Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9801A" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 02:11:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: OT - DS-9 Comments: To: Jean Lamb Comments: cc: Lois Bujold Fan Group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Quark's mother Moogie - I finally understand. She is NOT revolutionizing Ferengi society any more than Eleanor of Aquitaine revolutionized medieval society. IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities. Like the old Indian woman in Kipling's KIM who insisted on a purdah railway car, like T'Pau on Vulcan, like Eleanor and Chinas' Dowager Empress and many another, she's a rich upper-class elderly eccentric. How would you like to bet she would never get away with this during her childbearting years? As for her maidenhood, forget it! But as a widow ... oh, you bet. And I'm tired of hearing that the Ferengi are not warriors. With all that property to protect - especially with a hard-currency economy - they may be too Libertarian to have official government soldiers, but I'll bet the private security forces of the great houses or great corporations (does anyone see a resemblance between their economy and that of New Caledonia in John Barnes' A MILLION OPEN DOORS?) are neat, efficient, and not too concerned with mercy. They'd have to be! Not to mention organized crime. Not our version, which they'd just consider "business":, but theft, extortion, and insurance fraud. S P O I L E R We now know they have assassins for hire. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 14:50:18 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: OT - DS-9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > ... like T'Pau on Vulcan, I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 22:23:22 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Feminine/feminist point of view In-Reply-To: <199712311758.RAA16250@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Robin, Whew! I'd hate to think I'd written a novel, any novel, that _wasn't_ feminist. Moon and the Sun is about what it means to be human. A relatively feminist theme, don'tchaknow. Vonda On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:58:40 GMT, Robin Reid wrote: >... >I consider _The Moon and the Sun_ to embody a feminist perspective rather >than just a female point of view because the protagonist consciously >questions her culture's views of "women" ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:43:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: Laura Quilter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This notice from Jane Bledsoe, of Avon & Eos came in, and includes this panel that i thought would be of interest to y'all ... At 07:25 pm 1/1/98 -0600, you wrote: >Name: Jane Bledsoe >Email: earth6000@aol.com > >I am a: publisher >I found this page by looking for: science fiction > >My comment concerns: a suggestion >OK to post on bulletin board: >Please respond > >My comments are: > Hi. I'm a representative of Avon Books. >In honor of the launch of Eos, our new science fiction and fantasy imprint, we're holding an online convention January 10th. > The convention will run from noon -8pm EST and will feature such live events as chats with Raymond E. Feist, Ben Bova, and Gregory Benford plus panels with Rudy Rucker, Severna Park, Dennis Danvers, and other Eos authors. > There will also be an SF IQ test and various freebees during the duration of the con. We hope you will list the convention and link back to the site. > The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ > >There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED >with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and Stephen Leigh that > might prove interesting. > >Thanks >Jane Bledsoe >Avon/Eos > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 18:59:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: McIntyre's The Moon and the Sun (long & rambling reply) > >>It's a hoot when people say "Oh, a woman can't do all that. Of >course >>not." Just slip into your high heels and do it backwards--that'll learn 'em! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:29:27 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <34ABE52A.5B4@sff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to women. However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be older to be taken seriousely. For what I know, Eleanor of Aquitaine was about 27 years old when she rode bare-chested in front of her own troops during the first Crusade. I think, 27 is too early to be considered elderly, even by medieval standards. Moreover, by that time, she more than actively participated in the court politics and government. She had started on that at the age of 15, which was when she married the king of France. Elizabeth I of England was twenty-five when she became a queen. She never got married and was officially considered a virgin (the state of Virginia was named after her for that exact reason), while she had plenty of lovers and everyone knew them. She made the fact of her being a woman of child-bearing age (and the century's courtship rituals it implied) an additional tool to strengthen her authority. She used her love affairs to establish political alliances, and when her boyfriends did not behave well, she got them beheaded. Jeanne of Arc was allowed to lead an army when she was 17. The reason they got her burned at the stake, I think, was the fact that she was poor. Were she of noble descent, they would have got her married to a prince, or the king himself, and incorporated her into the establishment. Finally, an example from this century -- Benazir Bhutto became the Prime Minister of Pakistan in her thirties. She was of child-bearing age, as a matter of fact, she had a baby a month after her election as the head of the government, and two more while she was in that position. Think about it. Pakistan is one of the most patriarchial societies that currently exist. Did Benazir's election change the fact? Not at all. The were no other woman in Pakistani government at her time, before her election, or after. At the same time, can you imagine a young pregnant woman elected US president in next 10 years, that would have babies and lead the government at the same time? For some reason, I doubt that. Even considering America being miles and miles ahead of Pakistan in the matter of women's rights. I agree that success of individual women in ultra-patriarchial societies does not improve position of majority of women. However, my point is, it happens not just because they are older. In order to rule a country or participate in war and get away with it all, one needs several conditions: 1) have rich, powerful, and open-minded parents, preferrably with no male children. Parents who would give her the education equal or superior to the most of males of her time and class, and raise her in belief that she can accomplish anything she wants. Queen Eleanor was the only child of a duke, who raised her as his heir and a future ruler, instead of obsessing about having no sons. 2) be exposed to politics and power struggles from early age. Benazir's father was a prime minister, too, and was murdered when she was very young. Elizabeth I spend her early twenties in prison, jailed by her half-sister queen, who was afraid of her taking over the power. 3) have a goal-oriented personality, which means pursue what she wants despite the generally slim chances of success for a female. There had never been a woman head of government in Pakistan, an unmarried queen in Medieval Europe, or a seventeen-years-old peasant girl military leader, untils these women came and made it. If they had been concentrating on the fact that it's "impossible for a women in this society", they would not be able to do it. Other women of great intelligence and personality, but without that winning spirit, usually become great writers, scientists, and poets, but they do not get to rule the world. The same as it happens with men. 4) ironically, she has to live in a very patriarchial society. Because in thet society, being a woman is seen simply as a kind of disability, that generally excludes you from anything significant. However, if you are have plenty of things to compensate -- like lots of money, a powerful family, or supreme intelligence or talent, you can get around the general rule, without changing it. The same as Franklin Roosevelt was a wheel-chaired president long before the Act for Americans with Disabilities. Since he was so great at what he was doing, everyone simply closed their eyes on his "physical pecularity", which did not mean that they started to pay more attention to other people with disabilities. Being a woman in a patriarchial society is pretty much the same. However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are not seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise at the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be seen as a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be they old or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in cases of, say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they simply doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, it's not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking over everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success even more threatening and causing more hostility. This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century Europe, and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the US, the mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance of power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we are more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, than a female president of the United States in the next fifty years. At least, that's what I think. Marina > > I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, > then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over > from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book > by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. > > Best regards > Catherine > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 03:27:23 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine Comments: To: MARINA YERESHENKO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina, I didn't write that post. I simply put up a copy of Pat's (mathews@UNM.EDU) comment from her DS-9 post to the listserv, the part I responded to, which was: Pat wrote: > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > ... like T'Pau on Vulcan, My comment was simply in regards to some Star Trek history, that is: I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. You make interesting comments, however. :-) Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > > > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > > I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in > patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to women. > However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be older > to be taken seriousely. ... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 18:06:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <34ADE85A.48DC@sff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Catherine, I agree with you about Vulcan in Star Trek. Actually, I just wanted to write about the whole issue of female leaders in history. And I tried to post that on the list, which apparently did not work, since I never got it back, so I guess you were the only one who recieved it. Going back to Vulcans as matriarchy (at least in a broad meaning of society with strong women), it seems that the show is going back to the original concept. The last two times I remember seeing members of that race on DS-9, they were both women, one time a military judge, and the other time a terrorist. Even though, honestly, I haven't watched the show for the last couple months. My favorite version of ST was The New Generation, especially the latest ones, with Ro Laren present, and Counselor Troy already dressed normally, instead of that Victoria Secret-type bodystocking. In my opinion, DS-9 was never just as good, and kept getting worse over the time. And I could never really get into Voyeager or the original series. Concerning the latter, I am afraid the problem is simply the fact that since I was not raised on that stuff (for the reason of growing up in another country), I can see it only from today's perspective. And those mini-skirts on all female crew members get on my nerves about as much as Princess Lea's continious screaming and hiding behind Han Solo's back in Star Wars. Besides, every time I watch the old Star Trsk, I can't help thinking that they should have made Captain Kirk and the male part of the gang work out more or something. So that they could fix their sticking out bellies and sagging muscles to at least remotely match the female actors in good looks, and let the female part of audience have something to look at. Marina On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > Marina, I didn't write that post. I simply put up a copy of Pat's > (mathews@UNM.EDU) comment from her DS-9 post to the listserv, the part I > responded to, which was: > > Pat wrote: > > > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > > ... like T'Pau on Vulcan, > > My comment was simply in regards to some Star Trek history, that is: > > I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, > then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over > from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book > by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. > > You make interesting comments, however. :-) > > Best regards > Catherine > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > > > > > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > > > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > > > > I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in > > patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to women. > > However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be older > > to be taken seriousely. ... > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 20:37:52 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: KSHMEYER Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello everyone. Please forgive, but I am new to this listserv and though I probably haven't lurked enough, I would like to comment on the current discussion regarding Star Trek. I am a true Trekker. Have been since the fourth grade when the original Star Trek made its debut. I am sure many of you know about it history, but in the discussion regarding the Vulcans and the matriarchial nature of their society and the changes the "suits" at DesiLu and NBC required. I believe that if you watch the episodes carefully you will notice that, with the exception of Surak, Spock's father, almost every major authority figure has been a woman, so Roddenberry basically stuck to his original idea. However, as to what he had originally proposed, having a female starship captian, that was thoroughly rejected. Majel Barrett, who played Captain Pike's Number 1, was originially slotted to play the captain of the Enterprise. This the suits scrapped and instead we ended up with the glorified secretaries, although Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhuru, eventually broke the mold and in one episode sat in the captain's chair. As for strong women, some of the guest appearances would be worth noting, but most of the program remained trapped decade in which it appeared.....the late- sixties....go-go boots, mini-skirts, beehive hairdos, and the rest of the sock-it-to-me trappings more appropriate to "Laugh-in" As for Next Generation, Roddenberry's first improvement was the mere addition of more lead female characters. While criticized, because Troi was a counselor and Crusher a doctor, both caretaker-nurturer roles, many forget that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. That role unfortuantely came to an end when the actress decided series television was to limiting and opted out of her contract halfway through the first season. As Generations had too many major characters Michael Dorn's Worf simply filled in the spot and no one was ever hired to take her place. However as the series evolved, both Troi and Crusher took on more authoative postures, with Crusher in "All Good Things Must Come to an End," captains a medical ship. (And I will agree 100%, Michelle Forbe's role of Lieutenant Ro was outstanding and Berman offered her a continuing job, but Forbes opted to making just a few guest appearances, leaving her open to take other jobs that would come her way.) DS9 was the first major science fiction to open with two strong female characters. Nan Visitor's portrayal of Major Kira is dynamite. Some of the material the writers have given her over the years is some of the best work for a woman working episodic television. Over the years the role of Dax has also improved, but that is due to the improvement of the actor in the role. Terry Farrell was not an accomplished actor when she came to the part. I must also point out that the writing on this show has been chaotic at best. However, since Rene Echivaria has come to the helm in the role of executive producer, the writing has improved. Many of the best episodes made on Generations were his episodes and now he pens many of the episodes on DS9. As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty to the franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the characters on Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the women in the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that attracts my attention. I take that back, Jeri Ryan's portrayal of Seven of Nine is the most provacotive character on the show and I am hopeful that the producers will fulfill the potential of this character as well as the other female characters on the show. While I'm writing about episodic science fiction seen on television, I would like to sight Claudia Christian's Commander Susan Ivonova on Babylon 5 (unfortunately due to a contract dispute she will not appear for the fifth season). Here is a dynamite woman and one of the best. If you have not seen B5 and are lucky enough to have cable, TNT is showing a first-run movie tomorrow and then beginning Monday running the entire program from day one Monday through Friday. This is a dynamite series period with some wonderful women's roles. Mira Furlan's Ambassador Delenn is another well worth knowing. Thank you for the space. Hock ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 19:26:32 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Test - feel free to ignore. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since most of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I thought I would prod it to see what happens. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 00:26:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. In-Reply-To: <199801041926.TAA19724@lions.cableinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) Got it. That's rather witty. :-) -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:22:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. Comments: To: Catweasel In-Reply-To: <199801041926.TAA19724@lions.cableinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:26 PM 1/4/98 GMT, you wrote: >I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since most >of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I >thought I would prod it to see what happens. > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. >Catweasel Hey Catweasel, Got it! I'm sending this to both the list and your address -- you should get two copies. jenn -- {jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] {generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] {athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:35:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: EOS convention In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980102074254.006d73f8@pop.igc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: >> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ >> >>There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED >>with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and Stephen >Leigh that >> might prove interesting. >> >>Thanks >>Jane Bledsoe >>Avon/Eos Here's the official blurb on it: The Importance of Being Gendered Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least since the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness in 1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh (Dark Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna Park (Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light on present relations between the sexes. ------- I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? Would you recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) jenn -- {jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] {generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] {athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:16:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Star Trek In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, KSHMEYER wrote: > > Please forgive, but I am new to this listserv and though I probably haven't > lurked enough, I would like to comment on the current discussion regarding > Star Trek. I am a true Trekker. Have been since the fourth grade when the > original Star Trek made its debut. I am sure many of you know about it > history, but in the discussion regarding the Vulcans and the matriarchial > nature of their society and the changes the "suits" at DesiLu and NBC > required. I believe that if you watch the episodes carefully you will notice > that, with the exception of Surak, Spock's father, almost every major > authority figure has been a woman, so Roddenberry basically stuck to his > original idea. You notice that the Romulans have an even stronger tradition of female leadership. Though I do like Diane Duane's novel "My Enemy, My Ally," in which a Romulan starship capitain bids fair to becoming their version of Gaius Marius! > However, as to what he had originally proposed, having a female starship > captian, that was thoroughly rejected. Majel Barrett, who played Captain > Pike's Number 1, was originially slotted to play the captain of the > Enterprise. I saw the original pilot along with comments like "She was considered too cold." I kept looking for "coldness" and saw that she was the only woman in that movie who acted in a professional manner! The others either screamed and trembled or fussed like mother hens. Good grief - a woman officer couldn't win in those days! This the suits scrapped and instead we ended up with the > glorified secretaries, although Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhuru, > eventually broke the mold and in one episode sat in the captain's chair. As > for strong women, some of the guest appearances would be worth noting, but > most of the program remained trapped decade in which it appeared.....the late- > sixties....go-go boots, mini-skirts, beehive hairdos, and the rest of the > sock-it-to-me trappings more appropriate to "Laugh-in" > Uh --- have you seen the tight miniskirts (thigh straps!) worn under business jackets that Hollywoood has defined as proper female businesswear this past 30 years? > As for Next Generation, Roddenberry's first improvement was the mere addition > of more lead female characters. While criticized, because Troi was a > counselor and Crusher a doctor, both caretaker-nurturer roles, many forget > that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. That role > unfortuantely came to an end when the actress decided series television was to > limiting and opted out of her contract halfway through the first season. As > Generations had too many major characters Michael Dorn's Worf simply filled in > the spot and no one was ever hired to take her place. However as the series > evolved, both Troi and Crusher took on more authoative postures, with Crusher > in "All Good Things Must Come to an End," captains a medical ship. (And I > will agree 100%, Michelle Forbe's role of Lieutenant Ro was outstanding and > Berman offered her a continuing job, but Forbes opted to making just a few > guest appearances, leaving her open to take other jobs that would come her > way.) Roddenberry liked to see T&A, but also believed in strong women. Much like Heinlein!> > DS9 was the first major science fiction to open with two strong female > characters. Nan Visitor's portrayal of Major Kira is dynamite. Some of the > material the writers have given her over the years is some of the best work > for a woman working episodic television. Over the years the role of Dax has > also improved, but that is due to the improvement of the actor in the role. > Terry Farrell was not an accomplished actor when she came to the part. I must > also point out that the writing on this show has been chaotic at best. > However, since Rene Echivaria has come to the helm in the role of executive > producer, the writing has improved. Many of the best episodes made on > Generations were his episodes and now he pens many of the episodes on DS9. > Strong women became fashionable around that time, so they didn't have to buck the suits. Note also Babylon 5's Delenn and Ivanova. > As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty to the > franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the characters on > Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the women in > the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that attracts my > attention. I take that back, Jeri Ryan's portrayal of Seven of Nine is the > most provacotive character on the show and I am hopeful that the producers > will fulfill the potential of this character as well as the other female > characters on the show. > "Now, sit right down and I'll tell a tale A tale you can't endure About the people lost in space Aboard the Voyager...." > While I'm writing about episodic science fiction seen on television, I would > like to sight Claudia Christian's Commander Susan Ivonova on Babylon 5 > (unfortunately due to a contract dispute she will not appear for the fifth > season). Here is a dynamite woman and one of the best. If you have not seen > B5 and are lucky enough to have cable, TNT is showing a first-run movie > tomorrow and then beginning Monday running the entire program from day one > Monday through Friday. This is a dynamite series period with some wonderful > women's roles. Mira Furlan's Ambassador Delenn is another well worth knowing. > > Thank you for the space. > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:02:43 -0700 Reply-To: fog99@sprynet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" Organization: Newmart, Ltd. Subject: Book Review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on this list for several months, I see you all are missing one of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be found in most public libraries. Drawing on Celtic legends, the tales of King Arthur, the history of Ireland, stories of Atlantis, and the vast body of lore about druids, the Triple Goddess, and the workings of magic, Patricia Kennealy has created a wondrous epic fantasy series that spans our ancient past and distant future. Keltia...an interstellar kingdom in Earth-time 3000 years plus after these Kelts left Earth in 453 AD with the great St. Brendan as their leader. Now, a scout ship from Earth has stumbled upon this advanced civilization. What else? You must read to find out. The Copper Crown was the first book written, and then The Throne of Scone. The talented young queen Aeron Aoibhell has decisions to make, and does well in many respects. It is a terrific two- book series, these two. The Silver Branch, written last, describes the early life of Aeron and her peers, male and female, leading up to her ascension to the Throne of Scone as Ard-rian, High Queen of Keltia. Read this one last, and enjoy the magic, technology, and superb female leadership (and some male, too) in the first two books first, and the genealogy of it all last. Who amongst you are interested in a modern romance between a younger woman and an older man, amplified and modified by the metaphysical input of an Angelic Presence and with footnotes by God Himself from time to time...a superbly feminine woman led away from the trauma of early abuse by an older man who loves her dearly...LOVE & DUTY...FREE- read the Prologue and first three chapters free downloaded in ASCII format...if you want to read the remaining 58 chapters, download it in its pre-publication edition via e-mail for less than half of the hard-cover price after publication. FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of the hottest romance novel of 1998...LOVE & DUTY...order your free copy of this preview now...write to The First Ozark Press at mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com Dr. Carey Carpenter http://www.FirstOzark.com mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:51:52 -0700 Reply-To: fog99@sprynet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" Organization: Newmart, Ltd. Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Marina... I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the centuries down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one of the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding woman-in-leadership, Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to get Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not hesitate to defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. About Joan of Arc, not only her poverty, but perhaps her superior religious philosophy in that time helped to do her in, as it has many others throughout the centuries of "developing civilization." About a woman President of the United States, my memory goes back to the Harding administration, and there has not been a woman in our politics to equal Mrs. Thatcher during that time. If and when one does arise equal to her, I will campaign for her and vote for her, and I am a conservative senior white male. I hope you will read the three sci-fi books by Patricia Kennealy subject of the book report I just filed this morning...talk about strong women in the government! Those books are full of them, in a most delightfully woven tale of how things might have been...and possibly, even, how they are. Thanks for your time... Carey FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of LOVE & DUTY...1998's hottest romance novel...mailto:fop@firstozark.com Dr. Carey Carpenter http://www.FirstOzark.com mailto:ccarey@bigfoot.com MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > > > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license > > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities > > I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in > patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to women. > However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be older > to be taken seriousely. > > For what I know, Eleanor of Aquitaine was about 27 years old when she > rode bare-chested in front of her own troops during the first Crusade. I > think, 27 is too early to be considered elderly, even by medieval > standards. Moreover, by that time, she more than actively participated > in the court politics and government. She had started on that at the age > of 15, which was when she married the king of France. > > Elizabeth I of England was twenty-five when she became a queen. She > never got married and was officially considered a virgin (the state of > Virginia was named after her for that exact reason), while she had plenty > of lovers and everyone knew them. She made the fact of her being a woman > of child-bearing age (and the century's courtship rituals it implied) > an additional tool to strengthen her authority. She used her love > affairs to establish political alliances, and when her boyfriends did not > behave well, she got them beheaded. > > Jeanne of Arc was allowed to lead an army when she was 17. The reason > they got her burned at the stake, I think, was the fact that she was > poor. Were she of noble descent, they would have got her married to a > prince, or the king himself, and incorporated her into the establishment. > > Finally, an example from this century -- Benazir Bhutto became the Prime > Minister of Pakistan in her thirties. She was of child-bearing age, as a > matter of fact, she had a baby a month after her election as the head of > the government, and two more while she was in that position. Think about > it. Pakistan is one of the most patriarchial societies that currently > exist. Did Benazir's election change the fact? Not at all. The were no > other woman in Pakistani government at her time, before her election, or > after. At the same time, can you imagine a young pregnant woman elected > US president in next 10 years, that would have babies and lead the > government at the same time? For some reason, I doubt that. Even > considering America being miles and miles ahead of Pakistan in the matter of > women's rights. > > I agree that success of individual women in ultra-patriarchial > societies does not improve position of majority of women. However, my > point is, it happens not just because they are older. In order to rule a > country or participate in war and get away with it all, one needs several > conditions: > > 1) have rich, powerful, and open-minded parents, preferrably with no male > children. Parents who would give her the education equal or superior to the > most of males of her time and class, and raise her in belief that she can > accomplish anything she wants. Queen Eleanor was the only child of a duke, > who raised her as his heir and a future ruler, instead of obsessing about > having no sons. > > 2) be exposed to politics and power struggles from early age. Benazir's > father was a prime minister, too, and was murdered when she was very > young. Elizabeth I spend her early twenties in prison, jailed by her > half-sister queen, who was afraid of her taking over the power. > > 3) have a goal-oriented personality, which means pursue what she wants > despite the generally slim chances of success for a female. There had never > been a woman head of government in Pakistan, an unmarried queen in Medieval > Europe, or a seventeen-years-old peasant girl military leader, untils > these women came and made it. If they had been concentrating on the fact > that it's "impossible for a women in this society", they would not be able to > do it. Other women of great intelligence and personality, but without that > winning spirit, usually become great writers, scientists, and poets, but > they do not get to rule the world. The same as it happens with men. > > 4) ironically, she has to live in a very patriarchial society. Because > in thet society, being a woman is seen simply as a kind of disability, > that generally excludes you from anything significant. However, if you are > have plenty of things to compensate -- like lots of money, a powerful > family, or supreme intelligence or talent, you can get around the general > rule, without changing it. The same as Franklin Roosevelt was a > wheel-chaired president long before the Act for Americans with > Disabilities. Since he was so great at what he was doing, everyone > simply closed their eyes on his "physical pecularity", which did not mean > that they started to pay more attention to other people with > disabilities. Being a woman in a patriarchial society is pretty much the > same. > > However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are not > seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise at > the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be seen as > a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent > backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be they old > or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in cases of, > say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they simply > doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, it's > not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking over > everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success even > more threatening and causing more hostility. > > This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century Europe, > and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the US, the > mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance of > power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we are > more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, > than a female president of the United States in the next fifty years. > > At least, that's what I think. > > Marina > > > > > I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, > > then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over > > from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book > > by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. > > > > Best regards > > Catherine > > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:47:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Anyone interested in starting a book group? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hey Folks, Back from the holidays and finally catching up on my e-mail. So, are we doing a book group? It seemed like there was a lot of positive response a couple of weeks ago. I'd be happy to join if it's happening. Cheers, pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:29:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: listmistress - testing list - ignore Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII testing the list - please ignore & delete Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants her testimony against Mumia and cites police coercion as the reason for her perjury. http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:57:18 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By their very nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in a =major= way. Romance loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about women, sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had =Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not only would she have lived, she would have had a successful relationship with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read novels that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual behavior of women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. The establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the fluff goes on quietly breaking all the rules. I think it's a hoot." That's wonderful if they can be so quietly subversive--I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this (perhaps in a private posting if we're straying too far from feminist and sf). But it does come down to what I said about "feminism" meaning different things to different people. I had mentioned "traditional romance novels," although I need to be careful here because I haven't read any of the more recently published ones. I love the earlier works by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitley, and Georgette Heyer who drew on the earlier Gothic traditions (also started by women) to invent the contemporary "women's novel" and invented the genre. But I don't read the more recent stuff because it is so commercialized. But I have read criticism (feminist) on romance novels, and have noticed two things: one the reader response take which supports your claim that the women who read romance novels (and who do not consider themselves feminist) are engageing in a sort of preliminary feminist activity of putting their interests and desires at the center of things. (I say sort of feminist because for me feminism in one sense needs to have the goal of changing society--a woman putting her desires first when she has been socialized not to do so is starting the process, but isn't there yet, and many of these women specifically do not identify as feminists. Some analysis might even claim that the romance novels work against the desire for social change--but that's getting pretty tenuous in terms of argument/proof etc.). The feminist ideas about romance novels came from a book i read by Janice Radway. Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts which do not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in women gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so on--the result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. But I've also read a lot of linguistic criticism (if you're interested in the names, let me know and I'll send them to you privately) that analyzes the language to show the extent to which "women" are put into the passive position in a variety of ways. So that even though some of the women characters have the trappings of contemporary "feminist" ideas (professions, etc), the discourse tends to operate to make them into objects, and that the sexuality is presented as upholding the dominant culture's ideology. (There's also the issue of the extent to which romance novels are primarily focuses on white middle class women only--though that may be changing as well as the market opens up.) I would not deny these novels could be considered feminist--but I had not seen them as such. And the 'sexuality' which is at the center (if it is exclusively heterosexual/heterosexist, between white middle class participants, and leading to marriage) is still not very subversive. But then again, i'm fonder of the more radical areas of feminist discourse regarding these issues--in fiction or in theory! In terms of males/masculinist/political--well I might even say that Lucien is engaging in feminist action himself, rather than just "political," because to me, feminism inescapably has a political component (and I don't mean just voting or a c certain kind of political activity). Questioning gender roles, ideology, hierarchies does not only have to be done by females! p.s. I haven't read any of your books but after reading what you said about them, they're on my list to buy the next time I get to a Decent Bookstore! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:01:43 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: feminsm/humanity Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: Moon and the Sun is about what it means to be human. A relatively feminist theme, don'tchaknow." Hi Vonda--eek women being human--definitely radically feminist idea where I grew up (northern Idaho, where we were raised to belived there were "good girls" and "bad girls" who of course grew up to be "good women" or "bad women." Good women cooked, sewed, got married right out of high school, when they were still virgins, and never ever cheated on their husbands. I left my hometown as soon as I could.) Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:51:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:16:21 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kitimher Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Anyone interested in starting a book group? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Greetings to all~ I too am new to the list and greatly impressed by the lively intellect of this little community. Yes! I say to a book group, when and how do we begin? Warmly, tara Kitimher@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:18:50 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > - Geoffrey Still no spoilers, but I will say it *ROCKED*!!! Email me seperately if you want to rant and rave while keeping the rest of the list pristine and unsullied. later, Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 02:06:04 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BJBenesch Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-05 16:03:35 EST, Robin Reid wrote: > "Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By their very > nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in a > =major= way. Romance > loves female sexuality. > This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon > that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female > characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance > readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read novels > that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual behavior of > women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. The > establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the fluff > goes on quietly breaking all the > rules. I think it's a hoot." > > To which Robin replied: > I would not deny these novels could be considered feminist--but I had not > seen them as such. And the 'sexuality' which is at the center (if it is > exclusively heterosexual/heterosexist, between white middle class > participants, and leading to marriage) is still not very subversive. But > then again, i'm fonder of the more radical areas of feminist discourse > regarding these issues--in fiction or in theory! And so finally Barb says: While I agree with Catherine that there is a certain feminist component to the very nature of romance novels, I have to wonder just how feminist they can be. While I admit I haven't read a romance novel in quite some time, the main reason I stopped reading them was simply this: in a disturbing proportion of the ones I did read, the lead woman's first sexual experience was rape, and the perpetrator was usually the man who, by the end of the novel, she was in love with. I will allow that perhaps I simply read the "wrong" ones, but I don't think this is the case. In many of the romance novels I read, the central character was often defiant and headstrong, and the male lead frequently resorted to rape in order to "tame" her. Granted, he usually "felt bad" about it, but regardless he either determined it "necessary" for whatever reason, or was so "inflamed by her beauty that he could not help himself". Most disturbing to me was that the woman, for whom this rape was invariably a first sexual experience, then =derived pleasure= from the rape. So while the argument can be made the romance novels encourage women to place their wants and needs in the forefront, they also encourage women to believe that rape can be justified, that women =enjoy= rape, and that women, by their very existence, in fact =cause= rape. In my estimation, that's hardly feminist. I am not by any means trying to say that this is true of every romance novel, as I have read some which did not follow this pattern, but I have read too many of them in which this was the case. My apologies if this is too off-topic, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 02:12:24 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BJBenesch Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book group Comments: To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I believe Jennifer Krauel is the originator of the book group idea and so I'll say: Jennifer, have you made any headway as yet, or have you turned the idea over to someone else? Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:25:45 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to throw my 0.02 credits into the kitty, but has anyone on the list read a book edited by Jayne Ann Krentz called "Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women"? Krentz is one of my favorite romance authors, and there are several good essays in this book. Don't want to incite any genre fiction holy wars here, but there is some very good romance fiction out there with a good dash of feminist sensibility as well as a whole lot of trees that died for nothing more than horrific crap. I still read romance, although I have gotten far more selective than I used to be. later, Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 03:46:05 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. In-Reply-To: <199801041926.TAA19724@lions.cableinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I had the same problem. Started thinking whether I had been accidentally deleted from the list, or the list itself got shut down. I wonder what actually happened. Marina On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Catweasel wrote: > I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since most > of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I > thought I would prod it to see what happens. > > Trust me, I'm a doctor. > Catweasel > > New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:15:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lorry B. Bond" Subject: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love with woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . What do y'all think?? Lorry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:00:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Star Trek In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980106061524.006bb6c4@students.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- > >It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST >original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love with >woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . > >What do y'all think?? > >Lorry I think you're wrong. What about, just to name one episode, "Arena"? -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:15:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) In-Reply-To: <34B1AA2A.340820BF@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: what happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk and so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:17:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Book Review Comments: To: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" In-Reply-To: <34B12041.77DC678@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dr. Carey Carpenter wrote: > All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > found in most public libraries. > But do NOT buy her last one, Blackmantle, unless you want a horrifying look at what I consider a great villain in all her self-serving glory --- served up as the hero. And her Arthurian stuff is crawling with defensiveness and "they oppose us because they're evil" ideology.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:01:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain It sounds like you have your time frame confused - the Gathering is a rerun of the first B5 episode - G'kar and Londo started out low and matured as the series progressed. I had started watching in the middle of the series so I thought it was fun to go back to the beginning - I thought it was interesting that there was a strong woman as 2nd in command and a black Dr. that were both replaced by similar characters. sheryl > ---------- > From: Pat[SMTP:mathews@UNM.EDU] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 10:15 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: > what > happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk and > so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:05:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I would vote for jumping in a just starting ... how about _Ammonite_ by Nicola Griffith and/or _Mutagenesis_ by Hellen Collins They are both somewhat recent, out in paperback and explore utopian/dystopian themes. sheryl > ---------- > From: BJBenesch[SMTP:BJBenesch@AOL.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 2:12 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Book group > > I believe Jennifer Krauel is the originator of the book group idea and > so I'll > say: > > Jennifer, have you made any headway as yet, or have you turned the > idea over > to someone else? > > Barbara Benesch > BJBenesch@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:18:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: list slowdown explanation Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" the OS on the list-machine was upgraded, and i suspect that caused the weirdnesses in the list ... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:13:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: EOS convention MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, this is a related question... is Severna Park's _Hand of Prophecy_ in the same series with _Speaking Dreams_? I was introduced to that years ago at university but haven't found more recent books since. I remember _Speaking Dreams_ as pretty decent (and the first the author was writing in a trilogy) with only a few problems about the power/slavery bit (short English paper). misha >---------- >From: jenn mottram[SMTP:athena@GEOCITIES.COM] >Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 6:35 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] EOS convention > >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ >>> >>>There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED >>>with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and Stephen >>Leigh that >>> might prove interesting. >>> >>>Thanks >>>Jane Bledsoe >>>Avon/Eos > >Here's the official blurb on it: > >The Importance of Being Gendered > >Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least since >the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness in >1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh (Dark >Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna Park >(Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light on >present relations between the sexes. > > >------- > >I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? Would you >recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > >jenn > > > >-- >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 09:10:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > > It sounds like you have your time frame confused - the Gathering is a > rerun of the first B5 episode I'm taking the time frame of Babylon 5 as a given - IN THE BEGINNING takes place 10 years earlier that THE GATHERING. - G'kar and Londo started out low and matured as the series progressed. Yes, and that's a problem with prequels. I had started watching in the middle > of the series so I thought it was fun to go back to the beginning - I > thought it was interesting that there was a strong woman as 2nd in > command and a black Dr. that were both replaced by similar characters. > I'm hoping to pick up all the earlier episodes and watch them unfold.