Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9802A" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 02:35:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina wrote: > Honestly, in my 23 years in this > world I've _never_ met a guy who would even think about controlling his > sexual urges. 1) Yeah, this is really off-topic. I'm beginning to re-think my earlier stances on topicality. 2) Well, you've at least met *me* virtually, so pull the "never" out of that statement. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:46:00 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 Marina wrote: > Honestly, in my 23 years in this > world I've _never_ met a guy who would even think about controlling his > sexual urges. This may reinforce everyone's ideas about the sexual peculiarities of the British, but I've encountered plenty of men who, if they suddenly became 'a real animal' would be something like the Muskrat in Kipling's 'Rikki-Tikki-Tavi', timidly creeping around the walls of the room and not daring to dash into the middle, or a flopsy bunny. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 10:20:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" 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, you write: << 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. >> I can readily believe this about your personal experience, particularly about men in groups, in a school environment (damned right, including Professors). And far be it from me to defend anything about men--whom I avoid, if possible--but your age and circumstances could be limiting factors, here. Maybe when you get away from the University, out of Dodge, and gain a few years you'll encounter different behavior. I have an extended family of deeply conservative Italian men with glass egos and the inborn expectation that women will wait on them, but who (at least the older generations, with whom I'm more familiar) practice the virtue of restraint over rampant self-indulgence. And one or two (including my brother) are truly nice guys to be around, even a little shy. You may not find that you like men any better, but your experience may broaden over time and you may encounter some who act outside of this stereotype. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:47:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: untitled In-Reply-To: <199801301715.LAA41144@spnode01.tcs.tulane.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 30/01/98 17:15:46 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Linda Quinlan , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > 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 > Dear accused, You raise three points: 1) Good. You realise that the fact that you are most comfortable with a woman does not automatically make sex with a man a bad thing. 2) I think you will find that, for a large proportion of those same men, if you substituted women with men the reactions would range from mild revulsion to an overwhelming desire to kick the living shit out of the fucking faggots. This says far more to me about their bigotry than their sexuality. 3) I am suspicious of the 50% figure, but I can neither prove nor disprove it, and Catherine is in a better position to know than I am. In any case, she was talking about books published, not readers. She has previously stated, and my own experience tends to confirm, that people who read romance fiction tend to read a LOT of romance fiction. They also tend to read a lot from other genres. One friend of mine who primarily reads romance will serve as an example. A quick glance at her bookshelves will turn up Catherine Cookson, Stephen King, Terry Pratchett, Virginia Andrews, Clive Barker, R. A. MacAvoy, Megan Lindholm... Are you being elitist? No, I don't think so. Are you being blinkered? Quite possibly. Judge not, lest ye yourselves be judged. I have sat on the above response for 24 hours, wondering whether I have gone OTT. I know that I have a tendency to upset people, and I have no desire to do so. The problem is that a lot of what we have been discussing over the last few days is a fundamental part of my religion, and we all know what religious zealots can be like, don't we? Please try to bear in mind whilst reading this, or whenever I start preaching in the future, that I mean well. If I make someone think then I have achieved what I set out to achieve. This is a good thing. Sometimes I hurt people. This is a bad thing, and hurts me deeply. I think that basically what I am trying to say here is that I will never apologise for expressing that which I believe. I regret that I am not always sufficiently lucid to be able to do so without becoming heated, and for that I do apologise. I would welcome any comments if anyone wishes to discuss this with me privately. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Censorship: The reaction of the ignorant to freedom. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:13:23 -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: Female POV; was...Book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > 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. In this vein, I recall it mentioned that one of the pioneers of lesbian romance/scandal fiction (in its 1950s paperback period) was Forrest J. Ackermann, male editor of "Famous Monsters of Filmland." Pseudonymously, of course. Sorry, I don't have a list of titles or pseudonyms. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "What's harder than stone and gentler than water flowing? Yet the stone is hollowed by flowing water." - graffiti found in Pompeii ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:55:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Sexually controlled men In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (BOY that subject should catch some eyes!) :-) At 07:58 PM 1/31/98 , you wrote: >From: Marina >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Book themes >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. Maybe you hang out with the wrong people? I can't say I know a -lot- of men who think with their heads, because I tend to be reclusive. My husband, much to my annoyance at times, doesn't have the sexual switch "ON" unless we're actually being sexual. And he never has that "oooh, she's attractive" glint when he's watching TV or reading Playboy. (and -that- should spark another whole discussion! My take on it -- Playboy, for all of its non-degrading-but-still-naked-pictures of women, does have great articles, including strong feminist discussions. I read it first before I hand it on to Dale.) My other male friends are also the sort to be more interested in computers than in flesh... maybe that says something about me? In any case -- don't give up. They're not all horny beasts. >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) I will agree with this, but not wholeheartedly. I have too many real-world people that contradict this statement to accept it across the board. Literature as well. Frex: Mercedes Lackey does not write men as sex-conquest sorts. Andre Norton also does not depict men like that except when she is showing the evil sorts are evil. I suppose you might have an argument for Ursula LeGuin in _Left Hand of Darkness_ where they are discussing sex, but that's stretching the point. Or were we not discussing SF/F books but literature as a whole? >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. I've found entirely different behavior from the people I pal around with. And, from my husband's reports, when men aren't around women, they can be either completely business or very bawdy, much more so than in "polite company". >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. Or, since you are looking for only the sexual looseness, that's what you're seeing, and since I'm not looking for it, I'm not seeing it. >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. I'm not sure I agree with this statement either. I think that a lot of people learn what the stereotype adult is like, but then once they leave that environment, and get to the "real world", then they grow up. Of course, these are all merely my opinions, and I do not pretend to speak for others. Or, if I do pretend, then feel free to chide me. :-) Hope your day is well, Jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:37:15 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: BDG - Same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara compared her revulsion about same-sex love scenes to preferences for or against liver or Diet coke. Inappropriate analogy. Consumption of diet coke and liver is not the key identifier of a group identity. That felt like an insensitive and thoughtless comparison to me. I have lots of heterosexual friends and acquaintences who are completely comfortable with same-sex love scenes. Revulsion about that is *not* an automatic part of heterosexual identity - it is socially constructed. Which means it can be changed if one is prepared to work against those dominant constructions. Barbare also says she "never thought that feminism was particularly linked to lesbianism, but that seems to be implied in some of these postings." I thought the period of US feminist movement history when NOW and Betty Friedan were worried about the "lavendar menace" was well-known . That was when lesbian feminism first became clearly articulated, and the link between lesbianism and feminism first made clear. Lesbians wrote about how compulsory heterosexuality - the expectation that all women are straight, and the structures of society which enforce that behaviour - is a key component of sexism, and oppressive to all women. When I've talked with groups of heterosexual women about the occasions when the word "lesbian" has been used against them as an insult, they have almost always been when the women have been standing up for the rights of all women; enjoying themselves in public as a group of women who are indifferent to advances by men; or when they express affection for other women. To me the connection is clear - discrimination against lesbians affects all women who take a public feminist stand, or publicly express a preference for women's company. I also have a different definition of feminist than many of the ones other people use in the list. Mine is a woman who believes that women as a group are oppressed in ways which advantage men as a group, and who also thinks collective social action is the only way to change this. I think this is influenced by becoming a feminist in New Zealand, where radical feminism was the strongest strand of feminism for the 1970s and early 1980s. In New Zealand men sympathetic to feminism don't call themselves feminists - they say they're sympathetic to feminism. Obviously it's different in the US and Canada, for a start. Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:32:47 -0600 Reply-To: Ravensflight Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ravensflight Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - >I'd love to see some definitions of "feminist literature" from >list members. > >Barbara > I would define feminist literature as literature in which womyn are treated as human beings. "Feminism is the radical notion that womyn are people too." Becca Dreams Are Born In The Heart And Mind, And Only There Can They Ever Die remember Narnia, wonderland, MiddleEarth, and Never Never Land, and you = shall truly never die. Peace Be With Thee and Blessed Be ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:10:03 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--putting down the "other" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-30 12:42:12 EST, you write: << Try to open your mind. Same-gender sex is just as natural and beautiful as opposite-gender sex. >> Don't you see? Opening my mind is exactly what I am trying to do. I'm reaching the ripe old age of 55 this month--but I have never in my life met anyone who was, or who let it be known that she was, a lesbian. This list is my first opportunity to ask some questions and try to learn something about a different point of view. One major theme that comes through in my own fiction deals with the wrongness of the oppression of any group of people by another. This theme is important to me. Sometimes oppression occurs because of malice--and sometimes, I've come to understand, because of ignorance. What I'd like to do in this message is show you some of the experiences I've had in my life that deal with bigotry, prejudice, and enlightenment. These experiences are just now starting to manifest themselves in my writing, and SF is the ideal genre for dealing with such issues. Anyone interested can read what I'm sharing here; anyone not interested in one person's attempts to deal with and learn from such experiences can simply click "next." You won't hurt my feelings! I grew up in the South in the fifties. It never occurred to me to wonder why the black kids caught the school bus in front of my high school so they could go to another school several miles away. It was carefully explained to me that "the Negroes have a right to be happy, but they're biologically inferior to us, and if they're in our schools they'll bring us down." The people who told me that apparently believed it. I never got close enough to a black person to speak to him until I was in college, so they were always sort of exotic to me. When I worked in the college dining hall to help pay my way through school, I met the blacks who worked there. They weren't allowed to attend that college, but they were allowed to do the menial jobs like dishwashing at a pathetic wage. It started to dawn on me: Why should people wrapped in pink skin assume themselves to be inherently superior to people wrapped in brown skins? The pink people who were most adamant about blacks "staying in their place" were the least impressive in terms of achievement, intellect, and just about any category you could name. I eventually decided that they needed to consider somebody beneath them so they wouldn't have to put forth any effort to be worth anything themselves. When I was in my mid-twenties and living in Ohio, I had a friend my age who was black. One day I was in her bedroom with her while she was changing her baby. I picked up a jar from her dresser. "What's this brown stuff?'" I asked. She laughed at me. "That's my makeup, stupid!" It had never occurred to me that makeup came in any color but pink. That wasn't malice--just an inability to think outside the box. I had a pretty bad attitude about men for many years, because I was married to a domineering, arrogant, insensitive, self-centered jerk. ("Don't mince words, Barbara. What do you really think?") After about ten years in the "all men are rotten" attitude, it occurred to me that I didn't know all men. When I started looking at them with an open mind, I found out that many of them were actually very nice. But by that time, I'd grown such a get-away-from-me-I-can- do-it-myself shell that I wasn't much of a potential marriage partner. Now I'm used to doing things my own way that learning to share my life with someone else would be a major adjustment. I can't believe now that I used to watch "I love Lucy" and never question the parent-child relationship between Ricky and Lucy. I used to watch "Father Knows Best" and take in all the episodes in which Margaret decided she might want to do something with her life besides waiting on her family hand and foot; the moral of all such episodes were always that a real woman couldn't possibly want more than a husband who was a good provider and several children and a house to take care of. You know, when you're young, you absorb this stuff and internalize it. The reality didn't dawn on me until I'd been in an oppressive marriage for a while, and I found myself saying, "Is this it? Is this what all the roses and dinners and dancing lead up to?" If any of you are in my age group, you might remember what an enlightment _The Feminine Mystique_ brought. For the first time, I realized I wasn't unhappy because something was wrong with me. Something was wrong with the system!! I keep thinking I've learned, only to find out different. By the time I came out West in my early thirties, I thought I'd eliminated all prejudice from my system. Then I found out that two of the leaders of the church I was attending were a truck driver and a janitor. "How can they hold down such responsible positions?" I thought indignantly. Then I realized I had blue-collar prejudices! I'd grown up in a comfortable, middle-class home in which everyone went to college and lauched a professional career. Again, I'd never thought about the fact that those "others" were not so different. Okay, now we come to the sexual identity thing. I'd always been told that homosexuals could be "normal" if they wanted to. They just delibrately chose to be perverted. Then I found out that a good friend of mine was gay. I'd known him for many years, and he finally got tired of hiding his true nature and came out. It didn't change my feelings for him, but it gave me the opportunity to learn about his experiences. He told me that he'd known he was different since he was four or five. He said that he tried in every way he could find to change, but it didn't work. Finally he chose to accept himself as he was. This was a new concept to me--that it wasn't a matter of choice for everyone. I'd heard, for example, that some prostitutes become so disgusted with men after a few years in that profession that they become lesbians just to escape the horror of their associations. So now perhaps some of you can enlighten me further. As I said, I've heard for most of my life that same-sex sex was not "natural." Now I'm hearing that it's perfectly natural. I would think that the people involved would know more about it than people who stand off and call names. So please enlighten me if you want to. I'm listening. You know, people like to pigeonhole other people because it's easier than thinking. Young people, for example, are infuriated if they think you're categorizing them, but they do it to us. They look at me and see a middle-aged fat lady; it wouldn't occur to them that I write science fiction, or listen to heavy metal, or own my own business. They see a cookie-baking gramma. I've seen the astonishment on their faces when I've known the words to a Motley Crue song, or shown them a story I've published, or explained that I wouldn't bake a chocolate-chip cookie if my life depended on it. So, like you say, we need to open our minds. I know I have a tendency to be judgmental, because I am the opinionated type. But I'm trying to change that. Writers have to be open-minded. When I did my doctoral dissertation on Shakespeare, I found all this evidence in his work of his distaste for one person's arbitrary exercise of power over another. But now I wonder if I saw it because it's such a significant issue for me. If you're still reading, maybe you'd like to share some of your experiences with sexism, racism, genderism, weightism, or whatever, and what you've learned from it. You can't change other people, but you can work on improving and learning for yourself. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:45:16 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: 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 02:51:00 EST, you write: << 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 find this a really interesting question to raise. I recently heard the comment that to most men, the male viewpoint is the default and anything else must be qualified. Thus, "lady doctor." I get into some very strange conversations with my male business partner because he assumes that the way he sees things is the only way to see them. He isn't being deliberately sexist; he just never thought of a different viewpoint existing. I have gotten him to the point where he works toward win- win scenarios instead of "let's crush the other guy," so he is willing to look at other viewpoints once he understands that they exist. Barbara Hume ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:49:53 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 In a message dated 98-01-31 07:45:59 EST, you write: << 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. >> I've heard that only about 10% of the population is lesbian. Is this accurate? And if so, should it affect the amount of prose spent in writing about that group? that is, should what you write reflect the percentage? -- Answering my own question --Why should it? You write what you know. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:56:02 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 98-01-31 17:35:21 EST, you write: << 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? >> No. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:58:21 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 98-01-31 18:26:00 EST, you write: << Besides, insulting people to the point of getting defensive about their tastes does not change anything anyway. p >> As Benjamin Frankline wrote: "A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinon still." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:42:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Soaps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII But soaps are really a set of virtual neighbors. That's their big appeal, especially in a culture where - 50s sitcoms to the contrary - people who work at home (as housewives or whatever) - have almost no interaction with others unless they join a club or group. The soaps are a substitute. I*t's also my guess that organized team sports fulfill a bit of the function of "virtual war", and following celebrities harks back to the ancient necessity of keeping a very sharp eye on the doings of those in power. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:22:26 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-01 16:46:44 EST, you write: << Barbara compared her revulsion about same-sex love scenes to preferences for or against liver or Diet coke. Inappropriate analogy. Consumption of diet coke and liver is not the key identifier of a group identity. That felt like an insensitive and thoughtless comparison to me. >> Sorry. Didn't mean to be thoughtless. I've had my group identities assaulted, too. For example, as a Mormon, I hear people tell me I'm not a Christian, even though I know that my faith centers around Christ. What they mean is that I'm not exactly the same kind of Christian they are. And I've had people inform me that Mormons oppress women, when I know that Mormon women had the vote 50 years before other American women. And I've had people tell me that as a woman, I'm incapable of dealing with technology, when I've been in the computer industry for 16 years. So I know what you mean. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:49:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Book themes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Lesley Hall wrote: > > This may reinforce everyone's ideas about the sexual peculiarities of the > British, but I've encountered plenty of men who, if they suddenly became 'a > real animal' would be something like the Muskrat in Kipling's > 'Rikki-Tikki-Tavi', timidly creeping around the walls of the room and not > daring to dash into the middle, or a flopsy bunny. Yes, and DO rent the video "Shadowlands" C.S. Lewis falls in love in midlife and is very shy and awkward about it and totally endearing.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:31:52 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: Book themes--putting down the "other" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara: Good luck with your quest to think outside the box. Your message made me think about a couple of things: That's one good reason to read and write science fiction and fantasy, you go out of your way to create worlds outside your box or stretch the boundaries of the box you were born with. Also, defining yourself as feminist means that you're willing to challenge the boundaries of the existing boxes as they define women. All and all, these are very good reasons for those of us on the list to stay in this little corner of cyberspace and hash things out. take care everyone, Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:02:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Book themes--putting down the "other" In-Reply-To: <7c6aae98.34d50ede@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Barbara - a lot of our generation had the exact same experiences. We were kept in such ignorance about so many things, and were often reared by people who knew without every questioning that their way was the only One Right Way. Perhaps living through a depression and a world war did that to them? I remember wondering what on Earth Isaac Asimov meant, in his Foundation series, by describing a fading beauty as a dictator's "More than friend and less than wife." I recall being charmed in Edgar Pangborn's MIRROR FOR OBSERVERS by the two little old ladies, one a spinster and the other a widow, who had made a life together in what he quietly described as a "Boston Marriage." Ask anyone at Worldcon '81 (Denvention) how I, a married woman with two children, reacted to my first look at illustrated slash fiction! Or Darkover fans about how totally shocked I was at an illo in the Darkover Newsletter (?) of the Forbidden Tower foursome. And I still can't read explicit sex scenes, hetero or lesbian. I've tried, and my eye just slides over them like the Valdemarans did when magic was mentioned. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu 58 and not holding. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:02:18 -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: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:49 PM 2/1/98 , you wrote: >From: "Barbara R. Hume" >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Book themes > >I've heard that only about 10% of the population is lesbian. Is this accurate? >And if so, should it affect the amount of prose spent in writing about that >group? that is, should what you write reflect the percentage? -- Answering my >own question --Why should it? You write what you know. This doesn't answer the above question, but it's something I find interesting and indicative of our culture. I was born in '71, and reading SF by '79. I wrote fairly heavily from 11 to 14. (I thought I was simply writing really good stuff that the publishers would love to read! Now, I realize that it was simply fanfic. Ahhh, naive youth that I was...) I always wrote with males as lead characters. I don't think I had more than one or two female characters. The first story that I wrote with a female lead was once I got back into writing, in college. Certainly interesting, hmmm? Now, it would be rare for me to use a male lead, unless I were trying to show something specific about "maleness" and how it relates to the society I portray him in. Whether I choose to elaborate on the characters' orientations or not, I think would lie with what I want the story to say. I would definitely not look at the other stories and decide I'd hit some societal quota. jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:42:36 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: All this discussion about book themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been just catching up on the group's conversations and I do want to chime in with one comment on the whole topic of reading about sexual preferences not your own, and romance novels, and the like. In my research on book discussion groups and in all your excellent comments on the subject one of the major recurring benefits I heard about was being exposed to books you wouldn't have read otherwise. That wasn't one of my reasons for suggesting the idea in the first place, but after hearing it so often, I'm looking forward to it now. There will be books you love, books you hate, books you expected to love and were disappointed by, and books that really touch you that you would never otherwise have read. You must keep yourself open to the possibilities. Which is, after all, the reason many of us read this stuff, no? And if a book comes up that you already read and didn't like, you will probably still be amazed when reading why others loved it. All that said, if you do have opinions, don't forget to vote! (email to bjbenesch@aol.com by Friday) -- Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com book discussion group coordinator ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:25:53 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: [Fwd: Nancy Kress Serves Up a Near-Future Scientific Thriller] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E927A9DA534C91BE38559F6D" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E927A9DA534C91BE38559F6D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I kind of hesitate to send this to the list, but it will probably be of interest to most of you. This is in no way a promotion of amazon - I just signed up for their sf email notification and thought the group might like to see this one. If this bothers you please let me know (private email to save bandwidth) and I won't send them again. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com --------------E927A9DA534C91BE38559F6D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from amazon.com ([204.177.154.31]) by mail.actioneer.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA237 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:43:32 -0800 Received: from zephyr.amazon.com (zephyr.amazon.com [204.177.154.23]) by amazon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA03558; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by zephyr.amazon.com id QAA28434; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:09:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:09:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801290009.QAA18038@anaconda.amazon.com> From: science-fiction-editor@amazon.com To: science-fiction-editors-subscribers@amazon.com Subject: Nancy Kress Serves Up a Near-Future Scientific Thriller Sender: science-fiction-editor@amazon.com Precedence: list Reply-To: science-fiction-editor@amazon.com The principal title reviewed in this Amazon.com Delivers message is: "Maximum Light" by Nancy Kress Publisher: Tor Books You can find this book and more at http://www.amazon.com/science-fiction-1-1998 ****** Nancy Kress is one of those solid science fiction writers who expands her range with each novel. She started her career as a fantasy novelist in the early 1980s; later in the decade she switched over to writing primarily science fiction. Since that time she has written several impressive pure sci-fi novels, including "Beggars in Spain," an expansion of her Nebula Award-winning novella of the same name. Kress's latest book, "Maximum Light," is a near-future scientific thriller created from the threads of three separate narratives by each of the book's main characters. The protagonists include Shana Walders, a 19-year-old troublesome girl whose only goal in life is to join the army; Cameron Atuli, a 22-year-old gay male dancer who voluntarily had a portion of his memory removed; and Nick Clementi, a 75-year-old doctor who is simply seeking dignity as he nears the end of a long and illustrious career. The backdrop for their stories is a near-future America caught in a worldwide fertility crisis that has resulted in a largely geriatric society supported by a waning younger generation. Children are considered precious resources: they are bought and sold on the black market, as are other "substitutes" ranging from pets to something almost unspeakably evil. It is this evil that ties the individuals together and drives the mystery. Kress wastes little time setting up the intrigue; she switches between the viewpoints of Shana, Cameron, and Nick to reveal one piece of the puzzle, then another. At the same time she gives us insight into the characters themselves, showing us their personalities and their conflicts. Eventually you'll come to care about the group, even those who may at first seem distasteful. And the three come to care about each other, though Kress often puts them at odds. As we learn more about these characters and their lives, we also discover that what at first seemed to be a straightforward mystery is far more than we were led to believe; even as Kress gives the answer to one puzzle, she sets up another, larger one. The plot threatens to break apart at every turn, but Kress's sure hand guides her characters through the maelstrom and manages to keep things on track, if just barely. What happens to the characters after the fury dies down is as important as discovering the answer to the larger puzzle. A lesser but still important thread running through the book is how the elderly deal with death and dying. Seventy-five-year-old Nick Clementi has a secret of his own that magnifies the already difficult decisions he faces. Although we don't get a clear understanding of how it feels on a physical level to be his age (aside from the occasional reference to needing a cane or needing a cat nap), Kress does a good job of getting into the head of Clementi. She offers a rare glimpse of a character who not only understands that he will one day die, but who is also looking for a way to embrace that death without fear. This combination of raucous adventure and quiet dignity makes "Maximum Light" a powerful story, proving yet again that Kress is one of science fiction's finest writers. --Craig E. Engler is editor and publisher of the electronic publication Science Fiction Weekly. You'll find more great science fiction and fantasy books, articles, excerpts, and interviews in Amazon.com's Science Fiction & Fantasy section at http://www.amazon.com/science-fiction-and-fantasy ****** We want to be sure that our Amazon.com Delivers e-mail message delivers the type and quality of information you want to receive. To reach us just hit "reply" and send us your comments. ****** If you have friends who might enjoy this mailing, please feel free to forward it to them. To become a new Amazon.com Delivers subscriber, or to sign up for additional categories, visit http://www.amazon.com/delivers ****** To unsubscribe from this mailing, send a blank e-mail message to unsubscribe-science-fiction@amazon.com Copyright 1998 Amazon.com, Inc. All rights reserved. --------------E927A9DA534C91BE38559F6D-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:47:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Out of print book source Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I came across this a little while ago, while searching for books: http://www.abebooks.com This is a clearing house that lists available hard to find or out of print books, from sources in the US and Canada (possibly elsewhere; these are the only countries I've encountered so far). A search for Russ's Adventures of Alyx, for example, turned up 6 books, most of them for under $7. Ditto Pat Murphy's Falling Woman, and 16 copies of Cherryh's Rimrunners (although this is still available through the Science Fiction Book Club, if I'm not mistaken). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 01:22:06 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <849f57e4.34d51fd4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 20:22 1/02/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-01 16:46:44 EST, you write: ><< > Barbara compared her revulsion about same-sex love scenes to preferences > for or against liver or Diet coke. > > Inappropriate analogy. Consumption of diet coke and liver is not the key > identifier of a group identity. That felt like an insensitive and > thoughtless comparison to me. > >> > In reality I dont usually like love/sex scenes either gay or straight, however, as long as they dont drag on for half the book, I have no real problem with them. I think I started thinking of myself as a feminist, when I was about 15-16 yrs old, in 1975 (International Women's Year). It was also that year, I discovered science-fiction, and I was first blown away by Ursula Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness"...and soon after, my teenage idol/role-model - the character Aleytys..the heroine of Jo Clayton's 7-novel "Diadem" series. The love/sex scenes throughout the series, both gay and straight, and include sexual liasons with aliens of indeterminate gender.(absolutely mind-blowing to a young girl!!) Originally, my thoughts on feminism in general, revolved around the gay-versus-straight *problem* - it seemed to me for many years, every women's group I entered, became a two-camp affair , an either/or dilemma, I often felt I could not be a *real* feminist unless I was lesbian:)) Similar to not being able to be a black rights activist, as I am white. Afterwards, I started thinking about this focus on sexuality, and in particular, the concept of "pair-bonding for life", and the supremacy of that "pair-bond" of two unrelated individuals, in modern 20th century culture. At University...a few things really slapped me in the face: 1) almost all mammalian species (including marine mammals) on this planet, do not exhibit a "pair-bonded" mating structure; (a few rare exceptions, usually in cold climates)- the majority are very gregarious, living in groups, herds, packs etc in which all age-groups are included in the "group" regardless of their reproductive or sexual capacity. 2) nearly all mammalian species, show an adult reproductive age-group sex ratio of female dominance, on average around 60-70% adult females to 30-40% adult males; who taper off even more sharply in the post-reproductive age groups; ..which of course, makes extremely good sense, biologically speaking. A natural in-built species-survival/evolutionary "fail-safe" for the mammalian species - a large percentage of the males born, will not be able to become sexually active/reproduce in adulthood. Of those males that do, they are the healthiest and best of the bunch, so to speak:))) Similar to the redundancy or "fail-safe", of laying large numbers of eggs is for reptiles and amphibians. I once saw a video on the behaviour of a baboon troop, one of the more aggressive primates. Both males and female baboons are quite aggressive for primates, usually intra-gender aggression, ie female-female, male-male; and fights can be quite bloody. However, on occasion the females will "gang up" on the fighting males and stop the fighting (when male numbers are getting too low for genetic viability for example), or attempt to ensure the outcome that is most advantageous to the group as a whole (ie..they will make sure the "best man wins" LOL - sometimes supporting their male kin) As with most mammalian species, the male is larger, stronger and often more aggressive - but, when 3 adult females attack one adult male, he will be the loser. In species where females outnumber males, this mechanism also serves species-survival/evolution. So men, under "natural" evolutionary laws must compete with Nature or each other, upon reaching maturity...the adolescent male elephant, lion, chimpanzee, human etc - child no longer, must leave their birth-clan/pack/herd/pride etc and attempt to gain entrance into another. (ie they must compete for a limited number of places, for the *right-to-life/affection/acceptance etc* within the female-dominated group)....Thousands of human male rituals reflect this natural process, from staged mini-battles of adolescent men with neighbouring tribes, to brutal circumcision under unhygienic conditions, or being left in isolated spots with few tools/clothing/shelter etc. But Man, evolving "culture" out of "nature", thought of ways to get around the natural attrition and competitiveness of their gender,...(celibate priesthoods for example, whereby they voluntarily gave up the competition for access to females, and in return, were given "high status", support, food, shelter etc for the term of their lives). Another mechanism, is of course "marriage"..pair-bonded marriage - which gives the expectation that every male, would have at least one female for sexual and/or reproductive rights. In order to do this however, males had to break the natural "group-bonding" preference of females (in particular, their ability to "gang-up" against threats, or individual males), and their natural sensible preference to bear children by different sires. In addition, men needed to enforce female dependency on the male. The idea of one-to-one "romantic love" in marriage, (or out of it), came much later in human history - but, it certainly caught on:))) The assumption that "pair-bonding" is *natural* for homo-sapiens is really quite illogical - but is so deep-seated and fully accepted as a "natural-fact-of-life", even by feminists. It is all-pervasive in contemporary culture, whether gay or straight,- we all adore love-stories:)) and we all fantasise about our true *soul-mates* etc:)) and we all seem to prefer to live in households that are based on a single "exclusive/intimate" relationship. We are jealous of *rivals/threats* to that relationship...like children jealous of younger siblings, like children we want to return to the *exclusive intimacy* of the mother/infant relationship allowing no outsiders. In "Ethan of Athos", Lois McMaster Bujold wrote of a male-only homosexual world. However, the primacy of the "pair-bond" remains, whereby only men in "paired" stable relationships could earn the right to have a child using reproductive technologies and imported ova :)) Patriarchy has for milennia enforced a particularly *masculine-centred* philosophy of the world, and the focus on "pair-bonding" and sexuality, has been enormously successful in alienating women from each other. Probably everyone for that matter, we are isolated, alone, and obsessed with finding a "significant other". I do believe women have a natural preference for 'group-bonding' as opposed to 'pair-bonding' - for mutual affection, support and companionship with or without a sexual element. Remember those painful high-school days when not one or two, but a rag-tag gaggle of "bitchy" girls go into *attack* mode? Girls rarely attack one-on-one, they "gang-up" :))) ...women with little ones at play-groups ... women in the office at morning-coffee break - 5 or 6 or more sharing a joke...women at P&C meetings (what Americans call PTA).. even in cultures which practise polygamy, which we in the "pair-bonding obsessed" West deplore, the women often comment that they enjoy the female-group friendship/companionship that such group living gives them. The physical/sexual component of their marriage with the male, may be good, bad, indifferent, with or without true affection/fun/pleasure etc...and accounts of physical affection between the women in such marriages includes both the "whole-body eroticism" of hugging/kissing/casual caresses to full lesbian sex. Whatever its nature, according to many women in these polygamous marriages, the sexual component takes second-place to the value they place on the "group-bond". I have rarely seen this concept of "pair-bonding" questioned in fiction, (or anywhere else for that matter), particularly by men writers. In book after book, after book - the "pair-bond" remains a basic foundation of futuristic societies..(one notable exception, is Shannah Jay's first sci-fi novel "Envoy") ... and anyway, to cut this short, ((and, I do apologise for this email being so long-winded, I didnt mean it to when I started:)) - this concept is one which I have been exploring in recent years in my writing... .. ..