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