Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9801C" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:32:21 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kitimher Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Sig in Alien4 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cat said: You picked up very different vibes than I did from Sig in the last Alien installment. I found the entire film to be loaded for bear with lesbian subtext; epitomized in the scene where she, on hands and knees, dips her body seductively low and inhales, then dips her finger lavishly in alien goo and puts it to her tongue. . . then announces that "they" are close-by. Yeow! I found the characterizations to have a very different sexual context in this film than the others, which is not to say that there wasn't gratuitousness as with this about Call: "eminently fuckable, isn't she?" Ugh. I also got the impression that it was intended that she take pleasure in the "baser" things this time around. . . my take on it is that Ripley deserved to find some satisfaction in a different sense of herself. SPOILER The 3rd installment with a male in the "super hero" role would never have ended with him sacrificing himself. Arnold, or Bruce Willis or even Harrison Ford as Ripley would have ripped the Alien from his middle, removed its head from its body and sewed up his own gut with its sinew. As for the "grown up Alien child" the storyline referencing Ripley's motherhood and the death of her child while she was adrift between 1 and 2 was left on the cutting room floor. Knowing that she was a mother and lost all of that, only to lose another "child" (Newt in the second installment, who actually calls her "mommy" at one point) adds some context to this installment. It's a surreal kind of connection though, and not played to its best effect IMO. tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:32:16 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James 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" On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > 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. Funny, I had never before realised that we in the mainland of Britain lived in a Utopia... :-) Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:56:48 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Pat wrote: > 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. Any sort, for what I know. I left that place in 1994, and strictly speaking, I had never lived in Russia, but in Tajikistan, another piece of former USSR. But since we still had the same media, more or less, I remember how it all started. First, in middle 80's, with advent of VCR's, lots of people got access to western movies, which would never have been played in theaters. My cousin owned a videostore, so even though one could still go to jail for distributing stuff "promoting sex and violence", most of the films that were popular were exactly of that sort, simply because it was something totally new, and everyone was curious. People were smuggling the videocassettes in their luggage coming back from the outside world, lending them to their friends, and copying them a hundred times. Since VSR's were extremely expensive, the "videostores" were actually mini-theaters, with a big-screen TV and a bunch of chairs crammed in a small room which used to be a storage place or something, and several "showings" a day, announced by a hand-written poster outside. Most of the biggest "blockbusters" at that time were: a) "horror" (the Hollywood teenage slasher movies like "Friday 13", or the #1 hit "The Nightmare on Elm Street"); b) action movies (#1. Rambo -- the First Blood); and c) porn. Concerning the latter, it was mostly German, since US has a different video format, and American-made cassettes would not show anything on our TV's, and use official TV station equipment to reformat them, like other films (people who worked in TV industry did a pretty good business on that) was too dangerous. After all, if someone caught you with Halloween-3, you could still get away, but not with a triple-X movie. Still, those films were extremely popular. I've never seen any of that, because my parents were pretty particular about illegal stuff, and I was not allowed to go any place where I could see that. But I know that other people would watch porn at family dinners, with children, friends and relatives. It was something exotic, a window to different, free world. And it was not even the Playboy channel type of stuff, but real, violent pornography, with rape, murders, and that sort of thing. The most famous film I heard of most, was "Catherine the Great", a West German flick about the famous queen as a crazy sex addict. It must have been good in it's own way, because everyone who ever watched porn had definitely seen that one. People who told me about watching these movies were not some kind of sleazy guys like it is here in America. Mostly married, and happily married, and mostly women (I would never talk to a guy about that, it would be asking for trouble). People with college degrees who simply grew up in a culture that did not permit any expression of sexuality altogether. Neither in a good way, nor in a bad way. It simply did not exist, as one woman on a Soviet-American talk show once said on the question about sex, "There is no sex in the USSR!". But since it obviously existed, once the strict censorship was removed, whatever came along, be it Penthouse or XXX movies, it was assumed to be a part of legitimate means of expression of human sexuality. Part of the freedom, Glasnost, and democracy. In about 1990, a popular youth-oriened magazine I subscribed to, had a Playboy-type story or comic strip (once even a huge Penthouse centerfold) in every issue. It was not seen as pornography, there was no such word anymore, it was called "erotic art", and it included everything, from classic literature in any way exploring sexuality, to translations of paperback romances with explicit scenes, to Playboy articles, to 9 1/2 weeks movie, to German hard core films to Japanese animation. I remember the movies that were constantly advertized on national TV in early 90-s: "Zanderlee and Her Men", "Ecslipse of Two Moons", "Wild Orchid", "The Fig Tree of Greece". I've never seen any of them, but the way they were advertised, it seemed that the main action there was conducted between the sheets. "The 9 1/2 weeks" was unanimously voted by post-Soviet media as the greatest masterpiece of "sensual art". Other favorites were "Caligula" and the book "Lady Chatterlay's Lover" (another masterpiece, this time on the subject of female sensuality). All that was presented as an important part of being a free person, together with democracy and free speech. Something you were supposed to get adjusted to, as part of the liberation. I must say that this stuff was not the only things that came with freedom. The were some good books and movies and art that came in after long time of cultural isolation. But the problem with porn is that it had been something absolutely non-existant during 70 years of Communism, so nobody had any kind of immunity to it, or even more or less certain idea whether it's good or bad, or what the Hell you are supposed to think about it. A girl from my class in college once told me how her 6-year-old sister ripped open her dolls after watching a movie with a rape of a virgin. She thought it was funny. I thought it was scary, but I was a nerd anyway. Not long before I left, in 1994, ther was some western European TV show, "The Ocean" on Russian TV with a rape scene (depicted in detail), in every episode. The local station in my city apparently taped it and kept broadcasting it almost continiously. It's not like everyone really liked it. It's simply nobody knew why should not they. It used to be forbidden. It was not anymore. Therefore, it must be cool, and meant to be accepted as any other new fashion. I've heard that the Russian TV now is a lot more "liberated" that it was four years ago. They have "Basic Instinct" broadcasted on prime-time Sunday nights, and amature stripper shows during the day. I don't even know myself whether it's good or bad. It bothers me, but not the sexual images itself as much as the way they depict women. On the other side, it seems that Russia simply follows the trends in the rest of the Europe. In America, everything is extremely polarized. It's either Howard Stern, or the Christian Coalition, never something in between. In Europe, people seem to be a lot more relaxed about everything. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:22:00 -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: pressing the send button Catherine Asaro wrote: ---------- 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! ---------- No kidding! :) Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:42:00 -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: ---------- Rhian Merris wrote: > 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. ---------- Yeah, I guess I assumed some of that - that you knew many of them and it was friendly jibing. I've been thinking about this since I read your post yesterday, and I imagined a response on the part of your party very similar to the one you describe. I didn't really mean that it was so horrible in the moment, more of a global societal thing. That is, if it _weren't_ unusual to have that many female physicists all together, and if there _weren't_ a long history of difficulty for women breaking into such fields, and in fact that field in particular, and if that didn't play directly into a long line of sexist prejudice, then there wouldn't really have been anything wrong with it at all. A casual joke remarking on a group bearing some unifying characteristic, and suggesting some malintent towards another group not bearing that characteristic, seems harmless. But given that this situation did in fact bear all of those characteristics I mentioned, that casual joke seems to dismiss you into a legacy of sexism that many of you may have had to struggle through throughout your careers, right at a moment that should have somehow surpassed that. Anyway, I wasn't thinking that the men involved were thoroughly evil, :) just maybe a bit thick, and it made me sad about the world. :) Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:11:00 -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: Romance in SF television Ah, Vonda! Watch more! :) ---------- Gah. Maybe the relationship between Sheridan and Delenn has heated up ---------- It has. ---------- ; 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!" ---------- Hmm. That's definitely not my memory. She was confused for a while, due to becoming partly, or largely, human, and dealing with new emotions and reactions - something that seems reasonable to me. I think that if I suddenly became human and had all of the human emotions that I currently have suddenly piled on me, I'd freak. :) After she calmed down from that she returned to being really cool, with the one caveat that she was scared for John. I think that's also reasonable, since she was now in love with him, and he tends to go running around putting himself in mortal danger. ---------- 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. ---------- Ah, I see. Right. Well, I guess my response to that is that Babylon 5 is one of the rare shows that actually _deal_ with the issues underlying these traits. It also develops and changes them. There were numerous episodes that referenced Susan's screwed up emotions, yada yada, but they were all part of the story line, and they were progressing, right up to the final episode that she was in. I think that DeLenn is the most powerful and admirable character on the show. She had a period of fumbling around, dealing with her new self, dealing with conflicts with Minbar, dealing with her guilt, etc., but she came through stronger than ever. I wish that I could remember the names of some of the episodes, but in addition to the two battle episodes I mentioned, the episode where Sheridan and DeLenn are each, separately, grilled and tortured in darkness by the representative of the Vorlons is another remarkable episode for DeLenn. There was never any doubt in my mind that she would be strong enough or smart enough. Sheridan was more in doubt. ---------- The women I know who are most powerful in their business/professional lives are _not_ tentative, uncertain, frightened in their personal lives. ---------- Hmm. I know examples of both types - and this is irrespective of gender. DeLenn, after her initial period of confusion, was not tentative, uncertain, or frightened in her personal life. Susan Ivanova, on the other hand, dealt with her pain, emotional uncertainty, etc., by hardening herself even more, throwing herself even more into her professional life. Both seem very realistic to me. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:26:10 -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: prejudice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > 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 > > hhhmmmm does this include lots of dead bodies? sfs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:44:51 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=female? > >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 > I have always thought that common courtesy was the most logical approach to dealing with other people on any level...and in my part of the South, we can even insult you and you may think it is a complement! ;-> Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:59:39 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: "feminist plotting" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Catherine Asaro told a story about physicists who were female and having lunch together being "jokingly" accused of feminist plotting. I am a not-yet-enured faculty member at a university which has made numerous hires in recent years (and many female). I am on a committee which does some serious work evaluating university studies (core) and capstone courses. Also on the committee is my female housemate (our two departments probably teach the most u.stud/capstones on campus), and the chair is another female friend. We have taken care not to sit next to each other in meetings ever since several males on the committee (it is MOSTLY male by the way--there are only four women on the committee which has fifteen members although many don't ever show up) accused us "jokingly" of our plot to pursue a feminist agenda. The 'old boy network' which is continually in operation in meetings, of course, is not considered a plot at all. I have read advice by feminist mentors to women faculty to not sit together in committee meetings and so on because apparently this perception is widespread. *sigh* Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:10:09 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: language differences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have a secondary specialization in sociolinguistics, and can say that while there is evidence of gender differences in speech and body language, you can also find (if you're looking) evidence of major similarities among men and women of the same ethnicity and class and striking differences between women of different ethnic groups and class. African American men and women share similarities,for example, while African American women and Anglo and European American women have major differences in speech patterns and body language. That's because speech is learned, not innate: it's cultural or social conditioning. And there's also evidence that as soon as a child enters "school," the speech habits of the peer group became as or more important than the speech patterns of parents. There are linguists who have done a good deal of research, but when you start looking across cultures, you see that the differences are taught. For instance, I gather it is considered polite in Japanese to apologize ritually at certain times, so it is possible Japanese men would apologize more than Anglo American men. This field is a fascinating area of study, while being complicated by the fact that the only "tool" we have to analyze language is language. (Also complicated by the 'observer' factor--that is, when the linguist sent to interview/study a group is an outsider, the group behavior changes. Some good people to read on feminism and linguistics are Deborah Tannen, Deborah Cameron, Suzette Haden Elgin, and Mary Louise Pratt.) These issues have incredible important to teachers, especially. And I learned to beware of consultants who come in and present stereotypes as how to deal with life when I was a TA and we had this specialist come in and tell us that "African American students are X," and "Native American students are Y," and so on. They teven told us that depending on your ethnicity, you would think "differently." There's a difference between cultural background and stereotyping, and that consultant had crossed it long ago. The nature/nurture debate is complicated--but I figure that if a behavior or attribute is "natural" or "innate," there wouldn't need to be any social custom or more to keep it going. Nobody has to encourage women to menstruate, but there are all sorts of social mechanicisms regarding women and work! SF can be such an incredibly important field of work because many sf writers do call into question these social beliefs that everybody is encouraged to believe are "natural." Even the sex role reversal stuff, while simplistic, can be a good starting point for students who have never been encouraged to question their family and community values. (And I'm not saying they should have to dump thos values, but they have to learn not everyone shares them.) Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:16:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: another multi-topic jumble Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" teragram inquired: >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. > Which made me think of a discussion which came up at our book discussion group the other night. Someone pointed out that cloning humans will probably finally definitively answer the "nature vs. nurture" arguement. The stores which get stolen books in large numbers out West basically have "hired thieves" whose "job" it is to go into a regular bookstore, often with a specific list of titles, and steal them for the guilty store. They get paid like $2 a book, and then the store can sell them for 50% off at a profit. They have busted theives with something like $5000 worth of stolen books in their vans at times. BTW, for those of you who aren't on the SF-Lit list via the LOC, I'm proud to stay our strips are unsteal-able! (Nor that I don't abhor the practise, but that's a whole 'nother barrel of apples!) Anyway, not only are our books double stripped, but we share a dumpster with the fish market next door! >Patricia (Pat) Mathews shared >"Carjones" (Spanglish) >Meaning he has cojones when he's in his car. >That's half of New Mexico! Hadn't heard this, but love it, Pat! It applies to half of Southern California as well! >Penny (ever-struggling to assert my feminist agenda) >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: I don't think this is necessarily just a female thing -- and it is one I appreciate, as I think do most retail folks. :) Linda Kimsey reminded us: > > >Chocolate - there's nothing better for that hung over, I can't believe I >spent that much, oh the weather outside is icky feeling. Unless it's a chocolate hangover! True confession: I've been known to eat so many M&M's that I get a sore spot on my tongue. :P Gentle reminder to everyone, in my demure, female way: DON'T RESEND THE ENTIRE MESSAGE YOU ARE RESPONDING TO! PLEASE ONLY RESEND THE PERTINENT PART (examples contained herein). I think we've been over there wherefores before on this one. Also, MIME is not a good thing for many on the list. Thank you. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:37:27 -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: <3.0.32.19980115121549.007e6100@ariel.unimelb.edu.au> 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 And what about the part where Dan Akroyd, playing a Canadian Mountie (is that the right term for a regular cop?), who pulls over our heroes, whose truck is covered with anti-Canadian graffiti, hands them a spray paint can and insists that they redo the grafitti in French as well, as as not to offend the Quebecoise! (teehee) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:04:32 -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: apologizing=female? In-Reply-To: <113D198622AB@calc.vet.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >I have always thought that common courtesy was the most logical >approach to dealing with other people on any level...and in my part >of the South, we can even insult you and you may think it is a >complement! ;-> >Penny They say that somebody's truly polite if they can tell you to go to Hell in such a way as you think you'd enjoy the trip. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:59:05 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: Romance in SF Television MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="Default"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Okay, I have to ask..... What do we think about DSN's Rom and Leeta (sp?)? Honor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:12:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: Apologies and Qualifiers MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="Default"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Lately I've been making a serious effort to remove qualifiers in my academic writing because I've been warned that it can be professionally damaging. Even more potentially damaging, apparently, is my tendency to be soft-spoken and use lots of spoken qualifiers. The advice (which I accept as well-intentioned and no doubt true) was "You need to be more....I don't want to say macho, but...." The problem is, I LIKE all my qualifiers! Pretending 100% confidence in my interpretations of a given work seems to me to be terribly arrogant, and adjectives allow me to say what I really mean. Apparently, however, this preference makes my writing weaker (does that mean more feminine?). NOT to essentialize (there. Another qualifier), but there seem to be some strengths to this writing style, whether it's gendered female or not. Anyone else with similar experiences? I would be particularly interested in hearing from those who have successfully avoided the necessity of this verbal cross-dressing. Honor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:19:41 -0800 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: prejudice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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. > Abelard (author of _Sic et Non_, & the male partner in the famed Abelard & Heloise duo) had serious trouble with his monks when he was abbot of a monastery in Brittany. He beat them; & they tried to kill him. He finally had to flee for his life. I would take the Cadfael scenario with an enormous helping of salt. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:27:58 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: Apologies and Qualifiers On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 Honor Wallace said: > Lately I've been making a serious effort to remove qualifiers in my > academic writing because > I've been warned that it can be professionally damaging. Even more > potentially damaging, > apparently, is my tendency to be soft-spoken and use lots of spoken > qualifiers. The advice > (which I accept as well-intentioned and no doubt true) was "You need to be > more....I don't > want to say macho, but...." > > The problem is, I LIKE all my qualifiers! Pretending 100% confidence in my > interpretations > of a given work seems to me to be terribly arrogant, and adjectives allow > me to say what > I really mean. Apparently, however, this preference makes my writing > weaker (does that > mean more feminine?). NOT to essentialize (there. Another qualifier), but > there seem to > be some strengths to this writing style, whether it's gendered female or > not. Anyone else > with similar experiences? I would be particularly interested in hearing > from those who have > successfully avoided the necessity of this verbal cross-dressing. > > Honor > Honor... I am a writer of papers and lectures in Medical Microbiology which also translates into Genetics, Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, and regular ol' Microbiology (whatever that is now). I am unsure if your academic writing is Science-oriented or fiction, but I do know that scientific writing is for many already full of terminology that can be used differently by different segments of the "science world", i.e. Biochemists' use one set of jargon for things identical to or quite similar with the Geneticists' different set of jargon. In this case, too many qualifiers would render the paper even more complicated to read. (Let's face it, even very few science nerds I know enjoy scientific papars on any subject but their own, but one must to remain "informed".) However, in presentations I tend to have more fun with my "qualifiers", as it can make the presentation less boring and more amusing while getting one's point across...and it isn't in print to haunt me for years to come. (Sometimes when I reread my Master's I cringe.) However, as you expressed a desire to keep your I would get a lot of professional (and laypeople) opinions in your field before you attempt to change any facet of your writing style. The reason I say this is because of my committee. One professional's preference is another's disdain. I guess many grad students learn that the hard way. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:55:54 +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: Guns and the south (and fiction?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>.visualizing a society where no >> one feels they need a gun for protection, perhaps? >Funny, I had never before realised that we in the mainland of Britain lived in a Utopia... :-) Edward James -------- NZ is looking pretty idyllic too - even our cops don't carry guns on their persons! Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:57:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: another multi-topic jumble MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit teragram inquired: >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. To which Maryelizabeth Hart replied: > Which made me think of a discussion which came up at our book discussion > group the other night. Someone pointed out that cloning humans will > probably finally definitively answer the "nature vs. nurture" arguement. I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer to this argument, as we will never be able to experimentally isolate nature from nurture. As far as cloning goes... a clone is in essence an identical twin (if you subtract intra-uterine influence). There have already been studies on twins re: the nature/nurture debate, with some interesting results. Turns out temperament seems to be inherent in some ways, but the story is pretty complex. In case anyone is interested, there was an excellent article about the twin research in the New Yorker a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I don't have the cite -- can you help, Teragram? ----- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead - OK Computer "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:35:10 -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: apologizing=female? There is a description (Oscar, was that you??) of an English gentleman: as "never rude unintentionally." On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:04:32 -0600 Sean Johnston writes: >>> >>I have always thought that common courtesy was the most logical >>approach to dealing with other people on any level...and in my part >>of the South, we can even insult you and you may think it is a >>complement! ;-> >>Penny > >They say that somebody's truly polite if they can tell you to go to >Hell in >such a way as you think you'd enjoy the trip. > >-Sean > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' >in >STNG: Conspiracy > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:22:39 -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 Yes, but that also applies to women in the monastic situation: a unisex religious discipline. I think (but haven't had time to hit the Quotations dictionary) there may be a few appreciations of silence in Proverbs, which may be phrased in masculine terms, but not intended to be gender specific. The readings at my all-girls secondary school tended to focus more on the "get wisdom, get understanding" topic. Wisdom, now I start recollection, personified as "she" and "her": Sophia? Athene was Wisdom in the Greek tradition (too bad she had to patronize war also; seems oxymoronic. Apollo got music and all kinds of good stuff.). Does Guan Yin include wisdom in her provenance of mercy and death? " Which sounds very restful to me." > Sheri Tepper described a silent retreat community in her latest Jason Lynx mystery; I wonder if it is based in reality? I never did see what was so terrible about "the sounds of silence"! On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:37:13 -0800 Pat writes: >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: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:32:20 -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: pressing the send button Catherine: that's a lovely quote. Thanks! I generally try to set my email options to store messages until instructed to send, which does give the option to think secondarily. Here on clunky old Juno.com it works that way anyhow; but I've been trying the Beta 2 version of Outlook on the Internet, and sometimes it won't send them messages at all: I have to go to the out box and push each one through individually. On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:22:00 -0500 Rhian Merris writes: >Catherine Asaro wrote: > > ---------- >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! > ---------- > > No kidding! :) > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:29:38 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: Guns and the south (and fiction?) On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > 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. Edward James replied >Funny, I had never before realised that we in the mainland of Britain >lived in a Utopia... :-) I must say this had not occurred to me either! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:28:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elise S Schimeck Subject: end my listserv In-Reply-To: <19980115.163611.20270.5.jjggww@juno.com> from "Frances Green" at Jan 15, 98 04:35:10 pm Content-Type: text/plain Please take my address of this listserv. I will no longer need this service,Thank You Schimec22pilot.msu.edu> > There is a description (Oscar, was that you??) of an English gentleman: > as "never rude unintentionally." > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:04:32 -0600 Sean Johnston > writes: > >>> > >>I have always thought that common courtesy was the most logical > >>approach to dealing with other people on any level...and in my part > >>of the South, we can even insult you and you may think it is a > >>complement! ;-> > >>Penny > > > >They say that somebody's truly polite if they can tell you to go to > >Hell in > >such a way as you think you'd enjoy the trip. > > > >-Sean > > > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' > >in > >STNG: Conspiracy > > > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x Elise S. Schimeck x x Michigan State Universityx x x x 345 Evergreen Apt 4G x x East Lansing, Mi 48823 x x (517) 332-2858 (Local) x x (810) 792-0963 x x schimec2@pilot.msu.edu x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:49:43 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: language differences In-Reply-To: <199801151710.RAA05001@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Robin Reid wrote: > I have a secondary specialization in sociolinguistics, and can say that > while there is evidence of gender differences in speech and body language, Here's an interesting difference for you. Yesterday, while wending our way through a crowded corridor at the local YMCA, where there were swim meats and basketball tournaments going on simultaneously for boys and girls ages 8-14, my wife and I noticed that the girls (in general) seemed much more likely to be aware of where other people were in the complex flow of humanity around them than boys were. Girls standing around and not doing anything in particular tended to move out of other people's way without even thinking about it. Boys were much more likely to be off in some mooney fantasy world, blocking the corridor without even thinking about it. Nature? Nurture? Neurological maturity? I have no idea. All I know is that my daughter, age 10, is much more aware of her surroundings than my son, age 22 ever was. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:04:34 -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: end my listserv In-Reply-To: <199801152228.RAA40344@pilot010.cl.msu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Please take my address of this listserv. I will no longer need this >service,Thank You Schimec22pilot.msu.edu> >> There is a description (Oscar, was that you??) of an English gentleman: >> as "never rude unintentionally." >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:04:32 -0600 Sean Johnston >> writes: >> >>> >> >>I have always thought that common courtesy was the most logical >> >>approach to dealing with other people on any level...and in my part >> >>of the South, we can even insult you and you may think it is a >> >>complement! ;-> >> >>Penny >> > >> >They say that somebody's truly polite if they can tell you to go to >> >Hell in >> >such a way as you think you'd enjoy the trip. >> > >> >-Sean >> > >> >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' >> >in >> >STNG: Conspiracy Gee, was it something I said? -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:26:27 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: <00039236@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Rhian, As I mentioned to Joel in another message, I'm delighted to hear that the characters have evolved from the stereotype that's so prevalent in our field. On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:11:00 -0500, Rhian Merris wrote: >... >she returned to being really cool, >... >Hmm. I know examples of both types - and this is irrespective of gender. (We all do. It's seeing, in fiction, one type most of the time and the other type hardly ever -- _not_ irrespective of gender -- that I was whining about.) Best, Vonda http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:26:20 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Joel, I obviously offended you, which was surely not my intention. What I was complaining about had nothing to do with any particular show except inasmuch as I keep seeing the same "competent professional/messed-up personal" stereotypical women characters in program after program after program. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:28:24 -0500, Joel VanLaven wrote: >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. I didn't say that. I said she was never the same, as far as I watched the show, after she came out of the cocoon. >Ivanova is a sexual cripple (or something like that) > I'm delighted to hear that she's evolved from the stereotype I was complaining about, and has developed the fulfilling personal life that I see being enjoyed by many of the strongest and most successful women (both gay and straight) that I'm acquainted with. None of the examples you cite demonstrates that evolution, but I'm certainly willing to believe that the evidence exists in the many episodes I haven't seen. best, Vonda http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:43:52 -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: Sig in Alien4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:32 AM 1/15/98 EST, you wrote: >Cat said: > >"child"?) and the stills for this scene 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.