Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9801E" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 07:05:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: BDG nominations (Halfway Human) Comments: To: Jennifer Krauel In-Reply-To: <34CFDB10.422A7882@actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII HALFWAY HUMAN is in mass-market paperback. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:02:18 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Book themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian preferences. When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I dislike the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled by all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so forth? If so, life must be hard for you, because our society throws sex in people's faces, willy-nilly. Do you have to say "Yuck!" over and over when you're reading a love story between a man and a woman? How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:55:27 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I'll bite. I'm sure there are some others out there trying figure out responses. Now, before I start, let me clear this up: I have "heterosexual tendencies." My first reaction to this question, was "of course" those attracted to same-sex (or other "minority" sexualities) find the blatant heterosexist displays offensive. Having thought this through, however, this of course does not apply to everyone. I have little problem reading books, watching films, etc that have "blatant" (in actually showing what is shown for heterosexual couples all the time) same-sex relationships. So, in parity, there are assumably also homosexuals who don't mind reading/watching heterosexuals. Seeing that our society (for the most part) is heterosexist, I would think that it would have dulled the sense of distaste through constant exposure, though this does not always happen. I think the question can only be asked in an unthinking or unknowingly heterosexist society where "sex" is synonimous with heterosexual penetrative intercourse. Society mostly throws male-female intercourse in our faces, or presumes that our culture has been indoctrinated to expect that what happens behind those "closed doors" is as clear as glass- "normal" penetration. Now, back to the question at hand, which I am apparently (by my own admission) disqualified from answering ("sorry" to presume to answer for others). Yes, it would bother me to ALWAYS be finding heterosexist intercourse in books, to know that what I considered part of myself was excluded. But I would not always be saying "yuck" at that willy-nilly hetersexual interaction because (for myself) I could boil it down to the persons involved, and I hope that the book discussion will expand everyone's perspectives in FSFFU literature. misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Barbara R. Hume[SMTP:Lurima@AOL.COM] >Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 4:02 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Book themes > >At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with >lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian >preferences. > >When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike >quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex >relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I >dislike >the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't >even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled >by >all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so >forth? If so, life must be hard for you, because our society throws sex in >people's faces, willy-nilly. Do you have to say "Yuck!" over and over when >you're reading a love story between a man and a woman? >How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? > >Barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:00:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sari Subject: same gender sex Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yeah! I hate being subjected to hetero sex scenes in movies, books, magazines at the chechout line in the grocery store, it's often gross and a bore. Sometimes it matters not a whit, though! Good for you to walk in another's shoes! --Cleo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:01:14 +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: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Barbara: I feel truly, truly sad that depictions of same sex relationships are so abhorrent to you - why is that? I wonder. For me, I find depictions of opposite sex relationships often so cliched and innately 'sexist', I wonder how you hets put up with that! (ie Anne McCaffrey stories, which I enjoy, but all those strong masterful men - bleeegh!). But I suppose you can learn to love the oppressor (as some 70s feminist put it)... Of course, that isn't to say lesbian etc relationships aren't portrayed in a cliched way - but generally they're NOT like that in speculative fiction.(thank god) I also find lesbian relationships in SF aren't shown in any particularly sexually "graphic" way very often - tho there are exceptions (personally I wish there were more!) - maybe that will help your qualms. As far as I view heterosexual stuff myself, if it's interesting and well-written, sure I enjoy it. I think there are few of us queers who haven't had any heterosexual experience, and I think the majority of us enjoyed *some* aspect of it (but we found something BETTER and TRUE to ourselves). Of course, there are plenty of lesbians and gays who find any inkling of heterosexual sex completely disgusting as well (and I empathise with that viewpoint, given sexual mores in our societies) - but most of them have learned to live with being deluged with it (despite grumbling when it gets *too* much...!). And perhaps you could endeavour to practise the same technique - you may find you learn something about other peoples' real lives (SF and all!) Finally (please don't take this the wrong way), I'm frankly surprised you posted such a comment to this list - would you have considered doing such a thing if you were objecting to a racial or religious element in the proposed reading? To talk of censorship of a part of MY life is pretty hurtful and disturbing - or should we not read books that mention *any* sexuality? (since if we're going to be censoring, let's make it equal for all concerned! - ludicrous concept, isn't it?) Trac' tracmac@orcon.co.nz -- http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3619 "L'appétit vient en mangeant" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:44:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I don't think we should exclude from consideration any book based on the sexual orientation, gender, race, etc., of the characters. Clearly we should exclude any fiction that is not feminist science fiction, but beyond that, I think we do ourselves harm by censorship. If there's a theme you don't like, don't read the book that month. My reaction to representations of heterosexuality vary. Before I came out I hated it. Just after I came out, I still hated it. Everything about it seemed grotesque--the ever-present sexism, the role playing, and don't even get me started on all the problems of trying to imagine penetration (that's pleasurable? ouch!). However, the more secure I became in my sense of self and my sexuality, the more comfortable I became with having to view/read/hear about heterosexuality. Now it just bores me. Every once in a while I find a book or movie in which the different-sex love story seems almost plausible. Mostly I avoid them. I have never been able to get beyond two paragraphs of a romance novel. I'm just not a very sentimental person. My girlfriend came out very young and never went through the stage of hating force-fed hetero sex. But another friend has been at both extremes. Before she came out, she said she felt "grossed out" by lesbian images/stories. After she came out, she was grossed out by het images/stories. For her, the situation is almost funny. Her best friends are guys. Once, she'd be upset when they told her locker room stories of two girls and later she got upset when they talked about having sex with their girlfriends. And of course they wanted to talk to her about everything because she's a "girl"--she could give them advice! Of course, this begs the question, what's up with you, Barbara? (please don't feel you should defend yourself, I'm not serious. I'm just yanking your chain.) ; D ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:51:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: <22f1617.34d10a7c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:02 PM 1/29/98 , you wrote: >From: "Barbara R. Hume" > >At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with >lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian >preferences. I respect you for mentioning this. It's as important to say what we'd rather not read as what we'd like to see. I would ask, though, that you elaborate more on the "lesbian theme" part of it. Is it just the sexual intimacy, since the rest of the post refers to sexual explicitness, or is it simply the mention of same-sex partners? It makes a huge difference. Especially considering that many feminist utopian societies in literature are lesbian in orientation. >When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike >quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex >relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I dislike >the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't >even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled by >all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so >forth? I'm a married bisexual woman (so while I am attracted to both women and men, I'm not going to be doing anything about it for the next 70 yrs or so.) I'm very aware of the scenes in movies and TV, but more because I have 10 yr old triplets and a 4 yr old and -they- notice the scenes in movies and TV. That makes me queasy. Even PG movies will have occasionally more than they should (like The Rocketeer, G rating?, that had the camera looking down a woman's low-cut blouse). On my own? I very much enjoy sexy stuff, as long as there's a realistic plot that goes along with it. I don't like gratuitous displays in movies, books, or in real life. Those kids making out on a park bench make me shudder. And, to be honest, reminisce. ;-) In literature, the male-female relationships quite often annoy me from a feminist standpoint. Far too often, it's the hapless woman being rescued by the guy. Yawn. Or, the female does something totally unrealistic, but it's in the name of LOVE and that makes it ok. That's why I enjoy this list so much. To speak rashly for everyone, we all see these stereotyped relationships or actions and say, "ICK!" I enjoy books with alternative themes because the vast majority of these are very perceptive about the relationships -- they don't often fall into a stereotypical trap. Quite often, they try to interpret/analyze/extrapolate the sexual theme and end up winning all sorts of SF awards for it. Movies are another boat. Non-independent films (ie, Hollywood) will use the lesbian theme as a titilation device instead of as a commonplace occurrence or as an insightful look at society. But that's a discussion for another list. Just my 2c; toss it in the pot. When it's full, we'll all go out for pizza. jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:10:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? > To quote Ursula Zilinsky, "Love is love. Everything else is a technicality." Truly, however, I would like to see more representation of myself and my life in movies and novels. As a dyke, I happen to include in that "my" pretty much anything that does not fall within a standard "institutionalized" version of heteronormative heterosexuality. So that would include lesbian scenes, bisexual scenes, gay male scenes, and scenes between men and women that fall outside of what we're told, by all the guff about heterosexuality that's forced on us, as Barbara notes, from just about everywhere, that men and women are *supposed* to do. An example, I suppose (drawing from a personal confession a bisexual woman made on another list I'm on), would be a "het" scene in which a woman penetrates a man anally with fingers or a dildo. Even that's pretty queer, from a heteronormative standard, even though the people involved are of opposite sexes. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:03:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even though I'm busy with a helluva lot of stuff, I just have to "plunge" in on this one and "penetrate" to the soul of my feelings... Le Anne Fossmeyer wrote: > I don't think we should exclude from consideration any book based on the > sexual orientation, gender, race, etc., of the characters. Agreed. > Clearly we > should exclude any fiction that is not feminist science fiction, but > beyond that, I think we do ourselves harm by censorship. If there's a > theme you don't like, don't read the book that month. Doubly agreed. Now, how do we define a feminist piece? Is it sex-segregated? If so, where does Samuel Delany and his vein of writer fit in? Or Harlan Ellison? Oddly enough, I think we could consider Ellison a feminist writer (Russ at least makes arguments to that effect)...so what is the dividing line? Do we not read Leigh Brackett, but do read James Tiptree, Jr., for example? > ...and don't even get me started on all the problems of trying to imagine > > penetration (that's pleasurable? ouch!). Hmmm...no, I'm just *not* gonna touch that one... :) > Every once in a while I find a book or movie in which the > different-sex love story seems almost plausible. Mostly I avoid them. I > have never been able to get beyond two paragraphs of a romance novel. Very few people do. Romance novels aren't written to express any of the true love or passion that a couple feels - they're written to get a rise (I'm using the term broadly) out of their reader. B-movies are just like romance novels - fluff. I highly doubt that a Roger Corman lesbian love story (done just as his movies with hetero couples are done) would be any more intrguing just because the romance was homo- and not heterosexual, because Corman does things to titilate, not engross. I think a love scene works if that's whats being expressed. I personally believe the love in AMMONITE is the same as the love in THE CRYING GAME is the same as the love in CYRANO DE BERGERAC - attraction, yes, plays a major role in relationship development, but love between two people is what truly sets that relationship. Dramatically, I don't care what the pairing is - man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, man/penguin, etc. - in a story, just as long as the dramatic tension and love exists between the characters. *That's* what's important. Just my two turntables and a microphone, Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:59:40 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any theme with regards to human intimacy is fine with me, as long as it treats the characters with respect. The problem, though, isn't only that not everyone finds the same things attracting or reaffirming when it comes to sex, but that what one person finds most valuable may be the same thing that most bothers another. We're talking about something that, at its most fundamental level, is both an expression of love and a form of pleasure. What someone gets out of it, and why, varies immensely from person to person. I tend to avoid fiction that expresses hostility toward human relationships. I most appreciate that which celebrates human love in a thought provoking manner, whether it be heterosexual, gay male, lesbian, or (as is possible in science fiction :-), something completely different altogether. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:42:44 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geofrey wrote: > >I have never been able to get beyond two paragraphs of a romance novel. > > Very few people do. Romance novels aren't written to express any of the > true love or passion that a couple feels - they're written to get a rise > (I'm using the term broadly) out of their reader. B-movies are just like > romance novels - fluff. Is it necessary to flame other readers on this list this way? I don't know which is more tiresome, that people still come up with the above sexist stereotype or the stereotype itself. Romance novels are written specifically to express the "true love or passion that a couple feels." They may not be for you. They may not express love in a way you find interesting or that you relate to. That's fine. What I don't understand is why that makes it necessary to flame people who don't share that opinion. The above description brings to mind the patronizing comments the "mainstream" has been known to make about science fiction being fluff for emotionally immature people who can't relate to the real world. If you find that comment about sf offensive, perhaps you understand why your comment is inflammatory. By the way, sales of romance novels makes up about 50% of all books sold in this country. So the "very few people do" above is inaccurate. Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:59:29 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes Comments: To: "asaro@sff.net" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Catherine Asaro commented on what >Geofrey wrote: > "By the way, sales of romance novels makes up about 50% of all books sold in this country. So the "very few people do" above is inaccurate." I think that part of the idea of "very few people" is the historic conflation of people/mankind with men... or at least somehow discounting women (and other "minority" groups). Not to say that many people aren't honestly misled by the popular misconceptions (saying something enough, whether or not it's true, can sink into the subconscious). misha >bernardm@colorado.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:10:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Donna Bursey Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Le Anne Fossmeyer on 01/30/98 12:44 AM GMT wrote: I don't think we should exclude from consideration any book based on the sexual orientation, gender, race, etc., of the characters. Clearly we should exclude any fiction that is not feminist science fiction, but beyond that, I think we do ourselves harm by censorship. If there's a theme you don't like, don't read the book that month. My response: Let's face it, in our paternalistic ideology, EVERYTHING has something to do with feminism, because feminism is the flip side of patriarchy. You can't see black without knowing about white, cats make sense against a context of dogs, etc. -- opposites have a tendency to define each other... So -- I don't see that we can exclude ANY text written in the context of our society -- they will all have some feminist issue. (Unless we want to talk about texts written from the perspective of some Indian tribes, where the prevailing societal norm is a matriarchy, but in this day and age, even those societies are going to be corrupted by the world at large in America.) On the other items in this post (which, of course, I just deleted!) -- I'm really pleased to see discussions of sexual orientation. If we can't ever find someplace where we can all be honest, and truly invite discussion, (as opposed to "this is my opinion, and if you don't agree, you can f**k off and die), how are we ever going to learn anyone else's perspective? I want to know other people's perspectives -- it's one of the things that makes life worh getting up for every day... Hope this all makes sense -- I'll call your .02 and I'll raise you .02! Donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:41:04 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-29 19:15:43 EST, you write: << Finally (please don't take this the wrong way), I'm frankly surprised you posted such a comment to this list - would you have considered doing such a thing if you were objecting to a racial or religious element in the proposed reading? To talk of censorship of a part of MY life is pretty hurtful and disturbing - or should we not read books that mention *any* sexuality? (since if we're going to be censoring, let's make it equal for all concerned! - ludicrous concept, isn't it?) >> I thought carefully before posting my comment that I'd prefer not to read about lesbian relationships. It was not my wish to offend anyone. I did post it because I was genuinely interested in learning something about other people's viewpoints. I wanted to know how other people react to the material the media subjects us to. And this seems like an open-minded list. I figured that the people on this list can be as open-minded about a traditional viewpoint as they expect me to be about theirs. As to why I am repelled by same-sex love scenes--I just am. I suppose I was born a heterosexual person, and the other way has no appeal for me at all. Some people can eat liver and relish it, but the very thought gags me out. And I know people who cannot fathom how I can drink Diet Coke by the gallon when they consider it putrid. This brings up an interesting question about sex scenes, though. I find that certain kinds of sex scenes are titillating, while others are turnoffs. Crude language and animalistic imagery are repellant to me, and any kind of sex scene showing one person using another is repellant. But some writers can write beautifully about two people expressing love with their bodies, and it can be fine. As long as I've irritated a bunch of people here, I might as well tell you something else that seems to differ from the viewpoints of many people on this list. I don't believe in sex outside of marriage. Since I've been divorced for 28 years, I've been celibate for 28 years. I'm still red-blooded--I drool and breathe heavily during Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson movies--but I simply choose to stay free of sexual activity in a casual way. It's not bad--after 14 or 15 years, you get used to it! I prefer to live this way than to deal with the consequences of the other way. I'm assuming that list members grant me the right to make this choice, as I grant you the right to casual, recreational sex if that's your choice. However--in my writing, I don't always hold my characters to the same standard! They're not me! And I don't expect characters in most of the books I read to follow it, either. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:49:46 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-30 00:09:47 EST, you write: << Now, how do we define a feminist piece? >> My question exactly. I think of feminism as upholding the right of a woman to live as she chooses without being restricted to those activities a male- dominated society allows or assigns her. I don't think of it as an "all men are rotten and let's attack them" attitude, but I know people who don't want to be called feminists because the word has come to imply an anti-male posture, just as the word "hacker" has come to mean a computer wizard who does malicious things with his or her skills. And I had never thought that feminism was particularly linked to lesbianism, but that seems to be implied in some of these postings. I'd love to see some definitions of "feminist literature" from list members. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:51:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erica J Kline Subject: Re: sex... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII When I read books or watch movies with sexually explicit scenes, my feelings toward those scenes depends entirely on how the sex fits in with the overall relationship between the characters. Forced sex or sex for the purpose of degradation is abhorrent no matter who's doing what to whom. On the other hand, I can believe that almost anything can be pleasurable during sex between two partners who are concerned about each other's enjoyment. Thus, even if what the characters is doing isn't something I would like to do personally, I can get turned-on if they are enjoying themselves because I imagine my own pleasure when I am enjoying myself. Sex is such an important part of all human relations that what really seems strange is any story involving people in which there is no reference to sex. I can't think of any sci-fi examples, but I remember thinking this when I was reading the "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. She describes every aspect of her family's life in great detail except she never mentions how they built their outhouses and whether Ma told Laura about the birds and the bees. I realize that was taboo, but the omission seemed pretty glaring to me. Of course, I come from a family where nothing was taboo, so maybe I was the only one to notice this! Bye for now...Erica ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:03:48 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: In which "universe" would you like to be a child? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, Seems like an important aspect of a lot of feminist sf is the manner in which children are raised. A review of the books I've read lately shows a variety. Which one would I prefer, if I were living in that universe? >From all your reading, where would you grow up if the choice was yours? Reviewing my latest reads: Daughter of Elysium: I never did learn exactly how the Sharers raised their children, although it's obvious the young are precious. (I need to read _Door into Ocean_). Raincloud and Blackbear's people live communally at home, where the men do much of the raising of the children, and no self-respecting adult goes about without a child on his/her back. The Elysians create their children "artificially." The imperfect are jettisoned before or after birch. They are raised by teachers, and robots until they are highly educated, socialized, and ready to joint their society. I got the sense that they were precious to their society in general, but that Elysians not participating in raising or teaching them did not feel personally connected. In Octavia Butler's _Patternmaster_ Series (Including _Wild Seed_): In the early years (1600's) There was some fostering of sensitive children born into Doro's plan because the parents were too tormented or otherwise unable to nurture them. At Anywanu's plantation, about half of the children were raised by someone other than their parents, for the same reason. Later in the series, children are routinely sent to be cared for by "Mutes," because mentally sensitive people could not bear to be around them. _Dream Snake_ by Vonda McIntyre shows a variety of child raising methods amongst the cultures Snake experiences. Grum's people seem to raise their children at least somewhat communally. Arevin cares for children in his family group, even though the parental partners also are responsible. In Mountainside, Families seem to be nuclear. Because Melissa's guardian is male, I wonder if the town is also patriarchal. Her situation was interesting. No one really seemed to know (care?) she was alive, else she would have been drawn into school. The Healers adopt their children. While children are related to all other healers, individuals find others within the healer enclave with whom they feel a special bond. Who knows what happens in the domed city. . . (except maybe the author). >:) Suzy McKee Charnas, in _Walk to the End of the World_ describes how fem cubs are mostly left in a "den" to fight for food and survival until about age 12 (or younger?), when they are brought out and taught to work. Male children are brought up together in dorm/school situation. Neither female nor male children are cherished, and no one is supposed to know who are their parents. In _Motherlines_ we are introduced to the "childpack," a group of creatures consisting of the weaned and no-yet-menstruating offspring of the Riding Women. They eat as well as anyone in the camp, sweeping through and taking what they wish, speaking their own language, playing their own games, sleeping like puppies within the protection of the camp. The women guard them from external dangers, but not from each other. When traveling, the child pack stay within the center of the group, surrounded by women. When a child begins to menstruate, she is rejected by the pack, and is welcomed by the Riding Women. She is bathed and cared for by her 4 or 5 mothers, and becomes a Riding Woman. While I love the idea of being safely Elyisan and going to that school (so much information and so much time to spend learning!), part of me is really attracted to the rough and tumble years of the child pack. I think I'd also like growing up in the Healer's station. I like snakes and playing with microscopes. Can any one suggest other works regarding the raising of children? I know I'm due for a re-read of _Woman on the Edge of Time_ because I cannot remember if the parental unit is 3 or 4 people, or the manner in which these people come together to be parents. Good reading to you all, Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:15:46 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" As a lesbian, I don't find heterosexual sex offensive. I think sex with men would be fine if it didn't involve some kind of relationship. And Barbara,a lot of men love to watch, read and observe lesbians making love. They seem to find this a real turn on. What does this say about their sexuality? As for romance novels, well, if 50% of Americans read or agree on anything, I find that suspect.Who wants to be part of mainstream America and do what they do? Am I being an elitist? Linda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:16:06 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: gay censorship - vastly off-topic! On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 Tracy MacShane said: > Finally (please don't take this the wrong way), I'm frankly surprised you > posted such a comment to this list - would you have considered doing such a > thing if you were objecting to a racial or religious element in the > proposed reading? To talk of censorship of a part of MY life is pretty > hurtful and disturbing - or should we not read books that mention *any* > sexuality? (since if we're going to be censoring, let's make it equal for > all concerned! - ludicrous concept, isn't it?) > > Trac' > Thank-you Tracy for bringing up the point that people (in general and without thinking about it) believe that it is ok to admit being offended by same-sex intimacy, but would anyone admit to being offended by, for example, an interracial couple having sex? Most likely not...at least from what I have experienced at the Univ. of Ga. As far as being sick of hetero-sex being shoved down our throats (despite how carefully we choose our entertainment), I have to admit I find the chronic sexism that is almost innate to hetero-sex quite disturbing. I feel bad for heterosexual women who have to battle this in order to have a love life...[although I find role-playing and chauvenism (sp?) can and is present in many lesbian couples I have met over the years (since about 1980)]. And as someone else mentioned (I forget who), I am a dyke and I would very much enjoy more shows delving into my "lifestyle"; something that I could relate to a little more directly. Before I came out (age 21 or so), I found both hetero- and homo-sex disturbing, but I was particularly sensitive to seeing an erect penis...it caused me to cringe and experience definite revulsion. Now that I have found my true sexuality, I find watching sexual intimacy between two women (that is with caring included) quite erotic, and can experience that feeling again when watching heterosexual sexual intimacy if any hint of sexism isn't present. I am not planning to join the B.D.Group, and thus I am not trying to influence what y'all might choose to read, but I too was surprised Barbara made those comments on this listserve...(however I am very glad you spoke your mind, Barbara; such discussions as this are quite important to coming to understandings between such a wide variety folks.) Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:32:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <34D167E8.4113@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 30/01/98 05:42:44 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Catherine Asaro , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Geofrey wrote: > > > >I have never been able to get beyond two paragraphs of a romance novel. > > > > Very few people do. Romance novels aren't written to express any of the > > true love or passion that a couple feels - they're written to get a rise > > (I'm using the term broadly) out of their reader. B-movies are just like > > romance novels - fluff. > > Is it necessary to flame other readers on this list this way? It may be just that I am thick-skinned, (All right, who said "No, just thick?") but I cannot see any flames in Geoffrey's statement. I see only opinions (possibly misguided) and facts (possibly wrong.) Whilst I do not agree with what Geoffrey said, I support his right to express an honestly held viewpoint, provided there was no intent to harm. I do not believe that there was such intent. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:38:37 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: <22f1617.34d10a7c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 29/01/98 23:02:18 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed "Barbara R. Hume" , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with > lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian > preferences. > > When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike > quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex > relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I dislike > the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't > even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled by > all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so > forth? If so, life must be hard for you, because our society throws sex in > people's faces, willy-nilly. Do you have to say "Yuck!" over and over when > you're reading a love story between a man and a woman? > How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? Dear Accused,[1] It has been quiet here lately. I think you have just changed that. Whilst I can (sort of) understand your view, I cannot support it. It appears that you are trying to limit your experiences to that which you have been conditioned to believe is natural. Try to open your mind. Same-gender sex is just as natural and beautiful as opposite-gender sex. Please, don't get me wrong. I assume that you are happy with the way you are, that it works for you. I am a firm believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." All I ask is that you relax enough to appreciate that which works for others. Try to disassociate yourself from that which you are reading or seeing. It isn't happening to you, so there is really no reason for your paranoia. I offer the same advice to anyone, female or male, heterosexual or homosexual, who holds similar views. A relationship, from a one night stand to a lifetime commitment, which works for all involved is a thing of beauty. Do not let the fact that it wouldn't work for you impair your appreciation of its beauty. There is much in literature whith which you may not agree, or which you may not like, but that does not, of itself, invalidate it. Open your minds, people. Everyone has something valid to say, as long as the intent is not to cause harm. Listen. You may not agree, but you may learn. Learning is sometimes a painful process, but it is always a valuable one. [1] I had to put that in. I recently posted a message elsewhere, with a similar header, in which I mentioned the originator by name in the body of the m/s. Someone even more pedantic than I pointed out the error of my ways. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:15:12 -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: Romance (was: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Speaking of romance, for example, I recently bought several auction lots of used books for my business, and found one romance novel among them - "Naughty Thoughts" by Dawn Carroll, a 1991 "Harlequin Temptation" book. Browsing it, I was only slightly surprised to find that the writing was stylistically as good as most published SF. There was a crime plot, a subplot involving telepathy, a sex scene (pages 141-144, for browsers) and a rather harrowing episode involving the heroine trapped in the trunk of a car about to go into a crusher. Harlequins are supposed to be the Campbell's Soup of the genre, but this was quite a cut above the two or three Harlequins I read in the 1970s. A few years ago I interviewed an author of historical romances, who goes to great lengths to research her backgrounds and characters. I posed the question of romance's reputation - probably too frequently - and she finally said, "I don't think the genre needs me to justify it." I have to agree; romance is apparently maturing, just as SF and crime fiction matured. Perhaps the modern classics of romance have already been written - the "Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep" of romance - and we just haven't recognized them yet, except maybe GWTW. Though it's hard to imagine something equivalent in intelligence to "Left Hand of Darkness" or "Foundation Trilogy" within the strictures of the romance genre - why not? As for dislike of viewing or reading about unfamiliar sexual combinations - I'm a 100 percent hetero guy, and I roomed with a gay male couple for a couple of years in college, but it was still a bit of a shock to see the gay male kiss *on screen* for the first time in "My Beautiful Laundrette." It's become routine, now, since I see lots of indie film. My suggestion is, if one has an open mind but a hesitant heart, just keep allowing yourself new media experiences from other points of view, and you'll get used to it. You may learn to be emotionally touched by these expressions. Sorry to ramble. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com (Don't blame me, I voted for Nader.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:24:46 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Cat Farrar 's message of Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:16:04 -0800 * Cat Farrar > I understand all of your comments. The producers/writers could > have made other choices on how they would show (concretely) that > Ripley was part alien and part human. The choices that they did > make showed me that there was very little left of the Ripley we > had come to know from the other films. The emphasis was on the > "animal" side of her soul and the majority of the emotions that > she expressed were very "male like". ... > How often are women depicted as violent in films and then, how > often do they seem to "enjoy" it? The majority of the time we see > men engaging in this behavior. I contend that Ripley was written > my a man and it was his version of what a female hero would be > like both in speech and actions. Sexual, violent, sassy, low on > empathy... I agree; I felt and thought this to be one subtext when I saw the movie. But I also noticed at the beginning of the movie that Sigourney Weaver was listed as co-producer. So clearly she's had a big influence on the movie. As far as this subtext goes, there is some gender subversiveness here: a woman appropriating a measculine stereotype, making the most of it, and then mixing it with various other conflicting subtexts, such as the lesbian subtext, and the mixed identity and incestous elements. While I personally prefer the first two Alien movies, I think the filmmakers really deserve credit for originality. It certainly breaks away from the far too common formulaic pattern where #1 is great, #2 is almost as great/a little diluted, #3 is a markedly poor copy of the first 2, and the later sequels are not worth mentioning. So I think the 4 Alien movies should be seen and enjoyed more as rather independent stories, rather than as parts of a whole (they're too different to be thus considered). Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:48:05 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Alien 4 In-Reply-To: Cat Farrar 's message of Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:02:09 -0800 * Cat Farrar > Why is it assumed that Ripley (the alien part) enjoys the > violence. I consider that the aliens are animal like. I don't > see evidence that they have a conceptual consciousness. When a > lion kills a gazelle, do you think that the lion "enjoys" this > violent act? Isn't "enjoyment" a human emotion? So was it the > human element of Ripley that was enjoying the violence? It isn't always as clear-cut as that. There is a grey zone in-between, for instance chimpanzees inhabit that grey zone. They have some degree of emotions, some cognition and perceptual-level concepts, and a tentative self-concept (put a chimp in front of a mirror). Mentally or cognitively the Aliens are like chimps, real bad chimps. They have a measure of intelligence. They understood quickly the button that released frozen carbon dioxide (or whatever) on them in the cell, and they were able to push the button and kill a human soldier that way later. There are many examples of this. For example, they set an egg trap at the point where the humans had to pass to escape. Another example, from movie #2, is when they cut the electric power in the complex. You can find many examples like that. So the point I'm making is that they had some degree of emotions on a par with their intelligence and their brutality; so you can't know THAT, nor to what extent, the Ripley-clone's emotions were human or alien in origin, nor where the one stops and the other begins. It's a seamless mixture, and that's a main part of what makes this new Ripley so disturbing. She isn't all good any more; she clearly enjoyed occasional violence and cruelty, and it's so well blended that you can't say where it comes from, nor clearly separate it from the good, human parts (which is also there, as demonstrated e.g. by the mercy killings of her predecessor clone/sister hybrids). You also can't tell for sure how much alien and how much human she is. Could she turn against the humans after arriving on earth? Quite possibly. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:11:50 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I thought I'd stay out of this debate, since what I had to say might be useful to some writers of feminist SF, but wasn't all that topical. But since Barbara clearly feels she has to defend herself, I fell compelled to join the controversy and say I'm on her side, plus offer the asides that I've been muttering under my breath up until now. Apologies for off-topic aspects. I'll try to stay as germane to the list's intent as possible. In a message dated 98-01-30 11:47:17 EST, it seems that Barbara writes: > In a message dated 98-01-29 19:15:43 EST, it may be that one of Barbara's critics wrote: > > > Finally (please don't take this the wrong way), I'm frankly surprised you > > posted such a comment to this list - would you have considered doing such a > > thing if you were objecting to a racial or religious element in the > > proposed reading? To talk of censorship of a part of MY life is pretty > > hurtful and disturbing - or should we not read books that mention *any* > > sexuality? (since if we're going to be censoring, let's make it equal for > > all concerned! - ludicrous concept, isn't it?) > > > I thought carefully before posting my comment that I'd prefer not to read > about lesbian relationships. It was not my wish to offend anyone. I did post > it because I was genuinely interested in learning something about other > people's viewpoints. I wanted to know how other people react to the material > the media subjects us to. And this seems like an open-minded list. I figured > that the people on this list can be as open-minded about a traditional > viewpoint as they expect me to be about theirs. > Recalling her original statements, Barbara didn't seem to be suggesting that the list be censored. She merely stated her preferences in reading material. I can't say I agree with her choices, but I adamantly defend her right to make them. I am saddened to say I think there is some merit to her point about open-mindedness often being lacking among us "libertarians." I've seen some liberal condemnations of attitude that would have made the Nazi propagandists jealous. > As to why I am repelled by same-sex love scenes--I just am. I suppose I was > born a heterosexual person, and the other way has no appeal for me at all. > Some people can eat liver and relish it, but the very thought gags me out. > And I know people who cannot fathom how I can drink Diet Coke by the > gallon when they consider it putrid. > Fair enough. And this brings to mind an opinion expressed by one of the lesbian respondents -- that descriptions of penetration bothered her because she associated the act with pain. Words to that effect, at least. I'd like to encourage women who feel this way, if they plan to write fiction, to at least recognize the other camp. First, there are all those women, gay and straight, who LIKE penetration, find it pleasurable. Then too there are folks -- both male and female -- like me, who like it to hurt soooo good. I spent a good deal of my youth in gender-identity crisis. I came very close to having male-to-female transsexual surgery, close enough to pass all the necessary psychological evaluations, undergo the hormone treatment, and spend the required time living and working as a woman. In the end, I decided I didn't want the poor representation of femininity that "modern" medicine could achieve. I decided instead to stick with the poor representation of masculinity nature had bequeathed upon me. But I had time in the transition to experience how society treats women. I also had time to experience anal intercourse with a VERY well endowed man. It hurt like all Hell, and I loved it. The point is, there are lots of tastes out there and any literature that insists on homogenizing human experience is going to be shallow and one dimensional. Enough use of bandwidth. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:19:43 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: gay censorship - vastly off-topic! Or rather, the question of whether anyone would post anything admitting to racial or religious prejudice. While I hope no-one on this list would feel okay about expressing prejudices against any particular ethnic/cultural group (though I seem to recall some exchanges about oppressive cultures, which is perhaps a different thing, sometime last year??) I would also hope that the question of religious beliefs or unbelief or agnositicism is open at least to debate. One might, for example, be disturbed about a piece of utopian writing which was depicting a community which lived in accordance with some fundamentalist belief system. And was it here or somewhere else that someone wrote about re-reading C S Lewis in adulthood and nearly choking on the religious pills in the Narnian jam? Some Wiccan list-members expressed understandable distress during a thread last year at unthinking invocation of stereotypes of 'witches'. lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:04:27 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: Book themes How and what people respond to in the way of erotic/loving relationships in books surely doesn't necessarily match with their own 'sexual preferences'. Given that women (straight, gay, bi - as far as I can tell from the published literature on the subject) write 'slash' fan fiction about male/male sexual interaction, direct identification is not necessarily the issue. Even with a heterosexual reading a het relationship, does the reader identify with the same-sex person in the text? Does that perhaps depend partly on how the scene is written (viewpoint, who is the sympathetic character etc) as well as what the reader brings to it. Isn't one of the things we read for to get outside the limitations of our own experience? (Not always comfortable to do, of course!) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:40:15 -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: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Michelle Bernard wrote: > >Geofrey wrote: > > > "By the way, sales of romance novels makes up about 50% of all books > sold in this country. So the "very few people do" above is inaccurate." > > I think that part of the idea of "very few people" is the historic > conflation of people/mankind with men... or at least somehow discounting > women (and other "minority" groups). Not to take sides here, but it might be worth noting that 75% of the books read in the United States are read by women. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:42:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! In-Reply-To: <49360962.34d23409@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Some thoughts about revulsion and sexuality. I think it is likely that many people think about people sexually alot. Hetero-sexual men assume a possible sexual relationship with most women that they meet and vice-versa. I also think that it gets in the way of having a pleasant life by causing tension and hormonal activity, and eroding our feeligns of self-control. So, many people probably could not handle having everyone as a potential partner. Society gives us a very handy way out if the only possible sexual relationships are hetero-sexual. In our age of growing toleration of homosexual activity, a more complicated arangement arises. Choose a sexuality and wear it as a badge. Then everyone will know who might want to have sex with whom, easing the sexual tension. This leads to interesting arrangements like gay men being good friends with hetero-sexual women, as well as the traditional men are friends with men and women are friends with women (in hetero-sexual circles). Further, to maintain ones sanity, it is best to be disgusted by the other sexualities, because if you aren't disgusted it's only a small step to thinking "hey, why not" or "gee, that looks like fun" and we ALL know what would happen then! everyone would be a potential partner and you wouldn't be able to have any safe friends at all (except maybe for gay members of the opposite sex). This also explains one of the attractions of marraige. Once you are married you only have to be attracted to one person, you can have friendships regardless of anyones sexuality. Of course affairs are so common that that release often never materializes and can actually backfire. It seems like this all works into splitting the sexes one way or another, resulting in hetero-sexism (I include allowing homo but not bi-sexuality in this label) and in the end a separate and so not equal sexism. Since I can't stand sexism I feel like I ought to be bi-sexual, if only for the principle of the thing. No self-discovery, no personal preference involved. When I get right down to it, the furthest I have been able to come so far is the idea that we are all bi-sexual (to different degrees), or that I am consiously sexual, deciding on the desire for a monogamous, life-long, potentially biological child-bearing relationship and only being attracted to those partners that have a very good chance of being able to offer me that (which eliminates men). Or, that I consciously choose now to acknowledge the arbitrariness of my choice of hetero-sexuality but go with it because I need to start somewhere and lets not make the starting harder than it has to be. Part of all of this may be linked to my feeling like stating overtly a sexuality is both supporting the separartion of people based on their sexuality and (especially since it would be hetero-sexuality I guess) disavowing the validity of other sexualities despite anything I might say to the contrary. It really bugs me when people say I support gay rights but very quickly pipe in with their straightness. It's like saying "It's ok, but not me! not me!, don't worry I'm straight." Well, anyway, sorry this message is so long, -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:08:19 -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: In which "universe" would you like to be a child? Comments: To: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" In-Reply-To: <34D207F4.B3A80780@meer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > Hello all, > > Seems like an important aspect of a lot of feminist sf is the > manner in which children are raised. A review of the books I've > read lately shows a variety. Which one would I prefer, if I were > living in that universe? > > > Daughter of Elysium: I never did learn exactly how the Sharers > raised their children, although it's obvious the young are > precious. (I need to read _Door into Ocean_). > > Raincloud and Blackbear's people live communally at home, where > the men do much of the raising of the children, and no > self-respecting adult goes about without a child on his/her back. I was very enamored of the child raising methods of Raincloud and Blackbear, largely I suppose because I spent much of my daughter's first two years with her on my back. Then Joan Slonczewski (the author) pointed out to me something that I'd missed in Daughter, ie. that this culture can afford to devote an enormous amount of time to each child because they also practice infanticide on their extra kids. > Can any one suggest other works regarding the raising of > children? I know I'm due for a re-read of _Woman on the Edge of > Time_ because I cannot remember if the parental unit is 3 or 4 > people, or the manner in which these people come together to be > parents. > Samuel Delany has some interesting ideas in Trouble on Triton, including men breastfeeding. See also Joan Slonczewski's The Wall Around Eden, Judith Moffett's Pennterra, Lois McMaster Bujold's Ethan of Athos, Lois Lowry's The Giver,and a number of Le Guin's recent short stories. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:20:20 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gayla Bassham Subject: Re: gay censorship - vastly off-topic! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/30/98 12:22:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, PENEL@CALC.VET.UGA.EDU writes: > As far as being sick of hetero-sex being shoved down our throats > (despite how carefully we choose our entertainment), I have to admit > I find the chronic sexism that is almost innate to hetero-sex quite > disturbing. I feel bad for heterosexual women who have to battle this > in order to have a love life... Everyone is jumping on poor Barbara, and I have to say I don't agree with her about not avoiding books with lesbian themes. But I find this attitude about heterosexuality (which I've seen in several posts) just as offensive and close-minded. The implication is that no *real* feminist would be anything but a lesbian. And how would we react if someone posted a message saying they felt sorry for how hard lesbians' lives were? If we are not going to make judgments based on sexual orientation, and I don't think we should, then it has to go both ways. -- Gayla (coming out of deep lurking mode) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:01:31 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: BDG nomination period closed; voting period opens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message is to announce that the book nomination period for the Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group is now closed. The voting period is, corresponding, now open. You are invited to vote on books to be part of our discussion during the upcoming three months. The voting period is from January 30 until February 6. That means you must send your vote by the end of Friday the 6th in order for them to be included. Winners will be announced Monday, February 9. Discussion on the first book will begin Monday, March 2. To vote: 1. Send an email to BJBenesch@aol.com with your vote. If you don't receive a confirmation within 48 hours, you should resubmit your votes, to make sure things don't get lost. 2. Vote for up to three books. The three books with the highest number of votes win. In the event of a tie, we'll find some random way to decide which book(s) are selected (e.g. coin toss). You can view the list of nominated books at this web page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499/fsffu.html Note that it won't be completely updated until tomorrow (Saturday) so you might want to wait until then to vote. We'll keep the actual votes confidential but will also save them. -- Jennifer Krauel book discussion group coordinator jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:27:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Burleson Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <2631fb96.34d204ac@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >In a message dated 98-01-30 00:09:47 EST, you write: > ><< Now, how do we define a feminist piece? >> > > I think of feminism as upholding the right of a woman to >live as she chooses without being restricted to those activities a male- >dominated society allows or assigns her. I don't think of it as an "all men >are rotten and let's attack them" attitude, but I know people who don't want >to be called feminists because the word has come to imply an anti-male >posture And I had never thought that feminism >was particularly linked to lesbianism, but that seems to be implied in some of >these postings. I'd love to see some definitions of "feminist literature" from >list members. > > I am new to this list, yet the discussions of the past few days have been very intriguing. Barbara started quite a stir it seems. As to the question of defining a feminist piece, isn't one fundamental (pardon the word) tenet of feminism "making the private a public matter?" Exploring any theme which focuses on the experience of the "other" seems to adhere to feminist principles. In light of recent messages (see above), I would like to pose a few questions: How inclusive of men is feminism and to what extent does feminism include men? It seems that feminism opens an arena for the discussion of female sexuality, but shouldn't that arena include the discussion of sexual variance among women? even among men? As a gay man, isn't "flaming" one of the requirements for acceptance into the "club"? Okay, so that last question was for Geoffrey's benefit. I agree that what he had to say was an opinion and not a "flame." Romance novels do serve a purpose, but if I don't like them , it is my right to say so. It seems to me that the explorations of gender and sex roles are important to feminist literature because they give voice to experiences outside the dualisms which culture would force down our throats. I am thinking about gender and science fiction for my thesis , and I would appreciate any discussions of gender themes in sf to help me focus. Right now Theodore Sturgeon, Ursula K. LeGuin, Joanna Russ, Octavia Butler, Samuel Delany, and James Tiptree, Jr. are all on my list for research. Please Help!!! Mark daavga ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:06:02 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara R. Hume wrote: > > As long as I've irritated a bunch of people here ... Barbara, I thought you expressed yourself with tact and respect for the many diverse viewpoints expressed here. It is true that my reading preferences cover a different range than yours, but I wasn't irritated by your expressing your preferences. It took courage to post what you knew would be unpopular. I regret if my posts gave the impression I thought otherwise. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:06:44 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even among heterosexuals, the open, unabashed enjoyment of virile male sexuality in "women's fiction" makes some people uncomfortable, more generally men, but for good reason it is also bound to come up on a listserv like this, where there is a wide range of sexuality and people have endured a lot of grief for choosing relationships that fall outside what is considered the norm for society, or have been hurt in relationships that conform to convention. It seems to me tolerance is more important than ever when we discuss sexuality, because what repulses one person can be a fundamental expression of love or pleasure for another. It is true, some genre romance can send me fleeing to the hills. But so do some science fiction books. In romance, if something makes me grit my teeth, it is more often than not purple prose or corny characterization, whereas in sf it is more often the portrayal, or lack thereof, of the female characters or women's viewpoint. The prose sometimes does it too; hard sf is not exactly known for its poetic lyricism! Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:18:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (pardon my loss of attributions) >><< Now, how do we define a feminist piece? >> > I think of feminism as upholding the right of a woman to >>live as she chooses without being restricted to those activities a male- >>dominated society allows or assigns her. >I am new to this list, yet the discussions of the past few days have been very > intriguing. Barbara started quite a stir it seems. As to the question of >defining >a feminist piece, isn't one fundamental (pardon the word) tenet of feminism > "making the private a public matter?" Exploring any theme which focuses >on the >experience of the "other" seems to adhere to feminist principles. In light >of recent >messages (see above), I would like to pose a few questions: >How inclusive of men is feminism and to what extent does feminism include men? >It seems that feminism opens an arena for the discussion of female >sexuality, but >shouldn't that arena include the discussion of sexual variance among women? >even among men? >As a gay man, isn't "flaming" one of the requirements for acceptance into >the "club"? I nearly answered the original post. I have a disagreement of emphasis which seems to me to make a substantial difference. One of my personal first principles is Free, Informed Choice, which seems to me to implicitly include feminism. If 'feminism' is defined *relative to* "male-dominated society", it cannot reach its best potential. It needs to exist unto itself. Any serious analysis of the social creation of gender will be feminist to some degree, unless it's deluded or fake. I think this answers most of the questions in the last quote. Feminism which has no men (overall -- there can be myriad circumstantial, tactical and strategic exceptions) is as much a failure of humanity as "no women". I have found the responses to the comment which began this thread interesting. Someone posted a simple declaration of an emotional response, and it has been a mild Rorshach (sp?) test. The original post, as best I recall, didn't use words like "good" or "bad", only "me". There was no suggestion of the source of the reaction, though several repliers seem to have inserted one which suits them. The original post didn't advocate any particular behavior for anyone else. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:51:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: <22f1617.34d10a7c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've been reading sf long enough that I have encountered many variations on human sexuality: human/alien, human/mutant, human/android, human/inanimate object, etc. Human/human realationships are pretty tame by comparison. Portrayals of warm, loving relationships (or good old hot sex) don't bother me. There is only one portrayal of lesbian sex that bothers me. It usually occurs in the more adult oriented sitcoms. A man finds out that two women are lesbians and the guy gets a silly grin on his face and the "can I watch" jokes start flying. Or the "I've always fantasized about being with two women" remarks. I guess this bothers me because it is yet another aspect of the stereotype that men can't control their sexuality. Men are slobbering fools who are led around by their penises. It's the stereotype that grown men are still immature little boys when it comes to relationships/sex. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with > lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian > preferences. > > When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike > quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex > relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I dislike > the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't > even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled by > all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so > forth? If so, life must be hard for you, because our society throws sex in > people's faces, willy-nilly. Do you have to say "Yuck!" over and over when > you're reading a love story between a man and a woman? > How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? > > Barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:29:33 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Book themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-31 01:55:19 EST, Stacey Holbrook wrote: > There is only one portrayal of lesbian sex that bothers me. It usually > occurs in the more adult oriented sitcoms. A man finds out that two women > are lesbians and the guy gets a silly grin on his face and the "can I > watch" jokes start flying. Or the "I've always fantasized about being with > two women" remarks. > > I guess this bothers me because it is yet another aspect of the stereotype > that men can't control their sexuality. Men are slobbering fools who are > led around by their penises. It's the stereotype that grown men are still > immature little boys when it comes to relationships/sex. > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) Another thing that bothers me about that aspect of the stereotype is the notion that these women and their relationship somehow exist solely to titillate a man. How many men would be terribly angry is someone asked if they could watch the man and his wife having sex? And how *much* angrier would the man be if someone suggested that he/she join in the man's sexual relationship with his wife in order to lend the experience more "legitimacy"? (I don't think "legitimacy" is the word I'm looking for there, but it will have to do. ) And yet lesbian relationships are somehow not legitimate enough to be accorded the same respect? That is something which has always bothered me as well. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:35:50 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Female POV; was...Book themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-30 15:31:34 EST, Lesley Hall wrote: > How and what people respond to in the way of erotic/loving relationships in > books surely doesn't necessarily match with their own 'sexual preferences'. > Given that women (straight, gay, bi - as far as I can tell from the published > literature on the subject) write 'slash' fan fiction about male/male sexual > interaction, direct identification is not necessarily the issue. Even with a > heterosexual reading a het relationship, does the reader identify with the > same-sex person in the text? Does that perhaps depend partly on how the scene > is written (viewpoint, who is the sympathetic character etc) as well as what > the reader brings to it. > Isn't one of the things we read for to get outside the limitations > of our own experience? (Not always comfortable to do, of course!) > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com I'm thinking out loud for the most part here, so please folks, tell me what you think. Lesley's point about how a person's enjoyment of a romantic/erotic relationship in a book/story may have something to do with the (which) character the reader associates more closely with got me thinking. And so I'm wondering now if perhaps part of the reason men have felt safe in minimizing the value of romance novels is because they are written almost exclusively from the female point of view. (In fact, the only romances I've seen written from the male point of view are stories which feature male-male relationships.) I don't think I'm being clear here - I think what I'm saying is that when romances first came along, men felt safe to dismiss them because they were written from a female point of view, and over the years men have continued to dismiss them because they're still written from a female point of view. And part of this dismissal stems from the "average" man's refusal to see things from a female point of view for as long as a novel, even if it is in a genre besides romance. Then to take this even further, I wonder if part of the reason many men (obviously not the ones on this list!) still can't (won't) get behind feminism is because they have not been willing to see (and thus in a small measure, *experience*) things from the female point of view in many situations. I realize I'm speaking in some really broad terms here, and that's mostly because I'm still working through this in my own head. But I hope y'all can understand what I'm driving at, and then I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the topic? Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 03:05:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: BDG Noms - DONE! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499/fsffu.html Done. I'm going to bed. Bye. - G ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:02:03 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Trac' Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980130191844.006cf880@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Neil said: >I have found the responses to the comment which began this thread >interesting. Someone posted a simple declaration of an emotional response, >and it has been a mild Rorshach (sp?) test. The original post, as best I >recall, didn't use words like "good" or "bad", only "me". There was no >suggestion of the source of the reaction, though several repliers seem to >have inserted one which suits them. The original post didn't advocate any >particular behavior for anyone else. Time for a bit of clarification on my part, I think. Some people have expressed wonderment at the use of the word "censorship". Now, if I interpreted the original post correctly, it was in regard to suggested readings for the book group. To me, it is "censorship" if someone wants sexuality used as a reason for books not to be considered... As far as anyone's sexuality being considered good or bad, I don't think that's what people are really arguing - a bit of "If you think ooo yuck about what dykes do, I think oooo yuck about what you do, too!" Perhaps not the most mature of discussions, but consider the bait! And yes, for me, it was a shock for someone to say that they felt negatively about lesbian sexuality in this list - of course people *feel* that, but it strikes me as being a little thoughtless, if nothing else, to SAY it. I feel that that sort of comment is best made in a group of people whom you actually *know* and who can discuss it with you at the time (rather than thru this sometimes unsatisfactory medium of email..). As somebody else said, if you don't like the content, then just don't read it! Me for one, if any Charnas is nominated, I won't touch it with a bargepole (TEDIOUS! :^]) Trac' ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:06:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I guess this bothers me because it is yet another aspect of the stereotype > that men can't control their sexuality. Men are slobbering fools who are > led around by their penises. It's the stereotype that grown men are still > immature little boys when it comes to relationships/sex. Ah, but the question then becomes have you ever read one of these stories (or seen one of these movies, I suppose) written by a woman? It's certainly a generalization, but in many avid and eclectic years of reading, I don't think I can recall a *single* story where a woman author introduces a man into a lesbian sex scene for this reason. In fact, I can't recall many stories by women that introduce men into scenes with women at all. As Barbara noted, the arrival of the man in the scene is there to give it legitimacy (I'd call that a kind of heterosexist legitimacy, myself, and certainly, a phallocentric one). After all, we all *know* that in order for *real* sex to take place, a penis has to be involved somewhere. Duh! And speaking as someone who lives with 200 odd students of the 18-22 year old variety, I don't think that stereotype is all that untrue - although to nuance the argument somewhat, I'd have to say that I don't think our culture, even now, teaches men that they *need* to control their sexual urges; university residence culture certainly still validates the same old tired ideas - guys who "get it" are studs, girls who "give it" are sluts, guys who don't are fags, girls who don't are frigid. So much for the 90s! In fact, even though we have an openly gay college principal and an openly lesbian couple among the dons (myself and my partner) and an entirely pro-gay donning staff, we *still* end up counselling kids *not* to come out in residence, unless they've got good strong egos, tough hides, and supportive families and friends. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:49:47 -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: Book themes In-Reply-To: <199801311244.HAA23039@pip1.pipcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >And speaking as someone who lives with 200 odd students of the 18-22 year >old variety, I don't think that stereotype is all that untrue - although to >nuance the argument somewhat, I'd have to say that I don't think our >culture, even now, teaches men that they *need* to control their sexual >urges; university residence culture certainly still validates the same old >tired ideas - guys who "get it" are studs, girls who "give it" are sluts, >guys who don't are fags, girls who don't are frigid. So much for the 90s! > I don't know which univ. you're going to and it doesn't matter. I didn't experience quite the same thing when I was in residence halls, not long ago. In fact, people with those attitudes, I've found, are generally posing for the benefit of other people around them. Get them alone and you'll find out what they really think, which is generally something a lot more reasonable. I'm just saying don't take posing to be actuality. -Sean "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. --Missionaria Protectiva Text QIV (decto)" -Frank Herbert's "Chapterhouse: Dune" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:55:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Female POV; was...Book themes In-Reply-To: <7d1f2f05.34d2d458@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:35 AM 1/31/98 , Barbara Benesch wrote: >I don't think I'm being clear here - I think what I'm saying is that when >romances first came along, men felt safe to dismiss them because they were >written from a female point of view, and over the years men have continued to >dismiss them because they're still written from a female point of view. And >part of this dismissal stems from the "average" man's refusal to see things >from a female point of view for as long as a novel, even if it is in a genre >besides romance. I'll agree with this. You can insert the whole "anonymous was a woman" argument here, and we'll save on bandwidth... And, of