Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9808C" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:00:05 -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: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] In-Reply-To: <19980814.172416.-3766919.0.jjggww@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Frances Green wrote: > I had heard there was some pedophilia scandal surrounding Clarke > recently, but I don't know if it was ever resolved or is still under > investigation. I would like to be able to continue wishing him extremely > well: he's one whose science writing clarified several relativity issues > for me, and I'll be very interested in the next book. That Arthur C. Clarke is gay has been an open secret in the science fiction community for years and for idiots who don't know any better the jump from homosexuality to pedophilia would seem to be a small one. The irony is that Clarke, who suffers, I believe, from post-polio syndrome, says that he hasn't been sexually active in any way for many years. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:34:51 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 14 Aug 98, at 16:36, Bonnie Bouman wrote: > > From May 1998 Locus: > The British tabloid accusations charging Sir Arthur C. Clarke with > pedophilia (Locus #446) have been refuted to his satisfaction, after an > investigation by the Sri Lanka Police. The Sri Lankan broadcaster who put > some of the most serious charges on tape has now sworn, under oath, that > they are completely false.... I think it's only fair to point out six facts which may or may not have any bearing on the "resolution" of this case and which may help to show the other side of the story. Firstly, Sri Lanka is a repressive state, the government of which is involved in a bloody civil war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Both sides have committed appalling atrocities. Secondly, Clarke, who is widely liked and respected in government circles, has provided unwavering, highly effective PR support for the Sinhalese-dominated government during the protracted war. Thirdly The "Clarke" story was part of a very much wider investigation of paedophilia in Sri Lanka - long a favoured destination for paedophile sex tourists. Allegations - blatantly ignored by authorities - have been made that people in high government circles were/are involved. Fourthly the rights of journalists in Sri Lanka have been repeatedly attacked by the government using - mainly - the police to apply pressure to journalists (as the case of Santhalingam Srigajan shows). Indeed the Sri Lankan police have developed some really "persuasive" techniques. Some Tamils subjected to these techniques have died; others just wish they had. Fifthly no independent (say British) police officers expert in paedophilia investigations were included in the investigating team. Sixthly the officer in overall control of the investigation was, I believe, none other than that well-known Deputy Inspector of Police, M Nizam. Clarke must of course be given the benefit of the doubt but each of us has the right to make our own choices in this matter. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:28:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Intermingling of "races" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A thread of interesting comments on "race" in SF showing how MUCH remains to be done with regard to SF's consideration of constructions of race. It's interesting how the casual discussion shows to what extent people accept "race" as a difference: in fact, we are already one human race (defined biologically). The "differences" that are pointed out as racial differences are extremely minor and there is NOTHING keeping the different "races" from interbreeding. But the language of "race" is so strong and has been around so long it's hard to avoid talking about it as if it is natural, instead of culturally constructed. (The biological distinction between species is, I believe, the inability to reproduce together; fairly closely related species can have sterile offspring.) The difference in skin color, which in America is the primary determinant, is ONE of the factors chosen to mark difference. I remember one of my students telling me earnestly in a class discussion that her father always said that if we were the same color, there wouldn't be any problems in the world. My response was that events in Ireland tended to disprove that claim. The major differences of course are cultural: a "white" English person (and of course white is not a skin color--everybody is some variation of pink or tan or something) and a "white" American person and a "white" Russian person have major cultural differences. African students of color I have met tend to resist being called "black" or African American since they see that as AMERICAN terms only; a South African "white" student tried to get a minority scholarship at one of the Ivy league schools on the argument he was "African American" (I don't know if it went through or not). It's interesting to look at discourses from other cultures about "minorities" within them to see the same "claims" being made: the minority group are lazy/unclean/sexually easy, etc. The language of discrimination remains similar no matter what "color" the target group is. Some SF does exist which forgrounds "race," but not necessarily showing the mingling of races. As people have mentioned, Octavia Butler's XENOGENESIS trilogy is a fascinating group of novels to look at because of what she does with race--and what SF publishing does. The "hero" or protagonist of the first novel is Lilith, an African American woman. The picture on the front of the edition I own is of an extremely lily white woman with dark hair--her "race" is eraced! (Sorry, couldn't help it.) But the pplots of the novels involve forced interbreeding between the gene trading Oankali and the "humans"--with the protagonist and point of view characters in the later novels being Lilith's children. Rebecca Ore has a trilogy (BECOMING HUMAN is one of the titles I think) where a lower-class white American male is transported into a galactic culture and has to try to integrate--in some ways the novels are difficult to read, not because of her narrative choices (they're fairly straightforward in narrative techniques) but because it's so HARD to get through his experiences, and he's so alone. Arthur C. Clarke has a novel, IMPERIAL EARTH, with a protagonist named Duncan MacKenzie who is a third generation colonist on Titan--when he visits earth for the U.S. Quincentennial, he meets African Americans who are role playing slaves for historical pageants. At that point, he realizes he is "darker" than the African Americans (who have obviously had more white ancestry), perhaps because he is a clone. The "race" issue isn't a huge part of the novel, except for Clarke to show that racism no longer exists in the future, but Clarke's presentation provides an interesting tweak or two. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:41:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Stephanie J. asked: " Is Star Trek feminist? Or, more specifically, is writing Star Trek and writing books like Alien Influences and Dreamsnake a contradiction?" I think there can be a feminist perspective on STrek--although of course I was one of the Women Who Entered Fandom because of ST, and remain a trekkie to this day. I believe if you read the ST novels by such authors as Diane Duane and Vonda McIntyre and compare them to "fill in the blank with most of the male authors's names" (there were a lot of male authors I don't read or didn't keep after reading), that you can argue that there can be a feminist slant on ST. It may not be as overt as DREAMSNAKE is, but there can be a range of feminist perspectives and narratives. The women authors I like (not every woman who writes ST, mind you) tend to have more female characters, more aliens (especially non-humanoid aliens--Duane brought in one of the horta's children!!!!) who are more than funny prosthetic nosepieces or earpieces, and plots that TEND to more exploration/awareness of various culture and a bit less toward bang bang bang shoot'em'up plots. Lest I be accused of major sexism by claiming that the male authors are all b/b/seup types, I did say 'tended toward.' The women authors even do MAJOR mind surgery on Kirk--again, especially Duane and McIntyre. Presentation of male characters is a major gender issue that is part of feminist philosophy as far as I'm concerned. I thought McInty're novelizations of the movies were fantastic--they've gone downhill since Paramount has somebody else doing it. I also heard presentations at some of the conferences I go to that there were more women writing TREK novels early on, and Paramount has tended toward hiring more men recently, but that was a few years ago, and I don't have the supporting evidence. There's also some interesting stuff in the earlier ST novels by women reflecting the slash fiction (um, if you're not familiar with the term slash fiction or K/S fiction, it's a fan fiction, done NOT for profit, that operates on the premise of Kirk and Spock being mind melded telepathically married and yes romantically and even sexually involved) conventions that DID NOT involve sex. Although there's one novel with a scene that was fairly explicit and I heard Paramount pulled it back for editing after publication (cannot remember the author and title right off though I just saw it when rearranging books). If you're interested send me a reminder and I'll look it up. I think TREK always had the potential (as did other male dominated SF of the period or earlier) of HINTING at possibilities--and believe me growing up in Idaho in the fifties and sixties, it was GREAT to see the tv show showing more women, although I cannot stand to watch it nowadays, and yes, there's lots of work to be done. I do think ST is better than a lot of mainstream tv in terms of gender issues! Robin (in Texas, where's it's been really really hot and where it's really really patriarchal) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:08:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: youth vs. age Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Interesting comment about: "macho teenage male acquaintances on the grounds that if anyone is sexist, they would be." I am 42 and have had different experiences. Also depends what you mean by sexism--individiual feelings, vs. systematically or institutionally oriented power. Granted, I don't see many adolescents under 18 because I teach college, but I see a lot of 18 year olds, and have in the past few years. One could argue that the young men who currently do not hold power in our culture might not, as a group, be as likely to uphold conservative notions about gender. The young male students I have worked with who have been raised by single mothers tend to be feminist. Living in the rural part of Texas, I get a lot of overtly anti female/sexist comments made by women students in their thirties and up who feel explicitly threatened by the image of feminism as a haven for single/lesbian women. I have also had to rein in a few classes where the thirty and older divorced women have expressed blatantly vicious opinions about "men," and the younger male students (always a minority in English classes!) have been silenced. Power can shift in various local situations. Adolescent males don't have anything to lose, compared to older men (those men, especially the white men, who feel that the "women and minorities" are getting all "their" jobs). That is, they don't hold power. Although I am a female, I am also their teacher. But being a teacher and talking to other women teacher, we don't tend to look at that age group as the ones who obviously resist our authority. That resistance (and real hatred in a few cases) is likely to come from men our own ages (30-50 in the case of my current group of friends.) There are generational issues here--and males born during or after the sixties in America did grow up in a different culture. I don't know how this issue might affect males in other countries. I also have the memory of how my brother behaved when with a group of males, as opposed to being on his own--until he got over thirty and felt free to resist the male bonding,which seemed truly vicious to me at the time (and still does, although I'm not sure if it goes on in the same way). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:19:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! In-Reply-To: <199808131629.MAA15876@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" David Christenson wrote: >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Anybody else seen the essay on "The Ideology of Robert A. Heinlein" by >Barton Paul Levenson in the April 1998 (#116) issue of The New York >Review of Science Fiction? He covers Heinleinian feminism briefly but >rather well. He slams Podkayne as a lapse from early movement away from >sexism, but posits that "Friday" can be seen as a sort of "apology for >'Podkayne,'" containing a section about Friday's forced divorce that is >"one of the best and most moving indictments ever written of the cruelty >of discrimination for stupid reasons... (But) the key to Heinlein's >elitism lies in the term 'stupid.' Discrimination for *intelligent* >reasons is something he always favored." (For ex., advocating a math >test for voter registration in an essay, or restricting full citizenship >to veterans in "Starship Troopers.") > >Anyway, Levenson concludes that Heinlein was a fascist, which (if you >buy that analysis) would shed some light on Heinlein's views of women's >roles. Yes, I read it. Every so often, NYRSF publishes an incredible piece of idiocy written in proper academic format. Heinlein was not as simple as his characters. In real life, he was a long-term support, both emitionally and financially, to Philip K. Dick. He was extraordinarily generaous to writers from Theodore Sturgeon to Spider Robinson. This behavior is not consistent with any sane conclusion that Heinlein was "a fascist." Unfortunately, his attitudes toward women, although they came a remarkably long way from what a turn-of-the-century Midwestern farm boy was taught, never seemed to get near those of this list. I value him for his imagination, generosity, and courageous pushing of the values he was involuntarily given in childhood. Since no one has insisted he was any sort of saint, the charge doesn't need to be refuted. IMNSHO, anyone who believes that their attitudes will remain completely advanced and enlightened by the standards of a century from now is a fool. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:37:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Intermingling of "races" In-Reply-To: <199808151928.OAA13835@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robin Reid commented: > It's interesting to >look at discourses from other cultures about "minorities" within them to see >the same "claims" being made: the minority group are lazy/unclean/sexually >easy, etc. The language of discrimination remains similar no matter what >"color" the target group is. I don't have a full citation anywhere near the tip of my tongue, but if you're unfamiliar with it, you might enjoy the Sixties essay, "Student as Nigger". You left out their great, unhibited music and dancing, for instance . . . Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 01:16:26 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-15 22:06:37 EDT, you write: << Heinlein was not as simple as his characters. In real life, he was a long-term support, both emitionally and financially, to Philip K. Dick. He was extraordinarily generaous to writers from Theodore Sturgeon to Spider Robinson. This behavior is not consistent with any sane conclusion that Heinlein was "a fascist." >> This is an odd notion, that someone who believes in a rigidly hierarchical society run with wealth concentrated in private hands but ultimately controlled, theoretically for the good of all, by the government's decree (even if the government is a computer)...couldn't be generous to his friends. We've been suggesting that RAH's politics were at least close to fascist, not that he was a boogeyman. I've known at least three very good people who've considered themselves fascists, and while I don't want their politics in place any more than they already are, I think it is you, rather than the rest of us, who seems to think that "fascist" is an insult rather than a label for a politcal philososphy that most of us don't share. And you might be surprised at how long egalitarianism, feminism, anarchism, and other radical ideas have been kicking around in human discussion and practice. Heinlein's ideas about the ultimately subservient nature of women were basically retrograde in the 1940s, even if they remain common in the decade or so after his death. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:10:40 -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: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Todd Mason wrote: > We've been suggesting that RAH's politics were at least close to fascist, not > that he was a boogeyman. Perhaps if fascist is being used as a merely descriptive term we need a definition of it. I've always thought he was a libertarian more than anything else, and my understanding of "libertarian" is one who thinks that government should be minimalistic or non-existent, and laws should be created by individuals who are ready to enforce them on their own turf without trying to enforce them on anyone else's. I have vague memories of a sociology course that showed the political spectrum as being an almost closed circle -- rather than a line -- and placed libertarians and anarchists at either end, and therefore very close to each other. > Heinlein's > ideas about the ultimately subservient nature of women were basically > retrograde in the 1940s, even if they remain common in the decade or so after > his death. There's two separate issues here. I rather suspect that it's possible to adhere to just about any political philosophy (other than feminism, which might be better classified as a social philosophy) and be feminist or not. That is, there are undoubtedly feminist fascists as well as there are communists, anarchists, democrats, liberals, etc. who believe that women's place is firmly in the kitchen. I'd say that, if anything, Heinlein did not believe all humans are of equal worth, but that he divided people by what they do and what they know. People who strive to know and do tend to be the good ones in his cosmology. People who don't aren't. My reading of his work leads me to believe that he saw both men and women in both categories. I don't at all think that his books describe women as "ultimately subservient." Anne Anne Vespry ******* http://www.vex.net/~maverick After Stonewall Bookshop ***** never forget avespry(at) *** only dead fish ollisdotuottawadotca * swim WITH the stream ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:15:58 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Vespry Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-16 10:18:38 EDT, you write: << Perhaps if fascist is being used as a merely descriptive term we need a definition of it. --I gave a definition of fascist. To repeat myself: someone who believes in a rigidly hierarchical society run with wealth concentrated in private hands but ultimately controlled, theoretically for the good of all, by the government's decree (even if the government is a computer) [As in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS] Vespry: I've always thought he was a libertarian more than anything else, and my understanding of "libertarian" is one who thinks that government should be minimalistic or non-existent, and laws should be created by individuals who are ready to enforce them on their own turf without trying to enforce them on anyone else's. I have vague memories of a sociology course that showed the political spectrum as being an almost closed circle -- rather than a line -- and placed libertarians and anarchists at either end, and therefore very close to each other. --But Heinlein believed in this ONLY AFTER everyone basically saw the values of rigid hierarchies, military-style organization, and other attitudes that are anathema to most if not all libertarians of any stripe, even it the "libertarian spirit" of his work was influential on many libertarian capitalists (if the suggestion of at least one LIBERTY magazine poll is any indication). > Heinlein's > ideas about the ultimately subservient nature of women were basically > retrograde in the 1940s, even if they remain common in the decade or so after > his death. Vespry: There's two separate issues here. --I am aware of this. The previous poster had mixed his revulsion with Heinlein-as-fascist with a plea for us to consider how posterity would view us. Vespry: I rather suspect that it's possible to adhere to just about any political philosophy (other than feminism, which might be better classified as a social philosophy) and be feminist or not. --Now THAT would depend on your definition of feminism. If it's seeking equality of treatment for women and men, yes. Vespry: That is, there are undoubtedly feminist fascists as well as there are communists, anarchists, democrats, liberals, etc. who believe that women's place is firmly in the kitchen. --Yes, unfortunately, there are many egalitarian types who don't think through their egalitarianism. And there are those among us who spread that egalitarianism to one degree of controversy or another: children, fetuses, nonhuman animals, plants (as the fruitarians, rare birds they are, do). Vespry: I'd say that, if anything, Heinlein did not believe all humans are of equal worth, but that he divided people by what they do and what they know. People who strive to know and do tend to be the good ones in his cosmology. People who don't aren't. --And he wanted the "good" ones to think precisely as he did, at least by the last twenty years' work; ones who disagreed would not be "good" people. He's not alone in this, surely (though to me it's a serious flaw in an literary art), but since what he believed was pro-militaristic and anti-feminist (see below), it will tend to raise hackles among, say, several who contribute to this list. My reading of his work leads me to believe that he saw both men and women in both categories. I don't at all think that his books describe women as "ultimately subservient." --I drew a different conclusion when reading GLORY ROAD, wherein the woman who recruits the protagonist to the fantasticated militia defers to him, despite her experience in the field, so to speak, and his greenness; while reading what I could of FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD, with its obsessive partiarchy and everyone spouting off in the same voice, and I WILL FEAR NO EVIL, with its young woman just dying to be the host for her wealthy male boss's ego; while watching OPERATION MOONBASE, and seeing such token attempts at a quasifeminism as having a female Colonel "Brighteyes" lead the moonshot, for a United States with a female President, undermined in typical RAH fashion by the previously mentioned threat by a male general to spank the colonel (in front, I might add, of her subordinate on the mission, a male major; the two men have a good laugh over the general's clever threat as the colonel fumes--and gosh she's cute when she's angry!), and later and more importantly by her consistent hysteria versus the major's competence as the moon mission goes awry. Heinlein, like that other pseudolibertarian icon Ayn Rand (though somewhat less inexplicably), just didn't ever see women as fully the equal of men, through some inherent flaw in their femininity. Their affirmative action would've looked at a resume-identical woman and man, and pronounced the man superior, with a vague reference to the deferring or overemotional nature or the "distaff." And I don't see the quotations recently given on the list from FRIDAY, along with JOB often cited as RAH's last good work, as in any way contradictory of my impression of his work and the attitudes expressed through it. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:20:40 -0400 Reply-To: anneh@eecs.mit.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne Hunter Subject: [jjggww@juno.com: Re: [*FSFFU*] Heinlein feminist? HA!] Heinlein's view of women reminds me of that song where the woman can tend the kids, clean the house, cook dinner, put on a rag, look sexy, and have fabulous sex all night, and get up and do it again, because she's a W-O-M-A-N. They're all gorgeous and brilliant and feisty. But ultimately, they know their place. And the all-too-frequent tendency toward father-daughter incest is really annoying. So why do I love his books so much? Anne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:58:40 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Heinlein's women & babies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII When describing his trip to Moscow, Heinlein throws in (almost accidentally) that he and Virginia could not have children. That might have spilled over into a baby-hunger he attributed to his characters. I know Marion Zimmer Bradley in one communication (article? Preface to story? Can't remember) said the opinions of her characters in "The Climbing Wave" (WAY old!) about wanting babies (and anyone who didn't was dismissed as "neurotic") was due to the fact that she'd been trying for some time to have children and had thought she couldn't. She did later. My biggest problem with Heinlein is his later obsession with characters marrying or having affairs with younger female relatives. It started in TIME FOR THE STARS, where relativity made them fairly close in age, and DOOR INTO SUMMER, where cold sleep did the same; except that in DOOR, this is arranged while the girl is still a child. Even in 1970 there was a wrongness to it that set my teeth on edge. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:56:25 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 16 Aug 98, at 12:58, Pat wrote: > My biggest problem with Heinlein is his later obsession with > characters marrying or having affairs with younger female relatives. It > started in TIME FOR THE STARS, where relativity made them fairly close in > age, and DOOR INTO SUMMER, where cold sleep did the same; except that in > DOOR, this is arranged while the girl is still a child. Even in 1970 there > was a wrongness to it that set my teeth on edge. I found much the same in "Farnham's Freehold" - a book that I regard as one of the most offensively racist books I've ever read. For those who haven't read the story, it's about alternate history/time travel. Because of an atomic war, the "hero" and his family are transported into the future where they find that the white had been almost wiped out during the war and the 'coloured races" are dominant. Reversing the position of earlier times, whites are now in abject, horrific slavery, in danger of mutilation (castration / cutting off thumbs for males) and used as *food* by the dominant blacks. The hero is sent back in time by a black who likes eating pump young white girls. The hero is accompanied by his daughter in law who's already given birth to _his_ twin children. And the usual Heinlein happy ending because, lo and behold, the whites don't get decimated anyway. I found it a sickening book which - to me - summed up Heinlein pretty well. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 15:54:53 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Mason in response to Vespry: correction/Hunter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit That line about Heinlein and Rand preferring the otherwise identical man over the woman should have ended with, "of the 'distaff'" rather than "or." Anne Hunter: maybe you like the jocularity/miltary-style or rather similar engineer-style cameraderie? Maybe you like the attempts to transcend himself, at least up through STARSHIP TROOPERS (where maybe he engaged in self-parody?) and STRANGER? Maybe you've got a nostalgic feeling for his juvies introducing you to sf? Maybe you like how he's the correspondent figure in sf for Ernest Hemingway in mimetic fiction, or Dashiell Hammett in crime fiction, or Robert Bloch in horror fiction: the first great proponent of modernism through creating a lean, matter-of-fact approach to the subject matter and events at hand. And more than any of them except Hemingway, more even than Hammett, the machismo really stuck with him (where are all the damned cowboys?). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:58:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] Comments: To: Frances Green In-Reply-To: <19980814.172416.-3766919.0.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I love Asimov, though I have to admit he wasnt much of a feminist.Even in his more recent stories he came across to me as old-school (50s-ish) when it came to relations of the sexes. I think many of the older sci-fi giants are that way, probably nothing to do with them personally, just the tendency to act like they are writing in the 1950s instead of more contemporarily. My .2, Bertina ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:56:18 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This discussion has been amazing, because I can remember dragging myself through Heinlein's works and feeling vaguely sickened by them but...there were all his books on the shelves, and all the hype about what a master of science fiction he was. He sold an awful lot of books, which, sigh, says more about us than him, maybe? Mostly, I am surprised by the memory of how I just ducked my head and went along with the hype. It is so great to read these messages, and get to say, hey, others had questions about his writing, too. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:26:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Todd Mason replied: ><< Heinlein was not as simple as his characters. In real life, he was a > long-term support, both emitionally and financially, to Philip K. Dick. He > was extraordinarily generaous to writers from Theodore Sturgeon to Spider > Robinson. This behavior is not consistent with any sane conclusion that > Heinlein was "a fascist." > >> >This is an odd notion, that someone who believes in a rigidly hierarchical >society run with wealth concentrated in private hands but ultimately >controlled, theoretically for the good of all, by the government's decree I was talking about Robert A. Heinlein, not whoever it is you describe. > I think it is you, rather than the rest >of us, who seems to think that "fascist" is an insult rather than a label for >a politcal philososphy that most of us don't share. Your attempt to read my mind failed. I specificly named a variety of writers, across several decades, whose work and whose personal philosophies and lives would be anathema to a fascist. > And you might be >surprised at how long egalitarianism, feminism, anarchism, and other radical >ideas have been kicking around in human discussion and practice. Then again, you might be surprised at my political education. (to those list members who don't want any more of this sub-thread -- relax, my side of it is over) Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:45:20 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-16 21:40:24 EDT, you write: Rest: ! was talking about Robert A. Heinlein, not whoever it is you describe. ---I was talking about fascists, whom RAH often sounded like in his pronouncements. > I think it is you, rather than the rest >of us, who seems to think that "fascist" is an insult rather than a label for >a politcal philososphy that most of us don't share. Your attempt to read my mind failed. --I made no attempt to read your mind, merely what you wrote. What you wrote seemed to imply that fascists can have no friends who disagree with them about fundamental issues, which is incorrect, and which implication is further supported by what you write below: Rest: I specificly named a variety of writers, across several decades, whose work and whose personal philosophies and lives would be anathema to a fascist. --You think that RAH agreed with Sturgeon on political matters? Perhaps a few (I know Sturgeon said he'd voted Libertarian on occasion, as well as for Peace and Freedom Party candidates, for example. Don't know if RAH ever voted Libertarian, rather doubt he considered P&F too favorably). Spder Robinson has spent his career worshiping RAH; SR struck me as the first genuinely rightist hippie I'd encountered. Others since. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:00:04 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-16 21:08:58 EDT, you write: << This discussion has been amazing, because I can remember dragging myself through Heinlein's works and feeling vaguely sickened by them but...there were all his books on the shelves, and all the hype about what a master of science fiction he was. He sold an awful lot of books, which, sigh, says more about us than him, maybe? Well, as Kurt Vonnegut pointed out in his interview with Charles Platt for the i/v collection DREAM MAKERS, STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND was furniture, much like Tolkien's books, CAT'S CRADLE and SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE, and eventually DUNE. You had them to show how countercultural you were. And much of Heinlein's earlier work is still fun, even profound, if less so than, say, Fritz Leiber's work (including the Leiber work inspired by Heinlein's!). But many people are going to have problems with the stories, particularly the later ones, when RAH's solid reputation inside the field mixed with his growing acceptance outside; he had little he had to prove to anyone and the cult was beginning to form (not a formal one, such as Hubbard or Rand created, but surely a devout one--they're the ones who have actually made it through both FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD and THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST and want to do so again...). He was a seminal figure...he just got kinda sticky as time went on. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:12:29 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Heinlein and Nietzsche In-Reply-To: <7bd44a22.35d79cb5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 16 Aug 98, at 23:00, Todd Mason wrote: > But many people are going to have problems with the > stories, particularly the later ones, when RAH's solid reputation inside > the field mixed with his growing acceptance outside; he had little he had > to prove to anyone and the cult was beginning to form (not a formal one, > such as Hubbard or Rand created, but surely a devout one--they're the ones > who have actually made it through both FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD and THE NUMBER > OF THE BEAST and want to do so again...). He was a seminal figure...he > just got kinda sticky as time went on. I'VE always thought that RAH initially was a good, solid, competent science fiction writer who in the normal course of events would have evolved into a mature writer with a liberal outlook. But the 60s with its peculiar, heady atmosphere came along; gurus of every shade and description popped out of the woodwork and were greeted with hysterical adulation by the credulous (who formed almost as large a proportion of the population as they do today). Encouraged by the atmosphere, the success of "Stranger..." and his own incipient megalomania, Heinlein started thinking of himself as a "Great Writer" and a "Real Philosopher". That's why I THINK his writing deteriorated into what - I THINK - is all-too-often self- indulgent amateurish philosophy based on ill-digested chunks of Nietzsche. I THINK that RAH's elites are obvious rip-offs of Nietzsche's _Ubermensch_. I'VE ALWAYS FELT that RAH's work owes a large debt to _Also sprach Zarathustra_ (see "Glory Road" as an example) and, perhaps, to _Beyond good and evil_. Neil Rest said > We could entertain outselves competitively insulting _Farnham's > Freehold_, but I really don't think it's fair to base you opinion > on one of the worst two or three of his fifty novels. I don't agree. In this context, I'm not interested in his novels as works of fiction, but as pointers to his political beliefs. So, by extension, I'm more interested in the extreme cases than in the average. _Farnham's Freehold_ showed a deep abiding contempt, even hatred, for blacks as well as highlighting his unacceptable thoughts on younger and/or related women. Which is why I THINK _Farnham's Freehold_ is the novel that epitomises RAH. On the point of RAH's alleged "feminism", I THINK that RAH was a typical male of the 60s (I know he began writing 30 years earlier, but I'm talking about his thought processes). And males of the 60s - IN MY OPINION - underneath the high-falutin' language of equality had little but contempt for women. I feel that "I fear no evil" was a prime, condescending example of this contempt. Which, on a personal note, is why I call myself a "New Feminist" but express an apparently contradictory admiration for Russ and the others who fought for women's rights during that dark era. On the other hand, I don't think that Heinlein was a fascist. I don't know where the various list members get their definitions, but I always take mine from the disgusting Giovanni Gentile unless I'm talking about Nazism in which case I use those twin monsters, Hitler and Rosenberg. I THINK that the key, unifying element in fascism, nazism etc is "state socialism" which I find nowhere in RAH's corpus. I haven't read the Levenson article so I hadn't intended to comment on Heinlein because I was afraid of inadvertently presenting some of Levenson's ideas as my own. But I couldn't stand by and see praise heaped on a man who was less feminist than Jerry Falwell! AJ (who's cowering, waiting for the "oak-cleaving thunderbolts" to strike her down) ---------------------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za, ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:13:24 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maria Hayball Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sorry, sent by mistake to a personal address instead of to the list.> > I've been following the Heinlein thread with deep interest, it's cleared > up some queries I had about him. I liked part of his books, but I was > always uncomfortable with the would-be sex-freedom, it was clear to me > women were getting the short end of the stick. > Couldn't quite understand why if an author could make the imaginative > leap to another time/place/dimension, how it was women remained fixed in > some sort of 40s stereotype: housebound, nagging, boring. At best, a > young sexy thing was allowed to be a 'mate'. > Age on my side now, I think perhaps some authors could simply not escape > their childhood intellectual background, or were even aware of it. > Marie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:07:58 -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: Heinlein and Nietzsche Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Encouraged by the atmosphere, the success of "Stranger..." and > his own incipient megalomania, Heinlein started thinking of himself In _Grumbles from the Grave_, RAH says in his letters that the success of _Stranger_ is a surprise--especially the fact that many people seemed to see him as a guru (I would guess primarily men). I haven't read Nietzsche, though, and can't comment on that... > I don't agree. In this context, I'm not interested in his novels as > works of fiction, but as pointers to his political beliefs. So, by > extension, I'm more interested in the extreme cases than in the > average. _Farnham's Freehold_ showed a deep abiding contempt, > even hatred, for blacks as well as highlighting his unacceptable > thoughts on younger and/or related women. Which is why I THINK > _Farnham's Freehold_ is the novel that epitomises RAH. But does it? I don't see the contempt and hatred of blacks elsewhere in his works of fiction. It always seemed like he was playing with a theme. I know that when I read it, I didn't see the blacks as blacks, but as the evil foil. His portrayals of women (younger and/or related or not) are different. Those are pretty consistent across his works. Again, though, I didn't see contempt there, as a rule. In fact, I have tended to read him as largely admiring an ideal woman who is: * Beautiful, * Intelligent, * Always ready for sex, * Always ready to have babies, * Always ready to take in a kitten, * Willing and able to lead a revolution, and * Willing and able to defend her home. Or something like that. As others have mentioned, his women also generally defer to men. I read a lot of his stuff before I started to think at all critically about it. You (and others) might find this portrayal of women to be contemptable, but I really don't think it was, for him or for his time, contempt for women. Some of the women in his juveniles are "stronger" than this, though, perhaps due to the nature of the books. They are never the protagonists, though. Perhaps I misunderstand your notion of contempt, though. I apologize if that's so. -allen Disclaimer: I do like a lot of RAH's stuff, but I have started to read it much more critically over the years, and my enjoyment of the books is lessened by some of the attitudes and the actions of the characters in many cases. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:05:51 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > > If someone would do nothing, or refuse to share knowledge...oh, heavens. It happens all the time, not that it should > Forcing someone to publish won't make a good scientist of them. Research is > its own goal and reward. One does it out of excitement, out of a desire to > find out, out of a desire to solve. The publish or perish only selects those > who can really best play the game. Research SHOULD be its own goal and reward, but often times this isn't the real case scenario...At least forcing them to publish will either weed them out (if they cannot or will not publish) or force them to share real work. I think also one of the first places to start here is in the reviewing process. There is no such thing as an objective scientist. > I feel that feminism...not just equality, but a change in enculturation...is > essential to our ever finding a way to do real science, not science for a > buck, or science to sell but science at the end of dreams and life-work. > I agree with the change in enculturation, but the definition of "real science" is unclear. I am curious...? For me, it would be finding a gene in avian E. coli that is detectable only in virulent strains of that organism thus (hopefully) easing the economic burden of colibacillosis in the Poultry Industry (but only to keep avian meat products affordable for everyone, not to increase profits in the Poultry Industry...talk about a white male good ole' boy dominated business...but don't get me started on that...). > But again, it takes all of us. I commend your daily routine AND your > occasional tormentations. Don't stop! > > Was it Elizabeth Cady Stanton who said: "We can't fail". > I was Susan B. Anthony..."Failure is Impossible". The only reason I remember this is because I have it on a wallhanging at home in an effort to encourage myself to go on with the daily grind which does have a way of beating us down occasionally. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:28:17 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies Comments: To: Anthea In-Reply-To: <199808161951.VAA03032@mx1.global.co.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Anthea wrote: > > Reversing the position of earlier times, whites are now in abject, > horrific slavery, in danger of mutilation (castration / cutting off > thumbs for males) and used as *food* by the dominant blacks. The > hero is sent back in time by a black who likes eating pump young > white girls. The hero is accompanied by his daughter in law who's > already given birth to _his_ twin children. And the usual Heinlein > happy ending because, lo and behold, the whites don't get > decimated anyway. > > I found it a sickening book which - to me - summed up Heinlein > pretty well. > Though one thing never pointed out - and shown but not told in Donald Kingsbury's COURTSHIP RITE - is that if they're reduced to that, they must have a serious shortage of other sources of protein. Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are easier and cheaper to keep, fatten, feed, and slaughter. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:30:59 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: future of "race" Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:28:28 -0500 >From: Robin Reid >Subject: Intermingling of "races" [big snip] Just a side note: one interesting way the races may mingle in the future was brought up in Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_ -- instead of sun tan lotion, some people use a cream which stimulates their melanin-producing skin cells, turning their skin a uniform dark brown regardless of the original color. I think this was done in part to help protect from the high UV in sunlight in that future world. But I always it would be great to be able to darken my skin tone a few notches -- ever since being teased as a boy in Hawaii for being the palest in a class of sun-worshipping, mixed-race kids. I think such an invention would really change the significance of skin color -- I bet it would piss off a lot of people, too, both black and white! Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:32:19 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA!: Rest In-Reply-To: <16f7815d.35d79941@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Todd Mason wrote: ; SR struck me as the first genuinely rightist > hippie I'd encountered. Others since. You should see New Mexico Libertarian party meetings. All sorts of mountain anarchists who still don't know (or admit) the 60s are ovcer. Much fun when they meet characters out from National, who remind everyone of Republican insurance salescritters. Talk about culture clash & cognitive dissonance! A friend characterized libertarians once into three ctaegories: Hemp, Gun, and Gold.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:35:23 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jim Hollomon Subject: Re: musings on feminism over time, on TV Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In a message dated 8/14/98 5:47:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, releon@SYR.EDU writes: > Ultimately, the relationships on DS9 don^Òt define the characters, and the > writers have a clue how to write strong women, and that is finally what > makes it a better show, and also a more feminist one, IMHO. If I missed the discussion, then I apologize. I just wanted to point out that the discussion of the Ferengi homeworld's incredibly misogynistic attitudes, which, on DS9, is facilitated through the bartender, Quark, is certainly feminist in that it shows the very ugliest aspects of the enemies of feminism. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:19:50 -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: Heinlein feminist? -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: >>I can't read Heinlein anymore because I feel like his characters are the combination of (a) my idea of a strong woman and (b) a baby-crazy nymphomaniac. It really makes me ill. I feel exactly the same way, although with the addition of "nudist" to the strong baby-crazed nympho woman. As a well endowed teen, it irritated the hell out of me when he'd describe these pneumatic females who strode about, and participated in action, completely naked. There's a lot to be said for a good sports bra. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:59:59 -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: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mike Levy wrote: >>That Arthur C. Clarke is gay has been an open secret in the science fiction community for years and for idiots who don't know any better the jump from homosexuality to pedophilia would seem to be a small one. There are of course many people for whom homosexuality and paedophila are pretty much equivalent, but I think the real reason is that many people in the SF community took that inference is because of Clarke's adopted homeland of Sri Lanka, which is probably the world center of male child prostitution. This is all before my time in SF, so I really have no idea, but I've defintely heard the gossip from many different sources. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:52:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore the idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being racially or politically charged. Does anyone know of any? Marina On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Pat wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Anthea wrote: > > > > > Reversing the position of earlier times, whites are now in abject, > > horrific slavery, in danger of mutilation (castration / cutting off > > thumbs for males) and used as *food* by the dominant blacks. The > > hero is sent back in time by a black who likes eating pump young > > white girls. The hero is accompanied by his daughter in law who's > > already given birth to _his_ twin children. And the usual Heinlein > > happy ending because, lo and behold, the whites don't get > > decimated anyway. > > > > I found it a sickening book which - to me - summed up Heinlein > > pretty well. > > > Though one thing never pointed out - and shown but not told in > Donald Kingsbury's COURTSHIP RITE - is that if they're reduced to that, > they must have a serious shortage of other sources of protein. Cows, > pigs, sheep, and chickens are easier and cheaper to keep, fatten, feed, > and slaughter. > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:16:43 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 17 Aug 98 Marina wrote: > By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore > the idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being > racially or politically charged. Does anyone know of any? _The time machine_ by H.G. Wells. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:10:16 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Heinlein and Nietzsche In-Reply-To: <19980817080758.Q9125@canolog.ninthwonder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 17 Aug 98, at 8:07, Allen Briggs wrote: > But does it? I don't see the contempt and hatred of blacks elsewhere in > his works of fiction. It always seemed like he was playing with a theme. > I know that when I read it, I didn't see the blacks as blacks, but as the > evil foil. Let's explore this further: Theme: what would happen if blacks were suddenly given absolute power over whites? Heinlein's answer: Simple. They'd enslave, mutilate and castrate whites. They'd breed them like cattle and even eat them like beef, because everybody knows that blacks find nothing tastier than a barbequed plump young white girl. > In fact, I have tended to read him as largely admiring an ideal > woman who is: > * Beautiful, > * Intelligent, > * Always ready for sex, > * Always ready to have babies, > * Always ready to take in a kitten, > * Willing and able to lead a revolution, and > * Willing and able to defend her home. Sounds like the specifications for a Playboy centrefold. I can see it now: Caption: Blitzia Prancer-Dancer who has a Master's degree in eschatology works for NASA as a quantum mechanic. Sensuous Blitzia is never too tired to have a roll in the hay with her even more intelligent, ruggedly handsome boyfriend, Buff, who's hung like a horse (lucky Blitzia!). Blitzia who lives 75 2-week-old kittens says that she's going to beg Buff to let her have 10 children which she will raise in intervals between restoring the ozone layer and emplacing Patriot missiles around her home. Now what have I left out? Oh yes: in deference to RAH's tastes, Blitzia is twelve years old. Now that I've thought it through I can see that RAH must have had a profound admiration for blacks and a truly feminist approach to women. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:36:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: future of "race" In-Reply-To: <19980817133103.15536.