"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 tough or even kick butt if she has to. I don't see characters like this very often so I'm willing to settle for a woman who can argue. > Marina > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:28:46 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Bowman Subject: Re: women and nature Please do tell about men's "daily cycles." It's not an aspect of health that I'm current on and I can imagine it easily making it into a feminist science fiction plot. On Wednesday, 10/1/97, Laura Wigod wrote: >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..... Joan Bowman jobowman@juno.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:57:18 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <199710021838.DAA11837@mail.kt.rim.or.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, moriyama kazufumi =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCPzk7MxsoQg==?= wrote: > singoff FEMINISTSF > Alto? Or Soprano?> > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:05:00 -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 This advice may be too late but it worked for me: Find the biggest, meanest, most tattooed biker you can find (mine happened to be my brother). Have him drive up on his Harley and take you to class. Eat lunch with him in front of the worst offenders. If he has some of his ugliest buddies with him is even better. Have him walk you to class. Make sure he gives your teacher a long steady look. Have him crack his knuckles a few times before he leaves. I was seldom blatantly harassed because of my brother. One of the drawbacks is that I didn't get many dates either. Actually, it sounds like you went through Hell. There are a lot of organisations that can help you and give you support in fighting this harassment. I really feel sorry that your time in the U.S. was so awful. It isn't always so terrible. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > 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 20:08:43 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: British dystopic matriarchies (was re: Powerful women) >Do you have titles? I'd like to know some ... Samantha Lee's 'Childe Roland' (actually set in some kind of post-disaster Scotland); something by Storm Constantine the name of which I've forgotten (could it really have been something like 'In the Mother's Country'--or was this something else entirely?); and Gill Alderman's 'The Archivist' , which I never actually finished, but I gather from reviews that the background was some kind of static matriarchal society (it certainly wasn't set in any kind of archive that I recognised...) May well be more. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:48:13 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) Mark Smith commented Any time a gender signal is missing, people freak. Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender specified first person narrator? There is also a crime novel series by Sarah Caudwell, in which the narrator is Professor Hilary (in the UK a gender-ambiguous name like my own!) Tamar., who uses the skills of a medievalist legal historian (esp. in deciphering texts) to unravel the mysteries (as an archivist I love this) Any other examples? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:53:54 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: muslim polygyny Marina mentions >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". Certainly somewhere in the Himalayas: in Kipling's 'Kim' they encounter the Woman of Shamlegh while hunting Russian agents; she has several husbands and is very definitely the boss. I don't know whether it's an accurate presentation of the situation in general, or whether she's just another of Kiplings wonderful tough middle aged and elderly women--like the elderly purdah lady (can't remember her name, or rather title) in the same book, full of vitality and capable of making life for all around merry hell in spite of the veil. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:59:33 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply Debra Euler asked >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. Lucy Goodison's 'Moving Heaven and Earth', which I've never actually managed to finish, or even get very far into, has a quite extensive discussion of work she did as an archaeologist on pre-Minoan Crete, and the evidence for a society which, if not strictly matriarchal, seems to have had a different set of values and images to do with women than most later 'patriarchal' societies. I too am not sure that I buy the idealised matriarchies some writers set up (the obverse of the kind of sacrificing the year-king type of matriarchy found in Mary Renault) but I would say that there is (probably) evidence for different kinds of societal arrangements, though it's hard to see these through modern perspectives--something I find intriguing is the persistent ?human tendency to see things in dichotomous dualisms. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:45:20 -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: list-mistress' vacation In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971002131811.03482774@pop.igc.org> 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 Laura, Enjoy! -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: 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. > > >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. > True. I believe it's my spiritual beliefs, which I realize and accept that not everyone holds, that there are unimaginable and unimaginably disastrous consequences of taking your own life, just as there are extraordinarily bad consequences of driving some one to do so. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:08:15 -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: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? > Any other examples? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > NH: Emma Bull's _Bone Dance,_ which I think we've discussed here already. Emma Bull gets around the gender-identification of her protagonist by making it a first-person story. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:15:54 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Stacey Holbrook wrote: > This advice may be too late but it worked for me: > > Find the biggest, meanest, most tattooed biker you can find (mine happened > to be my brother). Have him drive up on his Harley and take you to class. > Eat lunch with him in front of the worst offenders. If he has some of his > ugliest buddies with him is even better. Have him walk you to class. Make > sure he gives your teacher a long steady look. Have him crack his knuckles > a few times before he leaves. I was seldom blatantly harassed because of > my brother. One of the drawbacks is that I didn't get many dates either. Did anybody see the movie MASK with Cher? That's how the boy with the disfigured face went to high school, escorted by his mom's biker buddies. Nobody messed with HIM! > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:24:14 -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: 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: > >> 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 >> Marina, Wow. That stuff is pretty reprehensible. -Sean "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."--Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:12:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Tomboys In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly >androgynous. Actually, Raphael seems pretty relaxed about it. The only "determination" which is obvious is not to choose a pronoun. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:10:54 -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" I confused Laura Wigod (and presumably other people): >>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. >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. The culture which produced Christianity (Hellenism) is very much opposite the culture of Judaism. The high period of Hellenistic culture spanned three hundred years of intermittent warfare between Hellenes and Jews (from Antiochus, ~185 B.C. to Bar Kochba, ~ 135 A.D.). This had a great deal to do with the origin of today's Christianity because the Gospels were written down at the time of the war in which the Romans demolished Palestine, and the Christians had to explain to potential converts why they should worship a Messiah whose people were synonymous with traitors. (The crime for which the Romans executed Jesus was treason.) Christianity has been adding jackdaw bits of everything popular it's encountered since. Jews are not especially waiting for the Messiah, either, by the way. >As for your statement (as I understand it) that Judaism has exclusive >rights on a wife's happiness, I have to disagree. I must have been even less clear than I feared. My point was that the status of women in Judaism is radically different from the status of women in Christianity. Peter was jealous of Magdelene, while the Patriarchs' households (and often the Patriarch themselves) were run by their wives. My hasty examples were with specific regard to women's sexuality and sexual rights. >My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. Without going so far as to say you're wrong, I strongly suggest you're not well enough informed to have an opinion so strongly. L'Shona Tova, Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:03:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MaryKay Bird-Guilliams Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am glad to be able to invite response from a anthro-archaeology major. I have a minor myself, but from ages ago. I was very impressed with the book and I want to know what regard Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade has in that field. For those, such as Allen Briggs, who question the existence of "matriarchies," the book dealt with that very question and suggests that ancient civilizations were neither patriarchal nor matriachal but had, by all that's holy, what she terms a "partnership" system. Now, admittedly since these are pre-literary societies, the evidence is pretty speculative, but Ms. Eisler does a pretty good job of poking holes in the previous male speculations of these digs in Asia and what the archaological evidence suggests. Matrilineal is another matter, of course, there were several of those. The closest to the actual partnership in classical times is Crete. Science fiction is so much better when you have the factual background. Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us Reference Librarian Wichita Public Library ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:55:52 -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 -Reply << 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. >> I found it fascinating and well-documented. It isn't meant to be an anthropology text. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:20:49 -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: Raphael Carter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Marina asked: >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. > I can't explain the reasoning that led to the comment, having deleted the previous message, but will offer as explination that Carter has been on my mind of late, having recently read _The Fortunate Fall_, and that may have colored my perceptions and statements. 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 17:20:41 -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 (and toys) and legitimate choices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anny contributed: >>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." > Teragram followed with: >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..... Which got me to thinking about my own Barbie days, which involved the kind of stuff still sees Barbie doing on television: changing outfits, grooming her hair, etc. And I had a good time doing it. Sure, I could have had Mowed Down Barbie or Stair Stunt Barbie, but I liked doing the femme stuff. And it wasn't from a lack of awareness of other options, which brings me, meanderingly, to a point. If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, practicality above all ones? For example, people seem divided on Cordelia's position as a strong woman in Lois McMaster Bujold's books, because she married and focused on her family and supporting her husband in his roles on a very regimented world. Hoping this makes sense... 