Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9801B" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:33:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Romance novels Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 00:31:19 EST, you write: << << BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who is a fan of this genre care to comment? >> Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, Voyager, Drums of Autumn They're marketed as romance, but are historical fiction/fantasy (modern woman in 18th century Scotland/America). I'm not a fan, so I don't know what the standard is now: these books I stumbled into and indulged myself, as a guilty pleasure. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:23:30 -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: feminism/humanism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:56 PM 1/7/98 GMT, you wrote: >"Catherine Asaro writes: I think feminism needs to include respect for the >feminine aspects of life that many women value. It doesn't mean everyone >who talks about >feminism has to agree (which would be boring and would probably make the >posts in this listserv dwindle to nothing ), anymore than all >physicists agree on theoretical descriptions of the universe. But just >as a scientist will (in the ideal) respect and consider various >theories, so feminists need to acknolwedge that many women prefer more >traditional relationships, not because they aren't empowered, or have >been conditioned to whatever, but because it is the most satisfying >situation =for them.=" > >I am interested in what you consider to be "feminine" aspects of life. The >traditional 'feminine' life that I rejected myself (without ever attacking >my friends who chose differently) was very limited: cook/clean/sew/raise >children/work inside home only in support of your man. I rejected this way >of life for several reasons: one, I saw my mother do this all while married >to an academic (so she had the academic requirements as well--i.e. social >ones), and what I saw was that she worked harder and longer than my father. >Then he dumped her for a graduate student seven years older than I was--my >mother, who worked fulltime to put my father through graduate school, got >$300 a month alimony and has been working ever since.. My father is retired >with an agreat salary, a second wife, and two teenagers (of course having >two teenagers when you're seventy might be horrible). > >I don't attack women who chose this way of life: I only question whether or >not they are wise to do so without any other means of supporting themselves >given today's divorce rate and the extent to which current laws (some >supported by feminists, but most put into the system by men) have cut down >on alimony and so on. My objection is to a system that gives women no other >choices. The feminist extremists who give women no other choice than to >work full-time are also a problem. > >Philosophically, I reject the notion that only women are interested in what >I consider to be the "feminine" aspects of life: I have a cousin who works >in the home taking care of the children while his wife works full time: she >makes more than he does, and he enjoys child care more than she does. I >think if my brother and his wife ever have children, he'll be the home >partner. What I call nurturing is not inherent in women alone, although our >society fosters that notion. I am in many ways NOT a nurturing person--I >don't much like children or even young people--that's why I'm teaching >college. I chose not to marry for a number of reasons, as did my housemate. >My housemate and I have to share "maintenance" tasks in the home--we often >wish we could employ Jeeves to do all that sort of thing. We both enjoy >cooking--because we like to eat. But we were both dedicated to an >academic/intellectual life from early on: she's a medieval historian >(wanted to be a medievalist from about age five), and I'm an English >professor (I wanted mostly to be a writer, but had to find a way of earning >a living). > >Some of my favorite SF/F novels show cultures in which the nurturing of >families and making of homes is not limited to women: Diane Duane's "Door" >novels, Melissa Michaels' SF (not necessarily in print these days, alas) >featuring a female Heinleinesque character who cannot stand children but has >several male friends who parent their own children without a female in the >house or ship, Lois McMaster Bujold. I think those raise extremely >interesting feminist ideas which have to do with gender as a whole. In some >ways our society is tremendously unfair to men, denying them access to those >HUMAN acativities deemed "feminine," just as women are denied access to >HUMAN activities deemed "masculine." > >I think at times the feminist critique of a social system which limits women >to one sphere of activity is misread as attacks on "traditional women." I >agree that sometimes "feminists" do attack "traditional women," and vice >versa. It's always easier to attack groups with less power! The >individuals who irritate me are the women who say "I'm NOT a feminist, BUT I >support..." then go on to list all sorts of >feminist principles and issues. > >Robin > >Robin, I agree. I think in today's society it is folly to rely on a man for financial support. My mother wasn't dumped for a younger woman, but worked in a factory for 25 years only to get less money than my father, a carpenter. In addition, she had to do all of the "feminine" household chores, like cook, clean and take care of the children. She was always worn out. So, even though she was earning money, working as hard as my father and taking care of the house, I decided that doing it all wasn't going to work either. My brother grew up to be a racist and a women hater and I felt angry and protective of my mother. I had two sons but shouldn't have. I respect your decision not to have children and to know what's right for you. In Alice Walker's book about female circumcism (sp) in Africa there is a quote in the beginning of the book and here I'm paraphrasing....The trees in the forest were talking and one day they saw this person coming into the forest with an axe. Some of the trees got nervous. Then one tree said to the other trees, don't worry, the ax handle is made out of wood. Axe handles is what I call women who attack other women and seem to be so male identified they can't get out of their own way or ours. Thanks for the stimulating email. Linda Quinlan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:36:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not interested in "assigned" reading after all? Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:23:57 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I'm just way behind. I tried to find "Ammonite" at the public library without success. I did find, and read (couldn't wait), Slow River. I thought I printed the post with the two suggestions but can't find it now. . .what was the other suggestion? I remember only that it sounded good. Lindy Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:19:07 -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 Cat Farrar wrote: > The show had importance for me because when were > working alongside men in space (science) and doing fairly technical jobs. Yes! That was a reason I liked it too. > The air time that women recieved was much less than the men. Yes again. That was a reason I got annoyed with it. I used to switch the storylines in my mind, ofr entertainment, making the women the captains and the fellows the handsome gentlemen they encountered during their adventures. > >Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for the > >times. > > Can you site some examples regarding his progressive attitude? There was at that time a big thing about "never admitting weakness to a woman," where weakness was defined according to indications of trust, respect for character or profession, passion, or anything else that might indicate a man needed a woman, in either a professional or romantic sense. Kirk's character, for all its faults, didn't have a problem with that. (Most of the time. Not always. It depended on the episode). It's true of course that compared to modern day scenarios, the show is dated (though the idea of need=weakness does still exist today). But at the time, it was a surprise. I'm not saying that it was prevelant, though. Just that indications of it existed. As a child I noticed that and appreciated the contrast it made with the world around me. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:33:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl Sorry Sheryl. I don't know about everyone else but I have been swamped. I haven't found any information about _Mutagenesis_ but have read _Slow River_. So, I vote for _Slow River_ because I already read it and it's really good. Did we decide upon the location of the discussion as here by default? I was a bit confused about that. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:31:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: book group MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl I, for one, am still interested--but in my sheep-like manner am waiting for someone to organize it. Anyone out there with experience in this sort of thing who would like to volunteer? Honor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:28:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? Cat Farrar At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > >Barbara R. Hume > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Between stimulus and response is the will to choose." ~Viktor Frankl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Gender is a lived ideology...that becomes EMBODIED because it is enforced." ~Martha McCaughey Real Knockouts - The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:45:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII how about some cherryh? i never have read her stuff and am looking for a place to start. On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:36:35 -0500 > From: Stahl, Sheryl > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: [*FSFFU*] book group > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl > 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:05:41 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, speaking for myself, as a resident of the UK, I haven't ever seen those books on the shelves in the bookstores. Is this my oversight, or have other UK members noticed the same? I think we may need to plan the reading list pretty far ahead to account for tight budgets and overseas members. Monica Norman > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:21:01 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: feminism/humanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > > I am interested in what you consider to be "feminine" aspects of life. The > traditional 'feminine' life that I rejected myself (without ever attacking > my friends who chose differently) was very limited: cook/clean/sew/raise > children/work inside home only in support of your man. ... I saw my mother > do this all while married to an academic (so she had the academic requirements > as well--i.e. social ones), and what I saw was that she worked harder and > longer than my father. Then he dumped her for a graduate student seven years > older than I was--my mother, who worked fulltime to put my father through > graduate school, got $300 a month alimony and has been working ever since. > My father is retired with an a great salary, a second wife, and two teenagers > (of course having two teenagers when you're seventy might be horrible). Robin, what happened to your mother is lousy. It stinks. That sort of scenario is in no way is what I refer to. In fact, that's why this is such difficult subject; talk of untangling postive from negative aspects sounds hollow when the negative has done such damage. Perhaps I can give some examples that will better illustrate what I mean. A few years ago I wanted to draw out a friend who had gone through a difficult time in her life. She wasn't seeing people much and was depressed. One day she told me she had read a romance novel with a lovely story that made her feel validated. She cried herself to sleep with the book in her arms because it helped her with the loneliness she felt. That book gave her enough feeling of self worth that she decided to go out again and see people. I took her with me to visit a group of friends. When she mentioned the romance, I couldn't believe the way they lit into her. They were patronizing and dismissive. Obviously a "strong" women would never cry herself to sleep from loneliness with, god forbid, a romance novel. Have you ever heard the misogynist freudian analyses about the supposed dysfunctions inherent to women? That was how their "anaylsis" of women who read romance novels sounded. It had the same feminine-bashing quality as Freud's work. I have no doubt they believed what they were saying, but so did Freud. It was unfortunate, to say the least. My friend went back into her depression. They had taken from her the one thing that made her feel validated. They sure as hell didn't. Because I stood up for her that night, I also lost the respect of some friends. Fewer than I expected, though. Another example: I like to wear pretty clothes and high heels. Traditionally feminine clothes. They aren't overtly sexy or low cut, but because of the way I'm built, after being a dancer most of my life, they apparently fit me in a way that some men find attractive. I have received grief about this, not from women so much, but from (some) men who tell me that if I want to be taken seriously by feminists (or physicists or hard sf people), I should dress in a less feminine manner. My reaction to them is "deal with it." I'm not going to wear a veil and robes, or dress "like a man," to cater to idea that a woman shouldn't look like a woman if she wants to be taken seriously. To me, that defeats the whole idea of feminism. > Philosophically, I reject the notion that only women are interested in what > I consider to be the "feminine" aspects of life: I have a cousin who works > in the home taking care of the children while his wife works full time: Actually, I have never suggested such a thing. In fact, my book THE LAST HAWK explicitly explores the effects of role reversal. I used to be a physics professor, but wanted to write. I stuck out the professor job for three years, although I knew by the third day it wasn't what I wanted. I was making more money than my husband at the time, so when I resigned it cut our income by more than half. He still did half the chores around the house and continues to do so even though he now makes more than the two of us used to combined. He does it so I can write. When I have been hit with a book deadline, he has taken complete responsibility for the household so I can get the book done. So here I am making posts on a listserv. I am not a good cook, shopper, or laundry person. Fortunately my husband is. I am a good mother, though. I love being a mother. I did from the moment I knew I was pregnant. I like to nurture, which is one reason I was also a good teacher. My husband loves being a father. He is wonderful with our daughter, nurturing and gentle. She seems to thrive in this environment. However, a few months ago she came to me with a great revelation. She said, "Mommy, do you know that some =mothers= cook the meals?" :-) Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:13:43 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What I should have added to my previous post is that, as suggested by some other people, perhaps everyone who is interested should submit two (or whatever) suggestions. Then we could set the reading list for the next 3,4,6 months and decide on a starting date, like for example, February? That would give most people time to obtain the books for Feb. and others would know what to get for March if they couldn't make Feb, etc. What do other people think? I was sort of being sheep-like as well and waiting for some dynamic organiser to take charge, but no one has stepped forward so far, so I throw my suggestion into the ring. Savage it at will.:) Monica > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I vote for Monica's suggestion. Maybe we could pick two books a month--one that's newer and still in bookstores and one that's older and available at libraries. I think the big question here is who's going to be the sheepherder? baaaaa, LeAnne > -----Original Message----- > From: M.J.Norman [SMTP:mmnorman@macline.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 10:14 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] book group > > What I should have added to my previous post is that, as suggested by > some > other people, perhaps everyone who is interested should submit two (or > whatever) suggestions. Then we could set the reading list for the > next > 3,4,6 months and decide on a starting date, like for example, > February? > That would give most people time to obtain the books for Feb. and > others > would know what to get for March if they couldn't make Feb, etc. What > do > other people think? I was sort of being sheep-like as well and > waiting for > some dynamic organiser to take charge, but no one has stepped forward > so > far, so I throw my suggestion into the ring. Savage it at will.:) > Monica > > > > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for > books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:16:05 -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 KSHMEYER wrote: > 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. Yes! That was why TNG disappointed me. I had thought, with all the changes in our culture, it would come closer to Rodenberry's vision, as with a female Number 1 or even captian. Instead, it didn't seem to have made much progress. > 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" This is true. Some of the guests were excellent. And I liked Nichelle Nichols's (sp?) portrayal of Uhuru. I thought the worst episode was one of the last (perhaps the final), where a woman was denied the position of starship captain because She Was A Woman. Then she switched bodies with Kirk, so she could Be A Man. But of course she still made a terrible captain, because after all she had the mind of a ... well, you get the idea. The show was like a slap in the face. > 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, I enjoyed both roles. I actually have no objection to women in caretaker-nurturer roles. In fact, they could use some men in those too. :-) > that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. The role had potential, but the show didn't utilize it all that well. Remember the episode where Yarr got put in the "penalty box" and her response, as head of security, was to sob to the local guy? That type of thing is what caused me to lose interest in the show. > 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.) It did get better, that's true. I liked the one where Crusher was alone in the "bubble" universe that was shrinking and had to solve the problem to escape. > 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 I haven't watched DS9 much, but only because our daughter decided to quit watching TV, so her father and I have been trying to support her decision by not turning it on (she decided when she was six, because "the plots are dumb" !) However, I've enjoyed what I've seen of DS9. What I like is that they acknowledge these people have lives, eg, families, relationships, recreations, etc. > 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 had the same reaction. Most of the shows I've seen on Voyager have Janeway essentially losing command to a male figure, usually Chahotay (how do you spell that?). It may be that I haven't seen the best shows, since I've only seen a few. What also caused me to lose iterest was that in the ones I saw, the "aliens" were essetially twentieth century, middle class Earthlings with American culture who spoke our English, even though they had never heard of Earth. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:29:08 -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 group In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980108102325.5167d060@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Honor Wallace wrote: > > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > I'm interested but waiting for more information. Name a book and I can probably get it. If not I'll read the posts and lurk.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:43:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Donna Bursey Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I love Cherryh's sf stuff (not much for her fantasy, more's the pity) -- anyway, I'd recommend "Rimrunners" as an ideal start for the book group, if people are interested in reading Cherryh to start. It's a very good book, and I'd be interested in a focused discussion on it. Donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:11:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Star Trek On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 Cat Farrar said: > Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? > > Cat Farrar > > At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: > >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an > >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > > > >Barbara R. Hume In the Enterprise Incident, the "means to an end" was to steal the cloaking device from the Romulans (sp?)...Spock seduced the female commander while the device was being stolen (and even pretended to kill Kirk first to gain her confidence). Hoever, my impression is that Spock and the commander just made out and never actually made it to bed. Occasionally, I remember Kirk's "gals" to be a "means to an end", but oftentimes I remember it just being Kirk's sex drive working overtime. In one episode, Elaan of Troyus (sp?) cast a spell on Kirk, causing him to "fall in love" her...I believe that it was HER means to an end, but of course (after he bedded her), he did the "right" thing and let her go to her destiny (which was marrying royalty of a species she and her associates detested). I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. In fact, I remember one episode where a women who was scorned by Kirk, and/or turned down for a captain's position (my memory is fuzzy here), and later switched her "personality" to Kirk and vice versa. The explanation given here is that she hated her own "womanness". Also, Shatner's acting when he was "possessed" was pretty bad but somewhat amusing (a little overdramatized, if you will). However, the one episode I remember being absolutely horrific when it came to women was "Space Seed". The historian (woman) fell in love with Kahn before she ever met him...however when she met him, realized his intentions (capturing the Enterprise), rebelled against these intentions and he slaps her (to the floor). She then gave in to Kahn...and did his bidding. When I was seven years old and saw this, I wasn't horrified (or do not recall being disturbed by it). Of course, years later I was beyond horrified (and still am). Additionally, if anyone recalls "Wolf in the Fold", this episode had potential for a good science fiction plot and love interest for Scotty. However, Spock gives a "speech"-type explanation for the "Jack the Ripper being" or whatever it is that seems to travel in time and to different planets killing women. Spock's explanation was that he being lived on or fed on fear. I will quote this a best I can having not seen it in several years. "The being feeds on fear...which is why it chooses women, because they feel fear more deeply than men." Hardly a feminist statement, dontchaknow. (I was even more disturbed because my fav character said this!! Spock, Leonard, the logical one!!) The idea of Spock and Kirk having a love affair is interesting. I always thought Spock was there to keep Kirk from screwing up too bad due to his "runaway" emotions. But I always thought of the love/hate relationship between McCoy and Spock as potential for a certain closeness that I never really saw with other characters. While the original Star Trek was probably (in 1965) the closest we had seen to seeing women, blacks, and other minorities in powerful positions, it is far from being all-inclusive. I think it is sad that in many ways...this was as good as it got for feminists and minorities at the time. I did and do truly love all the star trek series (especially Voyager now that I can finally get a channel that carries it at a decent hour. I think Janeway and crew are fairly convincing, and despite the body suit and heels of "7 of 9" (which my lover finds quite attractive, but I do not), I am very excited about the upcoming episodes. Also, if they allow 7 of 9 to explore lesbianism I will be beyond amazed. My God, just look a what they have done to Ellen Degeneres (sp?). Just a few of my thoughts as a trekkie... Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:07:29 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, there was a lot of interest in doing a book group and good ideas proposed, which I saved. I've been swamped with work (even over the holiday break, which I'd hoped to avoid) but plan to spend some time this weekend compiling the suggestions into a proposal for the group. In the meantime feel free to propose/discuss what books you'd like to see included! If I don't get to it this weekend I'll be facing the music and looking for someone to hand the whole project off to. I hope that's not the case, as I really need a non-work project to keep me sane. Jennifer -- Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:39:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Romance novels Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 08:37:06 EST, you write: << Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, Voyager, Drums of Autumn They're marketed as romance, but are historical fiction/fantasy (modern woman in 18th century Scotland/America). I'm not a fan, so I don't know what the standard is now: these books I stumbled into and indulged myself, as a guilty pleasure. >> Why guilty? These novels are beautifully done! Gabaldon's choices of detail, her sensory descriptions, her character development, the emotional resonance, all are tremendously impressive. You can't help being totally caught up in the story. I fell so in love with Jamie Fraser I couldn't see straight--yet he is a real man, not a cardboard , cliched romantic hero. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:52:05 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: FW: [*FSFFU*] book group In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A5AC@sdmail.dataworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A possibility for OP books is to check out Basement Full of Books over on SFF-Net. (http://www.sff.net/bfob) Also, University Book Store in Seattle (there's a link to them on my web page, see .sig) is really good about keeping SF novels in stock for longer than the average one-week-and-you're-outta-here shelf-life. They have an 800 number and they don't charge for shipping. It's a terrific bookstore, and they support the sf community. Vonda On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:47 -0800, Le Anne Fossmeyer wrote: >I vote for Monica's suggestion. Maybe we could pick two books a >month--one that's newer and still in bookstores and one that's older and >available at libraries. > >I think the big question here is who's going to be the sheepherder? > >baaaaa, LeAnne 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:50:07 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 12:32:44 EST, you write: << Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? >> That depends. In "Catspaw," it was to get back that transmuter thingy. In "A Rose by Any Other Name" and others, it was to get control of the ship back from the aliens. In "Bread and Circuses," it was, well, because she was there. Spock used and betrayed the Romulan commander for the benefit of the Federation, considering that more important than his own or her feelings. I suppose "All's fair in love and war" is one of the rules they learned in Starfleet Academy! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:52:03 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 13:08:18 EST, you write: << how about some cherryh? i never have read her stuff and am looking for a place to start. >> Cherryh is good if you like a lot of military and political stuff in the novel. It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except for the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:42:44 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 10:46:59 EST, you write: << Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not interested in "assigned" reading after all? Sheryl >> I love to discuss books. I'm just not sure I can pile one more thing on my plate! But if the suggested reading is tempting enough, I'll bet we manage to do it. . . . Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:58:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I agree that Cherryh would be an interesting choice. In the Chanur series, it's the females who go out and do the adventuring and the males who stay home. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:27:47 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: K Edge Subject: Brin's The Postman v. movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating especially interesting women characters. Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? Karen k.edge@m.cc.utah.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:35:08 -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: Re: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Honor Wallace wrote: > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? No, I think everyone interested wants to decide what to read as a group, which is difficult considering that many of the university students don't return to class (and, thus, e-mail) until next week > Anyone out there with experience in this sort of thing who would like to > volunteer? > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:13:34 -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: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? Comments: To: asaro@sff.net In-Reply-To: <34B2D10F.1B9E@sff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands pictured on the bookcover: http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm >What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of >readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often >believed. > >Best regards >Catherine >http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many of us realized! (still chuckling) 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:30:41 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: Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Greetings all~ I think Monica's suggestion is a good one as well, and Geoffrey's offer to post a schedule for us. Wondering too if we will engage in the discussion with posts here or attempt a "real time" meeting online? I'm looking forward to the possibilities here. tara Kitimher@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 04:09:48 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: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980108211334.00694b5c@mail.geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit And Anne Bolyn thought she had problems! The dutch edition of Dreamsnake is funnier. (Even the guy at whose Romance Novels site the "oddities" cover can be found retired from the field when I showed him Droomslang.) If you're up for a good laugh it's at http://www.sff.net/people/vonda/Droomslang.html Vonda On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:13:34 -0500, jenn mottram wrote: >Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands >pictured on the bookcover: >http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm > >>What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of >>readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often >>believed. >> >>Best regards >>Catherine >>http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > >And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many >of us realized! > >(still chuckling) > >jenn http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun: PW Best Books: http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 Nebula prelim: http://www.sfwa.org/awards/1997prelim.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:37:38 -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: Re: Book Group ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a month - things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each month): AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd love to refresh myself on it. HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. 'Nuff said. QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm game. ;) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:45:15 -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 jenn mottram wrote: > > Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands > pictured on the bookcover: > http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm > And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many > of us realized! Jenn, LOL! Now that's true genetic engineering. Best -- Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:51:49 -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 Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > And Anne Bolyn thought she had problems! > > The dutch edition of Dreamsnake is funnier. (Even > the guy at whose Romance Novels site the > "oddities" cover can be found retired from the > field when I showed him Droomslang.) > > If you're up for a good laugh it's at > http://www.sff.net/people/vonda/Droomslang.html Vonda, good grief. Does it have anything to do with the actual story? Brenda Clough once showed me the cover to one of her books, in which the woman was dressed in almost nothing, with a dark brooding figure of sinister intent in the shadows behind her. Brenda said that in the book, the woman had a neck to ankle dress on that showed nothing. There is a Cherryh book too, that shows a scantily dressed female warrior on the front. It was one of the Mir stories, if I remember correctly. I don't remember there being a woman dressed in such an outfit in the book. In fact, if I remember correctly, both the men and women wore robes and veils because they lived in the desert, and the women had multiple husbands. It's been a loooong time since I read it, though, so my memory may be faulty. I wonder if those covers actually sell more books? Best -- Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:51:27 -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: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penelope Gibbs wrote: > I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" > roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, > but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. Actually, that wasn't Roddenberry's original idea - Kirk was supposed to have a continuing romance with Yeoman Janice Rand. However, the actress had a few personal addiction problems, and was gone from the show after a while - I personally think the Trek team had no idea as to what to do with Kirk after Rand was gone. Now, we could also go on about how they dropped the ball and could have brought in Rand instead of Marcus in Star Trek II. However (I thought), it was a very nice touch to see Rand as a part of Sulu's command crew in ST VI... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 06:16:07 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Romance novels In-Reply-To: <36e94412.34b4d5c4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 08/01/98 13:33:55 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Kmfriello , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Can anybody remember another book of that title, or is my addled brain getting confused with Waylander? Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 06:15:30 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <7a3415ac.34b55894@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 08/01/98 22:52:03 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Lurima , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Cherryh is good if you like a lot of military and political stuff in the > novel. It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much > interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except for > the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- I haven't read any Cherryh for some while, but if I understand her statement correctly then I agree with her. I'll try two ways to illustrate this. 1) For every person I know, I think I could find a member of the opposite sex who could, with a little coaching before-hand, slip into his/her body and not be challenged as an impostor. 