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This reminds me how my former roommate who was from India and had a very dark skin was always worried about getting darker. In her culture (the same as it is among the native people where I came from) being dark is "ugly", and having light skin is considered about as "gorgeous" as being a natural blonde in the Western cuture. Actually, the light skin tone -- "fairness" -- is one of the most important determinations of beauty in that part of the world, where eye and hair color do not vary as much. My roommate was a very intelligent and educated woman. She was one of the first Muslim girls in her area who came to US to go to school all by herself. She was very strong-minded and determined, I would call her a conservative feminist, except that she would not like the latter world. But one thing she won't listen to reason about was her conviction that she was "too dark". She would carry an umbrella in sunny days to avoid getting any sun on her face. She avoided wearing light clothes that could emphasize her complexion. And she always used that face lotion called "Fair and Beautiful" that promised to lighten one's skin. She and her friends from India and Pakistan had always very enthusiastically admired my skin (which is a little pinker than chalk), again and agian. I had gone through the same stuff at home with some of my Tajik nextdoor neigbors, so it was not anything new, but it still made me feel uncomfortable. The funny part was that I actually kind of envied the golden-brown skin than they had. I felt that next to them, I looked like a ghost. When I told them that, though, they'd just laugh and say I was crazy. I was thinking for a while to get myself a fake tan, because I could never get the natural one -- my skin would just burn and flake away. I also thought that if I got one of those tanning lotions, I'd put it next to her "Fair and Beautiful" skin-whitening cream on the shelf in our bathroom, and take a picture. As a symbol of all the skin-color craziness in this world. Going back to the subject of mixed races in future, there are societies right now, from India to South America, where the ethnical mix got uniform enough that siblings in one family can have complexions ranging from very light to very dark. It seems that after few generations of mixing, skin color becomes as random as hair or eye color among Europeans. Even in Europe right now, most Scandinavians are blond, most Mideterranians are dark, but in Central Europe -- and England -- there is often a little chance to predict the eye and hair color of the child even knowing the ones of his or her parents. (Well, if both parents are blond, the child cannot have black hair because of the dominant-recessive genes, but other than that, it's hard to predict). They can have five children and they can all look different in that regard. It is similar for "white" Americans. The same thing happens with skin color in places like India or Tajikistan, where the nation has formed from the mix of several dark- and light-skinned ethnic groups. My nighbors back home had four daughters and a son (take a guess -- the mother had to keep having babies until there was a boy, so her husband would not leave her). The second girl from the top was in my opinion very beautiful. Once I told that to her oldest sister (the one who always made the most fuss about me being so "fair and pretty"). And she told me that yeah, her sister was OK-looking now, but she had always been way too dark. And that both her sisters and her parents had always made fun of her and called her -- well, the local version of n-word. Honestly, I was pretty damn shocked. But that seemed to be a pretty common attitude in native families there. My roommate's family in India seemed a lot nicer about it, at least they did not make fun of their children's face color, but despite all my efforts to convince her that she was very good-looking (she had this huge brown eyes, bright smile, and nice features), she'd just keep saying that she was way too dark to be considered pretty. And that I simply did not understand. In US, where the sharp ethnical divisions between races still exist, the skin color is still an openly political issue of social equality and power distribution. In India where "races" had mixed up centuries ago, there can be "white" and "black" kids in the same family, but the question never really went away. It's just shifted to "aesthetical" field. In other words, the question of looks. (As a matter of fact, the institute of arranged marriages there makes it as important for a guy to be good looking, as it is for a girl. Since things like personality can be discovered only after the wedding, ugly guys -- unless they are really, really rich -- have a little chance to convince anyone to give him their daughter. So it is a big advantage for a guy to be "fair" as well). This is how my roommate explained me all this, and I think she is right: The way this definition of "fair = beautiful", at least in India, apparently came from the fact that the original, more ancient population of the Indian Peninsula was very dark. The people who conquered it later -- our fellow Indo-Europeans -- came from North and had light complexion. The Hindi language (as well as the Urdu of Pakistan) is still linguistically close to Germanic and Slavic languages, so it's guite possible that those conquerors looked close to what Europeans look like now. Since they had taken the country over, the descendants of those "fair" conquerors apparently had been the local nobility for centuries (until a later version -- the British-- got there). Over the ages, even after the population mixed to the point of visual uniformity across the social classes, the fair skin was still associated with being high-born, noble, and therefore beautiful. Besides, if you think about it, being poor means a lot of working in the field, which is very likely to make one look even darker. And whatever is associated with poverty is rarely considered pretty anywhere. I think it used to be the same in Europe, "tan = poverty", until someone discovered the "good effects of the sun" and the swimsuit industry made the sun tanning fashionable. The same pattern seems to have occured in Tajikistan where I grew up. The difference is that being a European will hardly give you any social advantage, quite to the contrary. But light-skinned Tajiks, at least women, are still considered more attractive. Two of my friends went for a vacation to Mexico last summer. They said that while in US all Mexican are just Mexicans, over there there exists a sharp social distinction between Spanish Mexicans and Native American Mexicans, who wear different clothes, listen to different music, and have different lifestyle. In other words, it hard to say for sure, but it seems that outside the US, where the skin color is tightly bound to the slavery, social inequalities, and the South-North confrontation, it seems that generally, "fair = good" comes from the class distinctions caused by the fact that dark skin could mean being exposed to sun and is usually a sign of poverty, which is sometimes magnified by the history of conquests by nothern peoples which makes "nothern" looks culturally associated with the nobility. This is just my theory, based on what I learned from my roommate and other people. Marina > > Just a side note: one interesting way the races may mingle in the > future was brought up in Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_ -- > instead of sun tan lotion, some people use a cream which stimulates > their melanin-producing skin cells, turning their skin a uniform dark > brown regardless of the original color. I think this was done in part > to help protect from the high UV in sunlight in that future world. > > But I always it would be great to be able to darken my skin tone a few > notches -- ever since being teased as a boy in Hawaii for being the > palest in a class of sun-worshipping, mixed-race kids. > > I think such an invention would really change the significance of skin > color -- I bet it would piss off a lot of people, too, both black and > white! > > Dan Krashin > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:39:52 -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: Heinlein and Nietzsche Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Theme: what would happen if blacks were suddenly given absolute > power over whites? > Heinlein's answer: Simple. They'd enslave, mutilate and castrate > whites. For this story, yes, that's what he chose to do. I don't see any evidence, though, that you can say that this is what he truly believed would or could happen. FWIW, I didn't like it, and I'm not defending it except to say that I don't see any evidence elsewhere about this being a view of his. > Sounds like the specifications for a Playboy centrefold. I can see it > now: > [...] > Now that I've thought it through I can see that RAH must have had > a profound admiration for blacks and a truly feminist approach to > women. *sigh* I think that the list has already hashed over a lot of this. I don't think that his works are feminist by today's standards, but he did have women doing many things that I don't think were "appropriate" in the mainstream culture at the time. His later and longer "novels" are worse than his earlier stories, IMO, and its there that most of the qualities that people are complaining about really come to the fore. -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:20:42 -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: future of "race" In-Reply-To: (message from Marina on Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:36:43 -0500) In response to Marina's musings on light-skinned=good, I thought I'd mention that in the U.S. black culture this has also been very prevalent. The whole "black is beautiful" campaign of the 70's was a response to this, as well as to white prejudice. And yes, several of the Indian and Pakistani women I've known have been obsessed with being as light-skinned as possible. OTOH, my housemate, who is black, gets really grossed out when she loses weight such that the veins on her hands are visible. I pointed out that we folks with translucent skin get used to it and showed her the veins that are clearly visible through my skin and she was completely repulsed. E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:36:53 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: feminist cyberpunk books? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980723212608.00696570@hemlock.newcastle.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote: > Does anoyone know of any books on feminist cyberpunk or similar sorts of > things. I would really appreciate any info. Thanks > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, > you're taking up too much space.*~ > I hope this isn't redundant, as I have been behind in replying to things I am intrested in. Try anything by Wilhelmina Baird (CrashCourse, ClipJoint, Psykosis) and Pat Cadigan (Synners, Fools). --Kendra Smith tristesse7@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:23:56 -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: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:52:49 -0500 Marina writes: >By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore the >idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being racially or >politically charged. Does anyone know of any? > >Marina "Walk to the End of the World" (Suzy McKee Chernas (Charnas?)) comes to mind: POSSIBLE SPOILER While some of the men are planning cannibalism, the fems have been rendering down their own dead as nutritional supplements all along. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:37:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: Flesh eating books. In-Reply-To: <19980817.172357.-403303.0.jjggww@juno.com> from "Frances Green" at Aug 17, 98 05:23:56 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:52:49 -0500 Marina > writes: > >By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore the > >idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being racially or > >politically charged. Does anyone know of any? The first book that comes to mind is _Make Room! Make Room!_. This is the book on which the movie "Soylent Green" is based. Caroline (SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! in that Charlton Heston Moses' voice.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:08:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Racism/Heinlein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> _Farnham's Freehold_ showed a deep abiding contempt, >> even hatred, for blacks >> >But does it? I don't see the contempt and hatred of blacks elsewhere >in his works of fiction. It always seemed like he was playing with a >theme. I know that when I read it, I didn't see the blacks as blacks, >but as the evil foil. I strongly suspect a black reader would find it impossible to exercise the bit of mental gymnastics that are described above regarding blacks versus "evil foil" . A absence of presence in a body of work can be a measure of racism as well. And finally, what does it say, regardless, that RAH's choice for horrific and rampant evil was black persons, and that in what appears to be the only occasion where blacks _were_ represented? donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:12:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Flesh eating books. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just remembered Anthony Burgess: "The Wanting Seed". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:33:07 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-12 14:54:26 EDT, you write: << I write about collectibles for a living. My definition of collectible: if somebody's collecting it, it's collectible. >> The thing is, see, if you start buying things that are numbered, and you have items #1 through item #17, then when item #18 comes out, you're motivated to buy it so you won't have an incomplete collection! My situation with the Star Trek novels, though, is similar to that expressed in an earlier post: the books haven't been all that great in the past couple of years, so maybe I'd rather have an incomplete collection than keep on buying what I now see will be an endless supply of bookmilled novels. I've already decided not to buy any more novels about Klingons. I don't like Klingons. When I die my kids will throw out all my Star Trek novels anyhow--- barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:38:23 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-12 19:10:36 EDT, you write: << Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the > > very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that > > they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will > > admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that > > to me. >> Once a guy told me that he didn't like the show because the captain is a woman. At this same time, this idiot was trying to sell me something! He did not get a sale. He got a lecture on male chauvinist dinosaurs needing to give it up and face reality. BTW, this list might be interested in a Web site at www.about-face.org--it's dedicated to changing the destructive images of women presented in the media. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:28:42 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-13 18:34:14 EDT, you write: << << I always thought that we are all equal under the law and therefore we already start as equals. >> >> You're still going to have hard-headed macho types who growl, "I ain't workin' for no woman." They live in a universe in which women have a certain place--serving men--and you cannot legislate away that mindset. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:35:26 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-14 00:26:39 EDT, you write: << Most of the men I know who watch the show complain about Janeway's character. They have told me the Captain is too maternal, too nice, and not devious enough. >> Why would anyone want to work for a devious person? You have to be able to trust your commanding officer, especially in a life-or-death situation. Janeway seems able to make the tough decisions and get her crew behind her. So what's wrong if she's human in the process and not one of those cliched brutal jerks? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:47:24 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Asimov's female characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-14 16:59:53 EDT, you write: << Speaking of Grandmasters, I think Asimov actually did a fairly good job with female characters (if you count the Emotional in _The Gods Themselves_ as a female -- she belongs to a trisexual species), even though he's not thought of much in this connection. >> Really? I thought his female characters were, for the most part, like stereotypes from 1950s sit-coms. They were minor characters like receptionists, or nagging, whining wives, or placeholders to whom the hero could direct the exposition. Besides Susan Calvin, which female characters of Asimov's do you find effectively done? I'm not arguing with you--I'm interested to see who you come up with. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:51:59 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: musings on feminism over time, on TV Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-14 17:47:09 EDT, you write: << I was watching Wonder Woman this afternoon (hooray for the SciFi channel!) and was struck by some of the themes we^Òve been discussion, especially the Heinlein, ST:TOS, and Madrone^Òs comments regarding feminism over time. Wonder Woman was inspirational to so many women >> Wonder Woman is inspiring to me because my daughter once told me that I reminded her of Linda Carter. If you'd ever seen short, dumpy, unathletic me, you'd know what a jewel in my crown that was! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:54:53 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-15 00:03:54 EDT, you write: << And on the idea of equality, has anyone else read Mrs Gaskell's _Cranford_ and remember Miss Deborah Jenkins, who had no truck with this modern notion that women were equal to men - they were far superior! Lesley >> Yes, I read that book recently, and found it quite interesting. I don't know anything about the author, however. Can you enlighten me? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:44:35 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: future of "race": Marina Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-17 14:37:10 EDT, you write: << In other words, it hard to say for sure, but it seems that outside the US, where the skin color is tightly bound to the slavery, social inequalities, and the South-North confrontation, it seems that generally, "fair = good" comes from the class distinctions caused by the fact that dark skin could mean being exposed to sun and is usually a sign of poverty, which is sometimes magnified by the history of conquests by nothern peoples which makes "nothern" looks culturally associated with the nobility. This is just my theory, based on what I learned from my roommate and other people. >> Many times in many East Asian cultures, pale skin was fetishized as well, I think most people would agree for the reasons you suggest. My Sri Lankan classmate in our Honolulu high school wore a sign one day reading: "I am a Caucasian." He was a very dark brown, while I was as much "sharkbait" as Daniel Krashin, probably (garans ballbearans, bra), but was compelled to point out that he was more Cauc than I, with 3 Cherokee great grandparents and Mohawk claimed further back on the other side. The natives of the Caucasus that I have met are pretty dark. "Race" is somewhat less meaningful, and clearly less directed, than "breeds" of domestic cat. But boy can we insist upon it and act accordingly! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:44:52 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: cannibalism: Marina Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore the idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being racially or politically charged. Does anyone know of any? >Marina >> You can't really deal with this subject without a political and/or other social charge. Certainly THE TIME MACHINE and MOTHERLINES and MAKE ROOM! MAKE ROOM! were all making charged points. And growing beans and rice of the right sort is certainly a MUCH more efficient way of getting the necessary proteins, although many of us find a steak tastier (no longer I). Eating corpses of humans, once you're over the shudder factor, has quite a Lot of practical drawbacks, mostly in the fact that humans can pass on a Lot more diseases to other humans than even the other typical food mammals. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:44:56 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein and Nietzsche: Anthea Comments: To: gaudit@global.co.za Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-17 05:28:57 EDT, you write: << Neil Rest said > We could entertain outselves competitively insulting _Farnham's > Freehold_, but I really don't think it's fair to base you opinion > on one of the worst two or three of his fifty novels. I don't agree. In this context, I'm not interested in his novels as works of fiction, but as pointers to his political beliefs. So, by extension, I'm more interested in the extreme cases than in the average. _Farnham's Freehold_ showed a deep abiding contempt, even hatred, for blacks as well as highlighting his unacceptable thoughts on younger and/or related women. Which is why I THINK _Farnham's Freehold_ is the novel that epitomises RAH. --Actually, the book is typical of Heinlein's last two decades in its massively maturbatory self-indulgence. I've never been able to get so far as to read his apparently racist bits, so don't ever bring that subject to the discussion, but everyone I've discussed the book with previously has noted this aspect. I bow to their (and,. AJ, your) perserverance with this awful book. On the point of RAH's alleged "feminism", I THINK that RAH was a typical male of the 60s (I know he began writing 30 years earlier, but I'm talking about his thought processes). And males of the 60s - IN MY OPINION - underneath the high-falutin' language of equality had little but contempt for women. I feel that "I fear no evil" was a prime, condescending example of this contempt. Which, on a personal note, is why I call myself a "New Feminist" but express an apparently contradictory admiration for Russ and the others who fought for women's rights during that dark era. --Well, yeah, Russ and many others were definitely pointing out the antifeminist tendencies of many would-be radical men. Be free, Little Flower, by doing what I want when I want you to. Very Heinlein, actually, only his good women, excuse me, gals, want to just as much, because pregnancy is unalloyed fun! WE WHO ARE ABOUT TO-- by Russ is all response to Heinlein, is it not? One I haven't read yet. On the other hand, I don't think that Heinlein was a fascist. I don't know where the various list members get their definitions, but I always take mine from the disgusting Giovanni Gentile unless I'm talking about Nazism in which case I use those twin monsters, Hitler and Rosenberg. I THINK that the key, unifying element in fascism, nazism etc is "state socialism" which I find nowhere in RAH's corpus. --Well, "state socialism" is a term of obfuscation in itself, by intention. The real fascists, in Italy and Spain, and their ideological children around the world, such as happy Senator General Pinochet (yet another reason to thank Henry Kissinger when next you meet), kept the ownership of industry in private hands, but simply, with the advice and consent of the most important and supportive private hands, directed how the society would be run. Naziism went a few steps further, being even more obsessed with scapegoats and fantasies of purity, versus obsession with maintennance of order and traditional class structures and the Mother Church. Mussolini et alles were influenced by the Leninists, who had already traduced even the rather bureaucratic notions of practical socialism advanced by Marx or Bernstein, much less the more radical (and, frankly, truer) socialism of Kropotkin's anarchocommunism, among others. Anyone who wants a society based largely on a military structure is well on his way to fascism, in my book. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:46:07 -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: feminist cyberpunk books? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Kendra Smith wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote: > > > Does anoyone know of any books on feminist cyberpunk or similar sorts of > > things. I would really appreciate any info. Thanks > > > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, > > you're taking up too much space.*~ > > > > I hope this isn't redundant, as I have been behind in replying to things I am > intrested in. > > Try anything by Wilhelmina Baird (CrashCourse, ClipJoint, Psykosis) and Pat > Cadigan (Synners, Fools). > > --Kendra Smith > tristesse7@aol.com > Just read Pat Cadigan's Tea from an Empty Cup in galleys. It isn't quite as good as Synners, but it's still very good. If you like feminist cyberpunk, look for it this fall. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 02:25:14 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/18/98 1:55:54 AM, you wrote: <<<< And on the idea of equality, has anyone else read Mrs Gaskell's _Cranford_ and remember Miss Deborah Jenkins, who had no truck with this modern notion that women were equal to men - they were far superior! Lesley >> Yes, I read that book recently, and found it quite interesting. I don't know anything about the author, however. Can you enlighten me?>> Can anyone enlighten me as to the book(s) involved here? Am mightily curious and would appreciate the info. TIA; Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 02:41:56 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: Heinlein Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/17/98 3:12:46 AM, Todd wrote: <> LOL ---Did you really mean to say that, seminal AND sticky? An author who is a "seminal" figure is not high on my list of must read feminist science fiction. And the sentence in its entirety really just confirms my opinion that he was a "you know what" (don't know if I can use the word here, but it starts with P). I don't really know or care what his political leanings might have been, I have sometimes enjoyed his writing and some of his ideas. But let's get real - he, like Asimov, expressed a misogynist view of women - even considering his time. They and most of the other male authors that I've read since I discovered SF almost 40 years ago are a major reason I felt totally disenfranchised as a human being well into the 70s. They are also the reason that I could read only SF written by feminists and women for the next 100 years and barely begin to find a balance, or get their muck out of my head. If either of these guys was in any way feminist, then I should have a great shot at "Queen of the Universe". Please! Enough about patriarchs already. Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 02:09:24 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: Racism/Heinlein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In Time Enough for Love, RAH has Lazarus mention that one of the original Howards was Black and that it wasn't something people even thought about. Given the amount of inbreeding within the families, that means that almost all of them were related to this man. It was a bit self-conscious, like declaring I am not a racist, but it sounded like he was trying to promote racial harmony Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 02:27:11 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually the woman is not his daughter in law, she's a friend of his daughter's. And castration includes forced hysterectomies for women. I agree that raising adults for food would be prohibitively expensive. Presumably either they were special delicacies for the top rank,and were probably mostly captured individuals rather than those would be taken from the worker's ranks. Mass slayings of work capable slaves are unusual, and besides, the older they got, the less tender. Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:41:49 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: schant Subject: Re: feminist cyberpunk books? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Just read Pat Cadigan's Tea from an Empty Cup in galleys. It isn't quite > as good as Synners, but it's still very good. If you like feminist > cyberpunk, look for it this fall. > > Mike Levy Due out 7th September in the UK and 5th October in US. She's also doing various signings/readings around the time. Cheers SC -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:51:11 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? -Reply Comments: To: DEBRA.EULER@PENGUIN.COM In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 17 Aug 98, at 10:19, Debra Euler wrote: > I feel exactly the same way, although with the addition of "nudist" > to the strong baby-crazed nympho woman. As a well endowed teen, it > irritated the hell out of me when he'd describe these pneumatic > females who strode about, and participated in action, completely > naked. There's a lot to be said for a good sports bra. I came into Fantasy via Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian novels where, as you know, all the characters walk around in thier birthday suits. This nudity didn't worry me at first except that I thought girls would have a definite advantage over boys at fighting naked. Then I recalled an aunt who was/is an athletic, but over- endowed, lady. The thought of her prancing around in the nude convulsed me and I've never been able to forget the image. Seriously, though I saw the trailer for the "Mark of Zorro" in which the eponymous character sliced a woman's clothes off with an epee. And it turned me cold. The thought of someone waving a sharp sword around my exposed superstructure scares the living daylights out of me. I wonder how the Turkana - who allegedly fight lions naked except for their weapons - cope. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:51:30 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: [*FSFFU* Labelling political systems Comments: To: Todd Mason In-Reply-To: <1488a1f9.35d906c9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 18 Aug 98, at 0:44, Todd Mason wrote: > --Actually, the book is typical of Heinlein's last two decades in its > massively maturbatory self-indulgence. I've never been able to get so far > as to read his apparently racist bits, so don't ever bring that subject to > the discussion, but everyone I've discussed the book with previously has > noted this aspect. I bow to their (and,. AJ, your) perserverance with this > awful book. The problem, of course, Todd, is that often one doesn't _actually_ read an offensive book with the attention it deserves. I have (like I suspect many people) two modes of reading fiction: when I'm enjoying a book, I read and savour every word, every nuance. When I dislike a book, I read using a variant of Phyllis Mindell's "Power reading" - a mode I normally use only with non-fiction. Funnily enough although I read Elgin's fiction using the "Power Reading" method, I read her "Gentle Art..." non-fiction slowly and in depth. > --Well, yeah, Russ and many others were definitely pointing out the > antifeminist tendencies of many would-be radical men. Be free, Little > Flower, by doing what I want when I want you to. Very Heinlein, actually, > only his good women, excuse me, gals, want to just as much, because > pregnancy is unalloyed fun! WE WHO ARE ABOUT TO-- by Russ is all response > to Heinlein, is it not? One I haven't read yet. Well put! > --Well, "state socialism" is a term of obfuscation in itself, by > intention. The real fascists, in Italy and Spain, and their ideological > children around the world, such as happy Senator General Pinochet (yet > another reason to thank Henry Kissinger when next you meet), kept the > ownership of industry in private hands, but simply, with the advice and > consent of the most important and supportive private hands, directed how > the society would be run. At the risk of giving offence, I don't believe that we should attempt definitions of political movements from the outside - we must always let the originators or theoreticians of the movement define themselves. Otherwise we drag in too much emotional baggage by trying to define a philosophy in terms of the actions of its supposed followers. Should we, for example, define communism in terms of Stalin's purges, Mao TseTung's Cultural revolution, Castro's personality cult or Allende's incompetent corruption? I don't know Spanish fascism that well - for example I can't see how Pinochet or even Franco can be called "fascist" (except pejoratively). But Gentile must - I think - be regarded as the ultimate authority of Italian fascism and (by definition) Hitler must be regarded as that for Nazism. A problem I have with political theorists is their tendency to alter the definition of words to suit a particular, often ephemeral purpose. This makes coherent discussion impossible (which is probably the reason for re-definition!). > Anyone who wants a society based largely on a military structure is > well on his way to fascism, in my book. But, for example, the Soviet Union was while North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Cuba still are held together by military force and were/are built around a military framework; I would think it ludicrous to describe those as "fascist". In the nature of things, dictatorships of the left or the right are structured around the military - how else would they endure? This is a problem I see with labels in SF. We label Heinlein's state as "fascist" and this carries with it connotations which obscure our picture of his universe. In some ways, we could apply the same label to some of C J Cherryh's Merchanters, others would be communists, still others anarchists and yet others Syndicalists (the last two admittedly with a stretch of the imagination). Take "Tripoint": what "political system" reigns on _Spirite_? On _Corinthian_? I know I'm talking about small groups of people, but consider the exercise any way. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:24:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Asimov's female characters In-Reply-To: <92314b94.35d8dd2e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Barbara R. Hume wrote: > could direct the exposition. Besides Susan Calvin, which female characters of > Asimov's do you find effectively done? I'm not arguing with you--I'm > interested to see who you come up with. > Arcadia Darrell, teenaged pain in the rear and would-be writer.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:24:08 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: [*FSFFU* Labelling political systems Comments: To: gaudit@global.co.za Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-18 07:45:29 EDT, you write: << At the risk of giving offence, I don't believe that we should attempt definitions of political movements from the outside - we must always let the originators or theoreticians of the movement define themselves. --Then the National Socialist Party was merely the preserver of the German nation and the Aryan race, rather than the insane murderers of the perceived enemies of that race. I'm afraid I prefer a balance of theory and practice in my assessments. Otherwise we drag in too much emotional baggage by trying to define a philosophy in terms of the actions of its supposed followers. Should we, for example, define communism in terms of Stalin's purges, Mao TseTung's Cultural revolution, Castro's personality cult or Allende's incompetent corruption? --Yes. Except it's interesting you slip Allende in there, rather than other Leninist-influenced rather than truly Leninist types usually offered in the same breath in this country, such as the Sandanistas of Nicaragua. But most definitely, yes we should. There is nothing in these outrages of various degrees that is not foreshadowed in Lenin and Trotsky's writings and actions. I don't know Spanish fascism that well - for example I can't see how Pinochet or even Franco can be called "fascist" (except pejoratively). But Gentile must - I think - be regarded as the ultimate authority of Italian fascism and (by definition) Hitler must be regarded as that for Nazism. --I admit I've never read Gentile's writing, beyond passages quoted, just as I'm in a similar lack of direct experience of David Ricardo, and will still talk about classic liberalism. But if you don't see how the Carlists of Spain or Pinochet's regime correspond with more than a too-casual use of "fascist," I encourage an exchange of reading assignments! But, for example, the Soviet Union was while North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Cuba still are held together by military force and were/are built around a military framework; I would think it ludicrous to describe those as "fascist". In the nature of things, dictatorships of the left or the right are structured around the military - how else would they endure? --Not ludicrous, merely intentionally insulting and indicative of the much- vaunted (and too true) similarity of all "totalitarian/authoritarian" systems. Dictatorship doesn't endure without terror and military-style rigid hierarchy, and oddly enough I don't much like dictatorship. If you think them completely dissimilar, why the reference earlier to "state socialism"? Also, you'll notice I wrote "on the way to fascism." I've consistently maintained that Heinlein is an at least occasional near-fascist rather than an out-and-out. For someone really digging Benito, check out RAH's most notable heir politically in sf, Jerry Pournelle. Alas, I haven't read C J Cherryh since the first or second THE FADED SUN book, but it's notable that some of the real anarchist militias, as part-time and desperately undersupplied as they were, were able to hold both the Leninists and the Carlists at bay for three years in Spain--without quite making a dictatorship of the rest of the society they served. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:25:51 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: A Modest Proposal...Swift In light of the Flesh-eating scifi interest, was not Jonathon Swift a fantasy writer? Anyone else familiar with this and think it may be pertinant to this list? Penny ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:52:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal...Swift MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Its been ages since I read MP - but I would tend to say that it doesn't really fit - People have mentioned the 'willing suspension of disbelief' when reading SF and I don't think it applies in the same way to satire. I think Swift did not expect people to buy into his proposal. sheryl > ---------- > From: Penelope Gibbs[SMTP:PENEL@CALC.VET.UGA.EDU] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 10:25 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] A Modest Proposal...Swift > > In light of the Flesh-eating scifi interest, was not Jonathon Swift a > fantasy writer? Anyone else familiar with this and think it may be > pertinant to this list? > > Penny > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:51:27 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal...Swift MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, let's have Swift Revisited. M. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:03:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism In-Reply-To: <199808171617.SAA28868@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > > By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore > > the idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being > > racially or politically charged. Does anyone know of any? > > _The time machine_ by H.G. Wells. I remember that one. Future England with humanity split into two species: the clildlike "upper class" that lives on the surface, and the "working class" that lives underground, feeds the "upperclass" and then eats them. One of the books we are still to discuss on this list has a similar setup on another planet (I don't know if it'll be a spoiler if I mention the title, it's one from the book discussion group list). For some reason, I could never really get into Wells. Most of his novels seemed like an illustration to the Marxist view on society. And dead-boring on top of that. I don't think I read anything of his since I was eleven. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:16:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Heinlein and Nietzsche In-Reply-To: <19980817143952.W9125@canolog.ninthwonder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Allen Briggs wrote: > *sigh* I think that the list has already hashed over a lot of > this. I don't think that his works are feminist by today's standards, > but he did have women doing many things that I don't think were > "appropriate" in the mainstream culture at the time. This is not to defend Heinlein because I really don't care about him one way or another. However, this topic made me wonder -- is it possible that some of the feminist works that we admire today as bold and groundbreaking, (including the books written by list members), thirty years from now would be seen not only as non-feminist, but even mysogenistic by the future standards? And if it happens with some of today's works and not with others, what will more likely be the defining factor? It's probably pointless, but I just imagined people of the future getting upset over things we can't even imagine now, and other people saying: "Come on, these folks lived in 1990's, what do you expect from them? Good enough that they did _something_..." Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:56:24 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal...Swift In-Reply-To: <57D4D534E6E@calc.vet.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Yes, he was, in my estimation as to what fantastic literature is all about. "A Modest Proposal" was meant to enlighten the English people on their own attitudes about the Irish, but it has influenced alot of writers throughout the centuries. Bertina On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > In light of the Flesh-eating scifi interest, was not Jonathon Swift a > fantasy writer? Anyone else familiar with this and think it may be > pertinant to this list? > > Penny > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:48:16 -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: cannibalism In-Reply-To: <843a1325.35d906c6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Another well-done sf novel which involves cannibalism is Neal Barrett Jr.'s Through Darkest America. It isn't much remembered today, perhaps because Barrett mostly left sf to write mysteries and TV, but it made all of the best of the year lists in 1987. It has a sequel, Dawn's Uncertain Light (1989). It has the feel of Brin's The Postman crossed with Huckleberry Finn, but is darker than either. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:54:39 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal...Swift Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-18 09:26:29 EDT, you write: << In light of the Flesh-eating scifi interest, was not Jonathon Swift a fantasy writer? Anyone else familiar with this and think it may be pertinant to this list? >> Swift's "A Modest Proposal" about the English eating the babies of the poor was political in intent, because he was incensed at the English treatment of the Irish. But the format was fantasy. Certainly _Gulliver's Travels_ is a fantasy. Immortal beings? Floating islands? Tiny humans? Yep-- barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:56:29 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-18 10:12:00 EDT, you write: << For some reason, I could never really get into Wells. Most of his novels seemed like an illustration to the Marxist view on society. And dead-boring on top of that. I don't think I read anything of his since I was eleven. >> Well, the man was a socialist. He believed in an eventual utopia once certain political structures were abolished. He underestimated the indestructability of human greed, selfishness, and lust for power over others. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:43:33 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 17/08/98 16:52:49 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Marina , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore the > idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being racially or > politically charged. Does anyone know of any? Soylent Green..I can't remember what it was based on, but a PKD short springs to what I like to pretend is my mind as a possibility. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org It has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:49:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Flesh eating books. In-Reply-To: <19980817.181220.-271395.0.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII By a slight stretch, Swift's _A Modest Proposal_, and then there's Tiptree's "Morality Meat". Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:08:14 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: Flesh eating books. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A Modest Proposal is both politically and racially charged, which is why it wasn't mentioned. Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:09:55 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Wells is one of the few writers of his time who questioned war. In "Mr. Britling Sees it Through" he shows the devastation of the transformation from a man who believes in war and the manliness of war to one who looses a son to war, and begins to have a different vision of it all. This is not a feminist work, but is an unusually questioning masculist one and in places is difficult to read because of the experience of loss...loss of a loved one's life, and loss of cherished beliefs. However, his struggles to find a place for women were doomed by his own need to be supported and to have sexual adventures. In his book, "Meanwhile", which I would have thrown across the room except that it is a gorgeous first edition with an art deco slip cover...he wrestles with the idea that, yes, someday women should have some other role but, meanwhile, having sons was the best they could do. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!! Herbert, how could you!! Interestingly, in one of his last books he describes himself as an old uncle, and uses the metaphore of an untouched block of marble that young people will have to carve to show that he knew he didn't know it all, and that the future was in the hands of all of us. I thought that was pretty good for someone who held such strong opinions. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:47:38 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Mrs Gaskell's _Cranford_: was Feminist SF/Star Trek... Barbara wrote << And on the idea of equality, has anyone else read Mrs Gaskell's _Cranford_ and remember Miss Deborah Jenkins, who had no truck with this modern notion that women were equal to men - they were far superior! Lesley >> Elizabeth Gaskell was a Victorian woman writer, who broke the usual mould by being (apparently) happily married to a Unitarian parson and the mother of several children, about whom she kept maternal diaries. She lived in Manchester, where her only son died of, I think, scarlet fever. Like many another Victorian, she turned her personal grief into social concern, which in her case took the form of the novel _Mary Barton_ about the suffering of the working classes under early industrialism, exacerbated by the callousness of the factory owners. She wrote (besides _Cranford_, based on her own early life living with an aunt in Knutsford, Cheshire), _North and South_, _Sylvia's Lovers_ and _Wives and Daughters_, all of which are worth reading, as well as a large no of shorter pieces, which (to bring this somewhere in the range of our topic) included ghost stories, which some critics have argued for being a form in which women could express hidden feelings and their sense of not being at home in the world. Also, there is a young scientist in _W&D_ who has some resemblances to a non-hypochondriac Charles Darwin. An excellent biography of Gaskell by Jenny Uglow came out a few years ago. I came across an sf short story some while ago -'Drumble' - can't recall the author - but it is based on _Cranford_. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:08:40 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: HG Wells: was Heinlein's women & babies -- cannibalism >Interestingly, in one of his last books he describes himself as an old uncle An image he borrowed, I suspect, from his former lover and mother of his illegitimate son, Rebecca West, who wrote an essay in the 1920 on Wells and the other Edwardian novelists (Bennett, Galsworthy, and I forget) as 'Uncles' to her own generation (she was *much* younger than HGW at the time of their affair). While I wouldn't want to dismiss HGW's works and thought totally, certainly a reading of _Ann Veronica_ suggests a) his deep ambivalance about sisters doing it for themselves in the suffrage movement b) his belief that women should be free so that they could run off with married men not entirely unlike himself... Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:19:18 -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: Gaskell's Cranford (was Feminist SF/Star Trek) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell, 1810-1865. Primarily short story writer, but wrote several novels. Works: Mary Barton (1848), Cranford (1853), Ruth (1853), North and South (1855), Wifes and Daughters (unfinished, 1866). Was a good pal of Dickens, Wordsworth and Charlotte Bronte and wrote a respected bio of Bronte. She also wrote at least one ghost story (for purposes of this list), "The Old Nurse's Story," collected in Reign of Terror: The First Corgi Book of Great Victorian Horror Stories (1977 paperback original). For those interested in reading "Cranford," I see lots of reprint copies from the late 19th century and early 20th, when I'm out scouting around Minneapolis for used books to resell. In fact I'd guess it's one of the hundred or so most common books of that period that have crossed my path .. -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:29:40 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: Re: future of "race" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/17/98 1:31:47 PM, you wrote: <<>Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:28:28 -0500 >From: Robin Reid >Subject: Intermingling of "races" [big snip] Just a side note: one interesting way the races may mingle in the future was brought up in Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_ -- instead of sun tan lotion, some people use a cream which stimulates their melanin-producing skin cells, turning their skin a uniform dark brown regardless of the original color. I think this was done in part to help protect from the high UV in sunlight in that future world. But I always it would be great to be able to darken my skin tone a few notches -- ever since being teased as a boy in Hawaii for being the palest in a class of sun-worshipping, mixed-race kids. I think such an invention would really change the significance of skin color -- I bet it would piss off a lot of people, too, both black and white! Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> I personally wouldn't mind the uniformity as I am tired of whites putting their arms next to mine (I'm African American) to gauge their tans. Ironically these same whites would have nothing to do with me otherwise. V. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:24:25 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: future of "race": Lee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-18 20:17:16 EDT, you write: << I personally wouldn't mind the uniformity as I am tired of whites putting their arms next to mine (I'm African American) to gauge their tans. Ironically these same whites would have nothing to do with me otherwise. V. >> Remarkable! The same clowns who use you as a color standard would probably continue--"Oops, need more melanin-enabler." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:36:55 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: HG Wells: was Heinlein's women & babies -- canni Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit And there is no question but that H.G. Wells squelched his second wife's writing ability. I know. I used to like him before I found feminist philosophy, and before I learned more about him. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:24:42 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the Ansible post Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:34:32 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: future of "race" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's more to race than skin color, even restricting the subject to visual differences. My professor in a class in college was, like me, a green-eyed, fair-skinned blonde. She was teaching a class in Afro-American history and frequently spoke in a way that showed she considered herself Black. By American standards, of course, she was, since one Black ancestor is all that is needed for that designation. She also had non-Caucasian features which made her claim a little more believable, but I'm sure that in places like Hawaii and Brazil, this is a very common situation Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:47:09 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: [*FSFFU* Labelling political systems Comments: To: Todd Mason In-Reply-To: <23a6544e.35d98079@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 18 Aug 98, at 9:24, Todd Mason wrote: > --Then the National Socialist Party was merely the preserver of the German > nation and the Aryan race, rather than the insane murderers of the > perceived enemies of that race. I'm afraid I prefer a balance of theory > and practice in my assessments. My point was simply that it's pointless to destroy the meaning of a clearly defined word by turning it into a vague pejorative. I don't think there's any use in belabouring this. > --Yes. Except it's interesting you slip Allende in there, rather > than other Leninist-influenced rather than truly Leninist types > usually offered in the same breath in this country, such as the > Sandanistas of Nicaragua. But most definitely, yes we should. There > is nothing in these outrages of various degrees that is not > foreshadowed in Lenin and Trotsky's writings and actions. I used Allende because of my personal knowledge of Chile. I have, to be honest, difficulty in separating one brand of "communist" politician from the other - which is why I usually let them define themselves. > But if you don't see how the Carlists of Spain or Pinochet's regime > correspond with more than a too-casual use of "fascist," I > encourage an exchange of reading assignments! I grant you a similarity of "Carlist" with "Falange" if you're referring to 1933ish onwards. For the 19C though how you would reconcile such a similarity with their fight for REGIONAL AUTONOMY AGAINST AGAINST A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT beats me. The Pinochet one also beats me; other than the military structure (which we agree is common to dictatorships) there's no real similarity. You're using "Carlist" the the Loyalist propaganda sense. > If you think them completely dissimilar, why the reference earlier > to "state socialism"? Also, you'll notice I wrote "on the way to > fascism." I don't think they're completely dissimilar. I don't know anyone that does; most writers (except "communists" of all complexions of course) seem to think they agreed as often as they differed. The full name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany; leave off the "National" and it could be any one of a hundred "communism" parties. I forget the exact quote but Ernst Roehm in late 33 pointed out the similarities between them (admittedly he was of the leftist wing of the party). Even _Mein Kampf_ does. Extremist beliefs are like pregnancy; either you are or you aren't. By your definition almost anyone (including Bakunin or Kropotkin if one is selective enough) could be "on the way to fascism". > I've consistently maintained that Heinlein is an at least > occasional near-fascist rather than an out-and-out. For someone > really digging Benito, check out RAH's most notable heir > politically in sf, Jerry Pournelle. You're taking it too far. And in doing so you're diluting the meaning of "fascism". There are plenty of other pejorative names to use without repeating "fascism" about everyone who isn't an anarchist. > Alas, I haven't read C J Cherryh since the first or second THE FADED SUN > book, but it's notable that some of the real anarchist militias, as > part-time and desperately undersupplied as they were, were able to hold > both the Leninists and the Carlists at bay for three years in > Spain--without quite making a dictatorship of the rest of the society they > served. I'm not sure how we get from Cherryh to anarchist dictatorship and the performance of the anarchist militias but here goes: the May 36 revolt by anarchists and POUM, and the accompanying atrocities (including widespread murders) was the cause for Robles' speech of 16 June, which I think you will agree was the trigger for the outbreak of the Civil War on 17 July. Frequent, almost random murders (initially esp of clergy) typified anarchist-held areas throughout the war. The anarchists and POUM, I concede, knew how to kill and how to die; unfortunately they knew or cared nothing else. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:18:11 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ruth Jost Subject: Re: future of "race" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ---Heather Law wrote: > > There's more to race than skin color ... There is a nasty political debate raging here in Australia at the moment re skin colour and race, with a new right-wing (white) party taking the view that only "black" people are "true" indigenous people and all others claiming to be aboriginal are doing so in order to get "special treatment" like extra welfare benefits etc. I consider this to be a racist view. It ignores that identifying as aboriginal is also a political act in defiance of the long and indisputable history in Aus of policies designed to discriminate against indigenous people, and to "breed out" the aboriginal race. Talk about "special treatment".(Eg a policy of removing "lighter coloured" indigenous people from their families and fostering them with white families or placing them in church-run "missions" etc was in place up until 20 years ago and the devastating ramifications of this policy continue to be felt within the affected communities). I'd have to agree that race is certainly not just about skin colour although there appears to be an alarming tendency among us "whites" to reduce the issue to that simplistic level. Cheers, Ruth == Equal Pay Watch Australia: news, info and resources on pay equity. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rj_gj/index.html _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:21:30 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: cannibalism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Another powerful cannibalism novel (as I remember it, though it is years since I read it) was Donald Kingsbury's "Courtship Rite" (in the UK, "Geta"). It received surprisingly little comment when it came out (1983), and even less since, wihch I have never quite understood. Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:23:44 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Labelling political systems: Anthea Comments: To: gaudit@global.co.za Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit My point was simply that it's pointless to destroy the meaning of a clearly defined word by turning it into a vague pejorative. I don't think there's any use in belabouring this. --Yes, but what you'd written was that we should accept the supposed orgininator's view of what a political label meant. This assumes that the originator has no distorting agenda, no vagueness in the consequences of they propose. Perhaps this is belaboring; I think of it as refining the terms of the discussion. I used Allende because of my personal knowledge of Chile. I have, to be honest, difficulty in separating one brand of "communist" politician from the other - which is why I usually let them define themselves. --If you think of Allende in the same lump with Mao and Stalin, it seems to me that you have a ferocious distaste for any kind of Marxist. Much less "communist". I grant you a similarity of "Carlist" with "Falange" if you're referring to 1933ish onwards. For the 19C though how you would reconcile such a similarity with their fight for REGIONAL AUTONOMY AGAINST AGAINST A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT beats me. The Pinochet one also beats me; other than the military structure (which we agree is common to dictatorships) there's no real similarity. You're using "Carlist" the the Loyalist propaganda sense. --I was being incomplete in the Carlist sense of the Carlist-Falangist- Nationalist coalition (with the Falange the most purely doctrinal fascists) that formed to overthrow the Republic; their supposed decentralism of the previous century was as irrelevant to their actions during the war as was their support of Don Carlos. Pinochet's admiration for the Italian fascists has been reported, perhaps erroneously; his minions' suppression of oppostition forces, the mass-murders in the stadium and elsewhere for example, and the outlawing of independent parties and unions, the collusion with large business interests in Chile, the (at least initial) hatred of social modernism and attempts to reinforce traditional morality (and antifeminism) in the country all seem to me to be at least pro-fascist in a way that, say, the Sandanistas were not. You almost sound as if you look upon Pinochet as a reasonable corrective to the Allende terror, which is unusual in my experience outside the far right. I don't think they're completely dissimilar. I don't know anyone that does; most writers (except "communists" of all complexions of course) seem to think they agreed as often as they differed. The full name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany; leave off the "National" and it could be any one of a hundred "communism" parties. --Which is why Leninists make a mockery of socialism; instead of worker- controlled work, they'll control the workers...for the workers' own good, of course. The Nazi's merely appropriated the term "socialist" for its populist resonances; all the fascists simply took one more step beyond "beating the people with the people's stick," by making sure that the stick stayed in private hands. Extremist beliefs are like pregnancy; either you are or you aren't. By your definition almost anyone (including Bakunin or Kropotkin if one is selective enough) could be "on the way to fascism". --One would have to be pretty damned selective to make Kropotkin a near fascist. Wouldn't take much selectivity at all for Heinlein. And one actively has to tweeze out why Pinochet is *not* at least a near-fascist. And why restrict your statement to "extremist" beliefs? If you haven't seen the potential for abuse in centrist philosophies-in-practice, you haven't been watching very closely. > I've consistently maintained that Heinlein is an at least > occasional near-fascist rather than an out-and-out. For someone > really digging Benito, check out RAH's most notable heir > politically in sf, Jerry Pournelle. You're taking it too far. And in doing so you're diluting the meaning of "fascism". There are plenty of other pejorative names to use without repeating "fascism" about everyone who isn't an anarchist. --What a remarkable statement! I call Pinochet fascist, and suddenly I'm calling Ron Dellums fascist, too? I'm not interested in insulting Heinlein, nor Pournelle for that matter, who has praised the Fascists (the Italian party) in at least one interview and co-wrote a modern-day INFERNO with Mussolini in the place Dante gave Vergil. You are the one diluting the term at this point, ad hominem. > Alas, I haven't read C J Cherryh since the first or second THE FADED SUN > book, but it's notable that some of the real anarchist militias, as > part-time and desperately undersupplied as they were, were able to hold > both the Leninists and the Carlists at bay for three years in > Spain--without quite making a dictatorship of the rest of the society they > served. I'm not sure how we get from Cherryh to anarchist dictatorship and the performance of the anarchist militias --through your reference to Cherryh's "Merchanter" books, to wit: "in some ways, we could apply the same label to some of C J Cherryh's Merchanters, others would be communists, still others anarchists and yet others Syndicalists (the last two admittedly with a stretch of the imagination)." but here goes: the May 36 revolt by anarchists and POUM, and the accompanying atrocities (including widespread murders) --which, of course, were solely the work of anarchists against their enemies. Or not. And POUM, the main Trotskyist party, and the anarchist labor and other organizations were not so very cozy as this statement implies, although the USSR-backed Leninists and Franco's forces would push them into rough alliances, wherein POUM was usually more irresponsible and definitely the junior partner. Also, this conveniently pretends that the uprising came out of nowhere, rather than in response to longstanding depredation. was the cause for Robles' speech of 16 June, which I think you will agree was the trigger for the outbreak of the Civil War on 17 July. Frequent, almost random murders (initially esp of clergy) typified anarchist-held areas throughout the war. --If one realizes the Catholic Church was 250% behind the fascists in this war, and its officials were usually very privileged and actively seeking to undermine any attempt to reduce that privilege, that cute "almost random...(initially esp of clergy)" tag takes on some special signifcance. I'd like to compare the murder rate behind the anarchist, communist and fascist lines, please. This doesn't excuse the violence against innocents performed by anarchists; there frankly wasn't anywhere near as much of that as was among the other camps. The anarchists and POUM, I concede, knew how to kill and how to die; unfortunately they knew or cared nothing else. --Well, the anarchists, as Tom Lehrer pointed out, had some great songs. They also created community organizations that kept large metropolitan and rural areas functioning for three years as best they could with almost no organized help from the rest of the world, while under blockade and attack by USSR- backed communists and Germany- and Italy-backed fascists. This remarkable statement sounds like the ones quoted in Vivian Gornick's THE ROMANCE OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM, wherein anyone who quit the US Communist Party either before or after the interviewee did was a fool or scoundrel, only the time the interviewee quit was proper. I see the same kind of Party-style logic in the insult you deliver above, a far more sweeping distortion (ok, lie) than any I might have inadvertantly, much less intentionally, made about any subject we've discussed. It was certainly the Communist Party line (and therefore Hemingway's) on both the anarchists and POUM, and the Francoists'. And perhaps the Catholic Church's, at the time and possibly still. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:35:51 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: cannibalism: James Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-19 07:23:29 EDT, you write: << Another powerful cannibalism novel (as I remember it, though it is years since I read it) was Donald Kingsbury's "Courtship Rite" (in the UK, "Geta"). It received surprisingly little comment when it came out (1983), and even less since, wihch I have never quite understood. Edward James >> It was mentioned previously in this discussion thread. Kingsbury was a fairly new writer (at least in terms of publishing regularly, I think he might have first published as far back as the early '60s or so but not much), mostly appeared in ANALOG, then the least lit-scholarship-oriented and perhaps least fannish of the prozines, and died (I believe, pls correct if I'm wrong) not too long after the novel was published. None of which helps with posterity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:49:59 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Lets try that first paragraph again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-19 08:26:16 EDT, you write: << --Yes, but what you'd written was that we should accept the supposed orgininator's view of what a political label meant. This assumes that the originator has no distorting agenda, no vagueness in the consequences of they propose. Perhaps this is belaboring; I think of it as refining the terms of the discussion. >> ...originator's view of what a political label... ...consequences of what they propose... Morning typing does that to me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:23:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: flesh eaters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > By the way, I wonder if there are any other sf books that explore > > the idea of using human flesh as food source, without it being > > racially or politically charged. Does anyone know of any? How about Octavia Butler's _Wild Seed_? I don't want to ruin anything for those who have not read the book, since it is? will be? a discussion group book. POSSIBLE SPOILERS ................ Anyanwu when she is in animal form eats the flesh of those she kills. She's disgusted by her behavior, but usually can't control herself. She's an animal when she occasionally eats humans, so I don't know if she qualiifies. I really like this book and am looking forward to discussing it. Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:10:37 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: flesh eaters In-Reply-To: <199808191423.JAA11045@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Joanna Goltzman wrote: > > How about Octavia Butler's _Wild Seed_? I don't want to ruin anything for > those who have not read the book, since it is? will be? a discussion group book. > > POSSIBLE SPOILERS ................ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyanwu when she is in animal form eats the flesh of those she kills. She's > disgusted by her behavior, but usually can't control herself. She's an > animal when she occasionally eats humans, so I don't know if she qualiifies. > > > I really like this book and am looking forward to discussing it. > If we're getting into that, any werewolf novel. Start with Laurell Hamilton's KILLING DANCE.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:01:57 -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: race & percentages I remember that several years ago some American asked some Haitian (?) government official to tell him (definitely, they were all hims in this story) the racial breakdown of his country. Lo and behold when the numbers came out there was an amazingly high percentage of whites (50% or 80% or something like that). "But how can this be?" exclaimed the American. "I look all around and there are not nearly so many white people as you say!" "Well," said the Haitian, "we counted a Haitian as white if they had any white ancestors." I don't know whether this was the standard social definition or if it was just intended to shake the American up, but it certainly did the latter. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:01:39 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Slave-trading in SF/F In-Reply-To: <199808190641.IAA16320@mx1.global.co.