Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9802B" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 12:14:26 -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: 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 Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > 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. My parents were worried that I might not agree with thier politics or might want or need to hide my leftist upbringing (keeping in mind the McCarthy witch-hunts and the Holocaust) so they gave me a name that would "pass" even giving me a nuetral nationality for people to assume. My mother's last name is Levie and my fathers last name is VanRaden so they made my last name VanLaven which most people assume is dutch. Luckily for me, I agreed with them, and like to explain my name, but I can understand why they did what they did, and I appreciate it. The funny thing is that my name gives me headaches more for not having a space between Van and Laven than for being the combination of my parents last names. The other funny thing is that my sister and I have the same last name and were listed in the phone book together so have gotten junk mail to Mr. and Mrs. VanLaven, even as small children. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:16:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: many topics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Am in overload stress mode, as I gear up for not one, but TWO conventions at the end of the month. Sorry to be missing all the kewl discussions about vampires (was glad to see Yvonne Navarro's Afterage listed! since it was the first to pop into my head in response to the original post ...) and woman-identified lives and everything else. ::sigh:: I will be back to play, and I'm still reading a lot, even when I'm not posting. BTW, for those who need to get the reading discussion books from MG, just mention that you are on the FEMSF list when ordering, and they will know to extend the 15% discount. Please try to remember to send your email to mgbooks, rather than to me at my office addy. :) I changed my name for my first marriage, regreted it, went back to my birth name (and don't you hate the term "maiden" name? Like I was a maiden before I married!:P) and kept it during my second marriage. My dad likes it, my mom has a little trouble keeping track, and my in-laws were already "trained" by my sister-in-law. Our son has my husband's name, mostly because we wanted him and his sister, my step-daughter, to have the same name. :) Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 14:40:57 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: many topics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/8/98 2:16:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, mystgalaxy@AX.COM writes: > (was glad to > see Yvonne Navarro's Afterage listed! since it was the first to pop into my > head in response to the original post ...) Darn fine book that deserves classic status. By the way, Yvonne's site at http://www.para-net.com/~ynavarro/ might be worthy surfing for many listees. This is really a wonderful list. When I joined months ago I was more than a bit leary and a bit gun shy of the term feminist. But I must say that this list is one of the best that I've seen (and I'm on like 40 or 50). Leann ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:54:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Scott, Dreaming Metal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" *smiles* Just finished Melissa Scott's 1997 Dreaming Metal, about the coming of age of a female? (what a concept!) AI. Oh, our world still has so far to go, eh? I even think we'd accept the notion of AI equality more easily than women's equality... It's something new, clean, smooth, without the history of struggle. Politically correct; virtually cool. Why not be generous towards a few bytes... Heather =) (delighted) hmaclean@kent.edu Reality is only a question of language. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:19:57 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: S Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >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" My mother-in-law played stupid about the whole thing for a couple of years - first she asked if I had legally change my name back to my maiden name, and she also insisted that she couldn't send letters adressed to us by both surnames (even though she had managed this before we were married). Eventually she realised that my keeping my name would not break down the fabric of society as we know it, and has shut up about it. Mind you, she never actually uses my surname, and always introduces me as "Bruce's wife". >(My mother-in-law asked me >to at least change my last name from "Bassham" to "Bass" because "it sounds >more Jewish.") This is appalling. Maybe the solution is not to talk to these people at all. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:32:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: ...speaking of Legos and Feminism... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Found this today in the Wall Street Journal. I was going to only post the part about violence, but on rereading, I found it interesting that it started with a clip about a boy and ends with one about a girl. Their projects are telling. Guess we now have a new reason to talk to our kids about "the birds and the bees". jenn ------------------ Leader A Bee Sees: Block by Block, Lego Builds A New Strategy for the Interactive Age By JOSEPH PEREIRA and CACILIE ROHWEDDER Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL February 9, 1998 LONDON -- Stinger, a foot-long plastic bee, squares off against a gangly robot who identifies himself with a threat. "I am Crusher, and I will destroy you," growls the robot in a hoarse electronic voice. Stinger is unfazed. In a few minutes, the insect corners his opponent, brandishing a yellow-and-black arm with a tip that zaps his foe with a small electrical charge. Crusher stops moving. Game over. "It's great fun," beams 12-year-old Matt Bright. (^Å.) Lego began as a small carpenter's shop in 1916 and was converted into a wooden-toy manufacturer when housing construction collapsed during the Great Depression. In 1934, company founder Ole Kirk Christiansen, the current chief executive's grandfather, commissioned an employee contest to devise a brand name, choosing a variation of the Danish words leg godt, or "play well." [jenn-note: I love learning stuff like this!] (^Å) A Guy Thing But over the past three years, Lego's growth has slowed. Sales of about $1.2 billion in 1997 barely represented a gain over 1996, after inflation is factored indue partly to disappointing results in Germany and the U.S., Lego's two largest markets. An effort to interest girls in construction toys has been unremarkable. The girls' line, introduced earlier this decade, is no longer marketed in the U.S., says Rob Ellis, Lego's vice president of brand marketing for the U.S. (^Å) Prof. Levin says subtle changes in the company's core line of Lego-block products in recent years reflect attempts to respond to changes in the market. After years of selling generic, all-purpose construction sets, the company several years ago began selling single-purpose building kits. Then the violence-eschewing firm started marketing more toward the aggressive instincts of boys, coming out with castle themes, featuring cannons, swords, and bows and arrows. 'Veiled Violence' "It's what I call veiled violence," says Marjorie Stanley, a mother of four boys from Sturbridge, Mass., who says she has been a big Lego buyer in the past but has been less enamored of newer products. She says Mindstorms sounds interesting enough to get her into the store, but she adds that she will scrutinize the toy carefully before making any decision. Then there's the question of whether children are willing to invest the hours it can take to program the robots -- especially to gain more-sophisticated robotic effects. In one of Dr. Papert's favorite examples about Mindstorms, two eight-year-old girls decided to build a cat and a kitten in one field test of the toy. The idea was to have the mother come to the kitten when it beeped and flashed its eyes. By Dr. Papert's account, it took weeks for the toys to function as programmed. >From a parental point of view, the diligence children need to work through the bugs and technical quirks would provide strong lessons for a child. But some analysts doubt that many children have the patience and determination to make playing a serious project. Lego isn't waiting to find out. Mindstorms sequels already are in the works. At the Build-It-Yourself Workshop in Cambridge, Mass., children experiment with prototypes from the Media Lab that interest Lego. With one of these, a microcomputer even tinier than the one used in Mindstorms, 10-year-old Kayty Himmelstein was able to solve a problem with her bird-watching hobby. Since she is usually at school during the day, Kayty often misses sightings at her backyard feeder. So she set up a video camera to record their feedings. But instead of taping for hours and then searching for what she wanted, she programmed the microcomputer, called Cricket, to turn on the camera only when birds alighted on the feeder and touched off a weight sensor. At the workshop, children tinker with a variety of Cricket-driven gizmos: Cuckoo clocks, dancing robots, temperature gauges, fortune-telling wizards. "Building these projects is fun," says Kayty. "But I wouldn't call it playing. For play I like to kick a soccer ball." Copyright © 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:12:32 -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: 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" >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) I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on their "maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I mean, really - all these women are doing is hanging onto their _father's_ name as opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which leaves them still being defined by a man. I also think it's interesting that Muslim women, whose religion/culture is famous for its misogyny, have never changed their last names after marriage. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:39:17 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: Separate Last Name Tactics-OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit You can't easily escape a patriarchal naming system in Western cultures so far as I know, but there is one wrinkle in Russian that I like: the majority of last names can be treated as adjectives and given a feminine ending for women--- Vladimir Mayakovsky vs. his sister, the artist Liudmilla Mayakovskaya. They still bear the otchestvo, or middle name derived from the father's first name, but at least that is also feminized (Vladimir Vladimirovich, Liudmilla Vladimirovna). Salmonson masculinized the names of all the Russian and Ukrainian women in her Dictionary of Amazons--- I don't know if this was on purpose or just because of the secondary sources that were used. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:54:23 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT:Screamingup and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, it's a political statement in a culture where women in one respect have never had a name of their own, always a man's... except that a son's name is not more his own than a daughter's is her own... so if you consider it keeping the birthname (however the parents arrived at that, and for my children, if I have them, in part their name will be my name), it's different. In some Asian cultures (Hong Kong; most?), women have always retained their names. In Iceland, women and men (siblings) would have different names reflecting gender (Thorsdottir or Thorson) that didn't change upon marriage (because it wouldn't then reflect accurately the father). It does depend on perspective, but just because my parents determined to use the name my father used doesn't make the name that I use less my own. It should be mine for all the use I've put to it this long. But, to bring this slightly back to topic (SF), often the way characters in fiction are named (and sometimes elaborately) tell a story about the character. Routinely showing women characters (or any different kin structure) can set a tone. For example, differences between Stationer and Merchanter in CJ Cherryh's Alliance/Union novels. Merchanter women retain their names (a few exceptions: _Tripoint_) and kin on family ships is through sisters' children. Stationer women might change their names to those of their husbands. I'm thinking particularly of Elene Quen and Damien (?) Constantin at Pell. She didn't change her name and specifically split the parents names by gender so that there would be another Quen (female) to carry on the family/ship name by birthing more, while there would be another (male) Constantin to carry on the name on station. Just to bring names back to SF. misha >---------- >From: Laura Wigod[SMTP:laura@OAKRIDGE.COM] >Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 9:12 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] >OT:Screamingup and down halls > >>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) > >I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on their >"maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I mean, really >- all these women are doing is hanging onto their _father's_ name as >opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which leaves them still being >defined by a man. I also think it's interesting that Muslim women, whose >religion/culture is famous for its misogyny, have never changed their last >names after marriage. > >Laura > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:00:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Walto Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Gayla wrote: OK, this is *completely* off-topic, but I just have to ask--how are y'all's in-laws taking this? My in-laws actually accepted my keeping my last name rather well. In fact, my father-in-law likes to give me tools for Christmas and birthdays. We get a kick out of seeing how people try to address cards and letters to us. Everything from just our first names to just our last names to just my husband's name (rarely just my name). It really became confusing for some when we had our son last summer and gave him my husband's name. I also like to play games with the telemarketers, "No I'm sorry, Mrs. Hubred (my husband's name) doesn't live here." Bringing this back to SF, I'm always amazed when I read or watch science fiction and a female character takes the last name of her partner. One example that comes to mind is Dr. Crusher in TNG. In the final episode she's Captain Picard after taking Jean Luc's last name. It's my hope that we have a better method for naming by that time. Susan Walto always was, and always will be ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:11:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Walto Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics:OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Laura wrote: I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on their "maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I mean, really - all these women are doing is hanging onto their _father's_ name as opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which leaves them still being defined by a man. I never thought of keeping my last name as a political statement. It's just something I did. I've also never thought of my last name belonging to my father; it belongs to me. My mother gave me my first name and my father gave me the last one. So actually, I'm being defined by both my parents and therefore, I'm grateful to both of them. Susan (from my mother) Kari (after my great-grandmother) Walto (from my father) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:20:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: 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 Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on their > "maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I mean, really > - all these women are doing is hanging onto their _father's_ name as > opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which leaves them still being > defined by a man. I also think it's interesting that Muslim women, whose > religion/culture is famous for its misogyny, have never changed their last > names after marriage. > My sister said that when I asked her about it. She said "No matter how far back you go, it's still some man's name." And what if you liked your father no better than your husband?> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:48:00 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: Separate Last Name Tactics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Eighteen years ago, when I married for the first time I kept my maiden name. Not for political statement reasons, but mainly because I didn't want the bother of having to change anything -- driver's license, credit cards, checking account, etc. When I got divorced three years later, boy was I glad I hadn't changed my name! It made things much easier. Now on my second marriage, I have no problems with my in-laws (except for the occasional X-mas cards from aunts/cousins which usually come with the disclaimer I know you use your maiden name, but I couldn't remember what it is). The problems come from MY family who insist on sending mail & introducing me using my husband's name. The mail problem I have mainly resolved by returning it marked no one here by that name & I simply correct introductions. The only insurance problems we have had was during fertility work-ups when they had to do tests on my husband & the ob/gyn needed the tests returned to her with my name on them. The clinics response to this was to change my husband's last name to my last name, so of course the insurance claim got screwed up! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:29:21 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: BDG And the winners are... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _Ammonite_ by Nicola Griffith: discussion begins Monday March 2 _Dreamsnake_ by Vonda McIntyre, discussion begins Monday April 6 _Halfway Human_ by Carolyn Gilman, discussion begins Monday May 4 An impressive 47 of us voted, and there were four clear winners. In the three-way tie for second place, Mary Doria Russell's _The Sparrow_ was the name not drawn from the hat. Perhaps it will make it in the next round of books. We can publish the actual voting stats if there's interest. If you don't already have a copy of these books, you should first try your local independent feminist or SF bookseller. In the event you have trouble finding a copy, you can order the book via email or the web at mgbooks@ax.com or http://www.mystgalaxy.com Mention that you are on the FEMSF list when ordering, and they will know to extend the 15% discount. Mysterious Galaxy can ship orders outside the US and the discount should help cover some of the shipping costs. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to these discussion books. Please send suggestions to Kathleen at kmfriello@aol.com, and she'll see that the info is sent to the list and published on a web page. Thanks to all the volunteers who made this possible: Barbara for collecting and tallying votes even while ill, Geoffrey for creating and updating the nomination web page, Maryelizabeth and Kathleen for their suggestions and all the volunteers for helping to verify book price and availability. We're now looking for discussion leader volunteers for each of the selected books. You should have read the book at least once and be ready to post a kick-off email on the first Monday of discussion. Email jkrauel@actioneer.com to volunteer. If you have comments or suggestions about the nomination and voting process for the next round of books, please email jkrauel@actioneer.com. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com Book discussion group coordinator ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:43:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Anyone Read/Can Explain Francesca Lia Block's Primavera? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit WARNING: On-Topic submission -- For those who prefer to discuss last name retention, etc., please don't flame me, just delete this missive. I'm just finishing Primavera. It's a Fantasy book by Francesca Lia Block. It is very poetic, partially free verse songs sung by the protagonist, Primavera, a young woman who can create flowers from the desert sand by the sheer beauty of her song, but who leaves her desert paradise in search of... what, in the distant tinsel and glitter ice city of Elysia. The reading has been challenging for me. I'm a bit slow on grasping the why and wherefore behind some of the poetic imagery Block uses. If anyone has read the work and can share some of their insights into its meanings, I'd love to hear from you separately by e-mail. Thanks, Jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 15:41:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Hi everyone Hello. I've not been receiving this list for several weeks due to a mix-up with my email address. I'm back. :) Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 16:01:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics-OT In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Kathleen M. Friello wrote: > Vladimir Mayakovsky vs. his sister, the artist Liudmilla Mayakovskaya. They > still bear the otchestvo, or middle name derived from the father's first name, > but at least that is also feminized (Vladimir Vladimirovich, Liudmilla > Vladimirovna). Like Babylon 5's Susan Ivanova - her brother's nametag read "Ivanov." > Salmonson masculinized the names of all the Russian and Ukrainian women in her > Dictionary of Amazons--- I don't know if this was on purpose or just because > of the secondary sources that were used. > For what it's worth- I understand Salmonson (shouldn't that be Salmonsdottir?) was born XY. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:09:03 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Wicked Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit There had a couple people mentioning "Wicked" by Gregory Maguire, and since it's been on my "to read" list for some time, I ran off to the library as soon as I could and am almost finished with it at this point. So if anyone else wants to discuss it, I would be very interested. I'll be finishing it tonight, so I'll be free to discuss it tomorrow. I'm finding it fascinating so far. Of course, I'm going to have to read L. Frank Baum's books as well now (I never read them growing up - Yes, I know, my fiance wants to go after my parents for litarary neglect. ;) so that I have the entire picture, but even with the movie being my only backdrop for it, I'm finding it fascinating. So you folks who have read it, I'm really eager to discuss it. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:14:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Screaming up and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laura Wigod wrote: > > >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) > > I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on >their > "maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I >mean, really > - all these women are doing is hanging onto their >_father's_ name as > opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which >leaves them still being > defined by a man. I also think it's >interesting that Muslim women, whose > religion/culture is famous for >its misogyny, have never changed their last > names after marriage. Maybe it is because in those traditional cultures, the husband's power over the female is to be counterbalanced by the father's power. The husband has to respect his wife's family, defined by the name of the patriarch. In other words, he has to respect the patriarch of the wife's family. I've once read an historical analysis of the adoption of the husband's name, in more recent times, when the larger, patriarchal families where not the norm any more. It seems that this adoption of the husband's name was considered to grant the wife the honour, status, etc. of the husband. I guess in Asian countries where the woman retains the father's name, it is also to honour the woman's family patriarch. The husband considers it an honour to be accepted in the patriarch's family (in some places, the husband even adopts the woman's family name, that is, the name of the patriarch in the woman's family). Elisa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:53:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Cyborgs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can anyone tell me what a Cyborg actually is? Can Trouble, from Melissa Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_ be considered a Cyborg? _Trouble and Her Friends_ is a feminist cyberpunk novel, and Trouble plugs herself into her computer when she goes online. Does the fact that Trouble has a socket in her head mean that she is a Cyborg? I think she might have some machinery implanted in her brain, too, but I have to check. Thanks, Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:12:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Galdamez Subject: Re: Lucille Clifton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi! Is anyone familiar with Lucille Clifton's poem, "Listen Children"? Who is the "we" she talks about? Thanks. Maddy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:49:13 -0500 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Cyborgs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joanna Goltzman wrote: > Can anyone tell me what a Cyborg actually is? Hmmmm...do you want the strict, very overly used writer's definition? Or the strict, overly-used theorist's definition? I'll come at it from the writer's point of view (I just don't feel like dealing with Donna Haraway tonight...): A cyborg is a cybernetic organism. Most writers see cyborgs as poeple with high-tech equipment augmenting, or replacing, major human functions (a peg-leg, in my mind, doesn't replace a major human function since there are other forms of mobility). Let's look at a culturally important (but not really good) piece of work, CYBORG by Martin Caidin. Most people (the few who remember this, that is) know this as the first appearance of Steve Austin (yes, THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN - does that account for inflation?) and his really poor flying technique. Steve is pop culture's first real acceptance of cyborgs. It would be followed by Darth Vader (and Lobot, and, later, Luke), Case and Molly in NEUROMANCER, the Borg themselves (!)...or itselves..., RoboCop, and even Trouble. >From the cast of chracters above, you can see that there is a vast array of how you can present the cyborg in terms of its benefit or deficit to humanity. The Borg are seen as evil, Vader is seen as twisted and "more machine than man" as Ben puts it, BUT RoboCop, Steve Austin and Jamie Summers are seen as benefits, WHILE Molly is accepted, and Case is just pitied... - Geoffrey -- Mac users swear by their computers, Windows users swear at their computers. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:27:16 GMT+1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Katherine Dall Organization: ELM Macquarie University Subject: Re: Cyborgs Joanna, The term "cyborg", from "cybernetic organism", refers to any lifeform made up of a blending of organic and technological material. I haven't read _Trouble and Her Friends_, but going by your description, Trouble would certainly qualify as a cyborg. Cyborgs do not have to be science-fictional: people with prosthetic limbs or pacemakers are cyborgs. The pin in my grandmother's hip makes her as a cyborg (though I haven't told her yet). A friend of mine claims to be a cyborg on the basis that she doesn't feel her "normal self" unless she is wearing her watch - though I suspect this may be taking things a little too far. This idea does, however, point to a more extensive definition of the cyborg which turns up a lot in cultural theory: that relying on technological enhancement of any organic function in your everyday life makes you a cyborg. This means that anyone who regularly relies on the fact that telephone lines extend hir central nervous system around the world (i.e. everyone reading this) is a cyborg. Since this theory logically extends to include all tool use, I find it of more use in rethinking our ideas about our relations to technology than in defining a new entity called a "cyborg", but it tends to get thrown around a lot. Well it does if you hang out in cultural studies departments, anyway. Science fiction tends to treat cyborgs as rather stranger creatures than this, usually in attempts to theorise the impact of technology on what we call "human" - to test the boundaries of our definition of human. How far can technological enhancements invade our bodies and our minds before we stop being human and become something else? Of course, Hollywood is also concerned with such questions as "how many really big weapons can we attach to Arnold Schwarzenegger?" There is considerable argument over whether the cyborg should, or at least could be considered a potentially feminist concept. Donna Haraway's "Cyborg Manifesto", in her _Simians, Cyborgs and Women_ is a difficult but rewarding read on the topic. Her premise is basically that freeing up our definition of the human helps us to free up our definition of "woman", and is therefore a Good Thing. Kate. Joanna wrote: >Can anyone tell me what a Cyborg actually is? Can Trouble, from >Melissa Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_ be considered a Cyborg? >_Trouble and Her Friends_ is a feminist cyberpunk novel, and Trouble >plugs herself into her computer when she goes online. Does the fact >that Trouble has a socket in her head mean that she is a Cyborg? I >think she might have some machinery implanted in her brain, too, but >I have to check. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:59:03 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT:Screamingup and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > But, to bring this slightly back to topic (SF), often the way >characters in fiction are named (and sometimes elaborately) tell a story >about the character. Good point. I always liked Anne McCaffrey's naming system in the Pern books, where characters' names reflect both parents, and occasionally other people who have been influential in the parents' lives. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:14:46 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Android ? Was RE: [*FSFFU*] Cyborgs In-Reply-To: <34DFDC42.D5C78164@geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Joanna Goltzman wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me what a Cyborg actually is? On 10 Feb 98 , Katherine Dall wrote: > The term "cyborg", from "cybernetic organism", refers to any > lifeform made up of a blending of organic and technological > material. > Cyborgs do not have to be science-fictional: people with prosthetic > limbs or pacemakers are cyborgs. > a more extensive definition of the cyborg which turns up a > lot in cultural theory: that relying on technological enhancement of > any organic function in your everyday life makes you a cyborg. > Science fiction tends to treat cyborgs as rather stranger creatures > than this, usually in attempts to theorise the impact of technology > on what we call "human" - to test the boundaries of our definition > of human. This is the opportunity for me to finally clarify the difference between a robot and an android. Several times when Data was introduced to a stranger in STNG, the stranger asked: 'You are a robot?' and Data proudly answered: 'No, I am an android.' My partner and I discussed that and we concluded that robot is a more general term (thinking of all the industrial robots nowadays), while android refers to a robot in a human form (the Collins Dictionary gives the same explanation: '(in science fiction) a robot resembling a human being'). I've read all the Robot stories of Asimov when a teenager and so, to my mind, a robot already is a thing with two arms, legs, etc., therefore I was never quite satisfied with our conclusion. Could it be that only when the industrial robots consisting essentially of one limb were developed the term android was introduced? Or am I on a completely wrong track and the difference somehow refers to consciousness? That would explain, why it is so important for Data to stress that he is an android. After all, why should the human form be so important? And it is clear on first sight that he has a human form, so why mention it. According to the definition above, Data is no cyborg, because he lacks organic components (true?), the Borgs, however, are cyborgs. What about the artifical man in _He, She, It_, as I remember it, he is described as a cyborg but does he have organic components? Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:46:15 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tori Friedlander Subject: Re: Android ? Was RE: [*FSFFU*] Cyborgs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" If it helps you any, I went searching on the web, and found the following definitions: Robot: A mechanical device that performs actions involving motion. Common robotic actions include moving the robot autonomously or walking; grasping, lifting and moving objects; welding and other skilled activities; and other manipulations of objects too precise or heavy for humans. Android: A popular science fiction term for a mechanical life form. Androids are machines with varying degrees of intelligence that serve non-mechanical intelligent life forms. Myself, I thought that androids were mechanical life forms who were capable of exceeding the sum of their programming, as in having independent thought. ... but this brings up all kinds of interesting thoughts in my head. For instance, how many "non-mechanical intelligent life forms" have you met who were not at all capable of exceeding the sum of their early programming? Tori -----Original Message----- From: Petra Mayerhofer [SMTP:pm@IER.UNI-STUTTGART.DE] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 4:15 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Android ? Was RE: [*FSFFU*] Cyborgs > Joanna Goltzman wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me what a Cyborg actually is? On 10 Feb 98 , Katherine Dall wrote: > The term "cyborg", from "cybernetic organism", refers to any > lifeform made up of a blending of organic and technological > material. > Cyborgs do not have to be science-fictional: people with prosthetic > limbs or pacemakers are cyborgs. > a more extensive definition of the cyborg which turns up a > lot in cultural theory: that relying on technological enhancement of > any organic function in your everyday life makes you a cyborg. > Science fiction tends to treat cyborgs as rather stranger creatures > than this, usually in attempts to theorise the impact of technology > on what we call "human" - to test the boundaries of our definition > of human. This is the opportunity for me to finally clarify the difference between a robot and an android. Several times when Data was introduced to a stranger in STNG, the stranger asked: 'You are a robot?' and Data proudly answered: 'No, I am an android.' My partner and I discussed that and we concluded that robot is a more general term (thinking of all the industrial robots nowadays), while android refers to a robot in a human form (the Collins Dictionary gives the same explanation: '(in science fiction) a robot resembling a human being'). I've read all the Robot stories of Asimov when a teenager and so, to my mind, a robot already is a thing with two arms, legs, etc., therefore I was never quite satisfied with our conclusion. Could it be that only when the industrial robots consisting essentially of one limb were developed the term android was introduced? Or am I on a completely wrong track and the difference somehow refers to consciousness? That would explain, why it is so important for Data to stress that he is an android. After all, why should the human form be so important? And it is clear on first sight that he has a human form, so why mention it. According to the definition above, Data is no cyborg, because he lacks organic components (true?), the Borgs, however, are cyborgs. What about the artifical man in _He, She, It_, as I remember it, he is described as a cyborg but does he have organic components? Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:32:11 -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: Android ? Was RE: [*FSFFU*] Cyborgs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Tori Friedlander wrote: > If it helps you any, I went searching on the web, and found the > following definitions: > Robot: A mechanical device that performs actions involving motion. > Common robotic actions include moving the robot autonomously or walking; > grasping, lifting and moving objects; welding and other skilled > activities; and other manipulations of objects too precise or heavy for > humans. > Android: A popular science fiction term for a mechanical life form. > Androids are machines with varying degrees of intelligence that serve > non-mechanical intelligent life forms. > > Myself, I thought that androids were mechanical life forms who were > capable of exceeding the sum of their programming, as in having > independent thought. ... but this brings up all kinds of interesting > thoughts in my head. For instance, how many "non-mechanical intelligent > life forms" have you met who were not at all capable of exceeding the > sum of their early programming? > Traditionally, back in the 50s and 60s and earlier, as used in science fiction, a robot was a self-aware machine, humanoid in general form more often than not, but clearly mechanical, driven by rods and pistons and gears (see the robots of Asimov and others). An android was also a machine, but at least partially organic in its construction and it tended to look mostly or completely human. Rather than running with traditional mechanical parts, it would be powered by artificially created analogues of muscles, bones, etc. (the replicants of Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? aka Blade Runner are classic examples). Of course, since no one had a copyright on these terms, different SF writers used them differently and the two terms have now drifted far from their original usage, even in the field of science fiction. Ironically, the robots of Karel Capek's RUR (he invented the term back in the 1920s or 30s) are androids based on the above definition. Data from Star Trek, I think, would be somewhere in between a robot and an android. The definition for robot quoted by the previous poster is the real world, industrial definition, and not directly relevant to science fiction, IMO. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:49:47 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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-09 11:22:44 EST, you write: << I've always found it ironic that people find women hanging on their "maiden" names after marriage to be a political statement - I mean, really - all these women are doing is hanging onto their _father's_ name as opposed to trading it in for their husband's, which leaves them still being defined by a man. >> What about the Scandinavian cultures in which, if you're the son of Lars, your last name is Larsson, and if you're the daughter of Lars, your last name is Larsdottir? I'm wondering which way is easier for genealogists to trace a line: If the women keep their last names, or change them when they marry. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:53:23 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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-09 12:37:59 EST, you write: << And what if you liked your father no better than your husband?> >> When my daughter turned 18, she legally changed her last name to my own maiden name. She said her father had been no father to her (true) and she didn't want his name. All her children carry her name. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:50:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: God Stalk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I seem to remember a mention on this list of "God Stalk" by PC Hodgell. Does anyone recommend it? Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:54:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Organization: SAIC Subject: Re: God Stalk Debra wrote: ---------- I seem to remember a mention on this list of "God Stalk" by PC Hodgell. Does anyone recommend it? Debra Euler ---------- Yes! Yes! Yes! and, ahmm... Yes! Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:34:53 -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: Android ? Was RE: [*FSFFU*] Cyborgs In-Reply-To: <265310373@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Several times when Data was >introduced to a stranger in STNG, the stranger asked: 'You are a >robot?' and Data proudly answered: 'No, I am an android.' A robot is a "mechanical man". An android is an "artificial man". One is a mechanism, nowadays presumably computerized; the other is an artificial organism, presumably as biological as any of us. (this is complicated by the word "robot" having entered science fiction from Karel Capek's play _R. U. R._, where his "robots" are what we today call androids.) Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:49:23 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: God Stalk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > I seem to remember a mention on this list of "God Stalk" by PC > Hodgell. Does anyone recommend it? > > Debra Euler > I personally consider God Stalk to be one of the great fantasy novels of the twentieth century, but then I'm prejudiced since it's dedicated to me! It reads like a cross between Charles Dickens, Lord Dunsany, Fritz Leiber, and the Marx Brothers, but with a feminist sensibility.ex Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:52:40 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: 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 Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > I also think it's interesting that Muslim women, whose > religion/culture is famous for its misogyny, have never changed their last > names after marriage. Laura, Muslim women do not _have_ last names. I had a Muslim roommate from India. Her "last name" was her father's last name, which was not present in any of her Indian documents. Her sister, meanwhile, had her father's _first name_ as her "last name" in her American ID. Finally, another girl I know simply put her two given names (which would be the first and middle ones, if there were something after them) in her visa application, so she got her second given name as the "last name" in her US documents. Women do not have last name in most of the traditional Muslim countries because they are not supposed to have any separate lives of their own. They are either someone's daughters, or wives, or widows, which is pretty much the origins of the European tradition of the change of the last name as well. The whole system evolved from the idea of identifying a woman by "whom she belongs to" -- first her dad, then her husband, so their respective last names would indicate whose household she currently relates to. The difference is that in Europe, women were allowed to go to Church, while in many Moslim countries, they are not allowed even to cemetries. A woman in that culture (at least traditionally, it's changing a little now) was not supposed to ever leave home, period. Even now, it's still pretty common that men do all the shopping (at least it's considered to be proper for a man to take this chore from his wife's shoulders). A good husband is supposed to bring his wife everything at home, the same as bringing gifts to children. Even her clothes, I'm not even talking about letting her hang out among strangers at a grocery market. (Of course, that the ideal case, most of men are too lazy. When a woman says that her husband does not let her go for groceries, because he does all the shopping, she's an object of envy from other women). Of course, it also means she has no access to money and cannot pick her own clothes (she can refuse to wear something she does not like and give him hard time about it, so he'll think better next time, but that's all). If a woman never leaves home, she obviously does not need a last name. Her family members won't confuse her with anyone anyway. So, the Moslim culture simply took the "possession" idea behind the last name change one step further and eliminated the last names for women altogether. Actually, I don't know if you know this, but most Muslim coutnries do not have the "last names" in Western sense even for men (except the very rich "old" families who were among the local rulers for the past twenty-five centuries or something). The Saddam Hussein's name means Saddam, the son of Hussein. Ever wondered why he is often referred to as Saddam, but never as Hussein? You don't see US President called simply "Bill" in every news coverage (meanwhile, Hillary is called by her first name all the time). Because Clinton is the name of Bill, and Hussein was the name of Saddam's father, and would not make any sense by itself. The difference is, men in Muslim cultures are considered important enough to have a second name in order to distinguish them from each other, at least by their father's name. Women simply aren't. In the most extreme cases, like Saudi Arabia, women's names (even first ones) are not recorded anywhere at all, nor their birthdates or anything else. They don't have any documents because they "don't need them". Since I mentioned this, you won't believe what so many international students have to do to adjust to the American naming practices. There so many cultures that do not have last names, cultures where family names go before given ones, cultures like Spanish, where there are two last names, father's and mother's, and cultures with names virtually non-transcribable to English. But here, in America, you need at least two names to get an ID (in Russia, by the way, it's worse - there you need three, only one of which is given). So, people use thair father's names, their father's "last names", which are actually their grandfather's names, or just pick an English name for themselves and use it for all US identification. I've met a guy who simply put his given name twice. It gets really funny sometimes. I've met quite a few of Muslim women in US and this is what I've learned from talking to them. The reason many Muslim women in US, especially the first-generation immigrants, do not have the same last names as their husbands is simply because they do not care about the whole institution of last names for women. They did not have it while growing up at home, so for them, it's just another pecularity of the local culture here, the same as pre-marital sex and legalized alcohol. However, even for the second generation, it's different. At least, that's what I've seen. Marina P.S. I also have a story on name change. A couple of my cousins, who are, by the way, rather sexist mysogynistic individuals, both changed their last names to their mother's last name. It was not really a gender thing as much as the fact that their father was a total asshole. Their parents divorced when one brother was eight and the other two years old, and the father never called, wrote, or visited them once after that, even when their mother was killed in a car accident, when the younger kid was 12. There was no question about them keeping his name. Each took their mother's last name at 18, and the matter of "male pride" or anything like that never even arised. What's more intersting, though, several years after that, the older brother married a woman who was an ethnic German in my country, they immigrated together, and he took her last name so it will be easier to find a job and stuff (Europe is not very immigrant-friendly, for what I've heard). Then they broke up. Now, he wants to marry another woman, also a German from Russia, which he can't do, because his wife does not give him a divorce. What makes me curious, though, is that if he finally divorces her, whether he going to take the last name of his new wife this time. He can't give her and his new baby the last name of his ex-wife he officially bears now. He can't go back to his mother's last name that he had before, because that name is still Russian, he still lives in Germany, and has a family to support. So, apparently, he's going to have his new wife's last name. Unfortunately, I don't know how it goes with his macho-man personality, because I don't talk to the guy. It's interesting, though, that even people far from open-minded can do something very untraditional, as long as they have some strong emotional or simply practical reasons. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:24:13 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics-OT In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kathleen, Iceland has a system similar to Russian: Eriksson vs. Eriksdottir, that is, "son of Erik" or "daughter of Erik", except that they don't use a family name after that, and we do both. By the way, Vladimirovna is my "otchestvo". I was hesitant whether to put it on my Social Security card, but I'm glad I did. Since it goes in full form on quite a few documents, it's fun to make people try pronouncing it and can be a good way to start a conversation. Also makes a cool middle initial. With Russian last names, they don't always change by the gender. Mine does not. And I'm kind of glad about it. I remember once I participated in an English-Russian translation contest at the college back home, and I did not put my first name on the entry form, just the initial and the last name. I won that contest. But when a woman from the jury came to tell me how amazed they were by my paper, she was totally shocked that I turned out to be a female. She just kept saying: "We all thought you were a young man..." and from the expression on her face, I could see that like Hell would I have won the contest if they had known that M. stood for Marina. The fun part was that my professor knew who I was, knew what they thought, and she did not tell them until that woman came to meet me. Anyway. The point is that I would have never pulled this off if my last name changed by gender. I love the fact that English does not even have this distinction. Because in this world, separate is never equal. Marina On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Kathleen M. Friello wrote: > You can't easily escape a patriarchal naming system in Western cultures so far > as I know, but there is one wrinkle in Russian that I like: the majority of > last names can be treated as adjectives and given a feminine ending for > women--- > Vladimir Mayakovsky vs. his sister, the artist Liudmilla Mayakovskaya. They > still bear the otchestvo, or middle name derived from the father's first name, > but at least that is also feminized (Vladimir Vladimirovich, Liudmilla > Vladimirovna). > Salmonson masculinized the names of all the Russian and Ukrainian women in her > Dictionary of Amazons--- I don't know if this was on purpose or just because > of the secondary sources that were used. > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:38:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Psalms of Herod MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- I just finished this disturbing book by Esther Friesner. She left plenty of loose ends dangling, and naturally there's a sequel, Sword of Mary. The first book has an interesting take on a detailed rural society of the future and its twisted fundamentalist religion, and its subjugation of women - surprisingly grueling book from a writer known for her light comedic fantasy. My big question now is whether to dive into the sequel. Why not? Well, the first book wasn't pleasant; I think I got her point by now; and if the end of the second book is as open-ended as the first, obviously leading to yet another 400-page book, I'm going to be unhappy. Any other discussion of this book, and its feminist-dystopian aspects? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:38:32 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > But, to bring this slightly back to topic (SF), often the way > >characters in fiction are named (and sometimes elaborately) tell a story > >about the character. I've always found it odd in lesser fantasy when characters are only known by one name, with no surname to indicate lineage or place of origin or profession - very practical considerations. I seem to recall that some of my long-ago pre-Christian pre-capitalistic Scandinavian ancestors, when they were horn-headed pagans, had a somewhat irregular naming system that served to trace lineage through mothers rather than fathers. Makes sense in societies with freer sexual practices, where the father's identity is less easily discerned, eh? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:43:43 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: In-Reply-To: <52e911cf.34e0933d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > What about the Scandinavian cultures in which, if you're the son of Lars, your > last name is Larsson, and if you're the daughter of Lars, your last name is > Larsdottir? > It only survives now in Iceland, I think. Someone can probably correct me, but I think that there was a decision taken in Sweden in the nineteenth century to go over to surnames. I had written "patronymic", but, of course, Larsdottir is a patronymic too. Does anyone know if anyIcelandic women call themselves Birgittasdottir, or some other matronymic? Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:29:24 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: God Stalk In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > I personally consider God Stalk to be one of the great fantasy novels of > the twentieth century, but then I'm prejudiced since it's dedicated to me! > It reads like a cross between Charles Dickens, Lord Dunsany, Fritz > Leiber, and the Marx Brothers, but with a feminist sensibility.ex > > Mike Levy > Yes, _one_ of the great fantasy novels -- but perhaps top 100 rather than top 10! But of all the great pseudo-medieval fantasy cities, like Lankhmar or Santuary, I think the city in Hodgell's _God Stalk_ is the most convincing. And it puts it in a different league from the _sequel_ to _God Stalk_ (whose name I forget, but the two were published together as _Chronicles of the Kencyrath_), which I found a great disappointment. _God Stalk_ is also fascinating from the religious point of view. Mind you, the greatest pseudo-medieval city is possibly Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork, and _Small Gods_ one of the most thoughtful (and funny) fantasy studies of religion. Some of Pratchett's would definitely be in my top-100, alongside Hodgell! Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:47:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: God Stalk -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Yes, I recommend it highly. Hodgell is an excellent writer. Marsha Valance >>> Debra Euler 02/10 3:50 pm >>> I seem to remember a mention on this list of "God Stalk" by PC Hodgell. Does anyone recommend it? Debra Euler ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 01:06:00 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: 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" At 01:52 11/02/98 -0600, you wrote: >Laura, Muslim women do not _have_ last names. I had a Muslim roommate >from India. Her "last name" was her father's last name, which was not >present in any of her Indian documents. Her sister, meanwhile, had her >father's _first name_ as her "last name" in her American ID. Finally, >another girl I know simply put her two given names (which would be the first >and middle ones, if there were something after them) in her visa >application, so she got her second given name as the "last name" in her >US documents. > (snip, snip) This is quite true Marina:) I remember during my young-married-with-babies days living in a city neighbourhood populated with many new immigrants, Turkish moslems, Greek christian and Lebanese peoples mostly. One of my next-door-neighbours was a very orthodox Turkish moslem family, where the women would be allowed out of doors, only in full chador dress and accompanied by a male relative - (usually an adolescent son of the household) However, being a young woman at home with babies, I was often invited in to share "baby-talk" with the other women, (and my mouth still waters for their home-brewed traditional Turkish coffee!!!) And I remember much hilarity when they recounted their experiences of filling in forms to apply for migration etc...two of them had used obscure Turkish swear-words as their "family names", others who didnt understand the paperwork, thought "family name" etc meant listing all their immediate relatives!!!! ahahaha..Also, once I and my husband became well-known to them, and their last adolescent son was no longer available to accompany them out of doors etc.. I ended up being allowed to be *chaperone* because I "wore my husbands pants" and could be given "honorary male" status:))) However, in Turkey women do have need of "papers", which can be issued upon request by any adult. In "Behind the veil" an unnamed Saudi woman who was related by birth to the Saudi King's family describes how "modern" and "Western" her husband was, as upon their marriage he signed the authority to release her ID papers and passport to her. Usually, a womans ID paperwork/passports are issued to her male guardian, and cannot be used by the woman without his witnessed signature, unless he authorises a legal "release". Also, in my university days, I shared a flat with a young man from Bhutan on a United Nations scholarship to study in the West. Apparently in Bhutan, (a Buddhist nation in the Himalayas, and one of the world's last true monarchies) - additional or "family" names are not used by any people who are either related to, (no matter how distantly), or serving in the King's household (which is huge) as many families serve the King's house for generations. In Bhutan this man, would normally identify himself to others with a brief 3-syllable phrase that basically translates as something like " eldest-son-of-the-third-"Rank"-of-the-King's-house"..followed by his given name if the people to whom he was addressing, were of sufficient social status to require the *courtesy* or *intimacy* of such information. His "identifying phrase" meant he was a distant cousin to the King, and the third "rank" identified his Branch of the Royal family line..everyone in Bhutan would know who immediately who he was, and even where he was expected to be living. Peasants and merchants in Bhutan usually use the name of their town or village for example, or maybe embellished if the individual has some claim to fame such as "she-who-has-buried-many-husbands" :)) It was explained to me also, that this identifying phrase was heavily dependent on a very complex system of courtesy and "social class", or on the assumed intimacy or otherwise of the encounter. ie who was doing the communicating to whom, and some people such as wealthy educated businessmen, may have several different identifiers for different circumstances. Most people have two given names, but the second name is used mostly as a nickname, or a term of endearment only within intimate circles of family and friends. In addition, women didnt always identify themselves as "wife-of-(husbands identifier)..In Bhutan, whoever had the lower social status before marriage, adopted the "spouse-of-identifier" of the higher social status partner. For example, all other things being equal, "eldest daughter" outranks a "youngest son" etc. Upon his return to Bhutan after completing his studies, this young man would be expected to add a syllable indicating that "he had travelled on behalf of Bhutan (mother-land/earth/country)" etc. he was training in journalism, and was expected to help bring his country into the 20th century by raising literacy and dissemination of national print media, and hence the additional syllable would be used as his publication "name". On coming to Australia on a student visa, he used the family name of "Darjeeling", as he had spent a number of childhood years being educated at an English school in Darjeeling Province in India, and had happy memories of his years there. Also, when his family wrote to him, they addressed their letters traditionally with location first before the name of the person to who it is addressed, so he remembered receiving letters addressed as " To: Darjeeling..." etc:)) Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:35:32 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain David Christenson wrote: I've always found it odd in lesser fantasy when characters are only known by one name, with no surname to indicate lineage or place of origin or profession - very practical considerations. I'm reading "Against a Dark Background" by Iain Banks, in which the characters in this far future world have names according to their rank--the interesting bit is that the fewer names you have, the higher your social rank. The main character, Sharrow, a high noble, only has one name. There are social-climbing characters who are going to apply to drop one of their names. It sounded weird at first, but in these days of singly named celebrities like Cher and Roseanne, it makes sense. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:21:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: 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 And in ancient Rome, women were given their father's names and a number, hence Julia, Julia Minor, Julia Tertia (Julia III), etc. But Octavia is not somebody VIII; it comes from the Octavian family. I don't know when Roman women started getting their own first names. I do know that by the time Christianity was legalized, they had them. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:10:02 -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: 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" >Laura, Muslim women do not _have_ last names. Every Single Muslim Woman I have ever met had a last name; clearly our experiences have been different. In fact, all of the Persian women I have known have taken great pride in the fact that their culture allows them to keep their maiden name; they have all carried their mother's maiden name - my Persian ex-boyfriend and his sister didn't have the same last name (although they had the same parents). Maybe it's a cultural thing and not a religious one - that is, Indian and Persian Muslim women keep their maiden name, but Yemenite and Saudi women don't.....(random guesses, BTW - purely speculative - any Muslims out there?) And yes, it is tragic that current Muslim culture has so horribly bastardized Islam, which doesn't require purdah or hijab or any of the most henious Muslim restrictions we are all familiar with. Islam, in fact, at the time of its invention/revelation (your choice) actually gave women of the desert tribes more freedom than they had experienced up to that time. It's ironic that it is now seen as the most misogynistic religion on earth now. (Personal opinion? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are _all_ misogynistic in their structure, to varying degrees, and we're never going to be able to wipe out sexism, racism or environmental rape while these religions still exist.) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:04:45 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, if I remember correctly from reading Icelandic Sagas (Njal's and Egil's) and doing some Viking history at university, when the father was unknown, of for other reasons (forget what now) children could take on the mother's name and become something like Helgasdottir or Helgason, but then this was early Xian Iceland ~900 years ago. I know a number (not personally) of Icelandic women who travel outside the nation now use the same name as their husband simply because (well, a decade or so ago) would look at separate last names "funny" as if the couple were unmarried. misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Edward James[SMTP:E.F.James@READING.AC.UK] >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:43 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: > >On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > >> What about the Scandinavian cultures in which, if you're the son of Lars, >>your >> last name is Larsson, and if you're the daughter of Lars, your last name is >> Larsdottir? >> > >It only survives now in Iceland, I think. Someone can probably correct me, >but I think that there was a decision taken in Sweden in the nineteenth >century to go over to surnames. I had written "patronymic", but, of >course, Larsdottir is a patronymic too. Does anyone know if anyIcelandic >women call themselves Birgittasdottir, or some other matronymic? > >Edward James > > >............................................................................. >. > >Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social >Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > >http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > >Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION >Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media > >............................................................................. >. > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:52:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think we should just pick our own last names, like Malcolm Shabbazz did by calling himself Malcolm X. If we don't want the slave owners name or a name given to us by the patriarcy....Let's just make up our own. Linda ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:52:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Laura Wigod (Personal opinion? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are _all_ > misogynistic in their structure, to varying degrees, and we're never going > to be able to wipe out sexism, racism or environmental rape while these > religions still exist.) > Bringing this back to SF, do you think that this represents the standard response of contemporary SF to institutionalized religion? (Please note that I'm only talking about religion as institution, not about individual spirituality.) With a very few exceptions, all the recent SF I can think of either totally ignores religion or portrays unpleasantly misogynistic, homophobic fundamentalist religions that control the lives of all inhabitants of the state, willy nilly. Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally personalized spirituality? Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:30:36 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: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) Content-Type: text/plain Well, I was recently reading Marge Piercy's _He, She, and It_ (1991, I believe, and she had a more balanced view. There were big bad evil organized religions (required by the 'multis', huge corporate communities), but the story was very intimately involved with Jewish culture *and* religion and many of the sympathetic characters attended synagogue, sat shiva, etc. Having trouble thinking of other examples off the top of my head - outside femSF, of course, Orson Scott Card has an intense fascination with religion, and has explored both negative and positive aspects (nb the famous ender at one point ends up being a married-but-celibate catholic lay brother). actually, now that i think about it, putting card 'outside' femsf may have implications i don't like. but anyway, marianne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:28:16 -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: SF and religion- Tepper's _Shadow's End_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm trying to think of any recent novel (last 10-15 years) that has a strong religious element that is not personal faith or some sort of cultural "leftover"... something that functions as a sort of combination earth-knowledge following or semi-dogma that follows from lost technology/knowledge (mostly thinking of Vinge's _Winter Queen_ right now but it was so long I'm hazy). I guess that Tepper would have to come somewhere in at least creating complex looks at religious motivation. _Shadow's End_ particularly interests me... the religion currently existent on the one isolated planet is patriarchal. The previous religion, still kept by the veiled/outcast/mutilated women is a mother religion. Both seemed adapted to particular situations/worlds and ways of keeping away the "uhlarians" or threat. Those founders of the one colony made a choice (perhaps a patriarchal choice) that women would not know (at first, then most other than priests) that at first conception they would end up "hosting" an alien fetus. This pact if upheld would keep this particular world/culture from being killed (as all other planets inthe sector). At the end of the novel, I'm not sure where Tepper comes down on religion, or the particular religions (including the repressive patriarchal one dominant on the planet). Before this gets much longer, is there anyone who's got some idea what's going on with this? While I deplored the religion that let women be used w/o their knowledge (I feel women should have known and made their own choice), I'm not sure that surrender/retention of the mother religion was better. misha bernardm@colorado.edu >With a very few exceptions, all the recent SF I can think >of either totally ignores religion or portrays unpleasantly misogynistic, >homophobic fundamentalist religions that control the lives of all >inhabitants of the state, willy nilly. > >Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer >somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally >personalized spirituality? > >Wendy > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:06:01 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robyn Starkey Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >It only survives now in Iceland, I think. Someone can probably correct me, >but I think that there was a decision taken in Sweden in the nineteenth >century to go over to surnames. I had written "patronymic", but, of >course, Larsdottir is a patronymic too. Does anyone know if anyIcelandic >women call themselves Birgittasdottir, or some other matronymic? In Old Norse sagas this occurs or is said to occur very rarely. Sometimes it is suggested if the mother is especially heroic, but mostly naming the children after the mother is a criticism of the father. That is, if he did something particularly dishonorable or cowardly. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:56:59 -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: SF and religion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:52 PM 2/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer >somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally >personalized spirituality? > Yes, very much so. If I remember correctly, Molly Gloss' "The Dazzle of Day" 1997 was an example of this. James Morrow, in "Towing Jehovah" and "Abbadon [i forget the rest]" explores various notions of good and evil, though perhaps less in a religious sense than in an ethical one. I think that often the reading of SF, and the fandom, is very much a religion. In some ways, too, cyberpunk is the expression of a new religion. Certainly advocates of hard core SF as the -only- SF often appear rabidly religious. *grins* Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu Reality is only a question of language. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:38:08 -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: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: <199802112252.RAA14214@pip1.pipcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, silk wrote: > > From: Laura Wigod > > (Personal opinion? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are _all_ > > misogynistic in their structure, to varying degrees, and we're never > going > > to be able to wipe out sexism, racism or environmental rape while these > > religions still exist.) > > > Bringing this back to SF, do you think that this represents the standard > response of contemporary SF to institutionalized religion? (Please note > that I'm only talking about religion as institution, not about individual > spirituality.) With a very few exceptions, all the recent SF I can think > of either totally ignores religion or portrays unpleasantly misogynistic, > homophobic fundamentalist religions that control the lives of all > inhabitants of the state, willy nilly. > > Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer > somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally > personalized spirituality? Many near-future SF involves religions that are not seen as completely evil. For example, _The Sparrow_ by Maria Doria Russell is intimitely involved with religion, especially catholicism and presents it as an immense struggle and difficult subject rather than as "evil". I latched onto the problems more often than the good things (based on my pre-conceptions), but it was so deeply religious (of a certain kind) that it even made me find a bible to look in. Another example is _Earth_ by David Brin. _Earth_ is one of those books with everything plus the kitchen sink. It has multiple religions, most noatably Gaia worship (which is even explored in the climax that is all most people can talk about when discussing the book). At what point does institutionalized religion and individual spirituality cross? A society that does not force things on people so much can still have an organized religion. While you may not see it as such (not after all resembling religion as you know it), it may still be a religion. For example, take Handratta (I might have that wrong) from the Left Hand Of Darkness. It wasn't a central-power heirarchical religion, but it was organized. The same could be said of some contemporary religions. Quakerism (hate to beat a dead horse, but it's the one I know) is an organized de-centralized "individual spirituality" religion. Taoism is quite possibly less organized, but it often surfaces as a religion. I think many modern SF works deal with religion and spirituality from a point of view more complex than religion is bad, total individual spirtuality is good. After all, you could call a religion that pushes completely individual spirituality (and no getting together now) as controlling a religion as what we think about as religion. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:48:37 -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: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: <199802112252.RAA14214@pip1.pipcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, silk wrote: > > Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer > somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally > personalized spirituality? > > Wendy > Science fiction has always tended toward the un-religious or anti-religious, reflecting the opinions of the majority of writers and readers in the field, but there have always been exceptions, most notably in the past Walter M. Miller Jr.'s Canticle for Leibowitz and James Blish's A Case of Conscience and other works. In recent years we've had a number of writers who bring their strong religous faith to their science fiction. Orson Scott Card, a devout Mormon, is perhaps the best known example, but there are others. Heather mentioned Molly Gloss's A Dazzle of Days, a fine novel about a Quaker-run colony ship. Joan Slonczewski is also a devout Quaker, as is most obvious in her first novel Still Forms on Foxfield and The Wall Around Eden. Judith Moffett deals with religion sympathetically, particularly in Pennterra (Both Foxfield and Pennterra are named after early Quaker leaders). Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, gives a sympathetic portrait of the Catholic church. For those who loved The Sparrow, a sequel, Children of God,should appear next month. Katherine Kurtz's fantasies seem to show a sincere respect for religious belief too. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:00:33 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics Occupational last names are intriguing. In small Welsh communities, where a preponderance of surnames are likely to be duplicated, the convention used to be (I hope still is) to append occupation, e.g: Jones the Milk, Jones the Shop. I'm trying to recall a short story, years old, the only feature of which that remains in my mind is a character called Llewellyn Spaceship Repair. Have women ever had occupational names (other than "the whore" and suchlike)? Do any of the matrilinear names reflect them, that anyone knows? _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:52:37 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: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-11 17:59:19 EST, Wendy wrote: > Bringing this back to SF, do you think that this represents the standard > response of contemporary SF to institutionalized religion? (Please note > that I'm only talking about religion as institution, not about individual > spirituality.) With a very few exceptions, all the recent SF I can think > of either totally ignores religion or portrays unpleasantly misogynistic, > homophobic fundamentalist religions that control the lives of all > inhabitants of the state, willy nilly. > > Do any contemporary SF novels or stories give us a religious answer > somewhere between the extremes of religious oligarchy and totally > personalized spirituality? The first one that comes to mind is the religion practiced by the Bajorans in "Deep Space Nine". However, now that I've thought of that one, I'm having a hard time thinking of others. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:02:49 -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: Psalms of Herod Well, I don't want to spoil anything for you, but I'm looking forward to the third volume, if there's to be one, just to see how the hell she copes with the situation at the end of volume 2! On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:38:38 -0500 DAVID CHRISTENSON writes: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >I just finished this disturbing book by Esther Friesner. She left >plenty >of loose ends dangling, and naturally there's a sequel, Sword of Mary. > >The first book has an interesting take on a detailed rural society of >the future and its twisted fundamentalist religion, and its >subjugation >of women - surprisingly grueling book from a writer known for her >light >comedic fantasy. My big question now is whether to dive into the >sequel. >Why not? Well, the first book wasn't pleasant; I think I got her point >by now; and if the end of the second book is as open-ended as the >first, >obviously leading to yet another 400-page book, I'm going to be >unhappy. > >Any other discussion of this book, and its feminist-dystopian aspects? > >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com >"If we do nothing, evil wins." - Duncan McCloud > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:21:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Subject: tiptree's "up the walls of the world" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" wow! I am in the middle of this fascinating novel, worlds and cultures more unique and as grippingly beautiful as Tepper's "grass" and CS Lewis' Perelandra. and it just occurred to me, as I was thinking what a marvelous gift these memory transfers are to a community and culture, that with computers it is possible the technology will allow great numbers of people of our species to do the same. Imagine several people on a network re-creating a scene they have each experienced so that all can share their point of view! As reverently as the viggies in Tepper's "after long silence" we could know history without bias because all POV would be available. With sensaround I'm thinking with glee of the rapists finding out what it's like to be raped, of the users and destroyers experiencing the awe of lovers. Would it become a teaching tool? a means of reverently examining the meaning of life? or a narcotic consumption to be exploited for profit and manipulation...as in Piercy's He, She and It. --Cleo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:49:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" When I taught my class last semester, (relgion in Feminist Utopian fantasy) its main impetus was investigating the religious elements, and the religiousness of, these avowedly anit-religionist, unreligious novels. Almost every novel I read seemed overtly religious--Butler's Wild Seed, Bryant's Kin of Ata, Starhawk, Piercy, LeGuin, Atwood, Lessing, Gearhart, Zimmer Bradley, Tepper, Charnas, Griffith, Slonczewski, Pamela Sargent, Maguire, Lackey, and moving into Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, every single novel I was picking up to read for any reason seemed to be screaming about its religious motivation, which might be the same as its ideological slant (this is actually something I am still working on --how feminism acts as a religion, as well as utopianism... and activism... and world creation... ) I can't speak to older SF, although the little of that I have read also seems to be religiously motivated, or more correctly dealing with issues around religion-- Dune, Hobbit and Lords of the Ring, Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, Asimov.... I am curious whether this is a particular quirk of mine (either seeing the religious in everything, or only being attracted to things which have a religious theme...) or whether my gut instinct is correct, which is that Science Fiction/Fantasy is a religious enterprise? I realize this moves beyond, or sidesteps the original question about Religion and Spirituality, but for me that is a whole other issue, the difference between what people do and what organizations say--people in those organizations do whatever they do, interpreting the religious decrees in ways that are meaningful to them--organizations are made up of people, Churches are made up of Spiritual folk... At 07:48 PM 2/11/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, silk wrote: > >Science fiction has always tended toward the un-religious or >anti-religious, reflecting the opinions of the majority of writers and >readers in the field, but there have always been exceptions, most notably >in the past Walter M. Miller Jr.'s Canticle for Leibowitz and James >Blish's A Case of Conscience and other works. > >In recent years we've had a number of writers who bring their strong >religous faith to their science fiction. Orson Scott Card, a devout >Mormon, is perhaps the best known example, but there are others. Heather >mentioned Molly Gloss's A Dazzle of Days, a fine novel about a Quaker-run >colony ship. Joan Slonczewski is also a devout Quaker, as is most >obvious in her first novel Still Forms on Foxfield and The Wall Around >Eden. Judith Moffett deals with religion sympathetically, particularly >in Pennterra (Both Foxfield and Pennterra are named after early Quaker >leaders). Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, gives a sympathetic portrait >of the Catholic church. For those who loved The Sparrow, a sequel, >Children of God,should appear next month. Katherine Kurtz's fantasies >seem to show a sincere respect for religious belief too. > >Mike Levy > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:20:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: <3.0.4.32.19980212104948.0069205c@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Rudy, your class on religion in feminist utopian fantasy sounds great. Any chance of getting a copy of your syllabus? edrie ***************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:49:48 -0500 Rudy Leon wrote: > When I taught my class last semester, (relgion in Feminist Utopian fantasy) > its main impetus was investigating the religious elements, and the > religiousness > of, these avowedly anit-religionist, unreligious novels. Almost every > novel I > read seemed overtly religious--Butler's Wild Seed, Bryant's Kin of Ata, > Starhawk, > Piercy, LeGuin, Atwood, Lessing, Gearhart, Zimmer Bradley, Tepper, Charnas, > Griffith, Slonczewski, Pamela Sargent, Maguire, Lackey, and moving into Alice > Walker, Toni Morrison, every single novel I was picking up to read for any > reason seemed to be screaming about its religious motivation, which might be > the same as its ideological slant (this is actually something I am still > working on > --how feminism acts as a religion, as well as utopianism... and activism... > and > world creation... ) > > I can't speak to older SF, although the little of that I have read also > seems to be > religiously motivated, or more correctly dealing with issues around > religion-- > Dune, Hobbit and Lords of the Ring, Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, > Asimov.... > I am curious whether this is a particular quirk of mine (either seeing the > religious > in everything, or only being attracted to things which have a religious > theme...) > or whether my gut instinct is correct, which is that Science > Fiction/Fantasy is a > religious enterprise? I realize this moves beyond, or sidesteps the > original question > about Religion and Spirituality, but for me that is a whole other issue, > the difference > between what people do and what organizations say--people in those > organizations > do whatever they do, interpreting the religious decrees in ways that are > meaningful > to them--organizations are made up of people, Churches are made up of > Spiritual > folk... > > > At 07:48 PM 2/11/98 -0600, you wrote: > >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, silk wrote: > > > >Science fiction has always tended toward the un-religious or > >anti-religious, reflecting the opinions of the majority of writers and > >readers in the field, but there have always been exceptions, most notably > >in the past Walter M. Miller Jr.'s Canticle for Leibowitz and James > >Blish's A Case of Conscience and other works. > > > >In recent years we've had a number of writers who bring their strong > >religous faith to their science fiction. Orson Scott Card, a devout > >Mormon, is perhaps the best known example, but there are others. Heather > >mentioned Molly Gloss's A Dazzle of Days, a fine novel about a Quaker-run > >colony ship. Joan Slonczewski is also a devout Quaker, as is most > >obvious in her first novel Still Forms on Foxfield and The Wall Around > >Eden. Judith Moffett deals with religion sympathetically, particularly > >in Pennterra (Both Foxfield and Pennterra are named after early Quaker > >leaders). Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow, gives a sympathetic portrait > >of the Catholic church. For those who loved The Sparrow, a sequel, > >Children of God,should appear next month. Katherine Kurtz's fantasies > >seem to show a sincere respect for religious belief too. > > > >Mike Levy > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:44:54 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: Separate Last Name Tactics >Have women ever had occupational names (other than "the whore" and >suchlike)? Do any of the matrilinear names reflect them, that anyone >knows? I believe that names like Webster (weaver), Baxter (baker), Brewster show now otiose female inflected endings referring to occupations often pursued by women in the Middle Ages. Have a feeling (but am no medievalist) that in town law, women even if married could take cases to court as 'femme sole'? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:19:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Jo (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII a friend notified me of this. jo's passing will be a great loss to our community. > Jo Clayton's passage is very, very near. As my friends, I ask > you all to keep her and her family and friends in your thoughts > and prayers today. > > Elizabeth > > Elizabeth Bourne | http://www.teleport.com/~bourne/ > > Creative Director/Reviews Editor eGames.com | The Ultimate Game Store > http://www.egames.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:57:05 -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: Jo (fwd) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:19 PM 2/12/98 , you wrote: >From: Laura Quilter >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jo (fwd) >a friend notified me of this. jo's passing will be a great loss to our >community. > >> Jo Clayton's passage is very, very near. As my friends, I ask >> you all to keep her and her family and friends in your thoughts >> and prayers today. >> >> Elizabeth >> >> Elizabeth Bourne | http://www.teleport.com/~bourne/ Here's two more letters on Jo's status: >>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:02:17 -0800 >>From: Elizabeth Bourne >>Subject: Jo information >> >>Melisa, could you please post this somewhere so that people know. >> >>Everyone else, I've written this so you have something to post or give out >>to those places that look for this kind of information. I'm sorry it can't >>be happy news. >> >> >> >>Jo Clayton has been valiently battling Multiple Myeloma, a form of cancer >>that effects the bones, for over a year now. >> >>Due to her courageous spirit, and the thoughts and prayers of many of you, >>her fans and friends, she was able to beat the odds and finish two books >>while in the hospital, and write many short stories. >> >>However, she is losing her battle. Please keep her in your thoughts and >>prayers over the next few weeks. You have all meant so much to her, and I >>know that it is in part your love and good wishes that have kept her >>spirits high and the will to live burning bright. >> >>Elizabeth Bourne | http://www.teleport.com/~bourne/ >> > >and, > >>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:31:27 -0800 >>From: Elizabeth Bourne >>Subject: Jo's leave taking >> >>Jo has asked for a leave-taking ceremony, and so we will do that for her. >> >>I'm inviting you to attend Jo Clayton's leave taking ceremony Thursday >>night (February 12) at 7:00pm. I've never put something like this together >>before, so I welcome all comments, suggestions, stories about Jo, that you >>may have to offer. >> >>Jo is expecting to pass away this weekend, possibly on her birthday. >[Sunday, Feb. 15th] >> Her >>doctor says that we should believe her. Unless, of course, she has such a >>good time with us that she decides to hang on for a few more days. :-) >> >>I am off to see Jo at the hospital now (11:30 pacific), but please feel >>free to call me at (503) 771-1246 with any questions or concerns you might >>have. I will stay offline to be available to you. >> >>Please forward this on to anyone who has been a friend to Jo. I know there >>are many addresses and many people this invitation should go to that I am >>unaware of, so I ask you all to be my deputies in getting this out to the >>appropriate people. >> >>Thanks for your support and help. >> >>Elizabeth Bourne >> >-- >Ruth Sachter >ruths@spiritone.com {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:05:27 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marianne Reddin Subject: [FSFFU]Re:O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) Content-Type: text/plain Neil writes: >But he is!! He's intensely Mormon, and, for instance, a couple of >years ago, raised a lot of animosity with some remarks deeply hostile >to homosexuals. I don't know enough about the Mormon church or the remarks in question to really reply to these specific points (although from Card's prefaces, afterwords, and semi-autobiographical writings, he certainly seems to have a somewhat ambiguous relationship with his Mormonness). I guess my point was more that his books are full of female characters whom I find to be strong and self-motivated individuals, honestly complex, with a wide range of attitudes. And I have never seen an implication in his work that women cannot be as good as or better at things than men can. He seems to me remarkably free, in his fiction (i know nothing about his personal life, really), of the kind of damaging misogynist attitudes which i'm sure we have all run into somewhere or another. Is there a preferred term for 'not particularly a feminist, but jeez, did he help me feel supported in my burgeoning feminism'? Marianne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:03:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Not Quite Feminist Writers, was O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-12 18:15:34 EST, you write: > Is there a preferred term for 'not particularly a feminist, but jeez, > did he help me feel supported in my burgeoning feminism'? > > Marianne There should be a term, if there isn't one. I can think of several authors who don't quite count as feminist, but whose work helped me to think differently about gender, or who at least helped reinforce my ideas of equality between the sexes. I would definitely count O. S. Card as one of those, as well as Robert Sawyer, William Gibson, Lackey, McCaffrey, and Emma Bull. (And I know there are others, I just can't think of any of them right now.) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:58:53 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Concerning the "non-traditional naming rules", I've heard that in Iceland, people with the same given name are listed in the phonebooks by profession. Like, "Olaf the Dentist", or "Helga the Attorney" (which seems to be the same way the family names in other cultures came about at the time when professions were passed through generations: Smith, Baker, Thatcher, etc.) I remember that it made me wonder what people with non-standard professions would do. Think "Jimmy the Thief", "Anna the Hitwoman", or "Michael, Unemployed". By the way, I've heard that the president of Iceland (if she still holds that office) was divorced and had an adopted daughter. I wonder if her daughter had her mother's name as her last name. Going back to sf, I thought about what naming rule I'd like most, if I had a choice, and I decided that that's simply it -- people should be able to choose it. You father's last name, you mother's first name, your cat's nickname, or your favorite TV show, whatever you want it to be. Considering the stories presented on this list, it seems like people's in-laws care a lot more than IRS and other government institutions. If you can use a different name on your tax return or give your children a last name combined of two other last names, I think the system will live with totally arbitrary names. A person could pick their last name when getting a license or at the age of 18, or something like that. Someone could argue that it would create a lot of confusion. However, working in a placement office, I see what it's like for female students to have two different last names on their records, which keep getting misplaced, confused with others, or getting wrong information. So I don't think there could be any more confusion than that. If we can handle name changes with every marriage and divorce, I think having permanent, chosen last names like DaysOfOurLives would be no big deal. Besides, that's why we have Social Security numbers. Marina On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Michelle Bernard wrote: > Well, if I remember correctly from reading Icelandic Sagas (Njal's and > Egil's) and doing some Viking history at university, when the father was > unknown, of for other reasons (forget what now) children could take on > the mother's name and become something like Helgasdottir or Helgason, > but then this was early Xian Iceland ~900 years ago. I know a number > (not personally) of Icelandic women who travel outside the nation now > use the same name as their husband simply because (well, a decade or so > ago) would look at separate last names "funny" as if the couple were > unmarried. > misha > bernardm@colorado.edu > > >---------- > >From: Edward James[SMTP:E.F.James@READING.AC.UK] > >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:43 AM > >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: > > > >On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > > > >> What about the Scandinavian cultures in which, if you're the son of Lars, > >>your > >> last name is Larsson, and if you're the daughter of Lars, your last name is > >> Larsdottir? > >> > > > >It only survives now in Iceland, I think. Someone can probably correct me, > >but I think that there was a decision taken in Sweden in the nineteenth > >century to go over to surnames. I had written "patronymic", but, of > >course, Larsdottir is a patronymic too. Does anyone know if anyIcelandic > >women call themselves Birgittasdottir, or some other matronymic? > > > >Edward James > > > > > >............................................................................. > >. > > > >Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social > >Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > > > >http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > > > >Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION > >Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media > > > >............................................................................. > >. > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:27:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think that when talking about religion, people often mean one of two very different things: Faith and Church. The former has more do do with the individual's spiruality, the latter is more of a social structure intended to help organize people's life in accordance with their faith. Being composed of humans, the forementioned structure, unfortunately, too often degenerates into an instrument used by some individuals to control others. This is not always the case, but it happens pretty often, and on a large scale. And that, in my humble opinion, is the reason why most of sf writers, as well as almost al the others, either explore that version of church (not religion) or do not go into the topic at all. Marina P.S. One book with religion I liked was "Reluctant Voyagers" by Elizabeth Vonarberg. She turned the traditional story around and ended up with three divine Infants and a goddess-creator as a little girl. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time."