2) Take a reasonably large random sample of jobs, each with say 5 suitably qualified applicants of each sex. Represent each applicant with an identical asexual avatar and a number. I believe half the jobs will be offered to women. The same would apply to race, religion, or any other irrelevant factors on which hiring decisions are often based. Bigots react to the packaging, and never bother to look at the contents. Those of us who have exercised the option to think for ourselves wait until we have seen the person inside before passing judgement. I hope this makes as much sense to you as it does to me, and would welcome comment. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I think we're in for a bad spell of wether. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:46:17 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 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 15:01:04 EST, Donna Bursey wrote: > I love Cherryh's sf stuff (not much for her fantasy, more's the pity) -- > anyway, I'd recommend "Rimrunners" as an ideal > start for the book group, if people are interested in reading Cherryh to > start. It's a very good book, and I'd be interested in a focused > discussion on it. > > Donna Sorry to write a "Yeah, me too" message, but, I too would be very interested in a focused discussion on Rimrunners, although I'm not absolutely sure of its availability (I *think* I saw it in a bookstore [here in the States] at least within the last year, but I can't be positive). Failing Rimrunners, I'd take any likely excuse to try some more of Cherryh's SF. :) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:50:44 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: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 12:32:44 EST, you write: > Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? > > Cat Farrar > > At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: > >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an > >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > > > >Barbara R. Hume > > > > My Trek-fan friends had a phrase for it: "Scam on the babe so we can escape." Not very PC, but often accurate in the case of the original show. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:49:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Star Trek On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Geoffrey D. Sperl replied: > Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > > I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" > > roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, > > but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. > > Actually, that wasn't Roddenberry's original idea - Kirk was supposed to have a > continuing romance with Yeoman Janice Rand. However, the actress had a few > personal addiction problems, and was gone from the show after a while - I > personally think the Trek team had no idea as to what to do with Kirk after Rand > was gone. > > Now, we could also go on about how they dropped the ball and could have brought in > Rand instead of Marcus in Star Trek II. However (I thought), it was a very nice > touch to see Rand as a part of Sulu's command crew in ST VI... > > - Geoffrey > What about the idea of another long-term relationship with someone else? Also, I noticed Rand's presence in "The Undiscovered Country"...it was nice to see her there. Also...another note on my occasionally negative attitude...I am not always this cynical. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:09:58 -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 ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's > Piercy. > 'Nuff said. > > - Geoffrey > I would second this one. This is one of my all time favorite books of any genre. It was also published in the UK under a different title (which I can't recall at the moment). sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:20:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Brin's The Postman v. movie In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, K Edge wrote: > > I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even > though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). > I saw it and liked it very much. If you think the movie needed editing, reread the book. The movie was much better plotted. > Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as > being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating > especially interesting women characters. Except for EARTH. > > Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:33:35 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, as long as we seem to be tossing in suggestions, and people are interested in Cherryh (who is one of my favourite authors) how about "Forty Thousand in Gehenna", or the "Foreigner" trilogy? Although "Rimrunner" is one of the few I haven't read. But then, we aren't necessarily looking for stuff people have never read, are we? I have a feeling I would have to look pretty hard for "Ammonite", but I could always join in on the next book I guess, if I don't find it. Anyway, just some suggestions. Monica >Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a >month - >things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each >month): > >AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. >This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my >mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd >love to refresh myself on it. > >HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. >'Nuff said. > >QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who >puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her >debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. > >THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm >game. ;) > >- Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:44:31 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Akkk! I take it back, where is my brain?! I didn't mean Cherry's "Foreigner" trilogy (male protagonist), but Mary Gentle's "Golden Witchbreed". I really enjoyed the way she made the alien psychology/physiology different than the humans, the protagonist is female, and the alien women are very strong characters. Anyway, sorry to blather on. Monica >Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a >month - >things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each >month): > >AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. >This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my >mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd >love to refresh myself on it. > >HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. >'Nuff said. > >QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who >puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her >debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. > >THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm >game. ;) > >- Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:35:07 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Essentialism/Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <199801090615.GAA03003@lions.cableinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Barbara (Lurima@AOL.COM) wrote about CJ Cherryh: [snip] > It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much > interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except > for the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Catweasel replied: > I haven't read any Cherryh for some while, but if I understand her > statement correctly then I agree with her. I'll try two ways to > illustrate this. [snipped two reasonable though higly subjective and flimsy arguments] > Bigots react to the packaging, and never bother to look at the contents. > Those of us who have exercised the option to think for ourselves wait > until we have seen the person inside before passing judgement. On the gripping hand, I disagree and agree with both of you. While this isn't exactly on topic it is an essential schism in feminism and is directly explored in a lot of SF. So, I'll try to bring it back on topic later. Here are my thoughts on the subject: 1) Men and Women are different. From a purely experiential point of view, men and women look, dress, talk, and write differently. 2) Almost all of that is only statistically and is undoubtedly significantly affected by society, culture, parenting, and all those "nurture" things. I don't want to decide how much society affects things, only that it does but that there is at least "some grain of truth" in some sex distinctions, i.e. it's somewhere in the grey, I am very unsure how dark or light. Given 2, I see the differences as societally induced (or blown up) and in any case non-essential. So, given any particular person, If I assume something about them based on their sex I am often going to be wrong (only statistical) and I will often be right only because of societal pressures. So, regardless of any actual natural differences between men and women, I must treat them as the same, as unique individuals all the same in their uniqueness. As a contrived example: If that means that I (an average strength man lets say) lift heavy things for women more often than for men or than the other way around that is fine (being a larger, relatively stronger person). However, That should not mean that I lift things for strong women more than for weak men or that I ask weak men for help more than strong women. It also means that I might convince a pregnant woman not to lift things, just as I might convince a man with a hernia not to lift things. On this subject, I think an author CAN be critisized for not having a range of characters of with different attitudes and outlooks. However, to demand that those differentiations be sex-linked isn't only unfair but is damaging to the cause, especially in SF where that society very well may have been replaced by something altogether different. If you think CJ Cherryh writes books filled with cookie-cutter clones of the same person in different garb (sex included) I feel that that is a valid critisism, and briefly and shallowly thinking about her books I think you might even have something of a point. If you think that her books bypass the issue of sex and gender, failing to deal with them in creative and complicated ways I might also agree, and consider that not so much a valid critisism but a difference in subjecti and focus. Of course the Chanur series had some interesting sex-related societal contructions with the whole space-faring women thing. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:24:08 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . In-Reply-To: <34B5B7A4.43894059@geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 8 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions > and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's > schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - > unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... Thank you, Geoffrey, that you take this work upon you. How exactly do you intend to organise the voting? I think it will clutter up the list and annoy the list participants NOT interested in the book group if everybody just comments on the suggestions, and other people comment again on these suggestions, etc. I think it is better to wait till Geoffrey sends out a list of all suggestions together and everybody interested in the book group votes once on all suggestions, preferably somehow outside of the list. What do you think? And to make it clear, I do not want to stop any discussions on the relative merits of the books just an endless streams of messages with 'Me too' or 'Never!!'. Here now my suggestions (as before Christmas we agreed that it should be currently available in paperback and not to expensive I've looked it up in Amazon, the (list) prices are taken from there, the descriptions, too): - Theodore Roszak: The Memoirs of Elisabeth Frankenstein. Bantam, 1996 US-$ 5.99 I loved Shelley's Frankenstein and was intrigued when I saw this book on the list of Tiptree Award winners. - Nancy Springer: Larque on the Wing. Avon, 1995, US-$ 4.99 "Larque Harootunian is having a mid-life crisis. But Larque, wife, mother and painter isn't like most 40-year-olds. All her life she's been generating "doppelgangers," psychic manifestations of her thoughts that can impact and, as she suddenly realizes, impede, the reality of her own life. She embarks on a journey of self-exploration that culminates in her transformation--a common occurrence in this world--into an attractive gay man. In the end, she must weigh the attractions of this existence against the good aspects of her actual life. A 1995 James Tiptree Award winner." - Mary Doria Russell: The Sparrow. Fawcett Books, 1997, $ 12 "This strange, ambitious science fiction novel has already won enough attention for its first-time author to make it a selection by both the Book of the Month and QPB clubs. Father Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit linguist, heads a team of scientists and explorers on an expedition to the planet Rakhat, where contact has been established with two apparently primitive races, the Runa and the Jana'ata. The narrative shifts back and forth between 2016, when contact is first made, and 2060, to a Vatican inquest interrogating the maimed and broken Sandoz. A paleoanthropologist, Russell makes the descriptions of the inhabitants of Rakhat both convincing and unsettling." Also won the Tiptree Award. - Dorothy Bryant: The Kin of Ata are Waiting for You. first published 1983, Random, 1997, $ 10 Well, this book was so often mentioned on this list I am really interested in it by now. - Leona Gom: The Y Chromosome. Second Story Press, 1993, $ 14.95 This was also often mentioned and is, I think, a Tiptree Award winner. Actually the last 3 books I ordered from Amazon end of October. Amazon said surface shipping to destinies outside of North America 2-10 weeks, obviously Germany is at the upper end, I am still waiting for them. On 9 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a month - > things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each > month): !!! > AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. > This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my > mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd > love to refresh myself on it. Del Rey, 1993, $ 5.99 > HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. > 'Nuff said. Ballantine Books, 1997, $12 > QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who > puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her > debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. Tor Books, 1996, $5.99 > THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm > game. ;) University of New Mexico, 1993, $13.95 Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:24:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . I have been reading people's suggestion for a book for the book group to read, and I just wanted to put in my votes for some of the books already suggested: Slow River or Ammonite - either is fine Kin of Ata - never read it, always wanted to He She It - my first choice; also something I have been wanting to read for some time Queen Jazz City - I'm typically interested in books that try to deal with nanotechnology; if it's potentially feminist, even better! Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:23:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: OT - suggestions wanted Comments: To: Lois Bujold Fandom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would dearly love to find a piece of technology the size and weight of an average book, keyboard-driven (I HATE trakballs!), on which I could write, do my finances, and play games - I would also like to be able to download (or insert in A drive) any novel I cared to read, and get my email. Except - I'd also like to find a small lightweight pocket phone that's usable in every part of the country without costing $5 a minute, and if (as some ads suggest) I can also get my email on it, that's even better. Questions: have any of you ever seen, used, or own anything like these? How much are/were they and what problems are there with them? I find the electroncis revolution is moving a lot faster than I can follow these days! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:11:36 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Romance novels In response to Catweasel's query > Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, >can anybody remember another book of that title, or is my addled brain >getting confused with Waylander? Some weeks ago I mentioned B J Salterberg's 'The Outlander: Captivity' about a male from a military culture who stumbles into a matriarchal enclave. There is apparently a sequel 'The Outlander: Quest' but I haven't been able to get hold of this yet. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:46:05 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: More Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thank You Petra! for creating such a user friendly list for us to browse. I suggest Esther Friesner's duo Psalms of Herod (1995) and Sword of Mary (1996) (both paperbacks published by White Wolf, both $4.79 from amazon.) as two that would prompt interesting discussion. Having said that, the existing list looks better each day. . . And re: Outlander--Jane Rule also authored a great book with this title; novellas, short stories, poems, (?) on the lesbian experience. Very nicely done. tara Kitimher@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:43:26 -0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Liliam Subject: Book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, everybody! I'm new in the list, a foreigner bookworm. And I'm also a little bit of a voyeur in discussion lists... however, I was tempted to get out of my hole to give some suggestions: 1. THE FALLING WOMAN by Pat Murphy. It's a very moving story about mother-daughter relationship, insanity, freedom, love and fear. There are both psychological depth and pathos and also a Mayan priestess ghost...It's really a beautiful novel and someone on the net wrote that it was especially recommended for those "parental- impaired"... 2. CYTEEN by C.J.Cherryh I think this book is terrific: complex, paranoiac and highly hypnotic. It's essentially deals with genetics and politics. 3. WAKING THE MOON by Elizabeth Hand The only one of this list that I haven't read yet. But it sounds incredibly good in this summary of Amazon.com: "The University of the Archangels and St. John the Divine is a haven for the Benandanti who guard against the return of the Moon Goddess, a powerful destroyer. As a freshman at the university, Sweeney Cassidy fell in with Oliver and Angelica, the Chosen Ones, whose violent coupling under the moon begins the goddess' awakening. Twenty years later, Sweeney works for the National Museum of Natural History and Angelica is a New Age writer with a growing, eccentric following. When Dylan, Angelica's son becomes Sweeney's intern, she discovers that Angelica is the goddess incarnate and that she is the only one who can stop her. The novel won a James Tiptree Jr. Award in 1996." Liliam ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:50:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Re: Book Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Baaaaaaaaa. I, too, have been waiting for someone to organize it. Votes for books to read: Cherryh is a personal favorite. I have almost all of them. I've read every one. I think the Cyteen trilogy would be her best one for this purpose. But maybe people don't want to read THAT much Cherryh. I just recently re-read Ammonite. If we're going to read Griffith (another favorite), I would rather re-read Slow River. Books currently on my shelf, awaiting a good excuse to read them: - Jigsaw Woman (Antieu) - Deception Well (Nagata) I guess I'd vote for Deception Well. I just recently read The Bohr Maker, and liked it very much. Also, I've recently read The Bones of Time, by Goonan. So, while I don't have the title mentioned (something about jazz?), if I can find a copy of it, that would be good, too. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:26:53 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group Ideas Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Please, please, not Elizabeth Hand! I slogged through Wake the Moon AND Glimmering: it was a wretched experience, and I never want to return to either turgid, sodden mess again. Her plotting and dubious ideas and dreary characterization aside, it is an indictment of modern editing that she was allowed to commit as many howling sins of language as she did: couldn't anyone tell her that "scungilli" is not Italian for octopus? That a catalfalque is not a mausoleum? That Naugahyde was not used in kitchen fittings (I think she meant Formica)? I won't even open the books to find anything else--it seemed that every few minutes I was grinding another indigestible bit of grit between my teeth. I was flabbergasted that Wake the Moon was even nominated for a Tiptree, especially given the condemnation of Mother religions that made up the core of the book. I only read both because of the Tiptree (at first from curiousity, and then in a sort of sick fascination) and because John Clute had mentioned Glimmering in the same breath as John Crowley and I thought I might have missed something. Anyway, Ugh. No. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:42:11 -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: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penelope Gibbs wrote: > What about the idea of another long-term relationship with someone > else? Don't quote me on this (I'm not a tried and true trekkie - my fav shows on tv right now are DS9, B5, and, alas, MAD ABOUT YOU), but I always heard that Roddenberry wanted Kirk available if Rand ever came back into the show...but as time went on, and Roddenberry's influence (and budget) waned (due to both DesiLu and Paramount), it was probably easier just to keep pushing out things with familiar themes. Now that I think about it - where are the long term relationships at in any ST show? There's Miles and Keiko and there's Worf and Dax - everyone else is either widowed (Crusher and Siko) or seperated by something (Neelix, Janeway, Kirk). Curious. > Also, I noticed Rand's presence in "The Undiscovered Country"...it > was nice to see her there. I agree. Except that the credits list her as "Excelsior Comm Officer" or some such... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:37:40 -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: Re: Book Group ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > On 8 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions > > and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's > > schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - > > unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... > > Thank you, Geoffrey, that you take this work upon you. Jennifer, are you going to take the lead, or should I start working in GeoCities and making a new page? Petra, to answer your other question: I will take the mails personally. I would organize all of the titles, throw them in alpha order (accord. to author), and post to the web site. Then I'd set a date (two or three weeks from now maybe, in order to catch the returning college students), and have a link to e-mail straight to my account (or another of my three e-mail addresses), giving everyone three to four days to send me votes. My system would be this: Lists of books for six months at a time. Therefore, each voter gets six votes. Once the six winners are announced, I'd lay out the info on each of them (price, etc.), and then ask what everyone wants in what months (ie., you'd write with "February - AMMONITE"). Then I tally again and post to the list the final schedule... Simple enough, but time consuming for a virtual environment... - G ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:58:02 -0500 Reply-To: Tanya Wood Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . In-Reply-To: <34B787B6.734BB893@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kudos to Geoffry! I'd definitely like to nominate, 1/Kim Anteau's "Jigsaw Woman" 2/ Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (the grandmother of SF after all!) 3/ Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis series (perhaps "Dawn"?) 4/ Joanna Russ' "The Adventures of Alyx" (there is hardly any critical literature on this one and I'd be really interested in hearing what people say. Its very early in second wave feminism). 5/ Vonda McIntyre's "Superluminal" Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:44:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Brin's The Postman v. movie Comments: To: K Edge In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, K Edge wrote: > I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even > though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). I liked the movie but I also think it could have used a little editing. 2 and a half hours, whew! > Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as > being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating > especially interesting women characters. I have to admit that I didn't finish the book. I might try and re-read it, though (after I get through all the other stuff on my too read list!). > Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? > Karen > k.edge@m.cc.utah.edu > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:35:15 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Book group proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Finally, here's my proposal for our book group! Please feel free to debate any of these points. I'll collect comments and next weekend set something up and get it rolling. Jennifer -- Jennifer Krauel Vice President, Product Development and Customer Care jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ----------------------------- Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group Ideas in this proposal were collected from excellent suggestions from members and other on-line book groups (e.g. Bookwoman list). I only take credit for collecting them and picking some of the best. Ideas I couldn't incorporate but really liked I listed at the end so that they might be someday worked in. The only great idea I haven't figured out how to tie in is the food and drink part. Perhaps each book discussion could include the snack-of-the-month to be consumed while reading or discussing. Objective The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSF list, just focus the discussion. Book selection Group members nominate any feminist "speculative fiction" book. Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. For best results, include your reasons for nominating a book. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. If possible this bibliography would also be maintained on the web page. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in paperback on amazon.com (although they could be purchased anywhere or borrowed from the library.) This unfortunately eliminates the out-of-print or very new books, but there's still plenty of great material that qualifies. I assume that people outside of the U.S. could order books from amazon.com if they aren't available locally; this may be not optimal but at least guarantees the possibility of international participation. Members vote for three books each, and the top three are selected in alphabetical order by title for the next three months. Nominations are open for one week, and then voting is open for a week. I propose we follow a plan like this for a three-month period, then adjust the overall program if necessary, say for a six-month period. During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending email to the group with BDG Nomination in the subject line. Someone collects the nominations daily during the nomination period and updates the nomination list on a web page, preferably on Laura's FSF site. Voting happens by sending email to someone who tabulates votes and announces winners. The reading schedule will be posted on a web page, again preferably the FSF site. I'll make announcements at the beginning and end of each period in the book selection cycle, and before the beginning of each monthly discussion. Structure New book discussions begin monthly on the 1st Monday of the month. We'll use this main list; Laura assures me we can move the discussion to a separate list if many people complain about volume. A leader opens each discussion with a brief book synopsis (so those who didn't read it can follow along if they want) and by leading members in identifying the book's themes to give the discussion some structure. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. Alternatively we could include the initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. I think there's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. If possible this bibliography would also be maintained on the web page. Volunteer opportunities - Collect nominations and update the list on the web site - Collect votes, tabulate and announce the winners - Maintain the reading schedule on the web site, including bibliograpy of related reading materials - Lead a discussion by posting a book summary and opening discussion If you're interested in helping out, please email me privately and I'll coordinate. More Great Ideas Organizing group discount with Amazon or other reseller Tracking book nominators, letting them lead discussion Ensuring an even mix of types of FSF lit (warning: definition war zone) Having >1 book per month, possibly of varying types Picking an author of the month and discussing all or any of her/his works ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:21:54 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I loved the Brin book, although I questioned his women. What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a miliatiaman (or whatever). Costner handwaves it by having a green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the film. If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. I don't get it. It must be a guy thing. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 02:45:06 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 proposal Comments: To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Jennifer - Just wanted to commend you on your proposal. It looks like you've done a lot of work putting together just the proposal, and are in for more work in dealing with the discussion list itself. I'm very eager to participate, and am currently trying to figure out if I can realistically volunteer to help out (I'd bring cupcakes or something, but somehow that doesn't work so well :). Thanks so much from one of the many sheep on the list who wanted the discussion group, but was in no shape to contemplate doing it myself. Again, kudos and thanks!! Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:40:03 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: star trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I had thought, with all the changes in our culture, it would come closer > >to >Rodenberry's vision, as with a female Number 1 or even captian. > >Instead, it >didn't seem to have made much progress. Of course I'm no expert, but I think we may be expecting too much of the 'powers that be' who are running the ST franchise and buying the scripts. Even though the fans of Star Trek have been one of the most vocal groups in the history of television, I think the people funding TV and movies will more often play it safe, so they can be sure of getting a return on their investment, rather than worry about appealing to what they see as a smaller segment of their potential audience (i.e. women). After all, to them, the most lucrative consumers of such things are those 18-25 year old males. (sigh) Regardless of what progress society has made, these TV people are _not_ always in touch with social reality. **Note: If you haven't already, look up "How Not to Write for Star Trek" on the Net and read an outsider's experiences of submitting stories to the ST producers.** URL: //web.dbtech.net/~jamiller/nottrek.htm >> 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 had the same reaction. Most of the shows I've seen on Voyager have >Janeway essentially losing command to a male figure, usually Chahotay >(how do you spell that?). It may be that I haven't seen the best shows, >since I've only seen a few. I don't think of myself as a Trekkie, but I've liked Star Trek since I was a pre-teen. I viewed it then with much less critical eyes and the whole idea of travelling in space for a job really appealed to me - and there were women doing it too! I think my enthusiasm has made me less critical than some people. I tend to look for the good things, even if I do see the less admirable aspects. And now, living so far away from home, there are (believe it or not, BBC notwithstanding) things about American television that I miss (Especially "Northern Exposure" and CNN). So I was really excited by the idea of the new series, Voyager, especially when I heard a woman was the captain and a capable scientist as well. It has, unfortunately, been something of a disappointment - though I have to admit I do like the character of Chakotay, and I still watch it. But rather than seeing Janeway as always "losing command to a male figure", I guess I've seen her command style to be more of a "consensus" nature, rather than the traditional "one man makes the decisions and the others follow" kind of thing. At least when the script is well-written that's what I see. The worst part, for me, is being a full season behind you in the US. I keep up by reading reviews and synopses on the Net, but it's not the same. What do other people think of 7 of 9 at present? I've seen one (taped) early episode from the new season and far from being the bimbo many thought she'd be (those 18-25 males again), she could be a good thing for the series - if the character is handled well. Comments from those who've seen the more recent episodes? Monica ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 11:15:34 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group Proposal Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-10 17:40:25 EST, you write: << Finally, here's my proposal for our book group! >> This sounds like the best proposal. Looking forward to getting started! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:24:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Book group proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A book discussion group sounds like a lot of fun. We have bi-weekly discussion groups at MG, and cover all four of our genres (SF/Fan/Mystery/Horror) I would be glad to offer a discount to List members, but am frankly uncomfortable at the idea of playing second fiddle to Amazon.com, whose only merit, in my admittedly biased opinion, is that they challange the dominance of superstores on the web. Sorry to be snippy, but I guess I was a little hurt at not being approached about this. :( Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:38:29 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Cherryh ----------------------------- >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:35:07 -0500 >From: Joel VanLaven >Subject: Essentialism/Interchangeability (was book group) > >If you think CJ Cherryh writes books filled with cookie-cutter clones of >the same person in different garb (sex included) I feel that that is a >valid critisism, and briefly and shallowly thinking about her books I >think you might even have something of a point. If you think that her >books bypass the issue of sex and gender, failing to deal with them in >creative and complicated ways I might also agree, and consider that not so >much a valid critisism but a difference in subjecti and focus. Of course >the Chanur series had some interesting sex-related societal contructions >with the whole space-faring women thing. I think that Cherryh *does* deal with sex and gender in interesting ways, but that most of her examination of them isn't foregrounded in her work, and probably isn't her major focus of interest. Which doesn't stop it from being one of *my* interests when I read her books. :) I may be one of the few readers who's intrigued by Cherryh's take on gender and *didn't* like the Chanur books. I find the Union/Alliance and the Morgaine books much more interesting; I like the way they invert gender cliches in a perfectly serious way. So in the Morgaine books and =Downbelow Station=, you get the inversion of the Gothic woman-jeopardized-by-the-man-with-power-over-her -- and it's not just the femme fatale inversion, because the woman authority figures are explicitly characterized as *not* attractive -- and the jeopardized men are pretty boys. Or =Cyteen=, which I consider her best book for many reasons, which separates out sex, gender, and reproduction, and looks at each of three as something that's constructed partly by biology, partly by society, partly by "chance" social interaction. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:57:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34B856F2.7AC7@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... But he had a thrilling escape scene, and the Big Confrontation took place at the end, as it should. > > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > miliatiaman (or whatever). Costner handwaves it by having a > green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they > have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > film. > > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let > it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad > nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a > tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. > > I don't get it. It must be a guy thing. > Someone on the Bujold list answered that one. The men probably lived better than the villagers. They certainly considered themselves to have more prestige. And in a reign of terror, a lot of people would rather be the terrorizers than the terrorized. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:11:19 -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 Sun, 11 Jan 1998, M.J.Norman wrote: > segment of their potential audience (i.e. women). After all, to them, the > most lucrative consumers of such things are those 18-25 year old males. > (sigh) Regardless of what progress society has made, these TV people are > _not_ always in touch with social reality. I've met quite a few of these young men.. Most of them are wearing female bodies that are around 50 years old. Tha includes me. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:14:06 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: Book group proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth, Not only did I mean to hurt anyone, I had meant to look up your web page myself because it sounded interesting. I'm sorry to not have included you and wish you had suggested something earlier when others were posting great ideas. I have no love for Amazon except, as you mentioned, as an example of an independent. And I only included an online reseller as a way for anyone online (geographically unlimited) to verify a book's in print and order it if necessary. If you can provide that, that's a way better idea than mine. Thanks! Jennifer Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > A book discussion group sounds like a lot of fun. We have bi-weekly > discussion groups at MG, and cover all four of our genres > (SF/Fan/Mystery/Horror) I would be glad to offer a discount to List > members, but am frankly uncomfortable at the idea of playing second fiddle > to Amazon.com, whose only merit, in my admittedly biased opinion, is that > they challange the dominance of superstores on the web. > > Sorry to be snippy, but I guess I was a little hurt at not being approached > about this. :( > > Maryelizabeth > Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 > 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 > San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX > http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:30:48 -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: avoiding megastores, supporting the list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to suggest that people purchase from Maryelizabeth when feasible, and that perhaps someone could volunteer to coordinate with her, instead of with amazon.com. And, Maryelizabeth, I read the reference to amazon.com as more of a books-in-print verification than a point-of-purchase suggestion, but upon rereading the proposal see that it was meant as the latter. I vote that this book discussion group take pains to avoid the decimation of publishing and the super stores. If the books are in print, your local feminist bookstore should have them, and Maryelizabeth can certainly get them... now that she has apparently volunteered herself? What do people think? 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: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:44:06 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > > > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... > > But he had a thrilling escape scene, and the Big Confrontation > took place at the end, as it should. The book has an even more exciting final confrontation as well. Costner dumped the first one, and imo that was a shame. It was a much better forum for back story and plot set-up. > > > > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > > miliatiaman (or whatever).(snip) > Someone on the Bujold list answered that one. The men probably > lived better than the villagers. They certainly considered themselves to > have more prestige. And in a reign of terror, a lot of people would rather > be the terrorizers than the terrorized. But that's just my point. In the movie and to a lesser extent in the book, the militiamen lead at least as dangerous an existance as the villagers. They are subject to the vagueries of their insane boss and to combat with outside forces. Prestige doesn't seem to answer it for me. Esp. not in real life. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 21:04:13 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: [FSSFU] Book group proposal Another thought: what about anthologies of feminist sff fiction? There are many of these. Would one make a good start? Or, would doing a story a week (say) be not enough or prolong the reading over too long a period? (The one that immediately springs to mind as being in print at the moment is the 'Penguin Book of Modern Fantasy by Women' (1941-1995) which includes stories by several members of this list) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:45:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34B856F2.7AC7@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My answer includes some so please don't read on if you plan on seeing the movie. (SPOILERS> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: (snip) > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... I didn't see it that way. He manages to escape from the militiamen with nothing but the clothes on his back and his cleverness. He found the postal uniform and used it to con a village out of food and a horse. What he didn't realise was that these villagers needed the hope that he represented. His con game turned into a real movement. > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > miliatiaman (or whatever). These militiamen were the only source of law and order. When the U.S. collapsed, there was probably a great deal of chaos, death and destruction. The militiamen represented safety. There are a lot of people in the world who are willing to give up their autonomy for safetly. And there was a certain amount of "brain washing" going on (forced into exhausting activities, bombarded with the Holeness rules and philosophy, forced to be a part of the group including branding, not given enough food or water etc.). People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. I understand in an intellectual way why someone would want to do something as demanding and dangerous as being a Navy SEAL, for example. I understand why someone would put their life on the line to be a police officer or a fireman even though it isn't something I would choose for myself. > Costner handwaves it by having a > green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they > have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > film. Hmmmm... I wouldn't say capriciously sacrificed. He had bought the party line and had gone too far to back out. He was given the choice to escape but -couldn't- take it. Costner's character killed him in order to escape. > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let > it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad > nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a > tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. The militiamen were so frightening -because- it is human nature to want to be a part of something even if it is evil. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:46:17 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I figure that if I can't find the books in the Bay Area at my local independent store who orders things for me (owned by friends), Maryelizabeth will get an email or other message from me about getting the books in question. The Amazon site is good for finding the ordering information (ISBN) though. Making sure that friends and comrades get your business is an empowering thing. peace, 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: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:05:43 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit If MaryElizabeth can provide this service, I'm all for endorsing her rather than Amazon. I don't have much trouble laying my hands on anything, with access to NY bookstores. And with enough notice, even out-of-print books can be hunted up for those in need, possibly by volunteering members? By the way, for students or those of us who buy by the sackful, the Strand in NYC has half-priced review copies of books, including sf by the major publishing houses, usually in stock a few weeks before national release. I know you can order from their catalogue---I'll check to see whether they'll take mail-order requests on open stock. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:39:23 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Book Group Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sounds like a good proposal! But I have to say I liked Geoffrey's idea of having a separate email address to which people can send nominations and votes. If someone could be found (Geoffrey?) who is willing to receive, collate and then post this information on the web page and on the list when appropriate, it might save a lot of traffic on the list that's just votes and nominations. What do others think? And I like the idea of trying to limit nominations to books which can be easily obtained by overseas subscribers (since I'm one of them :)). Either that, or could I suggest that if there is very strong general feeling about a book that would be difficult for some people to find, perhaps we could agree on two books for a particular month, one easy to get and the difficult one. I understand the reasons behind why we are encouraged to buy from local feminist bookstores. Unfortunately, there are books published in the US that I simply can _not_ get in bookstores in the UK, because the bookstore does not deal with that particular publisher. Either that, or books come out months later here than in the US. In my case, and possibly in the case of other overseas listsubscribers, a Net supplier like Amazon may be the best source. I think that was one of the reasons it was mentioned in the proposal and I appreciate the proposer's efforts to include the list's more "difficult" members ;-). Monica Norman Hampshire, UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:30:50 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Stacey Holbrook MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey Holbrook wrote: > > My answer includes some so please don't read on if you plan on > seeing the movie. > > (SPOILERS> > > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > (snip) > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > > opening .... > I didn't see it that way. He manages to escape from the militiamen with > nothing but the clothes on his back and his cleverness. He found the > postal uniform and used it to con a village out of food and a horse. What > he didn't realise was that these villagers needed the hope that he > represented. His con game turned into a real movement. Well, yes, of course--an hour into the movie. His escape from the bad guys could have happened in an opening montage. That would have gotten us off with a bang and the uniform and village conning would have followed naturally. > These militiamen were the only source of law and order. You've got to be kidding. They would ride into town, 'commandeer' stuff, spread terror and destruction and then leave. The first village had a perfectly good sherrif. The militia were what they needed protection AGAINST. And > there was a certain amount of "brain washing" going on (forced into > exhausting activities, bombarded with the Holeness rules and philosophy, > forced to be a part of the group including branding, not given enough food > or water etc.). You're quite right. The Stockholm Syndrome at work. > People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. Yep, me too. But the examples you cite (Navy Seal, Police Officer, Firefighter) are clearly seen by all of us as being of use to the greater good of the community. Even if I couldn't do those jobs, I understand why someone else would choose to. Be a militiaman in the army of a psychopathic Xerox salesman? Nope. I don't get that. ... bad guy recruit explains that he desparately wants to be part of > > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > > film. > > Hmmmm... I wouldn't say capriciously sacrificed. He had bought the party > line and had gone too far to back out. He was given the choice to escape > but -couldn't- take it. Costner's character killed him in order to escape. Nononono. Costner was doing what he needed to do. The Holnist Captain made the decision to sacrifice Green-Tooth. And look at that Ltn. He was just as crazy as his boss. All cardboard characters when you really get down to it. Real bad guys are much more complex. > > > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > The militiamen were so frightening -because- it is human nature to want to > be a part of something even if it is evil. You're right there. And aweful as it seems, I think that's the bottom line. We all long to be part of something greater than ourselves, something that will -last-. These guys prey on that sort of feeling. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 06:47:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Chris Shaffer Subject: Value of military to community (was Re: The Postman) In-Reply-To: <34B9805A.4AB@localnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [Pat York] >Stacey Holbrook wrote: >> People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. > >Yep, me too. But the examples you cite (Navy Seal, Police Officer, >Firefighter) are clearly seen by all of us as being of use to the >greater good of the community. Even if I couldn't do those jobs, I >understand why someone else would choose to. Be a militiaman in the >army of a psychopathic Xerox salesman? Nope. I don't get that. Not everyone clearly sees Navy SEALs and paramilitary forces (police) as being of use to the greater good of the community. In many cases, they are detrimental to the good of the community. ----- I'm going to be dead for billions and billions of years. If I don't make a fool of myself on a regular basis, I'll feel like I've wasted my life. Chris Shaffer shaffer@uic.edu http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:14:45 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Cherryh In-Reply-To: <19980111.123832.8958.0.sudberg@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Micole Sudberg wrote: [snip] > >think you might even have something of a point. If you think that her > >books bypass the issue of sex and gender, failing to deal with them in > >creative and complicated ways I might also agree, and consider that not > so > >much a valid critisism but a difference in subjecti and focus. Of > course > >the Chanur series had some interesting sex-related societal contructions > >with the whole space-faring women thing. > > I think that Cherryh *does* deal with sex and gender in interesting ways, > but that most of her examination of them isn't foregrounded in her work, > and probably isn't her major focus of interest. Which doesn't stop it > from being one of *my* interests when I read her books. :) I might agree with you. I must admit that I read all of these Cherryh books about 6 years ago in high school. Based on my foggy recollection, sex seemed irrelevant except in the Chanur books. I am probably not remembering the nuances and I probably didn't look for quite the same things in the books that I look for now. However, I was very interested in feminist issues, probably more attuned to sex-related issues than your average reader, and I have no recollection of sex issues other than "look, fmale main characters doing traditionally masculine things." (which I appreciate, but only goes so far). Perhaps I will have to re-read some of these books to see if I can find what you are talking about. > I may be one of the few readers who's intrigued by Cherryh's take on > gender and *didn't* like the Chanur books. I find the Union/Alliance and > the Morgaine books much more interesting; I like the way they invert > gender cliches in a perfectly serious way. So in the Morgaine books and > =Downbelow Station=, you get the inversion of the Gothic > woman-jeopardized-by-the-man-with-power-over-her -- and it's not just the > femme fatale inversion, because the woman authority figures are > explicitly characterized as *not* attractive -- and the jeopardized men > are pretty boys. Or =Cyteen=, which I consider her best book for many > reasons, which separates out sex, gender, and reproduction, and looks at > each of three as something that's constructed partly by biology, partly > by society, partly by "chance" social interaction. These "inversions" are fine but are not what I would classify as thought provoking societal constructions. I saw them as relatively simple and possible "men in skirts" depictions. Maybe the problem is that I am simply unfamiliar with the cliches. An inverted cliche is still a cliche and as such is simplistic and in some senses boring. What the cliche brings is a reference to a large body of common works. Without them... I didn't really like the Chanur books all that much either. However, I didn't like them for the same reason that I don't like alot of Cherryh's writing, it tires me out. Essentially, it seems like she just bleeds crisis into everything but everything works out. The unreality of that much frying-pan/fire stuff combined with my knowing it will work out just makes it hard for me to become involved. That is MY main critisism of Cherryh, that the good stuff is buried in too much b-movie shlock. There are probably some exceptions, but that is why I stopped reading her books and probably why I don't feel inclined to re-read them looking for wisps of the good stuff. Maybe I just need to learn how to ignore the crises, not become involved in them. The problem is that it seems like I would have to not become involved in the characters either and where would that leave me? I must say that I liked the Cyteen and Morgaine books best. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 07:31:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Why join the bad guys Comments: cc: Jean Lamb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A few reasons to join General Bethlehem's army. 1) He has some really neat toys. And sometimes he lets us play with them. 2) We get to be the Evil Overlords this time. 3) I gotta horsie! All my very own! And the slaves muck out the stables. 4) It's sure a lot more fun than working. 5) None of the girls say "No" to me any more. 6) The pay's a whole lot better than I ever got from Xerox. 7) I got my buddies and they got me. 8) I can get drunk as much as I like just so long as it's after the battle and neither Mom nor the preacher nor the boss nor my wife have anything to say about it. I shot them yesterday. 9) I get to get rid of anyone who ever gave me a hard time so long as the General doesn't say no. Except of course the General's drill sergeants. and finally --- 10) In THIS army ther's no paperwork except at the latrines. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:49:47 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> Kmfriello - 1/11/98 7:05 PM >>> Wrote: By the way, for students or those of us who buy by the sackful, the Strand in NYC has half-priced review copies of books, including sf by the major publishing houses, usually in stock a few weeks before national release I avoid the Strand because they are notorious for buying stolen books. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:26:22 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: "local bookstores" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" While I'm always interested in references to NEW places to buy books, especially on-line, I'd like to remind those of you living in nice urban areas that those of us living in rural areas often live far far away from ANY bookstores, and have little or no choice. We live in the country between a town of 8000 (NO bookstore except a campus one which mostly sells t-shirts with slogans and a mysterious old mansion which claims to have used books for sale and, oh yes, outside town, a Christian children's bookstore) and a town of 23,000 (one chain store which gets most of its business selling videos, and which has LOUSY selection and employees who cannot even alphabetize let alone put books in the "right" genre section--I've actually been laughed at by employees who are amazed that someone would buy FIVE or more books). We are approximately two hours from Dallas (and if there are any feminist bookstores in Dallas, I'd love to hear where they are). Amazon.com has been an incredible blessing, although now that I've gotten some good recommendations, I might try out some of the other "stores" on the internet. But it's not a question of NOT patronizing our "local feminist bookstore" since none exist! (I get the same problems from colleagues at colleges who assume all college students own computers--I have students from around this area who haven't evn worked on electric typewriters beause of their family's poverty.) So if you have more recommendations on feminist internet providers, please send them to me! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:54:54 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Star Trek diatribe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I was going to quickly respond to M.J. Norman's question, "What do other people think of 7 of 9 at present?" But instead, I rambled on and on: I, too, am not a Trekkie but enjoy most of the series. I watched the original (actually, the years-after-re-runs of the original) when I was a pre-teen, so most of what had been progressive was archaic by the time I saw it. As far as women in authority or doing technical jobs, I remember a nurse, a receptionist (I loved Uhuru, but most of the time she took incoming calls and open the lines for outgoing calls), and a clerk (the blonde yeoman who always needed Kirk to sign for something). I was not inspired then. By contrast, the Bionic Woman seemed to be able to kick everyone's butt. I was pretty excited when I heard about TNG. And I liked the first year--mostly because of Lt. Yar. After they killed her off, I only watched occasionally because I couldn't relate to the other two women. Dr. Crusher seemed, to my young and demanding eyes, to be very conventional--you could put her down in any town and she'd fit right in. Mother and doctor, better than sex-object and nurse, but not particularly progressive IMHO. Troi I've never been able to tolerate. I think it's just because of her make-up and hair and crying. Everything on the show felt very, I don't know, suburban or politically correct or Eight-is-Enough....? Or maybe I was holding a grudge because they killed off the grrrl who could kick everyone's butt.... I didn't watch DS9 for a season and a half. But I was glad when I did. Finally, storylines that seemed real to my world: the Federation (read US) steps between some aggressor nation (read whoever the US is ticked off at this month) and some oppressed people (read anyone the US wants to use as a reason for meddling in other nations' business) and diplomatically forces the oppressed people to join their ranks or lose Federation protection. The Bejorans' (sp) religion seeps in everywhere and mucks up the Fed's clean plans. Irreconcilable differences are NOT reconciled, just like life. (Ah ha! That's what I didn't like about TNG--most arguments/differences/conflicts were tidily resolved and everyone smiled as the credits rolled.) And, Kira has always kicked butt and the writers are now letting Dax kick some butt, too. In a couple of episodes, Kira actually flirted with women, giving me hope that homosexuality hasn't been tidily "resolved" with pre-natal care. I hated the feeling that I wouldn't exist in TNG. Voyager tried to place itself somewhere in between the two and I think has struggled to find its identity. However, I much prefer Janeway and her style of leadership to Picard or Kirk. Only in Voyager have I been able to see exactly how a leader can empower her subordinates and remain in control and respected. 7 of 9 could really improve the show. She's already challenged the captain in a manner that they both walk away a little less sure of themselves and a little more thoughtful. The shows are like snippets of American identity: ST = The universe is filled with good guys and bad guys (very cold war) and internal social change. We gotta win our fights away and clean house at home. TNG = Some ending cold war arrogance, "we fared better so we probably are better." When the house isn't clean, we can create a schedule of cleaning chores to get it done. It's cheery from here on in. DS9 = How much do we stick our noses into others' business? how do we handle being the big political power? How do we handle challenges to that power? What if we're not always right? VOY = Ok, ok, we're not always right, we're not the biggest and best. We can provide for ourselves if we're diligent. We can help others if we make it a priority. But I can't get home if you don't help me and you can't get home if I don't help you so let's stick it out and try to make the house-cleaning-chores-schedule work. 7 of 9 really throws a wrench into the entire Trek philosophy of Individualism (very american) softened by teamwork (very Japanese) and tolerance (very ?). This philosophy has always not quite worked for Americans. Those who are most individualistic, like the Republican ideologues, are usually the least tolerant of others. The Japanese are very productive teamworkers in part because they are so homogenous and don't have to worry about tolerating those who don't conform. I see us everyday struggling to make this work out, refusing to believe the inherent contradictions. If you can, bring up the subject of cultural assimilation while you are in the company of African-Americans, first generation immigrants and second or third generation immigrants--if people get over the self-imposed censorship of political correctness, you'll hear an earful. The Borg, in a figurative manner, value and seek out diversity and adopt it. It's kind of the uglier, not-so-white-washed version of the American melting pot that many Americans espouse and many others deplore. 7 of 9's struggle to fit in, her deadpan confrontations of and challenges to the Federation's accepted ideologies is fascinating. The writing has gotten a lot better this season. I don't roll my eyes when Belana (sp) get (oh, no, not again) angry, I actually like Lt Kim--easily the most boring character in ST history--and the doctor gets upstaged. And for the first time, I'm not struggling to find the kick-butt grrrl--she's not needed. Belana is in charge of engineering and Janeway has the ship. No one else seems to be in charge of anything in particular, now that Kes is gone there's no crying woman-child, and 7 of 9 is sooo self-possessed that her skin-tight clothes make her more powerful and almost threatening to the status quo rather than bimbo-esque. Could I jabber any more than this? Sorry. LeAnne ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:48:35 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Star Trek diatribe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Le Anne Fossmeyer wrote: > >By contrast, the Bionic Woman seemed to be able to kick everyone's butt. I always searched for that show when I was a kid. Another reason I liked it was that I could relate to her. In so many shows back then, if a woman was protrayed as a strong figure, she was also made unappealing as a role model, eg, she was harsh, unpleasant, unethical, or whatever. The bionic woman, on the other hand, was someone a young girl could enjoy imagining herself as being. She was both powerful and feminine, a combination that is rare even now. > I was pretty excited when I heard about TNG. And I liked the first > year--mostly because of Lt. Yar. I liked Yar too, most of the time. One thing I particularly liked was that they portrayed her as if "Of course she does the job well" rather than the annoying "look at this, she does the job well even though she is a woman." > Troi I've never been able to tolerate. I think it's just because of her make-up > and hair and crying. I don't remember her crying, but I didn't see all of the shows. I quit watching after the one where Rodenberry's wife come onto the show as Troi's mother and was made an object of ridicule (or so it seemed to me) in that she went lusting after a dismayed Captain Picard in an embarrassing way. And why? Because hey, she was going through menopause. I had imagined Troi's mother as a dignified women of authority. Over all, I liked the concept of Troi. I say "concept" because she was the most under-utilized character, I think,in the history of the ST. The idea that an empath trained as a mental health expert can make a vital difference in a military organization and in our interactions with alien cultures, and has a place in the military as an officer is a fascinating idea. But all they had her do most of the time was stand around and look sexy. Every now and then the writers gave her overwhelmingly brilliant comments, such as when Evil Overlords were blasting away at the Enterprise, she would profoundly say "I detect hostility here." However, one of my favorite episodes of any Star Trek is the one where Troi has a child. It is one of the only Star Trek shows where a woman goes through pregnancy. Troi introduced a female aspect to the show that I don't think they knew what to do with, because she was neither kick-butt nor conventional. So they fell back on the standard "make her a passive sex-pot" thing. However, some shows did a better job with her character. Do you remember the one where she had to determine what had sent this fellow into a sort of catatonia? It had something to so with hydrogen atoms. I know that's vague, but I can't remember the plot better. Does that ring any bells with anyone? I thought that show came closer to utilizing Troi's potential. > I much prefer Janeway and her style of leadership to Picard or Kirk. Only in > Voyager have I been able to see exactly how a leader can empower her subordinates > and remain in control and respected. 7 of 9 could really improve the show. She's > already challenged the captain in a manner that they both walk away a > little less sure of themselves and a little more thoughtful. I must not have seen the right Voyager shows. I saw several where Janeway was knocked out for most of the show, so her male subordinates had to run things for her. However, that aside, overall I have liked her portrayal of a captain. And I do agree, what I've seen of her methods of leadership are more effective than those of the earlier shows. > 7 of 9's struggle to fit in, her deadpan confrontations of and > challenges to the Federation's accepted ideologies is fascinating. I must be really out of touch with Star Trek. Who is 7 to 9? And what happened to Kes? > I actually like Lt Kim--easily the most boring character in ST history-- I like him too. Who cares if he's boring; he's great to look at. Those big brown eyes and that innocent air of youth. They should have some lustful warrior queen kidnap him and Janeway has to pull off a rescue for the hunk in distress. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:27:53 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: "local bookstores" In-Reply-To: <199801121726.RAA08473@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maryelizabeth's store is quite wonderful -- Mysterious Galaxy has a terrific selection of sf and mysteries. (And she is super at the Care and Feeding of Writers -- her efforts were a major reason for the success of my California book tour last month. The only reason I didn't walk out of the store with 20 books instead of 2 was that... I was on this book tour, see... And mainly, her store is in San Diego and my luggage was in Burbank.) Here's another possibility, if you're looking for general fiction and non-fiction, not feminist per se, but an excellent independent bookstore that's terrific about supporting the local sf community: The University Book Store in Seattle. Their web address is http://www.bookstore.washington.edu/ They have an 800 number. Powell's is also a good source of general books. http://www.powells.com/info/burnside.info.html) Maryelizabeth's store is absolutely terrific for sf and mysteries. But if you needed something that wasn't in her stock, UBS is a good place to try. And if you're a writer, and you call them to see if they'd like you to stop by and sign their stock, or provide them with bookplates, they will actually _call_you_back_. Which is a whole heck of a lot more than I can say for amazon.com. Best, Vonda On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:26:22 GMT, Robin Reid wrote: >... So if you have more >recommendations on feminist internet providers, please send them to me! > >Robin http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:39:16 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DONNANEELY Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: "local bookstores" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-12 17:27:33 EST, you write: << Which is a whole heck of a lot more than I can say for amazon.com. >> has Amazon.com been mistaken for a Bookstore? i thought it was an "online enterprise" in jest only, dbs ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:22:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Book group [roposal : resource Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:14:06 -0800 >From: Jennifer Krauel >Subject: Re: Book group proposal > >Maryelizabeth, >Not only did I mean to hurt anyone, I had meant to look up your web page myself >because it sounded interesting. I'm sorry to not have included you and wish >you had suggested something earlier when others were posting great ideas. I >have no love for Amazon except, as you mentioned, as an example of an >independent. And I only included an online reseller as a way for anyone online >(geographically unlimited) to verify a book's in print and order it if >necessary. If you can provide that, that's a way better idea than mine. >Thanks! >Jennifer > Jennifer: Pax. I was in a cranky mood, one of those where one hits the send button before thinking, "is this really necessary." Comes from being waaaay too busy lately, I guess, which is my lame excuse for not piping up sooner. Rudy, Kmfriello and Cynthia: Thanks for the words of support. Everyone -- please try your local bookseller first, but think of me as an alternate resource! I was thinking of a 15% discount, which is better than our regular discount, but should help offset the cost of shipping... Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:24:58 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Used Book Stores (was: avoiding megastores, supporting the list) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII What do you think about used book stores? I am particularly interested in what the published writers think. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:16:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Walto Subject: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I'm new to the listserv and thought I'd come out of the shadows to add a few comments to the Star Trek discussion. I've only been watching Voyager and DS9 sporadically the last couple of years, but I was intrigued enough by the addition of 7 of 9 this year to watch a little more faithfully. Two thoughts struck me. First of all, I was pleased that 7 of 9 was cast as a female, especially since we rarely see a female borg (or any female alien for that matter). Secondly, I was disappointed that she looks just like Barbie--on her 3 inch heels she's looks like she's about to topple over. Of the episodes I've seen, I like the concept of her character, but I still have my doubts. I definitely thought Voyager needed a shot in the arm and 7 of 9 may just do that. I do like Janeway and she is my second favorite Captain (Picard, for all his failings, is still my first). I was pleased to see that her holodeck trips are no longer as a governess, but now as a visit with Leonardo DaVinci. I couldn't understand why a scientist and Star Fleet Captain would want to pretend to be a Victorian governess to two small children. I can understand why a scientist and woman of learning would want to spend some time in DaVinci's workshop. Catherine Asaro wrote: "However, one of my favorite episodes of any Star Trek is the one where Troi has a child. It is one of the only Star Trek shows where a woman goes through pregnancy." This reminded me of the recent storyline of Kira (sp?) carrying O'Brien and Keiko's child. I especially appreciated that she could be pregnant and still be in a position of authority. The differences in Bajoran and Earth pregnancies and births was fairly well done. As someone who recently went through this experience, I was well aware that some people marginalize pregnant women. (You mean you can still do your job and be pregnant at the same time?! :-) My general opinion of the Star Trek series is that although they do portray women as strong and capable, there is much room for improvement. Lurking, Susan Walto susan_walto@fluoroware.