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." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:32:16 -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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > 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. This is essentially the system we have in legal terms here. Your last name can be anything you like. All problems are derived from people who haven't "gotten with the program" or who assume certain conventions that are societal rather than legal. In many cases such assumptions are true, which is what makes people assume them. Society needs to live up to the law for your perfect system. did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? the "last names" there were bad things about the person that they wanted to change like: Joel the bad writer, or Joel the overweight. The names would change over time, and picking them was some sort of special thing. I forget the details, but I thought it was interesting. One problem with it is that I feel like a self-actualizing person would really and truly eliminate faults that they thought were important. So, even if I were Joel the overweight, is that a valid fault if I don't think it's important? -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:00:30 -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: <3.0.4.32.19980212104948.0069205c@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Rudy Leon wrote: > (this is actually something I am still > working on > --how feminism acts as a religion, as well as utopianism... and activism... > and > world creation... ) Well, each religion is a something that prescribes certain rules of behaivior based on its version of the world creation / functioning. Feminism seems to fit pretty well in that. Not that there is anything wrong with it. After all, any philosophy that attempts to regulate human behavior is a religion. And they all do, even Communism, which defies religion by definition. The difference seems to be in how popular the particular philosophy becomes, which depends on how well it justifies present suffering in the name of a higher goal. Honestly, in most cases, I don't like when they mix science fiction and religion. I don't like anything mixed with religion, for that matter. Because it's too often becomes propaganda meant to lure you into something through entertainment. You never know whether the author is exploring their spirituality or simply trying to "build the grounds for your possible salvation". Concerning the "fantasy religions" of other planets, they are most often used either as a means to explain the conflict necessary for the action part of the adventure, or as a metaphor for the struggles going on in the 20th century Earth (i.e. "oppressed women's religion vs. dominant evil men's religion" in feminist sf, or "all-female world-as-a-beehive" in anti-feminist sf), or both. I don't have a problem with it. I just wish it was a little more subtle. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:05:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [FSFFU]Re:O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) In-Reply-To: <19980212230528.25568.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marianne Reddin wrote: > Is there a preferred term for 'not particularly a feminist, but jeez, > did he help me feel supported in my burgeoning feminism'? What about "a honorary feminist" ? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:24:56 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-OT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-11 03:25:35 EST, you write: << I would have never pulled this off if my last name changed by gender. >> I read a science fiction story once in which the crew were discussing the problems involved in bringing along members of the opposite sex. The captain, the engineer, and everyone else thought it was a bad idea. But finally they decided to be fair and bring the men. How many of you were caught? Several decades ago, everyone was--including me. The interesting thing is that the story wouldn't have worked if it were written in a language like Spanish in which the nouns change depending on the gender of the professional person. I still remember when Archie Bunker couldn't solve the problem of the surgeon performing an operation. The patient was the surgeon's son, but the surgeon was not the patient's father. Archie could not reach the conclusion that the surgeon was the patient's mother. It all seems so obvious now-- Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:35:34 -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 On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > > This is essentially the system we have in legal terms here. Your last > name can be anything you like. All problems are derived from people who > haven't "gotten with the program" or who assume certain conventions that > are societal rather than legal. In many cases such assumptions are true, > which is what makes people assume them. Society needs to live up to the > law for your perfect system. That's always the catch, isn't it? :) > did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? the > "last names" there were bad things about the person that they wanted to > change like: > > Joel the bad writer, or > Joel the overweight. This sounds like the world I live in. Except "bad writer" is nothing close to the names I've been called by peers (and adults) since I was little and up till now. I don't think this system, if legalized, would make any sense altogether, for two main reasons: 1) half of the names people have called me had nothing to do with the reality. I would not be able to change that even if they wrote it in my passport, since it was not true at the first place; 2) the other half of the names had to with the fact that they were threatened by, or jealous of certain parts of my personality. Like, if they called you "Joel the Nerd", would you stop reading books and start hanging out in bars 7 days a week, till they change it to "Joel the Cool Dude"? In other words, to allow other people pick the name for you, they must be: a) objective, which they never are; b) actually care about your self-improvement instead of protecting their own egos. Besides, identifying someone with his/her "worst part" is a very unlikely way to make them change. Break them down so they'll become quiet and never make any trouble -- maybe. However, this sounds more like group therapy. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:44:58 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: Sources of badness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-11 11:22:34 EST, you write: << (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.) >> The misogny comes from men, not from God. I spent quite a bit of time reading closely about the way Jesus actually treated women. In a culture in which women were chattel (is there any other kind?), he treated women with respect and equality. The trouble is that people can take something good, like Christianity, and twist it beyond recognition by using it to support their own lust for power. Christianity says we're all children of God, not just the pink ones or the male ones or the good-looking ones or the skinny ones (thought I'd get that one in). And I don't see what environment rape has to do with it. I have a friend who blames that on the Republicans! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:57:20 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: 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 98-02-12 10:52:43 EST, you write: <> Many SF writers are atheistic in their viewpoints--the religious yearnings crop up in their work without their conscious knowledge. I remember listening to Frederick Pohl talking about his conviction that there is nothing beyond this life--yet his next novel had his protagonist find a kind of immortality by having his essence poured into a computer so it could continue to give its opinion on everything. I see in that character a fear of death on the part of the writer, because he envisioned only a yawning emptiness beyond. Perhaps nothingness would be preferable to the pathetic immortality he gave his character--a man who thought about sex most of the time, and now could only look at and talk to his beloved wife. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:28 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: [FSFFU]Re: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: << 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 believe that Scott has modified his views about homosexuals. Not long ago he wrote a very moving book dedication to a friend who is a homosexual. He wouldn't have written it if he didn't mean it. He isn't one for polite lies. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:04:55 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-12 21:06:16 EST, you write: << 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.) >> I wonder if anyone else noticed that in the Dragonrider series, the women in the initial survey teams and landing parties were quite equal to the men, but as Pernese society developed into a medieval type of culture, the women once more became pawns? I'm thinking of the woman in The Renegades of Pern, who launched her career as a thief and a murderer when her younger brother was going to force her to marry some old geezer. Everyone laughed when a mere woman wanted to inherit as a Lord Holder. What could McAffrey be saying? or was it even a conscious development? Does anyone know what her ideas are on this? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:11:24 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-12 23:11:31 EST, you write: << (i.e. "oppressed women's religion vs. dominant evil men's religion" in feminist sf, or "all-female world-as-a-beehive" in anti-feminist sf), >> I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have there been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? (Ick, I just thought about the ludicrous male-female schism in "Spock's Brain.") barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:10:46 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 00:21:37 EST, you write: > I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, > and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have > there been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? > (Ick, I just thought about the ludicrous male-female schism in "Spock's Brain.") > Just a guess, because there haven't been all that many matriarchal societies from which we could learn, but I imagine that any human being, given sufficient power, is capable of terrible deeds of evil. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:47:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <1207644c.34e3d5fe@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal societies, and those existed a very long time ago. The official opinion of current anthropology is that there is NO hard evidence of ANY matriarchal society having EVER existed beyond tales used to scare any liberal males into adopting a more patriarchal viewpoint. Marvin Harris makes a logical, but irritating point of this in many of his more "chatty" books. Bill At 12:11 AM 2/13/1998 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-12 23:11:31 EST, you write: > ><< (i.e. "oppressed women's religion vs. dominant evil > men's religion" in feminist sf, or "all-female world-as-a-beehive" in > anti-feminist sf), >> > >I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, >and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have there >been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? (Ick, >I just thought about the ludicrous male-female schism in "Spock's Brain.") > >barbara > > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:42:33 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: schant 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 Marina wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > > did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? the > > "last names" there were bad things about the person that they wanted to > > change like: > > > > Joel the bad writer, or > > Joel the overweight. > > In other words, to allow other people pick the name for you, they must be: > a) objective, which they never are; b) actually care about your > self-improvement instead of protecting their own egos. > > Besides, identifying someone with his/her "worst part" is a very unlikely > way to make them change. Break them down so they'll become quiet and > never make any trouble -- maybe. However, this sounds more like group > therapy. > > Marina > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf If I remember rightly, the names were chosen by the individuals themselves, so, for example, I would choose to call myself "Sue Drinks-Too-Much" because that's something I want to change, but not "Sue Too-Opinionated", even though other people might! -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:32:26 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 00:07:42 EST, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-12 21:06:16 EST, Barbara Benesch wrote: > > << 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.) >> > > I wonder if anyone else noticed that in the Dragonrider series, the women in > the initial survey teams and landing parties were quite equal to the men, but > as Pernese society developed into a medieval type of culture, the women once > more became pawns? I'm thinking of the woman in The Renegades of Pern, who > launched her career as a thief and a murderer when her younger brother was > going to force her to marry some old geezer. Everyone laughed when a mere > woman wanted to inherit as a Lord Holder. What could McAffrey be saying? or > was it even a conscious development? Does anyone know what her ideas are on > this? Hmm. I didn't read The Renegades of Pern, but I've read (I think) all the ones that came out before that one. 'Round about 'Renegades' I think I hit maximum capacity on Pern. Also, I think once I'd read about the initial landing parties ('DragonsDawn', was it?), I wasn't too willing to go back to reading about the quasi-medieval "present-day" Pern. At the time, I just thought I'd hit my limit on Pern, but your point about how the culture "regressed" in their treatment of women may have a great deal to do with it as well. Also, your explanation of the main character in 'Renegades' has me thinking that many of her books followed that same formula. The Dragonsinger trilogy involved a girl who fled her family (her father) in order to avoid being treated like property (I don't think there was a groom lined up for her, but it was pretty apparent that it was just a matter of time). Most of the women in the Pern books (that I can think of right now, anyway), started their path to greatness by escaping patriarchal tyranny. (That sounds really melodramatic, but it's actually pretty accurate - most of them had tyrannical fathers who wouldn't hear of their daughters veering from the common path.) In fact, I can't think of a major female protagonist whose father was actually supportive of her activities. I have no idea what her ideas on all of this are, but I got the feeling (and this is pure speculation, all!) that she started off writing the Pern books and chose a medieval-type society. As time went on and the number of book she'd written on Pern grew, she eventually decided to do something regarding to origins of Pern, and so wrote 'DragonsDawn.' My thinking on it is that she didn't really think much about the time in between the landing and "present- day" Pern. Although, truly, I have no clue. On a different note, I have to say that nowadays I'm surprised every time I see another Pern book on the shelves - I would think she'd be bored to death of the planet by now. Maybe I'm wrong, having no experience in writing, but I would think a person could only spend so long in the same place before going insane. Of course, I also get bored with things easily myself, so maybe it's just me. Just my two pennies, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:14:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Jo (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Laura Quilter wrote: > 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. > > I'm sorry to hear that.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:34:34 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980213074729.007a4280@pop3.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Bill Sansbury wrote: > My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal > societies, and those existed a very long time ago. The official opinion of > current anthropology is that there is NO hard evidence of ANY matriarchal > society having EVER existed beyond tales used to scare any liberal males > into adopting a more patriarchal viewpoint. Marvin Harris makes a logical, > but irritating point of this in many of his more "chatty" books. > Bill I believe that you are incorrect. While I am not certain about some of the facts about matriarchies, I know for certain that archeologists recently discovered a woman buried with (presumably her) weapons in much the manner warriors have been buried. This was in the area that the famous Amazons are supposed to have lived and is widely seen as evidence of their actual existence. On another feminist science note, hdid anyone hear about the grandmother hypothesis? Many evolutionists / social biologists (and Arthur C. Clarke in 2001, and alot of other SF writers) hold to the theory thet we evolved intelligence along with violence in order to get meat for food. The grandmother hypothesis brings up the issue of menopause and the fact that women have useful lives beyond it. The supposition is that having these grandmothers around (a supposedly unique development) allowed longer childhoods and higher intelligence, and served to keep the men in line :) I don't understand all of the intricacies, but its an interesting idea isn't it? That middle-aged menopause gave us intelligence, not the silly hunting of men. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:44:30 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > In other words, to allow other people pick the name for you, they must be: > a) objective, which they never are; b) actually care about your > self-improvement instead of protecting their own egos. Other people don't pick the name. You pick your name (but it has to be a good one or something like that) > Besides, identifying someone with his/her "worst part" is a very unlikely > way to make them change. Break them down so they'll become quiet and > never make any trouble -- maybe. However, this sounds more like group > therapy. Yeah, I'm not sure I like it. However, in a society that does not put people down and abuse them like you have been abused, it might be possible that humility would be needed more than self-confidence. The book was unabashedly utopian so it did not have much to say about possible downsides of the system, but maybe you should read it, it was really good and interesting. Maybe I should go re-read it, I've forgotten the details about that whole naming-system thing. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:44:29 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <5480e847.34e3d479@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 13 Feb 98 , Barbara R. Hume wrote: > I wonder if anyone else noticed that in the Dragonrider series, the women in > the initial survey teams and landing parties were quite equal to the men, but > as Pernese society developed into a medieval type of culture, the women once > more became pawns? > What could McAffrey be saying? or > was it even a conscious development? Does anyone know what her ideas are on > this? The Pern novels were not written in historical order. The first novel plays about 2000 (?) years after landing. I think when McCaffrey wrote the first novel she just started with the medieval (?) setting, the dragons and the riders. As I remember it it is not mentioned in that novel that once the planet was settled by people from other worlds. That came later and only then the question arose why the society 'retarded' in that respect. With the Darkover novels it was the same by the way. So far, McCaffrey avoided to describe the transition on Pern of a 'modern' society with more or less equal rights and occupations for men and women to a patriarchal society. The last Pern novel published describes the time about 200 years after landing and the transition is already nearly complete. I believe that many people think that equal rights for men and women is a luxury only a (technologically) very advanced society can afford. I like the (early) Pern novels a lot (the latter not so because they have a lot of personnel but not much character development) but I wonder why they are so often positively mentioned in the context of feminist sf, at least in the (very few) books/papers on feminist sf I have read. There are the two novels on Mellony (sp?) who is a musical genius but at first not allowed to practice it because a female. But the others? Lessa is certainly one of our beloved 'strong female characters' but still somehow, IMO there is a distinct hierarchy in the relationship between her and F'lor. IMO McCaffrey always describes relationships in which the man has to dominate otherwise there is something wrong and the woman cannot respect him. For example the scene in the last novel in which K'vin finally takes his companion to task for not informing him about something and that is the point where she opens up to him. Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:23:35 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>Joel VanLaven wrote: I believe that you are incorrect. While I am not certain about some of the facts about matriarchies, I know for certain that archeologists recently discovered a woman buried with (presumably her) weapons in much the manner warriors have been buried. This was in the area that the famous Amazons are supposed to have lived and is widely seen as evidence of their actual existence. Sorry Joel, there is no hard evidence of any matriarchal society, either in ethnology or archaeology. The discovery of one female body buried with weapons is not sufficient evidence to prove the existence of Amazons--there are many other explanations that could be postulated, with much better ethnological correlations. That woman may have been a warrior, but so was Boudicca, and she didn't live in a matriarchal society. My personal guess would be that she was some sort of priestess. Examination of her skeleton for evidence of her occupation would be interesting. And I'm not sure what you mean by widely seen; lots of people believe in everything from Atlantis, to a Neolithic origin of the Egyptian Sphinx, to happy Goddess-worshipping matriarchal societies in Anatolia destroyed by the arrival of the bad sky-worshipping patriarchy, but they're still a bunch of fairy stories disbelieved by people with a passing familiarity with the scientific method. Fairy stories are enough for some people. I like to read them myself for fun, but I like a few hard facts on which to base my belief systems. So don't believe everything you see on the "science" programs on TV and in the Sunday supplements, they're usuallly riddled with inaccuracies. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:35:20 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters Comments: To: Barbara Benesch In-Reply-To: <462efecc.34e44b6c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Barbara Benesch wrote: (snip) > On a different note, I have to say that nowadays I'm surprised every time I > see another Pern book on the shelves - I would think she'd be bored to death > of the planet by now. Maybe I'm wrong, having no experience in writing, but I > would think a person could only spend so long in the same place before going > insane. Of course, I also get bored with things easily myself, so maybe it's > just me. I agree with you. There are a couple of very popular authors whose trilogies have turned into a never ending series (have any of you heard of Xanth?). How can these authors stand it? Book after book, they rehash the same material. I also can't understand why the fans keep eating it up. I'm really not into reading series. I've seldom found that the last books in a series measure up to the first ones. This is particularly true if a stand alone book or a trilogy is expanded. > Just my two pennies, > > Barbara Benesch > BJBenesch@aol.com > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:54:11 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Matriarchal cultures/Asimov Although I cannot think of any SF, there is a book entitled _The Daughters of Copper Woman_, though I cannot remember the author. I have the book at home and can check tonight. It involves the legends of Canadian (?) or North U.S. matriarchal native american indian (?) tribes, and the coming of the European "visitors". It is most interesting, and I think it is based on verbal legends. BTW, has anyone read Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_? It is not particulary feminist, but involves an alternate universe that reproduces in "triads", and the most "feminine" member of the 'triad" can "melt into objects" (which if I recall correctly, the "melting" into objects when one is not in the ''triad" was considered shameful, not unlike the way masturbation is treated in our society). Also, it makes quite a statement about energy resources, scientists, and power struggles, with some not so subtle messages about how discoveries are made, and who takes credit for them; basically, it describes typical scenarios about how "happenstance" becomes "discoveries" by some of the most amazingly limited minds. Anyone familiar with it? Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:00:22 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 Bill Sansbury said: > My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal > societies, and those existed a very long time ago. The official opinion of > current anthropology is that there is NO hard evidence of ANY matriarchal > society having EVER existed beyond tales used to scare any liberal males > into adopting a more patriarchal viewpoint. Marvin Harris makes a logical, > but irritating point of this in many of his more "chatty" books. > Bill > I remember reading about how many of Sappho's works were destroyed when the Isle of Lesbos was invaded by the Greek Patriarchy. My guess is that ANY hard evidence is long gone by now. Penny > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:11:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joel, I think you may have a misconception of the term "matriarchy." Matriarchy implies that women predominate in much the same way as males in our own patriarchal system. I will agree that this is a masculinized definition, and as a cultural anthropologist I will say that a word may mean whatever a social group claims it to mean (we are descriptionists, not prescriptionists!). But as for your example, let me ask you something. In Israel they have been employing women in the army ranks for some time now. If a female soldier dies on the battlefield she will be given a burial with military honors (I assume, never having studied "modern" Jewish practices), but does that make Israel a matriarchal state? Norma Lorre Goodrich has a few books out about the possibilities of matriarchies, but even though findings lend some sympathies to the cause, anthropology has not yet accepted any of them as hard, valid evidence. For instance, a hippodrome in Asia-minor has bas relief carvings showing women driving chariots and dressed in battle armour, but once again we can still find this behavior in patriarchal societies. Therefore, anthropology says that there is no need to use matriarchy as an explantion.Because of LeGuin's close association with anthropology, I have always enjoyed the way in which she explores the matriarchal possibilities. Bill >I believe that you are incorrect. While I am not certain about some of >the facts about matriarchies, I know for certain that archeologists >recently discovered a woman buried with (presumably her) weapons in much >the manner warriors have been buried. This was in the area that the >famous Amazons are supposed to have lived and is widely seen as evidence >of their actual existence. "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:14:00 -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: tiptree's "up the walls of the world" Cleo wrote: ---------- From: Cleo[SMTP:scwolf@TOGETHER.NET] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 8:21 AM To: FEMINISTSF; Rhian Merris Subject: [*FSFFU*] tiptree's "up the walls of the world" 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 ---------- I have to say, I personally would be all for teaching, reverent examination _and_ narcotic consumption. :) The first two seem obviously good. The third - imagine a quadriplegic person getting to experience a rock climber scaling the face of Half-Dome, or a blind person seeing sunset from the top of Mauna Kea. (By the way, I haven't read _any_ of the five books mentioned yet.) :( Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:15:54 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <4BE6217DD8@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In any society where everything is muscle-powered, men will be more valuable than women. This is doubly true if it's a warrior culture. The societies which have come the closest to being equal without modern technology are those where (1) a woman alone can make her own living with her garden and chickens or whatever and/or (2) the men are away for long periods of time. Gordy Dickson's DORSAI series started out focusing on the menaway at war. When he started looking at the Dorsai homeworld it became obvious to him that civilian enterprises had to be run, or at least staffed, by women and elders, which resulted in the marvelous AMANDA MORGAN stories. The big problem with equality today is the child care crunch. As one of the early writers ... Shulamith Firestone? put it, feminists in the 70s were crying at the top of their lungs for MAry Poppins. That was one advantage the Victorians had over moderns. Another solution to the child care problem, of course, is the institution of sister-wives or co-wives. For those of us who couldn't get along with our own blood sisters this is not as viable a solution as it is to others. Just my $0.02, adjusted for inflation. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:29:30 -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: Sources of badness In-Reply-To: <2f3ea53f.34e3cfcc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >In a message dated 98-02-11 11:22:34 EST, you write: > ><< (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.) > >> >The misogny comes from men, not from God. I spent quite a bit of time reading >closely about the way Jesus actually treated women. In a culture in which >women were chattel (is there any other kind?), he treated women with respect >and equality. The trouble is that people can take something good, like >Christianity, and twist it beyond recognition by using it to support their own >lust for power. Good point about Jesus. He was a pretty cool dude in my book; I just don't care for the religion. One of my favorite bumper stickers reads, "Dear Lord, Please Save Me From Your Followers". I think Jesus would be _horrified_ by what "Christians" of done with his teachings. Max von Sydow's character in "Hannah and Her Sisters" says, and I agree: "If Jesus came back to Earth today, he would never stop puking." BTW, as far as providing better rights for women in his time, the same would apply to Muhammed. However, it's not what I meant by my original comment. My objection to these three religions is that it's set-up so that God has dominion over man; man has dominion over woman (if you have any doubt about that, listen to a Christian marriage vow - a Christian wife must agree that her husband is the ultimate decision-maker in the house; push a Christian on this issue and you'll get a lot of crap about "how important roles are" and how "an army can't have two generals, etc."); man has dominion over nature: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." How easy it is to use animals as test subjects and generally rape the earth when it's your God-given right! All three belief systems have a "power-over" power structure; in my humble opinion, as long as people think it's ok to have power OVER _anyone_ or _anything_, we're never going to make any progress. How often are Buddhists starting wars, I ask you? Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:36:42 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Documentation of matriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: Debra Euler 's message of Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:23:35 -0500 * Debra Euler > Sorry Joel, there is no hard evidence of any matriarchal society, > either in ethnology or archaeology. The discovery of one female > body buried with weapons is not sufficient evidence to prove the > existence of Amazons--there are many other explanations that could > be postulated, with much better ethnological correlations. That > woman may have been a warrior, but so was Boudicca, and she didn't > live in a matriarchal society. My personal guess would be that > she was some sort of priestess. For an explanation of why this guess is unsupported and unlikely, see the _Archaelogy_ article Warrior Women of the Eurasian Steppes, at: http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html and also http://www.sltrib.com/97/jul/073197/science/29499.htm. One of the interesting points made is that a skeleton found with weapons is almost automatically classified as male, based solely on our own cultural stereotypes and expectations. > Examination of her skeleton for evidence of her occupation would > be interesting. And I'm not sure what you mean by widely seen; > lots of people believe in everything from Atlantis, to a Neolithic > origin of the Egyptian Sphinx, to happy Goddess-worshipping > matriarchal societies in Anatolia destroyed by the arrival of the > bad sky-worshipping patriarchy, but they're still a bunch of fairy > stories disbelieved by people with a passing familiarity with the > scientific method. Fairy stories are enough for some people. I > like to read them myself for fun, but I like a few hard facts on > which to base my belief systems. So don't believe everything you > see on the "science" programs on TV and in the Sunday supplements, > they're usuallly riddled with inaccuracies. Would you consider it possible that people might actually disagree with you on the basis of something else than TV programs? No, I didn't think so. In any case, here are a couple of books documenting surviving relics of ancient matriarchal cultures: Eisler, Riane ([1987] 1995): The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. HarperSanFrancisco, CA. Stone, Merlin (1976): When God was a Woman. Harcourt Brace & Company, San Diego, CA. Stone, Merlin ( [1979] 1990): Ancient Mirrors of Womanhood: A Treasury of Goddess and Heroine Lore from Around the World. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Also, anything by Marija Gimbutas, for example The Language of the Goddess (Harper San Francisco 1995, ISBN: 0062512439), or The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe (HarperCollins 1997, ISBN: 0062514504). Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:53:48 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>> Penelope Gibbs wrote:I remember reading about how many of Sappho's works were destroyed when the Isle of Lesbos was invaded by the Greek Patriarchy. My guess is that ANY hard evidence is long gone by now. Sappho *was* Greek. It's very possible that many of her works were destroyed because of their content by members of the extremely misogynistic Greek culture--but she didn't live in some feminist utopia that was destroyed by a "Greek Patriarchy." Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:53:35 -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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I used to enjoy reading the Pern series although her treatment of the female characters always rankled me. Now, I'll read the new ones, but only after they come out in paperback (not worthy of hardcover purchase :-) I'm not surprised at all that she continues to write these novels. I may be a little cynical, but I bet it all comes down to $$$. I think you can tell that she's becoming bored with the series. The most recent books just seem to be quickly written. They are plot driven, without much character development. I'm not a writer, but I would think it's easier to write a plot than to develop characters. The women in the books always seem to be "spunky," but with little authority. I did note that she does have homosexual relationships in the books, but only among male dragonriders of the lesser dragons. So, a step, but not a big one. I seem to also recall in one of the more recent books that some women were becoming riders of the green dragons and thus gaining some status in the society. I've seen the theme of women's authority and power diminishing as society regresses in other series. For example in O.S. Card's series on Earth (what were the titles? Call of Earth? Something like that.) The society is almost female centered, but when they start their journey back to earth the women lose status and their roles become reproducers, child care givers, and house keepers. I quit reading the series after the third novel, so maybe the women's status improved once they did return to earth. Anyone know? IMHO, Susan Walto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:47:54 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <1207644c.34e3d5fe@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, >and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have there >been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? I personally don't see any advantage of swapping God for Goddess or trading in patriarchy for matriarchy - I think the concept that things would be any better if they were in _power_ is a feminist fantasy. I'm not aware of any evidence that given _power_, women have demonstrated a better facility with dealing with it. My local paper (San Jose Mercury News) just ran a story about the matriarchal culture of Minangkabau in modern-day Sumatra. My take on it is that it's a mixed bag : * men have little responsibility and no property rights (bad) * each clan has a datuk, who serves as an administrator and must be a man (good) * maternal uncles wield a lot of authority over their nieces, especially when it comes to selecting husbands (bad) * if clan members conclude that "the hills have gotten higher and the valleys deeper" under a datuk's reign, he can be deposed at a clan summit (good) * at this summit the women all sit on a raised platform, while the men sit below (bad) * important decisions in the clan are made collectively for the members' mutual benefit, in accordance with the Minangkabau principle of "what seems good to oneself should be agreed upon by others" (good) Does anyone know of any cultures that have managed true equality between all citizens?( _Real_ cultures, not ones in sci fi stories; I realize this makes my question Officially Off-Topic, but I think it would be much more interesting to write a story based on a real culture, making it harder to write off as fantasy...) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:00:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal cultures/Asimov In-Reply-To: <288723575C3@calc.vet.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:54 AM 2/13/1998 EST, you wrote: >Although I cannot think of any SF, there is a book entitled _The >Daughters of Copper Woman_, though I cannot remember the author. I >have the book at home and can check tonight. >It involves the legends of Canadian (?) or North U.S. matriarchal >native american indian (?) A more precise word for what the native Americans practiced would be "matrilineal" which is very different from matriarchal. The county in which I was raised actually banned this book from schools. It was said that the book could give students a "wrong" idea about sex and reproduction, and that it could lead to a breakdown of the morality of the student body. Also banned that year was Simak's "A Choice of Gods" Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" which the previous year had been required reading for the 9th grade, and "Catcher in the Rye". >BTW, has anyone read Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_? It is not >particulary feminist, but involves an alternate universe that >reproduces in "triads", and the most "feminine" member of the 'triad" >can "melt into objects" (which if I recall correctly, the "melting" >into objects when one is not in the ''triad" was considered shameful, >not unlike the way masturbation is treated in our society). >Also, it makes quite a statement about energy resources, scientists, >and power struggles, with some not so subtle messages about how >discoveries are made, and who takes credit for them; basically, it >describes typical scenarios about how "happenstance" becomes >"discoveries" by some of the most amazingly limited minds. >Anyone familiar with it? > >Penny > > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:11:07 -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: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? the >"last names" there were bad things about the person that they wanted to >change like: This concept was called "self-naming" and the idea was to pick a name that suited you perfectly - then you spent the rest of your life living it down. In the Shora culture, you weren't considered fully integrated or mature unless you were a self-namer. The harder the self-name you choose is to live down, the more respect you are; for instance, our hero (whose "regular" name is escaping me) was "Joan the Deceiver," a _really_ good self-name because it would be close to impossible for anyone else to judge whether or not you're making any improvement in that area. That's why "Joel the Overweight" wouldn't be as respected a self-name; losing weight is a _lot_ easier than losing a deceptive nature. Sometimes, among the more venerated elders, the name could be officially retired. I agree that this method may not be the best motivator for change in some people, but I was very excited by the concept. In fact, I got most of my friends to self-name. I liked the idea of _owning_ my shit and being honest with my friends about it, instead of everyone pretending our shadow sides don't exist. Besides, I would Very Much Like to live my self-name down; my friends and I never point it out to each other, but bust ourselves..."There I go, living up to my self-name." :-) BTW, it took me several weeks to come up with my name (I took this very seriously). I found I was so replete with horrible qualities, it took me awhile to sort through them. :-} At first, I picked Laura the Hypocrite because I'd really like to eliminate that quality from myself completely since I find it so repulsive in others; however, I quickly rejected it when I realized I could be completely free of hypocrisy and still be a horrible person. Laura the Judgmental ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:21:20 -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: McAffrey and female and gay characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having just read the latest Pern book the other week or so, this is mostly fresh in my mind. A couple of points (reiterated and added to): The books weren't written in order of Pernese history and actually span several decades. In some ways it has seemed to me (but I haven't reread the books) that the 1st mini-series w/ Menoly (Dragonsinger->Drums) can be (and has been) considered feminist because of the situation of women in the book AND because of when McCaffrey wrote the book (early-mid '70s?). As she's added times to span from Landing to latest, she herself has changed, but she's also tried to provide resonable links between previous books. While her most recent book lacks character development (esp the two specifically noted homosexual characters, more in a bit) it does do a lot to explaining alterante worlds' histories, which I do enjoy. Now, that weird acknowlegement she did with homosexuality (only male) was funny. She felt it necessary to specifically mention that the dragons chose boys who had displayed homosexual tendencies in their holds! Now, it was implied in previous books that many of the green and blue (smaller=lesser) dragons' riders were gay and mated with each other. In this book at least she explained why so few women were searched (the women were married off with their Charter land as dowries by the families) in a way that set up her future books (rather than examining how it developed). I just found the way she wrote those two gay 'riders impossible, and she never did come up with what would happen if there were lesbian riders (or a queen rider?). I do think she did a decent job of wedging the work into her already long series, as if the book were just there to explain the Landing works' development into the "present" rather than actually make a good story (and for that, I would have liked a bit more explanation). later misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Susan Walto[SMTP:Susan_Walto@FLUOROWARE.COM] >Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 8:53 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] McAffrey and female characters > >I used to enjoy reading the Pern series although her treatment of the >female characters always rankled me. Now, I'll read the new ones, but only >after they come out in paperback (not worthy of hardcover purchase :-) I'm >not surprised at all that she continues to write these novels. I may be a >little cynical, but I bet it all comes down to $$$. I think you can tell >that she's becoming bored with the series. The most recent books just seem >to be quickly written. They are plot driven, without much character >development. I'm not a writer, but I would think it's easier to write a >plot than to develop characters. > >The women in the books always seem to be "spunky," but with little >authority. I did note that she does have homosexual relationships in the >books, but only among male dragonriders of the lesser dragons. So, a step, >but not a big one. I seem to also recall in one of the more recent books >that some women were becoming riders of the green dragons and thus gaining >some status in the society. > >I've seen the theme of women's authority and power diminishing as society >regresses in other series. For example in O.S. Card's series on Earth >(what were the titles? Call of Earth? Something like that.) The society >is almost female centered, but when they start their journey back to earth >the women lose status and their roles become reproducers, child care >givers, and house keepers. I quit reading the series after the third >novel, so maybe the women's status improved once they did return to earth. >Anyone know? > >IMHO, >Susan Walto > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:37:03 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Barbara asked >I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be >violent, >and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Of the top of my head, my reaction to "matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral" would depend on who defines morality. Coming from the present day, that would be a "patriarchal" morality and immediately I think that any culture that would have women with free(r) sexuality and no reason to remain pair-mated or family-mated (thinking of polyandrous Vedic practices described in the Mahabharata sp?) where 1 woman was married to several brothers so that no brother's heirs could be distinguished or put over another's) would seem "immoral" by many present conceptions. Say that instead of horses, the Riding Women (Charnas' _Motherlines_) mated with men from a separate band herded up several times a year and chosen for particular daughters with no future obligations. Women would have sister-mother families, and this would by current standards be considered both matriarchal and immoral in one lump. later misha bernardm@colorado.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:59:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: [FSFFU]Re:O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) One of the problems I have with Orson Scott Card is that he seems to be dishonest by having characters who are Catholic espouse Mormon views. If he had Mormon characters espousing Mormon views, I would accept that, but I resent reading Catholic characters espousing views that are antithetical to Catholicism. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:07:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Again, this culture is matrilinial, not matriachal. In matrilineal societies, descent is calculated from the mother rather than from the father, and as a result, all property is passed on from mother to daughter. Matrilineal societies will usually be found where warfare is conducted over great distances, and with non-family members. If the males of a family are all killed, the family and its property are still retained. A male will gain a child by way of his sister's birthings (he does NOT have sex with his sister, a donor male i.e. husband serves that role) because only a sister can do that for him. Any children he has with a women will not be a member of his family because the woman giving birth to the child is a stranger as opposed to a family member, whIch makes perfect sense if you think about it under those circumstances At 08:47 AM 2/13/1998 -0800, you wrote: >>I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, >>and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have there >>been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? > >I personally don't see any advantage of swapping God for Goddess or trading >in patriarchy for matriarchy - I think the concept that things would be any >better if they were in _power_ is a feminist fantasy. I'm not aware of any >evidence that given _power_, women have demonstrated a better facility with >dealing with it. > >My local paper (San Jose Mercury News) just ran a story about the >matriarchal culture of Minangkabau in modern-day Sumatra. My take on it is >that it's a mixed bag : > >* men have little responsibility and no property rights (bad) >* each clan has a datuk, who serves as an administrator and must be a man >(good) >* maternal uncles wield a lot of authority over their nieces, especially >when it comes to selecting husbands (bad) >* if clan members conclude that "the hills have gotten higher and the >valleys deeper" under a datuk's reign, he can be deposed at a clan summit >(good) >* at this summit the women all sit on a raised platform, while the men sit >below (bad) >* important decisions in the clan are made collectively for the members' >mutual benefit, in accordance with the Minangkabau principle of "what seems >good to oneself should be agreed upon by others" (good) > >Does anyone know of any cultures that have managed true equality between >all citizens?( _Real_ cultures, not ones in sci fi stories; I realize this >makes my question Officially Off-Topic, but I think it would be much more >interesting to write a story based on a real culture, making it harder to >write off as fantasy...) > >Laura > > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:08:10 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Bill Sansbury wrote: > > My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal > > societies, and those existed a very long time ago. We're talking about hierarchical societies with buildings and carvings and such. But it seems to me in some very "primitive" cultures, where everyone has a survival role and all roles are equally necessary, gender dominance is less of an issue, and equality of power in decision-making could be more easily achieved. -?- > On another feminist science note, hdid anyone hear about the grandmother > hypothesis? Maybe there were a number of conditions that encouraged intelligence, not just one track - 2001 certainly oversimplifies the process, for cinematic purposes. For my two cents, I'd like to point out that fewer individuals in our intelligence- and communication-driven society today have the hunting urge, compared to those who have the gathering urge. Only a few of us are highly competitive - one out of 10? one out of 5? - but just about everybody *collects* something - the gathering urge has survived better than the hunting urge, it seems. (I'm speaking as someone who writes about antiques for a living.) Women participated fully in the gathering role, didn't they? And gathering takes at least as much intelligence as hunting (try picking wild mushrooms without a guide sometime - on second thought, don't). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:08:16 -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: Sources of badness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Barbara said: > The misogny comes from men, not from God. I spent quite a bit of time reading > closely about the way Jesus actually treated women. In a culture in which women > were chattel (is there any other kind?), he treated women with respect and > equality. The assessment I've heard follows your own, but unfortunately the writings of Paul are considerably less generous to women. And Christian sects that see Paul as founder of the church have tended to follow suit, it seems. (I can't think of *any* modern-day "Christian" church that truly follows the teachings of Christ, unfortunately.) > And I don't see what environment rape has to do with it. I > have a friend who blames that on the Republicans! You're right, Republicanism and Christianity are not synonyms, though you wouldn't know it from listening to our local "Christian" talk radio station in Minneapolis. Environmentalism wasn't much of an issue in old Israel, but I have heard some "Christians" use cherry-picked passages from the Old Testament to help justify their environmental irresponsibility, just as they cherry- pick other Bible verses to justify other capitalist practices. And when you show them evidence that industrialization is doing long-term or permanent damage to the planet, they point out that the Second Coming is imminent anyway, so what's the difference? (They will, of course, face punishment in the afterlife for taking Bible teachings out of context. : ) ) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:50:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Documentation of matriarchal cultures -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Grandstead wrote: For an explanation of why this guess is unsupported and unlikely, see the _Archaelogy_ article Warrior Women of the Eurasian Steppes, Thomas-- I read the abstract on the site--and you're right, that was an unsupported guess, but I made it based on my years of training in archaeology, not on the evidence of the site, which I hadn't read (maybe I didn't make that clear.) >>One of the interesting points made is that a skeleton found with weapons is almost automatically classified as male, based solely on our own cultural stereotypes and expectations. This may have been true in the past, but in my experience, no competent archaeologist or physical anthropologist would make such an assumption. >>>Would you consider it possible that people might actually disagree with you on the basis of something else than TV programs? No, I didn't think so. Well, then you'd be wrong. Maybe I was a bit too confrontational, but I'd love to have someone debate me with some real evidence. However, I've read Eisler, Stone, and Gimbutas, and in my recollection their work is based largely on cultural interpretation, not on hard ethnological or archaeological evidence. They are controversial, not the last word. Just because someone wrote a book and put in a lot of footnotes, it doesn't make their thesis correct. According to the Archaeology abstract, a total of seven female bodies were found with weapons, and one appeared to have been killed with an arrow. In addition, the female bodies from the 50 graves generally were buried with more artifacts than the males. I'm sorry, that still doesn't prove either the existence of Amazons or matriarchal cultures. It's interesting, in light of the Amazon myth, but it doesn't prove anything. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:48:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Re:O.S.Card MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > ---------- > From: Marianne Reddin[SMTP:marseillaise@HOTMAIL.COM] > 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 > Possible spoilers I haven't read too many of his works - but I did recently read _Lovelock_ which he wrote with Kathryn Kidd. It is told from the point of view of Lovelock, who is an monkey who has been "enhanced" with more intelligence and implanted with recording devices so that he can document the life of this famous woman gaeologist (whose name escapes) >From his observations, we learn about the family dynamics and their trip to and on the starship which will bring them to a new planet to colonize. It also traces his changing perceptions of his relationship with this woman and her family. The women characters all seemed to become less sympathetic as the book pogressed and the men more sympathetic. I wouldn't have minded the new perspective on the main woman if their had been others who were positively portrayed. Has anyone else read this? sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:49:48 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Esther Friesner/Psalms of Herod Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DAVID CHRISTENSON said: "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?" I can recommend the sequel which is not open-ended (I'd bet that the original ms. was one book split by editors into two), although the disturbing aspects are there as well (I found the first MUCH more disturbing though). I agree with you: if you know Friesner's earlier work (all quite light hearted, with some comic feminist overtones), this return to the feminist dystopian strategies of seventies texts such as Charnas' (this book was SCARIER in some way than Charnas's WALK TO THE END OF THE WORLD, but for some of the same reasons) is a shock. I'd say this shift is similar to the one Elizabeth Scarborough went through a while ago with the publication of her Vietnam novel (have forgotten title--but her work has become much more serious in tone). There's another writer (Nancy Springer???) who's suddenly started publishing more overt feminist works--I wonder if this is a bit of a generational shift or backlash to the backlash--I find it fascinating that some writers not previously known for their overtly feminist works are leaping into this sort of serious approach. I always enjoyed Friesner and Scarborough's earlier work, found Springer's fantasies to be less than intriguing, but am enjoying (in a different way) all of their newer work. I'd say go for it! Robin -- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:18:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Immoral how? Lying, stealing, murdering? On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:11:24 EST "Barbara R. Hume" writes: >In a message dated 98-02-12 23:11:31 EST, you write: > ><< (i.e. "oppressed women's religion vs. dominant evil > men's religion" in feminist sf, or "all-female world-as-a-beehive" in > anti-feminist sf), >> > >I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be >violent, >and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? >Have there >been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a >deduction? (Ick, >I just thought about the ludicrous male-female schism in "Spock's >Brain.") > >barbara > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:04:59 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 11:16:16 EST, you write: > Joel, I think you may have a misconception of the term "matriarchy." > Matriarchy implies that women predominate in much the same way as males in > our own patriarchal system. I will agree that this is a masculinized > definition, and as a cultural anthropologist I will say that a word may > mean whatever a social group claims it to mean (we are descriptionists, not > prescriptionists!). I'm not responding to argue with your anthropological interpretation of the word, "matriarchy." After all, you are the expert in that. However, the dictionary should suffice for a definition that the broader public may use. After reading your questioning of the word, I looked it up. Here's what The American Heritage Electronic Dictionary says: ma·tri·ar·chy n., pl. ma·tri·ar·chies. 1. A social system in which the mother is head of the family and descent is traced through the mother's side of the family. 2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by women. Also called matriarchate. Given that definition, then one might argue that the Philippines today is a matriarchy. I have only the flimsiest of evidence to support this statement, and will bow to any expert opinions on the matter, but an American friend of mine married a Philippina. He says that she came in expecting to rule the roost, and that that is the common role of women in her country. The man is the head of the house outside the home, in community affairs. But at home, the woman runs the show and controls the purse strings to boot. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:15:45 -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-OT This reminds me of a short story by Dorothy Sayers, in which a French man disguised as a woman had his cover blown by a casual remark referring to himself using the masculine form: Sayers comments that a French girl would be carefully taught from the earliest years always to use the feminine adjectives, etc. On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:24:56 EST "Barbara R. Hume" writes: >In a message dated 98-02-11 03:25:35 EST, you write: > ><< I would have never pulled this off if my last > name changed by gender. >> > >I read a science fiction story once in which the crew were discussing >the >problems involved in bringing along members of the opposite sex. The >captain, >the engineer, and everyone else thought it was a bad idea. But finally >they >decided to be fair and bring the men. > >How many of you were caught? Several decades ago, everyone >was--including me. >The interesting thing is that the story wouldn't have worked if it >were >written in a language like Spanish in which the nouns change depending >on the >gender of the professional person. > >I still remember when Archie Bunker couldn't solve the problem of the >surgeon >performing an operation. The patient was the surgeon's son, but the >surgeon >was not the patient's father. Archie could not reach the conclusion >that the >surgeon was the patient's mother. It all seems so obvious now-- > >Barbara > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:07:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <199802131808.NAA07792@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Very true, gatherer/hunter societies are extremely egalitarian, but as any female member of such a society (or any other known society) will tell you, the women still perform up to 70% of all the work needed for the society to survive. Bill At 01:08 PM 2/13/1998 -0500, you wrote: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Bill Sansbury wrote: >> > My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal >> > societies, and those existed a very long time ago. > >We're talking about hierarchical societies with buildings and carvings >and such. But it seems to me in some very "primitive" cultures, where >everyone has a survival role and all roles are equally necessary, gender >dominance is less of an issue, and equality of power in decision-making >could be more easily achieved. -?- "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:20:30 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <876526c7.34e4995d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Given that definition, then one might argue that the Philippines today is a >matriarchy. I have only the flimsiest of evidence to support this statement, >and will bow to any expert opinions on the matter, but an American friend of >mine married a Philippina. He says that she came in expecting to rule the >roost, and that that is the common role of women in her country. The man is >the head of the house outside the home, in community affairs. But at home, the >woman runs the show and controls the purse strings to boot. And does anyone know about Samoan culture? I was told it was matriarchal, but I don't know much about it. What I do know is that, in San Francisco, if trouble starts in the Samoan community, they have a policy of sending out female officers because the Samoan men view them as an authority figure they will respect. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:32:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Sources of badness Actually, the Apostle Paul was quite generous to women, but he has often been misinterpreted. For example, when Paul tells women to be quiet in Church, he is really telling them not to chatter during the proceedings when sacred events are taking place and being discussed. He's actually encouraged participation. Unfortunately, many male commentators have interpreted that to mean that women should _not_ participate, which is the exact opposite of what Paul intended. Paul also said that in Christ there is no male or female because we are all one in Christ Jesus. Furthermore, when Paul says a wife should not instruct her husband, the Greek terms are often translated a woman should not instruct a man -- this is often erroneously interpreted to mean that women cannot teach in church or preach, but this isn't what Paul meant at all. The Greek words for man and woman mean husband and wife when used in this context. Paul also says that a husband should love his wife in the same way he loves Christ, indeed, in the same way Christ loves the Church. Passages restricting women are often later editorial additions which were not originally written by Paul. So don't accuse Paul of being a misogynist. In the culture of his day, Paul, like Jesus, was an early feminist. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:58:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: [FSFFU]Re:O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) In-Reply-To: <009C1C07.AD38EC40.33@dragon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Cindy Smith wrote: > One of the problems I have with Orson Scott Card is that he seems to be > dishonest by having characters who are Catholic espouse Mormon views. > If he had Mormon characters espousing Mormon views, I would accept that, > but I resent reading Catholic characters espousing views that are > antithetical to Catholicism. > > Cindy Smith Cindy, As someone who is interested in the use of religion in science fiction, but doesn't know all that much about either Catholicism or Mormonism, I find this an interesting statement. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but could you give a few examples? Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:59:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lro Schroeter Subject: Re[2]: [*FSFFU*] Sources of badness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not sure I'm clear here - what are you saying the intended meaning is here? Furthermore, when Paul says a wife should not instruct her husband, the Greek terms are often translated a woman should not instruct a man -- this is often erroneously interpreted to mean that women cannot teach in church or preach, but this isn't what Paul meant at all. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:20:25 -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: Documentation of matriarchal cultures -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > >>>Would you consider it possible that people might actually disagree > with you on the basis of something else than TV programs? No, I > didn't think so. > > Well, then you'd be wrong. Maybe I was a bit too confrontational, > but I'd love to have someone debate me with some real evidence. > However, I've read Eisler, Stone, and Gimbutas, and in my > recollection their work is based largely on cultural interpretation, > not on hard ethnological or archaeological evidence. They are > controversial, not the last word. Just because someone wrote a book > and put in a lot of footnotes, it doesn't make their thesis correct. Exactly. Just because the traditional archeological assumptions that you had trained into you are in many books with lots of footnotes, that doesn't mean they're true. The wonderful thing about science is that it can say it has been wrong. In fact, I consider that to be one of the defining characteristics of science. In point of fact, I didn't learn of this from any of the sources you mentioned. I heard it on NPR, and while I didn't remember all of the specifics, I remember it was a long piece, and that I decided (for my very scientificly trained self) that this sounded like valid evidence rather than hopeful speculation and book-selling rhetoric. > According to the Archaeology abstract, a total of seven female bodies > were found with weapons, and one appeared to have been killed with an > arrow. In addition, the female bodies from the 50 graves generally > were buried with more artifacts than the males. I'm sorry, that > still doesn't prove either the existence of Amazons or matriarchal > cultures. It's interesting, in light of the Amazon myth, but it > doesn't prove anything. Well, what archeological evidence would prove anything? As far as I can tell the only evidence that proves anything is from a very select few recent, technologically advanced civilizations (with writing), or has nothing complicated to say about the society (like they had x kind of tools or they smoked tobaco). The rest of it is almost all speculation, based only on what we know of a very few societies. Even if the evidence does not _prove_ a matriarchy, do you disagree that this is evidence of one? When that guy discovered a city where troy is supposed to have been he did not prove the existance of troy, but only found evidence supporting the theory that it really existed. This seems much the same to me. No one has proven the existance of the Amazons, but they have found evidence supporting the theory that they really existed. One of the most subtle and insidious failures of a scientist is to give little weight to evidence that contradicts the assumed, and give more weight to evidence that supports it. I am sure that there have been people giving too much weight to evidence that might support the idea of a matriarchy. I don't doubt that you have read some of them and not been impressed. However, I think you go too far and dismiss as trivial real evidence that points toward it (not proves, points). Anyway, I am really unsure how much I have been taught about these ancient societies is pure fantasy on the part of patriarcal scientists, and how much is actually evident. I consider what we know to be so lacking that I quickly accept the possibility of a matriarchal society. I would also hesitate before defining matriarchal as: The greeks, but switch the sexes, or Chistianty, but switch the sexes, or ... you get the picture. I agree that people looking for Amazonians who kill all men on sight or something ridiculous are looking for the horror stories men scare each other with. I am not talking about ridiculous things, but normal variations in other directions. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:27:48 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:04:55 EST >From: "Barbara R. Hume" >Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters > >In a message dated 98-02-12 21:06:16 EST, you write: > ><< 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.) >> > >I wonder if anyone else noticed that in the Dragonrider series, the >women in the initial survey teams and landing parties were quite >equal to the men, but as Pernese society developed into a medieval >type of culture, the women once >more became pawns? I'm thinking of the woman in The Renegades >of Pern, who launched her career as a thief and a murderer when her >younger brother was going to force her to marry some old geezer. >Everyone laughed when a mere woman wanted to inherit as a Lord >Holder. What could McAffrey be saying? or was it even a conscious >development? Does anyone know what her ideas are on this? > >barbara > Barbara, I don't know what McAffrey has said on the subject, but it seems a reasonable assumption to me. When technology collapses from starfaring to medieval levels, muscle power, drudgery and serfdom once again become the mainstays of civilization. Running a household once again becomes a full-time, exhausting task, and most people live at the subsistence level. I can easily picture that in the general degradation, women would be especially oppressed. I know there are models for civilizaed societies which use minimal technology but are also not patriarchal, but I would remind you that, in the books, the latter-day Pernese are not the inheritors of a noble social experiment, but rather the survivors of a nearly-failed colony which has had to make some rather peculiar adaptations to survive unfavorable local conditions. I *have* read some of McAffrey's essays on SF writing and women in SF, and I would hesitate to assume that she is unaware of the implications of what she writes -- she is very smart and was (as I've pointed out before) a trailblazer and innovator in her day. Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:20:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Sources of badness In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > My objection to these three religions is that it's set-up so that God has > dominion over man; man has dominion over woman (if you have any doubt about > that, listen to a Christian marriage vow - a Christian wife must agree that > her husband is the ultimate decision-maker in the house; push a Christian > on this issue and you'll get a lot of crap about "how important roles are" > and how "an army can't have two generals, etc."); man has dominion over > nature: I can't speak for Christiaity in general, but I did get married in a Catholic ceremony (with Ben's Methodist uncle co-presiding) and when it came time to chose the vows, no where in any of the 'standard' vows did the word Obey show up. If anthing , there was an underlying theme that we were supposed to be equals in the marriage partnership. On the other hand, there are men who really do refuse towork for a female boss because they believe that it's against God's will for them to take orders from them. There are a lot of differences among churches under the big Christianity umbrella. Compare and contrast, say, the Episcopalians and the Southern Baptists. There's a difference among subgroups of the same church as well. In the Catholic Chruch, there are a number of different orders that train priests, and the order a priest comes from really has an influence on the character of the church. The church Ben and I married at welcomed other spiritual leaders at weddings. (Just before we got married, there was a Catholic/Native American wedding that would have been interesting to see.) But go to the next Catholic church over, and other ministers were not welcome to set foot in the church. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:09:00 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics (Was: something else) Content-Type: text/plain > >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:32:16 -0500 >From: Joel VanLaven >Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: > >On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > >> 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. > >This is essentially the system we have in legal terms here. Your last >name can be anything you like. Yup, that's one of the things that makes America a great country despite everything. I've lived in Germany, certainly a free country by anyone's standard, but I wouldn't be allowed to give my son my and my wife's last names, hypenated, as I did here. [snip} >Did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? >"last names" there were bad things about the person that they >wanted to change like: > >Joel the bad writer, or >Joel the overweight. Actually, IIRC the names were part of their culture and spirituality: your name describes your greatest flaw, and you spend the rest of your life trying to overcome it. A little like Zen, a little like AA. It is an interesting exercise, trying to decide which name you might give yourself in that culture. I don't think "overweight" is serious enough for the Sharer culture. >The names would change over time, and picking them was some >sort of >special thing. I forget the details, but I thought it was interesting. >One problem with it is that I feel like a self-actualizing person would >really and truly eliminate faults that they thought were important. So, >even if I were Joel the overweight, is that a valid fault if I don't think >it's important? > >-- Joel VanLaven Dan "the opinionated"? "the irritable"? "the bastard"? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:35:34 -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: Sources of badness In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I can't speak for Christiaity in general, but I did get married in a >Catholic ceremony (with Ben's Methodist uncle co-presiding) and when it >came time to chose the vows, no where in any of the 'standard' vows did >the word Obey show up. If anthing , there was an underlying theme that we >were supposed to be equals in the marriage partnership. Oh, I wouldn't DARE suggest that Catholics are Christian! ;-) I was referring to non-denominational fundamentalist Christian churches; and, BTW, they don't use the word "obey" either - they use a simple statement about the husband's authority. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:01:24 -800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Emily Hackbarth Organization: Hah! Subject: Re: Re:O.S.Card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 13 Feb 98 at 13:48, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > Possible spoilers > I haven't read too many of his works - but I did recently read > _Lovelock_ which he wrote with Kathryn Kidd. (snip) > The women characters > all seemed to become less sympathetic as the book pogressed and the > men more sympathetic. I wouldn't have minded the new perspective on > the main woman if their had been others who were positively > portrayed. Has anyone else read this? I read it and thought that *everyone* was portrayed unsympathetically. I also found it very unrepresentative of his work in general. Most of his work conveys a deep love for humanity, this didn't. Emily Hackbarth beadwork.guide@miningco.com Come see what Womyn & Grrls are up to on the web at: http://exo.com/~emily/feminist.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:03:09 -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: Pernese underindustrial culture and women's roles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, One of the comments below made me think a bit. The Pern colony isn't necessarily "nearly failed" but the Pernese settlers were just reduced to less technology than expected. If I remember correctly, part of the mission of the original Pernese colony was to simply/de-techologize their society and hence they came prepared with a stock of bio-materials for and animal specimens. Now, assuming they hoped to retain some level of technology (computers and advanced machines), at what point does an egalitarian community/culture "devolve" into one that becomes less friendly to women (outside a few roles) and less egalitarian (knowlege is limited or specific). I think McCaffrey's latest book barely touches on this, and I wish she had done more with this than half-develop characters (for whom everything turns out happy). During this book-time, computers became unavailable and the educational system was revamped to become less comprehensive and more vocational... but did this mean (inherently, with the cultural/historical baggage of the colony) that women would be less involved? misha bernardm@colorado.edu >Barbara, I don't know what McAffrey has said on the subject, but >it seems a reasonable assumption to me. When technology collapses >from starfaring to medieval levels, muscle power, drudgery and >serfdom once again become the mainstays of civilization. Running >a household once again becomes a full-time, exhausting task, and >most people live at the subsistence level. I can easily picture that >in the general degradation, women would be especially oppressed. > >I know there are models for civilizaed societies which use minimal >technology but are also not patriarchal, but I would remind you that, in >the books, the latter-day Pernese are not the inheritors of a noble >social experiment, but rather the survivors of a nearly-failed colony >which has had to make some rather peculiar adaptations to survive >unfavorable local conditions. > >I *have* read some of McAffrey's essays on SF writing and women in SF, >and I would hesitate to assume that she is unaware of the implications >of what she writes -- she is very smart and was (as I've >pointed out before) a trailblazer and innovator in her day. > >Dan Krashin > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:10:31 -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: Documentation of matriarchal cultures -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Joel Van Laven wrote: Exactly. Just because the traditional archeological assumptions that you had trained into you are in many books with lots of footnotes, that doesn't mean they're true. You're right. >>Well, what archeological evidence would prove anything? As far as I can tell the only evidence that proves anything is from a very select few recent, technologically advanced civilizations (with writing), or has nothing complicated to say about the society (like they had x kind of tools or they smoked tobaco). The rest of it is almost all speculation, based only on what we know of a very few societies. Well, it's a bit more than speculation. There's an enormous amount you can tell about a society from archaeological evidence, as long as it's present in some quantity, but I'm not going to debate the value of archaeology withyou. >>Even if the evidence does not _prove_ a matriarchy, do you disagree that this is evidence of one? Yes, I do. It's possible that the Sarmatians could have been one, but it's pretty slim evidence in my opinion. If anything, it's evidence of an egalitarian society. But the sample is waaay too small to use as more than an interesting note. It's the difference between anecdotal evidence and real statistical research. There just isn't enough evidence, and the sample is small and suspect. Why were these particular 50 bodies buried? Was this a short-lived village burial ground? Or was this a special purpose cemetery? Maybe these were the members of a particular clan, the ruling clan, whose behavior is not indicative of the rest of the society? Is there another cemetery on a nearby hill with another 50 bodies that may give very different results? There's no way to tell. This is why many archaeologists, me included, don't like to rely on cemetery data. >>When that guy discovered a city where troy is supposed to have been he did not prove the existance of troy, but only found evidence supporting the theory that it really existed. This seems much the same to me. No one has proven the existance of the Amazons, but they have found evidence supporting the theory that they really existed. Schliemann did prove the existance of Troy, by digging it up. What he didn't prove was the historical accuracy of the Trojan War. And I'm not arguing that this isn't a small, interesting amount of evidence of the historical accuracy of the Amazons, I'm saying it isn't good evidence of the existance of a matriarchal society. >>One of the most subtle and insidious failures of a scientist is to give little weight to evidence that contradicts the assumed, and give more weight to evidence that supports it. I hope I'm not doing this. What I'm trying to do is point out the inaccuracy of applying small amounts of suspect evidence to prove a point. >>Anyway, I am really unsure how much I have been taught about these ancient societies is pure fantasy on the part of patriarcal scientists, and how much is actually evident. I consider what we know to be so lacking that I quickly accept the possibility of a matriarchal society. It's sloppy thinking to assume the existence of a matriarchal society because you assume patriarchal scientists are misleading you. Make up your own mind, but do it because there's a reason. And there's an enormous amount of evidence about ancient societies out there--try looking up some of the primary evidence. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:15:15 -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: something else) In-Reply-To: <19980213210902.457.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Daniel Krashin wrote: > >Joel the bad writer, or > >Joel the overweight. > > Actually, IIRC the names were part of their culture and spirituality: > your name describes your greatest flaw, and you spend the rest of your > life trying to overcome it. A little like Zen, a little like AA. It is > an interesting exercise, trying to decide which name you might give > yourself in that culture. I don't think "overweight" is serious enough > for the Sharer culture. yes, I know. I just don't really understand that part. It seems a bit fatalistic to me. I know I am far from perfect, but I do feel like I try. If I were to understand a flaw (that I though was important) well enough to name myself with it, I think that I would change it (or it would be an invalid flaw for being immutable, like being too short). I am very much one for going with your strengths. If I decided that because I am a bad writer (learning disabled) I should work on my writing for the rest of my time to eventaully be a mediocre writer rather than a bad one, I think I would be throwing my life and what I have to offer to the world away. Even stupid or clumsy people can contribute to our world and live wonderful lives, why make them toil at the fruitless for the rest of their lives. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:42:58 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 08:39:53 EST, you write: << On a different note, I have to say that nowadays I'm surprised every time I see another Pern book on the shelves - I would think she'd be bored to death of the planet by now. >> She may be bored with it, but there are so many readers clamoring for more that I think she feels almost obligated to write it. I know that I enjoy being on Pern, and I like going there again and again. As for the latest novel, Robinton is based on someone she loved very much--I think she wrote this one as a tribute. When I read All the Weyrs of Pern, I noticed that there wasn't a lot of conflict--the plot was pretty ho-hum for the most part. It seemed to me that she loved the characters and just didn't want to let them go. We should all go over to her Web site and ask her! Do list members prefer this series, with its fantasy feel, or her more hard-SF series, like The Rowan series or the Crystal Singer series? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:38:01 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics (Was: something else) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >yes, I know. I just don't really understand that part. It seems >a bit fatalistic to me. I know I am far from perfect, but I do feel like I >try. If I were to understand a flaw (that I though was important) Hmmmm.....how about Joel the Blind..... ;-) My point being that, if you dug deeper, you'd find something.....the Sharers didn't use names like "overweight," "stupid" or "clumsy"....as you pointed out, these are beyond the control of most people. My guess is, if you can't come up with something, those closest to you could! :-) I don't know you so I can't help you out, but there's _got_ to be a good word for refusing to own your shadow side, yes? Laura ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:46:36 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 10:11:14 EST, you write: << I believe that many people think that equal rights for men and women is a luxury only a (technologically) very advanced society can afford. >> Why? What does technology have to do with it? I'd be interested in the reasoning behind this concept-- barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:48:49 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 10:42:48 EST, you write: << How can these authors stand it? Book after book, they rehash the same material. >> Frank Herbert said that when a publisher gave him a four-hundred-thousand- dollar advance to write another Dune novel, he wrote another Dune novel. I might find that sum motivating, myself! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:51:17 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: Matriarchal cultures/Asimov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 10:57:20 EST, you write: << BTW, has anyone read Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_? >> Yes, I read and enjoyed it, although I'm not usually a big fan of Asimov's fiction. The rumor is that he wrote that novel because somebody said that Asimov couldn't create good aliens. He thought that coming up with a race whose reproductive setup was so different from ours might prove that he could. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:54:44 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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 11:16:16 EST, you write: << In Israel they have been employing women in the army ranks for some time now. >> I can't imagine ever being a soldier. If I had an enemy soldier in my gunsights, I would think, "That boy might have a mother at home praying for him" and I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. I guess I'd have to run off to Canada. Anyone here familiar with the story of Lysistrata and how she put an end to the men always going to war? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:58:18 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 11:34:26 EST, you write: << Another solution to the child care problem, of course, is the institution of sister-wives or co-wives. >> This is the way early Mormon women were able to become professionals. You would leave your children with your sister-wives to care for while you went back East to become a doctor or architect or whatever. Interestingly, I've met some contemporary polygamists (not Mormons, who no longer practice it), and those men won't let their wives take care of each other's children. What a waste of opportunity! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:01:06 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: Sources of badness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 11:45:36 EST, you write: << a Christian wife must agree that her husband is the ultimate decision-maker in the house >> Only a few weeks ago, I heard from the pulpit in my church that men and women are equal partners, and that if a man exercises unrighteous dominion over his wife, he's in deep eternal doo-doo. I liked that. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:07:35 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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 12:01:07 EST, you write: << I quit reading the series after the third novel, so maybe the women's status improved once they did return to earth. Anyone know? >> Scott Card is a definite feminist--he disapproves of men who consider themselves inherently superior to women. But I think he got bored with that series. I read it all the way through, and the last two books were not nearly as interesting. Not only that--the people never went back to Harmony! The whole idea was for people to go back to Earth to consult the super-computer and find out what to do about the rise of warfare on Harmony! Back on Earth, the travelers simply folded into the sentient life forms that had arisen after the radiation was gone. I was very disappointed. I'll have to admit I didn't read it from a feminist viewpoint--although I did note that it was a female character who outlived all the original travelers (the wife of the homosexual). By the way, that plot line came directly from the Book of Mormon. Read the first few chapters of it--you'll see the same story. Except that the characters were led by God, not by a malfunctioning computer. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:09:49 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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 12:03:41 EST, you write: << Does anyone know of any cultures that have managed true equality between all citizens? >> The trouble is that people in general seem to feel that "people who aren't like me need to be fixed." They don't see the Other as equal. Or at least enough of them don't that equality becomes difficult. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:14:22 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: [FSFFU]Re: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 98-02-13 13:02:10 EST, you write: << One of the problems I have with Orson Scott Card is that he seems to be dishonest by having characters who are Catholic espouse Mormon views. If he had Mormon characters espousing Mormon views, I would accept that, but I resent reading Catholic characters espousing views that are antithetical to Catholicism. >> Scott said he chose Catholic characters because he knew so many Catholics who understood and lived their religion, and he admired that. But it would be hard for his characters not to espouse Mormon views, since they're so inherent to the world view of the writer. Who you are and what you believe just comes through in your writing. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:09:09 -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: OT: Screaming up and down halls "Ire, Iron, and Voorstod" are alive and well! I think Tepper's thesis of their pathology in "Raising the Stones" is probably pretty accurate. Re environmental rape: I have a fantasy of the Second Coming grinding to a screeching halt with an irate: "What's all this mess! Is this what you call stewardship? OK, nobody gets raptured or anything else until this is all cleaned up! Is this what you want to live in for a thousand years?" > . (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 > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:45:53 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply I suppose all the inhabitants of Lesbos are Lesbians: they must be heartily fed up with the tourist jokes! I wonder how a gay woman of Lesbos describes herself in English? "Star of the evening, calling all things home..." On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:53:48 -0500 Debra Euler writes: >>>> Penelope Gibbs wrote:I remember reading about how many of >Sappho's works were destroyed when the Isle of Lesbos was invaded by >the Greek Patriarchy. My guess is that ANY hard evidence is long gone >by now. > > >Sappho *was* Greek. It's very possible that many of her works were >destroyed because of their content by members of the extremely >misogynistic Greek culture--but she didn't live in some feminist >utopia that was destroyed by a "Greek Patriarchy." > >Debra > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:38:08 -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: Separate Last Name Tactics (Was: something else) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > >yes, I know. I just don't really understand that part. It seems > >a bit fatalistic to me. I know I am far from perfect, but I do feel like I > >try. If I were to understand a flaw (that I though was important) > > Hmmmm.....how about Joel the Blind..... ;-) > > My point being that, if you dug deeper, you'd find something.....the > Sharers didn't use names like "overweight," "stupid" or "clumsy"....as you > pointed out, these are beyond the control of most people. My guess is, if > you can't come up with something, those closest to you could! :-) I don't > know you so I can't help you out, but there's _got_ to be a good word for > refusing to own your shadow side, yes? These things make sense from the point of view of someone else critisizing me... :) but that is not the point. Suppose that you knew me and knew what you thought my biggest flaw was. I would have to agree with you and decide that it was an important flaw that I wanted to fix before it would be part of my name (though I suppose I could blow the whole thing off by accepting a flaw that I didn't think was important but that you did). I think that if I had the power to change that that most of the work involved in changing it would have been accomplished, simply by my acceptance of the truth and importance of the flaw. At that point what is the point in naming yourself after a fixed flaw, doesn't that defat the purpose? Here is also the dilemma, should I work to be mediocre in the things I am bad in or should I work to be great in the things I am good in. Perhaps the Sharers would say take the meaningful name that you aren't going to work on much simply to remind you of your flaws and reduce your conciet. So suppose I chose Joel the bad writer. I don't feel the need to be a good writer. Its not gonna happen. I feel the need for good writers, but I don't have to be one. In fact, I can be a dismally poor writer. I don't need to be an adequate writer. I'll use the phone and hire people to write for me. I need not write. Is my choice of name then invalid? All of this is of course for the purposes of illistration. I'm just applying this stuff to myself to try it out. I'm just not a good enough writer to make the try-out universal :) Please someone give us another example (please) Humbly, -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:43:01 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <7896e399.34e4e0cf@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-13 12:03:41 EST, you write: > > << > Does anyone know of any cultures that have managed true equality between > all citizens? >> > > The trouble is that people in general seem to feel that "people who aren't > like me need to be fixed." They don't see the Other as equal. Or at least > enough of them don't that equality becomes difficult. Other /= Equal How about the problem is that people have a limited view of "like me." If we all read sci-fi and become characters of widely disparate backgrounds, genders, races, sexualities, and so on, Isn't it possible that we wouldn't see so many people as "other" ? I like to thnk that I see people as different, like me. We're all Queer. (sorry to bring it back to loaded topic of sexuality Barbara :) -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:41:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <8b79692b.34e4dd46@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Barbara, I was just upstairs in my room a few hours ago looking for a copy of that play! What a co-inky-dinks! Bill At 06:54 PM 2/13/1998 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-13 11:16:16 EST, you write: > ><< In > Israel they have been employing women in the army ranks for some time now. >> > >I can't imagine ever being a soldier. If I had an enemy soldier in my >gunsights, I would think, "That boy might have a mother at home praying for >him" and I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. I guess I'd have to run off >to Canada. > >Anyone here familiar with the story of Lysistrata and how she put an end to >the men always going to war? > >barbara > > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:52:03 -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: McAffrey and female characters Piers Anthony's earlier works were, to me, very interesting, but they started to lose me with the second Xanth book (I liked "A Spell for Chameleon", though it was a fair while back). I read with some interest but growing irritation the Tarot series and some others, but gave up completely with the series that started with the personfication of Death (can't even remember the title). I haven't managed to get into any of Patricia Anthony's work, but have good intentions to try. She seems to get good reviews. On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:35:20 -0600 Stacey Holbrook writes: >On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Barbara Benesch wrote: > > >I agree with you. There are a couple of very popular authors whose >trilogies have turned into a never ending series (have any of you >heard of >Xanth?). How can these authors stand it? Book after book, they rehash >the >same material. I also can't understand why the fans keep eating it up. > >I'm really not into reading series. I've seldom found that the last >books >in a series measure up to the first ones. This is particularly true if >a >stand alone book or a trilogy is expanded. > >> Just my two pennies, >> >> Barbara Benesch >> BJBenesch@aol.com >> > >Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:43:27 -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: Matriarchal cultures/Asimov Yes: in fact I re-read it a few months ago (another book that's starting to fall apart with age). It's a favorite of mine; in fact the epigraph (I do hope I used the right term, I have to look it up every now and then) "Against Stupidity The Gods Themselves Contend In Vain" has entered my personal stock of "sayings": it is apposite to so many situations. I do miss Asimov. I still have the creeping hope that it was all a mistake, and that he's really alive and well. I am especially grateful for his nonfiction, which eased an enormous amount of basic science in various disciplines through my thick skull; and his Biblical commentaries are fascinating. On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:00:28 -0500 Bill Sansbury writes: ...... > >>BTW, has anyone read Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_? It is not >>particulary feminist, but involves an alternate universe that >>reproduces in "triads", and the most "feminine" member of the 'triad" >>can "melt into objects" (which if I recall correctly, the "melting" >>into objects when one is not in the ''triad" was considered shameful, >>not unlike the way masturbation is treated in our society). >>Also, it makes quite a statement about energy resources, scientists, >>and power struggles, with some not so subtle messages about how >>discoveries are made, and who takes credit for them; basically, it >>describes typical scenarios about how "happenstance" becomes >>"discoveries" by some of the most amazingly limited minds. >>Anyone familiar with it? >> >>Penny >> >> > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation >of >words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the >people >who must use the words." > PKD >grok@idt.net http://village.ios.com/~grok/ >bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:20:29 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <876526c7.34e4995d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 14:04 13/02/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-13 11:16:16 EST, you write: > >> Joel, I think you may have a misconception of the term "matriarchy." >> Matriarchy implies that women predominate in much the same way as males in >> our own patriarchal system. I will agree that this is a masculinized >> definition, and as a cultural anthropologist I will say that a word may >> mean whatever a social group claims it to mean (we are descriptionists, not >> prescriptionists!). > >I'm not responding to argue with your anthropological interpretation of the >word, "matriarchy." After all, you are the expert in that. However, the >dictionary should suffice for a definition that the broader public may use. >After reading your questioning of the word, I looked it up. Here's what The >American Heritage Electronic Dictionary says: > > ma·tri·ar·chy n., pl. ma·tri·ar·chies. 1. A social system in which the >mother is > head of the family and descent is traced through the mother's side of the >family. > 2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by >women. > Also called matriarchate. > >Given that definition, then one might argue that the Philippines today is a >matriarchy. I have only the flimsiest of evidence to support this statement, >and will bow to any expert opinions on the matter, but an American friend of >mine married a Philippina. He says that she came in expecting to rule the >roost, and that that is the common role of women in her country. The man is >the head of the house outside the home, in community affairs. But at home, the >woman runs the show and controls the purse strings to boot. > >Jim > I believe that in classical anthropology as taught..several distinctions are made between the terms matrilineal, matriarchal, patrilineal, patriarchal, male-dominant, male-supremacist, female-dominant, female-supremacist etc and cultures which are closer to a description to 'gender-egalitarian'. According to the 'environmental-impetus' theory, any given power-structure will depend heavily on levels of technological control over environmental factors relating to food production, shelter/security and human reproduction. The entire population will *perceive* as dominant, and/or give higher status to the gender which provides the most necessary function to survival of the group as a whole. In a culture where fertility is high, and infant-mortality is low, motherhood and also children will not be valued highly. In a culture where greater muscle-power is required for the majority of food-production, then that greater muscle-power will be valued more highly. Hence the association of masculinity with animals such as the ox in early agricultural societies, even though it was usually the ox-cow, or gelded bull, which was used in pulling ploughs and farm-carts:). In cultures which are often threatened by outsider violence and attacks, a warrior-class will be highly valued (and there is evidence of many cultures, ancient and modern, which used and encouraged both sexes to be members of the warrior-class) - where reproduction is marginal, as in some very cold climates, women will be valued most highly for their reproductive capacity, and for the sake of group survival cannot be threatened by being members of a warrior-class. However, it was the comment about women controlling the home and the "purse-strings" which first caught my eye:)) In the late 1970s/early 80s, a friend of mine wrote her Master's thesis on the apparent *control* and power women had in the home, within modern social 'classes'..and found an almost linear correlation for women's control of the household "purse-strings" relating to socio-economic class. In the blue-collar working class families, it was very common for men to completely hand-over full control of their income to their wives, who would then release an 'allowance" to their husbands, do all bill-paying etc and "rule the home-roost" and be the final-word on all economic decisions etc. regardless of whether she also works outside the home. As you move up the socio-economic scale, women may have better life-styles, but have less control of the household income - moving through almost 50/50 egalitarian arrangements in the dual-income middle-class household - through to complete non-control in the highest family income brackets. Wives of the highest-income earners often reported statements like , "my husband deposits so much every month into my cheque account for household expenses, - I have no idea how much he is worth". My friend expected to find that womens control of family finances/economic decision-making power etc would be dependent on the women's own individual earning capacity, ie whether or not she also worked outside the home. But, the data she collected was otherwise and indicated that the issue of a womans job etc, was not highly significant - whereas their socio-economic class expectations was. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:40:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: [FSFFU]Re:O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Barbara R. Hume > << > One of the problems I have with Orson Scott Card is that he seems to be > dishonest by having characters who are Catholic espouse Mormon views. > If he had Mormon characters espousing Mormon views, I would accept that, > but I resent reading Catholic characters espousing views that are > antithetical to Catholicism. > >> > Scott said he chose Catholic characters because he knew so many Catholics who > understood and lived their religion, and he admired that. But it would be hard > for his characters not to espouse Mormon views, since they're so inherent to > the world view of the writer. Who you are and what you believe just comes > through in your writing. Well, I certainly agree with the last statement. But I've never been able to decide what to do about Card. On principle, I dislike the notion of reading works by authors, like Card, who have gone out of their way to make their homophobia public. At the same time, I dislike the idea (most of the time) of putting ideology ahead of imagination. Which appears to leave my relationship to Card, as a reader, in limbo (isn't that a religious state, after all?) . . . As to the specific question, I see no real difference between disguising Mormons as Catholics and disguising white characters as black . . . and there are certainly some writers who handle race so badly that their characters, regardless of race and class, are all more or less middle-class white guys. There's no point in making a character Catholic unless there's something inherent to their Catholicism that you need to show the reader. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:34:03 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-13 18:46:19 EST, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Do list members prefer this series, with its fantasy feel, or her more hard-SF > series, like The Rowan series or the Crystal Singer series? I started The Rowan series and it somehow never clicked for me, I'm not sure why. However, the Crystal Singer seriesI read and.... I think I enjoyed it, although it's hard to say. Sorry, I realize I'm not making much sense there. I really enjoyed the concept behind the Crystal Singer series, and I liked a lot of the supporting characters, but for a good deal of the series, I found the lead character (Killashandra?) too unlikeable for me to really enjoy the series. I have enjoyed her Ship Who Sang, City Who Fought, etc. stories. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:12:30 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <86daba0d.34e4db5e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 18:46 13/02/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-13 10:11:14 EST, you write: > ><< > I believe that many people think that equal rights for men and women > is a luxury only a (technologically) very advanced society can > afford. > >> > >Why? What does technology have to do with it? I'd be interested in the >reasoning behind this concept-- > >barbara > Another issue with technology, is examining the status of women in technologically-dominated areas. The *computer-age* this century is an excellent example - the first typists around world-war I were men and the occupation had high status, as the use of the type-writer was originally limited to such things as journalism and print-media production. Men who used a typewriter often had their own offices etc to reflect their *status* as being men who used "machines". Its also, interesting to note that the QWERTYUIOP keyboard layout was originally purposely and specifically designed to be the most inefficient possible for the human (male) fingers. Because the original character-strikers were heavy steel and prone to jamming if often-used characters were too close together. To prevent this constant jamming of the strikers, the fingering of the typist on the keyboard had to be widely-spaced and left-hand dominant. By the 1930s and 1940s, the typewriter was in use everywhere, and women moved in to dominate the use of the type-writer, and by the 1950s the clerk-typist became a low-status/low-paid job with large open-plan anti-privacy "typing pools". In such a lousy noisy high-stress work-environment I would probably think marriage and my own dream kitchen would be preferable too:))) With the long climb of computer-power through the 1960s and 70s, the early large mainframe mag-tape drive computers were often operated by young long-haired men:) In 1969, the title "computer-operator" was a high-status well-paid job for a young man:) yet, mostly all they did was punch cards to set formulae, type a few commands every now and then, and wind mag-tapes/disks or load them from one drive-space to another, and spend an enormous amount of time unjamming and resetting those old daisy-wheel printers:)) By the late 1970s, with the introduction of so-called *sunrise* technologies, the silicon-chip, optical-fibre tech etc and the availability of miniaturising tech cheaply and effectively...computer-technologies took off and started to move in everywhere. Over the 80s etc, the operation of the computerised word-processor took over the old typists niche - but women moved into the increasingly low-status/low-paid jobs of "computer-operator/data-entry clerk" etc. One example, from my own experience of working in a large office environment in the mid-80s when PCs first became available, along with networks etc was originally, there were not enough machines to go around all staff - they were often placed on work-stations for shared use by 2-5 staff. Guess which staff got to be placed closest to these new machines? The men of course:)) Who did the boss ask to learn how to use the first spreadsheets for his monthly expenditure figures? The men of course:)) So, when new tech arrives in the office, it is seen as high-status, and therefore access to it is limited, and men are given the "first-run"...as the tech progresses to common-place, it becomes low-status and dominated by women:) A friend in the office at that time said to me something like " Its as if, as soon as it is is seen to be *too-easy* for men, it becomes only acceptable for women to use". By the late 1980s, the installation of LAN/WAN networks in the office, were mostly performed by young men - I was struck last year when my office upgraded (yet again!!) and the techs coming in to perform the work, now included about 40% women - its probable that sort of work in the IT industry is now much lower-status/lower paid than it had been before:)) I chatted with one of these young women, who said that, despite her qualifications in Computer-Science, she was often relegated to the Help_Desk or routine network admin tasks, or "computing with a screwdriver" as she called it:) Another example is the profession of the Pharmacist - during the 1950s and 60s, it was a male-dominated profession, relatively high-status and well-paid..by the 70s and 80s it became popular with women, and has down-graded in both status and economic remuneration. To bring this back on-topic - I have often been struck in sci-fi by an in-built assumption that high-technology dependent societies automatically lead to greater equality of the sexes, or that a low-tech society automatically leads to sexual inequality. With Anne McCaffrey's Pern series, I have a vague memory that the first book ( DragonFlight? - not sure) resulted from a published short-story of "The Search" for a rider for the last remaining Queen dragon, just before thread was due to start falling. Introducing Lessa, who was a scullery-servant after the bloody take-over of her family Hold by an outsider and finishing with her first flight, and arguing that her Queen dragon could fly at other times, than just mating flights etc and her romance with F'Lar? etc. I believe this early short-story became the first few chapters of DragonFlight. A simple fantasy story set in a medieval world, with dragons and heros and villains:)) - at that time, its possible McCaffrey wasnt thinking in terms of the complete saga of the world of Pern, and to keep some sort of links between the original story and later books, it wouldnt have appeared logical to change the original conceptual framework of the culture :)) Sometimes the stories just grow on their own over time - and like anyone else, writers may look back on earlier works, and with hindsight wish they could "change the story" around a bit:)) Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:29:51 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 18:42 13/02/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-13 08:39:53 EST, you write: > ><< > On a different note, I have to say that nowadays I'm surprised every time I > see another Pern book on the shelves - I would think she'd be bored to death > of the planet by now. >> > >She may be bored with it, but there are so many readers clamoring for more >that I think she feels almost obligated to write it. I know that I enjoy being >on Pern, and I like going there again and again. (snip) >Do list members prefer this series, with its fantasy feel, or her more hard-SF >series, like The Rowan series or the Crystal Singer series? > >barbara > Barbara:)) To be honest - I loved them all - after reading All The Weyrs of Pern, and I realised that no longer were the dragons limited to being planet-bound, and the Pern culture would have to adapt to this new situation without the threat of thread etc...I hoped to see a new series which saw the Pern dragon-riders start hopping around the other planets etc:)) After all, it had been 25,000 years since first colonisation - whats been happening elsewhere all that time?????????? I would like to see a series where the Pern dragon-riders meet up with the "Talents" of Earth and/or the "brain-ships" and Crystal-Singers etc:) or even that lovely lady character in the Death of Sleep etc who kept losing whole life-times in ColdSleep etc...maybe her next sleeper vehicle can crash-land on Pern? Or a brain-ship like Elva arrive? Also reminded me of the short novel by ( I *think*) Dorothy Piserchia - Star Rider - a woman character using a dragon for space-flight:)) and how would contact with the rest of civilisation affect the Pernese??? These are the questions which keep me awake at night:))) Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:27:02 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics: was Re: [*FSFFU*] OT: In-Reply-To: Laura Wigod's message of Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:11:07 -0800 Laura Wigod writes: > Joel VanLeven writes: > >did anyone mention the naming convention in _A Door Into Ocean_? the > >"last names" there were bad things about the person that they wanted to > >change like: > This concept was called "self-naming" and the idea was to pick a name that > suited you perfectly - then you spent the rest of your life living it down. > In the Shora culture, you weren't considered fully integrated or mature > unless you were a self-namer. The harder the self-name you choose is to > live down, the more respect you are; for instance, our hero (whose > "regular" name is escaping me) was "Joan the Deceiver," Nisi the Deceiver. What makes it even more intersting is that there's no active/passive distinction in the language, so it means both "Nisi the Deceiver" and "Nisi the Deceived" - and both fitted her perfectly. BTW, after ages and ages of searching I managed to get a hold of a copy of _Door Into Ocean_ from Books Stacks Unlimited (www.books.com), despite having been told that it was out of print - so if you're looking for a copy, it must still be available. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:45:56 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: A Door into Ocean writes: > Joel VanLaven writes: > >yes, I know. I just don't really understand that part. It seems > >a bit fatalistic to me. I know I am far from perfect, but I do feel like I > >try. If I were to understand a flaw (that I though was important) > My point being that, if you dug deeper, you'd find something.....the > Sharers didn't use names like "overweight," "stupid" or "clumsy"....as you > pointed out, these are beyond the control of most people. My guess is, if > you can't come up with something, those closest to you could! :-) I don't I think a lot of the point of the self-names was that you had to come up with the name yourself. That finding and naming your deepest flaw is both test and proof of your adulthood. It was quite clear that many of your friends may have already worked out what name you would take, but that it was your own job to find your own Door of the Self. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:53:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: <19980213.180931.20574.4.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > > "Ire, Iron, and Voorstod" are alive and well! I think Tepper's thesis of > their pathology in "Raising the Stones" is probably pretty accurate. > > Re environmental rape: I have a fantasy of the Second Coming grinding to > a screeching halt with an irate: "What's all this mess! Is this what you > call stewardship? OK, nobody gets raptured or anything else until this is > all cleaned up! Is this what you want to live in for a thousand years?" My favorite cartoon shows three old men in clerical robes - Christian, Orthodox Jewsish, and Muslim - against a desert background screaming !@#$%%! at each other. Up above them a stern older-man's face made of clouds is demanding "You children stop fighting!" > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu "With a 14.4 modem it's not netsurfing.It's webcrawling." "Wanted, one ghost. Experience and good character required. Ability to ing tenor an advantage. Apply Paris Opera before New Years, 1882." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:55:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Separate Last Name Tactics (Was: something else) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > > > know you so I can't help you out, but there's _got_ to be a good word for > > refusing to own your shadow side, yes? Not a word, but a good old-fashioned country phrase, "thinks their s**t don't stink." > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:57:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: Documentation of matriarchal cultures -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:50 PM 2/13/98 -0500, Debra Euler wrote: >However, I've read Eisler, Stone, and Gimbutas, and in my >recollection their work is based largely on cultural interpretation, >not on hard ethnological or archaeological evidence. They are >controversial, not the last word. Just because someone wrote a book >and put in a lot of footnotes, it doesn't make their thesis correct. I have to agree with Debra here. I have read most of *The Chalice and the Blade*. I wanted to be convinced, even though I have a degree in Anthropology and knew the consensus on matriachies. I hoped Eisler would have some new evidence. But about 2/3 of the way through I concluded that all she had to offer were clever "takes" on the evidence that served to advance her agenda. The empowerment of women is one of my highest agendas also, but I just can't stand it when people distort facts! ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Big Heavy World's Pop Pie; Lisa Gerrard's The Mirror Pool "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:04:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Selfnames in _A Door Into Ocean_ In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:38 PM 2/13/98 -0500, Joel VanLaven wrote: >Here is also the dilemma, should I work to be mediocre in the things I >am bad in or should I work to be great in the things I am good in. >Perhaps the Sharers would say take the meaningful name that you aren't >going to work on much simply to remind you of your flaws and reduce your >conciet. > >So suppose I chose Joel the bad writer. I think you're missing an important element of the self-names: they do not concern vocations or skills; they are all about character, elements of a personality, not quantifiable knowledge. Nisi the Deceiver; Usha the Inconsiderate; Merwen the Impatient; Shaalrim the Lazy; Lalor the Absentminded. The fact that someone has gotten to a level of self-knowledge that enables them to see clearly their own major fault(s) means in Sharer society that they are mature and ready to join in the decision-making of the adult group. It doesn't mean that each person spends a majority of her time in introspection and worry about her self-name and how to transcend it. Character flaws often take many years to address. At one point in the book it is pointed out that only one Sharer of Raia-el raft is "so old and revered that the Gathering had formally forgotten her selfname." So I don't think the society is putting a load of pressure on each person to fix her personality. Self names do encourage humility, though, and remind people that there is still much they can improve on. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Big Heavy World's Pop Pie; Lisa Gerrard's The Mirror Pool "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:43:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: McCaffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <19980213212749.13107.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:27 PM 2/13/98 PST, Daniel Krashin wrote: >Barbara, I don't know what McAffrey has said on the subject, but >it seems a reasonable assumption to me. When technology collapses >from starfaring to medieval levels, muscle power, drudgery and >serfdom once again become the mainstays of civilization. Say again? How is the collapse of technology related to the status of women? I see no connection at all. Julieanne drew a connection between muscle power (according to her theory, something men have and women don't) and the ability to cultivate food, which also seemed specious. I sense here a determination to make sexual discrimination somehow logical, when in reality it often isn't. Considering we've never seen technology collapse from starfaring to medieval levels it seems a little rash to declare what would "obviously" happen. I don't think McCaffrey has any more reasoned an explanation either. I used to be MAJOR fan of Anne McCaffrey. The Harper Hall trilogy was my favorite, though I also really liked the Dragonrider series and read a number of other works by her (*The Ship Who Sang*, *Crystal Singer* & its sequel). I read the books over and over and managed to memorize the names all the dragonriders and their dragons, no matter how briefly they appeared. But sometime during high school I found myself, almost against my will, tiring of McCaffrey. Her treatment of women and male sexuality was the major turnoff. Men just seem to "lose control" in her books and for the most part the women love it! I still remember clearly a scene in *The White Dragon* when Jaxom, in a moment of turmoil, swooped down out of the sky and practically raped Corana in a field. She seemed a bit taken aback but she still wanted him. The dynamic between F'lar and Lessa always bothered me slightly as well -- it seemed like he was always roughly grabbing her and clasping her with bone-crushing force, etc. I gathered that McCaffrey wanted us to see that their relationship was *passionate*. Violent seems a better word in retrospect. Similar themes are sounded in much of her fiction, particularly *The Rowan* (IIRC) and a ghastly short story in her collection *Get Off the Unicorn* where a green-skinned guy rapes a woman and mid-way she realizes she really likes it. I was also irked by the treatment of homosexuality -- there obviously were some homosexuals on Pern, but the only time I remember them actually entering into the story was when one of them died and someone went to tell his partner. I am grateful that I stopped reading the books before the "explanation" of newly-hatched dragons sensing the homosexuality of their riders -- now I have some distance & can laugh in disbelief rather than feeling violated. In the context of the other books it makes no sense at all -- in the early Pern books, human sexuality was entirely tangential to dragon sexuality, as the riders' minds were overwhelmed by the imagery and lust of their dragons' mating flights. In many cases, people who may not have liked one another at all in daily life ended up in bed together. I found that to be somewhat transgressive and genuinely thought-provoking, but it sounds like she's altered that original vision. Other gripes: why is it WeyrLEADER and WeyrWOMAN? If size is associated with intelligence in dragons (as it is, according to her own scheme), then why aren't the queen dragons and their riders the Weyrleaders? It would make more sense, really, as the Weyrwoman remains a constant while she and her queen live (only one queen at a time in any weyr) whereas the Weyrleader changes depending on which dragon manages to outlast the others and mate with the queen. I could go on and on, I suppose. My feelings about McCaffrey now are that she allows women a fair amount of power in her books, but she remains unconcerned about or blind to some of her own sexist views. I find said views, along with the general decline in her writing quality, distasteful enough that I no longer read her work, but I have fond memories of the old days. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Big Heavy World's Pop Pie; Lisa Gerrard's The Mirror Pool "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:14:08 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Jo Clayton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just heard from another list that Jo has died...any more details? We've all been diminished by this loss...but if people continue to read her stuff, she'll never be wholly absent from us. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:57:12 -0800 Reply-To: Kieth Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kieth Subject: Re: The Gods Themselves (was Matriarchal cultures/Asimov) In-Reply-To: <19980213.180931.20574.0.