Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9802C" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:09:34 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF : 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, Jo passed away Friday evening at about 7:00. From all reports, she went gently, drifting off while asleep. Many years ago, before I ever knew I would write science fiction, a friend of mine picked up Jo's first Diadem novel for me. I had just had my wisdom teeth removed and had "dry sockets," which happens if the scabs come off and leave the nerves bare to the air before the sockets finish healing. My boyfriend and I had to drive back to college (we were traveling from the San Francisco Bay Area to LA) and at first I tried to sleep away the ache in my teeth. But finally I said I needed a distraction. My boyfriend stopped at the next drug store, ran in (I was half asleep and trying to stay that way), and tried to find a book he thought might take my mind off the pain. He chose Diadem From the Stars What a difference it made! I managed to ignore my teeth, and I read the entire book before we reached Los Angeles. For many years I remembered Jo Clayton as the author who rescued me from dry sockets. I never thought I would actually meet this person I admired. A few years ago, when I was a new author green behind the ears, I had the opportunity to join an online writing workshop called the Dream Weavers. When I learned Jo Clayton was a member, I almost fell over. I hardly know the words to describe how much it meant getting to know her. She was a true class act, a wise, wonderful, sensitive gentlewoman. It is hard to imagine her gone, but she will live on in her works and in the way she touched so many of us. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 23:20:42 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On matriarchy and patriarchy: How do they call a culture with both genders equally powerfull? And are there any sf books with that kind of a society? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 23:30:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dawn Anderson Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF : Jo Clayton Comments: To: asaro@sff.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ms. Clayton's novels have always been favorites of mine and I will miss her, but as long as I have her novels she won't ever be really gone from me. I hope that doesn't sound too maudlin but when I find an author I enjoy reading she or he becomes very important to me almost like family. And I grieve Dawn http://members.aol.com/Keira37/keira37.html -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Asaro To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, February 15, 1998 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] FEMINISTSF : Jo Clayton >Cynthia, Jo passed away Friday evening at about 7:00. From all reports, >she went gently, drifting off while asleep. > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 23:54:17 -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: something else) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > 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. First, I don't think you are a bad writer. At work, I have to deal with papers a lot, and I can tell you that you write better than some people with Ph.D. in English. Second, a disability is not a "badness". It's the same as if you are born with only one leg: it's not your fault, and it does not make you a worthless person. Being overweight is even less of a "flaw". No one really knows what is "normal weight", so it's a value judgement, and a culturally dependant one, on top of that. Lots of men who in US are considered "athletic" (like football players) in my country would be called overweight, while lots of women here, who are considered "sexy" because they are thin, would be compared to death camp prisoners back home. For what I understand, in that book that you mentioned, they used "personality flaws" rather than physical or learning imperfections. Marina the Troublemaker "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:55:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <86daba0d.34e4db5e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > 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-- I think I can explain this. Living in a third-world country, you are basically on you own, whatever happens. Like, if someone insults you, cheats you out of money, destroys you car, or hurts your kid, the only thing you can do is to go and kick the crap out of that person. I put "insults" there for a reason. Because if you let someone put you down, everyone else will know that you are weak, and that they can do whatever they want to you, including taking your money, or hurting your family. Since everything (at least on interpersonal level) is most often resolved through physical means, it's a common understanding that "dominance of the strongest" is the most natural order of things. Women are usually not considered people because they are "uncapable to survive on their own", becuase a woman who does not have a man is a fair game for all men. Have you heard about what happened in Guatemala? A bus of American college students was driving somewhere in the country. A group of armed men stopped them, took their money and raped five female students. This is how it works. Guatemalan young females would not go anywhere by themselves. In a dangerous area like that, they would have simply stayed home altogether. Guetemalan males, going in such area with young females, would have brought along guns. Since the people on the bus did not do either, in the minds of the attackers, "they were asking for it". I can bet on that, because I grew up in exactly the same kind of country. Maybe it's easier to understand by comparison. The only place I've seen in US that remotely reminded my home city was South Bronx in New York, except that South Bronx seemed a lot safer. Imagine that you live in a place like that alone, and think how big you chances of survival would be compared to ones of a male. It's very simple. You are walking home on a dark street. There is a group of teenage guys hanging out that you have to pass. If you are a man, they might think before messing with you (especially if it's a culture where every male owns at least a switchblade). If you are a woman (or worse, a teenage girl) it's a green light for them. If you manage to get away, I can promise you'll be very reluctant to go anywhere alone again. I used to take my 10-year-old brother with me, whenever I could, and believe it or not, even a very little male next to me would keep most of the creeps away. It's not even fear as much as "respect to another man's property". The question is, though, if you cannot even move around freely, how can you say that you "equal" to men? As you see, it's not as much about technology, as about the presence of any kind of legal system. In my country, you can't rely on police, because the only difference between them and crooks is that they are wearing uniform so you can see them from afar and get out of the way in advance. You can't rely on the courts, because all they do is collecting bribes. So, whatever happens, you are on your own. It can be an intersting feeling, by the way, that there is nothing between you and the world. When you realize that you can get killed any moment, and your survival totally depends on your intelligence, courage, and ability make decisions fast, it makes you feel like some kind of superwoman. However, most of women are simply very scared of everything. Of course, I came from a war zone country, which is an extreme version of a third world country, but the basic principle is the same. Poor countries lack both technology and decent law enforcement. That makes the matter of personal safety everyone's own business. Since most of women even in developed countries are raised to believe that they are weaker that men, women in macho cultures don't even think they could protect themselves on their own. Therefore, they fully depend on men. When you depend on someone, you cannot claim to be equal (and if you do, there will be always someone feeling obliged to show you how wrong you are). That's it. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:13:19 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Matjaz Zupanc Subject: sign off MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Can someone on this list please tell me how to sign off. I am bored Matjaz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 07:07:48 -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: <3.0.32.19980215133840.007c4840@ariel.unimelb.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Robyn Starkey wrote: > 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. > But these things really DO go in cycles. Rosie the Riveter was immediately followed by June Cleaver; the flappers followed the Suffragists; I fully expect my granddaughters to have to fight much of the same battles I did. For a view of that over one cycle of history, Shulamit Firestone's DIALECTIC OF SEX is good. She's dreadfully pessimistic because she runs the cycle down from the Suffragists thru the little housewives ... but whenever a trait is disappearing from society (As I told MZB when she complained 'where were the fmeinists in my youth when I needed them?) it's a sign that the current generation is about to revive it.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:47:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Linda J. Kimsey" Subject: New Author In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Has anyone read Severna Park's first novel? Her second novel entitled Hand of Prophecy is coming out in March and got a great review from Publisher's Weekly so I'm thinking of recommending it to my library director for inclusion in our current fiction section. (One of the perqs of my job is that I get to do most of the sf/fantasy selection!) Before I did so, I thought I'd see what kind of reactions her first novel sparked (unfortunately, I don't know the title). TIA Linda Kimsey Linda J. Kimsey Automated Systems & Services Librarian Dawes Memorial Library Marietta College phone: 740/376-4537 Marietta, OH 45750 e-mail: kimsey@mcnet.marietta.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:55:57 -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 Of course, that was a comedy, which I think means that women would not have been allowed to see it. (Let them see The Trojan Women, so they can count their blessings...or something!) Although the tragedies contain various depictions of women fighting back which might have been even more subversive. After all, who in their right mind would think that those men would really stop fighting? "People have always eaten people. You might as well say don't fight people. Ridiculous!" (From memory of The Reluctant Cannibal, Flanders & Swann. Does anyone know whether Lysistrata was well-received at the time? One aspect of Lysistrata that intrigues me is that heterosexuality is implied to be overwhelmingly more attractiive that homosexual substitutes; as I recall there is only one mention of the latter in the whole play along the lines of "...unless you go the bed with each other, and we'll know if you do." Interesting in the context of the time and place. And there didn't seem to be any concerted effort toward rape! Maybe, again given the constraints of the contemporary mindset, Aristophanes was a kind of a sort of an occasional honorary feminist? And Euripides? On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:54:44 EST "Barbara R. Hume" writes: >In a message dated 98-02-13 11:16:16 EST, you write: > ... > >Anyone here familiar with the story of Lysistrata and how she put an >end to >the men always going to war? > >barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:36:07 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicole Youngman Subject: equal societies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit << How do they call a culture with both genders equally powerfull? And are there any sf books with that kind of a society? >> Good question--isn't it interesting that we don't really have a term for that? I suppose it's what Eisler would refer to as a "partnership" society, though. Nicole ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:48:53 -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: McCaffrey and female characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While I noticed it (taken a number of books, I guess) the disparity between WeyrLeader and WeyrWoman and it bothered me, I would have to say that it seems (not a good reason, but perhaps McCaffrey's reason) the dragons give the names (or the fact of the dragons) to the people. A weyr leader is more a position, the one who's DRAGON leads the other dragons in the sky and that weyr woman is sort of an official place: the queen dragon is THE important dragon, the only official woman dragon if you will. BUT, this does get confused, because there is NOT only a single queen in a weyr, just a single dominant queen (often the mother of the others) and hence there are other queen-riders (not weyrwomen) who produce other clutches (sort of a security measure to keep producing dragons). So while the queen dragon remains a constant (and hence her life-bonded queen-rider), it is possibly implied that a very old queen could be functionally displaced (producing more eggs for the next generation) but still be accorded the customary courtesies of being head dragon. So, from both perspectives, a queen dragon lasts only as long as her reproductive capacity (somehow tangled with her apparent super-ability in mating flight that at age she can still only be caught by the male she selects rather than just any young bronze) and that somehow dragon/rider combined preferences choose a dragon/rider who ends up consort but doing the actually fighting/defence of the weyr/Pern. Odd, and something I'd like to see worked out better, but then characters often get in the way, acting in their own logic. sorry to bore misha bernardm@colorado.edu >Janice griped >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. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:06:51 -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: equal societies In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would call it egalitarian even though that term applies to more than just gender equality. Bill At 11:36 AM 2/16/1998 EST, you wrote: ><< How do they call a culture with both genders equally powerfull? And are > there any sf books with that kind of a society? > >> > >Good question--isn't it interesting that we don't really have a term for that? >I suppose it's what Eisler would refer to as a "partnership" society, though. > >Nicole > > "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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:29:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Jo Clayton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Oh, no, Jo is gone? What a loss. And my first selfish thought was to wonder if she finished her current trilogy... :( ::weeping softly:: Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:36:50 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: technology and feminism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Have been enjoying all the recent threads, though too rushed to comment at length, but cannot help weighing in on this. All the rhetoric about women's equality does not get very far if women do not have some method of controlling their own fertility: as far as I know from hearing what feminist historians say, women in many cultures throughout history have tried various ways to do so. The recent development in reproductive technology have, I believe, affected feminist developments in various ways. (Which is not to say that the people who developed the pill did so out of ANY feminist philosophy whatsoever! Perhaps quite the opposite--but intentions and results are not always the same thing!) There are also some interesting correlations between education and reproductive choices--apparently, in various cultures, the more education women receive the fewer children they have. It's hard to make any firm cause/effect arguments, but there are other technological issues related to women's rights specifically and civil rights generally: i.e. the more technology could replace muscle power in certain jobs, the more 'surplus' a society could have, the more possibilities for people, as opposed to reliance upon "slaves" or other groups forced into that sort of labor. (I'm talking about the difference beween an agricultural and industrial based society--the hunting/gathering culture, as people have noted, is an entirely different thing. Yes, women did seem to bring in more of the food for the group--but overall, from what I've read, people generally work much fewer hours for the necessities of life.) I don't know that equal rights are a luxury, but the historical patterns and developments we've seen seem to show a relationship. On the other hand, as my historian friend loves to point out, the "changes" that have taken place in the last century show MAJOR CHANGES in human development, and we don't know where the heck we're going to end up--we could kill ourselves off with the technology! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:40:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: New Author In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980216104728.007ec210@mcnet.marietta.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Linda J. Kimsey wrote: > Has anyone read Severna Park's first novel? Her second novel entitled Hand > of Prophecy is coming out in March and got a great review from Publisher's > Weekly so I'm thinking of recommending it to my library director for > inclusion in our current fiction section. (One of the perqs of my job is > that I get to do most of the sf/fantasy selection!) Before I did so, I > thought I'd see what kind of reactions her first novel sparked > (unfortunately, I don't know the title). > > TIA > > Linda Kimsey > I read Severna Park's first novel (I'm blanking on the name of it...) and thought it enjoyable, but not particularly deep. It won the Lambda Literary Award for gay or lesbian sf. of course, but wasn't as good, IMO, as say Melissa Scott's books or Nicola Griffiths'. The book was basically space opera, with some gritty character development and some interesting things to say about the nature of slavery. If the PW review is to believed, Hand of Prophecy may be a stronger book. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:31:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: New Author Did you try checking on amazon.com under the author's name? It's a very good resource, and I often use it purely for reference. On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:47:28 -0500 "Linda J. Kimsey" writes: >Has anyone read Severna Park's first novel? Her second novel entitled >Hand >of Prophecy is coming out in March and got a great review from >Publisher's >Weekly so I'm thinking of recommending it to my library director for >inclusion in our current fiction section. (One of the perqs of my job >is >that I get to do most of the sf/fantasy selection!) Before I did so, I >thought I'd see what kind of reactions her first novel sparked >(unfortunately, I don't know the title). > >TIA > >Linda Kimsey > > > >Linda J. Kimsey >Automated Systems & Services Librarian >Dawes Memorial Library >Marietta College phone: 740/376-4537 >Marietta, OH 45750 e-mail: kimsey@mcnet.marietta.edu > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:06:36 -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 Further to religion/environmental rape: If Creationists (scientific or otherwise) believe that each species was separately and deliberately created, would it not seem logical that God wanted each of those species to exist, and that it would be a religious obligation to do anything necessary to preserve those species from endangerment or extinction? _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:56:40 -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 -Gender equal societies "A Plague of Angels" by Sheri Tepper includes the Artemisians, who seem to have something that approaches it, though the gender roles are interestingly separated. I wasn't clear if they are allowed to cross without setting off ructions. I had hoped that was the first of one of her trilogies: there were so many things that I would love to know more about, but I haven't seen any indication subsequently. I think the Hobbs Landers of "Raising the Stones" seemed to hold equal roles, although there did seem to be men in certain key positions. (Nice matrilineal society there.) Many of Melissa Scott's novels (Dream Ships, Burning Bright, Dreaming Metal) seem to have pretty much gender-equal societies, as far as I can perceive; and on the fantasy side (sorry if this sets off any of those disputes!) Diane Duane, Tanya Huff come immediately to mind. On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 23:20:42 -0600 Marina writes: >On matriarchy and patriarchy: > >How do they call a culture with both genders equally powerfull? And >are >there any sf books with that kind of a society? > >Marina > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:08:23 -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: Patricia Anthony (was: McAffrey and female characters) Our branch library seems to have moved it from general fiction to SF. (It's my latest project for sneaking onto the new books display.) On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:52:06 GMT "Vonda N. McIntyre" writes: >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 > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:41:18 -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 Does anyone remember all the things the "virtuous women, whose price is above rubies", had to get through, while her husband sat around all day discussing theology? As I recollect, it sounded as though that woman was running the whole economy! (Did anybody ever find out what Ruby charged?) On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:26:43 UT Lesley Hall writes: >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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:58:28 -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 Hm, not particularly on-topic, but... that sounds like a shtetl community. If it were possible, the women provided the family income and controlled the money because, if this occured, the men could invest their time into learning in general and in studying the Talmud, etc, specifically. In some ways this cries inequality (women didn't have the same participatory status in the elite parts of society if learning is weighted more) or cries equality (women are in control of a significant amount of cultural construction on a daily basis and in fact control the economy). This makes me curious to read any fictional explorations of what happens in a culture on the brink of weighing one aspect more heavily than another? As in the discussions of technology vis-a-vis women's value in a society, would a devalued learning ethic mean more women would enter into learning and men would "usurp" the business/monetary aspects of women's culture, or would men's value in society decrease? misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Frances Green[SMTP:jjggww@JUNO.COM] >Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 1:41 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures > >Does anyone remember all the things the "virtuous women, whose price is >above rubies", had to get through, while her husband sat around all day >discussing theology? As I recollect, it sounded as though that woman was >running the whole economy! > >(Did anybody ever find out what Ruby charged?) > > >On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:26:43 UT Lesley Hall >writes: >>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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:06:02 -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: <19980216.161220.4022.3.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > If Creationists (scientific or otherwise) believe that each species was > separately and deliberately created, would it not seem logical that God > wanted each of those species to exist, and that it would be a religious > obligation to do anything necessary to preserve those species from > endangerment or extinction? > No; because they were "put here for man's use", and if that's the use Man wants to make of them, who is God to interfere?> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:20:27 -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 and patriarchal cultures/Lysistrata A further thought that just slid through my mind: I think it was only the wives who were the activists. I don't remember if the (oh, now I'm really embarrassed) heterae ???? (the companion women), not to mention the prostitutes, were in on things. If they were not, it presumes a very high standard of male marital fidelity! "Do not ask more of a vision in a dream than a vision in a dream can give." (approximately) --C.S. Lewis ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:29:29 -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 I KNEW there must be a logical answer! On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:06:02 -0800 Pat writes: >On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > >> If Creationists (scientific or otherwise) believe that each species >was >> separately and deliberately created, would it not seem logical that >God >> wanted each of those species to exist, and that it would be a >religious >> obligation to do anything necessary to preserve those species from >> endangerment or extinction? >> > No; because they were "put here for man's use", and if that's >the >use Man wants to make of them, who is God to interfere?> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:48:44 -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: McCaffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:48 AM 2/16/98 -0700, Michelle Bernard wrote: >BUT, this does get confused, because there is NOT only a single queen >in a weyr, just a single dominant queen (often the mother of the others) >and hence there are other queen-riders (not weyrwomen) who produce other >clutches (sort of a security measure to keep producing dragons). You're right, of course. I typed hastily & didn't remember carefully enough. However, I've now remembered some other aspects of the books which also trouble me. McCaffrey explains that the male dragons lead the charge against Thread because the queens cannot chew firestone (it would make them infertile) and are too valuable to risk on the front lines. Yet there is a "queens wing" which flies below all the others and mops up any Thread that might have gotten through all the upper ranks. This always seemed like a consolation prize to me. And why does firestone make queens infertile when it doesn't make male dragons infertile? Hmph. I think it's definitely the case that McCaffrey wrote some of these things originally without thinking about them too much and later tried to revise with limited success. I imagine it must be difficult for any author with a large following to try to introduce changes into their original world without making the fans upset. Some books were better than others. The Harper Hall trilogy took on the subject of sexism in the crafts. As an adolescent I identified with Menolly, but was a little disappointed to see her role shrink with time. *Dragondrums* focused mostly on Piemur. Can someone who has kept up with the books tell me what has happened with her character? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Transister's eponymous debut; R.E.M.'s Murmur "...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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:02:59 -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: Women and violence In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:55 AM 2/16/98 -0600, Marina Yereshenko wrote: >Maybe it's easier to understand by comparison. The only place I've seen >in US that remotely reminded my home city was South Bronx in New York, >except that South Bronx seemed a lot safer. Imagine that you live >in a place like that alone, and think how big you chances of survival would be >compared to ones of a male. > >It's very simple. You are walking home on a dark street. There is a >group of teenage guys hanging out that you have to pass. If you are a >man, they might think before messing with you (especially if it's a >culture where every male owns at least a switchblade). A few thoughts: Most male violence is directed towards other males. A man walking down a dark street and passing unfamiliar guys may be in even more danger of being assaulted than a woman (though he will probably not be raped). If a woman has been trained in self-defense, a size or strength difference may not affect the outcome of a one-on-one confrontation at all. However, if her attackers come at her in numbers she will probably be overcome. The same goes for a man. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think a woman is actually any more likely to be a victim of a crime than a man is. (I suppose it would be a good idea to quote some statistics here, but I don't have any handy.) But if she is assaulted, she is generally less able to defend herself. Women are less likely to carry weapons, more likely to wear restrictive clothing that impedes movement, less likely to have participated in sports, less likely to have been involved in physical fights in their youth. United States culture discourages women from being physically aggressive or even self-confident. However, if this conditioning against physicality is overcome or ignored by women they can become fully capable of defending themselves. And walking the street in numbers is a tried and true tactic that is often used by men as well as women. To bring this back to SF, I love it when authors take it for granted that women are NOT inherently weak or less physical. A good example would be Melissa Scott's *Trouble and Her Friends*. There is a scene early in the book when Cerise is walking in New Century Square and some "dollie-girls" start following her, preparing to do her unknown physical harm. She decides "offense is the best defense" and with a little violence the confrontation is quickly over. Suzy McKee Charnas' *The Furies* also details some nasty violence of women against men. It is not portrayed in a favorable light, exactly, but the women easily win the victory. I'll be very interested to see how they *deal* with their victory in the next book. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Transister's eponymous debut; R.E.M.'s Murmur "...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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 19:47:05 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-16 18:53:05 EST, Janice wrote: << Women are less likely to carry weapons, more likely to wear restrictive clothing that impedes movement, less likely to have participated in sports, less likely to have been involved in physical fights in their youth. United States culture discourages women from being physically aggressive or even self-confident. >> And let's not forget that women are much more harshly punished for defending themselves than are men. Just as (to bring this vaguely back on-topic ) women sf writers are criticized more often and more strongly for creating fiction without strong male characters than vice versa. Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:25:17 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: McCaffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-16 18:53:03 EST, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > Some books were better than others. The Harper Hall trilogy took on the > subject of sexism in the crafts. As an adolescent I identified with > Menolly, but was a little disappointed to see her role shrink with time. > *Dragondrums* focused mostly on Piemur. Can someone who has kept up with > the books tell me what has happened with her character? I haven't kept up terribly well, but last I knew Menolly had ended up marrying Robinton's second-in-command (whose name escapes me at the moment) because she was actually in love with Robinton, but for some reason (I believe it was because he was so much older), it had to be unrequited. This, I think, is part of the reason I stopped reading the Pern stories, because Menolly was the character I identified most closely with as an adolescent as well, and seeing her stuck in a cliched "in love with her mentor" thing really annoyed me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:54:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Women and violence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Janice E. Dawley > > A few thoughts: > Most male violence is directed towards other males. A man walking down a > dark street and passing unfamiliar guys may be in even more danger of being > assaulted than a woman (though he will probably not be raped). > > If a woman has been trained in self-defense, a size or strength difference > may not affect the outcome of a one-on-one confrontation at all. However, > if her attackers come at her in numbers she will probably be overcome. The > same goes for a man. > > I guess what I am saying is that I don't think a woman is actually any more > likely to be a victim of a crime than a man is. (I suppose it would be a > good idea to quote some statistics here, but I don't have any handy.) But > if she is assaulted, she is generally less able to defend herself. Just to add to what Janice is saying here, I came across a rather interesting statistic while doing research on something else entirely. According to an organization called "Stop Prison Rape," if sexual assaults on incarcerated men and boys are taking into account, more males than females are raped in the U.S. Of course, I can't confirm their statistics. However, since the majority of the prison population (both perpetrators and victims and people who are both) are heterosexual, it's an interesting sideline to the earlier discussion about whether rape is "about" sex or power. As to the self-defense issue, I have a somewhat relevant and rather funny story about this. Years ago I was talked into attending a woman's self-defense class with some friends. I had done judo for years and went along primarily so that my friends *would* go. The sessions always started with consciousness-raising, in which 19 out of 20 women in the room kept saying, "But I couldn't do that to him, I might hurt him." I got a headache from the intensity with which I had to restrain myself from wanting to shake them all and yell "If the s.o.b.'s trying to *rape* you, damn well *hurt* him!" But ... one of my friends broke a man's arm 6 months after this course ended, when he attempted to assault her. On the other hand, she felt guilty as hell about it for months afterwards. The thing was that she'd internalized what to do to such an extent that she didn't actually *think* when the assault happened, she just reacted. Oh . . . and one final thing: as a young woman who was almost always mistaken for a guy, a lot of what men do is just alpha-male posturing. Get the moves right and they're just as likely to back down. (Although this may not work for societies more violent than Canada . . . ?) Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:59:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: Women and violence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Nicola Griffith > And let's not forget that women are much more harshly punished for defending > themselves than are men. Just as (to bring this vaguely back on-topic ) > women sf writers are criticized more often and more strongly for creating > fiction without strong male characters than vice versa. Makes you wonder if anything ever changes! Back when I used to farm, I discovered that men could rant and scream and pound on the counter if the feed-store got their order wrong. If I tried it, under the same circumstances, I was being an aggressive bitch and quite likely to find that they all of a sudden didn't need my business. But . . . if I was dealing with a local store, which meant that they knew I was a lesbian, I always got treated as one of the guys. Which meant that I could rant if I wanted to . . . . A local gay male farmer, on the other hand, had the exact opposite problem. Aren't stereotypes grand? Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:16:56 -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: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <2286f745.34e8de0b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Women and violence >And let's not forget that women are much more harshly punished for defending >themselves than are men. Just as (to bring this vaguely back on-topic ) >women sf writers are criticized more often and more strongly for creating >fiction without strong male characters than vice versa. Regarding this point: I have a story about a female who wins the traditional quest (killing an evil sorcerer) and goes to the king for the hand of the princess. I had it critiqued by professional SF writers, who had a number of very astute things to say about what was wrong with it (which I enjoyed hearing) but a few comments stuck with me. First, they said the story would be much stronger if the female could show how the couple could have kids ("maybe that will be the story's hook, that this talisman of yours enables them to have kids magically without men?"). Second, the idea that the princess in question wanted to be a nun was dismissed entirely -- "she would be raised to want kids/husband". Lastly, the way to get the king to accept the marriage would be to set up the relationship as sisterly, no consummation of the marriage (and one comment of how the king would father the heir on my heroine, as a way to continue the family line). One of the other submitters suggested two or three times that I have my heroine raped by the sorcerer before she kills him, because that would give her a reason to want to marry a woman. I refrained from much comment, because if I had started commenting, it would have taken hours to give them the feminist theory basics. On the "magical babies" element, I stated that many feminist utopian worlds have discussed "magical children" in depth. The moderator replied, "you can't assume that your audience has read or heard of these books." *sigh* Jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:53:16 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: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-16 21:57:23 EST, you write: << > From: Janice E. Dawley > > A few thoughts: > Most male violence is directed towards other males. A man walking down a > dark street and passing unfamiliar guys may be in even more danger of being > assaulted than a woman (though he will probably not be raped). > >> For all practical purposes, for women this is useless information: a woman alone in public is a target for violent and irresponsible men. During the ten years that I lived in Washington, D.C. I was assaulted four times, twice severely, none of these in "unsafe" areas or out of the sight of other people. These were occasions when I was robbed and/or hit while I was walking in the street. In a less serious attack, I was walking with my sister in the business district, on K street, when I two asshole black teenagers shoved me against a wall and grabbed my breasts. I have been spit on in the street, I have had men come up close and scream in my ear, I have had obscenities yelled at me in every public area I can think of, I have been unable to sit unmolested in Dupont Circle and read a newspaper, I have been groped in the street, on the bus, in movie theaters: I felt safe walking the streets only after I had taken a martial arts class and carried a weapon, and even that faded after the last time I was mugged by two men a half block from my home at 8 o'clock at night. The invisibility granted me by middle age has been a blessing: it has meant a halt to 90% of the casual sexual assault I was regularly subject to as a younger woman. I am still a target, but a less desireable one. Regardless: wherever you are, night or day, young or old, as a woman you are a target for male violence. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:00:36 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: <19980216.161220.4022.3.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > Further to religion/environmental rape: > > If Creationists (scientific or otherwise) believe that each species was > separately and deliberately created, would it not seem logical that God > wanted each of those species to exist, and that it would be a religious > obligation to do anything necessary to preserve those species from > endangerment or extinction? Following the same logic, if those species cease to exist, could it be because God wanted them to do so (for whatever reasons) and humans with their actions were meant to be simply the instruments (and therefore, don't have to worry about it)? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:17:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <2286f745.34e8de0b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Nicola Griffith wrote: > And let's not forget that women are much more harshly punished for defending > themselves than are men. Just as (to bring this vaguely back on-topic ) > women sf writers are criticized more often and more strongly for creating > fiction without strong male characters than vice versa. I don't know if you've seen a new TV commercial of an action video game, which heavily relies on the muscular "maleness" of the main character. I don't remember the name of the game, but the punchline of the commercial is: "Kill Laura Croft!" (Laura Croft is the main character of the TombRider game series, and the only female action hero in videogames, for all I know). Every time I see it, I think that if a TombRider commercial would say something like "Kill Whatever-the-name-of-the-muscular-guy-from-the- competing-game-series-is!" that would be called "a case of raging feminism" and "one of the ridiculous extremes of male-bashing". Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:58:55 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <5f3fca63.34e917bf@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, Kathleen, Washington, DC seems a lot like my country, Tajikistan. Maybe there are places where it's different, but for all I've seen, women are a thousand times more likely to be a target of male violence, than other males. Using my previous example about a gang on a dark street, a man, even if he is alone, might have a gun, a black belt, or whatever, which makes people think twice before starting a conflict. But even if he is totally weak, he simply does not have much, other than money, to be of particular interest to a group of bored teenagers. If they let a _woman_ pass by them without trying at least verbally get to her, they won't consider themselves men anymore. Violent males do not normally start fights with women. They simply try to make sexual advances and get violent if she expresses discontent. Example: my classmate was walking home from the bus stop. A guy she passed by, reached out, grabbed her by the breast, and kept going. She called him and idiot. He stopped, came back, and punched her in the face. This was a _norm_ where I used to live. The guy was simply "teaching her a lesson" about how she should treat a man and how bad it was for her to be disrespectful. Maybe in nice parts of developed countries, in safe environments, like most of the US and Canada, the matter of equality is about equal pay or birth control. In the down-to-earth rest of the world, which is 90% of world population, it all boils down to the matter of personal safety. If since you are 10 years old, you learn to keep silent when someone tries to stick their hand under your skirt on a city bus (because you know that if you say something, you'll get physically hurt) then the whole idea of equality might seem pretty ridiculous. If they can do anything to you, anything they want, and you can't do anything back, it makes the idea that you are not any worse that them very hard to believe. On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Kathleen M. Friello wrote: > For all practical purposes, for women this is useless information: a woman > alone in public is a target for violent and irresponsible men. During the ten > years that I lived in Washington, D.C. I was assaulted four times, twice > severely, none of these in "unsafe" areas or out of the sight of other people. > These were occasions when I was robbed and/or hit while I was walking in the > street. In a less serious attack, I was walking with my sister in the business > district, on K street, when I two asshole black teenagers shoved me against a > wall and grabbed my breasts. I have been spit on in the street, I have had men > come up close and scream in my ear, I have had obscenities yelled at me in > every public area I can think of, I have been unable to sit unmolested in > Dupont Circle and read a newspaper, I have been groped in the street, on the > bus, in movie theaters: I felt safe walking the streets only after I had taken > a martial arts class and carried a weapon, and even that faded after the last > time I was mugged by two men a half block from my home at 8 o'clock at night. > > The invisibility granted me by middle age has been a blessing: it has meant a > halt to 90% of the casual sexual assault I was regularly subject to as a > younger woman. I am still a target, but a less desireable one. > > Regardless: wherever you are, night or day, young or old, as a woman you are a > target for male violence. > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:39:41 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: Joanna Russ--_Female Man_ & _And Chaos Died_ Sorry to throw in such a late response, but my email access is pretty erratic, and I'm just catching up on the last couple of weeks... Lindy wrote: > > I need help with these Joanna Russ books. I'm having trouble > > discerning POVs in _Female Man_. Lacan and Derrida are easier > > to understand than _And Chaos Died_. I haven't read _And Chaos Died_, but I refuse to believe anyone is harder to read than Derrida. > > If you enjoyed either of these books, I would like to hear from > > you. I've enjoyed lots of "literary" fiction in the past and > > can't believe that I'm not enjoying either of these books. I did enjoy _The Female Man_ a great deal. I read it a few years ago now, so my memory of the details is shaky, but I do remember that I found it hard to get into at first. It seemed dated and irrelevant to current feminist concerns. Because I was interested in the history of feminism I persisted with it, and Russ's savage intelligence completely won me over. I love this book [and many of her others] for its uncompromising and brilliant social critique, and its resistance to easy definition. So I disagree with Mike's claim that the novel > is very much a product of the 60s and 70s and it hasn't aged well. Although > much of it takes place in the future or in alternate universes, it's really > very much about America and the women's movement 25-30 years ago. While FM is obviously very much about issues in 70s feminism, I think that many of these issues are still to be resolved in the 90s. For instance, has feminism ever really come to terms with its historical dependence on WW2? The Jeannine character in FM shows this problem rather well, I think. > In contrast, > I found Woman on the Edge of Time as fresh and relevant as ever. So did I. Though my one problem with it is that it doesn't deal adequately with violence, IMO. I find it hard to believe that the whole society can go to war, execute criminals etc, and yet that this violence doesn't leak into other areas of their lives. I found Russ's warrior women much more believable in this regard. Kate. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:44:41 +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: OT: Screaming up and down halls In-Reply-To: <19980216.161220.4022.3.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Frances Green wrote: > Further to religion/environmental rape: > > If Creationists (scientific or otherwise) believe that each species was > separately and deliberately created, would it not seem logical that God > wanted each of those species to exist, and that it would be a religious > obligation to do anything necessary to preserve those species from > endangerment or extinction? > Genesis 2: 18. Then the Lord God said "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him. Do out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. That's from the SECOND creation story in Genesis, and totally conflicts with the FIRST story, in Genesis I, where all the animals weere created before Afam. But the second creation story suggests that God wanted Adam and his descendants to do what the hell he wanted with the evironment (and so it is quoted and interpreted by some creationists and other fundamentalists). 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: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:17:05 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: <19980216.161220.4022.4.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yikes. Busted. On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:08:23 -0500, Frances Green wrote: >Our branch library seems to have moved it from general fiction to SF. ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:34:12 +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: McCaffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980216184844.006f73c0@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 18:48 16/02/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 09:48 AM 2/16/98 -0700, Michelle Bernard wrote: >>BUT, this does get confused, because there is NOT only a single queen >>in a weyr, just a single dominant queen (often the mother of the others) >>and hence there are other queen-riders (not weyrwomen) who produce other >>clutches (sort of a security measure to keep producing dragons). > >You're right, of course. I typed hastily & didn't remember carefully enough. > >However, I've now remembered some other aspects of the books which also >trouble me. McCaffrey explains that the male dragons lead the charge >against Thread because the queens cannot chew firestone (it would make them >infertile) and are too valuable to risk on the front lines. Yet there is a >"queens wing" which flies below all the others and mops up any Thread that >might have gotten through all the upper ranks. This always seemed like a >consolation prize to me. And why does firestone make queens infertile when >it doesn't make male dragons infertile? Hmph. I think this is partly explained in "DragonsDawn" - the original creatrix of the dragons was a brilliant genetic engineer, who was known for eccentric and "old-fashioned" ideas on sex gender roles, and who unfortunatley died before the first clutch of dragons eggs hatched and her scientific notes were incomplete - ( a clutch which contained a large number of queens and greens) - The first batch of adolescents to bond with this first clutch were at a loss when the dragons came to maturity and found out the queens could not chew firestone. However, at that point in time, the queens were not old enough to mate and the issue of fertility and firestone was not at issue. The first riders had to find out things by trial and error, by accidentally losing rider and dragon to "between" etc. The riders chose to try feeding their dragons firestone, despite everyone (adults that is, teasing them and thinking they were just useless oversized fire-lizards - or the possibility that the dragons were still "too young") The queens told their riders that they "didnt like it" etc and they just regurgitated the firestone, and complained of indigestion:)) There is a scene amongst these first riders where the girl and boy riders lament the inability of the queens to breathe fire, and discuss the possibility that the creatrix had engineered this for reasons of "old-fashioned gender roles" etc, or for various reasons, maybe the queens matured later than the others? etc..but whatever the reason - the riders would never know, as the old lady had died and had not left detailed scientific notes on her methods etc Its hinted that later generations associated the greens infertility with chewing firestone, and assumed thats why queens did not chew it. In the first book, set 20 odd thousand years after first Threadfall and the flight from the southern continent - the dragon population had declined to one last remaining Weyr and one last dying queen and queen egg about to hatch. Lessa was told quite strongly that "Queen dragons do not fly, except to mate" etc... > >I think it's definitely the case that McCaffrey wrote some of these things >originally without thinking about them too much and later tried to revise >with limited success. I imagine it must be difficult for any author with a >large following to try to introduce changes into their original world >without making the fans upset. > >Some books were better than others. The Harper Hall trilogy took on the >subject of sexism in the crafts. As an adolescent I identified with >Menolly, but was a little disappointed to see her role shrink with time. >*Dragondrums* focused mostly on Piemur. Can someone who has kept up with >the books tell me what has happened with her character? > >----- >Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT >http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm >Listening to: Transister's eponymous debut; R.E.M.'s Murmur >"...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: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:11:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <199802170253.VAA31223@pip1.pipcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII And then there's the good old-fashioned equalizer. Of course, a woman shooter may go to prison for a far longer time than her assailant, but as a gun-carrying friend of mine said (she worked in a War Zone convenience store), "it's better to be tried by 12 than buried by 6." Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:20:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Anne McCaffrey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII When critiquing McCaffrey, remember what generation she belonged to - that of my parents. WWII. (or else very early Silent). The GI ideal was teamwork, which meant women cooperating with men; and after the war, returning home to raise the kids. The Silent ideal was fluffy domesticity as in our mothjer's middle age; we turned feminist in our own middle age, but were not reared to it. She's lived through almost the complete cycle; make allowances for her being a native of anothjer period. But have you noticed - all her talented famale characters have been abused by their families *even if they make excuses and say those families really loved them anyway.* Except maybe in the Rowan series. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:25:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Jo Clayton Recommendation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've never read any Jo Clayton. Could someone recommend a few? Thanks, Sally Kamholtz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:51:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Anne McCaffrey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And in the Rowan series McCaffrey writes of the Rowan's daughter Damia (when she first makes love with Afra), "How could she have forgotten that woman's most important function must begin with physical domination by a man?" I am not criticizing McCaffrey, Pat's points are well taken; but that one made me barf. I really, really have a hard time equating consensual heterosexual intercourse with "domination" of the woman by the man - yet for McCaffrey (and for most people of my mother's age, I suppose!) that seems to have been the only natural way to perceive it. Nina Osier Pat wrote: > When critiquing McCaffrey, remember what generation she belonged to - that > of my parents. WWII. (or else very early Silent). The GI ideal was > teamwork, which meant women > cooperating with men; and after the war, returning home to raise the > kids. The Silent ideal was fluffy domesticity as in our mothjer's > middle age; we turned feminist in our own middle age, but were not > reared to it. She's lived through almost the complete cycle; make > allowances for her being a native of anothjer period. > > But have you noticed - all her talented famale characters have been abused > by their families *even if they make excuses and say those families really > loved them anyway.* Except maybe in the Rowan series. > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:08:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Antifeminist SF? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- I'm curious - what current SF/fantasy writers are the most aggressively *anti*feminist, in the opinion of this list? Is there a fictional backlash to feminist SF? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:08:10 -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: OT: Screaming up and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- And again, if the world is going to end any minute, why should we take care of it? BTW, back to something closer to topic again, I have a book here, "Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis," by Joni Seager. I haven't read it yet - does anybody have a book report on this? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:25:59 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: technology and feminism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-16 13:43:14 EST, you write: << All the rhetoric about women's equality does not get very far if women do not have some method of controlling their own fertility: >> Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:37:41 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: technology and feminism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, of course the obvious answer is that women don't have control over "keeping their pants on" as in the case of violent assault/rape or in the often sanctioned instances of marital rape where it's assumed that being married means that the husband has right of sexual access. Then women wouldn't have control over their own fertility w/out reliable means of contraception (rather than abstinence). Even such means of birth control as abortion and infanticide will take a lot out of women, so it's not so much birth control as contraception. misha bernardm@colorado.edu >---------- >From: Barbara R. Hume[SMTP:Lurima@AOL.COM] >Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 9:25 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] technology and feminism > >In a message dated 98-02-16 13:43:14 EST, you write: > ><< All the rhetoric about women's > equality does not get very far if women do not have some method of > controlling their own fertility: >> > >Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping >one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > >barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:42:22 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: Antifeminist SF? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-17 11:13:18 EST, you write: << Is there a fictional backlash to feminist SF? -- >> I don't know what the genesis of the character was, but in Michael Crichton's _Sphere_ there's a character who's such a flaming feminist she becomes a parody. She intereprets everything as "Obviously, the woman here knew what to do, but the men made the opposite choice and screwed up the mission." barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:43:11 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: OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-17 11:13:29 EST, you write: << And again, if the world is going to end any minute, why should we take care of it? >> No man knoweth the day or the hour. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:36:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: technology and feminism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > (1) You're married. Sex with your husband is part of the deal. You're using birth control. It fails. (2) A huge percentage - I forget what - of the teenaged mothers' babies were fathered by grown men; and a sizeable percentage of those teenaged mothers said some degree of force or pressure had been used against them. Note: I tried wrestling with my ex physically once, just for fun. He's the same height as I am and doesn't weigh as much. I lost every time.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:44:47 -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: FemSpec In case anyone is interested who doesn't already know: FemSpec PO Box 69 E Montpelier VT 05651-0069 "A journal of creative critical writings concerning speculative imaginary fantasy, SF, gender-bending literature & film; reclamations of myth, etc, including popular culture. Send 3 copies, 15 page maxiumum, MLA style." The above is from an entry submitted to Gayellow Pages, originally added to the database from an announcement in Feminist Bookstore News. _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:57:51 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: technology and feminism > In a message dated 98-02-16 13:43:14 EST, you write: > > << All the rhetoric about women's > equality does not get very far if women do not have some method of > controlling their own fertility: >> > > Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > > barbara No backlash from me, Barbara. It is also the only way to avoid diseases at 100% no risk. However, there is sex without penetration...it works as well!! Penny ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:20:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-17 11:13:29 EST, you write: > And again, if the world is going to end any minute, why should we take > care of it? > > BTW, back to something closer to topic again, I have a book here, "Earth > Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis," > by Joni Seager. I haven't read it yet - does anybody have a book report > on this? I was going to stay out of this. It really isn't topical. But I'm a Christian and there should be at least one response from the accused. So far, the comments have been pretty heavily on the side of "all committed Christians are of the rape-and-pillage mentality." I take the biblical call to be stewards of God's creation as an imperative to mind it well, to protect it and to cherish it. I'll grant you that, if He returned today, the Lord might well postpone the rapture till we "clean up our rooms." Still, there are those in the Christina community that lament this state of affairs, support environmentalism, and do all they can to care for the creative work of their Master's hand. Jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:28:02 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF: Re: Women and violence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nicola Griffith wrote: > And let's not forget that women are much more harshly punished for defending > themselves than are men. Just as (to bring this vaguely back on-topic ) > women sf writers are criticized more often and more strongly for creating > fiction without strong male characters than vice versa. Nicola, this is right on target. It isn't only in fiction, either, but in how one speaks up for themselves in general. It's the old adage we've heard over the years; a man who speaks firmly in support of himself is considered confident or authoratative; a woman is being "hysterical" or "difficult." Of course nowadays, with the web, the exchanges are in full view of everyone ... ===== "Your point is interesting," she commented. "But I find it unconvincing. You haven't taken into consideration the tribal practices of the Zoodle subspecies on the third planet in the Epsilon Eridani system." "There you go again!" he stormed. "Throwing around emotional hyberoles! How can we talk if you insist on being illogical?" "Well, actually," she said mildly. "Your last response came across to me as more emotional than logical. Perhaps if you could cite your sources in support of your argument in regards to Zoodle courting rituals, we could discuss your point in more detail." "Emotional?" he shouted. "I'M NEVER emotional. I'm logical! Logical, I say, woman! LOGICAL. I see no point in continuing this subject with someone who so clearly has no concept of how to conduct a rational discussion." Male friend of guy chimes in: "Hey, did you see the discussion of Zoodle mating practices in the ZoodlePorn topic? Pretty interesting stuff. You might want to go take a look. Seems Zoodle males dominate and Zoodle women thrive on it." "Yes, I did see it," first guy says. "Also, there is a good essay on the Dominance Theory of Zoodle Sexual Practices in the lastest issue of the magazine 'We Don't Have A Clue, So Ny-Ny-Ny To You.' You should take a look at it." Then the Zoodle non-Dominace types, both women and men, needle the Zoodle Dominance Theory supporters. The Zoodle Dominance guys get angry at the Zoodle nonDominace guys for breaking ranks. Every now and then a single female poster chimes in with how we should let the sweet Zoodle Dominace types dominate, because it really is best for them, and after all, we all must take care of our Zoodles. The Zoodle Dominace adherents immediately welcome her into the club, saying how nice it is to meet the one logical woman alive. Another female poster innocently points out that if the previous female poster is the only attractive female alive to Zoodle Dominace guys, then hey, she gets a harem of Zoodle men at her disposal. Which of course starts a new flame war. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:32:07 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: McCaffrey and female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-16 18:53:03 EST, you write: << e her role shrink with time. *Dragondrums* focused mostly on Piemur. Can someone who has kept up with the books tell me what has happened with her character? >> Menolly became one of the most important people on Pern. Of course, she didn't become Masterharper after Robinton's death--her husband did--but he'd been working under Robinton for longer than she had. Her songs became universally acknowledged as favorites because they were so singable and memorable, and she was asked to immortalize the important events of Pernese history in her songs. I would have liked to see her working to make sure other talented females were not being suppressed as she had been. Surely her fame would have some effect in that direction. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:08:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram Subject: Re: technology and feminism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping >one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] There's also the truth that spit doesn't make babies (also 100% guaranteed) - or anal sex, as is practiced as a form of birth control in much of Africa (which has probably contributed to the spread of AIDS in that country). As Michelle pointed out, however, a lot of women don't really have the option of not having sex, or choice in the type of sex they have. Being able to control their pregnancies is crucial within this context. MHO - Pain is very useful. Pain teaches us to take our hand OUT the fucking fire. Audre Lorde ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:27:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: technology and feminism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] Lesbianism's 100% guaranteed, too, and comes with no intrinsically harmful side-effects . Not sure that you can say the same for celibacy. Oh, alright, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek. Wendy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:29:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: "Other In Fantasy" .. Boskone panel In-Reply-To: <1d0da1d6.34e9d7aa@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Anything written here is an estimate only. Do not try to hold up these quotes in a flame war... ;-) By far, this was the most valuable panel that I attended. I did not get to go to the Damsels in Distress panel, though I desperately wanted to. Perhaps if we ask nicely enough, Catherine Asaro will give us a synopsis? (she was on the panel) Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15, 1998. Other In Fantasy MS = Melissa Scott - Dreaming Metal, Dreamshifts, etc. CT = Cecilia Tan - Circlet Press RK = Rosemary Kirstein DS = Delia Sherman - Through a Raised Mirror CT: The Other is a social thing, defined in relation to a group (as a relative instead of absolute). The people are of two sorts: 1. The Disenfranchised and 2. Those self-defined as Other. These are not mutually exclusive, and may lead from one to the other or back. MS: The Other is the person talked _about_, and you should look at the world from the other perspective for comparison. Especially interesting is to do a book from the view of the one talking, and then do another book from the view of the one talked about. RK: SF is a group created out of Other. The extremities of the Other is stretched farther in SF than, say, in Romance. RK: re: vampires and sexual fetishes ^Å authors can use the sympathetic vampire to bring in elements of the bizarre or off-centered sexual behaviors into the norm CT: Everyone wants the same thing - love and closeness, so vampires are a lot more sympathetic than they used to be DS: Covert ways of talking about sex, race, class, and how we are a society of unexpressed class, and how fantasy deals with issues of Other and Class. MS: Should AI have more rights than contract laborers? It's easier to articulate when the author can define how the caste (division by race) or class (division by economics) is set up. DS: In most heroic fantasy - the keeper of the pigs is actually the king. Cream rises to the surface, the blood will tell, the quality of the person's life is innate^Å you always -knew- they were bound for something better. MS: I told a story from a new class (from the city, in the primarily rural nation) and they had to set up 3 classes: the Nobles, the Peasants, and the Merchants and the hierarchy of wisdom. Different cultures value different items: NY City: "How much money do you have?" Boston: "What do you know?" South US: "who's your grandparents?" DS: Other defines normative values CT: the only way to create an Other is by taking him/her out of the current place and go to somewhere else. DS: The Bad Guys are exclusive societies, rigid and normative. The Maverick Hero is always us. We are all Other to everyone else. MS: taking something difficult to deal with and make it the Other because it's easier to handle (lots of bashing on Pern's status levels and lack of economic reality, how though there are "markers" there's no real economy at work) RK: if you're of lower class, then there's guilt because it's "your fault" ^Å because if you were of royal blood, you'd rise to the top. DS: Being a SF writer is the best thing going because of the conventions and feedback. People "give back" the book in their own views, giving you new ways of thinking about a topic you'd written about. MS: Very hard on film to make connections between characters and no imaginative interaction with the reader's participation, but you fill in the emotional content instead. (audience guy) Actors can show emotion but not the reasoning behind the emotion. Stephen King: "Horror appeals to the 3 piece suited republican in all of us" (which shows that he considers himself part of the "normal" folk) Clive Barker: "Horror is the part of mainstream culture that terrifies you" (which shows that he considers himself part of the Other, and that "normal" has horror potential.) MS: writers who are the Norm write from that stand, and the Reader says, "No, that's not me at all!" CT: status quo is important here. In Melissa Scott's work, it shows that the mystery genre strives to restore the status quo (that is disrupted by the murder). SF is about disrupting the status quo and keeps on going with that thread, seeing how to gain closure with the new paradigm. DS: In Europe, if they don't know you're American, they will address you in the language they think you speak. They are much less homogenized than Americans. They will block people as the Other automatically based on their quick judgement of you. DS: When books were marked as books instead of genre, you didn't get the "oh, I don't read SF." You read whatever was available. RK: The Other in SF is embodiment of universe itself, with all its differences, we can't communicate with it. ^Å we can use Aliens to personify the alienness of space and everything out there, and how we cope with it. MS: It comes down to what you want when you read - confirmation of what you know, or discovery of something new. {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:25:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: technology and feminism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-16 13:43:14 EST, you write: > > << All the rhetoric about women's > equality does not get very far if women do not have some method of > controlling their own fertility: >> > > Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > > barbara > No sharp message, Barbara, but a simple answer. If a person enjoys sex, doesn't consider it immoral, and takes precautions against STDS, why should they have to keep their pants on? Give woman AND men the improved contraception that would be readily available if the drug companies weren't terrified of the Christian Right, or even ready access to current contraceptive methods, and the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies would be avoided and there would be no reason for those who do not find sex immoral to refrain unless they wanted to rather than feeling coerced by people whose beliefs are different from their own. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:04:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: "Fantasy in History" .. Boskone panel In-Reply-To: <199802171927.OAA05096@daisy.snet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Boskone 35 - Feb 13-15, 1998. Fantasy and History MS = Melissa Scott - Dreaming Metal, Dreamshifts, etc. LB = Lisa Barnett - the Armor of Light, Point of Hopes MS: Elizabethan Heroism was service to queen and Church, which is out of favor now. Historical fantasy is an effort to take the archetypal parts of a character and apply it for a contemporary audience. The draw to it is similar to the pull for dinosaurs, the incredible sense of power and magic that seems so SFnal, but actually happened. LB: Magic was deeply felt but not understood, similar to atomic power now. "Hey, it's great that it's there and gives us electricity, but I don't want to be near it." King James of Scotland (?) was certain that there were witches out to get him. If you're in the Secret Service of James, you're doing your best to protect him from witches, since if the king says it, then it MUST be so. MS: this also shows that people didn't always think the way we do now. "the sun breeds maggots on a dead dog" was a perfectly accepted way of thinking, from their scientific, direct observations. Historical fiction looks for the strands of thought that pull us toward the writings of the past, ways that we connect with the people of that time. It is extremely important to do the research to see the transparent, unspoken assumptions of the time, such as the racism in the 30s novels and Scarlet Pimpernel's anti-Semitic statements. There is also the technical issue of staying true to the character while writing about what is abhorrent to us (the time period's view on women, on race). LB: There are some eras which I simply won't write about because I dislike the prevailing attitudes so strongly. In writing, there has to be an acceptance (not necessarily an endorsement of, but at least an acceptance.) of the cultural taboos and stereotypes in order to express the society correctly. MS: You have to play fair to the time. You can't write out the sexism, religion in order to remain PC. You have to find a way into that world without glossing over the negative. --------- ----------- ----------- {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:20:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Oh, not again! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Snipped where I should have snapped. Posting I just sent replying to a post by Catherine Asaro, looks as if *she* wrote what *I* said. Sorry! That will teach me to proofread before hitting send, I hope...when you're at home playing with the computer instead of working because you're having a new oil tank installed, it does affect you mental acuity. I plead insanity. Nina ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:21:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: [fwd from SMOFS] Jo Clayton 1939-1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:01:23 -0800 >From: John Lorentz >Subject: [SMOFS] Jo Clayton 1939-1998 >To: SMOFS@SFLOVERS.RUTGERS.EDU > > After a valiant 18-month battle against Multiple Myeloma, author Jo > Clayton passed away at 3:40 PM PST, Friday, February 13, at Good > Samaritan hospital in Portland, OR. She died peacefully, with family > and friends present. > > Per her wishes, Jo will be cremated, her ashes scattered in the > California redwoods. > > > > Jo is going to be missed--both by her friends in Portland, and her > friends on-line. > > > > --John > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:13:45 -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: <18507c6f.34e9c6c3@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Jim Hollomon wrote: > I was going to stay out of this. It really isn't topical. But I'm a Christian > and there should be at least one response from the accused. So far, the > comments have been pretty heavily on the side of "all committed Christians are > of the rape-and-pillage mentality." > > I take the biblical call to be stewards of God's creation as an imperative to > mind it well, to protect it and to cherish it. I'll grant you that, if He > returned today, the Lord might well postpone the rapture till we "clean up our > rooms." Still, there are those in the Christina community that lament this > state of affairs, support environmentalism, and do all they can to care for > the creative work of their Master's hand. > > Jim We've heard so much from the Christian right that people forget there is also a Christian left.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:06:05 -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: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been a little behind, & just went through a couple of dozen posts in this thread. . . It seems to me there's something most of the commenters are missing. The original dragon story was a novella in Analog. Then there was the expansion into a novel. Then there was another novel, and another, etc. This did not originate as an intensely thought-out world. It began as one story. But each time an author invents something else in a world, there's that much less choice in the future. (Larry Niven pretty much gave up on his Known Space stories for exactly this reason.) If Pern had been created in the first place with deep, detailed analysis, it could be criticised that way; but it's more of an agglomeration. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:06:50 -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: Not Quite Feminist Writers, was O.S.Card (was SF and Religion) In-Reply-To: <1206ca3d.34e3a9e7@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> 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 It is entirely possible to be a feminist without that being one's primary priority. Further, it is entirely possible to have simple respect for fellow human beings without a platform. (As a long-time con-goer, I've met most of the people Barbara listed. I would expect several of them to include feminism in a list of their concerns, but none of them to put it first.) Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:07:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: 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 2/13/98 EST, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > >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? > Sure! Isaac got tired of being teased about how Clean his books were (though he was a master of the impromptu limerick, for instance, and an accomplished Dirty Old Man, there's not only no sex, but no cuss-words in his ficiton), so he wrote a book about sex. Alien sex, though. And re-used the story in one of his last stories, which I wish I could recall the name of, where he put himself into the story, browbeating a computer animator into making the book into a feature film. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:07:15 -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: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) In-Reply-To: <74a194c4.34e3d2b2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:57 PM 2/12/98 EST, "Barbara R. Hume" wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-12 10:52:43 EST, you write: > >< 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? >> > >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. How many of Fred's hundreds of other characters do you also interpret as being him? If not, how do you go about picking and choosing? I happen to have been acquainted with his (Fred's) own beloved wife probably longer than I've known him, and still remember the chewing out she once gave me for inadvertantly suggesting deism. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:05:53 -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: McAffrey and female characters In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980214141230.007b64a0@cs.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:12 PM 2/14/98 +1100, Julieanne Le Comte replied: >>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:))) Sorry, Julieanne, your history of technology is weak. You are entirely correct that as a new occupation becomes less exotic, more numerous and more mundane, it tends to become less "male"/more "female" and worse paid. But the old chestnut about QWERTY being designed for maximum inefficiency is a little dubious, and has nothing to do with gender. >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:)) In the 1950s and '60s there were no long-haired men in good paying or high status jobs. By the very late '60s, "creative" types in work like advertising had the option, but it was very far from universal. The job of computer operator required a wide, intimate knowledge of the machines; they were prone to stop working for arcane reasons, and keeping produciton going was often a genuine challenge. (I am speaking to the question of the technology here, not to gender issues!) >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. Several examples from my own acquaintance go in a very different direction. the first microcomputer in the office was given to a secretary, because it was for typing letters. In three years, she might be office manager, or in five, an independent consultant. Though the credentialization of the field has advanced enormously, the same pattern still exists. >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:)) This is very much contrary to one of the important social problems of the field: since typing is low status, "important" men can't permit themselves to have to use a keyboard. Only now, when it is a matter of corporate (read, "career") survival, has this begun to change. Again, I am speaking mostly to details of the history of the tech, not the gender role assignments. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:08:16 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:53 AM 2/13/98 -0500, Debra Euler replied: >>>> 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." Considering the amount of invading and burning the classic Greeks did across the board, in the absence of any real data you sound like you are projecting. What if the world at large doesn't care about you one way or the other? Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:08:48 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:41 PM 2/16/98 -0500, Frances Green wrote: >Does anyone remember all the things the "virtuous women, whose price is >above rubies", had to get through, while her husband sat around all day >discussing theology? As I recollect, it sounded as though that woman was >running the whole economy! The Jewish home has always been a matriarchy. Look at the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and see how completely they obeyed their wives and/or mothers in large decisions. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:18:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: OT: Screaming up and down halls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Haven't you heard, Pat? We're not really "Christians" if we don't agree with them...speaking as a person who was raised to be a fundamentalist, and who in middle adulthood made the wonderful discovery that there actually are churches where I can practice my Christianity without checking my brain at the door. But to my birth family this means that I'm at the least "seriously mixed up and misled," or at worst bound straight for you-know-where. It is NOT possible that I can be a practicing Christian without espousing male headship of the household, damnation for all gay and lesbian people, exploitation of animals and the environment, and - of course - without voting for all those wonderful right-to-life candidates (no matter what else they happen to represent). What's this got to do with SF? I couldn't write it seriously as long as I felt constrained to stay within my family's beliefs, that's what. And they are going to hate the electronic book I just had released...if they read it, which they probably won't. But the folks at my church are just as excited as I am, from them I've had nothing but support. Nina Osier Pat wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Jim Hollomon wrote: > > > I was going to stay out of this. It really isn't topical. But I'm a Christian > > and there should be at least one response from the accused. So far, the > > comments have been pretty heavily on the side of "all committed Christians are > > of the rape-and-pillage mentality." > > > > I take the biblical call to be stewards of God's creation as an imperative to > > mind it well, to protect it and to cherish it. I'll grant you that, if He > > returned today, the Lord might well postpone the rapture till we "clean up our > > rooms." Still, there are those in the Christina community that lament this > > state of affairs, support environmentalism, and do all they can to care for > > the creative work of their Master's hand. > > > > Jim > > We've heard so much from the Christian right that people forget > there is also a Christian left.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:48:47 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: SFBC's McCaffrey Interview In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980217180605.006ecdb0@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 07:06 PM 2/17/98 , you wrote: >From: Neil Rest >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] McAffrey and female characters > >It seems to me there's something most of the commenters are missing. >The original dragon story was a novella in Analog. Then there was the >expansion into a novel. Then there was another novel, and another, etc. >This did not originate as an intensely thought-out world. It began as one >story. But each time an author invents something else in a world, there's >that much less choice in the future. (Larry Niven pretty much gave up on >his Known Space stories for exactly this reason.) >If Pern had been created in the first place with deep, detailed analysis, >it could be criticised that way; but it's more of an agglomeration. > >Neil Rest >NeilRest@tezcat.com There's an interview with Anne McCaffrey online. (I hope you don't have to be a member to reach it) http://www.sfbc.com:9001/mybookclub/craftycreatures/bookclubs/sfc/Special/A uthors/Anne_McCaffrey.htm An excerpt: SFBC: We know that you love horses. Why not unicorns? AMcM: Those are Annie Scarborourgh's. I needed a new critter after I finished Decision at Doona and Restoree. I know dragons have had a very poor press in the west. So ring in some changes...make them the good guys. And I would put them on a planet where they would be an air-born, fire breathing species that would help save the planet from destruction. And since you don't want 45' of fire breathing dragon running around overhead without any kind of control, I figured out we'd use the farm-yard bit ...like a duckling following the first thing it sees moving after it cracks its egg. This need not be its mother. This is called inprinting. On Pern, I call it impressing. I thought of dragons and I thought of all the things that were going to happen to riders...telepathics...telekinesis...all that stuff...micro-organisms that fall from space and eats organics. I had the whole thing thought out one afternoon. SFBC: One afternoon? AMcM: One Afternoon. And then told it from the point of view of someone, who for her own good reasons hadn't caught up with her history lessons. She had something else in mind. That's where it started. Weyr Search was supposed to be a short story. 2,000,000 words later, I haven't stopped. (.....) Virginia Kidd is now one of the most outstanding agents dealing with all kinds of authors, but mainly with science fiction and fantasy writers. When I finished Restoree I got so gawd-damn mad at all these male characters who have a female in the corner wringing her hands when their guys were getting beaten up. I wouldn't have been. I would have been in there with something, hitting them over the head. Bashing them in. The women were so often portrayed as idiots. I just got mad and I wrote a take off on the male and female position in science fiction. Of course I used all the clichés that everybody else did. Suddenly someone realized that I was sending them up. But after that, the position of women in science fiction stories improved. Then I went on and I did homosexuals in Dragonstories...a lot of people didn't catch on to it for quite a while. You don't have to rub peoples' noses into it. ------- -------- --------- this should provide food for thought, on a thread I -knew- I could stay out of! ;-) jenn {jenn mottram} {generally poetry} {athena(at)geocities.com} {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:58:45 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: "Other In Fantasy" .. Boskone panel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-17 14:37:54 EST, you write: << (lots of bashing on Pern's status levels and lack of economic reality, how though there are "markers" there's no real economy at work) >> That makes me think of the drudges on Pern. Where did they come from? Would you leave behind everything you know on a high-tech planet and go to another world just so your descendants could become kitchen drudges? Just so they could send up the klah when a dragonrider yelled down the tube? No one seems to realize that they are people. Perhaps McAffrey was simply recognizing an upleasant reality about human nature. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:01:44 -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: Women and violence Comments: To: jenn mottram In-Reply-To: <199802170414.XAA26249@daisy.snet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, jenn mottram wrote: (snip) > Regarding this point: I have a story about a female who wins the > traditional quest (killing an evil sorcerer) and goes to the king for the > hand of the princess. I had it critiqued by professional SF writers, who > had a number of very astute things to say about what was wrong with it > (which I enjoyed hearing) but a few comments stuck with me. Where can I find this story? I would be interested in reading it. > Jenn > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:18:53 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: 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 98-02-17 19:13:04 EST, you write: << How many of Fred's hundreds of other characters do you also interpret as being him? If not, how do you go about picking and choosing? I happen to have been acquainted with his (Fred's) own beloved wife probably longer than I've known him, and still remember the chewing out she once gave me for inadvertantly suggesting deism. >> Isn't it interesting to see how people interpret someone's work when you know the writer? I've had people read my stuff and then say, "Oh, now I know a lot more about you." Scary! I've had people read my stuff and then say, "If anyone else had written this I'd think it was really good, but I knew it was only you." Excuse me? And I think of John Crowe Ransom insisting that "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" contained a death wish when Robert Frost, the author of the piece, insisted it didn't. Once your work is out there, you can't do much about what people think. They bring their own attitudes to the work, and that's bound to have an effect. I once let a shrink read a chapter out of a book of mine in which the hero is chained in a dungeon while a very angry woman waves a stiletto around and threatens to separate him from his family jewels. On our next appointment, the shrink backed his chair far, far across the room from me before saying, "Do you know what's wrong with you?" It was kind of interesting to have someone connect meek, mild me with my wild-haired, vengeance-ridden character! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:53:36 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Trac' Subject: Re: technology and feminism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping >one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > >barbara > > Hey, go GAY! hehehe! sorry, barbara, couldn't resist... :-D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:37:26 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: off-topic discussions Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII i strongly encourage those of you interested in topics that are very OFF topic to discuss amongst yourselves off-list. until we can set up a space designated for chat this list is intended to be focused specifically on sf and feminism. pretty please. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants her testimony against Mumia and cites police coercion as the reason for her perjury. http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:35:41 +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: Jo Clayton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I am so sorry to hear of Jo's death .. Diadem from the Stars was the very second sci-fi book I ever read at the age of 15 (the first was Ursula Le guin's The Left Hand of Darkness) - The character Aleytys has stuck with me all these years as my favourite role-model and she was certainly my teenage "heroine" - she was one way cool lady! courage, humour, and strength ( Dont f*k with me! ahahahaha) and yet real vulnerabilities which never made her appear vulnerable:)) Her relationships with the other 3 people in the Diadem (particularly her *mother* figure Haskari) is also delightful:) We will miss you, Jo - Julieanne > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:36:46 +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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 18:05 17/02/98 -0600, you wrote: Neil:) Possibly a lot of truth there :)) also, my post wasnt meant to be a potted history lesson, more a personal experience/anecdote to illustrate that introduction of technology need not necessarily lead to gender equity. Also, just another thought - although these sort of technologies were introduced at approximately the same time in most western countries - there are occasional differences between countries. For example, in 1966 my elder sister having recently left high-school went into a job as a clerk in the banking industry. At that time in Australia, it was unheard of for women to be bank-tellers - my sister was told bluntly that "women couldnt be bank-tellers because their fingers weren't long enough to count paper money efficiently" - she went to Canada and the USA a few years later, (on working holidays) and found the opposite attitude when looking for a job:) Julieanne >At 02:12 PM 2/14/98 +1100, Julieanne Le Comte replied: > >>>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:))) > >Sorry, Julieanne, your history of technology is weak. > >You are entirely correct that as a new occupation becomes less exotic, more >numerous and more mundane, it tends to become less "male"/more "female" and >worse paid. But the old chestnut about QWERTY being designed for maximum >inefficiency is a little dubious, and has nothing to do with gender. > >>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:)) > >In the 1950s and '60s there were no long-haired men in good paying or high >status jobs. By the very late '60s, "creative" types in work like >advertising had the option, but it was very far from universal. >The job of computer operator required a wide, intimate knowledge of the >machines; they were prone to stop working for arcane reasons, and keeping >produciton going was often a genuine challenge. (I am speaking to the >question of the technology here, not to gender issues!) > >>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. > >Several examples from my own acquaintance go in a very different direction. > the first microcomputer in the office was given to a secretary, because it >was for typing letters. In three years, she might be office manager, or in >five, an independent consultant. Though the credentialization of the field >has advanced enormously, the same pattern still exists. > >>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:)) > >This is very much contrary to one of the important social problems of the >field: since typing is low status, "important" men can't permit themselves >to have to use a keyboard. Only now, when it is a matter of corporate >(read, "career") survival, has this begun to change. > > >Again, I am speaking mostly to details of the history of the tech, not the >gender role assignments. > >Neil Rest >NeilRest@tezcat.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:46:14 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Keeping your pants on Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had to come out of lurkdom to respond to the kind of statement that just jabs my nerves. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, and almost every day I hear one of my colleagues pass judgment on a pregnancy they consider inappropriate--too young, too many, too soon, too many different fathers--by stating that if the woman just didn't have sex she wouldn't be in this position. Leaving the issue of rape and coercion aside, adult people have sex, that's one of the ways they can use their bodies to get, and give pleasure. Some of us may chose not to experience that pleasure, but that's a choice no more valid than the choice to experience pleasure. Some of us like papaya, some oakra, and some meat and potatoes. It's only a matter of taste, and it makes no sense to think yours is better than mine. It's just more personal to you. Until we reach the level of science fiction books in which the female character doesn't "open" herself to pregancy if she doesn't want a child, we have to expect that some perfectly good choices will result in unintended consequences. Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:54:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures Comments: cc: "Barbara R. Hume" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wouldn't say matriarchal cultures would be immoral, only they have much more sexual freedom, because the wife is not a property. In patriarchy, morality has to do with controling the sexual life of the woman - virgins, wives. Morality is linked with possession of properties. Barbara R. Hume 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 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:26:31 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: Keeping your pants on MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The other half of this is sex is a barter item many women not in recovery use to survive. It's a fact of life, not pretty but there nonethelesss.- Cleo ---------- Joyce wrote: > > I had to come out of lurkdom to respond to the kind of statement that just jabs my nerves. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, and almost every day I hear one of my colleagues pass judgment on a pregnancy they consider inappropriate--too young, too many, too soon, too many different fathers--by stating that if the woman just didn't have sex she wouldn't be in this position. Leaving the issue of rape and coercion aside, adult people have sex, that's one of the ways they can use their bodies to get, and give pleasure. Some of us may chose not to experience that pleasure, but that's a choice no more valid than the choice to experience pleasure. Some of us like papaya, some oakra, and some meat and potatoes. It's only a matter of taste, and it makes no sense to think yours is better than mine. It's just more personal to you. Until we reach the level of science fiction books in which the female character doesn't "open" herself to pregancy if she doesn't want a child, we have to ! > expect that some perfectly good choices will result in unintended consequences. Joyce Jones > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:17:20 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [fwd from SMOFS] Jo Clayton 1939-1998 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980217172106.006b28dc@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Neil Rest wrote: > > After a valiant 18-month battle against Multiple Myeloma, author Jo > > Clayton passed away at 3:40 PM PST, Friday, February 13, at Good > > Samaritan hospital in Portland, OR. She died peacefully, with family > > and friends present. > > > > Per her wishes, Jo will be cremated, her ashes scattered in the > > California redwoods. > > > > > > > > Jo is going to be missed--both by her friends in Portland, and her > > friends on-line. > > > > Blessed be, and may she return in a happier time and body.> > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:39:21 -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: technology and feminism -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >>Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] barbara-- Because that's no fun? ;-) Debra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:54:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: technology and feminism -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > >>Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method > of keeping one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on > this one.] > > barbara-- > > Because that's no fun? ;-) > > Debra I wanted to reply to the person whose colleagues kept passing judgment on pregnant women. Let's give these guys their way and keep our pants on for just one day. When they can't get laid they'll sing several different tunes. Just my $0.02> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:27:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: contraception, Jo Clayton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" - > >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:27:25 -0500 >From: silk >Subject: Re: technology and feminism > >> Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of >keeping >> one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > >Lesbianism's 100% guaranteed, too, and comes with no intrinsically harmful >side-effects . Not sure that you can say the same for celibacy. > >Oh, alright, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek. > >Wendy > Wendy: out of whose cheek? Mike Levy: Liked your response to the above as well. Pretty much stated my views. As a struggling bookseller, I have to say I am happy to have readily available contraception, since my husband and I often find that sex is the best form of entertainment within our budget! I am particularly fond of Jo's books about Skeen, but think there is something to be said for almost any of the series. She can be difficult to introduce new readers to, since she tended to write in sets/series, and her few stand alones actually tied into her series books. This is probably in Laura's archives somewhere, but just in case: The Diadem Saga: _Diadem from the Stars_ _Lamarchos_ _Irsud_ _Maeve_ _Star Hunters_ _The Nowhere Hunt_ _Ghosthunt_ _The Snares of Ibex_ _Quester's Endgame_ Related titles: stand alones: _A Bait of Dreams_ _Shadow of the Warmaster_ Shadith's Quest: _Shadowplay_ _Shadowspeer_ _Shadowkill_ Shadowsong Trilogy: _Fire in the Sky_ _The Burning Ground_ _Crystal Heat_ More: _Skeen's Leap_ _Skeen's Return_ _Skeen's Search_ (I once bought a pair of earrings becases I thought they looked like something which would appeal to this character ) _Drinker of Souls_ _Blue Magic_ _A Gathering of Stones_ _Wild Magic_ _Wildfire_ _The Magic Wars_ _Moonscatter_ _Moongather_ _Changer's Moon_ and _Dancer's Rise_ _Serpent Waltz_ _Dance Down the Stars_ The Drums of Chaos: _Drum Warning_ _Drum Calls_ ..... I confess I haven't read the last two yet. And I'm glad! This way I have something new to read, even though she's gone. One wonderful thing about Jo was that her trilogies often came out within the span of a year when she was at DAW. When Tor decided to print her in hardcover, that, combined with her health issues, slowed down the process. Since I've become accustomed to powering through her stuff, I was saving it. ::sigh:: Speaking of sex, one of her characters has a mind which is thousands of years old, in a body of a 14 year old -- of a different species. Talk about the throes of puberty! She combines a lot of different sexes and species in her work. Her works are SF and Fantasy, and sometimes both, like the world in which gods are visible and manifest -- and one of them is a spaceship computer. Damn, I'll miss her! 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: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:01:51 -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: Being Off and On Topic Well, I know I'm a prime offender, and I really will try to stifle myself in future. The trouble is, I suppose, that everything is interesting, particularly comparisons of our here-and-now lives with those of people (especially female people) in other real-world societies and speculative fiction societies. Will try to stick to the fiction! Frances-who-rambles-on-too-much _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:54:01 -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: technology and feminism -Reply I suppose one of those tunes wouldn't be "Ain't gonna study war no more"? On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:54:51 -0800 Pat writes: > > I wanted to reply to the person whose colleagues kept passing >judgment on pregnant women. > Let's give these guys their way and keep our pants on for just >one day. When they can't get laid they'll sing several different >tunes. > Just my $0.02> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:23:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Linda J. Kimsey" Subject: Re: New Author In-Reply-To: <19980216.153111.4022.0.jjggww@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks to all of you who responded to my request for info on Severna Parks. I've decided to go ahead and recommend her new book for purchase, and I'm looking forward to seeing if it's as good as the review! Thanks again, Linda Kimsey Oh chocolate, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways ... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:31:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980216170259.006c79ec@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I guess what I am saying is that I don't think a woman is actually any more >likely to be a victim of a crime than a man is. (I suppose it would be a >good idea to quote some statistics here, but I don't have any handy.) FYI - According to the Crime Statistics of the FBI, the men are mainly hurting each other! The majority of all crime is committed by men and the majority of their victims are men as well. The hugest obvious exception is in the area of domestic violence, where women are overwhelmingly the victims. I've got the actual numbers at home, if anyone really wants them. (Interesting sidenote: I've been tracking this for awhile, mainly to help eliminate the perception that black men are most likely to be criminals - up until the 1996 report, white men were responsible for the majority of ALL major crime, both violent and property - in 1996, black men committed the majority of murders and rapes.) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:39:47 -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: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <5f3fca63.34e917bf@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >street. In a less serious attack, I was walking with my sister in the business >district, on K street, when I two asshole black teenagers shoved me against a >wall and grabbed my breasts. Why do you feel it necessary to call out their race? Shall we assume all your other attackers were white? (living up to my self-name....) Laura the Judgmental ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:22:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: SF and religion (was Separate Last Name Tactics) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is why I don't let my mother read my work, she's sincerely convinced that everything every character I create says or does is something *I* have said or done. Boy, would I be busy if that were the case (not to mention that I'd be writing this from jail!). Nina Osier Barbara R. Hume wrote: > I once let a shrink read a chapter out of a book of mine in which the hero is > chained in a dungeon while a very angry woman waves a stiletto around and > threatens to separate him from his family jewels. On our next appointment, the > shrink backed his chair far, far across the room from me before saying, "Do > you know what's wrong with you?" It was kind of interesting to have someone > connect meek, mild me with my wild-haired, vengeance-ridden character! > > barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:52:56 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: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit They were black abusive men, the incident was ugly, and race was an issue. ALL of the assailants I encountered in DC, with the exceptions of a few indulging themselves in verbal abuse, were black; and, as was made abundantly clear, in one robbery and two physical attacks and in almost all verbal assaults, I was targeted because of my race as well as my sex. My very real experiences motivated very practical responses, which included arming myself and moving out of DC. Statistics be damned. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:14:26 -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: equal societies In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ><< How do they call a culture with both genders equally powerfull? And are > there any sf books with that kind of a society? > >> > >Good question--isn't it interesting that we don't really have a term for that? >I suppose it's what Eisler would refer to as a "partnership" society, though. "non-hierarchic" or "egalitarian" This is why words like "matrifocal" may be preferable to "matriarchal": reversing the superior and inferior social postions is musical chairs, not restructuring. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 19:26:30 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-18 17:45:34 EST, Laura wrote: << The majority of all crime is committed by men >> Better make that, "The majority of all _reported_ crime..." Who know about the other stuff. One interesting thing I learnt while teaching self-defence is that seventy five percent of all attempted rapes are foiled by the intended victim--but you don't read that in newspapers. Fighting back works. To keep this vaguely on-topic, I find it intriguing that in SF novels, "strong" women are often very strange, leather-clad babes with prosthetic weaponry (razor fingernails come to mind) whereas as "strong" women in fantasy have big muscles and big swords and/or do some variation of aikido (e.g. Elizabeth Lynn's books). Comments? Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:40:38 -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: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <1313733f.34eb7c39@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ><< The majority of all crime is committed by men >> > >Better make that, "The majority of all _reported_ crime..." Who know about >the other stuff. Thanks, Nicola. Actually, I have to clarify it even further by pointing out that my statistics (er, that is, the FBI's) are based on _convictions_. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:15:48 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: Joel VanLaven 's message of Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:43:01 -0500 * Joel VanLaven > 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 recently finished reading Scott Westerberg's Polymorph (http://members.aol.com/sdwestnyc/index.html) -- sort of a postindustrial take on shapeshifting beyond race, sex, class and appearance distinctions, a great concept for a novel that I'd like to see further explored. > I like to thnk that I see people as different, like me. We're all > Queer. This gives me an excuse to promote my androgyny and gender dialectics page, which may be found at: http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/gnd/androgyny.html Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:27:49 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: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-18 19:32:45 EST, you write: << SF novels, "strong" women are often very strange, leather-clad babes with prosthetic weaponry >> I think our culture has come to appreciate physical strength in women, but you can be toned and strong without becoming bizarre. What about the protagonist in McAffrey's _Freedom's Landing_? She does what has to be done. I think that's what being strong means. We don't care for the pathetic women in early SF who existed only so the brilliant young scientist could explain things to her, thereby providing for the exposition. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:40:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kieth Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <1313733f.34eb7c39@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As a noveau lister, I can't help but jumping in to this semi-topical thread (pith helmets on dragonback?) How many women don't go where the men are, simply because the policing of women's behavior by violent men has been so effective? If the majority of victims of stranger male violence are men, couldn't that argue that the very real threat of violence has kept women from being where it can be done to them? So that women aren't victims only because they've been placed under a form of house arrest. If male violence were applied with the same implacable ferocity to men as it is to women, wouldn't it result in the same decrease in stastical violence? At the cost, of course, of everything that matters. I'm an avid hiker and confirmed ursophobe, who can't help but raise an eyebrow at the statistics that give the relative infrequence of bear attacks in overall injury rates. If everyone that drove cars also hiked in bear country, how would that change the stats? Kathleen On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Nicola Griffith wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-18 17:45:34 EST, Laura wrote: > > << The majority of all crime is committed by men >> > > Better make that, "The majority of all _reported_ crime..." Who know about > the other stuff. > > One interesting thing I learnt while teaching self-defence is that seventy > five percent of all attempted rapes are foiled by the intended victim--but you > don't read that in newspapers. Fighting back works. > > To keep this vaguely on-topic, I find it intriguing that in SF novels, > "strong" women are often very strange, leather-clad babes with prosthetic > weaponry (razor fingernails come to mind) whereas as "strong" women in fantasy > have big muscles and big swords and/or do some variation of aikido (e.g. > Elizabeth Lynn's books). > > Comments? > > Nicola > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:43:45 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: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-18 19:32:45 EST, Nicola Griffith wrote: > To keep this vaguely on-topic, I find it intriguing that in SF novels, > "strong" women are often very strange, leather-clad babes with prosthetic > weaponry (razor fingernails come to mind) whereas as "strong" women in fantasy > have big muscles and big swords and/or do some variation of aikido (e.g. > Elizabeth Lynn's books). > > Comments? It also seems to me that most women who've opted to strive for 'physical superiority' as it were have also suffered some sort of terrible tragedy, which often was the provocation for their choosing the "warrior path." The strong woman in fantasy that comes most readily to mind is Tarma from Mercedes Lackey's 'Oathbound' and 'Oathbreakers'. If I remember correctly, Tarma was actually working toward being a warrior when her entire tribe was slaughtered. But then she chose to follow the warrior path entirely and swore herself to celibacy, etc. in order to get avenge her clan. Tarma is actually one of the more well-done "strong" women I've read in fantasy, because many of the "strong" women are portrayed as utterly cold (which is usually proven by the fact that they don't like kids). The other "strong" woman (this one in SF) who comes most readily to mind is Molly/Sally from William Gibson's work (Our Lady of Razor Fingernails ;). Although we're never really allowed to get close enough to Molly/Sally to find out why she chose to become a "razorgirl", we are allowed close enough to find out that Molly/Sally has definitely had her share of pain. Although all the instances I can think of *followed* her decision to become a "razorgirl", I still always got the feeling that she left her prior life behind for a reason. One thing that I've noticed is that rarely is a woman allowed to be "strong" (in fantasy or SF) without becoming relentlessly cold. "Strong" women (that I've seen) usually don't like children, are either celibate or have ruthlessly casual sex, and never get close to anyone. Of course, this is all just my impressions (and I'm certainly speaking in really general terms here), and as always, IMHO. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:35:00 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >To keep this vaguely on-topic, I find it intriguing that in SF novels, >"strong" women are often very strange, leather-clad babes with prosthetic >weaponry (razor fingernails come to mind) whereas as "strong" women in fantasy >have big muscles and big swords and/or do some variation of aikido (e.g. >Elizabeth Lynn's books). > >Comments? > Honestly, it's been years since I read them, but in paging through just now it strikes me that there are just as many women as men involved in the Cheari groups in her Tornor series. It was a form of dance that also was effective as self-defense. I think (like I said, it's been years) the Tornor world in general was ruled by those men who gained the most power and regular people just had to put up with it. The Cheari groups seemed to be spreading the word that one could live a different sort of life, be strong and less fearful, but not always on the offensive. I hope this makes sense. And, as a (very) new student of Aikido, I am assured by my sensei that, Steven Seagal notwithstanding, one does not have to be big and muscular to be good at it. In fact, Aikido is better for people who are smaller. It uses leverage and balance more than strength. Not that I am an expert at all, but that does give me hope that I can do it well some day! :) Monica the insecure ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:41:37 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: strong women/Bujold Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One of the most fascinating strong women characters ever created imho is Cordelia in Lois McMaster Bujold's novels (titles of which I've completely forgotten, but they were recently published together in a combined edition that had the word "honor" in the title--sorry but all my SF books are at home and my internet connected computer is at home). Bujold's novels are set ina future galaxy in which different planets have been settled by (apparently) different Earth nations/cultures: Beta (Cordelia's planet) is egaliatarian and technologically innovative (perhaps evolved from certain idealistic Americans?) while Barrayar (the planet of the man involved--whose name also slips my mind) was settled by apparently Russian/Asian colonists and then underwent invasion by a set of galactic bullies. Beta is more or less against violence (though will engage in self defense), women are completely equal as far as I can tell; their "military" is more of an exploration organization (and while there are sort of ranks, the ship's crew votes on major issues), and very technologically advanced (exspecially when it comes to the production of children--people can choose to do it naturally, or place the fertilized egg in a uterine replicator). Beta is also advanced in terms of sexual rights--the culture is considered perverted by most of the other planets/cultures in Bujold's novels. ("Hermaphrodites" have equal rights on Beta--the results of earlier genetic experiments.) Anyway, Cordelia is one of two surviving crew on a planet they were exploring--the rest have been killed by Barrayar military who are taking it as a Sneaky Part of a military plan. She meets a Barrayaran military officer (who was marooned by a traitor in his crew), and they have to cooperate to survive. In the next novel, after the two are married, there's a major revolution on Barrayar--and she has to take care of the child Emperor; the ending is a socko one which I will not give away (basically, Cordelia wins it all while being pregnant, nearly dying from an assassiniation attempt, then arranging to have her unborn child placed ina replicator which is "captured" by the revolutionary leader). The novels are much more complex than I can convey here, and I am fascinated by Bujold's work: much has appeared in ANALOG, and yet I think she makes amazing use of some feminist ideas in such a way that people don't label" her work as "feminist"--the uterine replicator, the culture on Beta, and of course Athos (the only all male utopia I know of described in _Ethan of Athos_), and the character of Miles Vorkosigan (Cordelia's son, an action adventure hero who is stunted with fragile bones--inscribed as "feminine" in some interesting ways because he cannot be a "man" in the heavily patriarchal/warrior society), her most popular character. (Cloning, human rights, genetic manipulation--all a major part of some of her books.) In one of the Miles Vorkosigan stories, Bujold builds in Foucault's concept of the perfect prison (complete monitoring) beautifully arranged through technology; I don't know if she's read foucault, but the parallel is too strong to be ignored. Cordelia is a fascinating example of a strong woman from an egaliatrian society: she never felt she fit in well on beta, but she does not have to be a "man" because of her cultures' mores beliefs, but she is regarded with great awe by the Barrayaran men and women who have been acculturated to believe that women are "weaker" than men. I cannot say it too loudly/often: Read Bujold! robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:54:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: of interest to list members? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Multimedia company CYBERGRRL Inc. has launched ON THE ROAD WITH CYBERGRRL, a website that CYBERGRRL president Aliza Sherman wants to show "...what women really think about the Internet, if they are using it, and how it is affecting their lives." Sherman will use a tape recorder and digital camera to record voices and images of the women she meets, starting during her seven-city book tour for her new book CYBERGRRL! A WOMAN'S GUIDE TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB, and the stories she's told will be put online regularly. http://www.cybergrrl.com/planet/cgbook/ Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:52:48 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF/ Boskone panel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > By far, this was the most valuable panel that I attended. I did not get to > go to the Damsels in Distress panel, though I desperately wanted to. > Perhaps if we ask nicely enough, Catherine Asaro will give us a synopsis? > (she was on the panel) Just say "Hey you, Asaro, get out here and report!" I will do the best I can. I was moderating the panel, so I don't remember all of it. Part of the time I was thinking things like "What question should I pose next?" or "Is this too off topic?" Any errors or omissions are unintentional and are due to the parallel processing my brain was attempting to perform at the time. The panelists were Jane Yolen, Kathryn Cramer, Esther Friesner, and myself. Jane Yolen started out by giving an excellent discussion of how the idea of the woman as a rescuer has roots in our folklore. She described a tradition of stories where women solved the plot problem faced by the characters. Someone, I believe Esther, pointed out that these were often cases where women used their intelligence to find the solution. Kathryn Cramer good-naturedly commented that she used to read fantasy novels about young women who went off on adventures dressed as boys, but she had gotten over it. Esther and Jane talked about how much of our folklore includes stories of women valued for intelligence and savvy. I'm not sure what the order was here, but at one point Jane made some insights about how the theme of sexual abuse often comes up in fantasy, almost to where it becomes predictable. People commented that strong female characters are often portrayed as having survived violent incidents in their past. Mercedes Lackey's work came up, either in the panel or afterward. Kathryn commented that some readers identified with the abuser. I talked about seeing it through my training as a sexual harassment counselor. Comments were made about the strange (pseudo-Freudian) analyses men sometimes apply to the fiction women write on the subject. After the panel, people commented that such analyses might come about because a female view of the subject makes the analyzers uncomfortable. Audience members expressed dissatisfaction that female characters often have to take on male-identified qualities to be considered effective players in a plot. Esther talked about how she counters that in her anthologies, which have received wonderful reviews, though she was too modest to bring that up on the panel. (Can someone help me with the titles? I believe they are =Did You Say Chicks?= and =Chicks in Chainmail=) She talked about the anthologies and some of her other work. An audience member said she liked strong female characters who broke the mold, and she brought up my book =Primary Inversion.= We also talked about =The Last Hawk.= Another audience member commented on how much she loved Jane Yolen's =Xanadu= anthologies, which have received a good deal of well-deserved acclaim. An aside: After the panel, I talked with Jane about her Xanadu books. Apparently they haven't been selling as well as hoped, so there may not be more. If anyone here is looking for great short story collections in fantasy, I urge you to check out the Xanadu anthologies. Perhaps if enough interest in them continues we may see more in the future. I certainly hope so. Back to the panel: an audience member pointed out that in conventional fantasy, a woman often gains power, prestige, or other benefits by marrying the canonical king, prince, or nobleman. I can't remember the exact phrasing of her comment, but it was along the lines of "What is the reward for a woman who already has those benefits in her own right?" The discussion centered around many possibilities, including respect, authority, the role-reversed equivalent of the prize-wife often rewarded to the hero, and forms of success that didn't require the woman take on a male identity or be associated with a male authority figure to enjoy them. Kathryn Cramer asked what people thought of Xena. She said she didn't watch the show, but thought of Xena as cartoonish, not something to take seriously. An audience member disagreed, commenting that Xena did a good job of putting a woman in the central role of a Hercules type action adventure. The general sense from the audience was that Xena and Hercules were fun, and that they had something for everyone, both in terms of strong characters and romantic appeal (Xena-with-hunk, Xena/Gabrielle, Hercules-with-babe, Hercules/Iolus, even Xena-Hercules. Has there been a Gabrielle-Iolus? Jane joked that there were also the centaurs). Someone later pointed out that Xena is really one of the first shows where women have an action heroine to identify with who doesn't get offed in the end, put back in a dress, married off into a traditional relationship (eg, no more edventures), or otherwise removed from the action. Another comment was that Xena regularly takes on male as well as female villains, and rescues men as well as women. In the more stereotyped roles, female action adventure types rescue children and engage female villains (all in boobs-bursting-out-the-bosom-bodices, of course). If they overcome men, they are often portrayed as negative characters. A male hero may trounce a female villain, but it is rarer to see a female hero trounce a male villain. Someone later mentioned that she didn't find the Xena bbobb outfits sexist because viewers inclined to the masculine persuasion could appreciate the charms of Kevin Sorbo striding around in tight leather pants and open shirt. Egalitarian buff bods. We also talked other female action adventure shows that are breaking new ground, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Many other excellent comments were made by both the panelists and the audience that I know I'm forgetting, only because while those particular discussions were going on my brain was making a less-than-successful effort to parallel process. In any case, it was a fun panel, eclectic, worth doing again. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:24:07 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: Women and violence >One thing that I've noticed is that rarely is a woman allowed to be >"strong"(in fantasy or SF) without becoming relentlessly cold Or in popular perception. Some years ago there were reports of Phoolan Devi, a female 'dacoit' in India: the story was that she'd been gang-raped by highcaste men and that had turned her to violence. (I think her story was made into a film). It's a theme in books, movies, etc, not just sf/fantasy. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:33:52 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildiko Paulovitch Subject: Re: strong women, SF, fantasy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Another way strong women in fantasy "measure up" is using their brain/mind/magical powers. In SF they are generally wired as well as the next guy so once again equality is reached. Speaking of Lynn, (one of my favorites, shouldn't her new one be out soon?) I find it interesting that the one physically disabled character in Dancer's.. more than makes up for a lack of an arm with his psi abilities and in the end is asked to be part of the Chearas. Fantasy is how we wish the world could be, that is one world i would love to live in. ildiko ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:50:41 -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: Women and violence In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Or in popular perception. Some years ago there were reports of Phoolan Devi, a >female 'dacoit' in India: the story was that she'd been gang-raped by >highcaste men and that had turned her to violence. (I think her story was >made into a film). FYI - "Bandit Queen" - great flick, great story, fascinating woman, but I couldn't watch the rape scene. Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:45:20 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: technology and feminism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] What if you are married? "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:26:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Hugo Ballet Well, I got my Hugo ballet today; it's sitting here on my desk, making me feel guilty for not doing all the reading that would keep me current and with a clue. I appeal to you all on the Feminist SF list to give me some recommendations for the following categories; these are works that will have appeared for the first time in 1997. Best Novel Best Novella Best Novelette Best Short Story Best Related Book I'm not asking you to tell me how to vote, just for some suggestions. I'm especially interested in recommendations for Novella, Novelete and Short Story since there is actually a ghost of a chance that I'll be able to read them *before* the ballot is due in (March 10th). Thanks, Freddie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:13:46 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: Hugo Ballet In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A couple books that haven't got the kind of attention I think they deserve -- The Dazzle of Day -- Molly Gloss Secret Passages -- Paul Preuss On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:26:45 -0800, Freddie Baer wrote: >Well, I got my Hugo ballet today; it's sitting here on my desk, making >me feel guilty for not doing all the reading that would keep me >current and with a clue. > >I appeal to you all on the Feminist SF list to give me some >recommendations for the following categories; these are works that >will have appeared for the first time in 1997. > >Best Novel >Best Novella >Best Novelette >Best Short Story >Best Related Book > >I'm not asking you to tell me how to vote, just for some suggestions. >I'm especially interested in recommendations for Novella, Novelete and >Short Story since there is actually a ghost of a chance that I'll be >able to read them *before* the ballot is due in (March 10th). > >Thanks, Freddie ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:32:01 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Laura Wigod wrote: > > FYI - According to the Crime Statistics of the FBI, the men are mainly > hurting each other! Could it be because women are less likely to report crime because of fear (since the failed to protect them at the first place, why make the assailant mad by trying to prosecute him?) or because it's, like, "part of being a woman" (i.e. date rape: "she was drunk so she was asking for it!"). I guess the keyword in the original statement would be "according to statistics". Besides, even if the statement were true, I bet the number of crimes commited by males against females would still way more than the number of female's crimes against males and females combined. So the original assumption -- that women are more likely to be victims of (often socially justified) crimes by the members of opposite gender -- still stands. It would be different, if there were more women hurt by women than by men. Otherwise, it's still an indication of gender inequality. In other words, I don't know how they treat each other, but if from expereince, I have to be more afraid of a person just because he is a male, because he can hurt me and get away with it, feeling equal is a lot more difficult. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:32:16 -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: Hugo Ballet In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Freddie Baer wrote: > Well, I got my Hugo ballet today; it's sitting here on my desk, making > me feel guilty for not doing all the reading that would keep me > current and with a clue. > > I appeal to you all on the Feminist SF list to give me some > recommendations for the following categories; these are works that > will have appeared for the first time in 1997. > > Best Novel > Best Novella > Best Novelette > Best Short Story > Best Related Book > > I'm not asking you to tell me how to vote, just for some suggestions. > I'm especially interested in recommendations for Novella, Novelete and > Short Story since there is actually a ghost of a chance that I'll be > able to read them *before* the ballot is due in (March 10th). > > Thanks, Freddie > Best novels (in no particular order) Patricia Anthony--God's Fires UFO crashes in 17th c. Portugal Ian McLeod--The Great Wheel Anglican Priest tries to deal with his loss of faith in 21st c. North Africa Vonda McIntyre--The Moon and the Sun Feminist mermaid in Versailles :^) Iain M. Banks--Excession Large scale, literate space opera C.J. Cherryh--Finity's End Typical, gritty Cherryh novel--life in space, good characters Tad Williams--Otherland Huge, cyberpunky, virtual reality net novel Connie Willis--To Say Nothing of the Dog Comic time travel novel based in part on 30s screwball comedies Catherine Asaro--The Last Hawk Romantic, feminist planetary adventure Lucy Ferriss--The Misconceiver Feminist dystopia Sarah Zettel--Fool's War Grim space opera with AI's and feminism Joe Haldeman--Forever War 21st c. war novel Elizabeth Hand--Glimmering Gothic millenial/disaster/alternate universe novel Melissa Scott--Dreaming Metal AIs/feminism/working-class politics/theater arts Matt Ruff--Sewer, Gas, and Electric Political satire Stephen Baxter--Titan Hard, near future space program sf with a nicely done female protagonist IMHO, of course Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:54:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: <6e929a6.34ebb883@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Barbara Benesch wrote: > One thing that I've noticed is that rarely is a woman allowed to be "strong" > (in fantasy or SF) without becoming relentlessly cold. "Strong" women (that > I've seen) usually don't like children, are either celibate or have ruthlessly > casual sex, and never get close to anyone. > I think it has something to do with the fact that women are so heavily socialized into being nice, soft-hearted, and getting along with everyone. It takes a real tragedy or a royal dose of abuse for a long period of time to break away from that model of behavior. In my opinion, this is why women in fiction become heroes only after lots of really bad things happen to them, while men can do it for fun or "to get chicks". I used to think it's stupid that female heroes in books and movies are the type described in above mentioned message, but now I know that this is how it works in real life. Being a strong woman, or even a different woman is punished pretty heavily in most of societies. It also affects the relations you have with people around you, because people are either scared of you because you are not like other women, or worried that your unpopularity can rub off on them. I am not a hero, I can't fly, I don't wear razor fingernails. However I understand how people become the way they describe the "superwomen". First, about celibacy. Strong women get on a lot of people's nerves just by their existence. When you want to hurt someone, the number one way to do it is through sex. It's also a number one way to put down a woman. If it ever happens that after dating one jerk (which also happens to be your first boyfriend ever) you become "a slut" in everyone opinion because of something he was saying, and people will be still throwing it in your face three years later, you will realize that the safest way to live is to exclude sex from your life altogether. It's simply not worth it. Since, there is no "right" sexuality for women, the amount of stones thrown at you depends on how much they dislike you for other things rather than anything you actually do. Therefore, if you are not very popular, whatever you do will be wrong. And you not going to be popular if you like saying what you think, try changing things around you, or simply being where you are not supposed to (look at Kelly Flynn). Second, when you try to stand up for yourself in a rather horrible situation (for instance, by filing sexual harrassment charges at least on those who treat you like dirt at work) you get a lot of social, professional, and legal complications. Which also means that those of your friends who did not stop talking to you in fear of being associated with a "slut", will walk out now, so their own careers would not suffer. Before leaving you, your "friends" will advise you to "just accept it", tell you to read _Moby Dick_ "because that's what you are doing by trying to fight the system", and remind you that it's all your fault and that you'll never win. You are lucky if some of the people you had trusted won't end up helping the other side to bring you down, for the sake of their career, social position, or whatever. This is the point when you might decide that you might be better off without any friends altogether rather than hanging on to people who might betray you, leave you when you need them most, or simply keep trying to convince you that you are not going to make it, because it's a "lost battle". Generalizing is bad, but if it happens, like, a dozen times, the idea of being a lonely desperado starts looking pretty damn attractive. Especially if you are not planning on changing your warrior tendencies. The fact is that going against the flow means getting hurt, and those who are around you will get hurt as well, and that's not an attractive prospect for them. If it works this way in trivial real-life situations like mine, I would imagine that battling space villains or overthowing evil governments in sf stories would make it even more true. After all, Ripley in Aliens did not seem to have friends probably because they always got eaten, and no one would like that :) . So, I came to a decision that making strong women in sf "relentlessly cold" and reluctant to be close to anyone makes perfect sense. It's the price you have to pay for being strong, in real world or fantasy the same. Saving the world must be enough trouble without dealing with additional people to stab you in the back. At least that's the way I understand it. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:56:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Lonely female heroes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The only solution to the problem with being both strong and affectionate I see is that maybe when there are enough strong women (and understanding men), they could hang out together, and not only on the Internet. Maybe then even in science fiction women heroes won't be so cold and always by themselves. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:36:52 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Women and violence In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This pertains to the discussion. "When Men Batter Women; New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships" (Simon & Schuster, $25). Neil Jacobson and John Gottman http://www.seattletimes.com/news/lifestyles/html98/batt_021998.html ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:34:51 -0500 Reply-To: scwolf@together.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cleo Wolf Subject: Re: strong women/Bujold MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit that is exactly what the alexandria digital literature personalized recreational reading recommender told me to do! -cleo ---------- > From: Robin Reid > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] strong women/Bujold > Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 11:41 AM > > One of the most fascinating strong women characters ever created imho is > Cordelia in Lois McMaster Bujold's novels (titles of which I've completely > forgotten, but they were recently published together in a combined edition > that had the word "honor" in the title--sorry but all my SF books are at > home and my internet connected computer is at home). Bujold's novels are > set ina future galaxy in which different planets have been settled by > (apparently) different Earth nations/cultures: Beta (Cordelia's planet) is > egaliatarian and technologically innovative (perhaps evolved from certain > idealistic Americans?) while Barrayar (the planet of the man involved--whose > name also slips my mind) was settled by apparently Russian/Asian colonists > and then underwent invasion by a set of galactic bullies. Beta is more or > less against violence (though will engage in self defense), women are > completely equal as far as I can tell; their "military" is more of an > exploration organization (and while there are sort of ranks, the ship's crew > votes on major issues), and very technologically advanced (exspecially when > it comes to the production of children--people can choose to do it > naturally, or place the fertilized egg in a uterine replicator). Beta is > also advanced in terms of sexual rights--the culture is considered perverted > by most of the other planets/cultures in Bujold's novels. > ("Hermaphrodites" have equal rights on Beta--the results of earlier genetic > experiments.) > > Anyway, Cordelia is one of two surviving crew on a planet they were > exploring--the rest have been killed by Barrayar military who are taking it > as a Sneaky Part of a military plan. She meets a Barrayaran military > officer (who was marooned by a traitor in his crew), and they have to > cooperate to survive. In the next novel, after the two are married, there's > a major revolution on Barrayar--and she has to take care of the child > Emperor; the ending is a socko one which I will not give away (basically, > Cordelia wins it all while being pregnant, nearly dying from an > assassiniation attempt, then arranging to have her unborn child placed ina > replicator which is "captured" by the revolutionary leader). > > The novels are much more complex than I can convey here, and I am fascinated > by Bujold's work: much has appeared in ANALOG, and yet I think she makes > amazing use of some feminist ideas in such a way that people don't label" > her work as "feminist"--the uterine replicator, the culture on Beta, and of > course Athos (the only all male utopia I know of described in _Ethan of > Athos_), and the character of Miles Vorkosigan (Cordelia's son, an action > adventure hero who is stunted with fragile bones--inscribed as "feminine" in > some interesting ways because he cannot be a "man" in the heavily > patriarchal/warrior society), her most popular character. (Cloning, human > rights, genetic manipulation--all a major part of some of her books.) > In one of the Miles Vorkosigan stories, Bujold builds in Foucault's concept > of the perfect prison (complete monitoring) beautifully arranged through > technology; I don't know if she's read foucault, but the parallel is too > strong to be ignored. > > Cordelia is a fascinating example of a strong woman from an egaliatrian > society: she never felt she fit in well on beta, but she does not have to > be a "man" because of her cultures' mores beliefs, but she is regarded with > great awe by the Barrayaran men and women who have been acculturated to > believe that women are "weaker" than men. > > I cannot say it too loudly/often: Read Bujold! > > robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:22:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Lonely female heroes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > > The only solution to the problem with being both strong and affectionate > I see is that maybe when there are enough strong women (and understanding > men), they could hang out together, and not only on the Internet. Maybe > then even in science fiction women heroes won't be so cold and always by > themselves. You're talking about a Free Amazon Guildhouse. Have you read any of the older Darkover fiction? And DO pick up some of the fanthologies .... look for my name. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:00:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Cordelia's Honor, more on sex Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I also would like to endorse Lois McMaster Bujold's books, partly because I think one of the wonderful things about Cordelia is that she is able to find romance and marriage without it diminishing her. :) _Cordelia's Honor_ is the omnibus volume. Marina commented in response to Barbara: >> Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping >> one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > >What if you are married? What if? How does marriage obligate one to sexual/reproductive actions? 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: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:02:52 -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: Hugo Ballet -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Just wanted to say I agree with all Mike's suggestions that I've read, especially the Anthony, McIntyre, Cherryh, Scott, Willis, and Haldeman, but that I believe the new Haldeman's title is FOREVER PEACE. Marsha Valance WI Regional Library f/t Blind all standard disclaimers apply >>> Michael Marc Levy 02/20 12:32 am >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Freddie Baer wrote: > Well, I got my Hugo ballet today; it's sitting here on my desk, making > me feel guilty for not doing all the reading that would keep me > current and with a clue. > > I appeal to you all on the Feminist SF list to give me some > recommendations for the following categories; these are works that > will have appeared for the first time in 1997. > > Best Novel > Best Novella > Best Novelette > Best Short Story > Best Related Book > > I'm not asking you to tell me how to vote, just for some suggestions. > I'm especially interested in recommendations for Novella, Novelete and > Short Story since there is actually a ghost of a chance that I'll be > able to read them *before* the ballot is due in (March 10th). > > Thanks, Freddie > Best novels (in no particular order) Patricia Anthony--God's Fires UFO crashes in 17th c. Portugal Ian McLeod--The Great Wheel Anglican Priest tries to deal with his loss of faith in 21st c. North Africa Vonda McIntyre--The Moon and the Sun Feminist mermaid in Versailles :^) Iain M. Banks--Excession Large scale, literate space opera C.J. Cherryh--Finity's End Typical, gritty Cherryh novel--life in space, good characters Tad Williams--Otherland Huge, cyberpunky, virtual reality net novel Connie Willis--To Say Nothing of the Dog Comic time travel novel based in part on 30s screwball comedies Catherine Asaro--The Last Hawk Romantic, feminist planetary adventure Lucy Ferriss--The Misconceiver Feminist dystopia Sarah Zettel--Fool's War Grim space opera with AI's and feminism Joe Haldeman--Forever War 21st c. war novel Elizabeth Hand--Glimmering Gothic millenial/disaster/alternate universe novel Melissa Scott--Dreaming Metal AIs/feminism/working-class politics/theater arts Matt Ruff--Sewer, Gas, and Electric Political satire Stephen Baxter--Titan Hard, near future space program sf with a nicely done female protagonist IMHO, of course Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:58:00 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply Debra wrote: ---------- >>> 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." ---------- Ah, actually, yeah she did, in a sense. Lesbos at Sappho's time was a place of art and high culture. Greece in those days was very, very far from homogenistic. You had a lot of very different city-states, and Lesbos was conquered (after Sappho) by several of them, some of which were more patriarchal, and less appreciative of art, than others. Lesbos was also (of course) conquered by Rome - Julius Caesar, in fact - and then by many other countries in later history. Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are actually copies found in other places. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:58:05 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Hugo Ballet -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII And for novelette, Jean Lamb's "Galley Slave." The Big Bad aliens capture a ship in which a civilian expert is working on the galley computers. At the time of capture she's taking a shower and daydreaming, so they write her off as "a female in heat." By pretending to be the mindless drudge they take her for, she pulls a real fast one on them and saves the day. Analog, August 1996 - may be out of date for the Hugos. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:57:00 -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: Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply Sorry for all the quotes, everyone. Debra, Rhian (that's me) wrote: ---------- Debra wrote: ---------- >>> 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." ---------- Ah, actually, yeah she did, in a sense. Lesbos at Sappho's time was a place of art and high culture. Greece in those days was very, very far from homogenistic. You had a lot of very different city-states, and Lesbos was conquered (after Sappho) by several of them, some of which were more patriarchal, and less appreciative of art, than others. Lesbos was also (of course) conquered by Rome - Julius Caesar, in fact - and then by many other countries in later history. Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are actually copies found in other places. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ---------- Anyway, I've since read some more of your posts and realized that you obviously already know that, so I was probably mistaking your point. Rereading your post, I realize that I was placing the emphasis on the wrong words. :) Sorry. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:14:42 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Sappho and Lesbos (was Matriarchy etc...) Rhian et al: Thanks for the info...after I read my completely naive statement after I sent it out, I looked for the source of my information and couldn't find it, so I haven't yet responded to Debra's reply. As Debra was pretty wise-ass about the reply, I was waiting until I could look up the "facts" somewhere else. I don't want to get my head snapped off again, so-to-speak. BTW, I *knew* Sappho *was* Greek, but did not want to include her in the "patriarchy" I was (quite loosely) referring to. I also do not recall referring to "a lesbian utopia" in my original message. Thanks Rhian!!! Penny > Debra wrote: > > ---------- > >>> 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." > ---------- > > Ah, actually, yeah she did, in a sense. Lesbos at Sappho's time was a place > of art and high culture. Greece in those days was very, very far from > homogenistic. You had a lot of very different city-states, and Lesbos was > conquered (after Sappho) by several of them, some of which were more > patriarchal, and less appreciative of art, than others. Lesbos was also (of > course) conquered by Rome - Julius Caesar, in fact - and then by many other > countries in later history. > > Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what > reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., > etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are > actually copies found in other places. > > Rhian > rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:00:32 -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: Sappho and Lesbos (was Matriarchy etc...) -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mea culpa! I'm sorry if I snapped anyone's head off--I tend to get very snappy at some of the odd and erroneous ideas people have, and promulgate, about the ancient world. (See my recent snappy comments on ancient matriarchal societies.) Unfortunately, in much modern science fiction and fantasy the portrayals of various ancient soceities are wildly inaccurate, but the average reader has no idea because few people being taught any ancient history these days. I'm not going to name any specific names. OK, I'll name one. In Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson (an extremely popular book), a large part of the plot hinges on the ability of ancient Sumerian words to "crash" people's brains like the way virus crashes a balky computer. For anyone who knows any Sumerian (I know a little) the whole idea is pretty funny. However, I loved the book otherwise and I remain a fan of Stephenson. I probably should put more explanatory details, and less shortness of temper, into those sorts of posts, but I get this list at my job and I'm often too busy to write out enough. Somebody's got to publish these books we like so much.... Debra Euler, DAW Books PS--to Neil Rest, who wrote: >>Considering the amount of invading and burning the classic Greeks did across the board, in the absence of any real data you sound like you are projecting. What if the world at large doesn't care about you one way or the other? I think *you* sound like you are projecting. Do you have a problem with women stating their opinions? Or just with those who seem to be defending the Greeks? If the former, I think this is the wrong list for you. If anyone doesn't care about my opinions, they can decline to read my posts. D. Neil >>> Penelope Gibbs - 2/20/98 1:14 PM >>> Rhian et al: Thanks for the info...after I read my completely naive statement after I sent it out, I looked for the source of my information and couldn't find it, so I haven't yet responded to Debra's reply. As Debra was pretty wise-ass about the reply, I was waiting until I could look up the "facts" somewhere else. I don't want to get my head snapped off again, so-to-speak. BTW, I *knew* Sappho *was* Greek, but did not want to include her in the "patriarchy" I was (quite loosely) referring to. I also do not recall referring to "a lesbian utopia" in my original message. Thanks Rhian!!! Penny > Debra wrote: > > ---------- > >>> 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." > ---------- > > Ah, actually, yeah she did, in a sense. Lesbos at Sappho's time was a place > of art and high culture. Greece in those days was very, very far from > homogenistic. You had a lot of very different city-states, and Lesbos was > conquered (after Sappho) by several of them, some of which were more > patriarchal, and less appreciative of art, than others. Lesbos was also (of > course) conquered by Rome - Julius Caesar, in fact - and then by many other > countries in later history. > > Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what > reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., > etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are > actually copies found in other places. > > Rhian > rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:48:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "J.M. Jamieson" Subject: Re: Sappho & Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures In-Reply-To: <00041E89@MERRISR.SAIC.COM.msmailpc01.saic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:58 20/02/98 -0500, Rhian wrote in response to Debra among other things: >Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what >reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., >etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are >actually copies found in other places. It is generally conceded that around 500 poems were written by Sappho. Today a mere 700 lines survive that have any meaning at all and these are from many sources. Her works were well known in the ancient world and clearly survived into late Roman times intact. The Christain church was not at all fond of her. Gregory of Nazianzos around 380 A.D. ordered the burning of her writings wherever found and Tatian the Assyrian ascetic called her "..a whorish woman, love-crazy, who sang about her own licentiousness." Her writings along with others were also destroyed in 391 by a mob of Christian zealots who half burned the library in Alexandria. Pope Gregory VII ordered the public burning of her writings in Rome and Constantinople in 1073. Her writings were specifically sought out in April 1204 during the Fourth Crusade's pillage of Constantinople. The original writings were on papyrus which is far less durable than parchment. Ironically it was in the dry tombs of Egypt where the precious papyri were used in mummy wrappings and a rubbish heap near Aphroditiopolis that much of her fragments have been found in addition to the many citations in classical works. It was these papyri that established her as more than just a name but as a major poet. jjamieson@odyssey.on.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:52:00 -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: Sappho and Lesbos Penelope wrote: ---------- Rhian et al: Thanks for the info...after I read my completely naive statement after I sent it out, I looked for the source of my information and couldn't find it, so I haven't yet responded to Debra's reply. As Debra was pretty wise-ass about the reply, I was waiting until I could look up the "facts" somewhere else. I don't want to get my head snapped off again, so-to-speak. BTW, I *knew* Sappho *was* Greek, but did not want to include her in the "patriarchy" I was (quite loosely) referring to. I also do not recall referring to "a lesbian utopia" in my original message. Thanks Rhian!!! ---------- :) You're welcome. I'm afraid that in my initial response to Debra, I may have made the same sort of mistake that she made in her initial response to you - that is, snappishly coming across as if the original poster didn't know anything. Although, Debra, as I think you yourself recognized, there are more productive ways of taking issue with a oversimplified statement than ridiculing it's semantics. (grass calling the leaf green, since that's sort of what I did too.) Penelope, I know you recognize this, but just to point out as a general interesting (to me) point, some of the other parts of Greece were far from misogynistically rejecting Sappho. One city built a statue of her, and she had a lot of fans among powerful male (what'stheappropriateterm?)-ocrats. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:23:54 -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: Sappho & Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thank you for an intelligent history of Sappho's literature. I vaguely remembered that much of her poetry survived into the Common Era, but it's not my field and I didn't want to make any definite statements (unfortunately, I seem to prefer to make short, vaguely insulting blanket statements). Debra >>> "J.M. Jamieson" wrote: It is generally conceded that around 500 poems were written by Sappho. Today a mere 700 lines survive that have any meaning at all and these are from many sources. Her works were well known in the ancient world and clearly survived into late Roman times intact. The Christain church was not at all fond of her. Gregory of Nazianzos around 380 A.D. ordered the burning of her writings wherever found and Tatian the Assyrian ascetic called her "..a whorish woman, love-crazy, who sang about her own licentiousness." Her writings along with others were also destroyed in 391 by a mob of Christian zealots who half burned the library in Alexandria. Pope Gregory VII ordered the public burning of her writings in Rome and Constantinople in 1073. Her writings were specifically sought out in April 1204 during the Fourth Crusade's pillage of Constantinople. The original writings were on papyrus which is far less durable than parchment. Ironically it was in the dry tombs of Egypt where the precious papyri were used in mummy wrappings and a rubbish heap near Aphroditiopolis that much of her fragments have been found in addition to the many citations in classical works. It was these papyri that established her as more than just a name but as a major poet. jjamieson@odyssey.on.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:28:00 -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: Sappho & Matriarchal and patriarchal cultures jjamieson wrote: ---------- At 11:58 20/02/98 -0500, Rhian wrote in response to Debra among other things: >Exactly how many of Sappho's works were lost at what point, and for what >reason (natural disaster, lack of care, outright destruction, etc., etc., >etc.) is not clear, but most of the recovered examples of her work are >actually copies found in other places. It is generally conceded that around 500 poems were written by Sappho. Today a mere 700 lines survive that have any meaning at all and these are from many sources. Her works were well known in the ancient world and clearly survived into late Roman times intact. The Christain church was not at all fond of her. Gregory of Nazianzos around 380 A.D. ordered the burning of her writings wherever found and Tatian the Assyrian ascetic called her "..a whorish woman, love-crazy, who sang about her own licentiousness." Her writings along with others were also destroyed in 391 by a mob of Christian zealots who half burned the library in Alexandria. Pope Gregory VII ordered the public burning of her writings in Rome and Constantinople in 1073. Her writings were specifically sought out in April 1204 during the Fourth Crusade's pillage of Constantinople. The original writings were on papyrus which is far less durable than parchment. Ironically it was in the dry tombs of Egypt where the precious papyri were used in mummy wrappings and a rubbish heap near Aphroditiopolis that much of her fragments have been found in addition to the many citations in classical works. It was these papyri that established her as more than just a name but as a major poet. jjamieson@odyssey.on.ca ---------- Outstanding!! Thanks for the detail. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:12:52 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: Women and violence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-20 01:59:40 EST, you write: << This is the point when you might decide that you might be better off without any friends altogether rather than hanging on to people who might betray you, leave you when you need them most, or simply keep trying to convince you that you are not going to make it, because it's a "lost battle". >> It's best to end "friendships" that bring you down rather than build you up. Surely in the SF community there are worthwhile friendships to be had among strong women. Most of my friends are like me in not conforming to expectations, and really enjoying the act of frustrating people's attempts to pigeonhole us. It's also fun to share the latest SF market information and critique each others' writing. I think SF writers are "other" to many people. But that's okay--accountants are "other" to me, but I sure appreciate their talents when I need them-- barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:22:48 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: Children as a result of married love Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-19 18:48:12 EST, you write: << What if you are married? >> Aren't children one of the bennies of being married? If your contraceptive fails when you're married, it might be inconvenient, but at least you can bring the child into a loving relationship. It does take a while to go from seeing a "condition" from which you suffer to seeing a new, wonderful human being with endless potential. (Obviously, I prefer to believe that other people's families are like mine were, even though I know better. Mom had three last babies she was going to have, and they're all terrific people and I'm glad they're here. Even if my little sister did get a couple of my boyfriends because she was so darn cute. That was years ago--but this year, she created some fantastic marketing materials for my company.) barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:34:01 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: strong women/Bujold Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-19 12:26:31 EST, you write: << I cannot say it too loudly/often: Read Bujold! >> Something in this message, I know not what, gave me a twisted idea. Could we do a round-robin story on this list? Orson Scott Card, when he comes out to Utah (where he's from), likes to hang out with our SF community. At one event, he started a round-robin story, which went from person to person and we all added to it. It was totally incoherent by the time it got back to him--we had several "Meanwhile, back in the council chambers" types of transitions. But when I came back to him, he wrote a couple of paragraphs that wound it all up and it made sense! Just as though he'd planned all those ridiculous plot twists from the beginning! I was mightily impressed. Of course, if we did it, one of the super-good writers would have to do the wind-up. I have enough trouble undoing my own plot twists-- barbara ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:04:40 -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: Possible Hugo Award nominees--Forever War In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My thanks to Joel VanLaven who was tactful enough to call my attention to this error off the list serv. Joe Haldeman's Forever War is an excellent Hugo Award candidate, or at least it was in, what was it, 1976?, the year it actually did win the award. I meant to list his new novel Forever Peace (which is not a sequel to Forever War by the way) Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:07:23 -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: Hugo Ballet -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Marsha Valance wrote: > Just wanted to say I agree with all Mike's suggestions that > I've read, especially the Anthony, McIntyre, Cherryh, > Scott, Willis, and Haldeman, but that I believe the new > Haldeman's title is FOREVER PEACE. Yep (oh the embarrassment) Mike exit ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:53:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: "lathe of heaven" the film Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ok y'all - i have *so* many requests from people just desperate to see "the lathe of heaven" (the pbs film) that i would like to compile a little list of people willing to show the film somehow in their home or whatever. in other words, regional holders of copies of "the lathe of heaven" who would be willing to take pity on these poor le guin fans. anyone who is willing to have your email distributed, and to then coordinate whatever with people, let me know. personally, as soon as i have my tv/vcr, and copy of "the lathe of heaven" out here, i'll volunteer to cover for the bay area (i'm in san francisco). my thinking was to put it on the web page but actually now i think to be a bit more secure i'll just hold the list, and only send out the name of the appropriate regional contacts ... Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More War ** ** No More Civilian Deaths ** ** Don't Bomb Iraq! ** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 17:34:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Sappho and Xena Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Don't know if anyone but Barbara B. will care, but saw in TV Guide that Xena and Gabrielle will encounter Sappho in a forthcoming episode. Played by Lucy Lawless, BTW, giving her yet another role on this show -- her 8th, I believe. :) 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, 22 Feb 1998 02:04:14 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: "lathe of heaven" the film In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Some info on Jane's efforts to get Lathe of Heaven generally available again: http://www.oz.net/~jhawk/ On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:53:08 -0800, Laura Quilter wrote: >ok y'all - i have *so* many requests from people just desperate to see >"the lathe of heaven" (the pbs film) ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:17:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Cordelia's Honor, more on sex In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > >> Why is it that no one considers the simple, 100% guaranteed method of keeping > >> one's pants on? [I'll bet I get some sharp messages on this one.] > > > >What if you are married? > > What if? How does marriage obligate one to sexual/reproductive actions? I agree, it does not. However, I condsider love a required part of succesfull marriage, and sex an important part of love between partners. If married people are going to keep their pants on, what's the point of getting married? Should they never have sex just because they don't want to have children? In my opinion, abstinence is not a valid means of birth control. A way to protect your emotional health -- maybe, but not a birth control, especially for a married couple. "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:53:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Human Cloning in sf In-Reply-To: <34f48766.47101763@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The thread about sex/marriage/children made me wonder: what if you want to have children, but: 1) don't want to get married; 2) don't feel like risking possible custody battles that could result from an unofficial relationship; 3) the idea of artificial insemination kind of grosses you out (plus you're unsure whether you can trust their selection of donors); 4) doubt that your single status will make adoption possible? Won't it be nice to be able to have a child who is only yours? For example, through cloning. I've noticed that in sf, cloning of humans is present either as means of mass replicating the DNA of some outstanding (and already dead) individual for the purpose of creating "high quality humans", or as providing a future organ donor for the original, a "back-up copy" for the case of injury and old age. I wonder if there are sf books that consider human cloning as a way of becoming a single parent. Does anyone know of any? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:10:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: Human Cloning in sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > > I wonder if there are sf books that consider human cloning as a way of > becoming a single parent. Does anyone know of any? > > Marina > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > I know I have seen that in more than one story, more as background than as a central theme.... but I can't remember what stories. BTW the first time I read the term clone was ina story I read the late 70's where a group of persons were cloned from the same tissue and raised togethrer as a perfect team for space exploration. The catch was they grew so close, even communicating telepathically, that when 1 was caught in a trap, the others were psychologically incapable of leaving the trapped member and escaping themselves, even though there was no possible escape. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Denise Borgen borgen@eskimo.com ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:25:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: millenial musings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just finished Elizabeth Hand's _Glimmering_ (1997) yesterday and Kathleen Ann Goonan's _Bones of Time_ (1996) just now; about to start on Stephanie A. Smith's _Other Nature_ (1995). Heh. Didn't realize I was working backwards. Unplanned. Nonetheless, it seems that all these books (Smith's from the back cover, admittedly) are all suffused with a sort of deepset melancholy that I somehow associate with recent American poetry I've read. Fin de siecle uneasiness, grasping at a gold-limned ideal of the past, mixed with the tugging of a wiresparked future? Some strange stomach clench, leadened by an undertone of Gregorian chants. I was trying to puzzle if the first two were feminist, at all. Hand extrapolates AIDS into the future/present--those ill with it are all gay men, dying. No strong women: one ex-rebel, marked by another illness, crazy, "corrupts" a gay man by sleeping with him and having him not reject the experience out of hand; a couple of old aunts and grandmothers, facilitators and cloistered in a decaying house; one doctor who bravely goes 'round trying to save people but fails at all the important ones; one refugee from Europe who dies after giving birth. Goonan's main character is a woman in name, but there is nothing in particular to mark her as -woman- (she loses a baby early in the book, but her grief at that lasts about 3 paragraphs). I dunno. Both books were beautiful, Hand's more so (imo)--perhaps they are feminist simply because ultimately it didn't matter whether either the men were men, or the women women. Everybody was fairly ungenderedly human. But perhaps I read this this way because I am so used to ignoring gender markers in order to deepfall into the story? Interesting dilemma... *smiles* Just rambling. Sorry. =) Heather hmaclean@kent.edu Reality is only a question of language. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:38:54 -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: Human Cloning in sf In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Denise Borgen wrote: > On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Marina wrote: > > > > > I wonder if there are sf books that consider human cloning as a way of > > becoming a single parent. Does anyone know of any? > > > > Marina > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > > happens to be selling at the time." > > Naomi Wolf > > > I know I have seen that in more than one story, more as background than > as a central theme.... but I can't remember what stories. BTW the first > time I read the term clone was ina story I read the late 70's where > a group of persons were cloned from the same tissue and raised togethrer > as a perfect team for space exploration. The catch was they grew so > close, even communicating telepathically, that when 1 was caught in a > trap, the others were psychologically incapable of leaving the trapped > member and escaping themselves, even though there was no possible escape. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~ Denise Borgen borgen@eskimo.com ~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Cloning as a way of assuring inheritence and such is central to C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen. It also figures in Pamela Sargent's Cloned Lives Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:48:49 -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: millenial musings In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980221233550.0917c242@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Heather MacLean wrote: > Just finished Elizabeth Hand's _Glimmering_ (1997) yesterday and Kathleen > Ann Goonan's _Bones of Time_ (1996) just now; about to start on Stephanie A. > Smith's _Other Nature_ (1995). Heh. Didn't realize I was working backwards. > Unplanned. Nonetheless, it seems that all these books (Smith's from the > back cover, admittedly) are all suffused with a sort of deepset melancholy > that I somehow associate with recent American poetry I've read. Fin de > siecle uneasiness, grasping at a gold-limned ideal of the past, mixed with > the tugging of a wiresparked future? Some strange stomach clench, leadened > by an undertone of Gregorian chants. > > I was trying to puzzle if the first two were feminist, at all. Hand > extrapolates AIDS into the future/present--those ill with it are all gay > men, dying. No strong women: one ex-rebel, marked by another illness, crazy, > "corrupts" a gay man by sleeping with him and having him not reject the > experience out of hand; a couple of old aunts and grandmothers, facilitators > and cloistered in a decaying house; one doctor who bravely goes 'round > trying to save people but fails at all the important ones; one refugee from > Europe who dies after giving birth. Goonan's main character is a woman in > name, but there is nothing in particular to mark her as -woman- (she loses a > baby early in the book, but her grief at that lasts about 3 paragraphs). I > dunno. Both books were beautiful, Hand's more so (imo)--perhaps they are > feminist simply because ultimately it didn't matter whether either the men > were men, or the women women. Everybody was fairly ungenderedly human. But > perhaps I read this this way because I am so used to ignoring gender markers > in order to deepfall into the story? Interesting dilemma... > > *smiles* Just rambling. Sorry. =) > > Heather > > > hmaclean@kent.edu > Reality is only a question of language. > Heather, Glimmering is a very impressive book, but feminist? I don't know. Interesting piece of trivia about it--the Mars Hill chapter basically reads as science fiction, right? Hand won a Nebula, I think, for a story that came out a couple of years ago called "Late Summer at Mars Hill," or something like that, which is pure fantasy. It's the same physical locale, even has some of the same characters, but the two stories, IMO, couldn't exist in the same universe. Stephanie Smith's Other Nature is one of my favorite little known SF novels of the past few years. Melancholy is the word, and wonderfully understated. Just what are the children becoming at the end? Mike