." > > Now I suspect that if I went back and watched episodes of that show, I would > find that memory to be inaccurate--and ruined. There's a female character > in Heinlein's *the moon is a harsh mistress* --she has the name of a western > state?--who I wanted to grow up to be. Whyoming Knott. Just remember, all Heinlein's strong female characters were shaped by the strong women of his generation. Think Rosie the Riveter; think Hot Lips Houlihan. Unless I could manage to be Samantha > Stevens, the nose-twitching housewife, who seemed so wonderfully powerful to > me at the time. (Does *Bewitched* count as science fiction?) Talk about > disillusionment! When I watched episodes of that show as an adult, I found > out that the whole message was that she should hide and give up her power > in order to be married to (an entirely unremarkable) man, who was very > threatened by said power. Yech! Well, I have found that my true role > model should probably have been Endora, I noticed that older women in shows of that period were strong, evil (comic or serious or both) and ultimately ridiculous. Lxwana Troi is included. This is the soft & fluffy Silent revolt against our much stronger female elders. Which tells me the Betazoid culture at the time of NextGen is still in its version of 1955. so I have been able to redeem > *Bewitched* for myself. (Touching on another recent thread, I also loved > Mary Poppins; first Julie Andrews' version, which I can't watch now and then > P.L. Travers books, which I can still read.) And it may be out of print but I saw a copy at a used bookstore for a few $ locally.> > So there are all of these female characters out of fiction who were so > important to me as I was growing up--and I was entirely "misreading" them in > ways that were, I think, much more constructive for me than my current, adult > perceptions of them, which I think are more accurate. Yes. As St. Paul said, when people are little you give them milk. A few years down the road they'll be ready for meat. This applies to cultures as well. Remember the fuss over the Star Trek pilot? Especially Number One, who was seen as hard and cold? I saw it much later and could not understand: she was the only woman on board who was behaving like a professional instead of a dingbat! No doubt I was also > identifying across genders with the male protagonists in Heinlein a good bit, > Oh, God, yes! But don't forget Brooksie McNye and Mary Lou MArtin. Strong meat compared to what was actually going on at the time. I repeat: he wrote his early works during the lowest point of women's rights in our century. and swallowing some of the cultural messages about how to be female embedded > in Samantha Stevens' housekeeping. But I was also transforming these > stories into the stories that I needed and wanted, and my versions were very > important to me. That moment as a late adolescent when I read *I Will Fear > No Evil* and suddenly saw all of those wonderful Heinlein books as telling a > different story than I thought they were was a very unhappy one. > > Sorry for the long post. When I de-lurk, I seem to do it quite thoroughly. > > Ann Wheeler > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:17:47 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Pheremones Comments: To: Erin Rubenstein In-Reply-To: <3431C0D7.55A71AC4@pilot.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Erin Rubenstein wrote: > flattering. Like _Dune_ and other books. I have to question if it is > fair to assume the author has the same agenda as we do on this > listserve. Inaccurate portrayal and token women are always bad, but > sometimes feminism may not be in the authors agenda. For example, in > _Dune_ Frank Herbert created a very intiricate society with the Bene > Gesserit. They may not have been an ideal embodiment of women or a > paradigm of equality, but that wouldn't have suited his purposes at > all. I don't think that his female characters (at least not in the > scope hinted earlier) worked to undermine the female position. The > Fremen were definately not egalitarian, granted. But for what he was > trying to express they shouldn't have been. I guess I'm curious where > to draw the line between non-feminine and just plain anti-female. It's > a gray area that I think deserves being re-evaluated. Herbert drew on Arab culture for DUNE. It would be remarkable if women were portrayed the way they are in modern Westrn culture. That they exercised a lot of power behind the scenes is in keeping with the culture he used as his base. Or, he could have made them 20th century women in veils, as Saraj Zettel did in FOOLS WAR. Or reduced them to simpering nonentities and nagging moms as a hack would have done.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:58:17 -0700 Reply-To: Sharle@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon McCaffrey Subject: Re: Dan'l Boone Theme MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > > At 01:28 AM 9/28/97 -0400, you wrote: > > >Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > > > > >> (I don't think the Daniel Boone theme song > > >> referred to his coonskin cap, but I could be > > >> mistaken; however, Disney merchandised the hell > > >> out of it in the mid-1950s or thereabouts. > > > > > >I can't remember the Dan'l Boone theme song (I can remember the hats > > >they sold, just not the song) > > > > Sheesh, OK, just because it is such a monument to sexual "roles" etc of the > > early 60s > > (No replies, please!): > > > > Daniel Boone was a man, yes a big man, > > With an eye like an eagle and as tall as a mighty oak tree. > > (Daniel Boone) > > > > >From the **coonskin cap** on the top of old Dan > > To the heel of his rawhide shoe > > The rippin'est roarin'est fightin'est man > > The frontier ever knew. > > > > Daniel Boone was a man, yes a big man, > > And he fought for America to make all Americans free. > > > > I've been trying to get these lyrics straight in my head so I could send > them, but I couldn't quite do it. I'm glad someone did. > > Despite the mention of the coonskin cap in the Daniel Boone theme song, > however, the actual coonskin cap craze, of which I was a part as a small > boy, developed out of the enormous popularity of the somewhat earlier TV > show Davey Crockett, starring Fess Parker (who, I believe, later played > Boone). Just about every boy in America wanted a coonskin cap because > Davey Crockett wore one. > > Mike Levy I remember the coonskin hat craze connected to Davy Crockett when I was in the 1st grade. There were also rings and other things connected to this hero. Being a tomboy, Davy Crockett was my ideal. I didn't have much understanding of gender roles and liked to climb trees and play cowboys and indians. Sharon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:50:14 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Tomboys In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: snip)> > I'm just wondering, does it seem natural to everyone, that a girl "cannot" > be a "little lady" and capable of breaking a brick in half with her hand at > the same time? > Because "ladyhood" and weakness have usually been synonymous. It was Chinese "ladies" whose feet were bound, Victorian "ladies" who were corseted so tightly they fainted all the time, "little ladies" who were dressed in clothes you ruined if you ever did more than play dolls in them. To the men, a weak and ornamental woman was a sign that he could both afford a non-worker and defend a defenseless one. To women it was a sign of social status. For a marvelous reflection of a tomboy childhood in a working class girl in America, read Rita Mae Brown's RUBYFRUIT JUNGLE. Brown is the past mistress of the Southern comedy of manners, and our Deep South culture is mannered enough to provide a lot of comedy! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:52:53 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Tomboys (not particularly sf-related) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > NH: Butchfemmenerdgirls unite! (And boys too, for that matter). I was > the 'tomboy' (wish there was a better word) who climbed trees with a book > in her teeth in order to have a quiet place in which to read. Sing hey, > ho! for a satin shift and a pair of combat boots. I don't think they > have to be polarities. Modes can co-exist. People are complex. > > -nalo > > "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." Nalo! Sister! For me it's a pair of pirate boots and a full-sleeved satin shirt and tight jeans, with the lovely long hair of times past. Neither my body nor my hair will support either pretension, but it's still a lovely daydream.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews (who looks more like a troll granny) mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:47:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Sex and immunity in Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Makes me think of Nicola Griffith's _Ammonite_. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:39:28 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: boys, girls and toys Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" okay, who can come up with an SF title which shows boys and girls both playing with "traditionally" female toys? In the world of toys, at present, it seems to me that while there is a grudging growing acceptance of both sexes playing with "male" toys, there certainly is not one of both sexes playing with female toys. Look at the packaging toys come in. Toys for boys come packaged in bold primary colors. Toys for girls come in pastels. Toys for both: back to the primary colors. So you can get a catalog or see a package with girls and boys playing with trucks and trains and the like, but it would be a challenge to find a catalog showing a boy operating an oven or taking care of a baby doll. That's why my son, who likes to help, found that the choices for his play broom and dust pan were pink, pink and pink. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:45:11 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Friday Comments: To: lguerra@ibm.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:59:53 -0400 luz guerra wrote: > From: luz guerra > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:59:53 -0400 > Subject: Re: Friday > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Pat wrote: > > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Nicole Youngman wrote: > > > > > << > > > The thing here is that she is human as opposed to being some sort > > > of android. >> > > > > > > So are we defining human in strictly biological terms? Seems like that kind > > > of definition would defeat the purpose of an awful lot of literature. > > > > > We're not talking "an awful lot of literature" here. We're talking > > Friday's own pathology. Likewise a 19th century working class woman might > > define real success as being confined to kitchen and drawing room like a > > real lady. What counts is where the character is coming from. > > > lg: Perhaps in the 19th century working class women might have had their > own agendas and didn't necessarily aspire to be 'real ladies' (although > they may well have aspired to the access to certain > 'privileges'--freedom hunger, forced prostitution, etc.