Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9804D" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:31:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: BDG--Reproductive control In-Reply-To: <98549bd9.353c0fe2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, honestly, I won't call it "Tajik culture" by any means. Besides the fact that it would be kind of racist, it also not that localized to be ethnically-specific. At the same time, I do believe that this state of things is pretty common in societies on certain level of development (let's call it medieval). I'm pretty sure that the same stuff used to go on in Europe up to about 200 years ago, and even in early US (therefore "sheep jokes"). The reason for that, in my opinion, that experimenting with one's sexuality in medieval cutures, including the ones existing at the end of the 20th century, is punished very harshly. And animals at least cannot rat on you. The fact that sex with animals is not that popular in modern America, I think is mainly because people in industrialized countries are grossed out a lot easier. If a guy grows up being able to take warm shower every day and change clothes every couple hours, he would be less likely to be intimate with a sheep, no matter how lonely, horny, and far away from civilization he is. (At the same time, you never know. People here say nasty things about "hillbilies" too). Mon, 20 Apr 1998, WaterLuv wrote: > Thanks for the update on Tajik culture, if I may stretch the word so far. My > knee-jerk reaction to the above is, "So much for the mores of morons." Sadly, > I know enough to realize that these are not nut cases, simply products of a > culture very very foreign to the one in which I was reared. Can I say a brief > prayer of thanks that I was not born in one of these pits of Machismo? > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:48:17 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As things are relatively quiet on the list at the moment I hope a a topic only loosely connected to the list topics is tolerated. 2 weeks ago Amazon sent out a promotional review on the following book: "The Futures of Women: Scenarios for the 21st Century" by Pamela McCorduck and Nancy Ramsey Publisher: Addison Wesley According to the review (by Francesca Coltrera) the authors developed 4 scenarios how the state of women will develop over the next two decades. The review says: "One vision has women basking in a golden age of equality and opportunity. Another shoves women to the bottom of the heap as country after country unleashes a nightmarish backlash to squash gains in women's rights. "The Berlin Wall fell on women," future Germans joke: unification does away with state-sponsored child care, abortion rights, and employment, while a shrinking economy knocks women out of the job market. In China, the one-child policy that had long threatened the survival of girl babies--the ratio of boys to girls in the countryside was actually 5-1 in 1992--spawns a future of mandatory sex service for women to redress the population imbalance. The third scenario has international women's organizations scrambling to hold the line on basic gains in better nutrition, workplace safety, and domestic violence prevention. Trying to force governments to "walk the talk" saps energy for proposing advances. In the final scenario, women forge alliances with other women, expecting little or nothing from governments except the possibility that the ground the women have claimed will be swept away. Some Central African women dispense with men, forming collectives to bring up AIDS orphans and contributing to loan societies that enable their communities to thrive. In New York City, loose child care arrangements with grandmothers and aunties evolve. These nurturers more formally become the abuelitas, older women who care for children and elders in return for services. As McCorduck and Ramsey freely admit, wild cards such as biological terrorism and the complex chaos of societies make any predictions simplistic. Yet, as in the best science fiction, the vivid worlds they create grow from seeds already sown. The only future scenario that seems improbable is the one many workaday feminists endorse--that the gains of the 20th century will snowball until women and men achieve parity. Science fiction? Indeed." When I read the review I noticed that - although I love to read sf - I never really think about how the future concerning equality for women will be. Somehow, subconciously, I expect things will get better, if slowly, and any backlash will only be a short interlude. However, the fate of the women's movement in the last century shows that I am wrong in that respect. What do you think of these scenarios? Do you find them realistic? Most of them are not very promising. Has anybody seen or read the book? Does anybody know the authors? Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:22:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Hatfield Subject: Re: Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stop writing stupid e-mails to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell everyone else that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jennifer P.S.I mean it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---------- > From: Petra Mayerhofer > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:48 AM > > As things are relatively quiet on the list at the moment I hope a > a topic only loosely connected to the list topics is tolerated. > > 2 weeks ago Amazon sent out a promotional review on the following > book: > > "The Futures of Women: Scenarios for the 21st Century" > by Pamela McCorduck and Nancy Ramsey > Publisher: Addison Wesley > > According to the review (by Francesca Coltrera) the authors developed > 4 scenarios how the state of women will develop over the next two > decades. > > The review says: > "One vision has women basking in a golden age of > equality and opportunity. Another shoves women to the > bottom of the heap as country after country unleashes a > nightmarish backlash to squash gains in women's rights. > "The Berlin Wall fell on women," future Germans joke: > unification does away with state-sponsored child care, > abortion rights, and employment, while a shrinking > economy knocks women out of the job market. In China, > the one-child policy that had long threatened the > survival of girl babies--the ratio of boys to girls > in the countryside was actually 5-1 in 1992--spawns > a future of mandatory sex service for women to redress > the population imbalance. > > The third scenario has international women's > organizations scrambling to hold the line on basic > gains in better nutrition, workplace safety, and > domestic violence prevention. Trying to force > governments to "walk the talk" saps energy for > proposing advances. In the final scenario, women forge > alliances with other women, expecting little or nothing > from governments except the possibility that the ground > the women have claimed will be swept away. Some Central > African women dispense with men, forming collectives to > bring up AIDS orphans and contributing to loan societies > that enable their communities to thrive. In New York > City, loose child care arrangements with grandmothers > and aunties evolve. These nurturers more formally become > the abuelitas, older women who care for children and > elders in return for services. > > As McCorduck and Ramsey freely admit, wild cards > such as biological terrorism and the complex chaos of > societies make any predictions simplistic. Yet, as in > the best science fiction, the vivid worlds they create > grow from seeds already sown. The only future scenario > that seems improbable is the one many workaday feminists > endorse--that the gains of the 20th century will snowball > until women and men achieve parity. Science fiction? > Indeed." > > > When I read the review I noticed that - although I love to read sf - > I never really think about how the future concerning equality for > women will be. Somehow, subconciously, I expect things will get > better, if slowly, and any backlash will only be a short interlude. > However, the fate of the women's movement in the last century shows > that I am wrong in that respect. > > What do you think of these scenarios? Do you find them realistic? > Most of them are not very promising. Has anybody seen or read the > book? Does anybody know the authors? > > Petra > > > > ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:11:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic In-Reply-To: <6A802626B4C@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > 2 weeks ago Amazon sent out a promotional review on the following > book: > > "The Futures of Women: Scenarios for the 21st Century" > by Pamela McCorduck and Nancy Ramsey > Publisher: Addison Wesley > > According to the review (by Francesca Coltrera) the authors developed > 4 scenarios how the state of women will develop over the next two > decades. > > The review says: > "One vision has women basking in a golden age of > equality and opportunity. Another shoves women to the > bottom of the heap as country after country unleashes a > nightmarish backlash to squash gains in women's rights. > "The Berlin Wall fell on women," future Germans joke: > unification does away with state-sponsored child care, > abortion rights, and employment, while a shrinking > economy knocks women out of the job market. In China, > the one-child policy that had long threatened the > survival of girl babies--the ratio of boys to girls > in the countryside was actually 5-1 in 1992--spawns > a future of mandatory sex service for women to redress > the population imbalance. > > The third scenario has international women's > organizations scrambling to hold the line on basic > gains in better nutrition, workplace safety, and > domestic violence prevention. Trying to force > governments to "walk the talk" saps energy for > proposing advances. In the final scenario, women forge > alliances with other women, expecting little or nothing > from governments except the possibility that the ground > the women have claimed will be swept away. Some Central > African women dispense with men, forming collectives to > bring up AIDS orphans and contributing to loan societies > that enable their communities to thrive. In New York > City, loose child care arrangements with grandmothers > and aunties evolve. These nurturers more formally become > the abuelitas, older women who care for children and > elders in return for services. > > As McCorduck and Ramsey freely admit, wild cards > such as biological terrorism and the complex chaos of > societies make any predictions simplistic. Yet, as in > the best science fiction, the vivid worlds they create > grow from seeds already sown. The only future scenario > that seems improbable is the one many workaday feminists > endorse--that the gains of the 20th century will snowball > until women and men achieve parity. Science fiction? > Indeed." > > > When I read the review I noticed that - although I love to read sf - > I never really think about how the future concerning equality for > women will be. Somehow, subconciously, I expect things will get > better, if slowly, and any backlash will only be a short interlude. > However, the fate of the women's movement in the last century shows > that I am wrong in that respect. > > What do you think of these scenarios? Do you find them realistic? > Most of them are not very promising. Has anybody seen or read the > book? Does anybody know the authors? > > Petra > I think women's equality hinges on several factors, but a definite cycle has been noted. Shulamith Firestone (I forget the name of the book!) gave us a rather despairing run-through of the last one, from the origins of the Suffrage movement to the 'present' - just before the next wave of feminism exploded. What happens is that women's rights hit a low in postwar periods (i.e. the 50s) and a high right after a Great Awakening (i.e. the 60s to the present) between the high and the low is a crisis era (i.e. the Depression and WWII) where everybody does what's necessary to survive. But other factors include "can a woman alone make a living"? Not MAY she, but CAN she? And "does brute force prevail?" In the latter case it's back to living behind walls and/or seeking a strong protector. But as songwriter Leslie Fish keeps pointing out, Samuel Colt did a lot to protect the rights of the physically weaker ... "all you have to do is be able to shoot straight." (Barry Goldwater)> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:34:02 -0700 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is another reprint I picked up while working Juvenile reference. It was originally published in 1988. In that library, it was not catalogued as science or speculative fiction. Anyone read this one? It's set in the not very distant future. After an auto accident destroyed her body, the consciousness of a 13 year old girl (Eva) is placed into the body of a chimpanzee. It was not difficult to suspend disbelief. The set-up is detailed enough to support the plot. I'm fascinated with body/mind type stuff. Eva's consciousness integrates with the body memories of Kelly (the chimp whose consciousness was destroyed so that Eva could use the body.) The only thing I did not completely believe was the relative ease with which Eva became comfortable in Kelly's body. In the story, details about the use of dopamine to help Eva to not reject the situation emotionally explain some. Despite the drugs and Eva's very positive attitude, (and the fact that Eva grew up around captive chimpanzees), I expected that a 13 year old child would grieve at some point for the body she had and the person she was. Other than that nit, I think this novel was excellent. Another sci-fi I'd feel comfortable recommending to kids looking for something to read. :) Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:46:23 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Anyone read this one? Yup! I don't know if I'd place it in the not-very-distant future. It seemed way out to me in some ways (and not in others). I recently read this in a small group. The problem you had is one that a number of others had. I didn't have it quite so much. I'm not sure why, but her growing up around chimps explained a lot for me--along with her parents' reactions (and the extrapolated childhood). It was still a stretch, but not too hard. Especially as she didn't have much choice. I probably would have accepted it, myself. She didn't seem like much of a 13 year-old girl to me, either... ;-) > Other than that nit, I think this novel was excellent. Another sci-fi > I'd feel comfortable recommending to kids looking for something to > read. :) Definitely. Not much feminist about it (although I didn't read it looking for that), but there are some good looks at human relations and animal relations. There are plenty of female characters in a variety of roles, too, although most of the characters are pretty flat (IMO). One of the remarks from the reading group was that the book could have been much longer... Where was this book shelved? You mentioned that it wasn't in an sf category. General fiction? -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:02:50 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: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson and anything else by Peter Dickinson! My own favourites are _Tulku_ (set in China and Tibet at the time of Boxer rebellion), _The Blue Hawk_ (an imaginary, vaguely Egyptian, kingdom) and _The 7th Raven_ (contemporary London + terrorists), plus _The Devils Children_, the second in the 'Changes' trilogy (a changed near future Britain, with Sikhs playing an important role). _The Dancing Bear_ (Byzantium) is also good. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:53:15 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: BDG--Reproductive control >The fact that sex with animals is not that popular in modern America The Kinsey report found a significant amount, though of course even greater urbanisation and mechanisation of agriculture since the 1940s may have changed that. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:05:24 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: Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic >Stop writing stupid e-mails to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell everyone else >that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jennifer Is this a complaint about the quality of current discussions on the list? or an attempt to unsubscribe? If the first, please make constructive suggestions! If the second, I don't have the instructions to hand myself, but I'm sure someone can advise you of the correct procedure. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:23:08 -0700 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Briggs wrote: > > > Anyone read this one? > > Yup! I don't know if I'd place it in the not-very-distant future. While reading, I placed it around 2050-70. Maybe because of the population growth? I found nothing to anchor me in any particular year, so I'm guessing that readers bring their own perceptions. > The problem you had is one that a number of others had. I didn't > have it quite so much. (snip.) It was still a > stretch, but not too hard. (snip.) I probably would have > accepted it, myself. She didn't seem like much of > a 13 year-old girl to me, either... ;-) I'd like to think so, but I don't know if I could have seated my consciousness in another body. I've noticed that as I've grown older, I am more attached to my body, more in tune with it. I did not used to feel that *I* had anything to do with my body. Now I kinda do. Still, I was attracted by the description of Eva's joy in movement and her strength. I sure wouldn't mind having feet with longer and more muscular toes. (But what I really want is a prehensile tail). > Not much feminist about it (although I didn't read it > looking for that), but there are some good looks at human relations > and animal relations. snip. Maybe not feminist in plot, but I felt that Eva was a feminist character because she was so strong and true to her self and her nature, especially for a 13 year old girl. Makes me curious about the kind of human girl she had been. > Where was this book shelved? You mentioned that it wasn't in an sf > category. General fiction? Yes. Juvenile paperback (general fiction). This library system does not separate genres in the kid's section. They just put stickers on genre books (fantasy, mystery, historical, sf, romance) and shelve them along with the general fiction. Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:38:32 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: Approaching the Future - a bit off-topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > > >Stop writing stupid e-mails to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell everyone else > >that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jennifer > > Is this a complaint about the quality of current discussions on the list? or > an attempt to unsubscribe? > If the first, please make constructive suggestions! > If the second, I don't have the instructions to hand myself, but I'm sure > someone can advise you of the correct procedure. > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com This is how you do it......... To unsubscribe, mail a message to: listserv@listserv.uic.edu and in the body of the message type: unsubscribe feministsf Terri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:00:17 -0700 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: BDG--Control of fertility and cultural change MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In comparing Snake's world to mine (I live in the USA), some of the differences include acceptance of: Sexual interaction in general same sex partnerships/liaisons multiple partner "marriage" and families In addition, I don't recall an impression that rape was common. It didn't seem to be much of a worry to Snake. Do you think the ability of humans to control their reproductive abilities served to affect the culture in this way? Which other way would have this ability affect the societies? Would the ability for each individual to control reproduction really cut the connection (which exists in my culture) between sex and procreation? Would the result be an end to sexual assault (except by those considered to be sick)? True choice of partnership with men and/or women? Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:25:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Dreamsnake Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I loved this book and couldn't believe that so many thoughts were packed into such little space (Victor Hugo would have needed at least 800 more pages to get the same point across). It gave so many ideas for exploration, but here are a few that kept me ruminating: I loved the idea of health care system in which the provision of a method for helping a suffering person accept their illness, pain or death was valued so highly. I didn't, however, understand how this fostering of acceptance could be valued over the assistance of other aspects of health to the extent that healers would not be trained or accepted to practice unless they could have their own dreamsnake. "Accepting the things I cannot change" is a very important part of overall spiritual, mental and physical health, but only one part. However, I guess the reader has to accept this idea in order to provide for the necessity of Snake's journey of discovery. And speaking of discovery, it seemed strange that of all the extreme versions of scientific exploration in the assistance of reproduction of the dreamsnakes, no one in this hyperintelligent community had previously happened upon the idea that the snakes might need to associate in groups of three. The healers traveled all over the planet and must have encountered other people who made the same kinds of association. Jesse, Meridith, and Alex were a family of three. (and by the way, I didn't notice the lack of reference to Meredith's gender and just assumed she was female) I thought I got the idea that the desert clan formed tri-parental families--wasn't there a reference to the older and the younger father of the sick child, or was I missing something there? I guess the healers knew more about science than about sociology. Alas, I gave my book away and don't have it to refer to, so have forgotten the name of Snake's love interest; but that kind of underscores my next point. I'm not much interested in romance in novels because I usually can't figure out what makes the two parties click together. This was just another example of that failing. I could see Snake would find the guy appealing, brave, strong, vulnerable, but so are alot of other people, why pick this one? I could understand more that he in his sheltered life would find Snake exciting, brave, strong, and beautiful. But that he would leave his family in search of her after such a brief, though meaningful encounter didn't click for me. Then after he traveled for however long that took, a young, healthy man with a normal man's sex drive and was able to resist the offer of sex with attractive people just because he had a fantasy about Snake, definitely stretched my ability to believe. The whole couple didn't make it for me. But as I said, many areas for rumination. I'm so glad I read this book. Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:54:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson Comments: To: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" In-Reply-To: <353E2A0A.26D684D4@meer.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think I read something exactly like that. It had a different title, however. Something like "Kelly falls in love". It was about a scientist who placed the mind of his daughter into a body of a baby chimp, after the accident that killed both his daughter and his wife, when the girl was seven. The main character barely remembers either of her previous "separate" existances, and feels pretty comfortable with her body. She likes romance novels and TV and does not feel in any way unusual. The most interesting part, I think was when she's placed into an "ape breeding" facility after her father's death, and uses her human intelligence and knowledge to escape, together with her chimp boyfriend whom she taught how to talk. Is this the same story? Marina On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > This is another reprint I picked up while working Juvenile reference. > It was originally published in 1988. In that library, it was not > catalogued as science or speculative fiction. > > Anyone read this one? > > It's set in the not very distant future. After an auto accident > destroyed her body, the consciousness of a 13 year old girl (Eva) is > placed into the body of a chimpanzee. > > It was not difficult to suspend disbelief. The set-up is detailed > enough to support the plot. > > I'm fascinated with body/mind type stuff. Eva's consciousness > integrates with the body memories of Kelly (the chimp whose > consciousness was destroyed so that Eva could use the body.) > > The only thing I did not completely believe was the relative ease with > which Eva became comfortable in Kelly's body. In the story, details > about the use of dopamine to help Eva to not reject the situation > emotionally explain some. > > Despite the drugs and Eva's very positive attitude, (and the fact that > Eva grew up around captive chimpanzees), I expected that a 13 year old > child would grieve at some point for the body she had and the person she > was. > > Other than that nit, I think this novel was excellent. Another sci-fi > I'd feel comfortable recommending to kids looking for something to > read. :) > > Lindy > -- > "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the > same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead > > http://www.dotgraph.com > Resources associated with women, disabilities > and writing. > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:31:25 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD6E0C.196BF3D0" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6E0C.196BF3D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, now I'm remembering a story I read, about a chimp who's actually the = guys' daughter, and he's been hiding her in their house, and her father = dies, and she can't get the other scientists to understand who she is, = or that she's intelligent (or something like that) - it could be the = same story Marina's talking about...wow. I'd completely forgotten that = story until just now; wish I could remember a title or author. Hmm... -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 3:54 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson I think I read something exactly like that. It had a different title, however. Something like "Kelly falls in love". It was about a scientist who placed the mind of his daughter into a body of a baby chimp, after the accident that killed both his daughter and his wife, when the girl was seven. The main character barely remembers either of her previous "separate" existances, and feels pretty comfortable with her body. She likes romance novels and TV and does not feel in any way unusual. The most interesting part, I think was when she's placed into an "ape breeding" facility after her father's death, and uses her human intelligence and knowledge to escape, together with her chimp boyfriend whom she taught how to talk. Is this the same story? Marina On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > This is another reprint I picked up while working Juvenile reference. > It was originally published in 1988. In that library, it was not > catalogued as science or speculative fiction. > > Anyone read this one? > > It's set in the not very distant future. After an auto accident > destroyed her body, the consciousness of a 13 year old girl (Eva) is > placed into the body of a chimpanzee. > > It was not difficult to suspend disbelief. The set-up is detailed > enough to support the plot. > > I'm fascinated with body/mind type stuff. Eva's consciousness > integrates with the body memories of Kelly (the chimp whose > consciousness was destroyed so that Eva could use the body.) > > The only thing I did not completely believe was the relative ease with > which Eva became comfortable in Kelly's body. In the story, details > about the use of dopamine to help Eva to not reject the situation > emotionally explain some. > > Despite the drugs and Eva's very positive attitude, (and the fact that > Eva grew up around captive chimpanzees), I expected that a 13 year old > child would grieve at some point for the body she had and the person = she > was. > > Other than that nit, I think this novel was excellent. Another sci-fi > I'd feel comfortable recommending to kids looking for something to > read. :) > > Lindy > -- > "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the > same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead > > http://www.dotgraph.com > Resources associated with women, disabilities > and writing. > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:37:22 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Bouman Subject: Re: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson In-Reply-To: <01BD6E0C.1965D950@scandiog.