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the "pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... Thanks Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au __________________________________________________________________ | | | FATAL ERROR! LOGOFF! | | | | Reality.sys Corrupt! Reboot UNIVERS? | | | |________________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:57:07 -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: BDG - Same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203012206.007a5840@cs.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:22 AM 2/2/98 , you wrote: >From: Julieanne >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG - Same-sex themes .. >..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across >writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the >"pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly >woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... > >Thanks >Julieanne >ppp98@cs.net.au Robert Heinlein in his later books are rampant with polygamy. I thought the books were so liberal and "free-love" and wild and fantastic when I was a teen. Now, I'm a little more realistic and annoyed by those books -- especially on his extremely rash treatment of incest. This isn't to say I'm against polygamy, I'm just against RAH's sexism. jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:13:14 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: Men and sexual urges On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:56:00 Jim Hollomon said: > 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. > Although Jim has met hundreds of men who appear or claim to "control" their sexual urges, this doesn't mean that in private that they do...and those that say or act as if they don't control themselves may actually do so in private. I think that Jim is right in that our perceptions do affect our opinion on this, as we all base our opinions on what we see empirically; however, these perceptions are generally influenced by not only our previously-held attitudes or opinions but by the presentation of the subject. Many people feel societal pressures and deal with them in different ways. Some take on a "persona" (i.e. "salivating fools running off at the mouth about getting laid" or "flaming heterosexual out making conquests), but actually live how they feel (i.e. conservative sexual or homosexual lifestyles, respectively.) Although I haven't dated men in 15 years or so, from what I remember few actually demonstrated that they thought they SHOULD control their sexual urges. Going back to perceptions, perhaps it is not the venue that needs to be changed, but maybe some individuals need to rethink old habits. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:00:03 -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: Out of print book source MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Listmembers can save time on book searches by checking out this site set up by a private bookfan, Anrivan Chatterjee: http://www.mxbf.com/#searchform >From this site, entering your info only once, you can simultanously search Amazon & Powell's and other new-book sources, plus the major out- of-print book sources (Interloc, ABE and Bibliofind). All at once. If you can't find it with this search engine, you're probably not going to find it on the Net today. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "What's harder than stone and gentler than water flowing? Yet the stone is hollowed by flowing water." - graffiti found in Pompeii ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:08:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Male sexuality -- Off topic (was: Book Themes) In-Reply-To: <7c6aae98.34d50ede@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII There have been allegations that men can not, do not, and will not control their sexuality. For the most part this has been refuted in the time-honored tradition of men on this list saying "Not Me!" and "Not my friends either!" While this is undoubtedly true, and I felt inclined to do the same thing, I feel like offering some ideas. I suggest a model of male sexual needs and hormones (especially young male) that goes like this: Men accumulate sexual hormones much like they accumulate the toxins that go into urine. These hormones make themselves apparent by causing men to be "horny". Men get rid of these hormones (or toxins, depending on how you look at it :) through activities like sports or sex (sex probably being the most obvious and effective). Let us further assume that these toxic hormones affect judgement and temperment, and that they accumulate rather quickly (about the same order of magnitude as a filling bladder). It is no small surprise that many men would seem to be "sex fiends" and "think with their penises". As a young man (well boy really) I observed these effects in myself and discovered a solution that seems to work for me. I masturbate. Alot. In much the same way that I expel toxins when I urinate, I masturbate the hormones away. I can't be sure that that is what does it, but It is a possibility. After all, I have made an ass of myself (as I am sure most people have) in certain circumstances, and I did manage to "control myself" without it for a time (on a bet), but I can't really imagine handling my irrational hormones very well without it. It seems like this is somehow taboo in our society, even for discussion. I know I had a hard time in college when my suitemates broached the subject and tricked me into spilling the whole story. They all denied their "confessions" and proceded to tease me for a long time, but I see it as a growth point in my self-understanding and acceptance. There is something really painful for me in being secretive, in much the same way that I imagine homosexuals feel pain being secretive. We often see sex and lust as uncontrollable irrational things. I wonder if there is anything out there that deals much with the conscious rational control of this simple and fundamental human aspect in any ways other than magical or technological? Maybe we need to see a society that teaches men that their urge-induced sexist actions are unacceptable and that teaches them masturbation (or something else) as a method of self-control. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:13:34 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: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 11:16:41 EST, Penny writes: > Although I haven't dated men in 15 years or so, from what I remember > few actually demonstrated that they thought they SHOULD control their > sexual urges. > > Going back to perceptions, perhaps it is not the venue that needs to > be changed, but maybe some individuals need to rethink old habits. > > Penny Penny, I think what we must be discussing here is the definition of "control." As this discussion develops, it seems that the men-can't-control-their-sexual- impulses camp mean that men have sexual thoughts when they encounter visual erotic stimuli. Of course, women are not immune to such. An attractive enough sight may prompt a little flutter in the tummy of a woman, or so I've been told. But men are wired to respond to visual stimuli by (insert the Creator or evolution, as you may choose). After all, if we are to reproduce and continue as a species, somebody's gotta make the first move. What I take "control" to mean is from the dictionary. con·trol (k^Ån-trol") tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols. 1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct. 2. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper; regulations intended to control prices. By that definition, if you allow that we eternally erectile men are stimulated by the sight of a sexy (woman, man, sheep or whatever turns this individual on) and yet we take no overt action to (have sex with, yield to sex with, stalk, voyeuristically observe, expose ourselves to or whatever turns this individual on) then it seems to me we have met the test of the "control" definition. We have exercised "control." If it's true that all men are totally uninhibited sexual predators as intent upon their prey as the raptors of the Jurassic age, then I'm astounded that rape is as infrequent as it seems to be. Granted that rape is all to frequent, and I am appalled at its ever happening. It should not. However, what I am saying is that if half the human race were totally unrestrained rapists, this would be a very different world, and one I'm glad I don't have to inhabit. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:20:43 -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--putting down the "other" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara wrote: > > Don't you see? Opening my mind is exactly what I am trying to do. I'm reaching > the ripe old age of 55 this month--but I have never in my life met anyone who > was, or who let it be known that she was, a lesbian. This list is my first > opportunity to ask some questions and try to learn something about a different > point of view. I'm trying to frame a question here and to do it in such a way that it won't be seen by Barbara, or anyone else, as insulting . . . but I'd like to somehow bring this discussion back to the issue of writing and reading. So . . . *if* you can't think yourself into the head of someone who's not like yourself (different sexual orientation, different race, whatever), how can you write? This is the other side of the 'appropriation' coin, of course, but it seems to me so utterly intrinsic to the act of writing that, without it, none of us would produce anything but autobiography. Furthermore, the "problem," such as it is, of identifying with the "other" (Barbara's term) enough to write about him/her/it, seems to be a top-down one. Have you ever heard a queer writer suggest that they've never known anyone who was a heterosexual and therefore can't get into that point of view? Or how about a black writer suggesting that they've never had any understanding of the "white world" and can't write about it? Only the oppressors have the privilege of not knowing the lives of the "others." For the oppressed, knowing about the other half is an essential survival skill. I'm glad to see people like Barbara trying to get past their privilege. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:34:08 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:13 2/02/98 EST, you wrote: >I think what we must be discussing here is the definition of "control." As >this discussion develops, it seems that the men-can't-control-their-sexual- >impulses camp mean that men have sexual thoughts when they encounter visual >erotic stimuli. Of course, women are not immune to such. An attractive enough >sight may prompt a little flutter in the tummy of a woman, or so I've been >told. But men are wired to respond to visual stimuli by (insert the Creator or >evolution, as you may choose). After all, if we are to reproduce and continue >as a species, somebody's gotta make the first move. > Jim - The sex drive can be strong in both sexes, but is also highly variable amongst individuals - I have known men, who were quite low-sexed - but, in our culture, these men are rarely visible, they are too busy leading relatively asexual and anonymous lives. Its possibly an unfortunate irony, that high-sex drive men are mostly attracted to low sex-drive women, and vice-versa:)) Also, women are more often taught in childhood/adolescence to deny their sexuality, and those women who do enjoy sex and lots of it, are often put-down and scorned by both men, and by other women. Another reason that women control their desires, is because of the very realistic fear of male aggression in the expression of masculine sexuality. As a consequence, women are more likely to be fearful of all male sexual displays regardless of the intent, or their own strong response to it. All hetero-sexually active women are very much aware of the truth of the statement by Germaine Greer : "Any woman who goes to bed with a man for the first time, knows that she runs the risk of being treated with contempt." That fear of even mild negative consequences resulting from the release of their own strong sexual desire, is a very good motivator for women to exercise "control" over their urges. Men, on the other hand have no such motivator. Nonetheless, like other physical urges/desires, for example: the desire to "break-wind" or burp to relieve mild abdominal discomfort, the desire to remove all your clothing on hot summer days, an urgent need to scratch a genital itch, or squeeze your zits etc ... its part of being an adult to be responsible for your own behaviour, and make an attempt to control it in those circumstances when its not appropriate. It is unfortunate that somewhere along the line, large numbers of women have lost the ability to take pleasure and delight in displays of healthy masculine sexuality...possibly due to an enormous distrust and lack of faith in men's ability to respect and honour women's sexuality in return. but, well..tossing the blame onto men/patriarchy doesnt really solve the problem, even if its true. So I guess, its just *tough, luck babe*..or.. *shit happens, deal with it!* LOL Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:48:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: sex again -- sorta OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Okay, this was triggered by watching the debut episode of "Dawson's Creek," (which follows "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which would be on topic, but oh, well ...) Anyway, the last scene, involves a pair of 15 year olds, one male and one female, discussing the changes adolesence is presenting to their relationship. He thinks they can still talk about anything. She challenges that, and makes her point by asking him to tell her when and how often he mastrubates. He hesitates, she leaves, and then he shouts the info after her. However, he doesn't ask her the same question in return. ::sigh:: So it's now okay for teenage boys to discuss mastrubation, but we are still not going to acknowledge that teenage girls do? I did not watch the second episode, so if this was addressed then I missed it, but I suspect not. On the other hand, "Veronica's Closet" surprised me, by having an episode in which an editorial appeared to be about female mastrubation, and in the midst of the rather typical sit com banter, one character actually said, "if that's how it's read, so what? It's a good thing, and people do it!" (not verbatim.) So how come female sexuality still has to be so radical? Why does it need to evoke comment, in any media? And when will sex with oneself become something one need not feel apologetic about? (no, I'm not talking clones here ) Any of the cross genre readers familiar with Lynn Kurland? Her new book, _The Very Thought of You_, a time travel romance involving fairy rings, just got a very nice review in PW, and I was thinking of checking it out. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:03:12 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: same-sex in SF Content-Type: text/plain Barbara: I can sympathize with you feelings about lesbian relationships in fiction, as I used to feel very uncomfortable with gay male relationships. All I can say is that for me, this discomfort was a conditioned reflex. Once I realized it was a form of prejudice, I was able to desensitize myself fairly speedily. I think it is worthwhile for you to try to overcome this distaste, because otherwise you'll be excluded from some of the best and most important feminist fiction (SF and not) that's out there. Thus, it's not just a moral issue, but also an aesthetic one -- similarly, you can't learn to enjoy Wagner operas unless you can tolerate a few fat women with horned helmets. Dan Krashin P.S. About guys being able to restrain their impulses: I think the number of predatory males out there makes it seem that way, but in fact they are also controlled, they just know what they can get away with. If men in general were as uncontrolled and lawless as all that, civilization would probably collapse. I also think that some women show a positive genius for finding and attracting bad men. (I'm not trying to suggest that anyone on this list belongs to this group!) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:11:09 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 09:37:14 EST, you write: << I have rarely seen this concept of "pair-bonding" questioned in fiction, (or anywhere else for that matter), particularly by men writers. >> It seems to me that all episodic TV posits that a man can't be one of the "heroes" unless he is free to bop from partner to partner. No stability--no families--no commitment to a permanent relationship or to raising children. I believe that a strong and loving family life is the best thing we can give our descendants. Why does that concept get such a bad rap these days? Nature gives males a strong sex drive so they'll reproduce, but I'd like to think that humans can think beyond their own libidos and consider the reality they're bringing children into. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:49:47 -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: 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 mottram wrote: > > And, of course, all the >women who had masculine pseudonyms in order to be considered respectable, >even in the SF field. Not Kate Maclean, not Judith Merrill, not C.L. Moore, and if my brain didn't sieze up on proper nouns, I'd name the woman whose last credit was for star Wars II ("The Big Sleep" with Fasulkner). They've been lonesome, but never totally absent. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 17:09:57 -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: BDG - Same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <199802012143.KAA162480886369391@mail.iconz.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jenny Rankine wrote: >Barbara compared her revulsion about same-sex love scenes to preferences >for or against liver or Diet coke. > >Inappropriate analogy. Consumption of diet coke and liver is not the key >identifier of a group identity. That felt like an insensitive and >thoughtless comparison to me. You suggest that your sexual orientation is a "key identifier" of your "group identity". If this inference is correct, it makes me wonder about you in much the same way I'd wonder about the jock whose self-esteem can be made or broken by whether he "scored" Saturday night. With what other groups do you identify? >I also have a different definition of feminist than many of the ones other >people use in the list. Mine is a woman who believes that women as a group >are oppressed in ways which advantage men as a group, and who also thinks >collective social action is the only way to change this. Do you also mean that it's implicitly impossible for a man to be a feminist? Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:06:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Book themes--putting down the "other" In-Reply-To: <7c6aae98.34d50ede@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Barbara R. Hume" wrote (a great deal, including): I'm 50, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of where you're coming from. (I think that one of the most lost aspects of "the Sixties" is how incredibly *fast* things seemed to happen. You went to a high school in a different world in eisenhower's second term than I did under Kennedy!) I have two comments: >I keep thinking I've learned, only to find out different. You have. A lot. There happens to be even a bigger lot out there to be learned by the advenced few such as yourself who will persist in taking the trouble, but please don't belittle yourself! >Okay, now we come to the sexual identity thing. I'd always been told that >homosexuals could be "normal" if they wanted to. They just delibrately chose >to be perverted. Then I found out that a good friend of mine was gay. I'd >known him for many years, and he finally got tired of hiding his true nature >and came out. It didn't change my feelings for him, but it gave me the >opportunity to learn about his experiences. He told me that he'd known he was >different since he was four or five. He said that he tried in every way he >could find to change, but it didn't work. Finally he chose to accept himself >as he was. This was a new concept to me--that it wasn't a matter of choice for >everyone. I'd heard, for example, that some prostitutes become so disgusted >with men after a few years in that profession that they become lesbians just >to escape the horror of their associations. > >So now perhaps some of you can enlighten me further. As I said, I've heard for >most of my life that same-sex sex was not "natural." Now I'm hearing that >it's perfectly natural. I would think that the people involved would know more >about it than people who stand off and call names. So please enlighten me if >you want to. I'm listening. There seems to me to be a fallacy of one-dimensionalism in the whole area. To begin with, the definition of "homosexual" (I still tend to use the word in the sense in which we learned it, "homo-' meaning same) is social. A person who is inclined toward, or engages in, a list of behaviors which is a social construct is identified with a categorization. The list is variable from one society or subculture to another. Then, the concept that a person with these inclinations or behaviors therefor has some certain sort of personality type is a very recent invention: the word "homosexual" in the sense of a character tyoe is about a hundred years old, dating from the late prehistory of psychology. Human variation is immense. Clearly there are significant minorities who are 'exclusively homosexual' and 'bisexual'. I see no compelling reason to take it for granted that all the people with one of these characteristics have any certain other characteristics innately in common, any more than left-handed people (a much simpler trait!) do. (I am implicitly assuming that we are all aware of the social pressures which strongly incline some people to certain subcultures. This is entirely separate from my points.) Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:17:12 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 10:56:29 EST, you write: << I'm just against RAH's sexism. >> A friend of mine commented that Heinlein's later books are full of middle-aged male sexual fantasies. The man was an incredible storyteller, but from _Stranger in a Strange Land_ on, he pushed his (disgusting, IMHO) concepts of amorality down his readers' throats. But I can still enjoy his juveniles-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:31:13 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: The last bastion of prejudice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 15:08:27 EST, you write: << Thus, it's not just a moral issue, but also an aesthetic one -- similarly, you can't learn to enjoy Wagner operas unless you can tolerate a few fat women with horned helmets. Dan Krashin >> Hey, I'm a fat woman who likes to wear horned helmets! Actually, I think that fat prejudice is one of the last bastions of putting down the "other." Thin people assume that fat people are undisciplined slobs. I don't think I could have raised my children alone, earned three advanced degrees, and started and operated my own business if I were an undisciplined slob. One thing I like about _Outlander_ is that the hero likes the heroine's ample rear, rather than wishing he could impale himself on sharp, fleshless bones. . . . . I ran into my grown son once at the gym. He happened to be on the treadmill next to mine. He remarked, "You know, Mom, it is harder to take off weight when you're older. I thought you were making that up." Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:43:50 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: Female POV; was...Book themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980202164947.0075f24c@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Neil Rest wrote: > jenn mottram wrote: > > > > > And, of course, all the > >women who had masculine pseudonyms in order to be considered respectable, > >even in the SF field. > > Not Kate Maclean, not Judith Merrill, not C.L. Moore, and if my brain > didn't sieze up on proper nouns, I'd name the woman whose last credit was > for star Wars II ("The Big Sleep" with Fasulkner). Catherine Lewis Moore may not have deliberately chosen to write as C.L. Moore to disguise her gender but there was an outcry from readers of ( I think) Amazing stories when she was listed as Henry Kuttners' spouse in his obituary. One reader wrote in to lambast the editor for saying that Moore and Kuttner were homosexuals. The editor, whose name escapes me right now was astonished since Kuttner and Moore attended conventions together, and were one of the most well known couples in SF at the time. The readers who did not attend cons or otherwise discover her simply assumed Moore was male. > > They've been lonesome, but never totally absent. > > > Neil > NeilRest@tezcat.com > ~ Denise M. Borgen ~ If the world were a logical ~ ~ ~ place, men would ride sidesaddle ~ ~ ~ -Rita Mae Brown ~ ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ ~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:13:35 -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: BDG - Same-sex themes In-Reply-To: <23bec86.34d6528f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I the TV show Hercules, he HAD a wife and kids, but I guess they were getting in the way of his heroic stunts because they killed all of the family off. Bill At 06:11 PM 2/2/1998 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-02 09:37:14 EST, you write: > ><< > I have rarely seen this concept of "pair-bonding" questioned in fiction, > (or anywhere else for that matter), particularly by men writers. >> > >It seems to me that all episodic TV posits that a man can't be one of the >"heroes" unless he is free to bop from partner to partner. No stability--no >families--no commitment to a permanent relationship or to raising children. I >believe that a strong and loving family life is the best thing we can give our >descendants. Why does that concept get such a bad rap these days? Nature gives >males a strong sex drive so they'll reproduce, but I'd like to think that >humans can think beyond their own libidos and consider the reality they're >bringing children into. > >Barbara > > "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: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:18:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Inappropriate analogy. Consumption of diet coke and liver is not the key > >identifier of a group identity. That felt like an insensitive and > >thoughtless comparison to me. > > You suggest that your sexual orientation is a "key identifier" of your > "group identity". > > If this inference is correct, it makes me wonder about you in much the same > way I'd wonder about the jock whose self-esteem can be made or broken by > whether he "scored" Saturday night. > Ah, but the question is who is doing the labelling. I could wander around calling myself straight if I wanted to, but that wouldn't stop the gay bashers from labelling me (I *look* like everyone's stereotype of a dyke; I looked like a dyke when I *was* in a relationship with a man). So what point would there be in not taking my sexual orientation as a "key identifier" in my "group identity"? After all, the lesbian/gay movement arose the same way the feminist movement did: as a response to bigotry and oppression. Didn't make much difference if a woman didn't identify with her "group identity", back in the 60s, she still couldn't get a bank loan without Daddy-o's signature. > Do you also mean that it's implicitly impossible for a man to be a feminist? > Well, I've no idea what the original poster meant, but I certainly don't believe that. Most of my male friends are unabashed, unashamed feminists; so are quite a few of my students. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:25:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: *FSFFU*] Gendered language - Was Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim made the very important point that the definition of "control" is central to this debate. Here's a query: as far as I can tell from reading the various postings, the male posters seem to interpret the complaint that many men do not control their sexual urges as a claim that men are actually completely out of control all of the time. In other words, there appears to be no loss of control unless it's a total full-time technicolour kind of deal. Any control at all is control. The female posters, otoh, appear to be assuming that any control is complete control. That it, that in order to be in control of one's sexual urges, one has to be in control of them 100% of the time. Any loss of control at all is the same as being out of control. Is this totally off base? If there's any truth to the above, then do we even have any basis of communication? Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:02:02 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: BDG - Same sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This thread has brought up some fascinating comparisons - first lesbian/gay sexuality is compared to a taste for liver (apology appreciated Barbara, as well as your further explanation about the reason for the original question). Then for disagreeing with Barbara's analogy I'm compared to a jock whose self-esteem depends on whether he scores on Saturday night. Wooo! I wasn't suggesting that my sexual orientation is a key identifier of me as a lesbian (I don't use the term so term because I don't agree I have one - I have an identity). My experience is that revulsion against two women making love is strongly associated with heterosexism and broader anti-lesbian prejudice, so I have a strong reaction to it. It feels personal. It does not equate to mere culinary preferences. (That's the last time I'm going to explain it because it sounds like I'm beating Barbara on the head, and I'm not.) Certainly the dominant perspective is that lesbianism is only about sex. For me it isn't. Here's another one for you, Barbara - I'm one of the lesbians who *chose* to identify this way and live this life. (Best decision I ever made.) I don't argue that it's natural, since what's *natural* is determined by the power structures of the times. I argue that a lesbian identity has a political implication, that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, and if it wasn't for compulsory heterosexuality a lot more women would be loving other women. As you can appreciate, whether I'm in a relationship or not, this perspective is how I see the world 24 hours a day. It's part of my decisions about friendships, political activity, where I work, images I use in print making, etc etc. To relate this - at long last - to SF&F, I'd like to suggest that lesbian-feminist political analyses and living patterns have contributed in positive ways to SF&F. I can only think of a few self-identified lesbian writers - Gael Baudino (fantasy), Gwynneth Jones, Joanna Russ and Elizabeth A Lynn (enlighten me, please), but I think some lesbian-feminist thinking has percolated into general feminist thought. The contribution includes - * The living situations of characters in relationships and families are more likely to vary from the heterosexual/monogamous/nuclear family and include group or multiple parenting, partners living apart, families chosen as well as those biologically related, and cultures where the genders are largely separated. * All-women societies are more likely to be viewed positively, and as useful thought experiments. * Explorations of sexuality in environments where compulsory heterosexuality doesn't exist or where the power/gender/sexuality nexus is structured differently. (I seem to remember Marion Zimmer Bradley writing once that she didn't see the point in writing about all-women human societies since A They would never happen and B They'd be boring. I'm probably misquoting her, but that's my memory. If SF&F writers only wrote about societies that could happen, the genre would hardly exist, and since the variation among women is as great as that between women and men, I don't see how it could be boring or lacking.) Of course, goes without saying that lots of heterosexual feminist writers have explored these topics too. Enuf, already! Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:16:12 -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: heros and daredevils In-Reply-To: <23bec86.34d6528f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:11 PM 2/2/98 , you wrote: >From: "Barbara R. Hume" >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG - Same-sex themes >It seems to me that all episodic TV posits that a man can't be one of the >"heroes" unless he is free to bop from partner to partner. No stability--no >families--no commitment to a permanent relationship or to raising children. I >believe that a strong and loving family life is the best thing we can give our >descendants. Why does that concept get such a bad rap these days? Nature gives >males a strong sex drive so they'll reproduce, but I'd like to think that >humans can think beyond their own libidos and consider the reality they're >bringing children into. > >Barbara Speaking logistically, if the male hero has a wife and kids, then goes out to fight the badguys all the time, putting his life at risk a million different ways, then he's rather thoughtless to those who he has some responsibility for (the kids). This is rather different than a real life police officer, who takes risks as necessary, but not those "wild and crazy" things that are such a staple of our TV diet. jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 00:21:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anny Middon Subject: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I caught most of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer a while back. It was a pleasant experience to see a female hero of what may be termed an Action Horror show. Buffy's certainly not afraid to kick some vampire butt. The show was endearingly quirky, and I intend to watch it again someday. At any rate, in the ep I saw a high school acquaintance of Buffy's falls in with the wrong crowd, which is to say vampires. They suck her blood and sure enough (unbeknownst to Buffy) she becomes a vampire herself. She was about to ax Buffy when the phone rang and by the time I got back the closing credits were rolling so I didn't find out whether Buffy put a stake through her heart. This got me thinking about vampires in general and their propagation in particular. Let me say at once that I'm not very well-versed in vampire biology. Little of what I've read (Salem's Lot {don't really remember it], about a quarter of Interview with the Vampire [hated it]) and seen (a few weeks of Dark Shadows in my teenie years and a terrific PBS movie of Dracula with Louis Jourdan as the Count) has stuck with me. I know pretty much only what most people know about vampires, including: 1. Vampires have a craving for human blood. Animal blood won't do it; vampire blood won't do it. And despite the jokes about vampires working at blood banks, it needs to be fresh, straight from the neck. 2. Vampire bites will turn you into a vampire. Maybe not that first bite, but it doesn't take many. 3. Vampires are immortal, in that they don't age and won't die of natural causes. The only sure way to kill one is by putting a stake through its heart. Sunlight is harmful to them, but must not be fatal since all the vampire hunters rely on the stake bit, rather than just tying them up and waiting till dawn. And let's face it, a stake through the heart is a lot easier to avoid than influenza or plague. I imagine most vampires have a complete wardrobe of stylish breastplates. (I would, wouldn't you?) So we have a group that propagates easily and is hard to kill. This kind of geometric expansion ought to mean a veritable Vampire Population Explosion. Suppose that the net increase in vampire numbers is only 5% a year. This would indicate a remarkable restraint on the part of vampires in terms of blood-sucking, or an admirable success rate by vampire killers, or both. (It does seem this might be correlated ^× the more profligate the vampires, the more assiduous their neighbors would be in tracking them through the night- dark forest, sharpened stakes in hand.) Let's also suppose that in the year 1600 there were only 100 vampires in existence. At an annual growth of 5% there'd be in excess of 25 billion (American definition) vampires today. This of course is an impossible number, but it does suggest that by now we'd all or nearly all be vampires. So where are all the vampires? I know it's possible that I've missed some vital (so to speak) point on vampires, which will earn me the kind of email that starts, "Anny, you ignorant twit!" But I think it's more likely that what we've got here is one of those instances that ask for suspension of disbelief, as in science fiction where the main character bops halfway across the galaxy in an afternoon and then has a first contact experience with a race that happens to speak perfect Terran. But often in science fiction the writer gives an offhand explanation. (Wormholes. Universal Translators.) Do horror writers give similar explanations? How come there are so few vampires today? Where are all the vampires? A related question, and one that is more On Topic: There seems to be a general idea that the act of a vampire biting a human is a sexual act. No doubt a case could be made that this is because this is how vampires reproduce, but the act regardless of consequences seems to be seen as sexual. In popular culture representations, male vampires nearly always bite the necks of female humans. Presumably female vampires bite the necks of males. But that would make the male/female ratio of vampires about 50/50. Yet vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. Why should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a common theme in lit? Anny (Who thinks the worst part of being a vampire would be giving up spaghetti aglio olio) AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 00:10:24 -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: Pseudonyms and gender neutral names--was Female POV; was Book themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980202164947.0075f24c@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Neil Rest wrote: > jenn mottram wrote: > > > > > And, of course, all the > >women who had masculine pseudonyms in order to be considered respectable, > >even in the SF field. > > Not Kate Maclean, not Judith Merrill, not C.L. Moore, and if my brain > didn't sieze up on proper nouns, I'd name the woman whose last credit was > for star Wars II ("The Big Sleep" with Fasulkner). > > They've been lonesome, but never totally absent. > There were always a few women who used their own names, although even staunch feminists like Judith Merrill and Katherine MacLean used male pseudonyms on occasion. C.L. Moore's use of her initials was definitely an attempt to disguise her sex. Leigh Brackett (the writer you're trying to think of) also used her name as a kind of gender-neutral disguise, as, early in her career, did Marion Zimmer Bradley. There were other writers, now mostly forgotten, who used gender neutral names or straight pseudonyms. Lesley Stone was one of the former and Francis Stevens one of the latter. Stevens was a fairly big name in her day too. And let us not forget Andre Norton (who also published as Eric North, I believe). More recently there have been writers like James Tiptree, Lee Hoffman, and Lee Killough. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 01:11:27 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: *FSFFU*] Gendered language - Was Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 22:13:51 EST, jrankine@HRC.GOVT.NZ (Jenny Rankine) writes: > Here's another one for you, Barbara - I'm one of the lesbians who *chose* > to identify this way and live this life. (Best decision I ever made.) I > don't argue that it's natural, since what's *natural* is determined by the > power structures of the times. I argue that a lesbian identity has a > political implication, that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, and > if it wasn't for compulsory heterosexuality a lot more women would be > loving other women. Here's something OT for the group to mull. Suppose we posit a future where there is no compulsory heterosexuality. Will humans "naturally" continue to pair in cross-gender bondings? We assume this is natural. All mammals do so, with a small percentage of dissenters among the primates. But what if other life forms are simply obeying instincts? What if humans, being sentient beings, find same-sex relationships inherently more comfortable? _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ did raise some interesting points. Such differences don't bother woodchucks, but it may be that they grate on the nerves of a sentient life form. Perhaps the Biblical invectives against homosexuality were there to prevent us from seeking a comfort zone, which, however pleasant, would assure the destruction of the human race. Before anyone tears my head off or disbars me from FSFFU, I'm not saying any of this is so, just tossing a polemic into the mill to stimulate discussion. J Jim In a message dated 98-02-02 20:33:58 EST, silk@PIPCOM.COM (silk) writes: > Jim made the very important point that the definition of "control" is > central to this debate. > > Here's a query: as far as I can tell from reading the various postings, > the male posters seem to interpret the complaint that many men do not > control their sexual urges as a claim that men are actually completely out > of control all of the time. In other words, there appears to be no loss of > control unless it's a total full-time technicolour kind of deal. Any > control at all is control. > > The female posters, otoh, appear to be assuming that any control is > complete control. That it, that in order to be in control of one's sexual > urges, one has to be in control of them 100% of the time. Any loss of > control at all is the same as being out of control. > Well, control is, after all, the exercise of restraint. The definition doesn't require total restraint. Just enough to be called restraint. I sometimes get the feeling that the issue isn't one of exercising reasonable restraint as much as finding the opposite sex guilty of having feelings that are "different." That seems about as reasonable as finding them guilty of having genitalia that are "different." At any rate, thanks for some excellent, thought provoking questions. My wife and I often dance around this issue. She was reared in the home of an adult alcoholic. She witnessed her father brutalize and rape her mother. She saw him smash his wife against a hallway mirror and spatter the room with blood. Needless to say, this shaped her perceptions. To her, outside an occasional caress in a tightly locked bedroom, any display of sexuality is abhorrent. Despite the best attempts of puritanical parents, I grew up to be quite the libertine. In my wife's thinking, she is chaste and commendable, and I am a damned roue because I take note of sexy images, whether they are males or females. To me, she is a hypocrite. She is just as tempted to sin by things that sway her as I am by things that sway me. It's like a chocolate hater chiding a chocoholic for being attracted to death-by-chocolate fudge, then diving into a plate of pork rinds the chocolate lover finds disgusting. > Is this totally off base? If there's any truth to the above, then do we > even have any basis of communication? > I don't find it off base at all. The core discussion is, "How do we use language to discuss things in a comprehensible way?" If we insist on enforcing definitions more stringent than the dictionary provides, it's probably useless to use language to communicate. I think that if we define our terms, it just may be possible to communicate. (And the group writes, in unison... Pollyanna!!! :) When language fails, bullets become the medium. Let's talk. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 01:11:22 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: BDG - Same sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 22:13:51 EST, jrankine@HRC.GOVT.NZ (Jenny Rankine) writes: > Here's another one for you, Barbara - I'm one of the lesbians who *chose* > to identify this way and live this life. (Best decision I ever made.) I > don't argue that it's natural, since what's *natural* is determined by the > power structures of the times. I argue that a lesbian identity has a > political implication, that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, and > if it wasn't for compulsory heterosexuality a lot more women would be > loving other women. Here's something OT for the group to mull. Suppose we posit a future where there is no compulsory heterosexuality. Will humans "naturally" continue to pair in cross-gender bondings? We assume this is natural. All mammals do so, with a small percentage of dissenters among the primates. But what if other life forms are simply obeying instincts? What if humans, being sentient beings, find same-sex relationships inherently more comfortable? _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ did raise some interesting points. Such differences don't bother woodchucks, but it may be that they grate on the nerves of a sentient life form. Perhaps the Biblical invectives against homosexuality were there to prevent us from seeking a comfort zone, which, however pleasant, would assure the destruction of the human race. Before anyone tears my head off or disbars me from FSFFU, I'm not saying any of this is so, just tossing a polemic into the mill to stimulate discussion. J Jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 01:15:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Anny Middon wrote: > 1. Vampires have a craving for human blood. Animal blood won't do it; > vampire blood won't do it. And despite the jokes about vampires working at > blood banks, it needs to be fresh, straight from the neck. Rice's vampires can subsist on animal blood - Louis and Lestat both, in various points of their unlives, feed off of rodents, livestock, worms...but the craving for human blood is still a strong one, yes. > 2. Vampire bites will turn you into a vampire. Maybe not that first bite, > but it doesn't take many. Actually, that's death, not biting. The vampire can continue to feed on its victim for years, maybe even decades - as long as the victim never dies because of the vampire, the victim never becomes a vampire. If we take DRACULA, for instance - Lucy becomes a vampire because she dies at Dracula's fangs...if, however, she had walked out into the street one day, during the period of Dracula's visitations, and was killed by a runaway carriage then she would have died in peace. > 3. Vampires are immortal, in that they don't age and won't die of natural > causes. The only sure way to kill one is by putting a stake through its > heart. And beheading. A stake can be pulled. A head, however, cannot be reattached. > Let's also suppose that in the year 1600 there were only 100 vampires > inexistence. At an annual growth of 5% there'd be in excess of 25 > billion(American definition) vampires today. This of course is an impossible > number,but it does suggest that by now we'd all or nearly all be vampires. > So where are all the vampires? Richard Matheson asked that same question. Go find a copy of I AM LEGEND if you're curious what his take was... > Do horror writers give similar explanations? How come there are so few > vampires today? Where are all the vampires? They're in the goth clubs swaying to the melodic sounds of Nick Cave... Presumably, the "old world" vampires were properly hunted down and killed by various hunters, never allowing them to truly spread. Dracula was old world, as was the vampire in King's 'SALEM'S LOT - if you die at their hands, you're damned, that's that. Rice had a different theory, as did Mark Rein^ÕHagen (borrowed it from Rice, probably), who created the roleplaying game VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE: The vampires control who they create. In both cases, the vampire must share his/her blood with the victim at the vital point where the victim is almost dead. The idea of the sharing of the blood borrows itself from Dracula cutting the vein in his chest and letting Mina suck from it, but it more heavily borrows from Christ and the Last Supper (just as many things in the vampire myth mirror the Christian myth - rising three days after death, sharing body and blood, entering everlasting life, etc.) - Rice and Rein^ÕHagen have a sort of vampiric communion on their hands, as the only way the victim is to be "saved" is to be reborn by his savior (the vampire). However, in the Rice/Rein^ÕHagen schema, vampires control the vampiric population so as to not call attention to themselves. They still have to feed off human blood, but that human doesn't turn into a vampire unless the vampire wants the human to do so. - Geoffrey > Why > should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are > sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a > common theme in lit? Well, the neck thing is because it is an erogenous zone (first hand experience) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:16:31 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Out of print book source In-Reply-To: <199802021700.MAA16852@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Basement Full of Books, alas, is not on this search engine. (I did email them about the possibility, but they didn't reply. I was impressed with the engine, so not hearing back was quite a disappointment.) http://www.sff.net/bfob is a cooperative project that lists books available by mail directly from their authors. Most are OP books rescued from the publisher before they went into the great remainder maw in the sky. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think that checking out BFoB first is likely to find you books at _readers'_ prices rather than _collectors_ prices (just for instance: I sell SUPERLUMINAL for $16 postpaid, and am happy to discuss price reductions under circumstances determined by whim; the usual price that I've seen for the book elsewhere is $30, plus s&h.); the writer makes the profit; and you can get the book signed. Best, Vonda On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:00:03 -0500, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >... If >you can't find it with this search engine, you're probably not going to >find it on the Net today. http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:24:58 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: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 00:30:47 EST, you write: > I caught most of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer a while back. It was > a pleasant experience to see a female hero of what may be termed an Action > Horror show. Buffy's certainly not afraid to kick some vampire butt. The > show was endearingly quirky, and I intend to watch it again someday. You may enjoy the movie, which was a lot of fun as well (I think). > This got me thinking about vampires in general and their propagation in > particular. Let me say at once that I'm not very well-versed in vampire > biology. An interesting anthology about vampires that you (and other people on the list) might enjoy reading is called "Tomorrow Sucks" (there's an anthology in the same series about werewolves called "Tomorrow Bites"). It has many very interesting takes on vampirism, and the focus isn't on the romanticized gothic view of vampires, but rather various science fiction views. I'm afraid I don't remember the editor, and can't muster up the courage to try digging for my copy. > I know pretty much only > what most people know about vampires, including: > > 1. Vampires have a craving for human blood. Animal blood won't do it; > vampire blood won't do it. And despite the jokes about vampires working at > blood banks, it needs to be fresh, straight from the neck. > > 2. Vampire bites will turn you into a vampire. Maybe not that first bite, > but it doesn't take many. > > 3. Vampires are immortal, in that they don't age and won't die of natural > causes. The only sure way to kill one is by putting a stake through its > heart. Sunlight is harmful to them, but must not be fatal since all the > vampire hunters rely on the stake bit, rather than just tying them up and > waiting till dawn. And let's face it, a stake through the heart is a lot > easier to avoid than influenza or plague. I imagine most vampires have a > complete wardrobe of stylish breastplates. (I would, wouldn't you?) Part of the reason for not trusting the tie-them-down-and-wait-for-dawn solution is because vampires are also (almost always) supernaturally strong, and thus finding something sufficient for keeping them in place to wait for the sun is tough. Also, sometimes vampires are portrayed as being able to transform into various forms, including bats, wolves, and mist, and I don't know about you, but tying mist is beyond my abilities! ;) > So we have a group that propagates easily and is hard to kill. This kind of > geometric expansion ought to mean a veritable Vampire Population Explosion. This notion is the basis for one of the stories in the "Tomorrow Sucks" anthology. > So where are all the vampires? I've seen several cases where vampires are all part of a strange social network which includes some very *active* infighting. So a lot of times the vampires are killing each other off over various insults, disagreements, and power struggles. Also, in some cases (including the Vampire: The Masquerade roleplaying game Geoffrey mentioned), a vampire can gain another vampire's power (the aforementioned strength, shape-shifting ability, and also extreme speed) by drinking that vampire's blood (and killing them in the process). > Do horror writers give similar explanations? How come there are so few > vampires today? Where are all the vampires? Another reason for there being so few vampires today - according to writers - is because just as the vampires have societies, there are societies of people who have made it their mission to kill off the vampires on earth. John Steakley wrote a novel called "Vampire$" which focused on a team of people who are commissioned by a mysterious backer (the book reveals who the backer is, but I don't want to ruin it for anyone who may decide to read the book) to track down and kill vampires. I won't say it has the best gender-roles out there (in fact, _don't_ read it for feminist messages, really), but it's well written and very very interesting. > A related question, and one that is more On Topic: There seems to be a > general idea that the act of a vampire biting a human is a sexual act. No > doubt a case could be made that this is because this is how vampires > reproduce, but the act regardless of consequences seems to be seen as sexual. > But that would make the male/female ratio of vampires about 50/50. Yet > vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. Why > should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are > sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a > common theme in lit? I'm once again thinking out loud here, but I think part of the reason for vampires in books and movies being predominantly male is because the standard vampire plot is the vampire begins wooing a woman who already has a boyfriend (but usually not a husband, oddly enough). The boyfriend and the vampire begin to compete for the woman, and the boyfriend figures out that there's "something not right" with the vampire (but the woman remains oblivious, of course), and then eventually the boyfriend defeats the vampire and the woman learns her lesson about straying. Also, in movies especially, the vampire tends to be portrayed as something of a "sissy", while the boyfriend is a "man's man". (Which seems fairly homophobic to me.) The vampire takes the woman to the opera, the ballet, and all the other places the boyfriend is too "manly" to go to, and so in defeating the vampire, the man is defeating the woman's attempts to change him, and he's defeating that which is deemed less than masculine. > Anny > (Who thinks the worst part of being a vampire would be giving up spaghetti > aglio olio) > AnnyMiddon@aol.com Just a few thoughts, Barbara Benesch (Who agrees that giving up garlic isn't worth eternal life ;) BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:28:45 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Soaps In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 19:42 1/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >But soaps are really a set of virtual neighbors. That's their big appeal, >especially in a culture where - 50s sitcoms to the contrary - people who >work at home (as housewives or whatever) - have almost no interaction with >others unless they join a club or group. The soaps are a substitute. > >I*t's also my guess that organized team sports fulfill a bit of the >function of "virtual war", and following celebrities harks back to the >ancient necessity of keeping a very sharp eye on the doings of those in >power. > > Pat - This is also the case for many disabled people, who are even more isolated than the general mainstream community. In recent years, the explosion of IRC as a medium of communication...has become an "interactive", or *virtual* soap-opera on general chat-channels:)). I guess it also supports the idea, that the human species is a gregarious one, and feels a strong need to have regular contact with others. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au __________________________________________________________________ | | | FATAL ERROR! LOGOFF! | | | | Reality.sys Corrupt! Reboot UNIVERS? | | | |________________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 04:46:30 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 00:30:47 EST, you write: << I know pretty much only what most people know about vampires Vampires have been sliced & diced so many ways in fiction by now that all of their early characteristics have been altered at one time or another, including the craving for blood (energy/life suckers are rampant and frequently classed with vampires---like the ghosts in Cherryh's Rusalka series). It's almost meaningless to list hard and fast "rules" for vampires in print or non-print fiction--- it's easier to trace different types or traits. Greg Cox published a series of "excerpts" (I don't know if the final work has ever been released) from The Transylvanian Library: A Consumer's Guide to Vampire Fiction in the New York Review of Science Fiction a while back (roughly, issues 23 to 39, July 1990 to November 1991) that's the best summary I've seen of trends from Polidari through the 1980s. He primarily covers print, although he mentions some TV, movies, and comix. Some later short guides also appeared, to rock'n'roll and leather-jacket and detective/cop vampire genres. The new Clute-Grant Encyclopedia of Fantasy has a pretty good condensed summary of the genre and other entries on movies and the Vampirella comix. They also cover the Havana Vampire, but don't really deal with the oriental vampires, which are slowly rising in popularity, probably because they pop up in Anime so frequently. There's not much point in bringing up exceptions to every rule you've listed, since there are so many variations out there now---Charnas's Vampire Tapestry (one vampire on earth, out in sunlight, no problem with crosses) is probably still the best rebuttal of the traditional vampire. And it's crisper than Rice. Saberhagen's New Dracula series, primarily the Dracula Tape, also have great fun with Stoker's prototype. >> A related question, and one that is more On Topic: There seems to be a general idea that the act of a vampire biting a human is a sexual act. No doubt a case could be made that this is because this is how vampires reproduce, but the act regardless of consequences seems to be seen as sexual. In popular culture representations, male vampires nearly always bite the necks of female humans. Presumably female vampires bite the necks of males. But that would make the male/female ratio of vampires about 50/50. Yet vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. Why should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a common theme in lit? There are plenty of female vampires out there: a progenetrix was the 16th-17th c. countess Elizabeth Bathory who bathed in blood. Johann Tieck's "Wake Not the Dead" predated Polidori, and Le Fanu's "Carmilla" was published a quarter century before Stoker's Dracula. In the 19th century, the "femme fatale" was identified with vampirism--- all that writhing hair in Symbolist and decadent and pre-Raphaelite art--- of the life-sucking if not blood-sucking variety. The Mona Lisa was described as vampiric-looking. In contemporary fiction, there are female main characters as vampires in writings by Nancy Collins (Sunglasses After Dark/Sonja Blue series); , Tanith Lee (Sabella; The Blood of Roses; the Blood Opera series), Chelsea Quinn Yarbro (from Hotel Transylvania on), Angela Carter ("The Lady of the House of Love"), oh, hell, more Saberhagen, King, Chetwynd-Hayes, Poppy Brite, Barbara Hambly--- and erotic vampire anthologies edited by Ellen Datlow, Brite, and others (all I can remember right now are Whisper of Blood and Love in Vein). I guess they aren't as prominent in movies/tv, although I can recall major female presences in Forever Knight and the Hunger, Blood and Roses, The Vampire Lovers, Nadja, Captain Kronos, Vamp (Grace Jones!!), Fright Night (the trashy comedy with the vampire who bites off trouser buttons-- or was that Once Bitten?), Interview with the Vampire, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and that awful opera- thingy, Vampyr: A Soap Opera--- and all those Hammer/Christopher Plummer films. and Dracula's Daughter, from 1936. Anyway, they're still around, if you actually read & watch the stuff >>Who thinks the worst part of being a vampire would be giving up spaghetti aglio olio) >> Rice has a scene in Tale of the Body Thief where a temporarily mortal Lestat eats pasta with garlic--- not spaghetti all' aglio ed olio, but close enough. He didn't like it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 05:09:48 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: Vampire Anthologies, was....The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I forgot, Poppy Z. Brite has also released two volumes of erotic vampire fiction called _Love In Vein_. She has several interesting takes on the vampire idea, and several of them feature female central characters. It's not to everyone's taste, I'm sure, but it's something you might like to look into. The only difficult thing is that at my local Barnes & Noble, the first volume is located in SF/F, and the second is located in horror. I don't know if there's any particular reason for that, or if someone just wasn't paying attention. But if anyone is interested, you may have to look in both sections of your local book store. Also, I remembered belated that this _is_ the internet, after all, and looked up the editor for _Tomorrow Sucks_ (the vampire anthology that I mentioned in my previous post). The editors are Greg Cox and T.K.F. Weisskopf. The synopsis, according to Amazon, goes a little something like this: >From the streets of old London to the squalid fleshpots of Mars, from the Russian steppes to the gleaming decks of interplanetary spaceships, a new breed of bloodsucker is on the loose. These scientific vampires stalk through time and space in search of prey, both human and otherwise. And not even Dracula was more deadly. -------- Hope this helps anyone who's interested. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:16:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Anny Middon wrote: > So we have a group that propagates easily and is hard to kill. This kind of > geometric expansion ought to mean a veritable Vampire Population Explosion. > > Suppose that the net increase in vampire numbers is only 5% a year. This > would indicate a remarkable restraint on the part of vampires in terms of > blood-sucking, or an admirable success rate by vampire killers, or both. (It > does seem this might be correlated ^× the more profligate the vampires, the > more assiduous their neighbors would be in tracking them through the night- > dark forest, sharpened stakes in hand.) Uh-uh. Read WHY BIG FIERCE ANIMALS ARE SCARCE. It's not how fast they reproduce or how hard they are to kill, but how many of them can make a living in their niche. > > Let's also suppose that in the year 1600 there were only 100 vampires in > existence. At an annual growth of 5% there'd be in excess of 25 billion > (American definition) vampires today. This of course is an impossible number, > but it does suggest that by now we'd all or nearly all be vampires. > > So where are all the vampires? As with crime, prostitution, and starting small businesses, a whole lot of them simply couldn't make it as vampires. (see above). For one thing, their dietary requirements are too specialized. > > A related question, and one that is more On Topic: There seems to be a > general idea that the act of a vampire biting a human is a sexual act. No > doubt a case could be made that this is because this is how vampires > reproduce, but the act regardless of consequences seems to be seen as sexual. > In popular culture representations, male vampires nearly always bite the necks > of female humans. Presumably female vampires bite the necks of males. 'Tain't necessarily so. One of the earliest vampire novels featured a lesbian vampire, and everyone's heard the Gay Vampiure Boogie. Not to mention all the vampire/AIDS jokes. > But that would make the male/female ratio of vampires about 50/50. Yet > vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. SO are the action heroes. Our idiot box writers consider one token female in the gang to be perfectly acceptable representation. Why should this be so? Sexism on the part of male writers combined with sexual fantasies on the part of female writers. See Laurell Hamilton's Anita Blake series with the sexiest vampire since Frank Langella. I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are > sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a > common theme in lit? Yes, but not so much nowadays. In Victorian times the theme was really common. Mostly she's shown as a psyvamp. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:56:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes {snip} > >I also have a different definition of feminist than many of the ones other > >people use in the list. Mine is a woman who believes that women as a group > >are oppressed in ways which advantage men as a group, and who also thinks > >collective social action is the only way to change this. > > Do you also mean that it's implicitly impossible for a man to be a feminist? > > > Neil Rest > NeilRest@tezcat.com Hi all! I am afraid this reminds me of a Nicole Hollander book intitled "Ma, can I be a feminist and still like men?" Answer "Sure, just like you can be a vegetarian and still like fried chicken. Just some humor ;-> Penny ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:41:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Jim Hollomon wrote: > > If it's true that all men are totally > uninhibited sexual predators as intent upon their prey as the raptors > of the Jurassic age, then I'm astounded that rape is as infrequent as > it seems to be. Granted that rape is all to frequent, and I am > appalled at its ever happening. > It should not. However, what I am saying is that if half the human race > were totally unrestrained rapists, this would be a very different > world, and one I'm glad I don't have to inhabit. > I doubt that most rapes are originated from anyone's sex drive. Most rapes are just a demonstration of force, of violence, of power, since the woman (or the male prisoner, or the soldier prisoner) cannot avoid the penetration. It is a demonstration of power and desire to humiliate, and has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:33:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara R. Hume wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-02 09:37:14 EST, you write: > > It seems to me that all episodic TV posits that a man can't be one of >the "heroes" unless he is free to bop from partner to partner. No > stability--no families--no commitment to a permanent relationship or to > raising children. I believe that a strong and loving family life is the > best thing we can give our descendants. Why does that concept get such > a bad rap these days? > Nature gives males a strong sex drive so they'll reproduce, but I'd > like to think that > humans can think beyond their own libidos and consider the reality > they're > bringing children into. The strong sexual drive of humans, including the female sexual drive (and the human female orgasmic capacity, not easily found in nature among females), is deemed to be responsible for the creation of pair-bondings, and by extension the family. If I'm not mistaken this is the thesis of Desmond Morris, in _The Naked Ape_. The fact that humans are less hairy than apes in general is only another trick nature has invented to increase sexual pleasure in humans, and as a consequence, allow for long term relationships - and the existance and perpetuation of families. Elisa cyborg@uol.com.br ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:25:29 -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: The Vampire Population Problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I only know Stoker's _Dracula_ so... >[snip] Yet > vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. Why > should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are > sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a > common theme in lit? > >There are plenty of female vampires out there: a progenetrix was the >16th-17th >c. countess Elizabeth Bathory who bathed in blood. Johann Tieck's "Wake Not >the Dead" predated Polidori, and Le Fanu's "Carmilla" was published a >quarter >century before Stoker's Dracula. In the 19th century, the "femme fatale" was >identified with vampirism--- all that writhing hair in Symbolist and decadent >and pre-Raphaelite art--- of the life-sucking if not blood-sucking variety. The Mona Lisa was described as vampiric-looking. [snip] Even in Stoker's _Dracula_, one of the problem's recognized by Van Helsing (and eventually the other men) was Lucy's vampirism. Dracula was killed as the source, but part of hte problem seemed to be Lucy and Mina's predation and implicit sexual license. Van Helsing at one point (if my memory serves) warns Lucy's fiance away from her embrace and counters her sensual beauty and "seeming innocence" with charges or desire- for blood and or sex(ual power) from the men. -------- If we take DRACULA, for instance - Lucy becomes a vampire because she dies at Dracula's fangs...if, however, she had walked out into the street one day, during the period of Dracula's visitations, and was killed by a runaway carriage then she would have died in peace. I don't think this is right. I thought that once the blood-taking had been enough, whenever Lucy died she would have become "undead" and would have had to be properly killed (and she was supposed to thank her fiance who drove the stake through her heart in the masoleum!). All the men give Lucy their blood (the science and technology in Stoker's novel is quite up-to-date for the time), but this is in some ways linked to the bond of sex/marriage. It should be a strange way of having Dracula interact with the MEN through a female medium. Then of course the "proper man" (Lucy's fiance) needs to purify Lucy (sort of like preserving honor after rape through death, and if the woman won't do it, her male relatives will) with HIS STAKE in "proper" death. This is probably all a counter-reading, but... back to the point, I think that if Mina (once under Dracula's influence) had died, she would have become vampiric, as Lucy would have, having fallen from a cliff, etc. misha ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:32:41 -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: *FSFFU*] Gendered language - Was Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wendy Well, for what it's worth, I think you've got a measure of what the group responses have said. I would agree more readily (personally) iwth the control is 100% control aspect, but have seen that other readers/responders feel that control is the opposite of chaos (being at least a bare minimum of control). misha >---------- >From: silk[SMTP:silk@PIPCOM.COM] >Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 6:25 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: [*FSFFU*] *FSFFU*] Gendered language - Was Men and sexual urges > >Jim made the very important point that the definition of "control" is >central to this debate. > >Here's a query: as far as I can tell from reading the various postings, >the male posters seem to interpret the complaint that many men do not >control their sexual urges as a claim that men are actually completely out >of control all of the time. In other words, there appears to be no loss of >control unless it's a total full-time technicolour kind of deal. Any >control at all is control. > >The female posters, otoh, appear to be assuming that any control is >complete control. That it, that in order to be in control of one's sexual >urges, one has to be in control of them 100% of the time. Any loss of >control at all is the same as being out of control. > >Is this totally off base? If there's any truth to the above, then do we >even have any basis of communication? > >Wendy > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:51:00 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: BDG - Same sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Hollomon wrote: . Suppose we posit a future where > there is no compulsory heterosexuality. Will humans "naturally" continue to > pair in cross-gender bondings? What is natural about heterosexuality? nada! the subjects of this list are full of alternatives -Blessed Be! we are not discussing sex but power over/ power from within, and not heterosexuality but patriarchy. How we have cloaked our true intents... Finished "womon on the edge of time" yesterday, another Marge Piercy novel, how come I never heard of her before is what I want to know, I've read plenty of stuff that came from her writing, developed from her seed - surely starhawk was motivated by her work - I found the fifth sacred thing more moving/fertilizing but womon on the edge of time stark/ingenious/challenging. I read very few male authors, ? I know, for shame to be bigotted but my defense is that what goes in must come out and I would wish to be filled with wimmin's thinking and point of view, I take on so much of what I immerse in. In fantasy fiction I do have favorite male authors- tolkien, tad williams, charles de lint. Even with their excellence it's like switching cuisines, from Indian curries to southern grits, in my not-so-humble opinion! : ) Please don't be offended - none meant, diversity is joy! Cleo - Wolf in womon's clothing.. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:58:14 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: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 10:46:42 EST, cyborg@UOL.COM.BR (Elisa) writes: > I doubt that most rapes are originated from anyone's sex drive. > Most rapes are just a demonstration of force, of violence, of power, > since the woman (or the male prisoner, or the soldier prisoner) cannot > avoid the penetration. It is a demonstration of power and desire to > humiliate, and has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. True enough, but in this arguement (That men are totally incapable of controling their sexual urges) that's not the point. If all men always acted on everything that stirred their loins, sexual advances, harrassment and yes, aggression would destroy all vestiges of civilized society overnight. What's at issue in this discussion is not the nature of rape but the nature of man. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:58:13 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Offbeat Reading Suggestion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit We recently had a thread going about understanding the "Other." We talked about bridging the gap between gender, sexual preference, race, and other barriers we humans errect to prevent our understanding one another. I wish I had thought of the book at the time, but better late than never. If you want to exercise your abilities to understand and connect with people very different from yourself, try reading Katherine Dunn's _Geek Love_. Don't worry; no matter who or what you are, her cast of characters will be different from you, and yet hauntingly alike in their needs. It is a tour de force of Otherness. The book is hard to classify. I suppose it's fantasy. It certainly never happened. But it is not fantasy in the common sense of the word, as it is applied to genres of fiction. Here's what the back cover mentions: "Page after page she shocks us... A Fellini movie in ink." -- San Francisco Chronicle "Like most great novels, this one keeps the reader marveling at the daring of the author. _Geek Love_ may offend; it may repulse; in doing so, however, it speaks to what it means to be human." -- Philadelphia Enquirer "Wonderfully descriptive....the comic exploration of the peculiar...gives _Geek Love_ its main success: that and Ms. Dunn's tremendous imagination." -- The New York TImes Book Review ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:07:42 -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: Pseudonyms and gender neutral names- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Mike Levy says: > And let us not forget Andre Norton (who also published as Eric > North, I believe). More recently there have been writers like James Tiptree, > Lee Hoffman, and Lee Killough. The custom continues. "Charles Ingrid" is a pseudonym for a woman writer whose name slips my mind right now. She also writes under her own name, but the Ingrid stuff is more military-SF, if I recall. More: MZ Bradley wrote as Lee Chapman, John Dexter, Morgan Ives and others. Reverses: Thomas Disch & John Sladek = Knye Cassandra (?). Dean Koontz = Deanna Dwyer, K.R. Dwyer & Leigh Nichols. Frank Belknap Long = Lyda Belknap Long. Barry Malzberg = Claudine Dumas. Mack Reynolds = Maxine Reynolds. Robert Silverberg = Hilary Ford. One assumes that male writers take female-sounding pseudonyms to write in a "woman's" historical or romance genre - so maybe this question has something to do with publisher/bookseller ideas of segregated marketing, besides acceptance of gender in genre fandom. An interesting blurb from the back of the Bantam 1st edition of "Sign of the Labrys" by Margaret St. Clair, 1963: "Women are writing SCIENCE- FICTION! Original! Brilliant!! Dazzling!!! Women are closer to the primitive than men. They are conscious of the moon-pulls, the earth- tides. They possess a buried memory of humankind's obscure and ancient past which can emerge to uniquely color and flavor an novel. "Such a woman is Margaret St. Clair, author of this novel. Such a novel is this, SIGN OF THE LABRYS, the story of a doomed world of the future, saved by recourse to ageless, immemorial rites... FRESH! IMAGINATIVE!! INVENTIVE!!!" Odd appeal to novelty, keeping in mind this was more than 10 years after the Norton-Merril-Moore generation started publishing. (Who needs the weather channel? Get your tidal predictions from the nearest woman...) -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:51:41 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Jean Lorrah-IDIC, Octavia Butler-Mutagenesis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, The many discussions regarding diversity in sexual expression, orientation, eating liver and drinking diet coke have reminded me of one of Jean Lorrah's ST novels: The IDIC Epidemic. IDIC stands for: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination, a Vulcan philosophy. Sounds great, hard to practice. Octavia Butler's _Mutagenesis_ series includes aliens able to practice this on a physical, genetic level, although they have difficulty allowing humanity to follow it's own diverse, (probably destructive) course. 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: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:17:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: Pseudonyms and gender neutral names- -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote >>>The custom continues. "Charles Ingrid" is a pseudonym for a woman writer whose name slips my mind right now. She also writes under her own name, but the Ingrid stuff is more military-SF, if I recall. She writes suspense/supernatural fiction under the name Elizabeth Forrest. That's not her real name either, but she is a woman, and not Dean Koontz (which has been rumored.) Debra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:27:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Beverly J. Mahoney" Subject: Re: Offbeat Reading Suggestion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I, too, recommend this book. It really makes you think. Bev Jim Hollomon wrote: > We recently had a thread going about understanding the "Other." We talked > about bridging the gap between gender, sexual preference, race, and other > barriers we humans errect to prevent our understanding one another. I wish I > had thought of the book at the time, but better late than never. > > If you want to exercise your abilities to understand and connect with people > very different from yourself, try reading Katherine Dunn's _Geek Love_. Don't > worry; no matter who or what you are, her cast of characters will be different > from you, and yet hauntingly alike in their needs. It is a tour de force of > Otherness. The book is hard to classify. I suppose it's fantasy. It certainly > never happened. But it is not fantasy in the common sense of the word, as it > is applied to genres of fiction. > > Here's what the back cover mentions: > > "Page after page she shocks us... A Fellini movie in ink." -- San Francisco > Chronicle > > "Like most great novels, this one keeps the reader marveling at the daring of > the author. _Geek Love_ may offend; it may repulse; in doing so, however, it > speaks to what it means to be human." -- Philadelphia Enquirer > > "Wonderfully descriptive....the comic exploration of the peculiar...gives > _Geek Love_ its main success: that and Ms. Dunn's tremendous imagination." -- > The New York TImes Book Review ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:38:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:58 AM 2/3/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-03 10:46:42 EST, cyborg@UOL.COM.BR (Elisa) writes: > >> I doubt that most rapes are originated from anyone's sex drive. >> Most rapes are just a demonstration of force, of violence, of power, >> since the woman (or the male prisoner, or the soldier prisoner) cannot >> avoid the penetration. It is a demonstration of power and desire to >> humiliate, and has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. > >True enough, Why do so many people accept that rape has nothing to do with sex or sexual pleasure? It seems to me that the two are intertwined. Men rape (primarily) with their penises. Those penises need to be erect in order to penetrate. In today's society we still see sex, violence, power and dominance associated together. Look at the commercials shown during major sporting events. Watch trailors for new release action films (James Bonds newest film will work). They will show scenes where the "hero" is fighting bad guys (cut) Bond rescuing female (cut) both Bond and female missing gunfire (cut) now they're safe and engaged in sexual activity. When men are threatening to fight someone they'll say things like, "I'm going to fuck you up!" "Come here Bitch and show me what you got!" "Suck on this!" but in this arguement (That men are totally incapable of >controling their sexual urges) that's not the point. If all men always acted >on everything that stirred their loins, sexual advances, harrassment and yes, >aggression would destroy all vestiges of civilized society overnight. What's at issue in this discussion is not the nature of rape but the nature of man. I agree that the nature of man and his socialization is what's at issue here (men/women/children). Understanding the nature of rape may be a by-product of understanding the nature of human beings and their socialization. And underneath all of that socialization garbage...are a countries and an individual philosophical principles. Cat Farrar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:49:44 -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: BDG - Same sex themes Comments: To: Cleo Wolf In-Reply-To: <199802031652.LAA06394@mx01.together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Cleo Wolf wrote: > > Finished "womon on the edge of time" yesterday, another Marge Piercy > novel, how come I never heard of her before is what I want to know, I've > read plenty of stuff that came from her writing, developed from her seed - > surely starhawk was motivated by her work - I found the fifth sacred thing > more moving/fertilizing but womon on the edge of time > stark/ingenious/challenging. > Actually Piercy (and other writers) took most of her ideas in Woman on the Edge of Time from a nifty work of non-fiction called (if I'm remembering correctly--it's been fifteen years) The Dialectics of Sex by Shulamith Firestone, a book anyone interested in both feminism and science fiction would probably appreciate. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:42:54 -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: polygamy, sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Re: Heinlein's polygamy: I agree that it isn't the marital/family arrangements that Heinlein put his characters into but the way he absolutely and totally ignores any possible female viewpoint while at the same time giving the impression of being "liberated". I would have liked his work better if he were admittedly sexist instead of hypocritical. Sorry to be so harsh - I used to love his work but after awhile I just got very turned-off by it. Imagine, in one of the "Lazarus Long" series the female protagonist has something like 30 kids altogether, and there is absolutely no exploration of her role in nurturing these children or even how her body ever survived all that! Re: Men's sexual urges: In my experience, most men do a good job of balancing the conflicting demand of their desires, societies expectations for "real men" and societies moral constraints. I personally believe that we do men and our species a great disservice when we denigrate their sometimes incredible sexual drive. I think that feminism has done a great job of increasing the recognition of *feminine* nurturing, child-raising, teaching, peacemaking qualities; but we should start to acknowledge that without the horniness of men, we might be in short supply of babies to nurture! I realise that *all* of our animalistic urges must be balanced by reasoning, but that doesn't make any of them inherently bad. I eagerly await your comments! Erica ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:05:19 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Gender Polarization (was: Men and their urges) Content-Type: text/plain Julianne wrote: >>At 12:13 2/02/98 EST, you wrote: >>I think what we must be discussing here is the definition of >>"control." >As this discussion develops, it seems that the >>men-can't-control-their-sexual-impulses camp mean that men have >>sexual thoughts when they encounter visual >>erotic stimuli. Of course, women are not immune to such. An >>attractive enough sight may prompt a little flutter in the tummy of a >>woman, or so I've been told. But men are wired to respond to visual >>stimuli by (insert the Creator or evolution, as you may choose). After >>all, if we are to reproduce and continue >>as a species, somebody's gotta make the first move. > >Jim - > >Another reason that women control their desires, is because of the >very realistic fear of male aggression in the expression of masculine >sexuality. As a consequence, women are more likely to be fearful of >all male sexual displays regardless of the intent, or their own strong >response to it. All hetero-sexually active women are very much >aware of the truth of the statement by Germaine Greer : "Any woman >who goes to bed with a man for the first time, knows that she runs >the risk of being treated with contempt." > >That fear of even mild negative consequences resulting from the >release of their own strong sexual desire, is a very good motivator for >women to exercise "control" over their urges. Men, on the other hand have no such motivator. [snip] >Julieanne >ppp98@cs.net.au Maybe it's just me, but the amount of polarization around this subject seems to be getting a little ridiculous to me. I think the average man feels some vulnerability and anxiety when going to bed with someone for the first time -- this is surely a human, rather than a female characteristic. I agree that the double standard is an awful thing and a crushing burden on women, but it's not the only factor operating in human life. BTW, I get the impression that everyone has a different idea of what is meant by "men not controlling their urges." It seems that everyone has their own interpretation of what Men Behaving Badly means -- getting a woman into bed and then treating her like crap? Hitting on someone who doesn't seem interested? Date rape? Spouse abuse? Incest? Depending on what your interpretation is, your feelings will be very different. I remember at some US university a feminist group once posted a banner with the faces of some random group of male students and the words "Potential Rapists." I can understand their point, but I still feel insulted. Dan Krashin P.S. No offense was intended to overweight people or Valkries in my last message, I'm a big Wagner fan and I thought it would be a good, uncontroversial example of what I meant. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:09:47 -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: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elisa wrote: > The strong sexual drive of humans, including the female sexual drive > (and the human female orgasmic capacity, not easily found in nature > among females), is deemed to be responsible for the creation of > pair-bondings, and by extension the family. If I'm not mistaken this is > the thesis of Desmond Morris, in _The Naked Ape_. The fact that humans > are less hairy than apes in general is only another trick nature has > invented to increase sexual pleasure in humans, and as a consequence, > allow for long term relationships - and the existance and perpetuation > of families. I'm not clear exactly what you mean by pair-bondings here. If you mean monogamous pair-bondings, then I must point out that humans in general are not monogamous at all. It takes a great deal of effort to get people to restrict their sexual urges to a single other person -- effort that could be much better spent otherwise, IMO (assuming safe sexual practices). As for Desmond Morris -- *SHUDDER*. I watched the first two hours of his show "The Human Sexes" on the Learning Channel last night and I have to say the guy is a flaming idiot. If anyone cares to find out for her/himself, the series continues tonight from 9PM-11PM. I have somewhat of an allergic reaction to any sociobiological claims (that is, claims that human psychology has evolved to meet adaptive aims - an example might be "men are in general more aggressive because they used to be hunters in human prehistory"), but there are takes on it that are less offensive and wrongheaded than Morris'. I recently read sections of a book called *Demonic Males* by Richard Wrangham & Dale Peterson which attempts to explain male aggression and violence via comparisons to chimpanzees & presumably our mutual ancestors. It's quite well written and the primate research appears to have been thorough. One of the most fascinating sections of the book is the chapter on the bonobo, an ape that is nearly identical to the chimpanzee but whose social structure is completely different. Amongst bonobos male violence is very uncommon and the relationships between females make up most of the social fabric. These relationships include near-constant sexual activity, younger females choosing older female "sponsors" and cementing the bond with sex. As far as sex goes, bonobos are getting a lot more than we are, and hair doesn't seem to be a problem. It is sort of implied in the course of the book that with time humans may become more like bonobos and less like chimpanzees. That's a future I'd like to see. ----- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead - OK Computer "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:04:26 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 04:51:42 EST, you write: << and all those Hammer/Christopher Plummer films >> Should have said Peter Cushing instead of Plummer---don't know why, but I'm always confusing them. And it was Once Bitten (with Jim Carrey, whom I completely blacked out in my mind---protective response) that had Lauren Hutton as the vampire who bit the buttons off young mens' pants. Forgot to toss in, too, that the vampire-lesbian tradition also started with Le Fanu's "Carmilla." It's curious that so many seem to accept that this is a male-centered genre. Vampira: not just a bimbo in a bad dress. I always thought of vampire fiction, among all horror fiction themes (except for maybe dolls that come to life), to be primarily aimed at and consumed by women. Maybe that's why the prominent male figures are the ones we remember? The seducer instead of the seductress? The man as predator instead of woman as snare with teeth? Nobody on the fang team we want to identify with? The empowering women vampires like Nancy Collins's Sonja Blue girls-- a fairly unapologetic bunch who are definitely out to crunch men-- have their real fans, but haven't emerged as sympathetically as the sensitive male vampire, or the male vampire as victim. The homoerotic vampires of the Anne Rice vein seem largely to be written as titillation for women, granted that men also find them appealing. The vulnerable male vampires seem to pack the same sexual wallop that the dominant ones used to --- the stereotype does seem to have shifted. Remember the mess USA made of Forever Knight when they tried to make Nick less empathetic and more of a monster? Hate to keep bringing that one mediocre show up, but it presented, before the Buffy show, the most visible vampire fiction as a continuing story in the mass media in recent years. There was that one battling vampire families summer series (can't remember the name) that bombed after a few shows--- Sorry to keep rambling on, but the female vamp image vs that of the male is intriguing in terms of audience; has the "nasty pleasure" of the female vamp gone underground temporarily, while we have the cleaner Buffy vamp-basher to emulate and the weak male vamp to moon over? And what do the men get out of it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:09:53 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: Heroes and families/Hercules (was BDG, etc) >I the TV show Hercules, he HAD a wife and kids, but I guess they were >getting in the way of his heroic stunts because they killed all of the >family off. As I recollect this is consistent with the myth: however, in that H killed his own wife and children in a fit of Hera-induced madness. I expect that was cleaned up for the TV show?! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:24:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Judith Katz (off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Someone (sorry, I didn't make note of your name) had mentioned Judith Katz and her _Running fiercely toward a high thin sound_ . Its been so long since I read it that I didn't remember enough to comment - but I did just finish her _The Escape artist_ - if you've read that also I'd be glad to e-chat with you about it or the author. sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:24:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Hollomon wrote: > What's > at issue in this discussion is not the nature of rape but the nature > of man. How do you know what's really at issue here? You were the first to link male behavior and male nature, one cannot separate the behavior from the supposedly existent nature. Rape is linked to some male psychological characteristics, or physical characteristics, whatever. What restrains many males from rape behavior is not self-control, but pair-control, society control; in other words, the respect or fear one male has for other males, which is nevertheless subverted in war, in which this respect is then turned to aggression. Why a male raper is probably going to be raped in prison? Because his attitude was an aggression to other males sense of HONOR. They abided to the Father's law; everymale should to, unless the Father grants him permission to collectively rape some enemy. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:25:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: polygamy, sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Re: Men's sexual urges: In my experience, most men do a good job of >balancing the conflicting demand of their desires, societies expectations >for "real men" and societies moral constraints. I personally believe that >we do men and our species a great disservice when we denigrate their >sometimes incredible sexual drive. As we do a great "disservice??" to women when we ASSUME that their sex drive is also biologically determined! I think that feminism has done a great >job of increasing the recognition of *feminine* nurturing, child-raising, >teaching, peacemaking qualities; but we should start to acknowledge that >without the horniness of men, Without sounding disrespectful....without the horniness of men??!! Determinism is a dead end road. we might be in short supply of babies to >nurture! I realise that *all* of our animalistic urges must be balanced by >reasoning, but that doesn't make any of them inherently bad. Why is it that people are viewed as so disjointed? Why is it that people assume that there is some "battle" going on in humans minds - one that "urges" them to act as a human and one that "urges" them to act as an animal? Cat Farrar > >I eagerly await your comments! > >Erica > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:47:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Gender Polarization (was: Men and their urges) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:05 AM 2/3/98 PST, you wrote: >Julianne wrote: >>>At 12:13 2/02/98 EST, you wrote: >>>I think what we must be discussing here is the definition of >>>"control." >As this discussion develops, it seems that the >>>men-can't-control-their-sexual-impulses camp mean that men have >>>sexual thoughts when they encounter visual >>>erotic stimuli. Of course, women are not immune to such. An >>>attractive enough sight may prompt a little flutter in the tummy of a >>>woman, or so I've been told. But men are wired to respond to visual >>>stimuli by (insert the Creator or evolution, as you may choose). After >>>all, if we are to reproduce and continue >>>as a species, somebody's gotta make the first move. Men are wired to respond to visual stimuli???!!! How about instead of inserting the Creator or evolution, we insert Hustler, Penthouse and Playboy - just to name three. Following your reasoning, did this same creator or same evolutionary agent also wire women to be passive? Cat Farrar >> >>Jim - >> > >>Another reason that women control their desires, is because of the >>very realistic fear of male aggression in the expression of masculine >>sexuality. As a consequence, women are more likely to be fearful of >>all male sexual displays regardless of the intent, or their own strong >>response to it. All hetero-sexually active women are very much >aware >of the truth of the statement by Germaine Greer : "Any woman >who goes >to bed with a man for the first time, knows that she runs >the risk of >being treated with contempt." >> >>That fear of even mild negative consequences resulting from the >>release of their own strong sexual desire, is a very good motivator for >>women to exercise "control" over their urges. Men, on the other hand >have no such motivator. >[snip] >>Julieanne >>ppp98@cs.net.au > >Maybe it's just me, but the amount of polarization around this subject >seems to be getting a little ridiculous to me. I think the average man >feels some vulnerability and anxiety when going to bed with someone >for the first time -- this is surely a human, rather than a female >characteristic. I agree that the double standard is an awful thing >and a crushing burden on women, but it's not the only factor >operating in human life. > BTW, I get the impression that everyone has a different idea of >what is meant by "men not controlling their urges." It seems that >everyone has their own interpretation of what Men Behaving Badly means >-- getting a woman into bed and then treating her like crap? Hitting on >someone who doesn't seem interested? Date rape? Spouse abuse? Incest? >Depending on what your interpretation is, your feelings will be very >different. > I remember at some US university a feminist group once posted a >banner with the faces of some random group of male students and >the words "Potential Rapists." I can understand their point, but I >still feel insulted. > >Dan Krashin >P.S. No offense was intended to overweight people or Valkries in >my last message, I'm a big Wagner fan and I thought it would be >a good, uncontroversial example of what I meant. > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:32:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Intercepted at: 03/02/98 05:21:38 GMT. >From Anny Middon . > I caught most of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer a while back. It was > a pleasant experience to see a female hero of what may be termed an Action > Horror show. Buffy's certainly not afraid to kick some vampire butt. The > show was endearingly quirky, and I intend to watch it again someday. Didn't know there was a series. Hmm... Maybe that's why the film was on a couple of weeks back. When it does get here I shall definitely try it. > This got me thinking about vampires in general and their propagation in > particular. > 1. Vampires have a craving for human blood. Animal blood won't do it; > vampire blood won't do it. And despite the jokes about vampires working at > blood banks, it needs to be fresh, straight from the neck. My research tends to indicate that vampires can survive on alternate blood sources. They just don't have that piquancy that every vampire craves. A bit like carob. Tastes good, definitely moreish, but it is not chocolate. > 2. Vampire bites will turn you into a vampire. Maybe not that first > bite, but it doesn't take many. By exercising some restraint, a vampire can keep a food source alive for a long time. > 3. Vampires are immortal, in that they don't age and won't die of natural > causes. The only sure way to kill one is by putting a stake through its > heart. Sunlight is harmful to them, but must not be fatal since all the > vampire hunters rely on the stake bit, rather than just tying them up and > waiting till dawn. And let's face it, a stake through the heart is a lot > easier to avoid than influenza or plague. I imagine most vampires have a > complete wardrobe of stylish breastplates. (I would, wouldn't you?) Yes, the old stake through the heart routine is certainly the favourite, but there are alternatives. Sunlight IS fatal to most vampires. Some of the more powerful ones have developed a full or partial resistance. Of course, there is the problem of getting your vampire to expose himself to sunlight in order to test his resistance. Fire may work, but my recollection is a bit unclear on that point. Likewise beheading. I suspect that depriving a vampire of his coffin, and therefore of all contact with the soil from his grave, would do him no good whatsoever. > So we have a group that propagates easily and is hard to kill. This kind of > geometric expansion ought to mean a veritable Vampire Population Explosion. This ignores one important fact: Every vampire is the servant of the vampire which created him. If you were evil incarnate, in times of food shortage, would you allow your servants to feed at your expense? Conversely, if your master was refusing to let you eat would you not try to overthrow him. The infighting alone must have a heavy impact on the population. > So where are all the vampires? Biding their time, Anny. Biding their time. > A related question, and one that is more On Topic: There seems to be a > general idea that the act of a vampire biting a human is a sexual act. No > doubt a case could be made that this is because this is how vampires > reproduce, but the act regardless of consequences seems to be seen as sexual. > In popular culture representations, male vampires nearly always bite the necks > of female humans. Presumably female vampires bite the necks of males. > > But that would make the male/female ratio of vampires about 50/50. Yet > vampires depicted in books and movies seem to be predominately male. Why > should this be so? I'm tempted to explain it by saying that vampires are > sexual predators, but gee -- isn't the woman as sexual predator kind of a > common theme in lit? The sexual aspect is another reason for prolonging the life of the victim. A heterosexual male vampire will target whatever is available for food, (Until recently this almost certainly would have been male because, as we all know, a woman's place is in the home.) killing or preserving as he sees fit. When he finds a woman who captivates his heart he will prolong her life, and hence the relationship, as long as possible. He will also, of course, due to the need to traipse through town to visit her at her home, risk exposing himself to anyone with a mallet and a modicum of skill with a whittling knife. > Anny > (Who thinks the worst part of being a vampire would be giving up spaghetti > aglio olio) Too true. I don't half miss it. (Oops!) Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Chocolate: the OTHER major food group. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:55:27 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: sexsexsex? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I don't know of my subject heading is accurate, but I'm struck by a tenor in some of the recent posts that seem to conflate "sexual identity" or "orientation" with sexual activity. As an adult who has chosen to be not involved sexually with anyone, male or female, since 1983, I find it amusing that so much of American public life doesn't consider sexuality to be sexuality unless it is actively being proven. I do not exclude gays and lesbians from this assumption because so many, straight, gay, bi, have expressed it to me directly. Sexual identity and orientation can be expressed in a myriad of ways that do not involve actual sexual activity with another human being, and to think otherwise seems to be fairly limited. Alternately, I have no trouble with graphic sexual (male/female, male/male, female/females, female/male, human/other) scenes in novels or stories if they support overall characterization or plot, and are not overdone. For example, I found both Jean Auel and Anne Rice to go way way overboard--in Auel's case, I read because of editorial demand--on the sex scenes, so much so that I was bored bored bored. I have even seen graphic representations of rape scenes that adequately convey the violation and outrage, rather than go for titillation (two very different effects), and I can understand why authors would include them. Sexual identity is not limited to or confined by sexual activity! (sorry couldn't resist, even thought I've been staying off a bit because of the off topic issues raised earlier, snif snif). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:12:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (was: The Vampire Population Problem) In-Reply-To: <199802032032.OAA168926@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This series has been mentioned in this group a couple of times so... I have to admit that *Buffy the Vampire Slayer* is one of my guilty pleasures. I enjoy the series so much that I bought one of the books (you can find them in the young adult section). The relationships in the series are surprisingly complicated. The characters are well developed and the stories are always action packed. The book I read stayed pretty close to the feel of the series. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:34:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:09 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > I recently read >sections of a book called *Demonic Males* by Richard Wrangham & Dale >Peterson which attempts to explain male aggression and violence via >comparisons to chimpanzees & presumably our mutual ancestors. It's quite >well written and the primate research appears to have been thorough. One >of the most fascinating sections of the book is the chapter on the >bonobo, an ape that is nearly identical to the chimpanzee but whose >social structure is completely different. Amongst bonobos male violence >is very uncommon and the relationships between females make up most of >the social fabric. These relationships include near-constant sexual >activity, younger females choosing older female "sponsors" and cementing >the bond with sex. As far as sex goes, bonobos are getting a lot more >than we are, and hair doesn't seem to be a problem. And you know what? (I've seen a couple of documentaries on bonobos): they masturbate like crazy, males and females. They masturbate each other, too. *laugh* Amazing what it does to release social tension amongst them. Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu Reality is only a question of language. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:46:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Walto Subject: Vampires on TV (off topic) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Kmfriello wrote: There was that one battling vampire families summer series (can't remember the name) that bombed after a few shows--- The show was "The Kindred" on Fox. I watched the whole series and actually enjoyed it (not the first time I liked a show that bombed). I haven't read/watched a lot of vampire books and shows, but I know a little. Although the main character in the Kindred was a male, I did like the show for having some stronger females. One vampire clan was headed up by a woman. It was the artistic clan, of course. I've seen a companion book to this series, but only paged through it. I watch Buffy pretty regularly too. I think the characters are well written and Buffy is a good role model for teen age girls--as long as they don't suddenly decide to slay some vamps. (I would have liked one like her when I was that age.) Plus the smart character is a girl--perhaps encouraging girls out there to pursue an interest in computer science or the internet . . . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:49:54 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildiko Paulovitch Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi, Two more vampire books, Children of the Night by Mercedes Lackey and the Tanya Huff series....Blood Price, Trail etc. Enjoyed them both, in the Blood Price series the female protaganist eventually becomes a vampire and the whole issue of why there are so few vampires is discussed. In Children of the Night the vampire can and does have sex in the usual fashion, also can survive a bit of sunlight. Has to do with the age of the vampire according to this book. ildiko ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:31:05 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Buzz Review Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit You might want to look at Ron Dee's older stuff if you are interested in exploring vampire fiction. He isn't as talented as some better known authors but his vampires, men and especially women, are definitely sexual predators and not protrayed in a good light. A couple of titles are: Blood Lust Dusk Shade Succumb( not a vampire but a succubus) Leann Buzz Review News ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:42:04 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Buzz Review Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/98 3:39:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, pvbuckland@BIGFOOT.COM writes: > > > So where are all the vampires? > > Biding their time, Anny. Biding their time. > Read, Under the Fang, the anthology from the Horror Writers Association or AfterAge by Yvonne Navarro( very strong lady) that is available on floppy disk, or even, They Thirst by Robert McCammon. Leann Buzz Review News ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:01:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Altner Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem In-Reply-To: <5cd4a6de.34d6e778@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi I have to jump into this discussion because I have a real passion for vampire - the fictional sort, that is. In novels and short stories there are many ways to make or destroy a vampire. For those of the paranormal variety it ususually means that blood must be shared. One bite will not a vampire make. Then there is the scientific type - like those found in the Gregg Cox's anthology Tomorrow Sucks. (Simon & Schuster, 1994.) I know this book has been mentioned in other posts. It's certainly a good introduction to vampires that are not undead but are instead some sort of genetic mutation, diseased beings infected with bacteria, or even never-been-human aliens . There are many novels of this latter type. One very good series is by Elaine Bergstrom. If anyone is interested I will gladly provide the titles. I also wish to mention the science fiction novel by C. S. Friedman called The Madness Season (DAW, 1990). Despite the date it is still available. I believe the author's first initial stands for Catherine. An excellent writer who, in this novel, has created a very complex male vampire character. He must come to grips with his alien self (he prefers to think of himself as human) befor he can do what is necessary to save the earth and a few other worlds from an oppressive race of invaders. He teams up with an alien who is mostly energy but very definitely female. Someone mentioned reading an article by the aformentioned Gregg Cox in which he describes a variety of vampire stories. That article was probably taken from his book The Translyvanina Library (Borgo Press, 1993). Cox begins with Polidori's story The Vampyre published in 1819 and ends with To Feel Another's Woe by Chet Williamson, 1989. All novels and stories are rated with 1 to four bats. The commentary is enlightening and witty. My real interest is in stories with strong female vampires. Below is part of a message I posted to another list. " I first noticed strong female vampire characters in the works of Anne Rice. (I have to admit that until her novel Interview with the Vampire the only other vampire story I had read was Dracula.) Even though in the Vampire Chronicles Lestat seems to dominate when the women are on stage they have a powerful presence. Akasha, the Queen of the Damned, was quite impressive if a bit psychopathic. Others like Lestat's mother Gabrielle gloried in the life of the undead. And it was the twins Maharet and Mekare who save the world for humans and vampires alike (I won't say in where or when so as not to spoil things for anyone who may not have read the series). And just another Anne Rice note. She has a new book coming out in March called Pandora in which this female vampire tells the story of her life as a mortal in ancient Rome and how she was enticed into the world of immortals There is an anthology edited by Barbara Hambly called Sisters of the Night (Warner, 1995). Excellent stories throughout and quite a variety of styles. One of the best is written by Hambly - Madeleine. It's been a while since I read it, but basically it's about a vampiress who delights in seducing and then killing her male victims. But Madeleine gets her comeuppance (sp?) when the lover of one victim puts a curse on her. Now, as she drinks the life's blood of some poor guy, she also absorbs all his thoughts and memories. These keep playing around in her mind until she finally goes stark raving mad. It is a sort of black comedy. Well I don't mean to spend a lot of time on one story but the collection is worth reading. Elaine Bergstrom's Austra series has male and female vampires. In Daughter of the Night she even manages to introduce everyone's favorite bad girl vamp - Elizabeth Bathory. Bergstrom tries to give a more sympathetic spin to Ms Bathory, but it's kind of hard to feel much kinship for anyone so notoriously cruel. Nancy Collin's Sonja Blue novels are wild and wonderful. Most of you are probably familiar with these. If not you should be! I understand there is a movie deal in the works for Sunglasses After Dark. Well there are lots of others, but I'm only going to mention one other novel and that is The Winter Man by Denise Vitola (Berkley, 1995). The protagonist is a Chinese -American forensic hematologist and vampire named Nicki Chim. As far as I know there are no other books with this heroine." Patricia Altner Vampire Readings The Moon in Science Fiction ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:13:22 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Chris Shaffer Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980203184357.348fc86a@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >And you know what? (I've seen a couple of documentaries on bonobos): they >masturbate like crazy, males and females. They masturbate each other, too. >*laugh* Amazing what it does to release social tension amongst them. Bonobos are one of the few examples of an entire species that is bisexual. ----- I'm going to be dead for billions and billions of years. If I don't make a fool of myself on a regular basis, I'll feel like I've wasted my life. Chris Shaffer shaffer@uic.edu http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:34:24 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 18:22:34 EST, you write: << Do you also mean that it's implicitly impossible for a man to be a feminist? >> That isn't what I meant. I structured my definition poorly! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:45:39 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 20:26:11 EST, you write: << After all, the lesbian/gay movement arose the same way the feminist movement did: as a response to bigotry and oppression. >> Now you're saying it's a deliberate choice. Does this negate the statements that it's natural? Or are you talking about people choosing to stand up for themselves rather than continuing to buckle under to oppression? Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:43:40 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-02 20:24:54 EST, you write: << I the TV show Hercules, he HAD a wife and kids, but I guess they were getting in the way of his heroic stunts because they killed all of the family off. Bill >> That always happens! I told Richard Hatch (Captain Apollo) that we knew that as soon as he fell in love with Jane Seymour, she was dog meat. When Little Joe Cartright fell in love with Bonnie Bedelia, she was dog meat. When Captain Kirk fell in love with the Indian girl, she was dog meat. The only reason Star Trek let O'Brien get married was because he was a minor character at the time. Now that he's one of the central characters, I keep expecting Keiko and Molly to be gruesomely wiped out. Especially if (the guy who wrote _Generations_ with Ron Moore, I forget his name) gets onto the idea. He seems to love to find the elements we really enjoyed about Star Trek and twist them into something depressing. What IS that writer's name? He has a lot of power with the Star Trek franchise now-- Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:46:05 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: BDG - Same sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cleo Wolf wrote: > I read very few male authors, ? I know, for shame to be bigotted but my > defense is that what goes in must come out and I would wish to be filled > with wimmin's thinking and point of > view, I take on so much of what I immerse in. In fantasy fiction I do have > favorite male authors- tolkien, tad williams, charles de lint. Even with > their excellence it's like switching cuisines, from Indian curries to > southern grits, in my not-so-humble opinion! : ) Please don't be offended - > none meant, diversity is joy! > Cleo - just a word of encouragement. I also read primarily women authors.I've been criticized for it - even run off one of the SF internet newsgroups for daring to say it. That's one reason I was so happy to find this group! I don't necessarily see it as excluding male authors, more a way to filter out some of the millions of books I might read. It won't last forever (especially if this group picks a book to discuss by a male author!) But I feel that I grew up reading so much SF by men that right now I want to fill my head with women's ideas for awhile. > Cleo - Wolf in womon's clothing.. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com (remember to vote for your Book Discussion Group selections this week!) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:00:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that it can be both - implicitly chosen or explicitly chosen. Cat Farrar At 08:45 PM 2/3/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-02 20:26:11 EST, you write: > ><< > After all, the lesbian/gay movement arose the same way the feminist > movement did: as a response to bigotry and oppression. >> > >Now you're saying it's a deliberate choice. Does this negate the statements >that it's natural? Or are you talking about people choosing to stand up for >themselves rather than continuing to buckle under to oppression? > >Barbara > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:12:05 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: Vampire Anthologies, was....The Vampire Populat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 05:16:26 EST, you write: << The only difficult thing is that at my local Barnes & Noble, the first volume is located in SF/F, and the second is located in horror. >> I tend to think of the two genres as separate. Maybe that's because I like SF and I dislike horror. I don't care for the "horror in space" stuff that gets labeled as SF, either. On the other hand, I can really enjoy space opera, which does not require stringent scientific accuracy but allows for much thematic play. Whattaya think, gang? Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:00:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: BDG - Same-sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It must have been either Brannon Braga or Rick Berman. But it takes all kinds, I really like both their scripts (most of the time, anyway). Nina Barbara R. Hume wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-02 20:24:54 EST, you write: > > << > I the TV show Hercules, he HAD a wife and kids, but I guess they were > > getting in the way of his heroic stunts because they killed all of > the > family off. > Bill > > >> > That always happens! I told Richard Hatch (Captain Apollo) that we > knew that > as soon as he fell in love with Jane Seymour, she was dog meat. When > Little > Joe Cartright fell in love with Bonnie Bedelia, she was dog meat. When > Captain > Kirk fell in love with the Indian girl, she was dog meat. The only > reason Star > Trek let O'Brien get married was because he was a minor character at > the time. > Now that he's one of the central characters, I keep expecting Keiko > and Molly > to be gruesomely wiped out. Especially if (the guy who wrote > _Generations_ > with Ron Moore, I forget his name) gets onto the idea. He seems to > love to > find the elements we really enjoyed about Star Trek and twist them > into > something depressing. > > What IS that writer's name? He has a lot of power with the Star Trek > franchise > now-- > > Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:01:42 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Replacing the "pair-bond" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julieanne wrote: ..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the "pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... ********** Julieanne, Ursula K. Le Guin has a great short story that fits into what you are looking for. Here's what I wrote about it for a class I took: "Mountain Ways." Asimov's Science Fiction. 20.8 (1996): 14-39. Le Guin explores the arbitrary nature of gender roles and sexual taboos by creating a society with extremely complicated marital customs. People on the planet O are divided into two moieties: the Morning and the Evening. Marriage on the planet takes place between four people, who form a "Sedoretu" consisting of a woman and a man from the Morning moiety and a woman and a man from the Evening moiety. Sex between marriage partners of the same moiety is considered a sacrilege, and sex-- homosexual and heterosexual--between partners of opposite moieties is expected. Le Guin's story centers on Shahes, a Morning woman, who convinces her lover, Enno, an Evening woman to pretend to be a man in order for them to become part of a Sedoretu. Enno, who, ironically, uses her "girl-name," Akal, as her man-name, realizes she likes herself as a man and feels comfortable in that role. Also ironic in this story is that becoming a man gives Akal the chance to be "more truly a woman and herself than she had ever been in her life." Enjoy! Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 00:47:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This is probably all a counter-reading, but... back to the point, I > think that if Mina (once under Dracula's influence) had died, she would > have become vampiric, as Lucy would have, having fallen from a cliff, > etc. > > misha Actually, it is very important that the vampire be the one to actually kill the victim, otherwise the damnation doesn't spread. If your death isn't caused by a vampire, you can't become one (unless you're cursed or do ugly, horrific things in the yes of God, etc.). The older fiction (Stoker, Lefanu, etc.) and the mythology I've read seem to always point to the idea of vampire actually causing the death. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:07:49 -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: Vampires on TV (off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan Walto wrote: > Kmfriello wrote: There was that one battling vampire families summer series > (can't remember the name) that bombed after a few shows--- > > The show was "The Kindred" on Fox. I watched the whole series and actually > enjoyed it (not the first time I liked a show that bombed). I haven't > read/watched a lot of vampire books and shows, but I know a little. > Although the main character in the Kindred was a male, I did like the show > for having some stronger females. One vampire clan was headed up by a > woman. It was the artistic clan, of course. I've seen a companion book to > this series, but only paged through it. Oh, *that* thing. I forgot about it (vampires meet Aaron Spelling ). It is based on the same roleplaying game I mentioned last night, VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE (Pointless Trivia Time!!!!!! - If you remember, the full title of the show was KINDRED: THE EMBRACED - White Wolf also has WEREWOLF: THE APOCOLYPSE, WRAITH: THE OBLIVION, CHANGELING: THE DREAMING...I'm sure you see the pattern that is evolving here...MAGE: THE ASCENSION, VAMPIRE: THE DARK AGES, WEREWOLF: THE WILD WEST... :) ). It was decent, and might have had a good future if that actors had done a better job and the lead (I can't remember his name) hadn't been killed in a motorcycle accident before second season filming began. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:13:43 -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: Vampire Anthologies, was....The Vampire Population Problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara Benesch wrote: > I forgot, Poppy Z. Brite has also released two volumes of erotic vampire > fiction called _Love In Vein_. She has several interesting takes on the > vampire idea, and several of them feature female central characters. Except for a cute little piece by Neil Gaiman in the first volume (which can be found in his ANGELS AND VISITATIONS), they both (pardon the pun) suck, IMHO. But, I don't particularly like Ms. Brite's fiction, either. I may merely be biased when it comes to her. > >From the streets of old London to the squalid fleshpots of Mars, from the > Russian steppes to the gleaming decks of interplanetary spaceships, a new > breed of bloodsucker is on the loose. These scientific vampires stalk through > time and space in search of prey, both human and otherwise. And not even > Dracula was more deadly. A nice, scientific take on the Victorian vampire craze would be Barbara Hambly's THOSE WHO HUNT THE NIGHT (there's a sequel, TRAVELING WITH THE DEAD, that I've not read yet). Another scientific bloodsucker can be found in Tobe Hooper's movie LIFEFORCE. Adolescent boys like this one (enough so that they don't realize it sucks, too - not as bad as BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA, tho'.). And, personally, I'd dissolve the SF/F and horror sections and just have one big speculative fiction section in stores. Then I'd be a happy camper. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:19:54 -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: Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elisa wrote: > Jim Hollomon wrote: > > > What's > > at issue in this discussion is not the nature of rape but the nature > of man. > > How do you know what's really at issue here? I think this is getting slightly out of hand, folks. And, it's getting a touch insulting. If we want to deal in generalizations when it comes to genre, well that's one thing, but making generalizations about sex or gender is quite different. Enough said. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:45:22 -0800 Reply-To: fzzybear@pacbell.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cristina Hernandez Subject: unsubscribe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit feministsf@listserv.uic.edu Cristina Hernandez unsubscribe fzzybear@pacbel.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:46:49 -0800 Reply-To: fzzybear@pacbell.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cristina Hernandez Subject: unsubscribe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit feministsf@listserv.uic.edu cristina hernandez unsubscribe fzzybear@pacbell.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 02:32:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Vampires on TV (off topic) In-Reply-To: <34D805AA.5487741A@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > AGES, WEREWOLF: THE WILD WEST... :) ). It was decent, and might have had a > good future if that actors had done a better job and the lead (I can't > remember his name) hadn't been killed in a motorcycle accident before second > season filming began. Mark Frankel was the actor. And there was only one season of about 7 episodes. (Fox cancels stuff quick) There was talk of trying to find another home for the show for a possible second season, but they couldn't really do it without Mark. On another tv note, I've read that the average age of a Buffy viewer is between 25 and 29, somewhat older than WB expected. Trying to get back on-topic here: I've seen a lot of talk about Octavia butler's stuff, and was wondering what other people thought of Ian McDonald's Evolution's Shore. There's something of a similar theme with the world being forced to come to terms with an ailen force determined to change humanity, though in McDonald's story the change is more gradual. Is there a sequel existing/planned for the book? I'm curious about how the Chaga lead to the creation of new societies. It was also interesting that Gaby was considered an overly-driven bitch by other characters in the book. I get the feeling that a man in her place would have been congradulated for getting good stories. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 03:41:24 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: BDG Voting Reminder Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi all, Just to remind everyone, voting for the FSFFU Book Discussion Group ends Friday, so if you haven't voted, please make sure to do so. Send your votes to me at If you don't receive a confirmation within 48 hours, please re-send your vote to make sure it hasn't gotten lost (don't worry, I won't count it twice on accident, I promise!!). If you want to see the listing of nominees, they're located at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499/fsffu.html The three winning books will be announced on Monday, February 9, once I've had a chance to tabulate them all. I'll be waiting to hear from everyone, so take a look at our nominees and send in your votes. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:15:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802031838.KAA13514@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Conserning the "sexual urges" discussion, there are three more things I'd like to mention: 1. In my opinion, the reason men "can't control their desires" is not some "natural causes" but simply the fact that their sexuality is socially justified. For males, multiple (and casual) sexual relations increase their social status, while for females, it's something dirty and "a sign of low self-esteem". Even a significant part of the feminist ideology was based on "liberation of women from men", which basically defined heterosexual sex as some kind of collaboration with the enemy which was mutually exclusive with the whole idea of independence. Men never have to deal with the tremendous pressure of chosing, on one side, between their desire and self-respect. After all, no one would call them a slut, whatever they do. For what they write in the magazines, JFK was screwing anything that walked around, which did not make him less of a great president, in most people's opinion. Bill Clinton could possibly get kicked out of the White House with all these sexual scandals, but he would probably still be an object of other men's jealosy rather than contempt (maybe that is the whole reason for what's happening :) ). At the same time, that female pilot was thrown out of the military for having an "extramarital" affair while she was not even the one who was married, and was pictured as a bad, bad woman. Honestly, I did not even know military _had_ any provisions against extramarital affairs. They must have dug it out and enforced for the first time in the last 50 years, specifically for the first woman-pilot. On the other side, men do not have to sacrifice their desire for "political reasons" as many progressive-minded woman believe they do. For women it's like that: if you are conservative, you cannot be sexually assertive, because "it's not in woman's nature", while if you are a feminist, you cannot do it either, because it would be "sleeping with the enemy". As a result of all this, men as persons are never defined by their sexuality, which makes them a lot more relaxed about the whole subject. If you want it, you go and get it, if you don't, you don't worry about it, and the biggest risk you ever take is rejection, which simply leaves you with the other three billion minus one females on this planet who might say yes. This is my understanding of "why men cannot control themselves". They simply don't have to. Women would not either, if they could get away with it like men do. 2. I do not believe that men are in any way "more agressive" than women. They are simply encouraged to be agressive, while women are punished for that (just the same as with sex, by the way). If women were "innately uncapable of agression" there would be no such thing as the widely promoted idea about "the mother defending her young". If you do not have agressive tendencies, you would not suddenly get them out of nowhere. If you cannot stand up to a rapist, but turn into a Ninja worrior capable of knocking out six big guys just to protect your baby, I'm sorry, this cannot possibly be because of some "innate natural causes". Women are just as agressive as men, they are simply allowed to express it only in one single case -- to "protect children" -- since it's the only one when female agression does not in any way challenge the image of males as the "stronger ones". By the way, there is nothing wrong with agression in general. It's what helps you survive in this world, as well as succeed in anything. 3. Since I mentioned this, the whole idea of "female nurturing inclinations", in my humble opinion, is another myth designed to keep them from the power. "Nurturing" implies self-sacrifice, putting others' interests above your own, and that sort of stuff, which is very convenient for those who might want to prevent you from competing with them at the work place. ("Why do you want this promotion? Don't you want to give this bright young man a chance to realize his talents?"). Glorifying of those "womanly" tendecies by some feminists did not make them any better. ("Hey, you are the most important person here! If you did not make us coffee and cleaned the cups while we were solving this world crisis, we would have never made it! Unless, of course, we'd got a coffee machine.."). Finally (and a lot of people are not going to like this), in my opinion, the whole idea of women being more tender and loving with children has something to do with redirection of sexual desire. Children are the only ones a woman can kiss and caress any time she wants, without the risk of looking and feeling weird. It's the common practice that the man is normally the one who initiates any kind of sexual conduct. You don't see a lot of women who would, say, playfully slap their husband's butt in front of everyone. The other way around, it used to be common even with strangers (like all those Western movies, with cowboys pinching waitresses they had never seen before, just as a form of greeting). Even with the sexual revolution and everything, it's still a lot more acceptable for a man to express his affection any time and place he feels like it. When I was younger, I was always wondering, what women do, when they fell like kissing and caressing someone they love. Now I know -- they sit and wait while the someone feels the same and initiates it. It must be very frustrating. With your children, especially babies, you can express you love as much and as often as you want, and no one will say a bad word to you. If you pay attention while watching movies, you might notice, that the way female characters act towards children -- protective, a little mentoring, "do what mama tells you, because she knows better", with passionate embraces after she saves them from some danger, etc. -- almost exactly replicates the way male characters act towards females in any romantically charged action movie, including sf. Maybe the reason men are usually more reserved with their children is because they can meet their sensual needs in a more direct way. Besides, every time I watch TV commercials of baby powder or lotions (you know, those with a happy mother all over her baby to demonstrate its newly "soft and smooth skin, thanks to this great product") I can't help thinking that if a guy was acting like this towards a baby, be it his child or anyone else's, he would get handcuffed right there on the set. It makes me happy, though, that my parents never tried to put me into modeling business when I was little. Just thinking that some totally strange woman would lick me over like this, for hours, in front of the camera, and then broadcast it all over the country every 15 minutes, gives me creeps. On the other side, it would probably give me something to tell my shrink later in life. I wonder if anyone ever cares what those children feel about it, and how it affects them. Anyway, I don't know why the topics of sexual desire, agression, and nurturing are always so closely bound. Maybe because they all in some way deal with the power and it's distribution for different social roles. But the fact is, mentioning one of them always brings forward the other two. BTW, I'm not sure if this is on topic. If it's not, we don't have to discuss it. Marina P.S. One other thing. I cannot believe someone still thinks men are more "visually stimulated" that women. As a Playgirl subscriber, I must absolutely disagree :) . And the very fact of the magazine's existence proves the opposite, too. Besides, if women were the more "audio (or whatever is the right word) stimulated", most of phone-sex lines would be intended for women customers, which is apparently not the case. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:47:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802031838.KAA13514@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Cat Farrar wrote: > Why do so many people accept that rape has nothing to do with sex or sexual > pleasure? It seems to me that the two are intertwined. I agree with you. However, most of people who think that rape is no big deal, consider it a _valid expression_ of sexuality. Unfortunately, in many cases, the very idea of violating another person is what get the rapist excited. It definitely has something to do with pleasure, but it's more of the pleasure to be strong enough to force another person to filful his desire against her own will. After all, the guy could experience pleasure with a consenting partner. There must be someone who wants him. (In case of college frat boys, who are #1 rapists on campus, there are dozens and dozens of girls who would do anything to be with a rich guy in a cool car). The physical sensation of orgasm will be just the same, but the whole idea of domination will be missing. If the person chooses rape instead, it means, he's not after sex as it is. That he could have gotten much easier and without the risk of going to jail. Therefore, it's not the sexual desire what drives him to do it. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:10:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Alternative types of family In-Reply-To: <082565A0.0064B386.00@svdatsmtpmta.dp.beckman.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Talking about non-traditional family structures, in Delaney's "Stars in My Pockets Like Grains of Sand", there was a structure called Sygn, if I remember well. It consisted of several adults of human and non-numan races, and children non of whom were their biological children, but had been obtained through "infant exchange" (in exchange for their own children, for what I remember). Honestly, I did not finish that book, because I did not like it as much as Triton. In "Triton", also by Delaney, there existed several types of "families", most of which were either single parents with children, or several adults living together, all of whom could have sex with each other, and whose children were considered children of every adult in the family no matter who were their biological parents. It was considered necessary for e child to have "close attachments to five adults of different sexes" in order to develop in a healthy way. Triton was probably my favorite utopia society of all the science fiction books I read. (When I was a kid, I really liked The Brave New World, even though it was supposed to be bad. I think I was fascinated by the idea that they never grew old and were not afraid of death). The part of Triton that I found interesting was that men there breast-fed the children together with mothers (by stimulating lactation with hormonal injections), and that marriage was equalized with prostitution (as a means of sexual relations for economic reasons) so they both were equally illegal. Besides, in that book, the main character had been raped by a bunch of women, and contrary to what I've heard a lot of guys think about it, he did not find the experience particularly pleasant. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:39:25 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: BDG Voting - Dang it, I forgot.... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sorry all, I forgot to mention, when you send your votes to me at , you should send in three votes, one for each month of this initial trial period. They don't have to be in any particular order, but we do need three. Once again, the web page where the listing of the nominees is located at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499/fsffu.html I'll be looking forward to hearing from you all, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:00:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology In-Reply-To: <34D76B7B.57849D65@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > The strong sexual drive of humans, including the female sexual drive > > (and the human female orgasmic capacity, not easily found in nature > > among females), is deemed to be responsible for the creation of > > pair-bondings, and by extension the family. I wonder about the origins of the idea that animals (especially female) do not experience orgasm. Obviously, no one could actually ask the animals to find out for sure. For what I understand, the purpose of orgasm is to give living beings a reason to procreate. Otherwise, who would even mess with that? Especially females, with all the pain of pregnancy and childbirth? Since animals are not evolved enough to do it for money, food, or job promotion, they must have pretty good reasons to have sex. They probably have orgasms a lot stronger than ours, especially since they won't have to worry about whether the partner respects them in the morning. Some of the animals, like apes, do have structures remotely resembling human families (that's why I guess Biology text authors like them so much, especially the thing with one male having lots of female partners), there are also some that don't (like wolves, for example -- mate, have kids, and go their separate ways). There are also fishes that have males attached to the head of the female for the most of their lives (Biology text writers do not like to mention those), or spiders who eat their males right after mating, or other fishes, whose females die after mating and the males nurse the offspring. You don't see them in TV "shows about nature" that often, though. In most cases, attempts to draw parallels between animal sex lives and human in order to justify something as "more natural" look pretty ridiculous and pathetic. And the idea that females in the animal world do not have orgasm is the most irrational myth of all. If they did not like it, they would not do it, and the species would go extinct, period. IMHO, the idea of "reduced sexuality" of animals was invented by guilty conscience of pet owners, in order to justify the neutering. No matter how "humane" is the intention to reduce the population of stray animals, a castration is a castration. Since animals do not have a big choice of other pleasures, they cannot read books or play videogames, you basically forever deprive them from experiencing the most intense source of pleasure, if not the only one, available to them. You would never do it to yourself for all the humane reasons in the world (how many people there get castrated because there are too many starving children on the streets?). So all people can do to make them feel better is to vehemently deny that animals could possibly "enjoy it". Makes it so much more convenient and less trouble. Pretty much the same logic used for centuries to deny the existance of female sexuality. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:24:24 -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: Female POV; was...Book themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980202164947.0075f24c@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I wrote: >Not Kate Maclean, not Judith Merrill, not C.L. Moore, and if my brain >didn't sieze up on proper nouns, I'd name the woman whose last credit was >for star Wars II ("The Big Sleep" with Fasulkner). > >They've been lonesome, but never totally absent. Leigh Brackett!! It was right there when I read my post in distribution . . . Neil ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:15:06 -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: BDG - Same sex themes In-Reply-To: <199802030307.QAA187880886475278@mail.iconz.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Here's another one for you, Barbara - I'm one of the lesbians who *chose* >to identify this way and live this life. (Best decision I ever made.) So you've either answered my questions and I missed it, or you haven't at all. >I >don't argue that it's natural, since what's *natural* is determined by the >power structures of the times. What's *called* "natural" is very much involved with the power structures of the times, but what *is* natural inescapably applies to us all, e.g. gravity. Overlooking the distinction between Calling and Being cripples your thinking. >I argue that a lesbian identity has a >political implication, Except I'm still asking what a "lesbian identity" is. >that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, Rubbish. I've never heard of someone who had deliberate control over their sexual desires, except in the inverse of suppression. >and >if it wasn't for compulsory heterosexuality a lot more women would be >loving other women. Absolutely. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:19:36 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes Comments: To: Jenny Rankine In-Reply-To: <199802030307.QAA187880886475278@mail.iconz.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >This thread has brought up some fascinating comparisons - first lesbian/gay >sexuality is compared to a taste for liver (apology appreciated Barbara, as >well as your further explanation about the reason for the original >question). > >Then for disagreeing with Barbara's analogy I'm compared to a jock whose >self-esteem depends on whether he scores on Saturday night. Wooo! At the risk of ending up rather stilted, I tried to be precise in my phrasing, especially in what I was asserting, what I seemed to be hearing, and what I was asking if I'd heard correctly. I'm happy to accept all the help I can get in communicating more clearly, though it seems I'm not near the bottom of the list for the FEMSF group. >Here's another one for you, Barbara - I'm one of the lesbians who *chose* >to identify this way and live this life. (Best decision I ever made.) So you've either answered my questions and I missed it, or you haven't at all. >I >don't argue that it's natural, since what's *natural* is determined by the >power structures of the times. What's *called* "natural" is very much involved with the power structures of the times, but what *is* natural inescapably applies to us all, e.g. gravity. Overlooking the distinction between Calling and Being cripples your thinking. >I argue that a lesbian identity has a >political implication, Except I'm still asking what a "lesbian identity" is. >that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, Rubbish. Are you claiming that people can deliberately, consciously choose what turns them on? They may choose to deny or ignore it, which is the opposite of what you affirm, but your claim is fantastic. >and >if it wasn't for compulsory heterosexuality a lot more women would be >loving other women. Absolutely. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:24:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: More Preaching MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following is an excerpt from a response to a private letter, so I have omitted any attribution. > There is something else. I don't see how feminist are not attracted > to other women. I mean if you love yourself, other women... Can't sex > be an extension of friendship? I don't get it. Attraction is > primarily in one's mind... I'm rambling. Please, ramble away. I agree, sort of. Love, like charity, begins at home. If you truly love and respect yourself then you are truly capable of loving everyone. The expression of this love is case-dependant, but a truly liberated person will not regard gender as a major factor. Sorry, I am rabbitting on about love, again. No, I am not sorry. Friendship and love are degrees of the same thing. This is not a feminist issue, it is a freedom issue. Feminism is just a label for the path some people follow in search of freedom. There are other paths and other labels. Through all the side issues which go with the feminism label, do not lose sight of your ultimate goal. > Finally, I need to make judgements as without them how would I know > who I am? How can you know who you are if you are busy making judgements? Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:55:59 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: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Marina, Thanks for contributing some very thought-provoking commentary in this otherwise devisive discussion. I've decided to just bite my keyboard tongue rather than waste additional bandwidth. The issues were becoming so polarized that discussion was unlikely to sway the opinions of those writing. Best Jim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:12:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patricia Altner wrote: >>I also wish to mention the science fiction novel by C. S. Friedman called The Madness Season (DAW, 1990). Despite the date it is still available. I believe the author's first initial stands for Catherine. An excellent writer who, in this novel, has created a very complex male vampire character. He must come to grips with his alien self (he prefers to think of himself as human) befor he can do what is necessary to save the earth and a few other worlds from an oppressive race of invaders. He teams up with an alien who is mostly energy but very definitely female. I love that book (and not just because I work for DAW, I read it way back in high school). The word vampire is never mentioned, you just eventually figure out why this character is different from all the other humans enslaved by an invading alien race. And yes, C.S. Friedman is a woman, although her first name is Celia. Friedman has not been discussed much during my time on this list. It's true most of her primary characters are male--except for "In Conquest Born," and in her new book, "This Alien Shore," which will be released later this year. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:07:52 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > > IMHO, the idea of "reduced sexuality" of animals was invented by guilty > conscience of pet owners, in order to justify the neutering. No matter > how "humane" is the intention to reduce the population of stray animals, > a castration is a castration. Since animals do not have a big choice > of other pleasures, they cannot read books or play videogames, you > basically forever deprive them from experiencing the most intense source of > pleasure, if not the only one, available to them. You would never do it to > yourself for all the humane reasons in the world (how many people there > get castrated because there are too many starving children on the > streets?). So all people can do to make them feel better is to vehemently > deny that animals could possibly "enjoy it". Makes it so much > more convenient and less trouble. Pretty much the same logic used for > centuries to deny the existance of female sexuality. > There is a dreadful little story in the latest ASIMOV's along exactly those lines, told from the viewpoint of a person who is drawn to adopting a 2-year-old feral child but is too leery of getting involved (and too full of the media's horror tales about them) to do so.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:26:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, > > Rubbish. Are you claiming that people can deliberately, consciously choose > what turns them on? They may choose to deny or ignore it, which is the > opposite of what you affirm, but your claim is fantastic. Is this response really as problematic as it seems to me, having read it several times? This *is* on topic, because this is, after all, a feminist discussion group. And yet here we have Neil, who, unless she's using a pseudonym, I presume to be a man, consistently and angrily refusing to hear what a number of women have said about being a lesbian. I may be wrong, but I would have thought that those of us on the list who *are* lesbians might have somewhat more insight into this issue than Neil does. A number of us have made the point that, for some women at least, lesbianism is a choice. Neil's insistence on calling this "rubbish" invalidates the experience of those of us who have made that choice. Gay men almost invariably report that their sexual orientation is intrinsic to their beings. Some lesbians feel the same way. But it is very, very common for lesbians to claim that they made a deliberate choice in becoming lesbian. It may be that we're using the terminology differently, but that doesn't give one man the right to tell the rest of us that our experiences are wrong and somehow don't count. It wouldn't give a straight woman that right, either. I appreciate that both Neil and Barbara are trying to learn something from the rest of us, but I wish they would find ways to do so that didn't come across as insulting. Barbara's questions about lesbianism may be useful learning experiences for her, but they reproduce the paradigm of the 'normal' trying to understand the 'abnormal.' A friend of mine teaches a course in the Sociology of Sexuality (she's straight) and has to explain, every year, that, yes, they are going to study heterosexuality, too. Most of her straight students see heterosexuality as a natural default setting, and see no need to learn about what heterosexuality means or why people become heterosexual; in essence, they're only there to learn about the perverts, not themselves. And finally, I think I agree with Geoffrey. We're not going to solve this one here. I'd like to stop feeling that I have to defend my own sexual identity (regardless of whether or not other people understand it or feel that one should or should not have a sexual identity) and get on with talking about books. And science fiction. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:28:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: polygamy, sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > sometimes incredible sexual drive. I think that feminism has done a great > job of increasing the recognition of *feminine* nurturing, child-raising, > teaching, peacemaking qualities; but we should start to acknowledge that > without the horniness of men, we might be in short supply of babies to > nurture! I realise that *all* of our animalistic urges must be balanced by > reasoning, but that doesn't make any of them inherently bad. > This is, of course, why farmers have one bull and many cows. Wendy (ex-farmer) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:32:58 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: sexsexsex? In-Reply-To: <199802032255.WAA27827@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 22:55 3/02/98 GMT, you wrote: >I don't know of my subject heading is accurate, but I'm struck by a tenor in >some of the recent posts that seem to conflate "sexual identity" or >"orientation" with sexual activity. Robin: I agree :) There is an excellent book concerning human sexuality/reproduction/family etc - "SEX AND DESTINY: The Politics of Human Fertility" by Germaine Greer (1985) who discusses concepts such as, sexuality becoming a type of 'religion'..the "Holy Orgasm" for example. Amongst other things, Greer discusses the concept of asexuality (abstinence) and sexual identity. >From what I can understand, (I may be wrong) this book did not make much of a splash in the USA, and may not have been published there, or only on limited import, being British. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:25:13 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology In-Reply-To: <34D76B7B.57849D65@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 14:09 3/02/98 -0500, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > >I'm not clear exactly what you mean by pair-bondings here. If you mean >monogamous pair-bondings, then I must point out that humans in general >are not monogamous at all. It takes a great deal of effort to get people >to restrict their sexual urges to a single other person -- effort that >could be much better spent otherwise, IMO (assuming safe sexual >practices). > (snip, snip)..*sorry*> >I have somewhat of an allergic reaction to any sociobiological claims >(that is, claims that human psychology has evolved to meet adaptive aims >- an example might be "men are in general more aggressive because they >used to be hunters in human prehistory"),...(snip,snip) I agree there are serious difficulties with analysing cross-species behaviour, and historical evidence of humanity's behaviour, and then trying to relate that information to some sort of *explanation* of current human behaviour patterns. (although, I wouldnt go so far as to say Im allergic to these claims, many of them come from the author's own biases and cultural backgrounds) My personal opinion (for what its worth) is that there is insufficient evidence/data from which to draw any firm conclusions. But that does not mean, we should ignore it, or stop collecting more information. My favourite of recent theories though, which at least supplies a *springboard* for further thought, is the one based on using the "environment" as one of a number of "variables" which can determine behaviour..particularly behaviours relating to sexual/reproductive and intraspecies aggressive behaviours. Without trying to paraphrase thousands of pages of scholarly texts etc( lol..:)) .. a few examples which might illustrate the theory are: 1. Differences in whole-species populations in different environments. e.g snakes - in desert climates prey/food for predators are limited..the food supply is not as plentiful as in tropical climates. Snakes tend to be far more venomous and aggressive in deserts, than in tropical forests..because in the harsh desert..Every strike, must be a killing strike..and everything which might possibly be food (ie anything that moves within range) must be struck at. In the tropical forest however..its not such a problem..if you dont get a kill this time..there'll be more prey along in 10 minutes :))) e.g marine mammals - tend to be non-aggressive, evolution/adaptation like so much else prefers to follow the "path of least resistance" - since food-supply in such a large relatively unlimited geographical area, cannot be seriously threatened by predators such as sharks, then the easiest/simplest 'survival mechanism' for the prey is to develop "defenses" rather than "attack mechanisms".. in marine mammals case, it has developed speed & size as deterrents to attack by predators. They can always just swim away:)) theres just as much food-supply down the coast a little bit:)) There's no need for them to "stand their ground" and fight back in that territory. e,g differences in aggressiveness between different primate species - aggression both within their own species, and towards other species varies enormously amongst primates, and there is evidence of a *correlation* between the level of aggression and the environment, with such things as the availability of food-supply, and the prevalence of other species in competition for that food-supply, or aggressive predators within that ecological niche. If the living is free-and-easy, and theres plenty to share amongst everybody, as it is in wet-climate warm forests, as opposed to savannah grasslands/scrublands...theres no need to develop aggressive tendencies, and theres plenty of leisure time to engage in pleasurable activities, like lots of sexual activity or hours and hours of mutual grooming:)))) 2. The changing adaptations of human migrations Humanity moved enormous distances, in a relatively short period of time from its African origins, and so groups, tribes and clans etc..often found themselves in very different environments. This theory of the 'environment' being one, of possibly a number of "external forces" which can mold or adapt human behaviour patterns, to me is quite an attractive one:) One of its posits I have read, was the massive impact the Ice Ages must have had on early human populations as a whole. For example, the white Caucasian skin mutation was in direct response to the harsh cold climate of northern Europe. Because of the relative lack of sunlight in those climates, particularly during the Ice Ages - dark melanin-rich skin (which is protective against sunlight) was a distinct disadvantage. Secondly, the extremely harsh, cold , long-winter conditions during the Ice-Ages would have devastated a species which had originally evolved in warm, wet climates and organised in largeish kin-groups for mutual survival. The early peoples of northern Europe, tended to live in caves with 12-25 adults (varying numbers of children), no more nor less..it would appear that anything less than 12 adults in a grouping was unviable. The long harsh winters, must have meant an enormous toll on early humans...infant mortality as well as death through hunger and diseases of malnutrition, would have made quite a number of these clans/tribes etc unviable number-wise..leaving people of both sexes alone or in surviving pairs and trios. Humans also had to compete for a limited food-supply with other predatory species, such as wolves etc. or for shelter from the climate with species like bears. Part of this theory, then, is that a harsh environment, makes Nature "red-in-tooth-and-claw"..and lone males seeing lone females will rape, or do whatever is necessary, in a kind of "survival" instinct. Having a low sex-drive would not have been advantageous. The female, more accustomed to allying herself with other females, particularly kin-group females for mutual support etc..will in dire necessity of survival, ally herself with whoever is available..and if a lone male or two are the only people around for hundreds of kilometres, then that is who she will ally herself with. Another adaptive mechanism, is increased fertility, to counteract high infant mortality. Desert climates, are also harsh and tend to have limited water and food-supplies..it would be quite logical, that with a limited water-supply, one very thirsty tribe will viciously attack the current occupants. Nomads often follow their food-supplies in marginal environments, such as grasslands, tundra, dry mountains etc. and harsh environments, often need harsh decisions, such as leaving weak, elderly relatives behind, or killing weak infants. Another part of the theory, explains that with the coming of warm interglacial periods, when life became easy again with agriculture and large permanent settlements, a population explosion was made possible, by the earlier adaptation of increased sexual agressiveness, (in either, or both, sexes) coupled with an increased fertility/ability to conceive, which had been so necessary during the Ice Ages. However, all agricultural-based civilisations had a limited life-span..they all tended to "outgrow" the available resources, Often, the dying empire resorted to some pretty gruesome tactics for population control, human sacrifice, murdering first-borns or blaming women's sexual behaviour/fertility for the inevitable famines. (After all, She is the one who gives Life, therefore She must have taken it away somehow) Also, nomadic groups, which still lived more-or-less "on the edge" of survival, perceived the relative luxury of the settled agriculturalists as highly desirable and were very aggressive in "taking-over" towns and settled peoples..who with an easier life-style and an assured food-supply had probably become more leisure-like and less aggressive..(and more female-oriented in religion, for example). Jericho, was one the most often attacked early agricultural settled cities of pre-Biblical times, and nearly always by non-agricultural nomadic tribes. The Jewish nomads, coming out of the desert and "bringing the walls of Jericho down" is a major highlight in the Bible. Also, Attila the Hun and his horse-riding nomads in Europe, or the germanic "barbarians" invading Rome etc Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:59:03 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203151936.00727834@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Neil Rest wrote: > Rubbish. Are you claiming that people can deliberately, consciously choose > what turns them on? They may choose to deny or ignore it, which is the > opposite of what you affirm, but your claim is fantastic. I didn't write the original, but yes. Vegetarians often develop visceral reactions to meat because "It would be too hard otherwise" I think much of sexual attraction is learned from society and experience. Some societies don't have female breast taboos. They probably don't get as excited about female breasts as we do. That was socially conditioned. Anything that is conditionable can be controlled, if only through conscious conditioning. Perhaps you have neither the ability nor desire to do so, but to say that different, stronger people with good reasons cannot is patently absurd. Our culture likes it's uncontrolables a bit too much for my tastes. I forget where I was reading this, maybe _Beggars in Spain_ (good book), but there was a discussion about how we (U.S. people) like our cowboys and celebrities and dislike (despite the good they bring) the rational, thoughtful ones. In much the way the U.S. liked Reagan for his charming irrationallity, and disliked Dukakis for his intellegence, control, and rationality. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:51:40 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: The last bastion of prejudice? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Hey, I'm a fat woman who likes to wear horned helmets! > >Actually, I think that fat prejudice is one of the last bastions of putting >down the "other." So, Barbara......how would you feel if one of us posted to the list that we didn't want to read about sex between fat people? Laura (thought I could resist staying out of this one!) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:26:02 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: The last bastion of prejudice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-04 12:06:18 EST, you write: << So, Barbara......how would you feel if one of us posted to the list that we didn't want to read about sex between fat people? >> I wouldn't blame you! I don't want to read about it, either! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:27:41 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 23:09:59 EST, you write: << It must have been either Brannon Braga or Rick Berman. But it takes all kinds, I really like both their scripts (most of the time, anyway). >> Yeah, it was Brannon. I remembered that right after I clicked "Send." thanks--brh ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:35:47 -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: Replacing the "pair-bond" In-Reply-To: <199802040501.XAA04902@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Julieanne wrote: > > ..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across > writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the > "pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly > woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... > Several writers have explored cultures where pair-bonding is either played down or absent, often in alien species. Eleanor Arnason's A Woman of the Iron People and her Ring of Swords both explore cultures where the men and women live entirely apart except for mating. So does Pamela Sargent in Venus of Dreams. Sheri Tepper works a variation on this in the Gate to Women's Country. So did Le Guin in a recent novelette whose title escapes me. In Charnas's Motherlines and Gilman's Herland, of course, men are entirely absent. Piercy and Russ both work on alternatives to pair bonding in their fiction. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:35:38 -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: Replacing the "pair-bond" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Um, I just wanted to point out that just because "men are entirely absent" (or women) doesn't mean there isn't any pairbonding. I thought that Charnas, with the Free Fems, still had situations of pair-bonding. That was one of the points of contention between the Free Fems and Riding Women: "promiscuity" where the RW partnered when/where they liked and the FF were more of a serial monogamous description. misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Michael Marc Levy[SMTP:levymm@UWEC.EDU] >Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 9:35 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Replacing the "pair-bond" > >> Julieanne wrote: >> >> ..