--those 'real > ladies' had). Christine Stansell's City of Women: Sex and Class in NY > 1789-1860 is a wonderful piece of historical research/retelling that > examines just that.... Stansell documents the evolution of the creation > of the 'private sphere' of kitchen and drawing room of the privileged > classes that was then imposed by the 'ladies' onto poor and > working-class women, as the 'ladies' created new roles for themselves > (social worker/philanthropist/teacher/do-gooder) by justifying these as > an extension of their domain: care of children & spouse in kitchen and > drawing room to care of (childlike) poor working women who should be > remade in the image of 'ladies'. > > luz Richard Evans' book on feminism in 19th century Germany on the other hand reports that feminists had a hard time mobilising women trade unionists who were more interested in fighting for a male *family wage*. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:51:31 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Heinlein, and I Will Fear No Evil MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:40:57 -0400 Ann Wheeler wrote: > From: Ann Wheeler > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:40:57 -0400 > Subject: Re: Heinlein, and I Will Fear No Evil > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > In a message dated 97-09-29 13:11:39 EDT, Neil Rest writes: > > << However, _Time Enough > For Love_ is in a special class because he was, literally, dying while he > wrote it. It may not have been a whole lot better if he'd been unimpaired > while writing it, but I, for one, think it would have been significantly > different. >> > > True enough. But I've always thought that the books writers write when > they're not at the top of their form are very revealing about the way that > they see the world, possibly more revealing than their better books.... And > *Time Enough for Love* made me see the way Heinlein saw women--if that > tangled syntax makes sense--more clearly than I ever had before, and I could > never read his books again. At least not until now-- I have actually > bought a new copy of *A Moon is a Harsh Mistress*, which was always my > favorite, and I'm going to be interested to see how I react to it now, > fifteen years or so since the last time I read Heinlein. > > Ann I sort of agree, but one of the things the book reveals is that however tangled Heinlein's attitudes he actually *liked* women. I know plenty more pc writers of whom I do not think this is true. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:36:43 -0400 Reply-To: Cheryl Hall Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cheryl Hall Subject: Re: The Disappearance In-Reply-To: <199710010500.AAA44014@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > I remember reading [The Disappearance] when it was new. The men got into > a state of constant warfare very quickly; the women fumbled and bumbled > a lot and then got into running gear more or less. I remember being > furious when the heroine, Paula, decided she must slow down - there was > something unhealthy about her insistence on being a hero. Now, in middle > age, I understand it. His thesis was that women are competent given the > chance; men need women the way a reactor needs damping rods, and it was > a valuable lesson for all concerned. > This from the raging misogynist of his other books! > It's well worth looking up, but his other stuff is now worthwhile only > to historians.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu Paula, the heroine of The Disappearance, doesn't just decide to slow down because she's being too much like a hero. The real crisis comes when she recognizes that she has become attracted to another woman (can't remember the name offhand) and vice versa. They have been working hard together, and come not only to care deeply for each other but to really be drawn to each other's qualities and bodies in this world where there are no men around as the "obvious" choices for sexual attraction. Then at a crucial moment Paula freaks out and decides that what's happened is that she has been trying to be "a man" -- and *that's* the "something unhealthy/ unnatural". It's as if Wylie was able to carry his thought experiment all the way up to the point of questioning whether love and attraction are really necessarily tied to gender, and then hits the wall of normative heterosexuality (sex *is* the attraction between a man and a woman, and anything else must be someone of the "wrong" gender trying to be or being forced to be like the "opposite" gender) and retreats at full speed. What I remember, having read it first in the mid 80's, was being completely blown away as I was reading the description of the growing attraction between the two characters, thinking "Wow! And this was published in 1952!", and then being terribly disappointed, though not all that surprised, that he couldn't carry the idea through. But I agree the book is still interesting and thought-provoking, even now. --- Cheryl Hall (delurking) Department of Government & International Affairs University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:12:18 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Tomboys Content-Type: text/plain On 30 Sep 1997 Marina Yereshenko wrote: >Since somebody mentioned tomboys. When I was a kid, it always puzzled >me that girls were supposed to be "nice" (long hair, dresses, dolls, >playing house, crying when offended) or "tomboys"(jeans and boyish >haircuts, playing with boys only, fighting back when mistreated). I >could never place myself in either of this groups. >....I'm just wondering, does it seem natural to everyone, that a girl >"cannot" be a "little lady" and capable of breaking a brick in half >with her hand at the same time? > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf Your Naomi Wolf signature file says it all, Marina. When we're born into a patriarchal society we're assigned one of two sex-based social roles. Of course you can do and be whatever you wish, but if it conflicts with the social role you've been assigned at birth on the basis of sex, people will be confused or angry or amused, and will ususally try to put you in your place. With apologies to Gertrude Stein, a role is a role is a role. Shakespeare said the world's a stage, and roles require appropriate names, pronouns, costumes, and mannerisms. You appeared to be female at birth, so you were assigned a traditionally female name, pronouns, and costume, all of which you seem to like. But when it came to the mannerisms part, the acting out of the assigned role, you wanted to do things that were assigned to the other (male) sex-based role. You didn't want their costume, just their actions. The analogy I usually give is that males sometimes put on traditionally female costumes, but when they do so it is either for sexual reasons or to be funny. Males see the female role costume as either sexual or comical. Now imagine that somebody dressed in a flimsy negligee or a clown suit comes onstage in front of an audience and tries to give a serious speech--and then demands respect when people laugh. The probable outcome is that people will laugh even harder. Nowadays many women who adhere to traditional femininity in their costume, hairdo, makesup, accessories, etc., are accomplished in the martial arts. They have to be. Tomboy or butch women do also. Any time you deviate in any way from the social role patriarchy has assigned you, you had better be prepared to defend yourself because the defenders of patriarchy WILL attack you. Being classed as a nerd or a weirdo because you're too smart for a woman or don't fit in, just means you're not playing your assigned role properly. One of the major uses of psychiatry both in Russia and the United States is to attempt to cure too-smart women of their inappropriate brains. Intelligence is an asset in the dominant role, and a disease in the subordinate. The exact same student essay, or science fiction story, will be given a higher rating if it is signed with a traditionally male rather than a traditionally female name. Tiptree was a rock-solid realist. --Mark Nontraditional News ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:22:23 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Patriarchy and hierarchy (was Re: Tomboys) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Your Naomi Wolf signature file says it all, Marina. When we're born into > a patriarchal society we're assigned one of two sex-based social roles. I question your generalized use of "patriarchal". While I agree that your assertion holds true for our society and that our society is partriarchal, and even that other patriarchal societies can and do exhibit the same, I don't see that it's required of patriarchal arrangements. You don't say, or even imply (except by omission), that matriarchal societies would not also have this sex-based role division. _Gate to Women's Country_ posits a society with even more rigid sex-based roles than we find in our own society, and that's certainly not patriarchal. I don't have any question about what you said, just the assignment of "blame" on patriarchy, specifically. I think it falls more on societal control of deviant behavior--wherever and whyever that exists. I've been thinking more and more about Butler's assertion in Xenogenesis that hierarchy and hierarchal behavior is inherently flawed and will result in the downfall of society. I'm afraid that I'm unable to refute that assertion. Can anyone help? :-( It doesn't help that I find it hard to imagine how a lack of hierarchy can exist. It's inherent to western thought, anyway. I find that I end up trying to rank things in some order hundreds of times each day, and that ordering is, itself, a hierarchy of sorts. And I'm relatively indecisive as humans go... -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:29:55 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Disappearance Comments: To: Cheryl Hall In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I completely missed the growing attraction between the two women! But then, I was young enough to be totally baffled by Asimov's description of a dictator's mistress as "more than friend but less than wife." Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:06:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: women and nature... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > If women are "natural" why does it take so much time and >so many products to bring the average woman's appearance into agreement >with the societal standards of attractiveness? Recently, some male friends of mine made me up in full drag for my birthday - an hour and a half on the face alone, and they were lamenting the lack of time (my impression was that they could have easily taken another couple of hours and REALLY done it up). It was pretty clear to me that the final look, though in accord with many of our society's concepts of female beauty, had little to do with nature - it was as highly stylized as Kabuki theatre to my eyes. There was a face in the mirror, but it wasn't mine by any stretch of the imagination. Interestingly enough, all of my female friends 'got' the concept of 'Meg in Drag' instantly, while some of my male friends didn't quite understand. After all, I'm a woman, right? So, what's the point of drag? A very different point of view.... the women seemed to understand more readily how completely artifical that look is, the men seemed more apt to see it as a much lesser distortion of reality. But back to the connections made between women and nature - I would certainly agree that we are all connected to nature ( hey, last time I checked we were all animals, male and female alike), but find that I deeply resent any special connection drawn between women and nature. Smacks of determinism (o, manifest destiny!) to me, and I think we all know how quickly that can turn sour. Women = Nature, Men = Technology - the implications of that are scary indeed. One of the points made in the Darkover novels that really struck me at the time I was reading them (quite a while ago, so it may all be a myth of memory by this time) was the importance (and the difficulty) of renouncing the privileges accorded one by virtue of one's gender in order to achieve true freedom and equality. It certainly true that men and women are socialized differently, and thus often have very different skills - it is dangerous to assume that those differences in skills are biologicaly gender determined. It is always tempting to claim that women have some inherently special skills or connections (in order to at least partially balance all the assertations that we are inherently lesser in one or another area), but these claims seem to me to be a loser's game, playing by the rules that divide and lessen us all. 'For the master's tools will never demolish the master's house' - A. Lourde ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:14:12 +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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >But back to the connections made between women and nature - I would >certainly agree that we are all connected to nature ( hey, last time I >checked we were all animals, male and female alike), but find that I deeply >resent any special connection drawn between women and nature. Smacks of >determinism (o, manifest destiny!) to me, and I think we all know how >quickly that can turn sour. Women = Nature, Men = Technology - the >implications of that are scary indeed. I think that, while much of this discussion regarding the assumed connection between women and nature is a _positive_ thing, I think its roots aren't. I think we (women) are seen as one with nature because of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief that Man rules us both ("And you shall have dominion over....") - Most Definitely NOT a savory concept. Why our ancestors felt compelled to come up with that is a whole 'nother subject......(and don't even get me started on a culture who needs to KILL its god - and even EAT it! EGADS!) I also think if we became _conscious_ of the connection between men and nature, that that relationship would be more obvious. I've heard many feminists claim that women are inherently more connected with nature because of our menstrual cycle.....well, men have cycles too - it's just that theirs are _daily_ instead of _monthly_ (Think about it! Men have "PMS" once a DAY!). If this information were more widely known, perhaps the myth of women only = nature would slowly fade..... Laura ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:19:25 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: women and nature... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Teragram wrote: > > Recently, some male friends of mine made me up in full drag for my birthday > - an hour and a half on the face alone, and they were lamenting the lack of > time (my impression was that they could have easily taken another couple of > hours and REALLY done it up). It was pretty clear to me that the final > look, though in accord with many of our society's concepts of female > beauty, had little to do with nature - it was as highly stylized as Kabuki > theatre to my eyes. There was a face in the mirror, but it wasn't mine by > any stretch of the imagination. Recently a church I go to had a fund-raiser with an Australian theme. OF course we had several Crocodile Dundees and several charactrs from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Rumor had it our pastor, Reverend Pat, was going to do something spectacular. She is tall and very sturdy in build. Her normal style is tailored, somewhat dashing. She appeared, on the arm of two of the Crocodile Dundees, tottering in on five inch golden high heeled sandals. She was wearing a long, clinging sequined gown with a mismatched feather boa, a ton of makeup, eyelashed out to here, and a towering bleached-blonde wig. IN the silence that followed, one woman was heard to say "Mom - this is our pastor." A friend of mine commented "We never saw THIS in the Methodist church back home!" They took the pastor's picture with the Crocodiles and the various Priscilla characters. Then someone suggested they mail it into the Southern Baptist Convention as a portrait of one of their more made-up former televangelists. > > Interestingly enough, all of my female friends 'got' the concept of 'Meg in > Drag' instantly, while some of my male friends didn't quite understand. > After all, I'm a woman, right? So, what's the point of drag? A very > different point of view.... the women seemed to understand more readily how > completely artifical that look is, the men seemed more apt to see it as a > much lesser distortion of reality. The cream of the jest was when her makeup artist explained "I did her the way I'd do a drag queen."> > 'For the master's tools will never demolish the master's house' - A. Lourde > Question - what WILL? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:11:35 -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: women & nature & essentialism, oh my! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Pat asserts: >If you really want to dig up the roots of the patriarchy, you have to look >first at the roots of war. Would you tell us just a little more fully how this precedence is established? Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:07:38 -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: women & nature & essentialism, oh my! In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970930201509.006afe2c@mailbox.syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rudy Leon summed it up: >Nicole, the problem comes in when culture and maleness are rejected, and >nature and femaleness are reified. Precisely. Thank you. >Its the same equation, just the >opposite side. There is a parallel argument which bothers me just as much. Some people tell me I should use the left side of my brain (semi-metaphorically, here) pretty much exclusively. The "other side" of the argument tells me I should use only the right side of my brain. I'm on the side of using everything I have. > but my wariness lies in creating a mirror image >of the current system and calling good because God is wearing a womb under >that old flowing autocratic robe... Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:11:10 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Laura Wigod referred to: >the Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief Please don't hyphenate those. Christianity is Hellenistic and syncretistic. It came out of the culture which was most opposite to Judaism in perhaps all of Judaism's history. While Judaism has its share of unhappy subcultures, it is official, for example, that "conjugal rights" are the *wife*'s. *She* has to be kept happy. In the standard marriage contract (which is a regular legal contract), the flocks and fields are the husband's, while the contents of the house are the direct personal property of the wife. (Keep in mind that this is three thousand year old boilerplate.) I may not be observant, but I'm not _quite_ as ignorant as I might be. . . Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:35:08 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: boys, girls and toys MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And why is that I only helped with the Head Start Christmas Party (sponsored by the employees of the State of Maine) one year? Because I couldn't believe that in the 1990's this party's organizers still insist upon giving each girl a doll and each boy a truck, that's why! And of course I got to escort a very assertive little female of four, who screamed for a truck just that way I would have done at that age...and believe me, I had no idea how to explain to her why she had to take the damned doll. (I played with "both kinds of toys" as a child, by the way. I don't think it occurred to my parents to limit me, whatever fed my imagination was what I got.) Yes, of course I tried to change the situation. The party-planning representative from my department is the biggest chauvinist I've ever met (I should know, I have to work with him every day), and the woman who heads up the effort every year can't IMAGINE why anyone would think her policy inappropriate. Obviously anyone who objects is of suspicious moral character.... Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > okay, who can come up with an SF title which shows boys and girls both > > playing with "traditionally" female toys? > > In the world of toys, at present, it seems to me that while there is a > > grudging growing acceptance of both sexes playing with "male" toys, > there > certainly is not one of both sexes playing with female toys. > > Look at the packaging toys come in. Toys for boys come packaged in > bold > primary colors. Toys for girls come in pastels. Toys for both: back to > the > primary colors. > > So you can get a catalog or see a package with girls and boys playing > with > trucks and trains and the like, but it would be a challenge to find a > catalog showing a boy operating an oven or taking care of a baby doll. > > That's why my son, who likes to help, found that the choices for his > play > broom and dust pan were pink, pink and pink. > > Maryelizabeth > Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 > 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 > San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX > http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:59:30 +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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971001171110.0075106c@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Laura Wigod referred to: >>the Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief > >Please don't hyphenate those. Christianity is Hellenistic and >syncretistic. It came out of the culture which was most opposite to >Judaism in perhaps all of Judaism's history. > >While Judaism has its share of unhappy subcultures, it is official, for >example, that "conjugal rights" are the *wife*'s. *She* has to be kept >happy. In the standard marriage contract (which is a regular legal >contract), the flocks and fields are the husband's, while the contents of >the house are the direct personal property of the wife. (Keep in mind that >this is three thousand year old boilerplate.) > > Uh.........WHAT? I'm not clear on what your point is, which means I probably shouldn't respond to my false idea of what you're saying....but will that stop me? HAH! :-) Since when is Christianity the direct opposite of Judaism? The main