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sounds like "Rachel in Love" by Pat Murphy. I think it won a Nebula in 1987. Great story, you can read it in the Nebula Awards book for that year. -Bonnie On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > OK, now I'm remembering a story I read, about a chimp who's actually the > guys' daughter, and he's been hiding her in their house, and her father > dies, and she can't get the other scientists to understand who she is, > or that she's intelligent (or something like that) - it could be the > same story Marina's talking about...wow. I'd completely forgotten that > story until just now; wish I could remember a title or author. Hmm... > > -Sandy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marina [SMTP:my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 3:54 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson > > I think I read something exactly like that. It had a different title, > however. Something like "Kelly falls in love". It was about a > scientist who placed the mind of his daughter into a body of a baby > chimp, after the accident that killed both his daughter and his wife, > when the girl was seven. > > The main character barely remembers either of her previous "separate" > existances, and feels pretty comfortable with her body. She likes > romance novels and TV and does not feel in any way unusual. The most > interesting part, I think was when she's placed into an "ape breeding" > facility after her father's death, and uses her human intelligence and > knowledge to escape, together with her chimp boyfriend whom she taught > how to talk. > > Is this the same story? > > > Marina > > > On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > > > This is another reprint I picked up while working Juvenile reference. > > It was originally published in 1988. In that library, it was not > > catalogued as science or speculative fiction. > > > > Anyone read this one? > > > > It's set in the not very distant future. After an auto accident > > destroyed her body, the consciousness of a 13 year old girl (Eva) is > > placed into the body of a chimpanzee. > > > > It was not difficult to suspend disbelief. The set-up is detailed > > enough to support the plot. > > > > I'm fascinated with body/mind type stuff. Eva's consciousness > > integrates with the body memories of Kelly (the chimp whose > > consciousness was destroyed so that Eva could use the body.) > > > > The only thing I did not completely believe was the relative ease with > > which Eva became comfortable in Kelly's body. In the story, details > > about the use of dopamine to help Eva to not reject the situation > > emotionally explain some. > > > > Despite the drugs and Eva's very positive attitude, (and the fact that > > Eva grew up around captive chimpanzees), I expected that a 13 year old > > child would grieve at some point for the body she had and the person she > > was. > > > > Other than that nit, I think this novel was excellent. Another sci-fi > > I'd feel comfortable recommending to kids looking for something to > > read. :) > > > > Lindy > > -- > > "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the > > same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead > > > > http://www.dotgraph.com > > Resources associated with women, disabilities > > and writing. > > > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:00:40 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Rachel in Love, Was: _Eva_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>OK, now I'm remembering a story I read, about a chimp who's actually the guys' daughter, and he's been hiding her in their house, and her father dies, and she can't get the other scientists to understand who she is, or that she's intelligent (or something like that) - it could be the same story Marina's talking about....<< You're describing "Rachel in Love" which is a novelette by Pat Murphy (it won a 1987 Nebula). It's included in Pat's collection of stories, "Points of Departure," which won a PK Dick award in 1991. Now I'm curious to read "Eva" to see how much it's like "Rachel in Love" Freddie Baer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:57:34 -0400 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: _Eva_ by Peter Dickinson In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:54 PM 4/22/98 -0500, Marina Yereshenko wrote: >Is this the same story? No, you're thinking of "Rachel in Love" by Pat Murphy. A wonderful story. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: XTC's English Settlement; Bran Van 3000's Glee "...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: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:06:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: _Eva_ / _Rachel in Love_ : Coincidence? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Yep, that's it. The similarities between these two stories are striking, though. At least judging by the description of _Eva_ (which I have not read) on this list. Is it possible that one of the authors stole the plot from the other? Marina P.S. I agree that Rachel in Love was a great story. I think that the idea of a teenage girl in a body of a chimpanzee rescuing herself from a breeding center and finding her way home through the desert was pretty amazing. Besides, that part where Rachel types a letter to a magazine advice columnist with a question how to let a human janitor she has a crush on know about her feelings, was hilarious. To me, the strength of this story was that it told such a fantastic story so realistically, you'd keep thinking: "Yeah, this is exactly how it would happen". Besides, it was very unusual to see such an open, no-shame account of teenage girl's arising sexuality. I wonder if you need to be a monkey to have a right to feel what you feel. On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Bonnie Bouman wrote: > Sounds like "Rachel in Love" by Pat Murphy. I think it won a Nebula in > 1987. Great story, you can read it in the Nebula Awards book for that > year. > > -Bonnie > > On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > > > OK, now I'm remembering a story I read, about a chimp who's actually the guys' daughter, and he's been hiding her in their house, and her father dies, and she can't get the other scientists to understand who she is, or that she's intelligent (or something like that) - it could be the same story Marina's talking about...wow. I'd completely forgotten that story until just now; wish I could remember a title or author. Hmm... > > > > -Sandy > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:17:11 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: BDG Dreamsnake - 2 to 3 In-Reply-To: <19980422212422.12576.qmail@www02.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 22 Apr 98 , Joyce Jones wrote: > And speaking of discovery, it seemed strange that of all the > extreme versions of scientific exploration in the assistance of > reproduction of the dreamsnakes, no one in this hyperintelligent > community had previously happened upon the idea that the snakes > might need to associate in groups of three. The healers traveled > all over the planet and must have encountered other people who > made the same kinds of association. Jesse, Meridith, and Alex > were a family of three. That is a very good point. In Arevin's culture partnerships of 3 persons were quite usual, too. I cannot remember any indication how things were handled in Mountainside or in the healer's community. On 22 Apr 98 , Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > In comparing Snake's world to mine (I live in the USA), some of the > differences include acceptance of: ... > multiple partner "marriage" and families That is one of the point I am not quite satisfied with in the novel, and exactly because multiple partner marriages are something new and different for the Western culture in which pairs are seen as normal and threesomes are reduced to something titillating and by its very nature short-lived (remember the movie _Lonesome, twosome, threesome_ (or something like that) a few years back?). There are certainly more examples of that. However, in the novel we "experience" the formation of only one partnership, that between Snake and Arevin, a pair. There is a short description how it was with Jesse, Meredith and Alex but for me that left out too much. _Because_ it is a very alien concept for me (I mean because of all the ideas of romantic love I carry around with me) I wonder how such a partnership actually comes into existing. How do 2 persons in love decide that they need/tolerate a third person and how do they decide which person should be that? And how does it work then? What rules are developed? And I think there have to be some customs how to react and what to expect in certain cases. The only novel I know describing that (but also only in retrospect and at the point the relationship is falling apart) is _Summer people_ by Marge Piercy (no sf). There are certainly others, but only in a sf or fantasy novel it can be described in a context in which a multiple partnership is not a curiosity. Any thoughts? Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:49:01 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: BDG Dreamsnake - 2 to 3 In-Reply-To: <15226D3190@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:17 P 23/04/98 GMT+100, you wrote: >On 22 Apr 98 , Joyce Jones wrote: >> And speaking of discovery, it seemed strange that of all the >> extreme versions of scientific exploration in the assistance of >> reproduction of the dreamsnakes, no one in this hyperintelligent >> community had previously happened upon the idea that the snakes >> might need to associate in groups of three. The healers traveled >> all over the planet and must have encountered other people who >> made the same kinds of association. Jesse, Meridith, and Alex >> were a family of three. > >In Arevin's culture partnerships of 3 persons were quite usual, too. I >cannot remember any indication how things were handled in Mountainside >or in the healer's community. I wasn't surprised so much by the triune relationship not being considered by the healers, as it was only one of the parameters of dreamsnake reproduction they hadnt considered. Snake herself gives the reasons why when she is in the pit - the healers also hadnt considered that the dreamsnakes needed cold at some point in their breeding cyle, Snake was stunned to consider the extreme cold that the dreamsnakes were subjected to, and was surprised that they not only survived extreme cold, but seemed to need it for breeding - as the healers had always been careful to keep their dreamsnakes warm. Also, they had few dreamsnakes to begin with - and "couldnt afford the luxury of experimenting". > >On 22 Apr 98 , Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > >> In comparing Snake's world to mine (I live in the USA), some of the >> differences include acceptance of: >... >> multiple partner "marriage" and families > >That is one of the point I am not quite satisfied with in the novel, >and exactly because multiple partner marriages are something new and >different for the Western culture in which pairs are seen as normal >and threesomes are reduced to something titillating and by its very >nature short-lived (remember the movie _Lonesome, twosome, threesome_ >(or something like that) a few years back?). There are certainly more >examples of that. > >However, in the novel we "experience" the formation of only one >partnership, that between Snake and Arevin, a pair. There is a short >description how it was with Jesse, Meredith and Alex but for me that >left out too much. _Because_ it is a very alien concept for me (I >mean because of all the ideas of romantic love I carry around with >me) I wonder how such a partnership actually comes into existing. How >do 2 persons in love decide that they need/tolerate a third person >and how do they decide which person should be that? And how does it >work then? What rules are developed? And I think there have to be >some customs how to react and what to expect in certain cases. The >only novel I know describing that (but also only in retrospect and at >the point the relationship is falling apart) is _Summer people_ by >Marge Piercy (no sf). There are certainly others, but only in a sf or >fantasy novel it can be described in a context in which a multiple >partnership is not a curiosity. > >Any thoughts? I have friends who are in multiple partnership - or group marriages. One of which is a threesome of gay women, who have lived together for about 10 years now. The other is 5-way partnership of 2 men and 3 women who have been stable for over 15 years:)) All of these friends have mentioned the fact that they do not advertise to *anyone* the full extent of their relationship as a group bond. In the case of the heterosexual partnership, originally it was two married couples who came together with one of the women's sisters - even after 15 years, 5 children of mixed biological parentage, and buying two large houses in a suburban duplex and knocking out adjoining walls, fences and redesigning their living arrangements - they still allow their families, neighbours etc to think they are all just "good friends" :))) They do not feel comfortable explaining to people their relationship, or demonstrating affection in public for example - because they feel that too many outsiders would be insensitive and automatically assume that they are sexually kinky..or as one of the men put it: " they cant help asking if we all sleep 5 to a bed every night, do we fuck in pairs, homosexually, in threesomes etc; or if we have *favourites*, or if we experience jealousy all the time, ". In other words, most people expect exclusive sexual access to just one person, anything else degrades the value of sex, turns it kinky or titillating with visions of pornography etc - and believe they would be jealous, or feel emotionally betrayed or injured in some way - to have that "exclusive" sexual bond broken. In Dreamsnake - I found this aspect of multiple marriage - the most believable of arrangements - as it ensures the care of children far more successfully than any pair-bond could or would - by having a number of adults around. Also, when you take a society which views sex with strangers casually, or as a kind of "courtesy" , then that culture would not see multiple marriage as *strange* - but *natural*. I think the distinction everyone is having trouble with is the distinction between sex for fun, and sex within a relationship. And when I see the enormous amount of literature over several centuries (if not milennia) which protrays the huge emotional pain and anger and bitterness and just everyday problems humans have had trying with heroic effort to keep pair-bonds going over time - and then people wonder about sky-rocketing divorce rates - I wonder if the pair-bond is as *natural* as we all assume it is. As Germaine Greer said " If marriage is so _natural_ then how come every culture no matter how primitive or civilised, has to invent laws, rituals, taboos, romantic myths, movies, fairy-stories etc in order to perpetuate, force and re-inforce it? If it was a _natural_ event - it would happen naturally, and would not require the force of law, tradition, ritual wedding feasts, ritual seclusion, body-mutilation, dinner-party honeymooner jokes or "how to keep your marriage alive" books and magazines to encourage or enforce it". Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:24:31 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: list comment / DREAMSNAKE / Looking to the future with BDG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ahem, would it be possibble for those list members who are resending all parts of messages they are replying to to snip those? It's difficult to read something which is essentially three messages long, etc. TIA. ++++++++++++++++++ Does anyone else find a particular passage or line will really stand out when reading? In DREAMSNAKE, one hit me fairly early on : "it's impossible to protect anyone completely without enslaving them." That had real resonence for me. I think maybe the reason no one thought of 3 dreamsnakes breeding is because even in the extended family units, there was still a 1:1 ration for reproduction, even if there were more than 2 members in a unit. I've very much enjoyed the discussion. +++++++++++++++++++ Is it time to start looking ahead to the next set of books for discussion? Some people read slower than others, and some have less access to books ... Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:43:32 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Choosing the next books MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As Maryelizabeth pointed out, it is time to do the next round of voting for BDG books. I'd like to propose the following periods for nominating and voting: April 27-May 1: nominations open May 1 - May 8: voting May 11: next slate of six books announced June 1: discussion begins on first book of next set We can begin the next set with the book that is most widely available, which should help members outside the US to find it soonest. The rest of the books we'll read in alphabetical order. I apologize for not getting this voting process underway sooner. I need two volunteers: - collect nominations and put them in basic html format; hopefully this can be done regularly during the nominating period, but the final voting list must be definitely produced and posted on the web by May 1. I am assuming we can post the nominated books on the FSF web site; I'll verify that with Laura. - collect and tabulate votes. This involves receiving votes by email, responding to each within 24 hours or so to confirm, and then counting them up. You mostly just need to be around that week and regularly checking email. The next book up is Halfway Human; discussion begins May 4th. I also need a discussion leader volunteer for that. Please consider volunteering, especially if you have html formatting experience and are available on those dates. Email me directly if you're interested. Thanks! Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com book discussion group coordinator ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:52:17 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: long term relationships with more than one partner Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To me, the most difficult aspect to conceive of with an arrangement of this nature, is the ability of three or more people with mutual comfort zones to find one another. It's hard enough, IMO, to find ONE person with whom one can mostly enjoy a long term relationship, let alone more than one. I have only known two people who I really could see spending more than a year or two with, who I was compatible enough with: my first college room mate and my current husband. And I'm convinced THEY couldn't live together for more than a week. 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, 24 Apr 1998 13:05:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "joseph santini: MPG" Subject: Re: long term relationships with more than one partner In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" of course, the modern incapacity for multiple partner relationships is due to the myriad individual complexities of each person's religion, growth, political standings, feelings of inferiority/superiority, and capacity for affection. were a new world founded, with a group of explorers or founders, the probability that it would be much more cohesive would be higher, since chances are the founders would be of one race and/or religion, if not political standing. that probability could account for multiple-partner relationships and equivalent "comfort zones." Make sense? or am I being nuts again? At 09:52 diem 4/24/98 +0100, you wrote: >To me, the most difficult aspect to conceive of with an arrangement of this >nature, is the ability of three or more people with mutual comfort zones to >find one another. It's hard enough, IMO, to find ONE person with whom one >can mostly enjoy a long term relationship, let alone more than one. I have >only known two people who I really could see spending more than a year or >two with, who I was compatible enough with: my first college room mate and >my current husband. And I'm convinced THEY couldn't live together for more >than a week. > > > >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 > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:23:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: long term relationships with more than one partner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6B.1054AB10" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6B.1054AB10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wow..what a conincidence; I'm in the middle of reading "A Fisherman of = the Inland Sea" (LeGuin), and the last story in it outlines a foursome = marriage structure that I found fascinating. I don't think I could = explain it, but I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subject; = she does a really good job of outlining a complex society in a way that = seems very real; the bits about the matchmakers rang very true to me. :) -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Maryelizabeth Hart [SMTP:mystgalaxy@AX.COM] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 1:52 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] long term relationships with more than one partner To me, the most difficult aspect to conceive of with an arrangement of = this nature, is the ability of three or more people with mutual comfort zones = to find one another. It's hard enough, IMO, to find ONE person with whom = one can mostly enjoy a long term relationship, let alone more than one. I = have only known two people who I really could see spending more than a year = or two with, who I was compatible enough with: my first college room mate = and my current husband. And I'm convinced THEY couldn't live together for = more than a week. 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 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6B.1054AB10 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 [mime attachment deleted] ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6B.1054AB10-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:35:13 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: long term relationships with more than one partner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6C.AA99F710" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6C.AA99F710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That makes sense to me; I would think that in a more cohesive, = homogenous society, a lot of the really basic things that cause = imcompatibility between people wouldn't be issues, so it might make it = easier to find groups (as opposed to pairs) that could get along = long-term. So, starting from the assumption that single cultures settle = a whole planet, it certainly seems more plausible to me. On the other hand, most of our current human cultures have a pretty = deep-rooted basis in pairing off, too, so that would have to be dropped = somewhere... -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: joseph santini: MPG [SMTP:jsantini@HAVERFORD.EDU] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 10:06 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] long term relationships with more than one = partner of course, the modern incapacity for multiple partner relationships is = due to the myriad individual complexities of each person's religion, growth, political standings, feelings of inferiority/superiority, and capacity = for affection. were a new world founded, with a group of explorers or = founders, the probability that it would be much more cohesive would be higher, = since chances are the founders would be of one race and/or religion, if not political standing. that probability could account for multiple-partner relationships and equivalent "comfort zones." Make sense? or am I being nuts again? At 09:52 diem 4/24/98 +0100, you wrote: >=To me, the most difficult aspect to conceive of with an arrangement of this >=nature, is the ability of three or more people with mutual comfort >=zones to find one another. It's hard enough, IMO, to find ONE person with >=whom one can mostly enjoy a long term relationship, let alone more >=than one. I have only known two people who I really could see >=spending more than a year or two with, who I was compatible enough with: >=my first college room mate and my current husband. And I'm convinced THEY >=couldn't live together for more than a week. > > > >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 > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6C.AA99F710 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 [mime attachment deleted] ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD6F6C.AA99F710-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:14:57 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: long term relationships with more than one partner In-Reply-To: <01BD6F6C.AA99F710@scandiog.jf.intel.com> (message from Sandy Candioglos on Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:35:13 -0700) I think that one of the things that would need to change in order for a different default relationship structure to emerge would be the expectations that people have for relationships. (I think this needs to happen in real life, since the current longterm default relationship structure in our culture--monogamous heterosexual pairbonding--isn't working for 50% of the pairs that try it and that doesn't begin to look at the people who never get as far as marriage, but that's beside the point.) Writing this is extremely difficult, I think, because the assumptions about what a relationship should provide are fairly deeply ingrained and an author would have to work very hard to make a very different relationship believable to readers. Lots of other aspects (provision for offspring, sexuality comfort, etc.) would have to change as well, I would think, but I believe expectations are the key. E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:57:40 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: BDG: Dreamsnake Content-Type: text/plain Just a few thoughts about _Dreamsnake_: I wonder what the dreamsnake anatomy is like, with three snakes needed to mate, most terrestrial snakes have some kind of "clasper" to keep the bodies in proper alignment, IIRC. I wonder if the Dreamsnakes might have something even more exotic? This might have been a clue for the snake handlers. Also, I remember reading someplace that she got the title, and the idea for the story, from a writer's exercise where you put together random words and try to write a story about them, and she happened to get "Dream" and "Snake." I can't help wondering what would have happened had she picked the words "Dream" and "Hog" instead... it might have gone like this: She awoke in the morning to the smell and sound of frying bacon. "No!" she cried with tears in her eyes, "the dreamhog is harmless, it brings beautiful dreams only." But it was too late... Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:53:04 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kieth Subject: Re: BDG: Dreamsnake In-Reply-To: <19980424185740.1220.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Now the Dreamsnake discussion is winding down, I wanted to recommend the story on which Dreamsnake was (I think) based: a compact, wonderfully written and beautifully balanced short story named "Of Mist, and Sand, and Grass". One of those like Nightfall, or The Sentinel or Flowers for Algernon - the bare bones of the story stay forever. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:31:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: DreamHog Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Also, I remember reading someplace that she got the title, and the > idea for the story, from a writer's exercise where you put together > random words and try to write a story about them, and she happened > to get "Dream" and "Snake." > > I can't help wondering what would have happened had she picked > the words "Dream" and "Hog" instead... > > it might have gone like this: > She awoke in the morning to the smell and sound of frying bacon. > "No!" she cried with tears in her eyes, "the dreamhog is harmless, it > brings beautiful dreams only." But it was too late... > > Dan Krashin ----------------------- Dan, what a sick sense of humor. This ol' vegetarian is still laughing. Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:15:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: gender difference vs. similarity In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980415202132.0072df38@haverford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I was away on a business trip. On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, joseph santini: MPG wrote: [snipped the good parts that showed my lack of knowledge of the book this thread was about, _So You Want to be a Wizard_] > Femaleness, yes, but not traditional feminity. There are some things women > do better than men, and some things men do better than women. Birth and > ejaculation are distinct examples of these. I hate movies and books which And I think just about the only ones. > try to show that women can take over the position of men, because that's > not the POINT of feminism. Certainly women can do any civil, mental, or I agree and disagree. Given a patriachy where the men decide things for the women, I'd say that the women damn well better take that position from the men. Further I hate movies and books that have the narrowing, fundamentalist attitude towards gender (and other things) that I understand you to be espousing. Some women are naturally, instinctively, larger, stronger, less sensitive, worse parents, worse homemakers, more violent, more into sports, more bull-headed, sexist, disconnected, and uncommunicative than most men. I think that feminists who go on and on about the differences between men and women are only hurting the cause. I think that it is quite possible that feminism lost it's way in the morass of appreciating the "natural" "instinctive" differences. Set it up as men and women are different, and women are good (better) will make it very easy for the masses to make their own choice based on long-standing patriarchy that no, they like men better. Feminism is then reduced from a real assualt on the basic assumptions we make in our society to one side of an understandable natural competition between two groups, much the way people from Chicago compete with New Yorkers. Certainly much easier to dismiss eh? > physical action a man can do, given the same training. I could, given the > same training, play football; this doesn't mean someone else, due to > natural ability, couldn't do it better. Femaleness is instinctively > connected with motherhood, which leads to certain qualities: protectiveness > (inherent in maleness too, but perhaps not as strongly) and definitely a > higher level of empathy. Maleness implies the expendable fringe force. > Feminity is too connected with the mincing ladies of yesteryear for me; the > qualities I ascribe to femaleness have nothing to do with that. Give me a friggin break, I am about to vomit. It seems likely to me that your mother was wonderfully empathetic, baked you cookies, and protected you while not being a mincing lady, while your father was an expendable fringe force in your life. Don't assume that everyone has the same experiences. I have known fathers who were more empathetic and protective than the expendable fringe force mother. Are they more "female" than the female involved? There will always be so many exceptions to any stereotype like that, no matter how "natural" and "instinctive" you might think it is that it simply fails to descibe the real world. I'm not so tied up in this that I don't appreciate books, movies, or stories where the stereotypes happen to be true, but I don't call them feminsist. I see feminist literature as exploring those hidden, glossed-over stereo-type bashing parts of us rather than celebrating the normal order of things. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:42:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erica J Kline Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 23 Apr 1998 to 24 Apr 1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks a lot Dan! It's not cool for me to be laughing out loud in my Dilbert-like cubicle at 8:30 on Monday morning, but I am! Thanks, Erica ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:25:45 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Feminism and the Discworld MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It has come to my attention that far too many of you have thus-far been deprived of all knowledge and experience of the wonders that comprise the Discword. Gentlefolks, please, step this way. Prepare to be mesmerised by "The Colour of Magic". Trip "The Light Fantastic" as you celebrate "Equal Rites." Be "Mort"ified by the faustian tale of "Eric." Come, "Wyrd Sisters," gaze in awe at the "Pyramids," and perhaps the changing of the "Guards! Guards!" double as ushers if you attend the "Moving Pictures" to see "Reaper Man." "Witches Abroad," you may even find "Small Gods." "Lords and Ladies," "Men At Arms," to help you unwind we suggest a little "Soul Music." We promise you "Interesting Times" at the "Maskerade," so don't stand there with "Feet of Clay." As added incentive the "Hogfather" has an offer you can't refuse, if you can understand his "Jingo." ? Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I have an inferiority complex, but it isn't a very good one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:46:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ruth Jost Subject: IRC chat with Vonda MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The following message may be of interest as it is about online coverage of the Nebula Awards and chats with nominated authors - including the fabulous Vonda McIntyre. (For others from down under, Vonda's chat is 11.30 a.m Sydney time on Wednesday 29 April. US and UK times are given below.) FORWARDED: > > > >The Dominion and Science Fiction Weekly present our 2nd > annual Nebula Awards coverage: > > > >********************************************** > >ONLINE CHATS WITH NEBULA NOMINATED AUTHORS > >Tuesday, April 28 at 8pm ET/5pm PT/1am UK Time > >********************************************** > > > >Chat online with four authors nominated for 1997 Nebula > Awards: > > > >8pm ET Connie Willis Novel: Bellweather > >8:30pm ET George R.R. Martin Novel: A Game of > Thrones > >9pm ET Walter Jon Williams Novel: City on > Fire > >9:30pm ET Vonda N. McIntyre Novel: The Moon > and the Sun > > > >********************************************* > >LIVE COVERAGE OF THE NEBULA AWARDS CEREMONY > >Saturday, May 2 at 9pm ET/6pm PT/2am UK Time > >********************************************* > > > >Join a global community of SF fans online as the Dominion > and Science > >Fiction Weekly bring the Nebula Awards to the world. We > will be on site > >and online to report the winners as they're announced, > describe the sites > >and sounds of the ceremony and answer your questions. > > > >To take part in these chats, connect your IRC client to > > >and join #auditorium at the appointed dates and times. > Netscape 3.01+ > >users can also participate with our java chat client, located at:> > > > http://www.scifi.com/chat/chatnow.html > > > >For more information about this and other Dominion events, > visit: > > > > http://www.scifi.com/chat/ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:30:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dawn Subject: Re: Feminism and the Discworld MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Catweasel wrote: > > It has come to my attention that far too many of you have thus-far been > deprived of all knowledge and experience of the wonders that comprise the > Discword. Hi I just had to break free of lurkdom to say that I also love Discworld. Its a great series to read when your brain is tired and the real world has gotten too serious. You just want a good laugh and not have to think hard about what your reading. Dawn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:08:52 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: IRC chat with Vonda In-Reply-To: <19980428024602.12133.rocketmail@send1c.yahoomail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for mentioning this -- should be fun. Also I'm the guest co-host on site at the Nebula Awards for an SFF-Net chat, Saturday 2 May. Info on where to go & what to do at the end of the link in my .sig file. Best, Vonda On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:46:02 -0700, Ruth Jost wrote: >... >> >The Dominion and Science Fiction Weekly present our 2nd >> annual Nebula Awards coverage: >> > >> >********************************************** >> >ONLINE CHATS WITH NEBULA NOMINATED AUTHORS >> >Tuesday, April 28 at 8pm ET/5pm PT/1am UK Time >> >********************************************** ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda On-Line Nebula Ceremony -- Join us! Information at http://www.sff.net/member/nebula.htp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:06:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: X-Files: Sex with angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Have you seen the latest X-Files this Sunday? The main plot was as usual "Scully and Mulder solving a mysterious murder". But the theme was rather interesting. It starts with a paralyzed girl who wakes up in the middle of the night, suddenly starts walking, walks out in the rain and when her father catches up with her, she's dead kneeling in a prayer position, with her eyes burned out. AS it eventually turns out, the girl was adopted. And as Scully finds out from her priest, she (the girl) was one of the quadriplets whose mother had been a human, and father an angel. That explains why the girls have six fingers, six toes, and rudementary wings. Since they are half-human, they "have souls of angels but are not meant to be angels". Besides, they are also deformed and paralyzed (human/angel DNA must not combine very well). And on the top of everything, after all these years, Satan suddenly decides to "claim their souls" so they all get killed off, one by one, in front of Scully and Mulder right after they find them. I cannot say that I have anything against this story. As a complete X-File junkie, the absurdity of some of the episodes makes it even more attractive to me (it starts reminding me Twin Peaks minus sexism, and I loved Twin Peaks). However, this angel/human pairing made me think that this X-File episode would make an interesting sequel to all these recent movies (Michael, The City of Angels) where the same idea was presented in a "romantic comedy". In those fantasies, the angel is some kind of variation of Prince Charming that shows up in a life of a lonely woman and makes her happy. He seems to present sort of an alternative to romatically challenged human males. Meanwhile, X-Files shows the other side of the fairy-tale: yeah, meet an angel, fall in love, have a heavenly relationship. Then die giving birth to four deformed retarded children, who will be haunted by the Devil while moving between abusive foster homes and mental asylums until they all die at the age of 16. I bet this would give the characters played by Andy McDowell and however stars in The City of Angels some second thoughts about dating a guy with wings. But seriously, what do you all think about this idea of human/angel relationships? Why would so many people find it attractive? By the way, have you noticed that Scully's relation with religion plays the same role as Mulder's obsession with aliens? It's like they divided the fields of interest. When the little green people show up, Scully plays the "realistic one", who refuses to believe Mulder's "crazy ideas", mumbling about possible scientific explanations. And when the miracles are involved, it's exactly the other way around, Scully believes while Mulder is skeptical. Is it possible that if they had a religious guy and a extraterrestrial-hunting woman, the show would be totally different? Imagine a prayer-channel type male and Sgt. Ripley as FBI partners investigating a small-town cult of cannibals. Just a thought. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:02:43 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Begin of BDG Nomination Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT IMO the book discussion group of the last two months was a full success. Now it's time to nominate and vote for the next round of books (June to November). From now till May 1 incl. books can be nominated. They will be voted on from May 2 to May 8. Winners will be announced on May 11. Discussion of the first book starts on June 1. I volunteered to collect the nominations from the list and to produce a html-formatted file. If possible, a intermediate list will be put on a web site in the middle of the week. Group members can nominate any feminist "speculative fiction" book. Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in order to keep the price within everybody's range. Please confirm the availability of any title you are interested in nominating by contacting Maryelizabeth at mystgalaxy@ax.com (or by looking it up on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com ). If possible, please include data on publisher and price when you nominate a book. During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending email to the list with 'BDG Nomination' in the subject line. When you nominate a book, please include a description of why you feel the group should select it. The description will be included in the nominated books list on our web site (not yet specified), to help members decide which books to vote for. Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:05:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels In-Reply-To: (message from Marina on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:06:17 -0500) Last Christmas the church service I went to included a spoken word/dance piece in place of the reading of the Annunciation (when Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her what would happen, also often taken as the moment when she was impregnated). It was very interesting, with the woman playing Mary talking in a conversational tone about this bizarre/amazing thing that happened to her and her partner dancing before her as the angel/divine spirit. ANYWAY, this got me to thinking about how strange it is to me that angels are portrayed in the whole angel craze as generally beautiful, when it seems like the first thing every angel says in scripture is "Be not afraid," which would lead one to think that if they are beautiful it is in an overwhelming, terrifying way, at best. I think that one of the aspects of the attraction of angels is that they are seen as purely spiritual. So, men without all the hassles, the hair, the coarseness of reality and humanity and imperfection. E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:29:49 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santini Joseph R Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I had no time to watch X-Files this week (more's the pity. but then, I got to see Tori Amos in Phili) but i had a few thoughts on angels: One, I hate them. Bloody nose-in-the-air buggers. Two, they're pretty stupid, and the modern representations of them are wayyyy unreal. I mean, look, angels are NOT supposed to marry human folk. This is explicity explained in the bible, right? Part of the reason He or She or It or the Great Salamander sent the waters. Seraphim doing bugger-all with hundreds of nubile young Egyptians. Punished, not allowed to return to Heaven... The theme is explored in Vertigo's Hellblazer series: an angel falls in love with a demon, and is killed rather brutally by Gabriel for his sins. (Of course later Gabriel falls in love with a human woman. The authors wouldn't let an irony THAT big slip by them...) Three: and as to "human" imperfection which someone's mentioned, I have to admit that if there were angels, they'd be jealous of us. Can you imagine how BORED they must be by now? Sexless, impure beings, who are supposed to be happy living with Daddy ALL THEIR LIVES. They can't even get their own careers, because they're stuck going to the grocery store to pick up His beer (figuratively.) Four, to relate this to feminism: Why are angels classified almost universally as male (with the sole exception of those women on that tv show... touched by an angel, is it?) joe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:31:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Chat with Vonda McIntyre, Connie Willis, and others tonight In-Reply-To: <353C2C16.5227E50A@meer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thought some of you might be interested in this: --------------------- ->CHAT WITH THE NEBULE NOMINEES We've also added Connie Willis to our Nebula nominee chat, which will take place at 8pm ET on Tuesday, April 28, as previously announced. Our list of guests now includes: 8:00pm ET Connie Willis Novel: Bellweather 8:30pm ET George R.R. Martin Novel: A Game of Thrones 9:00pm ET Walter Jon Williams Novel: City on Fire 9:30pm ET Vonda N. McIntyre Novel: The Moon and the Sun For more information on our chats, including instructions on how you can participate, please visit: http://www.scifi.com/chat -------------------------- jenn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:17:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram Subject: Re: angels In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" joe wrote: (major snip!) >to relate this to feminism: Why are angels classified almost >universally as male? The obvious answer: because male is often percieved as the 'norm', the standard, the default setting. Female is the deviation, and would be noted by a diminitive suffix or a gender prefix - ie, 'woman doctor', 'poetess', 'bachelorette' (though these constructions are disappearing from common usage, thank ye lares and penates). So, would it be 'Angelette' or 'Angeless'? Doesn't quite have the same ring, eh? I do feel compelled to note that many of the angels included in common church art are portrayed as feminine, if not distinctly female - and thus I grew up thinking of angels as primarily female with a few noted exceptions. The angels in our creche scene were all female, at least as I remember them... Rules of the Road: 1) Attend to quiet victims first 2) Any wound will stop bleeding if you press down hard enough. - Audre Lorde ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:50:22 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Subject: Re: Feminism and the Discworld Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-27 23:36:08 EDT, you write: << I also love Discworld. Its a great series to read when your brain is tired and the real world has gotten too serious. You just want a good laugh and not have to think hard about what your reading. Dawn >> This is one of the few humorous series that has remained worth reading. I especially love anything with the witches (Equal Rites, Wyrd Sisters, Witches Abroad, Lords and Ladies, Maskerade are the main ones, off the top of my head), Death, his daughter Susan, or the Guard. A dose of Pratchett is a great antidote to turgid, twee prose and forced humor. The Discworld books have a huge US following but they're published here much later than in the UK or Canada and we have to acquire new releases via mail, trips, or friendly travellers. There's a great site on Pratchett and the series: http://www.us.lspace.org (there may be other addresses outside the US) If nothing else, check out the Annotated Pratchett file: http://www.us.lspace.org/books/apf/index.html This has reader-contributed (and Pratchett vetted) annotations of the puns and references in the series: great fun to read, whether you caught them or not. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:04:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: angels I noted on another list that I found the movie _City of Angels_ a great story but very poor theology. I found it discomfiting to think that male angels watch me bathing in the bathtub because they have fallen in love with me and, worse yet, read my mind! I don't mind God reading my mind nor real angels, but not male angels who have fallen in love with me. Also, after Seth (the male angel) "falls" (not portrayed as particularly sinful) and becomes human, he has sexual intercourse before marriage with the woman he loves. He's not portrayed as sinful and yet premarital sex as portrayed as acceptable to God. Lastly, when the "sons of the gods" or "sons of God" (celestial beings of mythology) in Genesis marry (yes, they do marry the women first) and have sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, there's no intimation that they became human first, especially inasmuch as their children were superior humans who were the heroes of old. The only theology in the movie they got right is that human beings, when they die, do _not_ themselves become angels (complete with wings). We become _like_ angels, but not angels per se. Some writers and movie makers need to read Saint Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Angels. It would do them good. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:58:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Begin of BDG Nomination In-Reply-To: <89E7943108@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for sending this, Petra! Just to reiterate: - We're picking six books this time. - Check availability *before* you send your nomination. Include the price and source in your nomination email. - Be sure also to include a brief reason why you're nominating the book. We're much more likely to vote for your book if you sell us on it! - Send your nomination email (with title, author, price/source, and description) to the main list with "BDG Nomination" in the subject. Also, remember the discussion of _Halfway Human_ begins next Monday, May 4. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com book discussion group coordinator ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:27:57 -0700 Reply-To: bgray@ece.ucdavis.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Organization: UC Davis Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina wrote: >But seriously, what do you all think about this idea of human/angel >relationships? Why would so many people find it attractive? ME Hunter wrote: >I think that one of the aspects of the attraction of angels is that >they are >seen as purely spiritual. So, men without all the hassles, the hair, >the >coarseness of reality and humanity and imperfection. Santini Joseph R wrote: > Four, to relate this to feminism: Why are angels classified almost > universally as male (with the sole exception of those women on that tv > show... touched by an angel, is it?) Maybe all these male angels and other supernatural beings (notably vampires) floating around are the new knights-in-shining- armor, but since they themselves are so powerful, they can make women caught up in these fantasies feel more powerful themselves. Here's supernatural being, isn't he hansome, he could kill you in an instant, falling in love with mortal so-and-so. Kind of the equivalent of the more typical female supermodel falls for nerdy guy bored with life. But I'm a cynic. I'm sure this isn't the reason for everyone. In fact, I may be really really wrong and just fed up that the romance section of my local used book store is so much bigger than the science fiction section. Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:22:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: Begin of BDG Nomination In-Reply-To: <000601bd72c6$f0516880$657218ce@jennifer.actioneer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A Great Blue Heron visiting Sara Anne Bayou delivered a message dated 11:58 AM 4/28/98 from Jennifer Krauel: >Thanks for sending this, Petra! > >Just to reiterate: > >- We're picking six books this time. >- Check availability *before* you send your nomination. Include the price >and source in your nomination email. >- Be sure also to include a brief reason why you're nominating the book. >We're much more likely to vote for your book if you sell us on it! >- Send your nomination email (with title, author, price/source, and >description) to the main list with "BDG Nomination" in the subject. > >Also, remember the discussion of _Halfway Human_ begins next Monday, May 4. > >Jennifer >jkrauel@actioneer.com >book discussion group coordinator > For those of us new here, would you please give author and possible sources to purchase _Halfway Human_? Thanx Jean (majkia@earthling.net) ICQ # 722007 *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* Visit Time. The Portals of Majkia http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/ majkia/ *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* Leela: "Do you know the answer to everything?" Doctor Who: "Yes! ... well, no... answers are easy. It's asking the right questions which is hard." *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:46:45 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Begin of BDG Nomination In-Reply-To: <000601bd72c6$f0516880$657218ce@jennifer.actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If the book you want to nominate appears to be OP, you might want to see if the writer has copies available. Basement Full of Books (http://www.sff.net/bfob) and the list of SFWA Members' Pages (http://www.sfwa.org/links/links.htm) are good references for this info. On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:58:58 -0700, Jennifer Krauel wrote: >- We're picking six books this time. >- Check availability *before* you send your nomination. Include the price >and source in your nomination email. >... ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda On-Line Nebula Ceremony -- Join us! Information at http://www.sff.net/member/nebula.htp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:45:23 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Based on my own fundamentalist protestant upbringing, I'd say the best movie depiction of angels I've seen so far was in a film (I believe was) called Prophecy, where Christopher Walken portrayed a renegade angel in the good old fashioned old-testament style, killing and maiming humans like the chattel we are. Not for the squeamish. It certainly explains why those Bethlehem shepherds were "sore afraid." As for the current popular depiction of angels in movies and books (the used books that I run across, that is), these benevolent buff male critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, it seems to me directed toward a female audience, and quite patronizing. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "The enthusiast suppresses her tears, crushes her opening thoughts, and - all is changed." - Mary Shelley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:52:43 -0500 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: X-Files: Sex with angels Comments: To: Bonnie Gray In-Reply-To: <3546119D.1CC9@cardinal.ece.ucdavis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It is perhaps worth noting that the interest in angels and sex is nothing new. John Milton speculated on whether or not angels had sex back in the 17th century and it wasn't a new topic then. 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: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:14:26 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: BDG - getting Halfway Human, and general info In-Reply-To: <199804281726.NAA10638@pop02.globecomm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >For those of us new here, would you please give author and possible sources >to purchase _Halfway Human_? >Thanx >Jean >(majkia@earthling.net) ICQ # 722007 Jean and all the folks who've joined us recently - welcome! Our May book is _Halfway Human_ by Carolyn Gilman. It's available in paperback, probably at your local independent bookseller. You can also order it from Mysterious Galaxy (http://www.mystgalaxy.com) which has generously offered us a 15% discount on book discussion titles. Be sure to let them know you're part of our book group to get the discount. I've revised the basic book group info to include new volunteers and dates. Since we don't yet have this posted to a web page, I'll send it as email. Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group Upcoming Books and dates _Halfway Human_ by Carolyn Gilman, discussion begins Monday May 4 April 27-May 1: nominations open for books to be discussed June - November May 1 - May 8: voting open May 11: next slate of six books announced June 1: discussion begins on first book of next set Objective The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSF list, just focus the discussion. Book selection Group members nominate any feminist "speculative fiction" book. Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. When you nominate a book, be sure to include a description of why you feel the group should select it. The description will be included in the nominated books list on our web site, to help members decide which books to vote for. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in order to keep the price within everybody's range. This unfortunately eliminates the out-of-print or very new books, but there's still plenty of great material that qualifies. Please confirm the availability of any title you are interested in nominating by contacting Maryelizabeth at mystgalaxy@ax.com (or amazon.com). Book discussion titles may be purchased anywhere or borrowed from the library -- we recommend supporting your local independent feminist or SF bookseller. For those without such resources, Mysterious Galaxy (http://www.mystgalaxy.com) offers a 15% discount on book discussion titles. Members vote for six books each, and the six books receiving the most votes are read and discussed in alphabetical order by title for the next six months. Nominations are open for one week, and then voting is open for a week. During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending email to the group with BDG Nomination in the subject line. A volunteer (Petra) collects the nominations daily during the nomination period and updates the nomination list on a web page, to be determined. Voting happens by sending email to a volunteer (Terri) who tabulates votes and announces winners. The reading schedule will be posted on the group's web page. There will be announcements at the beginning and end of each period in the book selection cycle, and before the beginning of each monthly discussion. Structure New book discussions begin monthly on the first Monday of the month. We'll use this main list but we can move the discussion to a separate list if many people complain about volume. So far it hasn't been a problem. A leader opens each discussion some initial commentary and questions. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. It would also be helpful to include the title or initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. There's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. If possible this bibliography would also be maintained on the web page. Book Group Volunteers (current round): - Collect nominations and update the list on the web site: Petra Mayerhofer (pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de) - Collect votes, tabulate and announce the winners: Terri Wakefield (terriergraphics@cybertours.com) - Maintain the reading schedule on the web site, including bibliograpy of related reading materials: tbd - Lead a discussion by posting a book summary and opening discussion ^Ö tbd, please volunteer! - Providing a 15% discount for selected books: Maryelizabeth Hart (mystgalaxy@ax.com), please see her web site at http://www.mystgalaxy.com - Maintaining discussion group process, announcing group events, coordinating volunteers (group coordinator): Jennifer Krauel (jkrauel@actioneer.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:53:08 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Book Nomination Question In-Reply-To: <000901bd72d1$7b621a00$657218ce@jennifer.actioneer.com> (message from Jennifer Krauel on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:14:26 -0700) Is there a list somewhere of the books that have been read in the past? I'm relatively new to the list and I'd be happy to nominate books, but I have no idea what's been read prior to _Dreamsnake_. E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:14:58 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: gender difference Content-Type: text/plain Joel, it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that there are intrinsic differences between male and female, both physically and mentally. If you believe in evolution, and think that it has shaped both human bodies and human minds, it is hard to believe that there aren't some built-in adaptations to the differing realities of being male and female. This goes beyond just giving birth; there are also the facts that human babies are weak and completely dependent and that only women are naturally equipped to feed them with milk. This is *not* to say anything about what women should do or not do, just to point out that every other kind of mammal on Earth has special kinds of behavior associated with childcare, and it's hard to believe that humans are the great exception. OTOH, it is always good to be suspicious of any claims that "human nature" is completely in keeping with the way we do things. There is every kind of evidence that the way modern Westerners live is completely unlike the hunter-gatherer society humans evolved in. I think any truly accurate and scientific theory of psychology will have much in it to offend both leftists and right-wingers. I enjoy reading feminist SF for the "thought experiment" aspect of gender relations, but I have to say there is a lot I don't find at all plausible. (That's not necessarily a criticism; lots of other kinds of SF are implausible, too.) Anyway, I think it's fine to tweak other listmembers for their unjustified assumptions, but please don't try to establish an orthodoxy. Dan Krashin "If I had something to say, I'd have a web page." >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:15:11 -0400 >From: Joel VanLaven >Subject: gender difference vs. similarity [snip] >> Femaleness, yes, but not traditional feminity. There are some things women >> do better than men, and some things men do better than women. Birth and >> ejaculation are distinct examples of these. I hate movies and books which > >And I think just about the only ones. > >> try to show that women can take over the position of men, because that's >> not the POINT of feminism. Certainly women can do any civil, mental, or > >I agree and disagree. Given a patriachy where the men decide things for >the women, I'd say that the women damn well better take that position from >the men. >Further I hate movies and books that have the narrowing, fundamentalist >attitude towards gender (and other things) that I understand you to be >espousing. Some women are naturally, instinctively, larger, stronger, >less sensitive, worse parents, worse homemakers, more violent, more into >sports, more bull-headed, sexist, disconnected, and uncommunicative than >most men. >I think that feminists who go on and on about the differences between men >and women are only hurting the cause. I think that it is quite possible >that feminism lost it's way in the morass of appreciating the "natural" >"instinctive" differences. Set it up as men and women are different, and >women are good (better) will make it very easy for the masses to make >their own choice based on long-standing patriarchy that no, they like men >better. Feminism is then reduced from a real assualt on the basic >assumptions we make in our society to one side of an understandable >natural competition between two groups, much the way people from Chicago >compete with New Yorkers. Certainly much easier to dismiss eh? > >> physical action a man can do, given the same training. I could, given the >> same training, play football; this doesn't mean someone else, due to >> natural ability, couldn't do it better. Femaleness is instinctively >> connected with motherhood, which leads to certain qualities: protectiveness >> (inherent in maleness too, but perhaps not as strongly) and definitely a >> higher level of empathy. Maleness implies the expendable fringe force. >> Feminity is too connected with the mincing ladies of yesteryear for me; the >> qualities I ascribe to femaleness have nothing to do with that. > >Give me a friggin break, I am about to vomit. It seems likely to me that >your mother was wonderfully empathetic, baked you cookies, and protected >you while not being a mincing lady, while your father was an expendable >fringe force in your life. Don't assume that everyone has the same >experiences. I have known fathers who were more empathetic and >protective than the expendable fringe force mother. Are they more >"female" than the female involved? There will always be so many >exceptions to any stereotype like that, no matter how "natural" and >"instinctive" you might think it is that it simply fails to descibe the >real world. > >I'm not so tied up in this that I don't appreciate books, movies, or >stories where the stereotypes happen to be true, but I don't call them >feminsist. I see feminist literature as exploring those hidden, >glossed-over stereo-type bashing parts of us rather than celebrating the >normal order of things. > >-- Joel VanLaven ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:23:14 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <19980428191500.7978.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Daniel Krashin wrote: > Joel, it is possible to be a feminist and still believe that there are > intrinsic differences between male and female, both physically > and mentally. Yes, it is. I'm sorry if I implied something other than that. > If you believe in evolution, and think that it has > shaped both human bodies and human minds, it is hard to believe > that there aren't some built-in adaptations to the differing realities > of being male and female. Considering that the "mind" you are talking about is new, and that with it we are very devoid of normal evolutionarily defined instinctive function, no, I don't think it is hard to believe. Also, I think that mental flexibilty and cognitive similarity for improved communications would be much more important than any position-enforcing instincts, let alone the importance of diversity and the normality of the abnormal for evolution to work. > This goes beyond just giving birth; there are also the facts that > human babies are weak and completely dependent and that only > women are naturally equipped to feed them with milk. This is *not* > to say anything about what women should do or not do, just to point > out that every other kind of mammal on Earth has special kinds of > behavior associated with childcare, and it's hard to believe that > humans are the great exception. Given that most of the rest of our mental development is experiential, what makes you think that parental feeling are different? Is it really that hard to believe that the "mothering instinct" is based on that need to be fed by the mother? In a society where the men are in that position and are providing the milk (either by bottle or some more advanced method...) might we observe a major change in the nature of the sexes? certain things have not been divorced from experience and the purely physical yet. If they were and things stayed the same I would be surprised. [snip] > I enjoy reading feminist SF for the "thought experiment" aspect of > gender relations, but I have to say there is a lot I don't find at all > plausible. (That's not necessarily a criticism; lots of other kinds of > SF are implausible, too.) I agree. I go further in saying that I do not consider SF that does not do that sort of thought experiment with gender feminist. > Anyway, I think it's fine to tweak other listmembers for their > unjustified assumptions, but please don't try to establish an orthodoxy. I didn't really mean to get to tweaking, sorry. I do strongly believe that similarity feminism (for lack of a better word) is not only likely to be accurate (I make no pretense of knowing the nature of humans) but is also: 1) a more effective political tool 2) an more effective and simple concept to use in decision making 3) is logically safer (don't need to prove a for all) and some other things I can't think of. I don't want everyone to believe that men and women have no intrinsic differences. However, when it comes down to it is it rational, moral, feminist and right to decide you know what those differences are and make laws and moral decisions based on them? No, I don't think so. That would be beyond presumptous. So, in the end we come down to treating men and women as similar no matter what you believe about similarity vs. difference. Should we then confuse people with any embracment of fundamental differences? I don't think so. I hope that explains my position better and in a nicer way, Thanks, -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:58:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Kay Sparks Subject: Re: gender difference Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Dan and Joel (and other intrested parties)-- Katha Pollitt wrote a pretty classic article on what she dubbed "difference feminism" and the dangers it holds for reifying women's roles and limiting women's choices. Entitled "Are Women Morally Superior to Men?" it orginally appeared in The Nation, Dec 28, 1992 and was reprinted in the Utne Reader Sept-Oct 1993, pp. 101-109. I've searched on the web and although many other Pollit essays are out there, this one isn't. It's a great article, although she rather oversimplifies the work of Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan in order to make her point, which is: no matter how appealing it is to talk about women being more nurturing, intuitive, relational, peaceful etc., doing so runs the risk of repeating and reinforcing the very stereotypes most of us are trying to get rid of. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Dr. Elisa Kay Sparks e-mail: sparks@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of English Office phone: (864) 656-5410 Strode Tower FAX: (864)656-1345 Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634-1503 http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:17:34 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD72B8.C827EA90" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD72B8.C827EA90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, assuming that it hasn't already been discussed (I only joined the = list a month and a half ago, so I don't know if it has or not), I'd like = to nominate: Archangel by Sharon Shinn $5.20 through Amazon Description: The premise is that a colony was founded 1000 years before the action of = the book, and it consists of humans and angels (essentially humans with = wings and super-efficient metabolisms to keep them warm while flying in = the upper atmosphere). Jehovah, the orbiting spaceship they arrived in, = is now their God. The God has decreed from the beginning that every = year, on the Plain of Sharon, humans and angels must get together to = sing "the Gloria", led by the archangel (an angel) and his/her = wife/husband, the angelica/angelico (a human); if they don't, it will be = proof that they are not living in harmony, and Jehovah will send = lightning down to destroy a mountain. If they still haven't sung three = days later, another lightning bolt will come down, and then in three = more days, the world will be destroyed. The position of Archangel = changes hands every 20 years, and Gabriel has known for the past 18 = years that he will become Archangel in 6 months. He doesn't have his = angelica, yet. The God has picked Rachel as his angelica, but first he = has to find her. All but one of the "reader comments" on Amazon are simply gushing about = this book, and I agree; I had trouble putting it down. Rachel seems = like a very real person (strong, yet still confused, and proud almost to = a fault). Lots of details make the world seem real, as well (and = intriguing!). I think there's a lot here for a discussion, especially = in the context of the recent threads on angels. -Sandy ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD72B8.C827EA90 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IicWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAbAIAAAEAAAARAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAdwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAEZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IG9mIGZlbWluaXN0IFNGLCBmYW50YXN0aWMgJiB1dG9waWFuIGxpdGVyYXR1cmUAU01UUABGRU1J TklTVFNGQExJU1RTRVJWLlVJQy5FRFUAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAcAAAA RkVNSU5JU1RTRkBMSVNUU0VSVi5VSUMuRURVAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAEAAAAAn Rm9yIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb2YgZmVtaW5pc3QgU0YsIGZhbnRhc3RpYyAmIHV0b3BpYW4gbGl0ZXJh dHVyZScAAgELMAEAAAAhAAAAU01UUDpGRU1JTklTVFNGQExJU1RTRVJWLlVJQy5FRFUAAAAAAwAA OQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAMAcToAAAAAHgD2XwEAAAA+AAAARm9yIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb2YgZmVtaW5p c3QgU0YsIGZhbnRhc3RpYyAmIHV0b3BpYW4gbGl0ZXJhdHVyZQAAAAIB918BAAAAdwAAAAAAAACB Kx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAEZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIGZlbWluaXN0IFNGLCBmYW50YXN0 aWMgJiB1dG9waWFuIGxpdGVyYXR1cmUAU01UUABGRU1JTklTVFNGQExJU1RTRVJWLlVJQy5FRFUA AAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAACLJcBBIABAB0AAABSRTogWypGU0ZGVSpd IEJERyBOb21pbmF0aW9uAKAIAQWAAwAOAAAAzgcEABwADwARACIAAgA5AQEggAMADgAAAM4HBAAc AA4AGAArAAIASAEBCYABACEAAAA4MDNEMzZBMTlGRDhEMTExQjYwNzAwQTBDOTIxMkE1QgAFBwED kAYAaAgAACIAAAALAAIAAQAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAAAwA2AAAA AABAADkAYLzEcfNyvQEeAHAAAQAAAB0AAABSRTogWypGU0ZGVSpdIEJERyBOb21pbmF0aW9uAAAA AAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG9cvNwLqE2PYvYnxHRtgcAoMkhKlsAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAA HgAfDAEAAAAeAAAAc2NhbmRpb2dAbWFpbGJveC5qZi5pbnRlbC5jb20AAAADAAYQOL8lTwMABxBP BQAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAT0ssQVNTVU1JTkdUSEFUSVRIQVNOVEFMUkVBRFlCRUVORElTQ1VTU0VE KElPTkxZSk9JTkVEVEhFTElTVEFNT05USEFOREFIQUxGQUdPLFNPSURPTlRLTk9XSUZJVEhBU09S TgAAAAACAQkQAQAAACUFAAAhBQAAfAcAAExaRnVbNX7u0wAKAQozNgHoIAKkA+MJAgBjaArAc2V0 MDYgBxMCgH0KgAjIIDsxCW8yNTUCgAqBdWMbAFALA2MAQQtgbmcxCDAzMwumIE9LLCQgYQQQdW0L gGcgNnQQIAVAaQVAECBzbg4nBUAHQAlwYWR5IJJiCeEgZAQAY3UEEKEJgCAoSSACIGwXkBxqbwuA GHEWQGUgbFsEABcRIARgAjBoFaBuJxiAGiAQIGxmFaBnb9EVkHNvIBiwZAIgFwH4a25vB+AGkBaF GMAFwMkcYHQpFZBJJxiAGdB6axmwdBuwHGAV8RZgZX46CqIKhAqABxAQERSAZesJUB85YheQUxAh AiAhUccLgAuQHzkkNS4VQRZAqQNgdWcagEEAwHoCILcfKhQREIBEB5AFA2kCIPUfG1QZoXAJcBXw EFAWgK8EIBZDGiAI4m4XkHcdET0CEHUasBhxFKApUCB5/xdgEEAXoQIQCXAZgwDQJaLPGMAbMBmS BuBvaxWRGrG/FpEFoACBGfAdIRswaBXg7wYiGqMgMgQgKAeQEFACMP8HMRjxLRUD8BpxA/AUgC1k lRXQcASQLQERaWMIkL8CMBowEGABoAbwBABtJ4FTG7AeMGVwGYJtKHFy6zLRIeBsGbBmGPAWAguA LxmDMHAwgRWgdARgc3ADGaAJcCkuICBKZeBob3ZhaBWQGZIFsP5iFpAWAjUgANAHkCHgMoP3F5AK wAUQdhhxC4AVkCdx6xxiGZFpBcBHBHA1kSayfzmhHPMFgQnRGIADUis0ZdZnIfEWB2U4UHIXkCmS 9xWQIaEZklALYisCIWQVkP8tHxowGEAFQCBABUAeYEBxrzVBHlIAkBYRIhmSRwkB/QcwIhWQM3AY gCExKmMf9jcYkAORICMpGpMh4HMvs0ECA/BmZUUQGEBiGqHnNjQgIzDwYS9GhRuwQ/D5PvQpOxyS N8Mb8zixBUD/A/AuwBehJuErkCsiFmE3xXcZsB1xGcF2M9UQIRpBeb8rxDXFSWQuYR3yI5B0PCP9 G/B3NCEbsAEAGfADYDfx3xoxKOABkAuANZFJSGUZ8P9JghAgOFAW8hXQFhMJ0Rfw/GF5BCALYB7w PVEAcB2A/0ECTggG4UlVBaAHgE6TK8T/GZEDoDQTUkIEYCoxUoI2NPp3BbBsGIBJdk8lCYA51f5w NRA2wSrkH+coACATBCD9IBFkBCA8xBVBKZMrxDmQ/wGgCIFRMgQgHFIDoCoRGYPzCrAZ8TE4KYUW Q1eSSYRXVQNaaDQRNho0czWRSP9VMgeQFvJRUkTSRncVkCmQunQ53XAw8B4wGIBSANDPGaADIB0R Y3xidQVAMOB/EEBf4x0CHmEw4ESyBJAuvx8rSZJncQIgNnErJCIXUs80sVUBB4ACMHMiPXIjxNtK 4wCQbQtQF5BnGEAh4f8WIDGRZ3EWQCdxK4gYsBtQ/wnRSDAYsBAgGXEjYQJgJtH/Z3A20xaRTqI1 kWXlEFAnEP9SsR4iGiA80xdRAyAwgRugfQOgKE9CFIBkM1DlLFFmrxhACYArxEnxdRrBbDUBY0CS GhFmYXVUgDWCTN8dgCzDAQBQAT/yYR4yV5f/cmJzcxWSKHAgUEPTOHJPUHVOEHUWASE1ghiwbnFu 9msZgglwJy1hGcBLQTVC/15DGiAYBSWxFZAHkDCAMQDvLrM0FSxRHvB4alErJAlw/zdQMTFSIhdw HSFEFWIwHyq9NaAtBhEXgB8kEREAhLAAAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgBCEAEAAAABAAAAAAAA AAMAgBD/////QAAHMDC9tw/scr0BQAAIMDC9tw/scr0BCwAAgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA A4UAAAAAAAADAAKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAAFKFAAB0EAAAAwAJgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUAAAAAAAAeABCACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAUAAAA4LjAyAAAAAAsAEYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA AA6FAAAAAAAAAwASgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADABOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4AFIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAe ABWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAWgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAClGg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD72B8.C827EA90-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:31:57 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Feminism and the Discworld Yes! Yes! Yes! The best antidote to general ansgt I ever found! On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:30:19 -0500 Dawn writes: >Catweasel wrote: >> >> It has come to my attention that far too many of you have thus-far >been >> deprived of all knowledge and experience of the wonders that >comprise the >> Discword. > >Hi I just had to break free of lurkdom to say that I also love >Discworld. Its a great series to read when your brain is tired and >the >real world has gotten too serious. You just want a good laugh and not >have to think hard about what your reading. > >Dawn > _____________________________________________________________________ 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, 28 Apr 1998 18:44:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: angels & sex In case anyone is interested: Nancy Springer's "Metal Angel" is an interesting take (not recommended for hardcore homophobes); and there's a series by (Dolores??) Shinn. "Archangel", which I have read, seems to me to contain rather a lot of the classic "romance" ingredients, heavy on misunderstandings but with little doubt of Happy Endings; I have "Jovah's Angel" on the to-read heap at the moment, and am hoping for more about the structure of the world that contains the angel/non-angel liaisons. Female biblical angels: would have had to add an extra set of wings: "with twain he covered his face; with twain he covered his feet (well, euphemism there!); and with twain he did fly". I suspect a female angel's breasts would require concealing to keep the patriarchs cool! _____________________________________________________________________ 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, 28 Apr 1998 17:49:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: angels In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, teragram wrote: > > I do feel compelled to note that many of the angels included in common > church art are portrayed as feminine, if not distinctly female - and thus I > grew up thinking of angels as primarily female with a few noted exceptions. > The angels in our creche scene were all female, at least as I remember > them... > Exactly. It seemed rather unusual that late Hollywood appearances of angels were all male. Tranditionally, in art as well as in most of movies, angels are either male children (with plump arms and legs and fluffy wings) or young women (virgins). In a sense, angels were kind of representing purity and virginity, and that had never been a particularly male virtue. And I don't think anyone before Hollywood ever made them have sex (apart from the fallen angels, like Satan and Co.) I think this latest trend presents some kind of yearning for "ideal" males. While the official mass culture has this image of "an ignorant asshole and proud of it" (think beer commercials, or those Tylenol ads, when the guy is all happy that his wife got a headache so he can watch football instead of ballet, or shows like Home Improvement), these angelic types are not afraid to be "smart and sensitive", and woo a woman "like in good old days". I personally find this extremely cheesy and mushy. But that's just my opinion. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:05:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980428165759.006f514c@hubcap.clemson.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Elisa Kay Sparks wrote: > > Katha Pollitt wrote a pretty classic article on what she dubbed "difference > feminism" and the dangers it holds for reifying women's roles and limiting > women's choices. Entitled "Are Women Morally Superior to Men?" it By the way, "difference feminism" is also known as "victim feminism". It basically uses the same principle as Margaret Mitchell did when justifying slavery in the _Gone With the Wind_: "blacks are different from whites, therefore they needed their masters to take care of them, for their own good". In other words, it's a principle "instead of fighting inequality, convince yourself that you are better than the other side, and therefore, should be happier with what you have". About the biological differences between sexes, there was a discussion in a student newspaper here, where one author said that since women are biologically different, they cannot fight like men. I asked him in my letter, that was also published, whether any modern military technology, like guns or submarines, were meant to be operated by sexual organs. Since that's the main difference between men and women, until the trigger has to be pulled by a penis, biological difference is as important as the amount of pigment in human skin. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:38:29 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: angels, eunuchs:A Rumour of Angels In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:49 P 28/04/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, teragram wrote: > >> >> I do feel compelled to note that many of the angels included in common >> church art are portrayed as feminine, if not distinctly female - and thus I >> grew up thinking of angels as primarily female with a few noted exceptions. >> The angels in our creche scene were all female, at least as I remember >> them... >> > >From another perspective, from someone who was raised in a politically left-wing family, with a father who would have committed murder of any child of his, if any christian religiousity ever entered the house.. I was not exposed to the concept of angels until much later in life. My first entrance to a church of any kind was in my teens, at my father's funeral and an elder siblings wedding, both held in Catholic churches - where I was horrified at the huge icon of Jesus on the Cross, and the religious art. My initial reaction of seeing the bleeding, dying Jesus, was one of physical nausea at all the blood, the thorns and the obvious symbol of "glorifying death" - in my mind I thought "These people honour *Death* for chrissake!" - [ excuse the pun! ] I always saw the angels like gabriel etc - as biological males, but neutered eunuchs, or castrated males - because they had power to tell women exactly what their "master" - ie God - wanted them to do. Maybe it was the clothing they seem to wear, coupled with my early perceptions of the ancient Arabic world. Women in harems etc, lorded over by a Eunuch as their "foreman" - and being the "Word", or "mouth-piece" of their fully potent adult male "Master". Also - images such as Church choirs of young boys, in medieval times, castrated young to keep their voices sounding "angelic". As for modern perceptions of Hollywood angels - I find this a peculiar cultural thing, limited to north American pop-media culture - most of these "angel" based stories and movies, I see as being limited to childrens' audiences here - or alternatively similar to Stephen King horror movies. As for the X-files episode - Thank you very much for the spoiler! LOL - other countries are often behind in the series, and may not see this episode screened for some time:) My favourite novel relating to angels, or angelic figures - was Marjorie Bradley Kellog's _A Rumour of Angels_ which starts off with a gate to a new dimension opening up onto a new world. Earth-humans are limited to a small valley on this new world, and anyone attempting to cross the mountain barrier either dies, or returns to the colony 'insane' with stories of having had beatific visions of "angels" and "heavenly beauty". Eventually, we are told that the "angels" are a race of humanoid telepaths...but the angelic visions are very powerful in the human consciousness. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:27:40 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: IRC chat with Vonda MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01BD72F4.DADF5CE0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BD72F4.DADF5CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For the aussie folks who were just at the Vonda Nebula chat. I am = willing arrange a means to ship you folks a copy of her book since it = does not appear it will be released there. I would do the same for = Halfway Human as well for the BDG. Postal cost for either will be on me = :-). Vonda is _that_ worth reading in my estimation. we can sort out details private channel, if anyone is interested. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BD72F4.DADF5CE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For the aussie folks who were just at the = Vonda Nebula chat. I am willing arrange a means to ship you folks a copy of = her book since it does not appear it will be released there. I would do the same for Halfway Human as well for the BDG. Postal cost  for either will be on me=20 :-). Vonda is _that_ worth reading in my estimation.
 
we can sort out details private channel, = if anyone=20 is interested.
 
donna
donnaneely@earthlink.net&nbs= p; 
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BD72F4.DADF5CE0-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:36:58 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: IRC chat with Vonda In-Reply-To: <005b01bd7316$631f1ca0$57ae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Donna, before you ship any copies of Moon & Sun out, let me know the first names of folks who have ordered them and I'll send you some bookplates (they came out really cool, black with gold type) to send along. Not to actually stick into the books, since some folks hate bookplates. But so they have them if they want them. [They are free, if anybody would like one -- info on my web page, see .sig.] Thanks for offering to do this. It was disappointing that Moon & Sun didn't sell in England. My books used to, but haven't lately. Starfarers did, but was cancelled on the last day of the contract. However, Moon & Sun just sold in France, and that was quite encouraging. Vonda On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:27:40 -0400, donna simone wrote: >For the aussie folks who were just at the Vonda Nebula chat. I am willing arrange a means to ship you folks a copy of her book since it does not appear it will be released there. I would do the same for Halfway Human as well for the BDG. Postal cost for either will be on me :-). Vonda is _that_ worth reading in my estimation. > >we can sort out details private channel, if anyone is interested. > >donna >donnaneely@earthlink.net ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda On-Line Nebula Ceremony -- Join us! Information at http://www.sff.net/member/nebula.htp