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:39:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi. I'm new to the list and have been lurking for a little over a month. I would like to join the book club. I'm more interested in sci fi and horror, than fantasy and utopian novels, but I'm willing to try anything. There is a lot of good lesbian/feminist sci fi out and I was wondering if anyone has explored this option? Presently I'm writing a sci fi mystery with a lesbian hero. I thought Babylon 5 was great. I'm looking forward to watching the series from the beginning since I didn't get a chance to watch it as a series. Linda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:28:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: EOS convention In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980105083521.006a7f40@mail.geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Gilman of _Herland_ is Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and it was written in 1915.... I've never heard of any of the folks or books on this panel. It would seem that jenn mottram said, 08:35 AM 1/5/98 -0500 >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ >>> > Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), >------- snip > > I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > >jenn > Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. ~~ ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the ~~ ~~ question wherever it may go. ~~ --David Tracy _Plurality and Ambiguity_ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:01:58 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Book Review In-Reply-To: <34B12041.77DC678@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 05/01/98 18:02:43 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > found in most public libraries. I read The Copper Crown when it was first published. It impressed me sufficiently that I ran a role-playing campaign loosely based upon it. I whole-heartedly reccomend it. Unfortunately, I never read the other Keltia books. They have just been added to my ever-lengthening reading list. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Virus detected! P)our chicken soup on motherboard? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:02:17 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 03/01/98 04:29:27 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed MARINA YERESHENKO , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are not > seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise at > the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be seen as > a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent > backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be they old > or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in cases of, > say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they simply > doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, it's > not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking over > everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success even > more threatening and causing more hostility. > > This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century Europe, > and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the US, the > mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance of > power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we are > more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, > than a female president of the United States in the next fifty years. > > At least, that's what I think. Sadly, I fear I must agree with you. The mind-set which can say "a woman's place is in the home" and "don't you worry your pretty little head about it, dear" (God, that makes me cringe!) still predominates our "liberal," "free-thinking" western society. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel The best defense against logic is stupidity. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:08:19 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine In-Reply-To: <34B12BC6.2A0C9035@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 05/01/98 18:51:52 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the centuries > down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one of > the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding woman-in-leadership, > Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to get > Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not hesitate to > defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re > The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. Ah, yes, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher," as some of my younger friends so fondly remember her. The woman who stood slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. The woman who, rather than putting Britain back together, sold it off to the lowest bidder. There are those who believe that the Falklands war was deliberately engineered to restore flagging Conservative popularity. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. Sorry, I'm a bit rabid on this subject. I'll shut up now. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:42:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:08 PM 1/6/98 GMT, you wrote: >It was 05/01/98 18:51:52 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, >I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , >hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > >> I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the centuries >> down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one of >> the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding woman-in-leadership, >> Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to get >> Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not hesitate to >> defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re >> The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. > >Ah, yes, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher," as some of my younger friends >so fondly remember her. The woman who stood slightly to the right of >Attila the Hun. The woman who, rather than putting Britain back together, >sold it off to the lowest bidder. > >There are those who believe that the Falklands war was deliberately >engineered to restore flagging Conservative popularity. As far as I am >concerned, the jury is still out. > >Sorry, I'm a bit rabid on this subject. I'll shut up now. > > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. >Catweasel > >Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints. > >I agree with you Catweasel. Maggie Thatcher was right of Attila the Hun and dear friend of Ronald Reagon. War is always good for restoring nationalism and keeping those in power popular, that is if they win the war. How could Britian loose? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:31:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathy Delph Subject: Gender in SF&F Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The discussion was about books that deal with Gender and a request for recommendations. The machine where I read my non-work mail was down for 5 days (bounced mail). Please excuse me if I'm repeating what others have said. If you mean direct, purposeful gender twisting, Melissa Scott, _Shadow Man_. I strongly recommend _Shadow Man_ as it breaks out of the misleading idea of two genders and sexualities. Or if you just mean women outside traditional gender roles, it's a long list... Almost all Science Fiction and Fantasy I read deals with women being, moving or trying to move outside "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" (Webster's.) I'm having a difficult time trying to name a book or author I like and would recommend that doesn't deal with redefining mainstream female gender in some way. I wonder if it's an interesting social statement that I get my fix through genres named "Science Fiction" and "Fantasy" or just my taste and what I move toward. Authors I've read these last 2 weeks: Kate Wilhelm (found a lode of her novels and collections in the back shelves of my local library, and I've been mining like crazy) Melissa Scott (anxiously awaiting her new book) Connie Willis (_Bellweather_, especially) N. Lee Wood (_Looking for the Mahdi_, excellent!) Patricia Wrede (but I did not like what I read) Cathy Cathy Delph Oregon State University delphc@ucs.orst.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:13:08 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:57:18 GMT >From: Robin Reid >Subject: > >"Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By their very >nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in a >=major= way. Romance >loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about women, >sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had >=Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not >only would she have lived, she would have had a successful relationship >with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her >love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon >that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female >characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance >readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read novels >that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual behavior of >women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. The >establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the fluff >goes on quietly breaking all the >rules. I think it's a hoot." > >That's wonderful if they can be so quietly subversive--I'd like to hear more >of your thoughts on this (perhaps in a private posting if we're straying too >far from feminist and sf). But it does come down to what I said about >"feminism" meaning different things to different people. > >I had mentioned "traditional romance novels," although I need to be careful >here because I haven't read any of the more recently published ones. I love >the earlier works by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitley, and >Georgette Heyer who drew on the earlier Gothic traditions (also started by >women) to invent the contemporary "women's novel" and invented the genre. >But I don't read the more recent stuff because it is so commercialized. But >I have read criticism (feminist) on romance novels, and have noticed two >things: one the reader response take which supports your claim that the >women who read romance novels (and who do not consider themselves feminist) >are engageing in a sort of preliminary feminist activity of putting their >interests and desires at the center of things. (I say sort of feminist >because for me feminism in one sense needs to have the goal of changing >society--a woman putting her desires first when she has been socialized not >to do so is starting the process, but isn't there yet, and many of these >women specifically do not identify as feminists. Some analysis might even >claim that the romance novels work against the desire for social change--but >that's getting pretty tenuous in terms of argument/proof etc.). The >feminist ideas about romance novels came from a book i read by Janice >Radway. Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts which do >not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in women >gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so on--the >result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. To be honest, I've only read two romances in my life, but they always seemed pretty much the distaff equivalent of war or adventure novels: quick, entertaining reads which pleasurably evoke the fantasies one had as a child. When I read, say, a _Hammer's Slammers_ novel, I'm enjoying the fantasies of being a great military commander without the ugly realities of death, maiming, and PTSD. In the same way the romance novels I've read (again, only 2) seemed to evoke fantasies of wooing a fierce, distant, exciting lover without the ugly realities that such men are generally complete bastards! I suppose a book can both gratify fantasies and be subversive -- certainly David Drake's books make some good points about the horror of war -- but that's not why anyone reads them. BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who is a fan of this genre care to comment? ObSF: there was an interesting thread recently on USENET about how many of Anne McCaffrey's Pern books follow the classic romance plot to a "T". Dan Krashin a little man in a big machine ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:13:35 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Romances vs. Military SF Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 00:00:30 -0600 >Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > >From: Automatic digest processor >Subject: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 >To: Recipients of FEMINISTSF digests > >There are 13 messages totalling 660 lines in this issue. > >Topics of the day: > > 1. Test - feel free to ignore. (2) > 2. EOS convention > 3. Star Trek > 4. Book Review > 5. Eleanor of Aquitaine > 6. Anyone interested in starting a book group? (2) > 7. listmistress - testing list - ignore > 8. > 9. feminsm/humanity > 10. "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) (2) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 00:26:10 -0600 >From: Sean Johnston >Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. > >> >>New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) > >Got it. That's rather witty. :-) > >-Sean > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in >STNG: Conspiracy > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:22:50 -0500 >From: jenn mottram >Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. > >At 07:26 PM 1/4/98 GMT, you wrote: >>I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since most >>of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I >>thought I would prod it to see what happens. >> >>Trust me, I'm a doctor. >>Catweasel > >Hey Catweasel, > >Got it! > >I'm sending this to both the list and your address -- you should get two >copies. > >jenn > >-- >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:35:21 -0500 >From: jenn mottram >Subject: Re: EOS convention > >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ >>> >>>There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED >>>with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and Stephen >>Leigh that >>> might prove interesting. >>> >>>Thanks >>>Jane Bledsoe >>>Avon/Eos > >Here's the official blurb on it: > >The Importance of Being Gendered > >Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least since >the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness in >1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh (Dark >Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna Park >(Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light on >present relations between the sexes. > > >------- > >I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? Would you >recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > >jenn > > > >-- >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:16:09 -0800 >From: Pat >Subject: Re: Star Trek > >On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, KSHMEYER wrote: > >> >> Please forgive, but I am new to this listserv and though I probably haven't >> lurked enough, I would like to comment on the current discussion regarding >> Star Trek. I am a true Trekker. Have been since the fourth grade when the >> original Star Trek made its debut. I am sure many of you know about it >> history, but in the discussion regarding the Vulcans and the matriarchial >> nature of their society and the changes the "suits" at DesiLu and NBC >> required. I believe that if you watch the episodes carefully you will notice >> that, with the exception of Surak, Spock's father, almost every major >> authority figure has been a woman, so Roddenberry basically stuck to his >> original idea. > > You notice that the Romulans have an even stronger tradition of >female leadership. Though I do like Diane Duane's novel "My Enemy, My >Ally," in which a Romulan starship capitain bids fair to becoming their >version of Gaius Marius! > > > > > However, as to what he had originally proposed, having a female starship >> captian, that was thoroughly rejected. Majel Barrett, who played Captain >> Pike's Number 1, was originially slotted to play the captain of the >> Enterprise. > > I saw the original pilot along with comments like "She was >considered too cold." I kept looking for "coldness" and saw that she was >the only woman in that movie who acted in a professional manner! The >others either screamed and trembled or fussed like mother hens. Good >grief - a woman officer couldn't win in those days! > >This the suits scrapped and instead we ended up with the >> glorified secretaries, although Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhuru, >> eventually broke the mold and in one episode sat in the captain's chair. As >> for strong women, some of the guest appearances would be worth noting, but >> most of the program remained trapped decade in which it appeared.....the late- >> sixties....go-go boots, mini-skirts, beehive hairdos, and the rest of the >> sock-it-to-me trappings more appropriate to "Laugh-in" >> > Uh --- have you seen the tight miniskirts (thigh straps!) worn under >business jackets that Hollywoood has defined as proper female >businesswear this past 30 years? > >> As for Next Generation, Roddenberry's first improvement was the mere addition >> of more lead female characters. While criticized, because Troi was a >> counselor and Crusher a doctor, both caretaker-nurturer roles, many forget >> that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. That role >> unfortuantely came to an end when the actress decided series television was to >> limiting and opted out of her contract halfway through the first season. As >> Generations had too many major characters Michael Dorn's Worf simply filled in >> the spot and no one was ever hired to take her place. However as the series >> evolved, both Troi and Crusher took on more authoative postures, with Crusher >> in "All Good Things Must Come to an End," captains a medical ship. (And I >> will agree 100%, Michelle Forbe's role of Lieutenant Ro was outstanding and >> Berman offered her a continuing job, but Forbes opted to making just a few >> guest appearances, leaving her open to take other jobs that would come her >> way.) > > Roddenberry liked to see T&A, but also believed in strong women. >Much like Heinlein!> >> > DS9 was the first major science fiction to open with two strong female >> characters. Nan Visitor's portrayal of Major Kira is dynamite. Some of the >> material the writers have given her over the years is some of the best work >> for a woman working episodic television. Over the years the role of Dax has >> also improved, but that is due to the improvement of the actor in the role. >> Terry Farrell was not an accomplished actor when she came to the part. I must >> also point out that the writing on this show has been chaotic at best. >> However, since Rene Echivaria has come to the helm in the role of executive >> producer, the writing has improved. Many of the best episodes made on >> Generations were his episodes and now he pens many of the episodes on DS9. >> > Strong women became fashionable around that time, so they didn't >have to buck the suits. Note also Babylon 5's Delenn and Ivanova. > > >> As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty to the >> franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the characters on >> Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the women in >> the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that attracts my >> attention. I take that back, Jeri Ryan's portrayal of Seven of Nine is the >> most provacotive character on the show and I am hopeful that the producers >> will fulfill the potential of this character as well as the other female >> characters on the show. >> > "Now, sit right down and I'll tell a tale > A tale you can't endure > About the people lost in space > Aboard the Voyager...." > >> While I'm writing about episodic science fiction seen on television, I would >> like to sight Claudia Christian's Commander Susan Ivonova on Babylon 5 >> (unfortunately due to a contract dispute she will not appear for the fifth >> season). Here is a dynamite woman and one of the best. If you have not seen >> B5 and are lucky enough to have cable, TNT is showing a first-run movie >> tomorrow and then beginning Monday running the entire program from day one >> Monday through Friday. This is a dynamite series period with some wonderful >> women's roles. Mira Furlan's Ambassador Delenn is another well worth knowing. >> >> Thank you for the space. >> >> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:02:43 -0700 >From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" >Subject: Book Review > >All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on >this list for several months, I see you all are missing one >of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of >all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late >Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > >I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The >Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be >found in most public libraries. > >Drawing on Celtic legends, the tales of King Arthur, the >history of Ireland, stories of Atlantis, and the vast body >of lore about druids, the Triple Goddess, and the workings >of magic, Patricia Kennealy has created a wondrous epic >fantasy series that spans our ancient past and distant future. > >Keltia...an interstellar kingdom in Earth-time 3000 years >plus after these Kelts left Earth in 453 AD with the great >St. Brendan as their leader. Now, a scout ship from Earth >has stumbled upon this advanced civilization. > >What else? You must read to find out. The Copper Crown was >the first book written, and then The Throne of Scone. > >The talented young queen Aeron Aoibhell has decisions to >make, and does well in many respects. It is a terrific two- >book series, these two. > >The Silver Branch, written last, describes the early life of >Aeron and her peers, male and female, leading up to her >ascension to the Throne of Scone as Ard-rian, High Queen of >Keltia. Read this one last, and enjoy the magic, technology, >and superb female leadership (and some male, too) in the >first two books first, and the genealogy of it all last. > >Who amongst you are interested in a modern romance between >a younger woman and an older man, amplified and modified by >the metaphysical input of an Angelic Presence and with >footnotes by God Himself from time to time...a superbly >feminine woman led away from the trauma of early abuse by an >older man who loves her dearly...LOVE & DUTY...FREE- read >the Prologue and first three chapters free downloaded in >ASCII format...if you want to read the remaining 58 >chapters, download it in its pre-publication edition via >e-mail for less than half of the hard-cover price after >publication. > >FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of the hottest >romance novel of 1998...LOVE & DUTY...order your free copy >of this preview now...write to The First Ozark Press at > >mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com > > >Dr. Carey Carpenter >http://www.FirstOzark.com >mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:51:52 -0700 >From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" >Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > >Hi, Marina... > >I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the centuries >down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one of >the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding woman-in-leadership, >Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to get >Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not hesitate to >defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re >The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. > >About Joan of Arc, not only her poverty, but perhaps her superior >religious philosophy in that time helped to do her in, as it has many >others throughout the centuries of "developing civilization." > >About a woman President of the United States, my memory goes back >to the Harding administration, and there has not been a woman in our >politics to equal Mrs. Thatcher during that time. If and when one does >arise equal to her, I will campaign for her and vote for her, and I am a >conservative senior white male. > >I hope you will read the three sci-fi books by Patricia Kennealy subject of >the book report I just filed this morning...talk about strong women in the >government! Those books are full of them, in a most delightfully woven >tale of how things might have been...and possibly, even, how they are. > >Thanks for your time... > >Carey > >FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of LOVE & DUTY...1998's >hottest romance novel...mailto:fop@firstozark.com > >Dr. Carey Carpenter >http://www.FirstOzark.com >mailto:ccarey@bigfoot.com > >MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: >> >> > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of informal license >> > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and personalities >> >> I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in >> patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to women. >> However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be older >> to be taken seriousely. >> >> For what I know, Eleanor of Aquitaine was about 27 years old when she >> rode bare-chested in front of her own troops during the first Crusade. I >> think, 27 is too early to be considered elderly, even by medieval >> standards. Moreover, by that time, she more than actively participated >> in the court politics and government. She had started on that at the age >> of 15, which was when she married the king of France. >> >> Elizabeth I of England was twenty-five when she became a queen. She >> never got married and was officially considered a virgin (the state of >> Virginia was named after her for that exact reason), while she had plenty >> of lovers and everyone knew them. She made the fact of her being a woman >> of child-bearing age (and the century's courtship rituals it implied) >> an additional tool to strengthen her authority. She used her love >> affairs to establish political alliances, and when her boyfriends did not >> behave well, she got them beheaded. >> >> Jeanne of Arc was allowed to lead an army when she was 17. The reason >> they got her burned at the stake, I think, was the fact that she was >> poor. Were she of noble descent, they would have got her married to a >> prince, or the king himself, and incorporated her into the establishment. >> >> Finally, an example from this century -- Benazir Bhutto became the Prime >> Minister of Pakistan in her thirties. She was of child-bearing age, as a >> matter of fact, she had a baby a month after her election as the head of >> the government, and two more while she was in that position. Think about >> it. Pakistan is one of the most patriarchial societies that currently >> exist. Did Benazir's election change the fact? Not at all. The were no >> other woman in Pakistani government at her time, before her election, or >> after. At the same time, can you imagine a young pregnant woman elected >> US president in next 10 years, that would have babies and lead the >> government at the same time? For some reason, I doubt that. Even >> considering