"FEMINISTSF LOG9710B" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:43:32 -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: Chinese orphan girls In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19971006120414.088f97d2@uwec.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Janice M Bogstad wrote: > 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 I was very surprised today when having a conversation with a recently immigrated student from Hong Kong. She asked why she should use gender-neutral pronouns. When I explained that it was to avoid privileging the male pronoun, she said: "But why shouldn't we use 'he?' Men are stronger and smarter than women." I just hadn't thought that those attitudes would be so deeply entrenched at this time. Pretty naive, I guess... pam pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university 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: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:30:29 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Gender and feminist SF In-Reply-To: <199710041604.LAA27422@dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 4 Oct 97 , joanna goltzman wrote: > 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 have read _The Maerlande Chronicles_ (TMC) during the summer. Perhaps this is only quibbling about terms but I do not agree that Maerlande is a 'reversal society' for that very reason that women outnumber men (something about 5 men on 100 women). Brantenberg's _Egalia's Daugthers_ I would describe as a reversal society. TMC explores how a society could be organised in which one sex is the quantitative minority. I think that when asked how they thought a society with that women/men ratio would be structured, many people would have described a harem society with men as the leaders, gods, possessors of everything or something like that. But Vonarburg has made something completely different from that, and IMO it is much more believable. Like Joanna, I found it very intriging that in such a society for the female protagonist men are simply not an issue, at least at first. She is not interested in them at all in any aspect, they are completely alien to her, an attitude many other women share in that society, which constitutes a significant problem for the men. Another problem for the men is their history, in that men had been the oppressors before the women defeated them. And yet another problem is that men are reduced to sperm-donors, that is their only societal function and in some ways that cannot be helped. The fate of the men in that society is given quite some room in the book but - if somebody gets the impression from my last paragraph - it is not the most important part of the book. I wonder if the Maerlande society can be described as 'non-sexist'. As long as they are fertile men are given no option at all, they are just sperm-donors. If or as soon as they are infertile some regions/groups in the society allow men to get an education, more conservative ones just send them to work on farms and the reactionary ones do not allow the men to come back to them (as soon as they can perform as sperm-donors men are sent around between the different regions to avoid inbreeding). Furthermore, men are seen as less than women, etc. I have also read the predecessor of TMC, _The Silent City_, some months ago (both novels have just been published in German), but while I found TMC very interesting I did not quite know what to do with _The Silent City_. Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:37:23 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Gender and feminist SF In-Reply-To: <45C941081@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Lee Killough wrote a novel, A VOICE OUT OF RAMAH, in which women outnumber men by about 7-1. As with Cherryh's Hani, the men are the lords of the manor, supposedly with harems, but they are sheltered, protected, and (in Killough's world) wear restrictive clothing, while the women do all the work. They give the men a surface deference but hustle them out of the way when important things are going on, almost with a "don't worry your pretty little head about it." Eleanor Arenson's RING OF SWORDS has a culture in which man's place is on the battlefield and women run the civilian end of things - including higher level diplomacy - totally. I was left with two questions about it: the mechanism by which the military was financed; and what made the men obey their womenfolk instead of going off on their own. After all, they had the monopoly on force! After a bit of reflection it occurred to me that the one question answered the other - the Hwarath women held the purse strings. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:59:39 -0700 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Gibbons Decline and Fall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mary Bird-Guilliams wrote: >You have to wade through the entire book to get to it (not an onerous >chore at all) but Sheri Tepper's book Gibbons Decline and Fall explores >reproductive options in a very novel way. I recently read Gibbons Decline and Fall and agree the "options" were nicely presented. Plus I love that she doesn't hand us the answer, and I was unable to decide for sure which option she picked. I have enjoyed all the Tepper novels I've read. In some ways I didn't like this one as much. It was so dark, perhaps because it was so believable. I almost put it down at first, it was so scary. However, it didn't suffer as much as other books from the problem of a weak ending. I still think that Grass and Raising the Stones are my favorites of hers (although now that I think about it, Grass was pretty scary too.) Her characters are just so real, so believable, that the stories offer a complete escape. Any other comments on Gibbons? -- 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: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:04:29 -0700 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: Island, (Marta Randall) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patricia Johnston wrote: >Have just finished reading Island (Marta Randall). Must say I did not >understand the book. Perhaps it should not be understood, just pondered on. >If anyone has read the book, could you offer your views? Thanks. >Patricia. I read Island some time ago and can't remember too much of the details. I enjoyed seeing a debunking of the idea of immortality, and it's always refreshing to see a book with an old woman main character. Was this the book that ended up at the undersea excavation site in Hawaii? I found that part interesting although less than completely believeable. You're right, it's tough to try to sum it all up, though. Anyone else? -- 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: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:23:12 -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: Gibbons Decline and Fall Comments: To: Jennifer Krauel In-Reply-To: <343C3A8A.BE4FF811@actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I still think that Grass and Raising the Stones are my favorites of hers > > (although now that I think about it, Grass was pretty scary too.) > Her characters are just so real, so believable, that the stories offer a > > complete escape. > I also really liked SideShow. The Marjorie Westriding character from Grass is neatly transformed along with her foxen friend. I really liked the conflict in Grass where each part of the foodchain is just a different form of the same species. Again there, she gave no answers, just posited a situation and allowed it to almost resolve itself. I felt that Sideshow, like Grass, was perhaps a little lengthier than it had to be to accomplish its goal. Gate to Women's Country and Gibbon's are a little easier to read that way. I haven't read Raising the Stone - it's on my very long to-read list... pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:08:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Butler's Ooloi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello, Those of you who have read Butler's Xenogenesis series will recall that the Oankali have 3 genders - male, female and ooloi. Did anyone tend to assign a gender to the ooloi despite the neuter pronoun given it? I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:56:36 -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: Butler's Ooloi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the > ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. I did, too. I think because Butler did, too. At least, I seem to remember her referring to Nikanj as 'he' throughout the series. I don't know whether or not that's because we're reading through the Lilith's lens and she is definitely straight and definitely considers herself to be Nikanj's lover. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:10:32 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: Butler's Ooloi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Hi Pamela, the three sexes of the Oankali didn't give rise to the phenomenon you cite when I taught Butler in a class on Human Nature last year, but I'll take a stab at suggesting why some might read the ooloi as male. First, the ooloi have large, visible, and highly sensitive sexual organs :) Ok, that's a bit silly; a more subtle account might note that for all their eschewing of heirarchy, the Oankali all seem to kowtow to their ooloi a great deal. Lilith and her friends, for example, note that the ooloi are smug and condescending. It's obvious to Lilith that the ooloi is head of the household because everyone defers to it. Paul Titus says the same thing, and argues in favour of liberating everyone from ooloi authority. I think that since we live in a sex-stratified society where males are dominant, we may tend to read Oankali society through the lens which that provides, seeing deference to the ooloi as a gendered phenomenon and drawing conclusions about their sex accordingly. Any other thoughts? edrie ***************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:08:31 -0700 Pamela Bedore wrote: > Hello, > > Those of you who have read Butler's Xenogenesis series will recall that > the Oankali have 3 genders - male, female and ooloi. Did anyone tend to > assign a gender to the ooloi despite the neuter pronoun given it? > > I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the > ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. > > > pamela bedore > department of english > simon fraser university > > 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:37:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Butler's Ooloi/gender identification Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" pamela writes of the ooloi: >I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the >ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. > erm... all them snaky bits waving around? ;) Heather, bad (but, thinking about neuter concepts... Online, I know quite a few people who do not identify as either male or female, and yes, we use the dreaded sie/hir pronouns to refer to these beings. Perhaps because irc is a text-based platform I have an easier time not having to come up with a visual gender identification. Hopefully many of you will have read _Nearly Roadkill_, a wonderful pretty much real-life (well, it fits my life) description of some of the interactions that can happen at the intersection of certain virtual and real-life communities. The authors use zie/zir pronouns, same concept--and switch gender-identification many times over. Anyways... gender-bending is fun, but I tend