difference between the two is that Jews are waiting for the Messiah's first little visit to Earth, while the Christians are waiting for Messiah: Part Deux. My hyphenation, and, hence, connection, between the three beliefs is based on: Old Testament = Judaism Old Testament + New Testament = Christianity Old Testament + New Testament + Koran = Islam As for your statement (as I understand it) that Judaism has exclusive rights on a wife's happiness, I have to disagree. My understanding of Christianity is that, while the husband may be Lord and Master, he is supposed to behave with his wife's happiness in mind at all times. And, in the Muslim tradition, a man may have as many wives _as he can keep happy_. My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:40:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Tomboys Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >[The] Naomi Wolf signature file says it all, Marina. When we're born into >a patriarchal society we're assigned one of two sex-based social roles. >Of course you can do and be whatever you wish, but if it conflicts with >the social role you've been assigned at birth on the basis of sex, >people will be confused or angry or amused, and will ususally try to put >you in your place. > >With apologies to Gertrude Stein, a role is a role is a role. >Shakespeare said the world's a stage, and roles require appropriate >names, pronouns, costumes, and mannerisms. You appeared to be female at >birth, so you were assigned a traditionally female name, pronouns, and >costume, all of which you seem to like. But when it came to the >mannerisms part, the acting out of the assigned role, you wanted to do >things that were assigned to the other (male) sex-based role. You didn't >want their costume, just their actions. Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly androgynous. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:58:17 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nimal Jayawardhana Subject: Re: women and nature... Content-Type: text/plain In-Reply-To: < > > >Uh.........WHAT? I'm not clear on what your point is, which means I >probably shouldn't respond to my false idea of what you're saying....but >will that stop me? HAH! :-) > >Since when is Christianity the direct opposite of Judaism? The main >difference between the two is that Jews are waiting for the Messiah's first >little visit to Earth, while the Christians are waiting for Messiah: Part >Deux. > >My hyphenation, and, hence, connection, between the three beliefs is based on: > >Old Testament = Judaism >Old Testament + New Testament = Christianity >Old Testament + New Testament + Koran = Islam > >As for your statement (as I understand it) that Judaism has exclusive >rights on a wife's happiness, I have to disagree. My understanding of >Christianity is that, while the husband may be Lord and Master, he is >supposed to behave with his wife's happiness in mind at all times. And, in >the Muslim tradition, a man may have as many wives _as he can keep happy_. > >My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. > >Laura Amen to that Laura! It seems to me that the most annoying things in all the holy books are due to overinterpretation. By that I mean, people today seeing something in an ancient book as directly relevant to today's world. Not Good!! Let me elucidate briefly: Koran: The ruling on more than one wife came about because during that time there were many more women than men and the women were in danger of starving, as -in that time period- they needed men's support to survive. Old Testament: Spilling of the seed and homosexuality are discouraged strongly because there was a need to propogate and populate the world and these activities did not assist that! The three aforementioned faiths are all okay by me, as long as they are not adhered to in extreme ways without any questioning! Salutations, |\| | |\/| (Nimal Jayawardhana) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:55:38 -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: women and nature... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Seems to me the whole "women closer to nature" thing is predicated on the idea that "man"kind has been somehow separated from nature into "civilization." You'd think the wars of the 20th century would have taught us by now that "civilization" is a crock. Maybe it will take a big worldwide viral epidemic to disabuse us of this notion. Meanwhile, from this blessed pinnacle of civilization, the powerful continue to make judgements about which species and ecosystems deserve to survive, and about which humans have followed them into their "civilized" status, and which have fallen short. Haven't they said the same kind of "closer to nature" thing about various native populations throughout history (typically just before the genocide commenced)? -- 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, 1 Oct 1997 23:55:42 -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: Tomboys MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly > androgynous. Yet, the characters in Carter's novel are not... Interesting to observe, when encountering androgynous folks in person - a couple of them anyway - that androgyny seems to be achieved with a careful *balancing* of male and female gender cues (clothing, hair, voice, mannerisms, etc. - one cancelling the other out, in effect), not an *absence* of such cues/signals, or some kind of neutral signals. I can't even imagine what gender-neutral signals would be - but then, I'm not an SF writer. Funny how our non-verbal communication is so drenched with gender signals, while we've managed to excise those signals from our language when they're unnecessary. In this culture, at least. -- 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: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:02:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: muslim polygyny MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My understanding (came from my dad, who converted to Islam when I was about 10) is that the Koran's ruling that men could have up to four wives came from a time when there had been a war that had severely reduced numbers of men. Polygyny--daddy said--was a strategy for increasing the population as quickly as possible, while allowing the large numbers of women who would otherwise go single to have husbands. (Put that solution in the context of a society whose socio-economic structure dictated that women had to be in a man's household in order to survive.) And, forestalling the almost inevitable questions here; no, I am not nor have ever been Muslim; my dad was. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:17:26 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: An atrocity in England Comments: To: Suzette Haden Elgin , Jean Lamb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read in today's paper that a 13 year old girl in England committed suicide because she'd been teased and bullied about being fat. A gang of 12 to 15 youths gathered outside her house and shouted taunts and threw things. Before this gets written up in the Lonesome Node, I want to share a sudden insight I had concerning this incident. 1) Her weight is not the issue. It could have been anything. She could have been crippled, retarded, gay, or of another race. So sensitivity training about weight will not help at all. 2) It is not about her. A funeral eulogy about all her good points may make the boys uneasy, because I don't think they disliked her personally. They probably didn't even know her. She made a much better victim if they didn't. 3) The easy assumption that they'll feel remorse at the unexpected tragic end to their teasing is probably a pile of soft smelly mush. I think they probably felt an enormous surge of power at being able to kill someone like that. As certain Fang tribesmen were quoted in a book I read recently, "We are men, we are real men, we went into town and shot a man, we are real men!" 4) And if the victim had been of another race and the perps had been subject to anti-racism lectures, it would have probably turned casual perception of the person as an easy victim into hardened racism. Hey - it was the school that would have played the race card in the first place. 5) Yet, are they evil? By all human standards, yes. Still, this isn't the first villain whose head I've found myself in, and in this flash of empathy what I saw was an enormous emptiness and idleness. Not lack of love from Mommy, though that may play a part, but lack of anything to be or do or look forward to being or doing. At least not anything important, glorious, or that would give them a feeling of power (over OR to do) or accomplishment. So they mob together and take what action presents itself to them. 6) IN which case, being in a street gang is a *step up* for these boys. 7) And what does that say about the postindustrial world's handling of young men below a certain class level? It tells *me* that we're building up explosive tensions that historically have been released in war. Not the cause of war, perhaps, but a factor in the calculations of those who are considering war. And historically one major cure for boys like that has been to make soldiers - or warriors - of them. Consider this and pray - real hard - -- Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:20:31 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: women and nature... In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971001171110.0075106c@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > > Laura Wigod referred to: > >the Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief > > Please don't hyphenate those. Christianity is Hellenistic and > syncretistic. It came out of the culture which was most opposite to > Judaism in perhaps all of Judaism's history. The rabbi I'm taking Bible lessons from pointed out that Christianity owes as much to Zoroastrianism as it does to Judaism. We don't hear about that because the early Church Fathers took great pains not to mention the name of one of their great rivals in the late Roman Empire. We could just as well have had an emperor who prayed to Mithra. > > While Judaism has its share of unhappy subcultures, it is official, for > example, that "conjugal rights" are the *wife*'s. *She* has to be kept > happy. In the standard marriage contract (which is a regular legal > contract), the flocks and fields are the husband's, while the contents of > the house are the direct personal property of the wife. (Keep in mind that > this is three thousand year old boilerplate.) Yes, and in Genesis man is commanded to "leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife," which is a flat-out description of uxolocal marriage. Not the patriarchal household.