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In view of the on-going discussion about slaves, cannibalism etc, I've become interested in the treatment of slavery in all its forms in SF/F. Although the most common type of "slavery" dealt with in SF/F novels is that involving child/sweatshop labour etc that's still present in many parts of the world (McCaffrey's "Acorna" I find is particularly good), novels on other forms are available (starting with ERB's Martian novels). The problem has even been mentioned in Star Trek (the Kazon race, for example, in STV were one slaves of the Trabe). But I've been searching without success for novels on "slave trading" analogous to, say, the Atlantic slave trade. Someone on another list mentioned an SF book (unknown title/author) which he thought was based on Sir John Hawkins' 1562 voyage, but I haven't been able to find it. Can anyone let me have the name(s) of a novel or two treating the subject? AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:01:39 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: future of "race" In-Reply-To: <35DA55D7.B57@mc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 18 Aug 98, at 21:34, Heather Law wrote: > By American standards, of course, she was, since one Black ancestor > is all that is needed for that designation. She also had non-Caucasian > features which made her claim a little more believable, but I'm sure that > in places like Hawaii and Brazil, this is a very common situation I've always wondered why that should be. I know that many whites believe that having one black ancestor makes a person black, but I have never heard of any black person believing that having one white ancestor makes a person white. I'm living in a country where race was (and still is to a large extent) the primary factor affecting where a person lived, was educated, married and so on. A clear hierarchy of "colour" inherited from the horrific Apartheid days is evident even today with light-skinned Coloureds (people of mixed race) through darker-skinned Coloureds to "blacks" at the bottom. The same system prevails in Brazil - supposedly a non-racial country - to an even greater extent. And in Brazil, a person of "white" appearance would never, ever claim to be "black" because this would adversely affect their social status, their business, the chances of marrying well and even access to higher education. The really horrifying thing about racism is how irrational it is. Someone on another list recommended reading an (allegedly) famous book called "The Turner Diaries" which (as far as I can tell from reading the poorly written work) was a sort of "white supremacist" version of AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:56:18 -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: cannibalism: James In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Todd Mason wrote: > In a message dated 98-08-19 07:23:29 EDT, you write: > > << Another powerful cannibalism novel (as I remember it, though it is years > since I read it) was Donald Kingsbury's "Courtship Rite" (in the UK, > "Geta"). It received surprisingly little comment when it came out (1983), > and even less since, wihch I have never quite understood. > > Edward James >> > > It was mentioned previously in this discussion thread. Kingsbury was a fairly > new writer (at least in terms of publishing regularly, I think he might have > first published as far back as the early '60s or so but not much), mostly > appeared in ANALOG, then the least lit-scholarship-oriented and perhaps least > fannish of the prozines, and died (I believe, pls correct if I'm wrong) not > too long after the novel was published. None of which helps with posterity. > Kingsbury isn't very prolific, but it might surprise him to hear that people think he's dead. He's published a couple of other novels, since Courtship Rite, including one book in Larry Niven's Man-Kzin series. His novel wasn't totally ignored when it came out, since it received either a Hugo or Nebula nomination, I forget which, and it isn't forgotten entirely today. In any case it receives praise in both Clute/Nichols' Encyclopedia and the 4th edition of Anatomy of Wonder. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:01:39 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Asimov's female characters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 19 Aug 98, at 7:24, Pat wrote: > > could direct the exposition. Besides Susan Calvin, which female > > characters of Asimov's do you find effectively done? I'm not arguing > > with you--I'm interested to see who you come up with. > > > Arcadia Darrell, teenaged pain in the rear and would-be writer.> * Pola Shekt in "Pebble in the sky" (bit of a wimp but fairly well drawn) * the female character in "The stars like dust" (I forget her name) Arkady, though, seems to me to be far better drawn than any of his other rather "cardboard" female characters. In view of the "racism" etc discussion that's going on, it's interesting to note that in "Pebble in the sky", all Earthmen and women were regarded as inferior by the remainder of the galatic community! AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za , ajhs@usa.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:24:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: CFP: Science Fiction/Fantasy (9-10; PCA/ACA 3-31-4-3-99) Comments: To: cfp@english.upenn.edu, iafa-l@ebbs.english.vt.edu, owner-melus-l@listserver.TAMU-Commerce.edu, SFRA-L@ebbs.english.vt.edu, sfuf@csd.uwm.edu, h-pcaaca@h-net.msu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" SECOND & FINAL POSTING OF CFP SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY 1999 PCA/ACA Conference Call for Papers for the 1999 National Convention of the Popular Culture Association & American Culture Association March 31-April 3, 1999 San Diego, CA, at the Marriott Hotel The Science Fiction/Fantasy Area of the Popular Culture Association solicits papers, paper proposals, and panel proposals from scholars interested in any aspect of science fiction and fantasy. Any disciplinary method or approach is welcome! Proposals on film, television, and written works are solicited. Topics may include (but are not limited to): Any Author Earth: Final Conflict Propaganda in SF/F Any SF/F Film Ethnicity Psychoanalysis and SF/F Any SF/F TV Show Feminism Roddenberry's Legacy Aesthetics Heinlein SF and Genre Questions Aliens Humor Spielberg's Influence Alternate Histories Invented Religions Star Gate: SG1S Angels in Modern Myth Lewis, C. S. Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, and Television Marxism in SF/F VOY) Apocalyptic Concerns Medievalism and SF/F Urban Fantasy Architecture Millenium Syndication vs. Network SF/F Arthurian Legend Multiculturalism Teaching SF/F Babylon 5 New Heroes & Heroines in SF/F Utopias/Dystopias Cable TV and SF/F Old Masters/New Writers of SF/F Xena:WP and Hercules:TLJ Chaos Theory in SF/F Philosophy and SF/F Children's Fantasy Postcolonial SF/F Class and Social Constructs Comic Books/Art in SF/F Computer Games & Role Playing PAPER PROPOSAL: For a paper proposal, send a 250-word abstract OR a finished paper (MAXIMUM 20 minutes reading time) with a 50-word abstract. Please include a separate cover sheet with your name, mailing address, phone number, and the presentation title. PANEL PROPOSAL: For a panel proposal, send four 250-word abstracts OR finished papers with 50-word abstracts and a panel name. Please include a separate cover sheet with the name, mailing address, and phone number of each panel member, the panel title, and an indication of the panel chair who may be one of the presenters). PLEASE NOTE: Participation in one Area of the Popular Culture or American Culture associations precludes participation in any of the other areas at the same conference. MAIL SUBMISSIONS TO: Barbara Silliman P. O. Box 19722 Johnston, RI 02919-0722 E-mail: PLEASE FOLLOW UP E-MAIL SUBMISSIONS WITH HARD COPY A.S.A.P. DEADLINE FOR ALL SUBMISSIONS: SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:26:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: CFP: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (9/1, PCA, 3/31-4/3) Comments: To: cfp@english.upenn.edu, iafa-l@ebbs.english.vt.edu, owner-melus-l@listserver.TAMU-Commerce.edu, h-pcaaca@h-net.msu.edu, sfuf@csd.uwm.edu, SFRA-L@ebbs.english.vt.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS: This is a call for papers on _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_ ONLY. I am interested in assembling panel proposals on the series for the 1999 national Popular Culture Association conference in San Diego, California. Proposals for presentations on _any_ aspect of _ST:DS9_, from any discipline, are welcome. There is no outside limit on the number of panel proposals I can submit. Deadline for submitting proposals: September 1, 1998. Please send either a 300 word abstract or a 10-12 page draft of your presentation, along with your name, mailing address, telephone number, and (optional) email address to: Robin Anne Reid Department of Literature and Languages Texas A&M University-Commerce Commerce TX 75429 WORK: 903-886-5268 FAX: 903-886-5980 EMAIL: Robin_Reid@tamu-commerce.edu =============================================== From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List CFP@english.upenn.edu Full Information at http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/ or write Jack Lynch: jlynch@english.upenn.edu =============================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:45:30 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Kingsbury: Levy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-19 14:57:18 EDT, you write: << Kingsbury isn't very prolific, but it might surprise him to hear that people think he's dead. He's published a couple of other novels, since Courtship Rite, including one book in Larry Niven's Man-Kzin series. >> Yep, I will foreswear trying to guess who I was thinking of! Good news, and thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:45:26 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: future of "race": Anthea/Law Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-19 14:56:43 EDT, Anthea quotes and writes: << On 18 Aug 98, at 21:34, Heather Law wrote: > By American standards, of course, she was, since one Black ancestor > is all that is needed for that designation. She also had non-Caucasian > features which made her claim a little more believable, but I'm sure that > in places like Hawaii and Brazil, this is a very common situation I've always wondered why that should be. I know that many whites believe that having one black ancestor makes a person black, but I have never heard of any black person believing that having one white ancestor makes a person white. I'm living in a country where race was (and still is to a large extent) the primary factor affecting where a person lived, was educated, married and so on. A clear hierarchy of "colour" inherited from the horrific Apartheid days is evident even today with light-skinned Coloureds (people of mixed race) through darker-skinned Coloureds to "blacks" at the bottom. The same system prevails in Brazil - supposedly a non-racial country - to an even greater extent. And in Brazil, a person of "white" appearance would never, ever claim to be "black" because this would adversely affect their social status, their business, the chances of marrying well and even access to higher education. The really horrifying thing about racism is how irrational it is. Someone on another list recommended reading an (allegedly) famous book called "The Turner Diaries" which (as far as I can tell from reading the poorly written work) was a sort of "white supremacist" version of AJ >> ---alas, not to know what that ill-written "survivalist" tome might've reminded you of...other than FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD! Anthea, I agree with you completely here...I think that very few people really hold the notion that any African ancestry makes one necessarily "black" (whichever sets of conditions this implies) in the States, though the chestnut is widely dragged out in reputed reference to a law once in effect somewhere in the US. Basically, most who refer to this odd "standard" refer to a vague someone else who actually divides people this way. And Hawaii is no strife-free paradise of "racial" equity, either, as any Hawaiian, Samoan or other Polynesian can inform you in detail (Portuguese- and Filipino-Hawaiians will have a few choice words on the subject as well, if you ask them). The "mixing" there is no more surprising, nor really more common, than it is in New Orleans or the West Coast or most cosmopolitan urban centers these days. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:21:51 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: schant Subject: Re: feminist cyberpunk books? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From the Par Cadigan newsletter:- > This email message is being sent out to everyone who signed up for the > Pat Cadigan Mailing List. Sorry it's been so long since anything went > out. > > The big news is that Pat's fourth novel - her first in the US for almost > six years - is out very shortly. It's called Tea from an Empty Cup, and > it is published in the UK on 7 September, and in the US 5 October. Pat's > web site is being updated, and details of author events to promote the > book are being posted. Here is the latest information that we have: > > Author Events - Readings, Signings etc > > 1998 > > Pat Cadigan will be carrying out a number of author events, including > signings and readings, in association with the launch of her new novel, > Tea from an Empty Cup, in the UK and the USA. > > The novel is published 7 September in the UK by HarperCollins in their > Voyager imprint, as a paperback original. Tor publish the book in the > USA as a hardback, and it is likely to be in bookstores from around 5 > October. > > Details posted are provisional. Please check back closer to the date(s) > for latest information. > > Pat's provisional schedule for UK events is as follows: > > Saturday 5 September - 1-2pm - reading and signing organised by > Forbidden Planet, New Oxford Street, London WC1. The event itself will > probably take place in The Conservatory, which is behind Centre Point, > about 100 yards from the bookshop. Nearest tube is Tottenham Court Road. > Copies of some of Pat's other books, including Fools, are likely to be > on sale at this event. > > Wednesday 9 September - early evening - reading and signing at Cyberia > Cafe, Whitfield Street, London W1. Negotiations are continuing between > Pat's publisher and Cyberia over this event. > > Thursday 10 September - evening event at Waterstones, Camden Town, > London NW1. Please check with the bookshop for details closer to the > event. Nearest tubes are Mornington Crescent and Camden Town. > > Friday 11 September - evening - talk to the Birmingham Science Fiction > Group. More details will be posted closer to the date. Pat will also be > signing copies of Tea from an Empty Cup for Birmingham's leading science > fiction bookshop, Andromeda. > > Monday 14 September - evening - reading at Filthy McNasty's, "Vox 'n' > Roll", London. It is hoped that this will be a joint event with Val > McDermid. > > Friday 25 September - evening - reading and signing at Waterstones, > Manchester. Contact the bookshop for more details. This bookshop already > has a number of Pat's earlier books in stock. > > Late October - date to be arranged - a reading and talk organised by the > Science Fiction Foundation at Liverpool University. There is also likely > to be a signing at one of the bookshops in Liverpool. Check back in > October for more details. > > Pat's publishers are also trying to arrange events in the following > places: > > York, Bristol, Brighton, Oxford, Nottingham, Glasgow and Leeds > > > > Pat's provisional schedule for US events is as follows: > > Thursday 8 October -- 7pm - reading and signing at Gene's Bookstore, > Philadelphia PA. Contact the bookstore for more details. > > Saturday 10 October - 3-5pm - reading and signing at Pandemonium Books, > Harvard Square, Boston. Contact the bookstore for more details. > > We are also hoping that events will be organised in the following > places: > > Washington DC - probably around 6/7 October > > Chicago - probably around 11/12 October > > New York City - probably around 6/7 October > > Overland Park, Kansas (part of the Greater Kansas City area) - Borders > Bookstore - reading and signing - probably around 13 October > > Austin TX - probably around 14/15 October > > San Francisco, Berkeley (probably Dark Carnival bookstore), Palo Alto, > University of California, Santa Cruz (reading/signing/talk, open to > public) - these events will be around 16-18 October > > ------------ > > If you have been sent this message in error, and want to be deleted from > the mailing list, please let us know. > > We'll be updating the web page as more information becomes available. > > Chris Fowler Cheers SC -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 05:57:18 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Spainish Civil War, Slavery, Race Content-Type: text/plain It's nice to know that people can still get exercised about the Spanish Civil War in the late 90's, but the discussion is getting rather far away from FemSF, yes? Regarding slavery in SF: read a Heinlein short titled "The Logic of Empire." It basically deals with the re-establishment of slavery in the future, concluding that slavery is a Bad Thing but that slavery as an institution will flourish if economic conditions favor it. You may not agree with it but it will make you think. Another short story dealing with slavery is the very recent "Guest Law" (?can't remember the author's name, but it was in Hartwell's latest "Year's Best" anthology) and it was a wonderful story, anyway. Orson Scott Card's "Alvin"series touches on slavery to some extent, but it is not the main focus of the books. About race in Hawaii: I agree that Hawaii is no utopia, but the races are certainly blended to an extent that is rare elsewhere in the U.S. Yes, polynesians and to some extent Filipinos are discriminated against, while whites and Japanese are on top, but the whole system seems milder than the stark dichotomies of Southern California, say. Also, the last two governors were Filipino and Native Hawaiian, so the barriers are not so high as one might think -- I this may be because there are *so many* different ethnic groups that no single group can rule without making deals with others. Most of the race-related violence, BTW seemed directed at whites from elsewhere (by the local youth) or poor polynesians (by the cops). Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com