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 thi