America being miles and miles ahead of Pakistan in the matter of >> women's rights. >> >> I agree that success of individual women in ultra-patriarchial >> societies does not improve position of majority of women. However, my >> point is, it happens not just because they are older. In order to rule a >> country or participate in war and get away with it all, one needs several >> conditions: >> >> 1) have rich, powerful, and open-minded parents, preferrably with no male >> children. Parents who would give her the education equal or superior to the >> most of males of her time and class, and raise her in belief that she can >> accomplish anything she wants. Queen Eleanor was the only child of a duke, >> who raised her as his heir and a future ruler, instead of obsessing about >> having no sons. >> >> 2) be exposed to politics and power struggles from early age. Benazir's >> father was a prime minister, too, and was murdered when she was very >> young. Elizabeth I spend her early twenties in prison, jailed by her >> half-sister queen, who was afraid of her taking over the power. >> >> 3) have a goal-oriented personality, which means pursue what she wants >> despite the generally slim chances of success for a female. There had never >> been a woman head of government in Pakistan, an unmarried queen in Medieval >> Europe, or a seventeen-years-old peasant girl military leader, untils >> these women came and made it. If they had been concentrating on the fact >> that it's "impossible for a women in this society", they would not be able to >> do it. Other women of great intelligence and personality, but without that >> winning spirit, usually become great writers, scientists, and poets, but >> they do not get to rule the world. The same as it happens with men. >> >> 4) ironically, she has to live in a very patriarchial society. Because >> in thet society, being a woman is seen simply as a kind of disability, >> that generally excludes you from anything significant. However, if you are >> have plenty of things to compensate -- like lots of money, a powerful >> family, or supreme intelligence or talent, you can get around the general >> rule, without changing it. The same as Franklin Roosevelt was a >> wheel-chaired president long before the Act for Americans with >> Disabilities. Since he was so great at what he was doing, everyone >> simply closed their eyes on his "physical pecularity", which did not mean >> that they started to pay more attention to other people with >> disabilities. Being a woman in a patriarchial society is pretty much the >> same. >> >> However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are not >> seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise at >> the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be seen as >> a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent >> backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be they old >> or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in cases of, >> say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they simply >> doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, it's >> not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking over >> everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success even >> more threatening and causing more hostility. >> >> This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century Europe, >> and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the US, the >> mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance of >> power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we are >> more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, >> than a female president of the United States in the next fifty years. >> >> At least, that's what I think. >> >> Marina >> >> > >> > I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a matriarchy, >> > then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a left over >> > from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a book >> > by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. >> > >> > Best regards >> > Catherine >> > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ >> > >> >> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society >> happens to be selling at the time." >> Naomi Wolf > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:47:29 -0800 >From: Pamela Bedore >Subject: Anyone interested in starting a book group? > >Hey Folks, > >Back from the holidays and finally catching up on my e-mail. So, are we >doing a book group? It seemed like there was a lot of positive response a >couple of weeks ago. > >I'd be happy to join if it's happening. > >Cheers, > >pamela bedore >department of english >simon fraser university > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:29:35 -0800 >From: Laura Quilter >Subject: listmistress - testing list - ignore > >testing the list - please ignore & delete > >Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org > >"If I can't dance, I don't want to be >in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman > > FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL > Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants > her testimony against Mumia and cites > police coercion as the reason for her > perjury. > http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:57:18 GMT >From: Robin Reid >Subject: > >"Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By their very >nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in a >=major= way. Romance >loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about women, >sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had >=Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not >only would she have lived, she would have had a successful relationship >with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her >love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon >that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female >characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance >readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read novels >that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual behavior of >women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. The >establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the fluff >goes on quietly breaking all the >rules. I think it's a hoot." > >That's wonderful if they can be so quietly subversive--I'd like to hear more >of your thoughts on this (perhaps in a private posting if we're straying too >far from feminist and sf). But it does come down to what I said about >"feminism" meaning different things to different people. > >I had mentioned "traditional romance novels," although I need to be careful >here because I haven't read any of the more recently published ones. I love >the earlier works by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitley, and >Georgette Heyer who drew on the earlier Gothic traditions (also started by >women) to invent the contemporary "women's novel" and invented the genre. >But I don't read the more recent stuff because it is so commercialized. But >I have read criticism (feminist) on romance novels, and have noticed two >things: one the reader response take which supports your claim that the >women who read romance novels (and who do not consider themselves feminist) >are engageing in a sort of preliminary feminist activity of putting their >interests and desires at the center of things. (I say sort of feminist >because for me feminism in one sense needs to have the goal of changing >society--a woman putting her desires first when she has been socialized not >to do so is starting the process, but isn't there yet, and many of these >women specifically do not identify as feminists. Some analysis might even >claim that the romance novels work against the desire for social change--but >that's getting pretty tenuous in terms of argument/proof etc.). The >feminist ideas about romance novels came from a book i read by Janice >Radway. Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts which do >not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in women >gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so on--the >result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. > >But I've also read a lot of linguistic criticism (if you're interested in >the names, let me know and I'll send them to you privately) that analyzes >the language to show the extent to which "women" are put into the passive >position in a variety of ways. So that even though some of the women >characters have the trappings of contemporary "feminist" ideas (professions, >etc), the discourse tends to operate to make them into objects, and that the >sexuality is presented as upholding the dominant culture's ideology. >(There's also the issue of the extent to which romance novels are primarily >focuses on white middle class women only--though that may be changing as >well as the market opens up.) > >I would not deny these novels could be considered feminist--but I had not >seen them as such. And the 'sexuality' which is at the center (if it is >exclusively heterosexual/heterosexist, between white middle class >participants, and leading to marriage) is still not very subversive. But >then again, i'm fonder of the more radical areas of feminist discourse >regarding these issues--in fiction or in theory! > >In terms of males/masculinist/political--well I might even say that Lucien >is engaging in feminist action himself, rather than just "political," >because to me, feminism inescapably has a political component (and I don't >mean just voting or a c >certain kind of political activity). Questioning gender roles, ideology, >hierarchies does not only have to be done by females! > >p.s. I haven't read any of your books but after reading what you said about >them, they're on my list to buy the next time I get to a Decent Bookstore! > >Robin > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:01:43 GMT >From: Robin Reid >Subject: feminsm/humanity > >"Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: Moon and the Sun is about what it means to be >human. A relatively feminist theme, don'tchaknow." > >Hi Vonda--eek women being human--definitely radically feminist idea where I >grew up (northern Idaho, where we were raised to belived there were "good >girls" and "bad girls" who of course grew up to be "good women" or "bad >women." Good women cooked, sewed, got married right out of high school, >when they were still virgins, and never ever cheated on their husbands. I >left my hometown as soon as I could.) > >Robin > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:51:08 -0500 >From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" >Subject: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > >Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): > >What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > >- Geoffrey > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:16:21 EST >From: Kitimher >Subject: Re: Anyone interested in starting a book group? > >Greetings to all~ > >I too am new to the list and greatly impressed by the lively intellect of this >little community. >Yes! I say to a book group, when and how do we begin? > >Warmly, >tara >Kitimher@aol.com > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:18:50 -0800 >From: Cynthia Gonsalves >Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > >Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: >> >> Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): >> >> What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? >> >> - Geoffrey > >Still no spoilers, but I will say it *ROCKED*!!! > >Email me seperately if you want to rant and rave while keeping the rest >of the list pristine and unsullied. > >later, Cynthia >-- >"I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." >(from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! > >http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ > >------------------------------ > >End of FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 >*************************************************** > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:27:34 -0800 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: EOS convention MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy Leon wrote: > > The Gilman of _Herland_ is Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and it was written in > 1915.... I've never heard of any of the folks or books on this panel. Carolyn Ives Gilman is certainly well-known to regular readers of _The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction_. Her work has been appearing there for years. (A novella, "Candle in a Bottle," will be on the preliminary Nebula awards ballot.) A story of hers opens the first volume of _Bending the Landscape_, an anthology edited by Nicola Griffith & Stephen Pagel (currently available from Whitewolf Press in hardcover). Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:45:40 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lorry B. Bond wrote: > > Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- > > It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST > original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love with > woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . What the original Star Trek did was bring large number of strong female characters into a televised science fiction show, with many of the women in careers that at that time were not only nontraditional but almost unheard of. More than that, however, it showed the men in their lives giving them respect for their abilities. I don't think it is coincidence that the popularty of science fiction with women surged after that show. Kirk's love interests were almost always protrayed as strong, intelligent, admirable women, often in nontraditional roles. I enjoyed that a great deal. I would have enjoyed it even more if hadn't always the young women being wooed by the male authority figure, but sometimes remarkable handsome men wooed by the female captain or captain equivalent. An egalitarian mix of the two scenarios would have been best. I do like love stories. Voyager has really passed up on an opportunity by making Captain Janeway so lacking in passion (if she still is; I haven't seen it in a while). I don't think it's coincidence that one of the most popular episodes is where she and Chakhotay (please forgive spelling) are stranded together and do a romantic tango with each other throughout the episode. Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for the times. Despite the jokes about his being a "ladies man," the character was never the tiresome "love 'em and leave 'em type." Once a week he fell passionately for the love of his life. Every now and then he got a breather, when Spock, McCoy, or Scotty fell passionately in love (romances were one of the original Star Trek standard weekly storylines, as was the "Mr. Spock shows his rare-once-in-a-lifetime-display-of-emotion"). Of course, since Kirk wasn't the type to walk out on his girlfriends, that meant good 'ol Hollywood had to get rid of his love interests every week, which really did get tiresome. The one that annoyed me the most was when they killed off his Indian wife. At least with Picard and Vash, the romance is recurring. But you know, that one does nothing for me. Picard is like a wet fish when it comes to passion. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:54:36 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: EOS convention MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jenn mottram wrote: > The Importance of Being Gendered > > Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least since > the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness in > 1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh (Dark > Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna Park > (Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light on > present relations between the sexes. > > ------- > > I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? Would you > recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she > do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) Severna Park (Suze Feldman) wrote SPEAKING DREAMS, which is an excellent book that I recommend. I also thought Carolyn Ives Gilman did an excellent job with her story in F$SF a few years ago "The Wild Ships of Fairny." Her "Candle in a Bottle" was in some ways even better. It tried to do a great deal, and succeeded with a lot of it. But I thought it stumbled toward the end. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:58:58 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmmm. It is obvious reading BJBensch's comments that I haven't gotten any of the responses to my post abut romance and feminism. I had simply assumed there hadn't been any. But the quotes indicate there was. Is there anyway that I can find the missing posts. I've received almost nothing on the listserv lately, until today. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:22:26 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 24 Dec 1997, Pat wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: what > happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk and > so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > I didn't exactly ruin the Gathering for me, G'Kar is a character who goes through quite a bit of change during the Babylon 5 'arc'. Londo also. personally, I found the chnges in makeup a little startling going from the new "prequel" to the original pilot, especially the way they lightened up on Delenn. I'm not sure if this was to make her more attractive or to make it a shorter time in the makeup chair for Mira Furlan. Any thoughts? ~ Denise M. Borgen ~ If man is only a little lower ~ ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ than the angels, then the ~ ~ ~ angels should reform ~ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:50:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) >>I found the chnges in makeup a little startling going from the new "prequel" to the original pilot, especially the way they lightened up on Delenn. I'm not sure if this was to make her more attractive or to make it a shorter time in the makeup chair for Mira Furlan. Any thoughts?<< Originally, Delenn was to be a male Minbari (or at least androgynous) then change into a female; when her voice could not be lowered by computer properly, they opted to make the character female. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:26:43 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Got it! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I got the messages. They are out of order in my mail queue here, something to do with dates. But it looks like they are all here. Robin Reid wrote: > I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. "Forgiveness Day" by Ursula Le Guin illustrates well the feminist side of romance. It is classic of the romance form, though this isn't something we often hear said about it. I consider "Forgivenss Day" top-notch sf. Its only (minor) flaw is actually one common to romances more than sf, which is that the focus on the love relationship gives short shrift to plot structure. The climax of the story as written comes (both literally and figuratively) when the relationship is consummated. There are numerous levels of story in that scene and Le Guin does an excellent job weaving them together. Their love-making represents many joinings, more than, but including, the physical resolution. However, IMO, the plot structure was such that its climax was actually their escape (after their love-making). However, that scene was told only in a few sentences of backfill, essentially "And then we got away, after which ... " However, this is a minor point. It is otherwise a great story. > Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts which do > not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in women > gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so on--the > result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. But why isn't it feminist on the surface? Are we defining feminist as that which rejects aspects of life considered feminine? I have no problem with romances being about traditional relationships. Many women value such relationships. What troubles me about the slant of some feminism is that in belittling what these women value, it takes the same road as so much of the very same literary canon that feminism seeks to comment on in the first place. Rather than throwing away the positive with the negative, I think we need to untangle them, remembering that we value diversity, =including= diversity in what women seek in a relationship. Of course many romances aren't great literature, any more than is a lot of science fiction. Many are written to formula, whether media tie-in sf or romance sub-genres. For me, formulas get boring. As much as I enjoy a good love story, by itself it isn't usually enough to sustain my interest in a book. There needs to be more to it, not only in terms of plot, but also in the depth of research and the questions the book makes me ask. Which is one another reason I liked THE MOON AND THE SUN. However, we are on to a bigger problem here, one I think feminism NEEDS to consider. Many women don't consider themselves feminist because they feel it belittles what they value, either by patronizing ("Well, you are still mired in traditional values, dear, but perhaps you are gaining some empowerment despite that") or even giving ridicule. It seems to me we do ourselves a great disservice when we set up this dichotomy. The problem, of course, is that it isn't an either/or situation, because the interplay of the detrmimental effects on women's lives with what we view as tradition are so entangled. I think feminism needs to include respect for the feminine aspects of life that many women value. It doesn't mean everyone who talks about feminism has to agree (which would be boring and would probably make the posts in this listserv dwindle to nothing ), anymore than all physicists agree on theoretical descriptions of the universe. But just as a scientist will (in the ideal) respect and consider various theories, so feminists need to acknolwedge that many women prefer more traditional relationships, not because they aren't empowered, or have been conditioned to whatever, but because it is the most satisfying situation =for them.= ==== If we can't value the diversity in women's experience, how are we different from the very aspects of our culture that constrain women's concerns in the first place? ==== > In terms of males/masculinist/political--well I might even say that Lucien > is engaging in feminist action himself, rather than just "political," > because to me, feminism inescapably has a political component (and I don't > mean just voting or a certain kind of political activity). Questioning gender roles,\ > ideology, hierarchies does not only have to be done by females! Good point. I suspect that if Lucien was the only character in the book who asked those question, not many people would consider the book feminist. Except perhaps those who believe no mere women could ever be as good a feminist as a man . And hey! Thank you for the comments about my book. :-) Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:33:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >What the original Star Trek did was bring large number of strong female >characters into a televised science fiction show, with many of the women >in careers that at that time were not only nontraditional but almost >unheard of. More than that, however, it showed the men in their lives >giving them respect for their abilities. I don't think it is >coincidence that the popularty of science fiction with women surged >after that show. I probably should go back and watch a lot of the old ST shows because that is not my rememberance of the women. I do recall evil alien females, but then they were "evil". The show had importance for me because when were working alongside men in space (science) and doing fairly technical jobs. The air time that women recieved was much less than the men. Much improvement since then, especially ST the Next Generation. Now the women are not only highly skilled they are brave, strong and trained for combat. And as far as air time goes, it's much more equal. The old ST tv show certainly helped pave the way for what we see today. > >Kirk's love interests were almost always protrayed as strong, >intelligent, admirable women, often in nontraditional roles. I enjoyed >that a great deal. Wow, I just can't seem to recall that. Perhaps there are a few Trekkies out there who know more about the percentages. Strong, intelligent and admirable vs. soft, emotional and star struck by Kirk - can someone help clear this up for me? I would have enjoyed it even more if hadn't always >the young women being wooed by the male authority figure, Now, this is more what I remember about Kirk and his love interests...young, feminine, pretty, soft spoken and they never lasted. His supply of women reminds me of the message I pick up on with MTV music videos. For every man in the video, there seems to be at least three or four women. Lucky for these women that the men are so virual. :-) but sometimes >remarkable handsome men wooed by the female captain or captain >equivalent. An egalitarian mix of the two scenarios would have been >best. I do like love stories. Picard had this kind of experience/relationship. She was an assertive/aggressive scientist. She looked a lot like Dr. Crusher. In addition, she was an accomplished musician. She was older, experienced, self-confident and up front with her thoughts and feelings. I saw much chemistry between the two. Just as a side, I always loved Worf's wife (she was killed off) and was sorry she was 86'd from the show. > >Voyager has really passed up on an opportunity by making Captain Janeway >so lacking in passion (if she still is; I haven't seen it in a while). >I don't think it's coincidence that one of the most popular episodes is >where she and Chakhotay (please forgive spelling) are stranded together >and do a romantic tango with each other throughout the episode. With all the information the producers have recieved from the STNG fans, I find it hard to believe that they've passed up on an opportunity. I'd bet Janeway and her characterization is very well thought out. > >Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for the >times. Can you site some examples regarding his progressive attitude? Despite the jokes about his being a "ladies man," the character >was never the tiresome "love 'em and leave 'em type." Once a week he >fell passionately for the love of his life. Every now and then he >got a breather, when Spock, McCoy, or Scotty fell passionately in love >(romances were one of the original Star Trek standard weekly storylines, >as was the "Mr. Spock shows his >rare-once-in-a-lifetime-display-of-emotion"). Wonder why that was? :-) > >Of course, since Kirk wasn't the type to walk out on his girlfriends, >that meant good 'ol Hollywood had to get rid of his love interests every >week, which really did get tiresome. But perhaps boosted the ratings - every week you could expect a new, fresh, young, innocent, beautiful babe. A seemingly endless supply... > >At least with Picard and Vash, the romance is recurring. But you know, >that one does nothing for me. Picard is like a wet fish when it comes >to passion. Picard is not a wet fish in my mind, just a type of man who's passion would come alive when he meets the right type of woman. He strikes me as a man who is very clear on what he values and what he doesn't. And frankly, I've not seen alot of female characters on the show that would be a good match for him. I find his decision to be selective very appealing and quite sexy. Cat Farrar ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Between stimulus and response is the will to choose." ~Viktor Frankl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Gender is a lived ideology...that becomes EMBODIED because it is enforced." ~Martha McCaughey Real Knockouts - The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:53:09 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: ST Love stories (Was: Star Trek) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I always felt that the real love story on the original ST was between Kirk and Spock. I know that they were supposed to be extremely close friends. However, I felt that it involved passion which was missing from Kirk's experiences with the myriad women (whom I remember as being often intelligent, sometimes strong, but always expendable somehow). Love Kirk and die. The fact that Spock was somewhat tuned in mentally to Kirk may have fed this perspective in my mind. I can never read or watch Spock's death in _The Wrath of Khan_ without feeling that Kirk has lost the love of his life: someone more important to him that his life and his ship. I grew up in love with Lt. Uhura. I loved her voice and I really enjoyed episodes that featured her. Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:32:22 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) My two cents (I figure people who aren't interested are deleting based on the subject heading...) In general, I liked it; I'll say more when we're not worried about spoilers :) I just have one other thing to say: I miss Ivanova! (a few minutes as guest don't count...) Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:52:51 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BJBenesch wrote: > While I agree with Catherine that there is a certain feminist component to the > very nature of romance novels, I have to wonder just how feminist they can be. [snip ...] > I will allow that perhaps I simply read the "wrong" ones, but I don't think > this is the case. In many of the romance novels I read, the central character > was often defiant and headstrong, and the male lead frequently resorted to > rape in order to "tame" her. Granted, he usually "felt bad" about it, but > regardless he either determined it "necessary" for whatever reason, or was so > "inflamed by her beauty that he could not help himself". Most disturbing to > me was that the woman, for whom this rape was invariably a first sexual > experience, then =derived pleasure= from the rape. I've heard that there used to be a component of that in older romances, which I too disliked. Actually, more accurately, I didn't define the books that I enjoyed as romances because to me romance automatically implied a whole set of negative scenarios. However, I'm not sure what you're defining as rape. If the woman derives pleasure from her experience with a man she finds attractive, how is it rape? Some women find sexually agressive men erotic. The fine line between rape, agressive sex, and consenting applications of, uh, creative variations on traditional sex is a subject of much controversy, not in the least because of the old stereotype that "no" means "yes," which caused a great deal of damage, and also because what one person finds erotic may repulse another. The whole violence/sex thing is full of conflicting messages. However, it isn't restricted to, or even most common in, romance. Horror, for example, has a strong component of it. The level of violence in some gay erotica is higher than anything I've ever seen in romance. The idea of a sexually desired love interest being so overcome with passion that he or she can't control himself or herself is also common in all areas of fiction. Men also like it, though usually in a different form. How realistic it is, however, is a whole other topic. Women who enjoy their first sexual experience may still have some pain when they lose their virginity. I prefer a story that acknolwedges nothing is wrong with a woman if she doesn't have "fireworks" when she loses her virginity to someone she loves and desires. However, I agree this is a lot different from a story where a man hurts a woman on purpose and/or forces her against her wishes. About the taming aspect: in every traditional romance novel I've ever read, the man ends up "tamed" by the woman, which is one reason some men have told me they dislike that kind of romance. When feminism was less in the mainstream than now, this was true, but the roles and behavior of female characters were more constrained to fit the times. The books wouldn't have sold otherwise. As women's roles have expanded in our culture, so they have expanded in popular literature. > So while the argument can be made the romance novels encourage women to place > their wants and needs in the forefront, they also encourage women to believe > that rape can be justified, that women =enjoy= rape, and that women, by their > very existence, in fact =cause= rape. That is unpleasant. I wouldn't like it either. That doesn't describe any modern day romances I've read, though. That doesn't mean it isn't there; I don't read that as widely in romance as I do in science fiction, fantasy, and nonfiction. However, many romance authors are themselves feminists and would also agree that what you describe is offensive. I wrote a hard science fiction novel called Catch the Lightning, with diamond hard speculation on relativistic physics and the translation of mathematical models of quantum physics into fictional universes, based on equations I derived. The Maya heroine comes from the barrio and several times rescues her fighter pilot hero, including figuring out how to conduct evasive action against a nuclear attack when he "goes down" (he's part computer, and comes up with swooning romantic lines like "Your influence has migrated to all my processors" :-). It is very much a space adventure. Although the hero is masculine in the traditional sense (oh, all right, I admit it; he's a gorgeous hunk), he doesn't commit rape. He comes, in fact, from a culture where men are expected to please the woman rather than the other way around. I just found out that this book won the SFR Award for best science fiction romance of the year. Voted for by =romance= readers. It has also been on several bookstore bestseller lists around the web, including romance lists. My book PRIMARY INVERSION is about a woman with a rank equivalent to admiral. She is the "heroic" figure: she commands the squadron, she rescues the hunks in distress, she brings up the questions in moral judgement which she then seeks to solve, and in the end she proposes the marriage (to a fellow half her age). The book is also about her recovery from post traumatic stress syndrome after being a POW (I was surprised to see the book described as a page turner when the entire middle third is just the main character's therapy sessions). The story is as much about surviving and recovering from sexual violence as it is a space adventure. In other words, it sounds like the opposite of what you're describing. This book also received votes for best sf romance of 1997, even though it wasn't even eligible, having come out in 1995. What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often believed. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:52:22 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin and everyone, I wanted to add to my previous posts that I've found the comments here excellent and thought provoking. The reason I mention it is that sometimes I get so enthused by a conversation, I come on really strong (learned behavior, perhaps, after surviving so many years as one of the only women in the world of "high-powered" physics). In the past I've had people ask me if I was getting angry at them because of that. So I thought I would add this comment just in case. It is enthusiasm for a thoroughly enjoyable conversation. :-) Best regards Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:35:52 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: Book Review: The Keltiad by P. Kennealy-Morrison MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dr. Carey Carpenter wrote: > > > All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > > this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > > of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > > all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > > Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > > > I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > > Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > > found in most public libraries. > > > But do NOT buy her last one, Blackmantle, unless you want a horrifying > look at what I consider a great villain in all her self-serving glory > --- served up as the hero. > And her Arthurian stuff is crawling with defensiveness and "they oppose > us because they're evil" ideology.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu Can I add some musings on the Keltiad books? First off, I will say that I've enjoyed all seven of them, but the three Aeron books most of all. She was absolutely fabulous. More comments follow after the spoilersbane... Of course, I will invoke the adage, Your Mileage May Vary. Spoilersbane... x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I am very intrigued by Pat's commentary on Blackmantle especially. I enjoyed the story, but the strong allegorical autobiographical aspect of this portion of the saga was off-putting at times. Athyn is perhaps the least likeable main character in any of the books, and Morric drove me nuts. I felt like the author was working through a lot of her own pain in telling the story, and that made me uncomfortable at times. What redeemed the story for me was the tale of Athyn going into Hell and Kennealy-Morrison's gift of language. It's funny, but it seems like Kennealy-Morrison is going backwards in her heroic character development in the earlier stages of the saga. Athyn has definite problems, but she is the forerunner of Arthur, who is more heroic but still problematic in his own right (I *loved* Taliesin though!). Arthur then is the forerunner to Aeron, who is the most heroic of all the main characters and has the best luck at conquering her own flaws. This development was hinted at in the later Arthur books, but now it's quite explicit after Blackmantle's events. And, whenever the tales of Aeron and Gwydion get written, I fully expect Merlynn, Gywn, and Allyn to return and play pivotal roles in the new action. One of my favorite things about huge sagas is when the author takes the time to really work out the backstory a la Tolkien, where Middle-Earth was truly his life's work. Kennealy-Morrison's Keltia seems like there is all kinds of backstory in that universe as well. I am sympathetic to Pat's comments about Blackmantle, even though I found some redeeming qualities in it, but I'm not so sure that I want to write off the Arthur books as just an exercise in defensiveness. I liked the twist she took on the Arthurian legend, because it was a refreshing change from much of the Camelottry out there. There's some terrific Arthurian books out there, but moving the tale off Earth makes Kennealy-Morrison's take on the legend unique. The best set of books were definitely Aeron's tale. Here I differ with the comment in a previous posting that they are best read in order of publication (Silver Branch, the earliest in time, read last). Reading Silver Branch before the Copper Crown and Throne of Scone helped me put the events of the later books (chronologically) into perspective and I appreciated the complexity of Aeron's character more by watching her grow and develop. Thanks for the food for thought... Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:38:50 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > Catherine, >I tried to post that on the list, which apparently did not work, since > I never got it back, so I guess you were the only one who recieved it. Marina, I think now it all got to the list. > My favorite version of ST was The New Generation, especially the latest ones, > with Ro Laren present, and Counselor Troy already dressed normally, > instead of that Victoria Secret-type bodystocking. I also thought Ro Laren was a good character. I always liked the concept of Counselor Troi (sp? I am terrible with names), but felt the show never made good use of the character's potential. Basically she just stood around and looked sexy. As the show matured, though, her plots and dialogue improved a bit. I also found Crusher a good character. I was disappointed in STTNG, though. It didn't seem to me to have progressed that far beyond the original show. I expected more female characters in more positions of authority. > I could never really get into Voyeager or the original series. Concerning > the latter, I am afraid the problem is simply the fact that since I was > not raised on that stuff (for the reason of growing up in another > country), I can see it only from today's perspective. I have a hard time enjoying it as much now. It's like reading some science fiction books I loved as a child and seeing them with the maturity of an adult. I've stopped rereading them because I prefer to remember liking them. > And those mini-skirts on all female crew members get on my nerves Hah! No kidding. Black stockings, fingernail-polish-red miniskirts, and black boots on a military officer? Yeah. Right. It was a hoot. When I was 12 years old, I thought it looked cool, miniskirts and boots being the fashion then. If a twelve year old thinks it looks cool, that's almost a sure fire indication that it isn't a realistic uniform. > I can't help thinking that they should have made Captain Kirk and the male > part of the gang work out more or something. So that they could fix their > sticking out bellies and sagging muscles to at least remotely match the female > actors in good looks, and let the female part of audience have something to > look at. I like that. Or they could just put in Kevin Sorbo instead (the guy who plays Hercules). He is easy on the eyes. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:53:59 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel Krashin wrote: > To be honest, I've only read two romances in my life, but they always > seemed pretty much the distaff equivalent of war or adventure novels: > quick, entertaining reads which pleasurably evoke the fantasies Daniel, I suspect that has a lot to do with it. > I suppose a book can both gratify fantasies and be subversive -- > certainly David Drake's books make some good points about the > horror of war -- but that's not why anyone reads them. It seems that way to me too. Actually, I don't think they even try to be subversive. I suspect most people write them with the intent of entertainment. > BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today > don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! > Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much > bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who > is a fan of this genre care to comment? I haven't read as much of them as other people, but what I've seen covers a wide range, everything from historicals to contemporary to science fiction to fantasy to horror. Some are very much modern sories and others are more traditional. Some are difficult to define (highly sexed cat turns into guy and marries heroine ). The field has spread out into the mainstream now, too, and includes many books not packaged as romance. I'm on a romance listserv, where readers discuss many of the same issues we've been talking about here, including what is sexist and what isn't, and why or why they don't find particular stories romantic. One thing I've noticed is that romance fans are phenomenally prolific readers, not only in romance but across the board, far more in general than any other genre I've come across. It's impressive. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sf.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:49:08 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Oops my bad Content-Type: text/plain sorry -- I'm not sure what happened with hotmail but my modest, wellreasoned post was replaced by the whole digest. My apologies for the waste of bandwidth. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:32:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: feminsm/humanity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Robin Reid wrote: > "Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: Moon and the Sun is about what it means to be > human. A relatively feminist theme, don'tchaknow." It can be, unless the point is that to be human is to be male. > Hi Vonda--eek women being human--definitely radically feminist idea where I [snip] My favorite t-shirt has a quote from someone: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Some people don't get it, but it is very meaningful for me. I see a major life goal of mine as the continual attempt to expand my subconcious definition of what it means to be a person. This is one reason I like science fiction, fiction by and about women, homosexuals, and members of other ethnicities. In general this is writing that requires me to stretch a bit to identify with the characters, thereby expanding my definition of person, or rather reducing it's elements to the more fundamental, losing the trivial bits. On that subject, I would like to recommend Vonda's Starfarers series. I only read the first book a long time ago, but it had a lot of interesting people in terms of sex, sexuality, and physical and emotional configuration. It even contributed retractible genetalia to my "whack em in the head" set of ideas to let loose on potential friends. My college friends still tease me about that one :) I also drew upon that book in a Queer Theory discussion about "a seat at the table" versus something truly different in respect to the definition of bisexuality. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:56:43 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: feminism/humanism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Catherine Asaro writes: I think feminism needs to include respect for the feminine aspects of life that many women value. It doesn't mean everyone who talks about feminism has to agree (which would be boring and would probably make the posts in this listserv dwindle to nothing ), anymore than all physicists agree on theoretical descriptions of the universe. But just as a scientist will (in the ideal) respect and consider various theories, so feminists need to acknolwedge that many women prefer more traditional relationships, not because they aren't empowered, or have been conditioned to whatever, but because it is the most satisfying situation =for them.=" I am interested in what you consider to be "feminine" aspects of life. The traditional 'feminine' life that I rejected myself (without ever attacking my friends who chose differently) was very limited: cook/clean/sew/raise children/work inside home only in support of your man. I rejected this way of life for several reasons: one, I saw my mother do this all while married to an academic (so she had the academic requirements as well--i.e. social ones), and what I saw was that she worked harder and longer than my father. Then he dumped her for a graduate student seven years older than I was--my mother, who worked fulltime to put my father through graduate school, got $300 a month alimony and has been working ever since.. My father is retired with an agreat salary, a second wife, and two teenagers (of course having two teenagers when you're seventy might be horrible). I don't attack women who chose this way of life: I only question whether or not they are wise to do so without any other means of supporting themselves given today's divorce rate and the extent to which current laws (some supported by feminists, but most put into the system by men) have cut down on alimony and so on. My objection is to a system that gives women no other choices. The feminist extremists who give women no other choice than to work full-time are also a problem. Philosophically, I reject the notion that only women are interested in what I consider to be the "feminine" aspects of life: I have a cousin who works in the home taking care of the children while his wife works full time: she makes more than he does, and he enjoys child care more than she does. I think if my brother and his wife ever have children, he'll be the home partner. What I call nurturing is not inherent in women alone, although our society fosters that notion. I am in many ways NOT a nurturing person--I don't much like children or even young people--that's why I'm teaching college. I chose not to marry for a number of reasons, as did my housemate. My housemate and I have to share "maintenance" tasks in the home--we often wish we could employ Jeeves to do all that sort of thing. We both enjoy cooking--because we like to eat. But we were both dedicated to an academic/intellectual life from early on: she's a medieval historian (wanted to be a medievalist from about age five), and I'm an English professor (I wanted mostly to be a writer, but had to find a way of earning a living). Some of my favorite SF/F novels show cultures in which the nurturing of families and making of homes is not limited to women: Diane Duane's "Door" novels, Melissa Michaels' SF (not necessarily in print these days, alas) featuring a female Heinleinesque character who cannot stand children but has several male friends who parent their own children without a female in the house or ship, Lois McMaster Bujold. I think those raise extremely interesting feminist ideas which have to do with gender as a whole. In some ways our society is tremendously unfair to men, denying them access to those HUMAN acativities deemed "feminine," just as women are denied access to HUMAN activities deemed "masculine." I think at times the feminist critique of a social system which limits women to one sphere of activity is misread as attacks on "traditional women." I agree that sometimes "feminists" do attack "traditional women," and vice versa. It's always easier to attack groups with less power! The individuals who irritate me are the women who say "I'm NOT a feminist, BUT I support..." then go on to list all sorts of feminist principles and issues. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:07:51 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Shane Cooke Subject: Unsubscribe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Automatic digest processor [SMTP:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 1998 07:01 > To: Recipients of FEMINISTSF digests > Subject: FEMINISTSF Digest - 5 Jan 1998 to 6 Jan 1998 > > There are 34 messages totalling 2253 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? (4) > 2. Book group (2) > 3. Test - feel free to ignore. > 4. Star Trek (4) > 5. "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) (6) > 6. Book Review (2) > 7. list slowdown explanation > 8. EOS convention (4) > 9. (2) > 10. Eleanor of Aquitaine (3) > 11. Gender in SF&F > 12. FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 > 13. Romances vs. Military SF > 14. Got it! > 15. ST Love stories (Was: Star Trek) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 02:06:04 EST > From: BJBenesch > Subject: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? > > In a message dated 98-01-05 16:03:35 EST, Robin Reid wrote: > > > "Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By > their very > > nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives > in a > > =major= way. Romance > > loves female sexuality. > > > This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon > > that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that > female > > characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many > romance > > readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read > novels > > that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual > behavior of > > women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of > tradition. The > > establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the > fluff > > goes on quietly breaking all the > > rules. I think it's a hoot." > > don't want > this to get too huge, so.... > > > > To which Robin replied: > > I would not deny these novels could be considered feminist--but I > had not > > seen them as such. And the 'sexuality' which is at the center (if > it is > > exclusively heterosexual/heterosexist, between white middle class > > participants, and leading to marriage) is still not very > subversive. But > > then again, i'm fonder of the more radical areas of feminist > discourse > > regarding these issues--in fiction or in theory! > > And so finally Barb says: > While I agree with Catherine that there is a certain feminist > component to the > very nature of romance novels, I have to wonder just how feminist they > can be. > While I admit I haven't read a romance novel in quite some time, the > main > reason I stopped reading them was simply this: in a disturbing > proportion of > the ones I did read, the lead woman's first sexual experience was > rape, and > the perpetrator was usually the man who, by the end of the novel, she > was in > love with. > > I will allow that perhaps I simply read the "wrong" ones, but I don't > think > this is the case. In many of the romance novels I read, the central > character > was often defiant and headstrong, and the male lead frequently > resorted to > rape in order to "tame" her. Granted, he usually "felt bad" about it, > but > regardless he either determined it "necessary" for whatever reason, or > was so > "inflamed by her beauty that he could not help himself". Most > disturbing to > me was that the woman, for whom this rape was invariably a first > sexual > experience, then =derived pleasure= from the rape. > > So while the argument can be made the romance novels encourage women > to place > their wants and needs in the forefront, they also encourage women to > believe > that rape can be justified, that women =enjoy= rape, and that women, > by their > very existence, in fact =cause= rape. In my estimation, that's hardly > feminist. > > I am not by any means trying to say that this is true of every romance > novel, > as I have read some which did not follow this pattern, but I have read > too > many of them in which this was the case. > > My apologies if this is too off-topic, > > Barbara Benesch > BJBenesch@aol.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 02:12:24 EST > From: BJBenesch > Subject: Re: Book group > > I believe Jennifer Krauel is the originator of the book group idea and > so I'll > say: > > Jennifer, have you made any headway as yet, or have you turned the > idea over > to someone else? > > Barbara Benesch > BJBenesch@aol.