to think of neutral beings as being a double potential rather than a "neutering", a *removal* of identifying sex characteristics...) hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Re: Butler's Ooloi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Those of you who have read Butler's Xenogenesis series will recall that > the Oankali have 3 genders - male, female and ooloi. Did anyone tend to > assign a gender to the ooloi despite the neuter pronoun given it? > I also tended to give the ooloi male gender simply because of the feeling that they gave off. They felt "male". I think this might have something to do with their demeanor towards Lillith and the other humans, but they did feel masculine. The only one I didn't get this from was the ancient ooloi on the ship in "Imago". That one felt truly ooloi.... Maybe it was because of the way the Oankali on Earth were described. They attmempted to look more human, and therefore my mind would have to put the ooloi into a gender. But the ship-borne ooloi didn't look human at all, and therefore I could accept its third gender... kate bolin who isn't expecting to make much sense right now ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:55:15 -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: Butler's Ooloi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Don't have a clear memory, but I think I tended to think of the ooloi as 'both' or 'they'. -nalo On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Pamela Bedore wrote: > Hello, > > Those of you who have read Butler's Xenogenesis series will recall that > the Oankali have 3 genders - male, female and ooloi. Did anyone tend to > assign a gender to the ooloi despite the neuter pronoun given it? > > I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the > ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. > > > pamela bedore > department of english > simon fraser university > > 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:01:06 -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: Butler's Ooloi/gender identification In-Reply-To: <199710091711.NAA22909@smtp02.kent.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > pamela writes of the ooloi: > >I have spoken to a few friends who have read this, and they tended to the > >ooloi as male, as I did... I wonder why. > > > erm... all them snaky bits waving around? ;) > > Heather, bad NH: See now, I thought of the 'snaky bits' as weird hair. :) -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:38:33 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: Butler's Ooloi In-Reply-To: <19971009125636.62866@puma.macbsd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:56:36 -0400 Allen Briggs wrote: > At least, I seem to > remember her referring to Nikanj as 'he' throughout the series. Allen, I don't have the book before me, but I have a pretty strong recollection that Nikanj is referred to as "it" and "the ooloi" throughout, not "he", can anyone confirm? edrie ***************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:13:54 -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: Butler's Ooloi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > I don't have the book before me, but I have a pretty strong > recollection that Nikanj is referred to as "it" and "the ooloi" > throughout, not "he", can anyone confirm? I can confirm that "it" and "the ooloi" are used in many places. You may well be right, in which case I was rather convinced of the maleness. Probably from the first encounters that Lillith has with it in the ship. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:48:48 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970930103706.006b121c@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rudy: I am still mulling this over, I appreciate your patience. Re: the problem with your class. Do you mean that they still buy into a patriarchy based mindset because they see women as maternal/universe clean-up crews? Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us Reference Librarian Wichita Public Library ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:41:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: message for Debra Euler... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII (sorry to send a message to everyone in an attempt to reach one person) Debra, got your fax a few days late and minus the last page (it went to another phone number), but thanks much. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:36:49 -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 Stacey, Sorry for answering so late. I had two computer projects and a test last week, so there was little time for anything but lurking. I like you idea with bikers. Unfortunately, I do not know any, and I cannot go and meet some just for scaring purposes. (I wish there was a place where you could rent one :) ). I am sure that if I had a biker brother (or at least if my existing brother, or any family, were here), no one would mess with me. The problem is that I am a single woman, alone, from another country. The other problem is that when I try to stand up for myself, some guys get scared to the point of calling police. And then school officials tell me: "You cannot go and tell someone to leave you alone, it's harassment, and it's illegal." When I ask them: "Is it legal for the guy to call me names? Is that not harassment?" They answer: "Well, that's unfortunate, but there is nothing you can do about it, it's the way life is." Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a contradiction here. But then, it might be just me. Well, sorry for going off-subject again. Marina 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. > > 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 > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:03:43 -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 Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Stacey Holbrook wrote: > > 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'm not sure, why so many people (and only in US) think that kids need "someone to stay home with them", be that mother or father. Don't you think that a child would benefit more being around other kids her age, someone they could play with, instead of being stuck with a parent. A parent who while having a dream job, confines him/herself to several years of house arrest, where all they can do is to watch idiotic daytime shows. And while having Master's degree, spend their time on "household duties" which are equivalent to minimum-wage jobs (like cleaning or babysitting) that do not require attending grade school. Do you think that when a person spends the best years of their life like this, it's not going to affect their personality, and eventually their relationship with children? I remember the time when my mother got a job that she could do at home, going to work only to submit another project. I watched her going around the house getting irritated about all things that seemed wrong, poking into everything me and my brother were doing, bugging us about homework, and finally, starting to watch _soaps_ she used to hate. When I cought her on watching a soap for the first time, she turned it off, and said apologetecally, that "there was nothing else on". I felt very sorry for her and said, "Hey, Mom, if you like it, it's OK." But that day I promised myself, that I'll never, ever stay home, even if I have ten children and all of them babies. Because I think that my children would benefit much more of having a mother who is an independant person. 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) > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:21:36 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" They are rejecting, to some degree, the feminism of these novels because the class sees them as reinscribing patriarchy by making women cosmic clean up crews... Ont he other hand, one of our goals is to try to see what we cannot imagine. I mean by this that after we read ten fem Utop. novels this semester, certain commonalities become supervisible,and then we can try to see if they constitute a wall in our common imagination, and try to see past it... I've put aside the issue for the next couple weeks (I'm trying to get thrugh Fuss on the essentialism question), while we are reading Handmaid's Tale and Gate to Women's Country. I'm not sure if it will need to come up for The Dispossessed, but I will definitely need to address the issue indepth when we get to The Fifth Sacred Thing, and Marraiges Between Zones 3, 4, 5. I've really appreciated everyone's thoughts on this Happy fall--it was 86 here in Upstate New York yesterday, whihc is my idea of a utopic day ;) At 08:48 PM 10/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >Rudy: I am still mulling this over, I appreciate your patience. Re: the >problem with your class. Do you mean that they still buy into a >patriarchy based mindset because they see women as maternal/universe >clean-up crews? > > >Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us >Reference Librarian >Wichita Public Library > > Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:07:10 -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: <3.0.2.32.19971010092136.006b0ff0@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Rudy Leon wrote: > > I've put aside the issue for the next couple weeks (I'm trying to get > thrugh Fuss on the essentialism question), while we are reading Handmaid's > Tale and Gate to Women's Country. I'm not sure if it will need to come up > for The Dispossessed, but I will definitely need to address the issue > indepth when we get to The Fifth Sacred Thing, and Marraiges Between Zones > 3, 4, 5. > If you have them read HANDMAID'S TALE, do have them read Heinlein's REVOLT IN 2100 as a companion piece! Because Atwood, who looks down her nose at science fiction and apparently never heard of Heinlein, has written the perfect prequel to REVOLT. Also check out the video of HANDMAID'S TALE. It hit the theatres for about a day and then vanished, but it streamlines Atwood's rather excessively literary style without losing anything of the plot. The saddest part: Offred's mistress watching videos of herself as a former televangelist. > Rudy Leon > Syracuse University > releon@syr.edu > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:27:16 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Geoffrey Sperl Organization: Wayne State University Subject: Re: women and nature... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > Also check out the video of HANDMAID'S TALE. It hit the theatres for > about a day and then vanished, but it streamlines Atwood's rather > excessively literary style without losing anything of the plot. The > saddest part: Offred's mistress watching videos of herself as a former > televangelist. I've been lurking here for a little while (Hello, all!), but, after reading this note, and having feelings rather different than Pat's on the movie (note: I can't bring myself to call this a film) version of HT, I felt I would crawl out of the woodwork. I will agree that Faye Dunaway puts in a good performance, given the material that was witten for her, and the reminiscence scene is decent. The most powerful point of the movie, I thought, was the herding scenes with the women being collected, etc. That's where I would probably have to turn the VCR off and go be suicidal somewhere for a while. In all, however, I believe the movie trivializes the vast majority of points in the book, and even skips over major areas. The director, known very well for after-school specials and made-for-tv flicks in Germany, shows that he doesn't have what it takes for the big screen. The writing is dull, the characters are wooden, and the entire film is plain, static, and rather boring before and after the herding scenes. Instead of the director and writer (I can't remember if they were one in the same) letting the story speak its horrors for itself, they get sappy and overly-sentimental... I would highly recommend not showing this travesty of celluloid to your class(es), unless you want to discuss how movie makers twist and change story, plot, and message to make a buck off of a bestselling novel. Just my two cents, all... - Geoffrey D. Sperl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:52 -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: women and nature... << Also check out the video of HANDMAID'S TALE. It hit the theatres for about a day and then vanished, but it streamlines Atwood's rather excessively literary style without losing anything of the plot. >> I thought this was very well done overall--some of the scenes like the "salvaging" (did I remember the term right? Where they hang the "traitor" together?) are very powerful. Please note though that there *are* changes in the plot, and if your students rent the movie instead of reading the book you'll find out pretty quickly. The major differences are that the film makes clear some things that Atwood left deliberately ambiguous--the protagonists's name, for instance, and whether or not she really escapes or is pregnant at the end. It also loses the "historical notes" bit at the very end, which is an important part of the structure of the book. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:38:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII We've been talking about the choice to 'stay at home' with kids versus going out into the working world. What I would like to see is the possibility of taking your kids into your world with you. My parents both worked outside the home. I don't remember how it came about, but I do remember occasions where my father took me to work with him, because babysitting wasn't something they could afford. He was a high school teacher. I would sit in the back of the classes he taught and listen for as long as it interested me, and read and draw when it didn't. I met his colleagues and his students and I think it was a valuable experience for a kid. I would also go to my mother's workplace after school. She worked in a public library. She'd give me her adult library card, and I'd prowl the science fiction section. First read Harlan Ellison there. And in the arts council where I work, it's not uncommon for committee members, jury members and staff to bring their kids in. There's something inclusive and whole-feeling about running a meeting in which a committe member is breast-feeding her newborn. Or working in a place in which a staff member's teenaged brother is earning school placement credits by doing data entry for us. We separate children and the task of child-rearing from the rest of our lives. I'd like to see other models. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:59:38 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildiko Paulovitch Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) Nalo, Sounds like you had parents with jobs that could welcome children. I work in a hospital and need all my wits about me when i am at work, can't be wondering what mischief a child is into. I am lucky enough to work at a hospital that offers on site child care so parents can have their children close. Always comes down to money, if you can't do it yourself you will pay a lot of money for someone else to do it. ildiko ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:00:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin" Subject: Margaret Atwood and sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in her defense -- I have been told by people from all around the country that when she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she routinely carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before hers, similar territory) and mentions it. Suzette ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:16:26 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorie G Sauble-otto Subject: Re: Margaret Atwood and sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Atwood's work seems to be complex in its science "fictioness". I for one have been tremendously influenced by it and anyone who appreciated the Handmaid's Tale, should definitely taste the Edible Woman, maybe not too sci-fi, but absolutely a look at the body and how it is shaped by society and history. On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin wrote: > About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in her defense -- > > I have been told by people from all around the country that when > she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she routinely > carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before hers, > similar territory) and mentions it. > Suzette > Lorie Sauble-Otto Dept. of French & Italian U. of Arizona Tucson, AZ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:32:34 -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: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: <971010135833_-528646435@emout05.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Ildiko Paulovitch wrote: > Nalo, > Sounds like you had parents with jobs that could welcome children. I > work in a hospital and need all my wits about me when i am at work, can't be > wondering what mischief a child is into. I am lucky enough to work at a > hospital that offers on site child care so parents can have their children > close. NH: Yes, I did, and the on-site child care that you describe is another way of doing it when you can't have the child by your side. > Always comes down to money, if you can't do it yourself you will pay > a lot of money for someone else to do it. NH: Yeah, and that where the science fiction part comes in, imagining what it might be like if we could achieve it. :) -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:08:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > We've been talking about the choice to 'stay at home' with kids versus > going out into the working world. What I would like to see is the > possibility of taking your kids into your world with you. My parents [snip] Hmm. My parents also took me with them. They were grad students and worked in food cop-op and so on. (Though for a few of my earliest years my father stayed home with me) We also lived in an intentional community (like a utopian commune but not so unrealistic) so a lot of other people took care of me too. Anyway, I loved Grad school classes and my dad had computers available to him that I could play with and program to do simple things. I have particularly fond memories of using a paper terminal that connected to the mainframe via a modem that had two rubber cups that fit onto a telephone handset. He was doing bio-statistics at the university and was working in a traditional office environment. I also remember being given the job of dealing with the stacks of computer paper to prepare them for recycling (they had to have the edges taken off or something). As I got older my parents iwould sometimes ask me to visit them at their offices to help them with their computers. In general, I loved being helpful. I think that treating a child like an asset and finding things that they can do that are helpful is one of the best things you can do. I got such a thrill out of being helpful, and I am sure that I did actually help some and certainly was less trouble. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:03:06 -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: raising kids (in! sf :-) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Hmm. My parents also took me with them. Mine did, too, at least in 1976-1977 when I was in Carolina Friends School and there were some odd teacher work days. I remember going to work with my father (research meteorologist), but I don't remember what I did to keep entertained... My mother was working on her PhD at Duke then, so I expect that it would have been more awkward for her to take us (I was 6-7 and my brother is 17 months younger). > I have particularly fond memories of using a paper > terminal that connected to the mainframe via a modem that had two rubber > cups that fit onto a telephone handset. Mmmm... Teletype? w/ acoustic couplers... I've used acoustic couplers once or twice. TDDs still use them widely, though... Anyway, to bring SF into this, _Daughter(s?) of Elysium_ (Joan Sloczewski) does have a view of a society where children are welcome and expected in the workplace. At least, one protagonist's family comes from that society, but they are depicted in another society where family, as such, is non-existant (partly due to their extremely long life-spans and restricted living area). In the first society, the female is head-of-household and the primary breadwinner--and they're called "goddesses", not women. Men are respected as child rearers (women carry 'em to birth, men after, or something like that), and they're not expected to go to college or work at a trade. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:13:53 -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: Butler's Ooloi/gender identification << Hopefully many of you will have read _Nearly Roadkill_, a wonderful pretty much real-life (well, it fits my life) description of some of the interactions that can happen at the intersection of certain virtual and real-life communities. >> Can you give me a more complete citation for this? Is it a novel, non-fiction...? Sounds fascinating. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:41:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: _Nearly Roadkill_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It is science fiction. It is a novel. It is very close to real life, however (and too close to aol for my tastes, but that's the only drawback. =) But perhaps a side of life "normal" people don't run into much. The jacket says http://www.nearlyroadkill.com , but I haven't visited it so I can't promise. Sullivan, Caitlin, and Kate Bornstein. _Nearly Roadkill: An Infobahn Erotic Adventure_. New York: High Risk, 1996. Enjoy, Heather =) At 05:13 PM 10/10/97 -0400, you wrote: ><< Hopefully many of you will have read _Nearly > Roadkill_, a wonderful pretty much real-life (well, it fits my life) > description of some of the interactions that can happen at the intersection > of certain virtual and real-life communities. >> > >Can you give me a more complete citation for this? Is it a novel, >non-fiction...? Sounds fascinating. > >Nicole > > hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:47:37 -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: women and nature... In-Reply-To: <971010121110_-2030088080@emout15.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've kind of avoided the question of the movie version, whihc Pat has brought up before ad really seems to like, under the rubric of 'if you have nothing nice to say...' However, I want to add my two cents here to say that the movie version, IMHO, is *awful*. It leaves off some of the most important stuff, for my purposes, especially *how* Gilead came to be. My students have been instructed to not watch it... Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:14:48 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Margaret Atwood and sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin wrote: > > About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in her defense -- > > I have been told by people from all around the country that when > she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she routinely > carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before hers, > similar territory) and mentions it. > Suzette > That's marvelous! When HT first came out I remember her being quoted as saying "It's NOT science fiction. It doesn't have a single spaceship or robot in it." I guess she got set straight....;) 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: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:58:06 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MaryLou Subject: Re: women and nature... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo, Rudy--I completely agree--I was actually ashamed that the movie had the same title as the book. Some of my students had already seen the movie before taking the class in which we were reading the book--they had great difficulties in trying to interpret the complexity of the novel since they had pre-judged it. The film dilutes the book--reduces it to the sensationalization of sexual ownership and not much more. Mary Lou Rudy Leon wrote: > I've kind of avoided the question of the movie version, whihc Pat has > brought up before ad really seems to like, under the rubric of 'if you have > nothing nice to say...' However, I want to add my two cents here to say > that the movie version, IMHO, is *awful*. It leaves off some of the most > important stuff, for my purposes, especially *how* Gilead came to be. My > students have been instructed to not watch it... > Rudy Leon > Syracuse University > releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:49:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Maerlande Chronicles (was sf and gender) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Petra Mayerhofer wrote: >I have read _The Maerlande Chronicles_ (TMC) during the summer. >Perhaps this is only quibbling about terms but I do not agree that >Maerlande is a 'reversal society' for that very reason that women >outnumber men (something about 5 men on 100 women). Brantenberg's >_Egalia's Daugthers_ I would describe as a reversal society. TMC >explores how a society could be organised in which one sex is the >quantitative minority. > >I think that when asked how they thought a society with that >women/men ratio would be structured, many people would have described >a harem society with men as the leaders, gods, possessors of >everything or something like that. But Vonarburg has made something >completely different from that, and IMO it is much more believable. >Like Joanna, I found it very intriging that in such a society >for the female protagonist men are simply not an issue, at least at >first. She is not interested in them at all in any aspect, they are >completely alien to her, an attitude many other women share in that >society, which constitutes a significant problem for the men. Another >problem for the men is their history, in that men had been the >oppressors before the women defeated them. And yet another problem is >that men are reduced to sperm-donors, that is their only >societal function and in some ways that cannot be helped. The fate of >the men in that society is given quite some room in the book but - if >somebody gets the impression from my last paragraph - it is not the >most important part of the book. > >I wonder if the Maerlande society can be described as 'non-sexist'. >As long as they are fertile men are given no option at all, they are >just sperm-donors. If or as soon as they are infertile some >regions/groups in the society allow men to get an education, more >conservative ones just send them to work on farms and the reactionary >ones do not allow the men to come back to them (as soon as they can >perform as sperm-donors men are sent around between the different >regions to avoid inbreeding). Furthermore, men are seen as less than >women, etc. > Petra, I guess I do see the society Vonarburg creates as sexist (and that is why I called it a reversal society), although I don't want to see it that way. As you note, the men are reduced to sperm doners, which is just like women (traditionally) being reduced to baby machines, and the men have fewer educational opportunities than the women, which is a reversal of the fact that, generally speaking, through time men rather than women have been educated. The Maerlande men also have no political voice at council meetings (until the end of the novel)like many women in many countries today. I think, though, that Maerlande men are even treated by some women in ways that I associate with racism. Remember the scene where Lisbei and a group of her female friends are sitting at a table in public and Dougal joins them? The women from another table refuse to give up their empty chair for him. Those women stalk off when it is clear Dougal is going to sit with Lisbei and her friends. This scene made me think of the way African American people were (are? I hope not) treated in the U.S. before the civil rights movement. Interestingly race isn't an issue in Maerlande. People are divided up by their reproductive abilities--green for children, red for those who are fertile, and blue for those who are infertile. I find it interesting that people are still divided by colors, but not by their skin colors. Skin color is mentioned in passing (Kellys, for example, has dark skin. So does Lisbei.)but skin color is never a reason for treating a person a particular way. So, like I said, I think most of the women of Maerlande have sexist and racist attitudes about the men. I wish Vonarburg had created a society that doesn't use hierarchical organizational systems, but, like I said earlier, I really enjoyed her depiction of a female-dominant society. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:40:17 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kloss, Ingrid B." Subject: Re: Margaret Atwood and sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, _The Handmaid's Tale_ is definitely more towards the fiction-y side of the genre, with a more determined focus on the personal and human aspects of the story. Although I have not seen the movie (after hearing terrible reviews I decided not to bother with it), I've heard and read that it ignores many of the integral plot and style elements mentioned before. Also in Atwood's defense, I highly doubt that she looks down on science fiction just because her SF is more literary--that is her writing style. Expecting Atwood to be less literary is like asking LeGuin to use less adjectives. -Ingrid >---------- >From: Lorie G Sauble-otto[SMTP:lorie@U.ARIZONA.EDU] >Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 2:16 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Margaret Atwood and sf > >Atwood's work seems to be complex in its science "fictioness". I for one >have been tremendously influenced by it and anyone who appreciated the >Handmaid's Tale, should definitely taste the Edible Woman, maybe not too >sci-fi, but absolutely a look at the body and how it is shaped by society >and history. > > > > > > > >On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin wrote: > >> About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in her >>defense -- >> >> I have been told by people from all around the country that when >> she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she routinely >> carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before hers, >> similar territory) and mentions it. >> Suzette >> > >Lorie Sauble-Otto >Dept. of French & Italian >U. of Arizona >Tucson, AZ > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:24:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Fw: Some unrelated humor and female teenage violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've got this from my friend who lives in Cyprus now. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:32:36 +0200 From: KRISTINA KHDRIAN To: Marina Yereshenko Subject: Fw: Kriste i Kryzhke > > If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is > no woman around to hear him - Is he still wrong? > > If a deaf person swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap? > > If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it > considered a hostage situation? > > Is there another word for synonym? > > Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?" > > When you open a bag of cotton balls, is the top one meant to be removed? > > Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?" > > What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered > plant? > > If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages? > > Would a fly without wings be called a walk? > > Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they afraid someone will > clean them? > > If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is she homeless or naked? > > Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? > > Can vegetarians eat animal crackers? > > If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain > > silent? > > Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines? > > How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign? > > Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections? > > Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets? > > Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny? > > What was the best thing before sliced bread? > P.S. "Fly with no wings who would be called a walk" reminded us both of the way two girls in our class were having fun in about eighth grade. They were catching flies and "making peacocks" out of them, by sticking a feather into their behinds and letting them fly like that. Thats on the question of innately peaceful and nurturing nature of girls... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:09:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree with you, Nalo. My parents both worked at the same place when I was small. They both took me with them every once in a while, showed me around and explained what they, and other people, were doing (they worked in a seismology research lab). And they let me play with those old huge 70's mainframe computers that used punch cards and occupied a whole room. Which might have influenced my interest in computers which are my present major in college. Marina Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > We've been talking about the choice to 'stay at home' with kids versus > going out into the working world. What I would like to see is the > possibility of taking your kids into your world with you. My parents > both worked outside the home. I don't remember how it came about, but I > do remember occasions where my father took me to work with him, because > babysitting wasn't something they could afford. He was a high school > teacher. I would sit in the back of the classes he taught and listen for > as long as it interested me, and read and draw when it didn't. I met his > colleagues and his students and I think it was a valuable experience for > a kid. I would also go to my mother's workplace after school. She > worked in a public library. She'd give me her adult library card, and > I'd prowl the science fiction section. First read Harlan Ellison there. > And in the arts council where I work, it's not uncommon for committee > members, jury members and staff to bring their kids in. There's > something inclusive and whole-feeling about running a meeting in which a > committe member is breast-feeding her newborn. Or working in a place in > which a staff member's teenaged brother is earning school placement > credits by doing data entry for us. We separate children and the task of > child-rearing from the rest of our lives. I'd like to see other models. > > -nalo > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:25:29 -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: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Another thing that kind of surprises me, is why there is so few day care centers in America, which makes working and having kids such a sacrifice. In South Brooklyn, mostly Russian-populated neighborhoods, there are more day cares than convenience stores. All women who immigrated from the Soviet Union used to work and have children at home. There was never such thing as "either or", because everyone had to work, and no one wanted to stay childless because of that. So when they came to US, they automatically started looking for a job, because it's simply a natural state for a healthy adult. And women who used to work in elementary education system in USSR, simply organized the same thing in their own apartments. That is simply an old capitalist rule of supply and demand -- day care centers are needed, there are elementary ed teachers who need a job, and as a result, you have three-four nice and affordable day care centers on every block. So if you or your kid does not like one place, you can find another one fifty feet away from the first one. Why it does not seem to work in the rest of the US? There are, like, hundreds of Elementary Education majors in every American school I've seen. Do they all go to college just for MRS degree? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:29:40 -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: raising kids (not sf) << Why it does not seem to work in the rest of the US? There are, like, hundreds of Elementary Education majors in every American school I've seen. Do they all go to college just for MRS degree? >> I suspect one reason is that, while daycare is very expensive for the parents, it doesn't pay well at all for the employees. Even someone with an MA in early childhood education might not make more than a dollar or two over minimum wage, if that. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:25:15 -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: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: <971011222817_441799483@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Nicole Youngman wrote: > << > Why it does not seem to work in the rest of the US? There are, like, > hundreds of Elementary Education majors in every American school I've > seen. Do they all go to college just for MRS degree? > >> > > I suspect one reason is that, while daycare is very expensive for the > parents, it doesn't pay well at all for the employees. Even someone with an > MA in early childhood education might not make more than a dollar or two over > minimum wage, if that. > > Nicole > It's bad, but it isn't quite that bad. I teach half-time in my university's early childhood education program (the other half of me is in the English department) and I have some sense of what our graduates are doing. Most people who graduate with a B.A. or B.S. in ECE and who go into a professional daycare setting (ie. large-scale or corporate daycare as opposed to a small, in the home setup) can count on making about what a public elementary school teacher in a non-unionized school district will make, or maybe a smidge less. Most people who get graduate degrees in Early Childhood Education are either headed for administrative jobs in large-scale day cares, head teacher jobs, or are planning to teach at the university or junior college level and will make a middle-class income. The real problem in day care, in America at least, involves specifically daycare for infants and toddlers, where state and federal law, not to mention common sense, decree a small adult-child ratio, one that does indeed make decent salaries impossible without prohibitively high hourly rates or a lot of subsidy money. For this reason, many large, for profit daycares won't do babies. Now the lack of subsidies is another issue of course. In part that ties in to the typically American phobia about socialism and in part it ties into the typically crazy American obsession with the ideal of the intensely hierarchical one (male) wage earner family. Many Americans still believe in their heart of hearts that it's bad for women to work outside the home, at best a sad necessity, and maybe not even that. Better a family should live in poverty than that they should find good daycare so that mom can work. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:52:04 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: (snip) > Why it does not seem to work in the rest of the US? There are, like, > hundreds of Elementary Education majors in every American school I've > seen. Do they all go to college just for MRS degree? > > Marina Why on earth would a man find a woman more attractive for having an elementary ed. degree??? She'll make less money than him and have to scramble like hell to find a job. When she does people will snear at her when they meet her at parties. Only housewives are sneared at more. Not much of a bargain there. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:38:35 -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: raising kids (not sf) << Most people who graduate with a B.A. or B.S. in ECE and who go into a professional daycare setting (ie. large-scale or corporate daycare as opposed to a small, in the home setup) can count on making about what a public elementary school teacher in a non-unionized school district will make, or maybe a smidge less. >> Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder how much that varies depending on what part of the country/world you're in? In any case, I suspect the pay for other daycare workers is still very low--that was my experience, at least. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:26:29 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Margaret Atwood and sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Pat wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin wrote: > > > > > About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in her defense -- > > > > I have been told by people from all around the country that when > > she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she routinely > > carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before hers, > > similar territory) and mentions it. > > Suzette > > > > That's marvelous! When HT first came out I remember her being > quoted as saying "It's NOT science fiction. It doesn't have a single > spaceship or robot in it." I guess she got set straight....;) > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews And when she was awarded the Arthur C. Clarke Award for the best SF Book publoished in the UK (in 1986, I suppose: I was Chair of the Panel of Judges at the time, but can't quite remember!) she and her UK publishers were annoyed at the book being described at science fiction, and did not mention the fact on subsequent printings (That's true of the 1997 winner too: the latest UK paperback of Amitav Ghosh's Calcutta Chromosome does not mention that it won the Arthur C. Clarke Award.). I have met more than one feminist literary critic who has denied that "The Handsmaid's Tale" is science fiction, too. "How can it be? I don't like science fiction..." :-( Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:39:02 -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: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: :) And I'm a writer (my dad was a playwright/poet/actor. Rehearsals were part of my babysitting, too. Helped a *whole* lot when it came to studying Shakespeare and Chaucer in high school). -nalo On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > I agree with you, Nalo. My parents both worked at the same place when I > was small. They both took me with them every once in a while, showed me > around and explained what they, and other people, were doing (they worked in > a seismology research lab). And they let me play with those old huge 70's > mainframe computers that used punch cards and occupied a whole room. > Which might have influenced my interest in computers which are my present > major in college. > > Marina ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:44:51 -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: raising kids (not sf) Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34405774.386@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Pat York wrote: > Why on earth would a man find a woman more attractive for having an > elementary ed. degree??? NH: It's not that men would hopefully find degreed women more attractive. If I understand the thinking, it goes something like: * You go to university to meet the men who will be good marriage prospects (ie. employable at a high wage level) * You need to be majoring in *something* in order to go to university, so you pick something something typically 'nurturing' that if it leads to a profession at all, will lead to something 'womanly' like teaching kids. And again, please don't mistake my description for endorsement. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:39:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Theresa Mackey Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I REALLY want some feminist literary studies in my panel. Anyone interested? Terry ...........CALL FOR PAPERS................ Contributions are invited on the subject of LITERATURE AS REVOLUTION for the Sixth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas, to be held at the University of Haifa, Israel, August 16-21, 1998. The emphasis will be on how literature has motivated or can motive political and social revolutions, including revolutions in thought. Interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged, but all proposals will be considered. Theoretical frameworks may include, but are not limited to, psychoanalysis, sociology, philosophy (particularly aesthetics), history, political science, comparative literature, and single-nation literature. Analyses of specific works that have served to foment, support, or suppress revolution are also encouraged. Though the workshop is entitled LITERATURE AS REVOLUTION IN 20TH CENTURY EUROPE, the topic is meant to be extremely broad--the work may be from elsewhere (colonial and postcolonial narratives are encouraged), provided an effect was felt in 20th century Europe. Too, the revolution itself need not be in Europe (it might be elsewhere)--provided one or more European works are considered. Selected papers will be published in the ISSEI's journal, _The European Legacy: Towards New Paradigms_, and on CD-ROM. Please send a one-page abstract and a CV to the workshop chair by January 1. E-mail submissions are welcome. Terry Mackey Dept of English & Philosophy State University of West Georgia Carrollton GA 30118 USA tmackey@westga.edu 770-830-2257 (phone) 770-830-2334 (fax--PLEASE call or email to verify that your fax has arrived, as the system is unreliable) Inquiries are also welcome. Thank you. >> > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:09:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Shadow Man Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34405774.386@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I figured someone here would probably have the answer to my question, so here goes. Is Melissa Scott's Shadow Man ever going to come out in normal paperback? The hardcover came out in 1995, and I think I