> > > I may not be observant, but I'm not _quite_ as ignorant as I might be. . . > Neil Rest > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:00:35 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Tomboys Content-Type: text/plain >On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 David Christenson wrote: >Interesting to observe, when encountering androgynous folks in person > - a couple of them anyway - that androgyny seems to be achieved with >a careful *balancing* of male and female gender cues (clothing, hair, >voice, mannerisms, etc. - one cancelling the other out, in effect), >not an *absence* of such cues/signals, or some kind of neutral >signals. I can't even imagine what gender-neutral signals would be - >but then, I'm not an SF writer. There aren't any gender neutral signals. Everything is assigned to one sex or the other. The most natural or normal state, the default, is assigned to males, and whatever varies or differs from the natural or default state is assigned to females. For example short neat unfussed with hair, faces with no cosmetics, belching when full, speaking in declarative sentences and unsquelched tones, etc., are all the most natural thing and are considered masculine. The default, as with computers, is what happens when you don't do anything special and different to change it. >Funny how our non-verbal communication is so drenched with gender >signals, while we've managed to excise those signals from our >language when they're unnecessary. In this culture, at least. So what was Merry's gender? Any time a gender signal is missing, people freak. --Mark Nontraditional News ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:32:40 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: (Slightly OT) Men/Women?sex in Conversation (was Sex Tips ...) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My curiosity was stimulated by this. I don't know if anyone can cite any studies or the like, but in my personal experience, compared with my current husband and other men in my life, women are much franker and more specific when discussing sex with their friends, and men are more likely to be general. This is mostly (although not entirely) with regard to hetro relationships. However, I don't think this conversational distinction necessarily hold true in written passages. Thoughts? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:31:54 -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: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >3) The easy assumption that they'll feel remorse at the unexpected >tragic end to their teasing is probably a pile of soft smelly mush. I >think they probably felt an enormous surge of power at being able to kill >someone like that. As certain Fang tribesmen were quoted in a book I read >recently, "We are men, we are real men, we went into town and shot a >man, we are real men!" I think it is tragic that the girl killed herself, but that's just it: she killed herself. The boys, though apparently pretty bloody cruel, did not kill her, from what I understand. In my opinion, the only person to blame in a suicide is the person who commits it. Others can be blamed for being petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. This may sound heartless, but that's the way I see it. >7) And what does that say about the postindustrial world's handling of >young men below a certain class level? It tells *me* that we're building >up explosive tensions that historically have been released in war. Not >the cause of war, perhaps, but a factor in the calculations of those who >are considering war. And historically one major cure for boys like that >has been to make soldiers - or warriors - of them. > Consider this and pray - real hard - -- > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu That _is_ a sobering thought. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:40:12 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Yes, and in Genesis man is commanded to "leave his father and mother >and cleave to his wife," which is a flat-out description of uxolocal >marriage. Not the patriarchal household.> > I know to cleave to is like to cling to, to adhere to, etc., but what's "uxolocal" mean? Wife-centered? -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:46:55 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy Content-Type: text/plain On 1 Oct 1997 Allen Briggs wrote: >I question your generalized use of "patriarchal". While I agree that >your assertion holds true for our society and that our society is >partriarchal, and even that other patriarchal societies can and do >exhibit the same, I don't see that it's required of patriarchal >arrangements. You don't say, or even imply (except by omission), >that matriarchal societies would not also have this sex-based role >division. A matriarchy is more likely to stress survival of the species so that everyone would do whatever was necessary, rather than strict roles. Nine months of pregnancy plus breastfeeding, etc., gives females a strong vested interest in preserving life. So great an interest, in fact, that I believe that early matriarchal societies failed because they lacked the death penalty, even for males who violated the ecological laws of species viability by causing excess preganancies. >I don't have any question about what you said, just the assignment of >"blame" on patriarchy, specifically. I think it falls more on >societal control of deviant behavior--wherever and whyever that >exists. Would that it were so. Let's take killing as an example of deviant behavior. Patriarchy legitimizes it (think of "justifiable wars," so called "great men" of history who were merely mass murderers, the oxymoron "warlike civilization," etc.) matriarchy does not. That's why we live in a patriarchal world today. >I've been thinking more and more about Butler's assertion in >Xenogenesis that hierarchy and hierarchal behavior is inherently >flawed and will result in the downfall of society. I'm afraid that >'m unable to refute that assertion. Can anyone help? :-( That frownie should have been a smiley; you're joking of course. The problem is that when logic is irrefutable, patriarchy responds with violence. >It doesn't help that I find it hard to imagine how a lack of >hierarchy can exist. It's inherent to western thought, anyway. I >find that I end up trying to rank things in some order hundreds of >times each day, and that ordering is, itself, a hierarchy of sorts. >And I'm relatively indecisive as humans go... Hierarchies are necessary in everyday life. Paying my rent comes before splurging on books. But children raised from birth as equals and taught to think of each other as equals would have no problem with the lack of gender hierarchy. Delaney, Tiptree, and others have done some interesting things with this scenario, but too many feminist writers have been brainwashed from birth into believing that seperate and different can be equal, so their "equality" rings untrue. --Mark Nontraditional News ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:16:09 -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: Tomboys In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Maryelizabeth, Why do you think it's androgynous? The whole point is that doing things that "only men supposed to enjoy" does not make you become "like a man". You won't grow a penis just because you like martial arts, so where the "andro-" part comes from? I consider myself a 100% female, and I kind of like it that way. You do not have to be androgenious to kick some butt when someone deserves it. And high heels, as a part of the feminine image, can come in very handy in that situation, by the way. Marina On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > > >With apologies to Gertrude Stein, a role is a role is a role. > >Shakespeare said the world's a stage, and roles require appropriate > >names, pronouns, costumes, and mannerisms. You appeared to be female at > >birth, so you were assigned a traditionally female name, pronouns, and > >costume, all of which you seem to like. But when it came to the > >mannerisms part, the acting out of the assigned role, you wanted to do > >things that were assigned to the other (male) sex-based role. You didn't > >want their costume, just their actions. > > Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly > androgynous. > > > Maryelizabeth > Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 > 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 > San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX > http://www.mystgalaxy.com > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:21:06 -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: muslim polygyny In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've heard that in Nepal, it's common to have one wife for several brothers, in order not to divide the land, which is scarce in the mountains. It seems that whenever people have to justify the way women are treated, it's always "for economic reasons". Marina On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > My understanding (came from my dad, who converted to Islam when I was > about 10) is that the Koran's ruling that men could have up to four wives > came from a time when there had been a war that had severely reduced > numbers of men. Polygyny--daddy said--was a strategy for increasing the > population as quickly as possible, while allowing the large numbers of > women who would otherwise go single to have husbands. (Put that solution > in the context of a society whose socio-economic structure dictated that > women had to be in a man's household in order to survive.) > > And, forestalling the almost inevitable questions here; no, I am not nor > have ever been Muslim; my dad was. > > -nalo > > "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." > -David > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:26:36 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mark Smith wrote: >>early matriarchal societies failed because they lacked the death penalty, even for males who violated the ecological laws of species viability by causing excess preganancies. As someone who trained in anthropology and archaeology at the graduate level, I'm interested to know to which matriarchal societies you're referring. I find that, in some feminist science fiction and fantasy, there is some nebulous idea of the "good old days" before the bad sky-worshipping male-dominated barbarians arrived. I just read "The Jigsaw Woman" by Kim Antieau (forgive the spelling) which had this idea, as did "Waking the Moon." I never learned of any documented ancient matriarchal societies during my formal education. Of course, you could say that I was immersed in the sexist patriarchal modern education system that discounts any such possibility, but as a feminist, I was on the lookout for that sort of thing and I never saw any definitive evidence of matriarchal societies in the primary sources. Does anyone have any hard evidence? I'd be interested to know. Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:33:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anny Middon Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) I've caught just the end of this thread and hope this hasn't been said before. I was somewhat of a tomboy myself. I say "somewhat" because I enjoyed some girl things and some boy things and generally did what I thought was fun without thinking too much about what gender was supposed to enjoy it. I was called a tomboy sometimes, but I remember it wasn't usually meant disparagingly. Often it was said with amusement, and the tone used when calling me a tomboy was identical to that used to call Alice "all girl." (Alice giggled a lot, and flirted incessantly and was usually called "silly Alice", so I never thought being "all girl" was something any sensible person would want to be.) I read a lot of books about tomboys, and in some (a few, anyway) of them, the girl was still a tomboy at the end. In most, the book ends with her becoming attracted to a boy and wearing dresses and using make-up. The idea I think was that being a tomboy was okay for a young girl, but that she'd grow out of it. (In fact, once she hit puberty, she damned well better change.) Still, there wasn't anything comparable for boys, and I always thought that a bit unfair. A boy who did girl things was a "sissy" and it was meant and received as a deep insult. A girl could dress in boy's clothing, but a boy couldn't wear girl things, even at Halloween. A girl could for a few years try boy activities, but no boy dared try girl activities. In my neighborhood, even games like hopscotch and jump rope were forbidden to the boys. Today boys are somewhat more free to do "girl" things. (Although they still can't wear girls' clothing. I notice that the unisex style clothes of today are all based on traditional boys' clothing. This is probably because tradtional boys' clothes are more practical, but although girls can wear shorts and t-shirts in any hue, boys still don't wear pink or lavendar.) I know several young boys who have baby dolls; their parents actively wish to promote their nurturing sides. Of course, they're expected to give up these dolls at an early age. You know, I was going to say that a boy of ten or so who plays with Barbies or other female dolls would be considered odd (or more likely "troubled") but then it occurred to me that this isn't true. Barbies may be off-limits for boys (and I sure wish they were off-limits for my nieces), but boys can play with dolls with impunity so long as they aren't called dolls, but "action figures." They can even play with female figures that are almost indistinguishable from Barbies. The boy next door has a large set of Star Trek figures, including Deanna Troi and Beverly Crusher, he plays with. (And I've just put this sort of on-topic!) I'm not even sure they play with the figures much differently than girls play with dolls. I played Barbie with my six-year-old niece once. She got to be Barbie; I was stuck being Midge and then Todd and then Stacy. My role was simply for my figure to cross the pretend street. As soon as my toy set foot on pavement, demented Barbie in her Barbie Jeep mowed it done. "You're dead!" my niece crowed. "Now you can be Todd. Cross the street." Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:46:36 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: women and nature... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > > > > > Yes, and in Genesis man is commanded to "leave his father and mother > >and cleave to his wife," which is a flat-out description of uxolocal > >marriage. Not the patriarchal household.> > > > > I know to cleave to is like to cling to, to adhere to, etc., but what's > "uxolocal" mean? Wife-centered? > I probably misspelled that, but yes - it's where the husband goes to live with the wife.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:56:24 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: An atrocity in England MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:17:26 -0900 Pat wrote: > I read in today's paper that a 13 year old girl in England committed > suicide because she'd been teased and bullied about being fat. I don't want to invalidate what you have said below, but the reports here say that the hassle and abuse was of the whole family because they were active members of the Salvation Army. Farah (UK) A gang of > 12 to 15 youths gathered outside her house and shouted taunts and threw > things. Before this gets written up in the Lonesome Node, I want to share > a sudden insight I had concerning this incident. > 1) Her weight is not the issue. It could have been anything. She could > have been crippled, retarded, gay, or of another race. So sensitivity > training about weight will not help at all. > 2) It is not about her. A funeral eulogy about all her good points may > make the boys uneasy, because I don't think they disliked her personally. > They probably didn't even know her. She made a much better victim if they > didn't. > 3) The easy assumption that they'll feel remorse at the unexpected > tragic end to their teasing is probably a pile of soft smelly mush. I > think they probably felt an enormous surge of power at being able to kill > someone like that. As certain Fang tribesmen were quoted in a book I read > recently, "We are men, we are real men, we went into town and shot a > man, we are real men!" > 4) And if the victim had been of another race and the perps had been > subject to anti-racism lectures, it would have probably turned casual > perception of the person as an easy victim into hardened racism. Hey - it > was the school that would have played the race card in the first place. > 5) Yet, are they evil? By all human standards, yes. Still, this isn't > the first villain whose head I've found myself in, and in this flash of > empathy what I saw was an enormous emptiness and idleness. Not lack of > love from Mommy, though that may play a part, but lack of anything to be > or do or look forward to being or doing. At least not anything important, > glorious, or that would give them a feeling of power (over OR to do) or > accomplishment. So they mob together and take what action presents itself > to them. > 6) IN which case, being in a street gang is a *step up* for these boys. > 7) And what does that say about the postindustrial world's handling of > young men below a certain class level? It tells *me* that we're building > up explosive tensions that historically have been released in war. Not > the cause of war, perhaps, but a factor in the calculations of those who > are considering war. And historically one major cure for boys like that > has been to make soldiers - or warriors - of them. > Consider this and pray - real hard - -- > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:00:23 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > I think it is tragic that the girl killed herself, but that's just it: she > killed herself. The boys, though apparently pretty bloody cruel, did not > kill her, from what I understand. In my opinion, the only person to blame > in a suicide is the person who commits it. Others can be blamed for being > petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. > This may sound heartless, but that's the way I see it. > Oh yes they did! No offence, Sean, but you obviously never had to deal with extreme abuse. Like, if a person is imprisoned in some third-world country, and placed in a tiny cell where a drop of water falls on his head every five minutes. Just a little drop of water, that nobody would notice in a normal situation, but it falls on one's head again and again, and there is no way to escape it. So, if the person goes crazy and smashes their skull against the wall as an only way to stop this, would you tell them that "it's just their perception", and "no one drove them to suicide"? If you don't believe me, try buying one of those automatic photo flashlights that you can set on flashing every 2 seconds. Set it on in front of yourself, imagine that you can't turn it off nor walk away, and see how long you'll be able to "just ignore it." Marina P.S. I've noticed that most of people that think that "suicide is one's own choice" never had anything worse than flat tire on interstate happened to them. Like in that Rogain commercial: "Losing hair was the most painful experience in my life". In my country, there is a saying: "I wish I had your problems", which means "I wish I had to worry only about something as small and insignificant as what you consider a problem". That example with flat tire, by the way, was given to me by a person who tried to convince me that "everything depends on how you see things". "Like when you are driving on a country road, get a flat tire, and become stuck in the middle of nowhere, just see it as an adventure", he said. I asked him, if he was driving on a country road and got into accident, so his whole family got killed, so he would get stuck in the middle of nowhere with a smashed car full of dead bodies of everyone he loved, would he also "just see it as an adventure"? I thing I should mention, though, that women can be just as cruel as men in ganging up on somebody. Actually, even more, because their own image can be affected by whom they associate with. So I disagree on the part that those boys were acting like "typical men" in any sense. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:04:08 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: atrocity in England MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Before we talk about atrocities in England, at least in this country young boys rarely carry guns. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:57:27 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy In-Reply-To: <19971002154656.955.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII War and violence cannot be ignored. Pacifists claims there are ways - moral suasion, clever use of language, etc - to deflect it. But in general, if someone is determined to do you harm - as Marina said! - you're in trouble unless you have a way to answer it. Therefore nonvilent cultures, matriarchal or not, would have a very brief life unless they persisted among the conquered/enslaved/eaten/assimilated. Existing matrilineal cultures went to war quite often. Ask a Navajo or Iriquois historian. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:13:28 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Tomboys In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > I consider myself a 100% female, and I kind of like it that way. You do > not have to be androgenious to kick some butt when someone deserves it. > And high heels, as a part of the feminine image, can come in very handy in > that situation, by the way. > Oh, yes, they make wonderful weapons. But they're dreadful to run in, or even walk fast over rough ground. And, oh, my poor back! > > > > > >With apologies to Gertrude Stein, a role is a role is a role. > > >Shakespeare said the world's a stage, and roles require appropriate > > >names, pronouns, costumes, and mannerisms. You appeared to be female at > > >birth, so you were assigned a traditionally female name, pronouns, and > > >costume, all of which you seem to like. But when it came to the > > >mannerisms part, the acting out of the assigned role, you wanted to do > > >things that were assigned to the other (male) sex-based role. You didn't > > >want their costume, just their actions. > > > > Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly > > androgynous. > > Raphael Carter. Was s/he the reporter in SLAG LIKE ME? If not, could I have the reference?>> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:22:32 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > A matriarchy is more likely to stress survival of the species so that > everyone would do whatever was necessary, rather than strict roles. Nine > months of pregnancy plus breastfeeding, etc., gives females a strong > vested interest in preserving life. Really? Truly? That sounds an awful lot like the identification of the feminine with nature that has been going on in another thread here. I don't see how the connection between oppression and patriarchy can be conclusively determined. I don't see anything other than hope that leads me to believe that a matriarchal organization would be better. Another example from a different Tepper novel: "Mother Dear" from _Sideshow_. > Would that it were so. Let's take killing as an example of deviant > behavior. Patriarchy legitimizes it (think of "justifiable wars," so > called "great men" of history who were merely mass murderers, the > oxymoron "warlike civilization," etc.) matriarchy does not. How does matriarchy not? Specific matriarchies, perhaps. Just as specific patriarchies legitimize it. I don't see anything inherently preventing a patriarchal arrangement from illegitimizing killing (as in your example). I'm not saying that a patriarchy is better or worse than a matriarchy. Really. Actually, why does it have to be one or the other? Isn't that inherently divisive? Are there any speculations on that (in literature or otherwise)? Peace, -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:53:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I played Barbie with my six-year-old niece once. She got to be >Barbie; I was stuck being Midge and then Todd and then Stacy. My role was >simply for my figure to cross the pretend street. As soon as my toy set foot >on pavement, demented Barbie in her Barbie Jeep mowed it done. "You're >dead!" my niece crowed. "Now you can be Todd. Cross the street." HA! Lovely. Myself, I was given an early Barbie when I was quite young (maybe four or five?), The kind with the rubbery skin stretched over hard plastic joints - the skin eventually gave way and exposed the doll's mechanisms, which I liked a lot. My main memory of playing with Barbie, however, is of throwing her down the steps of our apartment building in NY - because she bounced so pretty, what with her long hair whipping out and all. So much for those inherent nurturing behaviors..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:57:40 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply << I find that, in some feminist science fiction and fantasy, there is some nebulous idea of the "good old days" before the bad sky-worshipping male-dominated barbarians arrived. >> They may be using Riane Eisler's _The Chalice and the Blade_ as one of their sources for ideas, or Merlin Stone's _When God was a Woman._ I do think it's likely that some of these societies had much more equitable sex role relationships, whether they were absolute "matriarchies" or not. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:01:24 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy In-Reply-To: <19971002154656.955.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Mark Smith wrote: > > Would that it were so. Let's take killing as an example of deviant > behavior. Patriarchy legitimizes it (think of "justifiable wars," so > called "great men" of history who were merely mass murderers, the > oxymoron "warlike civilization," etc.) matriarchy does not. That's why > we live in a patriarchal world today. Why do you think matriarchy does legitimize killing? First of all, there is no matriarchial society in contemporary world, therefore thereis no knowing what it would be like. So far matriarchial world is only a beautiful idea existing only in human minds like communism, and there is no knowing, what it would be like, implemented in real world. Second, "innately pacifistic nature of women" is just another part of the myth of the "Angel in the House" which has been used to justify exlusion of women from any serious activity due to her "gentle nature". So she would stay ay home and "improve the cruel heart of the man by her influence of kindness". Women rarely express agression because they are simply not allowed to. The only exception permitted by the society is when she has to protect her children. The image of a "mother protecting her young" has been always widely promoted and glorified, despite its contradiction with the supposedly "non-violent" nature of women. A woman is "too delicate" to walk alone at night, because she would be "unable" to defend herself from an attacker. However, consider this: if women were "uncapable of violence", they would be _always_ uncapble of violence, including when their kids were in danger. And if they can hurt someone while "protecting their young", thay can do it just as well hurt someone who tries to rape them. Besides, during hard economic times, murdering (or robbing) an innocent stranger for money to feed your children can also go as "protecting one's young", in this case, from starvation. Women are just as "innately agressive" as men are. The reason they don't usually express it, is because they are punished for it much more severely, since they are very little. Besides, the right to be agressive socially "belongs" to men only, even in the eyes of some feminists. So most women might deny that part of themselves because they do not want to be considered "androgenious". I can bet that a matriarchial society would be just as hierarchical, violent, and one-gender-dominant as the patriarchial is now. Just the same as some former colonies, after gaining independence, established a even more racist society, this time discriminating against white minority. And call getting back on people, which happened to be born there and love their country just as much as natives do, for all the centuries of British, Russian, or whatever, dominance, "historical justice". That's why I hope matriarchy will never exist. I would like to live in the world where your value as a person is not affected by one's gender, male or female. I don't know, what kind of "-archy" it would be called. However, I think that attributing all social evils to one specific gender and hoping that with the end of it's dominance they will go away is merely naive. It's the same as the makers of the Russian revolution bevieved that all rich people are bad and all poor people are good, so if the country would be run by poor people, the society would be all friendly and full of mutual respect. So, they eliminated all the rich people, but -- suprise! -- former factory workers, once gotten into government positions acted just the same as the "naturally evil" aristocrats who had held those positions before ("The Animal Farm" is actually a pretty good depiction). And the "humane, non-competitive" economy simply failed miserably. So, why do we need to replace one "archy" by another one? It would be just the same, "matri-" or "patri-". People are people first. Gender differences ,just as racial are important for variety. However, just as racial, they cannot be used for justification of one side's dominance. Actually, one's gender should be relevant only in matter of having babies, which is it's main and only purpose. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:22:31 -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: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > >> I think it is tragic that the girl killed herself, but that's just it: she >> killed herself. The boys, though apparently pretty bloody cruel, did not >> kill her, from what I understand. In my opinion, the only person to blame >> in a suicide is the person who commits it. Others can be blamed for being >> petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. >> This may sound heartless, but that's the way I see it. >> > >Oh yes they did! No offence, Sean, but you obviously never had to deal >with extreme abuse. Actually, I have, at the hands of one of my brothers, from about age 13 or 14 to about 17. Perhaps not _as_ extreme as some, but still pretty bad. As to the driving to commit suicide you talk about later, I agree that one person can drive another to do so, but the person who commits suicide is the only one to blame for that act. Blame the other for the separate, though related, acts of abuse, of driving another to kill themselves, whatever. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:15:16 -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: atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Before we talk about atrocities in England, at least in this country young >boys rarely carry >guns. > >Farah True. In that respect, we could take a lesson from the English. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:24:40 -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: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:17:26 -0900 Pat wrote: >> I read in today's paper that a 13 year old girl in England committed >> suicide because she'd been teased and bullied about being fat. > >I don't want to invalidate what you have said below, but the reports here >say that the hassle >and abuse was of the whole family because they were active members of the >Salvation Army. > >Farah >(UK) Farah, Wow. What's wrong, or supposedly wrong, with the Salvation Army? -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:30:16 -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: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. NH: I'm reminded of Japan, where rates of student suicides are soaring due to the extreme pressure put on kids to be successful. And some First Nations communities, where rates of suicides of young people are also soaring, due to the impossibilities of the extreme systemic racism under which they must live their lives. Doesn't matter whose hand pulls the trigger; suicide is a response to something, and blaming the person for their response to a very real situation does nothing to address the situation itself. You may not agree with their manner of resolution, but that's beside the point. Something happened to that girl, and she reacted. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:31:44 -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: muslim polygyny In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Yup. Wasn't justifying, was relaying the rationale I was given. -nalo On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > I've heard that in Nepal, it's common to have one wife for several > brothers, in order not to divide the land, which is scarce in the > mountains. It seems that whenever people have to justify the way women are > treated, it's always "for economic reasons". > > Marina > > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > > My understanding (came from my dad, who converted to Islam when I was > > about 10) is that the Koran's ruling that men could have up to four wives > > came from a time when there had been a war that had severely reduced > > numbers of men. Polygyny--daddy said--was a strategy for increasing the > > population as quickly as possible, while allowing the large numbers of > > women who would otherwise go single to have husbands. (Put that solution > > in the context of a society whose socio-economic structure dictated that > > women had to be in a man's household in order to survive.) > > > > And, forestalling the almost inevitable questions here; no, I am not nor > > have ever been Muslim; my dad was. > > > > -nalo > > > > "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." > > -David > > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:38:06 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thank you, Pat! I did a pretty good job using all this "non-violent" means of defence (being nice to people who hurt you, talking them out of it, learning how to avoid potentially harmfull situations, "just ignoring it", etc.) for 20 years. It worked (kind of) with abusive parents, classmates in grade school, who called me "an individual" (that was the nicest nickname), classmates in high school, who called me a "monster from a horror movie" and "the ugliest girl in school", the classmates in college back home who called me a "dumber", and creeps with automatic riffles, who were hitting on me on the streets of my city. Then, I came to America, and people in the dorm where I lived, thanks to my pissed-off ex-boyfriend, labeled me a "slut". Do you know what that means? It means everyone you know, stops talking to you, (friends and everyone), your professors would discuss in front of you "why would she want to go to college, that would not help her in walking the streets", and a couple of your male co-workers (also on campus) would go around asking all guys whether they want to have sex with you ("have sex" would not be the term used), because "she is a whore, so let's take her to our house and throw a party for all guys". And no one of the one hundred cafeteria employees would see anything wrong with that, and many _women_ would say: "I bet she would _like_ that". And if you would try to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, the University administration would kick you out of school and call Immigration to "come and get her". And then you go to jail, and probably get deported, unless a reporter from a local paper would print a story about it, so the school will back off. I tried all the "methods of coping with abusive environment" I knew. I tried to ignore it, until I was unable to get out of my dorm room without being called names by every group of guys I walked by. I tried to be nece and friendly to my co-workers, who did not refer to me in any other way that The Whore, but that made them even more hostile. I tried the "legal action" method (filing sexual harassment) which landed me in jail for "staying after my student visa was terminated". All of this just made it worse. I will fight to clear up my name as long as it takes, which probably will take forever. I did not do anything to deserve this (honestly, I think, even those who _do_ sleep around would not deserve that), and I'll prove it, whatever it takes. But one thing I really regret, is that I did not go and punch in the face the first person (my ex's friend) who called me "a whore" in my face. I should have beaten the Hell out of him, and I know I could do that, get a baseball bat, if necessary, and none of the nightmare I am still living in, would have never happened. Because "the non-violent means of resolving a conflict" is _bullshit_. Marina On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Pat wrote: > War and violence cannot be ignored. Pacifists claims there are ways > - moral suasion, clever use of language, etc - to deflect it. But in > general, if someone is determined to do you harm - as Marina said! - > you're in trouble unless you have a way to answer it. Therefore nonvilent > cultures, matriarchal or not, would have a very brief life unless they > persisted among the conquered/enslaved/eaten/assimilated. > Existing matrilineal cultures went to war quite often. Ask a Navajo > or Iriquois historian. > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:30:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: British dystopic matriarchies (was re: Powerful women) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Do you have titles? I'd like to know some ... At 07:15 PM 9/26/97 UT, you wrote: > And on the latter topic, there was a little cluster of dystopian matriarchies >by British writers coming out around the late 80s, which struck me as perhaps >somewhat determined by the political ambience... the ones I particularly >remember actually being by female writers. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > Laura Quilter / lauramd@uic.edu Electronic Services Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:18:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: list-mistress' vacation Comments: To: feministsf@eeyore.cc.uic.edu Comments: cc: shaffer@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ok, starting tomorrow i am driving to my new job in california ... i won't be able to do any email stuff for probably 10 days. in the interim chris shaffer will be handling any disasters -- shaffer@uic.edu -- thanks, chris! as far as i know chris won't be doing any topic moderation so i'll expect that everyone on the list can keep the irrelevancies down to a minimum happy early october, everyone! Laura Quilter / lauramd@uic.edu Electronic Services Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:59 -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: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Nicole Youngman writes: >>They may be using Riane Eisler's _The Chalice and the Blade_ as one of their sources for ideas, or Merlin Stone's _When God was a Woman._ I do think it's likely that some of these societies had much more equitable sex role relationships, whether they were absolute "matriarchies" or not. I haven't read either of those two titles, but I've looked at "The Chalice and the Blade" and it didn't strike me as a rigorous scientific investigation. People have such odd ideas about the ancient world. They believe in peaceful non-patriarchal Bronze Age societies, Atlantis, and that the Egyptian Sphinx was built by aliens or a pre-Holocene state-level civilization. I just hate seeing this stuff get thrown into arguments, as facts, when there is no good evidence that they are true. Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:38:11 +0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: moriyama kazufumi =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCPzk7MxsoQg==?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp singoff FEMINISTSF $B?9;3 (B moriyama kazufumi (Tokyo, Japan) $B!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (B E-mail: moriyama@kt.rim.or.jp http://www.kt.rim.or.jp/~moriyama/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:57:15 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: An atrocity in England Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > >> I think it is tragic that the girl killed herself, but that's just it: she >> killed herself. The boys, though apparently pretty bloody cruel, did not >> kill her, from what I understand. In my opinion, the only person to blame >> in a suicide is the person who commits it. Others can be blamed for being >> petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. >> This may sound heartless, but that's the way I see it. This is, at least on the surface, a very persusive argument - suicide is always a choice (of sorts). The problem being that when a person is faced with the choice of suicide or continuing an existence that has been made untenable, the waters become very murky very quickly. An example of this would the large numbers of prisioners in the Nazi camps that committed suicide - yes, it was still their choice, but it would be a flat denial of reality to say that it was not a choice they were driven to. You can find similar options in the 'choice' of prostitution for many women (and some men) - when the choice is prostitution or starvation (or prostitution by which they can support their families vs. a job at MacDonald's at minimium wage, which no one can live on, let alone support a family on; or prostitution vs. returning to an abusive home, as is the case for many runaway or throwaway children in this country) it is not a free choice. You can say that these people have been 'forced' into prostitution, even as though it is still a choice of sorts. Likewise, if you create an situation which a person finds untenable and inescapable (remember the degree to which an average 13 yr old controls their life and living situation) except through death, you can be said to have driven that person to suicide. On the other hand, if a person is determined to commit suicide for internal reasons (severe lasting depression or other illness, for example), they will do so eventually, and at that point shouldering or assigning blame is useless. my humble opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:39:27 -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: An atrocity in England In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > >> petty, cruel, whatever, but there's no such thing as a suicide victim. > >NH: I'm reminded of Japan, where rates of student suicides are soaring >due to the extreme pressure put on kids to be successful. And some First >Nations communities, where rates of suicides of young people are also >soaring, due to the impossibilities of the extreme systemic racism under >which they must live their lives. Doesn't matter whose hand pulls the >trigger; suicide is a response to something, and blaming the person for >their response to a very real situation does nothing to address the >situation itself. You may not agree with their manner of resolution, but >that's beside the point. Something happened to that girl, and she reacted. > >-nalo I'm not blaming her. I'm just pointing out a harsh fact as I see it. I hope I don't sound too unsympathetic toward those who commit suicide, but it's my opinion, and belief, because of my spiritual beliefs, that suicide is not only a very selfish act but that those who commit it are in for a lot more trouble than anybody can imagine. It's not a good resolution. That aside, I agree that something happened to that girl and all and I do feel bad for those to whom stuff like this happens. I just don't like the idea of people giving up like that. I just think that, whatever pressures are on you, life is far too precious to give up on. Finally, I think that what really needs to be done, as you indicated, is to alleviate the pressures that drive people to do stuff like this. How? Be the nicest, most loving person you can be. I'm sounding preachy, but this is the only way I can say it and be real. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:43:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: (snip) > Women are just as "innately agressive" as men are. The reason they don't > usually express it, is because they are punished for it much more > severely, since they are very little. Besides, the right to be agressive > socially "belongs" to men only, even in the eyes of some feminists. > So most women might deny that part of themselves because they do not want > to be considered "androgenious". The 1980's was the decade of "assertiveness training" for women, particularly business women. It always struck me as ironic that women had to hide their natural aggressive qualities in a nice, socially acceptable way. I also struck me as strange that women couldn't admit that "assertiveness training" is really about helping women to overcome societal expectations of how a woman should behave (don't speak out, act demure, defer to authority figures etc...). It had to be legitimized as good business practices. To aim this back on topic... I like books where women aren't just "assertive" but can be to