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 17:25:51 -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: Raphael Carter - Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >>Sounds like we're being led back to Raphael Carter, who is determinedly >>androgynous. > >Actually, Raphael seems pretty relaxed about it. The only "determination" >which is obvious is not to choose a pronoun. > > >Neil Rest Thanks, Neil, for the insight. I've never had the pleasure of meeting zir. Great web site though. 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: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:12:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > Mark Smith commented > Any time a gender signal is missing, people freak. > > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? > There is also a crime novel series by Sarah Caudwell, in which the narrator is > Professor Hilary (in the UK a gender-ambiguous name like my own!) Tamar., who > uses the skills of a medievalist legal historian (esp. in deciphering texts) > to unravel the mysteries (as an archivist I love this) > Any other examples? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > John Varley's story "In the Bowl" has a protagonist with a Japanese (and hence gender-neutral name--at least to Westerners) who is almost never referred to by pronoun. There are two contradictory gender indicators. Someone refers to the protagonist as "he" while said protagonist is wearing a space suit and not very obviously gender identifiable. Then, later in the story, the protagonist tells a young woman that "I never signed up to be your mother" or words to that effect, a phrase that doesn't necessarily define the protagonist as female. To top it off, at the end of the story the protagonist and the young woman become lovers. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:50:27 -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: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? > Any other examples? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com How about a short story? Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's "Allies" (published in Chrysalis I) has several characters. The gender of none of them is identified. Clearly some are male and some are female, but who is which is never made clear. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:04:05 -0700 Reply-To: peggyh@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peggy Hamilton Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? Yes! I loved the book and decisied to use it in one of my English classes. Being female, I had read Trey as female without noticing the lack of identifying pronouns, and found her a believable woman. In class I refered to Trey as she, and one of my male students said, "Wait a minute. Trey's a guy!" It turned out that all of the men had read the character as male, while al of the women had read the character as male. We spent a couple of hours arguing the question and searching for evidence to support pur positions. Neither side ever convinced the other. Peggy Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:17:35 -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: Tomboys (and toys), Jigsaw woman, Bone Dance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'm afraid I too had an anti-nurturing experience with Barbies- I beheaded mine and buried her in the back-garden: it was not what I wanted for my birthday. The mother's of my girlfriends were apparently in some kind of conspiracy to make me more "feminine" (I also remember getting a rather silly miniture tea service). I enjoyed the beheading immensely: I had a ceremony with my simularly inclined girlfiends (my parents were out). Women as naturally unagressive? I don't think so!This is one thing I liked about Kim Antineau's The Jigsaw Woman"- that women weren't particularly peaceful and the goddess worshipped was rather brutal and except for "Daddy" the male figures in the book weren't treated to the male =bad binary opposition- although the orginal plastic surgeon who stitched the Jigsaw woman together initially seemed demonic, by the end of the book it was clear that he, although flawed, was not innately evil. I also thought the smart arsed heroine (I think I've said this before) undercut alot of the sentimentality that often surrounds all-women utopias. I met a young girl recently who leaves her barbie clothes out out night so that cats can wear them: cats in black shimmering evening gowns are an intriguing image: maybe what kids do with toys is't always what toy makers intend but I was impressed at this girl's imagination. One aspect of popular culture that encourages cross gender identification is definitely "Sailor Moon": boys adore it as much as girls (although the parents can sometimes pose problems in accepting this). Did Pippi Longstocking make it to the Americas? Now she was my heroine- horizontial plaits and adventures fighting with pirates in far off seas... On the question of androgyny in Emma Bull's _Bone Dance_: as I understood it, the androgyny wasn't just a matter of avioding pronouns: instead it was physical. Didn't the protagonist look male/female depending on how per was percieved? Wasn't per some kind of neuter? Like having a suggestion of an Adam's apple, rather than having one and having a body that could go ethier way. The book sits on my bedside table, half finished: Can't seem to get through it. It might just be too hard for me at the moment. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:45:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Eisler's work is entirely dependant upon Maria Gimbutas' research, and her standing would then depend upon what one thinks of Gimbutas as an archaelogist. As an aside, a good many of the male archealogists of the past were very impressed by the woman centeredness of the cultures they had uncovered--both the excavators of Catal Hayuk and Crete-- but it was later interepretations by others which diminished the importance of theat angle. I did my senior thesis on Gimbutas and company,a nd came to the end result that their work doesn't really constitute scholarship, but falls more in the realm of 'devotional' or 'inspirational' literature, where it plays a very important role in creating a 'new world' in the present. At 06:03 PM 10/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >I am glad to be able to invite response from a anthro-archaeology major. >I have a minor myself, but from ages ago. I was very impressed with the >book and I want to know what regard Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the >Blade has in that field. >For those, such as Allen Briggs, who question the existence of >"matriarchies," the book dealt with that very question and suggests that >ancient civilizations were neither patriarchal nor matriachal but had, by >all that's holy, what she terms a "partnership" system. Now, admittedly >since these are pre-literary societies, the evidence is pretty >speculative, but Ms. Eisler does a pretty good job of poking holes in the >previous male speculations of these digs in Asia and what the >archaological evidence suggests. >Matrilineal is another matter, of course, there were several of those. The >closest to the actual partnership in classical times is Crete. >Science fiction is so much better when you have the factual background. > >Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us >Reference Librarian >Wichita Public Library > > Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:00:58 -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 >>> Lesley Hall wrote: >>Lucy Goodison's 'Moving Heaven and Earth', which I've never actually managed to finish, or even get very far into, has a quite extensive discussion of work she did as an archaeologist on pre-Minoan Crete, and the evidence for a society which, if not strictly matriarchal, seems to have had a different set of values and images to do with women than most later 'patriarchal' societies. I'm also on a list called AEGEANET, where there was recently a discussion on warfare and male/female roles in the ancient Aegean. I'm not an expert (I studied Near Eastern archaeology), but my understanding is that although there are many representations of women in the mainland Cretan frescoes, and not many of warships, there is still very little evidence of the Minoan societal structure. Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:06:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Christopher Shaffer Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys), Jigsaw woman, Bone Dance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Tanya Wood wrote: > I'm afraid I too had an anti-nurturing experience with Barbies- I beheaded > mine and buried her in the back-garden: it was not what I wanted for my > birthday. A close friend of mine tells me she made her Barbie into a punk rocker, complete with cropped dyed hair and body piercings. ----- "If navigating the world wide web is computer literacy, then the meaning of literacy has really been debased." --William Miller Chris Shaffer shaffer@uic.edu http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:27:28 -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 Rudy Leon wrote: >>I did my senior thesis on Gimbutas and company,a nd came to the end result that their work doesn't really constitute scholarship, but falls more in the realm of 'devotional' or 'inspirational' literature, where it plays a very important role in creating a 'new world' in the present. I agree. I have read Gimbutas, and I was intrigued by the arguments but not convinced by the evidence. The problem lies in layperson readers who swallow this stuff whole because they don't have the background to read it critically. Look at that "Bible Code" book that is selling so well. Or that guy who is on tv and writing books about how the Egyptian Sphinx is 10,000 years old (or some such nonsense.) >>male archealogists of the past were very impressed by the woman centeredness of the cultures they had uncovered--both the excavators of Catal Hayuk and Crete-- I have read the original excavation reports of Catal Huyuk and I was not impressed by any "woman-centeredness" of the culture. I think the original archaeologists and commentators were interpreting Catal Huyuk that way because their own cultural prejudices made them think that anything not obviously aggressively masculine in the 20th century sense must then be feminine. And the archaeologists of previous generations (and some of the current generations) often had odd ideas regarding sex, power, and women. My favorite example is in the excavation reports from Nippur (a city in Mesopotamia). A clay wall plaque shows a woman, dressed only in a necklace, lying with her legs splayed open, with a foreshortened penis approaching in the foreground. The picture was labled: "Woman with necklace." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:44:28 -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 (and toys), Jigsaw woman, Bone Dance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Tanya Wood wrote: > > Did Pippi Longstocking make it to the Americas? Now she was my heroine- > horizontial plaits and adventures fighting with pirates in far off seas... NH: I couldn't quite get into Pippi, but nowadays I do occasionally wear my dreads a la Pippi inna j.a. (Jamaica) stylee. > > On the question of androgyny in Emma Bull's _Bone Dance_: as I understood > it, the androgyny wasn't just a matter of avioding pronouns: instead it > was physical. Didn't the protagonist look male/female depending on how per > was percieved? Wasn't per some kind of neuter? Like having a suggestion of > an Adam's apple, rather than having one and having a body that could go > ethier way. The book sits on my bedside table, half finished: Can't seem > to get through it. It might just be too hard for me at the moment. NH: I enjoyed this novel very, very, very much. And you're right; ze was genderless, not androgyne, and was addressed as she or he, depending on how ze was perceived. I was thinking of how one would write a narrative with a genderless character that one wouldn't want to reveal immediately as such, and I realised that writing it from a first person pov is one way of tackling that. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:48:48 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Smith Subject: Sex and gender (Was: Re: Patriarchy and hierarchy) Content-Type: text/plain Marina Yereshenko wrote: >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. No, that's sex. The only purpose of gender is to, uh, um, er....okay, what in blazes is the purpose of gender? Oh, right, the purpose of gender is to reward males and penalize females for having sex. I hope your story has a really positive ending, Marina - one that really turns the tables on the self-styled gender role police. --Mark ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:04:28 +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: <3.0.1.32.19971002091054.0077d074@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. > >Without going so far as to say you're wrong, I strongly suggest you're not >well enough informed to have an opinion so strongly. > > >L'Shona Tova, >Neil Rest Woohoo! The gloves are off! What do you mean by THIS? Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:12:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Barbies (and yes it's even a bit on topic) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Christopher Shaffer wrote: > > A close friend of mine tells me she made her Barbie into a punk rocker, > complete with cropped dyed hair and body piercings. > That's nothing. I used up all my barbie dolls in my own personal creations. When I did a science class report on ways of preserving the dead, my Barbies were my models (that embalmer one was so cute!) Then, when I was bored out of my skull one summer, I turned seven of my Barbies (three Barbies, two Kens, this one Barbie-sized doll I had, and a small baby doll) into the Endless from the comic book "Sandman". I think my Desire and Death were the best. Now I just have one Barbie with me. I call her (since I live in New Orleans) the Marie LaVeau barbie. She's black and wearing a long dress (lavender, simply because the only white dresses were wedding dresses), and has absolutely no hair (instead, I just painted her head black). for me, it wasn't abusing the barbie. It was more of making her better than she was... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:12:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Christopher Shaffer Subject: Watching the list Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As Laura said, I'll be the active listowner for the next 10 days or so. If anyone has any problems, email me directly at . Also, I don't read everything on the list right away, so if you notice anything inappropriate or too far off-topic, please let me know in a personal email. Thanks in advance. ----- "If navigating the world wide web is computer literacy, then the meaning of literacy has really been debased." --William Miller Chris Shaffer shaffer@uic.edu http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:14:54 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: women and nature In-Reply-To: <19971002.154653.24622.0.jobowman@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Please do tell about men's "daily cycles." It's not an aspect of health >that I'm current on and I can imagine it easily making it into a feminist >science fiction plot. Happily! Men's testosterone levels rise and fall on a regular basis, both on a daily basis, and on an annual one. Their T-levels are highest first thing in the morning (hence that morning erection!) and in the fall. So you might generally want to avoid guys on autumn mornings and flock to them on those spring evenings! - depending, I guess on what it is you need ;-) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:23:48 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers Comments: To: Jean Lamb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kipling understood very well that human beings had once been prey. "Once we feared the beast, when he followd us, we ran, ran very fast though we knew that is is not right for the beast to master Man, but what could we flint workers do? The beast merely grinned at our spears round his ears, grinned at the hammers that we made....." A pro-Promise Keepers editorial conceded that the zebras are right to be wary when the lions gather in a Million Lion MArch. Promise Keepers is a beautiful illustration of "the good is the enemy of the best; the best is the enemy of the good." Yes, it's a step down for strong proud independent women in a partnership relationship. It's a step up for a whole lot of other women, as they'll be quick to tell you. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:49:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Laur, Erin M." Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Which got me to thinking about my own Barbie days, which involved the kind >of stuff still sees Barbie doing on television: changing outfits, grooming >her hair, etc. And I had a good time doing it. Sure, I could have had Mowed >Down Barbie or Stair Stunt Barbie, but I liked doing the femme stuff. And >it wasn't from a lack of awareness of other options, which brings me, >meanderingly, to a point. > >If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, >peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, >practicality above all ones? For example, people seem divided on Cordelia's >position as a strong woman in Lois McMaster Bujold's books, because she >married and focused on her family and supporting her husband in his roles >on a very regimented world. > >Hoping this makes sense... > This makes perfect sense to me. I was also a Barbie nurturer, to some extent. I didn't spend a lot of time with her hair or her clothes (either straightening or ruining), but I played with her. I had the biggest Barbie collection of anyone I know. I used those adjustable plastic shelves to make apartments for them, I divided the Barbie dream house up into condos, and I gave them businesses. They had flood adventures and setting up the business adventures and vacationing in the Himalayas adventures. The great thing about my childhood was that I didn't feel pushed into being one way or the other, and neither did my older brother (by 4 years). He would draw store fronts on cardboard for me, and he made little Barbie comic books and novels and other sorts of books and he'd help design and set up my buildings and sets (he's an architectural major now). And then we also played G.I. Joe together, and that great neutral imagination toy Legos. We'd build a town based on the Japanimation series Robotech. I'd make the houses and he'd make the businesses and then we'd both blow them all up when the enemy attacked. We'd climb trees and race bikes. I still remember one day I was riding my bike home from Toys R Us with this huge Barbie something or other precariously hanging from the handlebars. I lost control in front of my house and went crashing and sliding down the road. I got up, took my bike into the yard, carried the box into the house and dropped in on the floor in the living room in front of my brother. With my knees and arms torn and bleeding, I looked him dead in the eye and said, "Don't you dare start putting that together until I finish getting cleaned up." So was I acting "girly" or "tomboyishly"? No one should be labelled or looked at askance for fitting into either of these categories. It's not the person, but the labelization that's at fault. I know this is a long post and I'm sorry, so just one more quick note. In a class the other day, we were discussing Madonna (and please let's not get onto a Madonnna debate now). One of the women in the class was talking about how Madonna went right from doing the beautiful, classy screen adaptation of Evita to wearing a highly revealing gown at an awards show and how dare she do that and why was she being so confusing. I couldn't help myself. I raised my hand and proclaimed, "She wasn't being confusing. She was being a human being." -Erin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:10:05 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Might I suggest that this is a discussion you two could have privately? Unless it has to do with feminist sf? -nalo On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Laura Wigod wrote: > > > >>My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. > > > >Without going so far as to say you're wrong, I strongly suggest you're not > >well enough informed to have an opinion so strongly. > > > > > >L'Shona Tova, > >Neil Rest > > Woohoo! The gloves are off! What do you mean by THIS? > > Laura > "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:09:56 -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) and legitimate choices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Which got me to thinking about my own Barbie days, which involved the kind >of stuff still sees Barbie doing on television: changing outfits, grooming >her hair, etc. And I had a good time doing it. Sure, I could have had Mowed >Down Barbie or Stair Stunt Barbie, but I liked doing the femme stuff. ARGHHH! Not those femme/butch catagories again! No,no, no, no! It's all bloody human behavior - and as soon as you start laying femme/butch girl/boy labels on it you distort that truth. (the management apologizes for the obvious overeaction) > >If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, >peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, >practicality above all ones? > >Hoping this makes sense... Yes, it does. But it is most important to me not to create a dichotomy of nurturing, peaceful, fashion-sensitive vs. adventurous, outrageous, practicality-above-all, and not to label these traits as femme/butch or female/male. For me, one of the most important points to be made is that none of these behaviors are inherently male or female, that there is a wide continium of behaviors, all human. Historically, a lot of feminist energy has been aimed at ensuring that 'women's work' is valued within the society - from childcare to nursing to teaching - and compensated for and rewarded accordingly. Not only in terms of salary, but also in terms of social status. It always amazes me how much lipservice is paid to early childhood educators and childcare workers - and how little real compensation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:25:48 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? > Any other examples? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com Anny Middon wrote >How about a short story? Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's "Allies" (published in >Chrysalis I) has several characters. The gender of none of them is >identified. Clearly some are male and some are female, but who is which >is never made clear. I was just about to post this myself, having remembered it. It is also in her collection of short stories, Cautionary Tales, with an afterword about the technical challenge and readers' response to the ambiguity of gender. Lesley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:03:50 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > specified first person narrator? > Any other examples? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > NH: Emma Bull's _Bone Dance,_ which I think we've discussed here already. Emma Bull gets around the gender-identification of her protagonist by making it a first-person story. Yes, of course. It's practically only possible to do gender-free with a first person narrator, though I think I did manage to evade using gendered pronouns for a supporting character in one of my (unpublished) novels who was an androgyne/hermaphrodite. It's difficult but an interesting exercise! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:50:23 -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" >> >>>My personal opinion? They're all equally fucked up. >> >>Without going so far as to say you're wrong, I strongly suggest you're not >>well enough informed to have an opinion so strongly. >> >> >>L'Shona Tova, >>Neil Rest > >Woohoo! The gloves are off! What do you mean by THIS? > >Laura "And in this corner..." -Sean "Sacred is the prayer that asks for nothing, while giving thanks for every breath we take."--o)-> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:51:54 -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: women and nature In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Please do tell about men's "daily cycles." It's not an aspect of health >>that I'm current on and I can imagine it easily making it into a feminist >>science fiction plot. > >Happily! > >Men's testosterone levels rise and fall on a regular basis, both on a daily >basis, and on an annual one. Their T-levels are highest first thing in the >morning (hence that morning erection!) and in the fall. So you might >generally want to avoid guys on autumn mornings and flock to them on those >spring evenings! - depending, I guess on what it is you need ;-) > >Laura Laura, Where'd you get this information? It's very interesting... -Sean "Sacred is the prayer that asks for nothing, while giving thanks for every breath we take."