> > >You picked up very different vibes than I did from Sig in the last Alien >installment. >I found the entire film to be loaded for bear with lesbian subtext; epitomized >in the >scene where she, on hands and knees, dips her body seductively low and >inhales, >then dips her finger lavishly in alien goo and puts it to her tongue. . . then >announces >that "they" are close-by. Yeow! I viewed that as an animalistic trait. There were a couple of scenes with Call that had this lesbian subtext you are speaking of. > >I found the characterizations to have a very different sexual context in this >film than >the others, which is not to say that there wasn't gratuitousness as with this >about Call: >"eminently fuckable, isn't she?" Ugh. Those men acted like sexist pigs - boring, boring, boring... > >I also got the impression that it was intended that she take pleasure in the >"baser" things >this time around. . . my take on it is that Ripley deserved to find some >satisfaction in a different >sense of herself. Yes, this film had its share of the baser things in life. But what kind of satisfaction do you think the character was looking for or deserved? CAn you site some examples of behavior that lead you to this conclusion? >SPOILER > > > >The 3rd installment with a male in the "super hero" role would never have >ended with him sacrificing himself. Arnold, or Bruce Willis or even Harrison >Ford as Ripley would have >ripped the Alien from his middle, removed its head from its body > and sewed up his own gut with its sinew. This is a very insightful observation. :-) > >As for the "grown up Alien child" the storyline referencing Ripley's >motherhood >and the death of her child while she was adrift between 1 and 2 was left on >the >cutting room floor. Knowing that she was a mother and lost all of that, only >to lose >another "child" (Newt in the second installment, who actually calls her >"mommy" >at one point) adds some context to this installment. It's a surreal kind of >connection though, >and not played to its best effect IMO. The scene where Ripley is laying in the nest, with her grown up, pregnant child is way too incestuous for me. Definitly gave me the creeps. > Cat Farrar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:59:07 -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: Russian pornography (Conference) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:56 AM 1/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Marina wrote: > >Most of the biggest "blockbusters" at that time were: a) "horror" (the >Hollywood teenage slasher movies like "Friday 13", or the #1 hit "The >Nightmare on Elm Street"); b) action movies (#1. Rambo -- the First >Blood); and c) porn. Well, Russians aren't so different then Americans, are they? It's shocking to come to realize how men's relationship with sex and violence crosses all boundries - city, state, country. Men aren't going to stop this on their own. From all that I've read, this combination becomes addicting for those who engage in it. It's no wonder that Larry Flint and his admirers screamed so hard for first ammendment rights. They look "virtuous" to the public at large but their hidden agenda is to hang onto their pornography. > >Concerning the latter, it was mostly German, since US has a different >video format, and American-made cassettes would not show anything on our >TV's, and use official TV station equipment to reformat them, like other >films (people who worked in TV industry did a pretty good business on that) >was too dangerous. After all, if someone caught you with Halloween-3, you >could still get away, but not with a triple-X movie. Violence sanctioned more than sex?!! > >Still, those films were extremely popular. I've never seen any of that, >because my parents were pretty particular about illegal stuff, and I was >not allowed to go any place where I could see that. But I know that other >people would watch porn at family dinners, with children, friends and >relatives. It was something exotic, a window to different, free world. Exotic??!! Some type of freedom?!! >And it was not even the Playboy channel type of stuff, but real, violent >pornography, with rape, murders, and that sort of thing. The most famous >film I heard of most, was "Catherine the Great", a West German flick >about the famous queen as a crazy sex addict. It must have been good in >it's own way, because everyone who ever watched porn had definitely seen >that one. Children watching this also? A family affair? This is horrific! > >People who told me about watching these movies were not some kind of >sleazy guys like it is here in America. Mostly married, and happily >married, Yep, this sounds like our country. And most rapes are not committed by strangers but by those you know, love and trust. > >But since it obviously existed, once the strict censorship was removed, >whatever came along, be it Penthouse or XXX movies, it was assumed to be >a part of legitimate means of expression of human sexuality. Part of the >freedom, Glasnost, and democracy. I'm sure there are those who would like to keep up those appearances - that this is a legitimate means of sexual expression. Propaganda at its finest. > > A girl from my class in college once told me how her 6-year-old >sister ripped open her dolls after watching a movie with a rape of a >virgin. She thought it was funny. I thought it was scary, but I was a >nerd anyway. You were right. The action that child took is scary. Always remember that. Cat Farrar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:24:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Guns and the south (and fiction?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > > 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. > > > Funny, I had never before realised that we in the mainland of Britain > lived in a Utopia... :-) > > Edward James Having spent my childhood in the UK and the rest of my life in Canada, I take not having guns around pretty much for granted. What bothers me, however, is that American TV culture is so overwhelming that many, many people I know believe Toronto (which runs around 50-100 murders a year, most of them familial) is as violent as LA or other large American cities. The town I live in, Peterborough (population 68,000) had an extraordinary *3* murders last year (97), but people here still believe that it's dangerous. There does seem to be somewhat of a discrepancy between expectation and reality. However, when I lived in a rural area, there were a lot more firearms around. It was not a poor area, so hunting was strictly sport, not necessity, but it still involved large amounts of trespassing, offensive behaviour, and groups of men in camouflage. It didn't do a lot for the safety of domestic cattle (the local good ol' boys shot and stole a young steer from our farm) or for people in the area. At one point, 18 men beat through our 17 acre bush; it looked like a military operation in Vietnam and gave the animals no chance whatsoever. I always hoped that they'd shoot each other, but instead they managed to send three bullets through the windows of the local elementary school. Despite that, I refuse to own firearms. Crowbars are rather handy, though. So are dogs. And we lived for 7 years in that area, which was full of religious fundamentalists, in a house whose front door didn't lock, as out lesbians. It wasn't our own safety we worried about, but the safety of the animals. (The fundamentalists were reputed to have burned the barns of people they didn't like . . . I guess the Bible doesn't consider burning animals alive a sin.) So, I still conclude that, in general, this country is safer than we think it is, that one does not need a gun for protection, and, I'm afraid, that I agree with Edward's concisely ironic point . . . it doesn't necessarily mean we qualify as a Utopia. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:34:18 -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 > And what about the part where Dan Akroyd, playing a Canadian Mountie (is > that the right term for a regular cop?), Depends what part of Canada you're in. Ontario and Quebec have their own police forces. The OPP have recently adopted Stetsons, because our premier is smitten by the U.S. and wants them to look like TV show cops . . . it would be better if they looked like Mounties, but *they* only wear Stetsons when in dress uniform. I wonder what would happen to jodhpurs in a zero-gee environment . . . And what about the horses? Could do some interesting things for the Musical Ride. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:57:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cat Farrar wrote: > >But since it obviously existed, once the strict censorship was removed, > >whatever came along, be it Penthouse or XXX movies, it was assumed to be > >a part of legitimate means of expression of human sexuality. Part of the > >freedom, Glasnost, and democracy. > > I'm sure there are those who would like to keep up those appearances - that > this is a legitimate means of sexual expression. Propaganda at its finest. > > Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you actually suggesting that there is *no* pornography that is "a legitimate means of sexual expression"? We here in the gay community in Canada are still reeling from the way in which the 1991 Butler decision (which was intended to protect women from pornography that "degraded" them) has been used (pretty much only) to attack gay and lesbian publications, including publications aimed at safe sex education. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but if someone can explain to me how reading descriptions of two men fucking consensually degrades women, I'd be grateful . . . Actually, this extends well beyond pornography, since the Butler decision makes *any* description of sexual acts between persons under the age of 18 illegal (even though the age of consent here for all sexual acts is 14). Which could technically make a teenage girl's diary "pornography," among other things. And among other things and of relevance to SF, is the depiction in Marge Piercy's He, She and It of Shira and Gadi's early relationship (definitely under 18), not to mention several of John Varley's short stories . . . Whatever we think of them now that child abuse has become an issue, Varley tried to investigate different ways humans might relate. Isn't it "Picnic on Nearside" where the protagonist says that the only time he gets on with his mother is in bed? Should these really *not* be available to readers? I'm sure members of the list can think of many other potential and actual examples of SF that might contravene someone else's definition of "pornography." Wendy A staff member at my university ordered a copy of Laurel & Hardy's "Tit for Tat" and was called in by Canada Customs, who wanted to discuss why he was bringing pornography across the border. Guess they never got past the tit . . . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:15:33 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: prejudice Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-15 16:46:43 EST, you write: > I think (but haven't had time to hit the Quotations dictionary) there may > be a few appreciations of silence in Proverbs, which may be phrased in > masculine terms, but not intended to be gender specific. The readings at > my all-girls secondary school tended to focus more on the "get wisdom, > get understanding" topic. > Good memory, Frances. I was thinking the same thing when I saw the original message. Actually, from Genesis through Revelation, the Bible teaches through admonition and story that the wise are those who learn to control their tongue and withhold their quick anger. I found over 20 references to remaining silent, or the virtue of scilence in my _New_Strong's_Exhaustive_Concordance_of_the_Bible_. > Wisdom, now I start recollection, personified as "she" and "her": > Sophia? > Right again. And it somehow seems so true to human behavior. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:35:42 -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" At 09:57 PM 1/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >Cat Farrar wrote: > >> >But since it obviously existed, once the strict censorship was removed, >> >whatever came along, be it Penthouse or XXX movies, it was assumed to be >> >a part of legitimate means of expression of human sexuality. Part of >the >> >freedom, Glasnost, and democracy. >> >> I'm sure there are those who would like to keep up those appearances - >that >> this is a legitimate means of sexual expression. Propaganda at its >finest. >> > > >Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you actually suggesting >that there is *no* pornography that is "a legitimate means of sexual >expression"? My responce was contextual, in that, I was commenting on the pornography mentioned (violence, rape, abuse) and that those films were as popular as horror/slasher films, psycho/murder films and men in ultra macho roles - like Rambo (my example). Also, I read that these very films were watched in a family setting -- mom, dad and kids. And....that these films were being represented as the cultural norm - the kind of sex truly FREE people engage in. I can appreciate erotic art where mutuality exsists and there is no violence or degradation towards either the man or the woman. I'm opposed to any kind of sexual images where children are involved. Children cannot completely understand the issues and therefore cannot rationally consent to what's being done to them. > >We here in the gay community in Canada are still reeling from the way in >which the 1991 Butler decision (which was intended to protect women from >pornography that "degraded" them) Is the Butler decision the law which Dworkin and McKinnen (sp?) involved with? If it is, it's my understanding that this law was created so that the women and/or men could take some legal action against the people who FORCED them into the pornography business. This law was not about banning pornography. It was created to be a vehicle of justice for those injured. has been used (pretty much only) to attack gay and lesbian publications, including publications aimed at safe sex education. I think the key phrase here is, "...has been used (pretty much only).." How people have used this law to further their own agendas is a seperate issue from what the law was intended to to. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but if someone can >explain to me how reading descriptions of two men fucking consensually >degrades women, I'd be grateful . . . You have oversimplified the entire issue on pornography. If it were that simple, that one dimentional I doubt that the debate over pornography would ever have come up. > >Actually, this extends well beyond pornography, since the Butler decision >makes *any* description of sexual acts between persons under the age of 18 >illegal (even though the age of consent here for all sexual acts is 14). >Which could technically make a teenage girl's diary "pornography," among >other things. Forgive me if I'm confused about which law we're speaking of... My context is limited, but my best guess on that section would be the laws attempt to protect children from being used in a pornographic fashion. (The law defining an adult as 18 years of age) > >And among other things and of relevance to SF, is the depiction in Marge >Piercy's He, She and It of Shira and Gadi's early relationship (definitely >under 18), not to mention several of John Varley's short stories . . . >Whatever we think of them now that child abuse has become an issue, Varley >tried to investigate different ways humans might relate. Isn't it "Picnic >on Nearside" where the protagonist says that the only time he gets on with >his mother is in bed? Should these really *not* be available to readers? Writing a fictional story is not the same thing as seeing photographs of women, men and children in pornographic publications. No ones rights are being violated, and no ones humanity is being dismissed in a fictional work. One is a moral issue, the other is not. > >I'm sure members of the list can think of many other potential and actual >examples of SF that might contravene someone else's definition of >"pornography." I'm sure they could, but a high volume of arbitrary definitions does not a definition make. Concepts need to be defined in terms of essentials otherwise they are of no use to the human mind. Cat Farrar > >Wendy > >A staff member at my university ordered a copy of Laurel & Hardy's "Tit for >Tat" and was called in by Canada Customs, who wanted to discuss why he was >bringing pornography across the border. Guess they never got past the tit >. . . > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:48:28 +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: Dale Spender Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 17:28 14/01/98 -0800, you wrote: >Any concrete examples that you'd like to site? Dale Spender is the popular media's idea of a feminist in Australia, so there are ofter articles/interviews by and about her in the weekend magazines that come with the papers. I have been totally unimpressed with a number of opinions she has expressed in these forums. One notable one that stands out is "fat people cannot hold positions of power or influnce". Spender finds it "laughable" that a certain politician is leader of the opposition because he is large - this disqualifies him from ever being prime minister. There are a lot more comments in this vein. Spender has also aligned herself with a group of women who claim that younger women who call themselves feminists have gone too far and are ruining it for everyone by being so cheeky as to sue men for sexual harrassment. As regards her research and writing, a recent book she published contained a lot of material taken from a feminist discussion group I was peripherally involved with. The topic was sexism on the internet. Spender declined to be interviewed for a radio show on the topic (after she was given access to the information) saying she didn't find it interesting, important or relevant, and then published a book on the subject a short while later. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:11:32 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: Alien 4 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-14 19:27:54 EST, Cat Farrar wrote: > 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. I have two points: The first is that the Ripley in Alien Resurrection is most definitely *not* the Ripley we grew to know and love (well, some of us did, anyway ;) in the previous three movies. First of all, this Ripley, as a result of the cloning process, is part alien. There's a good reason for her to be as feral as she is. Also, this Ripley was "nurtured" by a tube and a bunch of military creeps whose sole interest in her was the alien she carried inside her. It's no wonder her moral structure bears very little resemblance to our own. (Please do not fire upon me, I use "our" in a very loose sense, really!) Okay, so I actually have three points. Point Two: According to the folks making the movie (this is from an interview I read in, I believe, Entertainment Weekly), Ripley did have some sort of sexual intercourse with the alien(s?), so the suggestion of male genitals in the picture you saw was most likely deliberate. At least, it wasn't all that accidental. I think the reason they had her have sex with the aliens was as some sort of "communing with her own" or something. I saw the Ripley clone (who is the one I've been discussing all along here, hope I haven't confused anyone) as someone who was definitely stranded on a bridge between two species who have absolutely zero hope of making any sort of peace. I think at that point in the movie, she knew she would have to help destroy the rest of the aliens, and so she took her last chance to be close to them while she could. (I don't claim to understand why it had to be sexual, because frankly I found that icky, but that's my theory anyway.) Point Three: Ripley is certainly not the first character in a movie to take pleasure in her violence. I'll admit the clone started out more violent than most characters do, but really, I can't think of an action movie (science fiction or otherwise) that didn't end with the hero(ine) beating the tar out of the head bad guy and finishing with some sort of self-satisfied wisecrack. Heck, that sort of thing is what action careers are based on. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone (and Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Segall, et al.) wouldn't have half the money they have if it weren't for the end-of-movie wisecrack. And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that some of these guys haven't done good work outside their action-movie stuff, but it's the action movies that paved (and paid!) their way to the good stuff. Well, I think that all amounted to a dime's worth..... ;) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:20:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Critical Work on Lesbianism in Utopias In-Reply-To: <34c5a8d6.11079320@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello, A friend of mine asked me if I knew of any good critical work on lesbianism in utopias. I didn't, but I thought someone on this list might. Please send suggestions to me personally, or to the list, as you see fit :) Many Thanks, Pamela Bedore Department of English Simon Fraser University pebedore@sfu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:20:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Obscenity Laws (was Russian pornography) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Cat Farrar wrote: > > > My responce was contextual, in that, I was commenting on the pornography > mentioned (violence, rape, abuse) and that those films were as popular as > horror/slasher films, psycho/murder films and men in ultra macho roles - > like Rambo (my example). Also, I read that these very films were watched in > a family setting -- mom, dad and kids. And....that these films were being > represented as the cultural norm - the kind of sex truly FREE people engage > in. > Fair enough. > I can appreciate erotic art where mutuality exsists and there is no violence > or degradation towards either the man or the woman. I'm opposed to any kind > of sexual images where children are involved. Children cannot completely > understand the issues and therefore cannot rationally consent to what's > being done to them. > > Again fair enough, so long as you define children as pre-pubescent. Adolescents are neither children nor adults and need to be treated differently. > > Is the Butler decision the law which Dworkin and McKinnen (sp?) involved > with? If it is, it's my understanding that this law was created so that the > women and/or men could take some legal action against the people who FORCED > them into the pornography business. This law was not about banning > pornography. It was created to be a vehicle of justice for those injured. > Yes, Dworkin and McKinnon were involved (which might or might not be construed as cultural imperialism, but I don't want to start an argument about that). The Butler decision defines obscenity and is explicitly targeted at pornography, which it divides into three categories. > > has been used (pretty much only) to attack gay and lesbian publications, > including publications aimed at safe sex education. > > I think the key phrase here is, "...has been used (pretty much only).." How > people have used this law to further their own agendas is a seperate issue > from what the law was intended to to. > > >Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but if someone can > >explain to me how reading descriptions of two men fucking consensually > >degrades women, I'd be grateful . . . > > You have oversimplified the entire issue on pornography. If it were that > simple, that one dimentional I doubt that the debate over pornography would > ever have come up. > > There seems to be clear evidence that the ruling, though framed in a discourse of female "safety" was targeted at gay men in particular and queers in general, from its inception. It was also rooted in a kind of heterosexism that stereotypes and "genders" sexual behaviour (all gay men do anal sex, all gay men are receptive partners in sex, all receptive partners are really women). Part of the argument used depended on the straight judges' stereotyping of gay men as feminine, effeminate, all of that stuff we've inherited from the sexologists of the nineteenth century. Gay men aren't really men, so they have to be women. But they're enough *like* men externally that a male judge can empathize with them (which he presumably, I guess, can't do with women?). I quote: "In the May/June 1992 issue of Ms. magazine, Mahoney [a lawyer for LEAF, a Canadian women's advocacy group which has done some very good work] told Canadian journalist Michele Landsberg how LEAF had helped sway the Supreme Court: 'How did we do it?' said Mahoney. 'We showed them the porn - and among the seized videos were some horrifically violent and degrading gay movies. We made the point that the men in these films were being treated like women - and the judges got it. Otherwise, men can't put themselves in our shoes.'" Qtd. from pp. 43-44 of Janine Fuller and Stuart Blackley, Restricted Entry: Censorship on Trial (Vancouver: Press Gang, 1995) Now, I hold no brief whatsoever for "violent and degrading" movies of any kind, including those which do not involve sex at all (which sometimes seems like most of the movies in the cinema, *particularly* the SF ones!). But no matter how horrific the subject matter is, the power dynamic between two men is different from that between two women. As a gay person, I am profoundly uneasy with both the political and the rhetorical strategies that allowed this argument to be made. The judges ruled specifically in a context of male/female relations, stating that "if true equality between male and female is to be achieved, we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting from exposure to . . . violent and degrading materials. Materials portraying women as a class worthy of sexual exploitation and abuse have a negative impact on the individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance." (40) Where in gay male porn, no matter how repulsive, is there any material "portraying women as a class worthy of sexual exploitation and abuse"? Or are we to argue that gay men are, as a class, also normally regarded as worthy of sexual exploitation and abuse? Gay people are certainly regarded as a class worthy of abuse all too often, but Butler only adds to that by preventing gay men and lesbians from exploring their lives, including but not limited to their sexuality. > > Writing a fictional story is not the same thing as seeing photographs of > women, men and children in pornographic publications. No ones rights are > being violated, and no ones humanity is being dismissed in a fictional work. > One is a moral issue, the other is not. > > There is nothing in the Butler decision which limits it specifically to photographic representations of sex. It was used to put the work of (straight) Toronto artist Eli Langer on trial. In fact, both the artist *and* his drawings and paintings were charged with obscenity under the ruling. Had the paitings been found guilty, they would have been taken from the dock and destroyed. They were acquitted, but it is scary to think that the work of a serious artist attempting to explore children's relations to adults, generally from the pov of the child, loomed over by the ominous adult world, and including child abuse, could be labelled as obscenity. Can one guarantee that the result of Langer's experience is not to create self-censorship amongst other artists and writers, who are afraid of having to spend a great deal of time and money defending what they do from obscenity charges? Easier not to write about it. And if we can't explore these issues on an artistic level, I truly believe we will never, as a society, come to understand them. > > I'm sure they could, but a high volume of arbitrary definitions does not a > definition make. Concepts need to be defined in terms of essentials > otherwise they are of no use to the human mind. > I'm not talking about "arbitrary definitions." I'm talking about the specific results of the definitions of obscenity laid down in 1991 by the Butler decision. (Although, ironically, I might agree that they are "arbitrary;" they are also, however, the law.) To argue that the results are simply a misapplication of the law is tantamount to arguing that it wasn't apartheid that was the problem, it was the arbitrary way in which it was enforced. What's regarded as "obscene" by Canada Customs? The works of Jane Rule. (Ironically, although she's Canadian, her works are printed in the U.S. and have to be imported). The children's novel Independence Day, about a teenage boy coming to terms with being gay. The Joy of Gay Sex. On Our Backs. Jean Genet. Anne Cameron. Hot, Hotter, Hottest (which turned out to be a chile pepper cookbook and was later released). In effect, virtually anything with gay content (or in the case of the cookbook, headed for a gay bookstore, apparent gay content), whether explicitly sexual or not, addressed to a gay bookstore in Canada. (Many of these same books were not considered pornographic when ordered by non-gay bookstores.) Now Canada Customs is ruled by government regulation, not specifically by the Butler decision, but is it really a different mindset? Perhaps we ought to give as much time to the violence in Starship Troopers. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:35:35 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: Romance in SF Television Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-15 13:16:44 EST, Honor Wallce wrote: > Okay, I have to ask..... > > What do we think about DSN's Rom and Leeta (sp?)? I think they're cute. I admit I haven't been pretty bad about watching regularly, but I really like the two of them together. One, I like that Rom has found someone who likes him as he is, even if he is a "bad Ferengi", and I like the Leeta has followed her heart, rather than deciding to follow some high-roller (or whatever they get called) on the dabo table. I also like that DS9 has allowed some of the more peripheral(sp?) characters to have lives, rather than just existing when the plot needs for them to exist. Barclay on TNG seemed almost like some kind of holodeck thing (I tried to get more vague, honest, but I just couldn't!! ;) that only activated when the plot required his presence. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:55:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Critical Work on Lesbianism in Utopias In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Pamela Bedore wrote: > Hello, > > A friend of mine asked me if I knew of any good critical work on > lesbianism in utopias. I didn't, but I thought someone on this list > might. > > Please send suggestions to me personally, or to the list, as you see fit > :) > > Many Thanks, > > Pamela Bedore > Department of English > Simon Fraser University > > pebedore@sfu.ca > Pamela, The following critical works all deal with one or more lesbian utopia, although they don't necessarily center on that aspect of the works discussed: Angelika Bammer's Partial Visions: Feminism and Utopianism in the 1970s Frances Bartkowski's Feminist Utopias Sarah Lefanu's In the Chinks of the World Machine (also published as Feminism and Science Fiction) Donald Palumbo, ed. Erotic Universe: Sexuality and Fantastic Literature Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 01:03:19 -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: end my listserv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Gee, was it something I said? > Well, I always enjoy my trips through Hell...Michigan. :) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:05:55 -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: Sig in Alien4 In-Reply-To: <199801160143.RAA21790@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>The 3rd installment with a male in the "super hero" role would never have >>ended with him sacrificing himself. Arnold, or Bruce Willis or even >>Harrison >>Ford as Ripley would have >>ripped the Alien from his middle, removed its head from its body >> and sewed up his own gut with its sinew. I agree that they probably wouldn't have killed him off unless it was Arnold or the other guys' idea. The sewing up his own gut goes a bit far, though. I say this because I remember where Ripley was when her gut (actually, her sternum) needed sewing: in free-fall a few dozen meters above a reactor. I think the male heroes get away with a certain amount of ridiculous stuff, but not _that_ much. When things get too ridiculous, the audience doesn't stay in its seat, doesn't tell its friends to go and the movie bombs. Arnold and the rest didn't get where they are by being that stupid. > >The scene where Ripley is laying in the nest, with her grown up, pregnant >child is way too incestuous for me. Definitly gave me the creeps. >> >Cat Farrar How's that incestuous? Maybe it's just her reveling in contact with a new (to her) member of her family because she understands the aliens better now that she's partially one of them. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:12:11 -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: Russian pornography (Conference) In-Reply-To: <199801160159.RAA21851@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Well, Russians aren't so different then Americans, are they? It's shocking >to come to realize how men's relationship with sex and violence crosses all >boundries - city, state, country. Men aren't going to stop this on their >own. From all that I've read, this combination becomes addicting for those >who engage in it. It's no wonder that Larry Flint and his admirers screamed >so hard for first ammendment rights. They look "virtuous" to the public at >large but their hidden agenda is to hang onto their pornography. Huh? Which public is it that doesn't see that they're as un-virtuous as the rest of us, first amendment arguments aside? >I'm sure there are those who would like to keep up those appearances - that >this is a legitimate means of sexual expression. Propaganda at its finest. >> Or its worst. What's actually scarier is that this kind of thing has been going on in one form or another and in one place or another since the creation of man. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 01:10:39 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: Russian pornography (Conference) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-15 21:02:03 EST, Cat Farrar wrote: > >On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Marina wrote: > >Concerning the latter, it was mostly German, since US has a different > >video format, and American-made cassettes would not show anything on our > >TV's, and use official TV station equipment to reformat them, like other > >films (people who worked in TV industry did a pretty good business on that) > >was too dangerous. After all, if someone caught you with Halloween-3, you > >could still get away, but not with a triple-X movie. > > Violence sanctioned more than sex?!! I don't find that too surprising. How many more acts of violence are depicted on American television than acts of honest intimacy between consenting adults? An episode of "Ellen" gets hit with a warning because the episode contains a kiss between two women, but episodes of "Walker, Texas Ranger" and shows of that sort have no parental advisory. SOAPBOX ALERT!!! In the past year or two the media (and thus Citizen Public) have expressed extreme shock over some of the violent acts performed by young people. Personally, I'm amazed at their surprise. Letting children grow up thinking that the world they see on television is accurate is only going to result in children who think that murder is more prevalent than sex between consenting adults. I realize that this scenario is not true of all families, and that there are a lot of parents out there who take an active role in their children's lives and help them separate the real from the unreal. However, growing up my sister and I were left mostly to fend for ourselves and my sister watched TV while I read science fiction books. The difference between us shows. Again, please understand that I'm not saying 1.) that this is the rule, nor 2.) that the young people performing these acts of violence should be absolved of their responsibility because they were "raised by TV". Rather I'm saying that the media expressing shock and dismay and bewilderment at these events seems false to me, because I honestly cannot believe that the people in the media are *completely* unaware of the effect their work can have. Anticipating spending tomorrow kicking myself for sending this, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:26:30 -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: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that some of these guys haven't done >good work outside their action-movie stuff, but it's the action movies that >paved (and paid!) their way to the good stuff. > >Well, I think that all amounted to a dime's worth..... ;) > >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com True. In an interview with Charlie Rose while promoting _Copland_, Stallone noted that the movie business is just that: a business, and it's action movies that make the money that let more artistic or 'higher-quality' films get made. Put loosely, what studio is going to make a ten or twenty-million-dollar artistic movie that'll probably make, maybe, fifteen or twenty-two million bucks when they can spend eighty million on an action flick that's virtually guaranteed to make twice that worldwide, possibly not even including merchandising? -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:20:52 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: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Just a point of information: a movie isn't generally considered to even have the potential of being profitable until it has made 2.5 times its cost back. Lots of studios are looking twice, or more than twice, at movies that will cost in the 100 megabuck range. (A couple have recently been publicly cancelled. What effect the rousing success of Titanic -- which cost by all reports 200+ mill -- will have remains to be seen.) Vonda On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:26:30 -0600, Sean Johnston wrote: >...Put loosely, what studio is going to make >a ten or twenty-million-dollar artistic movie that'll probably make, maybe, >fifteen or twenty-two million bucks when they can spend eighty million on >an action flick that's virtually guaranteed to make twice that worldwide, >possibly not even including merchandising? http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:03:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: <34c90964.35801251@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Just a point of information: a movie isn't >generally considered to even have the potential of >being profitable until it has made 2.5 times its >cost back. > I admit I was being a bit conservative. Makes sense. Don't a lot of studios spend, on, say, a 100 million dollar pic, another hundred million on advertising, or is that part of the cost you're talking about? >Lots of studios are looking twice, or more than >twice, at movies that will cost in the 100 >megabuck range. (A couple have recently been >publicly cancelled. What effect the rousing >success of Titanic -- which cost by all reports >200+ mill -- will have remains to be seen.) > >Vonda -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:48:13 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: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The number you usually see reported as the cost of the movie is usually the negative cost, the amount of money it costs to get to the point where there's one negative of the completed film. The reason for the 2.5 times negative cost estimate (before profitability) is the cost of making prints, distributing the film, advertising, &c. It doesn't really affect your comments -- just interesting FYI type stuff. Vonda On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:03:59 -0600, Sean Johnston wrote: >...Makes sense. Don't a lot of >studios spend, on, say, a 100 million dollar pic, another hundred million >on advertising... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:03:18 -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: Sig in Alien4 -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cat Farrar wrote: >I found the characterizations to have a very different sexual context in this >film than >the others, which is not to say that there wasn't gratuitousness as with this >about Call: >"eminently fuckable, isn't she?" Ugh. Those men acted like sexist pigs - boring, boring, boring... > If Ripley had said that about one of the male pirates no one would be criticising it as sexist. (On occasion, I say the same thing myself about certain men.) It's not sexist, but obnoxious, to say loudly that some people are more desirable than others, depending on the context, of course. What the writer/director was trying to get across was that the men had no idea that Call was an android, and that they were obnoxious in a rough-and-ready sort of way. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:59:00 -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: FW: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television Hi, Vonda, I've extracted a couple of lines from two of your posts to respond to: ---------- It's seeing, in fiction, one type most of the time and the other type hardly ever -- _not_ irrespective of gender -- that I was whining about. ---------- Well, that's certainly understandable, and I agree under most circumstances. I guess I just felt like Babylon 5 did a better job than most of not being stuck in those stereotypes. I have always felt that Delenn was easily the most admirable character on the show, and there are numerous times that she is shown to be strong. I could see that if one was looking for that issue, the time after she came out of the cocoon could have been disturbing, but I don't think that lasted very long. As for Susan ---------- I'm delighted to hear that she's evolved from the stereotype I was complaining about, and has developed the fulfilling personal life that I see being enjoyed by many of the strongest and most successful women (both gay and straight) that I'm acquainted with. ---------- Ah. Well, actually, no. Far from it. Again, I feel like her absolute lack of fulfilment in her personal life is a major tragedy that is a strong component of the overall Babylon 5 story line. Ivanova is a tragic, bitter character who I find to be a wonderful part of the story, but I think the contrast between her as a strong, but fatally flawed character and Delenn as a strong character who is ultimately fulfilled in her personal life (albeit with her own trajedies) makes it feel to me like Babylon 5 overcomes those stereotypes. Anyway, I, for one, was certainly not offended by anything you said. I was a bit surprised, and maybe saddened, since I love Babylon 5, and think that they have done a great job with a lot of issues. Your reading on this subject has made me review my thoughts on it, but I am thus far unable to see it as you do. Ideally, the two of us could sit down and watch the entire show, and discuss that issue. :) But, barring that, I think I'll just try to watch it a little more critically in this regard this time around. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:32:02 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: Guns and the south (and fiction?) > > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Funny, I had never before realised that we in the mainland of Britain > > lived in a Utopia... :-) > > > > Edward James > > Having spent my childhood in the UK and the rest of my life in Canada, I > take not having guns around pretty much for granted. What bothers me, > however, is that American TV culture is so overwhelming that many, many > people I know believe Toronto (which runs around 50-100 murders a year, > most of them familial) is as violent as LA or other large American cities. > I visited Toronto in 1987...and fell in love. I have never in my life felt as safe in a city of 3(?) million people, or for that matter, in any city or town I have lived in. I was by myself, and intended to only spend the afternoon, but liked it so much I booked a room for the night. I have decided that Toronto is a place I would love to live (if I can adjust to the Winters...). Everyone I know here that has visited Canada, Toronto in particular, loved it and did not indicate they felt any fear or need of protection. And never, ever, have I seen such an immaculate city...so impressive!! (snip) > However, when I lived in a rural area, there were a lot more firearms > around. It was not a poor area, so hunting was strictly sport, not > necessity, but it still involved large amounts of trespassing, offensive > behaviour, and groups of men in camouflage. It didn't do a lot for the > safety of domestic cattle (the local good ol' boys shot and stole a young > steer from our farm) or for people in the area. At one point, 18 men beat > through our 17 acre bush; it looked like a military operation in Vietnam > and gave the animals no chance whatsoever. I always hoped that they'd > shoot each other, but instead they managed to send three bullets through > the windows of the local elementary school. > > Despite that, I refuse to own firearms. Crowbars are rather handy, though. > So are dogs. And we lived for 7 years in that area, which was full of > religious fundamentalists, in a house whose front door didn't lock, as out > lesbians. It wasn't our own safety we worried about, but the safety of the > animals. I honestly NEVER feel afraid at home because of my dogs...but something could happen to them. Additionally, I live on 30 acres in the middle of "Redneck Delux-ville", and there is a lot of wildlife on our property. Georgia has had a rabies epidemic for years, and Fox, Raccoon, and Skunks all carry rabies. It is not just people I may have to protect myself or my animals from. (The fundamentalists were reputed to have burned the barns of > people they didn't like . . . I guess the Bible doesn't consider burning > animals alive a sin.) Don't people REALLY SUCK sometimes!! I am a "rescuer" of sick and injured animals. It is emotionally taxing...you would not believe the things I have seen. > So, I still conclude that, in general, this country is safer than we think > it is, that one does not need a gun for protection, and, I'm afraid, that I > agree with Edward's concisely ironic point . . . it doesn't necessarily > mean we qualify as a Utopia. > > Wendy I apologize for my sarcasm...it is quite clear that I misused the word "Utopia". In general, I would say Wendy has a good point. My point is that the "safety" of individuals/homes/communities is pretty subjective. I am envious of people who live without fear and do not feel a need for guns, or are even appalled by them. However, I also know some people are very comfortable (here in Georgia) in their "ignorance is bliss" safety nets...but I also believe some of these people are naive. I think serving on the Grand Jury in Athens opened my eyes to things I never would have imagined. However, I owned a gun before then. People who shoot people for any other reason than self-defense are criminals. People who shoot animals for anything other than self-defense or food are assholes who should be considered criminals. Guns, in my opinion, are not the problem...people are. Of course, we can't control the people, so what's to be done?? I am not recommending that EVERYONE should have a gun, but I also do not think everyone who owns a gun is being overly cautious, or using it for an excuse to "have a gun". Again, I apologize for my flippant use of "Utopia"...I realize being quite cynical...I think I need a massage or something :-> Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:56:38 -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: Critical Work on Lesbianism in Utopias In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MUNT, New Lesbian Criticism: Literary and Cultural readings contains Andermahr: "The Politics of Separatism and Lesbian Utopian Fiction" is a pretty decent article. I'm sure I know of others, but it will take some time to rack my brain...how soon do you need this? It would seem that Pamela Bedore said, 09:20 PM 1/15/98 -0800 >Hello, > >A friend of mine asked me if I knew of any good critical work on >lesbianism in utopias. I didn't, but I thought someone on this list >might. > >Please send suggestions to me personally, or to the list, as you see fit >:) > >Many Thanks, > >Pamela Bedore >Department of English >Simon Fraser University > >pebedore@sfu.ca > > 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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:58:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A very good overview of the series and Ripley's development was presented in an article in the latest NATIONAL REVIEW - which of course viewed with Alarmn, Disgust, and Trepidation. Leaving that out of it. .... Ripley begins as an ordinary crewperson. As NR comments, she even has (gasp! horror!) curls! And of course she is fighting to save her own life (and that of Jonesy the cat. Us felinoids all approve.) But even then, NR remarks with a frown, she is presented as seeing things more clearly than the males around her and being right when they are wrong. (That this bothers them, amuses me.) She turns warrior in Alien 2, fighting for the life of little Newt, of which NR approves. And surely a warrior's function is to protect the weak? In ALien 3, a shaven-headed Ripley, buffed up, relates to a pack of "Double-Y convicts as a near-equal." She even, somewhere in the series, not only shows a man she's his physical equal, but (oh, the agony) better at basketball than he is! (Hmmmm...size and training make a big difference. How big? Aikido was meant for such as us. But does Ripley know it? Inquiring minds want to know.) Finally in Alien 4, her transformation which they relate to the transformation of the modern female ideal, is complete: she reluctantly but finally flushes her huge alien fetus out the tubes, which NR has no problem at all calling a very paradigm of abortion, and goes off with her android gal-pal, Winona Ryder. I'm sure there's a lot more subtext to the movies than that, but I see NR's point, if I have to laugh at the way they take it. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:08:39 -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: FW: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television Another comment on Baby 5: I really really like the show. Better than any other "pop" science fiction. My only complaint (feminism-wise, that is) is that I still feel that Delenn and Ivanova and Talia and all the other women on the series are still shown as EXCEPTIONS. You know the typical story line, littered with powerful men, with the one (or several, here) powerful woman. I guess this sums it up: why is Delennn the only female on the Gray Council? (Although, I must say, Baby 5 does a pretty good job. The Earth President was female during the Mimbari war, the Mimbari poet, G'Kar's aide, etc.; hopefully future shows will be even more integrated!) Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:34:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Re: FW: Babylon 5 >>(Although, I must say, Baby 5 does a pretty good job. The Earth President was female during the Mimbari war, the Mimbari poet, G'Kar's aide, etc.; hopefully future shows will be even more integrated!)<< In one of my favorite lines, it's mentioned during B5 that the pope is a woman. And a little bit of a spoiler follows if you haven't seen the last four episodes of B5 And after the defeat of Clark, the new interim president is a Russian woman. JMS tries, he really does. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:33:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: FW: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: <9801161708.AA00404@madrone.ece.ucdavis.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Bonnie Gray wrote: > Another comment on Baby 5: > I guess this sums it up: why is Delennn the only > female on the Gray Council? Is she though?, I don't recall ever seeing all the Grey Council uncloaked. It's true that we haven't seen any other female Grey Councilors, however. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Between two evils I always pick the one ~ ~ I haven't tried before Mae West ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Denise Borgen borgen@eskimo.com ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:53:41 -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: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Finally in Alien 4, her transformation which they relate to the >transformation of the modern female ideal, is complete: she reluctantly >but finally flushes her huge alien fetus out the tubes, which NR has no >problem at all calling a very paradigm of abortion, and goes off with her >android gal-pal, Winona Ryder. > > I'm sure there's a lot more subtext to the movies than that, but I >see NR's point, if I have to laugh at the way they take it. > > > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu I'm going to check this issue out, but if that's NR's view, they're reading way too much into the movie. It is, after all, just a movie, a phrase which is used to the point of being a cliché, but is true in this case. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:49:42 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: pornography ruling in Canada Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I heard a scholarly presentation on issues of feminist and pornography where she talked about the ruling (I thought it was a Court decision not a law?) in Canada which was anti-pornography. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon had gotten similar laws passed in U.S. cities (Minneapolis) based on a civil rights issue allowing women to sue on the argument their rights were violated by the production and sale of pornography. (These laws have been declared unconstitutional last I heard). Anyway, apparently under the Canadian ruling or law, the customs officers consficated, among a great deal of gay and lesbian work, Andrea Dworkin's book that argued against pornography, and also a cookbook with the phrase "Too Hot" in the title! (Cooking with peppers?). As this scholar pointed out, you have to take into account not only what laws are passed, but who enforces them--and what happened in Canada (the major works consficated were gay, lesbian, and feminist) is a major warning about trying to deal with the "problem" of pornography through passing laws. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:23:11 -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: Russian pornography (Conference) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Rather than stray further away from SF, I'll offer a URL for those who want more info on feminist issues in current U.S. porn: www.citypages.com/thepaper/detail.asp?ArticlesID=4117 It's an article in our local free weekly alternative tabloid. There's a new mysogynistic strain in porn video, says this writer, who is evidently sympathetic to feminist concerns. Warning - this article contains FRANK LANGUAGE AND DESCRIPTIONS. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:52:00 -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: FW: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hmmmm...someone mentioned, I belive on this list, that Delinn was supposed to be androgynous and this idea was discarded when the actress' voice couldn't be made neutral. This makes me wonder if someone on B5 still thinks androgynous means Male, biologically. I've been surprised how clearly I perceive sex in the various aliens on B5, which I am watching for the first time through... It may just be the sex of the actor bleeding through, but that would indicate a lack of female actresses playing neutral 'androgynous' Grey Councilors. It would seem that Denise Borgen said, 09:33 AM 1/16/98 -0800 >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Bonnie Gray wrote: > >> Another comment on Baby 5: >> I guess this sums it up: why is Delennn the only >> female on the Gray Council? >Is she though?, I don't recall ever seeing all the Grey Council uncloaked. >It's true that we haven't seen any other female Grey Councilors, however. >> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >~ Between two evils I always pick the one ~ >~ I haven't tried before Mae West ~ >~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >~ Denise Borgen borgen@eskimo.com ~ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:16:09 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Colette Ingrid Brown Subject: Electronic expatriates conference; 3/2, 4/17 Graduate students in literary, cultural, ethnic studies and related fields are invited to share their work in progress at this annual conference, now is its ninth year. The Southland Graduate Student Conference is a forum sponsored by the University of California, Los Angeles. This year we hope to investigate modern world systems and earlier or smaller societal networks, and their modes and methods of ideological formation. In literature, we often cross traditional academic boundaries, in order to produce animated discourse about how nationalism, both in its political and literary manifestations has been represented, occluded and reinscribed. Topics of special interest: The Spirit and cultural / national consciousness. Religious movements and political formation. Transnationalism, as resistance or reiteration. Aztlan. Diaspora. Zion. Ethical issues surrounding globalism and universal morality. Formations of national ideologies in early modern literature. The internet, electronic communities and electronic expatriates. Millennialism. Intersectional subjectivity and Passing. Pan-nationalism. Please send a one page abstract together with a separate letter which includes your name, mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number and academic affliation to the address below. Your name must not appear on the abstract itself. E-mail submissions are welcome. Submissions must be received by Monday, March 2. Abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by a committee of UCLA graduate students. Send abstracts, or direct questions to: Southland Conference c/o Colette Brown UCLA Department of English 2225 Rolfe Hall, Box 951530 Los Angeles, CA 90095 brown@humnet.ucla.edu (310) 825-4173 (messages only) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:32:19 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: Sewing sinew unbelievable? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit "I think the male heroes get away with a certain amount of ridiculous stuff, but not _that_ much" wait Sean. . . wasn't that Arnold balancing on the top of the Chrysler building, (or some such other skyscraper), in an operational F-14, pulling his daughter into the open cockpit while shooting at the bad guy terrorist only to go on and save his lovely wife by blowing out a bridge just at the minute she's about to be killed in True Lies? and wasn't that Bruce Willis being shot out of an exploding airplane into the nanosphere and landing with a nary a bruise to the noggin in one of the Die Hard installments? and wasn't that Harrison Ford who went into the deep freeze and emerged with not a hair askew as Mr. Solo? I maintain that any of these guys would have sewed his gut with the sinew, broken his fall by jamming the makeshift needle he'd quickly fashioned from alien bone into an unseen crevice, and then (thank you Barbara for your further insight) wised it up to the camera from his very best angle. tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:38:24 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: FW: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: <00039956@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:59:00 -0500, Rhian Merris wrote: >Hi, Vonda, > >I've extracted a couple of lines from two of your posts to respond to: > > ---------- >It's seeing, in fiction, one type most of the time and the other type >hardly ever -- _not_ irrespective of gender -- that I was whining about. > ---------- > >Well, that's certainly understandable, and I agree under most circumstances. > I guess I just felt like Babylon 5 did a better job than most of not being >stuck in those stereotypes. I have always felt that Delenn was easily the >most admirable character on the show, and there are numerous times that she >is shown to be strong. I could see that if one was looking for that issue, >the time after she came out of the cocoon could have been disturbing, but I >don't think that lasted very long. > >As for Susan > > ---------- >I'm delighted to hear that she's evolved from the >stereotype I was complaining about, and has >developed the fulfilling personal life that I see >being enjoyed by many of the strongest and most >successful women (both gay and straight) that I'm >acquainted with. > ---------- > >Ah. Well, actually, no. Far from it. Again, I feel like her absolute lack >of fulfilment in her personal life is a major tragedy that is a strong >component of the overall Babylon 5 story line. Ivanova is a tragic, bitter >character who I find to be a wonderful part of the story, but I think the >contrast between her as a strong, but fatally flawed character and Delenn as >a strong character who is ultimately fulfilled in her personal life (albeit >with her own trajedies) makes it feel to me like Babylon 5 overcomes those >stereotypes. > >Anyway, I, for one, was certainly not offended by anything you said. I was >a bit surprised, and maybe saddened, since I love Babylon 5, and think that >they have done a great job with a lot of issues. Your reading on this >subject has made me review my thoughts on it, but I am thus far unable to >see it as you do. Ideally, the two of us could sit down and watch the >entire show, and discuss that issue. :) But, barring that, I think I'll >just try to watch it a little more critically in this regard this time >around. > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:41:33 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: Sig in Alien4 -Reply Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Deb~ You were actually responding to my post. Hmm. . . I'm not sure I agree. There's a difference between expressing or commenting on someone's desirability, even loudly, and this kind of comment directed at Call. I think putting those words in Ripley's mouth would be sexist in this context, though perhaps in line with her very different self in this film. She does make a similar comment in fact. At the very least this kind of comment is unnecessarily gratuitous; and if they were simply trying to paint the crew as rough and ready there are plenty of ways to achieve that which are not at the expense of women. tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 04:09:52 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: Babylon 5 was RE: [*FSFFU*] Romance in SF television In-Reply-To: <34cd27a8.109096528@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:38:24 GMT, "Vonda N. McIntyre" hit the wrong button and sent a null message to the list, for which she apologizes. >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:59:00 -0500, Rhian Merris > wrote: ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:15:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Sewing sinew unbelievable? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >wasn't that Arnold balancing on the top of the Chrysler building, (or >some such other skyscraper), in an operational F-14, pulling his daughter into >the open >cockpit while shooting at the bad guy terrorist only to go on and save >his lovely wife by blowing out a bridge just at the minute she's >about to be killed in True Lies? > >and wasn't that Bruce Willis being shot out of an exploding airplane into >the nanosphere and landing with a nary a bruise to the noggin in one of the >Die Hard installments? > >and wasn't that Harrison Ford who went into the deep freeze and emerged with >not a hair askew as Mr. Solo? > >I maintain that any of these guys would have sewed his gut with the sinew, >broken his >fall by jamming the makeshift needle he'd quickly fashioned from alien bone >into an >unseen crevice, and then (thank you Barbara for your further insight) wised it >up to the >camera from his very best angle. > >tara >Kitimher@aol.com >Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? Yes, but none of those are anywhere near as unbelievable at what you're proposing. As was said in _Pulp Fiction_: "It ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same f-in' sport." Bruce had plenty of bruises, Ford's character was frozen--how does hair get messed up when it's frozen. Arnold's character's situation was pretty iffy, but that's it. As I say, and we'll just have to disagree on this, guys get away with a lot more than women might, but what you're proposing is simply unfair. Actually, the most unbelievable male action sequences would have to go to Stallone in Rocky III and IV. After the working over Balboa got from Clubber Lang, Balboa'd be a vegetable and not even sentient enough to so much as look at Ivan Drago, much less fight the guy. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:20:12 -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: Sig in Alien4 -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >At the very least this kind of comment is unnecessarily >gratuitous; and if they were simply trying to paint the crew >as rough and ready there are plenty of ways to achieve that which >are not at the expense of women. > >tara >Kitimher@aol.com >Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? Never mind the comments. I agree with you, Tara. But how about the gore for gratuitous? I like violence in movies, but this one had too much graphic, gratuitous violence and gore. It was a good show, but they should have toned it down unless they were trying to make the audience ill, which they partially did with this audience member. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:57:34 -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: Sewing sinew unbelievable? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >"I think the male heroes get away with a certain amount of >ridiculous stuff, but not _that_ much" > >wait Sean. . . > >wasn't that Arnold balancing on the top of the Chrysler building, (or >some such other skyscraper), in an operational F-14, pulling his daughter into >the open >cockpit while shooting at the bad guy terrorist only to go on and save >his lovely wife by blowing out a bridge just at the minute she's >about to be killed in True Lies? P.S. It wasn't an F-14. They don't stay in the air if they're stationary. It was a Harrier. They can stay stationary. According to a friend of mine who is a pilot, the only really unbelievable thing about that particular scene was that the plane didn't dip in the direction that the daughter would lean. She might be on the right side of the plane, but the plane didn't tip to the right, and it should have. As to the open cockpit, it was open because it was shot open. Not like Arnold opened it. Again, though, the rest of the stuff you're talking about, you're right in that it was pretty unrealistic. Thrilling, but unrealistic. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 08:20:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore 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? > I'm from Canada, which probably makes a difference. I used to live in Ontario, where the only guns I ever saw were at the local turkey shoot - urban people tended not to have any. And in Vancouver, I don't know anyone with a gun. pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university But play, you must, A tune beyond us, yet ourselves, A tune upon the blue guitar Of things exactly as they are -Wallace Stevens ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:00:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debbie Cowherd Subject: Re: Romance in SF television Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:28 PM 1/14/98 -0500, Joel VanLaven wrote: >I agree that some established couples (and more explicit homosexuality) >would have been a good addition to babylon five, While certainly not explicit, there was one episode where Marcus and Franklin (I believe) went to Mars posing "undercover" as a newlywed couple. Debbie Debbie-Cowherd@pobox.com Iowa City, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:26:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Guns and the south (and fiction?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Penelope Gibbs : > I am envious of people who live without fear and do not feel a need > for guns, or are even appalled by them. However, I also know some > people are very comfortable (here in Georgia) in their "ignorance is > bliss" safety nets...but I also believe some of these people are > naive. I think serving on the Grand Jury in Athens opened my eyes > to things I never would have imagined. However, I owned a gun before > then. > People who shoot people for any other reason than self-defense > are criminals. People who shoot animals for anything other than > self-defense or food are assholes who should be considered criminals. > Guns, in my opinion, are not the problem...people are. Of course, we > can't control the people, so what's to be done?? > Well, controlling the guns seems like the logical solution. Sure you can kill people in other ways, but it's a lot more work, I would imagine. Is this relevant to the list? I suppose so, in that we're trying to develop alternative visions of the world. But isn't the U.S. burying its head in the sand on this one? Or, if you prefer, ideologically insisting that one right (to bear arms) is more important than another right (to live)? After all, the stats have been in on this one for a long time. Fewer guns, fewer murders. I forget the actual statistic, but last year I believe there were 1000x as many murders on a per capita basis (I think it was calculated on murders per million people) in the U.S. than in Canada, and the U.K., where guns are even more tightly regulated, had even fewer). What's to be done? Change the ideology? Back to the issue of media influence. The thing is that as guns become more common in Canada, because so many people believe that the world they see on TV *is* the world they live in, we will become more similar. It's frightening that people are so easily convinced to be frightened, when the facts say that this *is* a safe place. So we'll scare ourselves into becoming what we fear. Isn't that an SF scenario? Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:35:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: ST and Gay Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit News on another list about a Pocket Books Star Trek novel featuring original characters. The novel is by Susan Wright and is called "The Best and The Brightest." I gather it features original characters at the Starfleet Academy and that two of them are a same-sex couple. Of course, there's always been lots of same-sex sex in Star Trek fiction, but up to now it's been entirely "unofficial." Nice to see Pocket Books creeping out of the closet. Now if TPTB will only stop trying to heterosexualize Voyager . . . Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:17:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Sewing sinew unbelievable? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Kitimher wrote: > Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? > I don't read Italian, but as nearly as I can translate that, the dots should be followed by (in Spanish), "Los armadillos muertes y las lineas amarillas." A famous Texas saying from Jim Hightower. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:11:41 -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: Guns and the south (and fiction?) In-Reply-To: <199801171931.OAA25899@pip1.pipcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Back to the issue of media influence. The thing is that as guns become >more common in Canada, because so many people believe that the world they >see on TV *is* the world they live in, we will become more similar. It's >frightening that people are so easily convinced to be frightened, when the >facts say that this *is* a safe place. So we'll scare ourselves into >becoming what we fear. Isn't that an SF scenario? > >Wendy It chagrins me to say it, but it's not an SF scenario at all. It's more realistic than I think SF would dream of being and more fantastic (in a bad way) than SF might get away with. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:44:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) In-Reply-To: <199801160159.RAA21851@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Cat Farrar wrote: > At 02:56 AM 1/15/98 -0600, you wrote: > >Concerning the latter, it was mostly German, since US has a different > >video format, and American-made cassettes would not show anything on our > >TV's, and use official TV station equipment to reformat them, like other > >films (people who worked in TV industry did a pretty good business on that) > >was too dangerous. After all, if someone caught you with Halloween-3, you > >could still get away, but not with a triple-X movie. > > Violence sanctioned more than sex?!! Yes, and there is a simple reason why. For most people, violence is part of everyday life, starting from playground fights for toys, to high school bullies, to scenes one witnesses in bars and on the street. It's been less than hundred years even in Western culture since physical punishment became "child abuse". In other cultures, it's still a legitimate part of education. Violence might be illegal in some places, but it's not nearly as shameful and embarassing as having sex in public. The latter is often considered something as private and "dirty" as using bathroom, if not worse. People who define what it's appropriate in mass culture simply transfer the rules of what can be "seen" in public into what can be "viewed" in piblic. It's not the question of being more natural as much of what is OK to watch. I mean, people sell tickets to wrestling. You don't usually see a stadium full of people paying to see someone compete in screwing for hours, with rated performance. Not even in Holland, I'm afraid. Of course, you don't see people getting slashed like in Haloween, either, but it just the matter of degree, not the substance. That's why, in some countries, like Pakistan, where kissing in public is considered extremely indecent, they cut out kissing scenes from movies, while violence, no matter how brutal, stays right there. Here, in US, I recently saw an ad on MTV (of all stations) saying that "sex, drugs, and violence are not what cool kids do". I think that was very interesting. If sex is something as bad and illegal as drugs and violence, how, I wonder, people are supposed to procreate? Of course, with the advent of cloning, it migth change, but it will be awhile, I'm afraid, before they put it on commercial basis. I know that this ad is directed on children. But some day they are going to grow up. What is their adult sexual life is going to be, if they have been taught that sex is the something as bad and illegal as drugs and violence? Bad things don't become good just because one grows up. Drugs are dangerous even if you are over 18, and got them by prescription as a pain killer. Violence is bad even if you are 25 and in law enforcement, which gives you a legal right to knock someone on the head when you feel it's the right thing to do. If sex is as bad as heroin, it will be bad even when you are 30 years old and married, just like heroin. I honestly hope that some of today's children will some day sue the pants out of those who came up with this ad, at least to make them pay their marriage counseling bills. I my opinion, this tactic of "scaring" children into abstinence is as damaging as making them watch porn movies. Because it provides exactly the same image of sexual relations as a hedious, dirty, and dangerous vice. I'm sure that it can stop _some_ teenagers from having sex. The same as the curfews prevent some teenage crime. I bet a curfew for adults would prevent some crime, too. However, I doubt anyone will try to implement that brilliant idea on adult Americans. In the long run, this strategy of frightening, is more than likely to do more damage than good. In best case, they will end up like people in my country, who had seen zero sexual imagery in their lives, and as a result, could not distinguish classic art from Penthouse. Censorship could also create total abcense of sexual culture. Since children are not supposed to have sex anyway, they won't know anything about it, so the number of teenage pregnancies will actually rise. Think American Bible Belt. Most likely, it would not do any good at all. Teenagers always had sex. They did in pretty-clean 1950's, they did it in Victorian 1800's, they did it throughout the human history, including times when they could be stoned to death for that. Those who think AIDS will change that, need to wake up. Humans are very difficult to scare, even by death threats, and even very young ones. You cannot change the fact that they do it. And the current propaganda that "cool kids don't" can only affect the way they see it. So, when they do have sex, they will be more likely to combine it with drugs and violence, since even their favourite channel says it's all the same anyway. That's the way I see it. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:46:13 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: Armadillos e migliores Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Pat~ The literal translation of Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? from Italian would be something like "what street is that ?" Colloquially though it's much more like "which adventure now? where does this path lead?" Spanish and Italian, though technically both "romance" languages differ quite a bit, but let me give "Los armadillos muertes y las lineas amarillas." a shot. . . "Toward the dead armadillos and yellow lines?" Close? < :-} tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:57:22 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: Sewing sinew unbelievable? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sean wrote: P.S. It wasn't an F-14. They don't stay in the air if they're stationary. It was a Harrier. Oops-- You are right on the hardware Sean. About your reference to the gore and violence in A4. . . Do you think that men and women differ in their response to certain kinds of violence? I was not nearly as sickened by what I saw in the Alien films or say, Leviathan or even Pulp Fiction as I was by the entire storyline threatening the daughter in True Lies, or the treatment of women in Face/Off. Or perhaps it's sci fi/fantasy violence vs. action flick violence? Or? Hmm. . . tara Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:18:03 -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: Russian pornography (Conference) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina wrote: > Here, in US, I recently saw an ad on MTV (of all stations) saying that > "sex, drugs, and violence are not what cool kids do". I think that was > very interesting. If sex is something as bad and illegal as drugs and > violence, how, I wonder, people are supposed to procreate? Unfortunately, I have to applaud that ad, Marina. It's a question of whether parents (and older siblings, speaking as one) want to see children die. I've worked in a children's hospital - a two-year-old and his 15-year-old mother, both with full-blown AIDS and Carposi's Sarcoma, is a very hard sight to see and stomach. Teens may have always had sex, but it's time for this world to realize that our silence and embarassment on the subject is killing millions of people across the planet, many of them only children. Until then - yes, sex has the potential to be as dangerous as drug use. IMHO, all. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:54:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: <199801161949.TAA26533@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII During the world history, the main use of pornography laws was to prosecute expression of unorthodox views and lifestyles. Last year, here in Oklahoma, the Oscar-winning movie _Tin Drum_ was pronounced illegal in Oklahoma county for including "child pornography". The judge ordered to remove it from all stores and video rental places under the threat of charging owners with a felony. Moreover, police officers were ordered to check videorental books, get the addresses of people currently having the tape, then _go to their houses, search for the tapes, and remove them_. Those people who did not want to let them in, would be charged with obstruction to justice or whatever. One of the people whose house they broke in, happened to be the president of the local chapter of ACLU. He is suing them right now. And I doubt that he wins. Meanwhile, every time I watch Star Trek on FOX, _all_ the commercials they show during the breaks are "phone sex". For the exception of one-two psychic line, it's all "1-900-WE-ARE-18", "Hot Live Girls", "XXX Fun", strip club commercials, and that kind of stuff. They must have a very interesting idea about Star Trek viewers, because that's the main time and place I ever seen those ads. The intersting part is that no judge seems to be bothered by this. When Hooters restaurant opened in Norman, local "Christian" activists made a big deal out of it (it went out of business a year later anyway, though). However, there is a whole town near Oklahoma City, that does not have almost any other businesses but strip clubs. I live in Edmond, OK, which is one of the most conservative upperclass "family values" type of place, where there is no night clubs, and everything closes at 8:00pm. There is no abortion clinic listed in the Yellow Pages, except one in Norman, one hour drive away. However, it does have escort service listed in the same phone book, a whole bunch of them. This is Oklahoma. Prostitution is still very illegal here. The police that spent so much energy raiding houses in search of the Oscar-winning "child porn", could have gone directly to the addresses of brothels from the phone book and clean out the "places of sin" for the next several years. However, no one is going to do that, and everyone knows why. First, they would not want to accidentally bust someone from the state government. This is Edmond, after all. Second, "mind-corrupting influence" in authorities point of view, can be either alternative culture, like Marilyn Manson, or too-progressive social movements, but not the good old sex-phone lines. People like Andrea Dworkin and Co have to understand, that no matter how great their intentions are, the laws they are pushing are not going to be used for _anything_ other than persecuting sexual and political minorities. And by doing so, they provide great excuses for professional witch hunters, who, after they are finished with magazines for homosexuals, will eventually come after them. It's like French Revolution -- after you eliminate the bad guys, you have to find new ones, to keep the process going, and often it's the ones who started the eliminating. After all, even a breast-exam diagram can be considered pornography. It shows naked breasts, which is not allowed even on non-premium cable channels. Since someone mentioned Larry Flint, I must say that no matter how disgusted I could be for what he was doing, in my opinion, they should have left him alone. As one civil rights leader said, "I hate what you are saying, but I would give my life so you'll have the right to say what you think". It's not about Larry Flint, but about the fact that censorship, once started, can be extended to anyone, including you own vews. Of course, if I resonally became a subject of his magazine, I moght react diffirently. On the other side, if someone raped my daughter, I would probably want to shoot the guy, which does not make homicide a generally good idea. Laws against pornography make about as much sense as the Prohibition. While there is demand, there will be supply. And if we don't want it to be the only representation of human sexuality, we have to come up with better alternatives. Kids won't have to learn about sex from the "Deep Throat" if there is plenty of movies that present sex as part of love, or at least as a respectful way of human interaction. I bet a lot of people are going to get pissed off about what I wrote here. It's pretty sad that along with other things, feminists have to end up on the opposite sides of the line of fire. However, it just means that we are not a religious-cult-type "family" as some people try to present us, and individuals are sometimes allowed to disagree. Because I'll be damned if I ever side up with ultra-right conservatives in their crusades against "immorality", even if it means going against some of the other feminists. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:07:23 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Geoffrey D. Sperl > Marina wrote: > > > Here, in US, I recently saw an ad on MTV (of all stations) saying that > > "sex, drugs, and violence are not what cool kids do". I think that was > > very interesting. If sex is something as bad and illegal as drugs and > > violence, how, I wonder, people are supposed to procreate? > > Unfortunately, I have to applaud that ad, Marina. It's a question of whether > parents (and older siblings, speaking as one) want to see children die. I've > worked in a children's hospital - a two-year-old and his 15-year-old mother, both > with full-blown AIDS and Carposi's Sarcoma, is a very hard sight to see and > stomach. Teens may have always had sex, but it's time for this world to realize > that our silence and embarassment on the subject is killing millions of people > across the planet, many of them only children. Until then - yes, sex has the > potential to be as dangerous as drug use. > Being a cynic, I suspect AIDS frightens more people because getting it means people may think they're homosexual, than because it has the potential to kill them. 4000 people a year die of Asthma in Canada, vs. 400 of AIDS, but some asthmatics smoke and many parents smoke around asthmatic kids. Highway fatalities kill more people than almost *anything* else, yet we all still drive. And I have friends who mountain climb, for god's sake. Fear of dying very rarely stops us from doing anything if we actually *want* to do it. Was it a Dick Francis character who claimed that the principle appeared to be that we should die for our own pleasure, not for someone else's? On the other side of the argument, sex has *always* led to death. I realize there's some controversy about whether syphilis is a New or Old world disease. But even without the danger of life-threatening STD's, for most of the world's population and for almost all of human history, sex and death have been very closely linked for *women*. Just because it's rare in industrialized societies for a woman to die in childbirth doesn't mean that we should forget that elsewhere and elsewhen, for women sex has meant pregnancy and pregnancy has potentially meant death. The thing is, sex can be both a good thing and a bad thing. But drugs, in general, are regarded (wrongly? i've no idea?) by society as being entirely bad. And most of us, I suspect, see few positive aspects to violence. So linking them is problematic. We can't live in a perfectly safe world, but demonizing sex suggests the creation of a generation that will find it hard to love. That's kind of sad, IMO. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:17:13 -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: Sewing sinew unbelievable? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Sean wrote: >P.S. It wasn't an F-14. They don't stay in the air if they're stationary. >It was a Harrier. > >Oops-- You are right on the hardware Sean. > >About your reference to the gore and violence in A4. . . >Do you think that men and women differ in their response to certain kinds >of violence? >I was not nearly as sickened by what I saw in the Alien films or say, >Leviathan or >even Pulp Fiction as I was by the entire >storyline threatening the daughter in True Lies, >or the treatment of women in Face/Off. >Or perhaps it's sci fi/fantasy violence vs. action flick violence? Or? > >Hmm. . . > >tara >Kitimher@aol.com >Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? I'm thinking it's a whole lot more nurture than nature, although I wouldn't argue against nature having something to do with it (what, I don't know for sure). I do think you're onto something with the SF/fantasy violence vs. action flick violence and that's this: there is a greater detachment from reality easily possible with the SF/fantasy. You can say not only that it's only a movie but that it's not even set on this world, or in this time, in many cases. With straight action flicks, you can't usually say that as they're based in the present on Earth, making them closer to home and so more real. Perhaps this is why the violence in movies like Schindler's List is horrifying: It already happened and if we're not careful, it could happen again. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:20:57 -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: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Kids won't have to learn about sex from the "Deep >Throat" if there is plenty of movies that present sex as part of love, or >at least as a respectful way of human interaction. > I do wish that movies would present more people making love instead of just having sex. I think that'd make a big difference. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:58:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lorry B. Bond" Subject: Re: Critical Work on Lesbianism in Utopias In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:20 PM 1/15/98 -0800, you wrote: >Hello, > >A friend of mine asked me if I knew of any good critical work on >lesbianism in utopias. I didn't, but I thought someone on this list >might. > >Please send suggestions to me personally, or to the list, as you see fit >:) > >Many Thanks, > >Pamela Bedore >Department of English >Simon Fraser University > >pebedore@sfu.ca > Yes, there are a few critical works that have been written, although, I think they might be out of print (of course, you might find them at a library). I hope these references offer you what you are looking for. Sorry I don't have complete info on these, but here goes: Barkowski, _Feminist Utopias_ _Future Females: A Critical Anthology_ _Women and Utopia: Critical Interpretations_ _Women's Utopias in British and American Fiction_ Bammer, Angelika. _Partial Visions: Feminism and Utopianism in the 1970's_ Sarah Webster Goodwin and Libby Falk Jones _Feminism, Utopia, and Narrative_ Anna Katharina Kuhn _Christa Wolf's Utopian Vision: From Marxism to Feminism_ Krishan Kumar _ Utopia and anti-utopia in Modern Times_ Pfalzer, Jean. _The Utopian Novel in America, 1886-1896_ Roberts, Robin. _A New Species: Gender and Science in Science Fiction_ Rosinsky, Natalie Myra. _Feminist Futures, Contemporary Woimen's speculative fiction_ I took this info from a list I developed a while ago as part of my own research efforts. Hope this list helpful. I'll be signing off the list after I complete this posting, so if you (or anyone else) has any questions, please e-mail me at lbbond@students.wisc.edu Good luck and enjoy your search! Lorry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:34:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Russian pornography (Conference) In-Reply-To: <34C12E1A.C81BD501@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Geoffrey, Seeing a twenty-year-old mother and her two-year-old child dying from AIDS is just as sad. However, no one in the right state of mind would try to convince adults to abandon sex. Instead, health education is focused on teaching people how to do it safely. Teenagers are apparently not considered people, so all they get is a brainwashing tactic of associating sex with unconditionally bad things like drugs and violence. The worst thing about it that it does not work. Feeling bad about sex is not going to stop people from doing it. It never did. Neither death penalties of the Middle Ages, nor social isolation of puritanical societies, nor absence of birth control or antibiotics has ever stopped teenage affairs. AIDS and the lame TV propaganda are not going to do it either. After all, we already have a group of young people taught that sex is a crime, the so-called "religious youth". They are raised on the notion that sex is something dirty and forbidden, and they actually believe that themselves, which does not change, but rather explains the fact that they have the highest rates of teenage pregnancies among the white American middle class. We can try to make all children into scared, ignorant hypocrits, who would get pregnant before they know where babies come from, we might even succeed, that happened before. However, I doubt it will stop AIDS, more likely, it will make it worse. After all, the idea of sex as evil is not something new. It's been dominant for centuries, up until the sexual revolution. So far AIDS is being used as a great excuse by those who want to turn it back. Actually, I think if AIDS came somewhere in 19th century, humanity would probably go extinct, since no one would dare to discuss the matter during the Victorian times (what if women or childen heard that?!!) They would just pretend it was not happenning, and preach abstinence until they all died. By the way, it could be a lot more helpful, if all that money spent on TV ads would go on finding the cure from AIDS. So they could save the lives of those teenagers without messing with the brains of others. Making an ad about tolerance would help, too. I recently met a young woman who refused to go to a night club after hearing that it was a famous gay hangout. She said that her aunt was a nurse in ER, and that she had told the girl that "most of those homosexuals are infected and don't even know that". Since her aunt was a nurse, she must have known what she was talking about, so the woman refused to hang out in the same building with those "potentially infected people". And she does not even consider herself conservative. It was not about morality of being gay, simply the matter of health precaution. They could use some TV ads on that. Marina On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > Marina wrote: > > > Here, in US, I recently saw an ad on MTV (of all stations) saying that > > "sex, drugs, and violence are not what cool kids do". I think that was > > very interesting. If sex is something as bad and illegal as drugs and > > violence, how, I wonder, people are supposed to procreate? > > Unfortunately, I have to applaud that ad, Marina. It's a question of whether > parents (and older siblings, speaking as one) want to see children die. I've > worked in a children's hospital - a two-year-old and his 15-year-old mother, both > with full-blown AIDS and Carposi's Sarcoma, is a very hard sight to see and > stomach. Teens may have always had sex, but it's time for this world to realize > that our silence and embarassment on the subject is killing millions of people > across the planet, many of them only children. Until then - yes, sex has the > potential to be as dangerous as drug use. > > IMHO, all. > > - Geoffrey > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:52:42 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Sean Johnston wrote: > I do wish that movies would present more people making love instead of just > having sex. I think that'd make a big difference. Absolutely. It would also be nice if more _porn_ movies would present people making love, or at least exploring their bodies, for God's sake, without putting anyone down. After all, the concept of porn is not of being derogatory to either gender, but simply of centering the action around sex. At the present time, however, non-hateful adult movies are pretty rare. And I am afraid that if we keep the industry underground, it will never get better. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:20:07 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada; and Lisa Mason In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think that NZ's laws (I'm not _trying_ to sound so rah-rah!) are pretty good on the porno front: no children, no animals, no S/M (I'm not too sure about light bondage, or what the cut-off may be...) At least those rules tend to cut out anything that may be non-consensual. However, those guidelines don't stop NZ Customs doing blitzes on gay magazines periodically - which are nearly always passed by the censor, but at great hassle to the consumer. Lisa Mason: has anyone read her latest effort (can't remember the title, but a woman time-traveling from the future to Ming China?)... If so, thoughts on it greatly appreciated! Trac' ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:17:36 -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: OT - suggestions wanted 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 like the PalmPilot. (http://palmpilot.3com.com/, I think) You can download books to it, do some finances on it (I tracked expenses through a 3-week trip to Europe on it--which is where I was when you sent this mail ;-), play games, etc. You can get a keyboard for it (but no trackball), but I just use the stylus--the "graffiti" takes a little getting used to. Writing anything much would be taxing, though, I think. You can get email for it, but I haven't tried that yet. The memory is limited when you start talking about carrying books in memory. There is no phone, but there is (or will soon be) a pager attachment that will allow alphanumeric paging. I think a phone is just a few steps away. You could probably use this and a PowerBook (or PC notebook computer) when travelling. For extended writing, you could use the laptop and for editing/note-taking, download to the PalmPilot, etc... I don't know if all that software is available. Hmmm... Maybe that's what I could work on. I've been looking for a project. :-) -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:35:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Apology and a couple of questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, Jan 17, 1998 at 11:17:36PM -0500, Allen Briggs goofed. Argh... I'm sorry. I meant to send that to Pat directly, not to the list. Good clue that I've been staring at the screen too long. On-topic, does anyone know if any author's done much with SF and Native American societies (where men and women may have separate roles, but not necessarily unequal, and gay men (and women?) were revered as having special spiritual power)? I haven't researched this at all to know what tribes hold these beliefs... I've just read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ and _Nadya_, among other books. Both fascinating. I want to know if Tepper knows which vial was emptied into the fountain. I think that was discussed on here a while back, but I don't recall if there was a consensus. I don't know which one I would have... -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:55:23 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Since someone mentioned Larry Flint, I must say that no matter how > disgusted I could be for what he was doing, in my opinion, they should > have left him alone. As one civil rights leader said, "I hate what you > are saying, but I would give my life so you'll have the right to say what > you think". It's not about Larry Flint, but about the fact that I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 00:35:56 -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: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your >right to say it. > > Voltaire Very good. Thanks. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:22:33 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: STDS was Russian pornography (Conference) Marina wrote >Actually, I think if AIDS came somewhere in 19th century, humanity >would probably go extinct, since no one would dare to discuss the >matter during the Victorian times (what if women or childen heard >that?!!) They would just pretend it was not happenning, and preach >abstinence until they all died. The Victorians did have syphilis (a disease which is lingeringly lethal/debilitating, and can cause birth defects) and gonorrhoea, which can cause sterility, especially in women if the fallopian tubes become infected. They didn't pretend these were not happening, what they did (though not in all Victorian societies) was try to control these by controlling prostitution--containing the sex trade in particular areas, enforcing regular examination of prostitute women (even though diagnostic methods were dubious and means of cure practically non-existent). They also had a rhetoric of 'purity', which in practice meant paranoia about all sexual manifestations that weren't within marriage and intending reproduction, so massive panics around masturbation, birth control, etc, and, towards the end of the C19th, homosexuality. Even so, some people did have sex outside these parameters: though probably a significant number of women who did become pregnant outside marriage or a stable relationship did so either through coerced sex, or in anticipation of future marriage which did not take place. And it's unlikely that adolescent women having sex would be doing so within consensual relationships: many young women became prostitutes--full or part-time--because their wages in any other occupation were so low. Victorian society demonstrates the combination of public silence or promotion of certain 'moral' values with an active subculture of exploitation of sex. No-one gathered any reliable figures about infection with venereal diseases in the UK before the C20th, but a government commission, 1913-1916 suggested that 10% of men in urban areas were or had been infected with syphilis and a far higher number with gonorrhoea. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:00:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Please! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm trying to decide whether or not to stay on this list, and thought it was at least worthwhile to mention that the reason I am thinking of leaving is not that the volume of mail has mushroomed, but more specxifically that the volume off **seriously off-topic** mail is out of control. This is not to say that the topics are or are not interesting, or that this is or is not a great online community, it is only to say that the 'neighborliness' of the list is, for my purposes, getting in the way of its usefullness as a resource for conversation about Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopia. I guess I am putting this out there at best to spark conversation--how seriously do we take the charter of this list? Would we rather that it becomes a loosely gathered group of poeple who talk about whatever they want, from micro-electronics to STD's to utopian fiction? At worst, its more to just let people know why I'm thinking about leaving, assuming that I am not alone in this. Peace 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, 18 Jan 1998 14:06:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: KSHMEYER Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: ST and Gay Characters Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I have read quite a bit of Star Trek fiction. I find little of it even strongly feminist. The main thrust of the stories are the male characters (I have not read any in the Voyager series) In fact I wrote two novels for the series that focused on the female characters and their relationship with one another. My agent submitted them to the powers that be and we received the proverbial rejection slip. Which of the novels feature same sex couples? I know David Peter didn't write any of them. He did a much better job with the novelization he did for Alien Nation. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:24:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Please! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:00 PM 1/18/98 -0500, you wrote: > the reason I am thinking of leaving is not that >the >volume of mail has mushroomed, but more specxifically that the volume off >**seriously off-topic** mail is out of control. Then, you sigged: > ~~ 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_ I would say that the last two lines of your quote point to the seriousness of people on this list as to following the charter, and broaden the scope of what is on-topic. 'Sides which, the lauralistlady always gets us back in line at some point or another... Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:29:23 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Please! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have snipped Rudy Leon's message, but this message is in response to her questions. Personally, I cannot cope with the sheer volume of off-topic conversation this list generates, and as soon as I locate my joining instructions I will sign off. It's all very well to be questioning, engaged folk, but when the purpose of the list is purportedly to discuss feminist science fiction, fantastic and utopian literature - _note_ literature -, surely that is what we should engage with. To leave it to Laura to police topicality seems an abdication of responsibility. Joan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:29:55 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: Apology and a couple of questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Briggs wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 1998 at 11:17:36PM -0500, Allen Briggs goofed. > > Argh... I'm sorry. I meant to send that to Pat directly, not to the > list. Good clue that I've been staring at the screen too long. > Allen, I for one didn't mind seeing your Pilot promotion, since I also use one. In fact I'm also developing software for it (we may be listed as a partner on the pilot web site you mentioned) and will have a beta version available next month. I don't want to push anything, more just networking among pilot users, so let me know if you want to know more. What model of pilot do you have? What other software do you use on it if any? > On-topic, does anyone know if any author's done much with SF and > Native American societies (where men and women may have separate roles, > but not necessarily unequal, and gay men (and women?) were revered as > having special spiritual power)? I haven't researched this at all to > know what tribes hold these beliefs... > > I've just read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ and _Nadya_, among other > books. Both fascinating. I want to know if Tepper knows which vial > was emptied into the fountain. I think that was discussed on here a > while back, but I don't recall if there was a consensus. I don't know > which one I would have... > I recently also read Gibbon's.. and Nadya, one after the other. I guess that your Native American society question came after Nadya - that was the most interesting aspect of the book I thought. Otherwise I was disappointed in it after her earlier outstanding books. I thought Gibbons.. was disturbing - the evil character was so evil, and I didn't really think it had to be so supernatural. But I did like the ambiguity she left around that final choice. My guess is that Tepper knew which vial but I also think the point of the book was to bring you there and let you decide. Jennifer -- Jennifer Krauel Vice President, Product Development and Customer Care jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:49:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Marina, I'm with you. Whatever you think of someone else's speech, it's far less dangerous than having someone (generally not the ones oyu agree with!) telling people what they can think or say or hear or see. Dworkin sincerely and in real terror equates pornography, sexual intercourse, rape, and brutality. MacKinnon's a lawyer. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:07:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: sex, w/actual SF content Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sean commented: >I do wish that movies would present more people making love instead of just >having sex. I think that'd make a big difference. Not me. I wish movies/books and other media would stop showing "Good Sex" as sex than happens between characters with an emotional relationship, and "Bad Sex" as something that happens just as a body connection. :P Offhand, I think both Jo Clayton and Emily Devenport have given us women in the future having caring sexual relationhips with others without having an emotional commitment. There are probably others, who are just not coming to mind at this point. And I don't think this should be a radical, SFnal idea, FWIW. 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, 19 Jan 1998 13:33:06 +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: Questions: ie American Indian content, indigeneous peoples MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There just aren't that many SF/fantasy books overall that deal with Indian themes (Tepper and Lackey lately, Andre Norton,...?). Of course, that's just part of the lack of genre literature regarding indigeneous people in general. There isn't much fantasy published in here NZ in overall, and the only things that mention Maori tend to be for children. It seems like a huge gap given the often fantastic nature of the oral traditions....! As for queer shamans - well, there's a gap that needs to be filled! Any volunteers? Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:14:16 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Please! In-Reply-To: <3.0.4.32.19980118120026.006bd24c@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 18/01/98 17:00:26 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Rudy Leon , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > I'm trying to decide whether or not to stay on this list, and thought it > was at least > worthwhile to mention that the reason I am thinking of leaving is not that > the > volume of mail has mushroomed, but more specxifically that the volume off > **seriously off-topic** mail is out of control. Personally, I would say stay with it. I expect that we will all get reasonably back on course in a couple of days or so. Meanwhile, I really do hope the the current threads are allowed to run their course, not killed off by Laura. I agree, this is not why I joined this list, but I have found it interesting, informative, and a way to get to know fellow list members. Judging by the volume of mail generated by the current threads, and the number of members generating it, it would appear that I am not alone with my opinion. Please, please, please, don't anybody quit because of the current trend. I am sure that none of us has any intention of forgetting why we came here originally, we just seem to be a little bit side-tracked temporarily. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C mean? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:44:24 -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: Please! In-Reply-To: <3.0.4.32.19980118120026.006bd24c@mailbox.syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rudy and Joan, Patience, grasshoppers. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:44:29 -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: sex, w/actual SF content In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Sean commented: >>I do wish that movies would present more people making love instead of just >>having sex. I think that'd make a big difference. > >Not me. I wish movies/books and other media would stop showing "Good Sex" >as sex than happens between characters with an emotional relationship, and >"Bad Sex" as something that happens just as a body connection. :P I think my point was that I think two people have to be in love, not just have an emotional relationship, with each other in order to make love to each other. Most everything else similar is just having sex. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:08:34 -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: Questions: ie American Indian content, indigeneous peoples In-Reply-To: <199801182335.MAA23109@orcon.mail.win.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Tracy MacShane wrote: > Of course, that's just part of the lack of genre literature regarding > indigeneous people in general. There isn't much fantasy published in here > NZ in overall, and the only things that mention Maori tend to be for > children. It seems like a huge gap given the often fantastic nature of the > oral traditions....! > The only one I can think of is Alan Dean Foster's Maori. Been a while since I've read it, but it's more serious than what he usually writes. Also from that general part of the world, one of Spider Robinson's Stardance books featured an Australian aborigine as a main character. 