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across >> writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the >> "pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly >> woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... >> >Several writers have explored cultures where pair-bonding is either >played down or absent, often in alien species. Eleanor Arnason's A Woman >of the Iron People and her Ring of Swords both explore cultures where the >men and women live entirely apart except for mating. So does Pamela >Sargent in Venus of Dreams. Sheri Tepper works a variation on this in the >Gate to Women's Country. So did Le Guin in a recent novelette whose title >escapes me. In Charnas's Motherlines and Gilman's Herland, of course, >men are entirely absent. Piercy and Russ both work on alternatives to >pair bonding in their fiction. > >Mike Levy > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:43:46 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: Men and sexual urges Marina writes >men as persons are never defined by their sexuality, which makes them >a lot more relaxed about the whole subject.If you want it, you go and get >it, if you don't, you don't worry about it, and the biggest risk you ever >take is rejection, which simply leaves you with the other three billion >minus one females on this planet who might say yes. Might I suggest (and I had better add that I am female!) that this somewhat underestimates men's fears and anxieties around sexual functioning, in particular fears of impotence? Men are expected to be as Marina describes but many find this model creates more worries than guiltless pleasure, since they find themselves unable to match it. The societal idea of men as sexually ever-ready and raring to go is the obverse of the idea of the sexually-cold woman, and possibly just as damaging. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:46:59 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Vampires, sexuality & gender (was: The Vampire Population Problem) In-Reply-To: "Kathleen M. Friello" 's message of Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:04:26 EST * Kathleen M. Friello > Nobody on the fang team we want to identify with? The empowering > women vampires like Nancy Collins's Sonja Blue girls-- a fairly > unapologetic bunch who are definitely out to crunch men-- have > their real fans, My personal favorite is the Vamps comic, quote: REVIEW OF VAMPS Thomas Gramstad Vamps by Elaine Lee and William Simpson (1995), DC Comics, New York. Vamps is a "vampire road movie comic", if such an animal exists -- a slick, seamless synthesis of a vampire story and a road movie as graphical novel, sprinkled with dark humor, feminism and lots of gratuitous violence. Vamps is the story of five female vampires, thundering down America's highways on Harleys, drunk on freedom, high octane, blood and chrome. If this sounds like your thing (and it certainly is mine), you may pick it up and look forward to an original and well-written story with a tight plot and sparkling dialogue. These are bad, strong women, in the Thelma & Louise tradition, and they get away with it. "But are they Amazons?" Probably not, but as Elaine Lee points out in the interesting and provocative afterword, "Any vampire story is rape fantasy without guilt", and this is a story with female vampires, so the implications for alternative sexualities are obvious. This is obviously a feminist liberation project in more ways than one. (Amazons International # 55, http://www.TheValkyrie.com/stories/news/ai055.txt) > ... the female vamp image vs that of the male is intriguing in > terms of audience; has the "nasty pleasure" of the female vamp > gone underground temporarily, while we have the cleaner Buffy > vamp-basher to emulate and the weak male vamp to moon over? And > what do the men get out of it? Since vampire stories are rape fantasies, those who prefer male vampires fantasize about the male as rapist, while those who prefer female vampires fantasize about the female as rapist. There is also the issue of experiences of gendered empowerment, but these too are erotic or sexual in nature, in the context of identifying with vampires. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:55:09 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Buffy (was: The Vampire Population Problem) In-Reply-To: Catweasel 's message of Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:32:11 -0600 ** Anny Middon . >> I caught most of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer a while >> back. It was a pleasant experience to see a female hero of what >> may be termed an Action Horror show. Buffy's certainly not >> afraid to kick some vampire butt. The show was endearingly >> quirky, and I intend to watch it again someday. * Catweasel > Didn't know there was a series. Hmm... Maybe that's why the film > was on a couple of weeks back. When it does get here I shall > definitely try it. Do see the film. It actually pulls off quite successfully the unlikely combination of campy humor in a "clueless high school pupils" setting and action horror with a strong female hero. The beginning is slow, but stay with it. I think the film is available on video too. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:38:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 In-Reply-To: <34CA31D5.1E8CCD4A@geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For those attending Boskone next weekend (anyone? ... anyone?) there are some marvelous panels planned. One that caught my eye: Sun 11:00 am Camelot North Knights in Distress and the Damesels Who Rescue Them: Female Heroes in Fantasy Catherine Asaro (m), Kathryn Cramer, Esther Friesner, Jane Yolen I'm very much looking forward to this discussion. Should I take notes to post here for anyone not going? jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:07:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Re: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Damesels? Is that like female gunsels? Yes, please, take notes! Thanks for the offer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:22:58 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: sexual urges - a bit late, sorry! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I suppose, having been pretty busy the last few days, that this post is a bit late, so if you're fed up please delete it, I won't mind! I just wanted to throw in my 50p's worth because the issue of men lacking responsibility for their own actions has been on my mind a lot recently. As the only Yank that many of my Brit friends know, I've been getting asked how I feel about the Clinton thing a lot this week! The thing that bothers me most about many (not all!) men is the way in which they've been raised/socialised/educated to believe that it is OK (manly) for them to lack self-control or refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. This may not be quite as prevalent among young-Western-liberal families anymore, but it certainly is in other countries with more old-fashioned attitudes towards the roles of the sexes. (Heck, I can see it in the way my brother was raised compared to my sister and I.) For example (I really am _not_ meaning to pick on any group in particular!), it can be very difficult for a female teacher to control the mis-behaviour of young Latino male students who have been raised to think women are there to cater to their every whim. In teacher training we learned about/did our own research on the _unconscious_ gender-role training that we give our children from practically the moment they're born. Because of its largely unconscious nature, is there any way to change this? (I ask myself) Certainly hormones play a part, (and I found Julianne's "environment" explanation very convincing), but shouldn't everyone, regardless of sex, be expected to control their more violent/harmful impulses? (Of course.) So why are children still raised this way? What can we do about it? (augh!) Just to give an example from a different culture altogether (and to explain why it's on my mind), Tuesday in the Telegraph (Conservative UK newspaper) in an opinion piece, the writer(white, upper-class male) said, "To put it bluntly, Mrs. Clinton has never looked a 'goer', while Miss Lewinsky undoubtedly does. There, surely, is all the explanation one needs of the President's notorious 'zipper' problem." This is the kind of irresponsible male thinking that is still common here, especially, I've noticed, among men of a certain age group. Needless to say, I no longer read that fishwrapper - I mean paper - anymore. To get (ever so slightly :)) back to the topic. It's just a thought off the top of my head, but perhaps the fact that so many sf/f women writers use male pseudonyms isn't such a bad thing. If that can get male readers to read their books, perhaps we can surreptitiously change the thinking of at least a few men! Monica ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:37:39 -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: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 In-Reply-To: <282e90ed.34d8e68c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:07 PM 2/4/98 , you wrote: >Damesels? Is that like female gunsels? > >Yes, please, take notes! Thanks for the offer. I swear, that's how they spelled it! Some other things listed, which I hope to attend: Fri 6:00 pm Camelot North Crossing Genres: Romance, SF, Historical, Mystery Peter J. Heck, Warren Lapine, Susan Shwartz, Walter Jon Williams Sat noon Grand The Other in Fantasy: Metaphors for Class, Race, and Sex Rosemary Kirstein, Melissa Scott, Delia Sherman (m), Cecilia Tan, Teresa Nielsen Hayden jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:37:34 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: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-04 15:42:05 EST, you write: << Should I take notes to post here for anyone not going? >> That would be most appreciated by those of us unable to attend. Thanks for the thoughtful offer! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:28:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Correct, no one can ask female animals whether they experience orgasm; therefore it's hard for me understand how anyone can state as fact that they don't do so. This reminds me uncomfortably of the "logic" of surgeons who until recently refused to give anesthetics to newborn babies undergoing surgery - because "babies don't feel pain the way adults do." Translation: They can't articulate pain the way adults can, therefore it doesn't exist! Ditto orgasms in female animals, I should think. Nina Osier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:56:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Or a fact that they do. There is a clear problem when humans try to learn about other humans by studying or trying to communicate with animals. Cat Farrar At 06:28 PM 2/4/98 -0500, you wrote: >Correct, no one can ask female animals whether they experience orgasm; >therefore it's hard for me understand how anyone can state as fact that >they don't do so. This reminds me uncomfortably of the "logic" of >surgeons who until recently refused to give anesthetics to newborn >babies undergoing surgery - because "babies don't feel pain the way >adults do." Translation: They can't articulate pain the way adults >can, therefore it doesn't exist! Ditto orgasms in female animals, I >should think. > >Nina Osier > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:58:53 -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: Pseudonyms and gender neutral names- In-Reply-To: <199802031707.MAA11108@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: >Reverses: Thomas Disch _Clara Reeve_ by "Leone Hargrave", with the mysterious cousin with a dark secret, the aunt who is reputed to have been ruined by Byron himself and has a villa in Italy, the aunt/foster mother with a severe laudanum habit . . . hundreds of pages of victorian excess and I still couldn't figure out if it's a joke. Good, though, Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:21:08 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: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-04 17:57:56 EST, you write: << Fri 6:00 pm Camelot North Crossing Genres: Romance, SF, Historical, Mystery Peter J. Heck, Warren Lapine, Susan Shwartz, Walter Jon Williams Sat noon Grand The Other in Fantasy: Metaphors for Class, Race, and Sex Rosemary Kirstein, Melissa Scott, Delia Sherman (m), Cecilia Tan, Teresa Nielsen Hayden jenn >> Ooo! They both sound great! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:35:17 -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: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes In-Reply-To: <199802041526.KAA05476@pip1.pipcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, >> >> Rubbish. Are you claiming that people can deliberately, consciously choose >> what turns them on? They may choose to deny or ignore it, which is the >> opposite of what you affirm, but your claim is fantastic. > >Is this response really as problematic as it seems to me, having read it >several times? > >This *is* on topic, because this is, after all, a feminist discussion >group. And yet here we have Neil, who, unless she's using a pseudonym, I >presume to be a man, consistently and angrily refusing to hear what a >number of women have said about being a lesbian. > >I may be wrong, but I would have thought that those of us on the list who >*are* lesbians might have somewhat more insight into this issue than Neil >does. A number of us have made the point that, for some women at least, >lesbianism is a choice. Neil's insistence on calling this "rubbish" >invalidates the experience of those of us who have made that choice. > >Gay men almost invariably report that their sexual orientation is intrinsic >to their beings. Some lesbians feel the same way. But it is very, very >common for lesbians to claim that they made a deliberate choice in becoming >lesbian. It may be that we're using the terminology differently, but that >doesn't give one man the right to tell the rest of us that our experiences >are wrong and somehow don't count. It wouldn't give a straight woman that >right, either. (Yes, I'm male, though seemingly with less than usual "guy genes".) And thank you for a reply which does, if only somewhat obliquely, address my point. [& on re-reading all this for typos before SENDing -- I'm not angry, just sometimes frustrated that when I try to clarify something which doesn't sound right to me, it can be hard to get clear, responsive answers. Please note that in the post you quoted, my next response after "rubbish" was "absolutely!".] My own understanding/model is that people have a variety of sexual "imprints" (for lack of a better word!). Overall, most people seem to be attracted mostly to the "opposite" sex, but there are at least several different dimensions of variation. (For example, BD and SM, while having at least a little connection, don't seem to have much to do with the "hetero"/"homo" axis.) While people may repress their impulses/desires, even to the point of being or becoming unaware of them (stereotype of the gay-bashing closet queen), it is exceptional-to-almostnonexistant for someone to deliberately eliminate an imprint, or to premeditatedly acquire a new, unrelated one. In my own observation, women overall seem to have less resistance to moving from "hetersexuality" to "bisexuality" than men, but that observation is skewed by my mostly hanging out with other oddballs, and my tentative conclusion that female sensuality seems somewhat different from male sensuality (related to sexuality but _not_ identical). Basicly, I personally find it hard to believe that people can really choose what turns them on. Discover, perhaps; emphasize or deemphasize, perhaps; indulge or repress; but not deliberately overhaul. And to close with some of the usual disclaimers: I am trying more to be clear and accurate here than to be stylish; these are the honest conclusions (so far) of one person of goodwill. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:35:46 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marianne Reddin Subject: Re: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes Content-Type: text/plain Ok, ok, I was trying to keep lurking, I swear ... Anyway, this is merely a data point, a telling of my own personal experience, so do with it what you will, I suppose. At 14, I was undeniably (in my lights) heterosexually oriented. I had never even had those 'crushes' I am told most girls get. I had close female friends, sure, but any 'burgeoning sexuality' (oh baby, was it burgeoning) was solely directed toward males. I did not suffer from heterosexism as far as I know (i really enjoyed books about being queer, much in the same way i enjoyed books about particle physics: "boy is that ever intriguing. not something i would want to do *myself*, but fascinating nonetheless."). I did not know of any out queers in my area, let alone know any out queers personally, but i sort of wished i did, more for the sake of wellroundedness than anything else. (what, and you were less silly at fourteen?) At 20, I am undeniably (in my lights) a sexual being, but orientation has become a questionable issue. The simplest label is bisexual, but then, I also desire certain people I know who do not identify themselves with either of the two socially acceptable sexes (yes, SEXES, not genders). I spend most of my life celibate, while lusting after more women than men, and small parts of it intensely sexual with my fiance, who happens to be male. I have experienced a polyamourous lifestyle, and identify as polyamourous. Mind you, i felt polyamourous at 12, I just didn't know what to call it. To get to my point, my sexual self-understanding has changed dramatically in the last 10 years of my life. I do not think it appropriate to attribute this merely to some kind of maturation process. I was very mature as a child, and am very childlike now. At 16, I made the conscious choice to open the borders of my sexuality, to work at having it truly express who I was and how I loved. It took 3 years after that decision for me to actually experience sexual attraction to a woman. Just because I choose to interpret this change as a shucking off of previous social conditioning (a re-conditioning, if you will) does not mean that it was not a choice. I worked at becoming bisexual. At 14, the thought of 2 women together was mainly odd ('well, if they want to, but i don't see why they would). At 20, what turns me on is desire. (obdisclaimer:consensual desire, no icky nasty mean people, bleargh;) ). sigh. that was rather a ramble. but maybe it will speak to someone. re: fem sf - it was in the works of leguin and heinlein especially (more recently piercy) that i found visions of sexuality other than that which everyone in my community appeared to share. although heinlein did miss the boat in some issues (i remember reading stranger at 14 and thinking, 'jeeeez, if they really all loved each other they wouldn't be so frigging petty'[heh, those of us w/out jealousy were awfully cute when still naive]), his women still seem strong and admirable to me. their decisions are not necessarily those i would make, but still ... where else would i have been offered twin 12-year-old girls as space pilots? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:29:32 -0600 Reply-To: mcg.home@worldnet.att.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Charles or Rose McGuire Subject: Re: Vampires on TV (off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jill Gillham wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > AGES, WEREWOLF: THE WILD WEST... :) ). It was decent, and might have had a > > good future if that actors had done a better job and the lead (I can't > > remember his name) hadn't been killed in a motorcycle accident before second > > season filming began. > > Mark Frankel was the actor. And there was only one season of about 7 > episodes. (Fox cancels stuff quick) There was talk of trying to find > another home for the show for a possible second season, but they couldn't > really do it without Mark. > > On another tv note, I've read that the average age of a Buffy viewer is > between 25 and 29, somewhat older than WB expected. >My mother is 75, and she loves Buffy. She calls it Buffy kicks butt. > Trying to get back on-topic here: I've seen a lot of talk about Octavia > butler's stuff, and was wondering what other people thought of Ian > McDonald's Evolution's Shore. There's something of a similar theme with > the world being forced to come to terms with an ailen force determined to > change humanity, though in McDonald's story the change is more gradual. > Is there a sequel existing/planned for the book? I'm curious about how the > Chaga lead to the creation of new societies. > > It was also interesting that Gaby was considered an overly-driven bitch by > other characters in the book. I get the feeling that a man in her place > would have been congradulated for getting good stories. > > Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 > \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, > =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." > /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] My mother is 75, and she loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:38:18 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802031838.KAA13514@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:38 3/02/98 -0800, Cat Farrar wrote: >Why do so many people accept that rape has nothing to do with sex or sexual >pleasure? It seems to me that the two are intertwined. Men rape (primarily) >with their penises. Those penises need to be erect in order to penetrate. >In today's society we still see sex, violence, power and dominance >associated together. (snip,snip) > > What's at issue in this discussion is not the nature of rape but the nature >of man. > This is correct Cat. However, there are other factors involved in sexual behaviour patterns. For example, paraphilias, ( people with abnormal sexual behaviour, such as needing to inflict or receive pain, asphyxialiacs, necrophiliacs, object fetishists, pedophiles etc), cannot achieve physical sexual responses, such as erections etc in any other way. More than 90% of these of people are male, and demonstrate abnormal function of part of the limbic system of the brain. Some forms of epilepsy and brain damage to the limbic system result in a sudden inability to achieve *normal* sexual responses, with the development of sometimes *weird* paraphilias, such as only being able to respond sexually to something like a woman's hands with gold rings on every finger:) Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:26:25 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Replacing the "pair-bond" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:35 4/02/98 -0700, misha wrote: >Um, I just wanted to point out that just because "men are entirely >absent" (or women) doesn't mean there isn't any pairbonding. I thought >that Charnas, with the Free Fems, still had situations of pair-bonding. >That was one of the points of contention between the Free Fems and >Riding Women: "promiscuity" where the RW partnered when/where they liked >and the FF were more of a serial monogamous description. > I guess it also depends on your own personal utopian preference, much of the feminist explorations, seem to have difficulties with the inclusion of males, often resorting to some type of removal/resolution of gender conflicts. Men either become "honorary females" by adoption of caring/nurturing features, or even biology, as in "Woman on the Edge of Time" where individuals are completely androgynous..or they are outcast/exiled/separated from a woman-centred social organisation. ie..either men have to change and become more "woman-like"; or they have to be kept separate from all but the most basic functions. I guess my thinking, has been trying (often without success!! ) to move "beyond" into some sort of possible *acceptance* of gender conflict and differences - on one level I really do not have a problem with differentiation and gender-specific roles per se, sexism only becomes sexism, when you ascribe higher *status* or *value* to one gender-role or another. The closest I have come to seeing this, is in Kate Elliot's "Jaran" series of sci-fi books..the "men are men" and the "women are women" in the traditional sense in many ways, but gender conflicts are resolved/balanced in a very unusual way in the Jaran tribes. Partly by the concept of strict "Boundaries" between "men's business" and "women's business", and the lack of ascribing higher *value* or *status* to either sex, although the women do seem have a slightly higher status, due to their ownership of the *home tents*. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:09:56 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: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-04 22:47:05 EST, you write: > This is correct Cat. However, there are other factors involved in sexual > behaviour patterns. For example, paraphilias, ( people with abnormal sexual > behaviour, such as needing to inflict or receive pain, asphyxialiacs, > necrophiliacs, object fetishists, pedophiles etc), cannot achieve physical > sexual responses, such as erections etc in any other way. More than 90% of > these of people are male, and demonstrate abnormal > function of part of the limbic system of the brain. Some forms of epilepsy > and brain damage to the limbic system result in a sudden inability to > achieve *normal* sexual responses, with the development of sometimes > *weird* paraphilias, such as only being able to respond sexually to > something like a woman's hands with gold rings on every finger:) This is classic textbook truth for clinical psychology, but my field observations tend to dispute the textbooks. I host a special interest group for a bunch of fetishists. THe psych books would define these people (me included) as klismaphiles. According to the book, none of us should be able to relate sexually without being given an enema. I gotta tell you that the books are just plain wrong. I have thousands of members in our SIG, and I don't know of a single one for whom this is true. They all enjoy perfectly good sex lives outside their fetish. It's just something they like. I think this is true for most bondage lovers, and spanking enthusiasts and for just about any other paraphilia you care to mention. I suppose there are some individuals out on the third std. deviation of deviance who can't get off without their fetish, and perhaps they are the ones that end up with the good doctors, leading the psych. community to conclude that they represent the total population. Hey, they've got the Ph.D. and the training, but on this issue, they are way off base. And, of course, I bring this up so that if you're writing a SF/F having a character with a parapilia, you know they can respond sexually without needles in their nipples or whatever their kick may be. :-) Jim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:05:18 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anny Middon Subject: More on Vampires Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit First off, thanks to everyone who responded to my original post. I know a lot more about vampires now, and have a prodigious reading list on the topic. I find I had been very mistaken about what causes vampirism (well, fictionally -- see below). I had somehow gotten the idea the vampirism was a contagious disease, passed by the bloodsucking of a sufferer. I hadn't realized that a person needed to be killed by the vampire to become one herself. Which leads to my first question: A vampire has no soul, right? What happened to it? Was the soul extinguished somehow (a notion that I would think might raise some havoc with some religious beliefs)? Or is the soul in hell, while the body lives on, separated from it? If the latter, is the body somehow aware of the torments of the soul? My second question: It occurred to me that another aspect of vampirism is that a vampire supposedly doesn't have a reflection in a mirror. Despite the obvious plot advantages of having a fairly ready way of determining if a body is a vampire, this strikes me as somewhat odd. My inclination is that this is related to the common folk notion that a picture or reflection of a person contains her soul; therefore a person without a soul would have no reflection. Is this theory supported by any experts in the field? Related question: Has anyone ever tried to come up with some "scientific" explanation for the lack of reflection? It's hard for me to conceive of a corporeal entity that doesn't reflect in a mirror. Tidbit about vampirism: Some scientists beleive that vampirism is based on a real-life hereditary disease called porphyria. This disease causes the body to fail to produce one of the enzymes in heme. Sufferers are extremely photosensitive, so much so that exposure to sunlight can cause skin lesions. The lips and gums may be drawn taut, making the teeth look like fangs. Eating garlic can stimulate heme production, turning a mild case of porphyria into a painful one; sufferers therefore avoid foods with garlic. The most telling point -- about the only way to treat porphyria in the Middle Ages was to drink large quantities of blood. To add a sort-of on-topic point, Merck's Manual states that males and females are equally affected by the disease. So the number of female vampires should equal the male. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:11:40 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Vampire Anthologies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can anyone point me in the direction of an anthology of alternative vampire stories. I can't remember any of the details, but I am sure that one of the vampires healed by filtering blood. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I'm going to donate my body to science fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:13:14 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jim:)) I apologise for miscommunicating just a tad, I didnt mean I'm a supporter or even a believer of these psych text "truths":)) ie. the *Classic* text-book cases of paraphilias, where the only sexual response the victim is capable of is the abnormal one, is actually the rarest form and does have a neurological basis. I guess the point I was trying to explain, is that sexual response is more complicated than just the desire to reproduce, or genital-only pleasure-gratification, or a result of social conditioning. One psych documentary I saw recently on paraphilias, suggested that some aspects of the sexual response are *imprinted* in infancy, long before physical sexual maturity, and when the limbic system is in its most *open* state. The infant is very much a creature of instincts and pleasure/pain responses and learning through its senses at a very high rate. A sort of "whole-body eroticism" , Since in early infancy the mother is the most frequent handler of the infant, infants will *fixate* on the object of pleasure - the mother's breast for example, or will *imprint* smells, such as perfumes, or the vision of mother's stiletto high-heels coming towards them across the dining room floor, as a "visual signal" that pleasure/food/cuddle/security is coming:)) One of the patients interviewed in the documentary, an adult male, had a relatively normal sex-life with his wife etc, except he experienced a much greater sexual response by the sight and feel of rings on women's hands :)) Apparently, as an infant, he had often been cuddled and held by an aunt who wore an array of rings, and his delight would be to twirl them. The association of pleasurable sensations associated with his aunt's rings, had strongly *imprinted* into his later adult sexual responses. I suspect that the *extreme* text-book end of the spectrum of paraphilias, is where the imprinting has become so strong and repeated, it has become the only sexual response available to the person, and often this has been achieved before sexual maturity at puberty. Julieanne Jim wrote: >This is classic textbook truth for clinical psychology, but my field >observations tend to dispute the textbooks. I host a special interest group >for a bunch of fetishists. THe psych books would define these people (me >included) as klismaphiles. According to the book, none of us should be able to >relate sexually without being given an enema. I gotta tell you that the books >are just plain wrong. I have thousands of members in our SIG, and I don't know >of a single one for whom this is true. They all enjoy perfectly good sex lives >outside their fetish. It's just something they like. I think this is true for >most bondage lovers, and spanking enthusiasts and for just about any other >paraphilia you care to mention. I suppose there are some individuals out on >the third std. deviation of deviance who can't get off without their fetish, >and perhaps they are the ones that end up with the good doctors, leading the >psych. community to conclude that they represent the total population. Hey, >they've got the Ph.D. and the training, but on this issue, they are way off >base. > >And, of course, I bring this up so that if you're writing a SF/F having a >character with a parapilia, you know they can respond sexually without needles >in their nipples or whatever their kick may be. :-) > >Jim > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:37:03 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: BDG - Same-sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-03 10:52:21 EST, Elisa writes: << The strong sexual drive of humans, including the female sexual drive (and the human female orgasmic capacity, not easily found in nature among females), is deemed to be responsible for the creation of pair-bondings, and by extension the family. If I'm not mistaken this is the thesis of Desmond Morris, in _The Naked Ape_. The fact that humans are less hairy than apes in general is only another trick nature has invented to increase sexual pleasure in humans, and as a consequence, allow for long term relationships - and the existance and perpetuation of families. >> Oh my! And I thought female orgasm was responsible for perpetuating masturbation and independence. Thanks for the clarification. donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:24:40 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: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-04 19:47:04 EST, Neil writes: << Basicly, I personally find it hard to believe that people can really choose what turns them on. Discover, perhaps; emphasize or deemphasize, perhaps; indulge or repress; but not deliberately overhaul. >> then how does one explain for instance PVC fetishes? It certainly is not a material/substance one is born to orgasm to. dbs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:57:02 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: was Re: BDG - Same sex themes Hello all... > >I argue that a lesbian identity has a > >political implication, > > Except I'm still asking what a "lesbian identity" is. If I may put my 2 cents in, I would define a "lesbian identity" to be a part of any woman who chooses to be and calls herself a lesbian (or dyke, queer, gay...whatever one chooses to call it). And as far as a lesbian identity having a political implication...I could not agree more wholeheartedly. The personal is political...I look as carefully as I can at every product I purchase to make sure I do not support people who wouldn't support legislature that helps lesbians and gays. (This makes it slim pickin's, let me tell you!!) > >that lesbianism can be a choice for any woman, > Rubbish. Are you claiming that people can deliberately, consciously choose > what turns them on? They may choose to deny or ignore it, which is the > opposite of what you affirm, but your claim is fantastic. I think the claim is fantastic, also...and I also believe it within certain parameters. Rubbish? I don't think so. I am afraid too many people link being "turned on" with love...that in order for sex to to be pleasurable a strong physical attraction must be present...or that attraction is solely based on physical response. So often the term "sexual orientation" leads to sex becoming the focus of the relationship, when in fact sex may be low on the list of what brought the couple together in the first place. I believe that for many women sexual pleasure is linked very closely to emotions (more so than men). However, what about all these "threesome" jokes? That in itself assumes every woman who would enjoy sex with another woman has a choice to include both men and women in their sex life. I am not saying that you feel this way Neil, but there seems to be a wide assumption of this "out there in the "real(?)" world. >From personal experience...I found it possible to be turned on by men when we were making out until it led to actual penetration (which was tolerable). Now, I remember in my teen-age mind that although making out with boys was not as exciting as making out with girls...it would do as an outlet for some sexual pleasure and meeting social "requirements". So, do I think all women could do this...probably not...but most certainly many can if they can overcome the social stigmas associated with same-sex affection. Just a couple thoughts... Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:24:46 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Subject: Vampires Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I was wondering if anyone out there has read the Gilda Stories, by Jewel Gomez? I hope I've spelled her name correctly. I didn't see it mentioned though I haven't read all the posts. I would be interested to hear what others thought about the novel. Thanks. Linda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:33:15 -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: More on Vampires In-Reply-To: <536d8775.34d956a0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:05 AM 2/5/98 , you wrote: >From: Anny Middon >Subject: [*FSFFU*] More on Vampires > >Tidbit about vampirism: Some scientists beleive that vampirism is based on a >real-life hereditary disease called porphyria. This disease causes the body (snip) There was also the factor that people would fall into occasional coma-type sleeps (the medical reason escapes me now) and the others would think they were dead. So, off to the gravesite and underground they go. The people wake up out of the coma, dig themselves out of the grave, and go home and everyone screams in panic. Originally, this may be a very good reason for the traditional couple-day wake ... Just as an interesting tidbit, they used to sell "Vampire Kits" which would include a stake and mallet, a gun with silver bullets (apparently they were a little overeager to sell these things...), a string of garlic, and various other "vampire-be-gone" items. One was recently auctioned off for a few thousand dollars. jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:52:50 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: The last bastion of prejudice? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > So, Barbara......how would you feel if one of us posted to the list that we > didn't want to read about sex between fat people? > I wouldn't blame you! I don't want to read about it, either! > > Barbara :-( This was a nasty unkindness. Why not ? what have you got against fat people? Some of the most wildly passionate and erotic wimmin I know are Fat, Voluptuous, Substantial, Big, Grande, and their bodies and feelings are as sensitive as mine, if not yours. The next star trek novel will include postings like "New frontier closed due to prejudice". How is fat different from black, vegetarian or gay? --Cleo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:53:02 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Buzz Review Subject: Re: More on Vampires Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I'm not normally one to say this on a list....but aren't vampires off topic? I've been fascinated by vampires for a very long time and would love to see an intelligent, mature, mailing list devoted to their discussion. Most of what I've seen available, via vampire topic lists, has been fanatical and rather silly or related to role playing. But for this list in particular isn't it off topic? Leann Buzz Review News ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:01:26 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeanine Pedersen Subject: Re: Wicked Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I don't know who originally made the post, but many thanks for the suggestion of Wicked. I just finished reading it and thought it an interesting protrayal of choices and view points. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:55:24 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: Men and sexual urges It's me again...just for the record, the vast majority of rapists do not ejaculate during the act...generally it is just the act of penetration against the will of another that is the source of "pleasure". Penny > After all, the guy could experience pleasure with a consenting partner. > There must be someone who wants him. (In case of college frat boys, who > are #1 rapists on campus, there are dozens and dozens of girls who would > do anything to be with a rich guy in a cool car). The physical sensation of > orgasm will be just the same, but the whole idea of domination will be > missing. If the person chooses rape instead, it means, he's not after > sex as it is. That he could have gotten much easier and without the risk > of going to jail. Therefore, it's not the sexual desire what drives him > to do it. > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:55:08 -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: BDG - Same sex themes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Michael Marc Levy wrote: >Actually Piercy (and other writers) took most of her ideas in Woman on the >Edge of Time from a nifty work of non-fiction called (if I'm remembering >correctly--it's been fifteen years) The Dialectics of Sex by Shulamith >Firestone, a book anyone interested in both feminism and science fiction >would probably appreciate. But failed to warn non-Marxists that the later chapters, about the last century or two, are hard going for those outside the faith. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:25:30 -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: More on Vampires In-Reply-To: <199802051530.KAA01850@daisy.snet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Just as an interesting tidbit, they used to sell "Vampire Kits" which would > include a stake and mallet, a gun with silver bullets (apparently they were > a little overeager to sell these things...), a string of garlic, and > various other "vampire-be-gone" items. One was recently auctioned off for > a few thousand dollars. > > jenn In the nineteenth century, they also used to sell coffins with signaling devices, generally a bell on a string attached to a post above the coffin with the string running down inside, in case you came out of a faint or coma and found yourself buried. Some also had little periscopes so you'd know when to ring the bell. True. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:26:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Replacing the "pair-bond" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980205152625.007a8920@cs.