course, all the women who had masculine pseudonyms in order to be considered respectable, even in the SF field. (does that keep me on topic?) As a kid, I devoured Andre Norton books. I was amazed how the author was able to depict my feelings so well. It was a few years before I caught on to the idea that Andre was a woman. (ok, I was dense!) It was such a revelation and a wonderful feeling. And it spurred me on to consider that I could be published one day (I knew I would be a writer - I was constantly writing. Being a published writer is another thing). >Then to take this even further, I wonder if part of the reason many men >(obviously not the ones on this list!) still can't (won't) get behind feminism >is because they have not been willing to see (and thus in a small measure, >*experience*) things from the female point of view in many situations. They say (whoever "they" are -- the source for the following is lost somewhere in my books in the attic.) that one reason men tend to be homophobic is that suddenly it puts them in the role of the woman -- to be hit on, to be raped, to be sexually harassed, etc. It makes them vulnerable to the same behaviors that they perpetrate on females. "Those gays can do their own stuff in their own bedroom, but God help them if they hit on me!" (obviously not flattered that someone finds them interesting...) And the stereotypical construction crew member thinks that whistling at a woman is acceptable and welcomed. (This is all just food for thought ... I don't really intend to spark an incredibly off-topic discussion!) Jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:01:17 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: Female POV; was...Book themes Barbara wrote >I think what I'm saying is that when romances first came along, men felt >safe to dismiss them because they were written from a female point of >view, and over the years men have continued to dismiss them because >they're still written from a female point of view. And part of this >dismissal stems from the "average" man's refusal to see things from a >female point of view for as long as a novel, even if it is in a genre >besides romance And this is particularly strange given the number of 'Great Works of Literature' by men which are written (in whole or in part) from the female pov (Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, Portrait of a Lady), and there is even the argument that they are 'great writers' because they can write so sympathetically/ empathetically about women. (Whereas even women writers who are reckoned to be pretty good--e.g. Jane Austen, George Eliot--are claimed not to be able to 'do men' {which may be because their take on men doesn't match men's self-image?}). The reason for the putting down of romance may be that its values are perceived to be 'feminine' (cf differing critical respect according to 'women's weepie' films and noir thrillers). Some romances do incorporate male pov but the general value-framework is such that just have this is not going to endear them to male readers and their assumptions. There are, I believe, male writers of romance who are obliged to use female pseudonyms, just as there are genres in which women writers have to use male or gender-ambiguous names. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:01:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Female POV; was...Book themes In-Reply-To: <199801311552.KAA28975@daisy.snet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jenn, I also read everything I could by Andre. I found it interesting because it was such a different pov from what I usually read (Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, ect). I thought the young boy in "Stargate" was having feelings so much like my own. When I discovered that Andre was a woman it caused me to reconsider the way in which I was taught to view women (late 50's-early 60's sexist mentality to be specific). I ended up read romance novels to get that pov again. It was only in the late 70's that I started finding female sf authors more and more in the local bookstores. I can honestl;y say that as an adolescent I would never have bothered to read any of Norton's work if I had known she was a woman. BTW, it was my younger sister who bought me my first novels (Norton in particular) and before that I had only read comic books (or graphic novels as some people like to mis-name them). Bill >As a kid, I devoured Andre Norton books. I was amazed how the author was >able to depict my feelings so well. It was a few years before I caught on >to the idea that Andre was a woman. (ok, I was dense!) "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://idt.net/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:13:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: <199801300209.VAA27152@pip1.pipcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It's pretty interesting to know how people react to expresion of sexual preferences different from theirs. I think, this is the first topic on the list that I've never seen discussed elsewhere. In my opinion, if it does not offend you in real life, it would not in books or movies, either. What does bug me, though, is when any more or less intelligent and/or strong woman in mainstream culture turns out to be gay. It's like, "Of course, she is a lesbian, no 'real' woman would ever think of bothering her pretty little head with this". That's the reason I was not too happy when Xena started French-kissing Gabrielle on-screen. You don't see Hercules making out with Jason just because they hang out together all the time. But I guess, for many people, there can be only one explanation for a friendship between two strong females. That is also the reason why I like Delenn from Babylon 5. She is a powerful woman, and she still can be attracted to a man, which often seems more "outrageous" in this society than a same-sex relationship. I do believe that one's sexual orientation is her own business, and as long as lesbian relationships are not pushed as the only ones possible for strong women, it does not bother me to see them in books or movies. Another thing I want to mention is that sex between gay _men_ in literature not only doesn't bother me, but I find it extremely interesting. Maybe because it's something I have no idea about, and as a female, probably have no chance to experience in real life. I watch every movie that has any hint of gay men theme present, especially the ones featuring drag queens. I don't know why, but the idea of guys who would go through so much trouble just to wear make-up and dresses and date guys (majority of whom hate their guts) fascinates me. For some weird reason, I find it a lot easier to relate to them than to the girls with buzz cuts and army boots who spend their life rebelling against evil men (I know it's a stereotype, so please, no offence). This is just my opinion and I don't expect anyone to share it. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:29:42 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Donna B. Simone" Subject: Re: Book themes - gay censorship - vastly off-topic! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit << << Finally (please don't take this the wrong way), I'm frankly surprised you posted such a comment to this list - would you have considered doing such a thing if you were objecting to a racial or religious element in the proposed reading? To talk of censorship of a part of MY life is pretty hurtful and disturbing - or should we not read books that mention *any* sexuality? (since if we're going to be censoring, let's make it equal for all concerned! - ludicrous concept, isn't it?) >>>> << I thought carefully before posting my comment that I'd prefer not to read about lesbian relationships....... As to why I am repelled by same-sex love scenes--I just am. I suppose I was born a heterosexual person, and the other way has no appeal for me at all. Some people can eat liver and relish it, but the very thought gags me out. And I know people who cannot fathom how I can drink Diet Coke by the gallon when they consider it putrid.>> but you have not answered the question...would you ask not to read books that include other races? would you ask not to consider books that discuss/include other religious beliefs? IMHO, it is never okay to ask that kinds of persons be excluded from subject matter. simply indicate that you will not particpate when that kind book is read. similar to changing the channel? by the by, how is this "vastly off topic"? it is a discussion of the reading group titles. donna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:22:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <34D167E8.4113@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Catherine Asaro wrote: > Romance novels are > written specifically to express the "true love or passion that a couple > feels." They may not be for you. They may not express love in a way you > find interesting or that you relate to. That's exactly it. As a "reformed" romance-novel-basher, however, I think I can explain why people find it "necessary" to flame those who like them. Romance novels, just like high heels and stay-home parenting (in case you remember the big flame war on the latter topic that occured couple months ago, with my direct participation) happen to be part of the image of the "traditional" female role. Therefore, many people who don't agree with the traditional definition of femininity, see all these things only as part of the "cultural ghetto for females" designed to keep women out of anything significant. The same as "religion is the opium for people" in Communist ideology. I think that romance novels, "happy housewifing", and soap operas are hated not for what they are, but for what they represent: the image of the "pretty little airhead". This image is still very powerful in minds of many people, and any person who has to deal with sexism on daily basis, often has very strong feelings about that. So when people get flamed for liking those things, it happens because their opponents see them as some kind of "fifth column" supporting the inequality of gender roles. Which, may drive people (who, ironically, consider themselves open-minded) very mad. As a person who both had to deal with flaming for defending high heels and make-up AND have given people hard time for liking soaps, I can see it both ways. I have a friend who thinks that by trying to make myself look "pretty" I somehow betray feminist ideals. I have another friend, who likes romance movies, and I have to bite my tongue really hard every time she talks about them in order not to tell her everything I think about those who make that stuff and those who watch it. The only solution I can think of is always trying to see things for what they are, not for what they are associated with. And trying to remember that people who like things that make you sick might simply have bad taste (at least in your opinion), which does not necesserily mean they are idiots or some universal evil, even if that happens be exactly the way you might feel at the moment. > By the way, sales of romance novels makes up about 50% of all books sold > in this country. So the "very few people do" above is inaccurate. Besides, insulting people to the point of getting defensive about their tastes does not change anything anyway. I realize that there are lots of people who buy Celine Dion's records, definitely a lot more than those who like the music I like. But I also know that when the noise comes up on TV, I can simply turn it off. Even though that "I'm everything I am because you loved me" makes me puke, as long as she does not sing about blowing up abortion clinics, I don't really give a damn. And those who like her stuff, can still be my friends. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:46:18 -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: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trac' wrote: > As somebody else said, if you don't like the content, then just don't read > it! Me for one, if any Charnas is nominated, I won't touch it with a > bargepole (TEDIOUS! :^]) Well, I nominated Charnas, so nanananananh! ;P - G, still slightly loopy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:46:41 -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: Book themes In-Reply-To: <22f1617.34d10a7c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:02 PM 1/29/98 EST, Barbara R. Hume wrote: >At the risk of being flamed, I'll mention that I'd rather not read books with >lesbian themes. But I do have a question for list members with lesbian >preferences. > >When I read the Star Trek novel _The Best and the Brightest_ I was, unlike >quite a few people on this list, displeased by the appearance of a same-sex >relationship. But for the first time, the thought occurred to me: If I dislike >the portrayal of such a relationship because I am heterosexual and I don't >even want to think about women having sex with women, then are you repelled by >all those heterosexual relationships in the books, movies, TV shows, and so >forth? If so, life must be hard for you, because our society throws sex in >people's faces, willy-nilly. Do you have to say "Yuck!" over and over when >you're reading a love story between a man and a woman? >How can you stand it? Or do heterosexual love scenes not bother you at all? I am not a lesbian, but I do have some thoughts on this matter. Consider this, Barbara: since there are obviously quite a number of heterosexuals on this list who are NOT disgusted by lesbian themes, it would seem plausible that there are quite a few lesbians who are not disgusted by heterosexual themes. As a heterosexual who is open to the possibility of same-sex relationships I enjoy the sexual aspects of stories about lesbians and gay men. They stretch my imagination re: sexuality, which I think is important because I believe (as my .sig indicates) that the personal is political. It's hard to explain my reasoning behind this -- maybe another day. But sometime in my college years I came to the same conclusion Joel has reached -- that there is the potential in every person to be sexually attracted to both women and men. Then I had to reconcile this belief with the fact that I have always been attracted to males. My sexual preference doesn't seem exactly "natural" since as an adolescent I was disgusted by the thought of ANY sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual. My personal circumstances led me in the direction of heterosexuality, but at this point I can easily imagine a different outcome. The expansion of my imagination with regard to sexuality is due at least in some part to science fiction -- elective conditioning, in a sense. I find depictions of heterosexuality in fiction much more disturbing overall than depictions of homosexuality. Often they're the same old sh*t that I've been dished my whole life which has very little relation to reality. When I read about attraction between people I want there to be a real, non-cliche reason that they are attracted to each other, not the mere fact that they are opposite sexes in a small group. So there's my $.02. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Big Heavy World's Pop Pie; Lisa Gerrard's The Mirror Pool "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:58:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Sean Johnston wrote: Someone else wrote: > > > >And speaking as someone who lives with 200 odd students of the 18-22 year > >old variety, I don't think that stereotype is all that untrue - although to > >nuance the argument somewhat, I'd have to say that I don't think our > >culture, even now, teaches men that they *need* to control their sexual > >urges; university residence culture certainly still validates the same old > >tired ideas - guys who "get it" are studs, girls who "give it" are sluts, > >guys who don't are fags, girls who don't are frigid. So much for the 90s! Amen. This is exactly how it is. > > > > I don't know which univ. you're going to and it doesn't matter. I can tell you a couple of those I know: 1. University of Oklahoma 2. University of Central Oklahoma. One correction: not only the residence halls but the whole "university community" including off-campus students, the school staff members, and -- suprise! -- professors with Ph.D.'s. Honestly, in my 23 years in this world I've _never_ met a guy who would even think about controlling his sexual urges. If there are any, they must be really good in hiding that. The idea that "they don't really feel that way, but are just posing", unfortunately, does not make it any better. If a person blows your brains out not because he hates you, but just to impress someone, it would not make you less dead. Whatever people feel or think, their actions are what others have to deal with. It's the fact that men in the modern society are raised to believe that the more they "score", the more of "a man" they are. The reason men in women-written fiction are shown mainly from that prospective, is because that's too often the only side of themselves they present to women (and I am not talking just the fraternity types, but all kinds of guys, including the deeply "progressive-minded" English majors, and the nerdy computer geeks) Around other men, they might think or talk or act upon some other issues, but around women, in 9 cases of 10 their behavior does not differ too much from the one of Beavis and Butt-head, only on more refined level. The same as the Moon has two sides (well, two sections of the sphere, to be exact) but since it always turned with only one side towards the Earth, the other might as well not exist, because you cannot see it anyway. The same could be said about the mysterious "non-sexist" part of male psyche, I guess. It might be there, but it's not what you have to look at on daily basis. The only thing that, according to my humble observations, can make men control their "sexual urges" is the fear of rejection. When they have a pretty good reason to think that their egos are in danger, they can back off and look for someone else on whose expense to impress others. If you are pretty good making them feel that way, and what's more important, never make the mistake of trying to be friendly with a guy (which automatically means that you "want it"), you can enjoy some respect and freedom of movement, at least for a while. Since I said "nine of ten" I must note, though, that if a guy has such a low estimate of his potential desirability that he has long since gave up the idea of "scoring", or being "the man" in general, they can actualy be friends with women and relate to them as to human beings. It can be nice to have a guy friend with whom you can discuss the size of your bra or your menstrual cramps, but you also have to be prepared that they will always try to avoid any conflict at any possible cost and encourage you to do the same, so you can't really count on them in a fight, which can be sometimes very important. Actually, you are lucky if he does not turn against you one the first remote possibility that being on your side can affect their career or something. I knew a "nice guy" who signed a paper that "he was not my friend" when I had a big conflict (about sexual harassment, by the way) with the school I used to go to. And he was not the only one, so I am talking from real experience. Of course, high school and college might not be the "real world" (only an extreme version of it) but they do, in my opinion, represent the general trends. Since that's where most of us learn how to be ourselves. Best regards, Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:03:19 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: Female POV; was...Book themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-31 11:18:18 EST, you write: > There > are, I believe, male writers of romance who are obliged to use female > pseudonyms, just as there are genres in which women writers have to use male > or gender-ambiguous names. Indeed. There are several very successful men writing Romances. I read a Romance Writer's Guide. It named some men in the field, but warned that they use female or gender neutral pen names, and that a new male author WILL NOT succede in submitting to Romance publishers unless he agrees to a female name. Problem is that too many romance buyers will simply not purchase a romance with a male name as author. In that respect, at least, we in the SF/Fantasy press have reason to feel some pride. SF/F readers have gotten beyond gender blindness, it would seem. There, the superiority stops, however. There is some great work being done in Romance, particularly period and historical. More men would do well to read romance from time to time. It's not just that the viewpoint is always feminine, and that's off-putting. In fact, the writers often adopt omniscient viewpoint, and tell you just what's going on in the hero's head as well as in the heroine. You're free to identify with either or both. I find the major difference in the weight attached to feelings, and I think this may be what makes romance novels difficult for so many men. Male authors often dwell on the mechanics of what happened, and the logic of what should or shouldn't happen next. Females often write of people who move about driven by their emotions. Romance editors "claim" that they can spot male-in-feminine- name material within just a few pages. The men "never" (their words, not mine) know how to deal with deep feeling and intuition. Hummm? Jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:56:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: Book themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-31 20:01:18 EST, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU (Marina) writes: > Honestly, in my 23 years in this > world I've _never_ met a guy who would even think about controlling his > sexual urges. If there are any, they must be really good in hiding that. I imagine that impression has more to do with your perceptions than with reality. I've met PLENTY of men who control their sexual urges. If I didn't control mine, I'd long since have been locked up for fondling someone I found unduly attractive, or some other such idiotic behavior. I've known hundreds of other men who behaved as perfect gentlemen at all times. I've even known some that didn't even seem to HAVE any sexual urges, for goodness sakes. If you really live among a bunch of men who are completely unrestrained sex fiends, you might do well to consider a change of venue. It doesn't have to be like that. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:32:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I said: > >And speaking as someone who lives with 200 odd students of the 18-22 year > >old variety, I don't think that stereotype is all that untrue - although to > >nuance the argument somewhat, I'd have to say that I don't think our > >culture, even now, teaches men that they *need* to control their sexual > >urges; university residence culture certainly still validates the same old > >tired ideas - guys who "get it" are studs, girls who "give it" are sluts, > >guys who don't are fags, girls who don't are frigid. So much for the 90s! > > and Sean said: > > I don't know which univ. you're going to and it doesn't matter. I didn't > experience quite the same thing when I was in residence halls, not long > ago. In fact, people with those attitudes, I've found, are generally > posing for the benefit of other people around them. Get them alone and > you'll find out what they really think, which is generally something a lot > more reasonable. I'm just saying don't take posing to be actuality. Please note that I said nothing about the actions and beliefs of individual students. I said that "university residence *culture*" reinforces certain kinds of ideas that I, personally, find old and tired. Of course, there are students in residence who find those same ideas as old, as tiresome, as dangerous, as wilfully perverse . . . In my fourteen years here, I have taught many sweet and lovely young men, gay, straight, bisexual and polymorphously perverse, who would never contemplate forcing their sexual urges (or their ideas about how sex should be) on anyone else. That they are able to resist the cultural conditioning they receive is greatly to their credit (as is also true of young women who are able to think critically about notions of sexuality they are constantly told, by churches, institutions, parents, and the media, not to question). That does not change the fact that there *is* a residence culture and that it is repressive, sexist, homophobic and (with absolutely typical irony) largely anti-sex even while obsessively pursuing it. I've found that students can read novels like Left Hand of Darkness, or Dreamsnake, or Ring of Swords, of any of a variety of stories describing alternative ways of conceptualizing sex and gender and be fine with those ideas in an academic concept. When they leave the classroom, however, the ideas often remain academic (in its other sense). Wendy (who spent Friday lunchtime in the residence dining room with two other (open) queers and a straight student who blithely announced that "there are too many queers at this university")