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: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 04:24:21 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthony Mouasso Subject: Re: Sig in Alien4 -Reply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sean Johnston wrote: > > > >At the very least this kind of comment is unnecessarily > >gratuitous; and if they were simply trying to paint the crew > >as rough and ready there are plenty of ways to achieve that which > >are not at the expense of women. > > > >tara > >Kitimher@aol.com > >Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? > > Never mind the comments. I agree with you, Tara. But how about the > gore > for gratuitous? I like violence in movies, but this one had too much > graphic, gratuitous violence and gore. It was a good show, but they > should > have toned it down unless they were trying to make the audience ill, > which > they partially did with this audience member. > > -Sean > > "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' > in > STNG: Conspiracy Anthony Wrote: I also agree with these aspects ( gratuitous violence and gore ) I'm very fond of the first alien and also the second movie. But i would like to say that the third and particularly the fourth are not in my opinion, great movies. For me the screenplay of Alien Resurrection is not properly made. First: The worst The beginning of the movie : we are in a military spaceship. We have scientifics and militaries in charge of alien captives. O.k, why not? In my point of view, as Sciences Experts and Weapons Specialists, they must know all the aspects about these creatures ( they discovered them a long time ago! ), as we say in french : " Eh ben non gros beta! " So two aliens are killing a third alien, and the acid blood of his body destroy the floor of the prison. A marvellous tactic! But i think this movie is the most anti-scientific and anti-militaristic i've ever seen, because it tells to us words like this : " Look! Scientifics and Militaries are absolutely stupids! " Are you sure? I am not! Second: Big script error We have Ripley who's discovering hers "bad clones" in the medical room. We are in a spaceship, right? And what's she doing? She's taking a flame thrower and burning all the medical room. it's horrible to see things like that o.k burns them all, i understand! But remember Aliens by James Cameron, in the middle of the movie, we have a fire alert provoked by Ripley and what do we have? An anti fire-system with water and and, we are in ground construction, Not in a spaceship right? Very bizarre! How did they stop the fire in this ship, perhaps it will be magic? Or may be it's too futuristic for us, we couldn't understand the abilities they have! Third: The Hybrid and Alien Screenplay The hybrid creature at the end of the movie is not credible, but it's only a personal point of view ( think about Queen Mother in Aliens! ). I prefer Giger works. The others aspects of the movie like, sexual ambiguity, Ripley transformation, communication between the characters are, i think superficial, artificial, not developped! here like justifications. Watch Nirvana, it's another thing! For me this movie is only a succession of little suspens ( we have already seen that!), futuristics gunfights and a race, in french we're saying : " une course-poursuite ". Jean Pierre Jeunet made great movies like "Delicatessen" and "The City Of Lost Children", Alien Resurrection isn't his best. Since the third, Productors and Directors have forgotten some interesting concepts. I've seen Alien when i was thirteen in France all my generation ( 15-35 years old ) has been marked by this movie : lightnings effects, esthetic, screenplay, characters, sense of realism. Though they forgot three simple things: In the two first movies the tension is based onto the game with three elements: - Human element > Adults characters - Affective element > A cat, a child - Alien element > creatures And also an Android Element but, it's another part of the story. In the third movie for example they killed the doctor in the beginning after few times. Result : there is no more Affective element in it > Another race against time and alien ( Fincher hasn't forgotten that in Seven! ) When i left the cinema i was angry ( really! ) for me alien saga stop here! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:16:22 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: Indigenous characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Didn't Carol Severance (sp?) write at least two novels set in the Pacific about island sorcerers and shamans? My collection's at home and I'm at work, so I'm relying on my terrible memory. Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:30:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Indigenous characters In-Reply-To: <199801190422.RAA171970885183729@mail.iconz.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I may have missed a message or two on this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said. There are a number of fantasies that feature Australian indigenous characters--Michaela Roessner's Walkabout Woman, for example, and Patricia Wrightson's books. Many Native American writers have done work on the borders of genre fantasy, most notably Leslie Silko, Craig Kee Street, and Jamake Highwater. A numbeer of Charles de Lint's fantasies have also featured native characters. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:33:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Gay Natives and SF/Fantasy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Briggs asked about SF dealing with First Nations perspectives on gay/lesbian life (very rough paraphrase, I know). Then Tracy Mac Shane added: >There just aren't that many SF/fantasy books overall that deal with Indian themes (Tepper and Lackey lately, Andre Norton,...?). Of course, that's just part of the lack of genre literature regarding indigeneous people in general. There isn't much fantasy published in here NZ in overall, and the only things that mention Maori tend to be for children. It seems like a huge gap given the often fantastic nature of the oral traditions....! As for queer shamans - well, there's a gap that needs to be filled! Any volunteers? > And now I add: There are several First Nations people who write SF, including William Sanders and Gary Bowen. Bowen is gay and has an SF novel, which may or may not be out yet, called Fire Dragon. Then there's also Misha (sp?) who has a cyber-something novel called Red Spider, White Web, which I think is queer. Anyone know of any others? And I suppose one might regard Thomas King's Green Grass, Running Water as fantasy, although it's not really gay in any sense. As for the Berdache, etc., there's a very well-known book by a man named, I think, Williams. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:54:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: arrgghh -- ok, topicality Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ok, i don't really want to do this, but i guess i have to. there is a reasonable level of discontent with the content of the list. my natural inclination is to just let it run itself. but, people's needs are not being met, and hey, that's what i'm here for. so, i'm proposing one of three things. one, i look into the list-topic function, which allows you to set up sublists. as i understand it, people could subscribe to particular sublists and not to others. i would appreciate it if anyone who has had experience could talk to me about this feature - NOT on the listserve, please, but to me personally, ok? two, i get other actual lists set up. three, we just let it run the way it is now. (which generates complaints for me which i don't like to have to get) for options one and two, i'd like to propose these subtopics or sublists: fsffu chat - those of you who feel like networking with other feminists interested in sf but not necessarily limiting yourself to discussions of feminist sf fsffu lit - print only (i think zines & comics would count!) fsffu media - movies & tv one could of course subscribe to all 3 or just one or two or whatever. obviously there would be some cross-over but the point is that on lit & media, any other discussion would need to be relevant to those specific topics. now, we have between 250 & 300 people on this list at any given time. i do not expect all of you to vote on this. but, i will accept comments & feedback & other suggestions, to me, please, not on list. i'll revise according to the general tenor of the feedback if i can and then throw it back on the list for discussion at that point. ok? Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants her testimony against Mumia and cites police coercion as the reason for her perjury. http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 04:32:34 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: Apology and a couple of questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ola! 0300 I woke to chunk the stove and am still awake in the fertile time of the mind, SF and Native Americans brought to mind SVAHA by Charles De Lint - must re-read it to see why. Am nearly finished with He, She and It by Marge Piercy, does anyone else see the resemblance between that and Starhawk's Fifth Sacred Thing? Am in awe of the quality of writing as well as inventiveness. Have been lurking mostly because haven't had a tv for years, loved ST -the old series. Has anyone else enjoyed Diane Lee's short stories on the web about Klingon love? Thanks for the reference to Nadya - Murphy is new to me - must check it out! *Cleo ---------- > From: Allen Briggs > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Apology and a couple of questions > Date: Saturday, January 17, 1998 11:35 PM > > On Sat, Jan 17, 1998 at 11:17:36PM -0500, Allen Briggs goofed. > > Argh... I'm sorry. I meant to send that to Pat directly, not to the > list. Good clue that I've been staring at the screen too long. > > On-topic, does anyone know if any author's done much with SF and > Native American societies (where men and women may have separate roles, > but not necessarily unequal, and gay men (and women?) were revered as > having special spiritual power)? I haven't researched this at all to > know what tribes hold these beliefs... > > I've just read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ and _Nadya_, among other > books. Both fascinating. I want to know if Tepper knows which vial > was emptied into the fountain. I think that was discussed on here a > while back, but I don't recall if there was a consensus. I don't know > which one I would have... > > -allen > > -- > Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 05:00:01 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Gibbon's... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just finished Gibbon's... also! I enjoyed the vial ploy, often with Tepper I am swept up and roaring along by the end and finishing is like waking in mid air to fall to the ground with an Ughff! This gave me the chance to keep chewing for awhile after it was over. I was less bothered by the evil of the bad guy than by the magical, mysterious rescue. C.S.Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle's evils seem more sinister and complete than this one did, and I don't think we can expect the dolphins or aliens from Jupiter's moons to save us from ourselves - there - I admit to believing in the validity of our modern fables. Maybe that was her point! On the other hand, I do believe in Magic, but how to change the world with it ... - Cleo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:37:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Wil McCarthy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Has anybody read this author (Aggressor Six, Flies From the Amber, etc)? In these first two novels he has an interesting way with powerful women characters, and the men who adore them. Not strictly feminist stories, but hard SF with some unapologetically strong women. Comments? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:37:22 -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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Maybe the only thing worse than too many off-topic threads on a list is a thread about whether or not there are too many off-topic threads... But I wanted to make a point of comparison: The percentage of off-topic stuff here is no greater than on any other list I've been on, and it's pretty comparable to the off-topic percentage in many convention discussions, or in old-fashioned fanzines. (For example, the debate about "Was Shakespeare Bacon?" raged for several years in the 1950s in a regional trade journal for attorneys, despite the editor's best efforts to squelch it, and the debate resulted in a fascinating collection of essays.) I'm comfy with it, but then I'm frankly interested in what fellow fans & pros think about censorship, violence in society, etc. It makes for wider understanding of these folks and their work, I think. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:21:19 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Oops. And Rachel Pollack's latest is great so far MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I compounded Allen's mistake by replying to the list as well when I meant that Pilot stuff to be a private message. Here's some list-specific material. I got Rachel Pollack's latest book, _Godmother Moon_ ( I think, the book's at home) out of the library this weekend and I'm really enjoying it. The lesbian protagonists were a nice surprise - I had just grabbed the book off the shelf before the parking meter ran out so I didn't know a thing about it save the author. Her writing is magical and satisfying. It reminds me of another book that I can't quite place yet, with characters I could relate to in a world I could relate to, but somehow they see and experience magical things that I don't. Maybe Judith Katz' _Running Fiercely Toward A High Thin Sound_ (I think that's the right author name and title), has anyone else read that? I had only read her earliest books - _Alqua Dreams_ and _Golden Vanity_ and wondered what the fuss was about, since neither books were all that great. After starting this one though I'm glad I kept her name on my "read anything" list. I'll let you know if I still like it this much by the end. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:19:35 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: NicolaZ Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit fsffu-lit sounds like a great idea. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.america.net/~daves/ng/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:16:04 -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: Alien 4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:11 AM 1/16/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-01-14 19:27:54 EST, Cat Farrar wrote: > >> 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. > >I have two points: The first is that the Ripley in Alien Resurrection is most >definitely *not* the Ripley we grew to know and love (well, some of us did, >anyway ;) in the previous three movies. First of all, this Ripley, as a >result of the cloning process, is part alien. There's a good reason for her >to be as feral as she is. Also, this Ripley was "nurtured" by a tube and a >bunch of military creeps whose sole interest in her was the alien she carried >inside her. It's no wonder her moral structure bears very little resemblance >to our own. (Please do not fire upon me, I use "our" in a very loose sense, >really!) I understand all of your comments. The producers/writers could have made other choices on how they would show (concretely) that Ripley was part alien and part human. The choices that they did make showed me that there was very little left of the Ripley we had come to know from the other films. The emphasis was on the "animal" side of her soul and the majority of the emotions that she expressed were very "male like". > >Okay, so I actually have three points. > >Point Two: According to the folks making the movie (this is from an interview >I read in, I believe, Entertainment Weekly), Ripley did have some sort of >sexual intercourse with the alien(s?), so the suggestion of male genitals in >the picture you saw was most likely deliberate. At least, it wasn't all that >accidental. That gives me the creeps. She has sex with the alien (s?) before she killed them. How often do we hear stories of soldiers having sex with women and children before they kill them? And if it was the alien in the egg chamber, that was Ripley's child. Incest or it's suggestion. > I think the reason they had her have sex with the aliens was as >some sort of "communing with her own" or something. I saw the Ripley clone >(who is the one I've been discussing all along here, hope I haven't confused >anyone) as someone who was definitely stranded on a bridge between two species >who have absolutely zero hope of making any sort of peace. I think at that >point in the movie, she knew she would have to help destroy the rest of the >aliens, and so she took her last chance to be close to them while she could. >(I don't claim to understand why it had to be sexual, because frankly I found >that icky, but that's my theory anyway.) Again, having sex with one of your own before you kill them ... how often have we seen or read about that in our own world? You state that you don't understand why it had to be sexual? It didn't have to be. The fact that it was is the point that all feminist should consider as significant. > >Point Three: Ripley is certainly not the first character in a movie to take >pleasure in her violence. How often are women depicted as violent in films and then, how often do they seem to "enjoy" it? The majority of the time we see men engaging in this behavior. I contend that Ripley was written my a man and it was his version of what a female hero would be like both in speech and actions. Sexual, violent, sassy, low on empathy...hmmm.. the writers were certainly projecting their consciousness. > I'll admit the clone started out more violent than >most characters do, but really, I can't think of an action movie (science >fiction or otherwise) that didn't end with the hero(ine) beating the tar out >of the head bad guy and finishing with some sort of self-satisfied wisecrack. >Heck, that sort of thing is what action careers are based on. Arnold >Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone (and Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Bruce >Willis, Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Segall, et al.) wouldn't >have half the money they have if it weren't for the end-of-movie wisecrack. >And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that some of these guys haven't done >good work outside their action-movie stuff, but it's the action movies that >paved (and paid!) their way to the good stuff. > Cat Farrar > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:21:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol Severence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I don't think we had much of a concensus on this, but if everyone wants to send me their votes or ideas (perferably with a brief note explaining their reasoning), I'd be happy to complie them and share them with all the contributors, hich should be fun but not constitute a spoiler for other list members who may not have read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ yet. :) Sean commented: >I think my point was that I think two people have to be in love, not just >have an emotional relationship, with each other in order to make love to >each other. Most everything else similar is just having sex. And my point was that there should not be a discrimination between "Making Love," and "just having sex," in the way that so many of us mean it today. Perhaps in a future society (like those mentioned in my earlier post) those arbitrary divisions will cease to exist. I sometimes think that deciding physical passion between two people is only valid when there is a romantic link between them is just an updated, more politically correct variation of thei idea that sex should just be for reproductive purposes. Sex can be an expression of affection between friends, a wonderful method of self entertainment, or an expression of a romantic relationship, but the *relationship* shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not the sex is good, IMO. BTW, speaking of future sex and same-sex sex, and alien sex, "XXXenophile" made my list of feminist SF when it had a story with a sexy scientist who was sexy (explicitly) so WITHOUT REMOVING HER GLASSES! (trust, me, in a world where I wear glasses, I was tired of seeing the plain woman "transformed" by removing them!) Carol Severence wrote one SF and three fantasy novels dealing with Pacific Island cultures. 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, 19 Jan 1998 11:30:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erica J Kline Subject: Gibson's Decline & Fall; book-club; off-topics; suggestion wanted Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII About Tepper's "Gibson's Decline & Fall", Allen Briggs wrote "...which vial was emptied into the fountain..." I thought about that for a long time after I read the book. First I was mad at Tepper for not telling! Then I tried to figure out which vial I would have chosen - I weighed the pros and cons of various "systems". This analysis finally made me conclude that whichever vial was chosen, there would be benefits and problems. Maybe that's the message....? About the Book Club: Have we decided to nominate and vote-on a list of books? I think that sounds like a good process. Let me know if you need help with collating responses, I'd be glad to help. About off-topic discussions: I subscribe to a couple of lists like this and sometimes the off-topic discussions are the best part! As long as everyone's being *nice*, just skip those topics you're not interested in. Finally: I go to a book club at my library and I'd like to introduce them to Sci-Fi. Some of them have read a little SF but many of them seem to think it's all like "Star Trek". We are mostly women, mostly older, and generally read fiction. Does anyone have a suggestion about what would be a good book to start with? Thanks mucho! Bye for now... Erica ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:40:37 -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: Sig in Alien4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>The scene where Ripley is laying in the nest, with her grown up, pregnant >>child is way too incestuous for me. Definitly gave me the creeps. >>> >>Cat Farrar > Sean wrote: >How's that incestuous? Maybe it's just her reveling in contact with a new >(to her) member of her family because she understands the aliens better now >that she's partially one of them. > Maybe she's just reveling in the contact?!!! Her "reveling" sure looked sexual to me and also, their is a shot where the childs tip of her tail is seen sticking up right at Ripley's crotch level. Clearly a phallic suggestion. Cat Farrar > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:50:05 -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: Sig in Alien4 -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:03 AM 1/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Cat Farrar wrote: >>I found the characterizations to have a very different sexual >context in this >film than >the others, which is not to say that >there wasn't gratuitousness as with this >about Call: >>"eminently fuckable, isn't she?" Ugh. >Those men acted like sexist pigs - boring, boring, boring... >> > >If Ripley had said that about one of the male pirates no one would be >criticising it as sexist. (On occasion, I say the same thing myself >about certain men.) It's not sexist, but obnoxious, to say loudly >that some people are more desirable than others, depending on the >context, of course. What the writer/director was trying to get >across was that the men had no idea that Call was an android, and >that they were obnoxious in a rough-and-ready sort of way. I completely disagree! By the way, Ripley did make a sexist comment about fucking someone so she could get off the ship. When people talk about other human beings as if they were some usable commodity, that is NOT JUST a rough and ready sort of communication. Cat Farrar > >Debra > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:29:32 -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: pornography ruling in Canada Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Marina wrote: > >Since someone mentioned Larry Flint, I must say that no matter how >disgusted I could be for what he was doing, in my opinion, they should >have left him alone. As one civil rights leader said, "I hate what you >are saying, but I would give my life so you'll have the right to say what >you think". It's not about Larry Flint, but about the fact that >censorship, once started, can be extended to anyone, including you own >vews. Of course, if I resonally became a subject of his magazine, I moght >react diffirently. On the other side, if someone raped my daughter, I >would probably want to shoot the guy, which does not make homicide a >generally good idea. It's my understanding that Larry Flint had sex with his daughter. Does that affect your position in anyway? Cat Farrar > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:31:52 -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: pornography ruling in Canada Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:20 PM 1/17/98 -0600, you wrote: >Kids won't have to learn about sex from the "Deep >>Throat" if there is plenty of movies that present sex as part of love, or >>at least as a respectful way of human interaction. >> > > >I do wish that movies would present more people making love instead of just >having sex. I think that'd make a big difference. Perhaps it would, and perhaps that's the reason that they DON'T do it. Cat Farrar > > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:35:47 -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: pornography ruling in Canada; and Lisa Mason Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just a question to those living in Canada... If the Butler law has made it more difficult for the gay community I'd like to know how the gay community was affected PRIOR to the Butler law? Cat Farrar At 05:20 PM 1/18/98 +1300, you wrote: >I think that NZ's laws (I'm not _trying_ to sound so rah-rah!) are pretty >good on the porno front: no children, no animals, no S/M (I'm not too sure >about light bondage, or what the cut-off may be...) At least those rules >tend to cut out anything that may be non-consensual. However, those >guidelines don't stop NZ Customs doing blitzes on gay magazines >periodically - which are nearly always passed by the censor, but at great >hassle to the consumer. > >Lisa Mason: has anyone read her latest effort (can't remember the title, >but a woman time-traveling from the future to Ming China?)... >If so, thoughts on it greatly appreciated! > >Trac' > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:11:48 -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: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: <199801191916.LAA10354@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Point Three: Ripley is certainly not the first character in a movie to take >>pleasure in her violence. > >How often are women depicted as violent in films and then, how often do they >seem to "enjoy" it? The majority of the time we see men engaging in this >behavior. I contend that Ripley was written my a man and it was his version >of what a female hero would be like both in speech and actions. Sexual, >violent, sassy, low on empathy...hmmm.. the writers were certainly >projecting their consciousness. Here's something I don't think you're considering: I believe Weaver had script approval. Somebody of Sigourney Weaver's clout could make suggestions if she didn't buy something the writer's wrote. At least on some level, then Weaver agreed with what the writer's wrote. So what does that tell us about Weaver? That she's got a twisted sense of humor? That she's turned her back on feminism on some level? That she'll do whatever she can to get into the boys' club in terms of keeping her superstar status? None of the above. I think it shows she's as human as the rest of us and that she is also considerate of the character she was playing; part human, part alien. I think the character would enjoy, on some level, the violence whether the character was male or female. Anyway, the point is, if there's blame to be laid, and I don't think there is, it shouldn't just be at the writers' feet. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:21:58 -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: Sig in Alien4 In-Reply-To: <199801191940.LAA10420@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >Maybe she's just reveling in the contact?!!! Her "reveling" sure looked >sexual to me and also, their is a shot where the childs tip of her tail is >seen sticking up right at Ripley's crotch level. Clearly a phallic >suggestion. > >Cat Farrar >> I'll have to see it again, just to see what you're talking about. Seems I remember that. If that's so, then I was wrong. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:21:53 -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: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol Severence In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I don't think we had much of a concensus on this, but if everyone wants to >send me their votes or ideas (perferably with a brief note explaining their >reasoning), I'd be happy to complie them and share them with all the >contributors, hich should be fun but not constitute a spoiler for other >list members who may not have read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ yet. :) > >Sean commented: > >>I think my point was that I think two people have to be in love, not just >>have an emotional relationship, with each other in order to make love to >>each other. Most everything else similar is just having sex. > >And my point was that there should not be a discrimination between "Making >Love," and "just having sex," in the way that so many of us mean it today. >Perhaps in a future society (like those mentioned in my earlier post) those >arbitrary divisions will cease to exist. I sometimes think that deciding >physical passion between two people is only valid when there is a romantic >link between them is just an updated, more politically correct variation of >thei idea that sex should just be for reproductive purposes. Sex can be an >expression of affection between friends, a wonderful method of self >entertainment, or an expression of a romantic relationship, but the >*relationship* shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not the >sex is good, IMO. Maryelizabeth, Oh. I think I get it: sex shouldn't be just "sex", but there should be, de rigeur, some strong emotional attachment of which sex is an expression? If that's something of what you mean, I agree. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:02:09 -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: Alien 4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Why is it assumed that Ripley (the alien part) enjoys the violence. I consider that the aliens are animal like. I don't see evidence that they have a conceptual consciousness. When a lion kills a gazelle, do you think that the lion "enjoys" this violent act? Isn't "enjoyment" a human emotion? So was it the human element of Ripley that was enjoying the violence? Logically, that wouldn't follow. The Ripley of Aliens 2 was not like that. As far as Sigorney have a role in the script... I'm sure she had some say in it. I've no idea about anything else. It would be just guessing on all of our parts. Cat Farrar At 04:11 PM 1/19/98 -0600, you wrote: >>>Point Three: Ripley is certainly not the first character in a movie to take >>>pleasure in her violence. >> >>How often are women depicted as violent in films and then, how often do they >>seem to "enjoy" it? The majority of the time we see men engaging in this >>behavior. I contend that Ripley was written my a man and it was his version >>of what a female hero would be like both in speech and actions. Sexual, >>violent, sassy, low on empathy...hmmm.. the writers were certainly >>projecting their consciousness. > >Here's something I don't think you're considering: I believe Weaver had >script approval. Somebody of Sigourney Weaver's clout could make >suggestions if she didn't buy something the writer's wrote. At least on >some level, then Weaver agreed with what the writer's wrote. So what does >that tell us about Weaver? That she's got a twisted sense of humor? That >she's turned her back on feminism on some level? That she'll do whatever >she can to get into the boys' club in terms of keeping her superstar >status? None of the above. I think it shows she's as human as the rest of >us and that she is also considerate of the character she was playing; part >human, part alien. I think the character would enjoy, on some level, the >violence whether the character was male or female. > Anyway, the point is, if there's blame to be laid, and I don't >think there is, it shouldn't just be at the writers' feet. > >-Sean > >"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological >personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to >the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, >a condition to which they are quickly addicted. > > > > > --Missionaria Protectiva > > > > > Text QIV (decto)" >-Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:16:21 -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: "feminist plotting" In-Reply-To: <199801151659.QAA03192@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have no citation, but someone dais in conversatrion tihs weekend (at Potlatch -- excellent con) that if 30% of a group are women (or black, or, as I paraphrased, non-unmarked), the white men see the group as majority women. . . Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:42:23 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: suggestion wanted In-Reply-To: <08256591.006947F6.00@svdatsmtpmta.dp.beckman.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Erica, Does your library have access to the web, or do the other members of your book club? I've been wondering if Alexandria Digital Library (for which I'm an adviser, so I hope this note doesn't count as blatant advertising!) might help us all with the "If you liked Mainstream Book X, then you'll probably like SF Book Y" problem that we all run into. (The problem being figuring out the perfect SF Book Y.) The site is at http://ganymede.alexlit.com/ -- what it does is let you rate stories with your likes and dislikes, and then it suggests titles to you that you'll probably like but haven't read. I don't think there's any specific "Choose an sf novel" option, but there's lots of sf in the database so it wouldn't be at all surprising if some sf titles came up. I'm pretty impressed with the software (I didn't have anything to do with writing it) -- when it recommends a title that I _have_ read (but that it had no way of knowing I'd read it because I hadn't rated that title yet), and says it thinks I'll enjoy it, so far it's always been right: I _did_ enjoy that title. So it's worth a try, anyway. And it's pretty fun to play with. Nostalgic, too. "Oh... I remember reading that story -- " Best, Vonda On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:30:30 -0800, Erica J Kline wrote: >... >Finally: I go to a book club at my library and I'd like to introduce them >to Sci-Fi. Some of them have read a little SF but many of them seem to >think it's all like "Star Trek". We are mostly women, mostly older, and >generally read fiction. Does anyone have a suggestion about what would be a >good book to start with? Thanks mucho! > >Bye for now... >Erica http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:30:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Sex and morality (Was: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol Severence) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Sean Johnston wrote: > Maryelizabeth, > > Oh. I think I get it: sex shouldn't be just "sex", but there should be, > de rigeur, some strong emotional attachment of which sex is an expression? > If that's something of what you mean, I agree. > > -Sean Interesting. This seems to work into our monogamous soulmate love-concept quite nicely. Not to say that I disagree or rather feel differently. However, I am a product of my society and see that there are other ways of being. What about a society where sex between the sexes is a business arangement for the purposes of procreation only? (like in Brin's book) What about a society that sex plays an important part of interaction (like in that short story about the deaf/blind society) I personally am set up mentally such that I think I would feel very uncomfortable with sex other than with someone I some very strong emotional attachment to. However, there are societies (African tribes?) that have much more open sexual setups than we do. Maybe they are being wiped out by AIDS. However, I don't think that means that casual sex cannot be part of a valid, moral society, especially when the consequences are understood and planned for. For example, a society with common casual homosexual sex is not one that will produce more babies. It might give rise to more diseases, but then again we might just be in a bad period, and in a society that can handle the diseases (a more medically advanced one perhaps) that is not a problem. In one that can control pregnancy properly as well... Even strong emotional attachment is not really a good pragmatic decider. Some children that have sex no doubt haave strong emotional attachments. However, a mood-swing induced childhood crush is not what you were talking about was it. No, rationality, forethought, agreement, and understanding are what I would say goes into valid sex. If that means that you decide you want to use sex as an expression of love, and abstain from it in other circumstances, good for you. If it means that you and/or society have set up beforehand circumstances where rationality, forethought, and love aren't needed and you want to casually have sex then, go for it. If it means that you want to have a child, you pick someone you admire and is "safe", and you have sex with them for the sole purpose of having a child, never to see the other parent again, fine. In our society the love option is the one that is generally accepted as normal. Problems seem to often be involved with people being confused or uncertain about what they want and/or are agreeing to. -- Joel VanLaven (who thinks that the problem with kids is that they think they know what they are doing (this is what they do in the movies...)) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:25:19 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality In-Reply-To: <199801191637.LAA12564@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Questions: 1. Could shutting down a thread about censorship on a feminist sf list be considered a form of censorship? (After all, anti-pornography laws came up also as a response to complaints of "discontent citizens" by the authorities who got tired of the complaints...) 2. Does the presence of "content citizens" (in this case, those who like slightly off-topic threads) balance the presence of those who don't, in the decision "to keep or not to keep", or the latters' opinion is considered more important and valuable? 3. Would the fact that those who like it, actually participate in on-line discussions, while those who don't usually delurk only to say how other people don't write something they want to read, make any difference? (I.e. people who have something to say vs. those who consider the list something like a TV program they have no influence on, except threatening the director that they are going to stop watching it?). And -- this is very politically incorrect -- will anyone notice if they go away? If a person has something valuable to contribute, they usually do it. If every person who have complained about "off-topic" postings, would write something on-topic instead, I'm sure we all would be more than glad to participate. The problem is that obviously, saying something yourself is a little harder than critisizing others, so all one get's left is to expect others to say it for them and getting upset when they don't. Do we really have to worry that some of this "audience only" signs off? Sure will make it easier on their mailboxes, too. Or are we doing some kind of election campaign, so we have to attract (and please) as many people as possible, at any cost? Marina On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > Maybe the only thing worse than too many off-topic threads on a list is > a thread about whether or not there are too many off-topic threads... > But I wanted to make a point of comparison: The percentage of off-topic > stuff here is no greater than on any other list I've been on, and it's > pretty comparable to the off-topic percentage in many convention > discussions, or in old-fashioned fanzines. > > (For example, the debate about "Was Shakespeare Bacon?" raged for > several years in the 1950s in a regional trade journal for attorneys, > despite the editor's best efforts to squelch it, and the debate resulted > in a fascinating collection of essays.) > > I'm comfy with it, but then I'm frankly interested in what fellow fans & > pros think about censorship, violence in society, etc. It makes for > wider understanding of these folks and their work, I think. > -- > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:45:14 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: pornography ruling in Canada In-Reply-To: <199801192029.MAA10900@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cat, Having sex with his own daughter was terrible. However, it has nothing to do with his publishing activity. It's the same logic they used in anti-religious propaganda in the USSR. I remember stories from history books, talking about Popes sleeping around and concluding that there was no God (i.e. some people representing the Church were immoral, therefore, the Church itself was evil, so religious faith had no basis, and thus, God had never existed). Besides, the reason authorities went after Flynt was because he touched some authority figures (like that big Church guy), not because of his sexual affairs or the theme of his magazine. Hustler was not any worse than Penthouse, which no one had problem with since it did not print stories about _male_ public figures. Had Flynt not done that, he would still be a rich healthy man with no legal problems, and he would have never got shot. Again, it's just my opinion. Besides, you won't believe how many men sleep with their daughters. Most of them are in no way affiliated with sex industry and might even vehemently oppose it. I would never think I'd end up advocating pornography on a feminist mailing list, but life is full of suprises. I guess I just want things to be fair. Marina 1998, Cat Farrar wrote: > > It's my understanding that Larry Flint had sex with his daughter. Does that > affect your position in anyway? > > Cat Farrar > > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:26:19 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: Gibson's Decline & Fall; book-club; off-topics; sug Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Erica~ In response to your question about which book to begin your "SF virgins" library book club. . . How about Connie Willis' Doomsday Book? wherein a student of the past is transported to one of the more horrific places in history, and finds a life she could not know otherwise. Sharp, poignant, and filled with fascinating women and girls-- this has always been one of my favorites. It's a book that stays with you. Hugo and Nebula award winner. Kitimher@aol.com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:43:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Sex and morality (Was: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol , Severence) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII So far, we came up with two positive definitions of sex: one, "it's OK if people love each other", and two, "it's OK if it's consensual and both parties accept the responsibility for consequences". The problem with the first one is when people who are in love are married to someone else. The problem with the second is that in non-sf reality the society around the people is very likely to stone them to death. Among negative definitions, in science fiction and reality we have: a) sex as a way of opression of females by males (some feminist sf); b) sex as a way males show females their "true calling" and a way to a "happier life" (some anti-feminist sf); c) sex as a way evil females distract and destroy good guys (very old anti-feminist sf, some newest feminist sf with roles reversed); d)sex (homosexual) as a way of personal liberation from the rules of society (some of sf depicting homosexuality as a political statement); e) sex as a means of self-destruction and getting to Hell(some religious doctrines, including Heaven's Gate, whose members were encouraged to get castrated); f) sex as part of a package with violence and drugs, which is "not cool", but at the same time heavily glamorized (MTV version, which I'm afraid represents the most common post-AIDS era attitude), "a glorious way to Hell", so to speak. I wonder if there is anything else people are so ambivalent about. So far, it seems that positive definitions always imply respect, while negative have something to do with power, and "love" in its loose definition is present in either case. What do you think could it mean? "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:55:48 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Deep Rising In-Reply-To: <533e1d5c.34c4276d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Anyone seen this movie? It's heavily advertised on TV, but after Event Horizon I have my doubts about whether it's worth it. If anyone has seen it, please tell me if it's worth the $5 for ticket. Thank you. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:59:49 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: Not So Gentle Reminder, was arrgghh -- ok, topicality Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit To Marina, and all others who feel that those members who have complained about how off-topic the list has been lately should keep their mouths shut because you're having fun, or are enjoying the discussions, or whatever other reasons you may cite, including bandying about such inflammatory words as "censorship" I would like to bring to your attention the missive each of you received when you joined this list. Laura had this sent to each and every one of us as a way of letting us know what kind of behavior was expected (and what kind of behavior would not be tolerated) on this list. A great many of us (I suspect yourselves included) have found those guidelines to be a big reason why so many of us enjoy this list. Those guidelines made very clear from the start what was expected of each of us, and so most of us have taken it upon ourselves to make sure to stay within the guidelines set before us. I am including here a portion of the "Welcome to the Feminist SF/Fantasy & Utopia List Serve" message that I have saved from when I joined this list. ---------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE FEMINIST SF, FANTASY & UTOPIA LISTSERVE Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, Marge Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, Octavia Butler and many others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other writers like them? The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for discussion of this literature. It is a mailing list, which means that every email will go to all subscribers mailboxes. It is a primarily unmoderated list, which means that I will not be selecting or censoring comments. People can ask whatever questions they want about the topic, with one broad exception. Because I have been on many listserves relating to feminism which have inspired anti-feminists to harass other members, or engage the entire listserve in discussions about the nature, purpose, etc., of feminism, I wish to make it clear from the outset that this listserve is for discussion of the literature. Discussion of feminism as a philosophy belong on a feminist discussion group. Discussion of feminism, as it pertains to literature or particular works of literature, is perfectly appropriate. I will remove people from the listserve who behave in an inappropriate manner after one warning. General Guidelines for ListServe Behavior: * Don't "flame" other people - be considerate & polite * If you have something to say, say it! Other people are interested in your opinion -- that's why they joined a discussion list. * Conversely, if you don't have anything to say, don't say it. On a moderate-to-heavy traffic listserve, it is not helpful to send postings saying "I agree" or "yeah!" If you don't have additional thoughts which expand or add to or confront the original post, then send your comments to the original poster privately. * If you wish to comment about a posting but the comment is not really on topic, consider sending it to the original poster privately. You can make good friends by starting private discussions this way. * Please try to stick to the general topic. Many people on the listserve may not be very talkative but are very interested in the topic. They subscribed to read about feminist science fiction, fantasy & utopian literature. This is not a list just about feminism, or a list just about sf/fantasy/utopia. It is a list about the intersection of the two. Please respect that and help others respect it. * If someone else is not sticking to the topic, don't flame them. Try bringing the topic back to feminist sf-f-utopia with a related, transitional posting that is ON topic. That will be more useful than a comment that is only about "keeping the list on topic," and it can keep the list a pleasant place to be. * Don't make assumptions about other people. The list is very diverse, including men and women, people from many nationalities, ethnic origins, religions, ages and different experiences. Respect the other participants and the experiences they bring to the discussion. These rules are subject to change when we see how they work! This list began 3/2/97. -------------------------------------------------- To me, participating in this list is an implied agreement to follow these guidelines to the best of one's ability. This has not been happening lately, and when one of our members brought this to the list's attention, that member was not (at least on the list) met with "Oops, sorry", but rather "How dare you". Please check above to the part that begins: "Please try to stick to the general topic." Not everyone has the time to take part in every discussion, and I myself have followed some discussions rather closely, but had nothing to contribute to them, and thus I spent that time happily lurking away. If, during that time, someone had said to me that I was not a "real part" of this list, I would not only have left, I would have left angry and hurt. My opinion of the people on this list would have dropped considerably, and I would later think twice and twice again before joining another list serve. I personally do not mind the off-topic messages on this list, and readily admit that I have been guilty of sending several off-topic messages myself lately, but I also have taken part in the occasional discussion off the list with other members about topics that do not seem to be of interest to other list members. It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask others to do the same. Also, to the charge of "censorship", I would point out that Laura did not "shut down" any discussions, as many of them are still going on, off-topic as ever. Laura rather asked people to remember the guidelines they implied agreement to when they joined the list serve, and to have respect for other list members who perhaps do not find the discussions of Alien 4 (one I certainly cannot deny having taken part of!), Guns and the South, and pornography. I'd also like to point out that if Laura for some reason WERE practicing censorship, don't you think that message charging her with censorship would be the first one to never see the list?? People, we all agreed to behave a certain way when we joined that list, and we have not been measuring up to that standard lately. It's hardly fair to attack and demean the people who have gently pointed out our unruliness. I offer a pre-emptive apology for my hackneyed grammar and for any offense I may have (probably have) given. I am rashly hitting the "send" button without setting this aside and considering it first, because if I pause to consider, it will be weeks before I have this edited to my satisfaction. And frankly, I am hoping to forestall some of our members (quiet though they may be, they ARE our members) leaving rather than stick around to be treated as they were in Marina's post. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:51:52 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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality David Christenson wrote, re off-topic posting: >I'm comfy with it, but then I'm frankly interested in what fellow fans & >pros think about censorship, violence in society, etc. It makes for >wider understanding of these folks and their work, I think I'm personally happier with this than with the extended discussions about movies, tv shows etc, which I have never or infrequently seen and in many cases don't intend to see. But I don't think these 'don't belong' on the list just because they're not my particular taste. As for recent discussions of pornography etc (and admitting my own mea culpa in contributing to this debate) don't these issues have considerable pertinence to speculative fiction? I would hope that these are issues which people who are building imaginative worlds would think long and hard about. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:39:14 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: Questions: ie American Indian content, indigeneous peoples >The only one I can think of is Alan Dean Foster's Maori. Been a while >since I've read it, but it's more serious than what he usually writes. >Also from that general part of the world, one of Spider Robinson's >Stardance books featured an Australian aborigine as a main character. Naomi Mitchison's 'Not by Bread Alone' strongly features Australian aboriginal culture; one of the main characters is a practising Sikh, another religion/ethnicity one seldom sees in SFF. There was a YA series by Patricia Wrightson, 'The Song of Wirrun', based on Aboriginal mythology and with a young Aborigine as protagonist. I seem to recall reading a review of Cherry Wilder 'The Luck of Brin's Five' which suggested that it owed a lot to her NZ background... I don't know whether there is a difference between US and UK SFF: if the American West, the frontier, the wars against Native Americans etc have influenced US writers in their depiction of future and alien societies, one might expect Brit futures and alien societies to reflect the Empire, the Raj etc. Tanith Lee has written some fantasy with an Indian slant, but I can't immediately offhand think of any other examples. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:57:13 -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: Not So Gentle Reminder, was arrgghh -- ok, topicality In-Reply-To: <7b022a0a.34c42f47@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All right, all right. I know this wasn't pointed only at me, but I do apologize for whatever off-topic posts I've been sending lately. Not for the posts themselves, but for their being off-topic. Sometimes I see a comment that I don't think has been well-enough considered and feel a need to play devil's advocate, present an opposing point of view. Anyway, that sometimes gets a ball rolling off-track. I don't say I won't do it again, but I'll be more careful about it and at least try to make some connection w/feminism and and SF lit. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:14:10 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: Sexism, violence and utopia Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Well Cat, we agree that the gratuitous references in Alien4 were just that. I have been giving thought to your earlier question/disagreement about Ripley's enjoyment of the "baser things" in that film. You have said specifically that you don't agree that she was enjoying the violence, etc., but instead was manifesting her more animalistic tendencies. I think that this nudges the broader context of women and violence in sci fi. In some ways, Ripley's behaviour in this film reminds me of Connie, Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time ". She's caught between two worlds. . . one she has struggled to make sense of, to make work, to master, to conquer-- and one that's scary, yet seductive. I think she deserved to be really angry at her plight, she's been manipulated by this thing. . . these things. . . most of her life, and lost everything important to her along the way. No one believes her, even when they are confronted by much that is tangible. Connie too. (Having also worked in social services a good bit, I'd say they both had good reason to behave in "anti-social" kinds of ways after the way "society" treated them.) The thing is, as feminists it can be difficult to "own" violent tendencies. . . it's much easier to attribute those behaviours to an outside force. For Ripley, this could mean attributing her behaviour to her new genetic mix.. . . it's culturally more comfortable for us to understand women going nuts or trying to escape their circumstances than it is for us to take in their anger, violence, vengeance. So Cat, and all, these are not completed thoughts. . . but they are thoughts that run through all these threads for me-- as well as our definitions of the word utopia, and how that's depicted in feminist lit. hmm. . . for what it's worth. . . tara Kitimher@aol. com Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:03:28 -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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII good points, but just an aside: this discussion was not inspired by the censorship discussion, but by other discussions, specifically (a) people interested in fiction who were not interested in the various bab-5, star trek & other media discussions; and (b) people who are not interested in the "right on, girl" and miscellaneous chit-chat postings. I didn't set up the list for either of those discussions but didn't particularly care if they happened; however, I think there is room for lists to serve a variety of interests & needs. And I'm not proposing shutting down any topics; but rather creating fora (!) specifically for different discussions. The censorship topic I would suspect would largely happen in the "chat" list. On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Marina wrote: > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:25:19 -0600 > From: Marina > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] arrgghh -- ok, topicality > > Questions: > 1. Could shutting down a thread about censorship on a feminist sf > list be considered a form of censorship? (After all, anti-pornography laws > came up also as a response to complaints of "discontent citizens" by > the authorities who got tired of the complaints...) > > 2. Does the presence of "content citizens" (in this case, those who like > slightly off-topic threads) balance the presence of those who don't, in > the decision "to keep or not to keep", or the latters' opinion is considered > more important and valuable? > > 3. Would the fact that those who like it, actually participate in on-line > discussions, while those who don't usually delurk only to say how other > people don't write something they want to read, make any difference? > (I.e. people who have something to say vs. those who consider the list > something like a TV program they have no influence on, except threatening > the director that they are going to stop watching it?). And -- this is > very politically incorrect -- will anyone notice if they go away? > > If a person has something valuable to contribute, they usually do it. If > every person who have complained about "off-topic" postings, would write > something on-topic instead, I'm sure we all would be more than glad to > participate. The problem is that obviously, saying something yourself is a > little harder than critisizing others, so all one get's left is to expect > others to say it for them and getting upset when they don't. Do we really > have to worry that some of this "audience only" signs off? Sure will > make it easier on their mailboxes, too. > > Or are we doing some kind of election campaign, so we have to attract > (and please) as many people as possible, at any cost? > > Marina > > > On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, DAVID CHRISTENSON > wrote: > > > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > > > Maybe the only thing worse than too many off-topic threads on a list is > > a thread about whether or not there are too many off-topic threads... > > But I wanted to make a point of comparison: The percentage of off-topic > > stuff here is no greater than on any other list I've been on, and it's > > pretty comparable to the off-topic percentage in many convention > > discussions, or in old-fashioned fanzines. > > > > (For example, the debate about "Was Shakespeare Bacon?" raged for > > several years in the 1950s in a regional trade journal for attorneys, > > despite the editor's best efforts to squelch it, and the debate resulted > > in a fascinating collection of essays.) > > > > I'm comfy with it, but then I'm frankly interested in what fellow fans & > > pros think about censorship, violence in society, etc. It makes for > > wider understanding of these folks and their work, I think. > > -- > > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > > > "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. > > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > 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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:50:08 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Fred Bosman Subject: Re: Questions: ie American Indian content, On Mon Jan 19 1998, Trac' wrote: > Of course, that's just part of the lack of genre literature regarding > indigeneous people in general. There isn't much fantasy published in here > NZ in overall, and the only things that mention Maori tend to be for > children. It seems like a huge gap given the often fantastic nature of the > oral traditions....! I remember a novel by Doris Lessing, _Shikasta_, the first part of her _Canopus in Argus_ series, which deals with ideas and ideals of indigeneous peoples. Fred fred_bosman@bigfoot.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:07:20 -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: Please! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joan Haran wrote: > Personally, I cannot cope with the sheer volume of off-topic > conversation... Call me odd, but speculative fictions revolve around social commentary, esp. SF and utopia. Isn't it as important to study the influences and discuss the texts? Otherwise, aren't you merely turning your back on how and why texts were created? > It's all very well to be questioning, engaged folk, but when the purpose of > the list is purportedly to discuss feminist science fiction, fantastic and > utopian literature - _note_ literature -, surely that is what we should > engage with. Actually, I thought it was a question of feminist texts, not lit. Therefore, tv and film belong in here. Plus, in this day and age, how can a visual media not impact an author, even adversely? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:16:57 -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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laura Quilter wrote: > good points, but just an aside: this discussion was not inspired by the > censorship discussion, but by other discussions, specifically (a) people > interested in fiction who were not interested in the various bab-5, star > trek & other media discussions; I think we need a list where texts are discussed, not two where media's discussed in one and lit's discussed in another. Sort of defeats the purpose of open discourse, no? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:40:53 -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: Wil McCarthy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I read "Flies in the Amber" and found some of the characters pretty interesting -- but somehow, the story itself just couldn't seem to get a decent grip on my interest... I couldn't even tell you what it was -- it had something to do with the off-the-cuff manner in which the story was told -- maybe just a bit too much off-the-cuff so it fell flat on the floor? I don't know, but you're right about the characters. I actually remember them better than I remember the plot! Donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:38:06 -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: Sex and morality (Was: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol , Severence) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It would seem that Marina said, 10:43 PM 1/19/98 -0600 e) sex as a means of self-destruction and getting >to Hell(some religious doctrines, including Heaven's Gate, whose members >were encouraged to get castrated); actually, it appears that the members of Heaven's Gate decided to get castrated, and actually fought with Applewhite to be able to do so. The first two were castrated without permission, and Applewhite was the third or seventh to be castrated--I can't remember and I really don't want to dig out that file right now. As someone who studies New Religions and the way the media represents them, I get a little prickly about misinformation. .... Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. ~~ ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the ~~ ~~ question wherever it may go. ~~ --David Tracy _Plurality and Ambiguity_ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:33:27 -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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It would seem that Marina said, 09:25 PM 1/19/98 -0600 >Questions: >1. Could shutting down a thread about censorship on a feminist sf >list be considered a form of censorship? (After all, anti-pornography laws >came up also as a response to complaints of "discontent citizens" by >the authorities who got tired of the complaints...) Is censorship relevant to the list at hand? it certainly can be, but the thread did not seem to reflect it, although I started deleting it a while ago > >2. Does the presence of "content citizens" (in this case, those who like >slightly off-topic threads) balance the presence of those who don't, in >the decision "to keep or not to keep", or the latters' opinion is considered >more important and valuable? > This is why I sent in to the list. I felt it was important for "the list" to be aware that someone was thinking about leaving because of the quantity of off topic postings, meaning that I was starting a conversation, and I thought my voice was valid in it. Not *more* valid, but valid. The question really comes down to, as I stated, how important we find the charter of this list, and whether we as a group are OK with the ratio of On topic to off topic postings. perhaps now might be the time to mention that this is the first list dealing with feminism that I have been able to stay on for more than three days. The sheer volume of 'me-too's' and off topic postings, and sheer tonnage of postings bespeaks an enormous need for feminist community, but I cannot handle more than 50 posts a day from a list unless the vast majority of them are relevant. the bigger this list gets, the harder it will be to keep it on track. And, if it isn't already quite obvious, I posted my statement to the list because I do not want to leave it. I find it useful and thought provoking and it fills a need in my life. You are dismissing that function throughout this statement, and I resent it. >3. Would the fact that those who like it, actually participate in on-line >discussions, while those who don't usually delurk only to say how other >people don't write something they want to read, make any difference? >(I.e. people who have something to say vs. those who consider the list >something like a TV program they have no influence on, except threatening >the director that they are going to stop watching it?). And -- this is >very politically incorrect -- will anyone notice if they go away? I do, as a point of fact, participate in some discussions on this list. I do not always have time to post 25 messages a day to this list. I read messages, I think about them, they tend to be quite useful for me, for recommendations to read, for classroom discussion, for just plain thinking. If all 250 people on this list participated we would have crashed many servers by now. there are significantly more people who do not post than people who do, and I feel a lot of negative vibe in this statement that I am trying very very hard not to respond to. > >If a person has something valuable to contribute, they usually do it. If >every person who have complained about "off-topic" postings, would write >something on-topic instead, I'm sure we all would be more than glad to >participate. The problem is that obviously, saying something yourself is a >little harder than critisizing others, so all one get's left is to expect >others to say it for them and getting upset when they don't. Do we really >have to worry that some of this "audience only" signs off? Sure will >make it easier on their mailboxes, too. This is, I belive, the question at hand. And, I find your statement deeply offensive Marina. You are presuming a lot about why the list was started, what use people have for the list, what impact it makes on them, and the effects it has off-line. What you are saying is simply that those who are most at ease in the cyber universe are the only people that you personally give a damn about paying attention to. And, as I stated above, I am not an audience only subscriber, I have begun and participated in quite a few discussions on this listserve. FSFFU is only a part of what I do with my life, and the discussions on this list are only part of what FSFFU has to do with my life. In other words, I have a life that is more than pecking away at the keyboard. > >Or are we doing some kind of election campaign, so we have to attract >(and please) as many people as possible, at any cost? > >Marina > > >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, DAVID CHRISTENSON >wrote: > >> -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- >> >> Maybe the only thing worse than too many off-topic threads on a list is >> a thread about whether or not there are too many off-topic threads... >> But I wanted to make a point of comparison: The percentage of off-topic >> stuff here is no greater than on any other list I've been on, and it's >> pretty comparable to the off-topic percentage in many convention >> discussions, or in old-fashioned fanzines. >> The quantity of off topic postings is significantly higher than on most academic lists that I have been on, and it has been increasing in a way that looks exponential to me. The bigger the list, the harder it is to keep on topic without moderation and focus. IN part the problem is in that this list straddles popular and academic subscribers. Perhaps we need an HNet list for academic interests, but I'm inclined to think that that serves nobody's purposes. We need to come to a compromise without throwing down the gauntlet. Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. ~~ ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the ~~ ~~ question wherever it may go. ~~ --David Tracy _Plurality and Ambiguity_ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:55:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Wicked In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, in part to do my part to bring list topics to topicality, I am wondering if anybody here has read _Wicked: The Story of the Wicked Witch of the West_ by Maguire? It's a fantastic retelling of the Oz story from the perspective of one sharply intelligent green little munchkin girl. It's a political and social reltelling of the story, placing the Wizard in the place we all knew he beleonged in and were somehow able to overlook as children, a tyrannical and fascist usurper to the throne. Its not an explicitly feminist book, and written by a man, but every single active character is a woman, except for the Wizard (who is not very active) and Elphaba (the WWW)'s father. I think that brings it under our umbrella, although after rereading the guidelines posted by BJ it may stray off topic to try to decide if the book is actually feminist in nature... If folks have read it, I would love to talk about it! Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. ~~ ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the ~~ ~~ question wherever it may go. ~~ --David Tracy _Plurality and Ambiguity_ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:56:36 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: sex and morality Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Sean commented: >> >>>I think my point was that I think two people have to be in love, not just >>>have an emotional relationship, with each other in order to make love to >>>each other. Most everything else similar is just having sex. >> >>I replied: >>And my point was that there should not be a discrimination between "Making >>Love," and "just having sex," in the way that so many of us mean it today. >>Perhaps in a future society (like those mentioned in my earlier post) those >>arbitrary divisions will cease to exist. I sometimes think that deciding >>physical passion between two people is only valid when there is a romantic >>link between them is just an updated, more politically correct variation of >>thei idea that sex should just be for reproductive purposes. Sex can be an >>expression of affection between friends, a wonderful method of self >>entertainment, or an expression of a romantic relationship, but the >>*relationship* shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not the >>sex is good, IMO. > >Maryelizabeth, > >Oh. I think I get it: sex shouldn't be just "sex", but there should be, >de rigeur, some strong emotional attachment of which sex is an expression? >If that's something of what you mean, I agree. No, Sean, you don't get it. I am evidently not being clear here. My point is, if two people want to have a good riproaring all out f*ck, why does there have to be emotional involvement for it to be valid, in some people's eyes? If someone on a single person space ship has a great relationship with thier right hand, does that mean they aren't having "meaningful" sex until they encounter another person with whom they have a romantic relationship? My feeling is that placing the arbitrary qualification of a "strong emotional attachment" or the like on sex is just another form of puritanism. Maybe Ripley was just rolling around with the aliens because they were taking joy in each other's bodies, y'know? In Joanna Russ' _Female Man_, when there is the incident with the woman having sex with her non-human house servant, part of the shock her visitors from the past experience is probably that he is not human, but I have to suspect part of the shock is becasue there is no "strong emotional attachment". As I see it, the only really good reason to demand an emotional commitment between partners is in the hopes our children will give due consideration before engaging in acts which could, god forbid, kill them. And, to refer to an earlier thread, I think that's the mentality between the "Sex, drugs and booze" commercial. All three can kill you, if not approached with common sense. > Joel added the following thoughts: >I personally am set up mentally such that I think I would feel very >uncomfortable with sex other than with someone I some very strong >emotional attachment to. However, there are societies (African tribes?) >that have much more open sexual setups than we do. > >Maybe they are being wiped out by AIDS. However, I don't think that means >that casual sex cannot be part of a valid, moral society, especially when >the consequences are understood and planned for. For example, a society >with common casual homosexual sex is not one that will produce more >babies. It might give rise to more diseases, but then again we might just >be in a bad period, and in a society that can handle the diseases (a more >medically advanced one perhaps) that is not a problem. In one that can >control pregnancy properly as well... > >Even strong emotional attachment is not really a good pragmatic decider. >Some children that have sex no doubt haave strong emotional attachments. >However, a mood-swing induced childhood crush is not what you were talking >about was it. > >No, rationality, forethought, agreement, and understanding are what I >would say goes into valid sex. If that means that you decide you want to >use sex as an expression of love, and abstain from it in other >circumstances, good for you. If it means that you and/or society have set >up beforehand circumstances where rationality, forethought, and love >aren't needed and you want to casually have sex then, go for it. If it >means that you want to have a child, you pick someone you admire and is >"safe", and you have sex with them for the sole purpose of having a child, >never to see the other parent again, fine. > >In our society the love option is the one that is generally accepted as >normal. Problems seem to often be involved with people being confused or >uncertain about what they want and/or are agreeing to. > >-- Joel VanLaven >(who thinks that the problem with kids is that they think they know what >they are doing (this is what they do in the movies...)) Thanks, Joel, for laying out some of the alternatives. There are probably several SF situations with people sleeping with their consenting, adult offspring and relatives, but Heinlein is the only one springing to mind. Is this immoral? Depends on who one asks, I suppose. As I understand it, there is no genetic problem, as long as inbreeding doesn't continue for generations. Marriage is redefined in a number of SF works as well. For some it means a commitment to join property and responsibility, rather than an assurance in a partiarchal society that a man's wife is only continuing his gene pool. Seems like Cherryh may have addressed this, but I can't seem to cite specifics right now. Not to mention when it occurs in single sex societies. Enjoying her break from the grind, 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, 20 Jan 1998 13:50:42 -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: Sig in Alien4 -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> Cat Farrar wrote: >>I found the characterizations to have a very different sexual >context in this >film than >the others, which is not to say that >there wasn't gratuitousness as with this >about Call: >>"eminently fuckable, isn't she?" Ugh. >Those men acted like sexist pigs - boring, boring, boring... >> > >If Ripley had said that about one of the male pirates no one would be >criticising it as sexist. (On occasion, I say the same thing myself >about certain men.) It's not sexist, but obnoxious, to say loudly >that some people are more desirable than others, depending on the >context, of course. What the writer/director was trying to get >across was that the men had no idea that Call was an android, and >that they were obnoxious in a rough-and-ready sort of way. >>I completely disagree! By the way, Ripley did make a sexist comment about fucking someone so she could get off the ship. When people talk about other human beings as if they were some usable commodity, that is NOT JUST a rough and ready sort of communication. Cat-- Well, I'm sorry (uh, oh, I'm apologizing!) but I completely disagree with you on this point. When people refer to someone as *solely* a usable sexual commodity, then, yes, they are being sexist. However, just assessing someone's desirability is not sexist. In the real world, most people consider some people more desirable than others, whether they admit it or not. Am I being sexist if I say I find Ralph Fiennes much more eminently fuckable than Dustin Hoffman? I admire both of them for their talent, and would probably rather have dinner and conversation with Dustin, but for the evening afterwards, give me Ralph any day. It's true that the Alien 4 writer or director probably could have come up with a more sensitive line to convey the same information, but I think it works. And if you believe that the line was gratuitous, and the characters annoyingly sexist, are you saying that there should be no sexist characters in movies? Movies are going to be very dull when there's little violence, no casual sex, and everyone is sensitive to each other's needs. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:11:55 -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: sex and morality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >No, Sean, you don't get it. I am evidently not being clear here. My point >is, if two people want to have a good riproaring all out f*ck, why does >there have to be emotional involvement for it to be valid, in some people's >eyes? Oh. Well, there are several reasons, but you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:25:39 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: Alien 4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't you think any creature enjoys doing what achieves any of its needs? I suspect that is the way nature works! ---------- > From: Cat Farrar > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Alien 4 > Date: Monday, January 19, 1998 6:02 PM > > Why is it assumed that Ripley (the alien part) enjoys the violence. I > consider that the aliens are animal like. I don't see evidence that they > have a conceptual consciousness. When a lion kills a gazelle, do you think > that the lion "enjoys" this violent act? Isn't "enjoyment" a human emotion? > So was it the human element of Ripley that was enjoying the violence? > Logically, that wouldn't follow. The Ripley of Aliens 2 was not like that. > > As far as Sigorney have a role in the script... I'm sure she had some say > in it. I've no idea about anything else. It would be just guessing on all > of our parts. > > Cat Farrar > > > > At 04:11 PM 1/19/98 -0600, you wrote: > >>>Point Three: Ripley is certainly not the first character in a movie to take > >>>pleasure in her violence. > >> > >>How often are women depicted as violent in films and then, how often do they > >>seem to "enjoy" it? The majority of the time we see men engaging in this > >>behavior. I contend that Ripley was written my a man and it was his version > >>of what a female hero would be like both in speech and actions. Sexual, > >>violent, sassy, low on empathy...hmmm.. the writers were certainly > >>projecting their consciousness. > > > >Here's something I don't think you're considering: I believe Weaver had > >script approval. Somebody of Sigourney Weaver's clout could make > >suggestions if she didn't buy something the writer's wrote. At least on > >some level, then Weaver agreed with what the writer's wrote. So what does > >that tell us about Weaver? That she's got a twisted sense of humor? That > >she's turned her back on feminism on some level? That she'll do whatever > >she can to get into the boys' club in terms of keeping her superstar > >status? None of the above. I think it shows she's as human as the rest of > >us and that she is also considerate of the character she was playing; part > >human, part alien. I think the character would enjoy, on some level, the > >violence whether the character was male or female. > > Anyway, the point is, if there's blame to be laid, and I don't > >think there is, it shouldn't just be at the writers' feet. > > > >-Sean > > > >"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological > >personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to > >the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, > >a condition to which they are quickly addicted. > > > > > > > > > > --Missionaria Protectiva > > > > > > > > > > Text QIV (decto)" > >-Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:45:05 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: Alien 4 issues and Butler (new topic, I think). MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="Default"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Don't you think any creature enjoys doing what achieves any of its needs? I > suspect that is the way nature works! --Cleo Wolf On this note, I am going to deftly turn the topic back to fem-lit (note: I'm note being entirely serious here, and I'm aware that I'm departing at least partially from the themes discussed previously in this thread)): An author who has always facinated me is Octavia Bulter, who depicts power relationships in highly complex terms. In her _Xenogenises_ series, aliens are genetically compelled to enter into a relationship with humans which, however disturbing and exploitive, is necessary for the reproduction of both series--and, might I note, enjoyable for each. This isn't the only instance of Butler's unorthodox analysis of power relationships, and I would be more than eager to hear what other people think about her depictions of sexual relationships and lines of force (to put it in as vague a manner as is possible). Lest you think this is too abrupt a departure from the topic at hand, let me emphasize that, according to Butler, the question of: <"when a lion kills a gazelle, do you Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Questions: ie American Indian content, indigeneous peoples Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I too am labouring under an avalanche of unread email, so I apologize (there I go again) if I'm repeating someone's post. There is a collection of short stories, "Tales from the Great Turtle; Fantasy in the Native American Tradition", edited by Piers Anthony & Richard Gilliam, published by Tor, that I read a while back. There are stories by people like Pamela Sargent and Jane Yolen, plus a whole lot of Native Americans or First Nation people. Mercedes Lackey's "Sacred Ground" was good. Wish she'd do another with those characters. And of course there's Charles de Lint's "Moonheart", and "Spiritwalk", but the gay/lesbian First Nations niche does sound like it needs some filling. Monica Tanith Lee has written some fantasy with an Indian slant, but I can't >immediately offhand think of any other examples. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:02:36 -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: Indigenous characters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm afraid they're packed away, but there's an Australian writer who's done at least three novels about an {what's the Australian equvalent of "Anglo"?} who has rare permission from the Aborigines to cross their land, which in the background of the stories has returned to almost all the continent. Wonderfully alien, grows on you slowly. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:06:45 -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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been deleting the TV and most of the movie threads unread already; gentle partitioning would suit me well. Marina asked: >1. Could shutting down a thread about censorship on a feminist sf >list be considered a form of censorship? (After all, anti-pornography laws >came up also as a response to complaints of "discontent citizens" by >the authorities who got tired of the complaints...) "I'm not interested; would you kindly get out of my face?" isn't censorship. Even more, an offer to create a space for the divergent conversations is more an assist than a stifling. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:02:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Levy Subject: Octavia Butler and Animal Enjoyment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An >author who has always facinated me is Octavia Bulter, who depicts power >relationships in highly complex terms. In her _Xenogenes1s_ series, aliens >are genetically compelled to enter into a relationship with humans which, >however disturbing and exploitive, is necessary for the reproduction of >both series--and, might I note, enjoyable for each. This isn't the only >instance of Butler's unorthodox analysis of power relationships, and I >would be more than eager to hear what other people think about her >depictions of sexual relationships and lines of force As you note later in your e-mail, Butler is an African American. It seems to me worth mentioning that much of the sexual activity in her fiction is both inter-species and coercive--see not only Xenogenesis, but the Patternmaster series, "Blood Child," Clay's Ark, and, most notably, Kindred. Butler has specifically denied that she is in any way rewriting the experience of African Americans during slavery, but it seems hard to deny the centrality of this topic to her writing. >Lest you think this is too abrupt a departure from the topic at hand, let >me emphasize that, according to Butler, the question of: > ><"when a lion kills a gazelle, do you >emotion? > >can be answered in the negative--in _Wild Seed_, the main character has the >ability of changing into (I think) a jaguar (among other creatures), and >the need to kill becomes an incredible hunger with which the human subject >must (inadequately) deal afterwards. I don't know if this is off topic or not, but you've hit on one of my pet peeves. Why do people feel such a strong need to deny that animals have emotions? Read Elizabeth Ann Thomas's The Tribe of Tiger and her book on dogs. All anthropomorphism aside, anyone who denies that carnivores enjoy hunting in some very real sense of the word "enjoy" has never spent any time actually watching dogs or cats. Enjoyment of life is every bit as much a part of being a dog or a cat or a gorilla or a dolphin or a pig as it is a part of being a human being. >That said, I _cannot_ unravel the complexities of Butler's ethical systems >(and believe me, I've tried). The fact that she is a black female writer >makes her approach to exploitative power relations more complicated. Any >takers? >Honor A clue to her ethical systems can be found in Parable of the Sower, her most recent novel. In that book a young woman develops a philosophy based on Change as the central fact of all existence. Morality is a matter of coping successfully with Change. Being practical, dealing with what life throws at you. This would seem to apply to the Xenogenesis books as well. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:28:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: Re: Octavia Butler and Animal Enjoyment In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980120230230.0068e43c@uwec.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="Default"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Michael Levy wrote: > As you note later in your e-mail, Butler is an African American. It seems to > me worth mentioning that much of the sexual activity in her fiction is both > inter-species and coercive--see not only Xenogenesis, but the Patternmaster > series, "Blood Child," Clay's Ark, and, most notably, Kindred. Butler has > specifically denied that she is in any way rewriting the experience of > African Americans during slavery, but it seems hard to deny the centrality > of this topic to her writing. Michael, I found your comments and suggestions very helpful--I'll definitely look up _Parable of the Sower_; what you describe as the "philosophy based on Change" is very close to what I've termed (for lack of a better phrase) Butler's "ethics of adaptiblity." At the same time, however, I find the very fact that Butler is African-American and chooses to examine the issues in "Blood Child" and _Kindred_ (I haven't read _Clay's Ark) without, as you put it, "rewriting the experience of African Americans during slavery" as absolutely facinating (for lack of a better term). I say this because I don't think we can deny the political implications of her texts (as you point out) and yet those implications fail to fit nicely with our conceptions, whether politically correct or humanist, of what it means to be dependent on another being. The centrality of that topic is indeed ever present, but I don't know what to make of it--and that's what makes Butler so interesting to me--she doesn't fit into political standpoints very easily. I want to read into her writing some sort of Hegelian master/slave dialectic, but in truth, her writing transcends even that dynamic. And then I want to say that she's just making her ethics up as she goes along---but there's this odd consistency that forces me to forego that opinion. Am I making any sense? Honor > > >Lest you think this is too abrupt a departure from the topic at hand, let > >me emphasize that, according to Butler, the question of: > > > ><"when a lion kills a gazelle, do you > > >emotion? > > > >can be answered in the negative--in _Wild Seed_, the main character has the > >ability of changing into (I think) a jaguar (among other creatures), and > >the need to kill becomes an incredible hunger with which the human subject > >must (inadequately) deal afterwards. > > I don't know if this is off topic or not, but you've hit on one of my pet > peeves. Why do people feel such a strong need to deny that animals have > emotions? Read Elizabeth Ann Thomas's The Tribe of Tiger and her book on > dogs. All anthropomorphism aside, anyone who denies that carnivores enjoy > hunting in some very real sense of the word "enjoy" has never spent any time > actually watching dogs or cats. Enjoyment of life is every bit as much a > part of being a dog or a cat or a gorilla or a dolphin or a pig as it is a > part of being a human being. > > >That said, I _cannot_ unravel the complexities of Butler's ethical systems > >(and believe me, I've tried). The fact that she is a black female writer > >makes her approach to exploitative power relations more complicated. Any > >takers? > > >Honor > > A clue to her ethical systems can be found in Parable of the Sower, her most > recent novel. In that book a young woman develops a philosophy based on > Change as the central fact of all existence. Morality is a matter of coping > successfully with Change. Being practical, dealing with what life throws at > you. This would seem to apply to the Xenogenesis books as well. > > > Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:20:00 -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: Sex and morality (Was: _Gibbon's_ vial, sex, Carol , Severence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy Leon wrote: > actually, it appears that the members of Heaven's Gate decided to > getcastrated Is Heaven's Gate on-topic? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:25:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: IldikoPaul Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Speaking as one of the folks who only writes to the list occasionally, i say keep it how it is. Easy enough to delete the topics that hold little interest. I like to see where the various sub-topics take us. More fun this way. thanks, ildiko ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:11:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: conflict Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authors like Ursula LeGuin, Marge Piercy and Octavia Butler have make feminist science fiction open my mind and heart to human potential as much as any traditional example of classic literature ever has, so it was very exciting for me to discover this lis t. One aspect of creative writing that I have always drawn back from was the dictum that there must be conflict to make a story "work". I'm not fond of conflict and naively wish a story line could move without it. So how doubly disappointed I was that in my first week on this list the dominant topic seems to have been the blessings of pornography, and the major proponant of this topic states in effect that anyone who doesn't agree with this trend maybe should get off the list. OK, she's served her pur pose. Now can we be rescued by friendly dolphins or all knowing aliens or a golem under our control? Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:34:36 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: Octavia Butler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've read all Octavia Butler's work I can find, although I haven't seen Blood Child. My favourite is Survivor, and I see the common thread throughout her writing as the struggle to remain as independent and autonomous as possible in a forced relationship with someone or some being more powerful than you which you can't get out of. This was true of the Wild Seed relationship between the female shapechanger and the _male_ protagonist; between the feral girl and the alien _blue_ in Survivor; between the modern woman and her ancestor in Kindred. It was a sub-plot in one of the Pattern novels, and it is true of Lilith (?) in the Xenogenesis novels. Jenny Rankine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:30:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: sex and morality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This thread fits right in with a novel I recently finished, *Dreamsnake* by Vonda McIntyre (hi, Vonda!). I was intrigued throughout the novel by the sexual freedom of the characters -- sex is so safe that hosts routinely offer it to their guests, much as they offer food and shelter. By safe, I mean: 1) There is no danger of sexual disease, since the healers are expert at inoculating against and curing infectious illness; 2) Women AND men control their own fertility through biofeedback (I think that's what it's called); 3) Rape is so uncommon that Snake has some difficulty understanding what Melissa is talking about when she describes her sexual abuse at the hands of her guardian; 4) As far as I could tell, there is no sexual discrimination in any of the societies portrayed, so neither sex is being exploited routinely in sexual matters as in the ole US of A. There was a recurrent theme in the 2nd half of the book that really made me chuckle: Snake's friend Arevin is travelling through unfamiliar lands looking for her and is repeatedly asked by his hosts, "Is there anything I can do for you?" It is nearly the end of the book before he finds out that they are asking if he would like to have sex. Even when he realizes this, however, he declines, feeling that his thoughts are too fixed on Snake to be fair to his potential partner. I liked the fact that Snake DID have sex with someone else, independent of the fact that she and Arevin were reunited at the end of the book. For several reasons. First, it's somewhat revolutionary to portray a woman who likes sex but is not a "slut" or femme fatale. Second, the book makes clear that there is a continuum of sexual attitudes among people. Though many, like Snake, are free with sex, there are others, like Arevin, who want sex with only one person, and no ill is thought of them. Third, Snake actually DISCOURAGES her sexual partner from travelling with her and developing an emotional attachment to her. His feelings for her are too loaded with what she has done for him -- she thinks he should move on. (If only more people had this attitude in reality!) At 09:56 AM 1/20/98 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >If someone on a single person space ship has a great relationship with >their right hand, does that mean they aren't having "meaningful" sex until >they encounter another person with whom they have a romantic relationship? *Laugh* Indeed, I've always been puzzled by what qualifies as "sex" in our common parlance, let alone "meaningful sex". Some people won't use the term "sex" unless actual sexual intercourse is involved. This doesn't make sense to me. Neither does the compartmentalization of sexual experience into "meaningful" and "meaningless" halves. Sex always means something, whether one wishes to think about it or not. She also wrote: >As I see it, the only really good reason to demand an emotional commitment >between partners is in the hopes our children will give due consideration >before engaging in acts which could, god forbid, kill them. This doesn't seem a compelling reason to me. People who care for each other deeply are still quite capable of doing foolish things. Education on all fronts seems the best solution to me. She also wrote: >There are probably several SF situations with people sleeping with their >consenting, adult offspring and relatives, but Heinlein is the only one >springing to mind. Is this immoral? Depends on who one asks, I suppose. As >I understand it, there is no genetic problem, as long as inbreeding doesn't >continue for generations. Other authors dealing with such themes are John Varley ("Lollipop and the Tar Baby"), Joanna Russ (a story about her mother in *The Hidden Side of the Moon*) and Elizabeth A. Lynn (*The Dancers of Arun*). I was also amused by a mystery novel by Nevada Barr which I read recently called *A Superior Death* -- in it the protagonist gets to know two divers who are not only brother and sister but twins, then finds out that they have secretly been in a sexual relationship for years. Her reaction amounts to "whatever works for ya!" and she goes on about her business. In general, I think the concern about close relatives having sex relates to the possible abuse of power between people who differ greatly in age and/or status in society. Unfortunately, even when there IS no abuse of power society's stigmas can still cause the participants trauma. Regarding abuse of power: has anyone on the list read M.J. Engh's *Arslan*? I found that book absolutely riveting in its depiction of a warlord's relationship to his conquered protege. Early in the book, the warlord (Arslan) rapes a teenage boy (Hunt) in front of his troops and the entire town. He then takes the boy to his headquarters and holds him prisoner for several weeks, periodically entering his room and forcing him to have sex. Eventually, he begins to give the boy tasks as well, and over time Hunt becomes one of Arslan's officers (despised by the town residents who witnessed his humiliation). Hunt hates Arslan, but also loves him. The book showed in a more convincing way than almost any other I've read why someone might stay in an abusive relationship. Strangely, the book's female characters are all minor & poorly characterized. I say strangely because the author is a woman and seems to have a gift for character. Well, this post has become quite long enough! I look forward to some feedback. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Big Heavy World's Pop Pie; Lisa Gerrard's The Mirror Pool "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:07:34 +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: arrgghh -- ok, topicality Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I think we need a list where texts are discussed, not two where media's discussed >in one and lit's discussed in another. Sort of defeats the purpose of open >discourse, no? I agree. Separating the lists would surely lead to a lot of cross-posting and repetition, and then people would say "can't we combine these discussions"? Perhaps if listmembers were vigilant about subject lines (including noting "off-topic"), other listmembers could cull or filter their mail appropriately. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:05:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: sex and morality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Janice E. Dawley > This thread fits right in with a novel I recently finished, *Dreamsnake* by > Vonda McIntyre (hi, Vonda!). I was intrigued throughout the novel by the > sexual freedom of the characters -- sex is so safe that hosts routinely > offer it to their guests, much as they offer food and shelter. > A lovely listing of many of the reasons I love this novel. It's also quite a good introduction for students to the idea that SF can deal with issues of gender and sexuality, without making them seem like the main issues. The biggest problem I've had teaching it is trying to explain to students that Snake's genetic engineering *is* science; they're quite determined to try and read it as fantasy. Is it because it's usually in fantasy novels that we find that kindler, gentler world where all or almost all sexual permutations are taken for granted (I'm thinking here of Elizabeth Lynn, Diane Duane, Le Guin and a number of others)? I'm wondering if others on this list agree that sex and sexuality are more likely to be treated as "issues" in SF, but simply background material (of the bisexuality taken for granted variety) in most fantasy novels (those which don't simply avoid it altogether). Why is that? Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:19:54 +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: Sex, Education, and Teens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Marina wrote: > > > Here, in US, I recently saw an ad on MTV (of all stations) saying that > > "sex, drugs, and violence are not what cool kids do". I think that was > > very interesting. If sex is something as bad and illegal as drugs and > > violence, how, I wonder, people are supposed to procreate? > > Unfortunately, I have to applaud that ad, Marina. It's a question of whether > parents (and older siblings, speaking as one) want to see children die. I've > worked in a children's hospital - a two-year-old and his 15-year-old mother, both > with full-blown AIDS and Carposi's Sarcoma, is a very hard sight to see and > stomach. Teens may have always had sex, but it's time for this world to realize > that our silence and embarassment on the subject is killing millions of people > across the planet, many of them only children. Until then - yes, sex has the > potential to be as dangerous as drug use. > > IMHO, all. > > - Geoffrey Geoffrey, Seeing a twenty-year-old mother and her two-year-old child dying from AIDS is just as sad. However, no one in the right state of mind would try to convince adults to abandon sex. Instead, health education is focused on teaching people how to do it safely. Teenagers are apparently not considered people, so all they get is a brainwashing tactic of associating sex with unconditionally bad things like drugs and violence. The worst thing about it that it does not work. Feeling bad about sex is not going to stop people from doing it. It never did. Neither death penalties of the Middle Ages, nor social isolation of puritanical societies, nor absence of birth control or antibiotics has ever stopped teenage affairs. AIDS and the lame TV propaganda are not going to do it either. After all, we already have a group of young people taught that sex is a crime, the so-called "religious youth". They are raised on the notion that sex is something dirty and forbidden, and they actually believe that themselves, which does not change, but rather explains the fact that they have the highest rates of teenage pregnancies among the white American middle class. We can try to make all children into scared, ignorant hypocrits, who would get pregnant before they know where babies come from, we might even succeed, that happened before. However, I doubt it will stop AIDS, more likely, it will make it worse. Marina --------------------------------------------------------------------- I totally agree with Marina on this one. In Holland, sex education (and I mean REAL sex education--not the boring phys-ed films I got in junior high) starts pretty young in the schools. It exists in ALL schools--is mandatory and regulated to ensure that a student doesn't wind up with misconceptions due to a "well-meaning" teacher who decided to play "moralist"--and at some point even involves a demonstration of how to PROPERLY put on a condom by having the students use a banana (this was what my husband experienced in the late 70's-early 80's--they might be using dildos by now) or other phallic object and practice properly putting the condom on it. HOW many times have you heard some pregnant trailer-park teenage girl on one of the "talk" shows (like Jerry Springer) say that she used a condom or BOTH the pill AND a condom and it STILL didn't work?! Also, teenagers are not told that sex is dirty or "not for them." By the way, Holland has one of the LOWEST, if not THE LOWEST, TEENAGE PREGNANCY RATES in the entire world. Sharon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 04:49:11 +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: Grumblings... 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 ------------------------------------------------------------- You know, before moving from Texas (where the public transportation was mostly non-existent and I drove mostly alone all over in my car) to Holland (where I now use the train and subway regularly), I never really noticed how men (*in general--not ALL of them, of course*) seem to feel entitled to more space in a crowded situation than women do. On the train in particular I have noticed that many men stretch their legs apart and use both sides of the arm room of their seats (which of course means that 1/2 of my arm space has been taken from me) with an air of perfect acceptability--standard operating procedure it would seem. This really irritates me. When the men really do need some room due to height (and there are some really tall men in this country!) or fraility, I let it pass. But if that's not the case I find myself in a subversive battle for room by sliding my arm more to the seized armrest when the man makes a move that temporarily removes his arm totally or partially from that area. When the man seems particularly arrogant about it I have to squash the erge to give a not-quite gentle shove of my elbow. I guess I took one of those prenatal testosterone showers you folks were talking about! ;) And I almost never sit with my legs "properly together at the knees and feet" and hands crossed on my lap. I like to always, if possible, sit with knees apart and legs stretched out in a comfortable position. I don't wear skirts or dresses anymore--it's great living in a country where you hardly ever SEE women, business women or otherwise, wearing skirts and dresses--so the feminine modesty concern isn't a problem. Don't even get me started about the misguided masochism involved in walking around in high heels and/or pointed toe shoes! Try running to catch your train in high heels and skirt some time...it's not only impractical, but could be dangerous. As for that other bit of "grooming" to be done in a mode of public transportation, I think women are better off with low-maintenance grooming: no falsies (eyelashes, nails, or anything else ;), no butt-uplifting pants or undergarments, no girdles of any kind, no nailpolish, no perms, and no curling irons (can we say wash, blowdry--if you must, and go?!). By the way, have any of the other women on here ever felt extremely self-conscious about the noise made during blowing your nose in public? I really used to have a hangup with that. Yes, this is very off-subject, but I'M NOT APOLOGIZING FOR IT. :P --Sharon Clark ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:12:34 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lorry B. Bond" Subject: getting off list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have tried twice unsuccessfully to get off this list, using the instructions given me in a 11/22/97 e-mail (to use command "signoff feministsf"). I have now sent a message to unsubscribe. . . I really hope this works. Why were the instructions not accurate?? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:41:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Octavia Butler and Animal Enjoyment In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Honor Wallace wrote: > Michael Levy wrote: > > > As you note later in your e-mail, Butler is an African American. It seems > to > > me worth mentioning that much of the sexual activity in her fiction is > both > > inter-species and coercive--see not only Xenogenesis, but the > Patternmaster > > series, "Blood Child," Clay's Ark, and, most notably, Kindred. Butler has > > specifically denied that she is in any way rewriting the experience of > > African Americans during slavery, but it seems hard to deny the centrality > > of this topic to her writing. > > Michael, I found your comments and suggestions very helpful--I'll > definitely look up _Parable of the Sower_; what you describe as the > "philosophy based on Change" is very close to what I've termed (for lack of > a better phrase) Butler's "ethics of adaptiblity." At the same time, > however, I find the very fact that Butler is African-American and chooses > to examine the issues in "Blood Child" and _Kindred_ (I haven't read > _Clay's Ark) without, as you put it, "rewriting the experience of African > Americans during slavery" as absolutely facinating (for lack of a better > term). I say this because I don't think we can deny the political > implications of her texts (as you point out) and yet those implications > fail to fit nicely with our conceptions, whether politically correct or > humanist, of what it means to be dependent on another being. The > centrality of that topic is indeed ever present, but I don't know what to > make of it--and that's what makes Butler so interesting to me--she doesn't > fit into political standpoints very easily. I want to read into her > writing some sort of Hegelian master/slave dialectic, but in truth, her > writing transcends even that dynamic. And then I want to say that she's > just making her ethics up as she goes along---but there's this odd > consistency that forces me to forego that opinion. Am I making any sense? > I think you're making perfect sense. To the extent that you're confused, I share your confusion. All my experience as a reader and student of texts tells me that when a writer does such and such over and over again it must mean something, and what you've called the "Hegelian master/slave dialectic" is what makes the most sense, but Butler explicitly denies that meaning to be the case. It seems a bit patronizing to dismiss an author's stated purpose. Who after all should know better than the author herself? On the other hand, I'm aware of numerous occasions when writers really weren't consciously aware of what they were doing until it was pointed out to them. I'm also aware of occasions when writers deny critical interpretations of their work simply because they don't like being interpreted. Faulkner, for example, turned the whole thing into a game, coming up with a variety of mutually exclusive interpretations of his own work, denying certain interpretations one day and then insisting on them the next day. Not that I'm accusing Butler of doing this, but... One thought occurs to me--Part of Butler's ethic of change in Parable, and I think this is true in Xenogenesis as well, involves, not looking back, not whining, not accepting "victimhood." She tends to say, "well this is the way things are going. Let's not worry about the right or wrong of it. Let's do what we have to do to survive and, if possible, flourish." Perhaps this attitude has something to do with her apparent unwillingness to see her work as a commentary, a looking back as it were, on the evils of the 19th century. I don't know, just guessing. By the by. For those interested in Octavia Butler, Foundation, the International Journal of SF, edited by list members Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn, has a special issue on Butler coming out this spring. I have an article in it, as does Joan Gordon (one of the finest SF critics around), and probably others. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:30:02 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would prefer a literature only list. This is not the only listserve to which I belong and I also have a lot of other e-mail; business, academic and personal. Dealing with it all is a huge task which takes hours each day. I would prefer not to have that task complicated by having to cull or filter my mail - in any case filtering only works if you know - in advance - what to filter out. If the list consensus is to remain so multi-topic, then so be it and I will vote with my feet - but the list did have very clear guide lines when I joined which are no longer being applied. And I don't think it is fair (I know the world's not fair) to equate the opinions of the lists most aggressive posters with the consensus opinion of the list. Joan Haran ---------- > From: Robyn Starkey > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality > Date: 21 January 1998 03:07 > > >I think we need a list where texts are discussed, not two where media's > discussed > >in one and lit's discussed in another. Sort of defeats the purpose of open > >discourse, no? > > I agree. Separating the lists would surely lead to a lot of cross-posting > and repetition, and then people would say "can't we combine these > discussions"? Perhaps if listmembers were vigilant about subject lines > (including noting "off-topic"), other listmembers could cull or filter > their mail appropriately. > > Robyn > > *********************************** > > Robyn Starkey > University of Melbourne > r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au > > ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:13:59 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: sex and morality In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 20 Jan 98 , Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > In Joanna Russ' _Female Man_, when there is the incident with the woman > having sex with her non-human house servant, part of the shock her visitors > from the past experience is probably that he is not human, but I have to > suspect part of the shock is becasue there is no "strong emotional > attachment". I was disconcerted by that sex scene but not because there is no emotional involvement or because it is sex with non-humans . As I remember it (and it is some years since I read that novel) the servant was an android with a partially developed consciousness, he wanted to have sex with his master because it was part of his program, it was one of his 'objectives'. So, he certainly did not feel abused but I did not feel comfortable with the sex because he could not even develop the idea to say 'no'. > There are probably several SF situations with people sleeping with their > consenting, adult offspring and relatives, but Heinlein is the only one > springing to mind. Is this immoral? Depends on who one asks, I suppose. As > I understand it, there is no genetic problem, as long as inbreeding doesn't > continue for generations. In _The Maerlande Chronicles_ by Elizabeth Vonarburg twins have sex and get a baby. In Maerlande ethics this is a sin (because it is sex between brother and sister and because it is uncontrolled reproduction). Sex between sisters is o.k. and not unusual. The brother has misgivings from the beginning, the sister not. When the child dies years later the sister breaks down. Actually, that is not the only instance of incest in the novel and there is quite some inbreeding, too. It is not presented as 'bad' (as I have read it). Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:58:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: schant Subject: Re: Apology and a couple of questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel wrote: > > Allen Briggs wrote: > > > I've just read _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ and _Nadya_, among other > > books. Both fascinating. I want to know if Tepper knows which vial > > was emptied into the fountain. I think that was discussed on here a > > while back, but I don't recall if there was a consensus. I don't know > > which one I would have... > > > > I recently also read Gibbon's.. and Nadya, one after the other. I guess > that your Native American society question came after Nadya - that was the > most interesting aspect of the book I thought. Otherwise I was > disappointed in it after her earlier outstanding books. I thought > Gibbons.. was disturbing - the evil character was so evil, and I didn't > really think it had to be so supernatural. But I did like the ambiguity > she left around that final choice. My guess is that Tepper knew which vial > but I also think the point of the book was to bring you there and let you > decide. > > Jennifer > > -- > Jennifer Krauel > Vice President, Product Development and Customer Care > jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 > http://www.actioneer.com I found it disturbing for another reason - the character with the vials was presented as quite a moral person, trying to think carefully about many issues in the civil rights arena, and I was surprised she didn't say something to the effect of "Do I have the moral right to make such important decisions on behalf of everyone else?" 'cos' I know for sure that if she'd dumped anything in MY water supply without letting me know I would not have been best pleased, to put it mildly. SC -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:11:00 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: arrgghh -- ok, topicality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've decided to contribute my two penn'orth to this topic. I know I've probably grossly over-valued my opinion, but please, let me have my little conceit. Personally, I would have liked to see this list continue as it is at present, principally as a discussion of feminist literature, but with forays into side issues developing sometimes. It would appear that a significant number of members have asked, as is their right, that the list return to topicallity. Unless the list owner wishes to change the nature of the list, which it seems she does not, I think we have to abide by the terms under which we joined. I would like to see a continuation of the discussion of side issues, distributed to a subset of the list who have the time and inclination to take part. Laura has very kindly offered us this service, presumably as soon as she has worked out the mechanics of it. Please remember that Laura set up this list "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature." As interesting as the topics of the last few days have been, they have not been strictly relevant. We do not, any of us, have the right to drive away members by sheer volume of off-topic postings. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Air: Something without which we would all exhale ourselves to death. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:51:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Octavia Butler Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jenny Rankine wrote: I've read all Octavia Butler's work I can find, although I haven't seen Blood Child. My favourite is Survivor, and I see the common thread throughout her writing as the struggle to remain as independent and autonomous as possible in a forced relationship with someone or some being more powerful than you which you can't get out of. This was true of the Wild Seed relationship between the female shapechanger and the _male_ protagonist; between the feral girl and the alien _blue_ in Survivor; between the modern woman and her ancestor in Kindred. It was a sub-plot in one of the Pattern novels, and it is true of Lilith (?) in the Xenogenesis novels. POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW: JG: I agree that your statement is true for Wild Seed and Kindred (the only two Butler novels I've read) but at the end of both books don't the power relationships change? At the end of Wildseed Anyanwu seems to have gained some sort of control over her relationship with Doro. The power shifted when he began to really care about her and she threatened to take herself away from him for good (through death). Similarly, in Kindred Rufus (sp?) has power over Dana, yet not complete power, since she can return to her own time if she takes extreme measures. At the end of the book, though, when Rufus tries to rape Dana, the power shifts. Dana won't stand for that. She has had the power to kill him throughout the book, but she doesn't use that power even after Hagar (the baby who will become Dana's great Grandmother--or great, great grandmother?) is born until the rape scene. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It seems like the women in these books have a great deal of potential power over the men, but the women only use their power under certain circumstances, while the men use their power over the women all the time. Any thoughts? Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:13:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: sex and morality In-Reply-To: <91548373330@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > On 20 Jan 98 , Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > In Joanna Russ' _Female Man_, when there is the incident with the woman > > having sex with her non-human house servant, part of the shock her visitors > > from the past experience is probably that he is not human, but I have to > > suspect part of the shock is becasue there is no "strong emotional > > attachment". > > I was disconcerted by that sex scene but not because there is no > emotional involvement or because it is sex with non-humans . As I > remember it (and it is some years since I read that novel) the > servant was an android with a partially developed consciousness, he > wanted to have sex with his master because it was part of his > program, it was one of his 'objectives'. So, he certainly did not > feel abused but I did not feel comfortable with the sex because he > could not even develop the idea to say 'no'. > > > Petra > ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** > Yes, I remember that scene. I lent the book to a (male) colleague and he was appalled. His comment was "So that's what you think men are for"! He did not like the male body being used simply for sex, even if Davy is not human at all ("his" orgins were Chimpanzee protoplasm, but that biological basis had long ago been transcended by wiring into Jael's computer system).'Davy' is nothing more than a sex toy, like a blow-up female doll with cavities available for penetration, only more animated. Petra is right to note that he can't say "no", but nethier can a sex toy. Jael isn't hurting or harming 'Davy', any more than a sex toy is damaged by its use. But her actions are agressively directed against male perceptions of themselves, which in the context of the Female Man are perfectly understandable, for me, if not my reader.The center of the ethical problem, IMHO, lies in this blatent use of the male body for female satisfication, with an erasure of male subjectivity. I suspect Russ is pointing to female commodification as sex toys, as objects, and reversing the trope.The book aims, IMHO, to shock the reader out of passive acceptance of normal ways of seeing. Sexual objects are more or less how the sugically altered 'women' in Manland function, where the ethical problems are much more severe, as the 'women' involved are definitely human beings. I loved Russ's irony after Jael has had (very erotic) sex with Davy "See, I'm just an old fashioned girl"! Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:19:05 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 98-01-12 18:30:35 EST, you write: << 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 agree. Nor could I understand why Captain Picard wanted to escape his beautiful starship into the bleak, seamy world of the twentieth century, which is what I'm escaping when I watch him on his beautiful starship! Barbara Hume ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:47:38 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: Interchangeability (was book group) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-14 07:30:48 EST, you write: << Care to define 120% male? >> I'll tell you why I define my son that way. Lots of swagger, lots of arrogance (now tempered by maturity), lots of muscle. Lots of protectiveness, and a tendency to patronize without realizing it. EX: "Mom, listen carefully, and I'll explain how you can drive safely on black ice." "Think back, son. Who taught _you_ to drive on black ice?" "Oh. That's right." Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:08:24 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: fem list: please use accurate topic/subject headings I have recently considered unsubscribing. Here's why: even though it has been mentioned before, people continue to not use accurate subject/topics in their emails. This makes it very difficult for me (and I'm sure I'm not alone!) to sift what I want to read from the list from what I don't, and even worse, from my work/professional and personal email. "Arrgh...." and "Apology and question" and "Please" don't give me much to go on. I should be able to tell at least vaguely what something is about from the first three words. At the very least, start it with "fem list" so I know it's one of you, not someone my boss has had contact me. People have complained about the off-topic email and about the volume. Using accurate subjects would help both of these. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions, questions, and comments of the list! It sometimes cheers me up, and always makes me think. Keep up the good work! Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:08:55 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: Interchangeability (was book group) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-14 13:46:29 EST, you write: << Again, I regret taking so much of your time, and ask Barbara's forgiveness for disagreeing with her. She's probably right, anyway. :-) Jim >> One reason I post opinions on lists like this is to have people disagree with me. It helps to make me think about the assertions I make. (If you hear a creaking sound, it's me trying to open my mind.) -- Barbara P.S. I noticed what you were doing with that apology! I don't mind being _demonstrated_ to be wrong, either, as long as no one calls me names. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:56:56 -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 Lurima wrote: > > In a message dated 98-01-14 07:30:48 EST, you write: > > << Care to define 120% male? >> > > I'll tell you why I define my son that way. Lots of swagger, lots of arrogance > (now tempered by maturity), lots of muscle. Lots of protectiveness, and a > tendency to patronize without realizing it. EX: > > "Mom, listen carefully, and I'll explain how you can drive safely on black > ice." > > "Think back, son. Who taught _you_ to drive on black ice?" > > "Oh. That's right." Barbara, LOL! I think that may be 120% offspring behavior, though. My seven year old daughter does the same thing. The other day she started to earnestly explain to me how to log onto the computer. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:04:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tavaris J Hawkins Subject: end listserv Content-Type: text/plain please end listserv. I no longer need the service. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:26:30 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: Indigenous characters Neil Rest wrote >there's an Australian writer who's done at least three novels about an {what's >the Australian equvalent of "Anglo"?} who has rare permission from the >Aborigines to cross their land, which in the background of the stories has >returned to almost all the continent I think this is Terry Dowling: the one I read (?Rynoseros?) seemed almost magical realist rather than sf Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com I ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:54:12 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Octavia Butler Content-Type: text/plain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:41:26 -0600 From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Octavia Butler On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Honor Wallace wrote: > Michael Levy wrote: > > As you note later in your e-mail, Butler is an African American. > >It seems to me worth mentioning that much of the sexual activity in > > her fiction is both inter-species and coercive--see not only > >Xenogenesis, but the Patternmaster > >series, "Blood Child," Clay's Ark, and, most notably, Kindred. Butler > >has specifically denied that she is in any way rewriting the > >experience of African Americans during slavery, but it seems hard > >to deny the centrality of this topic to her writing. A personal remininsce: I had Octavia Butler as one of the SF authors during my Clarion experience. She was a marvelously insightful and gentle critic who at the same time was not afraid to tell people that their stories were crap. She had a reticence about her that simulataneously attracted me to try to make contact with her but also made me stay away and respect her obvious desire for privacy. I remember that one of the students wrote a story featuring Black separatist rebels and Ms. Butler obstinately refused to be drawn into a discussion of the political aspects of the story, commenting only that she had known some Black activists and they had been a lot tougher than the ones in the story. I think it is obvious that Ms. Butler has done a lot of deep thinking about the history of Black people in America. It is also obvious to me that she does not wish to say anything more about the subject than what can be found in her published fiction (unless she has done some journalistic writing that I am completely unaware of). Perhaps her reason for feeling this way is the historical reception of Black writers -- look at the various positions James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Robert Wright took towards the "Negro situation." Perhaps she prefers to stay out of the hotseat entirely and let her writing speak for itself. I can sympathize with that. Also, about Butler, _Parable of the Sower_ and her marvelous short story "Speech Sounds" both feature consensual, satisfying heterosexual relationships. > I say this because I don't think we can deny the political > implications of her texts (as you point out) and yet those implications > fail to fit nicely with our conceptions, whether politically correct or > humanist, of what it means to be dependent on another being. The > centrality of that topic is indeed ever present, but I don't know what >to make of it--and that's what makes Butler so interesting to me--she >doesn't fit into political standpoints very easily. I want to read into her > writing some sort of Hegelian master/slave dialectic, but in truth, her > writing transcends even that dynamic. And then I want to say that >she's just making her ethics up as she goes along---but there's this >odd consistency that forces me to forego that opinion. Am I making >any sense? [snip] I agree, and I would guess that this feeling is because Ms. Butler is being true to her own complex self. (I know this kind of talk about literature is unfashionable these days.) >By the by. For those interested in Octavia Butler, Foundation, the >International Journal of SF, edited by list members Edward James and >Farah Mendlesohn, has a special issue on Butler coming out this >spring. I have an article in it, as does Joan Gordon (one of the finest >SF critics around), and probably others. > >Mike Levy Thanks for the tip. Would someone who doesn't have an article coming up in _Foundation_ tell me whether they think that it would be worth subscribing to for a nonacademic SF fan who enjoys criticism? Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:18:14 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Animal Enjoyment Content-Type: text/plain On the subject of whether predators enjoy the hunt: I think you can safely assume that most higher mammals share a lot of the same brain circuitry ("limbic system") for emotional behavior. Whether a monkey, a dog, or a human, there are certain behavior states which probably correspond to the subjective emotional states of "anger," "fear," "tenderness towards young," etc. Therefore, I think you can certainly argue scientifically that some mammals, at least, can be said to "enjoy" things. (I think anyone who has owned a dog will need very little convincing.) What is interesting about hunting behavior in predatory animals is that it (according to my source, an animal-behavior specialist) does *not* involve wild excitement. The heart rate and blood pressure of hunting animals actually decreases (correcting for physical activity). OTOH, when those same animals are fighting each other for dominance, their vital signs show that they are very excited, indeed. So the mental state of a hunting predator might be more akin to a cool-headed human hunter or an excellent poker player. Some people feel that type of calm predatory behavior is also found in human predators, such as serial killers (and, possibly, in professional soldiers). This is probably another one of those characteristics which was occasionally terrifcally useful in the environment where humans evolved, but not so useful in the crowded and regulated world of the 20th C. ObSF: for a look at an intelligent race with the same emotional wiring but a much smaller need for intimacy (i.e. tool-using orangutans rather than tool-using chimpanzees like us), read Charles Oberndorf's _Foragers_. Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:38:35 -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 For what it's worth - I saw the ST producers' giving Janeway an interest in romance holonovels as their way of making her appear "feminine." "Feminine," that is, by the standards of a society in which we still haven't produced a woman who captains an aircraft carrier, which might have something to do with why it didn't quite work...! Nina Osier Lurima wrote: > In a message dated 98-01-12 18:30:35 EST, you write: > > << 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 agree. Nor could I understand why Captain Picard wanted to escape > his > beautiful starship into the bleak, seamy world of the twentieth > century, which > is what I'm escaping when I watch him on his beautiful starship! > > Barbara Hume ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:13:38 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Subscribing to Foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan Krashin wrote: > Thanks for the tip. Would someone who doesn't have an article coming up > in _Foundation_ tell me whether they think that it would be worth > subscribing to for a nonacademic SF fan who enjoys criticism? I think it would be well worth subscribing to. It has a good mix of longer critical articles, book reviews (of fiction and criticism) and some correspondence. Foundation also contains a recurring feature (not sure if that is the right way to express it) on The Profession of Science Fiction in which - surprise surprise - science fiction writers write about their profession. I certainly look forward to the journal's arrival through my letterbox. Joan Haran ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:05:01 -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: end listserv In-Reply-To: <199801211904.OAA147392@pilot19.cl.msu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >please end listserv. I no longer need the service. hasta luego. -Sena "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:09:30 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: Sex and morality, slightly off-topic. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >What about a society where sex between the sexes is a business arangement >for the purposes of procreation only? (like in Brin's book) > >What about a society that sex plays an important part of interaction (like >in that short story about the deaf/blind society) >However, there are societies (African tribes?) >that have much more open sexual setups than we do. I'm presently reading "The Last Kings of Thule" by Jean Malaurie, an anthropologist who lived for years with the Inuit of Greenland in the 1950's. OK, it isn't SF or fantasy, but it has some interesting parallels with this discussion. Inuit men and women marry, but occasionally two men may decide that they want to cement their friendship more strongly, so they swap wives for a few months. (The women have no say in this and don't expect to either.) Any children who are the product of this swapping are accepted (and needed in the limited gene-pool). The mother decides who the father is and no one questions this. Seasonal multi-couple swapping was also acceptable in some cases when more children were needed as it helped ensure maximum fertility. If a wife wanted to have a brief affair (2-3 days), as long as she was discreet, there was no stigma. Inuit (used to) believe that having sex for just a few days would not result in pregnancy. And their isolation helped keep STD's to a minimum. The important things were ensuring there was no inbreeding, and reminding each individual that their desires and personal attachments were never as important as what was good for the community as a whole. Inuit social & sexual mores are very much a product of their severe environment. They did what they needed to do to survive (ethics of adaptability?) and it has worked for thousands of years - but I don't think I'd want to be an Inuit woman. It would be interesting to know if/how things have changed, now that they've had longer contact with outside societies. Monica ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:10:46 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: Willis' Doomsday, slightly off-topic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >How about Connie Willis' Doomsday Book? wherein a >student of the past is transported to one of the more horrific >places in history, and finds a life she could not know otherwise. >Sharp, poignant, and filled with fascinating women and girls-- >this has always been one of my favorites. It's a book that stays >with you. Hugo and Nebula award winner. > >Kitimher@aol.com >Que e la migliore strada per. . . ? Oooh, I liked this one. Funny, when you read the feedback stuff on amazon.com, people seem to either love it or hate it. Right after I'd read it, I visited the UK. We went to an old church in Cambridgeshire, St. Mary's in Ashwell, which has plague-period grafitti scratched into its walls. Not that unusual here I guess, but this one really resonanted with me, having just read "Doomsday" "M.C.T. Expente miseranda ferox, violenta Superest plebs pessima testis, MCCCL "Miserable, wild, distracted, The dregs of the people alone survive to witness." Just an interesting side-note. Monica ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:43:07 -0800 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Foundation Comments: To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan Krashin wrote: > Would someone who doesn't have an article coming up > in _Foundation_ tell me whether they think that it would be worth > subscribing to for a nonacademic SF fan who enjoys criticism? I subscribed to _Foundation_ once, but received only one issue. I at first assumed it had become defunct. Later, I saw a reference & realized that it had simply somehow lost my sub. (Not only did I not receive the issues due to me, but I wasn't sent subscription renewal notices, either.) This kind of thing is a hassle when it happens with domestic publications, but is even more of a hassle with international ones. You might want to take that into account in deciding whether to subscribe. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:43:38 +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: Willis' Doomsday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I really enjoyed the book too, though some of it was pretty harrowing. All that disease and squalor thing! I'm pleased it won the Hugo and Nebula, the writing was incredibly vivid and well researched (as far as I could tell) And what's off topic? - there was certainly lots of comment on medieval women's roles there (or am I missing the point?) Has Connie Willis written any others? Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 01:20:33 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Willis' Doomsday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also enjoyed Doomsday, although reading it did occasionally feel like a chore - I can't quite put my finger on why. I think the novel was probably longer than it needed to be, and the jumping to and fro from past to future seemed to destroy some of the suspense elements of the plot. It didn't seem to have the narrative drive of a Sheri Tepper, whose novels I just can't put down. Although I find the whole idea of a historian living the history they study rather than reconstructing it from documents fascinating, I think her short story "Fire Watch" (I think it's in the collection _Uncharted Territory_), about a historian visiting St Pauls during the Second World Ward as an air raid warden, a much tighter and more moving exploration of the idea. For the most part, as a Brit, I found the near future parts of _Doomsday_ interesting, but Willis missed one vital entry in the English/English American translation. She repeatedly referred to a "muffler" when we in Britain would say "scarf". This had a really jarring effect on me - and my partner when he read it - and it kept reminding me that this was an American writing about England. Not a bad thing, in itself, but I like to suspend my disbelief (and critical faculties, perhaps) on the first reading of any story. This one small incongruity made it really hard for me. Joan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:19:50 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Willis' Doomsday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I am going to read my first Connie Willis book tonight or tomorrow, _Remake_. I tried to find _Doomsday_ during my last library trip without success. I'll probably have to purchase that one. The Sunnyvale Public Library in Silicon Valley has a decent sci-fi collection which includes a lot of feminist authors. I've taken the list collected from references offered by this group and always come home with at least 10 books per week that you all have suggested. Oh, I am happy when I am reading! Lindy Tracy MacShane wrote: > > I really enjoyed the book too, though some of it was pretty harrowing. All > that disease and squalor thing! I'm pleased it won the Hugo and Nebula, > the writing was incredibly vivid and well researched (as far as I could > tell) > > And what's off topic? - there was certainly lots of comment on medieval > women's roles there (or am I missing the point?) > > Has Connie Willis written any others? > > Trac' > > tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 > "L'appétit vient en mangeant" -- "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, 22 Jan 1998 16:12:48 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: Octavia Butler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't call a situation where suicide or murder is your only choice about a coercive relationship with a man as "having a great deal of potential power" over him. They are both acts of ultimate desperation under intolerable pressure. The men (or aliens) in Butler's books are in positions of power over the women protagonists which they abuse as a matter of course. I don't understand what you mean about Butler's ethics. All I remember - the details escape me, as always - is the emphasis on the struggle to retain autonomy and self-respect under these conditions. Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:38:39 -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: Foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit L. Timmel Duchamp wrote: > Dan Krashin wrote: > > > Would someone who doesn't have an article coming up > > in _Foundation_ tell me whether they think that it would be worth > > subscribing to for a nonacademic SF fan who enjoys criticism? Well worth it, but I'll continue in a bit... > I subscribed to _Foundation_ once, but received only one issue. I at > first assumed it had become defunct. Later, I saw a reference & > realized that it had simply somehow lost my sub. (Not only did I not > receive the issues due to me, but I wasn't sent subscription renewal > notices, either.) This kind of thing is a hassle when it happens with > domestic publications, but is even more of a hassle with international > ones. You might want to take that into account in deciding whether to > subscribe. Timmi, you might want to see if Edward James, the editor of FOUNDATION, is floating around on this list currently. I've seen his name on and off in my FSFFU mailbox... Also, Dan: you may want to take into consideration (shameless self-plug, folks) becoming a member of the Science Fiction Research Association. I won't go into details (that's actually Mike Levy's job - Hi, Mike!), but an SFRA membership offers you discounted subscriptions to both FOUNDATION and THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION. You also get EXTRAPOLATION and the SFRA REVIEW as part of your membership. Why did I mention the shameless self-plug? I'm the new editor of the REVIEW. :) You can find the info here: http://www.uwm.edu/~sands/sfra/scifi.htm Later, Geoffrey