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:26 PM 2/5/98 +1100, Julieanne wrote: >>Um, I just wanted to point out that just because "men are entirely >>absent" (or women) doesn't mean there isn't any pairbonding. I thought >>that Charnas, with the Free Fems, still had situations of pair-bonding. >>That was one of the points of contention between the Free Fems and >>Riding Women: "promiscuity" where the RW partnered when/where they liked >>and the FF were more of a serial monogamous description. >> > >I guess it also depends on your own personal utopian preference, much of >the feminist explorations, seem to have difficulties with the inclusion of >males, often resorting to some type of removal/resolution of gender >conflicts. Men either become "honorary females" by adoption of >caring/nurturing features, or even biology, as in "Woman on the Edge of >Time" where individuals are completely androgynous..or they are >outcast/exiled/separated from a woman-centred social organisation. >ie..either men have to change and become more "woman-like"; or they have to >be kept separate from all but the most basic functions. > >I guess my thinking, has been trying (often without success!! ) to move >"beyond" into some sort of possible *acceptance* of gender conflict and >differences - on one level I really do not have a problem with >differentiation and gender-specific roles per se, sexism only becomes >sexism, when you ascribe higher *status* or *value* to one gender-role or >another. Please keep your eye out for a copy of Sturgeon's _Venus Plus X_. It's not his very best work, and is a lot more "Fifties" than a lot of his ground-breaking work with gender roles, but this is what it's about. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:58:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Might I suggest (and I had better add that I am female!) that this somewhat >underestimates men's fears and anxieties around sexual functioning, in >particular fears of impotence? Men are expected to be as Marina describes but >many find this model creates more worries than guiltless pleasure, since they >find themselves unable to match it. Ah, yes, but then we are assuming an erection is absolutely necessary for satisfying heterosexual sex (not). So, fear of impotency is legitimate in a couple trying to conceive, but, otherwise.... Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:20:20 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:55 PM 2/5/98 EST, you wrote: >It's me again...just for the record, I'd be interested in reading the facts of this record. Can you point me to a URL? Cat Farrar the vast majority of rapists do >not ejaculate during the act...generally it is just the act of >penetration against the will of another that is the source of >"pleasure". > >Penny > > > > >> After all, the guy could experience pleasure with a consenting partner. >> There must be someone who wants him. (In case of college frat boys, who >> are #1 rapists on campus, there are dozens and dozens of girls who would >> do anything to be with a rich guy in a cool car). The physical sensation of >> orgasm will be just the same, but the whole idea of domination will be >> missing. If the person chooses rape instead, it means, he's not after >> sex as it is. That he could have gotten much easier and without the risk >> of going to jail. Therefore, it's not the sexual desire what drives him >> to do it. >> >> >> >> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society >> happens to be selling at the time." >> Naomi Wolf >> > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:24:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection (preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones manhood? And, I contend that feeling satisfied about ones manhood is necessary for heterosexual sex? (My comments are stated to generate discussion. My views on the above subject differ quite radically) Cat Farrar At 11:58 AM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote: >>Might I suggest (and I had better add that I am female!) that this somewhat >>underestimates men's fears and anxieties around sexual functioning, in >>particular fears of impotence? Men are expected to be as Marina describes but >>many find this model creates more worries than guiltless pleasure, since they >>find themselves unable to match it. > >Ah, yes, but then we are assuming an erection is absolutely necessary for >satisfying heterosexual sex (not). So, fear of impotency is legitimate in a >couple trying to conceive, but, otherwise.... > >Laura > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:24:51 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Pair-bonding in humans / Sociobiology Marina said: > IMHO, the idea of "reduced sexuality" of animals was invented by guilty > conscience of pet owners, in order to justify the neutering. No matter > how "humane" is the intention to reduce the population of stray animals, > a castration is a castration. Granted, a castration is a castration. Many Vets recommend castration of older animals to "prevent prostate problems and/or cancer. This could be done to human males for the same reasons...but not many opt for it. However, if you had ever worked in rescue of abandoned or neglected domestic animals, you may better understand the reasoning. > Since animals do not have a big choice > of other pleasures, they cannot read books or play videogames, you > basically forever deprive them from experiencing the most intense source of > pleasure, if not the only one, available to them. Having worked with dogs and cats as well as having owned them all my 38 years, let me describe the different "pleasures" I have seen in my animals. Well, let's just suffice it to say that animals have so many things they can obtain pleasure from many things and do not have to have books, games or sex for pleasure. Also, if you have ever seen an intact male dog that has just caught a "whiff" of a female in heat, what they seem to experience is not what I would call pleasurable. You would never do it to > yourself for all the humane reasons in the world (how many people there > get castrated because there are too many starving children on the > streets?). So all people can do to make them feel better is to vehemently > deny that animals could possibly "enjoy it". Makes it so much > more convenient and less trouble. Pretty much the same logic used for > centuries to deny the existance of female sexuality. > Most pet owners I know do not write off the sexual pleasures of their pets to justify their spaying or neutering their pets. In fact, the vast majority of male pet owners I know definitely wince when discussing their pets' castration, although they do not hesitiate when it comes to spaying females(...interesting, huh?) Perhaps it is done primarily for the convenience of the owner (i.e. intact male cats spray and unspayed female cats go into heat until they are pregnant; if you have ever been around a cat in heat, it certainly doesn't sound like the cat is having a good time, especially once penetration occurs. Male cats have a "pronged" penis... if the female tries to pull away, the prongs stick into the walls of her vagina causing pain but with the end result insuring survival of the species.) What is pleasurable about domesticated animal populations (lacking proper care, vaccinations, etc.) breeding to the point of exhausting the immediate environment of resources, territories (cats and dogs both are quite territorial), and when it comes time to reproduce, the male cats kill each other in horrid fights to the death or almost dead. Then, the mom cats are stuck with up to 6 or 7 kittens which depend totally on her for support. Also, if she does not hide her newborns well enough, daddy cats are going to kill and eat them. Also, due to a general lack of nutrition, many kittens and sometimes the mom die from diseases that they would normally be able to fight off. Sounds full of pleasure, doesn't it? Also, while I know we do not choose to spay and neuter humans because of all the starving children on the streets, (TIC) perhaps we should. All sarcasm and kidding aside, I personally have over the years weighed the pros and cons of cat and dog freedom of sexual choice. I have found my male cats live longer if they are neutered, and tend to enjoy the "easy life" of an indoor home. They don't go into a tizzy if a neighboring animal goes into heat (nor do they begin starting fights with all the other local intact males), and they seem to derive much pleasure in chasing balls, sitting in my lap being petted, messing with the computer keyboard while I am typing, eating, or going after the mechanical mouse I bought them. I do, however, have a male neutered cat which refuses to jump off the bed when Laura and I make love...I like to think he enjoys this not necessarily (although I do not deny the possibility) because of sexual pleasure, but also because of the emotional closeness he feels with us. Now, the point you have about this same logic (denying the sexual pleasure of animals) being used to deny women's sexual pleasure over the centuries is plausable. I think that as the years passed, and more women made it clear that, indeed, the female orgasm does exist, then the theory was "only bad girls experience pleasure from sex". Please, don't encourage and already ignorant world not to spay and neuter their pets. I understand you were making a point (and a valid one), but this subject is a bit to close to my heart to have overlooked the comparison. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:27:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802052024.MAA22877@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection >(preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones >manhood? So then a man's "manhood" is tied into his ability to achieve orgasm only? By that logic, a man feels as "manly" masturbating as he does having sex with a woman who is not enjoying herself..... Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:02:48 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: Men and sexual urges Hi Cat! As I am unsure of the meaning of "URL" (pardon my ignorance), what I can tell you is that I obtained that tidbit of info from the local Rape Crisis Center...but could not tell you the actual reference just now. I will attempt, however, to find out! Penny > > I'd be interested in reading the facts of this record. Can you point me to > a URL? > > Cat Farrar > > the vast majority of rapists do > >not ejaculate during the act...generally it is just the act of > >penetration against the will of another that is the source of > >"pleasure". > > > >Penny > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:05:40 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: Men and sexual urges > >Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection > >(preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones > >manhood? > > So then a man's "manhood" is tied into his ability to achieve orgasm only? > By that logic, a man feels as "manly" masturbating as he does having sex > with a woman who is not enjoying herself..... > > Laura > Perhaps I missed something here, but just because a man achieves an erection does not mean he also achieves orgasm. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:06:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Why don't we ask some men to comment on this thread! Cat At 12:27 PM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote: >>Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection >>(preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones >>manhood? > >So then a man's "manhood" is tied into his ability to achieve orgasm only? >By that logic, a man feels as "manly" masturbating as he does having sex >with a woman who is not enjoying herself..... > >Laura > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:52:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Why don't we ask some men to comment on this thread! Not a bad idea. I'm not sure if this is place, though--it seems off-topic. Additionally, a lot of this is extremely subjective. I certainly have difficulty with what the terms "manly", "manhood" mean to me, and I have no idea about the psychology of a rapist. If you ask a man in Mattapoisett in _WotEoT_ you'll get a different answer than if you ask a man at the corner newsstand in this branch of reality (and that probably depends heavily on the culture that that man comes from). If you ask the male character in _Daughters of Elysium_ (I can't remember his name--the doctor from the frontier planet), you'll get a different answer than if you ask Buck Rogers and probably yet another if you ask Worf. ;-) Personally, I don't consciously think about my "manhood" or "manliness", but I feel good about myself when I accomplish tasks around the house--rewire the telephone system or cook a good pot of spicy chili. I feel like a good spouse when I make my spouse happy. Being human, I sometimes don't feel like a good spouse. :-( A penis is not the root of all male prickishness any more than a womb is the root of all hysteria. Control and demonstration of sexual desires is socially directed in men and women in very different ways. I don't think, though, that it is useful to make generalizations based on that. I think such generalizations get in the way of understanding. I hope that one aim of most branches of feminism is a greater understanding of women throughout society. I would hope that this is not incompatible with the aim for a greater understanding of others, too. Pax, -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:33:32 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: Men and sexual urges Laura, I think (I may be wrong !) rather misunderstands my point about male impotence: >Ah, yes, but then we are assuming an erection is absolutely necessary for >satisfying heterosexual sex (not). So, fear of impotency is legitimate in a >couple trying to conceive, but, otherwise.... It is men who are afraid of impotence and 'failure'. Complete failure of erection or premature ejaculation doesn't seem to me to be a component of satisfying heterosexual or any sex for a man, and it's clear from historical evidence that I've studied that men found such experiences the reverse of pleasurable (and the sense of shame and humiliation was only part of this). (Though I'll concede that if they could have brought themselves to concentrate on general sensual pleasures of touch and feel the whole situation might have improved for themselves and their partners.) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:54:31 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: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-05 15:32:31 EST, you write: > Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection > (preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones > manhood? And, I contend that feeling satisfied about ones manhood is > necessary for heterosexual sex? > > (My comments are stated to generate discussion. My views on the above > subject differ quite radically) What is or isn't necessary for sex is mostly a matter of what's in a person's head, not what is in their genitals. Blood engorgement is needed in the genitals for certain sexual acts, but it is, as a previous writer suggested, not a requirement for satisfying sex, either hetero or homo. However, for the MANY men who do equate an erection with their manliness, its a fucking disaster when the flag fails to fly. I might add that there are an abundant supply of women who do all they can to add to the failure feelings of the man caught in such a plight. It's been said, "When all else fails, use your head." There would be a lot more happy men and happy women among heterosexuals if this were more widely practiced. Oh, and this is topical because understanding the fears and frailities of your characters is vital to crafting believable ones. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:05:44 -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: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802052106.NAA16242@main.cfmc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Cat Farrar wrote: > Why don't we ask some men to comment on this thread! I considered, but I couldn't even begin to explain all the problems I had with your posits about "manhood" and so on so I gave up. I am reminded of a group of young women (girls more like it) in college asking me if men could stop urinating once before they were empty once they started. I am sure young men have just as many mis-conceptions about women if not more, but it was a bit tough to swallow. I may not know as much about this as you do because: 1) why in all hell would I want or need to "feel satisfied with my manhood" I don't need to feel like I need a dominant role in almost any interaction, what is it that makes sex special? (same thing probably goes the other way, think about it) Are non-sexist men all gay or asexual? (funny story about that later) 2) If I got stuck up on something as silly as impotence without being able to "think outside the box" I would want to die of humiliation, not because I would not be satisfied with my manhood, but because I wouldn't be satisfied with my sentience. Besides, shouldn't men have to same right to "say no" at whatever stage that women do? Sci-Fi reference. Has anyone read some of Janet Asimov's books? I read one about robots. It was FULL of sex, left and right, young people, old people, they just went at it hog-wild. Anyway, people got their brains put in robot bodies. What they really didn't like about living as immortal robots was the lack of "erectile tissue" (men and women). Sex just wasn't the same. (and there was enough of it to explore the subject). I just have to wonder what was going on in that relationship. Funny personal story In high school I had extensive psychological tests concerning my learning disability. (they really had trouble with an LD kid at the fancy-schmancy magnet school) One test they gave me was asking me to state what people were doing in some stick-figure drawings. I said things like: "The person is washing the dishes" "The person is washing the car" and so on. It seemed like a stupid test, but I didn't think much of it until I found out what the test result was. It was: He's gay. (or something damn close) Here's the reasoning. I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" and "he is washing the car" so my gender roles were messed up. The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was wrong with the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:04:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <1CD9ECC7721@calc.vet.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection >> >(preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones >> >manhood? >> >> So then a man's "manhood" is tied into his ability to achieve orgasm only? >> By that logic, a man feels as "manly" masturbating as he does having sex >> with a woman who is not enjoying herself..... >> >> Laura >> >Perhaps I missed something here, but just because a man achieves an >erection does not mean he also achieves orgasm. > >Penny Excellent point. Let me rephrase: So then a man's "manhood" (as it relates to his sexuality; in this case, heterosexual) is tied into his ability to achieve erection only? So, even if he drives his female partner to the heights of sexual ecstasy with his hands, tongue, body and breath, he's still not "manly"? Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:14:36 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Here's the reasoning. >I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" >and "he is washing the car" >so my gender roles were messed up. > >The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was wrong with >the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. Holy shit! I was reading this, shaking my head, thinking of all the damage we did to kids Back Then.....only to find out how recent your story is! EEK! Laura (running off to scream up and down the halls and the futility of it all!!!) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:06:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >It is men who are afraid of impotence and 'failure'. Complete failure of >erection or premature ejaculation doesn't seem to me to be a component of >satisfying heterosexual or any sex for a man, and it's clear from historical >evidence that I've studied that men found such experiences the reverse of >pleasurable (and the sense of shame and humiliation was only part of this). >(Though I'll concede that if they could have brought themselves to concentrate >on general sensual pleasures of touch and feel the whole situation might have >improved for themselves and their partners.) Good point. Do you suppose women feel less "womanly" if they fail to become lubricated? :-) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:23:00 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Biotech & Vampires? (was: Vampire Anthologies) In-Reply-To: Catweasel 's message of Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:11:40 -0600 * Catweasel > Can anyone point me in the direction of an anthology of > alternative vampire stories. I can't remember any of the details, > but I am sure that one of the vampires healed by filtering blood. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but I remember a short story by Sharon Farber in an issue of Isaac Asimov's SF magazine years back, about a female physician who was also a vampire. So it combined medicine, biology and vampirism. I can probably dig out the reference. I'd like references to stories that combine biotech/hitech medicine and vampirism. Any recommendations? Another short story that I read, I think somewhere online, was about a woman who was pregnant, a host mother for another woman. However, the other woman was a vampire, and the fetus was half vampire, the result of gene splicing the vampire's genes with normal human genes. There were some problems... I've always thought that this story would be great in an abortion debate. Anyway, if you have some biotech vampire references, please post them. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:40:52 -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: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: <199802052106.NAA16242@main.cfmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm male, so I'll try. I am heterosexual, and have been "between" relationships for the last few years (or has it been decades now?) and I understand that I am a male, but I do not fully understand the meaning of the word "man" as it is being used here. If I were asked if I am a man or a woman I would respond that I am a man, but I know that they are really asking if I am male or female. If I haven't had sex for a while, am I less of a man than I was when I was having sex regularly? I don't know. I don't think I am less of a man, but I am unsure if that is the consensus opinion. If we get into the topic of "what is manhood," then as an anthropologist I would say that manhood is the ability to live up to ones cultural expectations for the male gender. Of course in any large social organization (like the United States), those expectations can vary from one group-within-the-group (I hate the term "sub" when refering to cultures). Therefore, if I am around one group of friends which considers regular sex to be a symbol of manhood, then I am not much of a man right now. Being a bit sensitive on this subject I tend to avoid this group of friends if the topic comes up (hehehe), but that is just an attempt to save my ego from any possible damage. So, maybe if someone could give me a clearer idea of what is meant by the term "manhood," I or others might be able to address this question better. Bill At 01:06 PM 2/5/1998 -0800, you wrote: >Why don't we ask some men to comment on this thread! > >Cat > >At 12:27 PM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote: >>>Might I suggest that an erection and/or the ability to have an erection >>>(preferably many?) IS absolutely necessary for feeling satisfied about ones >>>manhood? >> >>So then a man's "manhood" is tied into his ability to achieve orgasm only? >>By that logic, a man feels as "manly" masturbating as he does having sex >>with a woman who is not enjoying herself..... >> >>Laura >> >> > > "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: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:58:23 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Laura Wigod 's message of Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:14:36 -0800 >> Here's the reasoning. >> I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" >> and "he is washing the car" >> so my gender roles were messed up. >> >> The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was >> wrong with the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. > Holy shit! I was reading this, shaking my head, thinking of all > the damage we did to kids Back Then.....only to find out how > recent your story is! EEK! > > Laura (running off to scream up and down the halls and the > futility of it all!!!) Read: Burke, Phyllis (1996): Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female. Anchor Books, New York. Frightening... Lots of current horror stories like the above, including psychiatric treatment of "gender deviant" children, incarceration, even electroshock treatment... Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:24:47 -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: Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Good point. Do you suppose women feel less "womanly" if they fail to become >lubricated? :-) > >Laura That would depend on when it time (or how) womanliness was constructed. Even now, I believe that some women would think it enhanced their "real women aren't as interested" posture while other women would feel "womanly failure." misha bernardm@colorado.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:47:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree that Marina may be underestimating men's sexual anxieties. It's easy to understand because she wasn't raised a man. I wasn't raised that way either and am happy each and every time a man is honest enough with himself and me to talk about the pressures he feels from society about being a "real man". I spent most of my life not being a "real woman" and have not cared much for the times that I've mascaraded as a feminine femme. As a rule I don't enjoy moving and acting in the world PASSIVELY. I find it irrational to spend two hours each day on my appearance (I'm not a model or actor). I'm extremely happy that my breast are small to medium in size. I feel sexy with muscles and powerfully independent when don't HAVE ask for help when lifting something heavy. I enjoy sexual equality; like the idea of exploring light s/m with my partner (can I trust him to treat me with love, tenderness and concern?) but most cherish a sexual relationship with a man who enjoys my assertive and aggressive nature; who lets me take the lead and control our levels of pleasure; a man who admires the way I face the world and my overall world view. I hate gender stereotypes, because the system denies 98% of everyone's individuality, context and values. I cannot be a passionate woman while I'm simultaneously being an obediant woman. If I want to have the most enjoyable and fulfilling life I can; if I want to have the most passionate, intense and satisfying romantic relationship possible with a man I better look for a man who has thrown away all the MANHOOD crap he possibly can. Otherwise, our relationship would be nothing but a battlefield. I hate the manhood thing because it gets in the way of my happiness!!! Cat Farrar At 06:43 PM 2/4/98 UT, you wrote: >Marina writes > >men as persons are never defined by their sexuality, which makes them >a >lot more relaxed about the whole subject.If you want it, you go and get >it, >if you don't, you don't worry about it, and the biggest risk you ever >take >is rejection, which simply leaves you with the other three billion >minus one >females on this planet who might say yes. > >Might I suggest (and I had better add that I am female!) that this somewhat >underestimates men's fears and anxieties around sexual functioning, in >particular fears of impotence? Men are expected to be as Marina describes but >many find this model creates more worries than guiltless pleasure, since they >find themselves unable to match it. The societal idea of men as sexually >ever-ready and raring to go is the obverse of the idea of the sexually-cold >woman, and possibly just as damaging. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:00:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: NESchaadt Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years ago I was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). I had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy services. Too funny. Nancy Schaadt ("I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused." Elvis Costello) Laura wrote: >Holy shit! I was reading this, shaking my head, thinking of all the damage >we did to kids Back Then.....only to find out how recent your story is! EEK! >Laura (running off to scream up and down the halls and the futility of it >all!!!) because someone wrote: >>Here's the reasoning. >>I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" >>and "he is washing the car" >>so my gender roles were messed up. >> >>The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was wrong with >>the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:37:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And once again this year, the Head Start Christmas party sponsored by us State of Maine employees presented each little girl with a doll and each little boy with a truck...and this female division director didn't contribute a nickel toward their purchase, enough already! I can't *believe* the organizers are still doing that. But they are. Nina Osier NESchaadt wrote: > Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A > little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are > photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. > Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years > ago I > was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). > I > had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax > collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy > services. Too funny. > > Nancy Schaadt > ("I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused." Elvis Costello) > > Laura wrote: > >Holy shit! I was reading this, shaking my head, thinking of all the > damage > >we did to kids Back Then.....only to find out how recent your story > is! EEK! > >Laura (running off to scream up and down the halls and the futility > of it > >all!!!) > because someone wrote: > >>Here's the reasoning. > >>I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" > >>and "he is washing the car" > >>so my gender roles were messed up. > >> > >>The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was wrong > with > >>the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:37:25 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Collins Subject: Re: BGD--Censoring same-sex themes Content-Type: text/plain >> Well, I nominated Charnas, so nanananananh! ;P >> - G, still slightly loopy << ditto - i refer you to my last email. in my opinion this is another example of a message that really should have been sent privately and not to the list. can you please stop it. as you can see i am growing increasingly annoyed at these intrusions. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:06:41 -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: More on Vampires MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Buzz Review wrote: > I'm not normally one to say this on a list....but aren't vampires off topic? > I've been fascinated by vampires for a very long time and would love to see an > intelligent, mature, mailing list devoted to their discussion. Most of what > I've seen available, via vampire topic lists, has been fanatical and rather > silly or related to role playing. But for this list in particular isn't it > off topic? How are they off-topic? Horror (supernatural, not psychological) is simply fantasy that attempts to scare the reader instead of chasing dragons or treasure or such. The roleplaying aspect I think is very much on topic here, due to the fact that roleplaying is very much a collaborative effort in storytelling between the game master and the players, and VAMPIRE (both versions) draw the largest female audience in gaming. Sometimes, we have to look beyond the typical ideas of literature that are held in this day and age. I would contend that storytelling is essential to literature and should be discussed alongside it. Whether the storytelling is done on a stage by by the likes of Spaulding Gray and Laurie Anderson or around a table by a bunch of friends bothers me not... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:13:04 -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: More on Vampires MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Which leads to my first question: A vampire has no soul, right? Yes they do. It is still trapped within the body. > Or is the soul in > hell, while the body lives on, separated from it? If the latter, is the body > somehow aware of the torments of the soul? Mythically speaking (not Anne Rice speaking, which could be an entire thesis when you consider MEMNOCH THE DEVIL...), the soul is contained within the body because the vampire is actually paying for its evil in a Hell on Earth sort of deal (interesting note: Why does Lucy have to pay - what evil did she perform in DRACULA? Could it be Stoker had problems with allowing women lustful thoughts? Hmmm?). That's why Van Helsing refers to dead vampires as resting in peace, because they've now paid for their sins... As for the mirrors - I can't help you there. :( - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:00:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It takes a lot of time, effort, energy and aggrement to keep "something" in place. Let's upset the apple cart!!!!! This is one reason I believe sf so important!!!!!!! Cat Farrar At 09:37 PM 2/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >And once again this year, the Head Start Christmas party sponsored by us >State of Maine employees presented each little girl with a doll and each >little boy with a truck...and this female division director didn't >contribute a nickel toward their purchase, enough already! I can't >*believe* the organizers are still doing that. But they are. > >Nina Osier > >NESchaadt wrote: > >> Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A >> little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are >> photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. >> Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years >> ago I >> was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). >> I >> had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax >> collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy >> services. Too funny. >> >> Nancy Schaadt >> ("I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused." Elvis Costello) >> >> Laura wrote: >> >Holy shit! I was reading this, shaking my head, thinking of all the >> damage >> >we did to kids Back Then.....only to find out how recent your story >> is! EEK! >> >Laura (running off to scream up and down the halls and the futility >> of it >> >all!!!) >> because someone wrote: >> >>Here's the reasoning. >> >>I didn't say "she is washing the dishes" >> >>and "he is washing the car" >> >>so my gender roles were messed up. >> >> >> >>The psychologist was a woman, and didn't understand what was wrong >> with >> >>the test. This was only 5-6 years ago. > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:57:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980205190007.007ba7c0@mail.txcc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, NESchaadt wrote: > Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A > little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are > photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. And if you do want to play with the Tonka trucks and the power tools, you're treated a bit like you're raised by wolves by your peers (at least in childhood) who are going along with the roles they've been taught. For children, the boys always seemed to get the more interesting toys, whether it was neat action figures, or train sets, or video games that catered to what they seemed to want to do. Meanwhile, the girls toys seemed to be of the "baby Betsy-wetsy" variety. (and I had a sister just younger enough than me to make baby dolls seem not so interesting) Thank God for Legos and building blocks, and all the other fun stuff that didn't segment itself into a boys or girls toy market. And I'm grateful to have parents who were interested in getting toys/ providing life experiences that they thought were important/made me happy rather than pushing me into doing stuff because I was a girl and certain things were expected of me. I may not have appreciated it then, but I sure do now. I've never understood why people didn't seem to pay much attention to toy and gender assumptions. It seems to me that there's a lot of programming going on at an early age on how to be a good woman/man, but not how to behave as human being necessarily. (hating the color pink since 1975) Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:03:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: from listmistress on topicality & sublists - was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII y'all - please - let's try to stay on the topic of feminism and science fiction, at least. i have a rough majority in favor of multiple lists. my current broad configuration idea is: feministsf-chat feministsf the chat list would be any topic that people who consider themselves feminists & sf fans cared to discuss. the feministsf list (this one) would be more topically focussed to *only* discussions of feminism and science fiction, but could include film, tv, books. i am not going to be able to set this up right away, ok? so hang in there. in the meantime *please* try to keep your on-list discussion relevant; you can ALWAYS respond to individuals with other not-so-relevant commentary. And please, please, please - change your subject lines when a topic has changed. This takes no time - if you don't know how to do it ask me (lquilter@igc.apc.org) and i'll tell you specific to your mail system how to do it. On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Jill Gillham wrote: > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:57:14 -0500 > From: Jill Gillham > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls > > On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, NESchaadt wrote: > > > Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A > > little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are > > photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. > > And if you do want to play with the Tonka trucks and the power tools, > you're treated a bit like you're raised by wolves by your peers (at least > in childhood) who are going along with the roles they've been taught. > > For children, the boys always seemed to get the more interesting toys, > whether it was neat action figures, or train sets, or video games that > catered to what they seemed to want to do. Meanwhile, the girls toys > seemed to be of the "baby Betsy-wetsy" variety. (and I had a sister just > younger enough than me to make baby dolls seem not so interesting) > > Thank God for Legos and building blocks, and all the other fun stuff that > didn't segment itself into a boys or girls toy market. And I'm grateful to > have parents who were interested in getting toys/ providing life > experiences that they thought were important/made me happy rather than > pushing me into doing stuff because I was a girl and certain things were > expected of me. I may not have appreciated it then, but I sure do now. > > I've never understood why people didn't seem to pay much attention to > toy and gender assumptions. It seems to me that there's a lot of > programming going on at an early age on how to be a good woman/man, but > not how to behave as human being necessarily. > > (hating the color pink since 1975) > > Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 > \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, > =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." > /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] > Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants her testimony against Mumia and cites police coercion as the reason for her perjury. http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:52:49 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: More on Vampires Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Regarding vampires and mirrors, one idea I've heard is that up until this century vampires didn't have reflections because the mirror was glass backed with silver, and the silver somehow "rejected" their reflection. But now with modern mirrors, they reflect just fine. I think the silver worked kind of for the same reason that silver bullets work on vampires and werewolves. Just another penny or two, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:04:25 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: FINAL WARNING Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hey any stragglers out there, :) For those of you interested, Friday is the last day of voting for the Book Discussion Group, so if you haven't voted, or for the few of you, if your vote has been returned to you for clarification, tomorrow is the last day. Please remember that we're looking for three votes from each person, and those votes do not need to be in any particular order, but they do need to be sent to me at . If you're not sure which books are nominated, please visit the web page located at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499/fsffu.html for the full listing of our nominees. Looking forward to hearing from you! Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:29:50 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: from listmistress on topicality & sublists - was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "off topic" subjects I find important in that our most prolific sf writers will include that in their writings. Coodoos to the people who bring up topics that warrent a fiction story. Cat farrar At 10:03 PM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote: >y'all - please - let's try to stay on the topic of feminism and science >fiction, at least. i have a rough majority in favor of multiple lists. >my current broad configuration idea is: > feministsf-chat > feministsf > >the chat list would be any topic that people who consider themselves >feminists & sf fans cared to discuss. the feministsf list (this one) >would be more topically focussed to *only* discussions of feminism and >science fiction, but could include film, tv, books. > >i am not going to be able to set this up right away, ok? so hang in >there. in the meantime *please* try to keep your on-list discussion >relevant; you can ALWAYS respond to individuals with other >not-so-relevant commentary. And please, please, please - change your >subject lines when a topic has changed. This takes no time - if you >don't know how to do it ask me (lquilter@igc.apc.org) and i'll tell you >specific to your mail system how to do it. > >On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Jill Gillham wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:57:14 -0500 >> From: Jill Gillham >> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, NESchaadt wrote: >> >> > Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A >> > little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are >> > photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. >> >> And if you do want to play with the Tonka trucks and the power tools, >> you're treated a bit like you're raised by wolves by your peers (at least >> in childhood) who are going along with the roles they've been taught. >> >> For children, the boys always seemed to get the more interesting toys, >> whether it was neat action figures, or train sets, or video games that >> catered to what they seemed to want to do. Meanwhile, the girls toys >> seemed to be of the "baby Betsy-wetsy" variety. (and I had a sister just >> younger enough than me to make baby dolls seem not so interesting) >> >> Thank God for Legos and building blocks, and all the other fun stuff that >> didn't segment itself into a boys or girls toy market. And I'm grateful to >> have parents who were interested in getting toys/ providing life >> experiences that they thought were important/made me happy rather than >> pushing me into doing stuff because I was a girl and certain things were >> expected of me. I may not have appreciated it then, but I sure do now. >> >> I've never understood why people didn't seem to pay much attention to >> toy and gender assumptions. It seems to me that there's a lot of >> programming going on at an early age on how to be a good woman/man, but >> not how to behave as human being necessarily. >> >> (hating the color pink since 1975) >> >> Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 >> \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, >> =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." >> /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] >> > >Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org > >"If I can't dance, I don't want to be >in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman > > FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL > Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants > her testimony against Mumia and cites > police coercion as the reason for her > perjury. > http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:03:24 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Adrian Marley Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii search dickens in fictionchat-l ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:22:59 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-06 01:06:49 EST, you write: << Thank God for Legos and building blocks, and all the other fun stuff that didn't segment itself into a boys or girls toy market. >> Have you seen a Lego ad over the past few years? The "Legomaniac" is always, only, a boy. Only boys are shown playing with Legos in the commercials. I think there was a kitchen-nursery kit for girls a year or so ago, in pinks and pastels, but otherwise Legos aggressively target a male audience. This is so frustrating, because Lego is coming up with more interesting, imaginative kits now: pirates, castles, spaceships---and no hint at all that girls might enjoy playing with them instead of with the dreadful wimpy crap that's aimed at them. Toy commercials are the most ruthless reinforcers of gender-role stereotypes in the mass media today. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:28:02 -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: More on Vampires In-Reply-To: <63246fd1.34dab343@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:52 AM 2/6/98 , you wrote: >From: Barbara Benesch >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] More on Vampires > >Regarding vampires and mirrors, one idea I've heard is that up until this >century vampires didn't have reflections because the mirror was glass backed >with silver, and the silver somehow "rejected" their reflection. But now with >modern mirrors, they reflect just fine. I think the silver worked kind of for >the same reason that silver bullets work on vampires and werewolves. ...because the lower classes had no access to silver and therefore they were once again dependent on their Lords to take care of them? {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:49:27 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathleen writes: > > Have you seen a Lego ad over the past few years? The "Legomaniac" is always, > only, a boy. Only boys are shown playing with Legos in the commercials. I > think there was a kitchen-nursery kit for girls a year or so ago, in pinks and > pastels, but otherwise Legos aggressively target a male audience. This is so > frustrating, because Lego is coming up with more interesting, imaginative kits > now: pirates, castles, spaceships---and no hint at all that girls might enjoy > playing with them instead of with the dreadful wimpy crap that's aimed at > them. Toy commercials are the most ruthless reinforcers of gender-role > stereotypes in the mass media today. It is so true! our future is currently being shaped by advertisers who target children, who have no morals and who apparently believe in no tomorrow. There are small toy producers that market with a non sexist, humanist approach but they are by far in the minority and target the well to do, thinking consumer. The mass market is horrendous in promoting not only gender roles but power over and violence.---------- HOWEVER- it is possible that right here in our hands is chaos' gift - the internet. Another ten years of free information and opinion exchange increasing exponentially will have *what* impact? Will there be a consumer manipulation war by the big companies against the people of the earth? I mean more cohesive and deliberate. As the companies continue to grow it seems the people have both a weapon and a shaper in the internet, how long before it is infiltrated...and used against the people as well. But in the meantime small entrepreneurs are working the net to support alternative choices for everyone. It seems an organic response to the disease propagated by greed. Cleo - Wolf in womon's clothing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:54:42 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: Men and sexual urges Having had this happen to me before (with a male partner), my feelings were more of "How much of my wanting sex is my psyche and not my body?" I didn't much care about my "womanlyness", although this could have been because I really didn't like the guy very much, but more my motivation for being there in the first place. Penny > Good point. Do you suppose women feel less "womanly" if they fail to become > lubricated? :-) > > Laura > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:09:11 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: Men and sexual urges > I might add that there are an abundant > supply of women who do all they can to add to the failure feelings of the man > caught in such a plight. I don't mean to sound snappish, but there are also an abundance of men out there who blame their spouses/girlfriends, or whatever, refuse to seek help, and make everyone's life miserable (not just their own). Sometimes this leads to physical violence against the other partner which, more times than not when it occurs, leads to the desired erection. Also, while I am at it, I remember another comment about women who (paraphrasing) had a genius for attracting violent men. I may be reading more into these statements than I should...but they sound bitter to me. Am I being too sensitive? Penny > > It's been said, "When all else fails, use your head." There would be a lot > more happy men and happy women among heterosexuals if this were more widely > practiced. > > Oh, and this is topical because understanding the fears and frailities of your > characters is vital to crafting believable ones. > > Jim > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:12:56 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 In-Reply-To: <199802042035.PAA23602@daisy.snet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Intercepted at: 04/02/98 20:38:07 GMT. >From jenn mottram . > For those attending Boskone next weekend (anyone? ... anyone?) Hadn't heard of it, not that it matters. I'm not that good a swimmer. > Knights in Distress and the Damesels Who Rescue Them: Female Heroes in > Fantasy > Should I take notes to post here for anyone not going? Yes, please, Jenn. Also possibly "Crossing Genres: Romance, SF, Historical, Mystery" if you attend it. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Air: Something without which we would all exhale ourselves to death. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:21:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: More on Vampires In-Reply-To: <63246fd1.34dab343@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Barbara Benesch wrote: > Regarding vampires and mirrors, one idea I've heard is that up until this > century vampires didn't have reflections because the mirror was glass backed > with silver, and the silver somehow "rejected" their reflection. But now with > modern mirrors, they reflect just fine. I think the silver worked kind of for > the same reason that silver bullets work on vampires and werewolves. > So, hematophagic anemia includes a silver allergy? Interesting! Remember, supernatural or scientific, vampires are basically predators. Or, as a character in Kim Newman's ANNO DRACULA puts it, parasites. For a view of what happens when they're allowed free reign in Sherlock Holmes' England, read ANNO DRACULA. Seems they're as greedy and short-sighted about hunting their prey to exhaustion and/or extinction as any six-pack anateur hunter. Worse: there's a widely recognized ethic of sport hunting! (Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow?)> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:57:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice M Bogstad Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Keeping your own name after marriage should be easy - for me it has been for all intents and purposes - but the medical establishment seems far behind everyone else - i have had better luck with the younger generation - nurses and referral personnel have recently begun to get as disgusted as I am when it is insisted that I must be under my husband's plan - so what is his name (we even live in different cities as well as having different last names). I was told at the time of marriage that whatever name you put on your marriage liscense is your legal name - this is in Wisconsin - maybe it is different in other states, but that has held so far....when I argue about it. On the subject of girls' toys - I am also appalled at all the pink and purple (mostly pink0 in everything to do with girls - but I heard a toy marketer say that they 'tested' unisex toy packaging and marketing and it didn't work so they have 'gone back' to marketing to girl and boy audiences. What I want to know is WHEN they tried out a unisex strategy? I don't recall ever seeing it...... At 19:00 2/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >Frustrating, isn't it? Just look at a K-mart or any toy store ad. A >little girl, pretty in pink playing with a toy stove. Boys are >photographed with toy tools in strong primary colors. >Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years ago I >was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). I >had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax >collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy >services. Too funny. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Janice M. Bogstad, Associate Professor Collection Development Librarian Library & Information Services, McIntyre Library University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, WI 54702-5010 USA email: bogstajm@uwec.edu telephone: 715-836-6032 "I HAVE NEVER REGRETTED BUYING A BOOK, BUT I HAVE OFTEN REGRETTED NOT BUYING A BOOK." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:06:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A quick comment in terms of whether having sex makes a man more of a man. In terms of constructions of masculinities I can only say that this changes over time. In the reniassance for example, too much enthusiasm in the courts of Venus was considered to make a man effeminine (too much contact with the dreaded female, and perhaps too strong a connection to the body (identified as feminine, men where meant to be more cerebral)). Some of this continues in our own time (football coaches who advise no sex before the game b/c your strenght will be sapped) but it seems more fissured and ambivilant, as (I'm speaking in cultural terms not absolute ones) there does seem to be a connection between virility and the number of times you 'score.' Interesting that having loads of sex is somehow not an issue in defining femininty, now (although again in the ren, women where meant to be far more sexually desiring than men- this changed with the asexual angel in the house idea in the 19th century). You can be a slut, but does this make you more or less of a woman? Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:28:47 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Gilda/Jewelle Gomez Comments: To: lquinlan@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Linda: I have read and enjoyed Gomez' "novel" (she published a series of shorter pieces in alternative magazines then put them together as a book length work) about a vampire named Gilda--I just haven't jumped on the vampire thread recently because I am too busy with papers and work to do. But Gomez' vampire is unique: she is (as far as I know!) the only lesbian African American vampired in the literature; Gilda at the start of the novel is an African girl who has been brought to America as a slave. She escapes and is taken in by two women (a white and a Native American--forget which tribe, sorry) who turn out to be lovers and vampires. She becomes a part of their family (choice is an issue here--she isn't forced). These vampires are not the vicous blood sucking monsters of legend--they do need "blood" to survive, but not enough that they have to kill, and their ethos requires them to leave a gift of healing (often through dreams or other self knowledge). Not all the vampires Gilda meets follow these principles, but Gilda tries. Her quest through the novel (it goes from the antebellum South to the post nuclear holocaust future) is to create a "family" for herself (multicultural, multiple genders, etc)--I'm a bit hazy on the details because I read it a few years ago, but I enjoyed it very much, and it's a complete new take on vampires. Highly recommendede--and a wonderful 'companion' piece to Octavia Butler's _Kindred_ and Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar" (not vampire novels but speculative fiction). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:40:54 -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: Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- On the subject of conventions, I notice several feminist and gender- bending related discussions on the newly released preliminary program list for Minicon (Minneapolis, Easter weekend). Of interest to this list are panels on Shirley Jackson's work, gender/lifestyle portrayals in SF, feminist deconstruction, gothic parodies, the Goddess in sf/f, Pam Keesey doing her talk on "Vamps," and bedtime stories with Jane Yolen, etc. etc. Participants include Barbara Hambly, Mary Monica Pulver, Eleanor Arnason , Lois McMaster Bujold, Emma Bull, our own Mike Levy, and a bunch of others I've probably missed. URL: www.mnstf.org/minicon33 (I'm not a promoter or anything - in fact, this will be my first time at Minicon.) -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:40:58 -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: Men and sexual urges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Why don't we ask some men to comment on this thread! Cat Since you asked... I haven't really thought about "manliness" since I was a teen-ager. Maybe "manly" self-expectations become ingrained and subconcious after a while. I think it is true that hetero men are the most constricted and inhibited category in this society, as far as behavioral norms. The rest of you get to write your own scripts, to some degree or other. (See Robert Crumb's comics character "Whiteman" for a hilarious illustration of a male unsuccessfully trying to live up to his own stereotype.) Anyway, speaking of my crotch... For myself and the men I've known well, I think feeling good about our sexual selves hinges more on satisfying our partners in some fashion, physically *and* emotionally, not necessarily a particular degree or frequency of fleshly turgidity. (Not that men talk much about such things.) Sure, there's a culture of men whose purported main purpose in sex is to conquer and self-satisfy, but I haven't spent much time with that sort. Yes, there are hetero men who have separated their *sexual* urges from their *aggressive* urges. I think any rational being should be able to do this. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:19:05 -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: Gilda/Jewelle Gomez In-Reply-To: <199802061828.SAA29337@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I haven't read the book, but she gave a talk at my college a few years ago. She is an incredible speaker, and despite not liking vampires I wanted to read the book. Note that I don't think she particularly identifies as into science fiction, horror, or fantasy, but used it as a way to get her ideas across and to reach a wider audience. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:21:53 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Buzz Review Subject: Re: Gilda/Jewelle Gomez Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Has anyone read Tananarive Due's recent take on the vampire mythos? I forget the title but it was quite different. Leann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:01:55 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Joanna Russ--_Female Man_ & _And Chaos Died_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I need help with these Joanna Russ books. I'm having trouble discerning POVs in _Female Man_. Lacan and Derrida are easier to understand than _And Chaos Died_. Makes it hard to maintain interest to continue, especially when there's a new Toni Morrison book out. If you enjoyed either of these books, I would like to hear from you. I've enjoyed lots of "literary" fiction in the past and can't believe that I'm not enjoying either of these books. Thanks, 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, 6 Feb 1998 15:20:53 -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: Gilda/Jewelle Gomez In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > I haven't read the book, but she gave a talk at my college a few years > ago. She is an incredible speaker, and despite not liking vampires I > wanted to read the book. Note that I don't think she particularly > identifies as into science fiction, horror, or fantasy, but used it as a > way to get her ideas across and to reach a wider audience. > > -- Joel VanLaven > A few months back Locus published a nice group picture of Gomez, Octavia Butler, Samuel Delany, Steven Barnes, and Tannarive Due (sp?), the major African American f and sf writers. Nalo Hopkinson may have been in it as well, can't remember. Mike Levyex ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:29:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Joanna Russ--_Female Man_ & _And Chaos Died_ Comments: To: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" In-Reply-To: <34DB6C33.39E7E359@meer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > Hi, > > I need help with these Joanna Russ books. I'm having trouble > discerning POVs in _Female Man_. Lacan and Derrida are easier > to understand than _And Chaos Died_. Makes it hard to maintain > interest to continue, especially when there's a new Toni Morrison > book out. > > If you enjoyed either of these books, I would like to hear from > you. I've enjoyed lots of "literary" fiction in the past and > can't believe that I'm not enjoying either of these books. > > Thanks, > > Lindy > -- I've always enjoyed Russ's work so, when I got permission to teach a class on Science Fiction and Gender at my university last year, I jumped at the chance to teach and, of course, re-read The Female Man. Although I teach "When It Changed" regularly, I hadn't read the novel in decades. I have to admit, however, that it was a major disappointment to me and my students found it incomprehensible. I think part of the problem is that FM is very much a product of the 60s and 70s and it hasn't aged well. Although much of it takes place in the future or in alternate universes, it's really very much about America and the women's movement 25-30 years ago. In contrast, I found Woman on the Edge of Time as fresh and relevant as ever. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:37:40 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: More on Vampires Comments: To: Anny Middon In-Reply-To: <536d8775.34d956a0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Anny Middon wrote: (snip) > I find I had been very mistaken about what causes vampirism (well, fictionally > -- see below). I had somehow gotten the idea the vampirism was a contagious > disease, passed by the bloodsucking of a sufferer. I hadn't realized that a > person needed to be killed by the vampire to become one herself. Depending on the book (or movie), vampirism can be considered a physical disease. In other cases, it is a spiritual malfunction (can't think of a better word). > Which leads to my first question: A vampire has no soul, right? What > happened to it? Was the soul extinguished somehow (a notion that I would > think might raise some havoc with some religious beliefs)? Or is the soul in > hell, while the body lives on, separated from it? If the latter, is the body > somehow aware of the torments of the soul? In the physical disease scenario the soul is still in the body until death. In the spiritual scenario the soul might or might not remain in the body. If it remains in the body then the vampire has a conscious and can feel remorse for hir actions. If the soul has left the body then the vampire is a remorsless killer. Depending on who is telling the story, there are different ways of becoming a vampire. From what I understand, Dracula was not bitten by another vampire. Instead, he had committed sins so bloody and evil that he doomed himself to walking the earth as a vampire. Some recent authors portray vampires as a different species that only look human. > My second question: It occurred to me that another aspect of vampirism is > that a vampire supposedly doesn't have a reflection in a mirror. Despite the > obvious plot advantages of having a fairly ready way of determining if a body > is a vampire, this strikes me as somewhat odd. My inclination is that this is > related to the common folk notion that a picture or reflection of a person > contains her soul; therefore a person without a soul would have no reflection. > Is this theory supported by any experts in the field? I'm not an expert but... You're correct that the general folk tales have been that a vampire doesn't have a reflection because they don't have a soul. Some authors have exploited this notion by giving their vampires the ability to create optical illusions or have the ability to become invisible. > Related question: Has anyone ever tried to come up with some "scientific" > explanation for the lack of reflection? It's hard for me to conceive of a > corporeal entity that doesn't reflect in a mirror. The vampire might not actually be invisible but might be creating an illusion. (snip) I hope this isn't too off topic. > Anny > AnnyMiddon@aol.com > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:46:28 -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: OT: Screaming up and down halls Comments: To: NESchaadt In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980205190007.007ba7c0@mail.txcc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, NESchaadt wrote: (snip) > Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years ago I > was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). I > had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax > collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy > services. Too funny. I've never had a problem with keeping my birth name. I've had my tax return sent to me with the name Stacey Reese (Reese being my husband's name) and I merely sign it with my own name. No problem. I've never had any trouble with the insurance companies, doctors or pharmacies. The people who have problems are the ones who changed their name to their husband's when they married and want to change it back to their birth name after divorce. What a nightmare! > Nancy Schaadt Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:49:00 -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: Men and sexual urges In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:04 PM 2/5/98 -0800, Laura Wigod wrote: > Let me rephrase: > >So then a man's "manhood" (as it relates to his sexuality; in this case, >heterosexual) is tied into his ability to achieve erection only? So, even >if he drives his female partner to the heights of sexual ecstasy with his >hands, tongue, body and breath, he's still not "manly"? For many men, yes, exactly. As you are well aware, for a great meny men, "sex" = coitus. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:08:34 -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: Joanna Russ--_Female Man_ & _And Chaos Died_ In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Michael Marc Levy replied to Lindy S. L. Lovvik: >> I need help with these Joanna Russ books. I'm having trouble >> discerning POVs in _Female Man_. Lacan and Derrida are easier >> to understand than _And Chaos Died_. Makes it hard to maintain >> interest to continue, especially when there's a new Toni Morrison >> book out. >I've always enjoyed Russ's work so, when I got permission to teach a >class on Science Fiction and Gender at my university last year, I jumped >at the chance to teach and, of course, re-read The Female Man. Although I >teach "When It Changed" regularly, I hadn't read the novel in decades. I >have to admit, however, that it was a major disappointment to me and my >students found it incomprehensible. I think part of the problem is that FM >is very much a product of the 60s and 70s and it hasn't aged well. Although >much of it takes place in the future or in alternate universes, it's really >very much about America and the women's movement 25-30 years ago. In contrast, >I found Woman on the Edge of Time as fresh and relevant as ever. It so happens I re-read _The Female Man_ recently, since I found a copy. MML is right about its being something of a period piece, but I reconfirmed my earlier recollection that it's the (somewhat contrived) meeting of the people Joanna russ might have been in various alternate realities. does that help any? Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:38:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: More on Vampires/reflections Do they reflect in non-silver surfaces? Water, for instance? Windows under reflective conditions? I'm not very interested in vampires, but have read various vampirica, and I don't recall non-mirror reflections coming up, although I'm sure the topic must have occurred. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:46:26 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Gender Polarization (was: Men and their urges) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel wrote: > Maybe it's just me, but the amount of polarization around this subject > seems to be getting a little ridiculous to me. I think the average man > feels some vulnerability and anxiety when going to bed with someone > for the first time -- this is surely a human, rather than a female > characteristic. I agree that the double standard is an awful thing > and a crushing burden on women, but it's not the only factor > operating in human life. I just wanted to say I thought this was a good point. I was starting to get that sense also. Best regards Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:06:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Men and sexual urges/feeling womanly/Lego I had the distinct impression my (male) doctor was very disappointed when I was not in the least depressed after having a hysterectomy (for massive fibroids). But I was slightly surprised that I didn't feel any difference in sexual response: including some occasional very intense abdominal sensations that I had always assumed involved uterine contractions. I'm not sure now what they are, but they're lovely when they show up! I'm now past what would have been menopause now, but oh, the wonderful knowledge then that I could NOT get pregnant under ANY circumstances! (I had a long-term understanding with my child-loving younger sister that any child I bore, she would raise, but I never had to put it to the test.) Re Lego: I can't say I've noticed the advertising, but when I was earning my first money, I bought some Lego. I LOVED them. They weren't around in England as far as I know when toys were being bought for us, but we did have wooden blocks, and I loved those too, but they fell over too easily. My sister's kids inherited the Lego, and added to them, and now the grand-nephews (we're waiting for a baby woman to show up) have them. That's pretty good value, I would say! On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:24:47 -0700 Michelle Bernard writes: >>Good point. Do you suppose women feel less "womanly" if they fail to >become >>lubricated? :-) >> >>Laura > >That would depend on when it time (or how) womanliness was >constructed. >Even now, I believe that some women would think it enhanced their >"real >women aren't as interested" posture while other women would feel >"womanly failure." >misha >bernardm@colorado.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:56:45 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Vampires on TV (off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan Walto wrote: > > I think the characters are well > written and Buffy is a good role model for teen age girls--as long as they > don't suddenly decide to slay some vamps. (I would have liked one like her > when I was that age.) Plus the smart character is a girl--perhaps > encouraging girls out there to pursue an interest in computer science or > the internet . . . That's been my impression also. The actress (Geller?) does a good job with the role. That she is intelligent and can get herself out of risk using her brain is a real pleasure to see. I hope it is a continuing trend in female protagonists! Best regards Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:23:42 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Replacing the "pair-bond" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Julieanne wrote: > > ..however, I was hoping to ask the list, if anyone has come across > writers/books which do explore/question this concept of replacing the > "pair-bond"/nuclear family etc with alternative formats, particularly > woman-focussed ones rather than just gender-neutral... I'm not sure if this book has been mentioned yet, but Joan Slonczewski's DOOR INTO OCEAN is a good one. Best regards Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:51:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: The Vampire Population Problem Comments: To: Ildiko Paulovitch In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Ildiko Paulovitch wrote: > Hi, > Two more vampire books, Children of the Night by Mercedes Lackey and the > Tanya Huff series....Blood Price, Trail etc. Enjoyed them both, in the Blood > Price series the female protaganist eventually becomes a vampire and the whole > issue of why there are so few vampires is discussed. In Children of the Night > the vampire can and does have sex in the usual fashion, also can survive a bit > of sunlight. Has to do with the age of the vampire according to this book. > ildiko I like the vampire character in the Tanya Huff series but the female detective character has become so obnoxious that I won't be buying any more books in this series. I think the author is making the mistake of interpreting "strength" as bitchiness. I dislike Victoria so much that the other characters and the action packed plots aren't worth putting up with her. *Blood Trails* the book with the werewolves is one of the better books in the series. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:02:36 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Stacey Holbrook wrote: > On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, NESchaadt wrote: > > (snip) > > Try keeping your birth name if you get married. Sheesh. Two years ago I > > was told that my name isn't legal (I'm covered by my husband's plan). I > > had a good laugh at that one. If my name is good enough for the tax > > collector or passport office, it's good enough for express pharmacy > > services. Too funny. > > I've never had a problem with keeping my birth name. I've had my tax > return sent to me with the name Stacey Reese (Reese being my husband's > name) and I merely sign it with my own name. No problem. I've never had > any trouble with the insurance companies, doctors or pharmacies. > > The people who have problems are the ones who changed their name to their > husband's when they married and want to change it back to their birth name > after divorce. What a nightmare! > > > Nancy Schaadt > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > The trick, I think, is to see keeping your own name when you get married not only as an important personal and political act (which it is) but also as a subversive practical joke that you're playing on the yahoos. My wife kept her name when we got married. Her son, my stepson, however, has his father's last name. When he was a kid we took enormous pleasure in insisting that all three parental names appeared on every document that concerned him--school stuff, insurance, etc. It drove the paper pushers crazy, and undoubtedly gave us some extra work, but by seeing it as a way of attacking the stupidity behind traditional patriarchal naming practices, we managed to avoid the frustration we might have felt. Other things we do--Although we have legally kept our own names, Sandra Lindow and Michael Levy--sometimes we switch! If I'm paying the Mastercard bill, which happens to be in Sandy's name, I sign it Michael Levy Lindow (or Michael Lindow Levy). Sandy does the same thing in reverse. We've had the occasional bewildered phone call, but no one has ever refused to accept payment. We also play games with people who call and ask for Mrs. Levy--there isn't one, of course--and with people who call and ask for the head of the household. You'd be amazed how much fun it can be to intentionally try to confuse a pollster whose poll is set up in a sexist fashion. My daughter has decided that multiple names are cool. Her full name, as developed by herself, is Miriam Ann Min-Joo-Lim (her pre-adoption Korean name) Washing-Machine (for when she's feeling noisy) Cat-Litter (for when she's feeling messy) Sliverworms (don't ask) Mariana (for when she's feeling sophisticated) Mark (for when, as a small child, I'd take her into the men's john or lockerroom with me) McDonald (her brother's last name) Lindow Levy. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:46:47 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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: S Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/7/98 1:15:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU writes: > The trick, I think, is to see keeping your own name when you get married > not only as an important personal and political act (which it is) but also > as a subversive practical joke that you're playing on the yahoos. OK, this is *completely* off-topic, but I just have to ask--how are y'all's in-laws taking this? I've been married for about six months, have had no trouble with insurance or anything else, but my in-laws are about to come unglued and insist upon introducing me as "Gayla Karesh" when I'm around their family. When they found out that we plan to give daughters my last name and sons my husband's name, they were even more upset. (My mother-in-law asked me to at least change my last name from "Bassham" to "Bass" because "it sounds more Jewish.") -- Gayla ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:59:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: announcement - jewelle gomez in boston @ outwrite Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" hey y'all - Jewelle Gomez (author of classic Black lesbian vampire novel, THE GILDA STORIES) will be delivering the annual Audre Lorde Memorial Lecture at this year's OutWrite conference, February 20-22 at the Sheraton Boston Hotel and Towers. Also appearing will be Pratibha Parmar (who did WARROIR MRAKS with Alice Walker) and Craig Lucas, Urvashi Vaid, Judith Katz, Donna Minkowitz, Shar Rednour, Leslea Newman, Christopher Bram, Sarah Schulman, Charles Busch, Jacqueline Woodson, Robert E Penn, Carmen Vazquez, Thomas Glave, Mariana Romo-Carmona, Michael Bronski, Kevin Moss, Michael Lowenthal, and Kenny Fries. For more info: BSEF (Bromfield Street Educational Foundation) 29 Sanhope St Boston MA 617.262.6969 fax 617.267.0852 out-write@bsef.terranet.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:18:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Lindy, I really love _The Female Man_, especially Russ's sense of humor in the book. I think of the protagonists as different people (or they can be thought of as parts of the same person) representing different points of feminist consciousness. Jeannine is aware something is not right with her life. She is convinced marriage and a family are her only options because they are the only ones offered to her by her society, and she cannot imagine other ones like making "a life out of books and a cat." Jeannine is unhappy and she cannot understand why. She doesn't have the vocabulary to explain her feelings--she only knows she wants something else and even feels like she wants to die. Joanna is angry. She realizes women's disadvantages in patriarchal society and voices her displeasure with them. Yet, Joanna still gets all dressed up to go to that party. She still tries to be "one of the boys" at work. At the end of the book however, she changes--has a sexual relationship with Laura Rose, slams a door on a man's thumb. Jael is gleefully violent. She kills the Manlander and likes it. She is the personification of rage. Joanna Russ talks about the importance of anger in an interview with Larry McCaffery in Accross the Wounded Galaxies. Janet is tranquil. Gender isn't an issue for her. "Woman" on Whileaway is truly synonymous with "human." Hope this helps. Joanna G.(I find the Joanna's in (and out) of Russ's book especially interesting!) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:49:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" unscribe cat@cfmc.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:09:45 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: S In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Gayla Bassham wrote: > In a message dated 2/7/98 1:15:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, levymm@UWEC.EDU > writes: > > > The trick, I think, is to see keeping your own name when you get married > > not only as an important personal and political act (which it is) but also > > as a subversive practical joke that you're playing on the yahoos. > > OK, this is *completely* off-topic, but I just have to ask--how are y'all's > in-laws taking this? I've been married for about six months, have had no > trouble with insurance or anything else, but my in-laws are about to come > unglued and insist upon introducing me as "Gayla Karesh" when I'm around their > family. When they found out that we plan to give daughters my last name and > sons my husband's name, they were even more upset. (My mother-in-law asked me > to at least change my last name from "Bassham" to "Bass" because "it sounds > more Jewish.") > > -- Gayla > Your inlaws, (and his) will get used to it eventually, even the bit about giving daughters your name and sons his, which makes perfect sense really. We have friends who did it that way too. Just smile understandingly, tell them you're sorry that they find it confusing, make the correction when they mis-introduce you in a non-hostile fashion, and go on doing what you think is right. Mike (who knows it isn't really that easy--but try it any way)exi ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:20:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kieth Subject: Re: More on Vampires In-Reply-To: <536d8775.34d956a0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Anny Middon wrote: >> Much snipped << > My second question: It occurred to me that another aspect of vampirism is > that a vampire supposedly doesn't have a reflection in a mirror. Despite the > obvious plot advantages of having a fairly ready way of determining if a body > is a vampire, this strikes me as somewhat odd. My inclination is that this is > related to the common folk notion that a picture or reflection of a person > contains her soul; therefore a person without a soul would have no reflection. > Is this theory supported by any experts in the field? > > Related question: Has anyone ever tried to come up with some "scientific" > explanation for the lack of reflection? It's hard for me to conceive of a > corporeal entity that doesn't reflect in a mirror. > > > Anny > AnnyMiddon@aol.com > I can't resist this - what about middle-aged men, who can't seem to stop noticing the age and weight of their own wives and the relative attracitveness of young women, but who don't seem to be able to see their own reflection at all? It seems too, given the older, physically so-so male/ young, beautiful woman pair that is the staple of most Hollywood action flicks, that this inability to cast a reflection extends beyond the hall mirror at home. Kathleen (who thought the math in your original post was right up there with Lem's in The Dragons of Probability) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 22:28:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Bucconeer (worldcon) Panels need volunteers In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980206180834.006ff4b8@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bucconeer WorldCon will be running from Aug 5-9 in Baltimore These sound interesting enough to attend, and perhaps some in this group would be interested in volunteering, as well. from the chaosmanor list: >from the QNL: > >Peter Knapp, Gaylactic Network Worldcon Liaison (PKnapp01@aol.com) is looking >for volunteers for the '98 WorldCon (Bucconeer) in Baltimore: > >(1) GAY SF 101 - A HISTORY OF GAY SF, FANTASY AND HORROR >(2) GAY SF VS SF THAT INCLUDES GAYS >(3) GAY AUTHORS AND STRAIGHT AUTHORS WRITING GAY CHARACTERS >(4) ALTERNATE SEXUALITY IN SMALL PRESSES AND BIG PRESSES >(5) THE CELLULOID SPACESHIP - FROM HIGH CAMP TO GAY INTEGRATION IN MEDIA SF >(6) GENDER ISSUES AND ALTERNATE SEXUALITY >(7) BEING ALIEN: A LESBIAN/GAY PERSPECTIVE > >Contact Mr. Knapp for more info. Volunteers are needed by SAT., FEB. 7. {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464}