saw a trade paperback last year that was in store for about two weeks, but I've never seen it in normal sized paperback form. I've been wanting the book for a while, but not sure if it's worth $$22.95 (the HB price) Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:11:57 -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: Margaret Atwood and sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our local Sunday newspaper today carries Steve Miller's review of "God's Dice," S. Andrew Swann, DAW. This book isn't feminist SF that I know of (this review is the first time I've heard of it, in fact) - but I mention it here because Mr. Miller begins his remarks by complaining that DAW has misrepresented this book by calling it "science fiction." His reasoning? It's a tale of alternative realities, and in his opinion that doesn't make a book SF. Of course he's a local reviewer, but apparently his misinformation is shared by others... Nina Osier Edward James wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Pat wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin wrote: > > > > > > > > About Margaret Atwood not being aware of science fiction, and in > her defense -- > > > > > > I have been told by people from all around the country > that when > > > she comes to a campus to talk about The Handmaid's Tale she > routinely > > > carries a copy of Native Tongue (novel by me, published before > hers, > > > similar territory) and mentions it. > > > Suzette > > > > > > > That's marvelous! When HT first came out I remember her > being > > quoted as saying "It's NOT science fiction. It doesn't have a single > > > spaceship or robot in it." I guess she got set straight....;) > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > > And when she was awarded the Arthur C. Clarke Award for the best SF > Book > publoished in the UK (in 1986, I suppose: I was Chair of the Panel of > Judges at the time, but can't quite remember!) she and her UK > publishers > were annoyed at the book being described at science fiction, and did > not > mention the fact on subsequent printings (That's true of the 1997 > winner > too: the latest UK paperback of Amitav Ghosh's Calcutta Chromosome > does > not mention that it won the Arthur C. Clarke Award.). I have met more > than one feminist literary critic who has denied that "The Handsmaid's > > Tale" is science fiction, too. "How can it be? I don't like science > fiction..." > > :-( > > Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:58:23 -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: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: <971012013834_1966366638@emout02.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Nicole Youngman wrote: > << Most people who graduate with a B.A. or B.S. in ECE and who go into a > professional daycare setting (ie. large-scale or corporate daycare as > opposed to a small, in the home setup) can count on making about what a > public elementary school teacher in a non-unionized school district will > make, or maybe a smidge less. >> > > Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder how much that varies depending on what part > of the country/world you're in? In any case, I suspect the pay for other > daycare workers is still very low--that was my experience, at least. > > Nicole > Yes, for non-degreed people, minimum wage or a couple of dollars more is pretty much standard. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:03:04 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) Comments: To: Nalo Hopkinson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, yes, of course that's the way it -used- to be, Nalo, but surely nobody does that anymore? I never understood those of my sister hausfraus who never prepared themselves for any career. I mean, husbands die or leave some women,don't they? I saw it happen to woman after woman; one year they were prosperous and upper middle class, the next year they were holding down low paying jobs and they and their children were on food stamps. Funny old world. Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Pat York wrote: > > > Why on earth would a man find a woman more attractive for having an > > elementary ed. degree??? > > NH: It's not that men would hopefully find degreed women more > attractive. If I understand the thinking, it goes something like: > > * You go to university to meet the men who will be good marriage > prospects (ie. employable at a high wage level) > > * You need to be majoring in *something* in order to go to university, so > you pick something something typically 'nurturing' that if it leads to a > profession at all, will lead to something 'womanly' like teaching kids. > > And again, please don't mistake my description for endorsement. > > -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:20:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > Another thing that kind of surprises me, is why there is so few day care > centers in America, which makes working and having kids such a sacrifice. > In South Brooklyn, mostly Russian-populated neighborhoods, there are more > day cares than convenience stores. All women who immigrated from the > Soviet Union used to work and have children at home. There was never such > thing as "either or", because everyone had to work, and no one wanted to > stay childless because of that. So when they came to US, they > automatically started looking for a job, because it's simply a natural > state for a healthy adult. And women who used to work in elementary > education system in USSR, simply organized the same thing in their own > apartments. That is simply an old capitalist rule of supply and demand -- > day care centers are needed, there are elementary ed teachers who need a > job, and as a result, you have three-four nice and affordable day care > centers on every block. So if you or your kid does not like one place, > you can find another one fifty feet away from the first one. > > Why it does not seem to work in the rest of the US? There are, like, > hundreds of Elementary Education majors in every American school I've > seen. Do they all go to college just for MRS degree? > No, but I think they all feel they have to find work in the school system or not at all. You have an excellent idea and it's a pity nobody else is doing this.> Immigrants bring in valuable ideas we never even thought of ....hmm...maybe THAT's why our more stupid politicians are whining about them. 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: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:23:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII There was a Baptist church in the South who closed down their daycare center because the minister said he wanted to "strengthen the family." 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: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:26:24 -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: Margaret Atwood and sf -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> "Nina M. Osier" - 10/12/97 4:11 PM >>> wrote Our local Sunday newspaper today carries Steve Miller's review of "God's Dice," S. Andrew Swann, DAW. This book isn't feminist SF that I know of (this review is the first time I've heard of it, in fact) >>>- but I mention it here because Mr. Miller begins his remarks by complaining that DAW has misrepresented this book by calling it "science fiction." His reasoning? It's a tale of alternative realities, and in his opinion that doesn't make a book SF. Of course he's a local reviewer, but apparently his misinformation is shared by others... As a representative of DAW, I can say, "God's Dice" is not a particularly "feminist" (or non-feminist) book. It is a sf/fantasy book about alternate realities. The reviewer who made that comment obviously doesn't understand a lot of the non-alternate realities of publishing, one of which is, how do you classify a book that crosses genres? You could say, "don't classify it, then," but we have to in order to sell the book to the people at B&N, wholesalers, etc. This guy also probably thinks that sf books are either space operas or filled with (spurious or not) technical jargon. I think the problem with Atwood and her publishers is that they feel the Handmaid's Tale is a "literary" work, and not to be associated with the downmarket genre of science fiction. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm proud to be a member of the genre ghetto of SF. I'd rather read a bad or mediocre SF novel than a bad or mediocre "literary" novel any day. Debra Euler Assistant Editor, DAW Books ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:23:43 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yeah, that was the thinking behind our local board of ed's refusal to institute all-day kindergarden. Older people (men) stood up and hissed about those damned, lazy people looking to get out of their childrearing responsibility. The nastiest thing anyone could think of to say about it was that people were 'just looking for free daycare'. Pat wrote: > > There was a Baptist church in the South who closed down their daycare > center because the minister said he wanted to "strengthen the family." > > 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: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:41:12 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marilyn Nulman Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I just read "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman. In Chapter 15, he discusses brain development in children from infancy to adolescence as it relates to their emotional development. I quote: "Of all species we humans take the longest for our brains to fully mature. Several brain areas critical for emotional life are among the slowest to mature. The habits of emotional management that are repeated over and over again during childhood and the teenage years will themselves mold that circuitry. This makes childhood a crucial window of opportunity for shaping lifelong emotional propensities; habits acquired in childhood become set in the basic synoptic wiring of neural architecture, and are harder to change later in life." Tbe book discusses the various skills and the ages at which they develop, and of the damage done when abuse or neglect corrupt the process. Emotional intelligence is not "just" the ability to love well, an ability that does not seem to get much respect in this society, where a romance is a mass market paperback sneered at by all intelligent folk and sex is a commodity. It is the ability to see another's point of view--empathy. It is the ability to resolve a crisis without turning to violence. It is the ability to take the long view, to delay gratification for a greater good, and to recognize the greater good. How does this touch Science Fiction? Depression is rapidly growing among children and teenagers. Anorexia and bulemia are household words today. Violence--children murder children. Poor women are forced into an unwelcoming job market by "welfare reform", leaving their kids to the mercies of a system that has none. (Yes, I know some of the women may be lousy mothers, but what of those who aren't? Why not try to help the unfit ones?" What kind of a world are we creating? What a challenge for a writer to imagine a society where the needs of children come first! Where everything revolves around protecting and educating the young to carry on the survival of the species. That's what it's all about. We adults may create great art, build commercial empires or computer networks or spaceships, but so what, if much of our children, raised by indifferent, underpaid and/or overworked caretakers, unable to use or appreciate our creations, trash them--and the ones who do care and understand. Every time I read of elder abuse I wonder how those old people raised their children. I know it isn't as simple as that, but I do wonder. I also wonder if the people who shunt their little ones off to day care today won't be cheerfully shunted off to nursing homes when their needs become inconvenient for their now adult offspring. I believe that every human has the right to satisfying work. I believe even more that every child has the right to grow up loved and intelligently educated in both the intellectual and emotional sense. What's the best way to do that? Dream on. Sorry for the length, but I'm really serious about this. Marilyn . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:50:16 -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: raising kids (not sf?)--long MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I agree with you completely, Marilyn. And to bring this back into the realm >of literature/sci-fi, your idea reminds me of the utopia in Herland. In >their society, the children were the most important thing in the world. >Everything was centered around making sure that every child was cared for and >loved and respected. Because of this, every adult also felt secure and >worthwhile. No high-stress competition, no stepping on people on the way up, >no damaging comparisons made about who's prettier or more talented or >wealthier. Everyone and every child had real value. >They also carried this child-centeredness into the idea of school and work. >Children were always learning, even when they were playing, so that school >didn't feel like "work" to them. Thus, when they started to mature, they >were allowed to experience all the different types of work available to them >and choose the type they liked best. Children were always welcome to visit >where the women were working. >It's such a simple idea, I don't understand how our society can not be >structured in this way. Happy, healthy children = happy healthy adults. >Sounds like utopia to me. -Erin > > > > > > > >. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:10:33 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kloss, Ingrid B." Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes! Erin, I was totally reminded of Herland as well. That book was so powerful in its sense of worth and community shared with children. I remember reading the book and thinking how terribly strange it was that we were viewing that society as a real deviation from the norm, when it should be what we want--it should already exist. Ingrid >---------- >From: Laur, Erin M. >Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 12:50 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] raising kids (not sf?)--long > >>I agree with you completely, Marilyn. And to bring this back into the realm >>of literature/sci-fi, your idea reminds me of the utopia in Herland. In >>their society, the children were the most important thing in the world. >>Everything was centered around making sure that every child was cared for >>and >>loved and respected. Because of this, every adult also felt secure and >>worthwhile. No high-stress competition, no stepping on people on the way >>up, >>no damaging comparisons made about who's prettier or more talented or >>wealthier. Everyone and every child had real value. >>They also carried this child-centeredness into the idea of school and work. >>Children were always learning, even when they were playing, so that school >>didn't feel like "work" to them. Thus, when they started to mature, they >>were allowed to experience all the different types of work available to them >>and choose the type they liked best. Children were always welcome to visit >>where the women were working. >>It's such a simple idea, I don't understand how our society can not be >>structured in this way. Happy, healthy children = happy healthy adults. >>Sounds like utopia to me. -Erin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>. >> > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:22:18 -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: raising kids (not sf) Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34405774.386@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I find the attitude of sneering at housewives and those who have to do with babies a distinct buy-in of the male attitude which states anything at all has more importance than raising children. Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us Reference Librarian Wichita Public Library ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:41:48 -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: raising kids (not sf?)--long In-Reply-To: <199710131541.LAA03233@mail.gwi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Marilyn Nulman wrote: > > How does this touch Science Fiction? > > Depression is rapidly growing among children and teenagers. Anorexia and > bulemia are household words today. Violence--children murder children. > Poor women are forced into an unwelcoming job market by "welfare reform", > leaving their kids to the mercies of a system that has none. (Yes, I know > some of the women may be lousy mothers, but what of those who aren't? Why > not try to help the unfit ones?" What kind of a world are we creating? > > What a challenge for a writer to imagine a society where the needs of > children come first! Where everything revolves around protecting and > educating the young to carry on the survival of the species. That's what > it's all about. We adults may create great art, build commercial empires or > computer networks or spaceships, but so what, if much of our children, > raised by indifferent, underpaid and/or overworked caretakers, unable to use > or appreciate our creations, trash them--and the ones who do care and > understand. > > Every time I read of elder abuse I wonder how those old people raised their > children. I know it isn't as simple as that, but I do wonder. I also > wonder if the people who shunt their little ones off to day care today won't > be cheerfully shunted off to nursing homes when their needs become > inconvenient for their now adult offspring. > > I believe that every human has the right to satisfying work. I believe even > more that every child has the right to grow up loved and intelligently > educated in both the intellectual and emotional sense. What's the best way > to do that? Dream on. > > > I too would love to see a world which revolved around taking care of children and making sure that they grow up well. Several sf writers have envisioned such worlds, most notably Marge Piercy and Joanna Russ. I take exception, however, to your use of the term "shunt" when referring to daycare. The implications of that term are entirely negative and have little to do with the real world. Most parents who use daycare love their children and do their best to provide their kids with good daycare. Studies have show over and over again that the benefits that children gain from living the somewhat more comfortable lifestyle made possible by two incomes more than outweigh the disadvantages in terms of health, happiness, long-term success and even successful relationships with their parents. The sort of poverty and borderline poverty that many two-parent families face when they're forced to live on a single income rather than two causes children far greater problems than are caused by their going to daycare because both parents work. Obviously there are better solutions than daycare. Jobs that pay well enough so that only one parent has to work. Jobs that allow flexibility so that both parents can work different shifts and one is always home. Jobs which allow parents to bring their children to work. Extended families, natural or arranged, that will take care of kids in a more home-like setting. But Daycare per se isn't the problem. It's merely the not entirely successful solution that seems to be the best thing we can currently come up with in a society driven by a corporate America whose main goal is to maximize corporate wealth at the expense of the average person. Mike Levy (who spent 3 hours observing student-teachers in daycares today and is feeling pugnacious about it!) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:20:05 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I couldn't agree more, nor agree more that it is an appropriate subject for S.F. But I would add that a child-centered utopia would -not- be child-centered. An environment that revolves around children is not good for them. It makes them self-centered and insecure. What I often see is 'stuff' (toys, clothes, games, trips) being thrown at children to take the place of active parenting. Kloss, Ingrid B. wrote: > > Yes! Erin, I was totally reminded of Herland as well. That book was so > powerful in its sense of worth and community shared with children. I > remember reading the book and thinking how terribly strange it was that > we were viewing that society as a real deviation from the norm, when it > should be what we want--it should already exist. > > Ingrid > > >---------- > >From: Laur, Erin M. > >Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 12:50 PM > >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] raising kids (not sf?)--long > > > >>I agree with you completely, Marilyn. And to bring this back into the realm > >>of literature/sci-fi, your idea reminds me of the utopia in Herland. In > >>their society, the children were the most important thing in the world. > >>Everything was centered around making sure that every child was cared for > >>and > >>loved and respected. Because of this, every adult also felt secure and > >>worthwhile. No high-stress competition, no stepping on people on the way > >>up, > >>no damaging comparisons made about who's prettier or more talented or > >>wealthier. Everyone and every child had real value. > >>They also carried this child-centeredness into the idea of school and work. > >>Children were always learning, even when they were playing, so that school > >>didn't feel like "work" to them. Thus, when they started to mature, they > >>were allowed to experience all the different types of work available to them > >>and choose the type they liked best. Children were always welcome to visit > >>where the women were working. > >>It's such a simple idea, I don't understand how our society can not be > >>structured in this way. Happy, healthy children = happy healthy adults. > >>Sounds like utopia to me. -Erin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>. > >> > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:19:57 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf) Comments: To: MaryKay Bird-Guilliams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MaryKay Bird-Guilliams wrote: > > I find the attitude of sneering at housewives and those who have to do > with babies a distinct buy-in of the male attitude which states anything > at all has more importance than raising children. > > Mary K. Bird-Guilliams marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us > Reference Librarian > Wichita Public Library No kidding. But one sees it even within education. The middle and high school teachers sometimes sneer at the elementary teachers who in turn sneer at the pre-school and kindergarden teachers. It's also worth noting that the number of male faculty increases with the grade level. People seem, at least, to be embarrassed by their attitudes now. Not so many years ago teachers would say outloud what they now only whisper. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:23:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having one partner in the family earn a "living wage" seems to take us back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. I have never read a story in which people parenting children each had a part-time job. What about a culture in which each person works about 20 hours a week? Leaves time for family, self, education, art, sleep, love. . .outside of the job. I think I'd like it. Lindy Lovvik Michael Marc Levy wrote: > I too would love to see a world which revolved around taking care of > children and making sure that they grow up well. Several sf writers have > envisioned such worlds, most notably Marge Piercy and Joanna Russ. > > I take exception, however, to your use of the term "shunt" when referring > to daycare. The implications of that term are entirely negative and have > little to do with the real world. Most parents who use daycare love their > children and do their best to provide their kids with good daycare. > Studies have show over and over again that the benefits that children > gain from living the somewhat more comfortable lifestyle made possible by > two incomes more than outweigh the disadvantages in terms of health, > happiness, long-term success and even successful relationships with their > parents. The sort of poverty and borderline poverty that many > two-parent families face when they're forced to live on a single income > rather than two causes children far greater problems than are caused by > their going to daycare because both parents work. > > Obviously there are better solutions than daycare. Jobs that pay well > enough so that only one parent has to work. Jobs that allow flexibility so > that both parents can work different shifts and one is always home. Jobs > which allow parents to bring their children to work. Extended families, > natural or arranged, that will take care of kids in a more home-like setting. > > But Daycare per se isn't the problem. It's merely the not entirely > successful solution that seems to be the best thing we can currently come > up with in a society driven by a corporate America whose main goal is to > maximize corporate wealth at the expense of the average person. > > Mike Levy (who spent 3 hours observing student-teachers in daycares today > and is feeling pugnacious about it!) -- If you can't say anything nice. . . come right over here and sit by me! http://www.best.com/~laorka ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:27:35 GMT+1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Katherine Dall Organization: ELM Macquarie University Subject: Re: Butler's Ooloi The major problem I had with accepting the Ooloi as a valid third gender [as opposed to males-in-disguise, or as potentially both male and female] was the use of the pronoun "it" to refer to _both_ neuter children - who are potentially any of the three adult genders - and adult ooloi - who are supposedly a distinct gender. So on reaching puberty, you became either male [he] or female [she] or stayed as "it"- neuter, but potentially either male or female. To me, this meant that while there were three sexes, there were still only two genders - you could be male, female or both. The Xenogenesis series is still one of the most interesting attempts at positing multiple genders that I have come across - can anyone recommend any others? Kate. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:00:04 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cheryl Hall Subject: Daycare In-Reply-To: <199710140503.AAA39890@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:41:48 -0500 > From: Michael Marc Levy > Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long > > I take exception, however, to your use of the term "shunt" when referring > to daycare. The implications of that term are entirely negative and have > little to do with the real world. Most parents who use daycare love their > children and do their best to provide their kids with good daycare. > Studies have show over and over again that the benefits that children > gain from living the somewhat more comfortable lifestyle made possible by > two incomes more than outweigh the disadvantages in terms of health, > happiness, long-term success and even successful relationships with their > parents. The sort of poverty and borderline poverty that many > two-parent families face when they're forced to live on a single income > rather than two causes children far greater problems than are caused by > their going to daycare because both parents work. > > Obviously there are better solutions than daycare. Jobs that pay well > enough so that only one parent has to work. Jobs that allow flexibility so > that both parents can work different shifts and one is always home. Jobs > which allow parents to bring their children to work. Extended families, > natural or arranged, that will take care of kids in a more home-like setting. > > But Daycare per se isn't the problem. It's merely the not entirely > successful solution that seems to be the best thing we can currently come > up with in a society driven by a corporate America whose main goal is to > maximize corporate wealth at the expense of the average person. > > Mike Levy (who spent 3 hours observing student-teachers in daycares today > and is feeling pugnacious about it!) I too was bothered by the term shunt, but not just because daycare may be the best of bad alternatives. What about the potentially positive dimensions of kids being around other kids, learning to be social and to share, learning to be comfortable with kids of different backgrounds, etc? It seems to me this could well play a part in developing the kind of emotional intelligence Goleman speaks of. Of course this depends GREATLY on the quality of the daycare, but I'm not convinced it's obviously better *for the children* to spend the entire first 4-5 years of their lives hanging out at home most of the time with only mom (or maybe dad, and maybe a sibling or two) to play with. My nieces enjoy "getting to go" to daycare a couple days a week (and yes, they are lucky and privileged enough to have a good daycare situation, and to have a nice balance between time in daycare and time at home). Let me repeat, I'm not for a minute suggesting that even most existing daycare lives up to the ideal, for all the reasons already mentioned. But that's not to say it couldn't. And this is precisely the kind of thing that I think Piercy was trying to get at with the children's houses in Mattapoisett. (Plus a less than 20 hour "work" week!) --- Cheryl Hall Department of Government & International Affairs University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620 ph:(813) 974-0819 fax:(813) 974-0832 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:54:06 -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: raising kids (not sf?)--long In-Reply-To: <199710131541.LAA03233@mail.gwi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In the world I imagine, day care wouldn't be 'shunting your kids off,' but would truly be appropriate, loving care by adults who stood in for parents when they couldn't be there. What's odd about our current systems is that parents are expected to be solely responsible for the day to day care of their children. In many other communities, that time-consuming work is shared. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:15:55 -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: Butler's Ooloi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think one of the problems with establishing a third actual gender is that the stereotypical gender patterns which have been set up for men and women are based on polar opposites. In other words, if women are typically meek and mild and quiet and men are typically aggressive and dominant and loud, then where would a third gender type fit? They would have to be somewhere in-between and, thus, not seem to be distinctive enough. -Erin >---------- >From: Katherine Dall[SMTP:KDALL@PIP.ELM.MQ.EDU.AU] >Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 7:27 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Butler's Ooloi > >The major problem I had with accepting the Ooloi as a valid third >gender [as opposed to males-in-disguise, or as potentially both male >and female] was the use of the pronoun "it" to refer to _both_ neuter >children - who are potentially any of the three adult genders - and >adult ooloi - who are supposedly a distinct gender. So on reaching >puberty, you became either male [he] or female [she] or stayed as >"it"- neuter, but potentially either male or female. To me, this >meant that while there were three sexes, there were still only two >genders - you could be male, female or both. > >The Xenogenesis series is still one of the most interesting attempts >at positing multiple genders that I have come across - can anyone >recommend any others? > >Kate. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:27:47 -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: Daycare In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Cheryl Hall wrote: > > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:41:48 -0500 > > From: Michael Marc Levy > > Subject: Re: raising kids (not sf?)--long > > > > I take exception, however, to your use of the term "shunt" when referring > > to daycare. The implications of that term are entirely negative and have > > little to do with the real world. Most parents who use daycare love their > > children and do their best to provide their kids with good daycare. > > Studies have show over and over again that the benefits that children > > gain from living the somewhat more comfortable lifestyle made possible by > > two incomes more than outweigh the disadvantages in terms of health, > > happiness, long-term success and even successful relationships with their > > parents. The sort of poverty and borderline poverty that many > > two-parent families face when they're forced to live on a single income > > rather than two causes children far greater problems than are caused by > > their going to daycare because both parents work. > > > > Obviously there are better solutions than daycare. Jobs that pay well > > enough so that only one parent has to work. Jobs that allow flexibility so > > that both parents can work different shifts and one is always home. Jobs > > which allow parents to bring their children to work. Extended families, > > natural or arranged, that will take care of kids in a more home-like setting. > > > > But Daycare per se isn't the problem. It's merely the not entirely > > successful solution that seems to be the best thing we can currently come > > up with in a society driven by a corporate America whose main goal is to > > maximize corporate wealth at the expense of the average person. > > > > Mike Levy (who spent 3 hours observing student-teachers in daycares today > > and is feeling pugnacious about it!) > > I too was bothered by the term shunt, but not just because daycare may be > the best of bad alternatives. What about the potentially positive > dimensions of kids being around other kids, learning to be social and to > share, learning to be comfortable with kids of different backgrounds, etc? > It seems to me this could well play a part in developing the kind of > emotional intelligence Goleman speaks of. Of course this depends GREATLY > on the quality of the daycare, but I'm not convinced it's obviously better > *for the children* to spend the entire first 4-5 years of their lives > hanging out at home most of the time w