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:53:57 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BzRvueNews Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Used Book Stores (was: avoiding megastores, support Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/12/98 6:29:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, ausar@NETDOOR.COM writes: > What do you think about used book stores? I find them good for hard to find fiction. Also, I like to try a "new" author by buying an "old" book. However I mostly buy new. Leann Buzz Review News Bluz Review - Buzz Baby - Buzz Review - Buzzy's Book - Fearcast - Mystery Meat To subscribe to any of our publications send mailto:BuzzReview@reporters.net with 'Subscribe publication name' in your subject line. To unsubscribe follow the same procedure and put 'Unsubscribe publication name' in your subject line. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:31:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Yet another alternative: DreamHaven Books, one of the friendly neighborhood family-owned SF stores in my Minneapolis neighborhood, with new & used books & a catalog. Their site is at: www.visi.com/~dreamhvn/ They're open-minded folk and have an interesting, quality collection. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:11:04 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: "local bookstores" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >has Amazon.com been mistaken for a Bookstore? i thought it was an "online >enterprise" > >in jest only, No, sadly I don't think this is a joke. I have ordered a couple of books from Amazon, but never again. The first time, they sent me completely the wrong book, and then were rude about it when I complained, and both times, the books have taken weeks longer than promised to arrive. I would like to hear about more alternatives, particularly if there are internet bookstores who really are equipped to send books to Australia. In my experience, lots of places that advertise on the web don't really expect anyone outside their own country to want to use the services, even though the web is obviously a global medium. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:59:29 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-12 09:49:08 EST, you write: << I avoid the Strand because they are notorious for buying stolen books. >> Really? Stolen from whom? I've never heard that, in over 15 years of patronizing the store--- and it's a shame if it's true, but when new books can be $30 a pop and the local library's funds have been slashed, a deal is a deal is a deal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:25:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: star trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not QUITE 50, but I'm pushing toward it fast - and I'm with you, Pat. But nevertheless I read a recent comment from someone (wish I could recall who) at Paramount who was rejoicing because "Voyager" had increased its audience among that wondrously important young male grouping...it made me feel less than special, let us say. Nina Osier (finally back after a 5-day power outage due to Maine's worst ice storm in memory - I feel like signing this, "Live from Norse Hell") Pat wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, M.J.Norman wrote: > > > segment of their potential audience (i.e. women). After all, to > them, the > > most lucrative consumers of such things are those 18-25 year old > males. > > (sigh) Regardless of what progress society has made, these TV > people are > > _not_ always in touch with social reality. > > I've met quite a few of these young men.. Most of them are > wearing > female bodies that are around 50 years old. Tha includes me. > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:01:40 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34B9805A.4AB@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: More (snip) > > These militiamen were the only source of law and order. > > You've got to be kidding. They would ride into town, 'commandeer' > stuff, spread terror and destruction and then leave. The first village > had a perfectly good sherrif. The militia were what they needed > protection AGAINST. I should have been more clear. I meant that the militiamen were a source or law and order in the past. By the time the postman came along the group had degenerated into a tyranny. Bethlehem was not the original leader of the Holness (sp?) group. The original leader was practically deified by the current leader. (snip) > > People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. > > Yep, me too. But the examples you cite (Navy Seal, Police Officer, > Firefighter) are clearly seen by all of us as being of use to the > greater good of the community. Even if I couldn't do those jobs, I > understand why someone else would choose to. Be a militiaman in the > army of a psychopathic Xerox salesman? Nope. I don't get that. Consider the alternatives: mucking around in the dirt trying to survive or riding around on horseback getting whatever you need without having to work for it. That's quite appealing to a lot of people. And the militiamen -were- doing what was good for -their- community, though not necessarily what was good for anyone else's. > ... bad guy recruit explains that he desparately wants to be part of > > > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > > > film. > > > > Hmmmm... I wouldn't say capriciously sacrificed. He had bought the party > > line and had gone too far to back out. He was given the choice to escape > > but -couldn't- take it. Costner's character killed him in order to escape. > > Nononono. Costner was doing what he needed to do. The Holnist Captain > made the decision to sacrifice Green-Tooth. And look at that Ltn. He > was just as crazy as his boss. All cardboard characters when you really > get down to it. Real bad guys are much more complex. I think that the only way to add more complexity to the bad guys was to make the movie longer. 2 and a half hours was long enough! And Green-Tooth volunteered to go after Costner in order to prove himself to the leader. He refused to back off when he confronted Costner and Costner had to kill him in order to get away. Generally, I liked the movie but it did have a few problems. I didn't like the sentimentality (when the little boy held out the letter for Costner to ride back and grab, for example). And I agree that the entire Holness culture could have been a little more complex. They were depicted as too totaly evil with very little explanation as to how they might have gotten that way. I was also troubled as to why all of the villages were so weak in comparison to the Holness group. Why did that one village have only one or two guns against the Holness arsenal? This isn't explained. Almost everyone I know in the U.S. owns at least one gun. It just seemed strange that -all- of the villages, including the walled ones, should have so few weapons. (snip) Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 02:46:25 -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: Re: The Postman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey Holbrook wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > More Same here (though I have yet to see the movie, I'm looking at the novel) > I should have been more clear. I meant that the militiamen were a source or law > and order in the past. By the time the postman came along the group > had degenerated into a tyranny. Bethlehem was not the original leader of > the Holness (sp?) group. The original leader was practically deified by > the current leader. Actually, going off of Brin's views of the Holnists: Nathan Holn, a 20th century survivalist who was widely published and promoted (then later assassinated), set down, in one of his books, the laws that the Holnists in the novel live by. None of the novel's Holnists would defy Holn's philosophy. Holn was a madman's Machiavelli. If the Holnist violence the discussion here has mentioned is even 20% of what is actually in the movie, then I would have to say the the movie is merely skimming Holn. > Consider the alternatives: mucking around in the dirt trying to survive or > riding around on horseback getting whatever you need without having to > work for it. That's quite appealing to a lot of people. Sure, but after you're done mucking around with Billy Crystal, it's time to go home. The vast majority of the people that this "lifestyle" appeals to are *very* comfortable in front of their big screen tvs drinking Diet Coke - they wouldn't know an artesian well from a Jack Benny "Well." The Holnists aren't those people (even the civil, stockbroker Holnist in the novel can't quite pull off what he has to) - the Holnists are the bullies you had to deal with in grade school. > And the militiamen -were- doing what was good for -their- community, > though not necessarily what was good for anyone else's. That's true. The Holnists do do what is best to perpetuate the Holnist community. > I think that the only way to add more complexity to the bad guys was to > make the movie longer. 2 and a half hours was long enough! Actually, I doubt that's true. Costner would have had a better return and a stronger audience if he had gone for a cable tv mini-series of six or so hours. That way, the project could have pulled all of the novel's threads out *and* cleaned up those nasty "why are the women so odd" questions... > And Green-Tooth volunteered to go after Costner Sorry...pet-peeve alert: Green-Tooth didn't go after Costner, he went after Gordon. That tends to be my gauge for how well an actor has done in a movie - when he or she no longer show themselves in the role (ie., I think of Batman/Bruce Wayne when I think of BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS, but I think of Val Kilmer when I think of BATMAN FOREVER). If you don't see Gordon, but Costner, then Costner seems to have failed playing that character... > Almost > everyone I know in the U.S. owns at least one gun. Stacey, your argument's shaky and the comment's a little off-base. I live smack-dab in the middle of downtown of the city of Detroit, and other than my best friend's father's (non-working) service revolver from the Vietnam era, I know *no-one* who owns a gun, let alone more. That is a media myth, one that is both exported and exteranlly fabricated, and I suggest it is best to scrap the fallacy now. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 03:03:26 -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: Re: "local bookstores" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think, folks, we know where to go with tracking down our books. I've volunteered to set up the web site, and I'll plug some links in for any and all bookstores people suggest (yes, I'm sorry, even to Amazon - some of us still use them from time to time)... So who's going to tabulate the votes? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:01:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robin: How is your access to Austin? I understood that was sorta the area for the writing community in Texas. Catherine: I always thought Troi's biggest problem (and I haven't been wtching the ST shows in years, with the exception of the recent DS9 where they go back into the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode , so this is all IIRC) is the trouble with any character with special powers on a TV series, especially an empath. The writers didn't really know what to do with her. An alien ship fires on the Enterprise, and Troi gets a line like, "I'm sensing hostility." :P Vonda: Thanks for the Very Kind Words about MG. :) And I haven't been to the University bookstore, but since I know my buddy Duane is there, I have great faith in it. Robyn: We can and do ship books out of the country. Teresa Alonso asked for a comparison between our rates and offered service and Amazon.com's, and I'll have to research what they offer to be able to answer that, BUT I can promise that we will not be rude to you, we should have or be able to get books in print (in the US) that you like, and we will take the best care possible of your order until we turn it over to the hands of the parcel service. :) Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:11:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Postman In-Reply-To: <34BB1BCB.D607155C@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > Almost > > everyone I know in the U.S. owns at least one gun. > > Stacey, your argument's shaky and the comment's a little off-base. I live > smack-dab in the middle of downtown of the city of Detroit, and other than my > best friend's father's (non-working) service revolver from the Vietnam era, I > know *no-one* who owns a gun, let alone more. That is a media myth, one that is > both exported and exteranlly fabricated, and I suggest it is best to scrap the > fallacy now. > That's neither true nor a media myth. It's a regional thing and a town vs country thing. If we're talking small villages in Eastern Oregon, yes, they'd all be armed. If we're talking suburban Albuquerque, no, they wouldn't be, unless they were hobbyists or hunters.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:14:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> Kmfriello - 1/12/98 10:59 PM >>> In a message dated 98-01-12 09:49:08 EST, wrote: >>Really? Stolen from whom? Other bookstores, mostly. It's rather like a pawn shop--if the same guy comes in with a tv every other week, it's pretty doubtful that all were gifts. >>I've never heard that, in over 15 years of patronizing the store--- and it's a shame if it's true, but when new books can be $30 a pop and the local library's funds have been slashed, a deal is a deal is a deal. Well, I've worked in the bookselling/publishing community in the NYC area for the last 9 years, and I've heard it from numerous sources. Maybe it's not true, maybe it only used to be true...but I won't buy books from the guys on the street with a blanket of books , either. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:31:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Used Book Stores (was: avoiding megastores, supporting the list) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Stacey Holbrook wrote: >What do you think about used book stores? I am particularly interested in >what the published writers think. One of the subthreads, or metatopics of this list has been the ongoing acceleration of books going out of print. It has become radically more difficult to explore the sf canon as a result. IMNSHO, the field is suffering as a result. My standard advice for a new enthusiast who wants to expand her horizons is to go to your local used bookstore with a budget and a more well-read friend whose judgement you trust, and pick out goodies until you've gone through your cash. (As I started this, I was thinking of Theodore Sturgeon, one of the blessings of the field, who is totally out of print except for an expensive collector's series. As I was typing, I recalled the example of the invaluable, profoundly unique Cordwainer Smith, whom I just saw on a Used shelf. And the second Tuesday of the month, the used books are half price at my local sf bookstore (The Stars Our Destination; see previous message), so I'll see if I can get there tonight after work.) Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:25:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: "local bookstores" Comments: cc: alice@sfbooks.com In-Reply-To: <199801121726.RAA08473@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robin Reid wrote: >While I'm always interested in references to NEW places to buy books, >especially on-line, I'd like to remind those of you living in nice urban >areas that those of us living in rural areas often live far far away from >ANY bookstores, and have little or no choice. We live in the country >between a town of 8000 (NO bookstore except a campus one which mostly sells >t-shirts with slogans and a mysterious old mansion which claims to have >used books for sale and, oh yes, outside town, a Christian children's >bookstore) and a town of 23,000 (one chain store which gets most of its >business selling videos, and which has LOUSY selection and employees who >cannot even alphabetize let alone put books in the "right" genre >section--I've actually been laughed at by employees who are amazed that >someone would buy FIVE or more books). (My sympathy and/r condolences.) I figured to plug our own (i.e., Chicago's) sf/f bookstore, Stars Our Destination, anyway, but it sounds more needed than I knew. It's at 1021 Belmont, half a block from the L, and it's owned and run by a redoubtable, admired veteran local fan (who's also a woman) (and who's likely to make a face at me for that description). Alice has been gradually (as time permits) expanding the store's online presence, but I'm sure she'll be happy to get you what you want. The store's "address" is stars@sfbooks.com (I'm pretty sure -- I'll be corrected very shortly if wrong, and pass it along). Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:04:05 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: "local bookstores" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to >hear about more alternatives, particularly if there are internet bookstores >who really are equipped to send books to Australia. In my experience, lots >of places that advertise on the web don't really expect anyone outside >their own country to want to use the services, even though the web is >obviously a global medium. > >Robyn This is the kind of thing I worry about. Postal charges from the US to the UK and other places are often as much as the item being sent or more. If anyone has had any experiences, good or bad, with a particular on-line bookstore, perhaps they could mention that to the list, as it seems many of us are going to be looking for even more books than we already do! Thanks, Monica ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:01:42 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > I always thought Troi's biggest problem (and I haven't been wtching the ST > shows in years, with the exception of the recent DS9 where they go back > into the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode , so this is all IIRC) is the > trouble with any character with special powers on a TV series, especially > an empath. The writers didn't really know what to do with her. An alien > ship fires on the Enterprise, and Troi gets a line like, "I'm sensing > hostility." :P Mary Beth, this is the reason that is always given, but I don't buy it. For one thing, Spock also have special powers, in some ways more so than Troi. They never had trouble figuring out what to do with him. A good writer can always figure out what to do with such a character, if they want. My entire Ruby Dynasty/Skolian Empire Saga is about a dynasty of telepaths. I never have trouble figuring out what to do with them! Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:14:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] / Troi / Trek etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > > > I always thought Troi's biggest problem ( is the > > trouble with any character with special powers on a TV series, > especially > > an empath. The writers didn't really know what to do with her. An > alien > > ship fires on the Enterprise, and Troi gets a line like, "I'm > sensing > > hostility." :P > To take this one step further, I think that the problem is that once a character has special powers/characteristics writers (at least ST writers) tend to focus on only that aspect of the character. Troi's most interesting episodes, IMO, are the ones where they treat her as a "person" and not as an "empath", eg. the episode in which she was trying to earn a promotion, or the one where she ended up in command of the bridge section when it was separated from the saucer (or was it the other way around). I think that this is a common real life problem too - not that I know too many empaths - but I think its easy to get pigeon-holed by one characteristic ... And while I rambling ... while I have enjoyed ST in its varying incarnations, one problem I have with it, and Next Generation tops this list, is the lack of passion on board. The list has discussed the various liasons the crews have had but have they have been with mostly people off the ship. Among crew members there is little/no sex or fighting - everyone gets along - I find them all kind of white-bread. DS9 is the notable exception to this. sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:57:24 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: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. Comments: To: asaro@sff.net In-Reply-To: <34BBB9D2.7937@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I watched TNG religiously for a couple of years until I finally got tired of being bored and insulted. Planet of the Illiterate Irish Peasants finally did it for me. Troi, particularly, irritated me, for exactly the reasons Maryelizabeth and Catherine mention -- the writers didn't know what to do with her. (In general the writers didn't know what to do with any women characters, telepathic or not.) I did like -- this is one reason I stuck with the show so long -- seeing the women characters _talk_ to each other, sometimes even in the absence of men characters -- ! (When I think back to the original series, I cannot remember an instance of two of the women characters speaking to each other, or a scene that didn't include at least one of the men. The women only ever spoke to the men; the scenes always revolved around one or more men. It was 1966-9, after all.) I didn't like that the show was unable to present a powerful woman character who was not also completely screwed up personally. Yar is the best example, but it was true of Crusher and Troi as well, living as they did in a world where all the characters had been given hormonectomies. (This affected the men as well but since the writers had no idea what to do with women characters, it affected the women characters more. What in the world was the point of creating a ship that was the equivalent of a small town without ever permitting the people on the bridge to interact socially with any of them?) If the writers had _shown_ all the stuff Yar spoke of in her post-mortem holographic message, even as thirty-second scenes scattered through the previous seasons of the show, I doubt Denise Crosby would have fled the show screaming with boredom and frustration. The holographic scene was quite moving, but it had _nothing_ in the previous episodes to back up what she was saying everybody had done for her. In life, she wouldn't even admit to screwing Data. This was supposed to be a perfect society... yet everybody was just as screwed up sexually as if they'd been Victorians. Maybe I'm practicing selective memory, but I can't recall an sf tv series in which any characters, male or female, dealt with their sexuality with any joy, pleasure, or fulfillment. Troi, as portrayed during the years I watched TNG, was not only wasted, but made to behave like an idiot. This is the scene I always wanted to see in TNG: FADE IN INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE. The Enterprise is facing an enormous fleet of alien warships using an Unknown Form of Energy (UFE) that has already broached the shields. Door SWOOSH. Counselor Troi hurries in. TROI Captain, I must speak to you! PICARD It will have to wait, Counselor. TROI Captain, it's urgent. PICARD Counselor, we're involved in a desperate space battle here, it will have to wait! The Enterprise SHUDDERS under the assault of UFE. WORF (falling over rail) Oof! DATA (sotto voce) Three hundred years of starship design and they _still_ haven't installed seat belts. TROI Captain, I _must_ have a moment of your time! PICARD Oh, VERY WELL. INT. READY ROOM. Picard faces Troi impatiently. PICARD What is it, Counselor? TROI Captain, I perceive that everyone on the ship is experiencing _serious_ _feelings_ _of_ _apprehension_! Picard stares at her in disbelief. Suddenly he loses his cool in a completely un-Picard-like manner (CUPLM). He would grab her by the shirt front if she had one. Since she doesn't, and this is tv, where sex is evil and violence is good, he grabs her by the throat and shoves her up against the wall. PICARD (screaming CUPLM) You dragged me off the bridge to tell me _that_? You stupid @##$#! When are you AND THE WRITERS going to STOP WASTING MY TIME?! CUT. On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:01:42 -0400, Catherine Asaro wrote: >Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >> >> ...Troi gets a line like, "I'm sensing >> hostility." :P > >Mary Beth, this is the reason that is always given, but I don't buy it. >... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:57:22 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: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Maryelizabeth, Duane is a treasure, that's for sure. Vonda On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:01:10 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >... >And I haven't been to the University bookstore, but since I know my buddy >Duane is there, I have great faith in it. > > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:17:32 -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: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: <34c7f03a.650203006@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Maybe I'm practicing selective memory, but I can't >recall an sf tv series in which any characters, >male or female, dealt with their sexuality with >any joy, pleasure, or fulfillment. Well, there's always Riker. Remember him on the planet ruled by women? > >Troi, as portrayed during the years I watched TNG, >was not only wasted, but made to behave like an >idiot. > >This is the scene I always wanted to see in TNG: > >FADE IN > >INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE. > >The Enterprise is facing an enormous fleet of >alien warships using an Unknown Form of Energy >(UFE) that has already broached the shields. > >Door SWOOSH. Counselor Troi hurries in. > > TROI > Captain, I must speak to you! > > PICARD > It will have to wait, Counselor. > > TROI > Captain, it's urgent. > > PICARD > Counselor, we're involved in a > desperate space battle here, it > will have to wait! > >The Enterprise SHUDDERS under the assault of UFE. > > WORF > (falling over rail) > Oof! > > DATA > (sotto voce) > Three hundred years of starship > design and they _still_ haven't > installed seat belts. > > TROI > Captain, I _must_ have a moment > of your time! > > PICARD > Oh, VERY WELL. > > >INT. READY ROOM. > >Picard faces Troi impatiently. > > PICARD > What is it, Counselor? > > TROI > Captain, I perceive that everyone > on the ship is experiencing > _serious_ _feelings_ _of_ > _apprehension_! > >Picard stares at her in disbelief. Suddenly he >loses his cool in a completely un-Picard-like >manner (CUPLM). He would grab her by the shirt >front if she had one. Since she doesn't, and this >is tv, where sex is evil and violence is good, he >grabs her by the throat and shoves her up against >the wall. > > PICARD > (screaming CUPLM) > You dragged me off the bridge to > tell me _that_? You stupid @##$#! > When are you AND THE WRITERS > going to STOP WASTING MY TIME?! > >CUT. > Ha-ha! I love it! -Sean the Twittering :-) "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:15:11 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Vonda wrote: >I did like -- this is one reason I stuck with the show so long -- seeing the women characters _talk_ to each other, sometimes even in the absence of men characters -- ! --------- There is an Alison Bechdel cartoon I particularly like (Dykes to Watch Out For), where 2 characters are discussing what movie to see. One character has a list of requirements a friend suggested: a) There must be 2 women, who b) TALK to each other, c) about something besides a MAN The character finishes by saying the last movie her friend had seen was ALIEN (1988 cartoon). Imagine if a large proportion of TV/movie audiences adopted those criteria - times would be a-changin' in LA! This is my "unlurk" email, nyhahaha! I'm a 29 year old NZer, who is desperately trying to save 7,500 pounds to study computational linguistics in Dublin (yes, that really IS my life). I've enjoyed the list so far, and think a reading group is a cool idea. And I fully endorse the request that the books have been in print for quite some time - so hopefully they've found their way to NZ (and even the public library?!) Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:19:38 -0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Liliam Subject: internet bookstores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robyn Starkey wrote: > No, sadly I don't think this is a joke. I have ordered a couple of > books > from Amazon, but never again. The first time, they sent me completely > the > wrong book, and then were rude about it when I complained, and both > times, > the books have taken weeks longer than promised to arrive. I would > like to > hear about more alternatives, particularly if there are internet > bookstores > who really are equipped to send books to Australia. In my experience, > lots > of places that advertise on the web don't really expect anyone outside > > their own country to want to use the services, even though the web is > obviously a global medium. I'm in Brazil and I have the same problem. I search for books on Amazon (specially to read other people's comments), but I usually order on Books Stack (http://www.books.com) because the shipping is much cheaper there and I haven't had any problem with them so far. You could also try http://www.altbookstore.com. Liliam ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:39:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <34BBB9D2.7937@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > They never had trouble figuring out what to do with him. > I don't have any problems figuring out what to do with Spock either. A pity he's only interested every 7 years. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:40:52 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FW: [*FSFFU*] / Troi / Trek etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > > And while I rambling ... while I have enjoyed ST in its varying > incarnations, one problem I have with it, and Next Generation tops this > list, is the lack of passion on board. The list has discussed the > various liasons the crews have had but have they have been with mostly > people off the ship. Among crew members there is little/no sex or > fighting - everyone gets along - I find them all kind of white-bread. > DS9 is the notable exception to this. Yes! I find that I get bored with the show. Another reason I stopped watching is that I could predict exactly what would happen with most of the interpersonal relationships, which was nothing. There are some exceptions, but for the most part the characters are too predictable. On DS9 they have focused more on developing the characters as a whole, with an entire life, rather than just having them sit around the bridge or ten-four. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:54:57 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Personally, I'd prefer to stay away from vampire stuff. Of course, many people seem to like it. For some reason. Hope Ann Rice isn't reading this. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:03:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-09 01:23:37 EST, you write: << 1) For every person I know, I think I could find a member of the opposite sex who could, with a little coaching before-hand, slip into his/her body and not be challenged as an impostor. >> Do you not find that men and women have different basic speech patterns that you have to consider when you're writing dialogue? And haven't you noticed that men and women move differently? And I have come to believe that men are naturally much more aggressive, and women are naturally more inclined to strive for win-win than I win-you-lose scenarios, and so forth. Much of this is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:07:35 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: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Sean, I do remember that episode, and at the beginning it was quite charming -- I particularly found the scene where he obsesses over what outfit to wear to be amusing; I remember it as the first, and one of the rare, scenes in which the character showed any evidence of a sense of humor. They fixed it real good by the end of the show, though, by having the women realize that they really shouldn't be in charge, that the men should. Partnership? Equality? It is to laugh. Perhaps I exaggerate; it's been a long time. But that's how I remember it. Might as well have been Queen of Outer Space, with Zsa Zsa Gabor and Eric Fleming, which is at least 30 years older than the TNG episode. Vonda On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:17:32 -0600, Sean Johnston wrote: >> >>Maybe I'm practicing selective memory, but I can't >>recall an sf tv series in which any characters, >>male or female, dealt with their sexuality with >>any joy, pleasure, or fulfillment. > >Well, there's always Riker. Remember him on the planet ruled by women? > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:04:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-09 02:50:02 EST, you write: << Sorry to write a "Yeah, me too" message, but, I too would be very interested in a focused discussion on Rimrunners, although I'm not absolutely sure of its availability ( >> Sounds good to me, if we can find copies. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:06:10 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Remco de Zwart Subject: Online Bookstores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >has Amazon.com been mistaken for a Bookstore? i thought it was an "online >enterprise" > >in jest only, Robyn Starkey wrote: No, sadly I don't think this is a joke. I have ordered a couple of books from Amazon, but never again. The first time, they sent me completely the wrong book, and then were rude about it when I complained, and both times, the books have taken weeks longer than promised to arrive. I would like to hear about more alternatives, particularly if there are internet bookstores who really are equipped to send books to Australia. In my experience, lots of places that advertise on the web don't really expect anyone outside their own country to want to use the services, even though the web is obviously a global medium. ************************************************************** I frequently buy books from Amazon.com (that or receive shipments of books from my family as gifts via Amazon.com). I now live in The Netherlands, though I spent the first 24 years of my life in a small rural town in Texas. During my time in that town in Texas, finding interesting books was a difficult task. The school's library was, sadly, a bad joke, and the so-called city library, which was housed in a room smaller than your average ladies room in a department store, was embarrassing at best. In those days I would have killed for the internet and Amazon.com. The nearest bookstore was only accessible if you had a car and had no qualms about spending the money on the fuel it would cost to drive 20 miles to it. That bookstore was one of your typical megastores. Most of the books I wanted, which weren't even in the feminist genre, weren't on the shelves. Now that I live in the Netherlands, finding many of the books I am interested in is even more difficult. Due to the dense population of Holland, it is pretty difficult to be far away from a bookstore. But finding a bookstore with many feminist sf/fantasy books on the shelves becomes even more daunting because these books--English language books as opposed to books translated into Dutch--are all imported. Thus the selection is very limited. Amazon.com has been a wonderful way for me to find out what books are in print. It is also a great way for me to AFFORD these books, since the 30% hardcover discount and 20% paperback discount help offset the cost of shipping (ESPECIALLY if you do surface shipping). I am currently a student, so these discounts are very important to my accessibility to a great many books that are not in any of the libraries here. As far as problems with Amazon.com, I have never had any. The correct books have always arrived within the estimated surface shipping time listed on their web page. The one time I did have a problem (a book arrived damaged due to a manufacturing error), Amazon.com were extremely curteous. They sent me another copy of the book by airmail and didn't require me to send the damaged book back (since the shipping cost would have been prohibitive). The service was quick and friendly. As far as used book stores go, I find Bibliofind and the Advanced Book Exchange to be wonderful sources to find many out-of-print books. Since these two sites contain over a 1000 booksellers, some of which are small family-run or single-person-run establishments, the selection is wonderful. For me, the internet has opened up a world of possibilities in furthering my intellectual growth. I can find information on feminist sf/fantasy books on this site, for example, and then locate and purchase the books on the online bookstore sites. Sharon Clark ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:29:43 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tracy MacShane wrote: > > Vonda wrote: > >I did like -- this is one reason I stuck with the > show so long -- seeing the women characters _talk_ > to each other, sometimes even in the absence of > men characters -- ! > --------- > There is an Alison Bechdel cartoon I particularly like (Dykes to Watch Out > For), where 2 characters are discussing what movie to see. One character > has a list of requirements a friend suggested: > a) There must be 2 women, who > b) TALK to each other, > c) about something besides a MAN Vonda and Tracy, yes. Sometimes it seems the only time women are shown talking to each other is if they are Evil Women Making Plots. As a scientist, I notice in particular the portrayal of female scientists. Although it is now more common to show women in such roles, there is still a tendancy to make them supporting characters rather than the innovaters, or the ones who come up with the solution. Too often if a story involves a group of scientists, the primary woman in the group will be the gorgeous young graduate student (or equivalent) being mentored by an older man (who often becomes her lover). Or else she will have a b*tchy personality. Her only interaction with other female characters will be as a rival or just plain nasty, with the women shown as suspicious of each other, if they interact at all. In a group of students the girl will be gorgeous and supportive, a prize for the genius male student after he comes up with the answer to whatever problem they face. Why not a female genius, the nerd who solves the thorny problem, saves the day, wins the guy, isn't made out to be a b*tch, and is friendly to other women. Once when I was at a conference in atomic and molecular physics, the seven or so of us female physicsts got a table at lunch. We were all eating and talking away when a group of our male colleagues came up and asked us (jokingly) if we were "plotting" against the guys. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:10:26 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you write: << Anyway, sorry to blather on. Monica >> Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:31:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-10 08:46:36 EST, you write: << Now that I think about it - where are the long term relationships at in any ST show? >> I was talking to Richard Hatch at a WorldCon when he was asking people for advice on doing SF on TV. I said that if he wanted to do something really innovative on TV, he should let one of the heroes get married and stay that way. "A man in love with his wife is much sexier than a man who bops around from babe to babe," I told him. He said, "Well, since I've just finished ten years of therapy for intimacy problems, maybe I can handle that." Interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:57:53 -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 Susan Walto wrote: > > This reminded me of the recent storyline of Kira (sp?) carrying O'Brien and > Keiko's child. I especially appreciated that she could be pregnant and > still be in a position of authority. The differences in Bajoran and Earth > pregnancies and births was fairly well done. As someone who recently went > through this experience, I was well aware that some people marginalize > pregnant women. (You mean you can still do your job and be pregnant at the > same time?! :-) Susan, I missed the one storyline about Kira, but I heard it was well done. In the episode where Troi had a child, there is a subtly powerful scene where a "nine" months pregnant Troi waddles onto the bridge to sit in her chair (i use quotations for nine because her pregnancy was accelerated to a matter of days, if I remember correctly). Wesley is at his station and he turns to look at her with the classic expression of a teen-age boy who isn't sure what to make of a Very Pregnant Woman. What made it so well done is that no one else on the bridge blinked at her coming onto duty. The scene simultaneously acknowledged that yes, this does unsettle some people, and there is nothing wrong with that, but that it is still natural and doesn't detract from the pregnant woman's ability to do her job. Now if they had only given Troi an actual job to do ... Best regards Catherine Asari http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:57:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >Maybe I'm practicing selective memory, but I can't > >recall an sf tv series in which any characters, > >male or female, dealt with their sexuality with > >any joy, pleasure, or fulfillment. > The one speculative fiction show that's certainly had no problem showing sexuality and relationships that I could think of would be Highlander. I can remember watching the first season and being impressed by the way they showed the relationship between Duncan and Tessa: two strong characters happily in love in a committed relationship. And it's not a one-time thing either. Duncan's had a number of long-term stable, happy relationships (Little Deer, et. al) I do wish that Alexandra V. hadn't left the show. It was interesting to see how they tried to develop a strong character who wasn't necessarily a fighter. There were some good moments, and I think the writers were honestly trying to avoid her being kidnapped every week by the guest baddie. (And in some ways, Paraborg could learn a lesson from the Highlander production folks. When HL's first ratings came out, they were shocked to discover that the show skewed heavily female, not the 18-24 male demographic that seems so cherished. Instead of deciding to retool the show, and go for male viewers, they stuck with what they thought was a good product, and found advertisors who were interested in reaching current viewers.) I'm one of the first people to admit Highlander's flaws (including the entire sixth season) but it's nice to see someone try something a little different, and be rewarded with a program that was profitable for 5 years. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:22:33 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Catherine: Yes, portrayal of women scientists is always interesting.Of course, there is always the "Susan Calvin" prototype (in Asimov's Robot stories), who was basically female-nerd-to-the-rescue. She wasn't exactly the most sympathetic character - Asimov's portrayal of the men's reactions to her was *interesting* - and of course, nowhere near "glam" enough a stereotype for TV/movies. Of course, being "intellectual" and a scientist, she never interacted with other female characters, other than to talk down to them. One thing about traditional s/f that irritated me for years! Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:27:05 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: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jill, You're absolutely right about Highlander, and -- since it's one of my own guilty pleasures -- I should always let email (especially cranky email) age on my HD for 24 hours before I mail it! I liked McLeod's relationship with the doctor and wished it had continued. For some reason I never warmed to Tessa particularly. (And my only reaction to Amanda is, "Would somebody please take that girl out and FEED her?") Vonda On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:57:24 -0500, Jill Gillham wrote: > >The one speculative fiction show that's certainly had no problem showing >sexuality and relationships that I could think of would be Highlander. ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:22:14 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: Book gp etc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just like to put in my plug for Ammonite or Slow River (which I haven't read and look forward to) as books for discussion. Look forward to it, even though I still haven't figured out how it's going to operate. Also hi to Tracy from another enzed resident - I remember that Bechdel cartoon gave me a great laugh too. Jenny Rankine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:09:44 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Quiltrek Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Star Trek and Talking Women Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Tracy McShane writes< a list of requirements a) There must be 2 women, who b) TALK to each other, c) about something besides a MAN>> This is priceless! One of the reasons I have enjoyed Voyager (despite it's gaping flaws)....Women do talk to each other--not about men, children, clothing or shopping. The women frequently have the ideas, solve the conundrum, save the ship..... Once the writers allowed Janeway to maintain consciousness during a crisis, there has been quite a bit of woman-woman interaction. Seven of Nine, despite the costume (a costume which the actor *likes* BTW), has actually turned out to be one of the best "outsiders" observing humanoid behavior Trek has had since Spock. (There are other similarities--but that is not for this listserv). BTW, there WAS an episode where Kim was kidnapped by a sex starved queen (ok, civilization) and rescued by the crew....not exactly the captain, but close........ Trek has never been cutting edge anything (although I have enjoyed all its incarnations) It has always reflected the [male] white middle class myth of the United States. In the late sixties, the young brash hero who is in love with his ship (read horse, car); TNG: the corporate hero; DS9; the distaff corporate hero who holds out against the bureaucracy on the front lines; Voyager: all those ODD (skin is not white, features are not perfect, gender is not male, etc) people are becoming more prominent...or maybe more apparent. Who drew that wonderful comparison between the Federation and the U.S. foreign policy? It amazes me that this "space opera" can have several levels of meaning... Barbera ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:24:01 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Star Trek and Talking Women MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Quiltrek wrote: > > BTW, there WAS an episode where Kim was kidnapped by a sex starved queen (ok, > civilization) and rescued by the crew....not exactly the captain, but close........ Well, for heaven sakes. Do you remember the title? I will have to look it up. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:55:08 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: The Postman In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Pat wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > > Almost > > > everyone I know in the U.S. owns at least one gun. > > > > Stacey, your argument's shaky and the comment's a little off-base. I live > > smack-dab in the middle of downtown of the city of Detroit, and other than my > > best friend's father's (non-working) service revolver from the Vietnam era, I > > know *no-one* who owns a gun, let alone more. That is a media myth, one that is > > both exported and exteranlly fabricated, and I suggest it is best to scrap the > > fallacy now. > > > That's neither true nor a media myth. It's a regional thing and a town > vs country thing. If we're talking small villages in Eastern Oregon, > yes, they'd all be armed. If we're talking suburban Albuquerque, no, > they wouldn't be, unless they were hobbyists or hunters.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu Pat is right. I have spent most of my life in the rural South. -Everyone- I know owns at least -one- gun, usually more. I now live in a mid-sized college community and most of the people I know own guns (though I haven't taken a difinitive survey). Most of the men I know go hunting. Lots of my friends go target shooting. I know two boys who got their first guns as gifts this past Christmas. In my city there are hunting stores, a dozen pawn shops and a couple of private dealers where I can pick up a gun. Maybe it's a Southern thing. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:21:05 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: The Postman In-Reply-To: <34BB1BCB.D607155C@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > More > > Same here (though I have yet to see the movie, I'm looking at the novel) (snip) > Actually, going off of Brin's views of the Holnists: Nathan Holn, a 20th > century survivalist who was widely published and promoted (then later > assassinated), set down, in one of his books, the laws that the Holnists > in the novel live by. None of the novel's Holnists would defy Holn's > philosophy. Holn was a madman's Machiavelli. If the Holnist violence > the discussion here has mentioned is even 20% of what is actually in the > movie, then I would have to say the the movie is merely skimming Holn. In the movie, Holn was only mentioned as a figure to be revered. I think that one of the letters the postman carried called him "a crazy farmer". And the violence of the Holnists was pretty graphic in a couple of places. > > Consider the alternatives: mucking around in the dirt trying to survive or > > riding around on horseback getting whatever you need without having to > > work for it. That's quite appealing to a lot of people. > Sure, but after you're done mucking around with Billy Crystal, it's time > to go home. The vast majority of the people that this "lifestyle" > appeals to are *very* comfortable in front of their big screen tvs > drinking Diet Coke - they wouldn't know an artesian well from a Jack > Benny "Well." The Holnists aren't those people (even the civil, > stockbroker Holnist in the novel can't quite pull off what he has to) - > the Holnists are the bullies you had to deal with in grade school. That was my point. The Holnists prefered riding around terrorizing weaker people rather than do the hard work of growing food and gathering resources themselves. And you are right, most people modern Americans aren't capable of surviving the harsh conditions of life after an holocaust. This "grade school bully" mentallity was well shown. The Holnists were portrayed as arrogent bullies out to get whatever they could with the least amount of effort. Any sign of resistance was met with violence. (snip) > > I think that the only way to add more complexity to the bad guys was to > > make the movie longer. 2 and a half hours was long enough! > Actually, I doubt that's true. Costner would have had a better return > and a stronger audience if he had gone for a cable tv mini-series of six > or so hours. That way, the project could have pulled all of the novel's > threads out *and* cleaned up those nasty "why are the women so odd" > questions... Interesting idea. It probably would have worked better than a long movie. > > And Green-Tooth volunteered to go after Costner > > Sorry...pet-peeve alert: Green-Tooth didn't go after Costner, he went after > Gordon. Costner's character is not named in the movie that I recall. He might have introduced himself at one point, but I don't recall anyone calling him anything but The Postman. > That tends to be my gauge for how well an actor has done in a movie - > when he or she no longer show themselves in the role (ie., I think of > Batman/Bruce Wayne when I think of BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS, but I > think of Val Kilmer when I think of BATMAN FOREVER). If you don't see > Gordon, but Costner, then Costner seems to have failed playing that > character... I think Costner did a decent, though not brilliant, acting job in this movie. I think one of the problems with using a famous (as opposed to an unknown) actor is that you can get jarred out of the narrative of a movie by a characteristic gesture or expression and become aware that you are sitting in a theater watching a movie. This happened once or twice during *The Postman* for me. This also happened during *As Good As It Gets* with Jack Nicholson. Nicholson's face has become so familiar, that a couple of times I got startled out of the flow of the movie. (snip) > - Geoffrey > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:11:20 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: FW: [*FSFFU*] / Troi / Trek etc. Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-13 16:17:58 EST, Sheryl Stahl wrote: > > Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > > > > > I always thought Troi's biggest problem ( is the > > > trouble with any character with special powers on a TV series, especially > > > an empath. The writers didn't really know what to do with her. An alien > > > ship fires on the Enterprise, and Troi gets a line like, "I'm sensing > > > hostility." :P > > > To take this one step further, I think that the problem is that once a > character has special powers/characteristics writers (at least ST > writers) tend to focus on only that aspect of the character. Troi's most > interesting episodes, IMO, are the ones where they treat her as a > "person" and not as an "empath", eg. the episode in which she was trying > to earn a promotion, or the one where she ended up in command of the > bridge section when it was separated from the saucer (or was it the > other way around). I think that this is a common real life problem too > - not that I know too many empaths - but I think its easy to get > pigeon-holed by one characteristic ... I too found the Troi episodes I liked the best were the ones that dealt with her as a "person" and not an "empath". I think you have an excellent point in the writers tending to "pidgeon-hole" certain characters. While she wasn't on the show long enough for it to show very well, I seem to remember Yar getting pidgeon-holed to a certain degree, and certainly Wesley did. (I realize the list probably isn't much concerned about poor Good-Old-Boy-Network-Using Wesley, but as a teenager I was pretty concerned over how the only teenager on Star Trek was treated.) Every few weeks he was putting the entire ship in danger only to save the universe. There was so much more they could have done with the character, so much more growing up he could have done that they never explored. Anyway, I think Yar got pidgeon-holed a great deal, and Dr. Pulaski did as well - other characters got hobbies, but I don't remember either character having a hobby, or anything they did for fun - they were the dour, humor-less "feminist-type" women (and I say that in the way that most of our detractors would say "feminist"), since they were neither mothers nor sex objects, and didn't spend their time lamenting their single-ness. I will allow that it's been an awfully long time since I saw the first couple of seasons of TNG, and that it's possible the hobbies would have come in time, since both characters were only on for a season (or was Pulaski on for two?), but Riker was given the trombone with the first couple episodes (I think the premier, in fact), and other characters were given their hobbies early on as well. > And while I rambling ... while I have enjoyed ST in its varying > incarnations, one problem I have with it, and Next Generation tops this > list, is the lack of passion on board. The list has discussed the > various liasons the crews have had but have they have been with mostly > people off the ship. Among crew members there is little/no sex or > fighting - everyone gets along - I find them all kind of white-bread. > DS9 is the notable exception to this. That is an excellent point. And while there is a fine line to be drawn (for a while I was hearing people refer to DS9 as "The Love Boat", after all), it helps if the show is willing to try to find that line. I do find it hard to believe that with a complement of 1100 or whatever it was (I realize that was civilians and children were included in that number), the only two people who paired up on TNG were Miles O'Brien and Keiko (although I really like the way their relationship has been treated on DS9 - sometimes wonderful, sometimes rocky, kinda like... life). Well, that's me babbling. Thanks for reading, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:31:26 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: "local bookstores" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-13 03:06:44 EST, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > I think, folks, we know where to go with tracking down our books. I've > volunteered to set up the web site, and I'll plug some links in for any and > all bookstores people suggest (yes, I'm sorry, even to Amazon - some of us > still use them from time to time)... > > So who's going to tabulate the votes? If no one else has the time for it, I can tabulate the votes. Jennifer, just tell me when to expect them and when you want the numbers crunched. :) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:29:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <4cb46cb2.34bc1cea@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Much of this >is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. > Care to define 120% male? Or how being raised by a single female parent eliminates societal influences? Considering that studies have shown that infants are held and played with differently based on their presumed gender, I find it difficult to believe that the nature/nuture question regarding gendered behaviors can be answered that easily. Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:53:11 -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: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply -Reply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Debra Euler wrote: > >>> Kmfriello - 1/12/98 10:59 PM >>> > In a message dated 98-01-12 09:49:08 EST, wrote: > > >>Really? Stolen from whom? > Other bookstores, mostly. It's rather like a pawn shop--if the same > guy comes in with a tv every other week, it's pretty doubtful that > all were gifts. I think we're all asking: how were they stolen? Are other bookstores stripping and throwing out their books, and the Strand comes along and picks them up from the dumpster? Are these possibly remainders that have filtered to them? - G ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:17:40 -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: Re: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jill Gillham wrote: > The one speculative fiction show that's certainly had no problem showing > sexuality and relationships that I could think of would be Highlander. I > can remember watching the first season and being impressed by the way they > showed the relationship between Duncan and Tessa: two strong characters > happily in love in a committed relationship. And it's not a one-time thing > either. Duncan's had a number of long-term stable, happy relationships > (Little Deer, et. al) That's promising...though I must admit I won't be watching the series any time soon (I'm a bit of a purist concerning that storyline, and stopped watching anything from the franchise after the horrid H2). But it is sort of funny to see "a number of long-term stable, happy relationships"... :) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:51:58 -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: The Postman In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Pat wrote: >> That's neither true nor a media myth. It's a regional thing and a town >> vs country thing. If we're talking small villages in Eastern Oregon, >> yes, they'd all be armed. If we're talking suburban Albuquerque, no, >> they wouldn't be, unless they were hobbyists or hunters.> >> >> Patricia (Pat) Mathews >> mathews@unm.edu At 12:55 AM 1/14/98 -0600, you wrote: >Pat is right. I have spent most of my life in the rural South. -Everyone- >I know owns at least -one- gun, usually more. I now live in a mid-sized >college community and most of the people I know own guns (though I haven't >taken a difinitive survey). Most of the men I know go hunting. Lots of my >friends go target shooting. I know two boys who got their first guns as >gifts this past Christmas. In my city there are hunting stores, a dozen >pawn shops and a couple of private dealers where I can pick up a gun. >Maybe it's a Southern thing. > >Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) I would say it's regional. I live in the Northeast, and the 2 people that I know who have a gun are people who wished they could move out West. If people do own guns, they keep that knowledge to themselves. No one I know is impressed by gun ownership. In fact, in Massachusetts, IIRC, it's illegal to transport a gun in the body of the car -- it has to be in a locked case in the (locked) trunk, separated from the ammo. There's even a huge outcry against Paintball, because it promotes the idea of shooting at someone else. Certainly there are hunting stores, but I wouldn't say more than two or three for the 60 mile radius around me. All the Caldor and Sears have Sporting Sections where you can purchase hunting equipment. Keep in mind, though, that the cities are tightly packed up here, butting up against the town next to them with no gap inbetween. There are few places to target practice available. Hunting is much more prevalent farther north (Maine, when it's de-iced) where the forests and deer are available. got to go take my tyke to school, (he's shouting in the background, "Come ON! Come ON!") :-) 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, 7 Jan 1998 07:25:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Sound Byte Comments: To: Suzette Haden Elgin , Jean Lamb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From a murder mystery set in Las Cruces, NM (the detective is an engineer _ I like her a lot) "Carjones" (Spanglish) Meaning he has cojones when he's in his car. That's half of New Mexico! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:37:10 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The books I originally recommended as good deals from the Strand are their new books at half price. The Strand carries new books at a discount, used books, uncorrected proofs, and "rare books" in a separate section. I still don't understand which of these are supposed to be stolen, and, again, from whom. I, also, have been a member of the "publishing community" in NYC for about 15 years, and have never heard this about the Strand (an admittedly funky place, but a goldmine for booklovers) from anyone in publishing or from our circle of rabid book-hunters. I don't mean to be antagonistic or to doubt Debra's word: I've just never heard this---and again, unless there's proof of real harm done to individuals, I wouldn't let a rumor keep me away from the store. Since Barnes and Noble went decorative and closed their 18th Street discount store, and a number of other small second-hand bookstores have quietly disappeared, there are fewer and fewer places to go for cheap books. I buy at full price from favored bookstores when there's a particular book I want, but I buy over 100 books a year, and most of them are after sifting through stores like the Strand or Second-Storey Books in DC. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:40:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Apologizing and Womyn On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:10:26 EST Lurima said: > In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you (Monica) wrote: > > << > Anyway, sorry to blather on. > Monica > > >> > > Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech > patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything > wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. > (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to > make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound > sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) > > Barbara > I agree 100%...I am quite guilty not only of apologizing when there is no real reason to apologize, but also of thanking people who should be thanking me!! (i.e. making a purchase) Penny (ever-struggling to assert my feminist agenda) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:52:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: avoiding megastores,supporting the list -Reply -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> "Geoffrey D. Sperl" wrote: - > >>Really? Stolen from whom? > Other bookstores, mostly. It's rather like a pawn shop--if the same > guy comes in with a tv every other week, it's pretty doubtful that > all were gifts. >>I think we're all asking: how were they stolen? Are other bookstores stripping and throwing out their books, and the Strand comes along and picks them up from the dumpster? Are these possibly remainders that have filtered to them? I didn't mean to get into a big thing about this! :-) But, it works like this (and I worked 4 years in a bookstore, so I know about book theft): a thief goes into a NYC bookstore like B. Dalton or B &N and steals books, generally hardcover bestsellers or other expensive titles. They then sell these books directly on the street from a table or blanket, frequently *right outside the store where they stole them,* or they sell these books to a used bookstore like the Strand, which buys books directly from consumers who want to get rid of excess books they don't want or have already read. There is nothing wrong with a used bookstore buying books from people, especially in NYC where many people get review copies they don't want, but some unscrupulous used bookstore managers will buy the same books repeatedly from the same people. Like I said, how many copies of "Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil" can one person sell before the buyer begins to suspect that they weren't all personal copies or gifts? And it is dishonest to buy books that you *know* must be stolen. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:52:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Re: prejudice Catherine Asaro wrote: ---------- Once when I was at a conference in atomic and molecular physics, the seven or so of us female physicsts got a table at lunch. We were all eating and talking away when a group of our male colleagues came up and asked us (jokingly) if we were "plotting" against the guys. ---------- Incredible. That's horrible. I've been sitting here trying to respond to that for ten minutes and still can't stop just being appalled. It's somehow worse that these were physicists, with whom you might have wanted to share a mutual respect; and that they seem not to have realized just what they were doing by saying that. There's so much horribly wrong with that. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com It's too bad I like being a man so much, since I'm not too fond of men. :) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:01:00 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: NESchaadt Subject: Re: OT: Interchangeability In-Reply-To: <4cb46cb2.34bc1cea@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I interviewed a consultant about the body language differences between men and women. Although I find generalizations repugnant, the consultant had interesting observations. In a business setting men tend to spread out--arms behind their head or draped over the chairs to either side--whereas women tend to be more compact, using only their 'allotted' space. Women also tend to concentrate on the speaker, nod, smile and make non verbal noises that say 'I'm listening' nothing more, nothing less. The speaker, if male, may interpret the activity as a rousing endorsement. Men tend to fidget, do things with their hands or talk as they listen, leading to a workplace lament of 'you're not listening to me.' Again, generalizations are dangerous. I believe that if we send each gender to a planet, we eliminate the incentive to effectively communicate. Nancy Schaadt At 09:03 PM 1/13/98 EST, Barbara wrote: >Do you not find that men and women have different basic speech patterns that >you have to consider when you're writing dialogue? And haven't you noticed >that men and women move differently? And I have come to believe that men are >naturally much more aggressive, and women are naturally more inclined to >strive for win-win than I win-you-lose scenarios, and so forth. Much of this >is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. > >Barbara > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:04:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: internet bookstores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I'm in Brazil, too, and I have ordered many times from Amazon.com and it was always fine. I had some problems with BookStacks previously, since 1) once I complained about something and the reply was somewhat rude and 2) once the package was damaged in the way. But, in general, I think that things like that can happen sometimes regardless of which library are you buying from. just my 2 cents Elisa http://sites.uol.com.br/citizen http://sites.uol.com.br/cyborg http://www.geocities.com/paris/leftbank/8592 Liliam wrote: > I'm in Brazil and I have the same problem. I search for books on Amazon > (specially to read other people's comments), but I usually order on > Books Stack (http://www.books.com) because the shipping is much cheaper > there and I haven't had any problem with them so far. You could also try > > http://www.altbookstore.com > > Liliam ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:08:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Barbara wrote: ---------- In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you write: << Anyway, sorry to blather on. Monica >> Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) ---------- Hmm. I disagree. Actually, I agree that that is probably more prevalent for women, but I think that goes way too far as a generalization. I make disclaimers or equivocations or what have you like that all the time. I seem to have noticed that more in email or internet lists than in speech, both from men and women. I guess I don't do it so often in speech, but I certainly do it in posts where I think I have overrun. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com Though, I suppose an obvious caveat would be that I certainly don't like to consider myself a "typical" man - but then, I don't like that sort of global categorization anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:18:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Romance in SF television Vonda wrote: ---------- Maybe I'm practicing selective memory, but I can't recall an sf tv series in which any characters, male or female, dealt with their sexuality with any joy, pleasure, or fulfillment. ---------- And someone else wrote: ---------- I was talking to Richard Hatch at a WorldCon when he was asking people for advice on doing SF on TV. I said that if he wanted to do something really innovative on TV, he should let one of the heroes get married and stay that way. "A man in love with his wife is much sexier than a man who bops around from babe to babe," I told him. He said, "Well, since I've just finished ten years of therapy for intimacy problems, maybe I can handle that." Interesting. ---------- I guess the obvious (if you watch it, that is) exception is Babylon 5. I think the love, romance, and, yes, sex between Sheridan and DeLenn is wonderful. Of course, she is part alien, but I don't think that matters within the framework of the show. She is very much a woman, and she is very, very strong, intelligent, and capable. There are several times that she saves Sheridan. Scenes in the final battle of the Shadow War and the final battle at Earth are intense in this regard. I also like the fact that while Sheridan is a Hero, he is far from perfect, and there are frequent reminders that DeLenn is smarter and more insightful than he is. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:17:27 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Troi In-Reply-To: <34c7f03a.650203006@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 13/01/98 22:57:24 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed "Vonda N. McIntyre" , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > This is the scene I always wanted to see in TNG: > > FADE IN > > > PICARD > What is it, Counselor? > > TROI > Captain, I perceive that everyone > on the ship is experiencing > _serious_ _feelings_ _of_ > _apprehension_! > > Picard stares at her in disbelief. Suddenly he > loses his cool in a completely un-Picard-like > manner (CUPLM). He would grab her by the shirt > front if she had one. Since she doesn't, and this > is tv, where sex is evil and violence is good, he > grabs her by the throat and shoves her up against > the wall. > > PICARD > (screaming CUPLM) > You dragged me off the bridge to > tell me _that_? You stupid @##$#! > When are you AND THE WRITERS > going to STOP WASTING MY TIME?! > > CUT. It works for me. Don't you think it's about time Jerry Zucker (sp?) did a Trek film? Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I am dyslexic of brog. Resicante is fugitive. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:17:15 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <34BC14B0.A4B@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 14/01/98 01:29:43 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Catherine Asaro , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: A whole bunch of stuff about scientists which I am not going to comment on, but which gives me an excuse to mention a possibly uniqe portrayal of scientists: Young Einstein. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel USER ERROR: replace user and press any key to continue. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:17:43 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <4cb46cb2.34bc1cea@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It was 14/01/98 02:03:17 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Lurima , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > In a message dated 98-01-09 01:23:37 EST, you write: > > << > 1) For every person I know, I think I could find a member of the > opposite sex who could, with a little coaching before-hand, slip into > his/her body and not be challenged as an impostor. > >> > > Do you not find that men and women have different basic speech patterns that > you have to consider when you're writing dialogue? And haven't you noticed > that men and women move differently? And I have come to believe that men are > naturally much more aggressive, and women are naturally more inclined to > strive for win-win than I win-you-lose scenarios, and so forth. Much of this > is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. > > Barbara Different basic speech patterns: I was going to say No, but I realised that this was a HIGHLY subjective view. Excluding my friends, most of the things people say to me tend to be along the lines of "That'll be £3.89, please," or "How do I get MS Word to..." Hmm, not much to go on there! My friends are probably as mad as I am, so perhaps I shouldn't base my answer on their speech patterns. Maybe I should get out more! Meet some NORMAL people! Men and women move differently: Yes, but only generally speaking. Take walking. Height for height, western women tend to have a shorter stride. Is this not due to high heels and tight skirts? Which reminds me, I can't remember what film I was watching a few weeks back, but in it a woman who was running for her life actually got rid of her dress shoes. Next there will be a horror film in which a woman DOESN'T go into the cellar! Sorry, where was I? Oh, yes; Men are naturally more agressive: I've never been entirely convinced by the argument that men's agressiveness is natural. I agree that most men are more agressive than most women, but I suspect conditioning rather than nature. Proving it would take several decades in carefully controlled environments, so it will have to remain my theory. >From a later message: > In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you write: > > << > Anyway, sorry to blather on. > Monica > > >> > > Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech > patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything > wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. > (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to > make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound > sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) No, I can't agree with you there. Maybe it is just the lunatics I spend most of my time with, but I see nothing gender-specific in the above mannerism. Ah, maybe I've just spotted what is happening here. You are looking for the differences, where as I am looking for similarities. In any case, it is long past time I crawled back into my box. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Madness takes its toll... please have exact change. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:31:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Female scientists In reference to the discussion, started (I think) by Catherine Asaro about protrayals of women scientists: Has anyone both read and seen Congo? I was _very_ disappointed with the movie version of Congo. I thought that the main character (whose name slips my mind) in the book was _very_ interesting. She was a woman who was _extremely_ good at her job, brilliant, very capable, but also very screwed up. She was driven, and she was very analytical, cold, and critical. I thought it was interesting how she initially broke down in the face of a situation she _couldn't_ control, and then rallied to deal with it. Her character was very non-traditional for a woman, but I thought that it wasn't unrealistic. It was obvious that in order to operate, as a drop-dead gorgeous woman in a male-dominated field, she had, if anything, erred on the side of being _excessively_ professional to the point of suppressing her emotions. She was very good at her work, but she had lost some humanity as a result. Anyway, the character in the film wasn't like this at all. She was a run-of-the-mill Hollywood "Smart woman Scientist" with all the expected "women's intuition", sensitivity, emotionality, etc., that serves to somehow subtly dismiss the character while at the same time making the film folks able to feel good about having been politically correct in having a woman in that role in the first place. Any thoughts on that? Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:40:50 -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: The Postman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:55 AM 1/14/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Pat wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: >> >> > > Almost >> > > everyone I know in the U.S. owns at least one gun. >> > >> > Stacey, your argument's shaky and the comment's a little off-base. I live >> > smack-dab in the middle of downtown of the city of Detroit, and other than my >> > best friend's father's (non-working) service revolver from the Vietnam era, I >> > know *no-one* who owns a gun, let alone more. That is a media myth, one that is >> > both exported and exteranlly fabricated, and I suggest it is best to scrap the >> > fallacy now. >> > >> That's neither true nor a media myth. It's a regional thing and a town >> vs country thing. If we're talking small villages in Eastern Oregon, >> yes, they'd all be armed. If we're talking suburban Albuquerque, no, >> they wouldn't be, unless they were hobbyists or hunters.> >> >> Patricia (Pat) Mathews >> mathews@unm.edu > >Pat is right. I have spent most of my life in the rural South. -Everyone- >I know owns at least -one- gun, usually more. I now live in a mid-sized >college community and most of the people I know own guns (though I haven't >taken a difinitive survey). Most of the men I know go hunting. Lots of my >friends go target shooting. I know two boys who got their first guns as >gifts this past Christmas. In my city there are hunting stores, a dozen >pawn shops and a couple of private dealers where I can pick up a gun. >Maybe it's a Southern thing. > >Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > >I live in New Orleans and everyone I know has at least one gun, but usually one for the house and one for the car. I keep mine on the bedstand where I can grab it in a hurry. When I lived in Boston I never had a gun, but my father did. He had a permit to carry a consealed weapon. He's now 88 and doesn't go out of the house without it. Linda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:05:32 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: OT: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Men tend to fidget, do things with their hands or talk as they listen, >leading to a workplace lament of 'you're not listening to me.' Again, >generalizations are dangerous. I believe that if we send each gender to a >planet, we eliminate the incentive to effectively communicate. While I agree with the hesitation to make generalisations, in my experience as a teacher of communication skills to computer science students it is clear that there are some basic differences in how the male and female students understand communication. And I'm not about to say that the girls were all great at it and the guys weren't. But the boys tended to be startled by the idea that feedback was an important part of workplace discussion, and they had a lot of trouble at first with the exercises that demanded they give positive and helpful feedback, especially in negative situations (eg how do you deal with a team member who isn't performing - lots of guys immediately said, yell at them). Many of the girls had trouble with initiating and leading discussion, they could be supportive, but they were quiet, and sometimes had trouble contributing. These are just some examples, and the point I really want to make is by the end of the semester, all of the students were a lot better at all aspects of communicating. For many of them, just being introduced to an idea like the way you sit and look (or don't look) at your colleagues will affect the way you communicate and work made a big difference. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:06:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Off-topic: nature vs nurture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain My two cents: IMHO, there's got to be some combination of nature and nurture. Catweasel wrote: I've never been entirely convinced by the argument that men's aggressiveness is natural. I agree that most men are more aggressive than most women, but I suspect conditioning rather than nature. There's quite a lot of medical research literature that supports the conclusion that levels of aggressiveness are closely tied to testosterone. Here's the simplistic explanation that associates aggression and gender: male and female embryos are basically the same up until about the 6th week when that pesky little Y chromosome causes the male embryo to be bathed in testosterone. The testosterone kicks off a bunch of changes in the embryo that contribute to its becoming male. How do we know the testosterone is to blame? Sometimes female embryos also get bathed in testosterone (causes not entirely unknown) and these females tend to exhibit higher levels of aggression as well. Lots and lots of studies have shown that aggressive feelings/behaviors are associated with temporary increases in testosterone in both males and females. The important thing to note, however, is that aggression isn't defined as just violent behavior. In one study, I think the researchers looked at the behavior of young children and counted how often kids interrupted others, took toys away from others, moved their chairs closer to the teacher during class discussions, became boisterous when answering questions, etc. Of course, I think how a person responds to aggressive feelings is strongly influenced by family, school, society, culture.... I haven't found much literature supporting other gender-determined characteristics like nurturance, emotionality, intuition and the like. But then again, I probably haven't found it. I'm one of those people who decides she's interested in a topic, goes to the universities' libraries, reads everything she can find until she runs out of gas, and then turns on the TV. -LeAnne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:15:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Hope everyone is aware that if one buys review copies or proofs from a bookstore at a reduced price, the author and publisher get no money from that transaction. These books are provided *free* to reviewers and others with links to the trade, and are not intended for resale. So buying a review copy does not benefit in any way that author you admire. Sale of a used book doesn't net the author any money either, but at least that's helping keep out-of-print stuff in circulation and thus keeping interest in the author alive. And the more people buying an author's work at a used-book store, the more likely the store is going to keep it on hand. As someone else here noted, if not for used bookstores there'd be virtually no audience for Theodore Sturgeon, among others. (Now, unfortunately, the biggest chain of used bookstores, Half- Price Books, is treating its used stock like a new-book store treats stock - rotating the stuff off the shelves after a few months to be donated to charity sales or literally recycled. So old stuff & oddities tend to disappear there.) Also, as I may have mentioned here before, if you buy an out-of-print book from A-mega-zon or some other on-line services you're basically paying a search fee to a middleperson. You can buy out-of-print books directly from independent used bookstores (where Amazon gets them) at www.interloc.com or www.bibliofind.com, or from the bookdealer(s) on this list. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:20:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list -Reply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Oh and by the way, it might be better not to discuss allegations of selling stolen property on a mailing list. I participate in a bookseller's mailing list that recently went through a messy and expensive lawsuit because of a discussion like this, and the list owner was implicated for "sponsoring" the discussion. That sort of thing threatens the very existence of the list, not to mention the finances of the list owner. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:22:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Off-topic: nature vs nurture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain CORRECTION: Stupidly, I said: I haven't found much literature supporting other gender-determined characteristics like nurturance, emotionality, intuition and the like. What I meant was: I haven't found much literature that supports the idea that characteristics like nurturance, emotionality, intuition are gender-determined. Sorry, LeAnne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:45:06 -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: Off-topic: nature vs nurture Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:06 AM 1/14/98 -0800, you wrote: >My two cents: > >IMHO, there's got to be some combination of nature and nurture. > > Catweasel wrote: > I've never been entirely convinced by the argument that men's >aggressiveness is natural. I agree that most men are more aggressive >than most women, but I suspect conditioning rather than nature. > >There's quite a lot of medical research literature that supports the >conclusion that levels of aggressiveness are closely tied to >testosterone. Here's the simplistic explanation that associates >aggression and gender: male and female embryos are basically the same >up until about the 6th week when that pesky little Y chromosome causes >the male embryo to be bathed in testosterone. The testosterone kicks off >a bunch of changes in the embryo that contribute to its becoming male. > >How do we know the testosterone is to blame? Sometimes female embryos >also get bathed in testosterone (causes not entirely unknown) and these >females tend to exhibit higher levels of aggression as well. Lots and >lots of studies have shown that aggressive feelings/behaviors are >associated with temporary increases in testosterone in both males and >females. The important thing to note, however, is that aggression isn't >defined as just violent behavior. In one study, I think the researchers >looked at the behavior of young children and counted how often kids >interrupted others, took toys away from others, moved their chairs >closer to the teacher during class discussions, became boisterous when >answering questions, etc. > >Of course, I think how a person responds to aggressive feelings is >strongly influenced by family, school, society, culture.... > >I haven't found much literature supporting other gender-determined >characteristics like nurturance, emotionality, intuition and the like. >But then again, I probably haven't found it. I'm one of those people who >decides she's interested in a topic, goes to the universities' >libraries, reads everything she can find until she runs out of gas, and >then turns on the TV. > >-LeAnne > >I raised two boys on my own and neither one is 125% male, in fact they are both generation x "new man" types. They can both talk on emotional levels, can be nurturing and don't watch sports. I think a lot has to do with the testosterone levels of the fathers, though I know of no evidence to support this theory. The man I married was a geeky kind of guy, kind of the gentle intellectual type who spent time either reading or in his art studio. We weren't together that long but he has been involved somewhat in their lives. I've since come out and been involved with a woman for 15 years and she was there during most of their adolescense and aldulthood. So, I don't know but I think there are levels of testosterone (sp) in men and that can account for some of the differences. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:43:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: avoiding megastores,supporting the list -Reply -Reply -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > of "Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil" can one person sell before > the buyer begins to suspect that they weren't all personal copies or > gifts? And it is dishonest to buy books that you *know* must be > stolen. > I hope to high heavens my own used bookstore, Birdsong, isn't reading this. I sell tons of them. And yes, they are my own personal copies. What happens is this - every once in a while I clean out my bookcases. And every so often I sell books I think i have memorized. Then buy them again because I want to re-read them. Crazy, yes. Crooked, no. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu "The Oddmother." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 10:46:17 -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 Group ideas. . . Comments: cc: Suzette Haden Elgin In-Reply-To: <00038B9F@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Linguist Suzette Haden Elgin points out that subordinate males use "female" speech patterns, and dominant females use "male" speech patterns, and concludes they have less to do with gender than with relative status. But one speech pattern I WILL reserve for women in our culture is to scold someone using all their names. ("John Jacob Jinglemeyer Schmidt, I'm TALKING to you!") Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:19:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: avoiding megastores,supporting the list -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain David-- You're right. I wondered about the appropriateness of my initial post; the topic happened to be on my mind because, just last week, I witnessed an altercation between a Greenwich Village chain-bookstore employee and a person reselling popular bestsellers directly across the street from the store. So I must stress that my info was only rumor. I just wanted readers to think about where their books were coming from, and who was benefiting, or not benefiting, from their sale. And you make some very good points about supporting writers through royalties. Most genre writers *need* their royalties. Buying new books, not stripped or resold books, keeps titles in print. And it keeps me in a job! :-) Debra Euler, DAW Books >>> DAVID CHRISTENSON - 1/14/98 12:20 PM >>> -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Oh and by the way, it might be better not to discuss allegations of selling stolen property on a mailing list. I participate in a bookseller's mailing list that recently went through a messy and expensive lawsuit because of a discussion like this, and the list owner was implicated for "sponsoring" the discussion. That sort of thing threatens the very existence of the list, not to mention the finances of the list owner. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:29:50 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: WaterLuv Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-14 10:41:25 EST, [Barbara, I think, but I DO apologize if I guessed wrongly] writes: > > Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech > > patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done > > anything wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. > > (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men > > tend to make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean > > to sound sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) > IMHO, and sorry if I'm out of place here: Apologies aren't a part of the male pattern of speech? Only females would continually beg pardon? Someone please come explain femininity to my wife, then. We've been married over 20 years, and I could count on the fingers of one hand the times she's apologized for anything. And I'd still have fingers left to count the players on a hockey team! I understand that Barb is dealing with "the broad sweep" of humanity, not one specific person. But I don't think I'm the only male who's ever felt the need to apologize for something I really thought was the other side's fault, but which was poisoning the relationship and needed to be set aside. The theme shows up often enough in sitcoms that I am convinced that there is at least a bit of universality in male faux-apologies. Forgive me for taking up the group's time on this diversion. To get back to the theme of fiction writing, I think there is grave danger in adopting ANY stereotypes that broadly direct or limit what a character of a certain type may say. It doesn't do to have all Japanese confuse their "r's" and "l's" or to have all Negroes love watermelon, or to have all women be dispensers of humble pie. People are like the weather, usually unusual. Good writing must explore the unusual in believable ways, and delight in the unique diversity of the human tapestry while exposing the underlying warp and woof, which unites humanity. Again, I regret taking so much of your time, and ask Barbara's forgiveness for disagreeing with her. She's probably right, anyway. :-) Jim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:24:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: lots of topics -- all over the place Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On guns: My folks live in a mid-sized town of Oregon, and they don't even have my dad's old Navy pistol in the house, nor do most of their neighbors. I wonder if this is something of a class issue as well? Guns being more common at the extremes, and not so much in the middle? All speculation on my point. Stars My Destination is a nifty store, as is its sister store, Dreamhaven. There are a number of indy SF bookstores out there: Dark Carnival, Future Fantasy, Dangerous Visions, Space-Crime Continuum, Adventures in Crime and Space (hey, Robin, they're in Texas -- Austin -- maybe shipping is cheaper in state?), and surely more which I am not thinking of at the moment. I hope everyone is able to find a workable and affordable source for zir books on here. :) Liked Sharon's story of finding the books she needs now, after a dry spell in her youth. My name: It really is Maryelizabeth, and I don't shorten it by anything but extreme measures, to Me. No Mary Beth, Mary Liz, Polly Betsy, or any other variations, thanks much. Star Trek, etc: "Catie" Asaro : wrote: >Mary Beth, this is the reason that is always given, but I don't buy it. >For one thing, Spock also have special powers, in some ways more so than >Troi. They never had trouble figuring out what to do with him. > >A good writer can always figure out what to do with such a character, if >they want. My entire Ruby Dynasty/Skolian Empire Saga is about a >dynasty of telepaths. I never have trouble figuring out what to do with >them! Catherine: Fair enough. I guess the problem is a lack of "good" writers to address this problem. Vonda: LOVED THE SCENE! ROFLMHO! BTW, do you think perhaps if the writers had acknowledged characters' sexuality, we would have seen more families on the ships, instead of token kids when they were needed for a story line? Trac' reminded us: >There is an Alison Bechdel cartoon I particularly like (Dykes to Watch Out >For), where 2 characters are discussing what movie to see. One character >has a list of requirements a friend suggested: >a) There must be 2 women, who >b) TALK to each other, >c) about something besides a MAN that is a great one! I had forgotten that one -- I think my favorite of hers is the Alphabet running thru her 1986 collection, covering lesbians of every stripe. And speaking -- sorta -- of Sex, did anyone catch X:WP, "Warrior .. Priestess ... Tramp?" I almost fell out of bed laughing at some of the lines that went by! Patricia (Pat) Mathews stated: > I don't have any problems figuring out what to do with Spock >either. A pity he's only interested every 7 years. Really? Spock, huh? Was I the only kid on the block with a jones for Bones? One good show with a SF-nal twist and a strong female scientist character, as well as a female character with special powers that I haven't seen mentioned here is Nickelodeon's "Alex Mack." I don't catch it all the time, but it hits fewer cliches than most shows, it seems to me. The only one they are really bad about is the "dad as buffoon" one, and that is often rescued by his relationship with the girls, particularly Annie, the older scientist oriented daughter. Speech patterns: Barbara observed in response to: >> Anyway, sorry to blather on. >>Monica >Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech >patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything >wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. >(Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to >make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound >sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) However, netiquitte is a little different, n'est-ce pas? Sorta imposes "female" speech patterns on all of us, in some ways, because statements are often softened. Hmmm, food for thought. I would like to cast a vote for _Slow River- as well, while reminding people that in the US at least, it is only available in the trade paperback, AFAIK. Phew! That ought ot be enough for any one digest. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:26:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Re: Interchangeability Jim wrote: ---------- Forgive me for taking up the group's time on this diversion. To get back to the theme of fiction writing, I think there is grave danger in adopting ANY stereotypes that broadly direct or limit what a character of a certain type may say. It doesn't do to have all Japanese confuse their "r's" and "l's" or to have all Negroes love watermelon, or to have all women be dispensers of humble pie. People are like the weather, usually unusual. Good writing must explore the unusual in believable ways, and delight in the unique diversity of the human tapestry while exposing the underlying warp and woof, which unites humanity. ---------- Here, here! (or is that Hear, hear!?) :) Anyway, well said. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:31:47 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group)- facetious? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: WaterLuv > > Apologies aren't a part of the male pattern of speech? Only females would > continually beg pardon? Someone please come explain femininity to my wife, > then. With tongue firmly in cheek, I'd like to point out that, at least according to the TV show Due South, apologizing is a national trait, not a gendered one . Apparently Canadians do it and Americans don't. "Thank you kindly." Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:34:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jim wrote: I understand that Barb is dealing with "the broad sweep" of humanity, not one specific person. But I don't think I'm the only male who's ever felt the need to apologize for something I really thought was the other side's fault, but which was poisoning the relationship and needed to be set aside. The theme shows up often enough in sitcoms that I am convinced that there is at least a bit of universality in male faux-apologies. I think people are talking about the casual apologizing for inconsequential things when no apology is required or expected. No matter what gender you happen to be (or feel you are), you're always gonna want to be right and have others acknowledge that with apologies for their "wrongness." I've never known a man or woman who has exactly the same story as the one Jim described. But that, I think, is an entirely different situation from the one Barbara (?) was bringing up. One is a battle of wills, the other is a habit of casual speech. The debate is whether women's speech generally follows more apologetic patterns than men's. Is it generally more hesitant? Are qualifiers (like "maybe...," "...do you think?", or my favorite "I think...") used more often in spoken communication? I tend (<--qualifier) to agree with the conclusion mentioned by someone: that these speech patterns/behavior probably have more to do with dominant/subordinate positions than with gender. I'd guess (<--another qualifier) that since we live in a patriarchal world where men tend to dominate, we see a lot more women using apologetic patterns than men. -LeAnne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:56:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: prejudice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Got to maintain that hiearchy, or so men FEEL! Cat Farrar At 09:52 AM 1/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >Catherine Asaro wrote: > > ---------- >Once when I was at a conference in atomic and molecular physics, the >seven or so of us female physicsts got a table at lunch. We were all >eating and talking away when a group of our male colleagues came up and >asked us (jokingly) if we were "plotting" against the guys. > ---------- > >Incredible. That's horrible. I've been sitting here trying to respond to >that for ten minutes and still can't stop just being appalled. It's somehow >worse that these were physicists, with whom you might have wanted to share a >mutual respect; and that they seem not to have realized just what they were >doing by saying that. There's so much horribly wrong with that. > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > >It's too bad I like being a man so much, since I'm not too fond of men. :) > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:14:38 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: Interchangeability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dale Spender's "Manmade Language" goes into the theme of gender and language quite thoroughly. She quotes zillions of studies regarding the "apologetic", "nuturing" and "encouraging" nature of women's speech in groups. Very interesting. I don't think she has any comment on the "nature vs nuture" argument, tho' .. Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:17:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group)- facetious? In-Reply-To: <199801141934.OAA11905@pip1.pipcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> Apologies aren't a part of the male pattern of speech? Only females would >> continually beg pardon? Someone please come explain femininity to my >wife, >> then. > >With tongue firmly in cheek, I'd like to point out that, at least according >to the TV show Due South, apologizing is a national trait, not a gendered >one . Apparently Canadians do it and Americans don't. I'm just jumping into this one, and haven't read the previous posts leading up to this particular topic, so please forgive me if I'm repeating stuff......(oh geez, I just apologized, didn't I?) I believe the first poster's comment about apologizing to his wife is valid; however, I classify an actual apology differently from the _constant_ apologizing women do (as in my own use of "please forgive me" above). There was a TV magazine program on about a year ago, based on Deborah Tannen's research, where they videotaped men and women at work. The HORRIFYING part was when they pasted together Every Single Instance of a woman saying "I'm sorry...." It went on and on and on and on....I mean DOZENS and DOZENS of instances..and they even showed an instance where a man had screwed up royally by going over his boss's head on something (the boss being a woman)....the boss had every right to be furious (can't remember the details of the sitch), but, during the actual confrontation, SHE was apologizing to him, "I'm sorry I have to bring this up," etc. He NEVER apologized, even though HE was the one in the wrong! Women generally don't like to ruffle feathers, whereas men have a tendency to want to prove they've got the nicest feathers! Apologizing doesn't work well with THAT strategy! So, yeah, men may have to say "I'm sorry" with regard to a specific infraction, but they certainly don't apologize for their existence in general the way women do. As far as Canadians being so apologetic, has anyone else seen "Canadian Bacon"? It's Roger Moore's non-documentary film (not to everyone's taste, but I personally find it hysterical); there's a great chase scene with Americans rudely bursting through bleachers filled with Canadians, scattering them left and right, and the _Canadians_ are saying, "Oh! I'm so sorry!" "Oh! I shouldn't have been standing there!" "Please forgive me!" Of course, they weren't as polite when someone insulted the quality of Canadian beer....... :-) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:11:18 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Off-topic: nature vs nurture >There's quite a lot of medical research literature that supports the >conclusion that levels of aggressiveness are closely tied to >testosterone True, but some recent work (which I think I remember) suggests that the secretion of testosterone (or possibly some related substance) is actually strongly influenced by environmental factors such as position in hierarchy, sense of dominance, etc, rather than being 'innate'. There is probably someone on the list who knows a lot more about this than I do? Lesley Lesley_hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:35:25 -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: Interchangeability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I heard her speak several years ago. I remember that she also had done studies on the percentage of time that men and women spoke in conversations with each other. If I remember correctly, she found that men use up more of the conversation time. (I don't remember the numbers) I think she had also said that women who speak half of the time are perceived as pushy. sheryl > Dale Spender's "Manmade Language" goes into the theme of gender and > language quite thoroughly. She quotes zillions of studies regarding > the > "apologetic", "nuturing" and "encouraging" nature of women's speech in > groups. Very interesting. > > I don't think she has any comment on the "nature vs nuture" argument, > tho' > .. > > Trac' > > tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 > "L'appétit vient en mangeant" > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:51:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980108102325.5167d060@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Although I probably won't participate in the book group myself (due only to lack of time), I'd recommend Raphael Carter's "The Fortunate Fall" as an excellent SF novel dealing with gender and sexuality issues. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:53:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Least we forget Mary Daly and her books on language. I consider her quite brilliant. Cat Farrar At 09:14 AM 1/15/98 +1300, you wrote: >Dale Spender's "Manmade Language" goes into the theme of gender and >language quite thoroughly. She quotes zillions of studies regarding the >"apologetic", "nuturing" and "encouraging" nature of women's speech in >groups. Very interesting. > >I don't think she has any comment on the "nature vs nuture" argument, tho' >.. > >Trac' > >tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 >"L'appétit vient en mangeant" > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:58:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: Off-topic: nature vs nurture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Le Anne Fossmeyer wrote: > > There's quite a lot of medical research literature that supports the > conclusion that levels of aggressiveness are closely tied to > testosterone. And there are other researchs that blame aggressivity on estrogen. Remember: estrogen and testosterone are present in both males and females. > Lots and > lots of studies have shown that aggressive feelings/behaviors are > associated with temporary increases in testosterone in both males and > females. Other studies have shown that the testosterone level of soldiers just before going to action in battle *** decreases ***. Hormones act very subtly, and I guess that any conclusion in that matter is just too hasty. Elisa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:32:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: apologizing=female? Maryelizabeth wrote: ---------- However, netiquitte is a little different, n'est-ce pas? Sorta imposes "female" speech patterns on all of us, in some ways, because statements are often softened. Hmmm, food for thought. ---------- I was thinking that too - that apologies, disclaimers, etc., were more common in general on the net - at least in civilized discussions - due to netiquette issues. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com P.S. I like your name, now that you mention it. :) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:45:26 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Texas bookstores/ Troi / etc. In-Reply-To: <34BCBAF4.194646E2@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 14/01/98 13:17:40 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed "Geoffrey D. Sperl" , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Jill Gillham wrote: > > > The one speculative fiction show that's certainly had no problem showing > > sexuality and relationships that I could think of would be Highlander. I > > can remember watching the first season and being impressed by the way they > > showed the relationship between Duncan and Tessa: two strong characters > > happily in love in a committed relationship. And it's not a one-time thing > > either. Duncan's had a number of long-term stable, happy relationships > > (Little Deer, et. al) > > That's promising...though I must admit I won't be watching the series any > time soon (I'm a bit of a purist concerning that storyline, and stopped > watching anything from the franchise after the horrid H2). But it is sort of > funny to see "a number of long-term stable, happy relationships"... :) > > - Geoffrey Highlander 3 is actually a resonably good film. It ignores 2 completely, as should everyone, and returns to the original concept. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:45:35 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Off-topic: nature vs nurture In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F638EA99@sdmail.dataworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 14/01/98 17:06:33 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Le Anne Fossmeyer , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > There's quite a lot of medical research literature that supports the > conclusion that levels of aggressiveness are closely tied to > testosterone. I stand corrected... > Of course, I think how a person responds to aggressive feelings is > strongly influenced by family, school, society, culture.... ...this would appear to be a more rational explanation. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Life is complex. You know - part real, part imaginary. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:57:54 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] Off-topic: nature vs nurture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Elisa has a good point in regards to instances of aggressive behavior. But I might disagree with the assumption that soldiers going into battle feel aggressive. My co-worker, who voluntarily did two tours in Viet Nam, told me that when he went on maneuvers/missions, the last thing he felt was aggression although he had to behave aggressively. He mostly felt anxiety and fear and adrenaline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Elisa [SMTP:cyborg@UOL.COM.BR] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 6:58 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Off-topic: nature vs nurture > >snip > Other studies have shown that the testosterone level of > soldiers just before going to action in battle *** decreases ***. >snip > Elisa > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:26:41 -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: prejudice In-Reply-To: <199801141956.LAA19154@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Got to maintain that hiearchy, or so men FEEL! > >Cat Farrar Perhaps so _those_ men felt, or feel, but not all men. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:26:44 -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: apologizing=female? In-Reply-To: <00038F89@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com.saic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >I was thinking that too - that apologies, disclaimers, etc., were more >common in general on the net - at least in civilized discussions - due to >netiquette issues. Or to common sense, which a fair amount of people seem to show around here (which is encouraging). -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:26:38 -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: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F638EA9E@sdmail.dataworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >But that, I think, is an entirely different situation from the one >Barbara (?) was bringing up. One is a battle of wills, the other is a >habit of casual speech. The debate is whether women's speech generally >follows more apologetic patterns than men's. Is it generally more >hesitant? Are qualifiers (like "maybe...," "...do you think?", or my >favorite "I think...") used more often in spoken communication? I tend >(<--qualifier) to agree with the conclusion mentioned by someone: that >these speech patterns/behavior probably have more to do with >dominant/subordinate positions than with gender. I'd guess (<--another >qualifier) that since we live in a patriarchal world where men tend to >dominate, we see a lot more women using apologetic patterns than men. > >-LeAnne I dunno. I use a fair amount of qualifiers myself. It's largely to cover one's ass and ensure that one is not perceived as a closed-minded idjit who knows (supposedly) how the world works, is sure that their opinion is the truth and won't change it. It also sows that one is not an absolutist in the sense of saying a thing is always this way or that. For example, the phrase "I tend to think..." shows not necessarily timidity or female-specific (again, supposedly) hesitation, but, ideally, does (well, _should_) show that you don't _always_ think this way or that, that you're open to suggestion. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:22:33 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi As it appears to be my comment being dissected here, I thought I'd add to the discussion.:) I agree with Rhian's comment about the reason for increased frequency of this kind of apologising. If any of you were to meet me in 'real', as opposed to virtual, life, you would probably (oops) not hear me apologise very often in a discussion I was really interested in. On the other hand, I admit to being more tentative in email, since reading words (often quickly chosen) on a computer screen does not communicate the vocal, facial and body language context that helps you understand a person's real meaning. And I would hate to _unintentionally_ offend anyone on this lovely, wonderful list. Completely Unrepentant in Hampshire Monica >Barbara wrote: > > ---------- >In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you write: > ><< > Anyway, sorry to blather on. > Monica > > >> > >Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech >patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything >wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. >(Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend >to >make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to >sound >sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) > ---------- > >Hmm. I disagree. Actually, I agree that that is probably more prevalent >for women, but I think that goes way too far as a generalization. I make >disclaimers or equivocations or what have you like that all the time. I >seem to have noticed that more in email or internet lists than in speech, >both from men and women. I guess I don't do it so often in speech, but I >certainly do it in posts where I think I have overrun. > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > >Though, I suppose an obvious caveat would be that I certainly don't like to >consider myself a "typical" man - but then, I don't like that sort of global >categorization anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:41:57 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Guns and the south (and fiction?) I have lived in the South all my life, and you better believe I have a gun. However, it took living by myself for a short time before I decided to obtain one (around age 24). Whether it is regional or not, I couldn't say. I do know that my father, a South Georgia boy, took a gun everywhere he went. I enjoy shooting guns, but do not hunt. As for "people I know" with guns here...probably 50% or so, but Athens has such a wide variety of people, I am fairly sure the University Community would not be representative of the entire state of Georgia. I am very much FOR gun control, however. A permit and a waiting period is more than a good idea...not to do that is (in my opinion) criminal. Personally, I have three large dogs for protection, but if anyone harms them or otherwise gets past them, the gun (and I) will be patiently waiting. Let's just say if I am forced to shoot someone, I doubt I will feel much remorse. Now, what this has to do with feminist science fiction could be nothing or could be lots of things...visualizing a society where no one feels they need a gun for protection, perhaps? Fat chance, I am sure, but it is nice to think about. The city of Athens, GA just convicted a man of 17 pretty brutal rapes in Athens (not to mention the hundreds of others that go unreported or unsolved or were unable to get a conviction)...and this is supposed to be a fairly safe community. Penny > >Pat is right. I have spent most of my life in the rural South. -Everyone- > >I know owns at least -one- gun, usually more. I now live in a mid-sized > >college community and most of the people I know own guns (though I haven't > >taken a difinitive survey). Most of the men I know go hunting. Lots of my > >friends go target shooting. I know two boys who got their first guns as > >gifts this past Christmas. In my city there are hunting stores, a dozen > >pawn shops and a couple of private dealers where I can pick up a gun. > >Maybe it's a Southern thing. > > > >Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > > > >I live in New Orleans and everyone I know has at least one gun, but usually > one for the house and one for the car. I keep mine on the bedstand where I > can grab it in a hurry. When I lived in Boston I never had a gun, but my > father did. He had a permit to carry a consealed weapon. He's now 88 and > doesn't go out of the house without it. > > Linda > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:56:40 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: Interchangeability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cat Farrar wrote: >Least we forget Mary Daly and her books on language. Yes, she achieved one thing: making us think a lot about usage and users of words. I think a bit of her etymology is on the slightly implausible side (tho' I can also think of instances of the Oxford Dictionary wavering to the sus side of the street). And she is SUCH a clunky writer! I find, if I need to reread a paragraph 3x just to get it thru my head, meaning goes out the window - NOT a good thing to happen in relation to Daly! Mind you, that's a complaint I have about many "academic" writers, when they're writing in their areas. Dense prose and circumlocution is only the half of it! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:21:42 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Russian pornography (Conference) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_884820103_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_884820103_boundary Content-ID: <0_884820103@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Just received the following from SHERA (Society of Historians of Eastern- European and Russian Art) in case anyone is interested; the issue of pornography is related to recent trends in Russian sf, which seems to be experiencing a major boom in exploring previously forbidden themes---most of them violent and heavily sexist. There is reportedly also a link via underground Soviet comics, only one of which I've actually seen. In a message dated 98-01-14 15:58:40 EST, shera@saber.udayton.edu writes: << CONFERENCE ON RUSSIAN PORNOGRAPHY University of Southern California, Saturday and Sunday, May 23-24, 1998 Since the end of the USSR and of the Soviet censorship, there has been an explosion of pornography in Russia, which has become an issue of national concern. At the same time, the new freedom to publish--and discuss--previously forbidden materials has also given rise to the opportunity to consider the phenomenon of pornography in a serious way as a cultural and historical phenomenon, for scholars both in Russia and the West. The conference will present and take stock of recent work on Russian pornography, examining this phenomenon across disciplines (history, literature, art history, folklore), visual, print, and oral media (literature, photography, painting, books, periodicals, folklore, lubki) and historical periods (folklore through the twentieth century). The preliminary list of participants includes: John Alexander, University of Kansas Andrei Arkhipov, Stanford University Luc Beaudoin, University of Denver Frances Bernstein, Johns Hopkins Otto Boele, University of Groenigen Eliot Borenstein, New York University Alexander Etkind, St. Petersburg Dianne Farrell, Moorehead State University Paul W. Goldschmidt, U. of Wisconsin, Platteville Helena Goscilo, University of Pittsburgh Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library Igor Kon, Moscow Anna Krylova, Johns Hopkins University Eve Levin, Ohio State University Marcus Levitt, University of So. California Amy Mandelker, City University of New York Olga Matich, University of California, Berkeley Yelena Minyonok, IMLI, Moscow Eric Naiman, University of California, Berkeley Oleg Proskurin, Moscow Vera Proskurina, Cornell University Natalia Pushkareva, Moscow Daniel Rancour-Laferierre, UC Riverside Karen Ryan-Hayes, University of Virginia Christine Tomei, Columbia University Andrei Toporkov, IMLI, Moscow Laura Wilhelm, Los Angeles The Conference is Open to the Public Affordable housing is available in USC dorms or in off-campus university housing. For housing application and further information, contact: Prof. Marcus C. Levitt, Conference Coordinator Department of Slavic Languages University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-4353 (213) 740-2740 e-mail: levitt@hermes.usc.edu Sponored by: the International Research and Exchanges Board; the University of Southern California; and the Southern California Consortium for Russian and Eurasian Studies. >> --part0_884820103_boundary Content-ID: <0_884820103@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay09.mail.aol.com (relay09.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.9]) by air11.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:58:39 -0500 Received: from enterprise.udayton.edu (enterprise.udayton.edu [131.238.75.10]) by relay09.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA03015; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:57:24 -0500 (EST) From: shera@saber.udayton.edu Received: from lists.udayton.edu (lists.udayton.edu [131.238.4.10]) by enterprise.udayton.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA0000030657; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from TRAINING/SpoolDir by lists.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.32); 14 Jan 98 16:00:19 -0500 Received: from SpoolDir by TRAINING (Mercury 1.32); 14 Jan 98 15:59:32 -0500 To: "SHERA Discussion List" Subject: Pornography at USC (fwd) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Reply-to: SHERA@lists.udayton.edu Sender: Maiser@lists.udayton.edu X-listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.32 (NDS) Message-ID: <72168971C8D@lists.udayton.edu> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit CONFERENCE ON RUSSIAN PORNOGRAPHY University of Southern California, Saturday and Sunday, May 23-24, 1998 Since the end of the USSR and of the Soviet censorship, there has been an explosion of pornography in Russia, which has become an issue of national concern. At the same time, the new freedom to publish--and discuss--previously forbidden materials has also given rise to the opportunity to consider the phenomenon of pornography in a serious way as a cultural and historical phenomenon, for scholars both in Russia and the West. The conference will present and take stock of recent work on Russian pornography, examining this phenomenon across disciplines (history, literature, art history, folklore), visual, print, and oral media (literature, photography, painting, books, periodicals, folklore, lubki) and historical periods (folklore through the twentieth century). The preliminary list of participants includes: John Alexander, University of Kansas Andrei Arkhipov, Stanford University Luc Beaudoin, University of Denver Frances Bernstein, Johns Hopkins Otto Boele, University of Groenigen Eliot Borenstein, New York University Alexander Etkind, St. Petersburg Dianne Farrell, Moorehead State University Paul W. Goldschmidt, U. of Wisconsin, Platteville Helena Goscilo, University of Pittsburgh Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library Igor Kon, Moscow Anna Krylova, Johns Hopkins University Eve Levin, Ohio State University Marcus Levitt, University of So. California Amy Mandelker, City University of New York Olga Matich, University of California, Berkeley Yelena Minyonok, IMLI, Moscow Eric Naiman, University of California, Berkeley Oleg Proskurin, Moscow Vera Proskurina, Cornell University Natalia Pushkareva, Moscow Daniel Rancour-Laferierre, UC Riverside Karen Ryan-Hayes, University of Virginia Christine Tomei, Columbia University Andrei Toporkov, IMLI, Moscow Laura Wilhelm, Los Angeles The Conference is Open to the Public Affordable housing is available in USC dorms or in off-campus university housing. For housing application and further information, contact: Prof. Marcus C. Levitt, Conference Coordinator Department of Slavic Languages University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-4353 (213) 740-2740 e-mail: levitt@hermes.usc.edu Sponored by: the International Research and Exchanges Board; the University of Southern California; and the Southern California Consortium for Russian and Eurasian Studies. # --part0_884820103_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:34:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Linda J. Kimsey" Subject: Re: Nature vs. Nurture In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:46 AM 1/6/98 -0800, you wrote: >Linguist Suzette Haden Elgin points out that subordinate males use >"female" speech patterns, and dominant females use "male" speech >patterns, and concludes they have less to do with gender than with >relative status. But one speech pattern I WILL reserve for women in our >culture is to scold someone using all their names. ("John Jacob >Jinglemeyer Schmidt, I'm TALKING to you!") > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > I'm so glad you brought up Suzette Haden Elgin! I am a big fan of hers and, after reading her Native Tongue, I have a great deal of respect for her linguistic acumen. I too have been lurking on this list, but I couldn't resist adding to the debate on gender and language. I agree with Elgin in that speech patterns have more to do with status than gender. I think they also have more to do with culture than gender. Dale Spender's research on who monopolizes conversation was interesting, but it didn't really supply the reason why men monopolized the conversation. Spender just assumed that if there were differences, it was because of gender. As for Deborah Tannen, I tend to put her in the Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus category. If you read her books, you will see that she uses anecdotes to support her thesis, not good, solid research. I bet that for every anecdote pro gender differences that she has, I can come up with one that says men and women talk the same way. I believe that we all change our conversation styles to suit the situation we're in. I talk to my boss differently than I talk to my friends just as I talk about different things when I'm with professional colleagues or at home with my family. Of course I don't really have evidence to back this up either. :-) One last parting shot: don't forget that society has a great deal of influence on how we behave. Women may apologize more because they were rewarded for smoothing things over and keeping the peace. Men may act aggressively because they were rewarded for taking the initiative and standing up for themselves. What we don't learn at home, we often learn at school (what, you thought school was for academic subjects?). Linda Kimsey Chocolate - there's nothing better for that hung over, I can't believe I spent that much, oh the weather outside is icky feeling. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:59:14 -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: Guns and the south (and fiction?) In-Reply-To: <112B0C8D26E1@calc.vet.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Geez, what is it with the South and guns? Anybody from up North or out West know a lot of people who deem it necessary to have guns? -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:09:19 -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: prejudice I've been trying to bring to mind any (traditional) religious or philosophical exhortations to men to be silent, to pitch their voices soft and low, not to indulge in chatter and gossip... There does seem to be a certain anxiety in the patriarchal mindset about women communicating among themselves. The stereotype wife never off the phone with her mother springs to mind! On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:52:00 -0500 Rhian Merris writes: >Catherine Asaro wrote: > > ---------- >Once when I was at a conference in atomic and molecular physics, the >seven or so of us female physicsts got a table at lunch. We were all >eating and talking away when a group of our male colleagues came up >and >asked us (jokingly) if we were "plotting" against the guys. > ---------- > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:59:42 -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: "USER ERROR: replace user and press any key to continue." If that doesn't work, a tip I found in one of Terry Pratchett's books: Reinstall Universe and restart your computer. (Ignore any message you may receive from the mysterious Redo from Start) On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:17:15 GMT Catweasel writes: >It was 14/01/98 01:29:43 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful >occasions, >I observed Catherine Asaro , >hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > >A whole bunch of stuff about scientists which I am not going to >comment >on, but which gives me an excuse to mention a possibly uniqe portrayal >of scientists: Young Einstein. > > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. >Catweasel > >USER ERROR: replace user and press any key to continue. > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:58:43 -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: "local bookstores" On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:26:22 GMT Robin Reid writes: >......... But it's not a question of NOT >patronizing >our "local feminist bookstore"... or, for that matter, our local science fiction store. My office is located in New York City, at the corner of Bleecker and Broadway. About as good as you can get for bookstore access, wouldn't you think? So, a while back, when Sheri Tepper's "Gibbon's Decline and Fall" had just been reviewed in the NY Times, I thought to meself, thought I, even though I've been looking for it during the last few weeks, now it ought to be AVAILABLE. This Tepper junkie's jones sat up and howled. Forbidden Planet didn't have it (on order, but hadn't come in yet, and evidently no big deal). Tower books, which used to have such a good SF section, didn't even have it on order. No sign at Shakespeare & Co. Ditto 2 separate Barnes and Nobleses. And NYU Bookstore. Normally I'd have checked out the Science Fiction Bookshop, but they had vanished from their address on Thompson Street and I hadn't yet tracked them to their new location. Exhausted return to the office. A call across town to Three Lives came up blank. Final desperate brainwave: called Dalton's on 8th Street. They had it. I hiked over and got it. Wow! Fixed! Staggered home, vowing not to start reading until the weekend. Started reading.... But Amazon.com, whose email notification is a marvellous service, got my business for "The Family Tree"! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:40:41 -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: Interchangeability (was book group) Ladies: here's an interesting excercise: If you are fortunate enough to have access to a seat in an otherwise crowded public transportation module and are dressed in a manner conducive to preserving suitable feminine modesty, try spreading your legs wide. If you really feel in the mood, plant your elbows firmly at your sides (not tucked in front). If you are reading a broadsheet publication, open it to its comfortable widest extent. Now, how long can you maintain this position before the internal sense of being antisocial and inconsiderate drives you back into a minimal space-occupying confuguration? (And my personal thanks to the gentlemen who minimalize themselves without prompting!) Gentlemen: why not try a complete hairdo, makeup and nail varnish job under similar conditions? The fun you can have watching fellow passengers gasp as the fumes of acetone and perfume drift into their lungs is only rivaled by the spectacle of their flinching from the fallout of your hair-combing and face powder application. On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:03:17 EST Lurima writes: >In a message dated 98-01-09 01:23:37 EST, you write: > ><< > 1) For every person I know, I think I could find a member of the > opposite sex who could, with a little coaching before-hand, slip into > his/her body and not be challenged as an impostor. > >> > >Do you not find that men and women have different basic speech >patterns that >you have to consider when you're writing dialogue? And haven't you >noticed >that men and women move differently? And I have come to believe that >men are >naturally much more aggressive, and women are naturally more inclined >to >strive for win-win than I win-you-lose scenarios, and so forth. Much >of this >is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. > >Barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:22:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I spent two hours in Borders books looking at and reading the SF comic books and SF toy catalogues. Very depressing. The drawings and photographs of the female characters were most often in skimpy outfits; large breasts; tiny waists; high heeled boots and long hair. Definitely a S/M look. The violence depicted in the comics was enormous. This tread reminds me of the latest Aliens film. Early on in the film Ripley asks this question, "Who do I have to fuck to get off this ship?" Later on in the film she rolls around on the body of an alien (her grown up "child"?) and the stills for this sceen show the aliens tip of its tail coming up between Ripley's legs -- definitely suggesting a male genitals. Ripley was easily prone to violence in this film and I sometimes got the impression that she took pleasure in it all. It is no accident when artists (writers, directors etc) couple concepts together (sex and violence). Pornography helps these artists by making these associations seem so "natural". Most of the applause for the film came from men, along with all the hoots and howls. All in all, I'm not surprised that Russia is incorporating pornography into their SF stories. Cat Farrar > >Just received the following from SHERA (Society of Historians of Eastern- >European and Russian Art) in case anyone is interested; >the issue of pornography is related to recent trends in Russian sf, which >seems to be experiencing a major boom in exploring previously forbidden >themes---most of them violent and heavily sexist. There is reportedly also a >link via underground Soviet comics, only one of which I've actually seen. > > > >In a message dated 98-01-14 15:58:40 EST, shera@saber.udayton.edu writes: > ><< CONFERENCE ON RUSSIAN PORNOGRAPHY > > University of Southern California, Saturday and Sunday, May 23-24, 1998 > > Since the end of the USSR and of the Soviet censorship, there has been > an explosion of pornography in Russia, which has become an issue of > national concern. At the same time, the new freedom to publish--and > discuss--previously forbidden materials has also given rise to the > opportunity to consider the phenomenon of pornography in a serious > way as a cultural and historical phenomenon, for scholars both in > Russia and the West. > > The conference will present and take stock of recent work on Russian > pornography, examining this phenomenon across disciplines (history, > literature, art history, folklore), visual, print, and oral media > (literature, photography, painting, books, periodicals, folklore, > lubki) and historical periods (folklore through the twentieth > century). > > The preliminary list of participants includes: > > John Alexander, University of Kansas > Andrei Arkhipov, Stanford University > Luc Beaudoin, University of Denver > Frances Bernstein, Johns Hopkins > Otto Boele, University of Groenigen > Eliot Borenstein, New York University > Alexander Etkind, St. Petersburg > Dianne Farrell, Moorehead State University > Paul W. Goldschmidt, U. of Wisconsin, Platteville > Helena Goscilo, University of Pittsburgh > Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library > Igor Kon, Moscow > Anna Krylova, Johns Hopkins University > Eve Levin, Ohio State University > Marcus Levitt, University of So. California > Amy Mandelker, City University of New York > Olga Matich, University of California, Berkeley > Yelena Minyonok, IMLI, Moscow > Eric Naiman, University of California, Berkeley > Oleg Proskurin, Moscow > Vera Proskurina, Cornell University > Natalia Pushkareva, Moscow > Daniel Rancour-Laferierre, UC Riverside > Karen Ryan-Hayes, University of Virginia > Christine Tomei, Columbia University > Andrei Toporkov, IMLI, Moscow > Laura Wilhelm, Los Angeles > > The Conference is Open to the Public > > Affordable housing is available in USC dorms or in off-campus university > housing. For housing application and further information, contact: > > Prof. Marcus C. Levitt, Conference Coordinator > Department of Slavic Languages > University of Southern California > Los Angeles, CA 90089-4353 > (213) 740-2740 > e-mail: levitt@hermes.usc.edu > > Sponored by: the International Research and Exchanges Board; the University > of Southern California; and the Southern California Consortium for > Russian and Eurasian Studies. > >> > >Content-ID: <0_884820103@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> >Content-type: message/rfc822 >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >Content-disposition: inline > >Return-Path: >Received: from relay09.mail.aol.com (relay09.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.9]) by > air11.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:58:39 -0500 >Received: from enterprise.udayton.edu (enterprise.udayton.edu [131.238.75.10]) > by relay09.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > with ESMTP id PAA03015; > Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:57:24 -0500 (EST) >From: shera@saber.udayton.edu >Received: from lists.udayton.edu (lists.udayton.edu [131.238.4.10]) > by enterprise.udayton.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA0000030657; > Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:53:51 -0500 (EST) >Received: from TRAINING/SpoolDir by lists.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.32); > 14 Jan 98 16:00:19 -0500 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:57:40 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In the book, Real Knockouts, the author talks about what she saw at self-defense classes (the ones with men encased in protective body and head gear). She observed that when the women finally had the courage to throw a good punch frequently they'd apologize for "hurting" the mugger. In addition, she noticed that it was very uncomfortable to the women to yell and scream out, "NO!!!!" to this same mugger. Lastly, the women tended to smile a lot - completely out of context. Cat Farrar At 10:22 PM 1/14/98 GMT, you wrote: >Hi > As it appears to be my comment being dissected here, I thought I'd >add to the discussion.:) I agree with Rhian's comment about the reason for >increased frequency of this kind of apologising. If any of you were to >meet me in 'real', as opposed to virtual, life, you would probably (oops) >not hear me apologise very often in a discussion I was really interested >in. On the other hand, I admit to being more tentative in email, since >reading words (often quickly chosen) on a computer screen does not >communicate the vocal, facial and body language context that helps you >understand a person's real meaning. And I would hate to _unintentionally_ >offend anyone on this lovely, wonderful list. > >Completely Unrepentant in Hampshire >Monica > > > >>Barbara wrote: >> >> ---------- >>In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you write: >> >><< >> Anyway, sorry to blather on. >> Monica >> >> >> >> >>Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech >>patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything >>wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. >>(Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend >>to >>make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to >>sound >>sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) >> ---------- >> >>Hmm. I disagree. Actually, I agree that that is probably more prevalent >>for women, but I think that goes way too far as a generalization. I make >>disclaimers or equivocations or what have you like that all the time. I >>seem to have noticed that more in email or internet lists than in speech, >>both from men and women. I guess I don't do it so often in speech, but I >>certainly do it in posts where I think I have overrun. >> >>Rhian >>rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com >> >>Though, I suppose an obvious caveat would be that I certainly don't like to >>consider myself a "typical" man - but then, I don't like that sort of global >>categorization anyway. > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:06:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:56 AM 1/15/98 +1300, you wrote: >Cat Farrar wrote: >>Least we forget Mary Daly and her books on language. > >Yes, she achieved one thing: making us think a lot about usage and users of >words. I think a bit of her etymology is on the slightly implausible side >(tho' I can also think of instances of the Oxford Dictionary wavering to >the sus side of the street). And she is SUCH a clunky writer! I found reading some of Daly's stuff to be quite jarring in the beginning. With a sharp and sustained focus, I could stay with it. One of the things I found valuable in her writing style was the tension in created in both my mind and body. The tension helped me to visualize new and/or different images in my head. For instance, I've carried a stereotypical image of a hag in my mind for years. Now, because of Daly's work and words, I can no longer see only my image - I now see hers. Lately, it's just been hers which I think is a good sign. I hope I've explained myself clearly. This is a new concept for me and I'm still chewing it in my mind. I find, if I >need to reread a paragraph 3x just to get it thru my head, meaning goes out >the window - NOT a good thing to happen in relation to Daly! Have you read her book on the Church? > Cat Farrar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:09:15 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: prejudice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:09 PM 1/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >I've been trying to bring to mind any (traditional) religious or >philosophical exhortations to men to be silent, to pitch their voices >soft and low, not to indulge in chatter and gossip... > >All that comes to my mind are religious orders where none of the men speak. The live, breath, eat and sleep in silence. Interesting how most religions go out of their way to control the human body, in action and in form. Cat Farrar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:04:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Guns and the south (and fiction?