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:25:45 -0800 > From: Cynthia Gonsalves > Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? > > Just to throw my 0.02 credits into the kitty, but has anyone on the > list > read a book edited by Jayne Ann Krentz called "Dangerous Men and > Adventurous Women"? Krentz is one of my favorite romance authors, and > there are several good essays in this book. > > Don't want to incite any genre fiction holy wars here, but there is > some > very good romance fiction out there with a good dash of feminist > sensibility as well as a whole lot of trees that died for nothing more > than horrific crap. I still read romance, although I have gotten far > more selective than I used to be. > > later, Cynthia > -- > "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." > (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! > > http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 03:46:05 -0600 > From: Marina > Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. > > I had the same problem. Started thinking whether I had been > accidentally > deleted from the list, or the list itself got shut down. I wonder > what actually happened. > > Marina > > On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Catweasel wrote: > > > I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since > most > > of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I > > thought I would prod it to see what happens. > > > > Trust me, I'm a doctor. > > Catweasel > > > > New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) > > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:15:24 -0600 > From: "Lorry B. Bond" > Subject: Star Trek > > Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- > > It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST > original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love with > woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . > > What do y'all think?? > > Lorry > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:00:28 -0600 > From: Sean Johnston > Subject: Re: Star Trek > > >Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- > > > >It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST > >original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love > with > >woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . > > > >What do y'all think?? > > > >Lorry > > I think you're wrong. What about, just to name one episode, "Arena"? > > -Sean > > > "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' > in > STNG: Conspiracy > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:15:00 -0800 > From: Pat > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: > what > happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk and > so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:17:30 -0800 > From: Pat > Subject: Re: Book Review > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dr. Carey Carpenter wrote: > > > All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > > this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > > of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > > all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > > Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > > > I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > > Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > > found in most public libraries. > > > But do NOT buy her last one, Blackmantle, unless you want a > horrifying > look at what I consider a great villain in all her self-serving glory > --- served up as the hero. > And her Arthurian stuff is crawling with defensiveness and > "they oppose > us because they're evil" ideology.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:01:00 -0500 > From: "Stahl, Sheryl" > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > It sounds like you have your time frame confused - the Gathering is a > rerun of the first B5 episode - G'kar and Londo started out low and > matured as the series progressed. I had started watching in the > middle > of the series so I thought it was fun to go back to the beginning - I > thought it was interesting that there was a strong woman as 2nd in > command and a black Dr. that were both replaced by similar characters. > > sheryl > > > ---------- > > From: Pat[SMTP:mathews@UNM.EDU] > > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > > literature > > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 10:15 AM > > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] "In the Beginning..." (no > spoilers...yet) > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > > > > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > > > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: > > what > > happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk > and > > so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > > mathews@unm.edu > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:05:51 -0500 > From: "Stahl, Sheryl" > Subject: Re: Book group > > I would vote for jumping in a just starting ... how about _Ammonite_ > by > Nicola Griffith and/or _Mutagenesis_ by Hellen Collins They are both > somewhat recent, out in paperback and explore utopian/dystopian > themes. > sheryl > > > ---------- > > From: BJBenesch[SMTP:BJBenesch@AOL.COM] > > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > > literature > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 2:12 AM > > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Book group > > > > I believe Jennifer Krauel is the originator of the book group idea > and > > so I'll > > say: > > > > Jennifer, have you made any headway as yet, or have you turned the > > idea over > > to someone else? > > > > Barbara Benesch > > BJBenesch@aol.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:18:56 -0800 > From: Laura Quilter > Subject: list slowdown explanation > > the OS on the list-machine was upgraded, and i suspect that caused the > weirdnesses in the list ... > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:13:16 -0700 > From: Michelle Bernard > Subject: Re: EOS convention > > Well, this is a related question... is Severna Park's _Hand of > Prophecy_ > in the same series with _Speaking Dreams_? I was introduced to that > years ago at university but haven't found more recent books since. I > remember _Speaking Dreams_ as pretty decent (and the first the author > was writing in a trilogy) with only a few problems about the > power/slavery bit (short English paper). > misha > > >---------- > >From: jenn mottram[SMTP:athena@GEOCITIES.COM] > >Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 6:35 AM > >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] EOS convention > > > >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: > >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ > >>> > >>>There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED > >>>with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and > Stephen > >>Leigh that > >>> might prove interesting. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>>Jane Bledsoe > >>>Avon/Eos > > > >Here's the official blurb on it: > > > >The Importance of Being Gendered > > > >Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least > since > >the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of > Darkness in > >1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh > (Dark > >Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna > Park > >(Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light > on > >present relations between the sexes. > > > > > >------- > > > >I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? > Would you > >recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did > she > >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > > > >jenn > > > > > > > >-- > >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] > >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] > >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] > >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 09:10:00 -0800 > From: Pat > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > > > > > It sounds like you have your time frame confused - the Gathering is > a > > rerun of the first B5 episode > > I'm taking the time frame of Babylon 5 as a given - IN THE > BEGINNING > takes place 10 years earlier that THE GATHERING. > > > - G'kar and Londo started out low and matured as the series > progressed. > > Yes, and that's a problem with prequels. > > I > had started watching in the middle > > of the series so I thought it was fun to go back to the beginning - > I > > thought it was interesting that there was a strong woman as 2nd in > > command and a black Dr. that were both replaced by similar > characters. > > > I'm hoping to pick up all the earlier episodes and watch them > unfold.> > > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:39:29 -0600 > From: Linda Quinlan > Subject: > > Hi. I'm new to the list and have been lurking for a little over a > month. I > would like to join the book club. I'm more interested in sci fi and > horror, > than fantasy and utopian novels, but I'm willing to try anything. > > There is a lot of good lesbian/feminist sci fi out and I was wondering > if > anyone has explored this option? Presently I'm writing a sci fi > mystery with > a lesbian hero. > > I thought Babylon 5 was great. I'm looking forward to watching the > series > from the beginning since I didn't get a chance to watch it as a > series. > > Linda > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:28:05 -0500 > From: Rudy Leon > Subject: Re: EOS convention > > The Gilman of _Herland_ is Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and it was > written in > 1915.... I've never heard of any of the folks or books on this panel. > > It would seem that jenn mottram said, 08:35 AM 1/5/98 -0500 > >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: > >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ > >>> > > Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), > >------- > snip > > > > I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did she > >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > > > >jenn > > > > > > > Rudy Leon > Syracuse University > releon@syr.edu > (315) 425-8171 > > ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ > ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. > ~~ > ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the > ~~ > ~~ question wherever it may go. > ~~ > > --David Tracy > _Plurality and Ambiguity_ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:01:58 GMT > From: Catweasel > Subject: Re: Book Review > > It was 05/01/98 18:02:43 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful > occasions, > I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , > hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > > > All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > > this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > > of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > > all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > > Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > > > I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > > Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > > found in most public libraries. > > I read The Copper Crown when it was first published. It impressed me > sufficiently that I ran a role-playing campaign loosely based upon it. > I whole-heartedly reccomend it. > > Unfortunately, I never read the other Keltia books. They have just > been > added to my ever-lengthening reading list. > > > Trust me, I'm a doctor. > Catweasel > > Virus detected! P)our chicken soup on motherboard? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:02:17 GMT > From: Catweasel > Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > > It was 03/01/98 04:29:27 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful > occasions, > I observed MARINA YERESHENKO , > hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > > > > However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are > not > > seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise > at > > the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be > seen as > > a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent > > backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be > they old > > or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in > cases of, > > say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they > simply > > doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, > it's > > not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking over > > everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success > even > > more threatening and causing more hostility. > > > > This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century > Europe, > > and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the > US, the > > mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance > of > > power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we > are > > more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, > > than a female president of the United States in the next fifty > years. > > > > At least, that's what I think. > > Sadly, I fear I must agree with you. The mind-set which can say "a > woman's place is in the home" and "don't you worry your pretty little > head about it, dear" (God, that makes me cringe!) still predominates > our "liberal," "free-thinking" western society. > > > Trust me, I'm a doctor. > Catweasel > > The best defense against logic is stupidity. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:08:19 GMT > From: Catweasel > Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > > It was 05/01/98 18:51:52 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful > occasions, > I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , > hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > > > I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the > centuries > > down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one > of > > the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding > woman-in-leadership, > > Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to > get > > Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not > hesitate to > > defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re > > The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. > > Ah, yes, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher," as some of my younger > friends > so fondly remember her. The woman who stood slightly to the right of > Attila the Hun. The woman who, rather than putting Britain back > together, > sold it off to the lowest bidder. > > There are those who believe that the Falklands war was deliberately > engineered to restore flagging Conservative popularity. As far as I > am > concerned, the jury is still out. > > Sorry, I'm a bit rabid on this subject. I'll shut up now. > > > Trust me, I'm a doctor. > Catweasel > > Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:42:07 -0600 > From: Linda Quinlan > Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > > At 07:08 PM 1/6/98 GMT, you wrote: > >It was 05/01/98 18:51:52 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful > occasions, > >I observed "Dr. Carey Carpenter" , > >hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > > > >> I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the > centuries > >> down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one > of > >> the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding > woman-in-leadership, > >> Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal > to get > >> Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not > hesitate to > >> defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re > >> The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. > > > >Ah, yes, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher," as some of my younger > friends > >so fondly remember her. The woman who stood slightly to the right of > >Attila the Hun. The woman who, rather than putting Britain back > together, > >sold it off to the lowest bidder. > > > >There are those who believe that the Falklands war was deliberately > >engineered to restore flagging Conservative popularity. As far as I > am > >concerned, the jury is still out. > > > >Sorry, I'm a bit rabid on this subject. I'll shut up now. > > > > > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. > >Catweasel > > > >Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints. > > > >I agree with you Catweasel. Maggie Thatcher was right of Attila the > Hun > and dear friend of Ronald Reagon. War is always good for restoring > nationalism and keeping those in power popular, that is if they win > the war. > How could Britian loose? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:31:53 -0800 > From: Cathy Delph > Subject: Gender in SF&F > > The discussion was about books that deal with Gender and a request > for recommendations. The machine where I read my non-work mail was > down for 5 days (bounced mail). Please excuse me if I'm repeating > what others have said. > > If you mean direct, purposeful gender twisting, Melissa Scott, > _Shadow Man_. I strongly recommend _Shadow Man_ as it breaks > out of the misleading idea of two genders and sexualities. Or > if you just mean women outside traditional gender roles, it's a > long list... > > Almost all Science Fiction and Fantasy I read deals with women > being, moving or trying to move outside "the behavioral, cultural, > or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" > (Webster's.) > I'm having a difficult time trying to name a book or author I like > and would recommend that doesn't deal with redefining mainstream > female gender in some way. I wonder if it's an interesting social > statement that I get my fix through genres named "Science Fiction" > and "Fantasy" or just my taste and what I move toward. > > Authors I've read these last 2 weeks: > > Kate Wilhelm (found a lode of her novels and collections in the > back > shelves of my local library, and I've been mining like > crazy) > Melissa Scott (anxiously awaiting her new book) > Connie Willis (_Bellweather_, especially) > N. Lee Wood (_Looking for the Mahdi_, excellent!) > Patricia Wrede (but I did not like what I read) > > > Cathy > > Cathy Delph > Oregon State University > delphc@ucs.orst.edu > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:13:08 PST > From: Daniel Krashin > Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:57:18 GMT > >From: Robin Reid > >Subject: > > > >"Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By > their > very > >nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in > a > >=major= way. Romance > >loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about > women, > >sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had > >=Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not > >only would she have lived, she would have had a successful > relationship > >with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her > >love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our > canon > >that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that > female > >characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance > >readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read > novels > >that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual > behavior of > >women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. > The > >establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the > fluff > >goes on quietly breaking all the > >rules. I think it's a hoot." > > > >That's wonderful if they can be so quietly subversive--I'd like to > hear > more > >of your thoughts on this (perhaps in a private posting if we're > straying too > >far from feminist and sf). But it does come down to what I said > about > >"feminism" meaning different things to different people. > > > >I had mentioned "traditional romance novels," although I need to be > careful > >here because I haven't read any of the more recently published ones. > I > love > >the earlier works by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitley, > and > >Georgette Heyer who drew on the earlier Gothic traditions (also > started > by > >women) to invent the contemporary "women's novel" and invented the > genre. > >But I don't read the more recent stuff because it is so > commercialized. > But > >I have read criticism (feminist) on romance novels, and have noticed > two > >things: one the reader response take which supports your claim that > the > >women who read romance novels (and who do not consider themselves > feminist) > >are engageing in a sort of preliminary feminist activity of putting > their > >interests and desires at the center of things. (I say sort of > feminist > >because for me feminism in one sense needs to have the goal of > changing > >society--a woman putting her desires first when she has been > socialized > not > >to do so is starting the process, but isn't there yet, and many of > these > >women specifically do not identify as feminists. Some analysis might > even > >claim that the romance novels work against the desire for social > change--but > >that's getting pretty tenuous in terms of argument/proof etc.). The > >feminist ideas about romance novels came from a book i read by Janice > >Radway. Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts > which do > >not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in > women > >gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so > on--the > >result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. > > To be honest, I've only read two romances in my life, but they always > seemed pretty much the distaff equivalent of war or adventure novels: > quick, entertaining reads which pleasurably evoke the fantasies > one had as a child. When I read, say, a _Hammer's Slammers_ > novel, I'm enjoying the fantasies of being a great military commander > without the ugly realities of death, maiming, and PTSD. In the same > way the romance novels I've read (again, only 2) seemed to evoke > fantasies of wooing a fierce, distant, exciting lover without the ugly > realities that such men are generally complete bastards! > > I suppose a book can both gratify fantasies and be subversive -- > certainly David Drake's books make some good points about the > horror of war -- but that's not why anyone reads them. > > BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today > don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! > Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much > bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who > is a fan of this genre care to comment? > > ObSF: there was an interesting thread recently on USENET about how > many > of Anne McCaffrey's Pern books follow the classic > romance plot to a "T". > > Dan Krashin > a little man in a big machine > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:13:35 PST > From: Daniel Krashin > Subject: Re: Romances vs. Military SF > > >Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 00:00:30 -0600 > >Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature" > > > >From: Automatic digest processor > >Subject: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 > >To: Recipients of FEMINISTSF digests > > > >There are 13 messages totalling 660 lines in this issue. > > > >Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Test - feel free to ignore. (2) > > 2. EOS convention > > 3. Star Trek > > 4. Book Review > > 5. Eleanor of Aquitaine > > 6. Anyone interested in starting a book group? (2) > > 7. listmistress - testing list - ignore > > 8. > > 9. feminsm/humanity > > 10. "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) (2) > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 00:26:10 -0600 > >From: Sean Johnston > >Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. > > > >> > >>New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) > > > >Got it. That's rather witty. :-) > > > >-Sean > > > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' > in > >STNG: Conspiracy > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:22:50 -0500 > >From: jenn mottram > >Subject: Re: Test - feel free to ignore. > > > >At 07:26 PM 1/4/98 GMT, you wrote: > >>I have had no messages from FSFFU since 1/1/98 at 18:50 GMT. Since > most > >>of the mail I receive which is worth reading comes from this list I > >>thought I would prod it to see what happens. > >> > >>Trust me, I'm a doctor. > >>Catweasel > > > >Hey Catweasel, > > > >Got it! > > > >I'm sending this to both the list and your address -- you should get > two > >copies. > > > >jenn > > > >-- > >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] > >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] > >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] > >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:35:21 -0500 > >From: jenn mottram > >Subject: Re: EOS convention > > > >At 07:43 AM 1/2/98 -0800, you wrote: > >>> The url is http://www.Avonbooks.com/Eos/ > >>> > >>>There will be panel called THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING GENDERED > >>>with Severna Park, James Allen Gardner, Carolyn Ives Gilman and > Stephen > >>Leigh that > >>> might prove interesting. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>>Jane Bledsoe > >>>Avon/Eos > > > >Here's the official blurb on it: > > > >The Importance of Being Gendered > > > >Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at least > since > >the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of > Darkness > in > >1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh > (Dark > >Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna > Park > >(Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light > on > >present relations between the sexes. > > > > > >------- > > > >I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? > Would > you > >recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman (did > she > >do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > > > >jenn > > > > > > > >-- > >{jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] > >{generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] > >{athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] > >{http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 07:16:09 -0800 > >From: Pat > >Subject: Re: Star Trek > > > >On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, KSHMEYER wrote: > > > >> > >> Please forgive, but I am new to this listserv and though I probably > haven't > >> lurked enough, I would like to comment on the current discussion > regarding > >> Star Trek. I am a true Trekker. Have been since the fourth grade > when the > >> original Star Trek made its debut. I am sure many of you know about > it > >> history, but in the discussion regarding the Vulcans and the > matriarchial > >> nature of their society and the changes the "suits" at DesiLu and > NBC > >> required. I believe that if you watch the episodes carefully you > will notice > >> that, with the exception of Surak, Spock's father, almost every > major > >> authority figure has been a woman, so Roddenberry basically stuck > to > his > >> original idea. > > > > You notice that the Romulans have an even stronger tradition > of > >female leadership. Though I do like Diane Duane's novel "My Enemy, My > >Ally," in which a Romulan starship capitain bids fair to becoming > their > >version of Gaius Marius! > > > > > > > > > However, as to what he had originally proposed, having a female > starship > >> captian, that was thoroughly rejected. Majel Barrett, who played > Captain > >> Pike's Number 1, was originially slotted to play the captain of the > >> Enterprise. > > > > I saw the original pilot along with comments like "She was > >considered too cold." I kept looking for "coldness" and saw that she > was > >the only woman in that movie who acted in a professional manner! The > >others either screamed and trembled or fussed like mother hens. Good > >grief - a woman officer couldn't win in those days! > > > >This the suits scrapped and instead we ended up with the > >> glorified secretaries, although Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of > Uhuru, > >> eventually broke the mold and in one episode sat in the captain's > chair. As > >> for strong women, some of the guest appearances would be worth > noting, but > >> most of the program remained trapped decade in which it > appeared.....the late- > >> sixties....go-go boots, mini-skirts, beehive hairdos, and the rest > of > the > >> sock-it-to-me trappings more appropriate to "Laugh-in" > >> > > Uh --- have you seen the tight miniskirts (thigh straps!) > worn > under > >business jackets that Hollywoood has defined as proper female > >businesswear this past 30 years? > > > >> As for Next Generation, Roddenberry's first improvement was the > mere > addition > >> of more lead female characters. While criticized, because Troi > was > a > >> counselor and Crusher a doctor, both caretaker-nurturer roles, many > forget > >> that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. > That role > >> unfortuantely came to an end when the actress decided series > television was to > >> limiting and opted out of her contract halfway through the first > season. As > >> Generations had too many major characters Michael Dorn's Worf > simply > filled in > >> the spot and no one was ever hired to take her place. However as > the > series > >> evolved, both Troi and Crusher took on more authoative postures, > with > Crusher > >> in "All Good Things Must Come to an End," captains a medical ship. > (And I > >> will agree 100%, Michelle Forbe's role of Lieutenant Ro was > outstanding and > >> Berman offered her a continuing job, but Forbes opted to making > just > a few > >> guest appearances, leaving her open to take other jobs that would > come her > >> way.) > > > > Roddenberry liked to see T&A, but also believed in strong > women. > >Much like Heinlein!> > >> > > DS9 was the first major science fiction to open with two strong > female > >> characters. Nan Visitor's portrayal of Major Kira is dynamite. > Some > of the > >> material the writers have given her over the years is some of the > best work > >> for a woman working episodic television. Over the years the role > of > Dax has > >> also improved, but that is due to the improvement of the actor in > the > role. > >> Terry Farrell was not an accomplished actor when she came to the > part. I must > >> also point out that the writing on this show has been chaotic at > best. > >> However, since Rene Echivaria has come to the helm in the role of > executive > >> producer, the writing has improved. Many of the best episodes made > on > >> Generations were his episodes and now he pens many of the episodes > on > DS9. > >> > > Strong women became fashionable around that time, so they > didn't > >have to buck the suits. Note also Babylon 5's Delenn and Ivanova. > > > > > >> As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty > to > the > >> franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the > characters on > >> Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the > women in > >> the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that > attracts my > >> attention. I take that back, Jeri Ryan's portrayal of Seven of > Nine > is the > >> most provacotive character on the show and I am hopeful that the > producers > >> will fulfill the potential of this character as well as the other > female > >> characters on the show. > >> > > "Now, sit right down and I'll tell a tale > > A tale you can't endure > > About the people lost in space > > Aboard the Voyager...." > > > >> While I'm writing about episodic science fiction seen on > television, > I would > >> like to sight Claudia Christian's Commander Susan Ivonova on > Babylon > 5 > >> (unfortunately due to a contract dispute she will not appear for > the > fifth > >> season). Here is a dynamite woman and one of the best. If you > have > not seen > >> B5 and are lucky enough to have cable, TNT is showing a first-run > movie > >> tomorrow and then beginning Monday running the entire program from > day one > >> Monday through Friday. This is a dynamite series period with some > wonderful > >> women's roles. Mira Furlan's Ambassador Delenn is another well > worth > knowing. > >> > >> Thank you for the space. > >> > >> > > > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews > >mathews@unm.edu > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:02:43 -0700 > >From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" > >Subject: Book Review > > > >All Hail Ye Feminist/Sci-Fi Afficianados...after lurking on > >this list for several months, I see you all are missing one > >of the most powerful and creative writers of this genre of > >all time...Patricia Kennealy, formerly married to the late > >Jim Morrison, leader of the rock group The Doors. > > > >I recommend her first three books, The Copper Crown, The > >Throne of Scone, and The Silver Branch...all three can be > >found in most public libraries. > > > >Drawing on Celtic legends, the tales of King Arthur, the > >history of Ireland, stories of Atlantis, and the vast body > >of lore about druids, the Triple Goddess, and the workings > >of magic, Patricia Kennealy has created a wondrous epic > >fantasy series that spans our ancient past and distant future. > > > >Keltia...an interstellar kingdom in Earth-time 3000 years > >plus after these Kelts left Earth in 453 AD with the great > >St. Brendan as their leader. Now, a scout ship from Earth > >has stumbled upon this advanced civilization. > > > >What else? You must read to find out. The Copper Crown was > >the first book written, and then The Throne of Scone. > > > >The talented young queen Aeron Aoibhell has decisions to > >make, and does well in many respects. It is a terrific two- > >book series, these two. > > > >The Silver Branch, written last, describes the early life of > >Aeron and her peers, male and female, leading up to her > >ascension to the Throne of Scone as Ard-rian, High Queen of > >Keltia. Read this one last, and enjoy the magic, technology, > >and superb female leadership (and some male, too) in the > >first two books first, and the genealogy of it all last. > > > >Who amongst you are interested in a modern romance between > >a younger woman and an older man, amplified and modified by > >the metaphysical input of an Angelic Presence and with > >footnotes by God Himself from time to time...a superbly > >feminine woman led away from the trauma of early abuse by an > >older man who loves her dearly...LOVE & DUTY...FREE- read > >the Prologue and first three chapters free downloaded in > >ASCII format...if you want to read the remaining 58 > >chapters, download it in its pre-publication edition via > >e-mail for less than half of the hard-cover price after > >publication. > > > >FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of the hottest > >romance novel of 1998...LOVE & DUTY...order your free copy > >of this preview now...write to The First Ozark Press at > > > >mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com > > > > > >Dr. Carey Carpenter > >http://www.FirstOzark.com > >mailto:FOP@FirstOzark.com > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:51:52 -0700 > >From: "Dr. Carey Carpenter" > >Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > > > >Hi, Marina... > > > >I enjoyed your exposition of women-in-leadership through the > centuries > >down to Benazir Bhutto. I think you have neglected to mention one of > >the most outstanding, if not THE most outstanding > woman-in-leadership, > >Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, who not only did a great deal to > get > >Great Britain "put back together" in our times, but also did not > hesitate to > >defend British interests from 7000 miles away (and won, too) in re > >The Falklands. The Iron Lady was well-nicknamed. > > > >About Joan of Arc, not only her poverty, but perhaps her superior > >religious philosophy in that time helped to do her in, as it has many > >others throughout the centuries of "developing civilization." > > > >About a woman President of the United States, my memory goes back > >to the Harding administration, and there has not been a woman in our > >politics to equal Mrs. Thatcher during that time. If and when one > does > >arise equal to her, I will campaign for her and vote for her, and I > am > a > >conservative senior white male. > > > >I hope you will read the three sci-fi books by Patricia Kennealy > subject of > >the book report I just filed this morning...talk about strong women > in > the > >government! Those books are full of them, in a most delightfully > woven > >tale of how things might have been...and possibly, even, how they > are. > > > >Thanks for your time... > > > >Carey > > > >FREE...Prologue and first three chapters of LOVE & DUTY...1998's > >hottest romance novel...mailto:fop@firstozark.com > > > >Dr. Carey Carpenter > >http://www.FirstOzark.com > >mailto:ccarey@bigfoot.com > > > >MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > >> > >> > > IN a lot of patriarchal cultures there is a great deal of > informal license > >> > > granted to rich, powerful older women wioth strong ideas and > personalities > >> > >> I agree on the point that appearance of strong female figures in > >> patriarchial societies does not change the societies' approach to > women. > >> However, I don't think that throughout the history, they had to be > older > >> to be taken seriousely. > >> > >> For what I know, Eleanor of Aquitaine was about 27 years old when > she > >> rode bare-chested in front of her own troops during the first > Crusade. I > >> think, 27 is too early to be considered elderly, even by medieval > >> standards. Moreover, by that time, she more than actively > participated > >> in the court politics and government. She had started on that at > the > age > >> of 15, which was when she married the king of France. > >> > >> Elizabeth I of England was twenty-five when she became a queen. > She > >> never got married and was officially considered a virgin (the state > of > >> Virginia was named after her for that exact reason), while she had > plenty > >> of lovers and everyone knew them. She made the fact of her being a > woman > >> of child-bearing age (and the century's courtship rituals it > implied) > >> an additional tool to strengthen her authority. She used her love > >> affairs to establish political alliances, and when her boyfriends > did > not > >> behave well, she got them beheaded. > >> > >> Jeanne of Arc was allowed to lead an army when she was 17. The > reason > >> they got her burned at the stake, I think, was the fact that she > was > >> poor. Were she of noble descent, they would have got her married > to > a > >> prince, or the king himself, and incorporated her into the > establishment. > >> > >> Finally, an example from this century -- Benazir Bhutto became the > Prime > >> Minister of Pakistan in her thirties. She was of child-bearing > age, > as a > >> matter of fact, she had a baby a month after her election as the > head > of > >> the government, and two more while she was in that position. Think > about > >> it. Pakistan is one of the most patriarchial societies that > currently > >> exist. Did Benazir's election change the fact? Not at all. The > were > no > >> other woman in Pakistani government at her time, before her > election, > or > >> after. At the same time, can you imagine a young pregnant woman > elected > >> US president in next 10 years, that would have babies and lead the > >> government at the same time? For some reason, I doubt that. Even > >> considering America being miles and miles ahead of Pakistan in the > matter of > >> women's rights. > >> > >> I agree that success of individual women in ultra-patriarchial > >> societies does not improve position of majority of women. However, > my > >> point is, it happens not just because they are older. In order to > rule a > >> country or participate in war and get away with it all, one needs > several > >> conditions: > >> > >> 1) have rich, powerful, and open-minded parents, preferrably with > no > male > >> children. Parents who would give her the education equal or > superior > to the > >> most of males of her time and class, and raise her in belief that > she > can > >> accomplish anything she wants. Queen Eleanor was the only child of > a > duke, > >> who raised her as his heir and a future ruler, instead of obsessing > about > >> having no sons. > >> > >> 2) be exposed to politics and power struggles from early age. > Benazir's > >> father was a prime minister, too, and was murdered when she was > very > >> young. Elizabeth I spend her early twenties in prison, jailed by > her > >> half-sister queen, who was afraid of her taking over the power. > >> > >> 3) have a goal-oriented personality, which means pursue what she > wants > >> despite the generally slim chances of success for a female. There > had > never > >> been a woman head of government in Pakistan, an unmarried queen in > Medieval > >> Europe, or a seventeen-years-old peasant girl military leader, > untils > >> these women came and made it. If they had been concentrating on > the > fact > >> that it's "impossible for a women in this society", they would not > be > able to > >> do it. Other women of great intelligence and personality, but > without that > >> winning spirit, usually become great writers, scientists, and > poets, > but > >> they do not get to rule the world. The same as it happens with > men. > >> > >> 4) ironically, she has to live in a very patriarchial society. > Because > >> in thet society, being a woman is seen simply as a kind of > disability, > >> that generally excludes you from anything significant. However, if > you are > >> have plenty of things to compensate -- like lots of money, a > powerful > >> family, or supreme intelligence or talent, you can get around the > general > >> rule, without changing it. The same as Franklin Roosevelt was a > >> wheel-chaired president long before the Act for Americans with > >> Disabilities. Since he was so great at what he was doing, everyone > >> simply closed their eyes on his "physical pecularity", which did > not > mean > >> that they started to pay more attention to other people with > >> disabilities. Being a woman in a patriarchial society is pretty > much > the > >> same. > >> > >> However, once women start actually fight for their rights, they are > not > >> seen as harmless "lesser versions of men" that are allowed to raise > at > >> the level of "real men" every once in a while. They start to be > seen > as > >> a "different species" competing for power, which creates a violent > >> backlash against any women who try or even happen to succeed, be > they > old > >> or young. Basically, it is the difference in discrimination in > cases > of, > >> say, being disabled, and being of another race. In first case, they > simply > >> doubt that you can perform, and are OK if you do. In second case, > it's > >> not whether you can do it, but the whole idea of "'them' taking > over > >> everything and leaving nothing for us", which makes your success > even > >> more threatening and causing more hostility. > >> > >> This switch in attitudes towards women happened in 19th century > Europe, > >> and is still pretty much absent from non-Western cultures. In the > US, > the > >> mutual hostility between sexes is the most extreme, and the balance > of > >> power so far is not on the side of women. That's why, I'm afraid we > are > >> more likely to see a female president of Iran any time soon, > >> than a female president of the United States in the next fifty > years. > >> > >> At least, that's what I think. > >> > >> Marina > >> > >> > > >> > I thought that Rodenberry originally designed Vulcan as a > matriarchy, > >> > then had to change it to get script okay, and that T'Pau was a > left > over > >> > from that original storyline. I seem to remember reading it in a > book > >> > by Rodenberry many years ago, but it's been a looooong time. > >> > > >> > Best regards > >> > Catherine > >> > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > >> > > >> > >> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > >> happens to be selling at the time." > >> Naomi Wolf > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:47:29 -0800 > >From: Pamela Bedore > >Subject: Anyone interested in starting a book group? > > > >Hey Folks, > > > >Back from the holidays and finally catching up on my e-mail. So, are > we > >doing a book group? It seemed like there was a lot of positive > response a > >couple of weeks ago. > > > >I'd be happy to join if it's happening. > > > >Cheers, > > > >pamela bedore > >department of english > >simon fraser university > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:29:35 -0800 > >From: Laura Quilter > >Subject: listmistress - testing list - ignore > > > >testing the list - please ignore & delete > > > >Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org > > > >"If I can't dance, I don't want to be > >in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman > > > > FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL > > Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants > > her testimony against Mumia and cites > > police coercion as the reason for her > > perjury. > > http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:57:18 GMT > >From: Robin Reid > >Subject: > > > >"Catherine Asaro writes: I have to disagree with you there. By > their > very > >nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in > a > >=major= way. Romance > >loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about > women, > >sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had > >=Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not > >only would she have lived, she would have had a successful > relationship > >with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her > >love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our > canon > >that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that > female > >characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.Many romance > >readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read > novels > >that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual > behavior of > >women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. > The > >establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the > fluff > >goes on quietly breaking all the > >rules. I think it's a hoot." > > > >That's wonderful if they can be so quietly subversive--I'd like to > hear > more > >of your thoughts on this (perhaps in a private posting if we're > straying too > >far from feminist and sf). But it does come down to what I said > about > >"feminism" meaning different things to different people. > > > >I had mentioned "traditional romance novels," although I need to be > careful > >here because I haven't read any of the more recently published ones. > I > love > >the earlier works by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitley, > and > >Georgette Heyer who drew on the earlier Gothic traditions (also > started > by > >women) to invent the contemporary "women's novel" and invented the > genre. > >But I don't read the more recent stuff because it is so > commercialized. > But > >I have read criticism (feminist) on romance novels, and have noticed > two > >things: one the reader response take which supports your claim that > the > >women who read romance novels (and who do not consider themselves > feminist) > >are engageing in a sort of preliminary feminist activity of putting > their > >interests and desires at the center of things. (I say sort of > feminist > >because for me feminism in one sense needs to have the goal of > changing > >society--a woman putting her desires first when she has been > socialized > not > >to do so is starting the process, but isn't there yet, and many of > these > >women specifically do not identify as feminists. Some analysis might > even > >claim that the romance novels work against the desire for social > change--but > >that's getting pretty tenuous in terms of argument/proof etc.). The > >feminist ideas about romance novels came from a book i read by Janice > >Radway. Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts > which do > >not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be in > women > >gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so > on--the > >result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. > > > >But I've also read a lot of linguistic criticism (if you're > interested > in > >the names, let me know and I'll send them to you privately) that > analyzes > >the language to show the extent to which "women" are put into the > passive > >position in a variety of ways. So that even though some of the women > >characters have the trappings of contemporary "feminist" ideas > (professions, > >etc), the discourse tends to operate to make them into objects, and > that the > >sexuality is presented as upholding the dominant culture's ideology. > >(There's also the issue of the extent to which romance novels are > primarily > >focuses on white middle class women only--though that may be changing > as > >well as the market opens up.) > > > >I would not deny these novels could be considered feminist--but I had > not > >seen them as such. And the 'sexuality' which is at the center (if it > is > >exclusively heterosexual/heterosexist, between white middle class > >participants, and leading to marriage) is still not very subversive. > But > >then again, i'm fonder of the more radical areas of feminist > discourse > >regarding these issues--in fiction or in theory! > > > >In terms of males/masculinist/political--well I might even say that > Lucien > >is engaging in feminist action himself, rather than just "political," > >because to me, feminism inescapably has a political component (and I > don't > >mean just voting or a c > >certain kind of political activity). Questioning gender roles, > ideology, > >hierarchies does not only have to be done by females! > > > >p.s. I haven't read any of your books but after reading what you said > about > >them, they're on my list to buy the next time I get to a Decent > Bookstore! > > > >Robin > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:01:43 GMT > >From: Robin Reid > >Subject: feminsm/humanity > > > >"Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: Moon and the Sun is about what it means to > be > >human. A relatively feminist theme, don'tchaknow." > > > >Hi Vonda--eek women being human--definitely radically feminist idea > where I > >grew up (northern Idaho, where we were raised to belived there were > "good > >girls" and "bad girls" who of course grew up to be "good women" or > "bad > >women." Good women cooked, sewed, got married right out of high > school, > >when they were still virgins, and never ever cheated on their > husbands. > I > >left my hometown as soon as I could.) > > > >Robin > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:51:08 -0500 > >From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" > >Subject: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > > >Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): > > > >What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > >- Geoffrey > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:16:21 EST > >From: Kitimher > >Subject: Re: Anyone interested in starting a book group? > > > >Greetings to all~ > > > >I too am new to the list and greatly impressed by the lively > intellect > of this > >little community. > >Yes! I say to a book group, when and how do we begin? > > > >Warmly, > >tara > >Kitimher@aol.com > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:18:50 -0800 > >From: Cynthia Gonsalves > >Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > > >Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > >> > >> Okay, all you in the US (and Canada?): > >> > >> What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > >> > >> - Geoffrey > > > >Still no spoilers, but I will say it *ROCKED*!!! > > > >Email me seperately if you want to rant and rave while keeping the > rest > >of the list pristine and unsullied. > > > >later, Cynthia > >-- > >"I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." > >(from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! > > > >http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ > > > >------------------------------ > > > >End of FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 > >*************************************************** > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:27:34 -0800 > From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" > Subject: Re: EOS convention > > Rudy Leon wrote: > > > > The Gilman of _Herland_ is Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and it was > written in > > 1915.... I've never heard of any of the folks or books on this > panel. > > > Carolyn Ives Gilman is certainly well-known to regular readers of _The > Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction_. Her work has been appearing > there for years. (A novella, "Candle in a Bottle," will be on the > preliminary Nebula awards ballot.) A story of hers opens the first > volume of _Bending the Landscape_, an anthology edited by Nicola > Griffith & Stephen Pagel (currently available from Whitewolf Press in > hardcover). > > Timmi Duchamp > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:45:40 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: Re: Star Trek > > Lorry B. Bond wrote: > > > > Just my two cents (or whatever it's worth) -- > > > > It seems to me that the underlying plot/goal of EVERY episode in ST > > original was "Kirk meets beautiful woman . . . Kirk falls in love > with > > woman . . . Kirk beds woman." Hardly feminist in my book . . . > > What the original Star Trek did was bring large number of strong > female > characters into a televised science fiction show, with many of the > women > in careers that at that time were not only nontraditional but almost > unheard of. More than that, however, it showed the men in their lives > giving them respect for their abilities. I don't think it is > coincidence that the popularty of science fiction with women surged > after that show. > > Kirk's love interests were almost always protrayed as strong, > intelligent, admirable women, often in nontraditional roles. I > enjoyed > that a great deal. I would have enjoyed it even more if hadn't always > the young women being wooed by the male authority figure, but > sometimes > remarkable handsome men wooed by the female captain or captain > equivalent. An egalitarian mix of the two scenarios would have been > best. I do like love stories. > > Voyager has really passed up on an opportunity by making Captain > Janeway > so lacking in passion (if she still is; I haven't seen it in a while). > I don't think it's coincidence that one of the most popular episodes > is > where she and Chakhotay (please forgive spelling) are stranded > together > and do a romantic tango with each other throughout the episode. > > Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for the > times. Despite the jokes about his being a "ladies man," the > character > was never the tiresome "love 'em and leave 'em type." Once a week he > fell passionately for the love of his life. Every now and then he > got a breather, when Spock, McCoy, or Scotty fell passionately in love > (romances were one of the original Star Trek standard weekly > storylines, > as was the "Mr. Spock shows his > rare-once-in-a-lifetime-display-of-emotion"). > > Of course, since Kirk wasn't the type to walk out on his girlfriends, > that meant good 'ol Hollywood had to get rid of his love interests > every > week, which really did get tiresome. The one that annoyed me the most > was when they killed off his Indian wife. > > At least with Picard and Vash, the romance is recurring. But you > know, > that one does nothing for me. Picard is like a wet fish when it comes > to passion. > > Best regards > Catherine > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:54:36 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: Re: EOS convention > > jenn mottram wrote: > > > The Importance of Being Gendered > > > > Gender issues have been a central element of science fiction at > least since > > the appearance of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of > Darkness in > > 1969. Authors James Alan Gardner (Commitment Hour), Stephen Leigh > (Dark > > Water's Embrace), Carolyn Ives Gilman (Halfway Human), and Severna > Park > > (Hand of Prophecy) discuss how playing with gender in SF sheds light > on > > present relations between the sexes. > > > > ------- > > > > I haven't read anything other than _Left Hand_. Has anyone else? > Would you > > recommend them? I'm pretty sure I've read other stuff by Gilman > (did she > > do Herland, or am I remembering wrong?) > > Severna Park (Suze Feldman) wrote SPEAKING DREAMS, which is an > excellent > book that I recommend. I also thought Carolyn Ives Gilman did an > excellent job with her story in F$SF a few years ago "The Wild Ships > of > Fairny." Her "Candle in a Bottle" was in some ways even better. It > tried to do a great deal, and succeeded with a lot of it. But I > thought > it stumbled toward the end. > > Best regards > Catherine Asaro > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:58:58 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? > > Hmmm. It is obvious reading BJBensch's comments that I haven't gotten > any of the responses to my post abut romance and feminism. I had > simply > assumed there hadn't been any. But the quotes indicate there was. > > Is there anyway that I can find the missing posts. I've received > almost > nothing on the listserv lately, until today. > > Best regards > Catherine Asaro > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:22:26 -0800 > From: Denise Borgen > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > On Wed, 24 Dec 1997, Pat wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > > > > > What's the consensus on _Babylon 5: In the Beginning..._? > > > > > I LOVED it! It ruined THE GATHERING, which followed, for me: > what > > happened to G'Kar during the postwar years to make him such a jerk > and > > so disliked? How had Londo gone so far downhill?> > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > > mathews@unm.edu > > > I didn't exactly ruin the Gathering for me, G'Kar is a character who > goes > through quite a bit of change during the Babylon 5 'arc'. Londo > also. > personally, I found the chnges in makeup a little startling going from > the > new "prequel" to the original pilot, especially the way they lightened > up > on Delenn. I'm not sure if this was to make her more attractive or to > make it a shorter time in the makeup chair for Mira Furlan. > Any thoughts? > > ~ Denise M. Borgen ~ If man is only a little > lower ~ > ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ than the angels, then the > ~ > ~ ~ angels should reform > ~ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:50:07 -0800 > From: Freddie Baer > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > >>I found the chnges in makeup a little startling going from the new > "prequel" to the original pilot, especially the way they lightened up > on Delenn. I'm not sure if this was to make her more attractive or to > make it a shorter time in the makeup chair for Mira Furlan. > Any thoughts?<< > > Originally, Delenn was to be a male Minbari (or at least androgynous) > then change into a female; when her voice could not be lowered by > computer properly, they opted to make the character female. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:26:43 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: Re: Got it! > > Okay, I got the messages. They are out of order in my mail queue > here, > something to do with dates. But it looks like they are all here. > > Robin Reid wrote: > > > I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. > > "Forgiveness Day" by Ursula Le Guin illustrates well the feminist side > of romance. It is classic of the romance form, though this isn't > something we often hear said about it. > > I consider "Forgivenss Day" top-notch sf. Its only (minor) flaw is > actually one common to romances more than sf, which is that the focus > on > the love relationship gives short shrift to plot structure. The > climax > of the story as written comes (both literally and figuratively) when > the > relationship is consummated. There are numerous levels of story in > that > scene and Le Guin does an excellent job weaving them together. Their > love-making represents many joinings, more than, but including, the > physical resolution. However, IMO, the plot structure was such that > its > climax was actually their escape (after their love-making). However, > that scene was told only in a few sentences of backfill, essentially > "And then we got away, after which ... " > > However, this is a minor point. It is otherwise a great story. > > > Readers can create empowering experiences even from texts which do > > not seem on the surface to be feminist. The feminism seemed to be > in women > > gathering together, writing/talking about what they read, and so > on--the > > result of the reading, not in the texts themselves. > > But why isn't it feminist on the surface? Are we defining feminist as > that which rejects aspects of life considered feminine? I have no > problem with romances being about traditional relationships. Many > women > value such relationships. What troubles me about the slant of some > feminism is that in belittling what these women value, it takes the > same > road as so much of the very same literary canon that feminism seeks to > comment on in the first place. > > Rather than throwing away the positive with the negative, I think we > need to untangle them, remembering that we value diversity, > =including= > diversity in what women seek in a relationship. > > Of course many romances aren't great literature, any more than is a > lot > of science fiction. Many are written to formula, whether media tie-in > sf or romance sub-genres. For me, formulas get boring. As much as I > enjoy a good love story, by itself it isn't usually enough to sustain > my > interest in a book. There needs to be more to it, not only in terms > of > plot, but also in the depth of research and the questions the book > makes > me ask. Which is one another reason I liked THE MOON AND THE SUN. > > However, we are on to a bigger problem here, one I think feminism > NEEDS > to consider. > > Many women don't consider themselves feminist because they feel it > belittles what they value, either by patronizing ("Well, you are still > mired in traditional values, dear, but perhaps you are gaining some > empowerment despite that") or even giving ridicule. > > It seems to me we do ourselves a great disservice when we set up this > dichotomy. The problem, of course, is that it isn't an either/or > situation, because the interplay of the detrmimental effects on > women's > lives with what we view as tradition are so entangled. > > I think feminism needs to include respect for the feminine aspects of > life that many women value. It doesn't mean everyone who talks about > feminism has to agree (which would be boring and would probably make > the > posts in this listserv dwindle to nothing ), anymore than all > physicists agree on theoretical descriptions of the universe. But > just > as a scientist will (in the ideal) respect and consider various > theories, so feminists need to acknolwedge that many women prefer more > traditional relationships, not because they aren't empowered, or have > been conditioned to whatever, but because it is the most satisfying > situation =for them.= > > ==== > If we can't value the diversity in women's experience, how are we > different from the very aspects of our culture that constrain women's > concerns in the first place? > ==== > > > In terms of males/masculinist/political--well I might even say that > Lucien > > is engaging in feminist action himself, rather than just > "political," > > because to me, feminism inescapably has a political component (and I > don't > > mean just voting or a certain kind of political activity). > Questioning gender roles,\ > > ideology, hierarchies does not only have to be done by females! > > Good point. I suspect that if Lucien was the only character in the > book who asked those question, not many people would consider the book > feminist. > > Except perhaps those who believe no mere women could ever be as good a > feminist as a man . > > And hey! Thank you for the comments about my book. :-) > > Best regards > Catherine Asaro > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:33:27 -0800 > From: Cat Farrar > Subject: Re: Star Trek > > >What the original Star Trek did was bring large number of strong > female > >characters into a televised science fiction show, with many of the > women > >in careers that at that time were not only nontraditional but almost > >unheard of. More than that, however, it showed the men in their > lives > >giving them respect for their abilities. I don't think it is > >coincidence that the popularty of science fiction with women surged > >after that show. > > I probably should go back and watch a lot of the old ST shows because > that > is not my rememberance of the women. I do recall evil alien females, > but > then they were "evil". The show had importance for me because when > were > working alongside men in space (science) and doing fairly technical > jobs. > The air time that women recieved was much less than the men. Much > improvement since then, especially ST the Next Generation. Now the > women are > not only highly skilled they are brave, strong and trained for combat. > And > as far as air time goes, it's much more equal. The old ST tv show > certainly > helped pave the way for what we see today. > > > >Kirk's love interests were almost always protrayed as strong, > >intelligent, admirable women, often in nontraditional roles. I > enjoyed > >that a great deal. > > Wow, I just can't seem to recall that. Perhaps there are a few > Trekkies out > there who know more about the percentages. Strong, intelligent and > admirable vs. soft, emotional and star struck by Kirk - can someone > help > clear this up for me? > > I would have enjoyed it even more if hadn't always > >the young women being wooed by the male authority figure, > > Now, this is more what I remember about Kirk and his love > interests...young, > feminine, pretty, soft spoken and they never lasted. His supply of > women > reminds me of the message I pick up on with MTV music videos. For > every man > in the video, there seems to be at least three or four women. Lucky > for > these women that the men are so virual. :-) > > > but sometimes > >remarkable handsome men wooed by the female captain or captain > >equivalent. An egalitarian mix of the two scenarios would have been > >best. I do like love stories. > > Picard had this kind of experience/relationship. She was an > assertive/aggressive scientist. She looked a lot like Dr. Crusher. > In > addition, she was an accomplished musician. She was older, > experienced, > self-confident and up front with her thoughts and feelings. I saw > much > chemistry between the two. Just as a side, I always loved Worf's wife > (she > was killed off) and was sorry she was 86'd from the show. > > > >Voyager has really passed up on an opportunity by making Captain > Janeway > >so lacking in passion (if she still is; I haven't seen it in a > while). > >I don't think it's coincidence that one of the most popular episodes > is > >where she and Chakhotay (please forgive spelling) are stranded > together > >and do a romantic tango with each other throughout the episode. > > With all the information the producers have recieved from the STNG > fans, I > find it hard to believe that they've passed up on an opportunity. I'd > bet > Janeway and her characterization is very well thought out. > > > >Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for > the > >times. > > > Can you site some examples regarding his progressive attitude? > > Despite the jokes about his being a "ladies man," the character > >was never the tiresome "love 'em and leave 'em type." Once a week he > >fell passionately for the love of his life. Every now and then > he > >got a breather, when Spock, McCoy, or Scotty fell passionately in > love > >(romances were one of the original Star Trek standard weekly > storylines, > >as was the "Mr. Spock shows his > >rare-once-in-a-lifetime-display-of-emotion"). > > Wonder why that was? :-) > > > >Of course, since Kirk wasn't the type to walk out on his girlfriends, > >that meant good 'ol Hollywood had to get rid of his love interests > every > >week, which really did get tiresome. > > But perhaps boosted the ratings - every week you could expect a new, > fresh, > young, innocent, beautiful babe. A seemingly endless supply... > > > > > >At least with Picard and Vash, the romance is recurring. But you > know, > >that one does nothing for me. Picard is like a wet fish when it > comes > >to passion. > > Picard is not a wet fish in my mind, just a type of man who's passion > would > come alive when he meets the right type of woman. He strikes me as a > man > who is very clear on what he values and what he doesn't. And frankly, > I've > not seen alot of female characters on the show that would be a good > match > for him. I find his decision to be selective very appealing and quite > sexy. > > Cat Farrar > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~ > "Between stimulus and response is the will to choose." > ~Viktor Frankl > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~ > "Gender is a lived ideology...that becomes EMBODIED because it is > enforced." > ~Martha McCaughey > Real Knockouts - The Physical Feminism of Women's > Self-Defense > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:53:09 -0800 > From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" > Subject: Re: ST Love stories (Was: Star Trek) > > Hi, > > I always felt that the real love story on the original > ST was between Kirk and Spock. > > I know that they were supposed to be extremely close > friends. However, I felt that it involved passion > which was missing from Kirk's experiences with the > myriad women (whom I remember as being often > intelligent, sometimes strong, but always expendable > somehow). Love Kirk and die. > > The fact that Spock was somewhat tuned in mentally > to Kirk may have fed this perspective in my mind. > > I can never read or watch Spock's death in _The > Wrath of Khan_ without feeling that Kirk has lost > the love of his life: someone more important to him > that his life and his ship. > > I grew up in love with Lt. Uhura. I loved her voice > and I really enjoyed episodes that featured her. > > Lindy > -- > "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the > same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead > > http://www.dotgraph.com > Resources associated with women, disabilities > and writing. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:32:22 -0700 > From: Bonnie Gray > Subject: Re: "In the Beginning..." (no spoilers...yet) > > My two cents (I figure people who aren't interested are > deleting based on the subject heading...) > > In general, I liked it; I'll say more when we're not worried > about spoilers :) > > I just have one other thing to say: > I miss Ivanova! (a few minutes as guest don't count...) > > Bonnie > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:52:51 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? > > BJBenesch wrote: > > > While I agree with Catherine that there is a certain feminist > component to the > > very nature of romance novels, I have to wonder just how feminist > they can be. > [snip ...] > > I will allow that perhaps I simply read the "wrong" ones, but I > don't think > > this is the case. In many of the romance novels I read, the central > character > > was often defiant and headstrong, and the male lead frequently > resorted to > > rape in order to "tame" her. Granted, he usually "felt bad" about > it, but > > regardless he either determined it "necessary" for whatever reason, > or was so > > "inflamed by her beauty that he could not help himself". Most > disturbing to > > me was that the woman, for whom this rape was invariably a first > sexual > > experience, then =derived pleasure= from the rape. > > I've heard that there used to be a component of that in older > romances, > which I too disliked. Actually, more accurately, I didn't define the > books that I enjoyed as romances because to me romance automatically > implied a whole set of negative scenarios. > > However, I'm not sure what you're defining as rape. If the woman > derives pleasure from her experience with a man she finds attractive, > how is it rape? Some women find sexually agressive men erotic. > > The fine line between rape, agressive sex, and consenting applications > of, uh, creative variations on traditional sex is a subject of much > controversy, not in the least because of the old stereotype that "no" > means "yes," which caused a great deal of damage, and also because > what > one person finds erotic may repulse another. The whole violence/sex > thing is full of conflicting messages. However, it isn't restricted > to, > or even most common in, romance. Horror, for example, has a strong > component of it. The level of violence in some gay erotica is higher > than anything I've ever seen in romance. > > The idea of a sexually desired love interest being so overcome with > passion that he or she can't control himself or herself is also common > in all areas of fiction. Men also like it, though usually in a > different form. How realistic it is, however, is a whole other topic. > > Women who enjoy their first sexual experience may still have some pain > when they lose their virginity. I prefer a story that acknolwedges > nothing is wrong with a woman if she doesn't have "fireworks" when she > loses her virginity to someone she loves and desires. > > However, I agree this is a lot different from a story where a man > hurts > a woman on purpose and/or forces her against her wishes. > > About the taming aspect: in every traditional romance novel I've ever > read, the man ends up "tamed" by the woman, which is one reason some > men > have told me they dislike that kind of romance. When feminism was > less > in the mainstream than now, this was true, but the roles and behavior > of > female characters were more constrained to fit the times. The books > wouldn't have sold otherwise. As women's roles have expanded in our > culture, so they have expanded in popular literature. > > > So while the argument can be made the romance novels encourage women > to place > > their wants and needs in the forefront, they also encourage women to > believe > > that rape can be justified, that women =enjoy= rape, and that women, > by their > > very existence, in fact =cause= rape. > > That is unpleasant. I wouldn't like it either. > > That doesn't describe any modern day romances I've read, though. That > doesn't mean it isn't there; I don't read that as widely in romance as > I > do in science fiction, fantasy, and nonfiction. > > However, many romance authors are themselves feminists and would also > agree that what you describe is offensive. > > I wrote a hard science fiction novel called Catch the Lightning, with > diamond hard speculation on relativistic physics and the translation > of > mathematical models of quantum physics into fictional universes, based > on equations I derived. The Maya heroine comes from the barrio and > several times rescues her fighter pilot hero, including figuring out > how > to conduct evasive action against a nuclear attack when he "goes down" > (he's part computer, and comes up with swooning romantic lines like > "Your influence has migrated to all my processors" :-). It is very > much > a space adventure. Although the hero is masculine in the traditional > sense (oh, all right, I admit it; he's a gorgeous hunk), he doesn't > commit rape. He comes, in fact, from a culture where men are expected > to please the woman rather than the other way around. > > I just found out that this book won the SFR Award for best science > fiction romance of the year. Voted for by =romance= readers. It has > also been on several bookstore bestseller lists around the web, > including romance lists. > > My book PRIMARY INVERSION is about a woman with a rank equivalent to > admiral. She is the "heroic" figure: she commands the squadron, she > rescues the hunks in distress, she brings up the questions in moral > judgement which she then seeks to solve, and in the end she proposes > the > marriage (to a fellow half her age). The book is also about her > recovery from post traumatic stress syndrome after being a POW (I was > surprised to see the book described as a page turner when the entire > middle third is just the main character's therapy sessions). The > story > is as much about surviving and recovering from sexual violence as it > is > a space adventure. In other words, it sounds like the opposite of > what > you're describing. > > This book also received votes for best sf romance of 1997, even though > it wasn't even eligible, having come out in 1995. > > What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of > readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often > believed. > > Best regards > Catherine > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:52:22 -0400 > From: Catherine Asaro > Subject: > > Robin and everyone, I wanted to add to my previous posts that I've > found > the comments here excellent and thought provoking. The reason I > mention > it is that sometimes I get so enthused by a conversation, I come on > really strong (learned behavior, perhaps, after surviving so many > years > as one of the only women in the world of "high-powered" physics). In > the past I've had people ask me if I was getting angry at them because > of that. So I thought I would add this comment just in case. It is > enthusiasm for a thoroughly enjoyable conversation. :-) > > Best regards > Catherine > > ------------------------------ > > End of FEMINISTSF Digest - 5 Jan 1998 to 6 Jan 1998 > *************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:45:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine > ">There are those who believe that the Falklands war was deliberately >engineered to restore flagging Conservative popularity. As far as I >am >concerned, the jury is still out." What terrible cynicism! And I suppose you aren't convinced about Grenada and Noriega/Panama either! As for juries, I imagine Mrs T would echo Spillane's Mike Hammer: "I was the judge and I the jury..." > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:40:53 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Thayer Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:02 AM 11/11/97 -0600, you wrote: >>Seek freedom and you become captive of your desires. >>Seek discipline and you find your liberty. >> --- Frank Herbert, Dune Series. > >Beth, > Which book is that from? > >-Sean > >"America doesn't exist. I know...I lived there."--'Mon Oncle' > Sean: The quote is from "The Notebooks of Frank Herberts' Dune" edited by his son. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so it could be corrected. Beth A. Thayer ==============:\\\\\:==== Seek freedom and you become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and you find your liberty. --- Frank Herbert, The Notebooks of Frank Herbert's Dune. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:02:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980107204028.2a4fa54e@castaway.cc.uwf.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Sean: > >The quote is from "The Notebooks of Frank Herberts' Dune" edited by his son. > >Thank you for bringing this to my attention so it could be corrected. > >Beth A. Thayer Beth, You're welcome. What do you think of Brian's doing three _Dune_ prequels? He's contracted to do just that. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:21:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Thayer Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (snip) >Beth, > You're welcome. What do you think of Brian's doing three _Dune_ >prequels? He's contracted to do just that. > >-Sean > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in >STNG: Conspiracy > Sure did. I read about in Locus magazine. I am also very intrested in the mini-series that is supposedly in the works. Beth A. Thayer ==============:\\\\\:==== Seek freedom and you become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and you find your liberty. --- Frank Herbert, The Notebooks of Frank Herbert's Dune. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:01:43 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. Barbara R. Hume ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:11:01 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 4 Jan 1998 to 5 Jan 1998 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-06 15:19:33 EST, you write: << BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who is a fan of this genre care to comment? >> This is one reason I don't care for many contemporary romances. Practically every one I've read has the female protagonist stalked by a psychopath. I like the fact that she defends herself, instead of falling on her butt and shrieking while the male protagonist rescues her. But I don't want to read about psychopaths. I'm interesting in the relationship and how it makes the two people better able to cope with life than they could have as individuals. I want to see the story played out against a background I enjoy being in vicariously. Barbara R. Hume