--o)-> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:35:35 -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 (and toys) and legitimate choices In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Teragram wrote: > > ARGHHH! Not those femme/butch catagories again! No,no, no, no! It's all > bloody human behavior - and as soon as you start laying femme/butch > girl/boy labels on it you distort that truth. NH: Yeah. That's what I was trying to say with my 'combat boots and a satin shift' comment, but I did fall into the trap of using terms that polarise rather than synthesize. You've put it much more directly. -nalo "In the suburbs, no-one can hear you scream." -David ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:58:40 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >NH: Emma Bull's _Bone Dance,_ which I think we've discussed here >already. Emma Bull gets around the gender-identification of her >protagonist by making it a first-person story. > >Yes, of course. It's practically only possible to do gender-free with a first >person narrator, though I think I did manage to evade using gendered pronouns >for a supporting character in one of my (unpublished) novels who was an >androgyne/hermaphrodite. It's difficult but an interesting exercise! >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com And there are occurances like in Melanie Rawn's 5th and 6th (? IIRC) Dragon Prince books where characters presume another character is of one gender, to later discover s/he is of another. 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: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:04:15 -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 (and toys) and legitimate choices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Teragram commented: >ARGHHH! Not those femme/butch catagories again! No,no, no, no! It's all >bloody human behavior - and as soon as you start laying femme/butch >girl/boy labels on it you distort that truth. > >(the management apologizes for the obvious overeaction) >Yes, it does. But it is most important to me not to create a dichotomy of >nurturing, peaceful, fashion-sensitive vs. adventurous, outrageous, >practicality-above-all, and not to label these traits as femme/butch or >female/male. For me, one of the most important points to be made is that >none of these behaviors are inherently male or female, that there is a wide >continium of behaviors, all human. > >Historically, a lot of feminist energy has been aimed at ensuring that >'women's work' is valued within the society - from childcare to nursing to >teaching - and compensated for and rewarded accordingly. Not only in terms >of salary, but also in terms of social status. It always amazes me how much >lipservice is paid to early childhood educators and childcare workers - and >how little real compensation. Well, this last point is kind of what I was driving at. The curse of the internet is that one can make statements which seem clear at the time, but do not come out that way, and it's hard to correct oneself mid-course without immediate feedback.:} I guess my point was that with all the gleeful celebration of the "atypical" treatments of Barbie, I felt a little hesitant to share my experiences, thinking they might be perceived as of lesser merit. In the same way that women who choose "women's work" often seem to be perceived as making something other than a feminist choice. Like Cordelia. Hope this provides greater clarity. BTW, will be leaving for the weekend, so will not be able to respond to posts 'til late Sun. or Mon. Pax, 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: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:44:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, >peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, >practicality above all ones? B*I*N*G*O ! ! ! "free and informed choice" Neil ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:38:37 -0700 Reply-To: peggyh@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peggy Hamilton Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Teragram wrote: > > >Which got me to thinking about my own Barbie days, which involved the kind > >of stuff still sees Barbie doing on television: changing outfits, grooming > >her hair, etc. And I had a good time doing it. Sure, I could have had Mowed > >Down Barbie or Stair Stunt Barbie, but I liked doing the femme stuff. > > ARGHHH! Not those femme/butch catagories again! No,no, no, no! It's all > bloody human behavior - and as soon as you start laying femme/butch > girl/boy labels on it you distort that truth. > > (the management apologizes for the obvious overeaction) > > > >If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, > >peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, > >practicality above all ones? > > > >Hoping this makes sense... > > Yes, it does. But it is most important to me not to create a dichotomy of > nurturing, peaceful, fashion-sensitive vs. adventurous, outrageous, > practicality-above-all, and not to label these traits as femme/butch or > female/male. For me, one of the most important points to be made is that > none of these behaviors are inherently male or female, that there is a wide > continium of behaviors, all human. I agree, and this thread has me thinking about how I can make that point more in my classes. As for toys, I never had Barbies, and seldom played with the baby dolls I had except to use them as accident victims to be stitched up in the operating room (for some years I thought I wanted to be a surgeon), and the coolest toy I *ever* had was something from Mattel called a Vacumaker that let you make both soft plastic creatures and hard plastic forms. You probably couldn't market it today because the heating element got hot enough to burn, and it definitely required responsible use/adult supervision. So I guess I was a tomboy, but I also wanted and used tea sets (I had more than one), and I loved lace and really, really full skirts in my "good" clothes. Play clothes were androgynous jeans and t-shirts. To get back to SF, what books manage to be free of expected gender roles? I've recently picked up some of the Honor Harrington series that is contrasting a society without set gender roles with a couple that have very rigid gender roles. Has anyone else read it? What do you think? Peggy Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:35:53 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices Comments: To: Peggy Hamilton In-Reply-To: <343581E3.2CFC@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > To get back to SF, what books manage to be free of expected gender > roles? I've recently picked up some of the Honor Harrington series that > is contrasting a society without set gender roles with a couple that > have very rigid gender roles. Has anyone else read it? What do you > think? > > Peggy Hamilton > I think most of Vonda McIntyre's books (that I've read anyway) are quite free from expected gender roles. In the Transition series, all of the characters are very gender-neutral. Most of them are bisexual, and Stephen Thomas is, in my opinion, the most stereotypically "feminine" character in the novels. In *Dreamsnake* as well, traditional gender roles are completely ignored. pamela bedore ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:23:07 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 > > Farah, > Wow. What's wrong, or supposedly wrong, with the Salvation Army? > > -Sean > Mainly that they have a fairly assertive form of Christianity and are predominantly working class in working class environents. In this country the established church is rather m/c (although of course not totally) and most of the non-conformist denominations have gone that way too. The Sally Army are an exception in sticking firmly to there roots, consequently they often exist in the most difficult and hostile of environments. They are amazing people who look after the most neglected and unpopular people in need. That said, like most such bullying, it was probably only an excuse. Farah ps. on the topic of whose *fault* suicide is, I do not think it is the victim's, but having had a very rough teenage period myself -- illness plus bullying -- I am aware that it never once occured to me to committ suicide. Some people are simply going to be more prone to that *type* of action and it is very hard to predict who. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:30:31 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: Patriarchy and hierarchy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > 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. > Assertiveness training was more than this. It was about training women to be agressive in ways that men recognised as assertiveness rather than hysteria. The simplest was that women's voices tend to go up when they get angry. Men then say a woman is hysterical. If you want to get a man to recognise you as assertive you *have* to keep your voice low -- a problem for us sopranos. Of course, in my experience men often get even more hostile when they find they *can't* accuse a woman of being hysterical. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:35:19 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: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:23:48 -0900 Pat wrote: > > Kipling understood very well that human beings had once been prey. > "Once we feared the beast, when he followd us, we ran, ran very fast > though we knew that is is not right for the beast to master Man, but what > could we flint workers do? The beast merely grinned at our spears round > his ears, grinned at the hammers that we made....." > > A pro-Promise Keepers editorial conceded that the zebras are right to be > wary when the lions gather in a Million Lion MArch. > > Promise Keepers is a beautiful illustration of "the good is the enemy of > the best; the best is the enemy of the good." Yes, it's a step down for > strong proud independent women in a partnership relationship. It's a step > up for a whole lot of other women, as they'll be quick to tell you. > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu I don't think I understand your last comment. I don't think anyone would describe me as dependent and I am definitely proud, but I'm lucky enough to have a partner (male) who thinks this is great. Is this a step down? Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:39:59 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: Absence of gender signals Content-Type: text/plain Lesley Hall wrote: >....It's practically only possible to do gender-free with a first >person narrator, though I think I did manage to evade using gendered >pronouns for a supporting character in one of my (unpublished) novels >who was an androgyne/hermaphrodite. It's difficult but an interesting >exercise! I've had a few essays and book reviews published in which I did not use any pronouns. I won't use pronouns that males consider to be insulting or demeaning, even if they refer to females who do not yet understand them to be oppressive and actually think they prefer being referred to in genital terms--as if patriarchy gave them a choice. But in writing for feminist publications they will not permit the traditionally inclusive pronouns to be used inclusively so I repeat names. It sometimes seems a bit awkward, but that's because we're taught not to repeat names (except socially, where we're taught that people like their names and to repeat them as often as possible), and to refer to people by sex even if it means a lack of clarity. Every time 2 people of the same sex are mentioned in a sentence, we have to stop and try to figure out which one the pronoun refers to. Patriarchy sacrifices clarity in order to emphasize sex. I don't. --Mark Nontraditional News ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:04:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joanna goltzman Subject: Gender and feminist SF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" More SF literature dealing with gender: Elisabeth Vonarburg's _In the Mother's Land_, which also is sold under the title _The Maerlande Chronicles_, contains a matriarchy. The women in the society Vonarburg creates greatly outnumber the men, which, I guess, is why the women are able to run things without being forced into submission by the men. So Vonarburg reverses society as most of us know it--the women are in charge rather than the men. What I found so interesting about the book is the way living in such a society affects the protagonist (a female). The protagonist lives in a world where being female is the norm. The language contains a female generic pronoun, words have female endings, and myths tell stories about the protagonist's world from female view points. The protagonist, therefore, never doubts her worth or has to fight sexist ideology in order to become an important member of her society. I also recently read a short story by L. Timmel Duchamp (who I think is on this list?) called "Welcome, Kid, to the Real World" where the protagonist must choose a gender. All young people in Duchamp's story are referred to as "kid." They must choose their gender, or choose to remain neuters, by the time they are 18 or 19. I'd be interested in discussing either of these works in more detail. Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:35:46 -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: Absence of gender signals In-Reply-To: <19971004093959.6754.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Lesley Hall wrote: > >>....It's practically only possible to do gender-free with a first >>person narrator, though I think I did manage to evade using gendered >>pronouns for a supporting character in one of my (unpublished) novels >>who was an androgyne/hermaphrodite. It's difficult but an interesting >>exercise! > >I've had a few essays and book reviews published in which I did not use >any pronouns. I won't use pronouns that males consider to be insulting >or demeaning, even if they refer to females who do not yet understand >them to be oppressive and actually think they prefer being referred to >in genital terms--as if patriarchy gave them a choice. But in writing >for feminist publications they will not permit the traditionally >inclusive pronouns to be used inclusively so I repeat names. It >sometimes seems a bit awkward, but that's because we're taught not to >repeat names (except socially, where we're taught that people like their >names and to repeat them as often as possible), Funny. If a person repeats my name too much, I think they're trying to sell me something. I don't like it. "Sacred is the prayer that asks for nothing, while giving thanks for every breath we take."--o)-> ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:34:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Smith wrote: >>I've had a few essays and book reviews published in which I did not use any pronouns. I won't use pronouns that males consider to be insulting or demeaning, even if they refer to females who do not yet understand them to be oppressive and actually think they prefer being referred to in genital terms--as if patriarchy gave them a choice. But in writing for feminist publications they will not permit the traditionally inclusive pronouns to be used inclusively so I repeat names. It sometimes seems a bit awkward, but that's because we're taught not to repeat names (except socially, where we're taught that people like their names and to repeat them as often as possible), and to refer to people by sex even if it means a lack of clarity. Every time 2 people of the same sex are mentioned in a sentence, we have to stop and try to figure out which one the pronoun refers to. Patriarchy sacrifices clarity in order to emphasize sex. I don't.<< I normally only lurk on this list, but this post really pushed some buttons, especially in combination with some of the other threads being discussed here. I'm attracted to both sexes, have been in a monogamous relationship with a woman for 14 years, fit the category of "tomboy" perfectly as a child (I'd trained my relatives not to give me dolls by age 3). I write about people who are often in same sex relationships; of course it's possible to write about two people of the same sex and still be clear. And there are other ways to do it besides repeating names; descriptive terms work fine, so long as they're used in moderation. As for writing without gender signals, has anyone here ever read closely the chapter of Vonda McIntyre's _Dreamsnake_ where the protagonist meets the three prospectors? If you look with care, you'll notice that the character Meredith is *never* referred to by an identifying pronoun. In my informal poll of friends and students, none had noticed this; about 70 people assumed Meredith to be female, about 30 assumed her to be male. There was no significant correlation between the gender assigned Meredith and the gender of the reader, although I noticed that other queers (both male and female) were slightly more apt to assume that Meredith is male. And my last point: what in god's name is a "pronoun that males consider to be insulting and demeaning"? Are we referring to "she" here, for instance, or am I missing the boat? I sure hope so, because, in my less than humble opinion, any male who feels demeaned by that reference better do some serious work on unlearning sexism. I say that as someone who is routinely identified as male. I have people trying to keep me out of women's washrooms all the time. People in stores most often call me "sir." A couple of years ago, the marshalls at a "Take Back the Night" march tried to chuck me out of it - "Excuse me, sir, this event is for women only." Am I supposed to be offended and demeaned by this? It's sometimes annoying - but it's not the assignation of a male identity per se that offends me, it's people's reactions when they realize they made a mistake. Getting gender assignations right must be the only thing in people's lives that's more emotionally fraught than toilet training - what a testimony to the power of early socialization! End of rant. What an introduction to the discussion! I'm normally better tempered than this, but this one really bugs me. Wendy End ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:39:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > > > > Promise Keepers is a beautiful illustration of "the good is the enemy of > > the best; the best is the enemy of the good." Yes, it's a step down for > > strong proud independent women in a partnership relationship. It's a step > > up for a whole lot of other women, as they'll be quick to tell you. > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > > mathews@unm.edu > > > I don't think I understand your last comment. I don't think anyone would > describe me as dependent and I am definitely proud, but I'm lucky enough > to have a partner (male) who thinks this is great. Is this a step down? > As I understand it, the Promise Keepers philosophy is that men should take responsibility - but they should also take over. This has been advocated by others before on the grounds that there can only bve one captain to a ship - and I'll be the first to admit I failed miserably at trying to have a partnership marriage. Yet the idea that the husband has the last word if worst comes to worst goes badly against the grain for me.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu "With a 14.4 modem it's not netsurfing.It's webcrawling." "Wanted, one ghost. Experience and good character required. Ability to ing tenor an advantage. Apply Paris Opera before New Years, 1882." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:49:29 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Sean Johnston wrote: > > Funny. If a person repeats my name too much, I think they're trying to > sell me something. I don't like it. > You took the words right out of my mouth! It's smarmy and makes me want to tell them to cut the crap and get to the point.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu "With a 14.4 modem it's not netsurfing.It's webcrawling." "Wanted, one ghost. Experience and good character required. Ability to ing tenor an advantage. Apply Paris Opera before New Years, 1882." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 22:31:36 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals In-Reply-To: <199710041733.NAA30184@pip1.pipcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This has been my experience as well. On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:34:58 -0400, silk wrote: >... >As for writing without gender signals, has anyone here ever read closely >the chapter of Vonda McIntyre's _Dreamsnake_ where the protagonist meets >the three prospectors? If you look with care, you'll notice that the >character Meredith is *never* referred to by an identifying pronoun. In my >informal poll of friends and students, none had noticed this; about 70 >people assumed Meredith to be female, about 30 assumed her to be male. >There was no significant correlation between the gender assigned Meredith >... Vonda New at: http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda "Pitfalls of Writing SF & Fantasy" -- useful information for new writers. Another web page, thanks to Carol Van Natta and Ann Harbour: http://www.oz.net/~vonda Including "The Adventure of the Field Theorems" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hires Sherlock Holmes to investigate crop circles. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:18:06 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca DeMarco Subject: Re: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers In a message dated 97-10-04 15:40:12 EDT, Patricia Mathews wrote: << As I understand it, the Promise Keepers philosophy is that men should take responsibility - but they should also take over. This has been advocated by others before on the grounds that there can only bve one captain to a ship - and I'll be the first to admit I failed miserably at trying to have a partnership marriage. Yet the idea that the husband has the last word if worst comes to worst goes badly against the grain for me.> >> I myself dislike a religious organization which would value a man's judgement over a woman's. What makes me anxious about the Promise Keepers is not necessary that they believe this (which is bad in itself) but that they have made this opinion a vital part of their doctrine. I heard a woman speaking about her support of the Promise Keepers as a wife of one of the members on the day they held a large gathering in DC. She felt that she was not a mat or anything but she communicates with her husband. He has earn her respect as a person. In an intense situation, she feels that he has her permission to decide. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:25:34 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca DeMarco Subject: Re: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers My message was cut off accidentally. Sorry. My point in talking about the wife of a Promise Keeper member was that what is good for her I would argue would not be good for the majority of women. I am afraid that women will relinquish all authority they have if they believe in this doctrine that Promise Keepers is preaching. Also, the doctrine assumes that women are not capable of making decisions under pressure. This might be extended to mean that women are inferior in many ways. I personally would not give up my right to decide as a rational human being. Rebecca DeMarco ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 22:29:28 -0700 Reply-To: Pamela Bedore Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: A Question for Vonda In-Reply-To: <3446a84b.244394551@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Vonda, Could you tell us if you think of characters like Merry and Meredith as one gender or the other as you're writing? pamela bedore But play, you must, A tune beyond us, yet ourselves, A tune upon the blue guitar Of things exactly as they are -Wallace Stevens ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:47:00 -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) and legitimate choices In a message dated 97-10-04 02:22:43 EDT, peggyh@earthlink.net (Peggy Hamilton) writes: > To get back to SF, what books manage to be free of expected gender > roles? John Varley has written a number of stories set in a city on the moon. Sex changes are routine there, and often characters spend some time in the story as male and some as female. Of necessity, the expected gender roles aren't there. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:33:53 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals In-Reply-To: <199710041733.NAA30184@pip1.pipcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:34:58 -0400, silk wrote: >... >it's people's reactions when they realize they made a mistake. Getting >gender assignations right must be the only thing in people's lives that's >more emotionally fraught than toilet training - what a testimony to the >power of early socialization! > > I wonder if folks on this list might be interested in why I chose not to mention the sex of the character Merideth. I took an early draft of that section of DREAMSNAKE (when I wasn't even sure if I would finish the novel, or, if I finished it, if I would ever let anyone see it) to the only Milford I ever went to. The other workshop members trashed me to _death_ for not revealing Merideth's sex till, I forget, two or three whole pages into the story. Their reaction was amazing -- appalling, too. I was told in no uncertain terms that a writer _must_ identify the sex of every character in the first sentence, indeed in the first phrase. (In practice, this means "The doctor, Smith," and "The woman doctor, Smith," a set of assumptions that simply makes me crazy.) My reaction to what I perceived as an overreaction was "Oh, yeah?" There are actually two characters in DREAMSNAKE whose sex isn't specified, but the other one is a bit part. By the way, it isn't _that_ hard to write in third person about a character without specifying their sex, though I must admit doing it in the first person is easier. (I keep looking for more Sarah Caldwell "Professor Hilary" novels but haven't seen one in a while -- have they not made it across the pond?) You don't even _have_ to use "they," though I do. It may cause Larry Niven to call me illiterate, but if it was good enough for Shakespeare it's good enough for me.) Vonda New at: http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda "Pitfalls of Writing SF & Fantasy" -- useful information for new writers. Another web page, thanks to Carol Van Natta and Ann Harbour: http://www.oz.net/~vonda Including "The Adventure of the Field Theorems" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hires Sherlock Holmes to investigate crop circles. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 04:29:16 -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: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices In-Reply-To: <971005014700_945540167@emout16.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > In a message dated 97-10-04 02:22:43 EDT, peggyh@earthlink.net (Peggy > Hamilton) writes: > > > To get back to SF, what books manage to be free of expected gender > > roles? > _Self_ by Yann Martel is another gender-bender. Haven't read it yet, but expect to soon. It was shortlisted for the Chapters/Books in Canada First Novel Award. So was _Cereus Blooms at Night_ by Shani Mootoo (Press Gang Publishers, Vancouver). It does a great rough-and-tumble with gender role expectations. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:26:46 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals >I keep looking for more Sarah Caldwell "Professor Hilary" novels but >haven't seen one in a while -- have they not made it >across the pond?) The last one was 'The Sirens Sang of Murder', 1989--much too long a gap! There have been one or two short stories featuring the same characters since then but no novel. The 3 existing titles were recently reissued in paperback (at least, I saw them very briefly on the shelves of 'Murder One' here in London before they disappeared). Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:07:20 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1989! That is too long. Does anybody know if the author is still writing? Writing other stuff? Best, Vonda On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:26:46 UT, Lesley Hall wrote: > >I keep looking for more Sarah Caldwell "Professor Hilary" novels but >>haven't seen one in a while -- have they not made it > >across the pond?) > >The last one was 'The Sirens Sang of Murder', 1989--much too long a gap! There >have been one or two short stories featuring the same characters since then >but no novel. The 3 existing titles were recently reissued in paperback (at >least, I saw them very briefly on the shelves of 'Murder One' here in London >before they disappeared). >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com New at: http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda "Pitfalls of Writing SF & Fantasy" -- useful information for new writers. Another web page, thanks to Carol Van Natta and Ann Harbour: http://www.oz.net/~vonda Including "The Adventure of the Field Theorems" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hires Sherlock Holmes to investigate crop circles. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:07:17 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: A Question for Vonda Comments: To: Pamela Bedore In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Pamela, Yes, often I do. I wrote a second reply to your previous message but didn't post it because I wasn't sure whether anybody would be interested, but I guess I'll indulge myself a little and post it after this one. It explains why I know what sex Merry in Dreamsnake is, but I'm not telling. I know what sex Merry in Starfarers was, too, but I'm not telling in that case because I wanted Stephen Thomas to have a pan-sexual attitude. Vonda On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 22:29:28 -0700, Pamela Bedore wrote: >Vonda, > >Could you tell us if you think of characters like Merry and Meredith as >one gender or the other as you're writing? > > >pamela bedore > >But play, you must, A tune beyond us, yet ourselves, >A tune upon the blue guitar Of things exactly as they are > -Wallace Stevens New at: http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda "Pitfalls of Writing SF & Fantasy" -- useful information for new writers. Another web page, thanks to Carol Van Natta and Ann Harbour: http://www.oz.net/~vonda Including "The Adventure of the Field Theorems" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hires Sherlock Holmes to investigate crop circles. New at: http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda "Pitfalls of Writing SF & Fantasy" -- useful information for new writers. Another web page, thanks to Carol Van Natta and Ann Harbour: http://www.oz.net/~vonda Including "The Adventure of the Field Theorems" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hires Sherlock Holmes to investigate crop circles. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:16:03 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Sarah Caudwell (was Absence of gender signals) >1989! That is too long. Does anybody know if the >author is still writing? Writing other stuff? The short stories have appeared since then (I think: can't immediately lay my hands on the relevant volumes) but I don't know if Caudwell is still writing/working on further novels. According to the bio on the jacket of 'Sirens' she had at that time left a high-powered legal job in the financial world to write full-time. I know someone who at least used to know friends of friends of hers and may know about the situation: if I see her I'll ask (although as she too has moved from one field to another she may not still be in touch) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:43:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Fuerstenberg, Rachel L" Subject: Re: An atrocity in England MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Marina wrote: >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"? Something important to remember, I think, is that a little girl died. People are made of different stuff, and we all know people who are never down, no matter what they've been through. On the other hand, I'm sure you all know at least one person who seems to have one major crisis every day--and it's never really major. I am sad because our societies are still so pressurized that one's weight (or race/gender/preference) is still an issue that a person deems worthy to give her life because she doesn't fit the social "norm". Marina also wrote: > >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. I have to comment on this. She has just re-enacted my high school! Rachel L. Fuerstenberg (715)342-2526 rfuer576@uwsp.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:56:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Fuerstenberg, Rachel L" Subject: Re: boys, girls and toys MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mary Elizabeth wrote: >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. Oh, the horror, the horror, when my parents discovered my little brother Danny (spitting image of my dad at that age) really liked to play with dolls and liked even more to put on my make-up ( I'm 11 years older than him). And then, WHAT RELIEF when he entered school, he started doing the traditional male* things--sports, sports, and sports. Yes, he's still a thriving young *man* (now 9 years old), and my parents can breathe easy--for now. Rachel L. Fuerstenberg (715)342-2526 rfuer576@uwsp.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:29:00 CST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: exit Subject: Friday I just got back from vacation, thus the rather late reply. I really do want to reread Friday sometime. I last read it as a teenager and I remember really liking both the character and the book. For some reason, I have no idea why except that I last read it over ten years ago, I don't remember Friday marrying her rapist, though I do vaguely remember the rape. What I do remember bothering me though, and that no-one has brought up, was that Friday's daughter had a baby a year starting when she was fourteen, and that Friday was not at all disturbed by this. I was about fourteen myself, the first time I read it and was horrified. But then, my biggest complaint with many of Heinlein's works, is that he continually implies sex between 13 year old girls and grown men. (Generally with the help of time travel to make it "all right".) Gabby Bate ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:55:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "John M. Custin" Subject: angela carter i would like to correspond with any Women out there who have read Angela Carter's book "Passion for the New Eve" and would like to discuss it. I found the book to be delightful.. If interested please leave drop me e mail. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:18:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) Comments: To: Peggy Hamilton In-Reply-To: <3434D104.55B4@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Peggy Hamilton wrote: > Lesley Hall wrote: > > > Has anyone else read Melissa Scott's The Kindly Ones, which has a never gender > > specified first person narrator? > > Yes! I loved the book and decisied to use it in one of my English > classes. Being female, I had read Trey as female without noticing the > lack of identifying pronouns, and found her a believable woman. When my friend's daughter was four years old, she firmly believed that all Winnie-the-Pooh characters were girls. She was born and raised in New York, her parents have always spoken Russian at home, all TV programs and movies she have seen were in English, and she attended an all-Russian daycare center. So, by the age of four, she spoke Russian and understood English, but her gender pronouns were seriously impaired in both (and not only pronouns, for instance, she used to apply the Russian word for Dad towards all men). When I told her that Pooh from her favorite movie was actually a guy, she was very surprised. The same with the Rabbit, Roo and others. Finally, she said that she did not care about either of them, but Piglet was a girl for sure, and if I thought otherwise, I was simply wrong. > Neither side ever convinced the > other. > > Peggy Hamilton > Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 02:04:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Laur, Erin M. wrote: > > > >If we are to respect women's choices, shouldn't that include the nurturing, > >peaceful, fashion-sensitive choices as well as the adventurous, outrageous, > >practicality above all ones? For example, people seem divided on Cordelia's > >position as a strong woman in Lois McMaster Bujold's books, because she > >married and focused on her family and supporting her husband in his roles > >on a very regimented world. > > I believe the original posting was from Maryelizabeth, and I thought of replying back then. But better late than never. How one uses Barbie is up to her. You can play house with it, or you can drop it down the stairway to see it bumping around. The problem is that for the former, you'll get parental (and everyone else's) approval, and for the latter, they'll drag you to a child psychologist. A girl can be "nurturing" just as well as aggressive. However, "little ladies" don't get in trouble for their choice. Meanwhile, tomboys can be allowed to be themselves in best case until they are eveven or so (and all these years they'll be hearing that they are "not like real girls", in other words, freaks). I agree that everyone's choice should be respected. It would be dumb to turn things around, and make all girls play with trucks. However, I'm wondering, why "making the choice" is necessary in the first place? Don't you people get sick of always having to "choose"? To choose "between family and career", being passive or "masculine", etc., etc. Choice for a woman always means "either...or", and accepting one option implies giving up something else. Men never do that. I've never seen a guy who would say that after he graduates from medical school, or gets his Master's, he's planning to get married and stay at home for twenty years, "until the kids grow up". Why that stupid idea of "choice" seems so normal for women? I did not play with dolls when I was little. I hated those cold, hard, still plastic things, that looked so much like people. It felt the same as playing with corpses. But I had lots of stuffed animals, whom I "fed", "bathed", "put to bed", and took out for a walk. Which did not prevent me from stealing grandfather's ammo, taking it apart, blowing up gunpowder, and "playing stuntwoman" by jumping from the tree branches in grandmother's garden. "Playing war" can be just as much fun as "playing house", and they do not have to be mutually exclusive. And they definitely do not have to be gender-related. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:44:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: question (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Got this question from Gary Bowen, an acquaintance of mine. Anyone know the answer? You could respond directly to Gary, if so. -nalo ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:22:06 -0500 From: The Flying Cowboy Does anybody know how to reach Jewelle Gomez or the author of Vampires Anonymous? An editor I know is trying to find them. Gary Bowen Gay Author, Editor, & Cowboy -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Email: fcowboy@netgsi.com (The Flying Cowboy) URL: http://www.netgsi.com/~fcowboy (High Plains Drifter of the Internet) Member: Western Writers Association (WWA) and International Gay Rodeo Association (IGRA) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Oblig sig quote: "Deja rue: the dread feeling you've fucked up again." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:44:51 -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: Tomboys (and toys) and legitimate choices In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: (snip) > Don't you people get sick of always having to "choose"? To choose > "between family and career", being passive or "masculine", etc., etc. > Choice for a woman always means "either...or", and accepting one option > implies giving up something else. Men never do that. I've never seen a > guy who would say that after he graduates from medical school, or gets > his Master's, he's planning to get married and stay at home for twenty years, > "until the kids grow up". Why that stupid idea of "choice" seems so > normal for women? Men do make choices but not necessarily the same ones that women make. Few men actually have the option of staying home with the kids. I know a couple of stay at home Dads and the decision was difficult for them to make. Not that they didn't want to raise and educate their children, but that their family suffered a severe reduction in income. It is an unfortunate fact that women don't make as much money as men. I would be more than happy to work and let my husband stay home if I could earn as much money as he does. I do agree with you to a certain extent. Only recently have men had the cultural support to be more active in their children's lives and not just be the breadwinner and disciplinarian ("Wait till your father gets home!"). I am glad that these kind of options are opening up for men. > Marina > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:18:55 -0700 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Chinese orphan girls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know two couples who have adopted baby girls from China, and of others indirectly. They are a mix of lesbian and straight, asian and white households. The SF implications of this are pretty clear to me... we often speculate what's going to happen when all these girls grow up, with all the love and education and nutrition their Chinese sisters may lack, and go back to visit China. Seems like lots of story opportunities there, set about 20-30 years from now. -- Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ---------------------------------------------------------- ++ Actioneering: the art and science of getting it done ++ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:29:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Frankenstein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- I first read "Frankenstein" as a teen-ager, during a lazy cool summer on the family farm, when I was assigned to tend the beef cattle in a far pasture, with nothing to do but sit under an old elm and read, occasionally leaping up to steer the Herefords away from the tender fences. Now I'm reading it again in preparation for discussion with the local SF book club, Second Foundation. This time, for good or ill, I have a little (not much) critical background to bring to the book. One book claimed, "Mary's traumatic experiences with motherhood, scholars believe, account for her creation of a literary birth myth." (She lost several children before bearing a healthy son.) I'm a bit suspicious of this assessment - it sounds a bit easy, or dismissive somehow, and besides Shelley's pregnancy experiences were not all that uncommon in her era. (She doesn't mention her pregnancies in journals.) Any other comments/assessments? I'd like to compile some of your comments to hand out to members of the book club, if y'all are willing. Thanks in advance... -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert Humphrey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:03:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice M Bogstad Subject: Chinese orphan girls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Another not-so-obvious contrast is between the lifestyles and opportunities (still very limited) for these girls' favored brothers, male cousins, etc. While they are the favorites, their lives will be nowhere near those of the girls adopted to other countries - it is an essential irony, I think, that the girl chlidren who survive by adoption will probably be the source of envy for the boys who grow up in china as well as the girls....I am NOT expressing sympathy for the boys or the whole socio-economic phonomenon - but having just spent 4 months teaching in China, I am very aware of the full spectrum of life-style differences and life chances available to Chinese young people in contrast with those available to some (but of course, not all) or our young people. And of the fact that you need a decent income in order to adopt a Chinese daughter - hence the increased opportunities for these children when they grow up....Diamond Age (N Stephenson) gives us one reading of that ' gender adjustment....' Jan B. >I know two couples who have adopted baby girls from China, >and of others indirectly. They are a mix of lesbian and straight, >asian and white households. > >The SF implications of this are pretty clear to me... we often speculate > >what's going to happen when all these girls grow up, with all the >love and education and nutrition their Chinese sisters may lack, and >go back to visit China. Seems like lots of story opportunities there, >set about 20-30 years from now. > >-- >Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing >jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 > http://www.actioneer.com >---------------------------------------------------------- >++ Actioneering: the art and science of getting it done ++ > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Janice M. Bogstad, Associate Professor Collection Development Librarian Library & Information Services, McIntyre Library University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, WI 54702-5010 USA email: bogstajm@uwec.edu telephone: 715-836-6032 "I HAVE NEVER REGRETTED BUYING A BOOK, BUT I HAVE OFTEN REGRETTED NOT BUYING A BOOK." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:28:00 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Chinese orphan girls Comments: To: Jennifer Krauel In-Reply-To: <3438205E.9D73597D@actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > > what's going to happen when all these girls grow up, with all the > love and education and nutrition their Chinese sisters may lack, and > go back to visit China. Seems like lots of story opportunities there, > set about 20-30 years from now. > See AMy Tan's THE JOY LUCK CLUB, Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:30:48 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Frankenstein In-Reply-To: <199710061629.MAA35570@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > > I first read "Frankenstein" as a teen-ager, during a lazy cool summer on > the family farm, when I was assigned to tend the beef cattle in a far > pasture, with nothing to do but sit under an old elm and read, > occasionally leaping up to steer the Herefords away from the tender > fences. > > Now I'm reading it again in preparation for discussion with the local SF > book club, Second Foundation. This time, for good or ill, I have a > little (not much) critical background to bring to the book. > > One book claimed, "Mary's traumatic experiences with motherhood, > scholars believe, account for her creation of a literary birth myth." > (She lost several children before bearing a healthy son.) I'm a bit > suspicious of this assessment - it sounds a bit easy, or dismissive > somehow, and besides Shelley's pregnancy experiences were not all that > uncommon in her era. (She doesn't mention her pregnancies in journals.) > > Any other comments/assessments? I'd like to compile some of your > comments to hand out to members of the book club, if y'all are willing. > Thanks in advance... > -- In Mary Shelley's day the huge issue was the runaway rechnology of the Industrial Revolution."Things are in the saddle and riding mankind." Blake's "Dark, Satanic mills." She ran with a group of people who discussed such issues seriously and by and large were against them. You hardly need to go to motherhood experiences and literary birth myths to account for Frankenstein! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:56:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Diamond Age In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I noticed that _Diamond_Age_ was mentioned in relation to the "Mouse Army" of discarded Chinese girls. I am very interested in what people though of this book from a feminist perspective. Who was the main character? (or characters?) Taken one way, most of the main characters were female (and smart, aggressive, important women no less). The Primer was non-sexed (both women and men could take it's role), most of the male-dominated behaviour was shown to be rather bad and disgusting (I think). So why am I so hesitant to consider it feminist? Why do you think it was "a young ladies illustrated primer" anyway? Just for the purposes of the story and to keep it from being sexist? -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:12:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Bellwether (was Re: fads) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Since we're on the subject of fads, I just want to put a plug in for Connie > Willis' SF book _Bellwether_, now out in paperback. I picked this up last Thurs., read it Friday, and passed it on to a friend Saturday. I'm not sure I'd call it feminist sf, but I loved it. My only criticism is that the edition I found in a local bookstore was larger than paperback and a little smaller than a "trade" paperback, and it was pricey. I like her sense of humor a lot! I'm looking forward to reading _The Doomsday Book_, which should be en route from my wife (currently on the other side of the pond). -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:30:01 -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: Frankenstein In-Reply-To: <199710061629.MAA35570@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >One book claimed, "Mary's traumatic experiences with motherhood, >scholars believe, account for her creation of a literary birth myth." >(She lost several children before bearing a healthy son.) I'm a bit >suspicious of this assessment - it sounds a bit easy, or dismissive >somehow, and besides Shelley's pregnancy experiences were not all that >uncommon in her era. (She doesn't mention her pregnancies in journals.) I understood the critical hook to be the reverse: Mary Wollstonecraft died in childbirth giving birth to Mary Shelley. Certainly one of the motifs of _Frankenstein_ is the obligations of the creator toward the individual given life. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:04:01 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Absence of gender signals (was Tomboys) A historical note: concern over gender messages in pronouns and inappropirate use of 'he/him/his' is often thought to be a recent 'second-wave feminism concern'. 'Shafts: A journal for women and the working classes', published in the 1890s had a definite editorial policy of avoiding the masculine pronoun when 'expressing general thoughts and facts' Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:09:16 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Diamond Age In answer to some of Joel's questions. There's a long analysis of 'The Diamond Age' in the New York Review of SF no 104, Apr 1997 (only recently made it to London) which I think supplies some of the reasons why one might feel uncomfortable about the book. As one of my own secret identities is as a Victorianist, I found the book (like many future/alternative Victorian societies) to be deeply problematic. The men (esp. in The DA) are all Gradgrinds and there's no place for the anarchic critical energy of a Charles Dickens. I don't believe in a 'Victorian Age' without its prophets, critics, wild poets and explorers. While the women in these depictions tend to be duchesses, housebound wives, or tarts (possibly actresses), with maybe the odd governess or schoolmarm. Please! (I may have done this riff before.... stop me if you've heard it....) No Brontes, Mrs Gaskell, George Eliot, Caroline Norton, Florence Nightingale, Josephine Butler, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Annie Besant, Elinor Marx, Olive Schreiner, and a whole range of possibly lesser known writers, social reformers, educational reformers, trade union activists, lecturers on malthusianism and free thought, journalists, suffragists... (not to mention that least Victorian of women, Her Imperial Maje herself, or Mrs Brown as she was, indeed, known in the tabloid press of the day) I rest my case. It's a very narrow, very male take on a vibrant and contradictory age, in which (according to me, any way) the increasing shrill assertions about patriarchy and male power were a defensive reaction to women's changing role. The books I mention affect me like the Tory Party's appeals to 'Victorian values' (whose Victorian values? a chimney sweep with a cluster of climbing boys or Karl Marx?) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Joel VanLaven Sent: 06 October 1997 18:56 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Diamond Age I noticed that _Diamond_Age_ was mentioned in relation to the "Mouse Army" of discarded Chinese girls. I am very interested in what people though of this book from a feminist perspective. Who was the main character? (or characters?) Taken one way, most of the main characters were female (and smart, aggressive, important women no less). The Primer was non-sexed (both women and men could take it's role), most of the male-dominated behaviour was shown to be rather bad and disgusting (I think). So why am I so hesitant to consider it feminist? Why do you think it was "a young ladies illustrated primer" anyway? Just for the purposes of the story and to keep it from being sexist? -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:46:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: Frankenstein Comments: To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"@cis.truman.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:29 10/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >I first read "Frankenstein" as a teen-ager, during a lazy cool summer on >the family farm, when I was assigned to tend the beef cattle in a far >pasture, with nothing to do but sit under an old elm and read, >occasionally leaping up to steer the Herefords away from the tender >fences. > >Now I'm reading it again in preparation for discussion with the local SF >book club, Second Foundation. This time, for good or ill, I have a >little (not much) critical background to bring to the book. > --snip-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > >"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be >taken seriously." >- Hubert Humphrey > Consider that electricity was the big parlor game of the day; people used their version of the Van de Graaf generator to make their hair stand on end, etc. So you have some idea of the technology that Mary Shelley has Victor Frankenstein use. Frankenstein is a Romantic novel; as Southey claimed (later), "nothing was dreamt of but the regeneration of the human race." Shelley focuses on the "irregular" "wild" etc. aspect of Frankenstein's art. Romantics tried to interrelate matter and mind, real and ideal, nature and God, and did so through "organicism" which conceives of "the cosmos (reality) as a process rather than as a substance, an activity in which the material world, the mental or ideal, and the Divine mutually involve or interpenetrate each other." Thus the universal manifests in the particular, and the exterior becomes a "true image" of the being within. (This becomes particularly problematic in dealing with the monster.) Notice also that as a young man Victor dabbles in alchemy, and that after the death of his mother his interests remain alchemical, no matter what he's learned in University. Note the narrative technique: A. Walton writes letters which tell of his growth and obsession B. Walton transcribes Frankenstein's story of his growth, obsession, and deeds C. Walton transcribes Frankenstein's recountin of his memory of the monster's story of his growth (education). D. Walton transcribes Frankenstein's tale of hte direct interaction of "man" and "monster" and Frankenstein corrects his transcriptions. E. Walton writes of what he himself observes. Note: this tale requires trustworthy narrators -- but to assume that they tell the truth is not to assume that they understand their own motives or interpret their actions accurately. Hope this gives you something to start with....I enjoy teaching this novel. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:08:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MaryKay Bird-Guilliams Subject: Re: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers In-Reply-To: <971004232534_555925710@emout20.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII First: We are off topic, but I cannot resist. Second: The point a which men lead within marriage (as is part of Promise Keepers stated points) is a very narrow context - Christian marriage - it does not apply to anyone else. It is also stated that both parties are to serve one another. Third: Everyone expands the point above to mean more than it does. Christian groups have been and are guilty of trying to push that point to mean ALL men are over ALL women (which is bullshit). Political opportunists will make whatever hay with all of this that they can. And feminists, while they do probably need to balance the Christian Coalition type politicos, may be letting paranoia affect their judgement. Men desperately need nonviolent ways to be men and killing Promise Keepers could be really stupid. Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us Reference Librarian Wichita Public Library ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:14:44 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Diamond Age MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:56:10 -0400 Joel VanLaven wrote: > > I noticed that _Diamond_Age_ was mentioned in relation to the "Mouse Army" > of discarded Chinese girls. I am very interested in what people though of > this book from a feminist perspective. Who was the main character? (or > characters?) Taken one way, most of the main characters were female (and > smart, aggressive, important women no less). The Primer was non-sexed > (both women and men could take it's role), most of the male-dominated > behaviour was shown to be rather bad and disgusting (I think). So why am > I so hesitant to consider it feminist? > Why do you think it was "a young ladies illustrated primer" anyway? > Just for the purposes of the story and to keep it from being sexist? > > -- Joel VanLaven I really liked this book until the last chapter when I felt that its feminist message collapsed. Here the author has gone to a great deal of trouble to create a powerful female army and an alternative method of child -rearing that does not rely on conventional family structures, and what does he do in the end? Destroys his female army and reconstitutes the nuclear family. Ugh! Some of this may simply be the sign of a relatively immature writer (Snowcrash falls apart at the end too) but it made me very reluctant to describe the book aas feminist. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:15:50 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: L Garforth Subject: Re: Diamond Age In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:56:10 -0400 Joel VanLaven wrote: > > > > I noticed that _Diamond_Age_ was mentioned in relation to the "Mouse Army" > > of discarded Chinese girls. I am very interested in what people though of > > this book from a feminist perspective. Who was the main character? (or > > characters?) Taken one way, most of the main characters were female (and > > smart, aggressive, important women no less). The Primer was non-sexed > > (both women and men could take it's role), most of the male-dominated > > behaviour was shown to be rather bad and disgusting (I think). So why am > > I so hesitant to consider it feminist? > > Why do you think it was "a young ladies illustrated primer" anyway? > > Just for the purposes of the story and to keep it from being sexist? > > > > -- Joel VanLaven and Farah wrote:> > I really liked this book until the last chapter when I felt that its feminist message collapsed. I have to confess to loving the book too, but one of my quibbles is that Stephenson really copped out on Nell's adolescence. There's a teaser in the book - I think Miranda says to Carl Hollywood of Purple, one of the two female 'night friends' - something like "I think Purple will really come into her own when Nell hits puberty" - we only get to hear about this in retrospect - Purple has spells, is some kind of witch figure (cf Duck, the other 'female' night friend, who is a kind of embodiment of maternal, domestic instincts). I wanted to know how Nell had negotiated those nasty mid-teens - Stephenson only seems interested in her as little girl and fully fledged (and I think cardboard cutout) phyle leader. In his contradictory Victorian future, I think there was a lot of scope for an exploration of Nell's coming to, particularly, sexuality; all we got is that she grew up conventionally unconventionally attractive (if you see what I mean), and had to protect herself from the male gaze. Hmmm Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:31:18 -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: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers << And feminists, while they do probably need to balance the Christian Coalition type politicos, may be letting paranoia affect their judgement. Men desperately need nonviolent ways to be men and killing Promise Keepers could be really stupid. >> I disagree. Some folks I know from another list were there--one of them had a circle of PKs surround her and try to cast out demons, and she wasn't even wearing any feminist stuff!! Check out NOW's site at http://www.now.org/issues/right/pk.html for more on what their leadership has to say if you're interested. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:57:10 -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: Kipling, Predators, & the Promise Keepers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Personally all I saw was a very large group of little boys in a tree house, posting a sign that said "NO GIRLZ." And it looked silly and pitiful. Nina Osier MaryKay Bird-Guilliams wrote: > First: We are off topic, but I cannot resist. > Second: The point a which men lead within marriage (as is part of > Promise Keepers stated points) is a very narrow context - Christian > marriage - > > it does not apply to anyone else. It is also stated that both parties > > are to serve one another. > Third: Everyone expands the point above to mean more than it does. > Christian groups have been and are guilty of trying to push that point > to mean ALL men are over ALL women (which is bullshit). > Political opportunists will make whatever hay with all of this that > they can. And feminists, while they do probably need to balance the > Christian Coalition type politicos, may be letting paranoia affect their > judgement. Men desperately need nonviolent ways to be men and killing > Promise Keepers could be really stupid. > > Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us > Reference Librarian > Wichita Public Library