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Oddly enough, I re-read the The Gods Themselves recently, too, after about twenty years - the quote from which the title was taken was taken has never stopped being applicable in one way or another (unlike that other mantra of my student years - the wonderful Pindar quote that kicks off the Myth of Sisyphus). The triad structure of - it's so hard not to say "couples" - the family units came to mind immediately when Julianne asked about alternatives to couples. Even though some aspects of it, such as the fussiness and small-mindedness of the care-giver, and the male/rational, female/emotional characterization of the other two parents, seem quite sexist now, it didn't seem to be intentionally so (unlike Bradbury, quoted a year or so ago in Playboy to the effect that women shouldn't try to understand science fiction, we should stay home and have babies) . And because it *was* Asimov's, the book was well-written, original, and gave one furiously to think. Kathleen On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > Yes: in fact I re-read it a few months ago (another book that's starting > to fall apart with age). > > It's a favorite of mine; in fact the epigraph (I do hope I used the right > term, I have to look it up every now and then) "Against Stupidity The > Gods Themselves Contend In Vain" has entered my personal stock of > "sayings": it is apposite to so many situations. > > I do miss Asimov. I still have the creeping hope that it was all a > mistake, and that he's really alive and well. I am especially grateful > for his nonfiction, which eased an enormous amount of basic science in > various disciplines through my thick skull; and his Biblical commentaries > are fascinating. > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 08:55:55 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthropology is a field that until recently has been dominated by patriachal men. Ethnocentric viewpoints are rampant in anthro theory and due to pressures like funding, tenure, male bonding and academic cliques, the interpretation of findings has been entirely biased. Just because it was written by an 'expert' does not mean it is right, Bill. I recomend highly reading Judy Grahn's "Blood, Bread and Roses" for an eye opening marvel. --Cleo, Wolf in womon's clothing ---------- > From: Joel VanLaven > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures > Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 9:34 AM > > On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Bill Sansbury wrote: > > > My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal > > societies, and those existed a very long time ago. The official opinion of > > current anthropology is that there is NO hard evidence of ANY matriarchal > > society having EVER existed beyond tales used to scare any liberal males > > into adopting a more patriarchal viewpoint. Marvin Harris makes a logical, > > but irritating point of this in many of his more "chatty" books. > > Bill > > I believe that you are incorrect. While I am not certain about some of > the facts about matriarchies, I know for certain that archeologists > recently discovered a woman buried with (presumably her) weapons in much > the manner warriors have been buried. This was in the area that the > famous Amazons are supposed to have lived and is widely seen as evidence > of their actual existence. > > On another feminist science note, hdid anyone hear about the grandmother > hypothesis? > > Many evolutionists / social biologists (and Arthur C. Clarke in 2001, and > alot of other SF writers) hold to the theory thet we evolved intelligence > along with violence in order to get meat for food. > > The grandmother hypothesis brings up the issue of menopause and the fact > that women have useful lives beyond it. The supposition is that having > these grandmothers around (a supposedly unique development) allowed longer > childhoods and higher intelligence, and served to keep the men in line :) > I don't understand all of the intricacies, but its an interesting idea > isn't it? That middle-aged menopause gave us intelligence, not the > silly hunting of men. > > -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:13:13 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laura wrote: > I personally don't see any advantage of swapping God for Goddess or trading > in patriarchy for matriarchy - I think the concept that things would be any > better if they were in _power_ is a feminist fantasy. I'm not aware of any > evidence that given _power_, women have demonstrated a better facility with > dealing with it. > I wholeheartedly agree with your point but offer the sense I have that semantics DO have a great deal of impact on our thinking. I have swapped terms but not meanings such as Goddess for God simply to lend a womon's POV to my image of diety. It has molded a more personal, wiser me. I am very interested in the impact of neutral pronouns as "per" in He, She and It, versus the virtually all male pronouns in German, versus the mixed and prejudicial gender classifications in romance languages, But obviously haven't much knowledge in this area as I speak only one language. --Cleo ---------- > From: Laura Wigod > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures > Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 11:47 AM > > >I've heard the concept expressed that patriarchal cultures tend to be violent, > >and matriarchal cultures tend to be immoral. Any reactions to that? Have there > >been enough matriarchal cultures for us to be able to make a deduction? > > My local paper (San Jose Mercury News) just ran a story about the > matriarchal culture of Minangkabau in modern-day Sumatra. My take on it is > that it's a mixed bag : > > * men have little responsibility and no property rights (bad) > * each clan has a datuk, who serves as an administrator and must be a man > (good) > * maternal uncles wield a lot of authority over their nieces, especially > when it comes to selecting husbands (bad) > * if clan members conclude that "the hills have gotten higher and the > valleys deeper" under a datuk's reign, he can be deposed at a clan summit > (good) > * at this summit the women all sit on a raised platform, while the men sit > below (bad) > * important decisions in the clan are made collectively for the members' > mutual benefit, in accordance with the Minangkabau principle of "what seems > good to oneself should be agreed upon by others" (good) > > Does anyone know of any cultures that have managed true equality between > all citizens?( _Real_ cultures, not ones in sci fi stories; I realize this > makes my question Officially Off-Topic, but I think it would be much more > interesting to write a story based on a real culture, making it harder to > write off as fantasy...) > > Laura ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:38:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Patricia Anthony (was: McAffrey and female characters) Comments: To: Frances Green In-Reply-To: <19980213.180931.20574.2.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: (snip) > I haven't managed to get into any of Patricia Anthony's work, but have > good intentions to try. She seems to get good reviews. She's very good at breathing life into her characters. Even though most of them are people I wouldn't want to meet, she makes them very real. I read *The Happy Policeman* a couple of months ago and I'm still not sure what to make of it. I picked up *Brother Termite* but it's going to have to wait 'til later. I'm not sure I'm ready for more of PA's disturbing aliens. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:26:43 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Julieanne wrote >In the blue-collar working class families, it was very common for men to >completely hand-over full control of their income to their wives, who >would then release an 'allowance" to their husbands, do all bill-paying >etc and "rule the home-roost" and be the final-word on all economic >decisions etc. regardless of whether she also works outside the home. >As you move up the socio-economic scale, women may have better life- >styles, but have less control of the household income - moving through >almost 50/50 egalitarian arrangements in the dual-income middle-class >household - through to complete non-control in the highest family >income brackets. The reasoning behind this (possibly: and there are/were often strong regional differences in how working-class households deal with money) is that when managing the household budget is a desperate chore of trying to make the money go round (and possibly eking it out by going to the pawn-shop, taking in laundry, going out charring etc) women get to do it. When money is plentiful there's no problem, and so men take control. There is an analogy in some research that was done on the anthropology of food: in working class households mother carves the joint (if there is one), in middle-class households it's father: since in the poor household someone has to make sure that a scarce resource is fairly distributed (and mother as carver may not even get a share) but in the better-off household it's a dishing out of plenty (and the carver can keep back particularly luscious titbits for himself). Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 13:27:42 -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: Documentation of matriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thomas Gramstad said: In any case, here are a couple of books documenting surviving relics of ancient matriarchal cultures: Eisler, Riane ([1987] 1995): The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. HarperSanFrancisco, CA. Stone, Merlin (1976): When God was a Woman. Harcourt Brace & Company, San Diego, CA. Stone, Merlin ( [1979] 1990): Ancient Mirrors of Womanhood: A Treasury of Goddess and Heroine Lore from Around the World. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Also, anything by Marija Gimbutas, for example The Language of the Goddess (Harper San Francisco 1995, ISBN: 0062512439), or The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe (HarperCollins 1997, ISBN: 0062514504). I have waited to wade in here until reading all the posts, and since no one has said it, I'll jump on in... I did my senior thesis on Gimbutas, and Co., which is my pet name for this list above. The conclusion I came to was that the bibliographies of all but Gimbutas were almost entirely self- referential, making a really tight circle of Stone, Gimbutas, Sjoo, Eisler, and a few original excavation reports from Anatolia and Crete. The references were so tightly held d in common that I sincerely doubt that Eisler and Stone ever read J.J. Bachofen, Nicholas Platon (Crete), or the dude from Catal Hayuk (sorry, his name totally escapes me at the minute), or any other of constantly appearing citations. And Gimbutas made so many enormous assumptions in her work that caused me to doubt her scholarship. One really illustrative one was the statement that the white 'goddess' figurines found with burials indicated that for these ancient matriarchates, black was the color of birth and life and White the color of bones and death. This was assumed to be obvious. This is exactly the sort of thing that archaeology cannot tell us, and a significant part of why Gimbutas lacks respect in her field. To bring this back to topicality, my conclusion was that this coterie was important for providing new ways to think about the possibilities of the ancient world, that they in fact were writing highly imaginative fiction, true Science Fiction/Fantasy and if they were read in this light, and as devotional literature (like Lives of The Saints) they had enormous use and power. (See, I told you, I see religion in SF everywhere!) But in no way do they come close to proving that actual existence of matriarchal cultures, or even cultures where egalitarianism was the dominant mode of being. I find Eisler really thought provoking, however, and think they all write *great* hard Science Fiction ;) Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:05:35 -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: Patricia Anthony (was: McAffrey and female characters) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Stacey Holbrook wrote: > On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > > (snip) > > I haven't managed to get into any of Patricia Anthony's work, but have > > good intentions to try. She seems to get good reviews. > > She's very good at breathing life into her characters. Even though most of > them are people I wouldn't want to meet, she makes them very real. I read > *The Happy Policeman* a couple of months ago and I'm still not sure what > to make of it. I picked up *Brother Termite* but it's going to have to > wait 'til later. I'm not sure I'm ready for more of PA's disturbing > aliens. > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) > I thought that Anthony's most recent novel, God's Fires, was one of the two or three best sf novels I've read in the past year. The aliens here are relatively minor, actually they're almost archetypal flying saucer style aliens and they don't have a single line of dialogue. The novel is set in late-medieval Portugal and involves the reaction of various people, clergy, royalty, commoners, to the aliens. Wonderful character development. It should appeal to anyone who liked Vonda's The Moon and the Sun because it's true SF, but also a well developed historical novel. Speaking of The Moon and the Sun, my copy of Locus came today and, sure enough, the turkey's likst the novel as fantasy rather than as SF (which it clearly is). Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:52:06 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Patricia Anthony (was: McAffrey and female characters) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Nobody agrees on where to classify Moon & Sun. (I perceive it as an sf novel.) This has caused the book (and my heroic publicity guru at Pocket) a great deal of difficulty. Vonda On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:05:35 -0600, Michael Marc Levy wrote: >... >Speaking of The Moon and the Sun, my copy of Locus came today and, sure >enough, the turkey's likst the novel as fantasy rather than as SF (which >it clearly is). > >Mike Levy ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:37:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: He, she, it, and e Comments: To: Lois Bujold Fan Group , "George Elgin, Suzette Haden Elgin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The March ASIMOV's had a story that finally came up with a set of nongendered pronouns that seem easy, natural, and unfaked. "e, er, and er's." I would have used "e's," pronounced "eez", or in some dialects, "ez." They were used for hermaphrodites, shortened to "mafs". As for "it", the leading character in HALFWAY HUMAN had the last word. Tedla is explaining that the Gammadian language has a pronoun used for inanimate objects, animals, children below the age of differentiation, and "blands," who never do differentiate and form an enslaved underclass. Tedla's Capellan host said ":We have such a pronoun, too, but it's considered somewhat derogatory." Tedla looked at her. "Well?" Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:38:41 +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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I wonder if anyone else noticed that in the Dragonrider series, the women in >the initial survey teams and landing parties were quite equal to the men, but >as Pernese society developed into a medieval type of culture, the women once >more became pawns? The inconsistency of equality in McCaffrey's books has always worried me, even though I enjoy the stories. It sometimes seems a bit like her early books were kind of sexist, and as she got older she got more of a feminist consciousness and so is revising and finding reasons for some of the Pernese attitudes that oppressed women in those books. In her most recent effort, Masterharper of Pern, she is suggesting that a lot of the sexism to do with women dragonriders and harpers was developed in the few years before the events of her very first Dragonrider and Dragonsinger books. I find it all a little wierd. Eg in the story of Robinton, his mother is a Masterharper and there are a few other career women, and the reason that the Weyrwoman of Benden is so passive is that she has a fear of heights. Suddenly, after 2 millenia of relative equality, women become much more oppressed in just 40 years. And then they get liberated again over the next 40. I think the timing may be a lot more consistent with a development of the author's attitudes than some kind of realistic portrayal of a society. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:54:16 +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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >My own personal opinion is that there have been very few matriarchal >societies, and those existed a very long time ago. The official opinion of >current anthropology is that there is NO hard evidence of ANY matriarchal >society having EVER existed beyond tales used to scare any liberal males >into adopting a more patriarchal viewpoint. Marvin Harris makes a logical, >but irritating point of this in many of his more "chatty" books. An interesting point about the concept of "hard" evidence when studying societies from outside is that most of the meaning of the evidence is produced by interpretation. And interpretation is coloured by the cultural background and assumptions of the researchers. If I examine artifacts or documents from the point of view that matriarchal structures are unlikely, I won't find them. There are some interesting examples of this in zoology - scientists used to think that lions operated like humans in patriarchal groups, but following some shifts in scientific thinking the same animals were observed and interpreted as operating in matriarchal structures. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:02:53 +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: McAffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >The women in the books always seem to be "spunky," but with little >authority. I did note that she does have homosexual relationships in the >books, but only among male dragonriders of the lesser dragons. So, a step, >but not a big one. I seem to also recall in one of the more recent books >that some women were becoming riders of the green dragons and thus gaining >some status in the society. The thing that really annoys me about the "feminism" of McCaffrey's books is not so much the role of women but the insidious character of the "bad" woman. In almost all of her books there is a villanous woman who is too attractive, uses her sexuality (coded as her sensual, hip-swinging walk) to manipulate men, does not have a heterosexual romantic relationship with one nice man, and is selfish, grasping and unscrupulous, but is eventually defeated by a "good" woman. Examples include Avril Bitra, Kylara and Thella. This characterisation is much more sexist her portrayal of the society to me, because is suggests that there is something intrinsically nasty in women, especially if they try to operate independently and are not married to men who can show them the value of good behaviour. Robyn *********************************** Robyn Starkey University of Melbourne r.starkey@elp.unimelb.edu.au ************************************