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Sean Johnston wrote: > Geez, what is it with the South and guns? Anybody from up North or out > West know a lot of people who deem it necessary to have guns? > Originally a Michigander here. In the area I grew up in (suburban Grand Rapids) the folks who I knew were either in law enforcement or else they hunted a lot (Michigan has one of the highest rates of deer hunting percentage wise in the country.) It was neither particullarly commor or particularly rare to own a gun. And no, I don't know anyone involved in the Militia movement. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:13:37 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:14 15/01/98 +1300, you wrote: >Dale Spender's "Manmade Language" goes into the theme of gender and >language quite thoroughly. She quotes zillions of studies regarding the >"apologetic", "nuturing" and "encouraging" nature of women's speech in >groups. Very interesting. > >I don't think she has any comment on the "nature vs nuture" argument, tho' I would tend to take a lot of what Dale Spender has to say with a grain of salt. I have personal experience of her tendency to enthusiastically adopt the work of other writers without acknowledgement, and a lot of what I have read of her writing leads me to doubt her underlying feminist principles, too. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:15:50 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group)- facetious? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >As far as Canadians being so apologetic, has anyone else seen "Canadian >Bacon"? It's Roger Moore's non-documentary film (not to everyone's taste, >but I personally find it hysterical); there's a great chase scene with >Americans rudely bursting through bleachers filled with Canadians, >scattering them left and right, and the _Canadians_ are saying, "Oh! I'm so >sorry!" "Oh! I shouldn't have been standing there!" "Please forgive me!" Of >course, they weren't as polite when someone insulted the quality of >Canadian beer....... :-) I love this film. It says some very funny and perceptive things about Canadians and Americans and their relationship. I particularly like the media beat-up sequence - they live among us, they take our jobs, etc. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:22:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <19980114.191002.20870.1.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Frances Green wrote: > Ladies: here's an interesting excercise: > > If you are fortunate enough to have access to a seat in an otherwise > crowded public transportation module and are dressed in a manner > conducive to preserving suitable feminine modesty, try spreading your > legs wide. If you really feel in the mood, plant your elbows firmly at > your sides (not tucked in front). If you are reading a broadsheet > publication, open it to its comfortable widest extent. > > Now, how long can you maintain this position before the internal sense of > being antisocial and inconsiderate drives you back into a minimal > space-occupying confuguration? > > (And my personal thanks to the gentlemen who minimalize themselves > without prompting!) Courtesy might not have anything to do with it. While I like to think I am a courteous person I know that I scrunch up in such situations in part due to my fear of being touched/touching (supposedly a masculine drawback right?) It is a big problem because I am a rather large person, the type that completely fills plus a chair or my part of a bench. I also have some trouble with parties where everyone crowds around. I haven't thought about this much before, but this is sounding so kooky that it might just be me. If this makes sense to anyone, please tell me. (especially if you have noticed this as sex-related (nature or nurture :) Now I'll tell you all about my little quirk so as to completely bore or scare you and embaress myself. If that doesn't sound like a good thing, don't read further. All of my touching has to be completely pre-agreed to by me and the other person. There is no casual contact. What constitutes agreement is a bit complicated though. In a confrontation of some kind I suspect that getting in my way would constitute agreement on both parts to make contact. I also love the game "wink" which is a full-contact wrestling melee thing that even involves kissing. The thing is that it is part of the game and the rules of the game. It could be that I am simply fixated on physical contact, and that I like things and situations that bring me into physical contact with others, but that I can't handle "casual" contact. I remember thinking that this was sex-related in high school, watching girls braid each other's hair and such, wishing that I could be doing something like that. Hey, just because I'm a man doesn't mean I can't be masculine in some ways. So, does this sound like a sex-linked neurosis, is it a result of being too long ostracized (non-sex-linked), is it something else, or is it just me? -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:28:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Any concrete examples that you'd like to site? Cat Farrar At 12:13 PM 1/15/98 +1100, you wrote: >At 09:14 15/01/98 +1300, you wrote: >>Dale Spender's "Manmade Language" goes into the theme of gender and >>language quite thoroughly. She quotes zillions of studies regarding the >>"apologetic", "nuturing" and "encouraging" nature of women's speech in >>groups. Very interesting. >> >>I don't think she has any comment on the "nature vs nuture" argument, tho' > >I would tend to take a lot of what Dale Spender has to say with a grain of >salt. I have personal experience of her tendency to enthusiastically adopt >the work of other writers without acknowledgement, and a lot of what I have >read of her writing leads me to doubt her underlying feminist principles, too. > >Robyn > >*********************************** > >Robyn Starkey >University of Melbourne >r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au > >************************************ > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:32:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: OT: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nancy, It's my experience that generalizations are a necessary step in one's cognitive development. Generalizations would only become counter-productive if and when people forget the definition of a generalization. Cat Farrar > Again, >generalizations are dangerous. I believe that if we send each gender to a >planet, we eliminate the incentive to effectively communicate. >Nancy Schaadt > >At 09:03 PM 1/13/98 EST, Barbara wrote: >>Do you not find that men and women have different basic speech patterns that >>you have to consider when you're writing dialogue? And haven't you noticed >>that men and women move differently? And I have come to believe that men are >>naturally much more aggressive, and women are naturally more inclined to >>strive for win-win than I win-you-lose scenarios, and so forth. Much of this >>is inherent. I raised my son by myself, but he's definitely 120% male. >> >>Barbara >> >> > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:48:36 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri & Bruce Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: Guns and the south (and fiction?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sean Johnston wrote: > > Geez, what is it with the South and guns? Anybody from up North or out > West know a lot of people who deem it necessary to have guns? > > -Sean > > "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in > STNG: Conspiracy Lots of people in rural Maine have guns. The type of guns they have are shotguns and rifles. They are used for hunting. I do not approve of trophy hunting. Some families are so poor that deer is the only meat they have. This is fair. The deer at least have some kind of decent life prior to their deaths, unlike most domestic animals which are killed for food. As far as I know most people who live urban areas in Maine do not carry guns. I think the same is true in the South. I lived in a large city in Virginia during the ^Ñ70s no one I knew had guns. My uncles however, who lived on farms in the western part of the state had rifles and shotguns for bird and deer hunting. It^Òs pretty much the same North or South. I missed the beginning of this thread so I^Òm just responding to this particular post and only stating what I have observed in different places I^Òve lived. Terri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:54:08 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: Interchangeability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't want this to sound rude (yes, that IS a genuine apology!) ... but I hope this discussion isn't going to turn into yet another slanging match between/regarding Aussie feminists! Cat: >One of the things I found valuable in her writing style was the tension in created in both my >mind and body. The tension helped me to visualize new and/or different images in my head. Yes, I appreciate your point about changing perceptions of words we use - 'hysteria' is one I particularly go for. The book about religion I did start, but I was also reading something else on a similar theme at the time (no, I can't remember what it was...). So, alas, the "easier to understand" book won in the reading stakes! I really believe it is possible to use simple and clear prose without being simplistic or reductionist. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:07:14 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Apologizing and Womyn MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:10:26 EST Lurima said: > > In a message dated 98-01-09 09:57:30 EST, you (Monica) wrote: > > > > Anyway, sorry to blather on. > > Monica > > > > Here's an example of what I was saying earlier about male/female speech > > patterns. Women are always apologizing, even when they haven't done anything > > wrong. You wouldn't have a male character say this line, I don't think. > > (Notice that I qualified my assertion! Women do that all the time! Men tend to > > make a statement and assume everyone will be impressed. I don't mean to sound > > sexist--it's just something I've noticed when looking for the differences.) > > > > Barbara > > I agree 100%...I am quite guilty not only of apologizing when there > is no real reason to apologize, but also of thanking people who > should be thanking me!! (i.e. making a purchase) Several times in professional situations, I've found myself apologizing to someone who insulted me, so we could get our work done. But I only did it a few times, because even if it smoothed things for the moment, it caused resentment on my part. However, both "female" and "male" types of speech have benefits. It's true that it helps to learn a more assertive language style, particularly if we have to operate in environments where that is the status quo. But it doesn't hurt people with naturally agressive styles to learn more accomodating forms of speech either. Both "languages" have something to offer. I suspect that the most successful forms of speech meld the two. How that meld is balanced depends on the situation, eg in the military one needs an assertive style, whereas with teaching small children an accomodating style works far better. In on-line discussions I prefer a balance more weighted to the accomodating, the reasons being because 1) without body language or facial expressions it is easier for misunderstandings to arise, 2) flame wars start more easily than face to face arguments, and 3) in print, even well intentioned comments can come across harsher than intended. On reason I think this listserv works so well is because people take the time to be careful and friendly. I would rather err on the side of apologizing too much than to come across more abrasive than I intended and end up hurting someone. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:08:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joel, You might find Thomas Gramstad's web page AMAZONS INTERNATIONAL of interest. You can do a search on Yahoo and find it easily enough. Quite a few posts discuss erotic combat, arm wrestling, wrestling and body lifting as ways of making contact. In addition, some of the on-line tests, and tests results, can be of interest. If you do a search on David Keirsey and Helen Palmer you may find bits and pieces of yourself. You might read about Helen Palmers views on type five and type nine. Let me know how all of this works out for you. Cat Farrar At 08:22 PM 1/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Frances Green wrote: > >> Ladies: here's an interesting excercise: >> >> If you are fortunate enough to have access to a seat in an otherwise >> crowded public transportation module and are dressed in a manner >> conducive to preserving suitable feminine modesty, try spreading your >> legs wide. If you really feel in the mood, plant your elbows firmly at >> your sides (not tucked in front). If you are reading a broadsheet >> publication, open it to its comfortable widest extent. >> >> Now, how long can you maintain this position before the internal sense of >> being antisocial and inconsiderate drives you back into a minimal >> space-occupying confuguration? >> >> (And my personal thanks to the gentlemen who minimalize themselves >> without prompting!) > >Courtesy might not have anything to do with it. While I like to think I >am a courteous person I know that I scrunch up in such situations in part >due to my fear of being touched/touching (supposedly a masculine drawback >right?) It is a big problem because I am a rather large person, the type >that completely fills plus a chair or my part of a bench. I also have >some trouble with parties where everyone crowds around. > >I haven't thought about this much before, but this is sounding so kooky >that it might just be me. If this makes sense to anyone, please tell me. >(especially if you have noticed this as sex-related (nature or nurture :) > >Now I'll tell you all about my little quirk so as to completely bore or >scare you and embaress myself. If that doesn't sound like a good thing, >don't read further. > >All of my touching has to be completely pre-agreed to by me and the other >person. There is no casual contact. What constitutes agreement is a bit >complicated though. In a confrontation of some kind I suspect that >getting in my way would constitute agreement on both parts to make >contact. I also love the game "wink" which is a full-contact wrestling >melee thing that even involves kissing. The thing is that it is part of >the game and the rules of the game. It could be that I am simply fixated >on physical contact, and that I like things and situations that bring me >into physical contact with others, but that I can't handle "casual" >contact. I remember thinking that this was sex-related in high school, >watching girls braid each other's hair and such, wishing that I could be >doing something like that. > >Hey, just because I'm a man doesn't mean I can't be masculine in some >ways. > >So, does this sound like a sex-linked neurosis, is it a result of being >too long ostracized (non-sex-linked), is it something else, or is it just >me? > >-- Joel VanLaven > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:11:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Interchangeability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You completely lost me on what you're referring to (...slanging match between/regarding Aussie feminists) so I can't comment to your post without greater clarity. And it doesn't sound rude because it doesn't make sense to me. When you clarify that one sentence, I promise not to be insulted. :-) Cat Farrar At 02:54 PM 1/15/98 +1300, you wrote: >I don't want this to sound rude (yes, that IS a genuine apology!) ... but I >hope this discussion isn't going to turn into yet another slanging match >between/regarding Aussie feminists! > >Cat: >>One of the things I found valuable in her writing style was the tension in >created in both my >>mind and body. The tension helped me to visualize new and/or different >images in my head. > >Yes, I appreciate your point about changing perceptions of words we use - >'hysteria' is one I particularly go for. The book about religion I did >start, but I was also reading something else on a similar theme at the time >(no, I can't remember what it was...). So, alas, the "easier to understand" >book won in the reading stakes! I really believe it is possible to use >simple and clear prose without being simplistic or reductionist. > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:13:43 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: prejudice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rhian Merris wrote: > > Catherine Asaro wrote: > > ---------- > Once when I was at a conference in atomic and molecular physics, the > seven or so of us female physicsts got a table at lunch. We were all > eating and talking away when a group of our male colleagues came up and > asked us (jokingly) if we were "plotting" against the guys. > ---------- > > Incredible. That's horrible. I've been sitting here trying to respond to > that for ten minutes and still can't stop just being appalled. It's somehow > worse that these were physicists, with whom you might have wanted to share a > mutual respect; and that they seem not to have realized just what they were > doing by saying that. There's so much horribly wrong with that. Rhian, it was okay, because most of us knew each other. We had all interacted for years as colleagues, so it was friendly jibing. There was an air of disconcernment to it more than anything else. Even nowadays it is unusual to see that many female scientists, all in one area of physics, grouped together, unless it is a meeting on women in physics. We all just groaned and laughed and went on with our lunch. It did make enough of an effect on me, though, that I remember it ten years later. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:14:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Alternate History Recommendations In-Reply-To: <19980114.191002.20870.3.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello Folks, I'm looking for some good alternate history short stories. They don't have to be feminist, but of course it would be nice if they were! Please mail to me privately, unless others would like to see them as well. Many Thanks, Pamela Bedore pebedore@sfu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:37:11 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: Interchangeability, re feminists MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry Cat: The comment re slanging matches wasn't directed at you - I was doing my usual nifty trick of incorporating about 6000 subjects in one email! Somebody was making a comment about Dale Spender's "feminist principles", which to me is like asking an Afro-American, "How black are you?" So, nothing is guaranteed to annoy me more than people who play the I'm More Feminist Than You game - valid and concrete criticisms (open to analysis) impress me a lot more ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:25:14 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: Troi In-Reply-To: <199801141517.PAA09769@lions.cableinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit That would be pretty funny. A local filmmaker, Ryan Johnson, did a parody of TNG called Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation. He showed it at a Norwescon once and the audience wouldn't let him leave till he showed it again. Vonda On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:17:27 GMT, Catweasel wrote: >... >It works for me. Don't you think it's about time Jerry Zucker (sp?) did >a Trek film? > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:25:25 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: Good source of hard to find books In-Reply-To: <199801141715.MAA16000@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ... and if you look first at Basement Full of Books, where a lot of OP books can be found, you'll know that all the money goes to the author. http://www.sff.net/bfob You can get the book autographed, too. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:15:41 -0500, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Hope everyone is aware that if one buys review copies or proofs from a >bookstore at a reduced price, the author and publisher get no money from >that transaction.... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:27:53 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: lots of topics -- all over the place In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Maryelizabeth, Absolutely. I was amazed that they didn't do this. I thought Gene threw away 20 years of tv evolution when he designed TNG and I never understood why. SF is ideal for the "story arc" structure of some series (Wise Guy is I think the first example -- a really excellent tv series). Stories take as long as they need to be told, whether they're stand-alone episodes or whether they run over a few weeks or a whole season. And the characters develop and change as time progresses. That's how I designed Starfarers, but for some weird reason nobody is interested in a tv series in which three of the four main characters are married to each other, and in which nobody chooses their partners by thinking first and foremost of the potential partner's sex. Vonda On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:24:07 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >... >Vonda: > >LOVED THE SCENE! ROFLMHO! > >BTW, do you think perhaps if the writers had acknowledged characters' >sexuality, we would have seen more families on the ships, instead of token >kids when they were needed for a story line? > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:27:22 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: Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: <00038BA1@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gah. Maybe the relationship between Sheridan and Delenn has heated up; I don't watch the show regularly. But Delenn was never the same after the cocoon. (Not that I don't understand why -- this is pure speculation -- Mila Furan might have gone to the producers and said, "If I have to spend another 4 hours straight in the makeup chair at 4 o'clock in the morning, I'M LEAVING!") Since she got hair and started seeing Sheridan, what I remember of her dialogue consisted mostly of, "Oh, John!" And Ivanova was the perfect example of what I was complaining about. Every time the issue of sex reared its ugly head, she got all weird and had another drink. It's not that I don't think this is realistic (I mean, we're doing our best to raise another generation of sexual cripples, so why should it be any different then?). It's certainly not that I disapprove of having a glass of wine. It's just that I've seen so many characters with the same constellation of traits so many times that I'm SICK of them. The women I know who are most powerful in their business/professional lives are _not_ tentative, uncertain, frightened in their personal lives. Vonda On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:18:00 -0500, Rhian Merris wrote: >... >I guess the obvious (if you watch it, that is) exception is Babylon 5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think the love, romance, and, yes, sex between Sheridan and DeLenn is >wonderful. Of course, she is part alien, but I don't think that matters >within the framework of the show. She is very much a woman, and she is >very, very strong, intelligent, and capable. There are several times that >she saves Sheridan. Scenes in the final battle of the Shadow War and the >final battle at Earth are intense in this regard. I also like the fact that >while Sheridan is a Hero, he is far from perfect, and there are frequent >reminders that DeLenn is smarter and more insightful than he is. > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:47:26 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frances Green wrote: > > Ladies: here's an interesting excercise: > > If you are fortunate enough to have access to a seat in an otherwise > crowded public transportation module and are dressed in a manner > conducive to preserving suitable feminine modesty, try spreading your > legs wide. If you really feel in the mood, plant your elbows firmly at > your sides (not tucked in front). If you are reading a broadsheet > publication, open it to its comfortable widest extent. > > Now, how long can you maintain this position before the internal sense of > being antisocial and inconsiderate drives you back into a minimal > space-occupying confuguration? That would be a hoot to see in public. I think you're right about it being at elast in part socialization. I quite happily occupy small amounts of space in public, but sitting here now at my computer, when I'm wearing almost nothing, I won't even tell you all the ways I'm draped over my chair and desk, except that my feet are higher than my shoulders. And LOL Catweasel and Frances on the USER ERROR etc! Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:56:38 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: prejudice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frances Green wrote: > > I've been trying to bring to mind any (traditional) religious or > philosophical exhortations to men to be silent, to pitch their voices > soft and low, not to indulge in chatter and gossip... The following is a quote on Islamic philosophy (at least I think it is Islamic) I found once, while browsing around computer sites: "Words are in your control until you have not uttered them; but when you have spoken them out you are under their control. Therefore, guard your tongue as you guard your gold and silver, for often one expression snatches away a blessing and invites punishment." Good advice for pressing the Send Button on a computer! Best -- Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:25:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII What would really be interesting is to find out what SORT of porn they want. In John Barnes A MILLION OPEN DOORS, Nou Occitan tended to order a lot of sadoporn - as a reaction to their deeply ingrained cultural code of chivalry. Whereas the dour, Puritanical, but sexually matter-of-fact New Caledonians just wanted vanilla. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:12:28 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: Strips. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Working in the book trade for several years, I have to say that many of the strips (books without covers) you'll find at used book dealers may be getting there from dishonest booksellers (read retail clerks, not owners.) Many publishers do not accept mass markets for returns-- so at inventory or relay time, books are stripped supposedly to be trashed or recycled. The reality is that the floor sellers take these home free, and for many, the next stop is the used bookstore; where they make a profit off the free book, as does the used book seller. David's right, the author loses in this scenario. But my experience with pub- lishers is that they contract to make $, even off strips, even though their disclaimers inside beg poverty. Used sellers with integrity will not accept strips. Be careful, be thoughtful, keep lots of folks writing, support independents. tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:31:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <19980114.191002.20870.1.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Victor Sanchez' book (forget the title)- basically it's on how to apply the works of Carlos Castenada to Improve Yourself - suggests seriously cross-dressing as an exercise. He also (I love this!) had a poor Indian in his workshop do the entire business suit & stockbroker bit for a while (under the wing of someone he knew - the INdian did very well, I think) - while he had a prominent businessman out selling the equivalent of Street News. And no cheating; no going home in his Range Rover when he was done! If nothing else this would open people's eyes to class and gender issues. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:37:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: prejudice In-Reply-To: <199801150109.RAA18958@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Cat Farrar wrote: > >I've been trying to bring to mind any (traditional) religious or > >philosophical exhortations to men to be silent, to pitch their voices > >soft and low, not to indulge in chatter and gossip... If you accept the Brother Cadfael mysteries by Ellis Peters as well researched, then this is exactly what the Benedictines wanted in their monasteries - soft, low voices, no chatter or gossip, a lot of silence. Which sounds very restful to me. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:28:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: <34cf81a9.752985247@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Vonda N. McIntyre critisized Babylon 5 on the issue of sex. She seemed upset that: Delenn become soft and pliable when she and John became involved. Ivanova is a sexual cripple (or something like that) You missed all the good episodes. For one thing, there was that great "cramps" comment she made to Ivanova. She was also "aggressive" in sexual pursuit of Sheridan. He was admittedly very "easy" but he didn't really steer their relationship. There was also the episode (considered one of the best) when she saves babylon five by leading a Minbari fleet to their defense. She has a good speech in that one when she tells the bad-guys that they better scram because only one human has ever defeated a Minbari cruiser (Sheridan) and he is behind her, she suggests that they not be "in front of her". There are also a number of Ivanova episodes where she isn't around Sheridan at all. (like the one where she tries to sacrifice her life to end civil war in such a way that the warrior caste doesn't win.) Ivanova was in love with Talia (the telepath) who turned out to be a deep-plant spy for the psi-corp, and Susan was paranoid because she was hiding the fact that she was a telepath (which was a big hairy deal). Yes, Ivanova is screwed up in many ways. This much is evident from more than just her relationships (or lack thereof). However, she gets some of the best lines: "you're about to go where every man hs gone before" "Ivanova is God" "Trust me and youself, everyone else, shoot them" "...I am the right hand of vengeance, I am death incarnate, I am the last living thing you will ever see." "I could have at least boffed him once." I might not have gotten those perfect, but that's the idea. Garibaldi and Marcus also have interesting love lives. Marcus is a virgin who is in love with Ivanova. Garibaldi is in love with Lise (who has complicated feelings about him. He has had women come on to him in a big way and turned them down because of Lise. I agree that some established couples (and more explicit homosexuality) would have been a good addition to babylon five, but other than that I don't think you can fault it's sexual politics that much. There was a short-lived SF tv show that had a married man as the main character. I forget what it was called but it had that really short woman from dune as the supervisor of the frontier police force main characters. I saw some episodes of it on tape at a video store. The conflict between the man's job and his marraige was an important part of the show (i think). It also had a woman from a planet where "ladys aren't ladys" who is the pilot and is an obviously feminist character. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:49:29 -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: prejudice In-Reply-To: <19980114.191002.20870.3.jjggww@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:09 PM 1/14/98 -0500, Frances Green wrote: >I've been trying to bring to mind any (traditional) religious or >philosophical exhortations to men to be silent, to pitch their voices >soft and low, not to indulge in chatter and gossip... > >There does seem to be a certain anxiety in the patriarchal mindset about >women communicating among themselves. The stereotype wife never off the >phone with her mother springs to mind! How about the "Strong, Silent Type" that is so prevalent in the movies and culture as a whole. There is a very strong emphasis on not showing emotion, not sharing thoughts and ideas that relate to feelings or situations, unless you're showing your Solution to the Big Problem. One of the first strategies in war is to cut off communication among the enemy forces, or to use that communication against them (surveillance, spies, etc). With the "us vs them" mindset of those male physicists, it seems that they are following this strategy as well -- interrupting the conversation and remarking that not only was the talk centered on the males ("plotting against us") but that it was adversarial as well. In my mind, interrupting in the first place is a sure sign of ensuring that the attention would be centered on them, but perhaps I'm paranoid. My 2c, plus a 15% gratuity added. 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: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:08:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Interchangeability (was book group)- facetious? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > So, yeah, men may have to say "I'm sorry" with regard to a specific > infraction, but they certainly don't apologize for their existence in > general the way women do. Ummm... Sorry to disagree, but I think I have a definite tendancy to apologize too much. I think I do so more when interacting with women, though. My wife and (earlier ;-) an SO in high school have commented (critically) on my excessive apologies. I also find that I have to sharply edit letters (email and the old-fashioned ones) to be more assertive. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:08:56 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: Romance in SF television MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit spoilersbane for my comments x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I have been a B5 fan since the 2nd season, and Ivanova is my favorite character. The most tragic part of her life is that she has managed to disconnect her mind and actions from her spiritual or emotional self. Even with those flaws, I can relate to her much more easily than I can Delenn (who I love when she's flying solo without John). The struggle to integrate the mind, spirit, body, and soul seems to be the pivotal struggle we face in our lives. Also, I've been reviewing some literature on the romance genre as part of a separate discussion on this list and it came to me late last week that Susan and Marcus fit the romance genre hero/heroine roles fairly well, it's just that Susan is the flawed tormented hero a la Rochester and Marcus is the classic virginal heroine. It's provided me with some interesting stuff to chew on the last few days. I didn't know much about Sinclair, but watching the early episodes now I've been enjoying the depictions of his relationship with Catherine. Sheridan and Delenn have reached almost epic status and it's harder to connect with them on a more personal basis. I need to see less epic characters struggle with their lives just as much as the main hero and heroine in my TV and books. As for Garibaldi, he needs to ditch Lise big time. just my 0.02 credits here... Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:33:38 -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: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >All of my touching has to be completely pre-agreed to by me and the other >person. There is no casual contact. What constitutes agreement is a bit >complicated though. In a confrontation of some kind I suspect that >getting in my way would constitute agreement on both parts to make >contact. I also love the game "wink" which is a full-contact wrestling >melee thing that even involves kissing. The thing is that it is part of >the game and the rules of the game. It could be that I am simply fixated >on physical contact, and that I like things and situations that bring me >into physical contact with others, but that I can't handle "casual" >contact. I remember thinking that this was sex-related in high school, >watching girls braid each other's hair and such, wishing that I could be >doing something like that. > Joel, I dunno about a neurosis. Maybe you're just a touchy (physically) kinda fella, y'know? It sounds as though you like to touch or be touched on your own terms, which gives you a certain amount of control over touch. I think it'd be more serious if you went about unnecessarily wearing a mask, surgical gloves and freaked every time somebody bumped into you or put a hand on you. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy