Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9807E" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:10:23 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: BDG: MOA Content-Type: text/plain Just a couple of random notes: 1) A recent retelling of the Arthur story that I really liked was Bernard Cornwell's trilogy. I've only read the first two so far, _Winter King_ and _Enemy of God_ and don't know if the 3rd is out yet. Cornwell is best known as a military novelist, and these books are told from the viewpoint of a minor Arthurian character, a slave raised in Merlin's household who later becomes one of Arthur's soldiers. It's not exactly fantasy, as the magic of Merlin, Nimue, etc. can be lagely explained by superior knowledge, trickery, etc. but the evocation of a pagan kingdom gradually being converted is remarkable. Especially the portrayal of Nimue as a raging, scarred woman is memorable, and the brutality of life after the Romans left is shown unflinchingly. The battle scenes are also well done, for fans of that sort of thing, but they are by no means the focus of the books. I recommend them highly. 2) About the word "pagan" -- IIRC, it comes from the Latin for "farmer." This is because farmers notoriously tended to worship in the christian church in public, but also, quietly, give offerings and honors to the old gods, who REALLY could make the crops grow. So paganism is the religion of farmers -- not such an insulting thing, after all. 3)For fans of unwinnable battles, there was a lengthy, and detailed argument running in New York Review of SF recently on whether Heinlein was a fascist -- lots of stuff on the representation of minorities in his fiction, too. It was enough to elimiate whatever embarassment I had of being a Heinlein fan; it might do the opposite for someone else. Yours, Dan Krashin *Now in Kansas, and it's not so bad* ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:18:42 -0700 Reply-To: Pat Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: CRONES page site access problems with AOL Comments: To: donna simone In-Reply-To: <007501bdba53$56a137e0$78a52499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'm not getting in from UNM.edu Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:19:56 -0700 Reply-To: Pat Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <199807281443.QAA03353@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Actually, "Gattaca" sounds like the sort of movie Hamilton Felix and friends might so see in Heinlein's BEYOND THIS HORIZON. A thriller about an underdog hero who is "passing for genegineered." And they'd probably see it as left-wing whining by a control natural who didn't accept his place in the world, and thereby put everything he was involved with at risk, since no control natural could possibly be competent .... read the book! Written in 1948. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:18:49 -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: Gattaca -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > I watched it about a week ago. It was well acted, with beautiful > design and cinemetography, but the constant repetition of the "this > is a planned society and only a tiny bit of tissue can give us enough > DNA to find out all your secrets" theme got boring after awhile. > Yeah, we already understood that part, Mr. Director, in fact, we > understood it the first of the 20 or so times you pointed it out, now > let's move the plot along. I got so bored I didn't watch the end. I think the repetition was a necessary part of the movie. The main character had to prove himself again and again but not by hard work or effort but with bits and scraps of tissue. It also heightened the feeling of paranoia especially when some of his own DNA shows up during a murder investigation. I think it intensified the feeling that he could get caught at any moment and all his efforts would be for nothing. The pace was a bit slow but *Gattaca* was a very refreshing change from what usually gets promoted as science fiction. Add a laser pistol and an alien monster poof!!! you have a science fiction movie. I liked the fact that *Gattaca* was about a future society and had at least a little science in it's science fiction. > Debra > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:57:16 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: Gattaca -Reply -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Stacey Holbrooke wrote: >>I think the repetition was a necessary part of the movie. The main character had to prove himself again and again but not by hard work or effort but with bits and scraps of tissue. I didn't think he had to prove himself again and again, he just had to identify himself. From what I remember, he got the job without an interview or anything because of his (assumed) genes. After that, he had to prove himself through training and work, or did I image those scenes with the running, etc.? Anyway, here's my longer take on Gattaca. *Contains spoilers* In a future world where genetic engineering determines all aspects of people's lives, Ethan Hawke (aren't I pretty?) doesn't have designer genes, has a defective heart, but has a great spirit (good heart--get it, get it?). Uma Thurman (I'm pretty too) has got designer genes and also has a minor heart defect--but doesn't have Pretty-boy Ethan's drive. After all, she's only the girl and can't surpass the male protagonist. Jude Law (the fairest of them all) has got the designer genes, is British and therefore obnoxiously upper-class. Ethan gets into the space program through trickery, then someone gets murdered, and the rest of the movie, as much as I watched, anyway, seemed to me to consist of Ethan and Uma running away from Inspector Jaubert wielding a vaccuum cleaner. Yawn! And there was no character development. Ethan Hawk played the scrappy underdog hero, Uma Thurman played the beautiful, normally unattainable prize, and Jude Law was the stereotypical Eurotrash to whom we can feel superior. Booooring! However, everyone was extremely good-looking. I'd love to see some SF movies that have more to do with character studies and future societies than with aliens, ray guns and explosions, but a lack of explosions shouldn't mean that a movie has to be dull. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:17:48 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980729121636.007b62d0@ozemail.com.au> (message from Julieanne on Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:16:36 +1000) I liked GATTACA, as I mentioned earlier, partly because of the dehumanizing qualities of it. Certainly it was dystopian, but with the ever increasing possibility that genetic engineering will someday be possible, I think it's an issue worthyof consideration. I'd love to think that we'd avoid the hubris of trying to create a more perfect human being, but I think that when the service is offerred and affordable, many parents will choose to do it. We all want the very best for our children and this could easily seem the way to get it. There's an article in a recent issue of UPSIDE Magazine, entitled "Technofascism" which discusses the author's fears of increasing discrimination by intelligence, which I thought was indicative that this is an issue in the zeitgeist these days. The thing I liked best about GATTACA was what I felt was its central question: Who are you, apart from your genes? I thought the final resolution was vaguely Oedipal, with the rival being the protagonist's brother, rather than the father. Having bested his rival, he proved his humanity by rescuing him, thereby rubbing in his victory. E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:46:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: book stores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Frances says: > I suspect you're right. Maybe it says something very positive about an author > if her (or his) work does NOT show up in used bookstores. The negative part of it: To a degree, the availability of books in used bookstores is determined by sales of new books - unless the book is sold new, it's not going to turn up used. If feminist SF does not sell at Borders or Barnes & Noble as well as, say, Piers Anthony or David Eddings, there will naturally be fewer copies available to the used-book dealer. And if the used-book dealer is not savvy about SF - a surprising number of them are - she may turn down good books when offered them by a walk- in seller, because she has "too many SF books right now, and they're not selling fast enough," not knowing or caring that there's a difference between A.E. Van Vogt and Karen Joy Fowler (to pick two really different authors). But you and Phoebe are also right, of course, that many copies of feminist SF books tend to be hoarded and read to death before they can be "recycled." (I have the same availability problem as readers, but multiplied, because I try to fill a dealer's table at Wiscon with appropriate used books every year. I end up doing a lot of trading with a number of other dealers to get the good stuff.) -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com "Take what you can use and let the rest go by." - Ken Kesey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:19:06 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <199807291817.OAA09578@apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's already at least one doctor in Britain who provides a service where couples can pre-determine the sex of their soon-to-be children, according to a show I saw (the focus of the show was couples who had children with fatal genetic problems, and how they could pay lots of money to have a lot of eggs fertilized in vitro, and only the "good" ones re-introduced into the mother). The one person they interviewed who was going to the doctor in Britain was really glad that he was offering this service, because it meant that she could finally have a baby boy (she already had 3 or 4 girls). That's what scares me about this kind of thing. -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: ME Hunter [mailto:hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG] > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 11:18 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gattaca > > > I liked GATTACA, as I mentioned earlier, partly because of > the dehumanizing > qualities of it. Certainly it was dystopian, but with the > ever increasing > possibility that genetic engineering will someday be > possible, I think it's > an issue worthyof consideration. I'd love to think that we'd avoid the > hubris of trying to create a more perfect human being, but I > think that when > the service is offerred and affordable, many parents will choose to do > it. We all want the very best for our children and this could > easily seem > the way to get it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:54:03 -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: Gattaca In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Not to open a HUGE can of worms, but just interested...couldn't this be considered a form of abortion (eggs are fertilized but discarded as is my understanding)? I mean, many believe that life begins at the point of conception, which is what is basically being done here. I personally don't subscribe to a "life begins here" doctrine...but was intersted in what people thought. It still scares the living crap out of me on one hand...on the other, it's fascinating. -mark On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > There's already at least one doctor in Britain who provides a service where > couples can pre-determine the sex of their soon-to-be children, according to > a show I saw (the focus of the show was couples who had children with fatal > genetic problems, and how they could pay lots of money to have a lot of eggs > fertilized in vitro, and only the "good" ones re-introduced into the > mother). > > The one person they interviewed who was going to the doctor in Britain was > really glad that he was offering this service, because it meant that she > could finally have a baby boy (she already had 3 or 4 girls). That's what > scares me about this kind of thing. > > -Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ME Hunter [mailto:hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 11:18 AM > > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gattaca > > > > > > I liked GATTACA, as I mentioned earlier, partly because of > > the dehumanizing > > qualities of it. Certainly it was dystopian, but with the > > ever increasing > > possibility that genetic engineering will someday be > > possible, I think it's > > an issue worthyof consideration. I'd love to think that we'd avoid the > > hubris of trying to create a more perfect human being, but I > > think that when > > the service is offerred and affordable, many parents will choose to do > > it. We all want the very best for our children and this could > > easily seem > > the way to get it. > --------------------------- http://scratch.hellyeah.com wage@hellyeah.com put your soul in ascii ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:46:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Book stores & Elgin &Anthony In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Anthea wrote: > On 28 Jul 98, at 12:06, Marina wrote: > > > Thanks for giving me so much implied power as to be able to "drive [snip] > > The place for this type of ad hominem comment is off-list. Exactly. So was your original message. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:58:16 -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: book stores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, you're quite right. And of course unsold paperbacks are pulped, not even given a chance as remainders (which does the author no good financially, but might increase exposure for the future. On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:46:59 -0500 DAVID CHRISTENSON writes: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Frances says: > >> I suspect you're right. Maybe it says something very positive about >an >author >> if her (or his) work does NOT show up in used bookstores. > David says: >The negative part of it: To a degree, the availability of books in >used >bookstores is determined by sales of new books - unless the book is >sold >new, it's not going to turn up used. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:03:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Gattaca -Reply -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It's not really on-topic, but I'm curious -- what is "Eurotrash"? My boyfriend used it couple times, but I could not get a very coherent explanation on what exactly he meant. Marina On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > ...and Jude Law was the stereotypical Eurotrash to > whom we can feel superior. Booooring! However, everyone was > extremely good-looking. http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:56:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Gattaca -Reply -Reply In-Reply-To: (message from Marina on Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:03:50 -0500) "Eurotrash" is a derogatory term for young Europeans with too much money. Sort of like "slacker," but better dressed. It is sometimes also used to deride the Americans who ape them. E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:53:07 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Gattaca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Grin. Well, since you did ask... The issue of unused fertilized eggs I believe will become more of a legal issue than of whether or not it is a form of abortion to dispose of them...until the recent Irvine fertility scandal noone knew that unused embryos were used without the permission of the couple who owned them to help other couples in the same program to conceive children...then later on we get the case of the woman whose husband committed suicide and who wanted legal possession of frozen embryos that were stored away but the dead husband's grown children objected to the unused embryos being used without the father's expressed permission...it will get down to what defines life once again, and there are multitudes of opinions about what is considered a life...it bothers me that in the first case with Irvine, something that once it left the human body it was produced from, was considered something to be made use of without the permission of the owners...then again it bothers me that I am treating the tissue in question as property...in the second case, again it is whose property is it...to me, if the fertillized eggs are disposed of with the expressed permission of the couple that produced them, then no problem there. And, if the couple breaks up, they either both give permission for one or both of them to share in the resulting embryos in storage or the eggs are destroyed after a time where it is determined the resulting eggs would no longer be viable for use. Now I am going to go get some ice water it is 110 degrees in the shade grin. Jo Ann At 04:54 PM 7/29/98 -0500, you wrote: >Not to open a HUGE can of worms, but just interested...couldn't this be >considered a form of abortion (eggs are fertilized but discarded as is my >understanding)? I mean, many believe that life begins at the point of >conception, which is what is basically being done here. I personally >don't subscribe to a "life begins here" doctrine...but was intersted in >what people thought. It still scares the living crap out of me on one >hand...on the other, it's fascinating. > >-mark > > >On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > >> There's already at least one doctor in Britain who provides a service where >> couples can pre-determine the sex of their soon-to-be children, according to >> a show I saw (the focus of the show was couples who had children with fatal >> genetic problems, and how they could pay lots of money to have a lot of eggs >> fertilized in vitro, and only the "good" ones re-introduced into the >> mother). >> >> The one person they interviewed who was going to the doctor in Britain was >> really glad that he was offering this service, because it meant that she >> could finally have a baby boy (she already had 3 or 4 girls). That's what >> scares me about this kind of thing. >> >> -Sandy >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ME Hunter [mailto:hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG] >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 11:18 AM >> > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gattaca >> > >> > >> > I liked GATTACA, as I mentioned earlier, partly because of >> > the dehumanizing >> > qualities of it. Certainly it was dystopian, but with the >> > ever increasing >> > possibility that genetic engineering will someday be >> > possible, I think it's >> > an issue worthyof consideration. I'd love to think that we'd avoid the >> > hubris of trying to create a more perfect human being, but I >> > think that when >> > the service is offerred and affordable, many parents will choose to do >> > it. We all want the very best for our children and this could >> > easily seem >> > the way to get it. >> > >--------------------------- >http://scratch.hellyeah.com >wage@hellyeah.com >put your soul in ascii > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:47:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: Book stores and remainders? In-Reply-To: <19980729.175817.-3187167.0.jjggww@juno.com> from "Frances Green" at Jul 29, 98 05:58:16 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frances sez: > > Yes, you're quite right. And of course unsold paperbacks are pulped, not > even given a chance as remainders (which does the author no good > financially, but might increase exposure for the future. > Hmmm. Could someone explain this process to me? Reading this it seems like "remainder" books are not what I thought they were. I know that I have seen "bargain" paperback books at places like Borders with very low prices; sometimes a fraction of the cover price. There was also a chain called Encore Books which said they sold remainders in both hard and paperback. Do you mean that if a book is sold as a remainder the author makes no royalties on it? Most of my paperbacks also print a notice saying that if I purchased the book without a cover it was reported to the publisher and author as a "stripped" book and no royalties paid. [To paraphrase *very* roughly.] So how does the remainder market work? Caroline ps. Is anyone else having problems getting Melissa Scott's _Shadow Man_? I ordered a copy from amazon at the beginning of June and they are listing it as being on order from the publisher with a four to six week time frame. I've been unable to locate it in any of my local bookstores either. :( ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:12:29 -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: romances/introducing feminist SF to male readers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I've been out of town for two weeks so I hope I haven't misremembered some of this: Someone asked for books that would "summarize" feminism (an oversimplification, I know) for a man who wasn't feminist. My guess is that a "summarization" of feminism is exactly what you don't want; that kind of summarization starts with a lot of assumptions (power of privilege, inequalities in normal male/female interaction, on and on) that give some people a really knee-jerk reaction. When I went away to college I was stunned by the really vicious responses I'd get to a casual "That's so patriarchal" (changing your name at marriage) or "systemic sexism" (13% female faculty). I think someone used the phrase "sneakily subversive" -- that's just about what you want. At its best, this sort of material will present logical and appealing sitations which over time force the reader to realize that they are different from traditional sex roles, and that they are *preferable* to those traditions. You have to let people work with what they know: take the things they can see and explain why they're wrong. "This happens and it's wrong" won't get you anywhere if you say it to someone who just can't see. Anyway, it occurred to me, catching up on the last 12 days' mail, that you might want to use exactly the set of books that have been recommended to romance readers. They have strong, independant women; they have men you can empathize with; and almost all of them have very different and feminist takes on male/female romantic relationships. I've been fascinated by this whole discussion. My image of romances (supported, I think, by covers -- I should know better -- and by two that I accidentally found in a library in my teens, that were just appalling) has been of books in which Winning The Man is more important than everything else. Remember the Bad Girl -- forgot her name -- in the movie of Starship Troopers, saying as she dies "It doesn't matter because I got to have you"? Like that. In fact it was only by a happy circumstance of timing that I didn't say that _Dragonflight_ (Anne McC.) reminded me of a classic romance: spunky brave women giving in to their men. It's always nice to see my own assumptions laid out for me in a row. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:46:53 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sonya Subject: Re: Gattaca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi I'm new to this list and will make a proper introduction in the near future I just had to comment on Gattaca and particularly something Debra said Uma Thurman (I'm pretty too) has got designer genes and also has a minor heart defect--but doesn't have Pretty-boy Ethan's drive. After all, she's only the girl and can't surpass the male protagonist. I don't think Uma was supposed to be portryaed as "only the girl", my take on it was that the reason she believed that her heart defect was so bad was because she was told all her life it was, just like a child whose mother fusses over every little runny nose will grow up to believe they are sickly etc. I hope I am making sense, but that was my take on Gattaca. Sonya Debra Euler wrote: > Stacey Holbrooke wrote: > > >>I think the repetition was a necessary part of the movie. The main > character had to prove himself again and again but not by hard work > or > effort but with bits and scraps of tissue. > > I didn't think he had to prove himself again and again, he just had > to identify himself. From what I remember, he got the job without an > interview or anything because of his (assumed) genes. After that, he > had to prove himself through training and work, or did I image those > scenes with the running, etc.? > > Anyway, here's my longer take on Gattaca. *Contains spoilers* > > In a future world where genetic engineering determines all aspects of > people's lives, > Ethan Hawke (aren't I pretty?) doesn't have designer genes, has a > defective heart, but has a great spirit (good heart--get it, get > it?). Uma Thurman (I'm pretty too) has got designer genes and also > has a minor heart defect--but doesn't have Pretty-boy Ethan's drive. > After all, she's only the girl and can't surpass the male protagonist. > Jude Law (the fairest of them all) has got the designer genes, is > British and therefore obnoxiously upper-class. Ethan gets into the > space program through trickery, then someone gets murdered, and the > rest of the movie, as much as I watched, anyway, seemed to me to > consist of Ethan and Uma running away from Inspector Jaubert > wielding a vaccuum cleaner. > > Yawn! > > And there was no character development. Ethan Hawk played the > scrappy underdog hero, Uma Thurman played the beautiful, normally > unattainable prize, and Jude Law was the stereotypical Eurotrash to > whom we can feel superior. Booooring! However, everyone was > extremely good-looking. > > I'd love to see some SF movies that have more to do with character > studies and future societies than with aliens, ray guns and > explosions, but a lack of explosions shouldn't mean that a movie has > to be dull. > > Debra ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:53:36 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: ACCESS UPDATE - CRONES Comments: To: Todd Mason , Sharon Anderson , Robin Reid , Melnjo , Maryelizabeth Hart , Marge Tillman , lilith , Katharine Woods , Jessie Stickgold-Sarah , Ines Lassnig , Catherine Asaro , Anthea , AnnyMiddon , Kathleen M Friello , catweasel@catweasel.org, jdawley@TOGETHER.NET, eva@TELEPORT.COM, Demetria M Shew , Jobe@SILENT-RUNNING.COM, releon@syr.edu, Jules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all who have sent me info or registered problems: First, I am terribly sorry that something that I intended to generate excitement has generated only aggravation for some. I will fix this. It is important to me. Second, actions to date: - I have posted my own articles on the introduction and chapter one that I hope will give folks something to react to or comment on, if anyone was feeling shy . - If there is any confusion, the forum _is_ the 'discussion'. There will not be matching traffic on FSFFU list. - I subscribed to AOL so that I can duplicate the problems and legitimately file technical inquiries/complaints. See how dedicated I am. LOL. - I have filed inquiry to Earthlink. - I have subscribed to a service that allows me to create my own virtual domain. Lilith and I are hoping that this will eliminate all access problems. This also means the address will change soon. We will notify you when that site is ready. DO continue to post to the current address. All items will be carried over and preserved. - With 20MB of domain space we might as well take over the world. Plans afoot for links to other Russ sites/info. Plans afoot for links to feminist activism worldwide. Plans afoot to build an archive of writings - Russ and others of note. - Last item, Lilith will soon be a paid renderer of service to this site. Yeah! A woman being paid for her work. She remains a cyber-saint in my books. please post me on any further troubles, needs, questions, ideas. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:40:26 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980729225307.006d2944@Silent-Running.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:53 PM 7/29/98 -0700, Jo Ann wrote: >Grin. Well, since you did ask... > >The issue of unused fertilized eggs I believe will become more of a legal >issue than of whether or not it is a form of abortion to dispose of >them...(snip) In California, there are already agencies and third-party 'brokers' capitalising on buying and obtaining healthy eggs from younger women, to use in commercial IVF programs. There are several couples in recent years, who buy eggs from suitable (usually younger women in their 20's); then contract for a surrogate womb to carry the pregnancy. This has led to concepts such as children born of such procedures having 3 mothers: genetic mother, birth-mother and social-mother. Many of the interviewing journalists I saw, with the young women who had sold their eggs, seem to have only a moral objection to these women being paid. Apparently, many journalists had no problem with these women undergoing 5-6 weeks of intrusive medical preparation, and surgery, and powerful hormonal medication - as long as they did it out of an "altruistic" motive. One young woman responded, that if we accept that people should be paid to be blood donors, or men as sperm-donors, then being paid as an egg donor is no different. In many other Western countries, the legal situation on egg-donation, embryo-donation and surrogacy is either banned, or very ambiguous. Most countries seem to prefer outlawing of any "commercial" arrangement as such; eg: in Australia, surrogacy contracts are not considered legal documents and cannot be enforced under Australian law. However, in practise, the pressure on women already undergoing IVF programs, to "donate" to "research" freely and altruistically to help other couples, ie: donate either their spare eggs retrieved early in the process, or extra embryos resulting from the process, is very strong. To me personally, its just another example of the de-humanisation of both women and children. Buy a baby to order, like buying a car, or a condo or shopping at exclusive department stores, instead of K-Mart. However, most reproductive technologies are expensive, not just in financial terms, but also in time-consumption terms and many could never afford to take the enormous chunks of time needed from their jobs for example, let alone the financial fees, in order to achieve a successful pregnancy and birth. For the fertile, the old-fashioned way is much easier. Accordingly, its most likely a technology that will remain available only to the very wealthy. For those who may be interested, in further readings/information on this issue, I have a large library and reference list (mostly non-fiction) so please contact me on private e-mail if you wish at jalc@ozemail.com.au Julieanne Post-script: A quote from Australian Commonwealth Family Law Council (1985): "The.. (Council)..considered at length the issues surrounding surrogacy......the Council supported those recommendations calling for prohibition of surrogate parenting....(and commercial arrangements for all other reproductive services)... This support was based on the opinion that the practice constituted baby-selling, that it was not in the best interests of the child, and that it was likely to lead to the exploitation of, and psychological trauma to surrogate mothers". "Even in compelling medical circumstances the danger of exploitation of one human by another appears to the majority of us, to far outweigh the potential benefits, in almost every case...... (the only possible exception, was the notion of altruistic surrogacy arrangements between close biological kin, such as siblings - as this was seen as supporting extended family relationships, and possibly being in the interests of a child conceived using such technologies)........ "That people should treat others as a means to their own ends, must always be liable to moral objection, no matter how desirable the consequences may be, or how sympathetic we may be to the personal tragedy of the desperately infertile." However, the Committee also recommended that any private arrangement should not be criminalised, and that any contractual arrangement that did occur, could not be enforced/sued/litigated under any National or State law. The child remains initially under the custody of the birth-mother regardless of egg-donation, sperm-donation or embryo-donation procedures used, or legal papers signed, or money which may have changed hands previously - as it is considered that, the birth-mother has taken the greatest risk to her own health, physical and psychological, and has had the greatest opportunity to have bonded with the infant. As with any birth-mother, if she chooses to give the child up for adoption, then that is her right to do so under child adoption laws - but she will remain the 'mother' on the child's birth registration documentation. The biological father in such cases has no more rights than any sperm-donor under artifical insemination procedures, nor does any biological mother who donated an egg to the process. Indeed, the birth-mother's husband, if any, is considered to have more rights in the determination of the infant's future, than the biological father. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:26:14 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Subject: Re: Gattaca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>I don't think Uma was supposed to be portryaed as "only the girl", my take on it was that the reason she believed that her heart defect was so bad was because she was told all her life it was, just like a child whose mother fusses over every little runny nose will grow up to believe they are sickly etc. Sonya-- As I said before, I never did see the end of the movie, but I think that you just repeated my point. Ethan Hawke's character spent his entire life being told that he was completely inferior, even more so because he had a heart condition, and yet he managed to rise above his janitorial future to become an astronaut. Uma's character just went with the flow. I was just trying to point out backhandedly that this wasn't a particularly *feminist* movie, in that the female lead was an accessory to the male. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:57:31 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sonya Subject: Re: Gattaca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Debra, Like I said I am new, these are my first postings, so I came in the middle of the thread, just another comment, Ethan Hawkes character did go with the flow, I think the turning point was when he beat his brother and that was when he realised that maybe his heart defect was not so bad after all. I just don't think that Uma was deliberately portrayed as helpless, towards the end of the movie, when she realises that Ethan was not genetically perfect, she more than likely would have had the same drive. I just believe the movies point in that regard is to show how much we believe people tell us and make it our own and it is not really a feminist issue. JMHO Sonya Debra wrote: > >>>I don't think Uma was supposed to be portryaed as "only the girl", my > take > on it was that the reason she believed that her heart defect was so bad > was because she was told all her life it was, just like a child whose > mother fusses over every little runny nose will grow up to believe they > are sickly etc. > > Sonya-- > > As I said before, I never did see the end of the movie, but I think that you > just repeated my point. Ethan Hawke's character spent his entire life being > told that he was completely inferior, even more so because he had a heart > condition, and yet he managed to rise above his janitorial future to become > an astronaut. Uma's character just went with the flow. I was just trying > to point out backhandedly that this wasn't a particularly *feminist* movie, > in that the female lead was an accessory to the male. > > Debra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:56:30 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ In-Reply-To: <199807292347.TAA06870@viking.cris.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 29 Jul 98 Caroline Couture wrote: > ps. Is anyone else having problems getting Melissa Scott's _Shadow > Man_? I ordered a copy from amazon at the beginning of June and they > are listing it as being on order from the publisher with a four to > six week time frame. I've been unable to locate it in any of my > local bookstores either. :( I have the same problems. I tried to order _Shadow Man_ in June from the German internet seller and was told that it is out of print. Then I checked it with Amazon. At that time Amazon stated that it is out of print and that they expected it to be reissued in a few months. As only a short time before the availability of SM was discussed on the list I decided not to raise the issue again but to hope for the reissue. I suppose that Amazon now searches for copies in other bookstores, otherwise I do not understand their new message. Did somebody take them up on their promise to get the book in 5-6 weeks? One possibility is to get it second hand. I've looked it up on Bibliofind ( http://www.bibliofind.com/ ). Today, they list about 15 copies in various bookstores in the US, prices between 12 and 28 US-$. However, only a few do international shipping. Another possibility might be a library nearby or the often-cited interlibrary loan. By the way, only now I realised that _Shadow Man_ was published so far only as hardcopy. Is that not against the rules of the BDG? As I myself put together the list with the books to vote for I am to blame for this oversight. My apologies to all cash-challenged BDG participants. The discussion on SM starts in October, so people who want to participate should have the book in the first weeks of September, that leaves about 5-7 weeks to get the book. I think it is to optimistic to hope for a reissue in that time. To avoid that we clutter up the list with a further discussion of this issue I propose that EVERYBODY who wants to participate in the BDG on SM sends a short message - if s/he has the book already, - if s/he has a sure way to get the book in time, - or not. Please send this message to ME (mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de) not to the list. I will post a summary of the result at the end of next week. I hope that is acceptable for all. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:26:24 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980729225307.006d2944@Silent-Running.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > Grin. Well, since you did ask... > > The issue of unused fertilized eggs I believe will become more of a legal > issue than of whether or not it is a form of abortion to dispose of > them...until the recent Irvine fertility scandal noone knew that unused > embryos were used without the permission of the couple who owned them to > help other couples in the same program to conceive children...then later on > we get the case of the woman whose husband committed suicide and who wanted > legal possession of frozen embryos that were stored away but the dead > husband's grown children objected to the unused embryos being used without > the father's expressed permission... According to U.S. media (AP in particular), when it's a question of a woman's life, health, future or the most basic right to ownership of her own body, a fertilized egg is an unborn child. When it's a question of a man's convenience, a fertilized egg is an embyro or at most, a fetus. In one article headlined _Frozen Embryo Case Settled_ concerning Junior Lewis Davis, the same newspaper that routinely refers to "unborn children" when discussing legal restrictions on women used the term "embryo" throughout this short article, and concluded with the sentence: "Davis didn't want to become a father against his will". The "unborn children" of this divorced man were destroyed by order of a Tennessee court, against the wishes of the woman the paper referred to in this article as Davis's ex-wife. In other contexts the paper has used the term mother for a person in exactly the same situation. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:16:20 -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: Gattaca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Ethan Hawke's character spent his entire life being told that he was > completely inferior, even more so because he had a heart condition, I don't think it's insignificant that he (and Uma, I think) did not _have_ a heart condition. It was statistically probable that they would have one. It wasn't clear to me how Uma's character got to the position that she did. She was apparently working within the system, somehow--perhaps with help from people like the company nurse. > I was just trying to point out backhandedly that this wasn't a > particularly *feminist* movie, in that the female lead was an > accessory to the male. I'd certainly agree that there's not much (anything?) feminist about the movie. Certainly there were only a few women in the cast, and none in any position of power. In fact, it seemed that half of the women in the movie were shown checking out the genetic makeup of their partners (apparently). That seems to me to be a rather less than empowering depiction of the gender roles in a relationship (except possibly that the woman has the implied power to veto a relationship, but the attitude of the women seemed to be anxious--implying to me that they were almost desperate for "this one to be OK"). Or perhaps both men and women are in the same position with respect to the all-powerful genetic codes. So perhaps instead of "raising women up", they "brought the men down." -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:49:55 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Gattaca In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:26 AM 7/30/98 -0700, Kathleen wrote: >According to U.S. media (AP in particular), when it's a question of a >woman's life, health, future or the most basic right to ownership of her >own body, a fertilized egg is an unborn child. When it's a question of a >man's convenience, a fertilized egg is an embyro or at most, a fetus. >In one article headlined _Frozen Embryo Case Settled_ concerning Junior >Lewis Davis, the same newspaper that routinely refers to "unborn children" >when discussing legal restrictions on women used the term "embryo" >throughout this short article, and concluded with the sentence: "Davis >didn't want to become a father against his will". > >The "unborn children" of this divorced man were destroyed by order of a >Tennessee court, against the wishes of the woman the paper referred to in >this article as Davis's ex-wife. In other contexts the paper has used the >term mother for a person in exactly the same situation. Recently here, an almost farcical situation developed, when a couple who had undergone several cycles of IVF without success, then received a bill from the clinic, for 'rental' or 'accommodation' or 'storage' for three spare embryos. The couple had divorced. The mother indicated that she would prefer the embryos destroyed, the father indicated he couldn't care less, one way or the other. To cut an increasingly absurd story short - it was eventually concluded, that the embryos in storage were equivalent to terminally brain-dead patients on life-support, and where laws allowed the next-of-kin's permission to terminate life-support, this could be done. The story received some international coverage however, and the clinic was flooded with requests to "save the babies" by allowing them to be considered as equivalent to babies relinquished for adoption. Similar to the argument used by anti-abortion campaigners. The plot thickens....:)) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:04:59 -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: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <19980730081620.I6231@canolog.ninthwonder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Allen Briggs wrote: > > I was just trying to point out backhandedly that this wasn't a > > particularly *feminist* movie, in that the female lead was an > > accessory to the male. > > I'd certainly agree that there's not much (anything?) feminist > about the movie. Certainly there were only a few women in the > cast, and none in any position of power. So the main criteria for labeling a movie "feminist" is that the main character be female or that a large number of characters be female? It doesn't matter if the themes being used are feminist? *Gattaca* is about people being forced to live up to an impossible standard of perfection. Those who don't are forever relegated to being treated like second class citizens. Every person's entire life is defined by a genetic profile and if their profile doesn't add up, then society very actively prevents people from achieving whatever goals and dreams that the person has for hirself. Isn't being free to achieve ones goals without having to overcome obstacles set by society a feminist issue? Isn't being able to define oneself instead of being "labeled" and pigeonholed a feminist issue? > In fact, it seemed that half of the women in the movie were shown > checking out the genetic makeup of their partners (apparently). That > seems to me to be a rather less than empowering depiction of the gender > roles in a relationship (except possibly that the woman has the implied > power to veto a relationship, but the attitude of the women seemed to be > anxious--implying to me that they were almost desperate for "this one to > be OK"). Or perhaps both men and women are in the same position with > respect to the all-powerful genetic codes. So perhaps instead of > "raising women up", they "brought the men down." The scene of the women checking the genetic code of their prospective partners was told from the main female characters viewpoint. This scene served to show that a persons genetic makeup was so important that relationships were based on them instead of being based on less tangible things like if a person was responsible or had a sense of humor. I think it was rather telling that Ethan Hawkes character didn't check out Uma's genetic code because he -knew- that genetics wasn't nearly as important as the inner spirit. This scene also served to show that all of the paranoid precautions that he had to take was absolutely necessary. Even a single strand of hair could give away his whole setup. > -allen Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:28:57 -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: Gattaca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > So the main criteria for labeling a movie "feminist" is that the main > character be female or that a large number of characters be female? It > doesn't matter if the themes being used are feminist? Hmmm... I think that's getting into the sticky ground of definition again, which could get us off topic. Personally, I think it's more what I call "humanist" than "feminist," and that you can call anything that's "humanist" "feminist" in a broad sense. I don't think that the issues in *Gattaca* are particular to men or women, specifically. I'm sorry if I stepped on a sore spot. However it's labelled, *Gattaca* does raise several interesting issues, and touches on several others. I didn't mean to say that it's impossible to find feminist themes in it, or that you need to have women to have a feminist theme (although I think you do need to have some aspect of the feminine--even if it's not manifested in a character). > *Gattaca* is about people being forced to live up to an impossible > standard of perfection. Those who don't are forever relegated to being > treated like second class citizens. Every person's entire life is defined > by a genetic profile and if their profile doesn't add up, then society > very actively prevents people from achieving whatever goals and dreams > that the person has for hirself. Phrased like this, it certainly does seem to be talking to the classical "ideal" [sic] that (IMO) feminism has been fighting for years. > This scene also served to show that all of the paranoid > precautions that he had to take was absolutely necessary. Even a single > strand of hair could give away his whole setup. This part of that scene was a part of just about every scene in the movie, as I remember. :-) In fact, I can't think of a scene where the knowledge and tension wasn't there at all. -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:54:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ In-Reply-To: <199807300756.JAA10657@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > > By the way, only now I realised that _Shadow Man_ was > published so far only as hardcopy. Is that not against the rules of > the BDG? As I myself put together the list with the books to vote for > I am to blame for this oversight. My apologies to all cash-challenged > BDG participants. > Petra, Shadow Man has also been issued in a trade paperback by Tor for something like $12-$14 U.S. I've seen it at the local Borders bookstore. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:28:20 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found it at Powell's. It's an "oversized paperback" (like Black Wine and Slow River and The Sparrow are). That's why it's that expensive. (is that the difference between "trade paperback" and "mass-market paperback"? The "mass-market" ones are the "normal" size?) I'd be more than willing to send my copy to someone that can't find it. I've already read it, and it's not one I feel any need to hang on to. I could also go back to Powell's and see if they have any more copies on the shelf. It's not listed on their online database (www.powells.com), but I know there was more than one copy when I bought mine last month. -Sandy slc@teleport.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Marc Levy [mailto:levymm@UWEC.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:55 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ > > > On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > > > > > By the way, only now I realised that _Shadow Man_ was > > published so far only as hardcopy. Is that not against the rules of > > the BDG? As I myself put together the list with the books > to vote for > > I am to blame for this oversight. My apologies to all > cash-challenged > > BDG participants. > > > > Petra, > > Shadow Man has also been issued in a trade paperback by Tor > for something > like $12-$14 U.S. I've seen it at the local Borders bookstore. > > Mike Levy > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:14:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Male Characters (was: Gattaca) In-Reply-To: <19980730102856.N6231@canolog.ninthwonder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Allen Briggs wrote: > > So the main criteria for labeling a movie "feminist" is that the main > > character be female or that a large number of characters be female? It > > doesn't matter if the themes being used are feminist? (snip) > I'm sorry if I stepped on a sore spot. However it's labelled, > *Gattaca* does raise several interesting issues, and touches on > several others. I didn't mean to say that it's impossible to find > feminist themes in it, or that you need to have women to have a > feminist theme (although I think you do need to have some aspect > of the feminine--even if it's not manifested in a character). (Laughs) It wasn't a sore spot just a matter of curiosity on my part. It just seems to me that a lot of books (and the occasional movie) that have been discussed on this list is labeled "feminist" or "not feminist" on the basis on whether or not the main character is female (or whether or not there are a lot of female characters). To bring this back on topic for this list: are there any books that are feminist that have a main character that is male? Or have a majority of male characters? > -allen Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:15:16 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: SHADOW MAN / remainders Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think we need to discuss availability of this semi-quickly, for the benefit of those who need a long lead time to read and/or obtain books. AFAIK, this is NOT available from the publisher (which is why I don't think even Amazon is filling its orders). I know we can't get it. Should we choose a differnt work by Melissa Scott? ~~~~~~~ Remaindered books are somewhere in the grey area between new books and used books. The majority of them are hardcovers which have been discounted to "paperback prices" following the release of the same title in paperback. Sometimes, more rarely, they are paperbacks. Almost all of them are marked in some way to indicate that they are not new retail books, to prevent them from being returned to the publisher for credit at the original retail price and discount. (eg. being sprayed with paint on the bottom edge, or having a stamp or marker on the bottom across the pages, or having a hold or corner punched out in the case of mass market books.) They show up in a variety of outlets, from regular bookstores to supermarkets {those large cardboard bins one occasionally sees} to "dollar stores." Once a book is remaindered, an author no longer receives royalties on its sales. Often an author will have an opportunity to buy a portion of her books before they are released to the remainder vendors. That's where the folks in Basement Full of Books generally get their copies, I think. The thing I like about remainders is that they can be a good way to pick up books I didn't realize I was going to be interested in when they were new, at a low price. The bad news is that I think the system is flawed, and would really like to see it implement some changes. I'd like to see a system where books could be remaindered in place, saving shipping damage and shipping charges. Don't know if that will ever happen, though. Remaindered books are different from "hurts," which are books which are marked down because of damage, and "strips," which are mass market paperbacks or magazines or calendars where the front cover only has been returned to the publisher for credit, and the book should be destroyed. As I've mentioned on the list before, I think, ours are not only double stripped by being torn in half, but we share our dumpster with the fish market and Chinese restaurants in our mall. No one is going to "fish" out a stripped book we dumped and read it, trust me! :) 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 Jul 1998 13:53:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robert Barrett Subject: Re: Male Characters (was: Gattaca) In-Reply-To: from "Stacey Holbrook" at Jul 30, 98 12:14:35 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sic scribit Stacey Holbrook: > > To bring this back on topic for this list: are there any books that are > feminist that have a main character that is male? Or have a majority of > male characters? > Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction. Both *Left Hand of Darkness* (Genly Ai, Estraven) and *Dispossessed* (Shevek) are feminist novels, IMHO, even if their feminism is fitful and somewhat vexed. See "Coming of Age in Karhide" and "Matter of Seggri" for what I feel are Le Guin's attempts to revisit the Ekumen from a more developed feminist perspective (as well as *Four Ways to Forgiveness*); "Is Gender Necessary? Redux" in the latest version of *Language of the Night* is a good place to go for Le Guin's own thoughts about where she made mistakes and where she got it right. Best, Rob -- Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-mail: rbarrett@dept.english.upenn.edu * World Wide Web: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/index.html * Garden shrugged. "I see no reason to give the Heroes priority. The world is a One Twist Ring: we affect the Mist, the Mist affects the real world. Stories from one get told in the other." - Sean Stewart, _Clouds End_ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:11:02 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Male Characters (was: Gattaca) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/30/98 5:15:51 PM, Stacey wrote: <> I would suggest David Weber's Honor Harrington series. Certainly it's a man's space world where Honor operates, but there are female characters in various important technical functions (captaining ships, running the cargo bay, etc), and the books often deal with men who don't respond warmly to women in high capacities. Honor's antagonists are men, however, some of them motivated by jealousy or even patriarchal fervor. Then, too, Honor herself is attempting to overthrow a patriarchy on her Statehold. Come to think of it, there are a lot of women in high places, including the Queen. The series also could be used as an example of another topic we've discussed here -- that of the "beautiful" heroine. Honor is beautiful, was an ugly duckling as a child, and fairly early in the series (about book 3 I think) was shot in the face. Medicine reconstructs it, but it is described as being not quite what it was. An interesting idea. These books are space operas to be sure, but I love them. best wishes, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:30:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Male Characters (was: Gattaca) In-Reply-To: <199807301753.NAA61352@dept.english.upenn.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Robert Barrett wrote: > Sic scribit Stacey Holbrook: > > > > To bring this back on topic for this list: are there any books that are > > feminist that have a main character that is male? Or have a majority of > > male characters? > > > *Four Ways to Forgiveness*); This is a very good example. The last? story of the four is about a man who fights for the rights of women. The story is about him rather than specifically the feminist movement. There is no doubt that it is a feminist story. I recommend it highly. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:54:36 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: Male Characters (was: Gattaca) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey Holbrook wrote: > To bring this back on topic for this list: are there any books that > are feminist that have a main character that is male? Or have a > majority of male characters? Suzy McKee Charnas' *Walk to the End of the World* has three prominent male characters and one prominent female character. (In contrast, the second book in the series, *Motherlines* has NO male characters.) As I recall (it's been a couple of years since I read it), there are separate sections devoted to the viewpoint of each character, the woman (or "fem" as all women are known in this dystopian future) coming last. Each of the male characters is a fully realized person, but each is focussed on his own agenda. That makes the power of the fem's viewpoint immense when you get to it and see that she is so much more aware of the others than they are of her -- and she makes obvious the underpinnings of some of the bizarre ideas the men have. She is so much more aware because she has to be to survive in a world where women are treated even more abominably than black slaves in the American south. Definitely feminist and very good. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Faith and the Muse -- Elyria "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:02:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Gattaca -- frozen embrios In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980729225307.006d2944@Silent-Running.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Interesting. It means, basically, that all one has to do is to get some of her eggs, fertilize them with whoever she wants to be a father, then stick them in the freezer and wait till she's ready to have children. No need to worry that the guy whose children you'd like to have gets killed, moves to Antarctics, or walks out on you. Even if you have you ovaries removed, you'll still be able to have children. Can they freeze the eggs by themselves or they have to be fertilized? If they can, then you don't even have to worry about finding a father right away. I like this idea. I think it's actually kind of nice. Concerning the "rights of the embrios", it really becomes the question when a person becomes a person. I believe that it happens at birth, so embrios are no more people than a piece of one's skin that could be used for cloning. Even real children up to the age of 18 are still pretty much their parents' property (despite all those laws meant to protect them). At least embrios do not have a brain or a nervous system and therefore do not feel pain from being abused. It seems that all this deal with cloning and in-vitro fertilization would make humans kind of like plants: two ways to reproduce -- a) using seeds (embrios); b) whatever it's called when you take a branch of a tree and stick it into a ground to make another tree (which would correspond to cloning). The same as with plants, you have to use many seeds to have at least few to survive. Who knows, maybe plants used to be sentient species as well ... Any sf books on that topic? Marina On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > And, if the couple breaks up, they either both give > permission for one or both of them to share in the resulting embryos in > storage or the eggs are destroyed after a time where it is determined the > resulting eggs would no longer be viable for use. > > Now I am going to go get some ice water it is 110 degrees in the shade grin. > > Jo Ann > > > > > At 04:54 PM 7/29/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Not to open a HUGE can of worms, but just interested...couldn't this be > >considered a form of abortion (eggs are fertilized but discarded as is my > >understanding)? I mean, many believe that life begins at the point of > >conception, which is what is basically being done here. I personally > >don't subscribe to a "life begins here" doctrine...but was intersted in > >what people thought. It still scares the living crap out of me on one > >hand...on the other, it's fascinating. > > > >-mark > > > > > >On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > > > >> There's already at least one doctor in Britain who provides a service where > >> couples can pre-determine the sex of their soon-to-be children, according to > >> a show I saw (the focus of the show was couples who had children with fatal > >> genetic problems, and how they could pay lots of money to have a lot of eggs > >> fertilized in vitro, and only the "good" ones re-introduced into the > >> mother). > >> > >> The one person they interviewed who was going to the doctor in Britain was > >> really glad that he was offering this service, because it meant that she > >> could finally have a baby boy (she already had 3 or 4 girls). That's what > >> scares me about this kind of thing. > >> > >> -Sandy > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: ME Hunter [mailto:hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG] > >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 11:18 AM > >> > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >> > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gattaca > >> > > >> > > >> > I liked GATTACA, as I mentioned earlier, partly because of > >> > the dehumanizing > >> > qualities of it. Certainly it was dystopian, but with the > >> > ever increasing > >> > possibility that genetic engineering will someday be > >> > possible, I think it's > >> > an issue worthyof consideration. I'd love to think that we'd avoid the > >> > hubris of trying to create a more perfect human being, but I > >> > think that when > >> > the service is offerred and affordable, many parents will choose to do > >> > it. We all want the very best for our children and this could > >> > easily seem > >> > the way to get it. > >> > > > >--------------------------- > >http://scratch.hellyeah.com > >wage@hellyeah.com > >put your soul in ascii > > > > > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:12:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980730124026.007af4d0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree with you on this one, Julieanne. I'm not sure if paid donation of eggs and emrios is against women and children, but it's definetly exploitation. All I ever donated was blood plasma, three days ago (gotta pay the bills, you know). I did not like the procedure, and I did not like everything that surrounded it either. First of all, the process itself is about two hours of sheer hell. Maybe it's not as bad when you are not 30 pounds underweight like I am, but I would describe it as extremely unpleasant experience. Basically, they pump out your blood, separate plasma (the liquid part) from red and white cells, and then return the cells back into your body. Imagine being connected to an electric vampire for two hours, continiosly sucking life out of you, while you sit there, fully aware of what's happening, and having to watch some totally idiotic movie on top of everything. Self-inflicted torture would be a very nice way to describe it. This plasma-donating center is located in one of the most run-down areas of Oklahoma City. It's probably the only building in the neigborhood without bars on the windows. The majority of donors seemed to be very, very poor people from housing projects and trailer parks; teenage mothers; and individuals who are commonly referred to as "crack heads". The walls in the bathroom were covered with hand-written advertisements of sex services: "if you want to get your p.. eaten, call this number". Lots and lots of them. With phone numbers scratched away, painted over, and still new ones. In the initial "assessment of new donors" the nurse asked me several questions on AIDS awareness. The one we've got into an argument about was "Do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to donate plasma?" I said: "If they practice safe sex, why not?" The nurse stopped writing and said : "No, homosexuals are always in high risk group, because of the kind of sex they practice!" I asked her what if they were using condoms. She said, they were still in high-risk group, because they did anal sex. I asked -- what about women who practiced anal sex. She said: "Yeah, you're right, but it's not how it's written here. The book says homosexuals should not be allowed to donate blood, so they should not be allowed. Even if one had one homosexual contact since 1977, they are in high-risk group". That nurse also asked me where I had learned to speak American. There were so many people there, it shocked me. Many donors were coming several times a week. The center actually had a contest -- those who donated plasma 7 times in August, got a chance to win $500. Every additional donation after 7 would earn you one more chance. Up to ten. Which means going through this lovely experience once every three days. I seemed to be the only one there bothered by that idea. Everyone else seemed excited, and the technician in the blood-sucking room proudly told me that it was something new. They had sweepstakes before, but never for as much as $500. Finally, you know how much one gets paid for this? They gave me $25 (should have been 20, but I had a coupon from the school paper). The second time, it's 30. Then, it goes down to 19, 9, and stays on that. But people keep coming nevertheless. I don't know if that place was as creepy as it seemed to me, but I sure did not like it. It also made me worried about the possibility of ever being a blood plasma recepient. With all those questioning about risky behaviors, a certain percentage of fellow donors sure looked like they were shooting dope. And 90% percent of them simply did not look healthy. Which won't be surprising, knowing that they had been loosing a couple of quarts of blood plasma every three days. For lousy 9 bucks and the prospect of winning 500 -- a little more than a minimum wage for a week. That was just plasma donation. After all, plasma is recovered in the one's body in two days (or so they told me). It's been three days and I still feel like hell. I don't even want to know what egg donation is like, and what its effects could be. It's nice to know that there is technology that would allow me to have (my) children through in-vitro fertilization if I can not conceive naturally. I also like the idea of storing frozen embrios (_my_ embrios, not purchased from someone) in case I get ovarian cancer or something. But making people donate their body parts for pennies, in my opinion, is exploitation. And a pretty ugly one. It might help people who cannot get their own eggs, but I'd rather stick with cloning myself. Marina On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > At 03:53 PM 7/29/98 -0700, Jo Ann wrote: > >Grin. Well, since you did ask... > > > >The issue of unused fertilized eggs I believe will become more of a legal > >issue than of whether or not it is a form of abortion to dispose of > >them...(snip) > > In California, there are already agencies and third-party 'brokers' > capitalising on buying and obtaining healthy eggs from younger women, to > use in commercial IVF programs. There are several couples in recent years, > who buy eggs from suitable (usually younger women in their 20's); then > contract for a surrogate womb to carry the pregnancy. This has led to > concepts such as children born of such procedures having 3 mothers: genetic > mother, birth-mother and social-mother. > Many of the interviewing journalists I saw, with the young women who had > sold their eggs, seem to have only a moral objection to these women being > paid. Apparently, many journalists had no problem with these women > undergoing 5-6 weeks of intrusive medical preparation, and surgery, and > powerful hormonal medication - as long as they did it out of an > "altruistic" motive. One young woman responded, that if we accept that > people should be paid to be blood donors, or men as sperm-donors, then > being paid as an egg donor is no different. > > In many other Western countries, the legal situation on egg-donation, > embryo-donation and surrogacy is either banned, or very ambiguous. Most > countries seem to prefer outlawing of any "commercial" arrangement as such; > eg: in Australia, surrogacy contracts are not considered legal documents > and cannot be enforced under Australian law. However, in practise, the > pressure on women already undergoing IVF programs, to "donate" to > "research" freely and altruistically to help other couples, ie: donate > either their spare eggs retrieved early in the process, or extra embryos > resulting from the process, is very strong. > > To me personally, its just another example of the de-humanisation of both > women and children. Buy a baby to order, like buying a car, or a condo or > shopping at exclusive department stores, instead of K-Mart. However, most > reproductive technologies are expensive, not just in financial terms, but > also in time-consumption terms and many could never afford to take the > enormous chunks of time needed from their jobs for example, let alone the > financial fees, in order to achieve a successful pregnancy and birth. For > the fertile, the old-fashioned way is much easier. Accordingly, its most > likely a technology that will remain available only to the very wealthy. > > For those who may be interested, in further readings/information on this > issue, I have a large library and reference list (mostly non-fiction) so > please contact me on private e-mail if you wish at jalc@ozemail.com.au > > > Julieanne > > > Post-script: > > A quote from Australian Commonwealth Family Law Council (1985): > > "The.. (Council)..considered at length the issues surrounding > surrogacy......the Council supported those recommendations calling for > prohibition of surrogate parenting....(and commercial arrangements for all > other reproductive services)... > This support was based on the opinion that the practice constituted > baby-selling, that it was not in the best interests of the child, and that > it was likely to lead to the exploitation of, and psychological trauma to > surrogate mothers". > > "Even in compelling medical circumstances the danger of exploitation of one > human by another appears to the majority of us, to far outweigh the > potential benefits, in almost every case...... (the only possible > exception, was the notion of altruistic surrogacy arrangements between > close biological kin, such as siblings - as this was seen as supporting > extended family relationships, and possibly being in the interests of a > child conceived using such technologies)........ > > "That people should treat others as a means to their own ends, must always > be liable to moral objection, no matter how desirable the consequences may > be, or how sympathetic we may be to the personal tragedy of the desperately > infertile." > > However, the Committee also recommended that any private arrangement should > not be criminalised, and that any contractual arrangement that did occur, > could not be enforced/sued/litigated under any National or State law. The > child remains initially under the custody of the birth-mother regardless of > egg-donation, sperm-donation or embryo-donation procedures used, or legal > papers signed, or money which may have changed hands previously - > as it is considered that, the birth-mother has taken the greatest risk to > her own health, physical and psychological, and has had the greatest > opportunity to have bonded with the infant. As with any birth-mother, if > she chooses to give the child up for adoption, then that is her right to do > so under child adoption laws - but she will remain the 'mother' on the > child's birth registration documentation. The biological father in such > cases has no more rights than any sperm-donor under artifical insemination > procedures, nor does any biological mother who donated an egg to the > process. Indeed, the birth-mother's husband, if any, is considered to have > more rights in the determination of the infant's future, than the > biological father. > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:03:01 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne Vespry Subject: Re: BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ In-Reply-To: <199807300756.JAA10657@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I know there's a copy at Ottawa's "After Stonewall" Bookshop (I work there and I checked). The Bookshop takes Visa, Mastercard or cash, mail-order is at cost of book ($19.95 Canadian -- a real steal for Americans considering the exchange rate!) + mailing costs. Canadians can call toll free 1-888-READ GAY, for everyone else, try (613) 567-2221. It pays to remember lesbian and gay or women's bookshops, we often have genre books that have sold out elsewhere, and we tend not to do returns quite as quickly as generic bookshops. Anne (who also thinks she saw copies of _Shadow Man_ at Toronto's Glad Day bookshop a couple of weeks ago, but isn't sure.) Anne Vespry ******* http://www.vex.net/~maverick After Stonewall Bookshop ***** never forget avespry(at) *** only dead fish ollisdotuottawadotca * swim WITH the stream ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:13:27 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:12 PM 7/30/98 -0500, Marina wrote: >All I ever donated was blood plasma, three days ago (gotta pay the bills, >you know). I did not like the procedure, and I did not like everything that >surrounded it either. > >(snip) >Finally, you know how much one gets paid for this? They gave me $25 >(should have been 20, but I had a coupon from the school paper). The >second time, it's 30. Then, it goes down to 19, 9, and stays on that. >But people keep coming nevertheless. > >That was just plasma donation. After all, plasma is recovered in the >one's body in two days (or so they told me). It's been three days and I >still feel like hell. I don't even want to know what egg donation is like, >and what its effects could be. > >It's nice to know that there is technology that would allow me to have (my) >children through in-vitro fertilization if I can not conceive naturally. I >also like the idea of storing frozen embrios (_my_ embrios, not purchased >from someone) in case I get ovarian cancer or something. But making people >donate their body parts for pennies, in my opinion, is exploitation. And >a pretty ugly one. > Marina - Thank you:) I did not realise the situation concerning blood plasma donation. Here all you get is a warm fuzzy feeling and a cuppa tea:) LOL - as well as some bumper-stickers and collar-buttons etc saying "Be Nice To Me - I'm a Red Cross Donor", and sweets and a chocolate snack-bar or equivalent:) About twice a year the Blood-Buses go around work-places, offices, factories, businesses, shops, universities etc - employers/school admin allow you to donate blood/blood products in work-time without loss of pay/study credits etc. - for the "fuzzy" feeling - and a neon bumper-sticker:) But as for other things to be sold - there has been illicit trade in Asia mostly, for years to supply body-parts for wealthy Westerners - poverty is all relative, crack-heads in the USA may look exploited for donating plasma for peanuts, but Indians and Thais are selling one of their kidneys, or one of their eyes for corneal transplants etc for the cost of about 2-month's food for their family. Many African nations can't get basic medical care and products like bandages or sterilisation autoclaves for clinic instruments - unless the patient signs for sterilisation, neither they or their children will be treated for anything. Two million Kenyan women were sterilised without their consent last year alone, and because of the lack of medicines and drugs - most of these operations were performed with almost useless local anaesthetic only. Now that must *hurt* in my mind. On top of that, many had gone to the medical clinics in the first place, with sick kids, and not for themselves, and they couldn't even be given basic Over-The-Counter cough medicines for their kids. So..while we in the West moralise over what to do with frozen embryos, and whether they are real babies or not, and who should "own" them, or sell them - all the "invisible" peoples are selling their eyes, kidneys, etc and their own fertility for a bottle of cough mixture. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:01:15 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, Just a clarification on my posting of the frozen embryo case - I wasn't at that point arguing the morality of abortion, just pointing out how incredibly painlessly, easily and apparently invisibly the media skip from one about-face to the other. It seems to depend mostly on whether or not the almost invariably white, male, middle to upper class editors and writers share membership with the group whose rights are in question. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:59:41 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG reminder: Alien Influences discussion starts Monday 8/3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's not as big as Mists of Avalon, so if you haven't started it yet, it's not too late. If you haven't picked it up yet, put this on your shopping list: Rusch, Kristine Kathryn Alien Influences ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:30:22 -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: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980731101327.007be570@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As for the red-cross busses that give you sweets...isn't that donating blood? I've donated plasma before...and it's my understanding that you don't need extra sugar because your blood is put back in. AND, to replace the plasma, they put a room temperature bag of saline into you. All i have to say is that is wonderful on a hot day ; ) -mark On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > At 03:12 PM 7/30/98 -0500, Marina wrote: > > >All I ever donated was blood plasma, three days ago (gotta pay the bills, > >you know). I did not like the procedure, and I did not like everything that > >surrounded it either. > > > >(snip) > > >Finally, you know how much one gets paid for this? They gave me $25 > >(should have been 20, but I had a coupon from the school paper). The > >second time, it's 30. Then, it goes down to 19, 9, and stays on that. > >But people keep coming nevertheless. > > > >That was just plasma donation. After all, plasma is recovered in the > >one's body in two days (or so they told me). It's been three days and I > >still feel like hell. I don't even want to know what egg donation is like, > >and what its effects could be. > > > >It's nice to know that there is technology that would allow me to have (my) > >children through in-vitro fertilization if I can not conceive naturally. I > >also like the idea of storing frozen embrios (_my_ embrios, not purchased > >from someone) in case I get ovarian cancer or something. But making people > >donate their body parts for pennies, in my opinion, is exploitation. And > >a pretty ugly one. > > > > Marina - Thank you:) I did not realise the situation concerning blood > plasma donation. Here all you get is a warm fuzzy feeling and a cuppa tea:) > LOL - as well as some bumper-stickers and collar-buttons etc saying "Be > Nice To Me - I'm a Red Cross Donor", and sweets and a chocolate snack-bar > or equivalent:) > About twice a year the Blood-Buses go around work-places, offices, > factories, businesses, shops, universities etc - employers/school admin > allow you to donate blood/blood products in work-time without loss of > pay/study credits etc. - for the "fuzzy" feeling - and a neon bumper-sticker:) > > But as for other things to be sold - there has been illicit trade in Asia > mostly, for years to supply body-parts for wealthy Westerners - poverty is > all relative, crack-heads in the USA may look exploited for donating plasma > for peanuts, but Indians and Thais are selling one of their kidneys, or one > of their eyes for corneal transplants etc for the cost of about 2-month's > food for their family. Many African nations can't get basic medical care > and products like bandages or sterilisation autoclaves for clinic > instruments - unless the patient signs for sterilisation, neither they or > their children will be treated for anything. Two million Kenyan women were > sterilised without their consent last year alone, and because of the lack > of medicines and drugs - most of these operations were performed with > almost useless local anaesthetic only. Now that must *hurt* in my mind. On > top of that, many had gone to the medical clinics in the first place, with > sick kids, and not for themselves, and they couldn't even be given basic > Over-The-Counter cough medicines for their kids. > > So..while we in the West moralise over what to do with frozen embryos, and > whether they are real babies or not, and who should "own" them, or sell > them - all the "invisible" peoples are selling their eyes, kidneys, etc and > their own fertility for a bottle of cough mixture. > > > Julieanne > --------------------------- http://scratch.hellyeah.com wage@hellyeah.com put your soul in ascii ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:18:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Byrne Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [some off-topic, some not! -- Tepper, Hopkinson, Levin] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Two million Kenyan women were > > sterilised without their consent last year alone, and because of the lack > > of medicines and drugs - most of these operations were performed with > > almost useless local anaesthetic only. I didn't know this (I have lived in Kenya and done research on fertility there) and would be interested in the source of the info. Questionable sterilizations go on all over the world, e.g. Bangladesh is a big one. And China. There's a PBS film, "China's Only Child," which shows a woman in her 7th month of pregnancy being pressured to have an abortion. We follow later follow her to a clinic and observe a saline injection into her abdomen. BTW, one of the worst horrors of Kenya and other African countries where abortion is illegal (90 percent of Kenya's population, including the president, is Christian) is that obstetric wards are filled with septic abortion cases. There is a movement now in Kenya to halt this crisis by beginning to provide safe legal abortion. These cases blur the boundaries between what it means to be "pro life" or "pro choice." Tepper's Gate to Women's County has some questionable reproductive tampering. Not going to say more because I don't want to get into spoilage. And -- any of you remember Ira Levin's book, This Perfect Day? It was one of the first science fiction books I read. Folks were injected with chemicals to keep them from reproducing, that is, unless they were selected to reproduce -- and babies were raised elsewhere. The protagonists eventually escape and join a community where folks revert to having babies the old way. Am reading Nalo Hopkinson's first book, Brown Girl in the Ring, which begins with folks scheming to capture a live human to harvest body parts. This is Canadian Afro-Caribbean science fiction. You can hear Hopkinson's characters speaking, much like you can hear Mark Twain's characters speaking. Very enjoyable reading, and a great cover too. Candice ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:00:28 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: SHADOW MAN clarification Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, trade paperback or "quality" paperbacks are generally the oversized ones, rather than the mass market sized or rack sized ones. (however, the term is also sometimes used to distinguish paperbacks of any size which are only returnable in full copies, rather than cover only. See previous message on remainders and returns) SHADOW MAN was published by Tor in both hardcover and trade paperback. (which means it did not violate the "paperback only" rule for BDG. ) The tp is no longer available at the publisher , and although Amazon lists the hardcover, well, I wouldn't place any bets... I'm glad to see so many folks helping others out with obtaining this title, and feel bad that once we sold the 2 we had in stock when the reading list was selected, we have been unable to get more and help y'all out. 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: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:06:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [some off-topic, some not! -- Tepper, Hopkinson, Levin] In-Reply-To: <35C1D219.A240605F@athenet.net> (message from Daniel Byrne on Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:18:01 -0500) Daniel Byrne's post about various facets of the abortion issue, worldwide and in sf, made me think about the fact that while I often look at parents and think that I wish there were a licensing board for parents, I would never support such a system, because I absolutely do not trust any agency I can imagine to make such judgements actually based on merit, not financial or political concerns. E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 04:23:21 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [some off-topic, some not! -- Tepper, Hopkinson, Levin] In-Reply-To: <35C1D219.A240605F@athenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Candice: >I didn't know this (snip)[re sterilisations] and >would be interested in the source of the info. Questionable sterilizations go on >all over the world,......There's a PBS film,>"China's Only Child," which shows a woman in her 7th month of pregnancy being>pressured to have an abortion. We follow later follow her to a clinic and observe>a saline injection into her abdomen. Yes, I remember seeing that documentary several years ago, when I was at a similar stage of pregnancy - my heart went out to the woman. As for the information concerning Kenya, I saw that on a recent documentary program here in Australia - I believe it is a recent British Channel 4 production. The best info I could find on the programme since I have thrown my TV Guide away for last week is at the URL: http://www.abc.net.au/tvpub/highlite/inside31.htm In case they change the URL - The name of the programme was "Against Nature:The Myth of Too Many" - Part 2 of a series looking at the international Green environmental movement covered under Australia's ABC's "Inside Story" series of documentaries. > >BTW, one of the worst horrors of Kenya and other African countries where abortion is >illegal (90 percent of Kenya's population, including the president, is Christian) is >that obstetric wards are filled with septic abortion cases. Yes, I know - I have followed reproductive technologies issues for over 15 years now - one of the moral "double-standards" I find a problem, is the use of IUD's - as these are not contraceptives - they do not prevent conception, but prevent implantation - and hence are technically speaking "abortifacients" - a small distinction perhaps, given the uncertainties surrounding them. Nonetheless - one of the scenes in the above programme, showed a woman requesting to have an IUD removed. Despite severe anaemia from heavy blood loss - the woman's request was refused. > >Tepper's Gate to Women's County has some questionable reproductive tampering. Not >going to say more because I don't want to get into spoilage. No need, I have read the book twice:) > >And -- any of you remember Ira Levin's book, This Perfect Day? It was one of the >first science fiction books I read. Folks were injected with chemicals to keep >them from reproducing, that is, unless they were selected to reproduce -- and babies >were raised elsewhere. The protagonists eventually escape and join a community >where folks revert to having babies the old way. I vaguely remember it - also, as a teenager, I recall reading "heisenberg principle" ? ( I am getting vague - Heinlein or Herbert?) - where the population were genetically engineered, some were immortal, but always sterile, of the remainder - most were sterile - some were fertile, and the story surrounded a fertile couple, who had somehow conceived a fertile-immortal embryo:) >Am reading Nalo Hopkinson's first book, Brown Girl in the Ring, which begins with >folks scheming to capture a live human to harvest body parts. This is Canadian >Afro-Caribbean science fiction. You can hear Hopkinson's characters speaking, much >like you can hear Mark Twain's characters speaking. Very enjoyable reading, and a >great cover too. Thanks - will chase it up:) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:21:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Byrne Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies, overpopulation and sf topics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BB7F5956263DB11C56DC2845" --------------BB7F5956263DB11C56DC2845 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ME Hunter wrote: > Daniel Byrne's post about various facets of the abortion issue, worldwide > and in sf, made me think about the fact that while I often look at parents > and think that I wish there were a licensing board for parents, I would > never support such a system, because I absolutely do not trust any agency I > can imagine to make such judgements actually based on merit, not financial > or political concerns. I just realized something about my earlier querry about sf focusing on overpopulation. Thanks all of you who sent suggestions, by the way. Somebody pointed out that overpopulation-focused sf seems to cluster earlier in the century, and not much has been written lately. However, I see now that there's an incredible amount of contemporary sf centered around reproductive technology and its abuse. It is as though our fears have shifted. Perhaps the turning fertility tide -- the fact that most of the world's nations have entered fertility transition -- has made overpopulation issues less interesting to us. I've seen various stats, but the one I remember best is the prediction that world population will rise until about 2020, (because it takes time for children born in smaller families to reach reproducive age and themselves produce fewer children), but then world population will decline. Still, world population will be several billion more than it is today, and there will probably be some strain on the global food supply as we get into the second decade of the 21st century. Rising population is compounded by the spread of capitalism and rising living standards throughout the world. In other words, nations in the "south" with high fertility ending in the 1980s and early 1990s are (and these things are connected) also producing more educated populations with desires for material goods, commerical beef products, computers, electricity, pulp fiction, etc. (why should we in the north, with our heavy ecological footprints, be the only ones with goodies?). So the crisis is not over. We are merely complacent. But fears about controlling reproduction -- these seem nearly universal. Of course, evolution selects (by definition) for individuals who reproduce. To consciously slow or curtail reproduction perhaps creates a conflict, making ripe and frightening material for sf drama. It hits in that deep place -- the terror of annihilation, etc. I am reminded of several Tepper books -- Grass, The Gate to Women's Country, Family Tree -- all explore fertility regulation and genetic or phenotypic selection in some way. China's situation is like a '60s sf novel come true. For China there is little choice. China faces a classic Malthusian showdown. There will not be enough food unless difficult reproductive decision are made now. Perhaps the terror of China's situation lies partly in the horror and impossibility of the available choices. This dilemma -- fears about reproductive technology and limitation -- pervades contemporary science fiction, while the overpopulation issue seems to be, as somebody pointed out, merely background. Candice Bradley --------------BB7F5956263DB11C56DC2845 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ME Hunter wrote:
Daniel Byrne's post about various facets of the abortion issue, worldwide
and in sf, made me think about the fact that while I often look at parents
and think that I wish there were a licensing board for parents, I would
never support such a system, because I absolutely do not trust any agency I
can imagine to make such judgements actually based on merit, not financial
or political concerns.
I just realized something about my earlier querry about sf focusing on overpopulation.  Thanks all of you who sent suggestions, by the way.  Somebody  pointed out that overpopulation-focused sf seems to cluster earlier in the century, and not much has been written lately.   However, I see now that there's an incredible amount of contemporary sf centered around reproductive technology and its abuse.    It is as though our fears have shifted.

Perhaps the turning fertility tide -- the fact that most of the world's nations have entered fertility transition -- has made overpopulation issues less interesting to us.   I've seen various stats, but the one I remember best is the prediction that world population will rise until about 2020, (because it takes time for children born in smaller families to reach reproducive age and themselves produce fewer children), but then world population will decline.   Still, world population will be several billion more than it is today, and there will probably be some strain on the global food supply as we get into the second decade of the 21st century.    Rising population is compounded by the spread of capitalism and rising living standards throughout the world.   In other words, nations in the "south" with high fertility ending in the 1980s and early 1990s are (and these things are connected) also producing more educated populations with desires for material goods, commerical beef products, computers, electricity, pulp fiction, etc. (why should we in the north, with our heavy ecological footprints, be the only ones with goodies?).   So the crisis is not over.   We are merely complacent.

But fears about controlling reproduction -- these seem nearly universal.   Of course, evolution selects (by definition) for individuals who reproduce.  To consciously slow or curtail reproduction perhaps creates a conflict, making ripe and frightening material for sf drama.   It hits in that deep place -- the terror of annihilation, etc.   I am reminded of several Tepper books -- Grass, The Gate to Women's Country, Family Tree -- all explore fertility regulation and genetic or phenotypic selection in some way.

China's situation is like a '60s sf novel come true.   For China there is little choice.   China faces a classic Malthusian showdown.   There will not be enough food unless difficult reproductive decision are made now.    Perhaps the terror of China's situation lies partly in the horror and impossibility of the available choices.

This dilemma -- fears about reproductive technology and limitation -- pervades contemporary science fiction, while the overpopulation issue seems to be, as somebody pointed out, merely background.

Candice Bradley --------------BB7F5956263DB11C56DC2845-- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 04:39:22 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [some off-topic, some not! -- Tepper, Hopkinson, Levin] In-Reply-To: <199807311706.NAA03226@apocalypse.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:06 PM 7/31/98 -0400, M E Hunter wrote: >Daniel Byrne's post about various facets of the abortion issue, worldwide >and in sf, made me think about the fact that while I often look at parents >and think that I wish there were a licensing board for parents, I would >never support such a system, because I absolutely do not trust any agency I >can imagine to make such judgements actually based on merit, not financial >or political concerns. > You may wish to read _Sex & Destiny:The Politics of Human Fertility_ (Greer, 1984). One of my favourite sections in the book deals with concepts of: "The last power of the powerless, is fertility" - hence, tampering with it, is often the "Final Solution" of exercising power of one group over another. The author also makes a point that attacking children, or the young of a species by its own adults, is extremely rare in Nature, its a form of species-suicide or self-destruction - usually only under severe stress will a population start to display such aberrant behaviour. (and even then in Nature it is usually the female of the species, eg. will eat their own young, or some species have developed re-absorption processes during pregnancy when food and water are scarce) Also, it is noted that global spending on human reproductive technologies is second only to global defence spending. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 22:38:12 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [off-topic] In-Reply-To: <35C1D219.A240605F@athenet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Two million Kenyan women were > sterilised without their consent last year alone, and because of the > lack of medicines and drugs - most of these operations were performed > with almost useless local anaesthetic only. The CIA 1997 World Factbook estimated the 1997 Kenyan female population of women between 15-64 is 7 696 504. Even allowing for the fact that girls younger than 15 may bear children, 2 million is about 25% of the female population! When I checked this story with a friend on the Daily Nation, he laughed at me. I'd be grateful for more info so that, if necessary, I could follow it up on the ground. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:42:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice M Bogstad Subject: baltimore worldcon membership for sale-last call Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" If you have any friends, etc. who are attending Worldcon next week and don't have a membership, I still have an extra I can transfer to them - for $80 - let me know and I will arrange...Jan Bogstad bogstajm@uwec.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:49:16 -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: SHADOW MAN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re Melissa Scott: was depressed (but not really surprised) to read in an interview in SF Chronicle that she has to work a regular job, because the books don't earn her a living. She's far from alone, of course...but it nudges me to buy at first-hand when I can afford it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:33:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Byrne Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies [off-topic] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthea wrote: > The CIA 1997 World Factbook estimated the 1997 Kenyan female > population of women between 15-64 is 7 696 504. Even allowing for > the fact that girls younger than 15 may bear children, 2 million is > about 25% of the female population! When I checked this story > with a friend on the Daily Nation, he laughed at me. Having done research on family planning with rural women in Kenya, I too doubt these statistics. candice ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:33:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Off-topic: Reproductive Technologies,was: Gattaca In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980731101327.007be570@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > Marina - Thank you:) I did not realise the situation concerning blood > plasma donation. Here all you get is a warm fuzzy feeling and a cuppa tea:) > LOL - as well as some bumper-stickers and collar-buttons etc saying "Be > Nice To Me - I'm a Red Cross Donor", and sweets and a chocolate snack-bar > or equivalent:) > About twice a year the Blood-Buses go around work-places, offices, > factories, businesses, shops, universities etc - employers/school admin > allow you to donate blood/blood products in work-time without loss of > pay/study credits etc. - for the "fuzzy" feeling - and a neon bumper-sticker:) It's pretty much the same here, but only with _blood_ donation. We have those blood drives at the University Center all the time. They usually give out T-shirts instead of bumper stickers, but the rest is the same. Somehow, blood donation is considered sort of an act of charity, while blood _plasma_ donation is more like the human organ trade in third world countries. Speaking of which... > Many African nations can't get basic medical care > and products like bandages or sterilisation autoclaves for clinic > instruments - unless the patient signs for sterilisation, neither they or > their children will be treated for anything. As a person lucky enough to have lived in the best (and the worst) of both worlds, I can compare this from my own experience: In Tajikistan, most medical facilities left over from the Soviet times do not have any of the mentioned above either. We would go to the hospital with our own syringes. You have to, unless you want to get one just used on someone else. And diposable syringes are more dangerous than the regular ones -- the latter could be sterilized at least in theory, the former are plastic, so all they can do is to flush them with water between the injections). We'd also have to bring our own IV systems, and all the medications needed for treatment, including the anesthetics. Plus, you have to pay the doctor, the anesthesiologist, the nurses, and everyone else directly involved -- to pay directly, in cash, because their salaries are not enough to feed their families. No one's salaries are. So without a bribe, you won't get buried, let alone treated. The difference with Africa, I guess, is that there is no trade of body parts in my home country, for what I know. That would require certain technology, I think. The only trade that's going on there is drugs and weapons (but in very big numbers that'd cover for everything else). People are of not much value, even for parts. Two million Kenyan women were > sterilised without their consent last year alone, and because of the lack > of medicines and drugs - most of these operations were performed with > almost useless local anaesthetic only. Now that must *hurt* in my mind. Even in good old Soviet times, when some health care system still existed, abortions were commonly performed without _any_ anesthesia. On top of that, there was no technology for the kind of abortions common in the West -- when the embrio is sucked out with a machine on the early stage. It was the scrubbing-type abortions, the ones done with the scalpel, when the pregnancy was big enough to be mechanically removed. Actually, the slang word for abortion was "the scrub". It was done without any anesthetics, not even a local one. Plus, abortion was (and still is) the primary method of birth control. So, most of married, and therefore sexually active women, had to do one of those every three-four months, for as long as they kept getting pregnant (unless they'd want to have another child, which in most cases they could not afford). When I was working at the computer lab after high school, one of my female coworkers had to do three abortions just in the year I was there. That was 1991. Since then, things in my home country have been only getting worse. So you can put everything described in this paragraph in present tense. On > top of that, many had gone to the medical clinics in the first place, with > sick kids, and not for themselves, and they couldn't even be given basic > Over-The-Counter cough medicines for their kids. Exactly. You've got to buy those on black market. Or at the drug store, where a bottle of painkiller would cost like a month worth of food. Most often, people would rather go all those phony "healers" that would sell you some unidentified "herbs", "magnetized wax tablets", or amuleths, wave their hands around you, or charge you for "putting a spell" on you. All that crazy medieval bullshit that people would hang on to because they don't have a choice. Other people would go into one of the self-healing methods, publicized by local trashy tabloids, such as curing one with their own urine, spiritual energy healing, "dry diets" and a whole bunch of other New Age stuff imported from West. My best friend was a big fan of those. She almost died once while trying to go without food or water for a week in order to "clear the system from pollutants" as prescribed by one of those self-healing methods. I personally spent a nice amount of money on a woman who was healing with the "energy of her hands", another woman who practiced "old Russian pagan magic", a guy who had a machine who "magnitized" little pieces of wax meant to restore energy balance in the body "according to ancient Chinese medicine", and a couple more of those. When I finally came to US, I was very impressed with stuff like Tylenol or Pepto-Besmol. You'd take them and the pain would actually _go away_, soon. I kept thinking of the woman who told me to take some self-made sugar pellets for a at least year to get rid of acne. When I asked her why this long, she said -- well, you had the pimples for years, it would take just as long to heal them. (I got rid of them here in a month with antibiotics). Or another extremely popular "cure" (you'll like this!) -- "it will all go as soon as you get married". That used to eternally amuse me. I always wanted to ask whether it implied some sort of "sex therapy