Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9804E" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:37:13 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ruth Jost Subject: Re: IRC chat with Vonda MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Vonda and Donna have referred to the fact that the Moon and the Sun won't be released in Australia. As one of the grossly disadvantaged Aussies in question I am calling for other Australian women to join me in a bold cyber-lobbying campaign to see if we can get a publisher to pick it up. Vonda also mentioned at the chat today that she'd love to come down here - if anyone has contacts that could help us achieve that it would probably give the lobbying effort a boost! Mail me at this address if you are interested in joining the cause. Regards Ruth ("Joan" on IRC!) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:20:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: While I am feeling generous.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01BD733F.3E8E77E0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BD733F.3E8E77E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Must be having a good day... I recently finished reading Dragon's Winter - Elizabeth Lynn. If anyone = of our financially constrained students out there is interested in = reading it or if anyone is an E. Lynn aficionado. Post me direct with = your address and I will send it along.=20 This is how _I_ contribute to recycling ;) Donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BD733F.3E8E77E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Must be having a good day...
 
I recently finished reading Dragon's Winter - Elizabeth Lynn. = If anyone=20 of our financially constrained students out there is interested in = reading it or=20 if anyone is an E. Lynn aficionado.  Post me direct with your = address and I=20 will send it along.
 
This is how _I_ contribute to recycling ;)
 
Donna
donnaneely@earthlink.net
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BD733F.3E8E77E0-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:23:48 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Vonda's books downunder In-Reply-To: <354e9dc9.2589592@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:36 A 29/04/98 GMT, you wrote: >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 Thanks Vonda - it is true that Australian distributors/publishers tend to be subsidiaries of UK-based companies, which dictate the contents of distributorship in the "colonies" - their primary role being to concentrate on publishing local Australian/NZ Pacific and SE Asian materials, and hence US or Canadian authors who arent published in the UK, or only in very small print-runs, dont tend to appear down-under. However - some of my contacts in the mainstream feminist bookshop industry, have advised me in terms of office-gossip, scuttle-butt and general kaffee-klatsch (particularly in feminist non-fiction, poetry and art-house literary circles) about a corporate concept in publishing/distribution which is being watched as a possibility of being a viable commercial enterprise - my friends are basically investigating/discussing the concept as a way of obtaining cheap published copies of non_english feminist books, eg: from Arabic, Spanish, and Asian feminists and are looking into the possibility of establishing a similar feminist-based 'publishing/distributorship' franchise - similar to the "Janoan Media Exchange" concept - it has an interesting web-site for any users on the list who may be interested, at: http://www.jme.com.au/authors.html regards - Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:28:00 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: BDG Nomination Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I'd like to encourage the list members interested in the book discussion group to nominate books to read. There will be 6 winners this time so chances are pretty good that nominated books are elected. So, if anybody is disappointed that his/her suggestion did not make it last time, just try again. For those new on the list, I'd like to clarify that it is also possible to nominate books you have NOT read before. Actually, as I understood it, the idea is to read and discuss a book which is new/fresh for all. And at last, the book I'd like to read: _Black Wine_ by Candas Jane Dorsey, which is one of the winners of the 1997 James Tiptree Award. An outline from Amazon.com: "Winner of the 1997 William J. Crawford Memorial Award (for a first fantasy novel), this utopian, archetypal story follows five generations of women--from the monumental, sadistic despot to her great-great-granddaughter working in a warehouse--through their travels away from and toward one another. Loves and deaths are passed through the generations, collected on their successive journeys, each restless character setting others in motion as she seeks freedom and kinship. Candas Jane Dorsey's concise language is powerful, telling an intense story without emotional plateaus, only peaks and valleys, joy and grief. This is an involving, unsettling book. It is easily one of the best and most ambitious novels of 1996 and one that will provoke thought and conversation." Comments from judges of the 1997 James Tiptree, Jr. Award: "Black Wine is a slippery book, neither science fiction nor fantasy; instead it stakes out territory all its own. It is an intricate, fierce and lyrical examination of gender and identity. Teeming with ideas made flesh, Black Wine gazes unflinching at the wonder and horror of humanity. [James Patrick Kelly] In Black Wine, Candas Dorsey took on the whole question of gender, shook it out till it suited her, cut, stitched, and fitted till she came up with a wondrous garment I had never seen before. Then she showed me it was reversible and just as wondrous on the inside, which was now the outside. This is a book well worth reading and I hope lots and lots of people do. [Terry Garey]" To give a more mundane reason to read the book: IMO it is a great cover, unusual for a fantasy and closely related to the title. Although I can imagine that it is not so good from a marketing point of view. Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: January 1998; List price: $13.95; ISBN: 0312865783 Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:29:06 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Another Book Nomination Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, I've just read an excellent interview with Molly Brown in Interzone. I was wondering if anyone would like to suggest a novel of hers for discussion? I myself have only read a couple of her short stories, but I really rated them very highly. Even if we don't end up discussing it, I would be interested in any recommendations of her work. Alison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:30:17 CST6CDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sydney Sowers Organization: University of Alabama English Dept. Subject: BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Providing it hasn't already been discussed: _Sarah Canary_ by Karen Joy Fowler $4.79 through Amazon.com _Kirkus_ Synopsis excerpt: Fowler's remarkable debut recounts the 19-century adventures of a mysterious wild woman--and of the Chinese railway worker, insane-asylum escapee, suffragette, and exhibiter of circus freaks who pursue her through the Washington Territory--in this baroque tale of mystery, cruelty, and wonder as bombastically excessive as Barnum and Bailey itself. No one in Chin Ah Kin's half-hidden campsite in Washington Territory wants to acknowledge the presence of the dirty, shockingly bad-looking white woman who hovers at the edge of their forest clearing. White women mean trouble to Chinese railworkers, some of whom are being killed for sport in the larger California cities. When the woman begins warbling, singing, and babbling loudly, though, Chin's uncle orders him to escort the woman back to the nearby insane asylum from which she obviously came. Chin obeys, and so begins a wild-goose chase that leads the dutiful Chinaman through terrifying forests, into confinement at the asylum, into jail (where he must hang an Indian to buy his own freedom), and through countless other escapades he never would have imagined or wished for. Who is the mysterious Sarah Canary, so called because of her disturbing, nonsensical warbling? Each new encounter brings a fresh invention of Sarah's past: an exhibiter of freaks claims that Sarah was raised by wolves in Alaska. Adelaide Dixon, solitary and opinionated suffragette, claims that she's on the lam after murdering her abusive husband. To Chin, Sarah is an ever-elusive mystery, captivating in her very unresponsiveness to other mortals and in her determination to remain free. A wonderful book, widely acclaimed. Sydney Sowers ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:06:27 +0000 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Book Nominations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I'd love to read Molly Gloss' The Dazzle of Day. It's out in paperback, $10.36 (12.95 list) from Amazon.com The Kirkus review: Multigenerational starship yarn, a first science fiction venture for the mainstream author of The Jump-Off Creek (1989), etc. After 140 years traveling through space, propelled by its solar sails, Dusty Miller finally draws near a new world. Derived from Esperanto-speaking New World Spanish, English, Norwegian, and Japanese Quakers, the spacefarers have lately been subject to fits of suicidal malaise. The most recent victim is Al Poreda, who, while adjusting the ship's solar sails, cuts open his spacesuit with a knife. His body is retrieved by Juko, whose husband, Bjoro, is heading for New World in an exploratory lander. But the lander crashes, killing two crew members, and Bjoro must be rescued by balloon. Meanwhile, aboard ship, discussion about New World continues: The planet is cold and inhospitable, and some people advocate passing it by to seek out yet another planet. Juko's ex- husband, Humberto, ponders a range of arctic plants that might survive on New World and considers how geothermal power could be harnessed, while others prefer a more naturalistic approach. Bjoro returns changed; he forces himself upon Juko. A plague takes hold aboard ship, some people blaming Bjoro for bringing it back from the planet. Humberto has a stroke. Meetings continue. Life goes on. Either a meticulous, utopian study of character and society whose natural mainstream audience won't relish the sf setting, or an sf adventure unsatisfyingly deficient in incident and up-front problem-solving. Your move. I'd also like to nominate Sheri Tepper's The Family Tree, because it's new and I haven't had a chance to read it yet, and everything she touches is gold. 5.59 paperback at Amazon.com Also, The True Game 12.75, which is her first series is out in one volume, and I have heard really really great things about it. Also, I like to go back and see how an author started. Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:59 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: BDG books, Vonda's books, nomination Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The BDG is a relatively new addition to the FEMSF list, and the books discussed "formally" thus far are AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith and DREAMSNAKE by Vonda McIntyre. Mysterious Galaxy does do international shipping, in case someone in interested in acquiring Vonda's book with a credit card, which I suspect is not a service Donna is able to offer. Also, we have a VERY FEW signed copies of THE MOON AND THE SUN left, but also have some of the bookplates we received from Vonda prior to her event at the store. We also have access to British books, and usually pick up a handful of Prachetts old and new in our orders. I was thinking about rereading MISTS OF AVALON, and thought it might be a good BDG title, depending on how many of us have read/reread it and how recently. Oh, well, that's why we vote, correct? Other titles which come to mind are Octavia Butler's WILD SEED and Sheri Tepper's FAMILY TREE. Or maybe Sharon Shinn's ARCHANGEL, since it's come up in a recent thread? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:26:13 -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: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog I have just finished "Not To Mention The Dog" by Connie Willis, and while I found it entertaining overall, it did bring sharply to mind an earlier discussion about whether her use of "muffler" (for scarf) was appropriate for an English setting. I found there was a very jarring use, by an ostensibly English Victorian girl, of the word "cunning" (what a cunning vase, etc). This was NOT English usage at all, although very common American. At first I thought I must have missed something that indicated this was an American visitor.... There were some other things that did not quite click, but this was what kept suspending my suspension of disbelief! I have one of those infuriating memory snippets of reading of an exchange between a Victorian English nanny and an American who commented how cunning the English baby was. The nanny was highly indignant: to her "cunning" meant that the baby was artful and deceitful. Not precisely on topic, but I also recall some years ago an American writer trying to portray a very stuffy British character who referred to a car as an "automobile". The character would, of course, have said "motorcar". May I take this opportunity to urge any writers using a non-native setting to read some contemporary fiction first, to get the "sound" of it. I'd recommend a course of Charlotte M Yonge to Ms Willis! (Miss Yonge is also recommended to feminists who relish being intensely irritated.) I really like most of her Willis's work, and I LOVED "Bellwether". _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:50:27 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > discussion about whether her use of "muffler" (for scarf) was appropriate > for an English setting. > > I found there was a very jarring use, by an ostensibly English Victorian > girl, of the word "cunning" (what a cunning vase, etc). This was NOT > English usage at all, although very common American. Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used except as "artful and deceitful" (although I don't think "artful" is a very common word in the American vocabulary... At least in the part of the US (and in the society) in which I was raised. Then again, I'm also the one who had never heard "muffler" used for "scarf" in the US. I think it's a regional thing... -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:00 CST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gabrielle Bate Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog >> discussion about whether her use of "muffler" (for scarf) was appropriate >> for an English setting. >> >> I found there was a very jarring use, by an ostensibly English Victorian >> girl, of the word "cunning" (what a cunning vase, etc). This was NOT >> English usage at all, although very common American. > >Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used except as >"artful and deceitful" (although I don't think "artful" is a very >common word in the American vocabulary... At least in the part of >the US (and in the society) in which I was raised. Then again, I'm >also the one who had never heard "muffler" used for "scarf" in the US. >I think it's a regional thing... > >-allen > >-- > Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com My grandmother (b. 1899 in New York) used to use the word cunning as in cunning vase all the time. Gabby ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:44:49 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: muffler and cunning > > discussion about whether her use of "muffler" (for scarf) was appropriate > > for an English setting. > > > > I found there was a very jarring use, by an ostensibly English Victorian > > girl, of the word "cunning" (what a cunning vase, etc). This was NOT > > English usage at all, although very common American. > > Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used except as > "artful and deceitful" (although I don't think "artful" is a very > common word in the American vocabulary... At least in the part of > the US (and in the society) in which I was raised. Then again, I'm > also the one who had never heard "muffler" used for "scarf" in the US. > I think it's a regional thing... > > -allen As an american in the southeast, I have never heard a scarf called a muffler nor cunning as being artful or attractive(vase?), but only as quite quick to assess situations and come out on top, so to speak, Being deceitful was simply a potential quality of a cunning person, but not an absolute quality of all cunning people; it was something they could rely on in case deceit was needed to accomplish their goals regardless of what those goals were. If someone told me a baby was "cunning", my reply would "HOw can you tell at this age?" Penny ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:51:15 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram Subject: Re: cunning, innit? In-Reply-To: <23F29827802@calc.vet.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Way Off Topic Warning: >> Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used except as >> "artful and deceitful" (although I don't think "artful" is a very >> common word in the American vocabulary... At least in the part of >> the US (and in the society) in which I was raised. Then again, I'm >> also the one who had never heard "muffler" used for "scarf" in the US. >> I think it's a regional thing... >> >> -allen > >As an american in the southeast, I have never heard a scarf called a >muffler nor cunning as being artful or attractive(vase?), but only as >quite quick to assess situations and come out on top, so to speak, >Being deceitful was simply a potential quality of a cunning >person, but not an absolute quality of all cunning people; it was >something they could rely on in case deceit was needed to accomplish >their goals regardless of what those goals were. > >If someone told me a baby was "cunning", my reply would "HOw can you >tell at this age?" Ah, obviously you've never spent a lot of time in the inherently superior NE! Up to MDI (Mount Desert Island, ME) ' cunning' is frequently used as ' cute' or 'charming' - you also get 'numb' for 'stupid' (Jay-sus, that boy's numb as a pounded thumb!). ***************** 'I talk about gods, I an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.' - Ursula LeGuin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:22:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So did my grandmother, b. 1899 in Deer Isle, Maine. So do both of my parents (who were also born in Maine fishing villages). Here in Central Maine, though, that use of "cunning" is never heard unless I'm the one who is speaking! Nina > My grandmother (b. 1899 in New York) used to use the word cunning as in > cunning vase all the time. > > Gabby ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:25:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: cunning, innit? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YES! I should have read this before hitting "send," because "numb" for "stupid" is also a part of my inherited vocabulary. However, I long ago had to give up saying "het" as the past tense of "heated." That was considered just too funny for words by my playmates after we moved the great distance of 100 miles inland, back when I was a small girl in the late 1950's. Nina > > > Ah, obviously you've never spent a lot of time in the inherently superior > NE! Up to MDI (Mount Desert Island, ME) ' cunning' is frequently used as ' > cute' or 'charming' - you also get 'numb' for 'stupid' (Jay-sus, that boy's > numb as a pounded thumb!). > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:40:35 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I found there was a very jarring use, by an ostensibly English Victorian > > girl, of the word "cunning" (what a cunning vase, etc). This was NOT > > English usage at all, although very common American. > > Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used except as > "artful and deceitful" (although I don't think "artful" is a very > common word in the American vocabulary... At least in the part of > the US (and in the society) in which I was raised. Then again, I'm > also the one who had never heard "muffler" used for "scarf" in the US. > I think it's a regional thing... > > -allen > > -- > Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com The word "cunning", as in cunning vase, is used quite a bit in New England. I have never heard it used in the South or Mid West Terri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:09:39 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Apology Re: Vonda's books MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BD7399.FA027EE0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BD7399.FA027EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mysterious Galaxy does do international shipping, Yikes! So sorry Maryelizabeth! Never considered that I might be = circumventing potential business to you. (with much genuflecting to the = bookselling Goddess and prayers that she shall send thousands of dollars = of business your way soonest.) {:-( (sheepish grimace) in case someone is interested in acquiring Vonda's book with a = credit card, which I suspect is not a service Donna is able to offer.=20 Well they printed out real nice when I crunched them between my = teeth, but that carbonless paper tastes AWFULLLLL. Again, apologies Maryelizabeth. I will place my next order with you. Donna=20 donnaneely@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BD7399.FA027EE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mysterious=20 Galaxy does do international shipping, Yikes!=20 So sorry Maryelizabeth! Never considered that I might be = circumventing=20 potential business to you. (with much genuflecting to the = bookselling=20 Goddess and prayers that she shall send thousands of dollars of = business=20 your way soonest.)   {:-( (sheepish = grimace)  in=20 case someone is interested in acquiring Vonda's book with a credit = card,=20 which I suspect is not a service Donna is able to offer. = Well=20 they printed out real nice when I crunched them between my teeth, = but that=20 carbonless paper tastes AWFULLLLL. Again, apologies = Maryelizabeth. I will=20 place my next order with you. Donna = donnaneely@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BD7399.FA027EE0-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:06:24 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: cunning, innit? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:51 P 29/04/98 -0500, you wrote: >Way Off Topic Warning: > >>> Really? As an American, I have never heard cunning used (snip) >>> I think it's a regional thing... >>> >>> -allen >> Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabes Reminds me of a time when I was recording the proceedings of an international conference concerning "harmonisation" of certain regulatory arrangements. Anyway - I spent the bulk of the first day's negotiations in the ladies Room trying to prevent myself from breaking out into loud laughter. You see, the Delegates from 157 countries had previously agreed to use English as the primary language of publication - but then spent 8 gruelling hours discussing whether it should be standardised on US-English; UK-English or Australasian-English for spelling/syntax etc:) It became even funnier when I considered that the topic/subject matter of the conference on _harmonisation/harmonization_ etc is spelled differently, (and used differently) by the three major English-speaking peoples:) My only bug-bear with the use or mis-use of local idiom in fiction, is when Hollywood re-makes British authors, eg Fay Weldon or worse still, John Wyndham's classic sci-fi novels. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:38:26 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: gender difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elisa Kay Sparks wrote: > 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. This is true. It turns into a real Catch-22 in traditionally male professions. For a long time in physics a woman had to adopt male patterns of behavior, dress, and interaction to be taken seriously. That is, you couldn't be feminine in appearance, body shape, voice, dress, or manner. Being female was =equated= with lack of [fill in the blank for whatever was considered necessary to make a good scientist]. Of course it was a no win situation, because most women are--surprise--like women. Most of us had no interest in making ourselves over in a masculine style, but were then were faced with the problem of being dismissed as less capable, regardless of evidence to the contrary. To survive we had to learn new ways of speaking and relating to colleagues, ways considered the norm for our male colleagues, but which are actually masculine oriented styles. Feminists in science have long been dealing with these stereotypes. It's better than it used to be, but it is still an uphill struggle. The stereotypes also boomerang. For those women who do come across more "masculine," there is always the other camp that says women must Act Like Women. Personally, I say pffffui to both camps. I suspect we will truly reach an egalitarian society when men and women can be themselves without having to worry about reinforcing stereotypes. One of the most encouraging signs I've seen in a long time was when I talked with a group of college students recently after I was invited to speak at their class. When I asked one of the young men if he was uncomfortable with the feminism in a book we were discussing, his response wasn't "no" or "yes," but a genuinely curious "Why would it make me uncomfortable?" Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:17:54 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I would like to nominate DEERSKIN by Robin McKinley for the book discussion group.It is available in mass paperback at $5.99. Kirkus Reviews didn't like Deerskin. I loved it. Let's read this fairy tale as a group and decide what we think of it. >From Kirkus Reviews , 04/15/93: A first foray into adult fantasy for the author of such well- received children's books as The Outlaws of Sherwood (1988), etc. In an unnamed, standard fantasy kingdom, an unnamed queen dies after bequeathing to her unnamed king a portrait capturing her surpassing beauty. Their daughter, the princess Lissla Lissar, is the very image of her mother, even to her black-red hair. On Lissar's 17th birthday, the king announces that he will marry his daughter! Horrified, Lissar locks herself away, but the king breaks in to beat and rape her. Barely alive, Lissar escapes with her dog Ash to find sanctuary in the mountains. The moon goddess, the ``Lady,'' heals Lissar--suppressing the dreadful memories, changing her hair to white, giving her a stainless white deerskin dress--and four years pass in what seems a day. Now Lissar enters a neighboring kingdom, where she meets the dog-fancying prince Ossin. As she slowly regains her memory, so she falls in love with Ossin, who proposes. Unable to tell him of her past, Lissar again flees into the mountains, returning the following year ready to denounce her father, regain her black-red hair, and marry Ossin. Turgid, lurid, soporific fluff. Might have made an adequate fairy tale at a twentieth of the bulk. McKinley will have to do much better than this to capture an adult audience. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. -- Terri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:37:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Schebel Subject: Re: Apology Re: Vonda's books In-Reply-To: <00b201bd73bb$820e5d60$0eae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just an off-topic mention. To those of you using Microsoft Outlook and/or Eudora 4.0, make sure your character set is set to ASCII instead of HTML. for those purists (like me) who use pine, this is somehwat of a pain to save the html document and view it with Netscape or Lynx. This would be greatly appreciated!!! -mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | wage@hellyeah.com "A knife and a fork, a bottle and a cork, | http://scratch.hellyeah.com That's the way you spell New York" | --InSoc ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:31:14 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: BDG Nomination Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to nominate: _Alien Influences_ by Kristine Kathryn Rusch Millennium Books publication in Britain, September 1994. Mass Market edition, June 1995. Listed as "Dark Horse" on the Times Hardcover Bestseller List in London 1995. Bantam Books edition forthcoming 1998. German edition forthcoming 1998. FINALIST - Arthur C. Clarke Award, Best Science Fiction Novel, _Alien Influences_, 1995. Now available in United States - Bantam Spectra, December 1997. Description: Bountiful is a sun-scorched, inhospitable planet, offering only one comfort to its small band of human colonists: the powerful intoxicant/drug they manufacture from native plants and export (profitably) to other human worlds. The human settlers on Bountiful live peacefully alongside the native enigmatic sentient aliens, known as "Dancers" for their beautiful magical rituals. The colony's children in particular, are fascinated by their alien friends. Despite the Dancers' beauty - their culture tends to ignore/neglect their own children by human standards, adult Dancers provide only minimal care to their young etc - But to human eyes, one Dancer ritual of growth and maturation/puberty is alien almost beyond comprehension. Their native biology demands bloody organ-dismemberment before the adult Dancer can emerge from the pubescent child's body. The human colony children, attracted by the Dancers' beautiful magic, think this is a way that they too, can "grow up quickly" and start to imitate the Dancers. Six of the colony's children are found dead, their bodies mutilated in a bizarre parody of the puberty rites of the Dancers. The subsequent murder investigation identifies that the murderers are not the Dancers, as originally assumed -- but eight other children of the colony. The bulk of the novel follows the subsequent adult lives of these 8 children - the "Bountiful Eight" - through the human & alien worlds of a future galactic-spanning empire, - as well as a well-meaning psychiatrist who is obsessed with the desire to bring "healing" to the psyches of these children, even to crossing the barriers of death. It explores questions such as what happens when small children are changed by their environment, made into something "Other", not wholly human, or alien, in their thinking - and how human society reacts to them? What happens to cherished human concepts of sex/sexuality/gender, childhood innocence, and adult responsibility towards our dependent children under these circumstances? Without giving too much away for those who havent read it - the parralels between human child abuse, human sexual exploitation/manipulation and 'alienness' is expertly drawn in a subtle understatement throughout the novel - with unvoiced questions of why were the human children in such a hurry to "grow up" in the first place? Why did the children prefer the alien Dancers as "role-models", to that of their own parents? Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:49:00 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: BDG Nomination Info Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Below you find a compilation of the nominations which have reached me so far. In addition to the nominations sent to the list _Gibbon's Decline_ by Tepper and _Sparrow_ by Russell are als included. The first was nominated in a private email to me, the second was one of 4 winners in the last round but lost the lottery. The nominations with comments and publishing information will hopefully be posted on a web side soon. ATTENTION: LAST NOMINATIONS accepted will be tomorrow (Friday 1 May) at 8 p.m. German time which is equivalent to 2 p.m. on the US East Coast, please take this into account. Petra Books nominated so far (30 April, 1 p.m. Middle European time zone) (listed is always the cheapest paperback edition currently available): Marion Zimmer Bradley: The Mists of Avalon Publisher: Del Rey; Publication Date: July 1987; List price: US-$14.00; ISBN: 0345350499 Octavia E. Butler: Wild Seed Publisher: Warner Books; Publication Date: July 1995; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0445205377 Candas Jane Dorsey: Black Wine Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: January 1998; List price: US-$13.95; ISBN: 0312865783 Karen Joy Fowler: Sarah Canary Publisher: Kensington Pub Corp (Mass Market); Publication date: March 1993; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0821740881 Molly Gloss: The Dazzle of Day Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: April 1998; List price: US-$12.95; ISBN: 031286437X Robin McKinley: Deerskin Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: July 1994; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 044100069X Kristine Kathryn Rusch: Alien Influences Publisher: Bantam Spectra; Publication Date: December 1997; List price: US-$5,99, ISBN: 0553569988 UK: Publisher: Millennium Books; Publication Date: June 1995 Mary Doria Russell: The Sparrow Publisher: Fawcett Books (Ballantine Reader's Circle), Publication date: September 1997, List price: US-$12.00; ISBN: 0449912558 Sharon Shinn: Archangel Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: April 1997; List price: US-$6.50; ISBN: 0441004326 Sheri S. Tepper: Family Tree Publisher: Eos (Mass Market); Publication date: May 1998, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0380791978 Sheri S. Tepper: Gibbon's Decline and Fall Publisher: Bantam Books; Publication date: July 1997, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0553573985 Sheri S. Tepper: The True Game Publisher: Ace Books; Publication date: June 1996, List price: US-$15.95, ISBN: 0441003311 ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:14:20 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: off-topic cunning, innit? Also, nowadays this could be interpreted as meaning "heterosexual". Penny > YES! I should have read this before hitting "send," because "numb" for > "stupid" is also a part of my inherited vocabulary. However, I long ago had to > give up saying "het" as the past tense of "heated." That was considered just > too funny for words by my playmates after we moved the great distance of 100 > miles inland, back when I was a small girl in the late 1950's. > > Nina ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:49:47 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: AnnyMiddon Subject: BDG--Dreamsnake sexuality Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I never meant it to be this long before posting again on this topic, but real life intervened. (It has a nasty habit of doing that, despite my strictest lectures.) At any rate, I recently reread Dreamsnake in order to be able to more intelligently discuss the book. (Okay, okay -- in order to stop making an ass out of myself in discussing a work I loved but didn't remember too clearly.) It's a measure of the power of Dreamsnake that even though I'd read it only a few months ago, I found myself once again so lost in the novel that I stayed up late the other night to finish it. So back to the continuing discussion of sexual mores in Dreamsnake -- In terms of the number of times a character is propositioned in the book, I count 4 1/2, plus an unlikely but possible occurrence. The unlikely but possible occurrence takes place in chapter seven when it comes out that Ras has been forcing sex on Melissa. Melissa is unconvinced that the consensual sex between Gabriel and Snake wasn't painful for Snake. Snake assures her that it was pleasurable, and offers to show her. My own opinion is that what Snake was offering here was lessons in masturbation, which I wouldn't consider to be an offer of sex, but I suppose others may. The 1/2 occurrence occurs at the very end of the book, when Arevin tells Snake that he wants to take care of her while she heals, and then states that when she's well he wants to ask her if there's "anything else" he can do for her. Snake smiles and says that's a question she wants to ask him, too. The other four occurrences all have the same format -- a relative stranger asks Arevin or Snake if there's "anything" s/he "can do for you." IIRC, it was the phrasing of this offer that bothered Lindy (laorka@meer.net). On rereading the book, I find that it doesn't bother me at all. To me, it seems just a shorthand, euphemistic kind of way to say "I find you attractive and I'd like to have sex with you." Not too much different from yesteryear's "You want to see my etchings" or today's "Hey, Baby, I'll bet you and I could make each other real happy." Or even "Your place or mine?" The difference between Dreamsnake's sex offers and ours (Western culture, anyway) seems to me to be not so much in how it's worded, but when the offer occurs. We expect an offer of sex from anyone besides a prostitute to be preceded by a considerable amount of nonverbal communication. The lingering look, the licking of lips, the touch on the other's hand when making a point, the hot kisses -- all seem to be necessary preludes in our culture before the actual, "Do you want to have sex?" question occurs. If the other doesn't want to have sex, it is usually evident and the question is never asked. Indeed, often the question isn't asked when the answer would be Yes -- the people involved progress from looks and little touches to intercourse without ever actually talking about it, except maybe to ask about protection against pregnancy and disease. The way in which some Dreamsnake cultures handle the situation -- the asking before any sexual activity takes place -- seems to me to be more straightforward. (I do wonder, though, how they handle a situation where one person assents and then changes his/her mind.) Having said that, though, I must point out that while the euphemism "anything I can do" may work well within a culture, it fails miserably in interculture situations. Note that in every one of the four times it is used in the book, it's misinterpreted. Three times Arevin receives the question, and it's only the last that Jean explains it to him and he realizes what was actually being offered. In Mountainside, where the offer is generally used, Gabriel is so used to being sexually off-limits that he forgets that Snake will take his offer as an offer of sex. I wonder then why the offer is phrased that way. The conclusion I've reached (and I fully admit I could be wrong here) is that the phrasing allows a ego- saving rationalization when one's offer is turned down. The offer is made and declined, and both (all?) parties know what was offered and declined, but the person making the offer can pretend that maybe the other didn't really understand -- "It wasn't *me* that was turned down, it's just that I offered sex to someone so ignorant my offer wasn't understood." One other interesting aspect of sexual offers in Dreamsnake -- Arevin (once he understands an offer is being made) turns it down, saying his attention would be elsewhere. Later, thinking on it, he reflects: "He had casually coupled with people in his and neighboring clans all his life, but until he met Snake he had found no one he thought he might be able to partner with. Since meeting her, he had felt no desire for anyone else...." When Snake gets the offer from Gabriel, though, she accepts without much thought -- she finds him gentle and pleasant, and she is lonely. After they have sex, she wishes briefly he was Arevin -- "She wanted someone she could share with, not someone who would be grateful to her." I like this switch. In my culture (US), when a couple first thinks themselves to be in love, it's pretty much expected that the woman will turn down any sexual offers from others, for just the reason that Arevin turns down Jean. The man however may have casual sex with others. It's interesting and refreshing to me to see these sex roles reversed. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:49:54 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: AnnyMiddon Subject: Gattaca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I saw Gattaca at the neighborhood "cheap" theater several weeks ago. I've been meaning to post on the movie for some time now, and am finally getting to it. In a lot of ways I liked Gattaca, but it was what I'd term "schizoid." There's got to be a better term for this. I've never studied Rhetoric, but maybe one of those who have can help me here: What do you call it when the way a message conveyed is in opposition to the message itself? (An egregious example would be this: "Them teachers learned me to talk English real good." See what I mean? -- the message is negated by the way it's communicated.) And that's the problem I had with Gattaca. The tagline for the movie was, "There is no gene for the human spirit." The message of the movie seemed to be that what one can accomplish is not predetermined by one's genes. That biology is *not* destiny. But then look at the way that point is made. There are three major characters in Gattaca -- the main character with the defective genes, the person whose genes he rents, and the love interest. Once the decision was made to have the main character be a heterosexual male, the genders of the other two were given. However, look at the other important characters the movie shows in the protagonist's adult life: + The supervisor of the janitorial crew he works for before taking on the rented identity. + The agent who brokers the deal for him to rent the other identity. + The technician who takes samples for drug testing and genetic identity. + The mission director who is murdered. (Actually, I'm not sure we ever see this character alive. But the reasons for the murder are inherent in the mission director's attitudes and actions, and the role is therefore pretty important.) + The director who takes over the mission. + The two police officers who investigate the murder. Seven characters. And each of them is male. Let's suppose that in this "brave new world" there's a 50% chance that any of these characters might be female. I'm not very good at probability theory, but if my math is right this means that there's less than a 1% chance that they'd all randomly be male. Okay, let's assume that in a world in which you can program what you want in a child, males are preferred (sadly, not too farfetched). Let's conjecture that males greatly outnumber females in numbers really too high to be believed -- there's a 3-in-4 chance that any given character would be male. Now the chances are about 13% that they'd all be male. Still pretty low. So here we have a movie which says that in a world in which genetic fitness is the main (or only) determinant of success, only males are genetically suited for success. And it's a movie that proclaims that what one can accomplish is not predetermined by one's genes, that biology is *not* destiny. There must be a better term for it, but I call it Schizoid. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:26:19 -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: Connie Willis: correction of title I do apologize: it's "To Say Nothing of the Dog", not "Not to Mention the Dog." _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:35:35 -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: cunning, innit? I should have been more precise: "cunning" seems to have been very prevalent in certain 19th-century American Victorian fictional dialog, and I suspect Ms Willis adopted it from that general source as a time-appropriate "marker", not realizing that geographically it was invalid. It doesn't seem to be much in use today, but I was interested to see the responses from people who are still aware of / using it. And again, my apologies for getting the title wrong: "To Say Nothing of the Dog". _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:29:03 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 28 Apr 98 at 18:05, Marina wrote: > 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. Presumably that opinion is based on extensive active military experience. I'm glad - proud - to say that few if any women have what it takes to be real soldiers. War is a young man's game - because only young men have the physical strength, stamina and the sort of brutal, callous, unthinking courage that war and soldiering demands. This isn't an attempt to deny that women have just as much right to indulge in the monstrous brutalities of war, it's just an acknowledgment that where it matters, women are very different from men. War isn't just a matter of sitting behind a desk pressing a button and it never will be. Far too many people see 'Desert Storm' as a model of what modern warfare is all about - a clean, John-Wayne adventure in which the villians were slaughtered at a distance with modern weapons while the hero got no more than a tired trigger finger. In fact the 'success of modern weapons' proved to be no more than a brilliant invention of the Pentagon's highly successful PR department (as most of us in the media knew at the time). If the enemy had been anything more than a sick joke, casualties would have been infinitely higher on the Allied side. Chechnya is a much better model of what modern warfare is about - a brutal, savage war in vile weather with massive military and civilian losses. If you'd seen - as I did - what young Russian infantrymen endured without complaint but with great courage, you'd be a lot more respectful of what it takes to make a soldier. AJ AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:55:01 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Donna's cunning apology :) / Lizzy Lynn signing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Donna: No apology necessary for not automatically mentioning MG as an alternate source for Vonda's books or others ... I pipe up often enough on the list that I think people are aware of me and the store. I also loved DRAGON'S WINTER. So much that I convinced Lizzy Lynn's publisher to send her to San Diego May 9 to take part in our fifth Birthday Bash! Hope anyone who is able will drop by. 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, 30 Apr 1998 10:59:08 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Color me persnikity, but that was the title of the Connie Willis book, at least in the US, and since it's a quote from another source, I suspect it is the correct title. :) I am sometimes fortunate to not be very knowledgable in history or other cultures, because when I read about them I miss the anachronisms for the most part. Was having an extended discussion the other day with a writer friend who is a former lawyer and can't bear to watch Ally McBeal (which has fantasy sequences, making it nominally on topic) because of the errors. I can understand, usually being driven nuts by movie/TV bookstores (watching "Ellen" -- no one would make a display like that! The instant someone picked one up, the whole thing would come down!!!) in the same manner. 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, 30 Apr 1998 11:46:12 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Apr 98 19:29:03 -0000." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >I'm glad - proud - to say that few if any women have >what it takes to be real soldiers. War is a young man's game - >because only young men have the physical strength, stamina and the >sort of brutal, callous, unthinking courage that war and soldiering >demands. I don't buy this. I know of no reason to believe that this is a *biological* difference. Brutality is not carried on the Y chromosome. Women can kill as horrifically and brutally as men, and they can obey orders at risk of their own lives just as blindly and stupidly. If women are culturally shaped to be less likely to do so, well, I think that's a virtue; but I don't think it's biologically fixed. It's also true that women don't yell, don't hit, don't kick, don't even get angry about crude come-ons with nearly as much ease as men. But that's not biological. That's training. I would even argue that it's brainwashing, from a very early age. [Of course, David Brin's _Glory Road_, which I read recently because of the discussion about his complaint that the book had been unfairly excluded from the Tiptree Awards, would agree with you totally. In this book, men are kept around in part for genetic variety and in part for their ability to suddenly develop a blinding, devastating rage that women are somehow unable to summon up. A fascinating and well-thought out book, but hardly a new twist on gender stereotypes.] jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:54:32 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Re: gender difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, whether it is wise to admit it or not, I do think there are innate differences between men and women, but they are very different from the ones which are 'supposed' to be the case. I don't know how many people on the list have kids but I must say that after my children were born I felt an intense bond with them, which came on much more quickly and heavily than it did for the man in my life. It certainly felt like an instinctive response, very uncompromising - similar to feeling thirsty for example. When the baby cried it was like being burned or something - you had to jump up and deal with it, because it superseded all other priorities. I feel personally that this is a genetic trait of women, though men have it to a lesser extent (just as we have musculature, but on average less developed). I think perhaps the social skills (for example) which women have to a greater extent than men are developed of necessity, because of our physical vulnerabilities and the so-called 'handicap' of having babies. We can't pull the macho act so we have had to learn other techniques for getting on in life. As far as brains go I think its probably pretty even - though unintelligent men make more noise on average so it sometimes seems as if there are more of them. I'm still learning and deciding about all this though - I suppose we all are, all our lives. Alison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:36:18 -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: gender difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD743C.F677AD60" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD743C.F677AD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmmm...but aren't there links between "brutality, yelling, hitting, = kicking, and anger" (which you say aren't on the Y chromosome), and = levels of testosterone? And isn't the level of testosterone that you = have in your body largely genetic, and mostly based on gender? (I'm = being vague, because I'm not clear on the facts, but it seems to me that = there is _some_ linkage there that's been at least supported by = findings, if not proved). Anybody out there that knows more about = genetics and hormone research than I do that can shed some light on the = chemistry of anger/brutality? This is not at all to say that there isn't a LOT of overlap; there = definitely is, because, as you rightly say, women can kill as = horrifically and brutally as men, and some do - I just don't buy the = idea that the _only_ reason most of us don't is because of upbringing = and culture. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah [SMTP:jss@PA.DEC.COM] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 11:46 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] gender difference >I'm glad - proud - to say that few if any women have >what it takes to be real soldiers. War is a young man's game - >because only young men have the physical strength, stamina and the >sort of brutal, callous, unthinking courage that war and soldiering >demands. I don't buy this. I know of no reason to believe that this is a *biological* difference. Brutality is not carried on the Y chromosome. Women can kill as horrifically and brutally as men, and they can obey orders at risk of their own lives just as blindly and stupidly. If women are culturally shaped to be less likely to do so, well, I think that's a virtue; but I don't think it's biologically fixed. It's also true that women don't yell, don't hit, don't kick, don't even get angry about crude come-ons with nearly as much ease as men. But that's not biological. That's training. I would even argue that it's brainwashing, from a very early age. [Of course, David Brin's _Glory Road_, which I read recently because of = the discussion about his complaint that the book had been unfairly = excluded from the Tiptree Awards, would agree with you totally. In this = book, men are kept around in part for genetic variety and in part for = their ability to suddenly develop a blinding, devastating rage that = women are somehow unable to summon up. A fascinating and well-thought = out book, but hardly a new twist on gender stereotypes.] jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:34:21 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Subject: Re: cunning, innit? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit "What a cunning little camera!" (Katherine Hepburn, Philadelphia Story) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:35:13 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sidhe 71 Subject: Re: gender difference Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/30/98 2:50:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gaudit@GLOBAL.CO.ZA (Anthea)writes: <> I forwarded this post to a friend of mine who's a professor of History, and I thought some of you might be interested in what he had to say regarding this topic: Marie--maybe you should post this one to the list as a reply. It's not just the women bit that bugs me, but the "young" part too! Throughout history war is not just conducted by the young--the old too (and here I mean those up to age 45 or so (though most people in the pre-modern age who lived to that age actually _were_ old and had the look that went with it) took part. Many a soldier in the trenches in WWI were in their 40s and some in their 50s. Same thing for all those WWII draftees. How old do you think those sergeants are? The typical Roman soldier got drafted at age 18 and served a 25-year hitch (renewable in 5-year increments). Nor did they call Napoleon's "Old Guard" old for nothing (as opposed to the "young guard."). This is the trouble with ignorance about history, and with believing one's own propaganda. You don't have to be in top physical shape to be in a wartime army. This person is just plain wrong, about age, and about women. Further, most of today's military personnel (army, navy, air force, etc.) do NOT engage in combat even in wartime. For every one trained for combat there are at least ten in non-combat positions: intelligence, supply, payroll, accounting, mechanics, cooks, planning, communications, medical, etc. And you don't need to be male and young to do those jobs. Nor is there something special which prevents women from flying combat jets--indeed women are better pilots overall than men! Nor is there anything special about being male and young that helps in loading and firing artillery (or ship's batteries, missiles, etc.), or driving a tank or an APC (or firing their combat weapons). Nor do you have to be young and male to guard prisoners of war---there are plenty of old cops and prison guards, and women cops and prison guards, who perform not just adequately, but spectacularly! == J. S. Arkenberg Dept. of History Cal. State Fullerton "It is by doubting that we come to investigate, and by investigating that we recognize the truth." ---Peter Abelard "Great changes are not caused by ideas alone; but they are not effected without ideas."----L. T. Hobhouse "Great is the great man whose great men are great."----Pharoah Khety (Middle Kingdom Egypt) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:02:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay I admit up front I have not re-reviewed the BDG rules. Are we allowed to nominate non-fiction? If so...Joanna Russ -What Are We fighting for... - essays. (Some folks have received copies. I have been told to wait. Should be available everywhere towards the end of the six month BDG period?) I would describe it, but she is indescribable. If I find someone else's good words I will post them ASAP. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:09:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: gender difference Comments: To: Alison Page In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Alison Page wrote: (snip) > I don't know how many people on the list have kids but I must say that > after my children were born I felt an intense bond with them, which came on > much more quickly and heavily than it did for the man in my life. You are lucky to have bonded with both of your children so easily. I know a number of women who have struggled to have this kind of bonding with their infants and even their older children. Since each birth is different, some women might bond easily with one child and fight to bond with another. I know men who have "fallen in love at first sight" with their newborns. I think easy bonding is more a matter of an individual's nature and circumstances than a gender issue. > Alison > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:29:06 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Apr 98 13:36:18 PDT." <01BD743C.F677AD60@scandiog.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I don't mean to say that there are no biological differences; just that I don't think war demonstrates them well. And I am always very hesitant to accept claims that biology just happens to steer men and women in the direction that society encourages. For instance: >I don't know how many people on the list have kids but I must say that >after my children were born I felt an intense bond with them, which came on >much more quickly and heavily than it did for the man in my life. It's always seemed true to me that women *in general* feel a closer and more immediate bond to their children than men do -- but since that's what we're taught, how can we *know* that it's biological? I never really cared about having children until my fiance started getting all gushy at them (he'd disappear at parties to hold sleeping babies while I talked to the adults); I might still not care if not for the fact that he gets this sort of glazed, covetous look on his face every time he sees a baby. >Hmmm...but aren't there links between "brutality, yelling, hitting, kicking, > and anger" (which you say aren't on the Y chromosome), and levels of > testosterone? And isn't the level of testosterone that you have in your body > largely genetic, and mostly based on gender The level of testosterone in your body is certainly sex-based and a major influence on emotions and often behavior. But brutality and the inclination to do violence and the ability to carry on amid gore and death and hideous behavior are not, as far as I know, linked in any way to normal human chemistry. Those things are what I believe are taught, not genetic. For example: my little brother is ten years old; he's sweet, charming, sits on his dad's lap in public, hugs his parents goodbye at school, and hates to sit still. When he was six, if he felt neglected, he would run up the stairs, fling himself at a family member, kick them in the shins, and say "I want you to play with me. I miss you." He yells a lot and can spend hours repeatedly trying to wrestle with me -- I say trying because he weighs 50 pounds. But he is never brutal, and he won't watch _Return Of The Jedi_ because it's too violent and scary. Male friends of mine have told me about being overwhelmed at puberty -- when the hormones really hit -- and having everything seem like much more of a big deal. One talked about getting angry all the time. One talked about wanting to cry all the time. So yeah, I believe in testosterone, you bet. I don't believe that it makes men vicious or callous or brutal. I think boot camp does that. (Nor am I being flippant here -- I've been told by people in the US Army community that boot camp takes a lot of people who aren't inclined to kill and makes them able to. This was meant to impress me with the humanity of the recruits, but we don't have to get into that.) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:30:15 -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" Anybody out there that knows more about genetics and hormone research than I do that can shed some light on the chemistry of anger/brutality? Another good resource on this issue is Myriam Miedzian's 1991 book, BOYS WILL BE BOYS: BREAKING THE LINK BETWEEN MASCULINITY AND VIOLENCE. The third chapter of this book is a survey of current (as of 1991) sociobiological and psychoanalytical theory and hormonal studies about men's "inexorable aggressive instinct." (She bases some of her chapter on the "definitive" work on sex differences, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SEX DIFFERENCES published by Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin in 1973.) Her conclusion is that all the bulk of scholarship and speculation can say is that males have slightly shorter attention spans and a greater tendency to rough and tumble play, that at most biology provides precursory dispositions which are magnified by the ways we raise boys. Believing that there is no reason to assert that violence is in any way innately masculine (or human, for that matter), she ends the chapter by referring to "anthropologist Peggy Sanday's cross-cultural study of ninety-five societies [which] revealed that 47 percent of them were free of rape." He book is a reallly interesting and pragmatic study of what we can do to change our culture and our families so that masculinity is no longer equated with anger, violence, and/or brutality. "Despite a common critical assumption based on our usual blindness, self-dramatization does not preclude self-knowledge." -- Harold Bloom, YEATS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ 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: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:01:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <01BD743C.F677AD60@scandiog.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anthea wrote: >>I'm glad - proud - to say that few if any women have >>what it takes to be real soldiers. War is a young man's game - >>because only young men have the physical strength, stamina and the >>sort of brutal, callous, unthinking courage that war and soldiering >>demands. Jessie replied: >I don't buy this. I know of no reason to believe that this is a *biological* >difference. Brutality is not carried on the Y chromosome. Women can kill as >horrifically and brutally as men, and they can obey orders at risk of their >own lives just as blindly and stupidly. Sandy continued: >This is not at all to say that there isn't a LOT of overlap; there >definitely is, because, as you rightly say, women can kill as horrifically >and brutally as men, and some do - I just don't buy the idea that the >_only_ reason most of us don't is because of upbringing and culture. > And now I say: Anthea - it would be helpful (to me, at least) if you could bring yourself to precede your blanket statements with some phrase such as 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it' or ' in my experience'. In Cromwell's words ' I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.' Whether or not there are biological gender based differences in the way our brains function, the studies I am aware of show far more variance within genders than between genders. It seems arrogant to conclude that : a) there are biological differences in brain function that are distinct products of gender (rather than cultural indoctrination). b) we can say what these differences are, and how they affect the behavior of men and women as a whole. Most men don't kill, horrifically and brutally or otherwise. A great deal of time is spent in the US military indoctrination training the cannon fodder to kill ruthlessly and brutally - from the depersonalization of the enemy onwards - and a fair amount of time is spent afterwards in the psych wards, dealing with the consequences of this indoctrination. This would seem to suggest that there's a fair amount of resistance on a very basic level to gross acts of brutality by most humans, wartime or not. Men certainly have higher levels of displayed violence - there's no arguing that. Whether this is a result of their general greater strength (as compared to women), or some nasty little characteristic carried on the Y chromosome, or of cultural training (not to be underestimated, in my opinion) is still very much an open question as far as I can tell. ***************** 'I talk about gods, I an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.' - Ursula LeGuin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:36:56 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Re: gender difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey said - > You are lucky to have bonded with both of your children so easily. I know > a number of women who have struggled to have this kind of bonding with > their infants and even their older children. Since each birth is > different, some women might bond easily with one child and fight to bond > with another. I know men who have "fallen in love at first sight" with > their newborns. I think easy bonding is more a matter of an individual's > nature and circumstances than a gender issue. These are all very good points, and this is what makes the topic so complex. On the whole I would say that *if* there are differences between men and women they will be expressed as generalisations rather than as absolutes. So, in general men are capable of picking up heavier weights than women, but of course we can all think of women who can pick up big bales of straw, and men who can't. One of the reasons I am interested in this is because, apart from the kid-bonding thing, I tend not to match what women are supposed to be like at all. For a start I have a particularly bad temper, and I hate housework, so 'nul points' on the ladylike scale. This is so highly relevant to SF because almost by definition it puts people into different, untested, environments, and therefore has to make hypotheses about which characteristics are environmentally determined. One interesting side-line on this. I have known a small number of trans-sexuals who believe they have a 'woman's' mind in a male body. How can we explain this perception, and what does it tell us? Alison .. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:57:22 -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: Begin of BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Group members can nominate any ...... but should not include critical >essays. .......but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in >order to keep the price within everybody's range. Gosh I sinned twice. Can I be kicked off the list for that Jennifer? I take back the hardcover, partially un-released, critical essay book by Joanna Russ and re-submit a nomination for: Swordspoint: Melodrama of manners - Ellen Kushner paper. 4.99 Tor Jun 94 - available ISBN 0812536444 Descr: Quite simply the most musical, transcendent, gorgeously written book I have ever read. Best read out loud to one's heart flame. I never let it leave my side. The only book I ever had autographed. The only author I ever bothered to disturb to gush incoherently about her book. Brightness Falls From the Air - James Tiptree paper - Trade - 9.95 St Martins Sept 93 ISBN 0312854072 It is called her "weaker novel" but I was gasping for air whenever I could pull myself away. Dense, complex, drags emotions from you against your will. Momento Mori - Shariann Lewitt paper - trade 14.95 Tor Apr 1997 ISBN 0312862946 SF&F recommended book. I just personally like Lewitt. She is a fascinating person. The book is scifi about artificial intelligence. Lewitt is the author of Cyberstealth and Cybernetic Jungle also. The Gilda Stories - Jewelle Gomez paper-trade 11.95 Firebrand Jun 1991 ISBN 093237994X This because we owe it to ourselves to read what this brilliant and remarkable woman has to say both in her fiction and in her essays (even if we cannot recommend those). Grunts! - Mary Gentle paper-6.99 NAL Aug 1997 ISBN 0451454537 To get away from the USA and to get away from seriousness in the hands of an impeccable writer who astonishes me every time out. I think that is all????? apologies again for violating BDG rules and wasting peoples time reading my first wasted recommendation. peace, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:15:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: gender difference: sex vs. gender Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:36 PM 4/30/98 -0700, Sandy Candioglos wrote: >Hmmm...but aren't there links between "brutality, yelling, hitting, kicking, and anger" (which >you say aren't on the Y chromosome), and levels of testosterone? And isn't the level of >testosterone that you have in your body largely genetic, and mostly based on gender? Sorry, knee-jerk reaction, but sex (genetics) and gender (learned behavior differences societally assigned to different sexes) are -not- the same thing. Levels of testosterone depend upon sex, not gender. Heather =) __________________________________________ "Output of your job hmaclean: > Reality is only a question of language. Unknown command - "REALITY". Try HELP." -------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:07:38 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: purpose of the list Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII a reminder fromt he list-mistress: this list is to discuss feminism and science fiction. yes, of course, gender differences are RELEVANT. everything is RELEVANT, sort of. but try to keep your on-list discussion related to, say, gender differences as exhibited in SCIENCE FICTION. if you want to just respond in general, then do it off-list. we have a lot of readers and it's best (for now) to be specific ... Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More War ** ** No More Civilian Deaths ** ** Don't Bomb Iraq! ** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:30:47 -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: <00be01bd748b$56f33ee0$58ae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Donna said: >>Group members can nominate any ...... but should not include critical >>essays. .......but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in >>order to keep the price within everybody's range. > >Gosh I sinned twice. Can I be kicked off the list for that Jennifer? If there's a sinning contest, I sure don't want to be in it!! Actually, last time there were hardcover books on the "ballot" - they just didn't get many votes, probably because of the cost. I think it's great that you gave such enthusiastic nominations (they all sound great.) Even with being able to vote for six this time, it will be tough to choose. The "rule" of not nominating hardcover books is just so that more people can participate, which is one of the goals of the program. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:33:20 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CIGILMAN Subject: BDG Nomination Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Here is a very new book I'd like to discuss. I just finished reading it and found it quite provocative: Dark Water's Embrace, by Stephen Leigh ($3.99 from Avon Eos, 1998) In this novel, the descendants of a small group of explorers shipwrecked on a planet with a mutagenic environment try to create a human community while coping with a high rate of birth defects and infant mortality. The novel portrays the new sexual/interpersonal customs that evolve in a society where reproduction is a hazardous but urgent imperative-- for example, constant pressure to maximize one's sexual partners, clan-like families preventing mixing of too-similar genes, and extreme homophobia. There are any number of memorable viewpoint characters, but the ones I found most compelling were Gabriella, a cranky and unrepentent lesbian scientist; and Anais, a young "woman" who seems to be evolving, much against her will, into something quite unlike our definition of male or female. The story switches to and fro between the plight of the human community and the story of Kai Sa, a member of the long-extinct native civilization, which solved the mutation problem with a very different sexual system. They reproduced by means of a third sex, the "midmales," who acted as intermediaries, taking the sperm from the men and repairing the DNA before passing it on to the women. They formed triad marriages that had great emotional intensity. Kai is essentially an itinerant babymaker who travels around finding deserving couples and giving them genetically perfect children. The crisis in "ker" life comes when a power-hungry political leader tries to gain control over the independent society of midmales. (If you can control reproduction, you can control people!) The challenge that faces the humans is this: to survive, they must learn to change--not just in thought and custom, but biologically. They must become something not-quite-human to keep from dying out. The resistance to this, and the forces that finally bring it about, are the novel's story. The politics of reproduction and sexuality provide a lot of bare-knuckle conflict. Leigh has really thought out the complex ways people would act when their their most basic instincts threaten their own survival. P.S., I think I would be neat to discuss a feminist book written by a man. Carolyn ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:07:50 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Anthea wrote: > Chechnya is a much better model of what modern warfare is about - a > brutal, savage war in vile weather with massive military and civilian > losses. If you'd seen - as I did - what young Russian infantrymen > endured without complaint but with great courage, you'd be a lot more > respectful of what it takes to make a soldier. I'm from Tajikistan, which is by many levels tougher than Chechnya. Actually, I've heard one UN official saying it's a cross between Somalia, Bosnia, and Afganistan. I lived there for five years so I know what war is like not from books. Besides, how exactly saying that "women can do it" is desrespectul to the glorious profession of a soldier? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:38:27 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: gender difference Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-30 16:46:11 EDT, you write: << <> >> I've always thought that I could never engage in combat because it's too bloody, inhumanly horrible, and stupid. I thought my fear of combat conditions was because I was a woman. Maybe it's just because I'm a coward! What a thought! If you threaten my children, I'll be in your face. But the kind of stuff Xena does, for example, seems totally unnatural for a woman. Maybe it's just unnatural for people who prefer their skin unpuctured and their heads on their necks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 00:21:09 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ><< > < what it takes to be real soldiers. War is a young man's game - > because only young men have the physical strength, stamina and the > sort of brutal, callous, unthinking courage that war and soldiering > demands.>> Some wars are games. But true war is no game. Would you have called the Holocaust a game? I'm against war. But in our society sometimes its necessary. Were everyone as enlightened as we, it wouldn't be. IMHO though, women don't belong at the front lines. They should be the Home Guard, protectors, not attackers. > >> >I've always thought that I could never engage in combat because it's too >bloody, inhumanly horrible, and stupid. I thought my fear of combat conditions >was because I was a woman. Maybe it's just because I'm a coward! What a >thought! If you threaten my children, I'll be in your face. But the kind of >stuff Xena does, for example, seems totally unnatural for a woman. Maybe it's >just unnatural for people who prefer their skin unpuctured and their heads on >their necks. Nah. I know women who could do it. And would. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "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